Agenda, first session — Solvang City Council, January 10, 2022 (part 5 of 7)

City of Solvang
Gross Net
Pumping Pumpingl )
afy Afy
600 396
600 396
600 396
600 396
3,600 2,376
3,600 2,376
3,600 2,376
3,600 2,376
2,400 1,584
2,400 1,584
2,400 1,584
2,400 1,584
Cachuma
Reservoir Fish Flow
Surcharge Operations
Ft
0 none

0.75 Interim

BO/ FMP

0.75 Final BO/ FMP

3.00 Final BO/ FMP
0 none

0.75 Interim
BOIFMP

0.75 Final BO/ FMP

3.00 Final BO/ FMP
0 none

0.75 Interim

BO/ FMP

0.75 Final BOIFMP

3.00 Final BO/ FMP
511012004
771
DRAFT

2. METHODOLOGY FOR MODELING SURFACE WATER SALINITY IN SANTA

YNEZ RIVER FROM CACHUMA RESERVOIR TO LOMPOC NARROWS
The methodology used to determine the impacts ofthe EIR alternatives on surface water salinity is based on the Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model ( SYRHM). This analysis for the increased City of Solvang river well pumping uses the same programming model logic and assumptions as recent studies for the Santa Ynez River including the SWRCB Draft EIR (2003), the Settlement Agreement of2002, and the Draft EIRIEIS (2003) on the Fish Management Plan and the Biological Opinion ( see references). The SYRHM model was expanded to include the salinity modeling and the analyses were performed for the hydrologic period extending from 1942 through 1993 (52 years). The SYRHM was also expanded to include deliveries ofState Water Project (SWP) water to Cachuma Reservoir. Below is an overview of the surface water salinity modeling methodology.

2.1 FLOW AND SALT BALANCE
Two basic principles were employed in determining the total dissolved solids (TDS) ofthe Santa Ynez River at Lompoc Narrows: water balance and salt balance. Figure 2 shows the surface flow components in the water balance as used in the SYRHM. For each ofthese surface flow components, a surface water salt flux was assigned as part ofthe salt balance. The atmospheric water fluxes, evaporation and lake precipitation, are assigned a very small, associated salt flux of 3mgl.e and 20 mg/.e, respectively. The remaining fluxes ( local water accretions) account for the majority ofsalt entering the Santa Ynez River. In the winter months when there is runoff, the TDS concentrations are generally around 500 mg/.e. The TDS concentrations increase to about 1,000 mgl.e in the summer and fall when flows are minimal. Imports ofSWP water, originating from snowmelt runoff, generally have much lower salinity than local water.

The mass ofdissolved solids entering into the system from local water accretions are based on empirical relationships of flow and salinity data. For example, Figure 3 shows the flow-salt loading relationships based on gaged flow and measured TDS sampling on Salispuedes Creek.

While the SYRHM was expanded to track these salts, the total volume ofwater on a monthly basis remains unchanged as provided in the SYRHM. Table 2 shows an example offlows and salt loads as generated on a daily basis with the monthly totals being the input for the SYRHM.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IDATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM2 SW RESULTS V3. DOC

Page 3 ends

772
DRAFT
TABLE 2

EXAMPLE OF FLOW AND SALT LOADS
Salsipuedes Flow Salsipuedes SYRHM
Salsipuedes Salt Mass
Date USGS ID 1132500 Accretion Flow
cfs) ( acre- feet) (
tons)
4/1/1941 481 954 497
412/ 1941 310 615 356
4/3/1941 200 397 255
4/4/1941 713 1,414 670
4/5/1941 300 595 347
4/6/1941 206 409 261
41711941 181 359 236
4/8/1941 160 317 215
4/9/1941 150 298 205
4/10/ 1941 208 413 263
4/11/1941 456 904 477
4/12/ 1941 139 276 193
4/1311941 120 238 173
4/14/ 1941 105 208 156
4/15/ 1941 96 190 146
4/16/ 1941 90 179 139
4/17/ 1941 84 167 132
4/18/ 1941 78 155 125
4/19/1941 72 143 117
4/20/ 1941 65 129 108
4/2111941 61 121 103
4/22/ 1941 60 119 102
4/23/ 1941 57 113 98
4/24/ 1941 55 109 95
4125/ 1941 53 105 93
4/26/1941 50 99 89
4/27/1941 46 91 83
4/28/1941 44 87 81
4/29/ 1941 44 87 81
4/30/1941 58 115 99
SUM 9,406 5,992
1944termed " Alisal to NalTows Salinity Increase" or ANSI) as the cause was examined. The nature of the ANSI is complex and is cUlTently handled in the surface water salinity model using empirical relationships ofANSI to surface flow based on the available data. However, the dissolvedStetson Engineers Inc.

F:\ DATA\ 1944\ SURFACEWATER\ TM2 SW RESULTS Y3. DOC

Page 4 ends

773
DRAFT
solids data during water right releases are limited. Performing a water and salt balance calculation using the 13 samples taken by the USGS during water rights releases, the average flux ofthe ANSI is estimated to be about 25 tons/ day. Inaddition, the amount offlux ofthe ANSI is proportional to the flow as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4 also shows the flow- ANSI relationships used to calculate the amount of salt input in the Buellton, East Santa Rita, and West Santa Rita subareas as used in the SYRHM due to the ANSI occurrence.

2.2 CACHUMA RESERVOIR STATE WATER PROJECT IMPORTS AND EXPORTS The State Water Proj ect Coastal Branch Extension Phase II extends from Devil' s Den in Kern County to the Santa Ynez River basin and includes a water treatment plant in San Luis Obispo County known as the Polonio Pass Water Treatment Plant. Since 1997, the Central Coast Water Authority ( CCW A) delivers SWP water to Cachuma Reservoir for the SWP contractors on the South Coast. When water rights releases are occurring, the SWP water is delivered directly into the Santa Ynez River at Bradbury Dam, limited to mixing of 50 percent of the total release to provide protection to steelhead.

The full SWP contracted water is assumed to be delivered each year, subject to the following assumptions and results of hydrologic modeling:

A maximum delivery rate of 22 cfs is assumed which provides a monthly delivery capacity of 1,220 to 1,310 acre- feet per month.

The total annual entitlement of SWP deliveries under contractual agreements to the South Coast is 13, 750 acre- feet per year ( excluding regular and additional drought buffers).

Shortages in SWP deliveries to municipal and industrial contractors in the coastal aqueduct due to state- wide and Delta shortages are used from the output ofthe California Department of Water Resources hydrologic model DWRSIM v.9.06T. ( DWRSIM studies that have been performed for the CALFED Bay- Delta Program are preliminary and have been recently updated by a new State Water Project/ Central Valley Project simulation model called CALSIM. Currently they are being updated by CALSIM II.

Due to small differences in Central Coast M& I delivery shortages resulting from the Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:\ DATA\ 1944\ SURFACEWATER\ TM2 SW RESULTS V3.DOC

Page 5 ends

774
DRAFT
above modeling works, the modeling performed for theses EIR analyses continue to use the output from the DWRSIM version for compatibility with previous analyses.) The Improvement District No.1 (ID No.1) exchanges its allocation ofCachuma Project water for an equal amount ofSWP water that would have been delivered to the South Coast members ofCachuma Project. The amount ofthis exchange is 10.313% ofthe Cachuma Project supply of 25,714 acre-feet per year. For the purpose ofthese EIR analyses, the ID No.1 exchange is based on 10% of Cachuma Project supply. The volume ofexchange with ID No.1 is affected by Cachuma Project shortages.

Deliveries ofSWP water are not made in months when Cachuma Reservoir is spilling.

Although SWP deliveries can be made up in other months, spill conditions usually indicate a wet period in which additional SWP deliveries probably would not be needed.

Therefore, it was assumed that SWP deliveries would not be made during spills and would not be made up in subsequent months.

The proportion ofthe SWP water as a part ofdownstream water rights releases is limited to 50 percent ofthe total release to provide protection to steelhead.

The Biological Opinion states that SWP water "will not be mixed into the waters ofthe Santa Ynez River during the months of December through June unless flow is discontinuous in the mainstem." This limits the SWP deliveries when releases for steelhead passage are being made from Cachuma Reservoir.

Given the above restrictions and modeling assumptions, the imports of SWP water into Cachuma Reservoir vary for each alternative and would be less than the full 13,750 acre-feet per year. A summary ofthe assumed SWP deliveries for each EIR alternative is shown in Table 3.

Except for the SWRCB Alt 1 which does not include any SWP deliveries, all ofthe alternatives include basically the same amount ofSWP delivery for the South Coast ofabout 10,100 acre-feet or 74% oftotal entitlement. As presented in Technical Memorandum No.1, the alternatives with increased river well pumping (Alternative Nos. 5-12) would have greater water rights releases (up to an 8% increase, 500 out of6,000 acre-feet per year) due to an increase in dewatered storage in the Above Narrows groundwater basin. However, the amounts ofSWP water released into the Santa Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IDATAII944ISURFACEWATERITM2 SW RESULTS V3.DOC

Page 6 ends

775
DRAFT
Ynez River directly through the outlet works at Bradbury Dam generally remain the same for all of the alternatives with SWP deliveries.

TABLE 3

SUMMARY OF STATE WATER PROJECT DELIVERIES
AVERAGE FOR PERIOD 1942- 1993 ( ACRE- FEET)
EIR ID No. 1 SWPin SWP in Outlet
Total Imports Total Imports as a
ID
Alternative Exchange 1) Cachuma 2) Works 3)
under South Percentage of
Coast Contracts 13, 750 AF
1/600 0 0 0 0
2 2/600 2,497 5,849 1,789 10,135 74%
3 3A/600 2,472 5,878 1,802 10, 152 74%
4 3C/600 2,497 5,836 1,866 10, 199 74%
5 1/3600 0 0 0 0
6 2/3600 2,497 5,869 1,784 10,150 74%
7 3A/ 3600 2,462 5,856 1,815 10,133 74%
8 3C/3600 2,489 5,859 1,836 10,183 74%
9 1/ 2400 0 0 0 0
10 212400 2,496 5,857 1,758 10,111 74%
11 3A/ 2400 2,468 5,890 1,804 10,162 74%
12 3CI2400 2,492 5,862 1,818 10,172 74%
In the model operation, SWP water imported into Cachuma Reservoir is assumed to be exported out through Tecolote Tunnel in the same month. Although the imported SWP water could be stored in Cachuma Reservoir for an additional cost, same month imports and exports were assumed for the State Board Draft EIR modeling analyses. Thus, SWP water is assumed not to change the net storage in Cachuma Reservoir.

The TDS concentrations ofthe SWP deliveries being imported are shown in Figure 5. From 1968 to 1993, the historical measured TDS in the California Aqueduct near Kettleman City was used directly. The TDS concentration from 1942 to 1967 was estimated using monthly average values of historical measured data and average annual TDS values based on regression analysis with shortages in the Delta. More details on the development of the surface water salinity modeling methodology can be found in the Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model Manual, April 2004.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IOATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM2 SW RESULTS V3. 00C

Page 7 ends

776
DRAFT

2.3 MODEL LIMITATIONS OF THE SYRHM
The intended use ofthe SYRHM is for comparative purposes between the EIR alternatives.

The simulated flow data generated from the SYRHM is not meant to be predictive, but to be used as an analytical tool for statistical and comparative purposes. Since the model is used for comparative analyses, some ofthe inherent inaccuracies in the model are expected to cancel out when comparing the results of one scenario with another.

The model expansion for surface water salinity and the SWP imports was done in consultation with the Santa Ynez River Water Quality Technical Committee ( WQTAC). There are technical issues regarding the surface water salinity modeling that have not reached closure for the WQTAC. However, the WQTAC did review and approve the SYRHM surface water salinity modeling for the SWRCB Draft EIR ( see References, Appendix D) for the purposes of comparison of alternatives.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F,IDATAI19441SURFACEWATERITM2 SW RESULTS V3.DOC
PageS 511012004
777
DRAFT

3. RESULTS OF SURFACE WATER SALINITY MODELING
The results of surface water salinity modeling for the twelve alternatives are shown in Figures 6a- b. The TDS concentrations ofthe surface water at the Lompoc Narrows are similar for all ofthe alternatives, except those with no SWP deliveries ( Alt 1 series) which show salinities ofabout 50 to 100 mg/ Rhigher in the summertime and early fall. Figure 6a shows that there are slight differences ofTDS concentrations between Alt 3C/ 2400 ( Alternative No. 12, shown in light blue) and Alt 3C/ 600 ( Alternative No. 3, shown in orange); however the difference is relatively small and it is not considered to be significant.

Figures 7a- d show the average monthly flow for the alternatives. Figures 7a- d show that the primary effect of the increased Solvang river pumping on the flow at the Lompoc Narrows is a decrease in the early fall flows. However, this is the period in which the TDS concentrations are high ( Figures 6a- b), so the impact on TDS concentrations in the Lompoc ground water basin is minimal or none due to minor changes in loading ( increased TDS concentrations associated with reduced flows). The average differences in TDS concentrations in the Lompoc groundwater basin would be very small relative to the total TDS levels in the Lompoc wells ( 800 to 2,500 mg/R).

Figures 8a- d show the frequency ofTDS concentrations at the Lompoc Narrows for flows larger than

0.5 cfs which also show none to very small differences in salinity between alternatives including increased Solvang river well pumping.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IDATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM2 SW RESULTS V3.DOC

Page 9 ends

778
DRAFT

4. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boyle Engineering Corporation, July 8, 1996. City ofSolvang Water System Master Plan Final Draft Report.

Bright, D.J., Nash, D.B., and Martin, P., 1997. Evaluation ofGroundwater Flow and Solute Transport in the Lompoc Area, Santa Barbara County, California. u.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 97-4065.

Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board and Department ofthe Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, June 2003. Draft Program and Project Specific Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement ofthe Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan and Cachuma Project Biological Opinion for Southern Steelhead Trout.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), September 11, 2000. Biological Opinion. U.S.

Bureau ofReclamation Operation and Maintenance ofthe Cachuma Project on the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County, California.

Provost and Pritchard, Inc. May 2002. City ofSolvang, CA Water System Master Plan Update.

Santa Barbara County Water Agency, Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model Manual, Draft, 9/911997, expanded by Stetson Engineers Inc .. April 2004.

Santa Ynez River Technical Advisory Committee (SYRTAC), October 2,2000. Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan. Volumes I and II. Prepared for the Santa Ynez River Consensus Committee, Santa Barbara, CA. Final Report.

State Water Resources Control Board, Division ofWater Rights, August 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Report. Consideration ofModifications to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Water Right Permits 11308 and 11310 (Applications 11331 and 11332) To Protect Public Trust Values and Downstream Water Rights on the Santa Ynez River Below Bradbury Dam (Cachuma Reservoir).

Stetson Engineers Inc., August 31, 1992. Santa Ynez River Water Resources Management Planning Process, Phase I. Baseline Data and Background Information.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:\ DATA\ 1944\ SURFACEWATER\ TM2 SW RESULTS V3.DOC

Page 10 ends

779
DRAFT
Stetson Engineers Inc., 2001. Technical Memorandum No.1. Impacts ofEIR Alternatives using the Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model. Prepared for the Bureau ofRec1amation and COMB for the Water Rights EIR. Technical Memorandum No.2. Impacts ofEIR Alternatives on Steelhead. Prepared for the Bureau ofRec1amation and COMB for the Water Rights EIR. Technical Memorandum No.3. Hydrologic Analysis ofSurface Water Salinity. Prepared for the Bureau ofRec1amation and COMB for the Water Rights EIR. Technical Memorandum No.4. Cachuma Water Rights EIR Alternatives - Results ofUSGS and HCI Lompoc Groundwater Flow and Transport Models. Prepared for the Bureau ofRec1amation and COMB for the Water Rights EIR.

United States Department ofthe Interior, Bureau ofRec1amation, March 1973 pp. 3-15.

Groundwater and Percolation Data For Use in Determining Downstream Releases, Santa Ynez River, Cachuma Project, CA.

United States Department ofthe Interior, Bureau ofRec1amation, April 7, 1999. Biological Assessment for Cachuma Project Operations and the Lower Santa Ynez River. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

United States Department ofthe Interior, Bureau ofRec1amation, June 13,2000. Revised Section 3 (Proposed Project) ofthe Biological Assessment for Cachuma Project Operations and the Lower Santa Ynez River. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:\DATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM2 SW RESULTS V3.DOC
Page // 51/012004
780
Figures
781
I ' .... _ .... , ,
I .... _\.. , "-
J t
t
I
rr .... __ , (/
r - J
1 1_, .... -.;)
l ,
L ....... ----' .... Below NarrowS
pround- Water ' I
Basin ,--::-'-'---:--,--,----,-,-:--co
I
l _ , f __ I
I
f

SANTA YNEZ UPLAND
of Solvang River Wells

PACIFIC OCEAN
Approximate Location ofCity
I
rl
I
I ~ I flii
TETSON ~ ~ NCINUlS INC.

LEGEND
Santa Ynez River Basin Boundary
c=) Ground-Water Basins
c=) Above Narrows Alluvial Ground- Wate r Basin
c=) Below Narrows Ground- Water ( Lompoc Plai n)

SA NTA RITA SUBAREA BUELLTON SUBAREA SANTA YNEZ SUBAREA Above Narrows Alluvial Ground- Water Basin
N
w+,
s
10 MILES

MAJOR GROUND-

OF THE SANTA YNE
783
FIGURE 2

SCHEMATIC PRESENTATION OF THE SURFACE FLOWS

ASSIGNED A SALT FLUX IN THE

SANTA YNEZ RIVER HYDROLOGY MODEL
RUNOFF

PRECIPITATION
Juncal Dam

SPILLS ------ I
RUNOFF

PRECIPITATION
Gibraltar Dam

RELEASES ----
SPILLS ----- 1

DIVERSION TO
SYRWCD ID # 1 " If

STATE WATER PROJECT

DELIVERIES

PRECIPITATION
Bradbury Dam

EVAPORATION

DOUL TON TUNNEL

DIVERSION PLUS

TUNNEL INFILTRATION

TO MONTECITO WD

EVAPORATION
RUNOFF

MISSION TUNNEL

DIVERSION PLUS

TUNNEL INFILTRATION TO

CITY OF SANTA BARBARA

EVAPORATION

TECOLOTE TUNNEL

DIVERSION PLUS

TUNNEL INFILTRATION

TO SOUTH COAST

AND DELIVERIES OF SWP
DOWNSTREAM RELEASES ~
includes WR89- 18 and SWP deliveries ~
and Fish Releases)

SPILLS &
Leakage
RUNOFF ~

PERCOLATION

NARROWS OUTFLOW
Lompoc Plain
Ground Water Basin
784
785

STETSON
ENGINEERS INC.

E
0-
C/) ->-
rn
0 -
C/)
c
0 0)
c
0 rn
0 J
rn
Cf)
c
100
10 1
0 .1

0.0 1
4 If! --... -. ..... . ~

1.1'.
0 .01
Sa lsipued es Cree k near Lompoc
Tota l Diss olved Solid Loading
1/
1/ • •. .
7 iteJ... ~r-t
j;o' • • •
v ..-! •
iI
IJ t'"
110
0 .1 1
Unit Flow (cfs/sq . mi.)
V
10 787
Relationship of Channel Salt Loading ( Alisal to Narrows Salinity Increases) 60 8
and Flow at Narrrows
55 --- i i 6 ~ ~
c
0 I50 --- i i 4
J / _______ Ic
ro
S
ffi 2
45 fJ ¥
f:,
0 , I , , , , , , , , Flow at Narrows - Channel loading co
40 0 5 10 15
32 /
CJ) Flow (cfs)
c
0 T Y ~
35 O'l
c East Santa R
0 I( "'
co 30 C
0 l
co
C/) 25 j
I / /"
Q) c c
c
c
co 20 c / /"
s::: c
15 c
West Santa R
10 Bu
1 b )
R
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Flow (cfs) -/:>.
789
I -
OJ
E ----
en
0 o
Cf)
0 Q)
o
en
en
o
E!
o
I700
600 -
500 -
400 -
300 -.
200 -
100 -
o
V:

VY!YIV: , , ,
or' : '
I:V' , , , , , , ,

STATE WATER PROJECT TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS
USED IN SYRHM0498
y'v'Y' I I rl I

I I I I
V:~ I: , 1,
1942- 1993
v:~
I:
f ' III:~ "! : I~I ~:

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
Calendar Year
v
I
I I
1985
791
Figure 6a

SIMULATED MONTHLY MEAN FLOW WEIGHTED TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 1200 ~ ____________ ~ A~T~LO~M~PO==C ~N~A~R~R~O~W~S~ 1~9~42~-~19=9~3~ ____ --______ , 1100 ~----------------------------------------------------~ 1000 ~--------------------------------------------------- 4- 900 ~~~----------------------------------~=-------~--~
J -
0)
E ........
en
0 800 ~--~~------------------------------~------~~~~~
0 Q)
o
en
en
o 700 ~------~--------------------------~----------------~ JY
c: -§
600 ~--------~~----------------~~--------------------~
Q)
0)
Q)
500 ~--------------~~~~~----------------------------- r 400
300
200
Oct Nov
SWRCB EIR Alternativel Solvang River Well Pumping
1 Alt 11 600
Alt 1/2400
Alt 21 600
3 A £, Alt 21 2400
D 0 D Alt 3A1600
Alt 3A1 2400
0 0 o Alt 3CI 600
Et Et Alt 3CI 2400
Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
792
793
Figure 6b

SIMULATED MONTHLY MEAN FLOW WEIGHTED TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS 1200 ~ ____________ ~ A~T~LO~M~PO~C ~N~A~R~R~O~W~S~ 1=9~42~.~19=9=3~ ____ --------~ 1100 ~----------------------------------------------------~ 1000 ~----------------------------------------------------~ 900 ~~~----------------------------------~~------~--~
l -
OJ
E --
CJ)
800 i---~x---------------------------~----~~~~~
Q.)
o
CJ)
CJ)
o 700 4-------~--------------------------~----------------_ r c -§
600 4-----------~----------------~~--------------------_ r Q.)
OJ
Q.)
500 ~--------------~~~~~----------------------------_ r SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang River Well PumQing
I I I Alt 1/ 600
400
Alt 1/3600
Alt 2 / 600
Cs & A Alt 2 / 3600
300
D 0 o Alt 3A1600
Alt 3A1 3600
0 0 o Alt 3C/ 600
Et Et Alt 3C/ 3600
200
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
794
795
C) --~
0 LL
C
0 Q)
0>
C'O ....

Q)
J::
500
SIMULATED MEAN STREAMFLOW ( 1942-1993)

AT LOMPOC NARROWS
Figure 7a
100 ~------------~~--------------~----------------------~ 10 1
SWRCB EIR Alternativel Solvang River Well Pumping
o 0 0 Alt 11 600
Alt 1/2400
An 1/3600
o ~----~----~--~----~--~----~--~----~--~----~--~
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
796
797
0 LL
c -
c
0 0)
cu ....
500
SIMULATED MEAN STREAMFLOW (1942-1993)

AT LOMPOC NARROWS
Figure 7b
100 ~------------~~--------------~----------------------~ 10 1
SWRCB EIR Alternati ve/ So lvang River We ll Pumping
o 0 0 Alt 1/ 600
Alt 1/ 2400 ._--_
1------_ Alt 1/ 3600
Oct No v Dec Ja n Feb Mar Apr May Jun Ju l Aug Sep
798
799
3:
0 l.L
c:
0 O'l
ro ...
500
SIMULATED MEAN STREAMFLOW (1942-1993)

AT LOMPOC NARROWS
Figure 7c
100 ~--------------+-----------------~----------------------~ 10 1
SWRCB EIR Alte rn ative/ So lvang River Well Pump in g
o 0 0 Alt 3A1 600
Alt 3A1 2400
Alt 3A1 3600
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
800
801
u --
3:
0 LL
c -
c
0 Q)
0>
co '-
Q) > «
500
SIMULATED MEAN STREAMFLOW ( 1942-1993)

AT LOMPOC NARROWS
Figure 7d
100 ~------------~~--------------~----------------------~ 10 1
SWRCB EIR Alternat ive/ So lvang River We ll Pumping
o 0 0 Alt 3C / 600
Alt 3C / 2400
Alt 3C/ 36 00
o ~----~----~--~----~--~----~--~----~--~----~--~
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
802
803
I --
0>
E
c
0 0
Cf)
0 Q)
0 0
m0
Ic
oJ
C
0 0
Q)
oJ
co
J
E
CI5
FIGURE 8a
FREQUENCY OF DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS 1

IN FLOWS AT LOMPOC NARROWS
WY 1942-1993, 52 YEARS)
1500 ~----------------------------------------~--------~ 1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
o
SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang River Well Pumping
Alt 1/600 afy
Alt 1/2400 afy
Alt 1/3600 afy
20 40 60 80

PERCENT OF TIME TDS AT OR BELOW
100
1) Frequency does not include months of no flow or flows less than 0.5 cfs at the Narrows 804
805
J -
0>
E
c
C/)
0 0
C/)
0 Q)
0 C/)
C/)
0 co -~
c -
c
0 0
Q) -
co
E
C/)
FIGURE 8b
FREQUENCY OF DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS 1

IN FLOWS AT LOMPOC NARROWS
WY 1942- 1993, 52 YEARS)
1500 -,--------------------------------------~---------; 1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
o
SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang River Well Pumping
Alt 2/ 600 afy
Alt 2/ 2400 afy
Alt 2/ 3600 afy
20 40 60 80

PERCENT OF TIME TDS AT OR BELOW
100
1) Frequency does not include months of no flow or flows less than 0.5 cfs at the Narrows 806
807
J -
OJ
E
c
0 0
if)
0 Q.)
0 0
ro -
0 fc -
c
0 0
ro
J
E
U5
FIGURE 8d
FREQUENCY OF DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS 1

IN FLOWS AT LOMPOC NARROWS
WY 1942-1993, 52 YEARS)
1500 -,----------------------------------------~--------~ 1400
1300
1200
1100
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
o
SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang River Well Pumping
Alt 3C/ 600 afy
Alt 3C/ 2400 afy
Alt 3C/ 3600 afy
20 40 60 80

PERCENT OF TIME TDS AT OR BELOW
100
1) Frequency does not include months of no flow or flows less than 0.5 cfs at the Narrows 808
809
J -
0)
E
c
J)
0 0
C/)
0 Q)
0 J)
J)
0 0 ~
c ......
c
0 0
ro
J
E
C/)
FIGURE 8d
FREQUENCY OF DISSOLVED SOLIDS CONCENTRATIONS 1

IN FLOWS AT LOMPOC NARROWS
WY 1942- 1993, 52 YEARS)
1500 -.------------------------------------------------~ 1400
1300
1200
1100 --_._---_._--
1000
900
800
700
600
SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang River Well Pum[, 2ing
Alt 3C/ 600 afy
500 Alt 3C/ 2400 afy
Alt 3C/ 3600 afy
400
o 20 40 60 80 100

PERCENT OF TIME TDS AT OR BELOW
1) Frequency does not include months of no flow or flows less than 0.5 cfs at the Narrows 810
811
Technical Memorandum # 3
Groundwater Model Mudflow Simulations
812
I
BI:~ DRAFT
T-E-2-1 ~-l-~-. ~- ra-!-~-sc-~-BL- IV-d~-' s-uE- ite~-.-?- a-~- Ra- f-a~-I,-~-a~-ifo-;W- ni-a -~- 40- 90-;- 3---- STETSON TEL: ( 415) 457- 0701 FAX: ( 415) 457- 1638 e-mail: curtisl@stetsonengineers. com ENGINEERS INC.

To: John Gray - URS Corp. DATE: July 19, 2004
FROM : Peter Pyle, Curtis Lawler - Stetson Engineers JOB No: 1944 RE: Solvang EIR Groundwater Model Modflow Simulations

1. INTRODUCTION
The purpose ofthis study was to develop a Modflow ground and surface water model for evaluation ofproposed increased pumping by the City ofSolvang (Solvang) from the Santa Ynez River alluvium. The groundwater model represents the Santa Ynez River alluvium below Bradbury Darn from approximately three-quarters of a mile downstream from the Highway 154 Bridge to about one mile below the Alisal Road Blidge ( Figures 1a and 1b). The model was calibrated monthly for the period 1982 through 93 . Three predictive scenarios were simulated monthly using hydrologic data for the period 1953 through 1993, modified for various Cachuma Reservoir release criteria and increased Solvang pumping. The Modflow simulations are used to assess relative impacts of the increased Solvang pumping on drawdowns in the river alluvium and possible well interferenc e on the Improvement District No . 1, Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District (ID No.1) well fields .

This technical memorandum is the third in a senes m preparation for the City of Solvang's CEQA environmental document in connection with the petition to the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) for extension of time for Permit 15878. Technical Memorandum No.1 entitled "Hydrologic Impact Analyses ... " dated April 23, 2004 provides the results ofhydrologic analyses on Cachuma Reservoir operations, Santa Ynez River flows, above Narrows groundwater storage, water right releases, and Cachuma Project deliveries . Technical Memorandum No.2 entitled " Water Quality Impact Analyses ... " dated May 10, 2004 provides the results ofhydrologic analyses on impact to the total dissolved solids ( TDS) concentration of the Santa Ynez River flow at Lompoc Narrows.
813

2. DESCRIPTION OF MODEL
The model cells are 200 feet square or slightly less than one acre in area. These dimensions were developed to confOlm to the sinuous nature of the geologic contacts and the Santa Ynez River channel, and to allow for reasonable resolution of simulated water levels, given the close spacing ofsome pumping and monitoring wells.

2.1 GEOLOGY AND MODEL BOUNDARIES
The lateral extent of the model boundaries are based on the most recent and detailed geologic maps by Dibblee (1988) ( Figure 2), There are 1,820 active cells representing a total of 1,671 acres. The Santa Ynez River and alluvial deposits ( Qa and Qg) are used to define the extent of the River alluvium ( Figure 3). These units are generally confined topographically within the steep banks ofthe river bed and bounded by Tertiary fine grained consolidated rocks of low permeability such as the Monterey Shale. In areas where older alluvium or landslides bound the River alluvium, these units occur at generally higher elevations and are relatively shallow, overlying low permeability rocks. The Santa Ynez Upland groundwater basin is located to the north and separated from the River alluvium by the Monterey Shale.

Probably the least well defined lateral boundary is near the confluence ofAlamo Pintado Creek and the Santa Ynez River. Monterey Shale inliers and topography hint at a shallow buried shelf of shale, the presence ofwhich has been confirmed by aquifer testing ofSanta Ynez River Water Conservation District - Improvement District No. 1 (ID No.1) wells near the northern boundary in this area ( Figures 2 and 3). The lateral boundaries of the River alluvium as originally defined by USBR in the 1970's and currently used in their monthly dewatered storage calculations, are generally wider than those determined from more detailed geologic mapping and later water level, and well drilling and testing data.

The base of the River alluvium is easily distinguished in drillers logs as it is consists primarily of lower permeability consolidated rocks that also form the lateral boundaries. The thickness ofthe River alluvium was determined from drillers logs and bridge borings and ranges from about 35 feet to over 60 feet in the model area. An average thickness of 50 feet was used throughout the model due to limited time and data to develop a thickness value for all areas. The saturated aquifer thickness that resulted from this assumption ranged widely due to the varying topography ofthe modeled area. The average saturate thickness ofthe aquifer at a simulated full water level was generally in the range of30 to 40 feet.

Stetson Engineers fnc. 2 July 19, 2004
Solvang- fDl OW mode tech memo v3
814
The upstream boundary of the model coincided with the upstream boundary of USBR Node 23 and a constant flux was input at this boundary to represented subsurface flow based on data from the Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model ( SYRHM), developed by the Santa Barbara County Water Agency. The downstream boundary ofthe model coincides with the west side of USBR Node 18. The model cells on that boundary allow subsurface outflow to vary with groundwater elevation. In general, the outflow amount was about twice that calculated by the SYRHM for the nearest upstream node. This increase was assumed to be valid due to the greater width ofthe alluvial aquifer at the boundary.

2.2 AQUIFER PROPERTIES
The alluvial deposits between the Highway 154 Bridge and the Alisal Road Bridge are described as comprising of primarily medium to coarse sand and fine gravel with very little silt Upson and Thomasson, 1951 and Dibblee, 1988). Upson and Thomasson collected four samples in the Santa Ynez River alluvium from Bradbury Dam to Solvang and performed laboratory tests in which the permeability (K) ranged from 100 to 600 feetlday ( ft/d). Recovery pumping tests were also performed in the Santa Ynez River alluvium further downstream near the Santa Rosa dam site and upstream of the present Bradbury damsite, in which permeability ranged from 100 to 700 feet/day. Because the alluvial deposits are generally coarser further upstream, Upson and Thomasson ended up choosing a K value of 530 ft/d for a Santa Ynez River subflow calculation at both the Highway 154 and Alisal Road Bridges.

Well test data from Stetson Engineers' files were used to supplement the conductivity distribution in the model area. ( Note: The term hydraulic conductivity is used herein interchangeably with the telID permeability.) Data from a recent study for the City of Solvang Hopkins, 2003) was also used to evaluate aquifer characteristics in the Solvang area. These data indicated the range ofhydraulic conductivity in the Solvang area ranged from about 100 to over 1,000 ft/d and averaged 470 ft/d. This area was assigned a hydraulic conductivity of 500 ft/d.

Below Solvang a value of 300 ft/d was determined through calibration to limit subsurface outflow to a reasonable range.

In the river reach including the ID NO.l's 6 cfs well field a value of 650 ft/d was used based on data from four well tests that ranged from 550 ft/d to over 1,000 ft/d (Table 1). A value toward the lower end ofthe range is more consistent with local water level data. There were no aquifer test data available for this study in the central portion of the model area. A value Stetson Engineers Inc. 3 July 19, 2004
Solvang- ID 1 GW mode tech memo v3
815
TABLEl

AQUIFER PROPERTIES BASED ON AQUIFER TESTS
Hydraulic
Test Pump Specific Static Qg,Qal Sat. Conductivity
Method Source Date Len~th R.te Ca~ acitl: Transmissivitv W.L. De~th Thick. K gpm) ( gpm/ ft) ( gpd/ ft) (ftA2Iday) ( ft) ( ft) ( ft) ( gpd/ ftA2) ( ftJda WI- 4 cfs Well Field
Well #12 semi- log Stetson 12/29/83 24 hr 720· 738,730 avg 90,000 12,000 9 57 48 1,900 25 Well #13 semi- log Stetson 1/25/84 8.6 hr 722 const. 238,000 31,800 12 60 48 5,000 66 Well # 14 specific capacity Stetson 2/8/84 7.3 hr 500- 1100 step 119, 000 15,900 10.05 54 44 2,700 36 Well #14 semi- log Stetson 2/8/84 16 hr 908 const. 160,000 21,400 10.26 54 44 3,700 49 Well #17 18
Well # 18 23
K avg all tests 44
WI-Gallery specific capacity Stetson 4/4/84 22 hr 1700· 1770 200 350, 000 46,800 8 25 17 WI- 6 cfs Well Field
Well #8 semi- log Stetson Jan 82 24 hr 608 160, 500 21,500 II 37 26 6,200 83 Well # 9 semi- log Stetson Jan 82 24 hr 825 280, 000 37,400 8 40 32 8,800 1,1 Well # 10 semi- log Stetson 12/6/83 14 hr 771- 834, 800 avg 136,000 18,200 12 45 33 4,100 55 Well #11 semi- log Stetson 12/6/83 9.7 hr 786+/- 335, 000 44,800 9 47 38 8,800 1,1 K avg all tests 93
Alisal Ranch Wells
Well #2 Hopkins unknown 30 min 600 122.7 184,000 24,600 11.9 41.5 25 7,400 98 Well #2 Hopkins uulmO\\- ll 60 min 230 93.9 140,800 18,800 21.25 54 30 4,700 63 Well #2 Hopkins unknown 60 min 410 51.6 77,400 10,300 21.25 54 25 3,100 4 Well #2 Hopkins unkno\ Vl1 60 min 575 42.4 63,700 8,500 21.25 54 19 3,400 45 Well #3 Hopkins unknown 60 min 175 22.9 34,400 4,600 23.87 56 25 1,400 1 Well #3 Hopkins unblOWIl 60mil1 310 23.0 34,400 4,600 23.87 56 19 1,800 24 Well #3 Hopkins unlmown 60 min 375 17.0 25,500 3,400 23.87 56 10 2,600 34 K avg all tests 46
Solvang Wells
Well #3 ( SA) Hopkins unknown 60 min 200 43.5 65,200 8,700 12.7 43 26 2,500 34 Well #3 ( SA) Hopkins unknown 60 min 400 34.8 52,200 7,000 12.7 43 19 2,700 37 Well #3 ( 5A) Hopkins tmknown 60 min 477 21.9 32,800 4,400 12.7 43 9 3,600 49 Well #3 ( SA) Hopkins unkno\' vTI 60mul 423 20.3 30,500 4,100 12.7 43 10 3,100 41 Well #3 ( SA) HopkulS unkno\ Vll 60mul 400 22.0 33,000 4,400 11.8 43 13 2,500 34 Well #5 specific capacity Stetson 82 op data 825 67,500 9,000 40 1,700 23 Well #5 HopklllS 1957 Ullknown 1250 35.7 53,600 7,200 1 40 4 13,400 1,79 Well #5 Hopkins 1957 unknown 1000 30.3 45,500 6,100 1 40 6 7,600 1,0 Well #5 Hopkins 1957 unknown 750 31.3 46,900 6,300 I 40 15 3,100 42 Well #5 Hopkins 1957 unknown 500 31.3 46,900 6,300 1 40 23 2,000 27 Well #5 HopklllS 1957 UlllmOwn 677 54.2 81,200 10,900 0.5 40 27 3,000 40 Well # 6 specific capacity Stetson 82 op data 725 48,000 6,400 40 1,200 1 Well #7 Hopkins 1985 40 hr 405 18.0 27,000 3,600 14.1 48 11 2,500 33 Well #7A (7R) HopklllS unknown ullmo\ Vl1 500 15.5 23,200 3,100 7.7 55 15 1,500 21 Well #7A (7R) Hopkins llllknOwn unkno\> vu 400 13.9 20,800 2,800 7.7 55 19 1,100 15 Well #7A (7R) HopklllS unknown wl} mown 300 13.5 20,200 2,700 7.7 55 25 800 1 Well #7 Stetson unknown unknown 400 43,000 5,700 34 1,300 1 Solvang Well Field Stetson 3,500 47
K avg all tests 42
Stetson Engineers Inc.

Solvang-ID1 GWmode tech memo v3 4
816
of700 ft/d was assigned to the model based on test data from upstream and downstream reaches and the assumption that this area may contain more coarse material due to its narrower width and steeper river gradient.

The hydraulic conductivity in the upper portion ofthe model area was assigned a value of 500 ft/d based on well test data from three wells in the ID No. l's 4 cfs well field which averaged 440 ft/d, and well logs showing coarse aquifer material upstream near the model boundary. The final distribution ofhydraulic conductivity is shown in Figure 4.

Wilson of the USGS analyzed four well logs in this area of the river alluvium and estimated a specific yield of 0.247 ( Wilson, 1958). A uniform specific yield value of 0.23 was used throughout the model area due to a lack of direct test data and based on an average of values used by USBR in their nodal storage calculations in the model area (Toups Engineering, 1972).

2.3 SIMULATED HYDROLOGIC FEATURES
The model was used to simulate the following hydrologic features:

III Pumping wells in the River alluvium - ID No.1, Solvang, private irrigation iii Santa Ynez River flow - Modflow STR Package
III Tributary inflow - added at confluence ofeach tributary with the SY River III Recharge from precipitation - based on data from the SYRHM III Recharge from the Solvang Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) - based on data collected by the Santa Barbara County Water Agency (Ahlroth, 1996) III Phreatophyte evapotranspiration (ET) - based on orthophoto quads ( USGS, 1994) and density rated consumptive use ( Blaney and Nixon, 1963) III Subsurface Inflow - based on data from the SYHRM
III Tributary stream recharge - based on Darcy's law
III Subsurface Outflow - using head dependent flux cells, Modflow GHB package The pumping well locations shown in Figures 1a, 3 and 4 are those used for the Solvang EIR simulations. However, only the locations ofSolvang and ID No. 1 wells existing at the time ofcalibration were used during the calibration period. The location ofirrigation wells operating during the calibration period and their rates of pumping are unknown but were estimated from Stetson Engineers records and previous studies by others. All irrigation wells for the calibration Stetson Engineers Inc. 5 July 19, 2004
Solvang- ID 1 GW mode tech memo v3
817
and predictive simulations were assumed to have the same pumpmg rate and seasonal distribution. Monthly net irrigation (agricultural and golf course) pumping was developed from the SYRHM and distributed equally among the 12 irrigation wells used in the simulations. The historical monthly pumping volumes used during the model calibration period are shown in Figure 5. These historical pumping quantities used from the SYRHM were developed in consultation with the Santa Ynez River Hydrology Committee (Ahlroth, 1996). The committee is comprised ofwater specialists and hydrologists, primarily representing local interests.

Various other hydrologic budget parameters from the SYRHM were utilized m the development of the groundwater model input data sets. Refer to Stetson Engineers Technical Memorandum No.1, entitled Hydrologic Impact Analyses for City of Solvang's CEQA Environmental Document for a Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878, dated April 23, 2004, for a more detailed description of the SYRHM. Also the Santa Ynez River Hydrology Manual by the Santa Barbara County Water Agency and updated by Stetson Engineers in April 2004 contains even a more detailed description ofthe SYRHM.

The SYRHM was used to calculated surface flow inputs used in the groundwater model, including the Santa Ynez River and tributary surface flows. The majority of the surface flows input into the Modflow model ( about 86%) comes from the Santa Ynez River at the upstream model boundary ( USBR Node 23) ( Figure 1). Major tributaries account for about 13% of surface flows entering the groundwater model and include Quiota and Alisal Creeks from the South and Sanja de Cota and Alamo Pintado Creeks from the north. Minor and unnamed drainages account for about 1 % ofthe surface inflow to the model area.

The SYRHM was also used to determine areal recharge to the groundwater model.

Annual recharge from precipitation calculated by the SYHRM was distributed monthly based on precipitation for a given year and distributed evenly over all active model cells. Areal recharge is minor compared to recharge from the River. Other components of inflow and outflow from the SYRHM, including bank flows and net municipal pumping from Solvang and ID No.1 municipal wells were based on reported data or estimates.

2.4 CALIBRATION
The model was calibrated monthly over the period 1982 - 1993 ( October 1981 through September 1993). The primary calibration targets were USBR nodal well water level data which were available monthly throughout the period and model area. In addition, model budget terms such as ET, subsurface outflow and groundwater storage, as well as measured and SYRHM Stetson Engineers Inc. 6 July 19, 2004
Solvang- lDl GWmode tech memo v3
818
simulated stream flows at the Alisal Bridge gage were used for evaluation of the calibration ( see Table 2). The primary calibration variables were hydraulic conductivities, stream stage, stream bed conductance and ET rate. The model required a significant amount of refinement to land surface and stream bed elevations as the most detailed USGS digital elevation data were not sufficiently precise to allow automated assignment of these elevations in most areas.

The stream bed conductance was reduced by 50% below the initial value of 200, 000 square feet per day ( ft2/ d) calculated from an average stream segment dimensions and estimated vertical permeability. This change reduced the infiltration of low flows in the uppelmost reaches but could be reduced further to better match the flow frequency curve at Alisal. In order to most accurately simulate River flow and seepage, the number of cells representing the River and the conductance may need to be adjusted monthly to represent the actual wetted area.

The hydraulic conductivity zones were created from a single initial value and adjusted in size and value within the range established by the test data as discussed above. The ET rate was increased from an estimated density weighted value of 2.5 to 4.0 ft/yr to approximate the ET losses for the model area calculated by the SYRHM. The stream stage was reduced from two to

0.1 feet, which reduced model numerical instabilities.

The model simulates water levels, Santa Ynez River flow, and the budget of the River alluvium in the study area. Hydrographs of water levels at the location of USBR monitoring wells are shown in Figures 6 through 10. In general, there is a good fit of measured and simulated data. The precise location and elevation of the USBR measurement points relative to model surface ( from USGS 7.5' digital data) and aquifer base, and stream bed ( thalweg) elevations accounts for the offset elevations for some wells. In addition, the river thalweg location and elevation varies in some locations more than others. The simulated water levels are somewhat dampened relative to measured data in some areas. This may be due to high simulated stream recharge during low flows and somewhat low infiltration during high flows due to the use of a single stream cell width and conductance term to represent all River flow conditions.

