HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-14-19 Agenda PacketUKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1010 Ukiah California 95482 (707)463-4441 fax (707)463-7237
NOTICE OF MEETING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability
Agency (“Agency”) Board of Directors (“Board”) will hold its regular Board Meeting at:
1:30 P.M. - Thursday, February 14, 2019
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Chambers,
501 Low Gap Road, Room 1070, CA 95482
AGENDA
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ACTION ITEMS
a. Discussion and Possible Appointment Of Tribal Stakeholder
Director and Alternate Director Seat and Agricultural
Stakeholder Director and Alternate Director Seat
The Board shall review the Tribal Stakeholder nomination by the six (6)
Tribes within the Ukiah Valley to confirm appointment and review the
Agricultural Seat nominations submitted by the Mendocino County Farm
Bureau for appointment consideration.
b. Discussion and Possible Appointment of Officers Including
Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, and any Other Officers as
Determined Necessary by the Board of Directors
The Board shall appoint the following officers: Chair, Vice-Chair and
Secretary.
c. Discussion and Possible Approval of Minutes from the
November 8, 2018, Regular Meeting
UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1010 Ukiah California 95482 (707)463-4441 fax (707)463-7237
d. Discussion and Possible Action to Approve the Ukiah Valley
Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Communication and
Engagement Plan
The Board will review the completed Communication and Engagement
Plan developed to promote the efficient and effective coordination of
internal/external communications and stakeholder engagement in the
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (UVBGSA) effort
to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP).
e. Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action Regarding the
Development of Components of the Ukiah Valley Groundwater
Sustainability Plan
The Board will receive an update and presentation from Larry Walker and
Associates regarding components of the Ukiah Valley Groundwater
Sustainability Plan including Technical Advisory Committee
recommendations, draft database management plan and first assessment
of data gaps.
4. STAFF UPDATES
5. DIRECTOR REPORTS
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
The Board will receive public comments on items not appearing on the agenda
and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Agency. The Board will not enter
into a detailed discussion or take any action on any items presented during public
comments. Such items may only be referred to staff for administrative action or
scheduled on a subsequent agenda for discussion. Persons wishing to speak on
specific agenda items should do so at the time specified for those items. The
presiding Chair shall limit public comments to three minutes.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency complies with ADA requirements and upon
request, will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities by making meeting material
available in appropriate alternative formats (pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2). Anyone
requiring reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting should contact the Mendocino County
Executive Office by calling (707) 463-4441 at least five days prior to the meeting.
Please reference the Mendocino County website to obtain additional information for the Ukiah Valley
Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency: http://www.mendocinocounty.org/uvbgsa
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 1 of 2
Item No.:3.a
Date:2/14/19
To:Board of Directors
Subject:Discussion and Possible Appointment of Tribal Stakeholder Director and Alternate
Director Seat;and Agricultural Stakeholder Director and Alternate Director Seat
Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing
Summary:
Article 7 of the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) provides that one stakeholder director shall be a
representative of tribal stakeholders and interest with the Basin. One Tribal Stakeholder
Director shall be appointed by the six tribes exercising jurisdiction over Indian lands within the
Ukiah Valley Basin identified as Redwood Valley Rancheria, Coyote Valley Reservation,
Pinoleville Pomo Nation, Potter Valley Rancheria, Guidiville Rancheria and the Hopland
Reservation.
Section 7.3.2 (b) of the JPA provides that the Board of Directors confirm the nomination for the
Tribal Stakeholder Director submitted by the six Tribes within the Ukiah Valley. The Member
Directors shall confirm the nominee at a regular meeting and shall appoint the Tribal
Stakeholder Director upon simple majority vote of all Member Directors.
The JPA also requires the Agricultural Seat nominees be submitted to the Board by the
Mendocino County Farm Bureau (MCFB) pursuant to a process in the bylaws or otherwise
directed by the Board.
Recommended Action:
1. Review the nominees submitted by the six Tribes within the Ukiah Valley and confirm
appointment of the Tribal Stakeholder Director and Alternate Director to the Board.
2. Review the nominees submitted by the Mendocino County Farm Bureau and appoint the
Agricultural Stakeholder Director and Alternate Director to the Board.
Background:
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 2 of 2
The Tribes nominated the following individuals:
Stakeholder Director:Brandi Brown, Redwood Valley Tribal Treasurer
Alternate Stakeholder Director:Sonny Elliott Jr., Hopland Reservation
The Farm Bureau nominates:
Stakeholder Director:Zachary Robinson
Alternate Stakeholder Director: Levi Paulin
Fiscal Summary: No fiscal impact.
Action: _____________________________________________________
Motion:_____________________ 2nd:____________________________
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 1 of 2
Item No.:3.b
Date:2/14/19
To:Board of Directors
Subject:Discussion and Possible Appointment of Officers Including Chairman, Vice-
Chairman, Secretary, and any Other Officers as Determined Necessary by the
Board of Directors
Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing
Summary:
Article 10 of the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (UVB) Joint Powers
Agreement (JPA) provides for the appointment of Officers. The Board shall appoint a
Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, and any other officers as determined necessary by the
Board of Directors. The term is for 2 years and an Officer may serve for multiple consecutive
terms.
Recommended Action:
Elect Chair, Vice-Chair and Secretary from the Board of Directors.
Background:
Article 10 of the JPA requires the following:
10.1. Officers. The Board of Directors shall select a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, and
any other officers as determined necessary by the Board of Directors.
10.1.1. The Chairman shall preside at all Board Meetings.
10.1.2. The Vice-Chairman shall act in place of the Chairman at meetings should the Chairman
be absent.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 2 of 2
10.1.3. The Secretary shall keep minutes of all meetings of the Board of Directors and shall, as
soon as possible after each meeting, forward a copy of the minutes to each member and
alternate of the Board of Directors.
10.1.4. All Officers shall be chosen at the first Board of Directors meeting and serve a term for
two (2) years. An Officer may serve for multiple consecutive terms. Any Officer may resign at
any time upon written notice to the Agency.
Fiscal Summary:No fiscal impact.
Action: _____________________________________________________
Motion:_____________________ 2nd:____________________________
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 1 of 1
Item No.:3.c
Date:2/14/19
To:Board of Directors
Subject:Discussion and Possible Approval of Minutes from the November 8, 2018,Meeting
Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing
Summary:
Approval of Minutes from November 8, 2018,Regular Meeting.
Recommended Action:
Approve the November 8, 2018, regular meeting minutes.
Background:
The Agency convened on November 8, 2018.
Fiscal Summary:
N/A
Action: ____________________________________________________
Motion:_____________________ 2nd:____________________________
UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1010 Ukiah California 95482 (707)463-4441 fax (707)463-7237
1:30 P.M. – November 8, 2018
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Chambers,
501 Low Gap Road, Room 1070, CA 95482
ACTION MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL (1:32 P.M)
Present: Vice-Chair Douglas Crane, Director Zackary Robinson; Director Alfred White; Director
Jerry Cardoza; Director Brandi Brown; and Chair Carre Brown. Chair Brown presiding.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by: Director Cardoza.
3. CONSENT ITEMS
3(a).Approval of Minutes from the September 13, 2018, Meeting
Presenter/s: Chair Carre Brown.
Public Comment: None.
Board Action: Upon motion by Director Cardoza, seconded by Director White, and carried
(3/0/3, with Vice-Chair Crane, Director Robinson and Director Brandi Brown abstaining); IT IS
ORDERED that the minutes from the September 13, 2018, Ukiah Valley Groundwater
Sustainability Agency are hereby approved with the following changes; correct spelling of Don
2.Seymour; addition of word “seat” to each member appointment.
4. STAFF UPDATES
Presenter/s: Ms. Sarah Dukett, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Mendocino County.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Presenter/s: None.
