Background - Water Forumcosumnes.waterforum.org/.../EKI_Cosumnes_WorkPlan… · Web view2018/08/10...

Attachment 4 –EKI Work Plan 250 July 2018

BACKGROUNDThe Cosumnes Groundwater Subbasin (DWR 5-022.16, hereinafter “Basin”) is a medium priority basin and as such is required to comply with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Specifically, the basin is required to be managed by one or more Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) that must prepare and adopt one or more Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs or Plans) covering the entire Basin by January 2022.

The Basin is currently covered by the following seven GSAs, with each being the exclusive GSA in its particular portion of the Basin: (1) City of Galt GSA; (2) Galt Irrigation District; (3) Clay Water District; (4) Sloughhouse Resource Conservation District; (5) Omochumne-Hartnell Water District; (6) Amador County Groundwater Management Authority; and (7) Sacramento County GSA. The GSAs established within the Basin and other relevant jurisdictional boundaries are shown in Figure 1.

The Basin GSAs have adopted a Framework Agreement that formalizes their intention of collaborating in the planning and development of one or more coordinated GSPs in the Basin for submission by January 2022. Currently Basin coordination occurs through the following forums, which are convened on a monthly basis by the Water Forum and are open to the public:This Work Plan describes technical work efforts to be completed by EKI Environment & Water, Inc. (EKI) to support the GSAs in the development of a SGMA-compliant GSP by January 2022.

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONSThe detailed work plan provided below has been developed in coordination with the Basin GSAs and reflects a best estimate of the work effort related to GSP development pursuant to the following set of foundational assumptions:

The project schedule applies to the technical consultant, Working Group, and Basin GSA’s; The number and timing of work products and meetings remain as specified in this work plan; Through the Working Group, Basin GSAs will provide clear direction to EKI, timely and

constructive input on interim work products, and will readily respond to specific requests from the technical consultant team (e.g., data requests);

Basin GSAs will provide in-kind support to EKI to implement data gathering and/or field-based efforts to facilitate project efficiencies (e.g., securing access to private wells for sampling, verifying land and water use data, and so forth);

If needed, anticipated major and minor work products will be revised only once; and EKI will provide strategic technical support for stakeholder engagement-related efforts to the

degree specified in the work plan.

Cosumnes Subbasin 1 13 November 2017 250 July 2018


PROJECT WORK PLAN PM Phase - Project Management and AdministrationWorking Group: Comprises representatives

from each of the seven GSAs in the Basin and serves as the primary forum for intrabasin collaboration and decision-making among the GSAs1; and

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC): Comprises representatives from each of the seven GSAs and develops technical recommendations for all aspects of SGMA related efforts for consideration by the Working Group.

Additionally, the Basin GSAs coordinate to hold periodic public workshops throughout the Basin to elicit in-depth input into SGMA-related implementation issues. The Basin GSAs also invite water users and water user representatives to participate as panel discussants with the TAC.

This Work Plan assumes that the Working Group will do the work described herein directly through in-kind services by the GSAs or through contracts with a specialized consultant team. A portion of the in-kind work is expected to be performed by Water Forum staff. Specifically, as shown in the schematic to the right, this Work Plan assumes that the Basin GSAs will: (1) retain a qualified consultant team to conduct the technical and stakeholder engagement work described herein, and (2) will be an active participant in the GSP data and chapter development efforts, including providing data and in-kind support, engaging in proactive and informed decision-making during TAC and Working Group meetings, and providing constructive feedback and timely reviews of work products.

PROJECT OVERVIEW For the purposes of this Proposition 1 Grant Application, the “Project” is the development of a coordinated, SGMA-compliant GSP for the Basin2.

This GSP Development Project Work Plan (Work Plan) describes the scope of work for development of a coordinated, SGMA-compliant GSP by and for the Working Group.

1 Throughout this proposal, the term "Working Group" is used as general shorthand and, depending on context, means the Working Group itself, one or more of the GSAs comprising the Working Group, the grant Applicant (SSCAWA), or all of the foregoing. 2 The Work Plan and accompanying schedule and budget were developed based on preparation of a single coordinated GSP for the entire Basin. While not currently anticipated, if one or more of the Basin GSAs ultimately chooses to prepare and adopt a separate, coordinated GSP (pursuant to California Water Code [CWC] §10727(b)(3)), many of the data collection, development, and synthesis efforts and other stakeholder outreach and intra- and interbasin coordination efforts described in this Work Plan will be transferable and utilized by Basin GSAs even Cosumnes Subbasin 2 13 November 2017 250 July 2018

Project Management and Administration

Phase 1GSP

Foundation

Phase 2 Basin

Characterization and Analysis

Phase 3 Sustainability

Planning

Phase 4 GSP

Preparation and

Submittal

Water Forum

Technical Consultant

Facilitation Consultant

Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)

Working Group

Basin GSAs


PROJECT OBJECTIVESThe main objective of this Project is to develop a complete GSP for the Basin that will comply with and meet all requirements of the GSP Emergency Regulations (23-CCR §350-358.4) and will provide a reasonable path forward for achieving sustainable groundwater management in the Basin by the SGMA implementation deadline of 2042. The Project is designed to meet all requirements for a Category 2, Tier 2 SGWP Proposition 1 grant outlined in the Groundwater Sustainability Plans and Projects Proposal Solicitation Package (PSP).

PROJECT PHASINGThe Work Plan divides the overall effort for GSP Development into four phases with a Project Management and Administration Phase (PM Phase) covering the entire GSP development process. As shown in the graphic below, the four phases are: (1) GSP Foundation, (2) Basin Characterization and Analysis, (3) Sustainability Planning, and (4) GSP Preparation and Submittal. Each phase builds off efforts and results of the previous phases. The PM Phase includes tasks related to general management,

including (1) grant management and administration, (2) project management, and (3) quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC).

As shown in the attached GSP Development Project Schedule, the four phases overlap temporally in cases where activities in a later phase can be initiated while activities in a previous phase are still ongoing. The work efforts of Phases 1 through 3 are accelerated with the objectives of:

Keeping pace with SGMA efforts in adjacent subbasins (i.e., the South American Subbasin which has submitted an Alternative and the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin which is in critical overdraft conditions and subject to an accelerated SGMA compliance schedule); and

Supporting effective interbasin coordination, particularly with respect to critical factors such as the water budget and numerical groundwater model development (Phase 2) and the development and vetting of sustainability criteria (Phase 3).

if any desire to prepare and adopt separate, coordinated GSPs. Similarly, all Basin GSAs would still coordinate in the development of all Basin-wide GSP components outlined as requirements of a GSP Coordination Agreement (California Code of Regulations, Title 23 [23-CCR] §354.7). The added or incremental costs associated with developing a separate GSP(s) and, in some cases, special management areas within a single GSP proposed by individual GSAs, would be paid for separately by the GSAs proposing such efforts and would not be paid for out of grant funds and are therefore not included in the accompanying budget of this Work Plan.



Phase 1GSP Foundation

Phase 2 Basin



Planning

Phase 4 GSP Preparation

and Submittal


INTERIM WORK PRODUCTSThe Work Plan will be implemented in a transparent and collaborative fashion such that the Working Group and other Basin stakeholders have ample opportunity to provide timely input. Specifically, the work effort of each major task or subtask described herein will be documented as follows:

Technical Presentations that will be made on a regular basis to the TAC, Working Group and Basin stakeholders to provide for an open and transparent process and significant opportunity for input as key elements of the GSP are being developed. This approach ensures that there will be “no surprises” when the Draft Technical Memoranda (see below) are reviewed and will streamline the review and revision process as major issues will have been vetted during the development stage by all parties; and

Draft Technical Memoranda (TM) and associated tables and figures that will be submitted for review and comment by the TAC, Working Group, and additional key stakeholders. The Draft TMs will reflect input received during the related technical presentations and will be drafted to support key GSP elements. The Draft TMs will not be finalized; rather the suggested revisions to the Draft TMs will be incorporated as appropriate into chapters of the Draft GSP.

Selected work products, resources and underlying data will be made available for public review on the Working Group website (http://cosumnes.waterforum.org).

PROJECT DELIVERABLESThe deliverable for this Project is a complete and fully SGMA-compliant GSP, including any associated Coordination Agreement(s), data and informational components (i.e., a functional Data Management System containing all preliminary data and a bibliography of sources used to develop the GSP; numerical model input/output files and documentation, project feasibility studies, etc.), that may be adopted by Basin GSAs and submitted to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) by the January 2022 deadline. Additionally, the Project Applicant (on behalf of the Working Group) will submit all required grant administration-related reports to DWR –including quarterly progress reports and a final report – as established in the Grant Agreement that will be entered into by the Project Applicant and DWR.



SUMMARY WORK PLAN FOR GRANT ADMINISTRATION PURPOSES Although the Project Work Plan has been developed in significant detail, it is assumed that, for purposes of grant administration, the Project Applicant will work with DWR to manage the grant at the Phase level. As such, a brief summary Work Plan that describes each Phase and the associated Tasks and associated work products and deliverables is provided below. This information supports and is consistent with the level of detail presented in the Project Budget and Schedule.

A more detailed description of each Phase and Task follows thereafter in the “Detailed Project Work Plan”.

PM PHASE - PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION (0% COMPLETE)

The Project Management and Administration Phase (PM Phase) includes tasks related to general management of the entire GSP development process (i.e., through the January 2022 submission deadline). The PM Phase efforts will be carried out concurrently with the execution of Phases 1 through 4 , and includes the following Tasks consistent, where applicable, with the grant administration requirements outlined in the PSP Grant Agreement Template and the technical and reporting standards outlined in the GSP Regulations (23-CCR §352-352.6): .

[Task 1]: Proposition 1 Grant (Grant) Management, Administration, and Reporting

[Task 1.] Project Management[Task 2.] Quality Assurance/Quality Control

Anticipated work products under the PM Phase will include:

Meeting agendas, minutes and presentations, as applicable; Project schedule, budget tracking and other management tools; and Draft and Final QA/QC Plan.

Deliverables to DWR under the PM Phase will include all submittals required by Proposition 1 grant requirements and agreed to in the Grant Agreement, including:

Quarterly progress and accountability reports; A final Project Completion Report;



Phase 1GSP

Foundation

Phase 2 Basin



Planning

Phase 4 GSP

Preparation and

Submittal


A Grant Completion Report; and A Coordination Agreement (as necessary).

PHASE 1 – GSP FOUNDATION (20% COMPLETE)Phase 1 of the Work Plan involves the following Tasks consistent, where applicable, with portions of Articles 3, 4, 5-1, 5-2, and 8 of the GSP Regulations (23-CCR §352-354.18, §357-357.4):

[Task 3.] Conduct Preliminary GSP Development Efforts

[Task 4.] Provide Initial Notification of GSP Development[Task 5.] Select or Design Data Management System (DMS)[Task 6.] Gather Available Data and Compile into DMS[Task 7.] Compile Information on the Plan Area and Basin Management Activities[Task 8.] Conduct Data Gaps Assessment[Task 9.] Evaluate Numerical Groundwater Model Options[Task 10.] Update GSP Development Funding Plan[Task 11.] Refine Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan (SCEP)[Task 12.] Conduct Stakeholder Engagement Related to the GSP Foundation Phase[Task 13.] Participate in Intrabasin and Interbasin Coordination Efforts

Efforts under Phase 1 will prepare the Working Group with the data, information, technical tools (i.e., a selected numerical model), and funding and outreach plans needed to successfully perform the subsequent Basin Characterization and Analysis efforts under Phases 2 and 3. Anticipated work products from Phase 1 efforts include:

A functional DMS containing all preliminary data and a living bibliography; Draft TM #1 – Data Management System Evaluation and Selection; Draft TM #2 – Data Compilation and Data Gaps Assessment; Draft TM #3 – Numerical Groundwater Model Evaluation and Selection; Draft TM #4 – GSP Development Funding Plan; and Draft TM #5 – Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan

Phase 1 will extend from the grant award date to July 20183. One or more focused technical presentations will be made to the Working Group and TAC to present the data, methodology, and results from each task and to solicit feedback prior to drafting and submitting each Draft TM for review.

3 Cost-sharing activities associated with Phase 1 efforts will encompass relevant work undertaken by GSAs since January 2015 (the effective date of SGMA).Cosumnes Subbasin 6 13 November 2017 250 July 2018


Phase 1GSP

Foundation

Phase 2 Basin



Planning

Phase 4 GSP

Preparation and

Submittal


PHASE 2 - BASIN CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS (0% COMPLETE)Phase 2 of the Work Plan focuses on technical analysis of Basin conditions, and includes the following Tasks consistent, where applicable, with portions of the Basing Setting and Monitoring Network sections of the GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.12-18, §354.32-40):

[Task 14.] Implement Plan for Filling Data Gaps Needed for GSP Preparation[Task 15.] Assess Groundwater Conditions and Develop Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model[Task 16.] Develop/Repurpose Existing Numerical Groundwater Model[Task 17.] Develop Basin-Wide Water Budget[Task 18.] Assess Existing Monitoring Programs and Develop SGMA-Compliant Monitoring Network[Task 19.] Conduct Stakeholder Engagement Related to the Basin Characterization and Analysis

Phase[Task 20.] (Continue to) Implement GSP Development Funding Plan[Task 21.] (Continue to) Participate in Intrabasin and Interbasin Coordination Efforts

Efforts under Phase 2 will build towards a complete and coherent understanding of the Basin that will serve as the foundation for sustainability planning efforts under Phase 3. Anticipated work products from Phase 2 efforts include:

Draft TM #6 – Groundwater Conditions and Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model; Draft TM #7 – Model Development and Calibration; Draft TM #8 – Water Budget and Preliminary Estimate of Sustainable Yield; and Draft TM #9 – Summary of Monitoring Network Assessment and Preliminary Monitoring Plan.