The groundwater budget for the calibration, as shown in Table 3, indicates an annual reduction in storage of up to 1,200 acre- feet, and groundwater storage recovers each year on average. The net recharge from the river was simulated to average about 3,800 afy, most of which can be attributed to pumping and ET losses. The monthly averages showed that the maximum stream recharge occurs in summer when pumping is greatest, rather than in winter when River flow is greater.

Stetson Engineers Inc. 7 July 19, 2004
Solvang- IDI GWmode tech memo v3
819
TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF THE HYDROLOGIC BUDGET FOR THE FINAL MODEL CALIBRATION Averages for the WY 1982 through 1993 in acre- feet per year) Stetson Groundwater Model
Stetson I Modflow USGS/USBR
INFLOW (+) Inout/Calculated Packa!!: c SYRHM 1) Gaged/Measured Surface Water
Str
60,753 (at
Santa Ynez River In 66,263 66,263 Cachuma)
North Side Tributaries 1,499 1,499
South Side Tributaries 6,689 6,689
Groundwater Recharge
Areal Precipitation 83 Rch 83
Solvang WWTP SIS NA
Subflow from Tributary
Streams 206 2 ) NA
Ag Return Flow NA NA
Sub-Surface Longitudinal
Inflow 756 Wei 756
Total Inflow 76,011 75,290

OUTFLOW (-)
Surface Water
Santa Ynez River nr Solvang 70,653 Output 71,163 81,659 Total Ground Water Pumping
Net Agricultural 1,730 Wei 1,730
IDNo.1 838 Wei 743 3)
Solvang 1,241 WeI
Evapotranspiration from Phreatophytes 632 Output 672
Subflow, Santa Ynez River Alluvium 954 Output 900
Total Outflow 76,048 75,271 1)
Change in GW Storage 37 Output 19 - 351
Net Stream Percolation 3,798 Output 3,288
NOTES
1) SYRHM does not include Node 18 and part ofNode 17, which is in OW model.

The SYRHM also includes a net " bankjlow" jlux of -63 afy, which is not compatible with Modjlow OW budgets 2) Calculated Fain Q = KIA
3) 743 afM& I pumping in SYRHM is net ( already includes returnjlows).

Stetson Engineers Illc. 8 July 19, 2004
Solvang- ID1 OW mode tech memo v3
820
TABLE 3

ANNUAL AND MONTHLY SUMMARY OF SIMULATED GROUNDWATER BUDGET - FINAL CALIBRATION f-- i Model Run iSanta Ynez River - Final Calibration I ' - ill I e---
I Description iCalibrated WY1982-1993 I ! I I I
I Date iJune 29, 2004 I ' I I
I I j I I i
ANNUAL MODEL BUDGET I -------! 1 I I I - I
INFLOW I 1 OUTFLOW
IStorage (loss Storage
ofground- Subsurface Subsurface Stream Loss to ( gain of I I I I Total IPhreatoPhytel Subsurface I water in Recharge Upstream Downstream Ground-water groundwater Agriculture Solvang ID No.1 Pumping Loss (ET) Downstre .. a. m f Water Year I storage) ( af/ y) ( af/ y) ( af/y) ( af/ y) in storage) Wells (af/y) Wells (af/y) Wells (af/y) ( af/y) ( af/y) ( af/ y) 1Oyr avg anI i -
m2-1
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1---- 1992
1993
82-93 avg
182-93 m~
82-93 min
640 803 756 0 7,907 34 1,730 1,241 838 3,809 707 1,032
1,579 618 758 0 5,670 1,561 1,199 1,164 0 2.362 664 994 156 786· 756 , 0 ! 6,961 I' 86 1,049 831 274 2,154 705 1,021 1,608 930 I 756 ' 0 I 6,931 L' 1,441 1,557 1,335 370 3,261 678 1,011 2,495 ~~~--- O--- r=-~--I --2,7ol I 1,486 1,382 1,074 3,943 610 916! 1,166 814 I 758 0 I 7,273 1,182 ~, 569 1,451 794 3,814 691 1,013 --,---- 2,541 806 756 0 - l- 5,014 2,078 1,618 1,390 724 3,733 634 977 3,008 820 I 756 0' 4,805 .. 2,110 1,853. 1,399 1,236 4,487 599 982 2,984 809 1 756 0 6,233 __ ~ __ ~ __ --±: Q.~_:_ 1,889 _ 1_ 1-;305 I 1,017 4,211 - 522--- T--m-- 3,398 748 I 758 0 4,063. i 2,625 I 1,965 • 1,250 I 903 4,118 502 ~ __ , ___ 2,551 749 756 0 6,061 2,396 2,245 1,201 980 4,426 625 L 825 i 1,908 868 756 0 9,357 3,131 2,202 1,304 1,860 5,365 652 I 1,018 I 691 997 756 0 7,433 358 2,128 - 879 820 3,828 699 ,--- 1,028 2,007--804-- 756 0 6,330 1,975 1,730 1,241-,---- 838---- 3,809 632 954 2,201 808 756 0- 6,196. I 2,094 '. 1,736 • 1,304 862 3,885 643 988 156 618 756 0 ------- 4,063 ----;--:-- S6---- T l,049-------- 831 , 0 . 2,154 502 825 93 max 3,398 997 758 0 - 9,357 ' 4,028 --~~-~--~ O--- 5,365 ~ 1,028 1 I
AVERAGE MONTHLY MODEL BUDGET ; , . ---- t-----t I ----- i INFLOW ' . OUTFLOW
Storage (loss Storage
ofground- Subsurface Subsurface Stream Loss to ( gain of Total Phreatophyte Subsurface water in Recharge Upstream Downstream Groundwater groundwater Agriculture Solvang ID No.1 Pumping Loss (ET) Downstream G Month storage) ( af/m) ( af/ m) ( af/m) ( af/m) in storage) Wells (af/m) Wells (af/m) Wells (af/m) ( af/m) ( af/m) ( af/m) ( Oct 211 66 64 0----!----- 521--- i 186 147. 88 I 97 332 47 80 L Nov 130 71 62 0 I __ ~_ i. 55 24 ._. __ 6_2_~ 49 134 28 76 Dec 87 75 64 0 1 265 I 68 0 56 I 37 93 21 78
Jan 72 74 640---- r- 318~~ __ 96 _... Jl _______ ~ j 34 87---j--22 79 Feb 72 76 58 0 I 332 i 79 0 46 68 1 113 29 73 -
i 61 76 64 0 593 230 17 58 70 I 146 48 -
Apr 126 64 62 0 414 17 52 87 103 -,--- 242
May 179 61 64 0 594 172 156 130 77 363
Jun i 303 60 I 62 0 692' 257 329 I 162 62 i 553 I 79 80 I I Jul 298 i 60 I 64 0 689 T;-- I~--417 I 182 58 I 657 I 81 81 I Aug 268 i 61 64 0 864; -.l 378 ' 346 I 173 50 i 569 I 77 79 i I S~-. L ______ IQL ___ i.£L_ I 62 0 796 : 287_L 2421 144 132! 518 I 58 77 I a-x. ani 2,007 804 756 0 6,330 1,975 1,730 1,241- r--838--- r-3~809 632 954 Stetson Engineers Inc.

Solvang- ID1 GW mode tech memo v3
9 821

3. SOLVANG EIRSIMULATIONS

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS
Three simulations, based on potential Solvang water development scenanos, were developed to evaluate the impact of increased pumping and revised reservoir operations on water levels in the vicinity of existing and proposed Solvang river alluvium wells.

The Solvang pumping conditions evaluated include:

III No change from current river well pumping by Solvang ( average 600 afy in years 2000- 2002)
iii Total river well pumping by Solvang of 2,400 acre- feet per year and maximum diversion rate of 5 cfs per Table 7 of the Water System Master Plan update ( Provost and Richard, 2002)
iii Total river well pumping by Solvang of3, 600 acre- feet per year and maximum diversion rate of 5 cfs per Pennit 15878
Table 4 lists the three scenarios and accompanying reservoir operation conditions.

TABLE 4

CONDITIONS SIMULATED FOR THE CITY OF SOLVANG EIR SCENARIOS Gross
Cacimma
Resel' Voir Fish Flow
Alternatives Pumping
Surcharge Operations (
afy) (
ft)
Scenario
GWI
SWRCB EIR Alt 2 with current Solvang
600 0.75 Interim BOIFMP
pumping 600afy ( current operations)
SWRCB EIR Alt 3C with Solvang pumping
2,400 3.00 Final BOIFMP
2400 afy
GW2
SWRCB EIR Alt 3C with Solvang pumping
3,600 3.00 Final BOIFMP
3600 afy
GW3
The period of the Solvang EIR simulations is October 1952 through September 1993, or 41 years for a total of 492 monthly stress periods. SYRHM data were used for stream flows, areal recharge, and net irrigation pumping. Solvang and ID No. 1 pumping from the River alluvium was assumed as follows:

Stetson Engineers Inc. 10 July 19, 2004
Solvang- lD1 GWmode tech memo v3
822
Solvang Three scenarios as above ( 600, 3600, 2400 afy) Plan
Monthly distribution from Table 7 of Solvang Water System Master One existing well ( 7a) and 6 proposed wells based on Hopkins ( 2003) Assume even pumping distribution among the seven wells
Wells 5, 6, and 7 destroyed, Well 3 too close to river per DHS ID No. 1 Based on average pumpage for 2000 through 2002 = 2,400 afy 2000 through 2002 pumping distribution among wells in each well field
6 cfs WF = 8 wells ( 8,9,10, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23) ( Well 11 out of service)
4 cfs WF = 3 wells ( 14, 17, 18) ( Wells 12, 13 out of service) Tables 5, 6 and 7 list the annual and monthly pumping distribution of Solvang and ID No. 1 wells assumed for these simulations and Figures 11, 12 and 13 show the monthly data graphically by entity. Private irrigation pumping for crops and golf courses using wells located in the river alluvium was calculated monthly by the SYHRM based on acreage and climatic data Table 8). Irrigation pumping was distributed evenly amongst the 12 irrigation wells used in the simulations.

The locations of wells used in the simulations are shown in Figures 1a, 3 and 4. The locations of Solvang wells is based on Solvang' s Water System Master Plan update ( Provost and Richard, 2002), and proposed well location maps in a recent repOli by Hopkins ( 2003). The ID No. 1 wells used in the simulations include those wells recently pumped ( Table 4). The number and location of private irrigation well locations used for the simulations were based on limited well location data from Stetson Engineers' records and Hopkins ( 2003).

Simulated stream flow for each alternative was calculated by the SYRHM and inputted at the upstream model boundary ( USBR node 23). The inflows are shown in Figure 14. There are differences between the simulated Santa Ynez River inflows for Scenario GWI compared to GW2 and GW3. GWI represents interim phase fish flow operations under the Biological Opinion ( BO) and Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan ( FMP). GW2 and GW3 represent the final phase fish flow operations. One element that is common to both sets of the fish release operating criteria is the conjunctive operation of water rights releases with fish releases. This conjunctive use operation would extend the period of time each year when instream flows improve fisheries habitat for oversummering and juvenile rearing within the mains tern river.

Stetson Engineers Inc. 11 July 19, 2004
Solvang- ID1 GW mode tech memo v3
823
TABLE 5
ANNUAL PUMPING By THE CITY OF SOLV ANG AND ID No. 1 WELLS FOR SOLVANG EIR SCENARIOS GW1, GW2, AND GW3
Historical Gross Pumping ( afy) Assumed Gross Pumping in Modflow Analyses for EIR Scenarios ( afy)
Solvang Well Field 2000 2001 2002 AVG GWI GW2 GW3
Existing Well 7a 787 465 nJa 626 600 343 514
Proposed 1 0 343 514
Proposed 2 0 343 514
Proposed 3 0 343 514
Proposed 4 0 343 514
Proposed 5 0 343 514
Proposed 6 0 343 514
Solvang Sub- Total 600 2,400 3,600
of % of Gross Pumping ( afy)
ID No. 1 Well Field Well Field GWl, GW2,
Santa Ynez Well Fields 2000 2001 2002 AVG Production Production GW3 6 CFS Well Field
Well 8 4 218 137 120 7% 7% 126
Well 9 19 414 355 263 15% 15% 270
Well 10 15 777 789 527 29% 29% 522
Well 11 18 47 22 1% 0% 0
Well 19 297 99 5% 5% 90
We1120 308 824 377 21% 21% 378
Well 21 274 342 205 11% 11% 198
Well 22 246 82 5% 6% 108
WeIl23 328 109 6% 6% 108
6 cfs WF Sub- Total 1,804 100% 1,800
4 CFS Well Field
Well 12 0% 0% 0
Welll3 332 III 19% 0% 0
Well 14 899 37 9 315 55% 60% 360
Well 17 299 5 101 18% 20% 120
Well 18 130 3 3 45 8% 20% 120
4 cfs WF Sub- Total 572 100% 600
Stetson Engineers Inc. 12 July 19, 2004
Solvang- ID I OW mode tech memo v3
824
of
Annual
Demand 3)
Jan 6.25
Feb 2.9
Mar 4.9
Apr 7.4
May 8.4
June 10.8
Jul 10.6
Aug 12
Sep 12.2
Oct 8.8
Nov 8.2
Dec 7.55
100
Notes
TABLE 6

CITY OF SOLVANG SIMULATED MONTHLY DIVERSIONS

FROM SANTA YNEZ RIVER WELLS
Scenario GW1 Scenario GW2 Scenario GW3
Proposed Water System Maximum under Permit
Solvang River Wells -
Master Plan III 15878 2)
Solvang River Wells - Solvang River Wells -
600 acre- feet/ year
2,400 acre- feet/ year 3,600 acre- feet/ year
Gross Pumping Gross Pumping Gross Pumping
acre- feet cfs acre- feet cfs acre- feet cfs

37.5 0.61 151 2.46 305.8 4.97

17.4 0.31 70 1.26 276.2 4.97

29.4 0.48 117 1.90 305.8 4.97

44.4 0.75 178 2.99 295.9 4.97

50.4 0.82 202 3.29 305.8 4.97

64.8 1.09 259 4.35 295.9 4.97

63.6 1.03 253 4.11 305.8 4.97
72 l.17 288 4.68 305.8 4.97

73.2 1.23 293 4.92 295.9 4.97

52.8 0.86 211 3.43 305.8 4.97

49.2 0.83 196 3.29 295.9 4.97

45.3 0.74 182 2.96 305.8 4.97
600 2,400 3,600
1) Table 7, Water System Master Plan Update, May 2002, p. 15 2) The permit expired in 1990 and the City ofSolvang has filed a petition for a time extension with the SWRCB. 3) January and December monthly pumping reduced by .05 percent from Table 7 (see note # 1) to make annual total equal 1DO%.

Stetson Engineers Inc. 13 July 19, 2004
Solvang- ID1 GW mode tech memo v3
825
of
TABLE 7
ID No.1 SIMULATED MONTHLY DIVERSIONS

FROM SANTA YNEZ RIVER WELLS
4 cfs Well Field 6 cfs Well Field Total
AmJlmd Gross Pumping Gross Pumping Gross Pumping
Demand
I) acre- feet cfs acre- feet cfs acre- feet
Jan 3.8 22.8 0.37 68.4 1.11 91.2
Feb 3.3 19.8 0.36 59.4 1.07 79.2
Mar 9.6 57.6 0.94 172.8 2.81 230.4
Apr 10.4 62.4 1.05 187.2 3.15 249.6
May 10.6 63.6 1.03 190.8 3.10 254. 4
June 9 54 0.91 162 2.72 216
Jul 9.7 58.2 0.95 174.6 2.84 232. 8
Aug 11.5 69 1.12 207 3.37 276
Sep 10.1 60.6 1.02 181.8 3.06 242.4
Oct 10.8 64.8 1.05 194.4 3.16 259. 2
Nov 6.6 39.6 0.67 118.8 2.00 158.4
Dec 4.6 27.6 0.45 82.8 1.35 110.4
100 600 1,8()0 2,400
Notes
1) Based on historical pumping 2000- 2002
TABLE 8
AVERAGE NET MONTHLY AGRICULTURAL PUMPING FOR USSR NODES 19-23 FROM SYRHM FOR SOLVANG SCENARIOS GW1, GW2, AND GW3
of Average Net Pumping
Ammal
Demand acre- feet cfs
Jan 0 0 0.00
Feb 0 0 0.00
Mar 17 0.28
Apr 3 52 0.87
May 9 156 2.53
June 19 329 5.53
Jul 24.1 417 6.78
Aug 20 346 5.62
Sep 14 242 4.07
Oct 8.5 147 2.40
Nov 1.4 24 0.41
Dec 0 0 0.00
Sum 100 1,730
cfs

1.48 1.43

3.75 4.19

4.14 3.63

3.79 4.49

4.07 4.22

2.66 1.80
Stetson Engineers Inc. 14 July 19, 2004
Solvang- ID 1 GW mode tech memo v3
826
Interim ( present-condition) flow targets in the Santa Ynez River at the Highway 154 Bridge are shown in Table 9.

TABLE 9

INTERIM MAINSTEM SANTA YNEZ RIVER REARING TARGET FLOWS BASED ON

BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN
Lake Cachuma
Reservoir Spill Target Flow Target Site
Storage
120, 000 AF Spill> 20, 000 AF 5.0 cfs Highway 154 Bridge 120, 000 AF Spill < 20,000 AF or No Spill 2.5 cfs Highway 154 Bridge 120, 000 AF No Spill 1.5 cfs Highway 154 Bridge
Periodic Release;
30,000 AF No Spill .: s30AF per month Stilling Basin and Long Pool Source: Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan, October 2, 2000, pg. 3-12.

In years when Cachuma Reservoir spills 20,000 acre-feet or more, a target flow of 5 cfs will be maintained at the Highway 154 Bridge. In years when Cachuma Reservoir does not spill or spills less than 20,000 acre-feet, the Highway 154 target flow will be determined at the start of each month based on reservoir storage: 2.5 cfs when storage is greater than 120,000 acre-feet and

1.5 cfs when storage is less than 120,000 acre-feet. Periodic releases to refresh the Stilling Basin and Long Pool will be made when storage is less than 30,000 acre-feet. In addition, the BO requires a 2 cfs minimum flow in Hilton Creek once a pump is installed as a part ofthe terms and conditions to implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure No. 2 of the Biological Opinion.

Also, both the BO and FMP under the interim phase include a provision that the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation ( USBR) shall maintain residual pool depth in Alisal and Refugio reaches downstream of the Highway 154 Bridge during spill years and the first year after spill years if steelhead are present. Because the quantity ofwater needed to maintain residual pool depth has not yet been determined and is necessary only when steelhead are present, this provision has not been included in the SYRHM.

Final (long term) flow targets in the Santa Ynez River for steelhead habitat are shown in Table 10.

Stetson Engineers Inc. 15 July 19, 2004
Solvang- ID I OW mode tech memo v3
827
TABLE 10

FINAL PHASE MAINSTEM SANTA YNEZ RIVER REARING TARGET FLOWS BASED ON

BIOLOGICAL OPINION AND FISH MANAGEMENT PLAN
Lake Cadmma Storage Reservoir Spill Target Flow Target Site 120, 000 AF Spill> 20,000 AF 10 cfs Highway 154 Bridge
120, 000 AF Spill> 20,000 AF 1.5 cfs) Alisal Road Bridge 120, 000 AF
Spill < 20,000 AF or
5 cfs Highway 154 Bridge
No Spill
120, 000 AF No Spill 2.5 cfs Highway 154 Bridge
30,000 AF
Spill < 20,000 AF or

1.5 cfs 1) Alisal Road Bridge 2)
No Spill
30,000 AF No Spill
Periodic Release;
Stilling Basin and Long Pool :::
30AF per month
1) When rainbow troutlsteelhead are present in the Alisal Reach. 2) This target will be met in the year immediately following a year with spill> 20,000 AF.

Source: Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan, October 2, 2000, pg. 3-9.

In years when Cachuma Reservoir spills 20,000 acre-feet or more, a target flow of 10 cfs will be maintained at the Highway 154 Bridge up to the capacity ofHilton Creek supplemental watering system of 10 cfs. In years when Cachuma Reservoir does not spill or spills less than 20,000 acre-feet, the Highway 154 target flow will be determined at the start of each month based on reservoir storage: 5.0 cfs when storage is greater than 120,000 acre-feet and 2.5 cfs when storage is less than 120,000 acre-feet Periodic releases to refresh the Stilling Basin and Long Pool will be made when storage is less than 30,000 acre-feet. In addition, the BO requires a 2 cfs minimum flow in Hilton Creek once a pump is installed as a part of the terms and conditions to implement Reasonable and Prudent Measure No.2. Also, both the BO and FMP under the final phase the USBR shall provide a target flow of 1.S cfs at Alisal Road Bridge in years with spill greater than 20,000 acre-feet and the first year after such spill years ifsteelhead are present. In addition, under the final implementation phase of the BO and FMP, specific volumes of water are dedicated for the " Fish Passage Account" ( 3,200 acre-feet) and for the Adaptive Management Account" ( 500 acre-feet) for a total of 3,700 acre-feet. This passage account water is released in months of January through May on top of naturally occurring storms. These fish flow operations (interim and final phase) were modeled using the SYRHM as was performed in preparation ofthe Biological Assessment, NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion BO), the Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan, the State Board Draft EIR (2003), and the Draft EIRJEIS ( 2003) on the Fish Management Plan and the BO (see references) Stetson Engineers Inc. 16 July 19, 2004
So! vang- IDI GW mode tech memo v3
828

3.2 RESULTS OF MODEL SIMULATIONS
The primary model results of interest are the potential changes in water levels in the vicinity of the Solvang well field. The results in the vicinity of the Solvang well field were compiled at five cells considered to represent the average and maximum change in water level in that area. These locations are shown on Figure 4 with selected model cells marked with an X.

The average and maximum water level declines from full aquifer conditions at these locations are presented in Table 11.

Under the first Scenario ( GWl), which approximately represents current operations, the water levels in the vicinity ofthe Solvang well field decrease by an average ofabout one to three feet. During the driest period, water levels decline from 10 to 17 feet. These results are comparable to those for historical conditions. The declines are greatest in the upstream end of the Solvang well field due to the close proximity ofID NO.l's 6 cfs well field. Figure 15 shows the water level decline simulated for November 1990 conditions under Scenario GWl. This month had the largest drawdowns for the simulation period due to low stream flows in late 1990.

The largest water level declines from a full aquifer condition occur in the vicinity ofthe ID No.1 6-cfs well field. The maximum drawdown ofabout 20 feet occurs near the 6-cfs well field.

Near the downstream boundary ofthe model, the drawdown during the entire simulation is minimal. At the upstream portion of the model area there is almost no drawdown since pumping is less in this area and any recharge available from the river flow occurs in this area first.

Under Scenario GW2 with Solvang pumpmg of 2,400 afy, the average water level decline at the same simulation output locations ranged from about four to seven feet, with a maximum range during the driest period of28 to 35 feet. The wells would probably not be able to pump 2,400 afy under the pumping schedules shown in Tables 5 and 6 during very dry periods due to excessive drawdown in the pumping wells, which would cause pumps to break suction and pump air. Figure 16 shows the maximum simulated drawdown in November 1990 for Scenario GW2. It shows a wider extend ofthe maximum value ofabout 35 feet. The maximum drawdown near the downstream boundary ofthe model during this simulation is about five feet.

Stetson Engineers Inc. 17 July 19, 2004
Solvang- ID 1 OW mode tech memo v3
829
TABLE 11

SUMMARY OF SIMULATED GROUNDWATER LEVEL DRA WDOWN
AT SELECTED OBSERVATION POINTS WITHIN AND NEAR PROPOSED SOLVANG WELL FIELD, 1953- feet)
City of Solvang 2500' Downstream of 1000' Downstream of Solvang WF Center 1000' Ul!stream Ground Water River Well Pumping Solvang WF Center Solvang WF Center Solvang WF Ce Model Simulation afy Max Max Max
Avg Max Mon-Yr Avg Max Mon- Yr Avg Max Mon-Yr Avg Max
Solvang EIR GWI 600 /' 1.1 10.2 Dec-90 2.3 13.5 Dec-90 2.0 14.4 Nov-90 2.3 15.5 Solvang EIR GW2 2,400 4.3 27.6 Dec-90 6.5 33.3 Dec-90 6.8 35.9 Nov-90 6.7 36.5 Solvang EIR GW3 3,600 7.0 41.3 Feb-91 10.0 dry Feb-91 10.3 dry Feb-91 10.0 dry dry = Groundwater level reached bottom ofaquifer
Stetson Engineers Inc.

Solvang-IDl GWmode tech memo v3 18
830
The results of Scenario GW3, with Solvang pumping at 3,600 afy, indicate the average water level decline in the vicinity of the well field would range from seven to 10 feet. The maximum water level decline during dry periods is simulated as reaching to or below the bottom of the alluvial aquifer. Wells would cease to operate under these conditions before the lowest simulated groundwater levels are ever reached. Figure 17 shows the maximum simulated drawdown in February 1991 for Scenario GW3. The maximum drawdown near the downstream boundary ofthe model during this simulation is about eight feet, which was sufficient to slightly reverse the flow at this boundary for the three driest periods ofthe simulation.

Water level hydrographs for the selected cells in the vicinity of Solvang's wells are shown in Figures 18 through 22. These show that after even extreme dry periods, water levels recover the following winter. This response is due to resumption ofSanta Ynez River flows and resulting recharge to the river alluvium. The water level declines of 30 feet or more only occur in Scenarios GW2 and GW3 during four periods; late 1961, late 1964 to early 1965, late 1977, and late 1990 to early 1991. The wells could not actually be operated at the simulated rates during those periods as noted above.

Water level hydro graphs for selected USBR monitoring well sites, along with historical measured data, are shown in Figures 23 through 26. These show, as expected, a decreasing influence of Solvang and ID No. 6-cfs well field pumping with distance upstream from those wells. However, in the upstream areas the hydrographs for Scenario GW1 compared to those for GW2 and GW 3 have a different signature than those below, as seen in the hydrographs for USBR Wells - 19Q2 and - 21 B2. The difference is due, in part to the River inflows for each scenario ( Figure 14). Scenarios GW2 and GW3 have larger releases for fish from Cachuma Reservoir compared to GW1 ( see Tables 9 and 10). For example, during non-spill years, fish flow targets in the Highway 154 management area are 2.5 to 5 cfs in scenarios GW2 and GW3 final phase offish flow operations) compares to l.5 to 2.5 cfs in scenario GW 1 (interim phase of fish flow operations). Also notice that the well hydrograph for -21 B2 is very stable ( Figure 26) under both types of fish flow operation compared with historical conditions ( Figure 10).

This is due to the constant source of stream percolation provided by the releases for fish upstream.

The groundwater budgets for each scenario are presented in Tables 11, 12, and 13. The pnmary difference between the scenarios is the increase in Solvang River well pumping.

Jc/
This increase in pumping correlates directly with an increase net stream percolation. For Stetson Engineers Inc. 19 July 19, 2004
Solvang- ID1 GWmode tech memo v3
831
example, Tables 12, 13, and 14 show that average annual net stream flow loss increased from 4,379,6,108, and 7,235 acre-feet per year for Scenarios GW1, GW2, and GW3, respectively.

Tables 12, 13, and 14 show that average annual storage did not change significantly because the additional stream percolation losses were able to balance the additional pumping on average. However, during dry years when there is 6~~~~i~)litt1e streamflow, groundwater storage change is significant. For example in water year 1991, net change in groundwater storage decreased from - 2,238 to - 3,889 and to - 5,129 acre-feet for Scenarios GWl, GW2, and GW3, respectively. Other budget components, such as phreatophyte loss and subsurface outflow, did not change significantly on average primarily due to the quick recovery of water levels in the winter and during WR89-18 water rights releases.

Stetson Engineers Inc. 20 July 19, 2004
Solvang- ID1 GW mode tech memo v3
832
TARLE 12
SUMMARY OF SIMULATED GROUNDWATER BUDGET - EIR SCENARIO GWI (SOLVANG PUMPING 600 AFY)

ANNUAL MODEL BUDGET

INFLOW OUTFLOW
Storage Subsurface Subsurface Stream Loss Storage Ag Solvang ID Total Phreatophyte Subsurface Stream Gain Water ( loss ofgw Recharge Upstream Downstream toGW ( gain ofgw Wells Wells Wells Pumping Loss (ET) Downstream fromGW Net Change of Net Stream Year in Storage) afly afly afly afly in storage) afly afly afiy afly afly afly afly GW in Storage Gain+fLoss1953 1, 282 945 756 0 7, 988 1, 217 1, 524 600 2, 400 4,524 661 1, 028 3, 518 65 4, 470 1954 856 818 756 0 8, 468 853 1,591 600 2, 400 4, 591 677 1, 028 3, 703 3 4, 765 1955 1, 870 826 756 0 7,440 1, 413 1, 614 600 2, 400 4, 614 637 1, 027 3, 172 457 4, 268 1956 1, 710 855 758 0 8, 163 2, 169 1, 522 600 2, 400 4, 522 642 1, 028 3, 137 - 458 5,027 1957 1, 272 848 756 0 7, 133 1, 045 1, 538 600 2, 400 4, 538 651 1, 026 2, 765 227 4, 368 1958 1, 288 933 756 0 6, 993 760 1, 360 600 2, 400 4,360 643 1, 023 3, 227 528 3,766 1959 1, 346 933 756 0 8, 189 2,100 1, 620 600 2, 400 4,619 618 1, 013 2, 848 - 754 5, 341 1960 1, 746 806 758 0 7, 461 1, 235 1, 563 600 2, 400 4, 563 635 1, 024 3, 281 511 4, 180 1961 3,110 806 756 0 3, 857 1, 292 1, 529 600 2, 400 4,529 475 991 1, 244 1, 818 2, 612 1962 1, 519 871 756 0 8, 492 3, 422 1, 466 600 2, 399 4, 464 601 977 2,176 - 1, 903 6, 315 1963 1, 664 879 756 0 7, 273 1, 593 1, 567 600 2,401 4, 568 637 1, 019 2, 764 71 4, 509 1964 2, 933 815 758 0 4, 539 1,381 1, 482 600 2, 399 4, 481 499 986 1,701 1, 552 2,837 1965 1, 407 812 756 0 7, 631 3, 112 1, 419 600 2,401 4,421 550 983 1, 550 - 1, 706 6, 081 1966 1, 733 831 756 0 8, 095 2, 077 1, 407 600 2, 399 4,406 627 1, 024 3, 267 - 345 4, 828 1967 670 882 756 0 8, 028 427 1, 268 600 2,401 4, 269 691 1, 028 3, 898 243 4, 130 1968 843 863 758 0 8, 246 1, 090 1, 324 600 2, 399 4, 323 680 1, 027 3, 584 - 248 4, 663 1969 751 979 756 0 7, 337 152 1, 086 600 2,401 4,087 676 1, 029 3, 887 599 3,450 1970 1, 003 979 756 0 8, 039 1, 600 1,311 600 2, 399 4, 310 646 1, 020 3, 184 - 597 4, 855 1971 638 806 756 0 8, 336 640 1, 348 600 2, 399 4, 346 682 1, 028 3, 767 - 2 4, 568 1972 1, 022 806 758 0 8, 248 1, 019 1, 338 600 2,401 4, 340 680 1, 030 3, 703 2 4, 545 1973 1, 058 887 756 0 7,461 686 1, 230 600 2, 399 4,229 661 1, 025 3, 567 372 3, 893 1974 1, 329 896 756 0 8, 150 1, 685 1,371 600 2, 401 4,372 652 1, 024 3, 432 - 356 4, 718 1975 1,651 883 756 0 6,676 755 1, 205 600 2, 399 4, 204 645 1, 026 3, 359 895 3, 317 1976 888 876 758 0 7, 991 1, 802 1, 380 600 2,401 4, 381 591 1, 006 2, 718 - 914 5, 273 1977 2, 335 808 756 0 5,436 859 1, 416 600 2, 399 4, 416 601 1, 017 2,440 1, 476 2, 996 1978 1, 010 1, 005 756 0 7, 938 2, 089 1, 189 600 2, 399 4, 188 637 1, 012 2, 835 - 1, 079 5, 103 1979 1, 240 1, 042 756 0 7, 399 1, 150 1, 389 600 2, 401 4, 390 640 1, 028 3,271 90 4, 128 1980 1, 276 909 758 0 7,486 1, 329 1,313 600 2, 399 4,312 643 1, 015 3,180 - 53 4, 307 1981 1, 474 882 756 0 7, 984 1, 899 1, 488 600 2, 401 4,489 634 1, 006 3,081 - 425 4, 904 1982 769 826 756 0 8, 056 774 1, 357 600 2, 399 4, 356 684 1, 028 3, 545 - 5 4, 511 1983 197 1, 049 755 0 7, 952 126 1, 012 600 2, 401 4, 014 702 1,031 4, 114 71 3, 838 1984 735 1, 040 758 0 8, 356 803 1, 442 600 2, 399 4, 441 683 1, 033 3, 884 - 69 4, 472 1985 1, 632 806 758 0 7, 805 1, 632 1, 364 600 2, 399 4, 363 613 1, 022 3,310 0 4, 495 1986 1, 573 863 755 0 7, 415 1, 499 1,343 600 2, 401 4, 344 643 1, 024 3, 127 73 4, 288 1987 2,006 865 755 0 6,382 1, 492 1, 286 600 2, 399 4, 285 607 1, 015 2, 608 514 3, 774 1988 854 836 758 0 7, 782 1, 444 1, 439 600 2, 401 4, 441 637 992 2, 707 - 590 5,076 1989 1, 892 833 755 0 6, 405 1, 373 1, 320 600 2, 399 4, 319 614 1, 024 2, 564 519 3,841 1990 2, 736 806 755 0 ), 696 1, 017 1, 286 600 2, 401 4, 287 448 962 1, 306 1, 719 2,390 1991 659 824 755 0 8, 999 2, 897 1, 433 600 2, 399 4, 43 I 601 923 2, 397 - 2, 238 6, 602 1992 1, 162 893 758 0 7, 805 1, 162 1,334 599 2, 399 4, 332 668 1,031 3, 434 0 4, 371 1993 631 1, 024 755 0 7, 599 126 1, 212 601 2, 401 4, 215 686 1, 028 3, 949 505 3, 650 53- 93 avg 1, 360 882 756 0 7, 432 1, 346 1, 383 600 2,400 4, 383 632 1, 015 3,054 14 4, 379 53-93 med 1, 282 865 756 0 7,805 1, 292 1,371 600 2, 400 4,372 642 1, 024 3,184 3 4,470 53- 93 min 197 806 755 0 3,696 126 1, 012 599 2, 399 4,014 448 923 1, 244 - 2, 238 2, 390 53- 93 max 3, 110 1, 049 758 0 8, 999 3, 422 1, 620 601 2,401 4,619 702 1, 033 4, 114 1, 818 6, 602 AVER~ GE MONTHLY MODEL BUDGET

INFLOW OUTFLOW
Storage Subsurface Subsurface Stream Loss Storage Ag Solvang ID Total Phreatophyte Subsurface Stream Gain loss ofgw Recharge Upstream Downstream toGW ( gain of gw Wells Wells Wells Pumping Loss (ET) Downstream from GW Net Change of Net Stream Month in Storage) sf/ m aflm sf/m af/m in storage) af/ m sf/ m af/ m af/ m aflm aflm sf/ m GW in Storage Gain+lLossOel 181 69 64 0 506 28 120 53 259 432 44 86 227 153 279 Nov 69 75 62 0 438 66 22 49 158 230 26 82 236 3 202
Dec 23 78 64 a 443 81 I 45 110 156 20 85 264 - 58 179
Jan 5 83 64 0 568 180 0 37 91 129 21 85 302 - 175 265
Feb 5 85 59 0 535 158 0 17 79 97 30 79 318 - 153 217
Mar 57 82 64 0 615 82 13 29 230 273 48 87 331 - 26 284
Apr 90 72 62 0 588 46 41 44 250 335 68 84 288 44 300
May 158 68 64 0 654 100 122 50 254 427 77 87 257 58 396 Jun 231 67 62 0 651 100 258 65 216 539 80 84 209 131 442 Jul 226 67 64 0 847 213 331 64 233 628 82 87 196 14 651 Aug 155 67 64 0 906 193 278 72 276 626 78 86 208 - 38 698 Sep 160 69 62 0 683 100 196 73 242 511 57 83 217 60 466 avg ani 1360 882 756 0 7432 1, 346 1, 383 600 2, 400 4,383 632 1, 015 3054 14 4, 379 Stetson Engilleers Illc.

So/ v( lllg- JDl GWmode tech memo v3 2/ July / 9, 2004 833 TABLE 13
SUMMARY OF SIMULATED GROUNDWATER BUDGET - EIR SCENARIO GW 2 ( SOLVANG PUMPING 2,400 AFY)

ANNUAL MODEL BUDGET

INFLOW OUTFLOW
Storage Subsurface Subsurface Stream Loss Storage Ag Solvang [() Total Phreatophyte Subsurface Stream Gain Net Chsnge of Net Water ( loss ofgw Recharge Upstream Downstream toGW ( gain ofgw ' Veils WeUs Wells Pumping Loss ( ET) Downstream fromGW Groundwater Stream Year in Storaec) aflv afly afl' afly in storage) afly afly afly afly afly styl' af!)' in Storaec Gain+ lLoss1953 1,057 945 756 0 9,883 973 1,524 2,400 2,400 6,324 673 1,026 3,615 84 6,269 1954 1,044 818 756 0 10,044 1,042 1,591 2,400 2,400 6,391 675 1,025 3,514 2 6,530 1955 2,599 826 756 0 8,722 1,938 1,614 2,400 2,400 6,413 611 1,019 2,912 662 5,810 1956 2,734 855 758 ° 9,481 2,912 1,522 2,400 2,400 6,322 613 1,016 2,978 - 178 6,503 1957 2,063 848 756 ° 8,770 1,963 1,538 2,400 2,400 6,338 584 948 2,603 100 6,166 1958 1,419 933 756 0 9,277 1,520 1,360 2,400 2,400 6,160 646 1,000 3,090 - 100 6,187 1959 1,177 933 756 0 10,225 1,662 1,620 2,400 2,400 6,420 661 976 3,359 - 485 6,866 1960 2,003 806 758 0 8,407 599 1,563 2,400 2,400 6,362 630 1,000 3,350 1,404 5,057 1961 3,910 806 756 0 4,977 1,406 1,529 2,400 2,400 6,329 400 607 1,713 2,503 3,264 1962 1,757 871 756 0 11,628 5,177 1,466 2,399 2,399 6,264 596 773 2,204 - 3,420 9,424 1963 2,323 879 756 ° 8,974 1,810 1,567 2,401 2,401 6,369 627 994 3,145 513 5,829 1964 3,701 815 758 0 6,267 1,683 1,482 2,399 2,399 6,280 475 747 2,355 2,018 3,912 1965 2,339 812 756 0 9,761 4,511 1,419 2,401 2,401 6,222 509 736 1,697 - 2,172 8,065 1966 1,853 831 756 0 10,390 2,702 1,407 2,399 2,399 6,205 626 1,015 3,271 - 849 7,119 1967 347 882 756 0 9,943 351 1,268 2,401 2,401 6,070 698 1,028 3,749 - 5 6,194 1968 769 863 758 0 9,814 767 1,324 2,399 2,399 6,122 690 1,023 3,600 2 6,214 1969 514 979 756 ° 9,291 154 1,086 2,401 2,401 5, 8~8 692 1,027 3,788 360 5,503 1970 1,141 979 756 ° 9,867 1,499 1,311 2,399 2,399 6,109 665 992 3,460 - 358 6,407 1971 565 806 756 0 10,046 567 1,348 2,399 2,399 6,146 690 1,027 3,678 - 2 6,368 1972 994 806 758 ° 9,945 994 1,338 2,401 2,401 6,141 682 1,029 3,602 ° 6,343 1973 1,003 887 756 ° 9,238 618 1,230 2,399 2,399 6,028 682 1,022 3,551 386 5,686 1974 1,536 896 756 ° 9,798 1,908 1,371 2,401 2,401 6,173 644 974 3,308 - 372 6,490 1975 2,107 883 756 ° 8,042 774 1,205 2,399 2,399 6,003 631 1,018 3,388 1,334 4,653 1976 2,080 876 758 ° 10,071 2,968 1,380 2,401 2,401 6,182 610 916 3,108 - 888 6,963 1977 3,053 808 756 ° 7,121 1,309 1,416 2,399 2,399 6,214 572 919 2,727 1,745 4,394 1978 1,132 1,005 756 0 10,675 3,127 1,189 2,399 2,399 5,987 637 955 2,911 - 1,995 7,764 1979 955 1,042 756 ° 9,389 735 1,389 2,401 2,401 6,191 677 1,012 3,558 220 5,831 1980 870 909 758 ° 9,504 790 1,313 2,399 2,399 6,111 678 985 3,522 80 5,983 1981 1,547 882 756 ° 9,940 2,045 1,488 2,401 2,401 6,290 638 960 3,230 - 498 6,710 1982 845 826 756 0 9,871 854 1,357 2,399 2,399 6,155 685 1,024 3,563 - 9 6,309 1983 455 1,049 755 0 9,504 466 1,012 2,399 2,401 5,813 696 1,028 3,815 - 11 5,689 1984 1,908 1,040 758 0 9,343 1,713 1.442 2,401 2,399 6,242 617 1,012 3,464 195 5,879 1985 1,793 806 758 0 9,665 1,977 1,364 2,399 2,399 6,162 629 989 3,278 - 184 6,387 1986 2,073 863 755 0 8,976 1,637 1,343 2,401 2,401 6,146 631 1,006 3,287 436 5,689 1987 2,268 865 755 0 8,104 1,299 1,286 2,399 2,399 6,084 606 895 3,097 969 5,007 1988 863 836 758 0 10,767 2,268 1,439 2,399 2,401 6,240 646 849 3,225 - 1.405 7,541 1989 2,835 833 755 0 7,392 1,641 1,320 2,401 2,399 6,120 588 969 2.493 1,194 4,899 1990 3,790 806 755 0 4,706 1,095 1,286 2,399 2,401 6,086 386 716 1,800 2,695 2,906 1991 1,022 824 755 0 12,098 4,910 1,433 2,401 2,399 6,233 590 686 2,264 - 3,889 9,835 1992 1,568 893 758 0 9,435 1,568 1,334 2,399 2,399 6,132 659 1,022 3,297 0 6,139 1993 443 1,024 755 0 9,458 133 1,212 2,401 2,401 6,015 696 1,028 3,799 310 5,659 53-93 avg 1,670 882 756 0 9,239 1,660 1,383 2,400 2,400 6,183 625 951 3,131 10 6,108 53-93 med 1,547 865 756 0 9,504 1,520 1,371 2,400 2,400 6,173 637 1,000 3,287 2 6,187 53- 93 min 347 806 755 0 4,706 133 1,012 2,399 2,399 5,813 386 607 1,697 - 3,889 2,906 53- 93 max 3,910 1,049 758 0 12,098 5,177 1,620 2,401 2,401 6,420 698 1,029 3,815 2,695 9,835

AVERAGE MONTHLY MODEL BUDGET

INFLOW OUTFLOW
Storage Subsurface Subsurface Stream Loss Storage Ag Solvang J() Total Phreatophyte Subsurface Stream Gain Net Change of Net loss ofgw Recharge Upstream Downstream toGW ( gain of gw Wells WeUs Wells Pumping Loss ( ET) Downstream from GW Groundwater Stream Month in Storallc) afly afly afly afly in stor, 8ec) aflv afly afly of!)' afly af)y_ af!)' in Storage Gain+/ LossOct 226 69 64 0 608 26 120 211 259 591 43 80 227 201 381 Nov 111 75 62 0 582 96 22 196 158 376 26 75 253 15 328
Dec 49 78 64 0 616 125 1 182 110 293 20 76 289 - 76 326 Jan 14 83 64 0 720 222 0 151 91 242 21 76 318 - 207 402 Feb 8 85 59 0 664 247 0 70 79 149 29 71 317 - 239 347
Mar 50 82 64 0 764 149 13 117 230 361 47 82 326 - 99 438 Apr 92 72 62 ° 735 61 41 178 250 468 67 81 291 31 444
May 174 68 64 ° 831 130 122 202 254 579 77 84 269 44 562 Jun 281 67 62 ° 797 102 258 259 216 733 80 81 215 179 582 Jul 247 67 64 0 983 180 331 253 233 817 81 84 201 67 782 Aug 202 67 64 0 1,093 213 278 288 276 842 77 83 211 - 11 882 Sep 216 69 62 0 848 110 196 293 242 731 56 79 214 106 634 ave ani 1,670 882 756 0 9,239 1,660 1,383 2,400 2,400 6,183 625 951 3,131 10 6,108 Slctsoll Engineers [ IIC.