6. ACTION ITEMS
6(a).Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action Regarding the Development of
Components of the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Presenter/s: Ms. Laura Foglia, PhD, Project Manager, Larry Walker and Associates; Mr. Tom
Grovhoug, Larry Walker and Associates; Mr. Aaron Cuthbertson, Department of Water
Resources; and Ms. Sarah Dukett, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Mendocino County.
Public Comment: None.
Board Action: None.
UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1010 Ukiah California 95482 (707)463-4441 fax (707)463-7237
6(b).Discussion and Possible Action Including Adoption of the 2019 Board of
Directors Master Meeting Calendar
Presenter/s: Ms. Sarah Dukett, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Mendocino County.
Public Comment: None.
Board Action: Upon motion by Vice-Chair Crane, seconded by Director Brandi Brown, and
carried unanimously (6/0/0); IT IS ORDERED that the 2019 Board of Directors Master Meeting
Calendar for the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency is hereby adopted.
7. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Presenter/s: None.
Public Comment: None.
8. ADJOURNMENT (2:11 P.M.)
________________________________
CARRE BROWN, Chair
Attest: BRANDI BROWN
Secretary
________________________________
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 1 of 1
Item No.:3.d
Date:2/14/19
To:Board of Directors
Subject:Discussion and Possible Action to Approve the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater
Sustainability Agency Communication and Engagement Plan
Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing
Summary:
The Board will review the completed Communication and Engagement Plan developed to
promote the efficient and effective coordination of internal/external communications and
stakeholder engagement in the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
(UVBGSA) effort to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP).
Recommended Action:
Adopt the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Communication and
Engagement Plan.
Background:
On September 13 and November 8, 2018, the Board received a presentation and draft
Communication and Engagement Plan for the development of Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
The plan is a required deliverable for the GSP and Department of Water Resources Proposition 1
grant.
Fiscal Summary:N/A
Action: _____________________________________________________
Motion:_____________________ 2nd:____________________________
JANUARY 2019
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability
Agency
Communication and Engagement
Plan
Prepared by:
LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES
GEI CONSULTANTS
SCI CONSULTING GROUP
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
GSP Communications Plan
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Organization .................................................................................................................... 2
Consultant Team ......................................................................................................................... 2
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) ...................................................................................... 2
Department of Water REsources (DWR) Point of Contact ........................................................ 3
Goals and Desired Outcomes ....................................................................................................... 5
UVBGSA and UVB GSP ........................................................................................................... 5
UVBGSA Decision-Making Process .......................................................................................... 8
Communication objectives to support the GSP .......................................................................... 8
Overriding concerns, major concerns or challenges ................................................................... 9
Stakeholders Involved in the Project .......................................................................................... 9
Methods for Promoting Active Stakeholder Involvement ........................................................ 11
Use of Public Input and Response ............................................................................................ 12
Communications Strategy .......................................................................................................... 12
Internal Communication ........................................................................................................... 13
External Communication .......................................................................................................... 13
Public Meetings .................................................................................................................... 13
Stakeholder Survey and Mapping ......................................................................................... 14
Venues for Engaging............................................................................................................. 15
C&E Implementation Timeline................................................................................................. 15
Evaluation and Assessment ........................................................................................................ 16
Appendix A. GSP Development Schedule .................................................................................. 1
GSP Communications Plan
Table of Figures
Figure 1. POCs at the North Central Region Office to support UVBGSP ..................................... 4
Figure 2. UVBGSA JPA members and their respective boundaries. ............................................. 7
Figure 3. General review process of deliverables. .......................................................................... 8
Figure 4. C&E implementation timeline. ...................................................................................... 16
Appendices
Appendix A. GSP Development Schedule .................................................................................... 1
GSP Communications Plan
Page 1
Introduction
This Project Communication Plan (CommPlan) is developed to promote the efficient and
effective coordination of internal/external communications and stakeholder engagement in the
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (UVBGSA) effort to develop a
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The CommPlan will serve as the primary guideline for
addressing the requirements outlined in Department of Water Resources (DWR) Groundwater
Sustainability Plans (GSP) Regulations Section § 354.10:
“Each Plan shall include a summary of information relating to notification and communication
by the Agency with other agencies and interested parties including the following:
(a) A description of the beneficial uses and users of groundwater in the basin, including the land
uses and property interests potentially affected by the use of groundwater in the basin, the types
of parties representing those interests, and the nature of consultation with those parties.
(b) A list of public meetings at which the Plan was discussed or considered by the Agency.
(c) Comments regarding the Plan received by the Agency and a summary of any responses by the
Agency.
(d) A communication section of the Plan that includes the following:
(1) An explanation of the Agency’s decision-making process.
(2) Identification of opportunities for public engagement and a discussion of how public
input and response will be used.
(3) A description of how the Agency encourages the active involvement of diverse social,
cultural, and economic elements of the population within the basin.
(4) The method the Agency shall follow to inform the public about progress implementing
the Plan, including the status of projects and actions.”
The CommPlan serves as the communication and engagement plan for the Ukiah Valley Basin
(UVB) GSP and is developed in response to the following requirement of the DWR evaluation
criterion in GSP Regulations Section § 355.4.b.(4):
“Whether the interests of the beneficial uses and users of groundwater in the basin, and the land
uses and property interests potentially affected by the use of groundwater in the basin, have been
considered.”
The CommPlan will be updated as needed throughout the project term. This will ensure that up-
to-date information related to project communication is contained in the CommPlan. The
CommPlan will be accompanied by a web-based Communication and Engagement (C&E) tool to
streamline its implementation. The C&E Tool will contain a communication tracking system to
document outreach and engagement activities, compile mailing lists, and summarize
communications with stakeholders. It will be used in the implementation of the CommPlan and
evaluation and assessment of its effectiveness.
GSP Communications Plan
Page 2
Project Organization
The Ukiah Valley Basin GSP is being developed for the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater
Sustainability Agency (UVBGSA). Larry Walker Associates, Inc. in collaboration with GEI
Consultants, University of California Cooperative Extension (UCCE), and SCI Consulting Group
(LWA Team) are responsible for the development of the GSP at the direction of the UVBGSA.
The UVBGSA Board of Directors (the Board) is shown in Table 1. The Board acts as the GSP’s
overall Project Management Team (PMT) and is scheduled to meet on the second Thursday of
every other month at 1:30 PM in the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Chambers. All
meetings are open to the public with notices, agendas, and minutes posted on Mendocino
County’s (County) website 1.
Public engagement is encouraged at the Board’s meetings and an e-Notification 2 capability will
be offered by the County to reinforce this purpose for interested parties. Draft deliverables, draft
GSP chapters and other important development milestones are scheduled to be discussed at the
scheduled Board meetings in order to promote transparency regarding the decision-making
process.
Table 1. UVBGSA Board of Directors.
Member Agency Director Alternate Director
County of Mendocino Carre Brown (Chair)
City of Ukiah Douglas F. Crane (Vice Chair)
Russian River Flood Control Alfred White
Upper Russian River Water Agency Jerry Cardoza
Tribal Seat Brandi Brown Sonny Elliott
Agricultural Seat Zachary Robinson Levi Paulin
CONSULTANT TEAM
As mentioned above, the consultant team is led by Larry Walker Associates, Inc. in collaboration
with GEI Consultants, UCCE, and SCI Consulting Group. Dr. Laura Foglia, LWA Project
Manager (PM), will serve as the primary point of contact for the LWA Team, providing clear,
consistent, and effective communication with the PMT and the County.