Phase 2 will extend from July 2018 to July 2019. One or more focused technical presentations will be made to the Working Group and TAC to present the data, methodology, and results from each task and to solicit feedback prior to drafting and submitting each Draft TM for review.

PHASE 3 - SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING (0% COMPLETE)Phase 3 of the Work Plan focuses on planning for the sustainable management of the Basin, and includes the following Tasks consistent, where applicable, with portions of the Basin Setting, Sustainable Management Criteria, Monitoring Network, and Project and Management Actions sections of the GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.20-44):



Phase 1GSP

Foundation

Phase 2 Basin



Planning

Phase 4 GSP

Preparation and

Submittal


Phase 1GSP

Foundation

Phase 2 Basin



Planning

Phase 4 GSP

Preparation and

Submittal


[Task 22.] Evaluate Potential Management Areas[Task 23.] Develop Sustainable Management Criteria[Task 24.] Identify Projects and Management Actions[Task 25.] Create GSP Implementation Plan[Task 26.] Finalize Monitoring Network and Protocols[Task 27.] Conduct Stakeholder Engagement Related to Sustainability Planning[Task 28.] (Continue to) Implement GSP Development Funding Plan[Task 29.] (Continue to) Participate in Intrabasin and Interbasin Coordination Efforts

Anticipated work products from Phase 3 efforts include:

Draft TM #10 – Delineation of Management Areas; Draft TM #11 – Establishment of Sustainability Criteria; Draft TM #12 – Proposed Projects and Management Actions; Draft TM #13 – GSP Implementation Plan; and Draft TM #14 – Proposed Monitoring Network and Protocols.

Phase 3 will extend from July 2019 to July 2020. One or more focused technical presentations will be made to the Working Group and TAC to present the data, methodology, and results from each task and to solicit feedback prior to drafting and submitting each Draft TM for review.

PHASE 4 - GSP PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL (0% COMPLETE)Phase 4 of the Work Plan involves preparation of the GSP for submittal to DWR, and includes the following Tasks consistent, where applicable, with requirements for GSP submission outlined in the GSP Regulations and in the California Water Code (CWC §10727-10728.6):

[Task 30.] Compile Complete Draft GSP[Task 31.] Distribute Draft GSP and Revise (if necessary) per Stakeholder Feedback[Task 32.] Submit Final GSP to DWR[Task 33.] (Continue to) Participate in Intrabasin and Interbasin Coordination Efforts

Final deliverables to DWR from Phase 4 efforts will include:

A Final (written) GSP; Coordination Agreements (as applicable); A Data Management System, integrated with all existing data; and Numerical Model Inputs/Outputs.

It is anticipated that Phase 4 will extend from July 2020 through the GSP submission deadline of 31 January 2022.



Phase 1GSP

Foundation

Phase 2 Basin



Planning

Phase 4 GSP

Preparation and

Submittal


DETAILED PROJECT WORK PLAN

PM PHASE - PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION (0% COMPLETE)The Project Management and Administration Phase (PM Phase) includes tasks related to general management of the entire GSP development process (i.e., through the January 2022 submission deadline). The PM Phase efforts will be carried out concurrently with the execution of Phases 1 through 4.

[Task 2]: Proposition 1 Grant Management, Administration, and Reporting (0% complete)

This task includes all work efforts needed to comply with the Grant reporting and administration requirements, including accounting of expenditures of allocated grant monies, preparation of progress reports, invoices, and associated documentation, and as-needed communications with DWR Sustainable Groundwater Planning (SGWP) grant administration staff.

As specified in the PSP Grant Agreement Template, deliverables to DWR will include:

Quarterly progress and accountability reports; A final Project Completion Report; A Grant Completion Report; and A Coordination Agreement (as necessary).

The requirements for this reporting shall be established in the grant agreement that will be entered into by the Project Applicant (on behalf of the Working Group) and DWR.

EKI will provide a supporting role to Sacramento County to satisfy Prop 1 grant administration and reporting requirements, up to 5 hours per month over the 28-month Project timeframe.

Task 1: Project Management (0% complete)

This task includes overall project management activities, including management of project budgets, schedule, staff assignments, subconsultant/subcontractor management, records management, contract compliance, etc. This task will also cover routine communication between the consultant team and the TAC and Working Group, including the preparation of meeting agendas, presentations, minutes, etc.

EKI will spend up to 15 hours per month related to Project Management efforts over the 28-month Project timeframe.



Phase 1GSP

Foundation

Phase 2 Basin



Planning

Phase 4 GSP

Preparation and

Submittal


Task 2: Quality Assurance/Quality Control (0% complete)

Under this task, a QA/QC Plan will be developed to ensure that all work projects, deliverables, are developed using standardized methodologies appropriate to each individual work product, and undergo review for conformance with applicable standards. The methodologies covered under the QA/QC Plan will include those related to:

Data collection and compilation; Maintenance of a project bibliography (i.e., document repository); Technical analyses including water budgets and numerical modeling; Preparation of graphics including map-based figures and others; Preparation of written work products (i.e., technical memoranda and reports); and Performance of project management activities.

EKI will prepare a QA/QC Plan for this Project.

PHASE 1 - GSP FOUNDATION (20% COMPLETE)Efforts under Phase 1 will prepare the Working Group with the data, information, technical tools (i.e., a selected numerical model), and funding and outreach plans needed to successfully perform the subsequent Basin Characterization and Analysis efforts under Phases 2 and 3. Phase 1 will extend through July 2018.March 2019..

[Task 3]: Conduct Preliminary GSP Development Efforts (100% complete)

After SGMA was adopted on January 1, 2015, entities in the Basin initiated efforts to comply with SGMA. The efforts conducted to date have been related to initial stakeholder engagement, intrabasin coordination, basin setting analysis, and assessment of GSP development costs. The following are specific efforts that have already been carried out:

GSA formation; Formation of the Working Group and the TAC; Drafting and adoption of the Framework Agreement; Monthly meetings with the TAC and Working Group to support intrabasin coordination; Stakeholder outreach meetings/workshops, drafting of initial stakeholder engagement plan; Initial assessment of potential undesirable results and data gaps based off publicly available data

sources (see Figures 2 through 6); Field studies to develop preliminary data/information regarding Basin Setting, including a

Geoelectrical Soundings Study and Historical Flows Study of the Cosumnes River; Modeling efforts planning, including outreach to adjacent basins; Hiring of Technical Advisor to assist with Proposition 1 proposal development and initial GSP

development planning;



Phase 1GSP

Foundation

Phase 2 Basin



Planning

Phase 4 GSP

Preparation and

Submittal

Anona Dutton, 07/19/18,

These preliminary efforts have already been completed per EKI’s contract with the Water Forum, and are thus not included in the budget for this Project.


Development and management of SGMA Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement Website (http://cosumnes.waterforum.org); and

Preparation of a SGWP Proposition 1 grant application.

These efforts are included in the budget for this Project, as they constitute foundational technical efforts that have contributed to GSP development for the Basin.

[Task 4]: Provide Initial Notification of GSP Development (0% complete)

The GSP Regulations (23-CCR §353.6) require that each GSA shall notify DWR of their process for developing the GSP, including how interested parties can contact the GSA and participate in the development and implementation of the GSP. The required initial notification documentation will be prepared and submitted to DWR on behalf of the Working Group via the online SGMA portal to commence GSP development. Additionally, the initial notification documentation will be posted on the Working Group website (http://cosumnes.waterforum.org). Individual Basin GSAs will also publicize and post relevant notices regarding GSP development and Working Group activities.

[Task 5]: Select or Design Data Management System (0% complete)

The GSP Regulations (23-CCR §352.6) require that each GSA develop a DMS to enable the storage and reporting of information relevant to GSP implementation and monitoring of basin conditions. DWR’s BMP 2: Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps briefly discusses DMS requirements, and indicates that DWR intends to update BMP 2 with a suggested DMS data structure to facilitate data consistency, transparency, and sharing amongst basins and with DWR. Data to be included in the DMS must conform to the Data and Reporting Standards described in §352.4 of the GSP Regulations and must be consistent with the requirements of any inter- or intrabasin coordination agreements that address data consistency.

Evaluate Data Management Systems

The Working Group will select or develop a DMS in accordance with the forthcoming update to the DWR’s BMP guidance. The various options for the DMS will be evaluated and summarized for review and consideration by the Working Group. The review will include potential “off-the-shelf” data management tools, or the development of a customized DMS. It is anticipated that the DMS will include both spatial and temporal data, and that the two data types will be linked through use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) geodatabase. Specifically, it is anticipated that:

Spatial data will generally be stored as shapefiles or other graphical formats, as appropriate, and will include but not be limited to: surficial soils and geology; topography; natural and artificial surface water features (i.e., rivers and streams, lakes, reservoirs, springs, wetlands, canals, recharge basins, etc.); wells, stream gauges, subsidence monitoring stations, and other monitoring sites, as applicable; various boundaries (i.e., basin, agency, GSA, special groundwater management units or areas, Disadvantaged Community [DAC], and parcel boundaries); and

Temporal data will be stored in cross-referenced tables, and will include, but not be limited to: climate/meteorological data; hydrology/streamflow; well-specific data on groundwater levels



and quality; land use/cropping data; water use information (including groundwater pumping, imports and deliveries by water suppliers); and demographic/population data.

The DMS will be constructed to include QA/QC checks, in accordance with the QA/QC Plan developed under Task 3, so that all data entered into the DMS are valid and compatible for subsequent analyses necessary for GSP preparation and implementation. The DMS will be designed to allow for the accurate and efficient export of information for GSP analysis as well as on-going reporting purposes. Also, the DMS shall readily provide for future addition of new data and Working Group staff will be trained on use of the DMS as a part of Task 26.

Prepare Technical Presentation(s) and Draft Technical Memorandum

The options for DMS selection and/or development will be summarized in technical presentation(s) made to the Working Group and TAC and summarized in Draft TM #1 – Data Management System Evaluation and Selection for consideration by the Working Group, which will then decide on what approach to utilize.

EKI will provide the technical support required to support DMS selection and design and will develop the associated interim work products. This task assumes that the initial DMS will be a fairly straightforward set of Microsoft Access (or equivalent) and GIS-enabled databases and will primarily serve to meet SGMA reporting standards whilst providing flexibility for future modifications and advancements.

Task 3: Gather Available Data and Compile into DMS (0% complete)

Under Task 7, available existing data will be gathered and compiled in support of subsequent GSP analyses (e.g., groundwater conditions assessment, hydrogeologic conceptual model [HCM], numerical model development, water budget analysis) into the Basin DMS.

Compile Publicly Available Data

DWR has compiled many useful data sources and tools on its website, including the “ Sustainable Groundwater Management - Data, Tools, and Reports” webpage. The DWR webpages and data repositories will be visited frequently to ensure compilation of all applicable, publicly available data. Statewide or federal (i.e., non-local) public data sources that will also be mined for the purposes of populating the DMS for subsequent GSP analysis include the following:

Groundwater Level Data:o DWR California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program (CASGEM);o DWR Groundwater Information Center (GIC); ando DWR Water Data Library (WDL).

Surface Water Flow Data:o DWR California Data Exchange Center (CDEC);o DWR WDL;o United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Water Information System (NWIS);

ando United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR).



The budget for this task has been modified by $10,100, which reflects funding redistributed from Tasks 5, 11, 21, and 29, which have already been completed or will be completed through EKI’s contract with the Water Forum by the initiation date of the revised Work Plan.


Surface Water Diversion and Permitting Data:o State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Electronic Water Rights Information

Management System (eWRIMS) data Climatological / Meteorological Data:

o DWR CDEC;o DWR California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS);o National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) data; ando PRISM climate data.

Groundwater Quality Data:o SWRCB Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) program;o SWRCB GeoTracker program;o SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW); ando USGS NWIS.

Topography: USGS Surficial Soils: United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS) Surficial Geology:

o USGS reports; ando California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) reports.

Land Use:o DWR Land Use Surveys;o USGS National Land Cover Database (NLCD);o USDA; ando Any publicly available city- and/or county- wide land use surveys.

Land Subsidence:o DWR’s Summary of Recent, Historical, and Estimated Potential for Future Land

Subsidence in California (2014);o Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology’s Subsidence in California

InSAR Study (Farr, Jones, and Liu, 2015 and 2016); ando Various maps and reports from the USGS California Water Science Center.

Population:o DWR;o State Department of Finance; ando United States Census Bureau.

Water Use:o DWR Agricultural Land and Water Use Estimates; ando ITRC Evapotranspiration (ET) Data.