Solvang- fDJ GW mode tech memo v3 ] 1 July 19, 7004834
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF SIMULATED GROUNDWATER BUDGET - EIR SCENARIO GW3 ( SOLVANG PUMPING 3,600 AFY)

ANNUAL MODEL BUDGET

INFLOW OUTFLOW
Storage Subsurface Subsurface Stream Loss Storage Ag Solvang ID Total Phreatophyte Subsurface Stream Gain Water ( loss ofgw Recharge Upstream Downstream toGW ( gain ofg"" Wells Wells Wells Pumping Loss ( ET) Downstream fromGW Net Change of Net Stream Year in Storage) af/ y af/ y af/ y a fly in storage) af/ y , fly , fly af/ y af/ y af/ y . f/y GW in Storage Gain+/ Loss1953 1, 665 945 756 0 10, 885 1,581 1, 524 3, 600 2, 400 7, 524 656 1, 021 3,456 84 7, 430 1954 1, 358 818 756 0 11, 145 1, 355 1,591 3, 600 2, 400 7, 591 669 1, 022 3, 424 3 7,721 1955 3,230 826 756 0 9, 655 2, 562 1,614 3, 600 2, 400 7, 614 574 950 2, 759 668 6, 896 1956 3, 027 855 758 0 10, 441 2, 990 1, 522 3, 600 2, 400 7, 522 613 1, 013 2,940 37 7,501 1957 2, 784 848 756 0 9, 945 2, 896 1, 538 3, 600 2, 400 7, 538 556 871 2, 469 - III 7, 476 1958 1, 774 933 756 0 10, 535 1, 999 1, 360 3, 600 2, 400 7, 360 642 991 3,030 - 225 7, 505 1959 1,551 933 756 0 11, 230 1,921 1, 620 3, 600 2, 400 7, 619 653 964 3, 294 - 370 7, 937 1960 3, 233 806 758 0 8, 930 1,551 1, 563 3, 600 2, 400 7, 562 601 966 3, 038 1, 682 5, 892 1961 4,887 806 756 0 4, 796 1, 372 1, 529 3, 600 2, 400 7, 528 364 447 1, 543 3, 515 3, 253 1962 1,811 871 756 14 13, 717 6, 273 1, 466 3, 602 2, 399 7, 466 594 659 2,179 - 4, 461 11, 538 1963 2, 899 879 756 0 10, 057 2,486 1, 567 3, 600 2,401 7, 568 607 952 2, 982 413 7, 075 1964 4, 704 815 758 0 5,810 1, 455 1,482 3,600 2, 399 7,481 417 556 2, 183 3, 248 3, 627 1965 2, 874 812 756 4 11, 919 6,570 1, 419 3, 600 2,401 7, 420 486 389 1, 508 - 3, 696 10, 411 1966 1, 733 83 I 756 0 11, 469 2, 438 1, 407 3,600 2, 399 7, 406 643 1, 010 3, 281 - 705 8, 189 1967 381 882 756 0 11, 067 386 1, 268 3,600 2,401 7, 269 697 1, 028 3,680 - 5 7, 388 1968 1, 664 863 758 0 10, 746 1, 662 1, 324 3, 602 2, 399 7, 325 671 1, 009 3, 361 2 7, 385 1969 670 979 756 0 10, 321 246 1, 086 3,600 2,401 7, 087 688 1, 026 3,694 425 6, 628 1970 1, 462 979 756 0 10, 985 1, 887 1,311 3,600 2, 399 7, 309 654 958 3, 354 - 425 7, 63 I 1971 891 806 756 0 11, 116 891 1, 348 3, 600 2, 399 7,346 679 1, 023 3, 561 0 7, 555 1972 1, 488 806 758 0 10, 994 1, 488 1, 338 3, 600 2, 401 7, 339 674 1, 027 3,469 0 7, 525 1973 2, 144 887 756 0 9, 885 1, 490 1, 230 3,600 2, 399 7, 229 635 1, 016 3, 313 654 6, 573 1974 2, 167 896 756 0 11, 113 2, 815 1,371 3, 600 2,401 7, 371 628 941 3, 198 - 647 7, 916 1975 2, 351 883 756 0 9, 118 960 1,205 3, 602 2, 399 7, 206 626 1, 016 3, 324 1,391 5, 794 1976 2, 658 876 758 0 11, 088 3,581 1, 380 3, 600 2,401 7, 381 598 846 2, 980 - 923 8, 108 1977 3, 988 808 756 0 7, 438 1, 699 1, 416 3, 600 2, 399 7, 415 528 730 2, 624 2, 289 4, 814 1978 1, 405 1, 005 756 0 12, 236 3, 926 1, 189 3, 600 2, 399 7, 188 632 884 2, 812 - 2, 521 9, 424 1979 1,171 1, 042 756 0 10, 399 877 1, 389 3, 600 2, 401 7, 390 671 1, 006 3, 473 294 6, 926 1980 1, 008 909 758 0 10, 836 1, 150 1,313 3,600 2, 399 7, 312 674 964 3,446 - 142 7,390 1981 1, 795 882 756 0 10, 950 2,181 1, 488 3, 600 2,401 7, 489 636 932 3, 163 - 386 7, 787 1982 1, 173 826 756 0 10, 904 1, 180 1,357 3,600 2, 399 7, 355 677 1, 012 3, 398 - 7 7, 507 1983 601 1, 049 755 0 10, 629 608 1, 012 3, 602 2,401 7, 016 694 1, 028 3,742 - 7 6, 887 1984 2, 039 1, 040 758 0 10, 445 1,871 1,442 3,600 2, 399 7, 440 615 1,001 3,382 168 7, 064 1985 2, 165 806 758 0 10, 354 2,130 1,364 3, 600 2, 399 7, 362 617 893 3, 062 34 7,291 1986 2, 284 863 755 0 9, 894 1, 697 1,343 3, 600 2,401 7, 344 625 976 3, 177 588 6, 717 1987 3,120 865 755 0 9, 206 2, 369 1, 286 3, 600 2, 399 7, 284 582 799 2,922 751 6, 283 1988 1, 458 836 758 0 11, 915 2, 989 1, 439 3, 600 2,401 7, 440 631 790 3, 088 - 1, 531 8, 827 1989 3, 997 833 755 0 8, 035 2, 518 1, 320 3, 600 2, 399 7, 319 565 872 2,371 1, 478 5, 663 1990 4, 692 806 755 0 4, 637 1, 042 1, 286 3, 600 2,401 7, 287 362 487 1, 719 3, 650 2, 918 1991 1, 556 824 755 43 14, 256 6, 685 1,433 3, 600 2, 399 7, 431 579 546 2, 199 - 5, 129 12, 057 1992 2, 002 893 758 0 10, 560 2, 004 1, 334 3, 600 2, 399 7, 332 650 1, 012 3, 216 - 2 7, 344 1993 517 1, 024 755 0 10, 491 154 1, 212 3, 600 2,401 7, 213 693 1, 028 3, 717 363 6, 775 53- 93 avg 2,156 882 756 I 10, 248 2, 145 1, 383 3,600 2,400 7, 382 611 894 3,013 II 7, 235 53- 93 med 1, 811 865 756 0 10, 560 1,871 1,371 3,600 2, 400 7,371 631 964 3,177 2 7, 388 53- 93 min 381 806 755 0 4, 637 154 1, 012 3,600 2, 399 7, 016 362 389 1, 508 - 5, 129 2, 918 53- 93 max 4,887 1, 049 758 43 14, 256 6, 685 1, 620 3, 602 2, 401 7, 619 697 1, 028 3,742 3,650 12, 057

AVERAGE MONTHLY MODEL BUDGET

INFLOW OUTFLOW
Storage Subsurface Subsurface Stream Loss Storage Ag Solvang ID Total Phreatophyte Subsurface Stream Gain loss ofgw Recharge Upstream Downstream toGW ( gain ofgw Wells Wells Wells Pumping Loss ( ET) Downstream from GW Net Change of NetStl" eam Month in Storage) affm gf/ m aflm ar/ m in storage) af/m af/ m af/ Ill af/ m af/m aflm af/ m GW in Storage Gain+ fLossOct 299 69 64 0 617 23 120 306 259 685 42 76 221 276 396 Nov 181 75 62 0 596 91 22 296 158 476 25 72 247 90 349
Dec 112 78 64 0 657 120 I 306 110 417 20 71 282 - 8 375 Jan 50 83 64 0 841 244 0 306 91 397 20 70 305 - 195 536 Feb 31 85 59 0 925 352 0 276 79 355 28 66 297 - 320 628 Mar 96 82 64 0 968 234 13 306 230 549 46 76 308 - 138 660 Apr 135 72 62 0 813 81 41 296 250 586 66 76 278 54 535
May 233 68 64 0 898 173 122 306 254 682 75 79 260 61 638 Jun 299 67 62 0 901 198 258 296 216 770 77 76 208 100 693 Jul 267 67 64 0 1,121 295 331 306 233 870 80 79 197 - 28 924 Aug 231 67 64 0 1, 078 223 278 306 276 860 76 78 204 8 874 Sep 221 69 62 0 833 III 196 296 242 734 55 75 206 111 627 ave: ani 2,156 882 756 1 10, 248 2, 145 1, 383 3, 600 2, 400 7, 382 611 894 3013 II 7, 235 Stetson Engineers fllc.

So/ v{ lllg- IDJ GW mode tech memo v3 23 July 19, 2004835

4. REFERENCES REVIEWED
Ahlroth, Jon, Memo to Santa Ynez River Hydrology Committee, July 1, 1996.

Blaney, Harry F., G. Paul Lawless, Paul R. Nixon, Ernest J. Wiedmann, October 1963, Utilization of the Waters ofthe Santa Ynez River Basin for Agriculture in Southern Santa Barbara County, California: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, Soil and Water Conservation Research Division.

Boyle Engineering Corporation, July 8, 1996, Water System Master Plan, Final Draft Report, Prepared for the City of Solvang, California.

Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, June 2003. Draft Program and Project Specific Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement of the Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan and Cachuma Project Biological Opinion for Southern Steelhead Trout.

Dibblee, Jr. T. W., June 1950, Geology of Southwestern Santa Barbara County, California, Point Arguello, Lompoc, Point Conception, Los Olivos, and Gaviota Quadrangles:

Bulletin 150, Califomia Department of Natural Resources, Division of Mines.

Dibblee, Jr., T. W., 1966, Geology of the Central Santa Ynez Mountains, Santa Barbara County, California: Bulletin 186, Califomia Division of Mines and Geology.

Dibblee, Jr., T. W., 1988, Geologic Map of the Santa Ynez and Tajiguas Quadrangles, Santa Barbara County: Dibblee Geological Foundation Map # DF- 15 Dibblee, Jr., T. W., 1988, Geologic Map of the Solvang and Gaviota Quadrangles, Santa Barbara County: Dibblee Geological Foundation Map # DF- 16 HDR Engineering, Inc., February 1990, Water Treatment Plant Feasibility Final Study, Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1, Santa Ynez, California.

Hopkins Groundwater Consultants, Inc., April 2003, Preliminary Hydrogeology Study, City of Solvang, Santa Ynez River Well Field, Well Site Evaluation Project, Solvang, California.

Stetson Engineers Inc. 24
Solvang- lDl GWmode tech memo v3
836
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., April 2000, Santa Ynez River Vegetation Monitoring Study, Santa Barbara County, California, Final Phase I Report: Cachuma Conservation Release Board/ Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1, State Water Resources Control Board, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Santa Barbara County Flood Control District, Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, and California Department ofFish and Game
Kingman, Dean S., April 21, 1958, Engineering Report, Solvang- Santa Ynez Distribution System, Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Santa Barbara County, California.

LaFreniere, G.F. and French, J. J., April 10, 1968, Ground- Water Resources of the Santa Ynez Upland Ground- Water Basin, Santa Ynez County, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resources Division.

Muckel, D. and Blaney, H. F., April 1945, Utilization of the Waters of Lower San Luis Rey Valley, San Diego County, California: Division of Irrigation, Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

National Marine Fisheries Service, September 2000, Biological Opinion, Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Operation and Maintenance of the Cachuma Project on the Santa Ynez River.

Provost & Pritchard, Inc., May 2002, Water System Master Plan Update, City of Solvang, California, Administrative Draft.

Prudic, David E., 1989, Documentation of a Computer Program to Simulate Stream- Aquifer Relations Using a Modular, Finite- Difference, Ground- Water Flow Model: U.S.

Geological Survey, Open- File Report 88- 729.

Santa Barbara County Water Agency, September 1997, Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model Manual, Draft, updated by Stetson Engineers April 2004.

Santa Ynez River Technical Advisory Committee, October 2,2000, Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan, Volumes I and II: Prepared for the Santa Ynez River Consensus Committee, Santa Barbara, CA, Final Report.

State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights, August 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Report - Consideration of Modifications to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation' s Water Right Permits 11308 and 11310 ( Applications 11331 and 11332) To Protect Public Trust Values and Downstream Water Rights on the Santa Ynez River Below Bradbury Dam ( Cachuma Reservoir).

Stetson Engineers Inc. 25 July 19, 2004
Solvang- IDI GWmode tech memo v3
837
Stetson Engineer Inc., S\ ugust 12, 1994, Water Supply Capability of Improvement District No. 1, Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Santa Barbara County, California.

Stetson Engineers Inc., August 31, 1992, Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District Water Resources Water Management Planning Process, Phase I: Baseline Data and Background Infonnation.

Stetson Engineers Inc., March 3, 1980, Detennination of the Water Supply Capability of Improvement District No. 1, Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District.

Stetson Engineers Inc., May 21, 1997, Nineteenth Annual Engineering and Survey Report on Water Supply Conditions ofthe Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, 1996-

97. Stetson, Thomas M., July 9, 1976, Feasibility ofIncreasing Solvang Municipal Improvement District' s Water Supply from Santa Ynez River Underflow.

Stetson, Thomas M., November 30, 1970, Investigation ofFacilities Necessary to Divert Water Appropriated by Solvang Municipal Improvement District.

Thomas M. Stetson, May 17, 1977, Environmental Analysis for the Water Well Drilling Program, Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1.

Toups Engineering, Inc., August 1972, Documentation of Calculations for Total Groundwater Storage.

Upson, J.E., and H.G. Thomasson, Jr., 1951, Geology and Water Resources ofthe Santa Ynez River Basin, Santa Barbara County, California: U.S. Geological Survey WaterSupply paper 1107.

Wilson, Jr., H.D., 1958, Ground- Water Appraisal of Santa Ynez River Basin, Santa Barbara County, California, 1945- 52: U.S. Geological Survey Water- Supply paper 1467.

Stetson Engineers Inc. 26 July 19, 2004
Solvang- IDI GW mode tech memo v3
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
Technical Memorandum # 4
Additional Alternative Analyses
893

DR A FT
TECHNICAL M E M 0 RAN DUM NO.4

STETSON
ENG INEE RS INC.
2171 E . F r a nci sco Bl vd., Suite K • San Rafa el, C alifornia. 94901 TEL: ( 4 15) 457- 0701 FAX: ( 415) 457- 1638 e-ma il: curtis l@stetsonengi neers. com T O: John Gray D An :: November 11, 2004
URS Corp., Santa Barbara, CA
FROM: Curtis Lawler JOB No.: 1944
RE : ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES FOR CITY OF SOLVANG' S CEQA ENViRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR A TIME EXTENSION FOR WATER RIGHTS PERMIT 15878

1. INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum is the fourth in a series in preparation for the City of Solvang' s CEQA environmental document in connection with the petition to the State Water Resources Control Board ( SWRCB) for extension of time for Permit 15878. Teclmical Memorandum No. 1 entitled Hydrologic Impact Analyses ... " dated April 23, 2004 provides the results ofhydrologic analyses on Cachuma Reservoir operations, Santa Ynez River flows, above Narrows groundwater storage, water right releases, and Cachuma Project deliveries. Technical Memorandum No. 2 entitled " Water Quality Impact Analyses ... " dated May 10, 2004 provides the results of hydrologic analyses on impact to the total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration ofthe Santa Ynez River flow at Lompoc Narrows. Technical Memorandum No. 3 entitled " Solvang EIR Groundwater Model Modflow Simulations" dated July 19, 2004 provides the results of mathematical modeling for ground and surface water analyses of drawdown in ground water levels in the river alluvium and possible local well interference. Alternatives analyzed in the above technical memoranda are based on various levels of City of Solvang pumping including:

1. Total river well pumping by Solvang of 600 acre- feet per year ( approximate average of pumping in years 2000-2002 representing current conditions);

2. Total river well pumping by Solvang of2, 400 acre- feet per year and maximum diversion of 5 cfs per Table 7 of the Water System Master Plan; and
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page I 4123104
F :\Data\ I944\ Surfacewater\ NewScenariol TM4. doc
894

3. Total river well pumping by Solvang of3, 600 acre- feet per year and maximum diversion of 5 cfs per Permit 15878.

This memorandum (Technical Memorandum No. 4) provides the results of analyses for an additional alternative:

4. Total river well pumping by Solvang of 1 ,053 acre- feet per year and maximum diversion of 1.85 cfs.

This amount is based upon a letter from the SWRCB to the City of Solvang dated April 16, 2001. This letter states that " During the August 11 inspection, Division staff determined that the maximum amount recently diverted under Permit 15878 from Wells No. 3 and 7 has been 1.85 cubic feet per second ( cfs) with an annual limit of 1,053 acre- feet ( af)." The letter also states that " The impacts on instream resources, including steelhead, associated with increasing the rate ofdiversion from 1.85 cfs to 5 cfs should be evaluated in the CEQA document." This new alternative ofSolvang pumping was analyzed under the Final BOIFMP conditions, including a 3.0 foot surcharge, so the impacts ofincreasing river well diversions from 1,053 to 3,600 acre- feet per year can be evaluated in the context of similar fish flow operations. Table 1 shows the alternatives with which this new alternative ( GW4) will be compared.

TABLE 1

CONDITIONS SIMULATED FOR THE CITY OF SOLVANG EIR SCENARIOS Gross
Cachuma
Scenario
Alternatives Pumping
Fish Flow
Operations
OWl
SWRCB EIR Alt 2 with current Solvang pumping
600 0.75 Interim BOIFMP
600 afy ( current conditions)
OW2
SWRCB EIR Alt 3C with Solvang pumping
2,400 3.00 Final BOIFMP
2400 afy
OW3
SWRCB EIR Alt 3C with Solvang pumping
3,600 3.00 Final BO/FMP
3600 afy
OW4
SWRCB EIR Alt 3C with Solvang pumping
1,053 3.00 Final BO/FMP
1053 afy
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 2 4123104
F :\Data\ I944\ Surfacewaler\ NewScenario\ TM4. doc
895
Analyses of surface water hydrologic impacts for the additional alternative ( GW4) were performed, as in Technical Memorandum No. 1 (4/23/04), using the Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model (SYRHM). Included in this memorandum are the EIR hydrologic impact analyses for:

Cachuma Reservoir Operations
Cachuma Storage and Elevations
Santa Ynez River Flows
Groundwater Storage in the Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer Water Rights Releases ( WR 89~ 18)
Cachuma Project Deliveries
Groundwater analyses, including localized water level drawdowns, were performed using the finite~difference numerical model ( MODFLOW), as in Technical Memorandum No. 3 (7119104).

Because Technical Memorandum No. 2 (5110104) showed that changes to salinity at the Lompoc Narrows would be none to very small due to increased pumping by Solvang, water quality analyses were not performed for this additional alternative of Solvang pumping 1,053 afy.

2. METHODOLOGY
Please refer to Technical Memorandum Nos. 1 ~3 for a more detailed discussion ofthe models utilized in these analyses, including the SYRHM and MODFLOW. The SYRHM became the basis for numerous hydrologic studies ofreleases for fish, water quality, and water rights in preparation of the Biological Assessment, NOAA Fisheries Biological Opinion ( BO), the Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan, the Settlement Agreement of2002, the State Board Draft EIR ( 2003), and the Draft EIRIEIS (2003) on the Fish Management Plan and the BO ( see references). The analyses for the additional City of Solvang river well pumping use the same programming model logic and assumptions as these previous studies.

MODFLOW is a three- dimensional ground~water flow model that is used to simulate hydraulic head in the aquifer. The MODFLOW model code was developed by the USGS ( McDonald and Harbaugh, 1988). MODFLOW is comprehensive in that it contains multiple components that are needed to properly simulate hydrologic processes in a given ground-water basin including all hydrologic inflows and outflows, aquifer boundaries, and hydraulic conductivity. The ground water model developed near Solvang's existing and proposed SantaYnez River well fields uses the basic, Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 3 4123104
F :IDatal 1944 ISul' tacewaterlNewScenariolTM4. doc
896
streamflow, evapotranspiration, recharge, pumpmg, and general head boundary modules ( or packages). The model inputs were developed based on recent geologic mapping by Dibblee, multiple aquifer well tests, and hydrologic inputs from the SYRHM. The model was calibrated based on historic water levels ofthe USBR nodal wells along the Santa Ynez River.

Municipal river well pumping is handled in the SYRHM by using net pumping, which implicitly includes return flows. Table 2 shows the monthly distribution ofSolvang pumping for the various alternatives. Figure 1 compares the varying amount ofSolvang pumping from 600 to 3,600 afy. The SYRHM assumes that the well yields for these increased pumping scenarios would not decrease even during critical droughts, so these analyses are considered conservative.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:\DataI1944ISurfacewaterINewScenarioITM4. doc

Page 4 ends

897
TABLE 2

CITY OF SOLVANG MONTHLY DIVERSIONS FROM SANTA YNEZ RIVER WELLS

SIMULATED IN SANTA YNEZ RIVER HYDROLOGY MODEL ( SYRHM)
Currently Used in SYRHM 1) Proposed Water System Master Plan 2) Maximum under Permit 15878 3) AltGWl) ( AltGW2) ( AJtGW3)
Solvang River Wells - 600 acre- feetlyear Solvang River Wells - 2,400 acre- feet/ year Solvang River Wells - 3,600 ure- feetlyear of G V I Net Difference with Gross Volume Net Differenee with % of Annual Gross Volume Net Volume ross 0 ume Demand Pumped Pumped4)
Annual P ed Volume Current SYRHM P ed Volume Current SYRHM 5) ump 4) 6) ump ~ ~
Demand Pumped Net Pumping Pumped Net Pumping
acre- feet ds acre- feet "~ r .... f .... t cfs acre- feet acre- feet acre- feet cfs acre- feet acre- feet Jan 3.8 22.8 0.37 15.05 6.25 151 2.46 99.66 84.61 305.8 4.97 201.80 186.75 Feb 3.3 19.8 0.36 13.07 2.9 70 1.26 46.20 33.13 276.2 4.97 182.27 169.20 Mar 5 30 0.49 19.80 4.9 117 1.90 77.22 57.42 305.8 4.97 201.80 182.00 Apr 7.5 45 0.76 29.70 7.4 178 2.99 117.48 87.78 295.9 4.97 195.29 165.59 May 10.8 64.8 1.05 42.77 8.4 202 3.29 133.32 90.55 305.8 4.97 201.80 159.03 June 13.3 79.8 1.34 52.67 10.8 259 4.35 170.94 118.27 295.9 4.97 195.29 142.62 Jul 14.9 89.4 1.45 59.00 10.6 253 4.11 166.98 107.98 305.8 4.97 201.80 142.79 Aug 14.2 85.2 1.39 56.23 12 288 4.68 190.08 133.85 305.8 4.97 201.80 145.57 Sep 11.7 70.2 1.18 46.33 12.2 293 4.92 193.38 147.05 295.9 4.97 195.29 148.96 Oct 6.7 40.2 0.65 26.53 8.8 211 3.43 139.26 112.73 305.8 4.97 201.80 175.27 Nov 4.6 27.6 0.46 18.22 8.2 196 3.29 129.36 111.14 295.9 4.97 195.29 177.07 Dec 4.2 25.2 0.41 16.63 7.55 182 2.96 120.12 103.49 305.8 4.97 201.80 185.17 100 600 396 100 2,400 1,584 1,188 3,600 2,376 1,980
Notes
1) SYRHM includes a total 2000 acre- feet per year ofnet river pumpingfor municipal demand. including City ofSolvang, and SYRWCD ID no. I, and Buellton. 2) Table 7, Water System Master Plan Update, May 2002, p. 15 3) The permit expired in 1990 and the City ofSolvang has flied a petition for a time extension with the SWRCB. 4) A return flow of34% is assumed.
5) January and December monthly pumping reduced by .05 percent from Table 7 (see note #2) to make annual total equal J00 percent 6) The difference with the current net pumping is the component added to the model for increased Solvang river well pumping. 7) Letter from SWRCB to City ofSolvang, Apri/ 16, 2001
8) Based on Master Plan monthly percentage adjusted for a maximum diversion of1.85 cft and 1,053 afy.

Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 5
Max
Solvang R
of
A I Gro
nnua P
8)
Demand
acre

6.25 65

2.9 30

4.9 51

7.85 82

9.6 10

10.45 11

10.8 11

10.45 11
10 10

8.45 88

7.55 79
100 1,

3. SYRHM OPERATIONAL MODELING RESULTS

3.1 CACHUMA RESERVOIR OPERATIONS
The surface water budget for Cachuma Reservoir for the new alternative is shown in the last column ofTable 3 for the hydrologic period 1918-1993. Table 3 shows that on average over the hydrologic period, the amount of water passed through at Bradbury Dam, either by spills and leakage, water right releases, or fish releases, is relatively the same (less than 1 % variation'). In summary, the major changes to the Santa Ynez River flow system due to changes in Cachuma Reservoir operations are that when there are more low flow releases, such as for water rights or releases for fish, there are fewer spills or high flow releases.

Table 3 shows that the largest difference in Cachuma Project operations for increased Solvang river well pumping scenarios is an increase inwater rights releases. For example, under Alt 3C with fish flow operations and surcharge, the difference inwater rights releases is about 454 acrefeet per year between Solvang river well pumping scenarios of 1,053 afy (GW4) and 3,600 afy GW3). However, the increase in fish flow operations will decrease water rights releases (see Tech Memo No.1). The increase in water rights releases from Cachuma Reservoir with increased Solvang pumping is due to an increase in water production and associated increase in the total dewatered storage levels, which affect the Above Narrows Account. On average, fish flow operations are about the same for increased well pumping bySolvang. This is primarily attributed to the following factors: ( 1) the primary management reach for fish flows is the Highway 154 reach, located about seven miles upstream ofthe CityofSolvang river wells; (2) the increase inwater rights releases conjunctively decreases the flows needed for fish; and (3) the number ofspill years greater than 20,000 acre-feet, which triggers fish flow targets at the Alisal Bridge, is reduced ifSolvang pumps 3,600 afy.

I Note: The precipitation and evaporation vary for each ofthe EIR alternatives due to differences in the surface area ofthe reservoir.

Also, Tecolote Tunnel infiltration is not shown on these tables but is considered a component ofthe Project yield. Tecolote Tunnel infiltration averages about 2,050 acre-feet/year for the period 1918-1993 and 1,620 acre-feet/year duringthe drought period 1947-1951.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:\DATA\1944\SURFACEWATER\ TM SW RESULTS Y7.DOC

Page 6 ends

899
Stetson Engineers Inc.

TABLE 3

SURFACE WATER BUDGETS FOR CACHUMA RESERVOIR
AVERAGE VALVES FROM SYRHM, 1918- 1993 ( 76 YEARS) 1)

ACRE- FEETNEAR)
Alternative No. GW1 GW2 GW3
Fish Flow Operations/ Surcharge Alt 2 Alt3C Alt3C
City of Solvang Pumping ( afy) 600 2400 3600
INFLOW
Runoff 74, 171 74, 171 74,171
Precipitation 3,869 3,922 3,911
SWP water
2)
7,619 7,663 7,663
Total Inflow 85,659 85, 756 85,745

OUTFLOW
Evaporation 10,876 11,030 11,000
Spills/ Leakage 36,693 35,198 35, 032
Project Deliveries ( no tunnel) 3) 23,069 23,017 22,988 WR89- 18 releases 6,023 6,046 6,273
Fish/ Habitat releases 1,362 2,707 2,692
SWP Exchange 4) - 2,512 12 - 2,512
SWP Deliveries to South Coast 10, 131 10,175 10,175
Total Outflow 85, 642 85,661 85, 648
Change in" 17 95 97
MEAN WATER PASSING THROUGH CACHUMA ( Spills and Releases) Cachuma Spills & Releases 44, 078 43,951 43,997
Difference from Alt 2 (AFY) - 127 - 81
Difference from Alt 2 (%) - 0.3% - 0.2%
No. of Spill months 82 78 78
No. of Spill Water Years 26 25 25
No. of Spill Water Years > 20, 000 af 16 15 14
1) See Table 1 for description ofalternatives; fish releases include rearing and passage flows. 2) Includes SWP deliveries in outlet works and into Cachuma Reservoir. 3) Does not include Tecolote Tunnel infiltration which averages about 2,050 acre- feetlyear 4) Includes SWP exchange with SYRWCD ID No 1.

Page 7 ends

GW4
Alt3C
1053
74,171
3,934
7,663
85,768
11,066
35,350
23,053
5,819
2,721
2,512
10,175
85,672
96 43, 890
188

0.4%
78 25
15 Figures 2 and 3 show the frequency ofreleases and spills from Cachuma Reservoir for all alternatives on different scales of flow. Figure 2 indicates that flow distribution frequencies under the various alternatives in tenns of high flows are nearly similar. Figure 3 shows the differences among the alternatives for flows that are less than 50 cfs.

3.2 LAKE STORAGE AND ELEVATION
The minimum storage level (minimum pool) is set to 12,000 acre-feet, which occurs during the critical drought of 1947- 1951 for all alternatives. Table 4 summarizes average Lake Cachuma elevation and storage for each alternative. In general, the median elevation, storage, and surface area for all alternatives are very similar.

3.3 SANT A YNEZ RIVER FLOWS
Figures 4 through 9 show the frequency offlows at six different locations downstream of Cachuma Reservoir for the various alternatives based on the results ofthe SYRHM. Figures 5 and 6 illustrate the key differences among the increased Solvang river well pumping scenarios. Figure 5 shows the frequency offlows ofthe SantaYnez River at the Highway 154 Bridge, in which Solvang increases in river well pumping result in little change. Figure 6 shows the frequency offlows ofthe Santa Ynez River at the Alisal Bridge, in which the differences in flow between pumping scenarios are more apparent. Figure 6 indicates that Alt 3CI 2400 afy ( shown in green), produces low flows over a greater frequency than the present conditions, Alt 21 600 afy (shown in blue). Low flows for Alt 3C/2400 afy are smaller than the Alt 3CIl 053 afy scenario. For example, Figure 6 shows that flows smaller than 1 cfs near Alisal Bridge would occur about 23% of the time for Alt 3CIl 053 scenario but 28% ofthe time for the Alt 3C/2400 afy scenario. Appendix A contains the monthly flows for the new scenario from 1918 through 1993 ( 912 months).

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:\ DATAII944ISURFACEWATERITM SW RESULTS V7. DOC

Page 8 ends

901
Alternative
Fish Flow Solvang
No.

Operations! River Well
Surcharge Pumping
afy
GWI Alt 2 600
GW2 Alt3C 2400
GW3 A1t3C 3600
GW4 Alt3C 1053
Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IDATAI1944ISURFACEWATERITM SW RESULTS V7.00C
TABLE 4

MEDIAN MONTHLY AND ANNUAL

CACHUMA LAKE STORAGE ANDELEV ATIONS
1918- 1993 ( 76 YEARS)
Median Median Median Median
Snrcharge November Febrnary April July
Storage Storage Storage Storage
ft af af af af

0.75 130, 484 152, 394 165, 533 146, 851

3.00 135, 302 154, 158 168, 457 1

3.00 134, 409 153, 742 168, 136 151, 843

3.00 135, 997 154, 462 168, 003 153, 027

Page 9 ends

Median Median
Annual February
Elevation Elevation
ft ft
733. 73 737. 24
734. 25 737. 92
733. 99 737. 76
734. 46 738. 04
Table 5 compares the mean annual stream flows at key sites downstream of Cachuma Reservoir. The mean or average statistic differs from the flow frequency graphs in that average values can be influenced byinfrequent, extremely large storm events. For the scenarios ofincreased Solvang river well pumping, mean annual flows at Highway 154 bridge are similar. However, the Santa YnezRivermean annual flows at the Alisal Bridge and Lompoc Narrows are reduced by 1,122 to 1,054 afy, respectively, in comparing Alternative GW3 (3,600 afy) with Alternative GW4 (1,053 afy). Tables 6A-C also show the median monthly flows at the Highway 154 Bridge to be similar, and the median monthly flows at Alisal Bridge and Lompoc Narrows to be less for the increased Solvang river well pumping scenarios. The median statistic is based on 50 percent exceedance and shows a pattern similar to that ofthe flow frequency graphs (Figures 4 through 9).

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:\ DATA1944ISURFACEWATER\ TM SW RESULTS V7. DOC

Page 10 ends

903
TABLE 5
MEAN ANNUAL FLOWS AT HIGHWAY 154 BRIDGE, ALISAL BRIDGE, AND LOMPOC NARROW 1918- 1993 ( 76 YEARS)
Fish Flow
Solvang
Alternative
Operations!
River
No.

Surcharge
Well
Pumping
afy
GW1 Alt 2 600
GW2 A1t3C 2,400
GW3 A1t3C 3,600
GW4 Alt3C 1,053
Stetson Engineers Inc.

F: IDATA\ 1944\ sURFACEWATERITM SW RESULTS V7. 00C
Average Flow
Average
Surcharge at Hwy 154
Flow at
Bridge
Alisal
Bridge
ft afy afy

0.75 45, 920 49, 128

3.00 45, 794 48, 061

3.00 45, 842 47, 527

3.00 45, 734 48, 649

Page 11 ends

Average Flow
Difference in Mea
at Lompoc
with
Narrows
Hwy 154
Bridge
Afy afy
65, 863 0
64, 637 - 125 -
64, 128 - 78 -
65, 182 - 186 -
TABLE6A
MEDIAN MONTHLY FLOW OF SANTA YNEZ RIVER AT IDGHWAY 154 BRIDGE IN CF 1918- 1993 ( 76 YEARS)
Fish Flow Solvang
Alt Operations/ River Well
No. Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul GWI Alt 2 600 0.75 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 4.25 5.25 4.75 3.75 4.25 5.5 GW2 Alt3C 2400 3.00 6 5 5 5 7.75 10.25 5 5 5 9.75
GW3 Alt3C 3600 3.00 5 5 5 5 7.5 10.25 5 5 5.75 10
GW4 Alt3C 1053 3.00 6 5 5 5 7.75 10.25 5 5 5 9.75
TABLE6B

MEDIAN MONTHLY FLOW OF SANTA YNEZ RIVER AT ALISAL BRIDGE IN CFS 1918- 1993 ( 76 YEARS)
Fish Flow Solvang
Alt Operations/ River Well
No. Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul GWI Alt 2 600 0.75 0 0 0.25 1.25 5.5 9 6.5 3.75 1.5 3.75 GW2 Alt3C 2400 3.00 1.5 0.75 1 2.5 11.5 19 6.5 4.25 2 6.25 GW3 Alt3C 3600 3.00 0.75 0.25 0.75 2 9.75 17.5 5 3.25 1.75 6.75 GW4 Alt3C 1053 3.00 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.25 13.3 20.75 7.25 4.75 2.5 6 TABLE6C

MEDIAN MONTHLY FLOW OF SANTA YNEZ RIVER AT LOMPOC NARROWS IN CFS 1918- 1993 ( 76 YEARS)
Fish Flow Solvang
Alt Operations/ River Well
No. Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul GWI Alt 2 600 0.75 0 0 0.75 3 16.3 24 18 3 1.5 1.5
GW2 Alt3C 2400 3.00 0 0 0.75 4 24.3 32.75 17.8 4.25 1.75 1.75 GW3 Alt3C 3600 3.00 0 0 0.75 3.75 19 30.75 16.5 3.5 1.5 1.75 GW4 Alt3C 1053 3.00 0 0 0.75 4.25 25.3 34.5 19 4.75 2 1.5 Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 12

3.4 GROUNDWATER STORAGE IN THE ABOVE NARROWS RIPARIAN AQUIFER During the low flow periods, there is more percolation into the Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer in the scenarios with releases for steelhead. Figure 10 shows the changes in total dewatered storage in the entire Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer. This figure shows less total dewatered storage during low flow periods when there are more fish releases. An opposite effect is that there is more total dewatered storage when Solvang river well pumping increases. As shown in Figure 10, the Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer recovers to the same levels with the recharge ofwinterrunoff under the various alternatives. The key differences in water levels between the alternatives occur during the droughts. Forthe purposes ofcomparison, Figure 10 shows that Alt 3C/ 3600 afy (shown in red), results in more dewatered storage levels in the Above Narrows Aquifer than Alt 3C/1053 afy shown in orange). This difference is due to the increased Solvang river well pumping. Figures 11, 12, and 13 show the effects in total dewatered storage for the three different sub-units ofthe above Narrows riparian aquifer, the Santa Ynez, Buellton, and Santa Rita sub-basins. The greatest effect is on the Santa Ynez sub-basin, in which the Solvang pumping would occur.

Tables 7 through 10 show statistics on monthly total dewatered storage for the Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer and for the three different sub-units. For comparison, the last four columns show the difference in dewatered storage relative to GWI ( present conditions). For example, Table 7 shows that Alt 3C/ 3,600 afy (GW3) would result in 933 acre-feet more dewatered storage on a median basis compared with Alt 3C/ 1,053 afy (GW4) due to an increase in Solvang pumping. The increase in dewatered storage levels shown in Table 7 for the Solvang river well pumping would affect WR89-18 releases from Cachuma Reservoir. Tables 8 through 10 show that the increases in dewatered storage are largest in the Santa Ynez sub-unit; which is the sub-unit closest to Bradbury Dam and also includes Highway 154 and Alisal Bridge, which are the fish releases' target sites, as well as the sub-unit in which Solvang river wells are located.

Stetson Engineers inc.

F:\ DATA\ 1944\ SURFACWATER\ TM SW RESULTS V7. DOC

Page 13 ends

906
Alt
No.

GW1
GW2
GW3
GW4
Stetson Engineers Inc.

Fish Flow Solvang
TABLE 7

STATISTICS ON MONTHLY TOTAL DEWATERED STORAGE
FOR ABOVE NARROWS RIPARIAN AQUIFER, 1918- 1993

ACRE- FEET)
Operations/ River Well I Difference with
Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Mean Median Minimum Maximum Mean Median Minimum af ft
Alt 2 600 0.75 10, 769 10, 517 2,324 32, 936
Alt3C 2400 3 11, 093 10, 736 2,386 34, 086 324 219 62
Alt3C 3600 3.00 11, 714 11, 151 2,488 36, 430 945 635 164 Alt3C 1053 3.00 10, 473 10, 218 31, 591 - 296 - 298 9 -

Page 14 ends

Ait
No.

GWI
GW2
GW3
GW4
Alt
No.

GWI
GW2
GW3
GW4
Stetson Inc.

Fish Flow Solvang
TABLE 8

STATISTICS ON MONTHLY TOTAL DEWATERED STORAGE
FOR THE SANTA YNEZRIPARIAN SUBAREA ( 1918- 1993)

ACRE- FEET)
Operations/ River Well I Difference with
Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Mean Median Minimnm Maximum Mean Median Minimum af
Alt2 600
Alt3C 2400
Alt3C 3600
Alt3C 1053
Fish Flow Solvang
ft

0.75 1,926 1,769 0 9,048
3 2,010 110 10, 941 316

3.00 2,695 2,293 169 13, 019 768

3.00 1,832 1,692 2 8,825 - 95
TABLE 9

STATISTICS ON MONTHLY TOTAL DEWATERED STORAGE
FOR THE BUELLTON RIPARIAN SUBAREA ( 1918- 1993)

ACRE- FEET)
241 110
524 169
77 2 -
Operations/ River Well I Difference with
Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Mean Median Minimum Maximum Mean Median Minimum af
A1t2 600
A1t3C 2400
Alt3C 3600
Alt3C 1053
Fish Flow Solvang
ft

0.75 5,598 5,570 2,160 11, 018
3 5,666 5,621 2,182 11, 189 68

3.00 5,790 5,754 2,224 11, 372 192

3.00 5,520 5,479 2,164 10, 952 - 78
TABLE 10

STATISTICS ON MONTHLY TOTAL DEWATERED STORAGE
FOR THE SANTA RITA RIPARIAN SUBAREA ( 1918- 1993)

ACRE- FEET)
51 22
184 64
90 4 -
Operations/ River Well I Difference with
Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Mean Median Minimum Maximum Mean Median Minimum af . ft
Alt2 600 0.75 3,244 3,080 0
Alt3C 2400 3 3,184 3,018 0 12,284 - 60 - 61 0 -
Alt3C 3600 3.00 3,229 3,032 0 12, 456 - 15 - 48 0 -
Alt3C 1053 3.00 3,121 2,973 0 12, 057 - 123 - 107 0 -

Page 15 ends

Tables 11 through 13 show the impact ofthe EIR alternatives on the average water level elevations in the Santa Ynez, Buellton, and Santa Rita sub-basins ofthe Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer. Relationships developed byReclamation between groundwater storage and groundwater elevation were used to develop the relative changes in depths to water for various alternatives, with values being rounded to the nearest foot. The most significant change among the EIR alternatives occurs in the Santa Ynez subarea, with ground water levels decreasing one to eleven feet on average throughout the area. The largest differences occur during droughts.

The SYRHM is limited in predicting water level changes beyond the large groundwater subunits of Santa Ynez, Buellton, and Santa Rita because it does not take into account aquifer properties. The Modflow analysis shows localized changes in groundwater levels due to increased Solvang river well pumping. Table 14 shows the results of Modflow simulation for the new alternative for Solvang pumping oft ,053 afy (GW4) and previous analyses (GW1, GW2, and GW3).

The results in the vicinity of the Solvang well field were compiled at five cells considered to represent the average and maximum change in water level in that area. The average and maximum water level declines from full aquifer conditions at these locations are presented in Table 14. The point at 2000 feet upstream ofthe proposed Solvang well field is about 500 feet from the nearest ID No.1 well at the southern end ofthe 6.0 cfs well field.

Table 14 shows that the new alternative, Solvang pumping 1,053 afywithFinal FMP/BO fish operations, is very similar to the first Scenario ( GW1), which approximately represents current operations. The water levels in the vicinity ofthe Solvang well field decrease byan average ofone to three feet. During the driest period, water levels decline from 12 to 20 feet. These results are comparable to those for historical conditions. The declines are greatest in the upstream end ofthe Solvang well field due to the close proximity ofID No. l's 6-cfs well field. Figure 14 shows the water level decline simulated for November 1990 conditions under Scenario GW4 (1,053 afy). This month had the largest drawdowns for the simulation period due to low stream flows in late 1990.

The largest water level declines from a full aquifer condition occur in the vicinity ofthe ID No.1' s 6-cfs well field, with a maximum drawdown ofabout 20 feet. Near the downstream boundary ofthe model, the drawdown during the entire simulation is minimal. At the upstream portion ofthe model area there is almost no drawdown since pumping is less in this area and any recharge available from the river flow, including the releases for fish, occurs in this area first.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F: IDATAII944ISURFACWATER\ TM SW RESULTS V7. DOC

Page 16 ends

909
Alt
No.

GWI
GW2
GW3
GW4
Alt
No.

GWI
GW2
GW3
GW4
AU
No.

GWI
GW2
GW3
GW4
Stetson Engineers Inc.