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (TAC)
UVBGSA has convened a TAC to provide input and recommendations on the technical aspects
of the GSP development process. TAC members and the represented agencies are shown in
Table 2. TAC meetings are scheduled at a similar frequency to the Board’s meetings, on the
second Thursday of every other the month, at 9:30 AM. All meetings are open to the public with
1 https://www.mendocinocounty.org/government/affiliated-agencies/ukiah-valley-basin-gsa
2 https://www.mendocinocounty.org/community/enotification
GSP Communications Plan
Page 3
notices, agendas, and minutes posted on Mendocino County’s (County) website 1. Subscribers to
the e-notification system will be notified automatically for the TAC meetings.
Table 2. UVB TAC members.
Member Agency Member
County of Mendocino Glenn McGourty
City of Ukiah Sean White
Upper Russian River Water Agency Ken Todd
Russian River Flood Control Tyler Rodrigue
Tribal Representative Sonny Elliot, Jr.
Agricultural Representative Levi Paulin
Sonoma County Water Agency Don Seymour
Mendocino County Resource Conservation District Mike Webster
California Land Stewardship Institute Laurel Marcus
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (DWR) POINT OF CONTACT
All high and medium priority groundwater basins in California are assigned a Point of Contact
(POC) from the DWR Region Offices. POCs assist GSAs and stakeholders in the basin to
connect with the statewide Sustainable Groundwater Management Program and to locate
resources for assistance. POC information for the Regional Office corresponding to the UVB
GSP is shown in Figure 1. Mr. Aaron Cuthbertson from the Division of Integrated Regional
Water Management of the DWR North Central Region Office is the POC for this GSP and can
be reached via email at: Aaron.Cuthbertson@water.ca.gov
1 https://www.mendocinocounty.org/government/affiliated-agencies/ukiah-valley-basin-gsa/technical-advisory-
committee/tac-agenda-and-materials
GSP Communications Plan
Page 4
Figure 1. POCs at the North Central Region Office to support UVBGSP
GSP Communications Plan
Page 5
Goals and Desired Outcomes
In August 2014, the California Legislature passed the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA), which went into effect January 1, 2015. SGMA, a package of three bills (AB 1739
Dickinson, SB 1168 Pavley, and SB 1319 Pavley), requires the long-term and sustainable
management of groundwater resources and places this responsibility on local authorities.
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) were required to be formed by June 30, 2017 as
the responsible authorities for developing GSPs and achieving SGMA’s implementation goals
and mandates.
The key objective of the Ukiah Valley Basin GSP will be to address groundwater sustainability
by designing strategies that avoid and prevent undesirable results to regional groundwater
resources over the next 20 years, and beyond. Because SGMA requires local stakeholders and
beneficial users to be part of the GSP planning and implementation process, the UVBGSA will
identify and engage stakeholders to integrate their input into the decision-making, coordination,
and management processes. Specific processes are not outlined for the consideration of these
interests in the legislation and it is upon the UVBGSA to define such processes. However,
SGMA specifically requires public meetings to be held during the GSP development and
implementation when:
• When the GSA intends to adopt or amend a GSP (CA Water Code Section § 10728.4);
• Prior the GSA imposing or increasing a fee (CA Water Code Section § 10730.(b)(1))
In order to meet these requirements, UVBGSA is implementing an adaptive management
strategy as explained in detail in the sections below. This strategy contains three phases: (1)
planning, (2) implementation, and (3) evaluation/response, and is intended to work
fundamentally as described in the Community Water Center whitepaper 4 on this topic. For the
planning phase, this CommPlan will serve as the document for communication and engagement
in the GSP development and will be updated as necessary. For the implementation phase, the
methods and strategies to be used are described in the Communications Strategy Section.
Finally, for the third phase, the Evaluation and Assessment Section identifies questions to
assess the effectiveness of the C&E plan and to deliver effective and comprehensive responses.
UVBGSA AND UVB GSP
In May 2017, UVBGSA was created to by a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) to serve as the
official GSA for the UVB to comply with SGMA. Under the agreement, the UVBGSA shall take
actions deemed necessary to ensure sustainable management of the UVB, as required by
SGMA 5.
The UVBGSA consists of a variety of local public agencies with water supply, water
management and land use responsibilities. These include the County of Mendocino, the City of
4 Dobbin, K., Clary, J., Firestone, L., Christian-Smit, J. (2015), “Collaborating for Success: Stakeholder Engagement
for Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Implementation.” Prepared by community water center.
5 Resolution of the election of the UVBGSA can be found here:
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/service/gsadocument/download/3980
JPA forming the UVBGSA can be found here:
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/service/gsadocument/download/4159
GSP Communications Plan
Page 6
Ukiah, the Upper Russian River Water Agency, and the Russian River Flood Control and Water
Conservation and Improvement District. The boundaries of these agencies are shown in Figure
2. The County of Mendocino exercises land use authority on the land overlying the basin. The
City of Ukiah is a local municipality that exercises water supply, water management and land use
authority within the City’s boundaries. The Upper Russian River Water Agency is a JPA
representing Millview County Water District, Willow County Water District, Calpella County
Water District, and Redwood Valley Water District. The County Water Districts have water
supply and water management responsibilities within the UVB. The Russian River Flood Control
and Water Conservation and Improvement District is a special district created by State statute
(State of California Statute, Act 4830). The District exercises water supply and water
management authority within the UVB.
The UVBGSA Board also includes a tribal representative and an agricultural representative, as
noted in Table 1. Representation by these stakeholder groups on the Board of Directors was a
decision made by the members of the JPA.
In accordance with SGMA priorities established by DWR, the UVBGSA must develop and
submit its GSP by January 31, 2022; the plan must include actions to maintain or achieve
sustainability within twenty years of the GSP’s adoption. The information contained in the GSP
will comprehensively characterize the conditions in the UVB, determine strategies for
sustainably managing groundwater resources, satisfy the requirements of SGMA, be consistent
with Emergency Regulations and guidance prepared by DWR, be implementable by stakeholders
of the UVB, and describe monitoring and reporting to DWR. Moreover, in order to reach the best
outcome for the GSA and local stakeholders, and to satisfy SGMA requirements, all beneficial
uses and the interests of beneficial users of groundwater must be considered through the active
involvement of local stakeholders.
GSP Communications Plan
Page 7
Figure 2. UVBGSA JPA members and their respective boundaries.
GSP Communications Plan
Page 8
UVBGSA DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
The general voting procedure of the UVBGSA is outlined in the JPA. Each member of the Board
has one vote. Unless otherwise specified, all affirmative decisions of the Board require the
affirmative vote of a simple majority of all the Board’s Directors participating in voting,
provided that, if a Director is disqualified from voting on a matter before the Board because of a
conflict of interest, that Director shall be excluded from the calculation of the total number of
Directors that constitute a majority. The Board of Directors shall strive for consensus of all
members on all items.
With respect to GSP development, the above-mentioned procedure will be used for all subjects
that require Board’s action.
The LWA Team, the Board, and the TAC have come up with a preferred method of
communication with regards to GSP deliverables and additional matters that need the Board’s
approval and/or the TAC’s involvement and direction. As a soft arrangement, meaning the
timeline can be adjusted respective to the task in hand, the LWA Team will provide a month for
the TAC to review a document or elaborate on a subject that is scheduled to be acted upon in the
upcoming meeting. GSA Board will be provided with at least two weeks advance time before an
official review/presentation of a document for approval at a Board meeting. As explained, all
efforts will be made so that discussions and/or presentations are conducted in the TAC and
Board public meetings to facilitate input from stakeholders and interested parties. In addition,
key documents will be available in advance on County’s website or via the C&E Tool,
whichever appropriate, as a working draft document. Comments made by the TAC, the Board, or
by the public will be addressed in a reasonable timeline (if possible up to the next public
meeting) and the final draft of the deliverable will be presented and action taken by the Board in
the next scheduled meeting. This procedure is illustrated in Figure 3.