Well Construction informationo DWR Well Completion Report Map; ando California Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) logs.



Compile Local and Basin-Specific Data

To supplement the above public data sources, additional information from local sources (i.e., agencies within the Basin) will be gathered and compiled under Task 7. It is anticipated that this local information may include more detailed information on hydrogeologic characteristics, land use, water use, groundwater levels, and water quality in the Basin. Compilation and review of any existing Basin-specific data and interpretive reports will be useful in identifying characteristics and drivers of particular importance to local groundwater conditions within the Basin (e.g., the spatial and temporal characteristics of the hydraulic connections between the Cosumnes River and the groundwater table), as well as characteristics that remain uncertain or lack consensus between local stakeholders – both of which will be helpful for assessing data gaps (see Task 9) and evaluating options for a Numerical Model (see Task 10). This information will be entered into the Basin DMS and/or a document repository established in support of GSP development using the QA protocols established during DMS construction under Task 6. These local data sources include, but are not limited to, the following:

Groundwater Management Plans (GWMPs) prepared by the Southeast Sacramento County Agricultural Water Authority (SSCAWA, 2002), Central Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority (SCGA, 2006), and the South Area Water Council (SAWC, 2011);

CASGEM Monitoring Network Plans prepared by SCGA (2012), Amador Water Agency (AWA, 2014), and SSCAWA (2017);

Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) prepared by the City of Galt (2005, 2013) and submitted to DWR;

Water quality data being developed as part of the Irrigated Lands program implementation within the Basin, including Section 9 of CH2MHill’s Sacramento Valley Groundwater Quality Assessment Report (2014);

Results of studies and investigations by individual entities within the Basin; General Plans (discussed further under Task 8 below); Databases of well records, water level data, water quality data, operational data (e.g., deliveries

of water to customers of each water supplier); Relevant scientific studies completed or currently being conducted in the Basin and adjacent

Basins (e.g. Cosumnes Coalition, UC Water Security and Sustainability Research Initiative, etc.); Relevant data and information being developed in adjacent subbasins as part of SGMA efforts

(e.g., Eastern San Joaquin and Sacramento Valley numerical flow model data inputs, etc.); and Any otherOther available, relevant data and/or information.

Additionally, outreach with stakeholders in the Basin will be conducted to collect additional relevant local data sources not yet identified by the Working Group.

Prepare Technical Presentations(s) and Draft Technical Memorandum

Results of Task 7 will be presented pursuant to Task 9.

EKI will provide the technical support required to populate the DMS and to develop the associated interim work products. This task assumes that data provided by the Basin GSAs and other stakeholders to EKI for inclusion in the DMS will be in a readily-usable electronic format.



Task 4: Compile Information on the Plan Area and Basin Management Activities(0% complete)

The GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.8) require that each GSP contain information on the Plan Area, including the following:

• Maps depicting the area covered by GSP, adjudicated areas, other agencies within the basin, and areas covered by an Alternative, jurisdictional boundaries of federal, state, tribal, city, county, and agencies with water management responsibilities, areas covered by relevant General Plans, existing land use designations, the density of wells per square mile, and locations of communities dependent on groundwater;

• A written description of the Plan area describing the features depicted on the above maps;• Identification and description of water resource monitoring and management programs, how

those programs may be incorporated into the Plan, and how they may limit operational flexibility in the basin;

• A description of conjunctive use programs, if any;• A description of land use elements or topic categories of applicable General Plans, including a

summary of those plans, how implementation of the GSP may change water demands or affect achievement of sustainability and how the GSP addresses those effects, how implementation of the GSP may affect the water supply assumptions of relevant land use plans and how land use plans outside the basin could affect the ability to achieve sustainable groundwater management within the basin;

• A summary of the permitting process for new or replacement wells in the basin; and• Any additional elements determined to be relevant and appropriate.

Review Information on the Plan Area and Basin Management Activities

Under Task 8, the above information will be compiled, reviewed and summarized to the extent applicable. In addition, the required set of maps will be prepared. An extensiveA bibliography will be developed and maintained of relevant reports, documents, and web-based resources. The review will be necessary at this stage to inform the subsequent basin analyses and sustainability planning to be performed under Phases 2 and 3 (i.e., the water budget, development of management actions and criteria, etc.).

Prepare Technical Presentations(s) and Draft Technical Memorandum

Results of Task 8 will be presented pursuant to Task 9.

EKI will provide the technical support required to compile information on the Plan Area and Basin Management Activities and will develop the associated interim work products. This task assumes that the Basin GSAs will be responsive to data requests regarding the information required in the Plan Area (e.g., specific information on local conjunctive use programs).



Task 5: Conduct Data Gaps Assessment (0% complete)

An initial compilation of existing, publicly available data has been completed related to the evaluation of the six sustainability indicators. The results of this preliminary assessment are shown in Figures 2 through 6 and are summarized as follows:

Groundwater Elevations / Storage Change. CASGEM Spring 2017 data included approximately 27 water level records within the Basin; water level data were noticeably absent in the central portion of the Basin (northeast of Herald to the vicinity of the Cosumnes River and the Amador County line) and in the western corner of the Basin (west of Galt, to the confluence of the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers) (see Figures 2 and 3); additionally, no aquifer-specific groundwater level information was readily available. In general, water levels showed a consistent pattern of decline, the one exception being in the Amador County portion of the Basin.

Seawater Intrusion. No publicly available data exist regarding seawater intrusion conditions in the Basin; this is likely due to the Basin’s location on the eastern edge of the Central Valley, where seawater intrusion is not anticipated to occur at any significant rate.

Water Quality. GAMA data from January 2016 through September 2017 are sparse and scattered throughout the Basin, including only six records for Total Dissolved Solids (all within close proximity in Amador County, see Figure 4a), seven records for Nitrate (Figure 4b),, and six records for Arsenic (mostly from the City of Galt, see Figure 4c). Geotracker records indicated the presence of approximately 10 active contamination sites and another 25 closed sites within the Basin (Figure 4d)..

Land Subsidence. No land subsidence monitoring network exists within the Basin apart from a single University Navigation Satellite Timing & Ranging Consortium (UNAVCO) continuous GPS station in the center of the Basin. This UNAVCO station indicates that there has been little subsidence (i.e., <2 cm) in the Basin since the station was installed in 2006 (see Figure 5).. DWR’s recent evaluation of land subsidence potential (DWR, 2014) ranks the Basin as having a “Medium to Low” potential for future land subsidence, noting that no documented land subsidence has occurred in the Basin but that 45% of wells (17 of 38 wells) with long-term groundwater elevation data (i.e. 10 years or more) had water levels at or below previous historical lows as of 2014.

Streamflow Depletion. Currently only one active streamflow gauge exists along the section of the Cosumnes River comprising the northern Basin boundary (see Figure 6).. The Michigan Bar gauge, monitored by the USGS, has provided real-time (i.e., hourly) streamflow conditions in the Cosumnes River at the northern tip of the Basin near the Sacramento-Amador County line since 1983 and daily streamflow measurements since 1907. A second USGS streamflow gauge installed at the McConnell station roughly 20 miles downstream of the Michigan Bar gauge provides historical daily streamflow conditions along the Cosumnes River from 1941 through 1982. Two additional streamflow gauges have been installed along the Cosumnes River by the Omochumne-Hartnell Water District – one at the Rooney flash dam and another at the Mahon flash dam – though these gages are currently not operational and the availability of historical data remains unknown.



At the southern end of the Basin, the USGS maintained a streamflow gauge along Dry Creek near Galt from 1926 to 1997, and another roughly 20 miles upstream near Ione from 1911 to 1932. Additionally, two streamflow gauges were maintained by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District along Hadselville Creek and Laguna Creek in the center of the Basin until 2010, though data availability from these gauges remains unknown. A second streamflow gauge was maintained by the USGS along Hadselville Creek from 1930 to 1931.

Refine Preliminary Data Gaps Assessment

Upon completion of data and information compilation tasks described above (Task 7 and Task 8), a more complete assessment of data gaps will be performed under Task 9. The purpose of this data gaps assessment will be to identify high priority data gaps that will need to be filled in the near term in order to prepare the GSP. The assessment will therefore focus on information pertinent to requirements under the GSP Regulations for the Plan area description, the HCM, the groundwater conditions, and the water budget. The assessment will generally be performed in accordance with GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.38) and the flow chart included as Figure 4 of DWR’s BMP 2.


Results from this task (and prior Task 7 and Task 8) will be summarized in technical presentation(s) made to the Working Group and TAC and summarized in Draft TM #2 – Data Compilation and Data Gaps Assessment that includes a description of the data gaps analysis effort, a table summarizing and prioritizing the identified data gaps, and a description of potential activities that may be undertaken to address the data gaps. The potential plans to fill data gaps will describe the intended benefits/rationale, data collection methods, estimated costs, permitting and regulatory requirements, and other relevant considerations for each potential data gap filling activity. Costs to fill data gaps that have already been identified by the Working Group are provided under Task 15 of the Project Budget, but are not included in the actual grant request as these may potentially warrant solicitation of DWR’s Technical Support Services. Data gaps that the Working Group has yet to identify may also warrant solicitation of DWR’s Technical Support Services and/or any other applicable future funding sources that may become available throughout the course of GSP development and implementation.

EKI will conduct the data gaps assessment and prepare the associated interim work products.

Task 6: Evaluate Numerical Groundwater Model Options (0% complete)

The GSP Regulations require that the “best available science” be used to quantify the water budget for the Basin (23-CCR §354.18) and to support the definition of management actions (23-CCR §354.44). DWR’s review of GSPs will include consideration of whether the “best available science” supports the assumptions, criteria, findings, and objectives of the Plan. While the use of a numerical groundwater and surface water model is not required under the GSP Regulations, the 23-CCR §354.18 states that “If a numerical groundwater and surface water model is not used to quantify and evaluate the projected water budget conditions and the potential impacts to beneficial uses and users of groundwater, the Plan shall identify an equally effective method, tool, or analytical model to evaluate projected water budget conditions.”



Conduct Groundwater Model Evaluation

Sustainable groundwater management and related policy decisions must be based on knowledge of the past and present behavior of the hydrologic system, its likely response to future changes, and the understanding of uncertainty in those responses. It is therefore likely that a numerical groundwater/surface water model (Numerical Model) will be required in order to develop future water budgets and to more fully represent and understand complexities inherent to certain conditions and fluxes within the Basin. These complexities include proportional contributions of Cosumnes River recharge to the Cosumnes and South American Subbasins, Dry Creek and the Mokelumne River to the Cosumnes and Eastern San Joaquin (ESJ) Subbasins, and subsurface flows across subbasin boundaries. Furthermore, assessment of overdraft conditions and estimation of sustainable yield of the Basin will, at a minimum, require a combination of water budget components and groundwater level information extrapolated over aquifer volume and with time. Given the spatial and temporal complexity often observed in groundwater levels, determination of sustainable yield therefore may best be accomplished through use of a Numerical Model that explicitly accounts for this complexity.

An important first step will be to identify and evaluate the options for use of Numerical Model(s) for GSP development. Existing models will be assessed to determine whether one or more are suitable to support Basin management planning, or whether it is preferable to modify an existing model or develop a new model specifically for SGMA purposes. Existing Numerical Models to review as part of this comparative assessment may include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:

DWR’s California Central Valley Groundwater and Surface Water Simulation Model (C2VSim); USGS’s Central Valley Hydrologic Model (CVHM); DWR’s Sacramento Valley Integrated Groundwater and Surface Water Simulation Model

(SVSim), anticipated for release in early 2018; Sacramento Groundwater Authority’s Sacramento Area Integrated Water Resources Model

(SacIWRM); City of Roseville’s Sacramento Regional Groundwater Model (SRM); Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Integrated Water Flow Model (IWFM) (recently updated through

2015, includes the Cosumnes Subbasin); and A custom model developed for the Cosumnes Subbasin for SGMA purposes.

The comparative assessment will consider whether the model satisfies GSP Regulation requirements (23-CCR §352.4(f)), including having publicly available supporting documentation, being based on a public domain open-source software platform, and the reasonableness of the input values (for example, the extent model input is based on field or laboratory measurements or equivalent methods). Numerical Model evaluation will also consider how reliable the numerical model conforms to the hydrogeological conceptual model for the Basin, its calibration performance (for example, the goodness of fit between measured and model-calculated variables), inherent model uncertainty and parameter sensitivities as reported in its available documentation. The Numerical Model evaluation will consider practical model characteristics and features such as:

The spatial (i.e., horizontal and vertical) and temporal resolution of the model grid/mesh and simulation period;

The lateral extent and nature of the external boundary conditions; The relative ease of use in model modification and refinement, and the transparency of model

input and model dynamics;Cosumnes Subbasin 19 13 November 2017 250 July 2018


Cost of adapting the model to the Basin; How each physical process (e.g., recharge, plant evapotranspiration, etc.) is represented in the

model; How effectively the model is employed for the purposes of water budget evaluation and

sustainability planning; and Historical and planned model applications in adjacent subbasins, the reliability of calculated

cross-boundary subsurface flows, and general acceptance for its use to support interbasin coordination efforts.


