EKI TECHNICAL PRESENTATION #9

WHITE WOLF GSA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

3 MARCH 2020

OUTLINE

Proposition 68 SGM Grant Funding Update

Introduction to Sustainability Planning/Task Prioritization and Coordination

Management Area Discussion

Updated Project Schedule and Budget

2

3

5a. PROPOSITION 68 SGM GRANT FUNDINGUPDATE

DWR released draft Prop 68 funding list on 24 January 2020

Total of ~$47.4 million funded 54 applications submitted to DWR

19 applications fully funded with no conditions

21 applications funded fully funded with conditions

14 applications partially funded

4

DRAFT PROP 68 GRANT FUNDING LIST RELEASED

Fully funded, no conditions$17,744,721

38%

Fully funded, with conditions

$20,521,330 43%

Partially funded, with conditions$6,631,600

14%

Partially funded, no conditions$2,519,664

5%

Total $47,417,315

WWB TENTATIVELY AWARDED PROP 68 GRANT

WWB GSA requested $513,000 Grant Funds $171,000 cost share

$684,00 for projects

DWR draft recommendation was for full funding with no extra conditions for WWB

Final Award anticipated by end of March

5

GDE-RELATED ASPECTS OF WWB PROP 68 WORK PLAN IS TIME CRITICAL

6

Conduct additional analyses to confirm status of potential groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) consistent with The Nature Conservancy Guidance and tools

Develop a basin-specific numerical groundwater flow model

Improve the monitoring network to meet DWR’s requirements – well survey and video logging

Install new monitoring well(s) and deploy monitoring instrumentation to address GDE monitoring, if GDEs are confirmed present

Grant administration and project management

SGMA’S CHARGE FOR USING BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE:

“Sustainable groundwater management is best achieved locally through the development, implementation, and updating of plans and programs based on the best available science.” –WATER CODE § 113

GSP Emergency Regulations:

§ 351(h) “Best available science” refers to the use of sufficient and credible information and data, specific to the decision being made and the time frame available for making that decision, that is consistent with scientific and engineering professional standards of practice.”

§ 354.16 “Each Plan shall provide a description of current and historical groundwater conditions in the basin, including data from January 1, 2015, to current conditions, based on the best available information that includes the following […]

(g) Identification of groundwater dependent ecosystems within the basin, utilizing data available from the Department, as specified in Section 353.2, or the best available information.”

7

The Nature Conservancy: March 2019 “Potential Environmental Beneficial

Users of Surface Water in Groundwater Basins”

June 2019 “GDE Pulse” Tool

July 2019 Guidebook “Identifying GDEs Under SGMA Best Practices for using the NC Dataset”

August 2019 “Critical Species LookBook: A compendium of California’s threatened and endangered species for sustainable groundwater management”

California Department of Fish and Wildlife: June 2019 “Fish & Wildlife Groundwater

Planning Considerations”

8

NEW GUIDANCE AND TOOLS MAKE GDE EFFORT MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN 2017 GSP SCOPE ANTICIPATED

For GDEs which could not be preliminarily eliminated based on 2015 depth to groundwater: 1. Verify certain GDEs using

aerial imagery, field mapping, and TNC GDE Pulse tool

2. Install ~3 monitoring wells and instrumentation to determine connectivity to principal aquifer in certain areas (e.g., Springs Fault)

9

POTENTIAL GDEs MUST BE FURTHER ADDRESSED IN THE GSP

GDEs assessment must be complete prior to monitoring well siting

Important to collect water level data from monitoring well(s) during irrigation season (summer 2020)

Recommend immediately begin working on the GDEs assessment and verification study*

Upon completion, Districts aid in gaining access to land for well installation(s) as needed

10

TIMELINE FOR GDE ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING

*contingent on Final Grant Award from DWR

11

5b. INTRODUCTION TO SUSTAINABILITY PLANNING/TASK PRIORITIZATION AND COORDINATION

Potential management areas

Preliminary monitoring network

Proposition 68 work efforts

12

TASK 3 PRIORITIES –BEGIN DEVELOPING SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA

COORDINATING TASK 2 AND TASK 3 EFFORTS

13

Monitoring network can differ by Management Areas:

DWR, 2017, Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Sustainable Management Criteria Draft BMP

Sustainability Criteria informed by site-specific historical data, and set at Representative Monitoring Sites:

SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA(1)

Sustainability indicator refers to any of the effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout the basin that, when significant and unreasonable, cause undesirable results

Minimum threshold (MT) refers to a numeric value for each sustainability indicator used to define undesirable results

Measurable Objectives (MOs) refer to specific, quantifiable goals for the maintenance or improvement of specified groundwater conditions that have been included in an adopted Plan to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin

Interim Milestone (IM) refers to a target value representing measurable groundwater conditions, in increments of five years, set by an Agency as part of a Plan

14

Margin of Operational Flexibility

(1) GSP Emergency Regulations § 351 DWR, 2017, Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Sustainable Management Criteria Draft BMP

SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS OF POTENTIAL CONCERN

15

Land Subsidence

Seawater Intrusion

DWR CWP 2013Winter et al 1998

Water Quality Degradation

Lowering of GW Levels

Reduction of GW Storage

Surface Water Depletion

Low Concern High Concern

MONITORING NETWORK NEXUS WITH SUSTAINABILITY CRITERIA Groundwater (GW) levels measured in wells are the most relevant and

can be used as “proxy” for many sustainability indicators

16

Undesirable Result Metric Potential ProxyLowering of GW Levels GW level GW levelReduction of GW Storage GW volume GW levelSeawater Intrusion Chloride Isocontour n/aDegraded Water Quality Concentration GW levelLand Subsidence Land Surface Elevation GW levelDepletion of Interconnected Surface Water