Fish Flow
TABLE 11

STATISTICS ON MONTHLY AVERAGE WATER LEVEL ELEVATION
FOR THE SANTA YNEZRIPARIAN SUBAREA (1918-1993)

ACRE- FEET)
Solvang
Operationsl River Well I Difference with AU
Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Mean Median Minimum Maximum Mean Median Minimum M Alt 2
Alt3C
Alt3C
Alt 3C
Fish Flow
afy ft
600 0.75 459 460 443 464
2400 3 459 459 438 464 - 1 - 1
3600 3.00 458 459 432 464 - 2 - 1
1053 3.00 460 460 443. 4 464 0 0
TABLE 12

STATISTICS ON MONTHLY AVERAGE WATER LEVEL ELEVATION
FOR THE BUELLTON RIPARIAN SUBAREA (1918-1993)

ACRE-FEET)
Solvang
5 11
Operationsl River Well I Difference with Ait 2
Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Mean Median Minimum Maximum Mean Median Minimum M afl: ft
Alt 2 600 0.75 304 304 295 310
Alt3C 2400 3 304 304 295 310 0 0 0
Alt 3600 3.00 304 304 294 309 0 0 - 1
Alt3C 1053 3.00 304 304 295 310 0 0 0
TABLE 13

STATISTICS ON MONTHLY AVERAGE WATER LEVEL ELEVATION
FOR THE SANTA RITA RIPARIAN SUBAREA (1918-1993)

ACRE- FEET)
Fish Flow Solvang
Operations/ River Well I Difference with AU
Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Mean Median Minimum Maximum Mean Median Minimum M afr ft
Alt2 600 0.75 176 176 163 180
Alt 3C 2400 3 176 176 164 180 0 0
A1t3C 3600 3.00 176 176 164 180 0 0
Alt 3C 1053 3.00 176 176 165 180 0 0

Page 17 ends

TABLE 14

SUMMARY OF SIMULATED GROUNDWATER LEVEL DRA WDOWN
AT SELECTED OBSERVATION POINTS WITHIN AND NEAR PROPOSED SOLVANGWELL FIELD, 1953-1 feet)
City ofSolvang 2500' Downstream of 1000' Downstream of Solvang WF Center 1000' Ul!stream Ground Water River Well Pumping Solvang WF Center Solvang WF Center Solvang WF Cen Model Simulation afy Max Max Max
AV2 Max Mon-Yr AV2 Max Mon-Yr AV2 Max Mon-Yr AV2 Max M
Solvang EIR GWI 600 1.1 10.2 Dec-90 2.3 13.5 Dec-90 2.0 14.4 Nov-90 2.3 15.5 N Solvang EIR GW2 2,400 4.3 27.6 Dec-90 6.5 33.3 Dec-90 6.8 35.9 Nov-90 6.7 36.5 N Solvang EIR GW3 3,600 7.0 41.3 Feb-91 10.0 dry Feb-91 10.3 dry Feb-91 10.0 dry F Solvang EIR GW4 1,053 1.0 11.9 Dec-90 2.2 15.5 Dec-90 2.5 17.7 Nov-90 2.8 18.9 N dry = Groundwater level reached bottom ofaquifer
Stetson Engineers Inc. 18
Water level hydrographs for the selected cells in the vicinity ofSolvang' s wells are shown in Figures 15 through 19. These show that after even extreme dry periods, water levels recover the following winter. This response is due to resumption of Santa Ynez River flows and resulting recharge to the river alluvium. The water level declines of30 feet or more only occur in Scenarios GW2 and GW3 during four periods; late 1961, late 1964 to early 1965, late 1977, and late 1990 to early 1991. The wells could not actually be operated at the simulated rates during those periods.

3.3 WATER RIGHTS RELEASES ( WR 89- 18)
Table 15 shows the impacts to water rights releases for the various alternatives as determined by the SYRHM. The Above Narrows Account is dependent upon groundwater storage in the Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer because the account cannot be larger than the dewatered storage. Table 15 indicates that WR89- 18 releases would be increased as a result of increased pumping by Solvang.

For example, the average annual release would increase by about 454 acre- feet under Alt 3C/ 3,600 when compared to Alt 3C/ 1,053.

AU
Fish Flow
Operationsl
No.

Surcharge
GWI Alt 2
GW2 Alt3C
GW3 A1t3C
GW4 A1t3C

TABLE IS

IMPACTS TO WATER RIGHT RELEASES
FOR WATER YEARS 1918- 1993
Solvang River WR89-
Surcharge
Well Pumping 18 Releases
afy ft
600 0.75 6,023
2,400 3.00 6,046
3,600 3.00 6,273
1,053 3.00 5,819

3.4 CACHUMA PROJECT DELIVERIES
Differences in WR 89-
18 Releases wi GWI
23 250
204
Shortages in water supply from the Cachuma Project during droughts are determined using SYRHM. The historical precipitation at Gibraltar Dam from 1947 through 1951 was 35% to 60% below normal. The shortages to water supply during the last three years ofthis critical period for the various EIR alternatives are shown in Table 16.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IDATAI1944ISURFACWATERITM SW RESULTS V7.DOC

Page 19 ends

912
TABI, E16

IMPACTS OF SCENARIOS ON PROJECT WATER SUPPLY
IN CRmCAL DROUGHT PERIOD, 1949- 1951

ACRE- FEET)
Cumulative
Fish Flow Solvang Shortagel in Shortage in Shortage as
Alt Operations/· River Well Critical Drought Shortage as Critical Drought Percentage of No. Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Year Percentage of Period Annual Draft for afy ft ( 1951) Annual Draft 2) ( 1949- 1951) 3) Three Years OWl Ah2 600 0.75 9,810 38% 20,130 26%
OW2 Alt3C 2400 3.00 10,460 41% 21,300 28%
OW3 Alt3C 3600 3.00 10,640 41% 21, 790 28%
GW4 A1t 3C 1053 3.00 10,300 40% 20,910 27%
Notes ·
1) Shortage rounded to nearest 10 acrefeet
2) Annual Draft from Cachuma Project is 25, 714 acrefeet 3) Period corresponds with Project water supply year, May 1949 - April 1952.

Cachuma fish flow operations proposed in Altemative 3C will produce substantially greater shortages in the Cachuma Project yield during the critically dry period compared with current fish flow operations (Alt 2). Increases in Solvang pumping will also increase Cachuma Project water shortages during droughts. This is attributed to increases in waterrights releases, which are directly related to the level ofdewatered storage in the Santa Ynez Rive alluvium from which Solvang would be pumping.

Comparing altematives with the same level ofCachuma fish operations (GW2, GW3, and GW4), Table 16 indicates that during the last three years ofthe critical period (1947-1951), an increase in cumulative shortage of approximately 880 acre-feet would occur when comparing altemative 3C/ 3,600 afyto 3C/ 1,053 afy. Inthe worst year ofthe critical period, a shortage increase of340 acre-feet would occur. The increase in project shortages in critical droughts is attributed to increased water rights releases resulting from an increase in Solvang's river well pumping. The Cachuma Project members, which include the City ofSanta Barbara, Goleta WD, Montecito WD, Carpinteria CWD, and SYRWCD ID No.1, all share the shortages.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:IDATA\ 1944ISURFACWATERITM SW RESULTS V7.DOC

Page 20 ends

913

4. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boyle Engineering Corporation, July 8, 1996. City of Solvang Water System Master Plan Final Draft Report.

Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board and Department ofthe Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, June 2003. Draft Program and Project Specific Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement of the Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan and Cachuma Project Biological Opinion for Southern Steelhead Trout National Marine Fisheries Service ( NMFS), September 11, 2000. Biological Opinion. U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation Operation and Maintenance of the Cachuma Project on the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County, California.

Provost and Pritchard, Inc. May 2002. City of Solvang, CA Water System Master Plan Update.

Santa Barbara County Water Agency, Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model Manual, Draft, 91911997, expanded by Stetson Engineers Inc .. April 2004.

Santa Ynez River Technical Advisory Committee ( SYRTAC), October 2, 2000. Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan. Volumes I and II. Prepared for the Santa Ynez River Consensus Committee, Santa Barbara, CA. Final Report.

State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights, August 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Report. Consideration of Modifications to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation' s Water Right Permits 11308 and 11310 ( Applications 11331 and 11332) To Protect Public Trust Values and Downstream Water Rights on the Santa Ynez River Below Bradbury Dam ( Cachuma Reservoir).

Stetson Engineers Inc., August 31, 1992. Santa Ynez River Water Resources Management Planning Process, Phase 1. Baseline Data and Background Infonnation.

Stetson Engineers Inc., 2001. Technical Memorandum No. 1. Impacts ofEIR Alternatives using the Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model. Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation and COMB for the Water Rights EIR. Technical Memorandum No. 2. Impacts ofEIR Alternatives on Steelhead. Prepared for the Bureau ofRec1amation and COMB for the Water Rights EIR. Technical Memorandum No. 3. Hydrologic Analysis of Surface Water Salinity. Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation and COMB for the Water Rights EIR. Technical Memorandum No. 4. Cachuma Water Rights EIR Alternatives - Results of USGS and HCI Lompoc Groundwater Flow and Transport Models. Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation and COMB for the Water Rights EIR.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:\ DATA\ 1944ISURFACWATER\ TM SW RESULTS V7. DOC

Page 21 ends

914
Stetson Engineers Inc., April 23, 2004, Solvang DEIR Draft Technical Memorandum No.1, Hydrologic Impact Analyses for City ofSolvang's CEQA Environmental Document for a Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878"
Stetson Engineers Inc., May 10, 2004, Solvang DEIR Draft Technical Memorandum No.2, Water Quality Impact Analyses for City ofSolvang's CEQA Environmental Document for a Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878"
Stetson Engineers Inc., May 10, 2004, Solvang DEIR Draft Technical Memorandum No.3, Solvang EIR Groundwater Model Modflow Simulations"
United States Department ofthe Interior, Bureau ofReciamation, April 7, 1999. Biological Assessment for Cachuma Project Operations and the Lower Santa Ynez River. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

United States Department ofthe Interior, Bureau ofReclamation, June 13,2000. Revised Section 3 (Proposed Project) ofthe Biological Assessment for Cachuma Project Operations and the Lower Santa Ynez River. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Stetson Engineers Inc.

F:\ DATA\ 1944\ SURFACWATER\ TM SW RESULTS V7. DOC

Page 22 ends

915
5 I
4 3
u .........
0)
c
c..

E
J

0...
en
en
e
2 1
o
Jan Feb
Gross Solvang Pumping from Santa Ynez River
for Various Alternatives Analyzed
FIGURE 1
Solvang Annual Pumging
acre-feet ger ~ear)
600
1,053
2,400
3,600
Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep
i
I --
1-------. 1 -----
I i
i I
I
Oct
I
I
I
i
Nov Dec
916
917
Cf)
u...
c::
l)
en
ro
l)
l)
0::

0...

Cf)
c:: .......
c
0 0
l) .......
ro
E
Cf)

FREQUENCY OF SPILLS AND DOWNSTREAM RELEASES

FROM CACHUMA RESERVOIR
WY 1918-1993)
FIGURE 2
1000 ~----------------------------------------~--------~ 900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
o
SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang River Well Pumping
Alt 2/ 600 afy
Alt 3C/ 2400 afy
Alt 3C/ 3600 afy
Alt 3C/ 1053 afy
20 40 60

PERCENT OF TIME FLOW AT OR BELOW
80 100
918
919
I
LL
U
c
Q)
J)
ro
Q)
Q)
0::: ....
0 0..
c
c
0 0
Q)
ro
l
E

FREQUENCY OF SPILLS AND DOWNSTREAM RELEASES

FROM CACHUMA RESERVOIR
WY 1918-1993)
FIGURE 3
50 ~----------------------------------------~~~----~
45 ---.------
SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang River Well Pumping
Alt 2/ 600 afy
Alt 3C/ 2400 afy
40 Alt 3C/ 3600 afy
Alt 3C/ 1053 afy
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 o 20 40 60 80 100

PERCENT OF TIME FLOW AT OR BELOW
920
921
C/)
LL
0 c
3:
0 LL ....

Q)
0:::

N
Q)
c >-
ro ......
c
ro
C/)
c ......
c
0 0
Q) ......
ro
l
E
C/)

FREQUENCY OF SANTA YNEZ RIVER FLOW

BELOW HILTON CREEK
WY 1918-1993)
FIGURE 4
50 ~----------~--------------------------------------~
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 o
SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang River Well PumRing
Alt 21 600 afy
Alt 3CI 2400 afy
Alt 3CI 3600 afy
Alt 3CI 1053 afy
20 40 60

PERCENT OF TIME FLOW AT OR BELOW
80 100
922
923
U)
LL
c
0 LL
Q)
a::

N
Q)
c >-
19 c
co
U)
c
c
0 0
Q)
co
J
E
U)

FREQUENCY OF SANTA YNEZ RIVER FLOW
AT 154 BRIDGE
WY 1918-1993)
FIGURE 5
50 ~------------------------------------------~--~--~
45 SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang River Well Pumping
Alt 2/ 600 afy
Alt 3C/ 2400 afy
40 Alt 3C/ 3600 afy
Alt 3C/ 1053 afy
35 30
25 20
15 10
5 o 20 40 60

PERCENT OF TIME FLOW AT OR BELOW
80 100
924
925
I
1 FREQUENCY OF SANTA YNEZ RIVER FLOW
ABOVE ALiSAL BRIDGE
WY 1918-1993)
FIGURE 6
50 -,------------------------------------------~--~--~
45 40
Cf)
35 c
3:
o
LL
Q) 30 >
0:::

N
Q)
C >-
19 25
c
ro
Cf)
C
o
20 -
0 2
ro
E 15
Cf)
10 5
o
SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang River Well Pumping
Alt 2/ 600 afy
Alt 3C/ 2400 afy
Alt 3C/ 3600 afy
Alt 3C/ 1053 afy
20 40 60

PERCENT OF TIME FLOW AT OR BELOW
80 100
926
927
LL
c
3:
0 LL ....

1.l > ~
N

1.l
c >-
co
J
c
co
c
0 0

1.l .....
co
l
E

FREQUENCY OF SANTA YNEZ RIVER FLOW

NEAR BUELLTON
WY 1918-1993)
FIGURE 7
50 ~----------------------------------------------~--~
45 - j ...

SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang River Well Pumping
Alt 2/ 600 afy
Alt 3C/ 2400 afy
40 Alt 3C/ 3600 afy
Alt 3C/ 1053 afy
35 30
25 20
15 o 20 40 60 80 100

PERCENT OF TIME FLOW AT OR BELOW
928
929
I
Cf)
LL
c
3:
0 LL
Q)
0::

N
Q)
C >-
c
ro
Cf)
c ......
c
0 0
Q) ......
ro
E
Cf)

FREQUENCY OF SANTA YNEZ RIVER FLOW

ABOVE SALSIPUEDES CREEK CONFLUENCE
WY 1918-1993)
FIGURE 8
50 -,---------------------------------------------- r---~ 45 40
35 30
25 20
15 o
SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang River Well Pumping
Alt 2/ 600 afy
Alt 3C/ 2400 afy
Alt 3C/ 3600 afy
Alt 3C/ 1053 afy
20 40 60

PERCENT OF TIME FLOW AT OR BELOW
80 100
930
931
C/)
LL
c
3:
0 LL
1)
0::

N
1)
C >-
co .....
c
co
C/)
Co .....
c
0 0
2 co
l
E
C/)

FREQUENCY OF SANTA YNEZ RIVER FLOW

AT LOMPOC NARROWS
WY 1918-1993)
FIGURE 9
50 ~--------------------------------------------~----~
45 40
35 30
25 20
15 o
SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang River Well Pumping
Alt 2/ 600 afy
Alt 3C/ 2400 afy
Alt 3C/ 3600 afy
Alt 3C/ 1053 afy
20 40 60

PERCENT OF TIME FLOW AT OR BELOW
80 100
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
Alternative ID GW4: SWRCB EIR Alt 3C and Solvang River Well Pumping of 1 ,053 acre-feeUyear SANTA YNEZ RIVER BELOW HILTON CREEK ( acre- feet/ month) Water
Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP SUM w1iJ 476 453 433 414 47, 567 127, 927 17,774 5,003 519 642 687 694 202, 591 1919 491 451 367 1,273 1,296 1,294 352 361 375 3,871 453 2,347 12,932 1920 1,211 344 346 358 274 329 240 352 379 3,942 806 2,498 11, 077 -- 1921 1,667 949 196 163 162 183 196 206 229 235 4,884 2,141 11,212 1922 1,617 810 615 395 1,048 3,929 7,448 554 368 358 384 933 18, 459 1923 1,336 779 303 1,301 1, 308 1,283 312 344 363 377 4,294 3,037 15,036 1924 3,037 784 380 377 371 308 368 376 384 3,928 211 2,425 12,947 1925 1,407 193 206 215 222 208 171 222 230 1, 664 2,795 195 7,727 1926 215 225 225 224 270 166 927 259 367 385 1,945 2,315 7,523 1927 1,581 225 171 169 1,607 13,401 4,166 429 333 361 387 1, 783 24, 613 1928 368 375 371 1, 273 1, 385 1,337 331 353 364 3,887 3,038 3,035 16,117 1929 3,027 400 394 380 343 310 326 372 3,610 3,002 1,620 2,424 16,208 1930 1, 645 438 200 211 216 220 205 219 229 1,554 1,691 205 7,033 1931 223 233 237 238 219 232 229 1,518 266 226 246 259 4,126 1932 265 264 438 250 957 375 247 329 372 395 2,214 1, 817 7,923 1933 357 374 215 299 275 354 359 377 220 859 2,957 928 7,574 1934 209 223 229 292 193 166 221 228 3,953 2,994 2,993 2,992 14,693 1935 2,991 244 245 307 188 326 449 163 213 236 4,568 2,994 12,924 1936 2,993 228 233 233 632 214 201 203 227 4,013 2,936 1,870 13, 983 1937 204 218 225 206 1,221 6,268 16, 930 1,097 614 662 694 4,271 32, 608 1938 388 417 367 1,273 30, 524 187, 385 15, 924 2,249 595 639 687 697 241, 143 1939 478 474 350 1,314 1,331 1,378 274 346 367 3,615 3,037 1,412 14, 376 1940 1,535 598 365 324 240 252 316 368 385 3,854 2,848 1,894 12, 979 1941 1,562 352 260 588 58,030 193, 829 120, 510 18, 361 2,956 540 600 642 398, 229 1942 326 327 565 453 400 856 6,346 487 383 350 385 1,161 12, 036 1943 368 359 360 45, 893 28, 932 66, 502 10, 302 532 607 649 691 700 155, 894 1944 454 434 332 290 19,448 35,996 4,713 518 611 671 693 706 64,866 1945 519 331 354 347 498 6,503 2,626 420 355 395 542 2,373 15,262 6 1, 404 354 237 345 327 305 2,442 380 363 3,630 3,038 3,035 15,859 1947 3,035 343 339 375 348 358 372 3,430 3,037 3,037 3,026 2,113 19, 813 1948 2,909 354 367 211 219 225 230 237 775 1, 313 221 239 7,298 1949 249 252 251 244 244 1,956 210 1,817 291 218 240 254 6,227 1950 260 261 244 250 1,908 200 215 3,174 194 213 236 251 7,408 1951 259 260 26 25 25 24 24 846 24 23 22 213 1,773
1952 22 22 29 1,561 237 1, 588 8,646 788 403 340 2,202 4,526 20, 362 1953 339 319 359 2,041 279 317 328 369 378 3,931 2,865 2,420 13, 943 1954 1, 819 1,095 347 677 1,316 328 264 368 372 4,036 2,429 2,905 15,957 1955 1,894 637 196 155 178 198 205 194 230 2,416 3,116 191 9,610 1956 211 223 765 952 243 177 213 165 210 218 2,085 954 6,415 1957 227 222 223 210 160 158 193 204 4,284 993 2,955 463 10, 290 1958 255 303 219 166 833 1,184 32,544 9,142 504 626 673 694 47,145 1959 483 471 418 331 2,084 274 322 357 369 3,930 3,038 2,296 14,374 1960 1,732 985 358 350 1, 920 350 321 367 377 710 1,950 209 9,628 1961 226 219 218 232 230 227 228 1,754 315 223 243 257 4,370 .--' 1962 262 303 172 168 2,771 644 264 288 362 383 2,879 462 8,960 1963 376 386 383 368 320 303 240 328 367 1,227 1,206 372 5,875 -" 1964 388 389 386 217 218 219 221 1,875 350 214 236 251 4,964 -" 1965 258 259 257 173 229 211 378 199 3,976 3,304 967 377 10,587 1966 217 377 368 431 283 247 351 352 374 396 4,707 3,002 11,103 1967 2,993 2,993 315 756 495 29,101 53, 316 20, 328 906 659 3,697 3,037 118, 596 1968 439 451 368 362 341 1,928 322 366 3,429 382 1,162 2,172 11, 720 1969 1, 509 757 358 127, 644 188, 394 78, 219 17, 924 5,623 510 642 675 692 422, 948 1970 449 361 355 312 298 2,217 367 362 378 3,651 3,037 2,180 13, 968 1971 1,781 894 247 304 330 344 360 376 3,428 3,038 3,036 2,042 16,180 1972 1,525 855 244 334 344 370 372 3,413 2,953 377 1,485 2,364 14,636 1973 1,623 158 198 667 1,328 14,675 7,653 528 620 677 696 704 29,527 1974 1,425 768 350 587 303 1,005 464 386 368 425 1,069 2,190 9,340 1975 726 361 316 332 2,284 8,650 4,959 494 381 354 384 624 19, 863 1976 391 391 386 382 1,946 320 337 362 378 394 3,013 1,317 9,619 1977 359 375 376 375 374 371 375 806 1,108 929 222 241 5,910 1978 251 253 251 694 20,134 145, 625 35, 260 7,428 499 593 652 685 212, 326 1979 388 382 352 312 1,768 21, 191 11, 015 512 595 663 696 914 38, 787 1980 500 478 365 276 70, 270 40, 857 6,987 817 573 653 696 705 123, 177 1981 962 443 395 318 289 2,449 276 318 354 434 1,341 2,281 9,858 1982 1,571 350 357 343 350 1,952 340 313 372 3,726 3,038 3,035 15,749 1983 400 374 374 14, 988 57,350 196, 391 56, 423 29, 377 5,102 530 593 648 362, 549 1984 292 339 13, 406 4,824 1,679 467 382 341 365 394 542 2,164 25, 193 1985 1,387 510 300 351 330 335 360 376 388 404 2,227 2,167 9,135 1986 355 371 369 340 778 7,254 3,981 434 332 371 393 2,178 17, 157 1987 389 371 372 357 372 1,949 352 364 374 393 1,746 375 7,414 1988 390 397 390 352 372 1, 928 320 355 3,759 2,995 2,993 2,992 17, 243 1989 242 247 247 241 226 231 231 1, 136 1, 129 2,232 667 215 7,044 1990 231 238 241 242 242 237 240 1,361 212 478 310 296 4,330 1991 434 319 249 248 247 711 214 169 4,829 2,995 2,245 3,974 16, 634 1--_ 1992 663 205 195 150 1, 036 429 281 280 342 379 4,322 2,560 10, 842 1993 1,568 795 348 23, 312 113, 879 65,394 28, 690 6,343 497 607 664 698 242, 795 AVG 934 447 485 3,262 8,938 16,916 6,480 1,919 942 1,382 1,700 1,548 44, 955 MEDIAN 452 366 346 342 371 402 351 376 377 642 1,274 1,364 13, 956 EIR_ MonthlyFlows2xls 10/28/2004
954
Alternative ID GW4: SWRCB EIR Alt 3C and Solvang River Well Pumping of 1 ,053 acre-feet/year SANTA YNEZ RIVER AT 154 BRIDGE ( acre- feet/ month)
Water -
Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP SUM 1918 300 300 300 300 49, 070 129, 261 18, 256 5,158 600 600 600 600 205, 344 C---- i919 402 371 300 1,161 1,251 1,248 300 300 300 3,661 372 2,099 11,763 1920 1,093 300 300 300 300 566 300 300 300 3,728 707 2,256 10, 449 1921 1,531 877 150 150 182 234 150 150 150 150 4,587 1,945 10,257 1922 1,483 743 1,399 811 2,530 4,451 7,611 611 342 300 300 796 21,379 1923 1,128 690 485 1,248 1,289 1,225 300 300 300 300 4,063 2,962 14, 289 1924 2,946 665 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 3,714 150 2,161 11,736 1925 1,274 150 150 150 150 150 194 150 150 1, 400 2,564 150 6,631 1926 150 150 150 150 448 185 2,171 300 300 300 1,687 2,124 8,115 1927 1,455 366 218 208 3,858 13,594 4,328 457 300 300 300 1,537 26,920 1928 300 300 300 1,161 1,491 1, 365 300 300 300 3,692 2,962 2,939 15, 410 1929 2,923 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 3,415 2,928 1,401 2,227 14,994 1930 1,518 384 150 150 150 326 150 150 150 1,297 1,492 150 6,067 1931 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 1,290 205 150 150 150 2,994 1932 150 150 847 386 2,222 668 300 300 300 300 1,940 1,649 9,211 1933 300 300 150 507 300 300 300 300 150 720 2,649 843 6,819 1934 150 150 150 500 252 150 150 150 3,721 2,916 2,891 2,876 14,056 1935 2,873 150 150 526 231 591 922 180 150 150 4,286 2,914 13,122 1936 2,899 150 150 150 1,393 313 278 150 150 3,767 2,851 1,627 13,878 1937 150 150 150 279 2,939 7,669 17, 205 1,154 600 600 600 4,067 35,563 1938 324 338 300 1,162 31, 900 190, 994 16,271 2,225 600 600 600 600 245, 915 1939 389 381 300 1,265 1,342 1,474 300 300 300 3,426 2,958 1,205 13, 641 1940 1,372 530 300 300 322 300 300 300 300 3,639 2,768 1,657 12,088 1941 1,410 300 421 1,267 62, 217 199, 720 123, 221 18, 808 3,050 600 600 600 412, 214 1942 300 300 1,101 691 485 1,087 6,423 553 379 300 316 964 12,899 1943 300 300 300 47,056 29, 583 68,071 10,562 600 600 600 600 600 159, 171 1944 370 350 300 300 20, 571 36,727 4,857 600 600 600 600 600 66,475 1945 418 300 300 300 884 6,564 2,682 423 300 318 434 2,092 15, 016 1946 1,265 300 300 300 300 365 2,449 352 300 3,446 2,959 2,937 15,274 1947 2,929 300 300 300 300 300 300 3,251 2,969 2,947 2,917 2,007 18,819 1948 2,565 300 300 150 150 150 150 150 628 1,072 150 150 5,915 1949 150 150 150 150 150 1,959 150 1,613 236 150 150 150 5,159 1950 150 150 150 150 1,834 150 150 2,911 155 150 150 150 6,250 1951 150 150 0 0 0 0 0 553 0 0 0 29 882
1952 0 0 0 3,570 277 3,665 8,662 857 384 300 2,007 4,391 24,114 1953 300 300 633 2,187 300 300 300 300 300 3,726 2,792 2,176 13,614 1954 1,677 996 300 700 1, 308 579 300 300 300 3,818 2,357 2,636 15,270 - 1955 1, 762 578 150 168 150 150 150 150 150 2,115 2,910 150 8,584 1956 150 150 1,752 2,280 403 227 317 189 150 150 1,789 853 8,410 1957 164 150 150 150 167 150 150 150 4,042 894 2,717 405 9,289 1958 191 228 150 186 1, 948 2,901 35, 131 9,517 600 600 600 600 52, 652 1959 396 384 338 300 2,300 300 300 300 300 3,726 2,960 2,057 13, 661 1960 1,589 913 300 300 1,885 300 300 300 300 591 1,687 150 8,615 -_. 1961 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 1,508 252 150 150 150 3,259 1962 150 187 150 173 7,085 1,405 392 300 300 300 2,59f: i 400 13,439 1963 300 300 300 300 528 478 300 300 300 1, 026 1, 045 300 5,476 1964 300 300 300 150 150 150 150 1,650 295 150 150 150 3,894 1965 150 150 150 183 150 150 719 150 3,649 3,171 903 313 9,838 1966 _. 150 730 713 862 462 300 300 300 300 300 41 450 2,926 11,793 1967 2,904 2,897 530 1,669 794 29, 057 53, 616 20,666 927 600 3,540 2,973 120, 175 8 360 363 300 300 300 1, 869 300 300 3,252 311 969 1,979 10, 603 1969 1,386 694 300 130, 691 192, 612 79,716 18,437 5,809 600 600 600 600 432, 044 1970 366 300 300 300 300 2,423 334 300 300 3,441 2,958 2,093 13,417 1971 1, 532 825 341 300 300 300 300 300 3,235 2,960 2,939 1, 775 15,107 1972 1,372 780 350 300 300 300 300 3,246 2,893 300 1, 266 2,161 13, 568 1973 1,494 150 150 1,526 3,279 15,181 7,860 600 600 600 600 600 32, 641 1974 1,226 691 300 1,175 327 1,104 487 362 300 336 873 1,990 9,171 1975 654 300 519 300 2,850 9,876 5,119 577 376 300 300 512 21,683 1976 300 300 300 300 1,919 300 300 300 300 300 2,694 1,184 8,496 1977 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 698 945 827 150 150 4,870 1978 150 150 150 1, 523 23, 492 149, 479 36, 350 7,669 600 600 600 600 221, 363 1979 322 314 300 498 2,145 21,578 11,342 600 600 600 600 799 39,698 1980 410 390 300 405 72,391 42,109 7,154 934 600 600 600 600 126, 493 1981 844 362 319 300 300 3,208 361 300 300 343 1,125 2,086 9,846 1982 1, 443 300 300 300 300 1, 947 596 300 300 3,534 2,965 2,941 15,225 1983 300 300 645 16, 611 59, 590 198, 952 57, 880 30, 183 5,336 600 600 600 371, 596 1984 300 300 13,444 4,929 1,735 503 383 300 300 312 428 1,884 24, 818 1985 1,242 447 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 1,925 1,981 7,995 1986 300 300 300 300 1,767 8,115 4,013 466 300 300 300 1,904 18,365 1987 324 300 300 300 300 1, 930 300 300 300 300 1,488 300 6,441 1988 300 300 300 300 300 1, 895 300 300 3,585 2,924 2,897 2,881 16, 282 1989 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 930 973 2,046 591 150 5,739 1990 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 1,115 150 372 209 187 3,081 1991 302 207 150 150 150 1,583 304 150 4,585 2,921 2,157 3,623 16, 281 1992 604 154 150 150 2,475 836 432 300 300 300 4,083 2,487 12,272 1993 1, 363 714 300 24, 345 116, 173 66, 779 29, 265 6,556 600 600 600 600 247, 895 AVG 830 380 494 3,445 9,488 17, 395 6,658 1,909 883 1,277 1,565 1,409 45,734 MEDIAN 363 300 300 300 425 630 300 300 300 600 1,085 1 194 13,503 EIR_ MonthlyFlows2. xls 10/28/2004
955
Alternative 10 GW4: SWRCB EIR Alt 3C and Solvang River Well Pumping of 1 ,053 acre- feet/ year SANTA YNEZ RIVER ABOVE ALI SAL BRIDGE (acre-feet/month) Water
Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP SUM 1918 9 11 24 52 55, 407 134, 068 20, 043 5,764 848 431 281 245 217, 183 1919 90 103 97 811 1,121 1, 144 184 168 114 2,957 90 1,120 7,999 1920 554 116 142 134 382 1,321 529 216 121 3,012 323 1,273 8,124 1921 902 579 24 116 239 401 87 61 4 3 3,448 1,080 6,943 1922 859 466 3,544 2,179 7,885 6,471 8,334 849 278 126 44 314 31,348 1923 407 352 868 1, 108 1, 268 1,119 311 217 151 90 3,176 2,624 11, 690 t----
1924 2,577 284 85 105 133 296 164 137 95 2,980 0 1, 112 7,968 1925 662 10 7 6 6 44 251 23 4 580 1,547 0 3,139
1926 0 0 1 1 768 185 6,112 439 144 70 763 1,243 9,726
1927 856 672 309 329 12, 568 14, 629 4,923 565 208 115 33 628 35,835 1928 46 53 80 789 1,814 1, 476 240 182 138 3,006 2,628 2,531 12, 983 1929 2,501 22 47 84 194 294 256 141 2,822 2,630 601 1,325 10, 916 1930 913 174 18 15 18 665 61 28 1 529 680 0 3,102
1931 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 484 2 0 0 0 491
1932 0 0 1,584 518 6,931 1,656 475 254 127 43 929 858 13, 375 1933 64 50 0 1, 069 368 202 186 133 5 293 1,488 428 4,284 1934 0 0 0 962 378 126 22 4 3,000 2,588 2,455 2,383 11,917 1935 2,381 0 0 1,026 324 1,431 2,538 299 40 0 3,238 2,543 13, 819 1936 2,499 0 0 0 3,837 649 563 66 6 2,960 2,483 705 13, 769 1937 0 0 0 413 8,987 12, 943 18, 278 1,361 555 374 250 3,207 46,368 1938 90 90 114 841 37, 148 205, 655 17, 594 2,176 647 464 289 246 265, 354 1939 90 90 143 1,121 1, 408 1,867 407 216 140 2,789 2,628 465 11, 362 1940 701 267 107 236 581 478 317 174 103 2,924 2,429 774 9,093 1941 750 107 791 3,371 75, 890 222, 396 133, 821 20, 127 3,277 714 508 395 462, 146 1942 171 183 2,205 1,242 696 1,664 6,798 744 349 144 90 279 14, 564 1943 49 84 106 52, 372 31, 751 74, 492 11, 402 809 582 421 281 242 172, 593 1944 90 90 172 300 24, 758 39, 186 5,360 876 571 366 268 215 72,252 1945 90 172 134 170 2,385 7,113 3,011 476 149 90 90 1,036 14, 915 1946 652 100 516 197 274 620 2,704 316 141 2,808 2,628 2,534 13, 491 1947 2,511 162 182 116 181 179 152 2,785 2,741 2,621 2,494 1,594 15, 717 1948 1, 348 84 87 9 9 10 7 0 246 345 0 0 2,143
1949 0 0 0 0 0 1,427 0 763 21 0 0 0 2,212
1950 0 0 1 0 1,063 1 0 1,621 0 0 0 0 2,687
1951 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2
1952 0 0 0 11, 177 315 9,481 8,301 905 226 102 1,067 3,584 35, 159 1953 107 151 1,038 2,561 386 300 267 150 108 3,010 2,458 1,185 11, 720 1954 1,004 567 141 822 1,308 1,221 493 160 138 3,080 2,032 1,528 12, 492 1955 1,098 329 21 149 88 65 54 79 0 1,143 1, 914 0 4,940 1956 0 0 3,461 5,270 777 376 623 306 45 20 793 399 12, 070 1957 0 0 0 3 105 112 58 36 3,225 485 1,655 123 5,801
1958 0 0 0 161 4,747 8,259 45,244 10, 800 888 469 306 241 71,116 1959 90 90 90 193 2,903 396 269 186 134 3,020 2,619 1,102 11, 091 1960 933 607 122 161 1,738 185 253 149 104 230 752 0 5,236 1961 0 6 6 0 0 0 0 613 19 0 0 0 645
1962 0 0 14 35 19,361 3,240 758 331 130 60 1,489 113 25,531 1963 28 22 38 82 765 717 373 220 130 401 383 28 3,186
1964 8 9 22 0 0 0 0 915 82 0 0 0 1,037
1965 0 0 0 48 3 3 1,241 11 2,222 2,272 522 38 -~
1966 0 1,035 1,217 1,879 817 471 223 204 133 47 3,437 2,564 12,027 1967 2,510 2,519 1,261 4,355 2,132 29, 649 54,803 22, 289 993 379 2,912 2,680 126, 483 1968 90 90 105 135 214 1,795 281 149 2, 746 90 306 1, 106 7,108 1969 798 431 125 145, 078 212, 072 86, 532 20, 135 6,531 891 452 328 264 473, 636 1970 90 103 130 277 352 3,360 290 167 117 2,769 2,627 1,739 12,021 1971 669 546 621 300 230 230 190 137 2,702 2,673 2,549 814 11, 660 1972 708 471 693 229 211 155 153 2,832 2,689 68 487 1,250 9,945 1973 885 82 18 3,683 9,968 16, 934 8,587 858 537 342 252 210 42, 357 1974 492 372 131 2,751 431 1,413 602 339 142 90 235 1,101 8,098 1975 332 81 809 206 4,234 13,107 5,635 854 339 131 44 124 25,897 1976 17 21 40 63 1,744 238 213 156 97 42 1,516 551 4,699 1977 62 49 62 81 98 122 118 415 460 439 0 0 1,907
1978 0 0 0 3,038 33, 522 163, 878 40, 022 8,501 930 575 373 273 251, 112 1979 90 90 131 937 3,224 22, 837 12, 512 884 590 372 248 349 42, 263 1980 90 90 94 726 80, 509 46,289 7,793 1,376 694 415 258 215 138, 547 1981 396 90 90 220 344 5,473 650 287 178 90 390 1,200 9,408 1982 851 115 123 177 186 2,083 1,572 330 126 2,890 2,645 2,547 13, 646 1983 16 83 1,651 21,122 66, 391 210, 889 63, 121 33,423 6,116 742 559 391 404, 505 1984 274 160 13, 443 5,283 1,979 696 446 237 149 90 90 892 23,738 1985 634 210 239 168 229 237 191 139 95 41 906 1,140 4,229 1986 76 62 90 170 4,311 10, 227 4,161 568 209 86 27 888 20, 875 1987 70 56 76 129 114 1,817 178 145 107 49 604 28 3,372 1988 11 10 27 112 95 1,880 254 158 3,022 2,633 2,497 2,425 13, 124 1989 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 273 368 1,189 227 0 2,062
1990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 255 0 4 0 0 259
1991 0 0 0 0 0 3,468 531 60 3,560 2,532 1,722 2,065 13, 938 1992 264 0 16 133 7,328 2,234 1,096 448 233 97 3,183 2,159 17, 190 1993 608 393 141 28, 230 124, 246 72, 468 31, 674 7,428 977 556 355 242 267, 318 AVG 463 175 496 4,077 11, 398 19,172 7,349 1,931 714 930 1, 065 881 48,649 MEDIAN 90 84 90 195 731 1271 427 293 149 376 515 508 11, 969 EIR_MonthlyFlows2xls 10/28/2004
956
Alternative 10 GW4: SWRCB EIR Alt 3C and Solvang River Well Pumping of 1 ,053 acre-feet/year SANTA YNEZ RIVER NEAR BUELL TON ( acre- feetlmonth)
Water
Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP SUM 1918 0 0 0 1 64, 533 135, 725 21,913 6,588 1,258 395 167 132 230, 712 1919 2 11 38 630 1,066 1,104 84 89 29 2,598 0 623 6,274 1920 206 6 53 35 575 1, 952 893 206 39 2,629 126 723 7,443 1921 441 318 0 138 391 706 82 45 0 0 2,859 552 5,533
1922 398 226 6,550 4,061 13, 194 8,824 9,283 1,185 283 70 0 133 44, 207 1923 127 168 1, 488 1,111 1, 334 1, 040 359 182 90 20 2,730 2,397 11, 046 1924 2,341 105 8 24 47 405 98 53 17 2,602 0 606 6,304
1925 275 0 0 0 0 28 464 1 0 240 956 0 1,964
1926 0 0 0 0 1,479 323 9,536 725 101 10 341 691 13,206
1927 405 1,082 479 556 21,353 15,213 5,658 725 180 58 0 269 45,980 1928 0 0 5 568 2,070 1,651 209 110 56 2,632 2,407 2,282 11,990 1929 2,244 0 0 12 223 427 329 84 2,489 2,436 229 757 9,230 1930 448 25 0 0 0 1, 235 33 0 0 201 254 0 2,195
1931 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 147 0 0 0 0 147
1932 0 0 3,103 1,134 9,949 3,163 747 313 51 0 461 380 19,302 1933 0 0 0 2,008 572 188 151 51 0 113 887 157 4,127
1934 0 0 0 1,862 608 200 0 0 2,596 2,366 2,177 2,070 11,879 1935 2,063 0 0 2,064 630 2,414 4,327 529 19 0 2,707 2,287 17, 041 1936 2,235 0 0 0 6,576 1,221 834 51 0 2,541 2,244 258 15, 961 - 1937 0 0 0 800 17, 039 18,943 19, 706 1,641 596 286 113 2,761 61,884 1938 0 1 46 654 44, 500 215, 234 19, 238 2,110 803 489 175 123 283, 373 1939 4 4 135 1,232 1,673 2,488 581 183 60 2,460 2,427 148 11,393 1940 313 92 10 273 1,041 797 424 123 22 2,562 2,220 354 8,229 1941 340 2 1,389 6,368 86,465 242, 016 141, 851 21, 836 3,674 1, 006 624 400 505, 969 1942 199 223 3,881 2,107 1,036 2,499 7,402 1,026 402 99 34 52 18, 961 1943 0 8 27 57, 203 34, 270 79,998 12,397 1,097 663 382 167 119 186, 332 1944 11 11 181 454 28, 563 41,622 5,962 1,260 640 269 148 68 79, 190 1945 0 226 110 169 4,452 7,596 3,484 585 82 16 1 570 17, 289 1946 283 1 928 182 344 683 3,220 348 67 2,477 2,428 2,301 13, 263 1947 2,269 218 241 72 188 160 88 2,488 2,589 2,446 2,269 1,372 14, 400 1948 771 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92 73 0 0 936
1949 0 0 0 0 0 1, 525 0 372 0 0 0 0 1,897
1950 0 0 0 0 919 0 0 950 0 0 0 0 1, 870
1951 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1952 0 0 0 18, 904 807 18,749 9,408 1,272 167 68 712 3,039 53, 126 1953 22 98 1,748 3,303 551 352 230 54 22 2,624 2,227 629 11,861 1954 499 197 14 937 1, 389 2,095 775 59 57 2,669 1,811 885 11,386 1955 553 110 0 95 63 31 15 88 0 639 1, 209 0 2,804
1956 0 0 6,104 8,270 1,293 589 927 526 4 5 356 147 18,221 1957 0 0 0 0 144 186 63 30 2,768 249 998 0 4,439
1958 0 0 0 220 8,794 15,546 56, 877 12,264 1,308 399 180 101 95,688 1959 0 0 1 204 4,010 565 222 102 68 2,635 2,394 579 10, 780 --- 1960 455 335 9 51 1, 656 78 213 52 17 73 309 0 3,247
1961 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194 0 0 0 0 194
1962 0 0 0 0 34,274 5,933 1,313 416 47 0 917 0 42,901 ~ 1963 0 0 0 0 1, 155 1,087 509 202 59 109 53 0 3,176
1964 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 397 0 0 0 0 397 ----
1965 0 0 0 13 0 0 1,983 0 1,412 1,510 217 0 5,135
1966 0 1,577 2,019 3,372 1,350 750 139 161 68 0 2,854 2,291 14,581 ;::= .. 1967 2,221 2,242 2,387 8,223 3,428 29, 981 55, 188 23,585 1,008 253 2,673 2,522 133, 710 1968 5 2 46 91 248 1, 925 328 56 2,445 9 78 622 5,855
1969 381 212 15 162, 569 230, 213 94,913 21,403 7,342 1,262 377 225 154 519, 065 1970 12 81 92 417 559 4,488 241 77 35 2,450 2,433 1,540 12,424 1971 282 383 840 404 231 182 117 45 2,395 2,510 2,333 382 10, 102 1972 308 238 1,170 238 192 66 68 2,546 2,552 2 167 717 8,265 1973 439 46 0 6,058 18,538 18, 600 9,474 1,043 481 212 116 61 55, 069 1974 181 174 45 5,060 620 1,895 793 385 67 10 25 609 9,865 1975 119 0 1,307 185 6,335 17,617 6,278 1,236 305 58 0 8 33, 448 1976 0 0 0 0 1,830 239 172 68 17 0 928 164 3,418
1977 0 0 0 0 0 14 15 229 183 206 0 0 647
1978 0 0 0 5,120 47, 689 181, 674 44, 691 9,575 1, 288 672 354 152 291, 215 1979 17 22 96 1,741 4,927 24, 727 13,939 1,257 605 254 107 153 47,844 1980 0 0 6 1,327 91,436 51, 427 8,554 1,804 778 319 125 71 155, 846 1981 192 0 3 257 529 8,795 1,065 340 148 9 110 685 12, 135 1982 421 4 14 98 133 2,364 2,886 390 38 2,562 2,440 2,310 13, 662 1983 0 51 2,966 27, 884 75, 229 218, 178 67, 017 36,339 7,261 1,057 733 397 437, 112 1984 455 154 14,121 5,685 2,258 924 473 167 64 13 1 461 24,776 1985 273 59 244 106 228 228 136 49 17 0 480 647 2,468
1986 0 0 3 139 7,891 13, 292 4,347 604 191 14 0 453 26, 933 1987 0 0 0 43 20 1, 847 89 49 21 0 235 0 2,305
1988 0 0 0 54 16 2,152 290 70 2,666 2,437 2,252 2,149 12, 087 1989 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 114 715 40 0 927
1990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 11
1991 0 0 0 0 0 6,704 1,141 146 3,037 2,283 1,457 1,219 15, 987 1992 38 0 0 212 14, 071 4,178 1,953 679 273 25 2,704 1, 933 26,066 1993 224 176 43 33, 879 134, 281 79, 031 34, 724 8,284 1, 343 585 322 117 293, 008 AVG 296 117 684 4,985 13,704 21,063 8,124 2,070 677 783 839 629 53, 970 MEDIAN 5 0 4 208 1, 038 1, 588 545 218 86 226 244 264 12, 038 EIR_ MonthlyFlows2xls 10/28/2004
957
Alternative ID GW4: SWRCB EIR Alt 3C and Solvang River Well Pumping of 1 ,053 acre-feet/year SANTA YNEZ RIVER ABOVE SALSIPUEDES CREEK CONFLUENCE ( acre-feet/month) Water
Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP SUM 1918 0 0 0 0 73, 545 135, 512 23, 977 7,746 1, 776 341 26 0 242, 924 1919 0 0 0 287 821 1,002 14 34 0 2,044 0 27 4,228
1920 0 0 0 0 532 1,997 1,198 210 0 2,051 0 49 6,037
1921 0 9 0 53 395 895 79 38 0 0 1,923 13 3,405
1922 0 0 8,778 5,950 17,677 11,333 10,586 1,729 370 35 0 0 56,458 1923 0 0 1,611 1,006 1,358 1,024 474 207 64 0 2,024 2,040 9,808 1924 1,970 0 0 0 0 417 39 0 0 2,021 0 27 4,474
1925 0 0 0 0 0 0 484 0 0 0 127 0 611
1926 0 0 0 0 1, 605 280 10, 890 1,016 76 0 0 43 13, 911 1927 0 1,108 494 714 _:::.: 29::. c'=' 1o:,: 4+_---'-' 15''-' 5''' 9~7+_----' 6"-, 6"' 9,, 4+_- 1cc, 0::.: 2:.. c4+_----' 2::..: 1:.. c1+______,~ 1cc7+______,~,::: 0+_- c-: c:"' 0+_- 5=-: 4"', 9:_: 6'_: 14 19::.: 2~8+_-~,::: 0i----,::: 0+_--,::: 0+_-- 1~7"' 5+_----' 1~, 7~6~9+_----' 1~, 6:_: 5~7+_-~ 1:_: 8~8+_--"' 672~~~~0+_~2~, 0:_: 8~2+_~2~, 0~673+_----' 1~, 8:_: 8~5+_~9~, 8~8~1 1929 1,838 0 0 0 157 461 352 38 2,075 2,165 0 60 7,145
19:_: 3~0+_--~ 0+_--~ 0+_--~ 0+_--~ 0+_--~ 0+_----' 1~, 5=2~6+_--~ 0+_--~ 0r _____ ~0---~ 0+_--~ 0+_--~ 0+_- 1~, 5::.: 2~61 19~3~1+_-- 001-------' 0~-~~ 0~-~~0~~~~0~-~~ 0~-~~0~--~~ 0~--~ 0~---~ 0~---~ 0~--~ 0~~~~01 ~-~ 19::.: 3~2+_--~ 0+_--,::: 0-~~3~, 7~5~0+_----' 1~, 0:_: 8~1+_- 1~0~, 2:_: 6~4+_-4~, 7~2~3+_----' 1~, 0,, 1~1+_-- 4,, 177~--- 72~,~ 0~-~~3~--~ 0~---' 2~1~, 2~5~11 1933 0 0 0 2,437 617 150 113 2 0 0 124 0 3,443 ~-~
19:-: 3~4+---~ 0+---~ 0+------- 0~-~--~ 5=90~-~ 2~12~-~~ 0~--~ 0~-~ 2,~ 06~6~-~ 2,~ 04~9~~- 71,~ 75~1~-_~ ____ 1cc,~ 5~8~c_c3~ __ -_~_1~~0,~ 42~21 1-~~~~~----~----~--~~--~~--~~~~~~--~+_-=~ r_-2~r_~:~---~ - c~, ~-~ 19~3~5+_-----, 1~, 5~7~1+_--~ 0+_--~ 0+_~2~, 7~0~6+_~~8:_: 3~9+_~3~, 0~9~8+_~5~, 8~2~1j------' 8~5~0~-~ 2~4~~~70~----' 1~, 9~5~9~----' 1~, 9,, 1~6~- 1:_: 8~, 7~8~4 19:_: 3~6+_- 1~, 8=-: 4~81----~ 0+_--~ 0+_-~:_: 0+_~8~, 3~8:_: 2+_~1~, 8~2:-: 2+_~1~, 0~1:_: 3+_-----,~ 7~5+_-~"' 0+_----' 2~, 0:_: 0:_: 6+_- 1~, 8::.: 9cc7+______,~~ 0+_~17~, 0~4~4 1937 0 0 0 849 24,841 24,756 21,585 2,139 745 211 0 2,042 77,167 1---~ 19~3~8+_--~ 0+_--~ 0+_-~~0+_~~3~6~3+_---' 5~2~, 0~7~61-~ 2~2~1,~ 38=3+_~2~1,~ 34~1+-- 2~,~ 20:_: 9+_-1~, 0:::.: 9~4+_----~~~ 53t7~~~~~~~4~0~~~~~~~0~~~2~9~9~,~ 0~4~3 1939 0 0 21 1,146 1,852 3,157 806 206 13 2,027 2,120 011, 349 1940 0 0 0 151 1,312 1,040 532 102 0 2,032 1,893 0 7,062 1941 0 0 1,577 9,058 90, 211 258, 244 147, 324 23, 808 4,132 1,283 654 315 536, 607 1942 145 178 4,788 2,779 1,327 3,184 8,135 1,396 489 45 0 0 22, 467 1943 0 0 0 60, 214 37, 276 85, 025 13, 721 1,502 832 340 36 0 198, 946 1944 0 0 57 453 30, 639 44, 086 6,827 1,794 792 184 13 0 84, 845 1945 0 105 11 87 6,538 7,943 4,222 818 72 0 0 11 19, 807 1946 0 0 1,088 106 379 488 3,872 449 26 2,038 2,123 1,933 12,503 f--~19:--, 4~7+------, 1:-:, 8c;-;: 8oo7+--- 1;-; c5co8+----'''' 2;'-'; 1c;- 2+----'-;; 2c;- 4+--..: 1;-:; 6~4+-----, 1;-;: 5c;- 2+----'=''--''- 05~7t-~2c;, 2:--04::0- 3 +--;-;2---', 4:': 4:: 0- 91 2,212 1,925 1,029 12, 511 1948 95 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 95
1949 0 0 0 0 0 797 0 0 0 0 0 0 797
1950 0 0 0 0 171 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 188
t-_1:-: 9~5~1I---- 0~--- 0~-----' 0~~~~0~-~= 04_~~= 0~-~---' 0~--~~ 0+_--~ 0~-----' 0~-~~ 0~-~~ 0~~~~ 01 1952 0 0 0 26, 393 274 27, 136 9,918 1,582 54 3 198 2,198 67, 755 f-_~19~5c;- 3+_--~ 01-------' 0~-~ 1,~ 8~41~-~ 3,~ 8~53~-~ 7~58~~-~ 4~70~-~ 20~6~----~ 11~---~ 0~-~ 2,~ 1~18~-~ 1,~ 88~9~-~ 4~2~-~1~1,~ 18~9 1954 4 0 0 789 1,301 2,698 1,118 5 0 2,095 1,480 132 9,622 19:_: 5~5i--- cc7+_--~ 0+______,~,::: 0+______,~~0+_-----,_=,::: 0+_-_=,::: 0~-~~,::: 0+_-~3~9~-_~ 0~-~3~7~-~2~3~4~-- 70~~~3:.. c1~7 1956 0 0 6,598 8,798 1,684 804 1,129 824 0 0 0 0 19,836 1957 0 0 0 0 6 102 10 0 2,078 14 178 0 2,387
1958 0 0 0 49 11, 464 22, 523 68, 750 14, 191 1, 868 287 21 0 119, 154 1959 0 0 0 74 4,672 697 136 33 ____ --'- 1:: o-9+_-----= 2'-", 0"-- 7:: o-6+_-----= 2'-", 0,, 4:: o-5+_-----'- 1:: o-9+_~9'_::, 7:o:_7: C11 ~==== j19~6~Ot=====~ot=====1~7t=====~ot====~~Ot===1~, 2~4~Ot---------'-"',:::-: OOt==== 110; 2t====~~0+_\---,::: 0+_--,::: 0+_--,::: 0I_---___ 9 __ 1,359 1961 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1~9-: c62+--___, 0+--___, 0::- r--___,0+--___, 0+----' 4~6,'_; o7~20+--' 6'- c, 82~2~--'-' 1,-- o- 48~8+---'- 32:-: 9+-_-~ 0~--~ 0~----' 1,::: 0~4 ~-------.:- O 55, 463 ~ 6,:::.: 3~~-----' 0~-----' 0~---~ Ocl---~ 0+_-~69~4+_-~82~6c~---- 3~5~0+_ __ ----'8~0+_--_--~ 0 .. ~---- co0+_---- co0r_---- coOr----~ 1~, 9~51 1964 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1965 0 0 0 0__ 0 0 1 ,121 0 153 __ 3~~34=- 1--~-- o- 0~--- c--::~ 0+_____,-- o- 1 ,"-:, 6-;:-.08::- 1 t---:-:19::-; 6~6t-----:::- 01------; 8:-: 6--:::- 6+------, 1----:, 8:-:: 8~0t-- 4;-;, 2:-: 9--:::- 6+- 1,620 1,011 63 139 29 0 2,006 1,896 13,806 f-_-;-;19:_: 6;-;;- 7+_----' 1~, 7~9"' 71------' 1~, 8:,:4-;;- 2r_---'=3 .... , 4,,1-;;-2r_-1,,1...-, 8::: 3~1r_--4"--;, 7", 8,," 1t-..:3~0,_ o, 5;:; 6-;:- 9+_..: 5::: 50.:' 8;-,;4-:071-_.:: 2:::5"--" 1", 0,;--1 +_---- 0;1-,-,;' 0-:;5::0- 0 ~-----,-, 13~8+_---, 2"-,-, 2=-- 8~0+_----, 2:. c' 2=-;6;-:1+----,- 1.:.:40:,-' 9",1:,-:- 11 t-__ ~19~6~8t-----~ 0. j------~0+_----~ 0+_~~~91-~~~ 2~22~~~2~, 0~16~~~4~05~~~~5~~2~, 1~2~61_---~~ 0~--~~ 0~--~ 2~1~~4~, 8~0~41 t-_-:-:19:_: 6~9t---__:::_01 ____ 0+--__ -- c0+--_1'-= 8.=! 2,~2::-: 60::- t-.249, 521 105, 348 22, 308 8, 297 1, 664 272 80 15 569, 764 r-__ 1:_: 9~70+--__ ---~ 0~--~ 4~--~~ 5~------, 4~73~--~ 7~52~--~ 5~, 5~38~--~ 2718=-~----~ 33+__--~~ 0::-~--~ 2,"-:, 0_::__ 30+--~ 2,'_; o1~36+----~ 1,~ 2~29+__----' 1_::__ 2,~ 4~19::- 1 1971 0 118 742 446 206 130 68 2 2,090 2,297 2,004 0 8,103 +----;-; 19~7~2r-----~ 0r----"~ 0r------, 1~, 3~9~5r------; 2~0~5r---.:: 1~6~5r---~ 1~4+---~2:: O- 2+-~2~, 2~951--~ 2~, 4~2:: O- 8+------=~~ 0~-----='-""' 0~-----~ 43~--~ 6~,5co6~8 1973 0 0 0 6,814 26,893 19,826 10,688 1,260 439 98 0 0 66,018 1974 0 0 0 6,619 769 2,290 1,017 485 29 0 0 9 11,217
1975 0 0 1,113 71 7,658 21,248 7,071 1,757 245 0 0 0 39,164 1976 0 0 0 0 1,493 151 86 0 0 0 122 0 1,851
1~7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
t-_1-:-: 9:- c: 7~8+_--~ 0+_--~ 0t---~ 0t---= 5. L:, 0:_:: 6~6t----' 6c;: 0c'_:, 4:_:: 5~9t__'2=_: 0::_; 0_'_:, 6~274~---, 5:-:: 0_,_:, 0:-::- 172 ~- 1,--, 0~, 9__:::_ 94~---,- 1~, 682 736 264 1 329, 837 1979 0 0 0 2,190 6,335 26,522 15,793 1,767 610 115 0 0 53,331 1980 0 0 0 1,480 101,910 57,392 9,660 2,325 850 191 0 0 173,808 1981 0 0 0 114 556 11, 643 1,524 440 139 0 0 22 14, 437 1982 0 0 0 0 11 2,431 4,241 463 0 2,088 2,118 1,929 13, 281 1983 0 0 3,964 33,537 83,996 223,676 69,598 39,047 8,653 1,360 847 336 465,014 1984 543 82 14, 542 6,261 2,727 1,324 566 154 29 0 0 0 26, 229 1985 0 0 59 5 143 171 89 0 0 0 1 27 497
1986 0 0 0 5 10,207 15,440 4,687 628 224 0 0 0 31,191
1987 0 0 0 0 0 1,454 4 0 0 0 0 0 1,458
1988 0 0 0 0 0 1,979 210 0 2,080 2,116 1,836 1, 685 9,905 1989 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 42
1990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1991 0 0 0 0 0 8,916 1,285 93 2,172 1,888 1,039 179 15,571 1992 0 0 0 125 20,486 6,293 3,062 1,028 380 0 2,026 1,610 35,010 1993 0 0 0 39, 403 145, 436 86, 841 38, 727 9,291 1,709 550 230 0 _~ A~V~G~~ t__'--- 1~574j----~ 5~9t__'----'- 7,::: 6~2~~5o.:, 6~9~7~.--'- 1,::: 5S, 6~53~~2~2, S7~22~--~ 8,~8~54~--~ 2,~ 2~74~--~ 65~9~--~ 6~13~--~ 57~7~--~ 35=-: 0~~5?8' co37~5 MEDIAN 0 0 0 97 830 1,592 686 146 29 36 8 0 11, 283
EIR_ MonthlyFlows2xls 10/28/2004
958
Alternative ID GW4: SWRCB EIR Alt 3C and Solvang River Well Pumping of 1,053 acre-feet/year SANTA YNEZ RIVER AT LOMPOC NARROWS ( acre- feet/ month) Water
Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP SUM 1918 0 0 0 54 79, 406 144, 151 25,669 8,292 2,187 519 100 69 260, 449 1919 64 64 70 341 1,006 1,187 8 118 0 1,940 0 0 4,799
1920 26 49 57 61 775 2,941 1, 612 299 84 1, 969 0 5 7,879 1921 0 0 0 154 624 1,279 161 117 27 64 1,784 0 4,210
1922 0 0 12, 037 7,453 22, 217 13, 248 11, 442 1, 949 467 121 0 0 68, 934 1923 0 0 2,535 1,205 1,645 1,111 614 299 151 79 1,926 1,998 11,562 1924 1,922 0 66 71 74 682 127 83 78 1,932 0 0 5,035
1925 0 0 0 0 0 24 747 57 55 0 27 0 911
1926 0 0 14 23 2,437 649 15,553 1,429 169 81 0 1 20, 356 1927 0 1,643 840 985 35,182 17, 025 7,340 1,232 303 100 0 0 64, 650 1928 0 35 44 202 2,435 2,067 279 149 82 1,999 2,018 1,829 11, 139 1929 1,782 0 61 74 239 654 544 121 2,010 2,129 0 5 7,619 1930 0 0 0 0 21 1, 896 76 69 0 0 0 0 2,063
1931 0 0 0 0 62 20 37 0 0 0 0 0 119
1932 0 0 5,375 1, 505 16, 473 5,702 1, 440 615 91 29 0 0 31, 229 1933 0 0 0 3,106 960 231 201 83 0 0 40 0 4,622
1934 0 0 0 2,923 980 386 79 29 1,980 2,006 1,690 1,514 11,589 1935 1, 500 0 0 3,552 1, 235 4,128 7,465 1, 058 116 30 1, 856 1, 872 22, 812 .. 1936 1,797 0 0 56 10, 709 2,341 1,457 172 37 1,933 1,852 0 20,352 1937 0 0 0 1, 173 30, 096 29, 349 22, 875 2,358 842 291 0 1, 925 88, 910 .. 1938 0 0 65 406 56, 825 235, 289 22, 636 2,309 1,198 621 116 72 319, 537 1939 0 0 170 1,378 2,242 3,736 1,108 301 102 1,963 2,078 0 13,079 1940 0 0 0 254 1,683 1,438 748 188 33 1,949 1,847 0 8,140 1941 0 0 2,298 11, 637 109, 485 277, 113 156, 977 25,498 4,847 1,782 1, 034 590 591, 261 1942 423 455 8,190 4,460 2,237 5,011 9,262 1,908 783 226 167 55 33, 179 1943 66 157 165 63, 100 39, 234 88, 966 14,683 1, 918 1,032 522 114 73 210, 031 1944 70 70 321 825 34, 784 46,615 7,468 2,217 992 267 90 0 93,720 1945 16 253 174 256 7,379 8,548 4,453 925 67 0 0 0 22,071 1946 0 0 1,129 167 455 1,275 4,165 544 115 1,975 2,081 1,880 13, 786 1947 1,831 313 391 107 348 266 146 2,198 2,424 2,171 1,868 975 13, 040 1948 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33
1949 0 0 0 0 0 1,889 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,889
1950 0 0 0 0 537 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 538
1951 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1952 0 0 0 32, 930 536 35,833 10,211 1,615 119 28 131 1, 994 83, 397 1953 67 247 3,759 4,917 959 584 357 46 31 2,021 1,840 5 14,832 1954 0 0 0 828 1,561 4,081 1,320 1 77 1,989 1,433 66 11,356 1955 0 0 0 272 145 67 85 104 1 0 104 0 779
1956 0 0 12, 715 16, 001 2,792 1, 313 1,871 1, 124 87 79 0 1 35,982 1957 0 0 1 44 340 262 93 72 1,968 2 96 0 2,878
1958 1 0 0 295 16,752 29,493 77,205 15, 076 2,282 464 109 69 141, 746 1959 64 62 66 238 6,019 994 337 121 103 1,991 1,999 0 11,995 .. 1960 0 0 4 53 1,739 85 406 77 0 0 0 0 2,364
1961 0 45 83 1 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 140
1962 1 0 113 434 65, 339 10, 565 2,109 624 100 76 53 0 79,414 1963 0 2 37 55 2,449 2,435 1,219 460 178 60 0 0 6,895
1964 1 1 2 3 5 6 8 0 0 0 0 0 26
1965 0 0 0 337 24 84 2,581 79 140 254 1 0 3,500
r---' 1966 1 3,499 4,266 6,626 3,002 1, 534 236 327 114 26 1,882 1,847 -~ 1967 1, 744 1,788 3,873 15, 752 5,243 30, 983 56,766 25, 562 1,243 122 2,200 2,224 147, 499 1968 0 20 69 82 291 2,172 500 1 2,060 0 1 0 5,197
1969 0 0 0 190, 378 257, 844 108, 138 24, 143 8,934 2,071 435 155 88 592, 185 1970 70 77 172 643 935 6,282 311 28 0 1, 940 2,090 1,181 13, 731 1971 0 68 1,049 612 396 218 164 0 2,017 2,257 1,951 0 8,732 1972 0 0 1,529 264 234 5 13 2,214 2,399 0 0 0 6,659
1973 0 101 1 10, 896 33,671 22, 594 11, 541 1,563 625 177 25 0 81,194 1974 3 11 55 9,230 1,076 3,200 1,420 681 117 30 12 0 15,835 1975 8 8 2,566 246 11,082 28,010 8,007 2,175 533 97 73 21 52, 827 1976 60 60 64 68 2,027 347 285 85 0 0 44 0 3,040
1977 0 0 0 30 39 60 0 47 0 0 0 0 178
1978 0 0 0 9,358 75, 652 212, 534 54, 062 11, 951 2,088 1,016 433 86 367, 180 1979 143 160 169 3,259 8,471 29,193 16,777 2,186 898 206 25 18 61, 506 1980 14 13 69 2,110 110, 564 61, 574 10, 408 2,743 1, 142 350 27 21 189, 036 1981 17 16 61 366 820 15,302 2,035 641 230 31 13 0 19, 531 1982 0 5 43 138 74 2,582 4,881 557 37 2,020 2,078 1,877 14,293 1983 0 62 4,296 42, 148 93, 626 233, 631 74,818 40,971 9,510 1,860 1,131 514 502, 565 1984 823 360 15, 915 6,790 3,049 1,541 768 251 69 0 0 0 29,566 1985 0 1 347 73 299 347 166 0 0 0 0 0 1,233
1986 0 0 19 92 14, 944 20, 941 5,103 926 319 0 0 0 42, 343 1987 6 7 47 141 64 2,165 88 33 0 0 0 0 2,550
1988 0 0 16 111 50 1,962 302 78 2,005 2,075 1, 780 1, 620 10, 000 1989 0 0 5 8 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 19
1990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1991 0 0 0 0 0 12, 735 1, 145 9 1, 872 1, 706 912 30 18, 408 1992 0 0 15 127 24,998 7,691 3,401 1, 234 471 80 1,927 1,567 41, 512 1993 0 0 135 42, 784 152, 986 90, 099 39,909 9,830 2,015 730 303 0 338, 792 AVG 165 127 1,126 6,635 17, 920 24,748 9,663 2,486 753 642 573 343 65,182 MEDIAN 0 0 51 260 1398 2,116 1,127 299 115 99 42 0 13,405 EIR_ MonthlyFlows2. xls 10/28/2004
959
Technical Memorandum # 5
Assessment of Impacts of Proposed Solvang Pumping
960
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 1 7/19/2005
F:\DATA\ 1944\ SendOut\ TM5_AlisalRanchWells. doc