The results of this Numerical Model evaluation task will be summarized in technical presentation(s) to the Working Group and TAC and Draft TM #3 – Numerical Groundwater Model Evaluations and Recommendations for consideration by the Working Group, which will then decide on which, if any, numerical modeling approach to use for GSP development.

EKI will conduct the evaluation of numerical groundwater model options and to prepare the associated interim work products.

Task 7: Update GSP Development Funding Plan (0% complete)

As part of preparing this Work Plan and corresponding budget, the Working Group has conducted a funding needs assessment that accounts for the estimated budget to develop the GSP and the estimated funding amount allocated from DWR through this SWGP Grant Solicitation, as well as estimates of local funding and in-kind services. If awarded a SGWP Grant, the funding plan will be updated as needed to account for the actual grant award.

To the extent that local funds are needed to fulfill the cost share requirements for this Project, the Working Group and/or individual GSAs will follow the required process for public notice and public hearings as documented in California Water Code 10730 and/or Proposition 218. To the extent that costs (e.g., for filling data gaps) exceed that which is anticipated at the time of this Proposal, the Working Group will investigate other options for financial or in-kind assistance, including DWR’s Technical Assistance Program.

The results of this updated funding plan will be summarized in technical presentation(s) and in a Draft TM #4 – Updated GSP Development Funding Plan to document the Working Group’s final funding approach for GSP development.

[Task 6]: Refine Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan (0% complete)

The GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.10) require a summary of the engagement and communication by the GSA leadership with other agencies and interested parties in the Basin. Specifically, the GSP Regulations (23-CCR § 354.10) prescribe “notice and communication” requirements for agencies preparing GSPs which require that a GSP include, among other things, a communication section that explains the Working Group’s decision-making process; describes opportunities for public engagement



This task has been removed as it will be coordinated by the County in accordance with the Cost-Share Agreement. The associated budget has been applied to Task 7.


and how public input and response will be used; encourages active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic elements of the population within the Basin; and describes the methods for informing the public on GSP implementation progress.

In addition to the GSAs, landowners, and various environmental, business, and academic interests, two disadvantaged communities and one severely disadvantaged community have been identified within the Basin (see Figure 7).. Additionally, three Native American communities are located within the Basin – the Wilton Rancheria, the Buena Vista Rancheria, and the Ione Reservation. Both the State of California and the Federal Government manage public lands within the Basin.

Under the direction of the Working Group, consultants the Water Forum and Consensus Building Institute (CBI) have already developed and are implementing a preliminary Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan (SCEP) that lays out the range of strategies the GSAs will use to inform and elicit input from interested stakeholders. The current SCEP lays out specific activities for informing interested members of the public, including periodic workshops, development of a website (already active) and ongoing mailings (email and post). Additionally, both Working Group and TAC meetings are open to the public and include multiple opportunities for public comment; the same is true of all board meetings of the Basin GSAs; and written meeting summaries of the Working Group and , TAC meetings, and many GSA meetings will be posted to the website (http://cosumnes.waterforum.org).

As importantly, the current SCEP outlines several intended activities to foster in-depth input and dialogue. These include panel discussions at the TAC with representatives of beneficial groundwater uses, meetings with and/or presentations to interested groups, and periodic public workshops. As part of the SCEP refinement, the GSAs will identify additional mechanisms as part of the GSP Development Plan to foster dialogue and communicate how public input has informed GSP development.

Refine the SCEP to Encompass GSP Development

Specifically, under Task 12, the SCEP will be refined to include the specific sections required by the GSP regulations and to guide stakeholder engagement throughout the GSP development and implementation process.

In refining its SCEP, the Working Group and its constituent Basin GSAs intend to document and frame their approach to engaging relevant stakeholders in the Basin with the goal of developing and implementing a GSP with broad support and improved groundwater-related outcomes for relevant stakeholders. The Working Group’s approach to stakeholder engagement will focus on open and effective communication, fostering constructive dialogues, and maximizing GSA and stakeholder time and resources through coordinated engagement opportunities and meetings.

The Working Group will use the following as resources in refining its SCEP:

DWR’s Guidance Document for Groundwater Sustainability Plan: Stakeholder Communication and Engagement;

DWR’s Guidance Document for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater: Engagement with Tribal Governments;

The Community Water Center’s Collaborating for Success: Stakeholder Engagement for Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation;



DWR’s Outreach and Engagement: A Resource Management Strategy of the California Water Plan

The Institute for Local Government’s (ILG) resources on public engagement; and Feedback from public workshops designed to generate input on effective outreach strategies

and preferences among affected stakeholders.

The SCEP will identify a series of public meetings to be held throughout the GSP development process during which the Working Group and its constituent GSAs will present information and provide progress updates. These meetings will be venues for public dialogue and for receiving input on the work efforts and results of each phase. Meetings will also be used to outline and receive initial input on the tasks to be completed in the upcoming phase(s). A March 2017 workshop has already been conducted to engage groundwater users in what were then unmanaged areas (now covered by Sacramento County). A second series of public workshops was held in October 2017 to gather feedback on the GSP Work Plan included in the Grantis proposal as well as preliminary guidance on effective stakeholder engagement strategies.

Each public meeting identified in the Work Plan will be repeated in up to three distinct portions of the Basin– one in Amador County, as well as separate workshops in the central and western portions – to foster widespread participation. This approach is considered essential by the GSAs to ensure affected communities have a chance to engage in the process and has been confirmed by stakeholder feedback.


The results of this updated SCEP will be summarized in technical presentation(s) and in a Draft TM #5 – Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan for consideration by the Working Group, which will then authorize implementation of the SCEP. The SCEP will be managed adaptively throughout GSP development as the GSAs discern which activities are most effective in engaging interested public and identify gaps in outreach efforts.

EKI will provide limited technical support to review and provide feedback on the SCEP as it, and other associated work products, are being developed by the Water Forum and Consensus Building Institute (CBI).

Task 8: Conduct Stakeholder Engagement Related to the GSP Foundation Phase (0% complete)

Under Task 13, the Working Group will begin to implement the SCEP. As a first step, the Working Group will invite the beneficial users identified during the GSA formation processes (i.e., ag-res, Cosumnes Coalition and other environmental interests, aquaculture, vintners, tribal representatives, etc.) to participate in an initial stakeholder workshop focused on identifying their interests, concerns, and priorities; the best tools for communicating with them (i.e., e-mail, direct mail, newsletters, social media, etc.); what issues or concerns they would like to see addressed in the GSP development process; and who else they think should be involved in the GSP development and implementation process. As noted above, this workshop will be conducted in up to three distinct portions of the Basin to maximize participation by stakeholders in the territories of the various Basin GSAs.



Stakeholder engagement during Phase 1 is anticipated to include dissemination of information (through appropriate modes of communication, as discussed above) regarding the data compilation, numerical model evaluation, and data gaps assessment efforts. Additionally, the Working Group will communicate and invite input on the tasks to be completed in the Basin Characterization and Analysis Phase (Phase 2).

EKI will provide limited support to the Water Forum and CBI to conduct preliminary stakeholder engagement-related activities, including the following efforts:

Preparation of one (1) stakeholder workshop presentation; and Attendance at one (1) stakeholder workshop.

Task 9: Participate in Intrabasin and Interbasin Coordination Efforts (0% complete)

Successful GSP development hinges on effective intra- and interbasin coordination. Through the Working Group, the seven Basin GSAs have made such coordination a priority, as evidenced by their adoption and implementation of the Framework Agreement, and corollary plans for proactively initiating coordination efforts with neighboring subbasins.

Participate in Intrabasin Coordination

Coordination amongst the public agencies that are the Basin GSAs participating the Working Group will be necessary throughout the GSP development process (23-CCR § 357.4). During this Phase, intrabasin coordination will be conducted related to decisions regarding the DMS selection and development, compilation of data and information into the DMS and document repository, Numerical Model options and selection, data gap filling efforts, development of a GSP funding plan, and stakeholder engagement activities. A key task in Phase 1 will also include Working Group discussions to develop an interim Governance/Coordination Agreement among the GSAs to further guide GSP development efforts in the Basin.

Water Forum and consultant staff will organize and convene regularly scheduled meetings of the Working Group and TAC to foster timely and effective discussion of the start-up tasks associated with GSP development. Meetings will be facilitated by a professional facilitation team and supported by technical advisors. Meetings are expected to be held monthly, though frequency may vary based on need and participant availability.

Participate in Interbasin Coordination

To support SGMA implementation, the Working Group may want to enter into formal or informal agreements with GSAs in the adjacent South American (DWR 5-021.65) and Eastern San Joaquin (DWR 5-022.01) subbasins to “establish compatible sustainability goals and understanding regarding fundamental elements of the Plans of each Agency as they relate to sustainable groundwater management” (23-CCR §357.2). Interbasin coordination will be especially useful when deriving water budget components relating to cross-boundary surface/subsurface flows and proportional allocation of groundwater recharge from the Cosumnes and (potentially) Mokelumne Rivers (see Task 18 for further clarification).



The budget for this task was adjusted to reflect (1) the actual level of effort required by EKI to support TAC/WG efforts during 2017/2018, (2) revised project schedule


The Working Group has expressed an interest in accelerating the development of certain portions of the GSP development to foster effective communication with its neighboring basins, in particular with the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin which is critically overdrafted and has an accelerated SGMA compliance timeline. This accelerated timeline is reflected in the Project Budget.

The Working Group plans to build on the interbasin coordination efforts initiated during the GSA formation phase, which included presentations to the TAC on modeling efforts in the adjacent subbasins. The Working Group has already directed its facilitation and technical consultants to initiate further interbasin coordination and information sharing efforts with a focus on numerical model development, data sources, and assumptions.

A key factor in this on-going coordination will be the attendance at pertinent meetings and review of technical documents produced by entities in adjacent basins. It is anticipated that the following coordination activities will occur:

Attendance at regularly, scheduled SGMA-related public meetings in the adjacent subbasins, assumed to occur monthly;

Quarterly meetings between technical counterparts in the adjacent subbasins; and Review and comment on significant work products produced in the adjacent subbasins.

Key information from the above items will be shared with the TAC and Working Group at the regularly scheduled meetings.

EKI will provide technical support for Phase 1 intrabasin and interbasin coordination efforts, based on the following assumptions:

Preparation for and attendance by one EKI staff at (1) monthly Working Group meeting and (1) monthly TAC meeting over the 6-month duration of Phase 1;

Up to 8 hours per month of coordination efforts for, or additional EKI staff in attendance at, the WG and/or TAC meetings;

Attendance and preparation of meeting summaries at (1) regular monthly SGMA meetings in neighboring subbasins (e.g., Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority TAC/Board meetings);

Quarterly teleconference meetings between technical counterparts in neighboring subbasins; and

Review and comment on up to (3) three SGMA work products developed for neighboring subbasins.

PHASE 2 - BASIN CHARACTERIZATION AND ANALYSIS (0% COMPLETE)As described further below, Phase 2 of the Work Plan focuses on technical analysis of Basin conditions and will build towards a complete and coherent understanding of the Basin that will serve as the foundation for



Phase 1GSP

Foundation

Phase 2 Basin



Planning

Phase 4 GSP

Preparation and

Submittal


Phase 1GSP

Foundation

Phase 2 Basin



Planning

Phase 4 GSP

Preparation and

Submittal


sustainability planning efforts under Phase 3. Phase 2 will extend from July 2018 to JulyApril 2019 to April 2020.

[Task 7]: Implement Plan for Filling Data Gaps Needed for GSP Preparation (0% complete)

Based on results from the data gaps assessment performed under Task 9 above, selected data collection activities will be completed to fill high-priority data gaps in support of improving the Phase 2 work effort.

Based on the preliminary data gaps assessment that has already been initiated as a part of Task 9 (see Figures 2 through 6),, the following data gap filling actions have been identified:

Processing and analysis of DWR well completion reports for in-Basin wells; Pump tests to better understand principal aquifer characteristics; Groundwater quality, geochemical, isotopic and age-dating sampling and analysis; Groundwater elevation data collection; and Compilation and analysis of existing data for groundwater-surface water interactions along the

Cosumnes River Corridor.

These efforts will be focused on filling data gaps relevant to understanding the Basin setting during Phase 2, which will set the groundwork for Phase 3 efforts to develop sustainable management criteria and identify projects and management actions that will be instrumental to achieve the Basin’s sustainability goal. The technical consultant will work with the individual GSAs and their landowners to identify and gain access to desired wells for testing. Results from this analysis will be incorporated into the DMS and will support subsequent work efforts in Task 18.

Process and Analyze DWR Well Completion Reports

As part of Task 15, the GSAs will compile, digitize, process, and analyze all available, high-priority, and legible well completion reports provided by DWR in its Well Completion Report Map Application . Data extracted from well reports will include:

General well information (type, location, capacity, status, etc.); Well screening intervals; and Well log data (i.e. lithologic units), as available.

This information will be used to bolster understanding of subsurface lithology under the Basin, to help characterize wells by the principal aquifer(s) they pump from, to identify candidate wells to include in a SGMA compliant monitoring network (further discussed in Task 19 and Task 27), and to perform selected data gap filling analyses (see below).