Volume or rate of streamflow

GW level

DWR, 2017, Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Sustainable Management Criteria Draft BMP, dated November 2017

DWR’s BMP guidelines suggest 0.2 to 10 wells per 100 square miles

When scaled by Basin pumping volume, density required = 4 wells per 100 square miles

Basin is 168 square miles ≈ 7wells would meet DWR’s BMP guidelines

17

DWR’S RECOMMENDED MONITORING NETWORK DENSITY

DWR, 2016, Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps BMP, dated December 2016

EKI ranked and filtered wells in the DMS to identify recommended monitoring network wells

SGMA Monitoring Network will wells where long-term access can be established

GSA may install up to 3 shallow and/or clustered dedicated monitoring wells using Prop 68 funding

18

PRELIMINARY MONITORING NETWORK ASSESSMENT

Recommended Monitoring Wells

Count Density per 100 sq-mi

Water Level 16 9.5

Water Quality 8 4.8

Preliminary – subject to revision

19

5c. MANAGEMENT AREA DISCUSSION

Management Areas (MAs) allow for the flexibility to set different Sustainable Management Criteria (SMCs) and monitoring for site-specific conditions

Must provide justification for creation Must explain how differing SMCs will

not cause undesirable results outside the MA

Options for WWB:1. Single MA2. Jurisdictional boundaries 3. Land use categories

20

GSP HAS TO ID ANY “MANAGEMENT AREAS”

DWR (2016) Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Emergency Regulations Guide

Pro: Theoretically the most simple

Con: May require overly conservative SMCs because of upland GDEs

21

OPTION 1: SINGLE MA

Pro: Theoretically provides Districts with ability to manage areas separately

Con: Reality: tons of overlap, complex

22

OPTION 2: MAs DELINEATED BASED ON JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES

Agricultural lands/developed area vs. undeveloped area

Portions of undeveloped area partially covered by conservation land & unlikely to change land use

23

OPTION 3: MAs DELINEATED BASED ON LAND USE CATEGORIES

Pro: Can set separate SMCs & monitoring Example: GDEs may occur in

undeveloped area and may require shallower MO/MTs than agricultural lands area

May not have to do as much monitoring

Can have different SMCs that won’t impact central Basin as much

Cons: Added complexity Limited distribution of existing

potential monitoring wells in undeveloped area

24

OPTION 3: PROS AND CONS

Where to draw the boundaries?

Potential implications to land owners for falling inside a management area

25

MANAGEMENT AREAS CONSIDERATIONS

DWR (2016) Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Emergency Regulations Guide

26

5d. UPDATED PROJECT SCHEDULE AND BUDGET

UPDATED PROJECT SCHEDULE (JAN 2020-APR 2022)

27Today

*Draft TM dates subject to change

UPDATED PROPOSITION 1 GRANT BUDGET THROUGH 4TH QUARTER 2019

28

Reached Cost Share for 2 budget categories:

BURN RATE PROJECTIONS

Phase

Estimated Quarterly Costs of Technical Consultant

2020 2021 2022

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q21/1/2020 4/1/2020 7/1/2020 10/1/2020 1/1/2021 4/1/2021 7/1/2021 10/1/2021 1/1/2022 4/1/2021

(a) - Grant Administration $4,900 $4,900 $4,900 $4,900 $4,800 $4,900 $4,900 $4,900 $1,700 $0(b) - Stakeholder Engagement $3,600 $2,300 $2,300 $2,300 $2,300 $2,300 $0 $0 $0 $0(c) - Basin Setting Information $29,300 $15,200 $15,100 $15,100 $9,900 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0(c) - Sustainability Planning $37,800 $31,700 $41,900 $39,300 $39,300 $47,000 $0 $0 $0 $0(c) - GSP Preparation & Submittal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $54,400 $38,800 $8,900 $0(d) - Travel $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $100 $0Subtotal $76,000 $54,500 $64,600 $62,000 $56,700 $54,600 $59,700 $44,100 $10,700 $0GSA Costs $1,039 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $400 $100

Proposition 68* $67,300 $136,700 $137,100 $112,200 $142,100 $90,000 $3,900 $3,900 $3,700 $0GSA Costs $67,300 $82,750 $29,150 $3,500 $1,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0Total GSA Costs Prop 1 & Prop 68 $68,339 $83,150 $29,550 $3,900 $1,500 $400 $400 $400 $100 $0

29

*Assuming 1. EKI Task Order #4 is fully approved in March, contingent on DWR fully funding WWB in the Prop 68 Final Grant Award,2. Forthcoming EKI Task Order #5 is fully approved in June

NEXT STEPS

Track Prop 68 SGM Grant Final Award List and support TCWD on behalf of GSA to enter into a Grant Agreement

If Proposition 68 GDEs tasks are approved, begin GDEs assessment and field survey

Continue monitoring network assessment & develop management area recommendation

Review C2VSimFG-Kern model, files anticipated to be received by end of March

30

QUESTIONS?

Anona Dutton, P.G., C.Hg.

adutton@ekiconsult.com

650-292-9100

31

www.ekiconsult.comBurlingame, CA | Los Angeles, CA

Oakland, CA | Centennial, CO