D R A F T
T E C H N I C A L M E M O R A N D U M NO. 5
2171 E. Francisco Blvd., Suite K $ San Rafael, California $ 94901 TEL: (415) 457-0701 FAX: (415) 457-1638 e-mail: curtisl@stetsonengineers. com TO: John Gray DATE: July 19, 2005
URS Corp., Santa Barbara, CA
FROM: Stetson Engineers JOB NO.: 1944
RE: ASSESSMENT OF IMPACTS OF PROPOSED SOLVANG PUMPING ON ALISAL RANCH WELLS

1. INTRODUCTION
This technical memorandum addresses the potential impacts on Alisal River Ranch (Alisal Ranch) wells from the proposed increased pumping by the City of Solvang (City). The City issued a revised Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ( February 24, 2005) indicating as a part of its Water System Master Plan Update that one aspect of the proposed project is “to achieve the permitted diversion amount of 5 cfs (to meet peak hour demand) and produce up to 3,600 acre-feet per year when river underflow conditions are favorable.” The impact of increased Solvang pumping on seasonal water level declines during low flow periods of the Santa Ynez River was addressed in Draft Technical Memorandum No. 3 July 19, 2004) by Stetson Engineers. The results of groundwater modeling by Stetson Engineers indicated that the increased pumping by Solvang would have a severe affect on nearby wells during dry periods when there is no flow in the Solvang reach of the Santa Ynez River. This technical memorandum explores the nature and extent of the pumping impacts specifically on Alisal Ranch River wells and discusses a potential mitigation measure, pumping threshold.

2. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS ON ALISAL RANCH WELLS FROM INCREASED

CITY OF SOLVANG PUMPING
Alisal Ranch has five irrigation wells including three for the golf course north of the Santa Ynez River, herein referred to as the River Course, and two for the golf course south of the river along Alisal Creek, herein referred to as the Ranch Course. The wells for the Ranch Course may have been recently damaged in the 2005 flood. Alisal Ranch also has as a monitoring well (Alisal Ranch Monitoring Well No. 3, 6N/3W-22F1) within the proposed Solvang well field, near the 961
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 2 7/19/2005
F:\DATA\ 1944\ SendOut\ TM5_AlisalRanchWells. doc
confluence of Alamo Pintado Creek and the Santa Ynez River. This well is measured monthly by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). All of these Alisal Ranch wells are shown on Figure 1.

Impacts of proposed Solvang pumping under various scenarios were evaluated using surface SYRHM) and groundwater ( Modflow) modeling by Stetson Engineers. A discussion of previous modeling efforts including development and results were presented in draft technical memorandums by Stetson Engineers ( 4/23/04; 5/10/04; 7/19/04; and 11/11/04). Table 1 summarizes the four assumed Solvang pumping scenarios.

TABLE 1

CONDITIONS SIMULATED FOR THE CITY OF SOLVANG EIR SCENARIOS Scenario Alternatives
Gross
Pumping
afy)
Cachuma
Reservoir
Surcharge
ft)
Fish Flow
Operations
GW1 SWRCB EIR Alt 2 with current Solvang pumping
600 afy 600 0.75 Interim BO/FMP
GW2 SWRCB EIR Alt 3C with Solvang pumping
2400 afy 2,400 3.00 Final BO/FMP
GW3 SWRCB EIR Alt 3C with Solvang pumping
3600 afy 3,600 3.00 Final BO/FMP
GW4 SWRCB EIR Alt 3C with Solvang pumping
1053 afy (baseline) 1,053 3.00 Final BO/FMP
Previous model analyses of each scenario were updated with recently received information Fax from Stan Hatch to Ali Shahroody, 6/27/2005) regarding the last five years of pumping ( 2000- 2004) for the Alisal Ranch golf courses. The estimated pumping rates of the Alisal Ranch wells were previously based on data from the SYRHM. Table 2 shows a pumping summary for the Alisal Ranch ( including both the River and Ranch golf courses wells). For the EIR scenarios GW1- 4, a total gross pumping of 366 acre- feet per year is used for the Ranch golf course, and a total gross pumping of 464 acre-feet per year is used for the River golf course. Thirty percent of this pumping is assumed to return to the Santa Ynez River alluvial aquifer.

Information recently received from Alisal Ranch identifies the proper locations of the golf course wells, information not previously available. Review of recent materials ( Figure 1, Notice of Preparation, 2/24/05) indicates that the previously assumed locations of River Course Well Nos. 1 and 2 were correct. However, the locations of Ranch Course Well Nos. 1 and 2, near Alisal Bridge, were offset by two model cells (~ 400 feet). Also, River Course Well No. 3 located above the ID 962

Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 3 7/19/2005
F:\DATA\ 1944\ SendOut\ TM5_AlisalRanchWells. doc
No.1 6-cfs well field was previously not assumed to be pumping in the Modflow model because geologic mapping by Dibblee indicated that this well may be outside the river alluvium. All well locations and number of wells were updated in the model for these revised model runs. The distribution of pumping by well has not yet been provided, so the standby well for Ranch Course Ranch Course Well No. 1) was not assumed to be pumping due to its close proximity to Ranch Course Well No. 2. The distribution of the River Course pumping was assumed to be 45, 35, and 20 percent for River Course Well Nos. 1, 2, and 3, respectively.

Figure 2 compares the simulated and reported water levels at the USBR monitoring Well 22F1 for the revised model run. Figure 3 shows the resulting simulated water level elevations for Well 22F1 for EIR scenarios GW4 (Baseline), GW 2, and GW3 for Solvang pumping quantities of 1053, 2400, and 3600 acre-feet per year respectively. Figure 3 also shows that after even extreme dry periods, water levels recover the following winter. This response is due to the resumption of Santa Ynez River flows and resulting recharge in the river alluvium. The water level declines of 30 feet or more only occur in Scenarios GW2 and GW3 during four periods: 1961, 1964 to 1965, 1977, and 1990 to 1991. The wells could not actually be operated at the simulated rates during those periods. The model analyses currently assume no reductions in pumping by either ID No. 1, Solvang, or Alisal Ranch in order to evaluate the maximum impacts.

Table 3 summarizes results for the average and maximum water level declines from full aquifer conditions at the model cell locations of the Alisal Ranch wells. The water level declines shown in Table 3 represent the average for the model cell (200 by 200 feet) and could differ from the actual declines at a particular well. The proposed Solvang pumping in GW2 and GW3 scenarios would impact water levels at the Alisal Ranch Well locations by about two to seven feet on average compared with the baseline scenario (GW4). During dry years when surface flows are not available to recharge the small river aquifer, the increased pumping of the proposed Solvang wells would cause even greater incremental drawdowns of about 14 feet or until the Alisal Ranch wells go dry.

These results are very similar to those presented in Technical Memorandum No. 3 for water levels located at 2500 feet downstream to 2000 feet upstream of the proposed Solvang well field center which showed declines of three to eight feet on average and areas going dry during prolonged periods of no surface flow.
964

Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 4 7/19/2005
F:\DATA\ 1944\ SendOut\ TM5_AlisalRanchWells. doc

3. MITIGATION – PUMPING THRESHOLD
One means of mitigating the impact of additional Solvang pumping is to identify the threshold water level (trigger level) at which pumping is reduced. The goal would be to control pumping by Solvang when “the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted” ( Environmental Checklist, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, Title 14. California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3).

Before a threshold or trigger water level for reducing or ceasing the pumping by Solvang can be identified, more information should be provided and compiled on all wells in the area including:

Well depths, perforations, drillers logs, alluvium thickness, Measured pumping rates for Alisal Ranch wells relative to available measured drawdown measurements at the well and/ or monitoring wells, Static and pumping water level measurements, and
Historical pumping rate data or monthly groundwater demand.

Complete data regarding well performance and water demand would help develop the criteria for determining an appropriate threshold for well interference and seasonal drawdown.

Apreliminary concept for developing a threshold to reduce or cease pumping is based upon the current agreement between ID No. 1 and the Alisal Ranch dated 8/18/1981. This agreement basically states that when observation well 6N/31W- 22F1 is at or below elevation 375 feet and Alisal Ranch’ s River wells are being significantly and adversely impaired as a result of the water level decline, ID No. 1 must either refrain from pumping from its River wells or supply water at the Alisal Ranch well head at a price Alisal Ranch would have expended. Figure 4 shows the water surface elevation and depth to water as reported by the USBR each month.

The USBR chose 392 feet as the full water surface elevation at Well 22F1. Water surface elevations below 392 feet relates to the amount of dewatered storage for USBR Node 19/20. USBR Node 19/20 is part of the nodal system tracked under the Above Narrows Account established under WR89- 18 ( WR73- 37). The water surface elevation for the easement agreement of 375 feet was chosen due it being the historic low elevation before ID No. 1 started pumping at the 6-cfs well field.

Because Solvang’ s water right would be senior to ID No. 1, the trigger for Solvang would have to be below the trigger for ID No.1. In other words, ID No. 1 would have to stop pumping or supply water to Alisal Ranch before Solvang would have to stop pumping or supply water. If the 966
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 5 7/19/2005
F:\DATA\ 1944\ SendOut\ TM5_AlisalRanchWells. doc
water surface elevation declines below 375 feet after ID No.1 stops pumping or provides water, Solvang should then stop pumping. A threshold trigger elevation for Solvang needs to be established. For example, an additional water level decline of 10% of fully saturated conditions would represent an additional decline of 1.7 feet. Thus, the trigger for Solvang to stop pumping or provide water would be 373.3 feet.

Well 22F1 may be suitable for monitoring conditions at the River Course wells but the wells most likely affected by water decline are the Ranch Course wells by Solvang Bridge, which would be closer to Solvang pumping wells. This is area is more easily affected by water level decline because the aquifer is thinner, the width of the alluvium is narrower, and the aquifer is less permeable. In 2004, Alisal Ranch sent a letter to ID No. 1 stating that the Alisal Ranch golf course wells were being affected by ID No.1. The closest ID No. 1 6-cfs well field wells (11 or 23, Figure 1) to the Ranch Golf Course wells is about 4,350 feet away. The closest Solvang wells ( 3 or 9, Figure 1) to the Ranch Golf Course wells are only about 200 feet away. Therefore, it may be necessary to establish a second observation well with an appropriate trigger water level near the Ranch Course wells.
967
968
Figure
970
Water
972
Water
974
Water Elevation ( ft abv
msl)
976
Technical Memorandum # 6
Additional Alternative Analyses – New Wells
977
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 1 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6

D R A F T
TECHNICAL M E M O R A N D U M NO. 6
2171 E. Francisco Blvd., Suite K $ San Rafael, California $ 94901 TEL: (415) 457-0701 FAX: (415) 457-1638 e-mail: curtisl@stetsonengineers. com TO: Jay Saberon DATE: January 24, 2011
URS Corp., Santa Barbara, CA
FROM: Stetson Engineers JOB NO.: 1944-5
RE: ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVE ANALYSES FOR CITY OF SOLVANG’ S CEQA

ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR WATER RIGHTS PERMIT 15878 – NEW WELLS DOWNSTREAM OF ALISAL BRIDGE

1.0 INTRODUCTION TO NEW ALTERNATIVE
This draft memorandum is prepared for the City of Solvang’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) in connection with the petition to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for extension of time for Permit 158781. Consistent with the City’s August 2009 Water System Master Plan Update, the City of Solvang is planning to expand water production from wells along the Santa Ynez River.

Previous work by Stetson Engineers forthe Draft EIR included analyses of surface water, water quality, and ground water impacts from increased pumping by the City of Solvang (City) in wells located in the Santa Ynez River alluvium. Four scenarios were analyzed for gross pumping amounts by the City: 600; 1,053; 2,400; and 3,600 acre-feet per year (afy). These scenarios cover a range of possible alternatives up to the maximum amount allowed (3,600 afy) under Permit 15878. These Stetson technical memoranda identified potential impacts to nearby wells, Cachuma Project water supply, and endangered steelhead (Stetson, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, and 2005). In the previous analyses the City’s new wells were located upstream of the Solvang Bridge (also sometimes referred to as Alisal or Mission Bridge) which under certain river conditions, primarily during the summer months, created well interference with both the Alisal Ranch wells and the Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District Improvement District No. 1 (ID#1) wells (Stetson, November 2004, and July 2005). In addition, the modeling showed that the concentration of wells just upstream of the Solvang Bridge may result in additional pumping restrictions due to potential impacts to steelhead (Stetson, April 2004).
1 The DEIR document will also address other items that are included in the City’s Water System Master Plan Update 2009).
978
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 2 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
A new alternative has been developed and analyzed in this memorandum which involves drilling the new wells for the City in a proposed well field centered approximately 1.5 miles downstream from the Solvang Bridge. In this alternative, labeled Alternative GW5 for this study, four new wells will be drilled downstream of Solvang Bridge (Figure 1). Table 1 summarizes the previous alternatives analyzed (Stetson, 2004a, 2004b, 2004c, 2004d, and 2005) in relation to the new alternative analyzed in this memorandum.

TABLE 1

CONDITIONS SIMULATED FOR THE CITY OF SOLVANG EIR ALTERNATIVES ID Alternatives
Gross
Pumping
afy)
Location of
Solvang Wells
Lake
Cachuma
Surcharge
ft)
Fish Flow
Operations
GW1 SWRCB EIR Alt 2 with current
Solvang pumping 600 afy
600 u/s Alisal Bridge 0.75 Interim BO/FMP
GW2 SWRCB EIR Alt 3C with Solvang
pumping 2400 afy
2,400 u/s Alisal Bridge 3.00 Final BO/FMP
GW3 SWRCB EIR Alt 3C with Solvang
pumping 3600 afy
3,600 u/s Alisal Bridge 3.00 Final BO/ FMP
GW4 SWRCB EIR Alt 3C with Solvang
pumping 1053 afy ( baseline)
1,053 u/s Alisal Bridge 3.00 Final BO/FMP
GW5 SWRCB EIR Alt 3C with Solvang
pumping 2400 afy
2,400 d/s Alisal Bridge 3.00 Final BO/FMP
u/s = upstream of
d/s = downstream of
In this memorandum, Alternative GW5 has been analyzed and compared to the other four alternatives, with specific focus to Alternative GW2. First, a hydraulic analysis of the preliminary pipeline layout was prepared. Next, the Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model was used to assess impacts on Cachuma Project operations, Santa Ynez River flows, groundwater storage in the Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer, and water rights releases. Finally an analysis of impacts to local groundwater was performed for the proposed Alternative GW5 well field downstream of Alisal Bridge.

Alternative GW5 is assumed to pump the same volume, 2400 afy, as Alternative GW2. This annual volume was proposed in the 2002 Water System Master Plan. The difference between Alternative GW2 and GW5 is that in Alternative GW2, all new wells are located upstream of Solvang Bridge and inAlternative GW5 all new wells are located downstream of Solvang Bridge. It should be noted that the proposed annual volume of ground water extracted from the River wells was lowered to 2,003 afy in the 2009 Water System Master Plan Update. In order to allow a comparison with the previous alternative (GW2), this analysis also assumes an annual pumping volume of 2,400 afy. Figure 2 compares the monthly average pumping rates for all of the 979
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 3 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
alternatives and the new 2009 proposed pumping rates. The 2002 Master Plan includes a monthly pumping distribution closer to the maximum diversion rate of 5 cfs. It should also be noted that in Table 3 of the 2009 Water System Master Plan the practical delivery for the River wells is 1,813 afy, which does not match with Table 7 of the Plan (2,003 afy). The total future demand for Solvang from all sources in Table 3 of the 2009 Plan would be 2,833 afy. The sources include pumping and water from the State Water Project ( SWP). The quantity available from the SWP has some uncertainty, so for this analysis, a conservative value of 2,400 afy of pumping is a valid assumption.

However, the actual average annual pumping may be lower than this.

The City of Solvang has not determined what percentage of the total Solvang diversions from the Santa Ynez River may be developed downstream of the Solvang Bridge. Solvang cannot make that determination until it begins drilling wells at the proposed downstream site (Figure 1) and performs well tests. For example, Solvang may determine that only a portion of pumping will occur downstream, with the remainder in the vicinity of Solvang Bridge. However, the hydrologic analyses of alternatives GW2 and GW5 will provide a bracket for the expected impacts under the two conditions:
1) GW2 with all new wells located upstream of Solvang Bridge, and 2) GW5 with all new wells located downstream of Solvang Bridge.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION OF NEW ALTERNATIVE
Stetson Engineers (2010) performed an analysis of developing a new City of Solvang (City) well field downstream of the Alisal Bridge. Two areas were evaluated, Site Aand Site B, as shown in Figure 1. The sites were selected based on proximity to the productive stream channel and alluvial deposits. The criteria for site selection were as follows:

Well yield potential;
Proximity (downstream) to existing Solvang water system, including hydraulic compatibility with the existing water system;
Reduced potential flood damage ( location outside of active stream channel); Water quality;
Acquisition of land for right-of-way; and
Construction costs.
980
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 4 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
The potential for well yield is likely to be higher and the potential impact on nearby wells may be lower in the Site B area compared to the Site Aarea. This is due to the larger areal extent of highly permeable floodplain and stream channel deposits in the Site B area. For this analysis, it is assumed that the future City well field will be located in the Site B area.

It is anticipated that there will be four new wells drilled in the Site B area. Each is likely to have a capacity of 500 to 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm) or more which should provide sufficient capacity to produce 5.0 cubic feet per second ( cfs) should one of the wells in the new well field becomes inoperable. The actual number of wells and their yield will be determined based on the results of drilling and well testing. The existing Solvang Well #3 is assumed to be capable of producing an average of about 330 gpm (0.74 cfs) and Solvang Well #7A can produce about 200 gpm

0.45 cfs) with a combined production of about 500 gpm (1.11 cfs) (City of Solvang, 2009). A combination of the existing and proposed wells will provide water from the River to meet the proposed peak demand of up to 5.0 cfs. Note that the annual average groundwater extraction from the River wells is expected to be about 2.8 cfs, although the full 5 cfs will be needed to meet peak-hour demand City of Solvang, 2009).

The final location of the new wells will depend on future negotiations with existing land owners and site-specific conditions such as elevation above the flood plain. The proposed four new wells at Site B are expected to be about 70 feet deep based on driller’s logs from existing wells in the area. Wells #3 and #7A are presently included in the City’s water distribution system. The proposed new wells at Site B will be connected to the existing system via pipelines shown in Figure 3.

The facilities required to connect wells at Site B to the existing Solvang water system include: (1) pipelines; (2) wells, well pumps, and appurtenant electrical controls and power lines; 3) booster pumps; and (4) a chlorination injection station. The pipelines will deliver water from the proposed well field to the water delivery system. For preliminary design purposes, the following factors were taken into account during the selection of a pipeline route:

Convey the pumped groundwater from the wells to chlorination injection station before entering the existing Solvang water distribution system; Connect the new well field to existing pipes that have capacity in order to minimize construction of new pipelines;
Provide multi- delivery points to the existing system to ensure system reliability and improve fire flow capability; and
Construct, if possible, along existing roads or right-of-way easements. 981
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 5 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
The pressures, energy losses (head losses), and velocities were determined for the pipelines. Pipe diameters were designed to have a velocity equal or less than the maximum allowable velocity of four (4) feet per second (fps). The diameter of pipes were calculated in a hydraulic model based on the design flow.

Pipelines would consist of connector pipes, a transmission pipe, and looping pipes, with a total pipe length of 1.68 miles. The connector pipes would connect the proposed wells (labeled as P1B to P4B) to the transmission pipe that runs from west to east, and along Highway 246 to the intersection on 5th Street, as shown on Figure 3. The transmission pipe would range in diameter 10 to 18 inches. Diameter of pipe segments depends on the flow rate. The east end of the transmission pipe will be connected to an existing tee which has the following sizes for distribution lines: 12 to 6 inches. Three other delivery points are connected via small looping pipes to the existing system on Highway 246. They are located at an alley between Hadsten House Inn and Kronberg Inn, Nykobing, and near 1224-1226 Mission Road (Figure 3).

Although the maximum allowable velocities are four (4) fps, the proposed pipelines generally have flow velocities ranging from about 2.5 fps to 3.5 fps to provide allowances for carrying larger flow rates should there be future system expansion. Table 2 summarizes the sizing for the proposed main pipe segments, connector pipes and looping pipes for the proposed wells at Site B. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe was assumed for the pipeline design.

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF REQUIRED PIPING
Pipe Length
feet)
8-inch Connector Pipes 0
8-inch Looping Pipes 140
8-inch Main 0
10-inch Connector Pipes 560
10-inch Main 1,440
12-inch Main 1,320
14-inch Main 660
16-inch Main 2,780
18-nch Main 1,980
Total (feet) 8,880
Total ( miles) 1.68
982
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 6 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6

3.0 BASIN DESCRIPTION
Geology
The wells are located in the Santa Ynez River alluvium as shown in the geologic map (Figure 1). The alluvium in the general area consists of: (1) stream channel deposits (Qg); and (2) valley and floodplain deposits (Qa). Outcrops of older alluvium (Qoa) and consolidated essentially non-water bearing rocks bound and underlie the more permeable stream channel, valley, and floodplain deposits.

The targeted sources of water are the valley and flood plain deposits (Qa) located on the north bank of the river downstream of Alisal Bridge.

Although the deposits of the active stream channel (Qg) which consist of gravel, sand, and silt are generally the most permeable deposits with the potential for the highest well yields, it is preferred not to locate wells and appurtenant facilities in the active river channel where there is an increased risk of flood damage. However, driller’s logs indicated high well yields have been obtained from the generally thicker valley and floodplain deposits (Qa) present in the floodplain deposits between the stream channel and Highway 246 north of the River. These deposits consist of silt, sand, and gravel.

The geology just north of the floodplain deposits includes consolidated shale beneath a relatively thin veneer of older alluvium. Wells in this area yield relatively little water and may not be hydraulically connected to the floodplain and stream channel deposits in the vicinity of Site B.

The stream channel deposits (Qg, Figure 1) of the Santa Ynez River that run from east to west at a location south of Site B range in thickness from about 40 to 70 feet and may be thinnest near the upstream area ofAlisal Bridge. The floodplain deposits south of the stream channel deposits near Site B are likely to have lithologic and water bearing characteristics similar to those in the vicinity of Site B. Driller’s logs or other lithologic data was not available forthat area. The bedrock south of the river near Site B consists of hard fractured shale that is non-water bearing.