During all public meetings, time constrained opportunities will be offered for the public to
comment on all public agenda items. In addition, an opportunity for public comment on items
not on the agenda will be provided.
Figure 3. General review process of deliverables.
COMMUNICATION OBJECTIVES TO SUPPORT THE GSP
The UVBGSA will strive to build broad support for key elements of the GSP and will facilitate
the effective engagement of stakeholders and beneficial users of groundwater to achieve the best
outcome for its GSP. The following are the guiding principles of the GSP communication
strategy:
Inform the public with balanced information to assist them in understanding the issues
to be addressed, alternative management measures, opportunities, and/or solutions.
GSP Communications Plan
Page 9
Consult with the public by obtaining feedback and public comments on analyses and
decisions. UVBGSA will encourage the public to be involved in the decision-making
process since they are affected by the GSP and can influence the outcome.
Involve beneficial users and work with them throughout the process to ensure that their
concerns, aspirations, and their overall input is understood and considered.
Collaborate with stakeholders in the decision-making process including the
development of management alternatives and identification of preferred solutions.
Empower the members of the GSA by fully considering their priorities and sufficiently
implementing them in the GSP.
Inform all engaged on how their input affected the decision.
Ensure process integrity and transparency.
Utilize facilitation and outreach methods that minimize the cost and environmental
impacts of travel.
Leverage available technological platforms to increase collaboration and efficiency.
Maintain appropriate alignment between engagement, content development, and project
management.
Details of the methods and strategies used to accomplish these objectives are laid out in the
following sections.
OVERRIDING CONCERNS, MAJOR CONCERNS OR CHALLENGES
A challenge in developing and implementing the GSP is the time constraint that may limit the
capability to build relationships and underlying trust between all sectors of the public involved
and/or affected by the GSP. UVBGSA made the necessary efforts through several public
meetings, adequate outreach and notices, and involving major beneficial users in its board of
directors during the formation of the GSA. The GSP development process brings about new
challenges that will need broader involvement and trust to be established. Conflicting interests on
the use of the shared resources may arise that can only be resolved through an effective decision-
making process. It is also possible that needs and interests of particular stakeholders may change
throughout the development process, complicating the dynamics of the planning process. The
CommPlan and its thorough implementation will assist the UVBGSA in overcoming these types
of challenges.
In addition, public outreach and stakeholder engagement takes time and resources to be done
well. This can become a significant challenge since both the time and the resources available to
the UVBGSA are limited. However, the Board believes that its planned strategies and venues of
engagement will enable its communication and engagement efforts to be effective. The Board is
confident that a balanced and effective investment in effective communication and engagement
will lead to improved outcomes, optimized resources, broad support, and reduced conflicts,
which subsequently outweighs its respective cost.
Stakeholders Involved in the Project
SGMA (CA Water Code Section § 10723.2) and GSP Regulations Section § 354.10.(a)
collectively require the UVBGSA to consider interests of all beneficial uses and users of
groundwater basin and provide a description of those users and uses, the types of parties
representing those interests, and the nature of consultation with those parties. Table 3
GSP Communications Plan
Page 10
summarizes the list of stakeholders identified by the UVBGSA. This list will be updated as
necessary.
Table 3. Identified stakeholders and interested parties for the UVB.
Category of Interest Stakeholder Groups Contact Person
UVBGSA Board of Directors
Land Use County of Mendocino Carre Brown
Land Use/Urban Use City of Ukiah Douglas F. Crane
Integrated Water Management Russian River Flood Control Alfred White
Urban Use Upper Russian River Water
Agency Jerry Cardoza
California Native American tribes Tribal Seat Brandi Brown
Agricultural Use/ Private Users Agricultural Seat Zachary Robinson
UVB TAC Members
Land Use County of Mendocino Glenn McGourty
Land Use/Urban Use City of Ukiah Sean White
Urban Use Upper Russian River Water
Agency Ken Todd
Integrated Water Management Russian River Flood Control Tyler Rodrigue
Land Use Sonoma County Water
Agency Don Seymour
Urban/ Agricultural Use
Mendocino County
Resource Conservation
District
Mike Webster
General Public/Land Use California Land Stewardship
Institute Laurel Marcus
Land Use County of Mendocino Glenn McGourty
California Native American tribes Tribal Representative Sonny Elliot, Jr.
Agricultural Use/ Private Users Agricultural Representative Levi Paulin
Public Water Systems
Urban Use
Redwood Valley County
Water District
Millview County Water
District
Willow County Water District
Calpella County Water
District
Private Water Companies
Urban Use City of 10,000 Buddhas
Rogina Water Company
GSP Communications Plan
Page 11
Category of Interest Stakeholder Groups Contact Person
Yokayo Water Systems
California Native American Tribes
California Native American tribes
Redwood Valley Rancheria
Tribal Representative on
UVBGSA and the TAC
Coyote Valley Reservation
Pinoleville Pomo Nation
Potter Valley Rancheria
Guidiville Rancheria
Hopland Reservation
Agriculture
Agricultural Use
Mendocino County Farm
Bureau
Mendocino County Wine
Growers Association Agricultural Representative
on UVBGSA and the TAC Pear Growers
Cannabis Cultivation
State Entities
Environmental and Ecosystem UC Davis Cooperative
Extension
State Lands Department of Water
Resources (DWR)
State Lands/Environmental and
Ecosystem
North Coast Regional Water
Quality Control Board
State Lands/Environmental and
Ecosystem
California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
Federal Entities
Federal Lands/Environmental and
Ecosystem/Integrated Water Management
US Army Corps of
Engineers
Federal Lands/Environmental and
Ecosystem
US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS)
Environmental and Ecosystem NOAA Fisheries
Environmental and Ecosystem Forest Service
UVB Residents
General Public
Public
Disadvantaged
Communities
Citizen Groups
METHODS FOR PROMOTING ACTIVE STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
GSP Communications Plan
Page 12
As UVBGSA moves towards developing its GSP, it will initially focus on stakeholder
identification and assessment. The LWA Team will conduct stakeholder interviews at the outset
of the planning effort to understand the interests, concerns, opportunities, and resources that exist
in the stakeholder community. During the GSP development process, the Board will evolve its
outreach efforts by identifying additional stakeholders, understanding their interests and
concerns, and providing a transparent and responsive communication venue for their
engagement. This will happen through the following approach:
• Develop and maintain an updated interested parties’ list through UVBGSA stakeholder
identification and outreach, voluntary subscription, and e-notification system.
• Conduct interviews with key stakeholders at the outset of the GSP planning effort.
• Hold regular public meetings of the UVBGSA Board and the TAC, encouraging public
participation through County website and the C&E Tool. Convene a collaborative
decision-making process through public meetings with the goal of building a shared
understanding and reducing conflicts. This will provide an additional venue for interested
parties to get involved in the more technical side of development and implementation of
GSP.
• Provide alternative opportunities for stakeholders or interested parties that face more
barriers to participation such as holding interviews with the LWA Team, translated
materials, evening meetings, etc.
• Use the C&E Tool as the web-based tool to provide increased access to data and
information in a user-friendly form. Provide emails/newsletters to interested parties
updating them on newly developed documents or information and seeking their
participation and/or comments.
Methods outlined above will help UVBGSA conduct the implementation phase of its adaptive
management strategy.
USE OF PUBLIC INPUT AND RESPONSE
The Board’s success in implementing their adaptive management strategy will depend, in part,
on how it responds to public input. Moreover, a recognizable employment of the public input
boosts engagement and increases the trust in the process and plan. The UVBGSA will respond to
constructive public comments and concerns and demonstrate how they shaped the outcome at
hand. Efforts will include:
• Making draft deliverables provided for the TAC or the UVBGSA review available to the
public to materialize a more fruitful public discussion during the public meetings
scheduled for deciding on those deliverables.