Conduct Pumping Tests

In order to understand key characteristics of the principal aquifers in the Basin, up to three (3) controlled pumping tests will be conducted at select locations throughout the Basin. These pumping tests will utilize existing well infrastructure and will be designed and implemented to achieve multiple objectives, such as:

Quantifying aquifer parameters (hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storativity, etc.);Cosumnes Subbasin 25 13 November 2017 250 July 2018


Testing boundary conditions and verifying the lateral/ vertical extent of discrete aquifer units; and

Analyzing groundwater-surface water interactions and/or quantifying rates of streamflow depletion at strategic locations throughout the Basin.

Sample and Analyze Groundwater Quality

As shown on Figures 4a through 4d, groundwaterGroundwater quality data are not readily available throughout the Basin. In order to more comprehensively understand water quality in the principal aquifers and throughout the Basin, a “snap shot” of water quality samples will be collected from up to 20 wells and analyzed for selected constituents, (e.g., general chemistry and minerals, metals, as well as stable and reactive isotopes for conducting recharge source and age dating analyses., etc.).

Collect Groundwater Elevation Data

As shown on Figures 2 and 3, groundwaterGroundwater elevation data are inconsistently available throughout the Basin and are not well characterized by aquifer unit. In order to more comprehensively understand groundwater elevation in all principal aquifers and throughout the Basin, two “snap shots” of groundwater elevation data coinciding with typical Spring and Fall conditions will be collected from up to 20 wells across the Basin.

Compile and Analyze Existing Data Regarding Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions along the Cosumnes River Corridor

As mentioned in Task 7, several historical, recent, and ongoing technical studies have investigated the hydraulic connections between the Cosumnes River and the underlying groundwater table at various temporal and spatial scales (e.g., Glennon, 2002; Fogg and Fleckenstein, 2004 and 2006; UC Water’s ongoing groundwater observatory project, etc.). However, no comprehensive data repository exists to summarize these various research and data gathering efforts. This preliminary data gap filling effort will involve a focused compilation, processing, and analysis of relevant, publicly-available data sources to inform GSP-related analysis regarding the Cosumnes River’s interconnectivity (or not) with the underlying groundwater system and/or nearby groundwater dependent ecosystems.

EKI will lead technical efforts associated with conducting data-gap filling activities, based on the assumed set of tasks and associated level of effort. In all cases it is assumed that the Basin GSAs will provide support wherever possible to coordinate and implement any field work activities, and that EKI will leverage existing GSA resources wherever possible to maximize cost efficiencies.

Task 10: Assess Groundwater Conditions and Develop Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (0% complete)

The GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.14 and §354.16) require the assessment of groundwater conditions in the Basin and the development of a HCM. The efforts described in Task 16 will be coordinated given that insight related to the Basin’s groundwater conditions and the HCM are interconnected.



Assess Groundwater Conditions

The GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.16) require each GSP to include a description of groundwater conditions in the Basin, including the following:

• Groundwater elevations, spatially, with depth, and over time;• Estimated change in storage by water year type and cumulatively over time;• Seawater intrusion conditions;• Groundwater quality issues, including known contamination sites and plumes;• Land subsidence;• Interconnected surface water; and• Groundwater dependent ecosystems.

Under Task 16, groundwater conditions will be assessed with respect to the above topics. This assessment will be based on the data compiled into the Basin DMS under Phase 1 and Task 15. The assessment will include preparation of representative maps and graphs (i.e., groundwater elevation contour maps and hydrographs, graph(s) of change in groundwater storage, and map(s) showing groundwater quality issues, subsidence, interconnected surface water, and groundwater dependent ecosystems). Updated data sources from DWR, USGS, and SWRCB shall be incorporated into the groundwater conditions assessment as they become available.

Develop Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model

The GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.14) describe the requirements for a HCM to be included in a GSP. Further guidance is contained within BMP 3: Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model. An HCM is a conceptual representation of the physical basin characteristics that affect and/or control the occurrence, movement, and quality of groundwater in a basin. The HCM describes how a basin functions and how water moves through the system, and serves as a foundation for further quantitative and data-driven analyses of sustainability and planning efforts. The HCM necessarily includes both narrative and graphical components.

Building upon the data compilation efforts completed under Phases 1 and Task 15, and upon work completed to date within the Basin (e.g., through the development of GWMPs, UWMPs, and CASGEM Monitoring Network Plans), a preliminary HCM will be developed under Task 16 that includes all elements required under the GSP Regulations, including:

• Regional geologic setting;• Basin boundaries, both laterally and vertically;• Principle aquifers, including formation names, physical properties, general water quality,

primary uses of each aquifer and data gaps/uncertainty;• Two scaled cross sections depicting major stratigraphic and structural features; and• A set of maps depicting topography, surficial geology, soil characteristics, recharge areas,

surface water bodies, and points of delivery for imported water supplies.

BMP 3 describes data sources that may be of use in developing the HCM. These data include, but are not limited to DWR, USGS, and CDMG maps and reports on geology; USCEPA, USGS, SWRCB, and DOGGR maps and information on the base of fresh water and definable bottom of the Basin; and USGS and SWRCB information on physical properties and water quality within principle aquifers, supplemented by



local information from aquifer testing and sampling, as available. The HCM will cover all required aspects listed in the GSP Regulations, but will also aim to focus on the most significant issues and questions facing the Cosumnes Subbasin (based on Working Group’s current understanding of the Basin), including:

• Assessment of aquifer parameters and their spatial and vertical extent, hydrogeologic flow barriers, and the degree of confinement in the aquifer system;

• Determination of the spatial and temporal characteristics governing the hydraulic connections between the Cosumnes River and the groundwater table;

• Identification of potential sites for groundwater recharge projects; • Identification of potential land subsidence areas; and• Analysis of groundwater quality for each principal aquifer in the Basin.

Refine HCM along the Cosumnes River Corridor

As mentioned above, the Cosumnes River is a hydrologic feature of particular importance to the Basin. The 2011 South Basin GWMP recognizes the Cosumnes River as “the major source of surface flow to the [Basin], with an average annual flow of 312,000 AFY”, and notes that seepage from the Cosumnes River provides a “major source of groundwater recharge to the [Basin]”. Additionally, the Cosumnes River is of particular importance as its unregulated flow regime provides critical habitat for Chinook Salmon and supports various other riparian and groundwater dependent ecosystems. Adequate characterization of Cosumnes River and the spatial and temporal dynamics of its hydraulic connection to the groundwater table will thus be a critical component of the HCM. This effort will focus on refining the preliminary HCM along the Cosumnes River corridor, including an assessment of:

Flowrates and flooding conditions within the Cosumnes River corridor, their temporal (i.e. daily, monthly, seasonal, annual) variability, and dependence on climatic conditions;

Hydrogeologic characteristics of the Cosumnes River bed and their spatial variability; Subsurface conditions in the vicinity of the Cosumnes River corridor (including the presence and

extent of local gravel channels); Areas of interconnectivity and estimated fluxes between the Cosumnes River and the

groundwater table; and Groundwater dependent ecosystems supported by Cosumnes River flows;

These efforts will involve the preparation of up to three (3) additional scaled cross-sections to provide a representative depiction of hydrogeologic characteristics and groundwater conditions at the upper, middle, and lower reaches of the Cosumnes River corridor along the Basin boundary.

This information will be used to further inform Numerical Model selection and development, to determine the Basin’s susceptibility to streamflow depletion, and to derive appropriate sustainability criteria for ensuring effective integrated management of surface water and groundwater resources within the Cosumnes River corridor.


Results from Task 16 will be summarized in technical presentation(s) to the Working Group and TAC and in a Draft TM #6 – Groundwater Conditions and Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model that includes



narrative/descriptive and graphical components of the HCM and groundwater conditions, including maps, charts and other graphics, tables, and supporting documentation as appendices, as appropriate.

EKI will develop the Groundwater Conditions Assessment and Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and associated interim work products.

Task 11: Develop/Repurpose Existing Numerical Groundwater Model (0% complete)

As described above, the GSP Regulations recommend the use of numerical models for GSP development, but if such a model is not utilized an “equally effective method, tool, or analytical model” must be employed (23-CCR §354.18). Under Phase 1 above, Task 10 assesses the numerical modeling options, including the evaluation of existing models’ and their conformance to the GSP Regulations.

Model Development and Calibration

Should the Working Group decide to use a Numerical Model (either an existing model or a new model), Task 17 will involve preparing the model to determine water budgets and/or evaluate sustainability criteria and management actions for SGMA purposes. The model evaluation provides direction for developing or modifying/refining the following features of an existing model, or defining the key specifications for constructing a new Numerical Model:

Spatial domain, including horizontal and vertical model extents; Spatial resolution, including horizontal grid/mesh size and vertical layering; Temporal setup (i.e., time step, period of simulation); Parameterization (i.e., hydraulic properties of aquifer units and confining beds); Extraction and monitoring well locations and associated data; Spatially and temporally variable land-use, water-use, and climatic data for calculating water

demand and estimating recharge and unreported groundwater use; and Boundary conditions, including subsurface inflow/outflow, recharge from precipitation and

applied irrigation water, surface water inflows, and surface-groundwater interactions.

After the Numerical Model domain, initial parameter values, and input data sets describing model boundary conditions and stresses are completed (for example, the calculation of groundwater recharge and extraction), a sensitivity assessment will be conducted. The sensitivity assessment quantifies the magnitude and scope of the change in model output to the changes in the most uncertain model input. In other words, the sensitivity assessment identifies the most uncertain model input parameter values that when altered have the greatest influence on model-calculated output. Numerical Model calibration can target these sensitive parameters by adjusting their values within their plausible ranges, either manually or using automated procedures (e.g., PEST) until the discrepancies between measured and model-calculated values achieve pre-determined model performance criteria.

Ideally, the differences between model-calculated and measured values are small and distributed randomly both spatially and with time. Recommended tests to assess Numerical Model performance and reliability can include the following:



Time-series plots of measured and model-calculated water levels (hydrographs) are compared to assess the agreement between the magnitude, timing, and longer-term trends in water level changes;

A scatterplot of measured water levels against model-calculated water levels to assess the correspondence between measured and modeled water levels. The points should plot along a straight line with a slope of one, thus indicating that measured and model-calculated water levels agree;

A histogram of residuals to assess whether model errors are approximately randomly distributed; and/or

Maps of residuals to reveal potentially poorly performing portions of the model.

The above tests can be applied to the entire model or selected parts of a model (for example, individual model layers or model subareas). Ultimately the decision of model acceptability will be based on the weight of one or more of the above test results and their relevance for meeting SGMA objectives.

The Numerical Model development/refinements will be based on the information assembled under Phase 1 as well as Task 15 and Task 16. Numerical Model development will be geared towards the intended model use(s), which can include supporting water budget calculations; calculating changes in future groundwater levels, streamflow depletions, and land subsidence rates under “baseline” conditions (i.e., assuming a continuation of existing conditions); and calculating the groundwater storage response to potential management actions, projects, and possible climate change. Numerical Model results can also be considered and utilized when establishing the Sustainable Management Criteria and for the refinement of the Basin monitoring network over time.

EKI will develop or repurpose a numerical groundwater model for use in the GSP and develop the associated interim work products.

Task 12: Develop Basin-Wide Water Budget (0% complete)

The GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.18) spell out the requirements for water budgets that must be included in a GSP. Guidance on water budget development, including a partial listing of GSP-related uses, is provided in BMP 4: Water Budget. Per the GSP Regulations, the water budget must assess the following:

• Current, historical (at least 10 years) and projected (projecting forward based on 50 years of hydrology) water budgets;

• Quantification of total surface water entering and leaving the basin;• Inflows and outflows to/from the groundwater system, including (but not limited to) subsurface

inflows/outflows, infiltration of applied water and precipitation, and groundwater extraction;• Change in storage between seasonal high conditions;• Overdraft during a period when water supply conditions approximate average conditions;• Water year types; and• An estimate of the sustainable yield of the basin.



Develop Preliminary Water Budget Based on Empirical Storage and Flux Relationships

Under Task 18, a preliminary historical and current water budget will be developed based on a simple “bucket model”, whereby the various storage components (e.g., atmosphere, land surface, root zone, unsaturated zone, and saturated zone) are represented as “buckets”, each subject to mass balance requirements and connected to the other buckets by various flux relationships.

A water budget derived from an empirical “bucket model”, though not as rigorous and comprehensive as a Numerical Model, can serve various benefits to the Working Group throughout the GSP development process. For example, the empirical “bucket model” may be a useful tool for approximating the range of uncertainty of major water budget components and investigating their sensitivity to changes in critical input parameters. As most of the input data for the “bucket model” will likely also be incorporated into the Numerical Model, this approach will not demand an extraordinary amount of additional work effort and could provide a reasonable, independent means of verifying Numerical Model results. The empirical “bucket model” can also serve as a simple and transparent means of communicating major water budget components to stakeholders within the Basin, and can be developed on an accelerated timeline to help stimulate discussions regarding sustainability planning and interbasin flows while the Numerical Model is still in development.