Well Yields
The yield from wells near Site B based on drillers logs (short test lengths from 1 to 4 hours) range from about 500 to 1,500 gpm. These yields are generally higher than in the reach immediately upstream of Solvang Bridge (typically about 300 gpm). Farther north, generally north of Highway 246, within the floodplain deposits (Qa, Figure 1), the depth to bedrock is greater and while most drillers logs in this area show relatively coarse material to depths of about 70-80 feet, there is more clay present near the surface and sediments become more fine grained below that depth until weathered bedrock is encountered at about 110 to 130 feet. The weathered bedrock is commonly described as 983
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 7 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
thick yellow, brown or white clay, which is likely to be weathered Sisquoc or Monterey shale, depending upon location. Yields from wells located north of the highway are generally lower in the floodplain alluvium than those closer to the river based on the limited drillers logs available in that area. Reported yields are in the range of 350 to 450 gpm even though the wells tend to be deeper.

There was no well yield information for well logs in the vicinity of SiteA, including Solvang Well #3.

Groundwater Levels
Long term groundwater level data are available from two shallow monitoring wells in the vicinity of the proposed Solvang well field. Water levels are measured by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) on a monthly basis. Figure 1 shows the location of these two monitoring wells, and Figure 4 shows the water level measurements for these wells from 1959 to early 2010. Water levels in the Santa Ynez river alluvium in this area declined about 10 to 20 feet from the late 1970s to 1990 due, in part, to scour in the river channel and to the drought of 1988 – 1991. Water levels have recovered somewhat and are more stable recently due to fish water releases from Lake Cachuma.

Aquifer Properties
The floodplain alluvium in the vicinity of the proposed wells at Site B is likely to be unconfined due to its shallow and coarse nature. The hydraulic conductivity of alluvium near Site B is estimated to range from about 200 ft/day to 600 ft/day based on specific capacity data from driller’ s tests. North of Highway 246, the alluvium has an estimated range of about 80 to 120 ft/day in hydraulic conductivity based on driller’ s tests. These test data may be considered somewhat rough since driller’ s tests are not rigorous aquifer tests and the method used to convert a well specific capacity to a transmissivity of hydraulic conductivity has a wide range of uncertainty. However, the method has been used as a rule of thumb by hydrogeologists for decades, in the absence of more detailed aquifer test data. For this study a hydraulic conductivity of 300 ft/day is assumed to represent all of the Santa Ynez River alluvium units. An average saturated thickness of river alluvium in the area of 70 feet was also assumed for the impact analysis.

Farther upstream in the narrow alluvium just upstream and downstream of the Alisal Bridge, the hydraulic conductivity of the stream channel deposits has been estimated at about 500 ft/day based on test data from drillers logs in that area ( Stetson Engineers, 2004a) Sources of Recharge
The stream channel deposits and adjacent floodplain deposits are recharged by seepage from the flows of the Santa Ynez River, as well as flows that reach the River alluvium from nearby 984
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 8 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
tributaries, with a minor amount contributed by direct precipitation and treated wastewater discharge from the plant on the south side of the river below Alisal Bridge. Site B is also recharged by underflow from the underlying Paso Robles formation and Careaga sand located adjacent to the north side of the Santa Ynez River (Wilson, 1959).
985
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 9 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6

4.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS USING THE SANTA YNEZ RIVER HYDROLOGY MODEL Surface water hydrologic analyses were performed to determine the impacts for the additional alternative (GW5), as in previous Technical Memoranda, using the Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model (SYRHM). Included in this memorandum are the EIR hydrologic impact analyses for:

Lake Cachuma Operations
Cachuma Storage and Elevations
Santa Ynez River Flows
Groundwater Storage in the Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer Water Rights Releases (WR 89-18)
Cachuma Project Deliveries
Technical Memorandum No. 2 (Stetson, 2004b) showed that changes to salinity at the Lompoc Narrows would be none to very small due to increased pumping by Solvang, including under the maximum pumping alternative of 3,600 afy (GW3). Accordingly, water quality analyses were not performed for this additional alternative (GW5), with pumpage amount of 2,400 afy.

Please refer to Technical Memorandum No. 1 (Stetson, 2004a) for detailed discussion of the SYRHM model utilized in this analysis. The SYRHM became the basis for numerous hydrologic studies of releases for fish, water quality, and water rights in preparation of the Biological Assessment, National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion (BO), the Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan, the Settlement Agreement of 2002, the Final EIR/EIS (2003) on the Fish Management Plan and the BO, and the State Board Draft EIR (2003 and 2007). The analyses for the additional City of Solvang river well pumping use the same programming model logic and assumptions as these previous studies. As shown in Table 1, the new alternative for Solvang pumping ( GW5) was analyzed under the Final 2000 BO operations for the Cachuma Project National Marine Fisheries Service, 2000) including a 3.0 foot surcharge. Under Alternatives GW2, GW3, GW4, and GW5, the impacts of increased river well diversions from 1,053 to 3,600 acre-feet per year can be evaluated in the context of similar fish flow operations..

Municipal river well pumping is handled in the SYRHM by using net pumping, which implicitly includes return flows. Table 3 shows the monthly volume of Solvang pumping for the various alternatives in the modeling analyses. As mentioned earlier, the 2009 Water System Master Plan lowered the expected annual volume of ground water to be extracted from the river wells from 2,400 to 2,003 afy. However, this analysis for the new alternative (GW5) is based on the annual 986
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 10 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
production of 2,400 afy in order to be able to compare with previous modeling results2. As such, these analyses are considered conservative.
2 In addition, the expected total future demand is about 2,800 afy; so, the supply could still be about 2,400 afy from the River wells.
987
Stetson
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 12 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6

4.1 SYRHM Operational Modeling Results
Alternatives GW2 and GW5 are the focus of this discussion. Both of these alternatives use the same Solvang pumping of 2,400 afy. However, in Alternative GW2, the new wells are all located upstream of Solvang Bridge. In Alternative GW5, the new wells are all located downstream of Solvang Bridge. GW5 will be described in the tables and figures with a “d/s” description which stands for “downstream”.

4.1.1 Lake Cachuma Operations
The surface water budget for Lake Cachuma for the new alternative (GW5) is shown in the last column of Table 4 for the hydrologic period water years (WYs) 1918 through1993. Table 4 shows that on average over the hydrologic period, the amount of water passed through at Bradbury Dam, either by spills and leakage, water right releases, or fish releases, is relatively the same (less than 1% variation3).

Table 4 shows that the largest difference in Cachuma Project operations for increased Solvang river well pumping scenarios is an increase in water rights releases. The increase in water rights releases from Lake Cachuma with increased Solvang pumping is due to an increase in water production and associated increase in the total dewatered storage levels, which affect the Above Narrows Account. On average, fish flow operations are about the same for increased well pumping by Solvang. This is primarily attributed to the following factors: (1) the primary management reach for fish flows is the Highway 154 reach, located about seven miles upstream of the City of Solvang river wells; (2) the increase in water rights releases conjunctively decreases the flows needed for fish; and (3) the number of spill years with greater than 20,000 acre-feet, which triggers fish flow targets at the Alisal Bridge, is reduced if Solvang pumps 3,600 afy. Both alternatives GW2 and GW5 have similar downstream water rights and fish releases from Lake Cachuma. These total downstream releases (water rights and fish) are slightly less in Alternative GW5 compared with GW2.
3 Note: The precipitation and evaporation vary for each of the EIR alternatives due to differences in the surface area of the reservoir.

Also, Tecolote Tunnel infiltration is not shown on these tables but is considered a component of the Project yield. Tecolote Tunnel infiltration averages about 2,050 acre-feet/year for the period 1918-1993 and 1,620 acre-feet/year during the drought period 1947-1951. 989
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 13 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
TABLE 4

SURFACE WATER BUDGETS FOR LAKE CACHUMA
AVERAGE ANNUAL VALUES FROM SYRHM, SIMULATION PERIOD 1918-1993 (76 YEARS) 1)

ACRE-FEET/YEAR)
Alternative No. GW1 GW2 GW3 GW4 GW5
SWRCB EIR Alternative Alt 2 Alt 3C Alt 3C Alt 3C Alt 3C City of Solvang Pumping ( afy) 600 2400 3600 1053 2400 ( d/s) INFLOW
Runoff 74,171 74,171 74,171 74,171 74,171
Precipitation 3,869 3,922 3,911 3,934 3,925
SWP water 2) 7,619 7,663 7,663 7,663 7,663
Total Inflow 85,659 85,756 85,745 85,768 85,759

OUTFLOW
Evaporation 10,876 11,030 11,000 11,066 11,041
Spills/ Leakage 36,693 35,198 35,032 35,350 35,227
Project Deliveries (no tunnel) 3) 23,069 23,017 22,988 23,053 23,045 WR89- 18 releases 6,023 6,046 6,273 5,819 6,002
Fish/Habitat releases 1,362 2,707 2,692 2,721 2,686
SWP Exchange 4) - 2,512 - 2,512 - 2,512 - 2,512 - 2,512 SWP Deliveries to South Coast 10,131 10,175 10,175 10,175 10,175 Total Outflow 85,642 85,661 85,648 85,672 85,663
Change in Storage 17 95 97 96 96
MEAN WATER PASSING THROUGH CACHUMA (Spills and Releases) Cachuma Spills & Releases 44,078 43,951 43,997 43,890 43,915 Difference from GW4 (AFY) 188 61 107 --- 25
Difference from GW4 (%) 0.4% 0.1% 0.2% ---- 0.1%
No. of Spill months 82 78 78 78 78
No. of Spill Water Years 26 25 25 25 25
No. of Spill Water Years >20,000 af 16 15 14 15 15
NOTES
1) See Table 1 for description of alternatives; fish releases include rearing and passage flows. 2) Includes SWP deliveries in outlet works and into Lake Cachuma. 3) Does not include Tecolote Tunnel infiltration which averages about 2,050 acre-feet/year 4) Includes SWP exchange with SYRWCD ID No 1.
990
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 14 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
Figures 5 and 6 show the frequency of releases and spills from Lake Cachuma for all alternatives on different scales of flow. Figure 5 indicates that flow distribution frequencies under the various alternatives in terms of high flows are similar. Figure 6 shows the differences among the alternatives forflows that are less than 50 cfs. Alternatives GW2 and GW5 have similar distribution frequencies for high and low flows.

4.2 Lake Storage and Elevation
The minimum storage level (minimum pool) is set to 12,000 acre-feet, which would occur under the critical drought of WYs 1947 through 1951 for all alternatives. Table 5 summarizes average Lake Cachuma elevation and storage for each alternative. In general, the median elevation, storage, and surface area for all alternatives are very similar, including Alternative GW5.

4.3 Santa Ynez River Flows
Figures 7 through 12 show the frequency of flows at six different locations downstream of Lake Cachuma forthe various alternatives based on the results of the SYRHM. Figure 7 shows that the frequency of releases and spills from Cachuma Reservoir are very similar except for Alternative GW1 which uses the interim fish flow operations (Table 1). Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the key differences among the increased Solvang river well pumping scenarios. Figure 8 shows the frequency of flows of the Santa Ynez River at the Highway 154 Bridge, in which Solvang increases in river well pumping result in little change. Figure 9 shows the frequency of flows of the Santa Ynez River at Alisal Bridge, in which the differences in flow between pumping scenarios are more apparent. Figure 9 indicates that Alternative GW5 has higher flows at Alisal Bridge more often than Alternative GW2. The flows at Alisal Bridge under GW5 are very similar to the GW4 (1053 afy Solvang pumping from wells upstream). Figure 10 shows that the difference between surface flows for the different alternatives at Buellton Bridge are very similar to the impacts at Alisal Bridge, except attenuated by the additional tributary and groundwater contributions below Alisal Bridge.

Figures 11 and 12 show that the impacts from increased Solvang river pumping attenuates even further downstream near the Salsipuedes Creek confluence and at the Lompoc Narrows. Appendix A contains the monthly flows for the new scenario (GW5) from 1918 through 1993 (912 months). 991
Stetson
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 16 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
Table 6 compares the mean annual stream flows at key sites downstream of Lake Cachuma.

The mean or average statistic differs from the flow frequency graphs in that average values can be influenced by infrequent, extremely large storm events. For the scenarios of increased Solvang river well pumping, mean annual flows at Highway 154 Bridge are similar for all the alternatives.

However, the GW3 Santa Ynez River mean annual flows at the Alisal Bridge and Lompoc Narrows are reduced by 1,122 and 1,054 afy, respectively. The mean annual average flow at Alisal Bridge actually increases slightly by 52 afy in Alternative GW5 in comparison with Alternative GW4.

Conversely, Alternative GW2 does show a reduction of -588 afy to the mean annual flow at Alisal Bridge when compared to Alternative GW4. Table 6 shows that moving Solvang’ s new wells downstream ( GW5) can completely mitigate the impacts to flows at Alisal Bridge, which is a management site for endangered steelhead.

Tables 7, 8, and 9 show the median monthly flows at the Highway 154 Bridge to be similar, and the median monthly flows at Alisal Bridge and Lompoc Narrows to be less for the increased Solvang river well pumping scenarios. The median statistic is the same as the 50 percent exceedance and shows a pattern similar to that of the flow frequency graphs (Figures 7 through 12).

Table 8 shows that, depending on the month, the median flow at Alisal Bridge is about 0 to 2.5 cfs higher under GW5 compared with GW2.
993
Stetson
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 18 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
TABLE 7
MEDIAN MONTHLY FLOW OF SANTA YNEZ RIVER AT HIGHWAY 154 BRIDGE IN CFS SIMULATION PERIOD 1918- 1993)
Fish Flow Solvang
Alt Operations/ River Well
No. Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep GW1 Alt 2 600 0.75 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 4.25 5.25 4.75 3.75 4.25 5.5 20.75 14.5 GW2 Alt 3C 2400 3.00 6 5 5 5 7.75 10.25 5 5 5 9.75 18.25 19.75 GW3 Alt 3C 3600 3.00 5 5 5 5 7.5 10.25 5 5 5.75 10 16.75 19.25 GW4 Alt 3C 1053 3.00 6 5 5 5 7.75 10.25 5 5 5 9.75 17.75 20 GW5 Alt 3C 2400 ( d/s) 3.00 5.5 5 5 5 7.75 10.25 5 5 5 9.75 23.25 20.75 TABLE 8

MEDIAN MONTHLY FLOW OF SANTA YNEZ RIVER AT ALISAL BRIDGE IN CFS SIMULATION PERIOD 1918-1993)
Fish Flow Solvang
Alt Operations/ River Well
No. Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep GW1 Alt 2 600 0.75 0 0 0.25 1.25 5.5 9 6.5 3.75 1.5 3.75 9 6 GW2 Alt 3C 2400 3.00 1.5 0.75 1 2.5 11.5 19 6.5 4.25 2 6.25 7.75 6.75 GW3 Alt 3C 3600 3.00 0.75 0.25 0.75 2 9.75 17.5 5 3.25 1.75 6.75 8 6.5 GW4 Alt 3C 1053 3.00 1.5 1.5 1.5 3.25 13.3 20.75 7.25 4.75 2.5 6 8.5 8.5 GW5 Alt 3C 2400 ( d/s) 3.00 1.5 1.25 1.5 3 13.3 20.5 7.25 5 2.5 6.75 10.25 7.75 TABLE 9

MEDIAN MONTHLY FLOW OF SANTA YNEZ RIVER AT LOMPOC NARROWS IN CFS SIMULATION PERIOD 1918-1993)
Fish Flow Solvang
Alt Operations/ River Well
No. Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep GW1 Alt 2 600 0.75 0 0 0.75 3 16.3 24 18 3 1.5 1.5 0.5 0 GW2 Alt 3C 2400 3.00 0 0 0.75 4 24.3 32.75 17.8 4.25 1.75 1.75 0.5 0 GW3 Alt 3C 3600 3.00 0 0 0.75 3.75 19 30.75 16.5 3.5 1.5 1.75 0.5 0 GW4 Alt 3C 1053 3.00 0 0 0.75 4.25 25.3 34.5 19 4.75 2 1.5 0.75 0 GW5 Alt 3C 2400 (d/s) 3.00 0 0 0.75 4 24.8 34 18.3 4.5 1.75 1.5 1 0 995
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 19 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6

4.4 Groundwater Storage in the Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer Figure 13 shows the changes in total dewatered storage in the entire Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer. The Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer recovers to the same levels with the recharge of winter runoff under the various alternatives. The key differences in water levels occur during the droughts. Figure 13 shows that for similar fish release operations (SWRCB Alt 3C) there is more total dewatered storage when Solvang river well pumping increases. For example, Alternative GW3 3600 afy) results in higher dewatered storage levels in the Above Narrows Aquifer than all other alternatives. Figures 14, 15, and 16 show the effects in total dewatered storage forthe three different sub-basins within the Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer, namely the Santa Ynez, Buellton, and Santa Rita sub-basins.

Tables 10 through 13 show statistics on monthly total dewatered storage for the Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer and for the three different sub-basins. For comparison, the last four columns show the difference in dewatered storage relative to Alternative GW4 ( 1053 afy).

Alternative GW5 has similar dewatered storage as Alternative GW2 for the total dewatered storage Table 10). However, in the Santa Ynez sub-basin, Alternative GW5 has less dewatered storage more storage) than Alternative GW2 (Table 11). The Santa Ynez sub-basin includes Highway 154 and Alisal Bridge, which are the target sites for fish water releases, so Alternative GW5 would impact flows less in the Santa Ynez sub-basin compared with Alternative GW2, due to Solvang having the location of new wells downstream from the Alisal Bridge. Conversely, Alternative GW5 has more dewatered storage than Alternative GW2 in the Buellton sub-basin (Table 12).

Tables 14 through 16 show the impact of the EIR alternatives on the average groundwater elevations in the Santa Ynez, Buellton, and Santa Rita sub-basins4. The most significant change among the EIR alternatives (except for Alternative GW5) occurs in the Santa Ynez sub-basin, with ground water levels decreasing one to eleven feet on average throughout the area. The largest differences occur during droughts. Alternative GW5 has similar water levels as Alternative GW4 in the Santa Ynez sub-basin but levels one to two feet lower in the Buellton sub-basin. 4 The SYRHM is limited in predicting water level changes (beyond the large groundwater subunits of Santa Ynez, Buellton, and Santa Rita) because it does not take into account aquifer properties. Local well interference is discussed elsewhere in this memorandum.
996
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 20 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
TABLE 10

STATISTICS ON MONTHLY TOTAL DEWATERED STORAGE FOR
ABOVE NARROWS RIPARIAN AQUIFER, 1918- 1993 ( ACRE- FEET) Fish Flow Solvang
Alt Operations/ River Well
No. Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Mean Median Minimum Maximum Mean Median Minimum Maximum afy ft
GW1 Alt 2 600 0.75 10,769 10,517 2,324 32,936 296 298 ( 9) 1,346 GW2 Alt 3C 2400 3 11,093 10,736 2,386 34,086 620 518 53 2,496 GW3 Alt 3C 3600 3.00 11,714 11,151 2,488 36,430 1,241 933 155 4,840 GW4 Alt 3C 1053 3.00 10,473 10,218 2,333 31,591 ---- ---- ---- ---- GW5 Alt 3C 2400 ( d/ s) 3.00 10,998 10,710 2,471 33,149 525 492 138 1,558 Compared with GW4
Increase ( decrease)
TABLE 11

STATISTICS ON MONTHLY TOTAL DEWATERED STORAGE FOR
SANTA YNEZ RIPARIAN SUB-BASIN, 1918-1993 (ACRE- FEET)
Fish Flow Solvang
Alt Operations/ River Well
No. Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Mean Median Minimum Maximum Mean Median Minimum Maximum afy ft
GW1 Alt 2 600 0.75 1,926 1,769 0 9,048 95 77 ( 2) 223
GW2 Alt 3C 2400 3 2,243 2,010 110 10,941 411 318 107 2,116 GW3 Alt 3C 3600 3.00 2,695 2,293 169 13,019 863 601 166 4,194 GW4 Alt 3C 1053 3.00 1,832 1,692 2 8,825 ---- ---- ---- ---- GW5 Alt 3C 2400 ( d/ s) 3.00 1,843 1,705 6 8,879 11 13 4 54 Compared with GW4
Increase ( decrease)
TABLE 12

STATISTICS ON MONTHLY TOTAL DEWATERED STORAGE FOR
BUELLTON RIPARIAN SUB-BASIN, 1918-1993 (ACRE- FEET)
Fish Flow Solvang
Alt Operations/ River Well
No. Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Mean Median Minimum Maximum Mean Median Minimum Maximum afy ft
GW1 Alt 2 600 0.75 5,598 5,570 2,160 11,018 78 90 ( 4) 66 GW2 Alt 3C 2400 3 5,666 5,621 2,182 11,189 146 142 19 236 GW3 Alt 3C 3600 3.00 5,790 5,754 2,224 11,372 270 275 60 420 GW4 Alt 3C 1053 3.00 5,520 5,479 2,164 10,952 ---- ---- ---- ---- GW5 Alt 3C 2400 ( d/ s) 3.00 6,018 5,958 2,309 12,242 497 478 146 1,289 Compared with GW4
Increase ( decrease)
997
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 21 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
TABLE 13

STATISTICS ON MONTHLY TOTAL DEWATERED STORAGE FOR
SANTA RITA RIPARIAN SUB- BASIN, 1918- 1993 ( ACRE- FEET) Fish Flow Solvang
Alt Operations/ River Well
No. Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Mean Median Minimum Maximum Mean Median Minimum Maximum afy ft
GW1 Alt 2 600 0.75 3,244 3,080 0 13,042 123 107 0 985
GW2 Alt 3C 2400 3 3,184 3,018 0 12,284 63 45 0 227
GW3 Alt 3C 3600 3.00 3,229 3,032 0 12,456 108 59 0 399
GW4 Alt 3C 1053 3.00 3,121 2,973 0 12,057 ---- ---- ---- ---- GW5 Alt 3C 2400 ( d/ s) 3.00 3,137 2,993 0 12,252 16 20 0 195 Compared with GW4
Increase ( decrease)
TABLE 14

STATISTICS ON MONTHLY AVERAGE GROUNDWATER LEVEL ELEVATION FOR SANTA YNEZ RIPARIAN SUB-BASIN, 1918-1993 (ACRE- FEET)
Fish Flow Solvang
Alt Operations/ River Well
No. Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Mean Median Minimum Maximum Mean Median Minimum Maximum afy ft
GW1 Alt 2 600 0.75 459 460 443 464 0 0 ( 1) 0
GW2 Alt 3C 2400 3 459 459 438 464 ( 1) ( 1) ( 5) 0
GW3 Alt 3C 3600 3.00 458 459 432 464 ( 2) ( 1) ( 11) 0
GW4 Alt 3C 1053 3.00 460 460 443.4 464 ---- ---- ---- ---- GW5 Alt 3C 2400 (d/ s) 3.00 460 460 443.2 464 0 0 0 0
Compared with GW4
Increase (decrease)
TABLE 15

STATISTICS ON MONTHLY AVERAGE GROUNDWATER LEVEL ELEVATION FOR BUELLTON RIPARIAN SUB-BASIN, 1918-1993 (ACRE- FEET)
Fish Flow Solvang
Alt Operations/ River Well
No. Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Mean Median Minimum Maximum Mean Median Minimum Maximum afy ft
GW1 Alt 2 600 0.75 304 304 295 310 0 0 0 0
GW2 Alt 3C 2400 3 304 304 295 310 0 0 0 0
GW3 Alt 3C 3600 3.00 304 304 294 309 0 0 ( 1) 0
GW4 Alt 3C 1053 3.00 304 304 295 310 ---- ---- ---- ---- GW5 Alt 3C 2400 (d/ s) 3.00 303 303 293 309 ( 1) ( 1) ( 2) 0 Increase (decrease)
Compared with GW4
998
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 22 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
TABLE 16

STATISTICS ON MONTHLY AVERAGE GROUNDWATER LEVEL ELEVATION FOR SANTA RITA RIPARIAN SUB- BASIN, 1918- 1993 ( ACRE- FEET) Fish Flow Solvang
Alt Operations/ River Well
No. Surcharge Pumping Surcharge Mean Median Minimum Maximum Mean Median Minimum Maximum afy ft
GW1 Alt 2 600 0.75 176 176 163 180 0 0 ( 1) 0
GW2 Alt 3C 2400 3 176 176 164 180 0 0 0 0
GW3 Alt 3C 3600 3.00 176 176 164 180 0 0 ( 1) 0
GW4 Alt 3C 1053 3.00 176 176 165 180 ---- ---- ---- ---- GW5 Alt 3C 2400 (d/ s) 3.00 176 176 164 180 0 0 0 0
Increase (decrease)
Compared with GW4
999
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 23 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6

4.4.1 Water Rights Releases ( WR 89-18)
Table 17 shows the impacts to water rights releases for the various alternatives as simulated by the SYRHM for hydrologic period 1918-1993 ( 76 years). The Above Narrows Account is dependent upon groundwater storage in the Above Narrows Riparian Aquifer because the account cannot be larger than the dewatered storage. Table 17 indicates that WR89-18 releases would be increased as a result of increased pumping by Solvang. For example, the average annual release would increase by about 454 acre-feet under GW3 when compared to GW4. Alternatives GW2 and GW5 have similar impacts on water rights releases.

TABLE 17
IMPACTS TO WATER RIGHTS RELEASES FOR WATER YEARS 1918-1993

ACRE-FEET/YEAR)
Alt
No.

Fish Flow
Operations/
Surcharge
Solvang River
Well Pumping Surcharge WR 89-18 Releases
Increase (decrease) in
WR 89-18 Releases
with GW4
afy ft
GW1 Alt 2 600 0.75 6,023 204
GW2 Alt 3C 2,400 3.00 6,046 227
GW3 Alt 3C 3,600 3.00 6,273 454
GW4 Alt 3C 1,053 3.00 5,819 ----
GW5 Alt 3C 2,400 (d/s) 3.00 6,002 183

4.4.2 Cachuma Project Deliveries
Shortages in water supply from the Cachuma Project during droughts were determined using SYRHM. The historical precipitation at Gibraltar Dam during the drought period from 1947 through 1951 was 35% to 60% below normal. The Cachuma Project members, which consist of the City of Santa Barbara, Goleta Water District (WD), Montecito WD, Carpinteria Valley WD, and Santa Ynez River Water Conservation District, Improvement District No. 1 (SYRWCD ID No.1), all share the shortages. The shortages to water supply during the last three years of this critical drought period 1949-1951) for the various EIR alternatives are shown in Table 18. 1000
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 24 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
TABLE 18

IMPACTS OF SOLVANG ALTERNATIVES ON PROJECT WATER SUPPLY IN

CRITICAL DROUGHT PERIOD IN ACRE- FEET
BASED ON SIMULATION OF 1949-1951 DROUGHT)
Alt
No.

Fish Flow
Operations/
Surcharge
Solvang
River
Well
Pumping
Surcharge
Shortage in
Critical
Drought Year
1951) 1)
Shortage as
Percentage
of Annual
Draft 2)
Cumulative
Shortage in
Critical
Drought Period
1949-1951) 3)
Shortage as
Percentage of
Annual Draft
for Three Years
afy ft afy af
GW1 Alt 2 600 0.75 9,810 38% 20,130 26%
GW2 Alt 3C 2400 3.00 10,460 41% 21,300 28%
GW3 Alt 3C 3600 3.00 10,640 41% 21,790 28%
GW4 Alt 3C 1053 3.00 10,300 40% 20,910 27%
GW5 Alt 3C 2400
d/s)

3.00 10,120 39% 20,470 27%
Notes
1) Shortage rounded to nearest 10 acre-feet
2) Annual Draft from Cachuma Project is 25,714 acre-feet 3) Period corresponds with Project water supply year, May 1949 - April 1952.

Cachuma fish flow operations under SWRCB Alternative 3C (Solvang GW2-GW5) will produce substantially greater shortages in the Cachuma Project yield during the critically dry period compared with the SWRCB fish flow operations under Alternative 2 (Solvang GW1). Increases in Solvang pumping will also increase Cachuma Project water shortages during droughts. This is attributed to increases in water rights and fish water releases, which are directly related to the level of dewatered storage in the Santa Ynez River alluvium from which Solvang would be pumping.

Table 18 shows that the Alternative GW5 completely mitigates the impacts to the Cachuma Project supply compared to Alternative GW4 by pumping from wells downstream of Solvang Bridge.

Upstream of Solvang Bridge has been designated as critical management reach for endangered steelhead (NMFS, 2000); however, downstream of Solvang Bridge has not. Thus, under Alternative GW5 additional releases for fish would not be measured to maintain the habitat upstream of Solvang Bridge.
1001
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 25 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6

5.0 LOCAL GROUND WATER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR ALTERNATIVE GW5 This analysis is for the Alternative GW5 only. Please refer to previous technical memoranda for analysis of other alternatives (Stetson, 2004 c and d and 2005). Stetson evaluated the potential impact of combined pumping from the four proposed wells at Site B at an annual rate of 2,400 afy.

The estimated peak pumping rates for the four proposed wells are shown in Figure 2. These rates are slightly higher than the proposed rate in the Master Plan (Solvang, 2009). This is because the method used to evaluate the impacts is based on previous studies by Stetson Engineers (Stetson, 2004 a,b,c,d, and 2005) to determine the impact of groundwater pumping by Solvang. The previous work by Stetson employed a groundwater model. However, the area of existing model does not extend far enough to the west to cover the proposed Site B wells (Figure 1). Analytical methods were used to evaluate the impact of pumping on groundwater levels and depletion from the Santa Ynez River. A Theis (1943) drawdown analysis was employed to evaluate the effect on groundwater levels under Alternative GW5.

The Theis (1943) method can be used to estimate drawdown in an aquifer at any distance from a pumping well or wells. It can simulate the boundaries of an aquifer using image wells. For this analysis, four new wells were assumed to be located in the proposed well field area at Site B with spacing between them of approximately 1,000 feet. Image wells were used to represent the northern and southern boundaries of the river and floodplain alluvium. The monthly total pumping rate forthe proposed well field (Figure 2) was divided evenly between the four proposed wells. The monthly average pumping rate per well ranged from about 140 gpm in February to 550 gpm in September. The analysis was simulated for 24 months to determine the potential drawdowns in the vicinity of the proposed wells which may occur over a summer period with no flow in the river, as well as for an extended dry period in which inflows may be less than about five cfs per month for two years.

Pumping by others in this reach of the Santa Ynez River alluvium below the Alisal Bridge was not included in this analysis because: 1) the location and annual or monthly pumping is unknown and difficult to estimate; and 2) drawdown due to pumping is additive due to the principal of superposition such that the drawdown due to the proposed pumping can be added to current water levels experienced by well owners in the area. For example, the calculated drawdowns can be added to those shown in the water level hydrographs in Figure 4, assuming all other pumping and losses (such as phreatophyte evapotranspiration) have not changed significantly.

Tables 19 and 20 show the calculated drawdown due to the proposed pumping of 2,400 afy under Alternative GW5 from the proposed Solvang wells (proposed well field) at various times, distances and directions . The focus is on summer drawdowns because those are expected to occur when water levels in the area are at their lowest, particularly if there is no flow in the river. Calculated 1002
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 26 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
drawdowns toward the northern alluvial boundary range from a maximum of about 7 feet at a distance of 1,000 feet to about 4 feet at a distance of 3,000 feet from the proposed well field in September. This calculation is based on no river or other inflows to the area. In the upstream or downstream (east or west) direction, the calculated drawdown ranges from a maximum of about 4 feet at a distance of 2,000 feet to about 1.0 feet at a distance of 6,000 feet from the proposed well field in September. Again, this calculation is based on no river or other inflows to the area.

TABLE 19

CALCULATED DRAWDOWN NORTH OF THE PROPOSED SOLVANG WELL FIELD

END OF MONTH DRAWDOWN IN FEET)
Distance North from Proposed Well Field
Year 1 1,000 ft 2,000 ft 3,000 ft
March 1.8 1.2 0.9
June 4.4 3.2 2.5
Sept. 6.7 5.2 4.3
Year 2
March 5.8 5.2 4.8
June 7.5 6.2 5.4
Sept. 9.1 7.6 6.7
TABLE 20
CALCULATED DRAWDOWN UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM (IE. EAST OR WEST) OF PROPOSED

SOLVANG WELL FIELD

END OF MONTH DRAWDOWN IN FEET )
Distance Up or Down from Proposed Well Field
Year 1 2,000 4,000 ft 6,000 ft
March 0.8 0.4 0.1
June 2.3 1.1 0.05
Sept. 3.9 2.2 1.2
Year 2
March 4.4 3.2 2.3
June 5.0 3.5 2.5
Sept. 6.2 4.2 3.0
These calculated drawdowns would be much lower, near zero, within a distance of about 1,000 feet if the Santa Ynez River were flowing.
1003
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 27 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6

6.0 SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Analyses of the new alternative with all of Solvang’ s new Santa Ynez River wells located downstream ofAlisal Bridge indicates that development of a well field at this site should be successful.

The reported performance of existing wells indicates that the aquifer would be able to meet both monthly average and peak demands of the City of Solvang. The alluvial deposits are thicker and the yields are typically higher in this area compared with upstream of the Alisal Bridge. Therefore, it is anticipated only four new wells would have to be drilled at the proposed well sites downstream compared with six wells upstream of the Alisal Bridge.

The SYRHM indicates locating the wells downstream ofAlisal Bridge would also mitigate the impacts to endangered steelhead and impacts to Cachuma Project water supply. This would occur because the Alisal Bridge is used as a target flow site in the Cachuma Project operations under the BO, and locating the new wells about 1.5 mile downstream of the Bridge would mitigate the impacts to river flows upstream of the Alisal Bridge. The Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan SYRTAC, 2000) has also indicated that Alisal Bridge is the farthest downstream location from Lake Cachuma in which the endangered steelhead are considered to have good to marginally fair habitat conditions. So, environmental impacts from increased pumping downstream ofAlisal Bridge would be less compared to upstream of Alisal Bridge.

Solvang would have sufficient capacity with the proposed wells and existing Wells 3 and 7Ato pump the proposed amount from a combination of those wells and have the flexibility to manage local drawdowns. If water levels decline in excess of operational criteria, pumping could likely be shifted to other wells in response to local conditions.
1004
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 28 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY/ REFERENCES
Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board and Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, June 2003. Draft Program and Project Specific Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement of the Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan and Cachuma Project Biological Opinion for Southern Steelhead Trout City of Solvang. August 2009. Draft Water System Master Plan Update.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), September 11, 2000. Biological Opinion. U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation Operation and Maintenance of the Cachuma Project on the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County, California.

Provost and Pritchard, Inc. May 2002. City of Solvang, CA Water System Master Plan Update.

Santa Barbara County Water Agency, Santa Ynez River Hydrology Model Manual, Draft, 9/9/1997, expanded by Stetson Engineers Inc.. April 2004.

Santa Ynez River Technical Advisory Committee (SYRTAC), October 2, 2000. Lower Santa Ynez River Fish Management Plan. Volumes I and II. Prepared for the Santa Ynez River Consensus Committee, Santa Barbara, CA. Final Report.

State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights, August 2003. Draft Environmental Impact Report. Consideration of Modifications to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’ s Water Right Permits 11308 and 11310 (Applications 11331 and 11332) To Protect Public Trust Values and Downstream Water Rights on the Santa Ynez River Below Bradbury Dam (Cachuma Reservoir).

Stetson Engineers Inc., 2004a, Solvang DEIR Draft Technical Memorandum No. 1, “ Hydrologic Impact Analyses for City of Solvang’ s CEQA Environmental Document for a Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878”, April 23, 2004.

Stetson Engineers Inc., 2004b, Solvang DEIR Draft Technical Memorandum No. 2, “Water Quality Impact Analyses for City of Solvang’ s CEQA Environmental Document for a Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878”, May 10, 2004.

Stetson Engineers Inc., 2004c, Solvang DEIR Draft Technical Memorandum No. 3, “Solvang EIR Groundwater Model Modflow Simulations”, July 19, 2004. 1005
Stetson Engineers Inc. Page 29 January 24, 2011
Draft Tech. Memo No. 6
Stetson Engineers Inc., 2004d, Solvang DEIR Draft Technical Memorandum No. 4, “Additional Alternative Analyses for City of Solvang’ s CEQA Environmental Document for a Time Extension for Water Rights Permit 15878”, November 11, 2004.

Stetson Engineers Inc., 2005, Solvang DEIR Draft Technical Memorandum No. 5, “ Assessment of Impacts of Proposed Solvang Pumping on Alisal Ranch Wells”, July 19, 2005.

Stetson Engineers Inc., 2010, Technical Memorandum, “ New City of Solvang Well Field”, May 14, 2010.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, April 7, 1999. Biological Assessment for Cachuma Project Operations and the Lower Santa Ynez River. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, June 13, 2000. Revised Section 3 (Proposed Project) of the Biological Assessment for Cachuma Project Operations and the Lower Santa Ynez River. Prepared for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Wilson, H.D., 1959. Ground-water appraisal of Santa Ynez River Basin, Santa Barbara County California, 1945-52. United States Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1467. 1006

FIGURES
1007
1716202115228919187102728293017D117R1Solvang
1009
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0 1
2 3
4 5
Well Production (cfs)Monthly
Solvang Well Production for
Various Alternatives
Analyzed
1011

1013
330340350360nd
1015
020406080100

PERCENT OF TIME FLOW AT OR BELOW
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Simulated Monthly SpillorRelease inCFS
SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang River
Well Pumping GW1: Alt2/
600 afy GW2: Alt 3C/
2400 afy GW3: Alt 3C/
3600 afy GW4: Alt 3C/ 1053 afy
GW5: Alt 3C/ 2400 afy (d/
s)FREQUENCYOFSPILLS AND DOWNSTREAM

RELEASES FROM CACHUMA

RESERVOIR FOR
HIGH
1017
020406080100

PERCENT OF TIME FLOW AT OR BELOW
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 Simulated Monthly Spill or Release inCFS
SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang River
Well Pumping GW1: Alt2/
600 afy GW2: Alt 3C/
2400 afy GW3: Alt 3C/
3600 afy GW4: Alt 3C/ 1053 afy
GW5: Alt 3C/ 2400 afy (d/
s)FREQUENCYOFSPILLS AND DOWNSTREAM

RELEASES FROM CACHUMA

RESERVOIR FOR
LOW
1019
020406080100

PERCENT OF TIME FLOW AT OR BELOW
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 Simulated Monthly Santa Ynez River Flow in
CFS SWRCB EIR Alternative/ Solvang
River Well Pumping GW1: Alt
2/ 600 afy GW2: Alt
3C/ 2400 afy GW3: Alt
3C/ 3600 afy GW4: Alt 3C/ 1053
afy GW5: Alt 3C/ 2400 afy (
d/s)FREQUENCY