• Publishing Board-approved draft final GSP Chapters for public comment with reasonable
commenting periods. If necessary, responses to comments will be published to elaborate
on how they were implemented or considered in revising the documents.
• Continued implementation of the methods for promoting active engagement of the public
with a focus on obtaining comments and responding to concerns.
Communications Strategy
As explained in the previous sections, UVBGSA will use a multitude of communication methods
to convey information and obtain input from stakeholders. The applicability of each method will
GSP Communications Plan
Page 13
depend on the goal of the intended communication. As a general rule of thumb, the
communication strategy is divided into external and internal communications as explained
below. UVBGSA will implement a comprehensive communication and engagement plan that
meets SGMA requirements and will try to optimize its strategies in external and internal
communications to maximize the end benefits.
INTERNAL COMMUNICATION
Internal communication is defined as any communication between and among the UVBGSA
Board members, Mendocino County, the TAC or other convened committees, and the LWA
Team that is necessary to keep the planning effort moving forward and to execute the scope of
services articulated in the contract with the LWA Team. The Board, County, and the TAC will
convey internal communications among their own members or with each other using their
preferred methods such as emails, phone conversations, etc., consistent with applicable
regulatory requirements. If a meeting is arranged between any combination of the three, notes
will be taken and kept on record by an assigned member of the participants. The LWA Team will
take and keep notes of the meetings with the Board and the TAC. These notes will be made
available following the approval of the Board via the C&E Tool. The LWA Team will provide
monthly progress reports to the Board.
EXTERNAL COMMUNICATION
External communication is defined as any communication of the UVBGSA, the TAC, the LWA
Team, or any other committee with the public (which includes DWR POC). These
communications may occur through emails and newsletters, public meetings, mailed
flyers/brochures/advertisement, handouts, group interviews, and web-based communications
through the C&E Tool.
For all public meetings, including but not limited to regular Board and TAC meetings, agenda
for the meeting is posted online on the County website and subscribers to the e-notification
system are notified. Electronic flyer for the meeting is also included in the newsletter and
interested parties are notified through their preferred contact method. Meeting minutes are
recorded as the normal procedure of the Board and the TAC and will be posted afterwards on
County website. In addition, the LWA Team keeps record of all its communication with external
parties including group interviews. Those records will be available through appropriate
procedures if approved by the Board.
Online and web-based resources including the C&E Tool, County Website, and County Social
Media outlets are regularly updated and utilized for informing the public of the project status,
posting draft GSP Chapters, publishing notices, receiving comments, demonstrating how public
input is being implemented, disclosing results and data, and sharing news and updates.
Public Meetings
Currently scheduled public meetings are shown in Table 4. This schedule is subject to change as
the GSP development process progresses and the GSP development schedule is updated
(Appendix A). Meetings with the UVBGSA Board and the TAC are multi-purpose venues for
public engagement and outreach. The LWA Team will provide progress reports at the meetings
unless directed otherwise by the Board; presentations for the Board members or the TAC may be
conducted to assist in the decision-making process or to provide for information to the public;
GSP Communications Plan
Page 14
public comments regarding scheduled and non-scheduled items will be received; and, actions
will be taken and decisions will be made with regards to the GSP development and
implementation.
Table 4. UVBGSA important meeting dates for GSP development process.
Date
Subject of Discussion at UVBGSA
Meeting (1:30 PM)
Subject of Discussion at TAC
Meeting (9:30 AM)
13 September 2018 Introduction
Project Schedule
8 November 2018 Data Management Plan Needs
Assessment
Data Gap Analysis
Monitoring Network Analysis
10 January 2019
Communication Plan
Data Management Plan
Data Gap Analysis
Monitoring Network Analysis
Phase 1 Documents Review
9 May 2019 Data Gap Analysis
Monitoring Network Analysis Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
10 October 2019 Data Management System
Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Groundwater Model
9 January 2020 Groundwater Model
Sustainable Management Criteria
Measurable Objectives
12 March 2020
Sustainable Management Criteria
Measurable Objectives
Future Baseline Water Budget
Alternatives Evaluation
9 July 2020 Future Baseline Water Budget
Alternative Scenarios
Sustainable Management Criteria
Measurable Objectives
10 September 2020 Final Sustainable Management Criteria
Final Measurable Objectives
12 November 2020 Final GSP Implementation Plan
14 January 2021 Draft GSP
11 March 2021 Final GSP Draft/ GSP Submittal Draft GSP
If determined essential by the Board, additional public meetings may be scheduled to further
distribute the information to the public at specified locations and times. These meetings will be
appropriately advertised through the County website, emails and newsletters, interested party list
subscribers, and postal mail or flyers.
Stakeholder Survey and Mapping
At the outset of the GSP development effort, the LWA Team will convene meetings with
identified key stakeholders to gather important information using a survey form tailored to the
UVB GSP effort.
GSP Communications Plan
Page 15
The LWA Team will contact representatives for the key stakeholder organizations to learn more
about them, describe the GSP development process, and will invite them to engage in the
process. Prior to these meetings. the LWA Team will develop background information, maps,
and a stakeholder survey form. Follow up communications may be made to answer questions
that come up or to better understand stakeholder interests, issues, and challenges.
After the stakeholder surveys are completed, the LWA team will compile the information
received in a “Lay of the Land” document. This document will summarize information received
from stakeholders regarding initial concerns/issues, interests, challenges, preferred methods of
communication, and desired level of engagement.
Venues for Engaging
To achieve the goals and objectives of the CommPlan, the UVBGSA will utilize multiple
outreach venues as wells as broader communication tools. This will allow stakeholder
engagement at different levels best suited to stakeholder needs. The Board will use these venues
to provide regular feedback and updates and to receive comments. These venues are discussed in
previous sections and are listed below:
- Public meetings of the Board and Advisory Committees: for all interested parties.
Advertised and announced through appropriate means such as email newsletters,
interested parties subscription lists, e-notification system, flyers and banners, etc.
- Stakeholder interviews and/or work group meetings
- Community or regional forums: conducted on as needed basis by the UVBGSA, the
LWA Team, or appropriate public agencies identified by the Board.
- Public workshops/briefings: Conducted if deemed necessary by the Board with the help
of the LWA Team, DWR, and/or other appropriate public agencies for information
sharing and receipt of input.
- Digital venues: County website and the C&E Tool will be used as the main online
resources for conducting and tracking engagement and outreach activities. Emails and
newsletters will be delivered to the interested parties’ list and subscribers. Available
social media outlets will be used as needed.
- Mailing services: provided on as needed basis and may include one or a combination of
informational brochures, advertisement, flyers, handouts, etc.
C&E IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
Implementation of the C&E Plan (CommPlan) will follow the timeline shown in Figure 4. The
implementation timeline is subject to periodic update and change dependent on the status of the
project and the GSP development schedule (Appendix A).
GSP Communications Plan
Page 16
Figure 4. C&E implementation timeline.
Evaluation and Assessment
At key C&E milestones laid out in the C&E Implementation Timeline Section, the UVBGSA
will evaluate the effectiveness of its responses to the following questions:
• Is there a shared understanding of the GSP’s goals and its implementation timeline?
• Are stakeholders educated about the GSP development process and their own role?
• Has the GSA received positive press coverage?
• Do diverse stakeholders feel included?
• Has there been behavior changes related to the program goals? Or is improved
trust/relationships in evidence among participants?
• Has the CommPlan been implemented and updated?
• Has the interested parties’ list been expanded?
• Have there been well-attended and robust public hearings at all of the necessary
junctures?
• Are all established venues for stakeholders open and effective?
• Are there formal mechanisms to assess outcomes and make improvements?
Reviewing these results will help identify what worked well, what did not work as planned, and
to summarize lessons learned.