The fluxes between storage components in the “bucket model” will be quantified using commonly used and accepted analysis methods (e.g., the crop coefficient method of evapotranspiration estimation, Darcy’s Law for groundwater flow through a cross section, soil moisture accounting model for deep percolation, etc.), supported by the best available information compiled under Phases 1 and 2. The preliminary “bucket model” will then be calibrated through strategic adjustment of certain parameters employed within these empirical flux relationships (e.g., hydraulic conductivity, storativity, runoff curve numbers, etc.) to better align simulated groundwater elevations (i.e., changes in groundwater storage) with current and historical water level measurements collected from in-Basin wells.

Considering the high density of irrigated lands within the Basin and the fact that approximately 95% of the Basin’s water demands are met by groundwater pumping (SAWC, 2011), the Working Group will review and select the most appropriate methodology for estimating basin-wide agricultural water demands. Additionally, recognizing the importance of the Cosumnes and (potentially) Mokelumne Rivers in providing aquifer recharge and the ephemeral nature of most of the Basin’s other surface water features, the water budget will need to address the short- and long-term temporal dynamics and variability in streamflow conditions throughout the Basin and to quantify associated contributions of surface water seepage to the groundwater table.

It was noted in the 2011 SAWC GWMP that “the South Basin aquifer storage lost an average of 11,900 AFY of water [during 2000-2004] due to drought conditions, but when looking into the longer 1980–2004 period, which contains both dry and wet years, the basin water balance indicates that the South Basin aquifer storage gained an average of 2,500 AFY during this period.” Considering the requirement for a historical water budget “starting with the most recently available information and extending back a minimum of 10 years” (23-CCR §354.18), the preliminary water budget will extend from 2017 backwards through at least 2007 and may cover as far back as 1980 (in line with the 2011 SAWC GWMP water balance estimate), depending on data availability and the applicability and usefulness of any such data.



Extract Water Budget Information from Numerical Model

After developing the “bucket model”, historical and current water budget information will be extracted from the numerical groundwater flow model. The preliminary historical and current water budget developed through the “bucket model” approach will then be used to further inform and/or verify analogous water budget components calculated through the numerical model. Water budget components extracted from the numerical model that differ significantly from the analogous “bucket model” prediction will be identified and further investigated to determine the nature of the discrepancy and to adjust assumptions/inputs as necessary.

Determine Sustainable Yield of the Cosumnes Subbasin

The sustainable yield of a groundwater basin is defined as “the maximum quantity of water, calculated over a base period representative of long term conditions in the basin and including any temporary surplus, that can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply without causing an undesirable result” (CWC §10721(w)). The historical yield is the net annual consumption of groundwater extracted from the Basin during the same base period. When the historical yield has caused undesirable results, the sustainable yield is defined by either a lower rate of groundwater consumption, a different spatial distribution and/or timing of groundwater consumption, or both relative to the conditions that determined the historical yield.

The Numerical Model will be employed to establish the historical yield, including the yield over the most recent ten-year interval, (e.g., 2008-2017), and explore how “historical conditions have impacted the ability of the [Agencies] to operate the basin within sustainable yield” (23-CCR §354.18(c)(2)(C)). From this information, a metric of “sustainable yield” within the Basin can be derived in accordance with the requirements described in the GSP regulations (23-CCR §354.18(b)). For example, the Numerical Model can be employed to evaluate how the availability and reliability of limited past surface water supply and demand trends may have increased groundwater consumption. Similarly, the Model can explore how land use changes influenced water demand and the rate of groundwater consumption. The contributing factors identified by this analysis provide input to the selection of possible actions towards groundwater sustainability.

Develop Projected (Future) Water Budget Baseline and Uncertainty Scenarios

After derivation of the sustainable yield, the Numerical Model shall be employed to determine a “baseline condition” for the Basin from which to project future water budget conditions and to “evaluate future scenarios of uncertainty” in accordance with the requirements described in the GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.18(c)(3)). The baseline condition shall be represented by:

1. 50 years of historical hydrology (e.g. precipitation, evapotranspiration, streamflow information)2. Water demands based on the most recent available land use, evapotranspiration, and crop-

coefficient information3. Surface water supply based on the most recent available water supply information (as

applicable)

The baseline conditions calculated by the Numerical Model will provide a projected (future) water budget for the Basin. The baseline condition will also be used to evaluate future scenarios of uncertainty related to climate, local land use planning, population growth, surface water supply



availability/reliability, and any other factors of particular concern identified by the Working Group. This uncertainty analysis will help establish a range in projected water supply and demand conditions from which to define appropriate sustainability criteria (e.g. minimum thresholds, measurable objectives) and quantify a “reasonable margin of operational flexibility” for these criteria during later stages of GSP development (see Phase 3 efforts for greater detail).

To inform the development of future scenarios related to land use, population growth, and surface water supply availability, the Working Group intends to use data and reports compiled in Task 7. The Working Group also understands that DWR will release a guidance document for uncertainty analysis related to climate change, which the Working Group intends to use to inform climate uncertainty scenarios.


Results from the water budget analysis will be documented in technical presentations(s) and in a Draft TM #8 – Water Budget and Preliminary Estimate of Sustainable Yield that includes a narrative description of the water budget as well as tables and graphical depictions of historical, current and projected future water budget components, following the examples (i.e., paired bar water budget graphs) provided in BMP 3.

EKI will prepare a current, historical and future water budget and the associated interim work products.

Task 13: Assess Existing Monitoring Programs and Develop SGMA-Compliant Monitoring Network (0% complete)

As described in GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.34-36) and BMP 2, each basin’s monitoring network must be designed to allow for the collection of data sufficient to provide representative information on groundwater conditions and trends within the basin. The GSP must describe monitoring objectives that, when implemented, will allow for characterization of all relevant sustainability indicators, quantification of progress towards achieving measurable objectives and sustainability goals, and quantification of water budgets and impacts to beneficial uses or users in the basin. Achieving these objectives will require a monitoring network with sufficient spatial and temporal coverage that can directly measure or provide an appropriate representative (i.e. “proxy”) measurement to adequately characterize each relevant sustainability indicator throughout the Basin.

Develop Recommended Monitoring Network

This task includes assessment of the existing monitoring programs and infrastructure for their ability to achieve the basic objectives outlined above. Currently there exists three independent CASGEM monitoring entities within the Basin – SSCAWA, SCGA, and AWA. The assessment of monitoring programs under Task 19 will build off the efforts of these agencies to date, as well as any efforts related to the California Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, and will be conducted in parallel with the HCM development and groundwater conditions assessments, focusing on the sustainability indicators that are determined through those efforts to apply to the Basin.



As described in Task 9 above, preliminary data gaps assessment has shown a generally sporadic record of water level information and a lack of water quality and land subsidence data throughout the Basin.

Maps of existing monitoring sites will be developed for each relevant sustainability indicator, allowing for the preliminary evaluation of spatial data gaps. Each existingExisting monitoring sitesites will be screened against the data and reporting standards contained in the GSP Regulations (23-CCR §352.4), and deficiencies summarized in a table.

As recommended in BMP 2, the Data Quality Objective (DQO) process described in the US EPA’s Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA, 2006) will be followed in developing the Basin’s GSP monitoring network. The 8-step DQO process serves as a guide to developing a data collection and QA/QC program that will meet the intended purposes.


The monitoring network assessment will be summarized in technical presentation(s) to the Working Group and TAC and in a Draft TM #9 – Summary of Monitoring Network Assessment and Preliminary Monitoring Plan) that describes the planned monitoring network and plans to address relevant sustainability indicators and requirements under the GSP Regulations. To the extent that the monitoring plan identifies deficiencies, the Working Group will work ondevelop plans to rectify those deficiencies prior to submittal of the GSP to DWR, or to address them as part of Plan implementation.

EKI will assess existing monitoring programs and propose a SGMA compliant monitoring network, and prepare the associated interim work products. This task assumes that the Basin GSAs will provide detailed information as to which wells are currently monitored, their specific monitoring objectives, and availability for incorporation into the SGMA required network.

Task 14: Conduct Stakeholder Engagement Related to Basin Characterization and Analysis Phase (0% complete)

In accordance with the SCEP developed under Task 12, the Working Group, with coordination and support from all Basin GSAs, will hold at least two public workshops with stakeholders during Phase 2. The first workshop will be focused on presenting and receiving feedback on the preliminary HCM, water budget, and definition of groundwater conditions. This workshop will target technical stakeholders, especially representatives from GSAs in neighboring basins who may have specific feedback on the technical assumptions that influence the HCM, water budget, and definition of groundwater conditions.

The second workshop will target allthe broader group of Basin stakeholders and will be focusedfocus on presenting and receiving input on the HCM, water budget, groundwater conditions definition, and the data gaps evaluation and plans to fill them. Additionally, during this workshop, the Working Group will outline and receive initial input on the tasks to be completed in the Sustainability Planning (Phase 3) portion of this Work Plan. For example, the Working Group may describe the possibility of defining separate management areas within the Basin and will invite stakeholders’ input on possible definition of management areas. As noted earlier, this more public-focused workshop will be conducted in up to three separate portions of the Basin to maximize participation.



Throughout this process, monthly Working Group and TAC meetings will continue to provide a forum for interested members of the public to track GSP development and provide ongoing input. As warranted, technical stakeholders will be invited to participate in panel discussions with the TAC meetings on issues relevant to Phase 2.

EKI will provide limited technical support to the Water Forum and CBI to conduct stakeholder engagement-related activities related to Basin Characterization, including the following efforts:

Preparation of up to two (2) stakeholder workshop presentations; and Principal attendance at up to two (2) planned stakeholder workshops.

Task 15: Implement GSP Development Funding Plan (0% complete)

The Working Group will continue to implement the GSP Development Funding Plan created in Phase 1.

[Task 8]: Participate in Intrabasin and Interbasin Coordination Efforts (0% complete)

The results of the preliminary HCM, water budget, and definition of groundwater conditions will further refine necessary intrabasin coordination efforts among Basin GSAs, and will also be shared, as appropriate, with GSAs in neighboring basins. Additionally, the Working Group will follow the developments of basin characterization and analysis in neighboring basins, to ensure that assumptions and estimates of projected values of the major components of interaction between the basins (e.g., groundwater inflow/outflow and stream inflow/outflow) align, or to resolve any differences.


Water Forum, CBI, and EKI and consultant staff will continue to organize and convene regularly scheduled monthly meetings of the Working Group and TAC to foster timely and effective discussion of the Phase 2 tasks associated with GSP development and ongoing data-sharing.


Water Forum, CBI, and EKI and consultant staff will continue to foster interbasin dialogues through targeted meetings, integrated participation at TAC meetings and ongoing data-sharing to support GSP development, with a particular focus on the water budget and sustainable yield estimates and development of the numerical model. A key component of this effort will be the review of technical documents and results produced by entities in adjacent basins.

As before, specific coordination efforts will include:



Key information from the above items will be shared with the TAC and Working Group at regularly scheduled meetings.





This task has been removed as it will be coordinated by the County in accordance with the Cost-Share Agreement. The associated budget has been applied to Task 7.


EKI will provide technical support for Phase 2 intrabasin and interbasin coordination efforts, based on the following assumptions:

Preparation for and attendance at (1) monthly Working Group meeting and (1) monthly TAC meeting over the 12-month duration of Phase 2;

Up to 8 hours per month of additional coordination efforts related to the WG and TAC meetings or attendance by additional EKI staff;



Review and comment of up to (3) three SGMA work products developed for neighboring subbasins.

PHASE 3 - SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING (0% COMPLETE)As described further below, Phase 3 of the Work Plan focuses on planning for the sustainable management of the Basin. Phase 3 will extend from July 2019 to JulyApril 2020 to April 2021.

[Task 9]: Evaluate Potential Management Areas (0% complete)

Based on the understanding of the Basin gained through stakeholder engagement efforts and technical analyses completed in Phases 1 and 2, the Working Group will consider whether defining separate management areas within the Basin will facilitate implementation of the GSP and provide an increased ability to achieve Basin-wide sustainable groundwater management. Based on initial GSA and stakeholder input from the Working Group and TAC meetings held to date, and considering the significant spatial complexities in hydrogeology and groundwater conditions within the Basin, it is possible that Basin GSAs will want to consider the use and efficacy of management areas in the GSP.4

As part of that evaluation, information will be generated from the Numerical Model that quantifies the interbasin and intrabasin relationships between groundwater extractions, groundwater levels, and flows across the potential Management Area boundaries from which to determine Management Area effectiveness for reaching GSP objectives. Should management areas be utilized, the GSP will define distinct minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, and monitoring requirements for each management area and will describe how the use of these tailored management criteria will help foster effective sustainable management across the entire Basin.

4 A possible alternative to a distinct management area within a GSP could be adoption of a coordinated, separate GSP for a particular area of the Basin.Cosumnes Subbasin 36 13 November 2017 250 July 2018


Phase 1GSP

Foundation

Phase 2 Basin



Planning

Phase 4 GSP

Preparation and

Submittal


Results from Task 23 will be summarized in technical presentation(s) to the Working Group and TAC and in a Draft TM #10 – Delineation of Management Areas that includes a description of management areas including the rationale, supported by maps, charts and other graphics, tables, and supporting documentation as appendices, as appropriate.