OF SANTA YNEZ

RIVER FLOW
BELOW
1021
020406080100

OF SANTA YNEZ

RIVER FLOW
AT
1023
020406080100

OF SANTA YNEZ

RIVER FLOW
ABOVE
1025
020406080100

FREQUENCY OF SANTA

YNEZ RIVER
FLOW
1027
020406080100

SANTA YNEZ RIVER

FLOW ABOVE

SALSIPUEDES
1029
020406080100

OF SANTA YNEZ

RIVER FLOW
AT
1031
1920
1033
1920
1035
1920
1037
1920
1039
Appendix A
1040
Water
Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP SUM 1918 476 453 433 414 47,567 127,927 17,774 5,003 519 642 687 694 202,591 1919 491 455 367 1,273 1,296 1,294 352 361 375 4,023 910 2,416 13,612 1920 350 361 358 367 280 328 243 355 380 4,147 1,371 2,560 11,099 1921 1,802 403 199 165 162 183 197 207 230 1,064 4,824 2,237 11,673 1922 1,731 858 615 395 1,048 2,625 7,447 554 368 358 384 1,368 17,750 1923 923 376 303 1,300 1,307 1,283 313 345 364 377 4,450 3,037 14,378 1924 3,037 2,061 390 384 375 311 371 377 385 395 2,545 2,178 12,809 1925 1,248 192 205 215 222 208 171 222 230 2,147 2,443 196 7,698 1926 216 226 225 224 270 166 927 259 367 386 2,439 2,399 8,103 1927 1,713 225 171 169 1,581 12,994 4,166 429 333 361 387 2,270 24,800 1928 362 370 367 1,273 1,386 1,337 331 353 364 4,008 3,038 3,026 16,214 1929 3,017 400 393 380 343 310 326 372 3,752 3,002 2,755 3,414 18,465 1930 1,847 188 202 212 217 220 205 219 230 2,059 1,165 208 6,972 1931 226 235 238 239 220 232 229 1,517 266 226 246 259 4,135 1932 265 264 438 250 949 366 248 329 372 395 2,732 1,547 8,154 1933 358 210 219 294 278 356 361 212 224 1,603 2,998 356 7,468 1934 212 225 231 292 193 167 221 228 4,140 2,994 2,993 2,992 14,887 1935 2,992 246 246 307 187 326 449 163 213 236 4,720 2,994 13,079 1936 2,993 228 233 233 632 214 201 203 227 4,150 2,553 2,216 14,082 1937 200 215 223 206 1,221 4,485 16,929 1,097 613 662 3,937 680 30,468 1938 962 786 361 1,273 29,958 187,384 15,924 2,249 595 639 687 697 241,514 1939 478 470 350 1,314 1,331 1,378 274 346 367 3,742 3,037 1,848 14,935 1940 1,605 353 366 325 240 252 317 368 386 3,982 2,728 2,350 13,272 1941 1,644 615 261 588 56,837 193,829 120,510 18,361 2,956 540 600 642 397,382 1942 326 327 565 453 400 856 6,346 487 383 350 385 1,550 12,426 1943 361 355 357 45,519 28,932 66,502 10,302 532 607 649 691 700 155,505 1944 455 430 332 290 19,451 35,996 4,713 518 611 671 693 706 64,866 1945 519 331 354 347 498 6,504 2,626 420 355 393 1,031 2,363 15,740 1946 419 374 250 355 334 305 2,912 380 363 3,780 3,038 3,035 15,544 1947 3,035 343 339 375 347 358 372 3,430 3,037 3,028 3,026 3,001 20,691 1948 1,442 352 365 210 218 224 230 236 1,245 763 230 246 5,760 1949 254 256 254 246 246 1,955 211 1,833 291 218 240 254 6,259 1950 260 261 244 250 1,908 200 215 3,174 194 213 236 251 7,408 1951 259 260 26 25 25 24 24 846 24 23 22 213 1,773
1952 22 22 29 1,561 237 1,588 8,636 788 403 1,212 2,136 4,579 21,211 1953 922 312 359 2,041 277 316 327 369 377 4,045 2,556 2,923 14,824 1954 1,999 1,081 346 677 1,316 328 264 368 372 4,172 2,323 3,421 16,667 1955 1,916 187 200 155 181 200 206 195 231 3,280 2,278 194 9,222 1956 213 225 765 952 243 177 213 165 210 218 2,695 417 6,493 1957 227 223 224 211 159 158 193 205 4,525 1,662 2,308 259 10,354 1958 255 303 221 166 833 1,184 31,151 9,142 504 626 673 744 45,803 1959 479 465 411 331 2,084 274 322 357 369 4,088 2,758 2,851 14,790 1960 1,889 740 358 350 1,912 350 321 367 377 1,237 1,093 212 9,206 1961 228 221 219 233 230 227 228 1,754 315 223 243 257 4,379 1962 262 303 172 168 2,771 644 264 288 362 1,385 2,047 357 9,024 1963 377 388 384 368 320 303 240 328 367 1,934 611 385 6,007 1964 398 396 390 219 220 221 222 1,875 350 215 236 251 4,993 1965 258 260 257 173 229 211 378 199 3,976 3,990 582 377 10,888 1966 217 377 368 431 283 247 351 352 374 396 4,880 2,995 11,270 1967 2,994 2,993 315 756 467 28,488 53,316 20,328 906 659 3,809 2,940 117,971 1968 439 706 363 359 339 1,928 321 365 3,429 379 1,650 2,245 12,523 1969 1,613 805 356 126,692 188,394 78,219 17,924 5,623 510 642 675 692 422,145 1970 449 361 355 312 298 2,217 367 362 378 3,796 3,037 2,049 13,982 1971 2,344 917 247 300 328 342 359 375 3,444 3,038 3,036 2,492 17,222 1972 1,613 899 244 332 343 369 371 3,413 2,279 379 1,982 2,439 14,663 1973 1,738 157 197 667 1,328 13,526 7,653 528 620 677 696 1,107 28,895 1974 593 430 365 586 303 1,766 464 386 367 423 1,658 2,104 9,444 1975 354 364 315 333 2,284 8,524 4,959 494 381 354 384 644 19,390 1976 391 391 386 382 1,946 320 337 362 378 1,046 2,971 405 9,315 1977 376 387 384 380 378 374 377 1,787 751 307 231 248 5,981 1978 256 257 254 694 20,345 145,626 35,260 7,429 499 593 652 685 212,549 1979 388 378 352 312 1,771 21,191 11,015 512 595 663 696 866 38,740 1980 504 477 365 276 70,315 40,857 6,987 817 573 653 696 833 123,353 1981 494 472 410 320 290 2,448 315 318 353 432 1,860 2,340 10,053 1982 1,336 351 358 344 350 1,952 340 313 372 3,859 3,038 3,035 15,650 1983 400 373 374 14,767 57,350 196,391 56,423 29,377 5,102 530 593 648 362,328 1984 292 339 13,406 4,824 1,679 467 382 341 365 391 825 2,339 25,649 1985 793 370 312 360 337 340 363 378 390 405 2,866 1,857 8,770 1986 355 372 369 340 778 7,166 3,981 434 332 371 769 1,790 17,056 1987 367 374 374 359 373 1,949 352 364 374 796 1,032 385 7,098 1988 397 402 394 354 373 1,928 321 356 3,963 2,995 2,993 2,992 17,467 1989 242 247 247 241 226 231 231 1,740 1,146 1,946 332 220 7,048 1990 234 241 243 243 243 238 241 1,361 212 478 310 296 4,343 1991 434 319 249 248 247 711 214 169 5,066 2,995 3,978 1,816 16,446 1992 331 206 200 153 1,036 429 281 281 343 379 4,474 2,758 10,870 1993 2,050 823 344 22,876 113,879 65,394 28,690 6,343 497 607 664 698 242,865 AVG 894 442 486 3,237 8,918 16,854 6,468 1,938 949 1,457 1,810 1,527 44,980 MEDIAN 436 361 345 342 373 401 351 374 377 656 1,654 1,458 14,032 Alternative GW5: SWRCB EIR Alt 3C, Solvang River Well Pumping 2,400 acre-feet/year- wells located downstream of Alisal Bridge SANTA YNEZ RIVER BELOW HILTON CREEK ( acre-feet/month)
EIR_ MonthlyFlowsgw5 12/21/2010
1041
Water
Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP SUM 1918 300 300 300 300 49,070 129,261 18,256 5,158 600 600 600 600 205,344 1919 402 374 300 1,161 1,251 1,248 300 300 300 3,810 807 2,183 12,434 1920 300 300 300 300 300 562 300 300 300 3,927 1,206 2,369 10,463 1921 1,675 353 150 150 180 233 150 150 150 851 4,615 2,065 10,722 1922 1,602 792 1,402 813 2,531 3,162 7,599 610 342 300 300 1,150 20,603 1923 822 300 473 1,235 1,281 1,221 300 300 300 300 4,216 2,963 13,710 1924 2,947 1,977 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 2,245 2,008 11,578 1925 1,134 150 150 150 150 150 194 150 150 1,858 2,242 150 6,627 1926 150 150 150 150 447 185 2,171 300 300 300 2,160 2,222 8,684 1927 1,588 368 220 209 3,833 13,189 4,327 456 300 300 300 2,002 27,091 1928 300 300 300 1,165 1,493 1,366 300 300 300 3,811 2,963 2,930 15,528 1929 2,914 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 3,555 2,929 2,660 3,088 17,246 1930 1,718 150 150 150 150 325 150 150 150 1,774 1,006 150 6,023 1931 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 1,289 204 150 150 150 2,993 1932 150 150 847 386 2,214 659 300 300 300 300 2,437 1,401 9,444 1933 300 150 150 500 300 300 300 150 150 1,353 2,767 301 6,721 1934 150 150 150 499 252 150 150 150 3,903 2,917 2,892 2,881 14,243 1935 2,878 150 150 525 230 590 921 180 150 150 4,434 2,915 13,272 1936 2,900 150 150 150 1,394 313 278 150 150 3,902 2,473 1,956 13,964 1937 150 150 150 281 2,941 5,907 17,185 1,155 600 600 3,765 600 33,484 1938 856 686 300 1,168 31,345 190,989 16,275 2,225 600 600 600 600 246,243 1939 389 377 300 1,265 1,342 1,474 300 300 300 3,550 2,959 1,621 14,178 1940 1,454 300 300 300 321 300 300 300 300 3,764 2,650 2,094 12,383 1941 1,501 555 426 1,272 61,039 199,720 123,221 18,808 3,050 600 600 600 411,393 1942 300 300 1,101 691 485 1,087 6,423 553 379 300 316 1,332 13,267 1943 300 300 300 46,694 29,583 68,071 10,562 600 600 600 600 600 158,810 1944 370 347 300 300 20,574 36,727 4,857 600 600 600 600 600 66,475 1945 418 300 300 300 884 6,566 2,682 423 300 317 895 2,103 15,488 1946 355 300 300 300 300 360 2,904 353 300 3,595 2,960 2,938 14,966 1947 2,929 300 300 300 300 300 300 3,252 2,969 2,938 2,917 2,671 19,475 1948 1,312 300 300 150 150 150 150 150 1,005 653 150 150 4,620 1949 150 150 150 150 150 1,957 150 1,628 236 150 150 150 5,171 1950 150 150 150 150 1,834 150 150 2,911 155 150 150 150 6,250 1951 15015000000553 00029 882
1952 0003, 5702773,665 8,653 857 384 1,094 1,999 4,457 24,956 1953 864 300 638 2,194 300 300 300 300 300 3,840 2,487 2,662 14,485 1954 1,864 988 300 701 1,308 579 300 300 300 3,952 2,252 3,136 15,981 1955 1,795 150 150 165 150 150 150 150 150 2,943 2,119 150 8,222 1956 150 150 1,750 2,279 402 227 317 188 150 150 2,370 350 8,483 1957 162 150 150 150 167 150 150 150 4,278 1,501 2,140 212 9,360 1958 188 226 150 185 1,946 2,900 33,740 9,514 600 600 600 648 51,296 1959 393 378 331 300 2,300 300 300 300 300 3,881 2,684 2,593 14,061 1960 1,755 678 300 300 1,877 300 300 300 300 1,036 926 150 8,221 1961 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 1,507 252 150 150 150 3,258 1962 150 187 150 173 7,085 1,405 392 300 300 1,197 1,869 300 13,509 1963 300 300 300 300 527 477 300 300 300 1,698 532 300 5,634 1964 300 300 300 150 150 150 150 1,647 295 150 150 150 3,891 1965 150 150 150 183 150 150 719 150 3,649 3,848 531 311 10,141 1966 150 729 713 862 461 300 300 300 300 300 4,620 2,920 11,954 1967 2,905 2,898 530 1,669 768 28,445 53,613 20,668 927 600 3,651 2,877 119,551 1968 360 603 300 300 300 1,872 300 300 3,253 309 1,431 2,069 11,397 1969 1,493 742 300 129,749 192,612 79,716 18,437 5,809 600 600 600 600 431,256 1970 366 300 300 300 300 2,423 334 300 300 3,583 2,959 1,964 13,431 1971 2,070 856 345 300 300 300 300 300 3,252 2,961 2,939 2,206 16,129 1972 1,470 826 352 300 300 300 300 3,247 2,224 300 1,737 2,251 13,607 1973 1,611 150 150 1,528 3,281 14,038 7,856 600 600 600 600 937 31,950 1974 510 353 300 1,162 321 1,838 491 364 300 335 1,430 1,931 9,335 1975 300 300 517 300 2,848 9,749 5,118 577 376 300 300 531 21,216 1976 300 300 300 300 1,919 300 300 300 300 860 2,727 347 8,252 1977 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 1,586 680 237 150 150 4,903 1978 150 150 150 1,520 23,695 149,484 36,346 7,670 600 600 600 600 221,565 1979 322 311 300 498 2,148 21,578 11,342 600 600 600 600 753 39,653 1980 413 388 300 404 72,435 42,109 7,154 934 600 600 600 721 126,659 1981 403 383 329 300 300 3,205 397 300 300 342 1,617 2,163 10,039 1982 1,220 300 300 300 300 1,947 595 300 300 3,665 2,965 2,941 15,133 1983 300 300 645 16,392 59,587 198,954 57,878 30,184 5,336 600 600 600 371,376 1984 300 300 13,444 4,929 1,735 503 383 300 300 310 693 2,066 25,261 1985 712 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 2,534 1,699 7,645 1986 300 300 300 300 1,767 8,027 4,013 466 300 300 650 1,551 18,274 1987 300 300 300 300 300 1,929 300 300 300 676 833 300 6,138 1988 300 300 300 300 300 1,893 300 300 3,786 2,925 2,898 2,882 16,483 1989 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 1,500 1,009 1,779 271 150 5,759 1990 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 1,113 150 371 209 187 3,080 1991 302 207 150 150 150 1,583 304 150 4,818 2,922 3,681 1,693 16,109 1992 280 150 150 150 2,470 834 431 300 300 300 4,231 2,683 12,280 1993 1,826 750 300 23,923 116,164 66,786 29,261 6,557 600 600 600 600 247,968 AVG 798 376 494 3,419 9,467 17,333 6,646 1,926 889 1,344 1,675 1,390 45,759 MEDIAN 339 300 300 300 425 625 300 300 300 600 1,431 1,241 13,558 Alternative GW5: SWRCB EIR Alt 3C, Solvang River Well Pumping 2,400 acre-feet/year- wells located downstream of Alisal Bridge SANTA YNEZ RIVER AT 154 BRIDGE ( acre-feet/month)
EIR_MonthlyFlowsgw5 12/21/2010
1042
Water
Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP SUM 1918 912 27 57 55,454 134,056 20,047 5,769 850 433 282 245 217,241 1919 90 107 101 821 1,130 1,148 186 170 116 3,100 408 1,246 8,622 1920 90 81 114 114 361 1,291 517 210 117 3,189 559 1,498 8,141 1921 1,076 164 23 117 240 402 88 62 52693,695 1,267 7,409 1922 1,005 530 3,582 2,201 7,910 5,206 8,318 849 279 128 44 398 30,450 1923 415 62 822 1,069 1,246 1,105 306 215 151 89 3,313 2,625 11,418 1924 2,577 1,674 77 100 130 292 161 136 95 45 1,181 1,203 7,672 1925 612 16 12 11 11 50 262 28 69551,339 03301
1926 00117801896,126 441 146 72 1,137 1,372 10,265
1927 992 687 320 341 12,579 14,235 4,921 566 210 116 33 984 35,986 1928 60 65 93 820 1,840 1,489 243 186 142 3,126 2,631 2,524 13,219 1929 2,494245088200 298 259 144 2,964 2,634 2,268 1,824 13,245 1930 1,071 20 15 13 18 6606028 1896 357 03138
193100004004842000 490
1932 001, 5845336,925 1,641 471 252 127 42 1,321 696 13,591 1933 62 001, 045360 196 182 32 35841, 739 59 4,262
1934 0 0 0 957 376 124 21 5 3,175 2,591 2,456 2,403 12,107 1935 2,402 001, 025323 1,430 2,536 299 40 0 3,374 2,545 13,974 1936 2,500 0 0 0 3,856 651 565 67 7 3,091 2,124 951 13,813 1937 0004319, 03211,218 18,240 1,363 557 375 3,047 276 44,539 1938 447 345 129 876 36,651 205,639 17,604 2,180 650 466 290 246 265,523 1939 90 90 146 1,130 1,415 1,869 408 217 142 2,909 2,630 779 11,825 1940 808 107 109 240 586 481 320 177 105 3,047 2,318 1,119 9,417 1941 860 319 826 3,416 74,755 222,390 133,830 20,129 3,280 714 508 394 461,421 1942 170 184 2,212 1,248 701 1,667 6,802 745 350 145 90 535 14,849 1943 62 97 120 52,082 31,744 74,491 11,404 811 585 422 282 242 172,342 1944 90 90 175 304 24,783 39,172 5,361 878 574 367 269 215 72,278 1945 90 173 137 174 2,395 7,120 3,011 477 150 90 412 1,108 15,336 1946 102 61 468 173 255 595 3,115 314 140 2,945 2,629 2,533 13,331 1947 2,510 162 184 119 185 181 155 2,793 2,743 2,613 2,493 1,461 15,600 1948 703 103 105 17 16 16 12 3405 270 0 0 1,651
1949 000001,440077421000 2, 235
195000101, 089 101, 672 0000 2,764
1951000000020000
1952 00011,77315 9,481 8,440 872 209 496 1,188 3,698 35,876 2 1953 553 176 1,084 2,616 400 310 275 157 114 3,131 2,170 1,585 12,571 1954 1,201 590 150 839 1,326 1,230 498 164 142 3,215 1,935 1,950 13,240 1955 1,163 22 17 142 86 64 53 78 0 1,834 1,303 04761
1956 003, 4465,263 776 375 623 307 46 20 1,253 69 12,177 1957 0002103111 57 35 3,451 823 1,306 15 5,903
1958 0001574,741 8,250 43,852 10,791 889 470 306 275 69,732 1959 90 90 90 198 2,917 398 270 188 137 3,171 2,356 1,538 11,443 1960 1,112 425 128 168 1,746 189 256 153 108 427 294 0 5,007 1961066000062020000 651
1962 00143519,361 3,259 760 332 131 576 1,070 56 25,593 1963 27 22 40 86 772 721 375 223 133 929 191 12 3,531
19641314000089478 000 990
1965 0 0 0 44 2 2 1,250 9 2,235 2,870 234 33 6,680
1966 01,026 1,214 1,879 818 471 224 206 135 48 3,595 2,559 12,175 1967 2,512 2,524 1,267 4,366 2,113 29,047 54,788 22,297 995 380 3,016 2,588 125,893 1968 90 260 119 149 228 1,820 287 154 2,760 90 643 1,242 7,841 1969 916 488 136 144,193 212,067 86,536 20,137 6,536 893 453 328 264 472,949 1970 90 105 133 283 357 3,369 291 169 119 2,905 2,630 1,619 12,070 1971 1,086 605 648 315 243 240 197 143 2,734 2,677 2,551 1,153 12,592 1972 823 529 712 240 222 163 159 2,849 2,042 68 841 1,379 10,028 1973 1,010 89 23 3,714 9,996 15,808 8,580 859 540 343 253 306 41,520 1974 182 90 101 2,679 409 2,089 604 342 143 90 629 1,127 8,485 1975 81 76 802 206 4,235 12,980 5,632 855 340 132 44 135 25,520 1976 18 23 44 68 1,758 240 215 159 99 297 1,710 91 4,721 1977 32 28 44 66 86 111 109 1,031 417 23 00 1, 948
1978 0002, 98833,695 163,805 40,026 8,507 932 576 373 273 251,175 1979 90 90 134 945 3,239 22,845 12,507 885 592 373 249 315 42,263 1980 90 90 96 731 80,561 46,283 7,795 1,378 697 417 258 303 138,700 1981 90 90 90 215 341 5,463 681 288 179 90 754 1,325 9,605 1982 690 116 126 182 191 2,091 1,575 332 129 3,017 2,647 2,547 13,642 1983 16 85 1,659 20,928 66,382 210,879 63,129 33,429 6,119 742 558 390 404,317 1984 273 162 13,462 5,285 1,982 696 447 239 151 90 267 1,074 24,128 1985 371 75 209 149 214 225 183 134 92 38 1,380 953 4,024 1986 75 63 93 174 4,321 10,145 4,158 568 210 87 243 674 20,812 1987 53 54 76 131 117 1,820 179 146 108 307 194 16 3,204 1988 4 5 21 106 91 1,868 250 156 3,208 2,634 2,497 2,423 13,263 1989 0000400699447 1,015 27 02192
19900000000268 0400 272
1991000003, 52054665 3,805 2,518 2,236 929 13,618
1992 49 0141317, 3212, 291,094 448 234 98 3,321 2,348 17,287 1993 979 450 157 27,900 124,226 72,479 31,672 7,433 979 558 355 242 267,430 AVG 463 179 497 4,056 11,383 19,110 7,338 1,946 723 970 1,164 872 48,701 MEDIAN 90 70 93 190 736 1,261 427 303 150 420 636 466 12,374 Alternative GW5: SWRCB EIR Alt 3C, Solvang River Well Pumping 2,400 acre-feet/year- wells located downstream of Alisal Bridge SANTA YNEZ RIVER ABOVE ALISAL BRIDGE (acre-feet/month)
EIR_MonthlyFlowsgw5 12/21/2010
1043
Water
Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP SUM 1918 000064, 490135, 67221,897 6,576 1,250 387 160 113 230,546 1919 0425597 1,045 1,088 77 82 24 2,668 175 673 6,457
1920 0 0 12 54951,857 855 186 26 2,711 177 845 7,169
1921 528 10 0 109 353 672 73 38 0313,033 654 5,502
1922 468 254 6,519 4,044 13,185 7,554 9,242 1,173 276 65 0100 42, 878 1923 178 01,373 1,033 1,288 1,006 342 170 81 11 2,787 2,365 10,635 1924 2,305 1,460 0 10 31 383 87 45 11 0628 634 5,594
1925 205 000018440 0 0 469 717 01849
1926 00001, 397286 9,438 706 89 2569 734 13,221
1927 459 1,053 458 534 21,286 14,789 5,633 714 173 53 0488 45,639 1928 0 0 1 550 2,034 1,638 202 105 51 2,681 2,378 2,238 11,878 1929 2,196 002191392 305 73 2,560 2,408 1,997 1,062 11,186 1930 505 00001,16118 0040821 02113
1931 000000085 0000 85
1932 002, 8781,046 9,782 3,089 727 300 43 0706 219 18,791 1933 0001, 891518 158 130 0 0 200 1,024 0 3,921
1934 0 0 0 1,737 545 166 002, 6762,329 2,135 2,055 11,643 1935 2,048 001, 956577 2,347 4,276 515 14 0 2,753 2,252 16,740 1936 2,196 0006, 4731,186 819 46 02,597 1,867 380 15,565 1937 00075616,946 17,199 19,632 1,627 585 276 2,632 98 59,750 1938 203 138 45 656 43,937 215,141 19,224 2,101 796 480 167 105 282,993 1939 001131,198 1,656 2,466 568 175 54 2,529 2,401 330 11,490 1940 353 022461,010 783 413 117 18 2,616 2,082 564 8,205 1941 378 109 1,385 6,355 85,274 241,945 141,820 21,816 3,663 995 613 388 504,743 1942 188 213 3,858 2,089 1,023 2,481 7,377 1,013 393 92 23 185 18,934 1943 052256,748 34,223 79,956 12,380 1,090 657 374 160 101 185,716 1944 4 3 159 435 28,528 41,557 5,941 1,249 632 261 132 52 78,952 1945 0197 91 152 4,427 7,570 3,461 574 77 11 189 585 17,334 1946 00814132301 640 3,585 333 59 2,553 2,398 2,266 13,080 1947 2,231 187 212 56 170 152 82 2,469 2,578 2,409 2,235 813 13,593 1948 255 000000011767 00 440
1949 000001,433 0310 0 0 0 0 1, 743
19500000806 00852 0000 1, 659
1951
1952
000000000000
0 0 0 18,904 608 18,313 9,390 1,199 132 254 759 3,081 52,640 0 1953 315 99 1,745 3,304 549 351 228 53 19 2,670 1,916 871 12,119 1954 591 175 89041, 3542, 063 764 55 48 2,721 1,685 1,140 11,507 1955 540 0 0 55 33 11 158 01,089 613 02399
1956 005,8748, 1081,236 556 901 509 00638 017822
1957 000091136 34 10 2,864 343 643 04121
1958 0001538,579 15,394 55,422 12,218 1,291 386 157 103 93,703 1959 0001723,933 549 211 94 60 2,703 2,105 853 10,680
1960 538 166 2371,604 68 202 45 9111 50 2, 787
1961 00000001140000 114
1962 000033, 9345, 7931,252 385 30 227 523 042145
1963 00001,0631,018 465 173 40 430 4 0 3,192
19640000000268 0000 268
1965 0000001,771 01,223 1,852 12 04858
1966 01,415 1,888 3,257 1,290 712 127 149 54 0 2,902 2,244 14,038 1967 2,176 2,200 2,305 8,125 3,371 29,332 55,116 23,553 996 244 2,745 2,405 132,567 1968 079 40 82 240 1,925 321 53 2,431 2267 672 6,114
1969 423 231 10 161,436 230,150 94,886 21,387 7,331 1,254 370 217 145 517,839 1970 5 63 79 402 546 4,464 231 71 30 2,529 2,403 1,393 12,216 1971 538 399 824 389 226 180 114 44 2,400 2,484 2,302 586 10,486 1972 349 258 1,144 225 186 65 65 2,537 1,908 0373 757 7,866 1973 481 35 0 5,994 18,484 17,447 9,438 1,030 472 203 98 48 53,729 1974 21 074, 8545692,509 775 372 60 2 235 574 9,979
1975 001, 2241536,243 17,438 6,243 1,218 294 51 03 32, 867 1976 00001, 762215 158 59 9411,032 03277
1977 0000000557185 000 742
1978 0004, 79347,498 181,506 44,650 9,555 1,277 661 343 131 290,413 1979 69761,692 4,903 24,678 13,895 1,242 593 244 89 103 47,531 1980 0 0 0 1,263 91,268 51,376 8,535 1,794 770 311 112 113 155,542 1981 000216492 8,739 1,074 327 138 2324731 12,042
1982 257 0 6 80 115 2,339 2,863 379 34 2,625 2,412 2,277 13,387 1983 0322,889 27,550 75,154 218,100 66,992 36,316 7,246 1,046 721 385 436,429 1984 440 145 14,093 5,655 2,239 911 463 161 60 10 87 562 24,825 1985 137 0183 69 195 205 119 39 10 0 795 443 2,196
1986 0001137,796 13,169 4,320 592 183 10 70 254 26,507
1987 0002710 1,804 82 43 15 118 00 2, 099
1988 00021 0 2,044 251 52 2,772 2,403 2,214 2,107 11,865 1989 0000000305136 514 0 0 955
1990000000000000
1991 000006,4501, 066115 3,165 2,227 1,345 333 14,702
0 1992 00016213,875 4,111 1,930 664 262 14 2,757 2,081 25,857 1993 442 194 38 33,408 134,187 78,999 34,694 8,270 1,334 575 312 102 292,555 AVG 289 120 663 4,920 13,629 20,956 8,087 2,060 667 778 887 589 53,645 MEDIAN 0001571,016 1,535 516 284 79 249 358 236 11,960
Alternative GW5: SWRCB EIR Alt 3C, Solvang River Well Pumping 2,400 acre-feet/year- wells located downstream of Alisal Bridge SANTA YNEZ RIVER NEAR BUELLTON ( acre-feet/month)
EIR_MonthlyFlowsgw5 12/21/2010
1044
Water
Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP SUM 1918 000073, 502135,459 23,962 7,735 1,768 334 22 0 242,781 1919 000256793 981 927 02,100 0 66 4,232
192000004481,880 1,145 186 02,107 0107 5,873
1921 70028342 840 65 29 002, 06449 3,423
1922 128,8205, 95917,687 10,075 10,546 1,717 364 31 00 55, 202 1923 001, 4709131,294 979 451 192 54 0 2,065 2,007 9,424 1924 1,934 1,182 00041438 0005543 3,665
1925
1926
000000461
00001,54425410, 793997
001148
67 04484
0520
13, 783
1927 11,133 502 715 29,089 15,185 6,672 1,015 206 15 012 54,545 1928 0001861,774 1,667 190 62 02,137 2,039 1,847 9,903
1929 1,795 000135430 329 30 2,137 2,137 1,635 242 8,870 1930 12 00001,514000400 1,530
1931
1932
000000000000
003, 5251,010 10,088 4,644 989 403 0097 020757
0 1933 0002, 325566 124 94 0 0 0 200 0 3,310
1934 0 0 0 2,039 526 178 002,1242, 0091,707 1,581 10,166 1935 1,573 002, 593784 3,022 5,761 834 20 0 1,996 1,883 18,466 1936 1,811 0008, 2811,787 998 70 0 2,055 1,543 016546
1937 00083324,786 23,030 21,508 2,124 735 202 2,104 0 75,322 1938 00038151,588 221,297 21,327 2,200 1,087 529 36 0 298,446 1939 00111,108 1,829 3,130 791 198 10 2,087 2,094 0 11,259 1940 0 0 0 144 1,300 1,036 527 99 02,086 1,764 35 6,992 1941 001, 6559,138 89,112 258,175 147,294 23,789 4,122 1,273 644 305 535,507 1942 137 169 4,763 2,760 1,313 3,165 8,110 1,382 480 40 0 0 22,320 1943 00059, 75937,278 85,000 13,706 1,495 826 333 32 0 198,430 1944 0 0 43 431 30,584 44,015 6,805 1,783 784 177 70 84, 628 1945 086 4726,497 7,910 4,196 806 67 0031 19,670
1946 0096265 327 436 4,204 430 20 2,101 2,092 1,898 12,534 1947 1,849 136 188 15 147 143 51 2,219 2,435 2,174 1,891 140 11,387 1948
1949
000000000000
00000719 000000 719
0 19500000106 0000000 106
1951
1952
000000000000
00026, 393159 26,701 9,800 1,493 28 26 246 2,263 67,108 0 1953 85 4 1,910 3,911 775 482 212 12 02,175 1,600 165 11,331 1954 46 007921,295 2,689 1,117 502, 1491,365 279 9,736
1955 12 00000017 0249 00 278
1956 006, 3678,540 1,603 758 1,090 798 0088 019245
1957 0000069 002,134023 02227
1958 0 0 0 14 11,170 22,326 67,277 14,142 1,850 276 11 0 117,066 1959 000554,589 680 126 27 14 2,133 1,771 140 9,534
1960 18 0001,197 093 00000 1, 307
1961
1962
000000000000
000046, 3796,682 1,374 280 0 0 0 0 54,715
0 1963 0000587735 295 52 0000 1, 669
1964000000000000
1965 000000964060498 00 1, 522
0 1966 07061,713 4,135 1,541 963 50 124 18 02,035 1,848 13,134 1967 1,752 1,800 3,329 11,725 4,722 29,917 55,772 25,069 1,039 131 2,346 2,149 139,751 1968 00092232,027 402 42,117 0062 4,843
1969 000181, 127249,668 105,317 22,290 8,285 1,655 265 74 11 568,691 1970 0 0 1 455 735 5,506 208 28 02,1002, 107 1,093 12,231 1971 35 152 764 454 215 137 72 32,109 2,278 1,979 53 8,249 1972 071, 426212 173 18 25 2,306 1,804 0 0 91 6,061
1973 4006, 84626,907 18,694 10,655 1,248 431 92 00 64, 878 1974 0 0 0 6,261 686 2,838 984 463 21 0011 11,264
1975 001, 04151 7,554 21,060 7,033 1,738 235 000 38, 713 1976 00001, 431132 74 0 0 0 178 01814
1977
1978
000000000000
0 0 0 4,740 60,267 200,456 49,971 10,974 1,671 725 255 0 329,059 0 1979 0002, 1286,295 26,459 15,746 1,751 598 107 00 53, 084 1980 0 0 0 1,407 101,742 57,315 9,636 2,312 840 183 0 0 173,436 1981 0 0 0 74 499 11,531 1,520 423 128 0059 14,233
1982 000052,3974,210 451 02,142 2,091 1,897 13,192
1983 003, 88233,192 83,915 223,596 69,572 39,025 8,638 1,350 836 326 464,332 1984 530 75 14,511 6,231 2,708 1,310 556 148 26 0 0 24 26,120 1985
1986
0026
000010,
0109
08215,
143
301 4,655
70 615
0 217
0 0
000
115 0462
30, 871
1987 000001,383 000000 1, 383
1988 000001,825164 0 2,136 2,072 1,791 1,637 9,626
1989
1990000000000000
1991
000000000200
000008,6621,224 74 2,278 1,835 344 0 14,418
2 0
1992 0007820,185 6,207 3,029 1,010 368 02,067 1,747 34,692 1993 11 0039, 093145,369 86,808 38,697 9,277 1,700 541 222 0 321,719 AVG 153 72 749 5,640 15,586 22,613 8,816 2,263 650 596 602 318 58,057 MEDIAN 00068788 1,591 673 136 21 20 34 0 11,297
Alternative GW5: SWRCB EIR Alt 3C, Solvang River Well Pumping 2,400 acre-feet/year- wells located downstream of Alisal Bridge SANTA YNEZ RIVER ABOVE SALSIPUEDES CREEK CONFLUENCE ( acre-feet/month) EIR_MonthlyFlowsgw5 12/21/2010
1045
Water
Year OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP SUM 1918 0 0 0 54 79,363 144,098 25,653 8,280 2,179 512 97 69 260,307 1919 63 64 70 312 978 1,165 5112 01,994 0 12 4,775
1920 49 50 58 61 694 2,825 1,559 276 84 2,024 0 41 7,720 1921 000139579 1,227 148 108 27 51 1,928 15 4,221
1922 0012, 0797,485 22,236 11,991 11,402 1,937 460 117 00 67, 707 1923 002, 3981,111 1,580 1,065 590 284 142 78 1,965 1,965 11,179 1924 1,886 1,143 74 77 78 687 128 84 80 0 9 0 4,245
1925 0000021718 55 54 0 0 0 848
1926 008172,352 619 15,446 1,410 160 81 12 29 20,136
1927 01,697 856 991 35,174 16,613 7,318 1,222 298 97 00 64, 265 1928 037 45 214 2,445 2,078 280 149 82 2,054 1,995 1,792 11,172 1929 1,739 06074219624 521 113 2,071 2,100 1,583 155 9,259 19300000371,937 81 73 0000 2, 129
1931 00016723 39 00000 130
1932 0 0 5,150 1,434 16,298 5,631 1,420 602 89 29 47 030698 1933 0003, 001929 212 187 83 0099 04511
1934 0 0 0 2,791 931 358 80 30 2,040 1,968 1,648 1,515 11,360 1935 1,505 003, 4371,179 4,050 7,404 1,041 113 30 1,892 1,839 22,492 1936 1,761 005610,608 2,306 1,441 167 37 1,981 1,501 019857 1937 0001, 15730,039 27,623 22,798 2,343 832 283 2,027 087103 1938 0057412 56,317 235,204 22,622 2,301 1,191 614 112 71 318,900 1939 001611,340 2,218 3,709 1,093 292 99 2,023 2,052 012989 1940 0 0 0 248 1,671 1,434 743 185 33 2,002 1,720 3 8,039 1941 002, 39611,729 108,386 277,044 156,947 25,479 4,837 1,772 1,024 580 590,193 1942 414 447 8,165 4,440 2,223 4,993 9,237 1,894 774 222 167 55 33,033 1943 66 157 165 62,644 39,236 88,941 14,668 1,912 1,027 516 110 73 209,515 1944 70 70 307 804 34,728 46,544 7,446 2,206 984 261 84 0 93,504 1945 16 236 167 242 7,337 8,514 4,427 912 63 000 21, 913 1946 001, 021129 405 1,222 4,495 525 108 2,036 2,051 1,845 13,836 1947 1,794 292 368 98 330 256 140 2,173 2,410 2,133 1,834 71 11,900 1948
1949
000000000000
000001,811 000000 1, 811
0 19500000472 1000000 473
1951
1952
000000000000
0 0 0 32,930 421 35,398 10,094 1,526 84 9 162 2,059 82,683 0 1953 143 254 3,833 4,977 976 595 362 48 31 2,077 1,555 93 14,945 1954 6 0 0 865 1,574 4,083 1,321 1772,043 1,319 190 11,479 1955 0002811507087 87 1142 00 819
1956 0 0 12,484 15,698 2,706 1,265 1,831 1,098 87 78 39 135286 1957 03452347 239 87 74 2,028 110 2,834
1958 10024116,458 29,242 75,740 15,025 2,264 453 99 69 139,591 1959 64 62 66 221 5,936 976 327 115 98 2,047 1,727 79 11,717 1960 0 0 8 60 1,714 87 400 78 0000 2, 347
1961 046 84138000000 142
1962 10113435 64,999 10,426 1,996 575 100 67 00 78, 712 1963 0030482,326 2,337 1,163 431 177 60 0 0 6,572
1964112356800000 25
1965 00033724 84 2,428 78 59 397 10 3, 408
1966 1 3,340 4,105 6,465 2,923 1,485 223 312 104 26 1,910 1,800 22,692 1967 1,699 1,746 3,790 15,645 5,183 30,331 56,690 25,530 1,231 115 2,265 2,113 146,340 1968 02069 82 292 2,183 498 02,051 014 5,200
1969 000189, 246258,027 108,107 24,125 8,922 2,063 428 149 84 591,150 1970 70 74 168 625 917 6,249 300 23 02,008 2,062 1,047 13,544 1971 21031,085 626 407 226 169 02,039 2,239 1,927 12 8,834 1972 001, 588277 245 8172,231 1,779 0015 6,161
1973 0111 110, 928 33,721 21,457 11,507 1,551 617 170 25 080088 1974 11 10 54 8,869 992 3,746 1,387 659 1103012 015880
1975 992, 497227 10,978 27,821 7,968 2,157 523 97 73 21 52,378 1976 60 60 64 68 1,965 328 273 85 0085 02990
1977 0013341 62 032 0000 169
1978 0009, 03175,461 212,389 54,021 11,931 2,077 1,005 424 86 366,424 1979 143 160 169 3,197 8,431 29,131 16,730 2,169 886 198 25 18 61,258 1980 14 13 69 2,039 110,395 61,497 10,383 2,730 1,132 342 27 21 188,663 1981 17 16 61 327 763 15,187 2,031 623 219 31 12 13 19,303 1982 0747142 71 2,554 4,853 545 37 2,073 2,052 1,846 14,228 1983 0624,215 41,802 93,545 233,551 74,792 40,948 9,495 1,850 1,120 504 501,883 1984 810 353 15,884 6,760 3,030 1,528 758 245 66 000 29, 433 1985 0332571 269 320 147 000300 1, 166
1986 0027100 14,819 20,833 5,074 913 311 000 42, 077
1987 6747141 64 2,095 84 33 0000 2, 477
1988 0016111 50 1,812 257 78 2,058 2,031 1,735 1,573 9,721 1989 005832100000 18
1990000000000000
1991 0000012, 4811,085 81,978 1,634 112 017298
0 1992 0 0 6 74 24,697 7,548 3,363 1,213 458 79 1,966 1,703 41,108 1993 0013942,483 152,920 90,067 39,878 9,816 2,006 721 295 0 338,326 AVG 163 140 1,114 6,579 17,855 24,640 9,625 2,476 744 624 594 309 64,863 MEDIAN 0 0 51 245 1,377 2,087 1,089 280 102 97 60 2 13,266 Alternative GW5: SWRCB EIR Alt 3C, Solvang River Well Pumping 2,400 acre-feet/year- wells located downstream of Alisal Bridge SANTA YNEZ RIVER AT LOMPOC NARROWS ( acre-feet/month)
EIR_MonthlyFlowsgw5 12/21/2010
1046

APPENDIX B
GSI Estimates of Surface Water Flow
1047
GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 418 Chapala Street, Suite H, Santa Barbara, CA 93101 www.gsiws. com

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project
To: Matt van der Linden and Xenia Bradford, City of Solvang From: Tim Nicely, Andy Lapostol, Tim Thompson, GSI Water Solutions Attachments: Status Conference Order and Notice of New Status Conference (Solvang), dated September 2, 2021
Revised Project Description, dated September 27, 2021
Proposed Reach of Diversion Map
Revised Proposed River Wells Site Plan
City of Solvang River Wells - Annual Operations Plan
Date: November 5, 2021
Introduction
On September 2, 2021, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) Administrative Hearing Office (AHO) issued a notice and order setting a hearing schedule for the City of Solvang’ s (the City) Petition for Change and identifying planned hearing issues on which the hearing officer wishes to receive evidence. The second planned hearing issue involves estimating flows for three scenarios: Baseline conditions, conditions that are likely to occur if the City’s Petition for Change is denied, and conditions that are likely to occur if the Petition for Change is granted. The State Water Board AHO’s Status Conference Order and Notice of New Status Conference and Planned Hearing Schedule, dated September 2, 2021, is included as an attachment.

As explained in further detail below, the following memorandum analyzes estimated flows under these three scenarios.

Revised River Wells Project and Related Background.

The City initially submitted a Petition for Change in 2015; at that time, the project as originally contemplated proposed expanding the City’s reach of diversion and adding six new wells (“Original Project”). The Original Project was fully analyzed in the 2014 Certified Final EIR.

The City has since revised its project description, most recently on September 27, 2021 (included as an attachment). The Revised River Wells Project (“ Revised Project”) is a scaled down version of the Original Project and proposes to reduce the City’s reach of diversion, shift it downstream, and install two new wells located roughly 1.2 miles downstream of Alisal Bridge within Well Site B area as identified in the Original Project and 2014 Certified Final EIR. A map of the revised river wells site plan is also included as an attachment. The Revised Project also considers certain operational constraints included in the Protest Dismissal and Coordinated Operations Agreement entered into by and between the City, the Santa Ynez River 1048
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 2
Water Conservation District Improvement District No. 1 and the Palmer Gavit Jackson Trust (the Protest Dismissal Agreement). On May 28, 2021, a Technical Memo was completed by GSI (“ 2021 GSI Tech memo”), which was updated November 5, 20211, that concluded that the Revised Project will have fewer impacts than the Original Project as presented in the 2014 Certified Final EIR. Specifically, the proposed pumping from the City’s Revised Project differs from the project evaluated in the 2014 EIR as follows:

Reduces the originally planned number of River Wells evaluated as part of the Original Project in the 2014 EIR from 2 existing wells plus 6 new wells (8 total wells) to 1 existing well plus 2 replacement wells within Site B (3 total wells).

Locates the 2 replacement wells substantially farther downstream from the Alisal Bridge approximately 1.2 miles), but within the Site B area as evaluated as part of the Original Project in the 2014 Certified Final EIR.

Reduces the planned maximum annual pumping volume from 1,980 AFY as analyzed as part of the Original Project in the 2014 EIR to 1,368 AFY (a 31% reduction), and Reduces the planned instantaneous pumping rate as analyzed as part of the Original Project in the 2014 Certified Final EIR from 5 to 2.84 cubic feet per second ( cfs) (a 43% reduction).

The 2014 Certified Final EIR identified mitigation measures that reduce hydrology-related impacts from the Original Project to less than significant. Similar to the Original Project, the mitigation measures imposed in the 2014 Certified EIR are adequate to reduce potential impacts of the Revised Project to less than significant levels.

Planned Hearing Issues
The State Water Board AHO’ s Status Conference Order and Notice of New Status Conference and Planned Hearing Schedule, dated September 2, 2021, identified four “planned hearing issues” on which the hearing officer expects to receive evidence at the forthcoming hearing on the City’s Petition for Change. The second of these planned hearing issues is the subject of this memorandum, which provides as follows:
2) What are the estimated surface-water flows that have occurred and would occur, by month and water-year type, at relevant points along the Santa Ynez River upstream of, adjacent to and downstream of [the City’ s] existing and proposed points of diversion under each of the following scenarios: ( a) existing (Baseline) conditions that have occurred during the past several years under different water-year types; (b) conditions that are likely to occur if the State Water Board denies [the City’s Petition for Change]; and (c) conditions that are likely to occur if the State Water Board grants [the City’ s Petition for Change]?”
This hearing issue presents three questions to be answered about surface-water flow under existing and projected conditions. The following sections of this memorandum present the data, analysis, and assumptions used to estimate surface water flow upstream of, adjacent to, and downstream of Solvang’ s existing and proposed points of diversion under existing and projected conditions. The memorandum concludes with a summary of results focusing on the surface water flows under the three scenarios.

This memorandum was prepared by GSI Water Solutions ( GSI) on behalf of the City of Solvang. 1 Review of Santa Ynez River Mechanics and Technical Memoranda Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project, prepared by GSI Water Solutions, dated May 28, 2021 (revised November 5, 2021). 1049
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 3
Data Sources
The existing and projected surface-water flows were calculated based on several sources of available data, which are the same data types used for the previous analyses conducted for the Original Project as part of the 2014 Certified Final EIR. These available data examined for the analysis of existing and projected surfacewater flows include:

Measured surface-water inflow into Lake Cachuma to document the water year types, Measured surface-water flow at the Alisal Bridge and Lompoc Narrows flow gauges, Measured and projected City of Solvang diversion volumes from River Wells located near the Alisal Bridge (Site A) where the City’ s existing wells are located and Site B (located substantially downstream of the Alisal Bridge) where the two new wells are planned to be located, Historical and anticipated releases from Lake Cachuma based on water-year type, Anticipated seepage losses within the main stem of the Santa Ynez River, and Projected climate change.

The data compiled for this analysis, including data sources and periods of record for each data source are presented on the following page in Table 1.
1050
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 4
Table 1. Summary of Data
Data Type Data Source Data Frequency Period of Record
Water Year) Used in Analysis
Lake Cachuma Inflow USBR records Daily 1953 to current Yes Surface water Flow –
Highway 154
USGS gauging
station number
11126400
Field
Measurements 2001 to 2017 No1
Surface water Flow –
Alisal Bridge
USGS gauging
station number
11128500
Daily
1928 to current
2001 and 2002
missing data)
Yes
Surface water Flow –
Lompoc Narrows
USGS gauging
station number
11133000
Daily 1951 to current Yes
City of Solvang Diversion City of Solvang Monthly 2000 to 2020 Yes City of Solvang Diversion
Solvang River
Wells Annual
Operations Plan
Monthly Projected conditions Yes
Lake Cachuma Releases USBR records Daily and
monthly 1981 to current Yes
Lake Cachuma Releases
As anticipated
under Term 18
Plan
Daily Future conditions Yes
Stream losses
downstream of Alisal
Bridge
Calculated in the
memorandum Daily Future conditions Yes
Climate change factors -
Evapotranspiration and
runoff factors through
2042
DWR under
Sustainable
Groundwater
Management
Criteria Act
guidance
Future 2042 conditions Yes
Notes:

Data were compiled on a water year basis (October 1 through September 30) in accordance with SWRCB and Cachuma Operations Board conventions.

USBR: United States Bureau of Reclamation
1 The Highway 154 flow gauge data were not used in the analysis due to the incomplete record of data during the period. This is discussed further below.
1051
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 5
The availability of data was reviewed to determine the appropriate period to represent “ the past several years under different water-year types”, as requested by the AHO. The appropriate period selected should include a sufficient number of each of the five water year types, which are based on gauged annual inflow volumes into Lake Cachuma, to adequately document the variability of conditions during each water year type. These water year types are categorized in accordance with the Cachuma Reservoir Inflow Index for Water Year Classification in the Order WR 2019-0148, which are, from driest to wettest:

Critical,
Dry,
Below Normal,
Above Normal, and
Wet.

Historically, water year type for the Santa Ynez River Basin has been defined as:
a dry year when rainfall at Bradbury Dam is equal to or less than 15 inches, a normal year when rainfall is 15 inches to 22 inches, and a wet year when precipitation ( e.g., rainfall) is equal to or greater than 22 inches.

The California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) uses different criteria that focus on river runoff in this case inflow to the Cachuma Reservoir):
a critical year when inflow is equal to or less than 4,550 acre-feet (af); a dry year when inflow is between 4,550 af and 15,366 af; a below normal year when inflow is between 15,366 af and 33,707 af; an above normal year when inflow is between 33,708 and 117,842 af; and a wet year when inflow is greater than 117,842 af.

Streamflow Data
Because of the long-term, active management of the Santa Ynez River, and of Lake Cachuma since it was constructed, these data sources have the longest periods of record of all the various data sources. Records of streamflow data within the Santa Ynez River are available from 1928 at the Alisal Bridge gauge (also referred to as the Santa Ynez River near Solvang) and from 1951 at the Lompoc Narrows gauge, which is located over 22 miles downstream of the Alisal Bridge. These two streamflow gauges collect and record data at 15-minute intervals, which are summarized into daily and monthly averages for the period of record. Recently, the Alisal Bridge gauge is missing daily flow data during water years 2001 and 2002 but is otherwise complete.

Importantly, Alisal Bridge is a key flow target location for steelhead habitat that was established under the 2000 Biological Opinion. As stated in the Stetson Engineers Technical Memorandum No. 6, Alisal Bridge is the farthest downstream location from Lake Cachuma in which the endangered steelhead are considered to have good to marginally fair habitat conditions.

The Highway 154 Bridge (San Lucas Bridge) is located upstream of the Alisal Bridge by 7.3 miles. While individual manual streamflow measurements were available between 2001 and 2017, the quantification of flow at this location has ended and a streamflow gauge has not been installed at the location. There is no feasible and reliable way to get a direct measurement of flows at the Highway 154 Bridge because of the braided nature of the stream and property access issues. The only available data related to flows upstream of Alisal Bridge are Lake Cachuma Dam releases and monthly manual streamflow measurements that are 1052
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 6
generally categorized as “poor” quality, but these are not considered to be reliable substitutes for gauge data.