GSP Communications Plan
Appendix A. GSP Development Schedule
GSP Communications Plan
Page 1
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 1 of 2
Item No.:3.e
Date:2/14/19
To:Board of Directors
Subject:Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action Regarding the Development of
Components of the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing
Summary:
The Board will receive an update and presentation from Larry Walker and Associates regarding
components of the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan including Technical Advisory
Committee recommendations, draft database management plan and assessment of data gaps.
Recommended Action:
Provide direction to staff regarding the development of the Ukiah Valley Groundwater
Sustainability Plan.
Background:
On June 14, 2018, the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (UVBGSA)
recommended approval of a contract with Larry Walker and Associates for the development of
the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). On July 10, 2018, the Mendocino
County Water Agency Board of Directors approved the contract with Larry Walker and
Associates. On September 13, 2018, Larry Walker and Associates present an overview of the
project and schedule to solicit feedback from the Board. Larry Walker and Associates will be
presenting the Board on a regular basis to review components of the GSP for feedback and
approval.
Fiscal Summary:N/A
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 2 of 2
Action: ___________________________________________________
Motion:_____________________ 2nd:____________________________
Draft Technical Memo
To: Laura Foglia and Tom Grovhoug
From: Irene Ramirez and Christian Petersen
Date: December 24, 2018
Re: Data Management Plan for Development of the Ukiah Basin Groundwater
Sustainability Plan, GEI Project No. 1804400
To: Laura Foglia and Tom Grovhoug
Introduction
The purpose of the Data Management Plan (Plan) is to guide the selection of a Data Management
System (DMS) and in the collection, review and uploading of data used to develop a Groundwater
Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the Ukiah Basin. This Plan documents the work that will be completed by
the LWA/ GEI consulting team.
A needs assessment was completed to determine the type of data and information required to complete
the GSP, to seek input for consideration in designing the data management system, and to establish the
goals of the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin (UVB) DMS. The intent of this document is to provide
guidance on the approach and process to efficiently develop and populate the DMS.
The Plan will now serve as guidance for the collection and management of groundwater and surface
water information required for GSP development and will be used as part of the continued reporting
during the GSP implementation phase. This Plan also presents a long-term strategy for building and
expanding the size and functionality of the DMS.
SGMA Requirements
The SGMA regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 1.5, Subchapter 2)
give broad requirements on data management, stating that a GSP must follow the following guidelines
for a DMS:
• Article 3, Section 352.6: Each Agency shall develop and maintain a data management system
that is capable of storing and reporting information relevant to the development or
implementation of the Plan and monitoring of the basin. Also, must have clear identification of
all monitoring sites and description of the QA/ QC checks performed on the data.
• Article 5, Section 354.40: Monitoring data shall be stored in the data management system
developed pursuant to Section 352.6. A copy of the monitoring data shall be included in the
Annual Report and submitted electronically on forms provided by the Department.
• Well information used to develop the basin setting shall be maintained in the Agency’s data
management system
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
2
In summary, to comply with SGMA, the Groundwater Sustainability Agency will need to create a DMS
that stores groundwater basin information and reports monitoring data. The data being stored in the
DMS must have a clear unique identifier and QA/QC must be performed on the data.
Data Management During GSP Development
During the development of the GSP, the DMS will be populated with data used to support the
completion of the GSP. This section describes an overview of what the LWA/GEI team understands to be
the types of data and information needed to develop the Ukiah Valley Basin GSP. The specific data
needed to populate the DMS are shown in Table 1.
Data Needs
The table below illustrates the datasets that are publicly accessible or available from the Mendocino
County and will be used in populating the DMS. Other data that will populate the database is point
locations that may not have a relationship to the well. This data may include precipitation, landuse, and
surface water data.
Table 1. Datasets Available for Use in Populating the Ukiah Valley Basin DMS
DATA SETS
DATA CATEGORY
WELL AND
SITE INFO
WELL
CONSTRUCTION
AQUIFER
PROPERTIES AND
LITHOLOGY
WATER
LEVEL PUMPING RECHARGE DIVERSION
WATER
QUALITY
DWR
(CASGEM) X X X
DWR (WELL
LOGS)* X X X
DWR (CDEC) X X
MENDOCINO
COUNTY X X X X
GEOTRACKER
GAMA X X
USGS X X X X
IRRIGATED
LANDS
PROGRAM X
PARTICIPATING
DISTRICTS X X X X X X X X
*Well log information will be entered for selected wells, as-needed to satisfy the requirements of the SGMA regulations.
During the development of the GSP by the client team and project stakeholders, access to data through
the DMS will be required for completion of several chapters and sections. The GSP sections that will
need the data listed in Table 1 are as follows: Overview of the Plan Area, Hydrogeologic Conceptual
Model, Overview of Existing Monitoring Programs, Groundwater Elevation and Flow Conditions, Ukiah
Subbasin Water Budget, Groundwater Quality Conditions, Land Surface Subsidence, Interconnected
Surface Water, Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems, and Conditions as of January 1,2015, the date
when SGMA went into effect.
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
3
Data Design
The proposed DMS data structure design is shown in Appendix E. The figure contains an entity
relationship diagram (ERD) of the DMS. The ERD is a graphical representation of the different tables to
be included in the data system. The ERD is color coordinated to show the relationship between tables:
• Blue Tables – Main tables that include point data with a unique identification and unique point
location to be added to database (e.g. Well_Info and Site Info)
• Green Tables – Are related to the main table and hold additional details about the well or
unique identifier (e.g. correlation of a well point with water level or water quality)
• Orange Tables – Lookup tables that contain the unique values for specific data columns that
can be used as filters when data needs to be queried (e.g. Season_LU and Principal_Aquifer_LU)
A breif desription of the main and sub tables in the ERD is listed below. Figure 1, also has all the tables
that are currently in the Microsoft Access Database and the tables that will be added. A more detailed
description of each column in each table can be found in Appendix B .
• Well_Info - Contains general information about well, including identifiers used by various
agencies.
• Site_Info - Contains site information about a well, recharge site, or diversion, including location,
elevation, and address information
• Well_Constr - Contains well construction information, including depth, diameter, etc.
• Well_Constr_Screen- Supplements Well_Constr with well screen information. One well can have
many screens.
• Well_Geologic_Aquifer - Contains information about the aquifer parameters of the well such as
pumping test information, confinement, and transmissivity.
• Well_Geologic_Lithology - Lithologic information at a well site. Each well may have many
lithologies at different depths.
• Water_Level - Water level measurements for wells
• Well_Pumping - Pumping measurements for wells, annual or monthly
• SW_Recharge - Recharge measurements for a recharge site, annual or monthly
• SW_Diversion - Diversion volume measurements for a diversion site, annual or monthly
• Water_Quality - Contains water quality data for wells or any other type of site
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
4
1
Figure 1. Tables in the Ukiah Valley Basin DMS
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
5
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
6
Data Compilation and Review
As data is being compiled, it will follow the generalized workflow shown in Figure 2. The LWA/GEI team
will obtain data from a wide variety of sources and compile into excel files that will be organized into a
formatted data template that can then be processed through the Access Microsoft code. Before the
data is processed into the Access database, a data review process will occur to make sure the data being
uploaded into the database attains data quality objectives. After the data is prepared it will be pulled
into the database by LWA/ GEI team using the VBA access code. The goal of the Access Microsoft Data
Management System is to centralize all data listed in Table 1 for Ukiah Valley Basin. Each step in the
data process shown on Figure 2 is described below.
Figure 2. Data Process
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
7
Data Compilation
LWA has compiled some data (Appendix A) already and portions of the data will be used to populate the
Access database. The data that LWA has gathered is in a GIS database and the other data being
compiled are coming from webpages, so the data will be exported as excel files for simplicity. For
efficiency and operational flexibility, the data will be exported or converted to excel files (e.g. xlsx or
csv). GEI will obtain additional Ukiah Basin data from larger databases as displayed in Figure 2.