EKI will provide technical support for delineation of management areas in the GSP and the associated interim work products (i.e., a technical memo that includes a description of management areas, including the rationale).. The level of effort assumes that there willmay be a small number of management areas and that their boundaries will not change during the course of GSP development. Additionally, the added or incremental costs associated with developing special management areas within a single GSP proposed by individual GSAs (e.g., development of unique water budgets, sustainability criteria, coordination agreements, monitoring networks/processes, projects and management actions, etc.) proposed by individual GSAs would be paid for separately by the GSAs proposing such efforts and would not be paid for out of grant funds, and would be paid for separately by the GSAs proposing such efforts and would not be paid for out of grant funds, and are therefore not included in the associated budget.

are therefore not included in the associated budget.

Task 16: Develop Sustainable Management Criteria (0% complete)

Task 24 will involve developing sustainable management criteria, including the Sustainability Goal for the Basin, as well as Undesirable Results, Minimum Thresholds, Measurable Objectives, and Interim Milestones for the Basin and/or specific management areas. Per the GSP regulations (23-CCR §354.24-30), The Working Group will select the Sustainability Goal, Minimum Thresholds, and Measurable Objectives to avoid causing Undesirable Results within the Basin or in adjacent basins, or affecting the ability of adjacent basins to achieve sustainability goals. The Numerical Model can quantify conditions at monitoring locations where historical measurements don’t exist and from which to identify management criteria (e.g., Minimum Thresholds). Additionally, the uncertainty in these criteria due to uncertainty in future climate, local land use planning, population growth, and other factors can be incorporated into the Numerical Model and utilized to define a margin of operational flexibility for each criterion.

The Working Group understands that DWR will release a sixth BMP related to developing Sustainable Management Criteria, and will use this DWR’s BMP 6: Sustainable Management Criteria document to further inform methodologies for selecting appropriate criteria for the Basin, upon release of the final version of the document (anticipated late 2018)..

Define Sustainability Goal

Per the GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.24), the Working Group will develop a Sustainability Goal for the Basin that culminates in the absence of Undesirable Results and the operation of the Basin within its sustainable yield by 2042. Definition of the Sustainability Goal will be based in part on information on the basin setting, HCM, groundwater conditions, and water budget developed during Phase 2. Stakeholder input will also be critical to defining the Sustainability Goal.



Define Undesirable Results and Minimum Thresholds

Per the GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.26), Undesirable Results occur when significant and unreasonable effects for any of the sustainability indicators are caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout the Basin. Minimum Thresholds are the numeric values for each sustainability indicator that, if exceeded, may cause Undesirable Results. As demonstrated by their regulatory definitions, Undesirable Results and Minimum Thresholds are closely linked, and therefore must be developed in concert with each other. Furthermore, the meaning of “significant and unreasonable” is subject to local interpretation and will thus need to be defined with ample stakeholder input. As described in the GSP Regulations, an Agency may need to evaluate multiple Minimum Threshold values to determine whether and Undesirable Result is occurring. This suggests that an iterative approach, where whereby multiple potential values are considered before determining a final value, may be required.

Recognizing that Undesirable Results and associated Minimum Thresholds may differ from one location to another within the Basin, the Working Group will develop a systematic process for evaluating the occurrence of Undesirable Results across the entire Basin, which may include:

1. Chronic lowering of groundwater levels2. Reduction of groundwater storage3. Seawater intrusion4. Degraded water quality 5. Land Subsidence6. Depletions of interconnected surface water

These will be defined based on the groundwater conditions assessment performed under Phase 2. For each sustainability indicator, the Working Group will identify the primary cause(s) of groundwater conditions occurring throughout the Basin that would lead to or has led to Undesirable Results, and will consider potential effects of Undesirable Results on beneficial uses and users of groundwater. Last, per 23-CCR §354.30, the Working Group will determine whether it wants to include in its GSP Measurable Objectives to address Undesirable Results that occurred before, and have not been corrected by, January 1, 2015.

The Working Group will then develop Minimum Thresholds for each sustainability indicator, which are quantifiable metrics for each applicable sustainability indicator at each monitoring site or representative monitoring site. The Working Group will base its Minimum Thresholds definition on the GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.28(c)) and the understanding of the Basin generated during Phase 2. Specifically, the Working Group will base its Minimum Thresholds definitions on the following analyses:

Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels. The rate of groundwater elevation decline will be calculated based on historical trends, water year type, and projected water use in the Basin. Additionally, the potential effects of groundwater level on other sustainability indicators will be evaluated. The Minimum Threshold will be set as the elevation indicating a depletion of supply at a given location that would lead to Undesirable Results.

Reduction of Groundwater Storage. The sustainable yield of the Basin will be based on historical trends, water year type, and projected water use in the Basin. The Minimum Threshold will be set as the volume of water that can be withdrawn from storage without causing conditions that may lead to Undesirable Results.



Seawater Intrusion. Due to the Basin’s position on the eastern edge of the Central Valley over sixty miles west of the Pacific Ocean, seawater intrusion is not anticipated to occur to any significant degree. However, this sustainability indicator will be evaluated using a consistent methodology with the other five indicators to verify or refute the above assumption in a scientifically defensible manner. The Minimum Threshold for seawater intrusion will be based (if applicable) on: 1) any existing maps and cross sections that document chloride concentrations within each principal aquifer, and 2) any other existing information or public knowledge that documents the presence of elevated chloride levels within the Basin that could have resulted from an advancing seawater front. The Minimum Threshold will be defined using a chloride concentration isocontour for each principal aquifer where seawater intrusion may lead to undesirable results.

Degraded Water Quality. The Minimum Threshold will be evaluated based on degradation of water quality on the number of supply wells, a volume of water, or a location of an isocontour that exceeds concentrations of constituents determined by the Working Group to be of concern for the Basin. The Minimum Threshold will be set as the degradation of water quality that may lead to Undesirable Results.

Land Subsidence. The Minimum Threshold for land subsidence will be based, as applicable on: 1) the land uses and property interests that have been or are likely to be affected by land subsidence, and 2) generating maps and graphs showing the extent and rate of land subsidence in the Basin. The Minimum Threshold will be set as the rate of subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses and may lead to Undesirable Results.

Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water. The Numerical Model will be used to quantify surface water depletion and will identify the location, quantity, and timing of depletions of interconnected surface water. The Minimum Threshold will be set as the rate or volume of surface water depletion that has adverse impacts on beneficial uses of surface water and that may lead to Undesirable Results.

This process will consider whether groundwater levels, and the Minimum Threshold defined for this sustainability indicator, can serve as a proxy for other sustainability indicators, as allowed for under the GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.28(d)).

Define Measurable Objectives and Interim Milestones

Measurable objectives refer to “specific, quantifiable goals for the maintenance or improvement of specified groundwater conditions” (23-CCR §351(s)), and can be considered as indicators of progress towards achieving the long-term sustainability goal for the Basin or portions of the Basin designated as distinct management units or areas. The Working Group will define Measurable Objectives by applying both qualitative and quantitative optimization techniques using the same metrics and monitoring sites as are used to define the Minimum Thresholds for the Basin, as described above. The Measurable Objectives will be defined based on the 20-year Sustainability Goal and will include the definition of Interim Milestones in increments of five years. The Working Group will identify triggers that, when comparing Interim Milestones to actual basin conditions, will prompt corrective actions.

The Working Group will provide a reasonable margin of operational flexibility under adverse conditions which shall take into consideration components such as historical water budgets, seasonal and long-



term trends, characteristics and attributes of any distinct management units or areas, and periods of drought, and be commensurate with levels of uncertainty defined in the Basin Setting section of the GSP. The margin of operational flexibility will be informed, in part, by the results of the uncertainty analyses related to projected surface water supply reliability, climate, land use planning, and population growth dynamics performed under Task 18. This will likely involve defining proportionality criteria for successive interim milestones relative to the sustainability goal (e.g., 25% recovery of groundwater levels in 5 years, 50% in 10 years, etc.) and then approximating reasonable measurable objectives for each sustainability indicator for both the “baseline”, “low uncertainty”, and “high uncertainty” scenarios developed in Task 18.


Results from Task 24 will be summarized in technical presentation(s) and in a Draft TM #11 – Establishment of Sustainability Criteria that includes a narrative description of the sustainable management criteria and which is supported by maps, charts and other graphics, tables, and supporting documentation as appendices, as appropriate.

EKI will provide technical support for the development of sustainable management criteria and the associated interim work products. The assumed level of effort is consistent with a cooperative and streamlined process for decision-making with respect to the sustainability criteria (SC) and assumes that a common framework for SC development will be applied throughout the basin even if the specific, resultant site-specific values are different.

Task 17: Identify Projects and Management Actions (0% complete)

Given an understanding of the sustainable management criteria relevant to the Basin, the Working Group will identify projects and management actions that will need to be carried out in order to meet the Sustainability Goal by 2042 (California Water Code 10727.2(d)(3)). This assumes that such projects or management actions will be necessary, which will not be known until the Work Plan has been implemented for several years and more data collected and analyses performed. Similarly, the scope, magnitude, and timing of any such actions remains to be developed pending the outcome of numerous earlier tasks identified in this Work Plan.

Potential projects may include any efforts designed to increase available groundwater supplies within the Basin, while

Potential management actions may include any efforts designed to reduce groundwater demands within the Basin.

Identify and Analyze Projects and Management Actions

Projects and management actions will be identified through careful consideration and engagement with Basin stakeholders, as described by the SCEP developed in Task 12. The potential impacts of these projects and management actions will be assessed using appropriate quantitative and qualitative analytical techniques.

Consistent with DWR’s GSP Checklist, the description of projects and management actions in the GSP will include:



• Description of projects and management actions that will help achieve the basin’s sustainability goal;

• Measurable objective that is expected to benefit from each project and management action;• Circumstances for implementation;• Public noticing;• Permitting and regulatory process;• Time-table for initiation and completion, and the accrual of expected benefits;• Expected benefits and how they will be evaluated;• How the project or management action will be accomplished. If the projects or management

actions rely on water from outside the jurisdiction of the Agency, an explanation of the source and reliability of that water shall be included;

• Legal authority required;• Estimated costs and plans to meet those costs; and• Management of groundwater extractions and recharge.

The Numerical Model characterizes changes in measurable objectives assuming a continuation of existing conditions (i.e., the “baseline analysis”) which can be compared to changes in those same objectives as a result of potential local or Basin-wide projects and actions intended to promote sustainability and mitigate undesirable results – particularly those actions that alter recharge and groundwater consumption. The results will be utilized to prioritize projects based on the feasibility of project implementation, cost, and relative effectiveness towards achieving sustainability objectives. Individual Basin GSAs may be required to select and implement such actions within their respective portions of the Basin, and closely coordinate these actions with other Basin GSAs.


Results from Task 25 will be summarized in technical presentation(s) and in a Draft TM #12 – Proposed Projects and Management Actions that includes a narrative description of the projects and management actions, supported by maps, charts and other graphics, tables, and supporting documentation as appendices, as appropriate.

EKI will provide technical support for the development of information related to up to (4) four projects and management actions for the GSP and the associated interim work products. The level of effort will be limited to a high-level, preliminary analysis of each project/management action consistent with SGMA requirements.

Task 18: Create GSP Implementation Plan (0% complete)

The GSP must include a plan for implementation, including an estimate of GSP implementation costs, schedule, plan for required annual reporting, and process for required periodic evaluations of the GSP. Task 26 will involve developing this plan for inclusion in the GSP.

Create Programmatic GSP Implementation Plan

This task includes development of a programmatic plan for GSP implementation outlining the framework and general processes associated with meeting SGMA compliance beyond the GSP submission deadline of January 2022. This programmatic plan will include elements related to:



Annual Reporting, per the GSP Regulations (23-CCR §356.2); Periodic (5 Year) Plan Evaluations, per the GSP Regulations (23-CCR §356.4); Maintenance of the DMS (including documentation and training for use by Working Group

membersstaff); and Maintenance of the Numerical Model.

Create Plan for Implementation of GSP Projects and Management Actions

This task includes development of a foundational plan to support implementation of projects and management actions identified in Task 25 in order to ensure that the GSAs will have the legal, funding, and permitting authority to enact these measures, if needed. This implementation plan will outline alloutlines efforts related to:

Conducting feasibility studies for identified projects and/or management actions; Performing CEQA and other environmental impact analyses; Initiating development/construction efforts for any projects involving built infrastructure; and Supporting development of a funding plan (see below).

Develop Funding Plan for GSP Implementation

After assessing GSP implementation costs, the Working Group will identify potential funding sources and develop a plan to fund GSP implementation. Funding sources may include grants from federal, state, or local governments, as well as monies raised through the collection of fees on Basin landowners levied by the GSAs. It will be up to each GSA in the Basin to determine how to exercise its powers to raise and collect funds for SGMA implementation, if necessary, but the Working Group will facilitate close coordination and planning on this issue. If any Basin GSAs determine that fees will be levied, those GSAs will follow the required processes for public notice and public hearings as documented in California Water Code 10730 and other laws. This effort may require retention of a rate consultant and/or economics consultant.


Results from Task 26 will be summarized in technical presentation(s) and in a Draft TM #13 – GSP Implementation Plan.