Although dam release data are available as monthly amounts, there is not a technically- sound method to calculate the associated daily flow rates downstream at the Highway 154 Bridge ( which is located approximately 2.5 miles downstream from the dam) because the water is not released from the Dam at a constant rate. Furthermore, dam release data do not account for naturally occurring tributary inflows or stream losses ( such as from streambed infiltration or evapotranspiration), both of which would affect flow rates at the Highway 154 Bridge.

Because of the lack of accurate flow at the Highway 154 Bridge, these data were not included in this analysis.

This is not considered an impediment to this analysis because diversion from either of the City’s existing and proposed diversion locations is a considerable distance downstream ( 7.3 miles) and will not affect streamflow conditions at the Highway 154 Bridge. Unfortunately, there are not any other available data sources regarding river flows upstream of the City’s existing and proposed diversion locations.

Solvang Diversion Data
The City of Solvang has compiled monthly records of diversion from the City’s existing River Wells for the period of 2000 through 2020. The City has also provided estimates of the anticipated monthly diversions for both the approval and denial scenarios of the City’ s Petition for Change from each of the City’ s existing and planned future wells. The projected annual and monthly diversions are included in the City’ s Annual Operations Plan (attached), which contains details about the planned monthly operations of each of their River Wells in consideration of system demands, planned maintenance, anticipated State Water Project availability, and total annual flow volume limitations. The City’ s Operations Plan also considers certain operational constraints included in the Protest Dismissal Agreement.

Determination of Range of Years for this Analysis
Upon reviewing the available data, principally the streamflow gauges at Alisal Bridge and Lompoc Narrows, along with records from the City of Solvang’ s historical diversion from their River Wells, the 18-year (inclusive) period between water years 2003 and 2020 was selected to represent “ conditions that have occurred during the past several years.” This 18-year period represents the current drought conditions and also includes all five of the water year types.

The year 2003 was established as the earliest year included in this analysis because this is the first year of a consecutive multi-year period during which all the necessary data are available to conduct the analysis. The following were constraints on the years of available data:
a. Diversion data (i.e., River Well pumping amounts and timing) from the City of Solvang is available from the year 2000 onwards.
b. In 2001 and 2002, streamflow gauge data at the Alisal Bridge are incomplete.

The year 2020 was selected as the end of the relevant period because it is the most recent year for which data are available.
1053
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 7
Analysis
Water Year Types
State Water Board Order WR 2019-0148, which addresses permits held by the USBR for the Cachuma Project, defines water year types for the Santa Ynez River Basin based on inflow into Lake Cachuma2. The 18- year period between 2003 and 2020 includes the following numbers of each of these water year types:
four Critical years,
five Dry years,
two Below Normal years,
five Above Normal years, and
two Wet years
A summary of the water year types included in the 18-year period is presented in Table 2. Lake Cachuma reservoir storage prior to the period was 173,308 acre-feet, which fluctuated during the period from a low of 32,900 acre-feet in 2016 to a high of over 195,000 acre-feet during each of the years during which spills occurred ( 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2011). At the end of the period in 2020, the reservoir storage was 156,960 acre-feet3.

Table 2. Summary of Water Year Types: 2003 through 2020 Water Year Type Water Year Type
2003 Below Normal 2012 Dry
2004 Dry 2013 Critical
2005 1 Wet 2014 Critical
2006 1 Above Normal 2015 Critical
2007 Critical 2016 Dry
2008 1 Above Normal 2017 Above Normal
2009 Dry 2018 Dry
2010 Above Normal 2019 Above Normal
2011 1 Wet 2020 Below Normal
Note:
1 Spills (and durations) from Lake Cachuma occurred during water years 2005 (131 days), 2006 (54 days), 2008 (53 days) and 2011 (53 days).

Existing (Baseline) Conditions
The measured historical flow at the Alisal Bridge and Lompoc Narrows flow gauges during the 18-year period between 2003 and 2020 were compiled and sorted into each of the five different water year type classifications. The data were then analyzed to determine the median daily average flow for each month by water year type. These flows represent river conditions of Scenario 2(a): “existing (Baseline) conditions that 2 Order WR 2019-0148, State Water Resources Control Board 3WY 2020 Annual Monitoring Summary for The Biological Opinion for the Operation and Maintenance of the Cachuma Project on the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County, California, Prepared by: Cachuma Operation and Maintenance Board Fisheries Division, dated February 24, 2021.
1054
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 8
have occurred during the past several years under different water-year types.” Flows during this time predated the flow requirements presented in the USBR’ s Revised Term 18 Plan,4 which is discussed below.

Future Conditions
The future surface water flow conditions were modeled analytically to estimate the flow conditions that would occur under two scenarios:

Scenario 2(b): conditions that are likely to occur if the State Water Board denies Solvang’ s Petition for Change; and
Scenario 2(c) conditions that are likely to occur if the State Water Board grants Solvang’ s Petition for Change.

In both cases, the future flow conditions ( presented as median daily average flows by month) were calculated at the Alisal Bridge and Lompoc Narrows gauge locations for each of the five water year types based on the measured diversion and flows. To evaluate the flow conditions under both scenarios 2(b) and 2(c), these median daily average flow rates were adjusted to account for City diversions, planned releases from Lake Cachuma, cumulative stream losses below Alisal Bridge as measured at the Lompoc Narrows, and climate change. Notably, these future flow conditions will include releases from Lake Cachuma in accordance with Order WR 2019-0148 to accommodate downstream water rights.

The 18 years (2003 to 2020) of daily streamflow data for the Alisal Bridge and Lompoc Narrows gauges were compiled in an Excel spreadsheet along with the City monthly diversion data. The City diversion data, originally presented as total water pumped from each of the two existing river wells5 ( 3 and 7A; see Figure 1) in acrefeet per month, were converted to an average daily rate in cubic feet per second ( cfs) to match the units of the streamflow data. The measured flows at the Alisal Bridge and Lompoc Narrows gauges were adjusted on a daily basis to calculate flows that would have occurred in the absence of the City’s measured diversions. One important rule embedded in this analysis is that City diversions were not added to the measured flow data on days when there was zero flow at the gauge. For example, when the Alisal Bridge gauge recorded 5 cfs on a given day, during which Solvang was diverting a total of 0.5 cfs, the synthetic river flow rate, which represents river flows unchanged by the City’s diversion, would equal 5.5 cfs. If the gauge recorded zero cfs on a given day, the synthetic river flow rate would remain zero cfs, even if Solvang was diverting water that day.

For days when either gauge recorded any flow, it is assumed that Solvang diversions removed surface flow from the river at a 1:1 ratio. The assumption that Solvang diversions remove surface flow from the river at a 1:1 ratio is conservative in that it represents the greatest amount of effect that diversions could possibly have on river flows. From a hydrogeological standpoint, itis unlikely that pumping from a river well (which extracts water from below the ground surface) would remove an equal volume of water from surface flow, because some percentage of the water pumped out would be derived from water stored in the sediments underlying and adjacent to the riverbed. The GSI Report dated May 28, 2021 (revised November 5, 2021) and Stetson Memorandum 6 described how the water levels within these sediments would be drawn down by pumping from the City’s wells. This drawdown is an indicator that the sediments underlying and adjacent to the riverbed are being partially dewatered.

However, GSI takes a conservative approach for this analysis by assuming Solvang’ s diversions would only remove water from surface flow. There is not currently a defensible scientific basis on which to establish the percentage of surface flow that is removed during underflow pumping; this would require a complex sitespecific study which is beyond the scope of this report. Consequently, this analysis takes a simple, and 4 Cachuma Order WR 2019-0148 Term 18 Plan, Cachuma Project, California, dated May 2021. 5 Wells 3 and 7A are the only two Solvang production wells extracting water from the Santa Ynez River during the timeframe of this analysis. The City’ s Well 7A replaced the original Well 7 in the same location in 1995. 1055
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 9
conservative approach that demonstrates the greatest possible effects that City diversions could potentially have on river flows.

During Wet and Above Normal years, flow estimates at the Alisal Bridge and Lompoc Narrows gauges for both scenarios 2(b) and 2(c) were augmented based on the additional releases that would be required to comply with Term 18 Plan releases. Term 18 Plan releases require that target flows need to be met at the Alisal Bridge gauge but not at the Lompoc Narrows gauge. Flow estimates calculated at the Alisal Bridge gauge were increased, if necessary, to the minimum target flow rates during days that would qualify for Term 18 Plan releases. For the Lompoc Narrows gauge estimates, any increased flow as a result of dam releases was calculated using loss factors presented in the Term 18 Plan document. The loss factors were determined on a loss-per-mile basis for the stream reach between the Alisal Bridge and the Lompoc Narrows. Applying a loss factor of approximately 0.6 cfs per mile between the Alisal Bridge and the Lompoc Narrows accounts for streambed percolation, pumping, and interactions between streamflow and contributing tributaries ( the principal tributary of which is Salsipuedes Creek). The streamflow losses reduce flow at the Lompoc Narrows completely at times, even when there is flow at the Alisal Bridge. Streamflow occurs at the Lompoc Narrows both from high flows within the mainstem of the Santa Ynez River and from unrelated contributions from tributary flows. It is common during all but the wettest periods to observe surface flows near the City of Solvang and for those flows to transition to subsurface flow upstream of the Lompoc Narrows.

The synthetic river flow data were then used to estimate flows at both the Alisal Bridge and Lompoc Narrows gauges under the Scenario 2(b) and 2(c) conditions. The City’ s River Wells Annual Operations Plan (attached) presents a total monthly volume of diversion that would occur at three locations: Well 3, Well 7A, and Site B.

These total monthly volumes were converted into average daily flow rates (in cfs) and were incorporated into the spreadsheet containing the synthetic river flow data. For each day, the daily average diversion rates from each of the three locations were subtracted from the synthetic river flow rates to estimate river flow rates that would occur in the future under each pumping condition. For all days during which the estimated river flow rates at the Alisal Bridge gauge were less than 1.5 cfs (taking into account losses off flow from the City’s diversion), the City would not pump any water from Wells 3 or 7A, and estimated flow rates at Alisal Bridge were converted back to the synthetic flow rates, which represent the river under non-pumping conditions.

These days were flagged as “pumping curtailment days,” which are described in more detail below.

Diversions from Wells 3 and 7A are assumed to subtract from the surface flows at the both the Alisal Bridge gauge and the Lompoc Narrows gauge. Diversions from Site B, which only occur under Scenario 2(c), are assumed to only reduce surface flows at Lompoc Narrows because Site B is located over one mile downstream of the Alisal Bridge gauge and pumping from this location will not affect upstream flows at Alisal Bridge. This simplified approach whereby diversions from Wells 3 and 7A are assumed to subtract from the surface flows from the Alisal Bridge, and Wells 3 and 7A and Site B are assumed to subtract from the surface flows at the Lompoc Narrows is conservative. This approach is conservative with respect to the Alisal Bridge because of the assumption that diversions remove surface flow from the river at a 1:1 ratio (discussed on page 8). This assumption is conservative with respect to the Lompoc Narrows for the same reason, but also because that gauging location is over 20 miles downstream, and various other hydrologic conditions ( such as tributary inflows, streambed percolation and other losses as described below are known to occur). A substantially more complex modeling approach would be required to more accurately determine surface flows at the Lompoc Narrows under the scenarios evaluated in this analysis.

Both Scenario 2(b) and 2(c) conditions account for river flows that would occur in response to the Term 18 Plan. The Term 18 Plan was established in 2019 and provides for the protection of public trust resources and downstream water rights on the Santa Ynez River below Bradbury Dam. Under the Term 18 Plan conditions, Tables 1 and 1A of that document require the maintenance of flows of 1.5 cfs at the Alisal Bridge during all reservoir spill volume conditions. To be consistent with available historical data, the Term 18 Plan Table 1 flow requirements at Highway 154 bridge were not included in this analysis. As noted above, there is insufficient 1056
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 10
quantified flow at the Highway 154 bridge for the relevant historical time period. Furthermore, due to the distance upstream from the project, the Term 18 Plan Table 1 flow requirements at Highway 154 bridge are not affected by the City’s Revised River Wells Project, whether it be denied or approved and are therefore not included in this analysis. Table 2A of the Term 18 Plan requires increased releases to maintain flow at both the Highway 154 and Alisal bridges during Wet and Above Normal years. These increased releases are to begin when cumulative inflow into Lake Cachuma ( beginning on October 1) exceeds 33,707 acre-feet and continue throughout the Wet/ Above Normal water year (September 30) and until February 14 of the following water year.

Climate Change Factors
The effects of climate change on future flow conditions were estimated in the analysis for the period ending in 2042 using DWR-provided climate change factors. The climate change factors of evapotranspiration ( ET) and streamflow are expected to alter future flows in the Santa Ynez River relative to existing ( Baseline) conditions, except during Wet and Above Normal years when Term 18 Plan-required releases are in effect. The climate change datasets pertain to the entire Santa Ynez River Valley Groundwater Basin and the Santa Ynez River.

These datasets were developed on a monthly and annual basis by DWR to determine changes to inflow under 2042 conditions from tributaries in response to changing precipitation patterns and changing extraction amounts from river wells in response to higher ET rates.

Generally, increased ET will decrease streamflow in response to increased diversion from river wells (other than the City’s) to satisfy crop water demands because of the additional water needed to sustain growth in a warmer climate. Under 2042 conditions, the area is projected to experience average ET increases of 5.1 percent.

Independent of changes to ET, streamflow from the unmanaged tributaries that feed into the Santa Ynez River is projected to increase slightly, by 1.5 percent in 2042 conditions, due to increases in rainfall. Future storms are predicted to be more intense under the anticipated climate change conditions.

Median daily average flows by month at the Alisal Bridge and Lompoc Narrows gauges were estimated for 2042 climate change conditions by reducing all the recorded gauge data by a factor of 3.8% (a 5.1% reduction from ET followed by a 1.5% increase from streamflow) and then repeating the analysis described above.

In addition to the changes associated with the climate change factors presented above, changes in Santa Ynez River flows will also occur in response to changes in: (a) the impoundment of the water in the Santa Ynez River behind three upstream reservoirs, ( b) diversions through three tunnels to communities outside of the watershed to the south along the coast, and (c) requirements for regulated releases to the river, which flow through the project site and onward downstream.

Pumping Curtailment Days
In addition to median daily average flows by month, the average number of days per month when flows at the Alisal Bridge (after diversion) were less than 1.5 cfs (“pumping curtailment days”) was calculated because of the associated requirement to cease pumping under those conditions. The 1.5 cfs threshold was based on the operating rules for the City’ s operation of their river wells as set forth in the Protest Dismissal Agreement, stating that Wells 3 and 7A must not be pumped when the flow measured at the Alisal Bridge is less than 1.5 cfs.

Per Term 15(a) of the WR 2019-0148, the USBR is required to “release or bypass water to maintain the following Mainstem Rearing instream flows in the Santa Ynez River (Term 18 Plan Table 1) at all times” when Oncorhynchus mykiss are present. Under these conditions, flows in Term 18 Plan’ s Table 1 require a flow of at least 1.5 cfs at the Alisal Bridge.
1057
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 11
The results of this analysis present the average number of pumping curtailment days per month, which are considered a meaningful proxy to demonstrate how Scenarios 2(b) and 2(c) could potentially affect flows in the Santa Ynez River compared to Baseline conditions. For example, if the Scenario 2(b) analysis estimates 10 pumping curtailment days during a dry month, and the Scenario 2(c) analysis estimates 9 pumping curtailment days during the same month, it follows that Scenario 2(c) water use conditions result in higher flows at the Alisal Bridge compared to Scenario 2(b).
1058
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 12
Results
The calculations of streamflow conditions from this analysis are presented in this section for the three water use scenarios: 1) Baseline river conditions observed during the period of record, 2) calculated river conditions if the City’s Petition for Change were denied, and 3) calculated river conditions if the City’s Petition for Change were granted. Following the summary of streamflow conditions, the effects of these changes are presented relative to the effects on “curtailment” of diversion from the City’s river wells.

Flow Conditions at Alisal Bridge
A summary of the change of the river flow at Alisal Bridge under Scenarios 2(b) and 2(c) relative to Baseline conditions is presented in Table 3A. The table shows the average number of months in each water year October 1 to September 30) type that exhibited reduced and higher flow at the Alisal Bridge, along with the average change in flow during those months. These data are presented without climate change considered -- the effects of climate change are discussed later.

Table 3A. Summary of Santa Ynez River Flow at Alisal Bridge Relative to Baseline Conditions Petition for Change Denied (2b) Petition for Change Approved ( 2c) Water Year Type
Median Average
Daily Flow by Month
Increase / Decrease
Number of Months
Affected per Year1
Median Average
Daily Flow by Month
Increase / Decrease
Number of Months
Affected per Year1
Critical - 0.4 cfs 7 - 0.1 cfs 7

0.2 cfs 1 + 0.2 cfs 2
Dry - 0.3 cfs 3 - 0.1 cfs 2

1.5 cfs 7 + 1.5 cfs 7
Below Normal - 0.3 cfs 6 - 0.2 cfs 5

1.1 cfs 5 + 1.0 cfs 7
Above Normal - 0.4 cfs 3 - 0.2 cfs 3

12.5 cfs 9 + 11.2 cfs 9
Wet - 0.4 cfs 8 - 0.2 cfs 7

1.8 cfs 4 + 1.9 cfs 4
Notes:
1 For any months unaccounted for during a given water year type, the median average daily flow by month is unchanged from baseline.

Tables 4 through 8 document the specific months with during which increases or decreases in median average daily flow occur.

As presented on Table 3A and discussed in more detail below for water year type on a monthly basis, the calculated river flow at the Alisal Bridge was reduced in some months and higher in other months relative to the Baseline conditions. During months when reduced flow would occur, the degree of this reduction of flow at the Alisal Bridge would be less under Scenario 2(c) conditions ( which assume the City’s Petition for Change is granted) relative to Scenario 2(b) conditions (which assume the City’s Petition for Change is denied). Likewise, this reduced flow would occur during fewer months under Scenario 2(c) conditions during Dry, Below Normal and Wet years; the number of months that would include reduced flow would be unchanged during Critical and Above Normal years.

A few key observations are presented below to highlight the notable differences in changes to river conditions at Alisal Bridge for each water year type, with particular focus on reduced flows relative to Baseline conditions.

The specific months under which median average daily flow conditions are expected to change are documented in Tables 4 through 8.
1059
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 13
During Critical water years, reduced flow would occur during 7 months of the year during both projected scenarios 2(b) and 2(c) relative to Baseline conditions. During these months, the flows would be reduced by 0.3 cfs less on average during Scenario 2(c) conditions relative to Scenario 2(b) conditions. Higher flows would occur during one more month under Scenario 2(c) than 2(b) conditions, compared to Baseline conditions, at similar increased average flow rates. These results indicate that Scenario 2(c) would (which assume the City’s Petition for Change is granted) have less effect on river flows at Alisal Bridge than Scenario 2(b) (which assume the City’s Petition for Change is denied).

During Dry years, the flow during months when reduced flow would occur would be 0.2 cfs higher on average under Scenario 2(c) conditions relative to Scenario 2(b) conditions and would occur during one fewer months. Higher flows would occur during 7 months of the year under both scenarios 2(b) and 2(c) relative to Baseline conditions. These results indicate that Scenario 2(c) would have less effect on river flows at Alisal Bridge than Scenario 2(b).

During Below Normal years, under Scenario 2(c) reduced flows would occur during one fewer month of the year, and flow would be 0.1 cfs higher on average during these months relative to Scenario 2(b) conditions. Higher flows would occur during 5 months under Scenario 2(b) and 7 months under scenario 2(c), relative to Baseline conditions. These results indicate that Scenario 2(c) would have less effect on river flows at Alisal Bridge than Scenario 2(b).

During Above Normal years, reduced flow would occur during 3 months of the year relative to Baseline conditions, but higher flows would occur during 9 months of the year under both scenarios 2(b) and 2(c). As discussed later, the reduced flows are relatively minor during Above Normal years regardless of the scenario. These results indicate that Scenario 2(c) would have slightly less effect on river flows at Alisal Bridge than Scenario 2(b).

During Wet years, reduced flows would occur during 8 months of the year under Scenario 2(b) and 8 months of the year under Scenario 2(c), and would be higher during 4 months of the year under both scenarios relative to Baseline conditions. As discussed later, these reduced flows are minor and relative to the overall high flows that would occur during Wet years regardless of the scenario.

Flow Conditions Downstream of Well Site B – Lompoc Narrows A summary of the change of the river flow at Lompoc Narrows under Scenarios 2(b) and 2(c) relative to Baseline conditions is presented in Table 3B. The table shows the average number of months in each water year type that exhibited reduced and higher flow at Lompoc Narrows, along with the average change in flow during those months. These data are presented without climate change considered -- the effects of climate change are presented later.
1060
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 14
Table 3B. Summary of Santa Ynez River Flow at Lompoc Narrows Relative to Baseline Conditions Petition for Change Denied (2b) Petition for Change Approved ( 2c) Water Year Type
Median Average
Daily Flow by Month
Increase / Decrease
Number of Months
Affected per Year
Median Average
Daily Flow by Month
Increase / Decrease
Number of Months
Affected per Year
Critical - 0.2 cfs 7 - 0.9 cfs 9
Dry - 0.3 cfs 3 - 1.0 cfs 7

0.3 cfs 3
Below Normal - 0.3 cfs 8 - 1.0 cfs 9
Above Normal - 0.3 cfs 4 - 0.7 cfs 5

15.6 cfs 5 + 18.0 cfs 4
Wet - 0.5 cfs 8 - 1.8 cfs 8

19.7 cfs 4 + 18.4 cfs 4
Notes:
1 For any months unaccounted for during a given water year type, the median average daily flow by month is unchanged from baseline. Tables 4 through 8 document the specific months with during which increases or decreases in median average daily flow occur.

As presented on Table 3B and discussed in more detail below for each water year type, the estimated surface flow at the Lompoc Narrows was reduced in some months and higher in other months relative to the Baseline conditions. For water year types that are not affected by Term 18 Plan releases, increased flow conditions would only occur during Dry years under Scenario 2(b), and by modest amounts. Under Scenario 2(c) increased flow conditions would only occur during Above Normal and Wet years, and these increases would be attributed to Term 18 Plan releases.

Based on our analytical approach, which is conservative as discussed on page 8, reduced flow conditions at Lompoc Narrows could occur during all water year types for both Scenario 2(b) and 2(c). For all water year types, reduced flow conditions at the Lompoc Narrows could be less under Scenario 2(b) than Scenario 2(c), by modest amounts. This is due to the simplified assumption that the City diversions from the Well Site B area reduce the downstream flows. It is well established, however, that there are other hydrologic considerations that may augment the downstream flow amounts or may contribute to streamflow loss.

The monthly river flow conditions near and downstream of the City’s points of diversion for each water year type are presented on Tables 4 through 8 and discussed in detail below. In addition to presenting the streamflow data, the tables present the average monthly number of pumping curtailment days for each scenario, and the difference in pumping curtailment days compared to the Baseline conditions.

Detailed Discussions of River Flows Under the Various Water Year Types at Alisal Bridge and Lompoc Narrows
Flow Conditions during Critical Years ( Table 4)
During Critical years, historical (Baseline) median flows at the Alisal Bridge gauge ranged from no flow in May, June, and July to 53.4 cfs in August. The estimated median flows at the Alisal Bridge under Scenario 2(b) conditions would be slightly lower than Baseline condition flows, by approximately 0.2 cfs on average. The estimated median flows at Alisal Bridge under Scenario 2(c) would be roughly the same as Baseline flows. 1061
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 15
At the Lompoc Narrows, the median flows were lower than at the Alisal Bridge during Baseline conditions.

Historical median flows at the Narrows were highest during March, August, and September when flows were between 4.4 and 9.9 cfs; during the other months, the flow was between 0 and 1.2 cfs. Under Scenario 2(b) conditions, median flows at the Narrows would be slightly lower than Baseline flows, by approximately 0.1 cfs on average. Under Scenario 2(c) conditions, the median flows would be further reduced, by approximately 0.7 cfs on average.

Under climate change conditions, the median flows at both streamflow gauges are estimated to be approximately 4% lower than estimated flows under normal ( current) conditions for both scenarios.

Flow Conditions during Dry Years ( Table 5)
During Dry years, Baseline median flows at the Alisal Bridge gauge ranged from no flow in May and June to 47 cfs in August. The estimated median flows at Alisal Bridge under Scenario 2(b) would be higher than the Baseline flows by approximately 0.7 cfs on average. Flows at Alisal Bridge under Scenario 2(c) would be higher than the Baseline flows by approximately 0.8 cfs.

At the Lompoc Narrows, the median flows were generally lower than the flows at the Alisal Bridge during Baseline conditions. Historically, there was no flow at the Lompoc Narrows during May through August and during October and November. Under Scenario 2(b) conditions, the median flows at the Narrows would be similar to Baseline flows, with a monthly difference of less than 0.1 cfs on average. Under Scenario 2(c) conditions, the median flows would be lower than Baseline flows by approximately 0.6 cfs on average.

Under climate change conditions, the median flows at both streamflow gauges would be approximately 2 to 5% lower than estimated flows under normal ( current) conditions for both scenarios. For both Scenario 2(b) and 2(c), the median monthly flows at Alisal Bridge would be 5 cfs for October through February, under both normal and climate change conditions, which is a moderate increase in median flow rate compared to Baseline conditions. This increase in flow was projected to occur because several of the Dry years in the dataset follow Wet or Above Normal years, which would require Term 18 Plan release flows to continue into the following year. A similar occurrence is projected to occur but to a greater degree during Below Normal years. These additional flows are not observed at the Lompoc Narrows due to the stream losses described on page 8.

Flow Conditions during Below Normal Years (Table 6)
During Below Normal years, Baseline median flows at the Alisal Bridge gauge ranged between a lack of flow during August and September to 22.1 cfs during April. The estimated median flows at Alisal Bridge under Scenario 2(b) conditions would be slightly higher than Baseline flows by approximately 0.3 cfs on average. The estimated median flows at Alisal Bridge under Scenario 2(c) conditions would also be higher than Baseline flows, with an average monthly increase of 0.5 cfs.

At the Lompoc Narrows, the median flows were higher during some months and lower during others compared to the Alisal Bridge during Baseline conditions. Historically there were no flows during August, September, and February. Under Scenario 2(b) conditions, the median flows at the Narrows would be slightly lower than Baseline flows, with a monthly difference of 0.2 cfs on average. Under Scenario 2(c) conditions, the median flows would be lower than Baseline flows by 0.9 cfs on average.

Under climate change conditions, the median flows at both streamflow gauges would be 3 to 4% lower than the estimated flows under normal (current) conditions for both scenarios.

Flow Conditions during Above Normal Years (Table 7)
During Above Normal years, baseline median flows at the Alisal Bridge gauge ranged from 0.9 cfs in July to

60.9 cfs in February. The estimated median flows at Alisal Bridge under both Scenario 2(b) and 2(c) would be higher than Baseline flows by approximately 8.2 cfs on average. 1062
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 16
At the Lompoc Narrows, the median flows during Baseline conditions were higher during some months and lower during others compared to the Alisal Bridge. The baseline median flows were 1 cfs or less from July through December, and 30 cfs or greater from January through April. Under Scenario 2(b) conditions, the median flows at the Narrows would be higher than Baseline flows, by an average of 6.4 cfs under Scenario 2(c) conditions and higher than Baseline flows by an average of 5.7 cfs.

Under climate change conditions, the median flows at both gauges would be approximately 1 to 3% lower than flows under normal (current) conditions for both projected scenarios.

Nearly all of the estimated increases in flow associated with Scenarios 2(b) and 2(c) conditions would occur between March and September as a result of the Term 18 Plan target flows. Consequently, the median flows at the Alisal Bridge from March through September for both scenarios are equivalent to the Term 18 Plan target flow rates, as these rates are higher than the median monthly rates observed during Baseline conditions. In October through February, before Term 18 Plan flows take effect, median flows at both the Alisal Bridge and Lompoc Narrows gauges are similar to the observed Baseline conditions under both scenarios 2(b) and 2(c).

Flow Conditions during Wet Years ( Table 8)
During Wet years, Baseline median flows at the Alisal Bridge gauge ranged from 6.3 cfs in November to 504.5 cfs in March. The estimated median flows at the Alisal Bridge under Scenario 2(b) would be similar to Baseline flows, with an average monthly change of less than 1 cfs. Estimated median flows at Alisal Bridge under Scenario 2(c) would be similar to Baseline flows, with an average monthly change of less than 1 cfs.

At the Lompoc Narrows, median flows were higher during all months except August and September compared to the Alisal Bridge during Baseline conditions. The historical median flows ranged from 2.4 cfs in September to 680 cfs in March. Under Scenario 2(b) conditions, the median flows at the Narrows would be slightly higher than Baseline flows during Winter and Spring and would be similar to Baseline flows during Summer and Fall.

Under Scenario 2(c) conditions, the median flows would be slightly higher than Baseline flows during Winter and Spring and slightly lower than Baseline flows during Summer and Fall.

Under climate change conditions, the median flows at both gauges would be 4% lower than estimated flows under normal ( current) conditions for both scenarios.
1063
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 1064 17
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 1065 18
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 1066 19
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 1067 2
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 1068 21
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 22
Pumping Curtailment Days
This comparison of the total number of days during which the City would be required to curtail pumping at Wells 3 and 7A in response to the calculated flow conditions represents an important summary of the results of the analysis. The use of these “ pumping curtailment days” provides a measure of the effect that each water use scenario and water year type would have on river flows at Alisal Bridge. The average number of pumping curtailment days calculated in each water use scenario is presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Average Annual Number of Pumping Curtailment Days with Santa Ynez River Flows <1.5 cfs at Alisal Bridge
Current Climatic Conditions
Baseline
Conditions
Petition for
Change Denied
2b)
Petition for
Change Granted
2c)
Critical 107 108 106
Dry 138 136 132
Below Normal 117 77 72
Above Normal 104 46 46
Wet 0 0 0
With Climate Change (Predicted 2042 Conditions)
Baseline
Conditions
Petition for
Change Denied
2b)
Petition for
Change Granted
2c)
Critical 107 110 107
Dry 138 138 133
Below Normal 117 80 74
Above Normal 104 46 46
Wet 0 0 0
As indicated in Table 9, the proposed diversion from the City’ s wells under Scenario 2(c), which assumes the City’s Petition for Change is granted, results in fewer pumping curtailment days during Critical, Dry, and Below Normal years when compared to Scenario 2(b). During Above Normal and Wet years, when Term 18 Plan target flows would be in effect at Alisal Bridge, there would be no difference in pumping curtailment days between Scenario 2(b) and 2(c) since the target flows are required to be maintained at the Alisal Bridge during both scenarios. The number of pumping curtailment days during Wet and Above Normal years are reduced compared to Baseline conditions. During Critical years, the number of pumping curtailment days would be relatively unchanged, as there would very little water flowing in the river during the majority of the year. The effects of climate change are relatively minor, and only evident during years when Term 18 Plan target flows are not in effect.

During Critical years, higher median flows have occurred historically during the late summer and fall months August through December) due to dam releases. The data indicate that a similar number of overall pumping curtailment days under both scenarios would occur during Critical years compared to Baseline conditions.

As shown on Table 6, under both Scenario 2(b) and 2(c) during Below Normal years, a decrease of between 10 and 16 pumping curtailment days would occur during October, November, and December compared to Baseline conditions. This is likely an overestimate because ( a) the sample size for Below Normal years is only 2 years, and (b) half of the data from this 2-year period are from water year 2020, which directly followed an 1069
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 23
Above Normal year during which Term 18 Plan target flow requirements were in effect6. If, in the future, all Below Normal years are preceded by an Above Normal or Wet year, then the results shown in Table 6 would be representative. However, it is unlikely that all future Below Normal years will be affected by Term 18 Plan flows associated with a preceding Wet or Above Normal year. Consequently, it is expected that Scenario 2(b) and Scenario 2(c) will decrease the number of pumping curtailment days in Below Normal years, but to a lesser extent than shown in the table.
6 During conditions when Term 18 flow requirements are in effect, these target flows carry over to February of the next year, and as a result, there were not any predicted curtailment days in October, November, and December of 2020. 1070
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 24
Conclusions
Analysis and comparisons of Santa Ynez River streamflow conditions were conducted for three water use scenarios: 1) Baseline river conditions, 2) calculated river conditions if the City’s Petition for Change were denied, and 3) calculated river conditions if the City’s Petition for Change were granted. Based on the availability of data, the period between water years 2003 and 2020 was chosen to represent the Baseline flow conditions near and downstream of the City’s existing and proposed diversion facilities.

The results of these analyses indicate that during Above Normal and Wet years under both projected scenarios, even under conservative assumptions, the planned diversions will not adversely affect streamflow at Alisal Bridge.

For all other water year types (Critical, Dry, Below Normal), if the Petition for Change were denied under Scenario 2(b), decreased flows at Alisal Bridge would occur compared to both Baseline and Scenario 2(c) Petition for Change approved) conditions. This is because proposed monthly diversion volumes in Scenario 2(b) (Petition for Change denied) are typically greater than historical diversion volumes, and diversions that influence flow at the Alisal Bridge area are greater in Scenario 2(b) compared to Scenario 2(c).

Whereas, for water year types Critical, Dry, and Below Normal, if the Petition for Change were granted under Scenario 2(c), increased flows at Alisal Bridge would occur compared to both Baseline and Scenario 2(b) conditions. Streamflow at the Lompoc Narrows under Scenario 2(c) may be slightly reduced ( between 0.7 and

1.8 cfs on average) compared to both Baseline and Scenario 2(b) (Petition for Change denied) conditions given the simplified assumptions used in this analytical approach that the Solvang diversions from the Site B area directly reduce the downstream flows. It is well established, however, that there are other hydrologic considerations that may augment the downstream flow amounts or may contribute to streamflow loss between the City’s reach of diversion and the Lompoc Narrows ( as discussed on page 8 of this memorandum).

Finally, based upon the analysis of changes to pumping curtailment days, Scenario 2(c) would result in fewer overall pumping curtailment days at Alisal Bridge compared to either Baseline or Scenario 2(b) conditions, indicating that Scenario 2(c) will cause less changes to river flows at Alisal Bridge than either the Baseline or Scenario 2(b).
1071
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 1
Attachments
1072
Santa Ynez River Water Flows Under Three Scenarios Associated with City of Solvang’ s Revised River Wells Project GSI Water Solutions, Inc. 2
This page intentionally left blank.
1073
State Water Resources Control Board

STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER AND

NOTICE OF NEW STATUS CONFERENCE

AND PLANNED HEARING SCHEDULE
The State Water Resources Control Board
Administrative Hearings Office
issues this order and notice
regarding the pending petition for change of
the City of Solvang
for water-right Permit 15878 ( Application A022423),
which authorizes diversions of water from the Santa Ynez River (underflow) in Santa Barbara County.

The new Status Conference will be held onDecember 16, 2021, beginning at 9:00 am.

Any person interested in observing this status conference without participating may do so by accessing the Live Stream on the AHO YouTube channel with the following link: https://youtu.be/UqRiikaAtd0. If this link does not work, then any interested person may use the Zoom meeting link listed in the following paragraph to observe this status conference.

Anyone participating in this hearing may use the following Zoom meeting link:
https://waterboards.zoom.us/j/92643445567?pwd= Q3N4QVhsVnhhSTJ0V3JYaHlaaGFJQT09 with Meeting ID: 926 4344 5567 and Passcode: 345742
or the following call-in information:+
16699009128,,92643445567#,,,,*345742# US (San Jose)
A Pre-Hearing Conference is scheduled to begin onFebruary 2, 2022, at 9:00 a.m.

The Public Hearing is scheduled to begin onMarch 21, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. and to continue as necessaryon March 22-25, 2022,
beginning each day at 9:00 a.m.
1074
2 A site visit is scheduled to be held on March 29, 2022.

The Public Hearing is scheduled to continue, for rebuttal evidence, on April 19-22, 2022.

Additional hearing days may be scheduled.

On a later date, the Administrative Hearings Office will issue a separate notice of the pre-hearing conference and hearing, with information regarding how to participate in the pre-hearing conference and hearing and how to observe the prehearing conference and hearing without participating.

BACKGROUND
On March 30, 2020, the Administrative Hearings Office (“ AHO”) of the State Water Resources Control Board (“ State Water Board” or “Board”) issued a Notice of Public Hearing and Pre-Hearing Conference Call regarding the petitions filed by the City of Solvang (“ Solvang”) for change and extension of time for water-right Permit 15878 Application A0022423). The background facts, applicable statutes, hearing issues and previously proposed pre-hearing and hearing schedules are described in the March 30, 2020 notice and in the subsequent pre-hearing conference and status conference orders.

On April 29, 2020, the AHO held a pre-hearing conference. On June 29, September 24, and November 6, 2020, and March 26 and July 22, 2021, the AHO held status conferences. This order and notice follow the July 22, 2021 status conference.

The July 2, 2021 letter from Solvang’ s attorney to the AHO stated, in Table 1.0-2 on page 10, that the anticipated date when the Solvang City Council will consider a California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Addendum to the February 2014 Environmental Impact Report (“ EIR”) for the City’s 2011 Master Plan Update for Solvang’ s water-right change petition ( described in the July 2, 2021 letter from Solvang’ s attorney to the AHO on pp. 6-9, and referred to in this order and notice as the CEQA Addendum”) is sometime in “Late Fall 2021.”

STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER
October 1, November 1 and December 1, 2021 and January 2, 2022: On or before each of these dates, Solvang shall file a report with the AHO, and e-mail copies of the report to everyone on the attached service list. Each report shall describe: ( a) any signed settlement agreements regarding the above petitions; ( b) the status of Solvang’ s work on the CEQA Addendum; and (c) Solvang’ s schedule for completing the CEQA Addendum and for the Solvang City Council’ s consideration of it. Solvang shall include copies of any signed settlement agreements and any approved CEQA Addendum with the appropriate report.
1075
3 January 2, 2022: Pursuant to Water Code section 1701.3, the AHO requests that Solvang submit to the AHO, on or before January 2, 2022, the documents required for Solvang’ s CEQA compliance for Solvang’ s petition to change water-right Permit 15878.

If Solvang does not submit these documents by this date, then the AHO will schedule a hearing to consider adoption of a proposed order that, if adopted by the Board, would cancel this change petition pursuant to Water Code section 1701.4.

PLANNED PRE-HEARING AND HEARING SCHEDULE
Considering Solvang’ s proposed schedule for completing the CEQA Addendum, and to facilitate the parties’ planning, scheduling, preparation of written testimony and exhibits, and other pre-hearing work, the AHO is advising the parties now of the following planned schedule for this proceeding. If the AHO proceeds with this planned schedule, then the AHO will issue a notice of pre-hearing conference and hearing in January 2022 or earlier.

February 2, 2022: pre-hearing conference.

March 7, 2022: deadline for all parties to file exhibits ( including written proposed testimony and summary slides) and exhibit identification indices for their cases in chief with AHO.

March 21-25, 2022: hearing on parties’ cases-in-chief.

March 29, 2022: site visit.

April 8, 2022: deadline for all parties to file rebuttal exhibits ( including written proposed rebuttal testimony and summary slides) and exhibit identification indices with AHO.

April 19-22, 2022: hearing on rebuttal evidence.

May 27, 2022: deadline for parties to file written closing briefs with AHO.

PLANNED HEARING ISSUES
The purpose of the hearing, as planned by the hearing officer at this time, is for the hearing officer to receive evidence regarding the following issues. The notice of prehearing conference and hearing may contain amendments or supplements to these issues.
1) Should the State Water Board approve Solvang’ s petition to change water-right Permit 15878?
a) Would the State Water Board’ s approval of this petition result in injury to any other legal user of water?
1076
4 b) Would the State Water Board’ s approval of this petition unreasonably affect any fish, wildlife or any other instream beneficial use? c) Would the State Water Board’ s approval of this petition be in the public interest?
d) If the State Water Board approves this change petition, then what new terms or conditions, if any, including any operations plans, should the State Water Board add to Permit 15878 when it approves the petition? The hearing officer invites all parties to submit proposed new permit terms and conditions, including proposed operations plans, as hearing exhibits. 2) What are the estimated surface- water flows that have occurred and would occur, by month and water- year type, at relevant points along the Santa Ynez River upstream of, adjacent to and downstream of Solvang’ s existing and proposed points of diversion under each of the following scenarios: ( a) existing ( baseline) conditions that have occurred during the past several years under different wateryear types; ( b) conditions that are likely to occur if the State Water Board denies Solvang’ s change petition; and (c) conditions that are likely to occur if the State Water Board grants Solvang’ s change petition?
3) What environmental conditions ( including fish and related aquatic habitat conditions, groundwater conditions and levels, and other relevant environmental conditions) have occurred, and are likely to occur, under each of the three scenarios described in the preceding issue?
4) Are the Final EIR and Addendum that Solvang has prepared and certified for the proposed project described in the Final EIR and Addendum sufficient under CEQA for the State Water Board to act on these petitions as a CEQA Responsible Agency? ( See CEQA Guidelines, § 15096.) If not, what additional CEQA documents are necessary and what entity should prepare them? The AHO encourages parties that agree on hydrological information concerning issue 2) to file joint exhibits with this information, even if the parties file separate exhibits regarding other issues.

The notice of pre-hearing conference and hearing will contain requirements, and specify procedures, similar to the requirements and procedures in the March 30, 2020 Notice of Public Hearing and Pre-Hearing Conference Call.

STATUS CONFERENCE
The AHO will hold a status conference in this matter on December 16, 2021, beginning at 9:00 am. During the status conference, the hearing officer will discuss the status of Solvang’ s CEQA Addendum and the planned pre-hearing conference, hearing issues and hearing schedule.
1077
5 The hearing officer requests that participants participate in the status conference by both video and audio, if possible. If this is not possible, then the hearing officer will allow audio- only participation.

Except as explicitly stated in this order and notice, all provisions of the prior notices and orders described in the first two paragraphs of this order and notice remain in effect.

Date: Sept. 2, 2021 ____ SIGNATURE ON FILE________
Alan B. Lilly, Presiding Hearing Officer
Enclosure:

Service List (all service by e-mail only)
1078

SERVICE LIST
B. Tilden Kim
Richards Watson Gershon
350 South Grand Ave., 37th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
tkim@rwglaw. com
Attorney for City of Solvang
Stephanie Osler Hastings
Jessica L. Diaz
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
1021 Anacapa Street, 2nd Floor
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
SHastings@bhfs. com
jdiaz@bhfs. com
Attorneys for Alisal Guest Ranch
Gary M. Kvistad
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
1021 Anacapa Street, 2nd Floor
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Gkvistad@bhfs. com
Attorney for Santa Ynez River Water
Conservation District, ID No. 1
Elisabeth L. Esposito
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP
1415 L Street, Suite 800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Eesposito@bhfs. com
Attorney for Santa Ynez River Water
Conservation District, ID No. 1
Laurie K. Beale
NOAA Office of General Counsel
GCNW, 7600 Sand Point Way NE
Seattle, WA 98115
laurie. beale@noaa. gov
Attorney- Advisor for NOAA Fisheries
Darren Brumback, Fisheries Biologist
NOAA Fisheries
501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4200
Long Beach, CA 90802
darren. brumback@noaa. gov
Maggie Hall
Linda Krop
California Trout
Environmental Defense Center
906 Garden Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
mhall@environmentaldefensecenter. org
lkrop@environmentaldefensecenter. org
Attorneys for California Trout
Steven M. Torigiani
Brett A. Stroud
Young Wooldridge, LLP
1800 30th St., 4th Floor
Bakersfield, CA 93314
storigiani@youngwooldridge. com
bstroud@youngwooldridge. com
Attorneys for Santa Ynez River Water
Conservation District
Paeter Garcia, General Manager
Santa Ynez River Water Conservation
District, ID No. 1
P.O. Box 157
Santa Ynez, CA 93460
pgarcia@syrwd. org
Nancee Murray
Lena Germinario
Office of General Counsel
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244- 2090
Nancee. murray@wildlife. ca.gov
lena.germinario@wildlife. ca.gov
Attorneys for California Department of
Fish and Wildlife
1079
SOLVANG REVISED RIVER WELLS PROJECT DESCRIPTION (SEPT. 27, 2021) 1080

Page 1 of 4 ends

Solvang City CouncilJanuary 10, 2022

Solvang City Council
January 10, 2022