During completion of the GSP, the LWA/GEI team anticipates continuing to identify and obtain
additional data that will benefit the GSP, so this collection process may continue through completion of
the Draft GSP.
Data Review
The complied data will be reviewed before it is migrated into the Access database. The review process
will be a thorough preliminary evaluation of the data. The team’s data review process will be focused
and limited in scope during the development of the Draft GSP. It will include the following checks:
• Identifying outliers that may have been introduced during the original data entry process by
others.
• GEI will remove or flag questionable data being uploaded in the DMS. This applies to historic
water level data, water quality data, and water level over time.
• Visualization of data in various software platforms outside the DMS will be used to further
assess the quality of data before uploading.
After the data is imported into the Access DMS, the user can check the error tables to see if any errors
occurred during the import process. The error tables that currently exist in the access database is water
level and/ or well construction data. Figure 3 has a few examples of how the errors appear in the
database.
Figure 3. Error Handling in DMS
Data Upload/ Import
Following data compilation and review, GEI will organize the data into interim spreadsheets, that are
QA/QC’ed and then uploaded into Access Database. The data will be uploaded into the Access Database
using templates that are similar to the tables in the database. During the Upload process, GEI will utilize
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
8
upload tools, some of which are referenced in Appendix C. Appendix D provides a diagram of how GEI’s
data analyst will logically work through each row of data in the excel files. Note that each process shown
depends on the type of data being imported.
Data Management System Selection
Desktop Application
Microsoft Access will serve as the primary software platform for the DMS, allowing users to query and
export data. Microsoft Excel will be used for populating and updating the DMS and for exporting data to
users.
Because the DMS will have a wide range of users, including water agency staff and their consultants,
Excel and Access were chosen as platforms as these tools are widely used and do not require specialized
programming skills. It should be noted that the Access platform does have limitations, particularly with
respect to the ability to build web-based functionality. However, at this stage of GSP development, web-
based functionality is not essential, and the DMS can be migrated in the future to a software platform
that supports web-based functionality should the need arise.
A second limitation of an Access-based DMS is that Microsoft Access does not have a robust ability to
reconcile data when multiple copies of a database are modified independently and recombined. Initially,
this limitation will not be important because the DMS will be housed on GEI’s internal network,
accessible by GEI staff. When the DMS is transferred to a locally-managed network, procedures for
access and use of the DMS by staff at participating agencies will be developed together with protocols
for backing up the DMS and for secure password protection.
The rational is that the Microsoft desktop application is the best fit given the schedule and budget
available for development of this initial GSP. There will also be password protection levels placed on the
database to restrict certain users from editing the data and/or code. The LWA/GEI team will have
developer rights, with full access to the database. This access capability can be transferred to the
Mendocino County when the desktop application is ready to be passed along.
Web Tool Application – Considerations during SGMA implementation for
2022-2042
An Oracle database could be served as a secondary software platform for the DMS allowing users to
view the data from web interface. Microsoft Access and/or excel spreadsheets would be used to help
populate the DMS.
The benefits of having the DMS in Oracle is the possibility to host the data on a web page. The data can
be set up with a GIS interface which can help with the GSP implementation and long-term monitoring.
The limitations to an Oracle database is that it would have to be maintained by someone who has
special programming skills. Another limitation is that the data would have to be displayed in a specific
manner on the webpage to extract the data and can’t be easily extracted by selecting to download all
the data.
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
9
Schedule
In February 2019, the LWA/GEI team will present and discuss the Data Management Plan with the
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). During this meeting, we hope to reach agreement with the TAC on
the DMS Plan and use of software as described herein. Completion of the DMS is planned for the end of
2019.
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
10
Attachment A - Data Field Descriptions
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
11
Data Format Time
Period Number Source Comments
Streams Shapefile
Received from Sarah. We can also
download from state and federal
databases in case.
Springs Shapefile Received form Sarah.
Water bodies Shapefile
Received from Sarah. We can also
download from state and federal
databases in case.
Streamflow
Measurements
(gages)
CSV-
Shapefile
1991-
2015
7 (3 inside
UVB) USGS We can download data and we
already have for five of them
Precipitation Varies 8 (Daily*) NOAA
Received from Sarah. We can
download (Samira has already)
from state and federal databases in
case.
Precipitation 1 (Hourly) CIMIS
Received from Sarah. We can
download (Samira has already)
from state and federal databases in
case.
Precipitation 2 (*) CDEC
Received from Sarah. We can
download (Samira has already)
from state and federal databases in
case.
Land Use Shapefile 2010 1 DWR
Land Use Shapefile 2014 1 SGMA Portal LU
Viewer
Land Use Shapefile 2011 1 Sarah (NLCD) Received from Sarah
Land Use Shapefile 2011 1 Sarah
Received from Sarah. Mendocino
County Vector Shapefile. We don't
know what year it is. Probably what
LACO used.
Geology Shapefile Received from Sarah
Elevation
(DEM)
Raters
Lidar 2017 USGS We have to download
Elevation
(DEM) Sarah shared NED for UVB area
with 30m resolution
Wells Shapefile 48 CASGEM
We have the map of the 42 wells.
We should download the data from
database
Wells Shapefile 436 GeoTracker
We have the map of the 436 wells.
We should download the data from
database. It's going to take some
time if we can't get it from Sarah.
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
12
Data Format Time
Period Number Source Comments
Soil Map/CSV 1 DWR/SSURGO
Received from Sarah. We can also
download from state and federal
databases in case. What Sarah
shared does not seem to be local.
Geologic Cross
Sections Maps 3 LACO Prelim
Studies
3 cross sections we don't have the
maps.
Land Use Excel Files 1991-
2015 * UC Davis 2017 Haven't received it yet, it is in the
2017 Masters Thesis.
Streamflow
Measurements
(gages)
4 NFSM
Missing timeseries data. Shapefile
was not shared but LACO has a
figure
Streamflow
Measurements
(gages)
3 CLSI Missing timeseries data. Have the
shapefile and location.
Wells IHCM Appendix includes some of
them.
Wells
River Bed
Properties
We have some info from
MODLFOW file and the LACO
Water Budget study, we won't be
probably getting much data in this
sense.
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
13
Attachment B – Access DMS Field Description
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
14
Attachment C - Data Upload/ Import
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
15
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
16
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
17
Appendix D – Access Database Logic Diagram for CASGEM and Geotracker
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
18
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
19
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
20
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
21
Attachment E - Entity Relationship Diagram (ERD) Proposed for the Ukiah Valley
Basin DMS
Draft - Data Management Plan for the Ukiah Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan
22
January 18, 2019 Page 1
Data Gaps Summary
Memorandum
DATE:
Tom Grovhoug, PE
Laura Foglia, PhD
1480 Drew Avenue, Suite 100
Davis, CA 95618
Phone: (530) 753 6400
Fax: (530) 753 7030
tomg@lwa.com
lauraf@lwa.com
Amir Mani, PhD, PE
720 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 204
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 394 1036
Fax: (310) 394 8959
amirm@lwa.com
1/18/2019
TO: Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater
Sustainability Agency Technical
Advisory Committee
COPY TO: Ms. Sarah Dukett
SUBJECT: Data Gaps Summary
This memorandum has been prepared to summarize the past efforts made to analyze data gaps in
the phase 1 of the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) project and discuss
the recent attempts of the Larry Walker Associates (LWA) team to assess the remaining data gaps
considering the newly made available data, results of the phase 1 reports, and discussions with the
members of technical advisory committee (TAC). Following the review of this memorandum by the
members of the TAC and the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) and according to the
agreement between the County of Mendocino (County) and LWA, it is expected for the Data Gap
Analysis Task to be deemed concluded with the consideration of any comments made during the
reviews.