EKI will provide technical support to develop a high-level, preliminary GSP implementation plan and associated work products.

Task 19: Finalize Monitoring Network and Protocols (0% complete)

Designate Final Monitoring Network and Protocols

Per the GSP Regulations (23-CCR §354.34(b)), the GSA must develop a monitoring network fit to achieve the following:

• Demonstrate progress toward achieving measurable objectives described in the Plan;• Monitor impacts to the beneficial uses or users of groundwater;• Monitor changes in groundwater conditions relative to Measurable Objectives and Minimum

Thresholds; and



• Quantify annual changes in water budget components.

Given the results of the preliminary assessment of the monitoring network in Task 19, the understanding of the Basin generated in the Phase 2, and the development of sustainable management criteria completed in Task 24, the Working Group will finalize the monitoring network and protocols. The monitoring network will be designed to leverage existing infrastructure to the extent possible and appropriate and such that the data collected will allow for assessment of the sustainability indicators with respect to the Measurable Objectives and Minimum Thresholds.

Table 1 shows the infrastructure/approach, measurement type, and temporal, spatial, and other considerations corresponding to data collection for each undesirable result. As shown in Table 1, monitoring wells are the main infrastructure used for data collection for groundwater levels, groundwater storage, seawater intrusion, and water quality. There are several options of relevant infrastructure land subsidence and surface water depletion data collection. The Working Group will consider which monitoring infrastructure options are most appropriate for the Basin and the sustainable management criteria.

Given the understanding of the Basin generated in Phase 2, the Working Group may designate representative monitoring sites at which the sustainability indicators are monitored, and for which quantitative values for minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, and interim milestones are defined (23-CCR §354.36).

Consistent with DWR’s GSP Checklist, the documentation of the Monitoring Network in the GSP will include the following:

Description of monitoring network; Description of monitoring network objectives; Description of how the monitoring network is designed to demonstrate groundwater

occurrence, flow directions, and hydraulic gradients between principal aquifers and surface water features; estimate the change in annual groundwater in storage; monitor seawater intrusion; determine groundwater quality trends; identify the rate and extent of land subsidence; and calculate depletions of surface water caused by groundwater extractions;

Description of how the monitoring network provides adequate coverage of Sustainability Indicators;

Density of monitoring sites and frequency of measurements required to demonstrate short-term, seasonal, and long-term trends;

Scientific rational (or reason) for site selection; Consistency with data and reporting standards; Corresponding sustainability indicator, minimum threshold, measurable objective, and interim

milestone; Location and type of each monitoring site within the basin displayed on a map, and reported in

tabular format, including information regarding the monitoring site type, frequency of measurement, and the purposes for which the monitoring site is being used; and

Description of technical standards, data collection methods, and other procedures or protocols to ensure comparable data and methodologies.

To document the use of representative monitoring sites, if applicable, the GSP will include:Cosumnes Subbasin 43 13 November 2017 250 July 2018


Description of representative sites; Demonstration of adequacy of using groundwater elevations as proxy for other sustainability

indicators; and Adequate evidence demonstrating the site reflects general conditions in the area.

To document the assessment and improvement of the monitoring network, the GSP will further include:

• Review and evaluation of the monitoring network;• Identification and description of data gaps;• Description of steps to fill data gaps; and• Description of monitoring frequency and density of sites.


Results from Task 27 will be summarized in technical presentation(s) and in a Draft TM #14 – Proposed Monitoring Network and Protocols that includes a narrative description of the plans to implement a monitoring network, supported by maps, charts and other graphics, tables, and supporting documentation as appendices, as appropriate.

EKI will provide technical support to finalize the SGMA monitoring network plan and protocols, and to prepare associated interim work products. The level of effort assumes that the Basin GSAs will provide clear direction related to monitoring sites, etc.

Task 20: Conduct Stakeholder Engagement Related to Sustainability Planning (0% complete)

The Sustainability Planning Phase of GSP development is expected to generate the most interest among Basin stakeholders, and therefore will require substantial stakeholder engagement. We anticipate holding up to four workshops during this phase, each coordinated by the Working Group in conjunction with allthe Basin GSAs.

The first two workshops will be focused on presenting and receiving feedback on the sustainable management criteria. These workshops will target technical stakeholders who may have specific feedback on the technical assumptions that influence the sustainable management criteria.

The second two workshops will target allthe broader group of Basin stakeholders and will be focusedfocus on presenting and receiving input on the sustainable management criteria and identifying potential projects and management actions. Additionally, during these workshops, the Working Group will outline and receive initial input on the tasks to be completed in the GSP Preparation (Phase 4) portion of this Work Plan. As noted earlier, these more public-focused workshops will be conducted in up to three separate portions of the Basin to maximize participation.

Throughout this process, Working Group and TAC meetings, and the individual meetings of the boards of directors of each of the Basin GSAs will continue to provide numerous forums for interested members of the public to track GSP development and provide ongoing input. As warranted, technical stakeholders will be invited to participate in panel discussions with the TAC meetings on issues relevant to Phase 3.



EKI will provide limited technical support to the Water Forum and CBI to conduct stakeholder engagement-related activities related to Sustainability Planning, including the following efforts:

Preparation of up to four (4) stakeholder workshop presentations; and Principal attendance at up to four (4) planned stakeholder workshops.

Task 21: Implement GSP Development Funding Plan (0% complete)

The Working Group will continue to implement the GSP Development Funding Plan created in Phase 1.

[Task 10]: Participate in Intrabasin and Interbasin Coordination Efforts (0% complete)

The Working Group will continue to follow developments in neighboring basins, with particular attention paid to the development of sustainable management criteria developed in neighboring basins. The Working Group will ensure that impacts on the Basin are accurately represented in the sustainable management criteria developed in neighboring basins, and will be responsive to any concerns from entities in neighboring basins about the impacts of developed sustainable management criteria for the Basin.


Water Forum and consultant staff will continue to organize and convene regularly scheduled, monthly meetings of the Working Group and TAC to foster timely and effective discussion of the Phase 3 tasks associated with GSP development and ongoing data-sharing.

The Working Group will also initiate work and dialogue among Basin GSAs on a long-term governance framework to guide Plan implementation. By this point in Work Plan implementation, many details regarding SGMA compliance and implementation for the Basin will be better understood so that effective intra-basin coordination and planning can be finalized.


Water Forum and consultant staff will continue to foster interbasin dialogues through targeted meetings, integrated participation at TAC meetings and ongoing data-sharing to support Phase 3. The Working Group will develop Interbasin Agreements if necessary.

It is anticipated that the following specific coordination activities will occur:



Key information from the above items will be shared with the TAC and Working Group at regularly scheduled meetings.

EKI will provide technical support for Phase 3 intrabasin and interbasin coordination efforts, based on the following assumptions:Cosumnes Subbasin 45 13 November 2017 250 July 2018




This task has been eliminated and the funds moved to Task 7


Preparation for and Principal attendance at (1) monthly Working Group meeting and (1) monthly TAC meeting over the 12-month duration of Phase 3;

Up to 8 hours per month of additional coordination efforts related to the WG and TAC meetings or attendance by additional EKI staff;




PHASE 4 - GSP PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL (0% COMPLETE)Phase 4 of the Work Plan involves preparation of the GSP and associated deliverables for use by Basin GSAs in adopting the GSP, with subsequent submittal to DWR. It is anticipated that Phase 4 will extend from July 2020April 2021 to January 2022.

[Task 11]: Compile Complete Draft GSP (0% complete)

Most of the major GSP components will have been developed and included, in whole or in part, in the TMs prepared in previous tasks of this Work Plan. These previously prepared elements include:

Data Management System; Plan Area Information; Data Gaps Assessment; Stakeholder Communication and Engagement Plan; Hydrogeological Conceptual Model; Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions; Water Budget Information, including an Estimate of Sustainable Yield of Basin; Sustainable Management Criteria; Projects and Management Actions, and Plans for Implementation and Funding; and Monitoring Network and Protocols.

Under Task 31, these existing GSP components will be compiled and reworked into a full GSP along with additional components such as Administrative Information (23-CCR §354.4–354.6), documentation of notice and communication (23-CCR §354.10), and “additional plan elements” (as applicable, and listed in CWC §10727.4). The GSP will be structured to conform with the GSP regulations, GSP Annotated Outline, and Preparation Checklist for GSP Submittal.



Phase 1GSP

Foundation

Phase 2 Basin



Planning

Phase 4 GSP

Preparation and

Submittal


An Administrative Draft will be prepared for TAC and Working Group review. After comments have been received, a revise draft GSP will be released for public review. At this point, individual Basin GSAs intending to adopt the GSP may release it for public review prior to holding a hearing on adopting the plan. Any GSAs intending to prepare and adopt slightly modified GSPs for their management areas may use the Work Plan GSP as the foundation for those plans, which would also be noticed and adopted at public hearings by those GSAs.

EKI will prepare an Administrative Draft GSP and Public Draft. The level of effort assumes minor revisions relative to the interim work products prepared for prior work tasks and the Administrative Draft GSP.

Task 22: Distribute Draft GSP and Revise (if necessary) per Stakeholder Feedback(0% complete)

As required by CWC §10728.4, the Working Group will distribute a draft GSP to Basin stakeholders and hold a public hearing to receive feedback on the draft GSP. Per CWC §10728.4, the public hearing will be held at least 90 days after providing notice to a city or county within the area of the proposed plan. As noted earlier, these hearings will be conducted in up to three separate portions of the Basin to maximize participation and feedback. As necessary, the Working Group will revise the draft GSP to reflect stakeholder feedback.

EKI will prepare a Final GSP. The level of effort assumes that there will be minor revisions required to the public draft to prepare the Final GSP.

Task 23: Submit Final GSP to DWR (0% complete)

The Working Group on behalf of, or in conjunction with, Basin GSAs that have adopted a GSP will submit the final GSP and associated deliverables to DWR, after which DWR is to establish a period of at least 60 days to receive comments on the adopted Plan (per 23-CCR §355.2). Final deliverables to DWR will include:

The Final (written) GSP; Coordination Agreements (as applicable); A Data Management System, integrated with all existing data; and Numerical Model Inputs/Outputs.

DWR will then have up to two years to review the Final GSP, after which it will be given the status of approved, incomplete, or inadequate. Should the Working Group’s GSP be deemed incomplete, the Working Group will take corrective actions, revise, and resubmit the GSP within 180 days of DWR’s assessment, as required.

EKI will submit the Final GSP to DWR on behalf of the Basin GSAs.



Task 24: Participate in Intrabasin and Interbasin Coordination Efforts (0% complete)

The Working Group will continue follow developments in neighboring basins, including review of other GSPs, and will facilitate interbasin coordination among GSAs so as to finalize any necessary Interbasin Agreements.


Water Forum, CBI, and EKI and consultant staff will continue to organize and convene regularly scheduled, monthly meetings of the Working Group and TAC to foster timely and effective discussion among Basin GSAs of the Phase 4 tasks associated with GSP development and ongoing data-sharing.

If not completed under Phase 3, the Working Group will also facilitate the adoption by all Basin GSAs of a long-term governance framework to guide GSP implementation.


Water Forum, CBI, and EKI staff and consultant staff will continue to foster interbasin dialogues through targeted meetings, integrated participation at public meetings, and ongoing data-sharing to support GSP development. A key component of this effort will be the review of the GSPs produced by entities in adjacent basins and responding to comments received on the GSP(s) prepared for the Basin.

EKI will provide technical support for





List of Tables

Table 1 Summary of Monitoring Network Considerations

List of Figures

Figure 1 Cosumnes Subbasin Jurisdictional Boundaries

Figure 2 Groundwater Elevations – Spring 2017Figure 3 Evaluation of Available Data for Sustainability Indicator #1 & 2 – Chronic Lowering of

Groundwater Levels & Reduction in StorageFigure 4a Evaluation of Available Data for Sustainability Indicator #4 – Degraded Water Quality:

Total Dissolved SolidsFigure 4b Evaluation of Available Data for Sustainability Indicator #4 – Degraded Water Quality:

Nitrate (as N)Figure 4c Evaluation of Available Data for Sustainability Indicator #4 – Degraded Water Quality:

ArsenicFigure 4d Evaluation of Available Data for Sustainability Indicator #4 – Degraded Water Quality:

Geotracker SitesFigure 5 Evaluation of Available Data for Sustainability Indicator #5 – Land Subsidence Figure 6 Evaluation of Available Data for Sustainability Indicator #6 – Depletions of

Interconnected Surface WaterFigure 7 Cosumnes Subbasin Disadvantaged CommunitiesPhase 4 intrabasin and interbasin coordination efforts, based on the following assumptions:

Preparation for and Principal attendance at (1) monthly Working Group OR TAC meeting over the 9-month duration of Phase 3;

Up to 8 hours per month of additional coordination efforts related to the WG and TAC meetings or for additional EKI staff attendance;





Background - Water Forumcosumnes.waterforum.org/.../EKI_Cosumnes_WorkPlan… · Web view2018/08/10...

Documents

Transcript of Background - Water Forumcosumnes.waterforum.org/.../EKI_Cosumnes_WorkPlan… · Web view2018/08/10...