This memorandum first describes the requirements outlined in the Department of Water
Resources (DWR) GSP Emergency Regulations (Regs) with respect to data gaps. Then, it
summarizes the phase 1 report and how it addressed the Regs requirements. Finally, it notes the
discussions and decisions made during the TAC meetings and the efforts underway to address
the deficiencies that were determined during the process.
January 18, 2019 Page 2
Data Gaps Summary
Requirements of the DWR GSP Emergency Regulations
Data gap is defined according to the Regs Section § 351. Definitions as a lack of information that
significantly affects the understanding of the basin setting or evaluation of the efficacy of Plan
implementation, and could limit the ability to assess whether a basin is being sustainably managed.
Data gaps and their assessment are primarily emphasized in Section § 354.38. Assessment and
Improvement of Monitoring Network:
(a) Each Agency shall review the monitoring network and include an evaluation in the Plan and
each five-year assessment, including a determination of uncertainty and whether there are data
gaps that could affect the ability of the Plan to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin.
(b) Each Agency shall identify data gaps wherever the basin does not contain a sufficient number
of monitoring sites, does not monitor sites at a sufficient frequency, or utilizes monitoring sites
that are unreliable, including those that do not satisfy minimum standards of the monitoring
network adopted by the Agency.
(c) If the monitoring network contains data gaps, the Plan shall include a description of the
following:
(1) The location and reason for data gaps in the monitoring network.
(2) Local issues and circumstances that limit or prevent monitoring.
(d) Each Agency shall describe steps that will be taken to fill data gaps before the next five-year
assessment, including the location and purpose of newly added or installed monitoring sites.
As is clear from the above statements, existing data gaps are a major factor in the design and
implementation of the monitoring network. Data gaps can be a result of insufficient spatial
coverage, insufficient temporal coverage, infrequent temporal data, or bad quality of data.
Identification of data gaps are required to be discussed in the Basin Settings section of the GSP as
well as the Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM) as indicated in the Regs Sections § 354.12.
Introduction to Basin Setting, and § 354.14. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model:
§ 354.12. Introduction to Basin Setting
This Subarticle describes the information about the physical setting and characteristics of the
basin and current conditions of the basin that shall be part of each Plan, including the
identification of data gaps and levels of uncertainty, which comprise the basin setting that serves
as the basis for defining and assessing reasonable sustainable management criteria and projects
and management actions. Information provided pursuant to this Subarticle shall be prepared by
or under the direction of a professional geologist or professional engineer.
§ 354.14. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
(b) The hydrogeologic conceptual model shall be summarized in a written description that
includes the following:
…, (5) Identification of data gaps and uncertainty within the hydrogeologic conceptual model
Regs maintain the emphasis on data gaps evaluation and uncertainty estimation by incorporating
them as a main criterion in the initial plan evaluation by the DWR and the following periodic
evaluations required by the GSA:
January 18, 2019 Page 3
Data Gaps Summary
§ 355.4. Criteria for Plan Evaluation
…, (2) Whether the Plan identifies reasonable measures and schedules to eliminate data
gaps.
(3) Whether the Agency is addressing data gaps and reducing the levels of uncertainty identified
in the Plan.
§ 356.4. Periodic Evaluation by Agency
(1) An assessment of monitoring network function with an analysis of data collected to
date, identification of data gaps, and the actions necessary to improve the monitoring
network, consistent with the requirements of Section 354.38.
(2) If the Agency identifies data gaps, the Plan shall describe a program for the
acquisition of additional data sources, including an estimate of the timing of that
acquisition, and for incorporation of newly obtained information into the Plan.
To conclude, identification of data gaps and finding appropriate solutions to address such sources of
uncertainty is an integral part of the GSP and will be a determining factor in the evaluation of the
final plan by the DWR. In addition, it will play a continuing role in the periodic assessments made
by the GSA during the implementation and will be a determining factor by the DWR when
assessing the effectiveness of the GSP at future milestones.
Summary of Data Gap Analysis report prepared for the Phase 1
LACO Associates prepared the “Data Gap Analysis” report (Data Gap Report) in December 2016
for the Mendocino County Water Agency as part of the Initial Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
According to the report, “The primary hydrogeologic concern in the UVGB [Ukiah Valley
Groundwater Basin] per the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) is depletion of
surface water flows from groundwater extraction. The basin is not adjacent to the ocean and
therefore has no risk of saltwater intrusion. The basin is expected to fully recharge in years with
normal precipitation and therefore is not expected to be at risk for chronic declines in groundwater
levels or excessive depletion of storage (some depletion of storage is inevitable before recharge or
discharge can be captured (Bredehoeft, 1982)1.”
A major concern in the basin stems from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
dictation that the entire groundwater system in the UVGB is underflow of the Russian River; which
is regarded as river flow and therefore supports endangered salmonid species. Underflow wells are
not included in SGMA regulations because they are considered surface water diversions. Wells
pumping water in the river-channel deposits are generally considered underflow wells, however
there is variability in SWRCB classifications.
1 Bredehoeft, John D., Papadopulos, Stephen S., Cooper, H.H. Jr. (1982) “Groundwater: The Water -Budget
Myth.” Scientific Basis of Water-Resource Management, Studies in Geophysics, Washington, DC:
National Academy Press, pp. 51-57.
January 18, 2019 Page 4
Data Gaps Summary
According to the reports produced in the Phase 1 of the GSP, DWR’s scoring of the basin in the
prioritization process, and the discussions of the LWA Team with the members of the TAC and the
GSA, there is a scientific and empirical consensus on the depleting surface water resources due to
groundwater/surface water interaction being the major undesirable result of the basin. Therefore,
Data Gap Report appropriately determines data gaps with a focus on this criterion and based on the
proximity to the Russian River and its tributaries, and the overall spatial and temporal density of
groundwater monitoring and streamflow gauging data.
According to the Data Gaps Report and LWA Team’s discussion with the TAC, there are ten
streamflow gauges in the UVGB. The USGS has three streamflow gauges on the Russian River
within the UVGB boundary located south of Talmage and on the forks of the Russian River just
before the confluence near Coyote Dam. There are also USGS gauges outside of the UVGB
upstream of Lake Mendocino and near Hopland. USGS data has been collected since the early
1900s. NOAA has National Marine Fisheries Service (NFMS) gauges on the west branch of the
Russian River, York Creek, Robinson Creek, and McNab Creek. California Land Stewardship
Institute (CLSI) has three gauges on McNab Creek. In order to assess the impacts of frost protection
and agricultural pumping of underflow or groundwater wells close to the Russian River or its
tributaries, six additional streamflow gauges were proposed by LACO Associates (three on the
Russian River and three on tributaries) that are located among vineyards and agricultural lands
(Figure 1).
January 18, 2019 Page 5
Data Gaps Summary
Figure 1. Proposed Streamflow Gauges by LACO Associates
In addition to the streamflow gauges, additional groundwater monitoring wells were proposed in the
Data Gap Report to fill data gaps and aid in the characterization of long-term groundwater
hydrology. According to the Data Gap Report, there were 38 monitored CASGEM wells in the
UVGB at the time with variable number of data points (all less than six points). Four additional
wells were monitored by the DWR that have several data points dating back to 1990s. In addition,
there was a total of 433 GeoTracker wells within the UVGB boundary for 36 environmental
remediation projects. The groundwater monitoring data included 6,546 data points between 1999
and 2016. LACO Associates determined the areas with a low number of monitoring wells and
proposed additional monitoring wells to be drilled in those locations, as shown in Figure 2. It was
proposed that telemetric monitoring data be considered to increase the frequency of data points and
provide the capability to see the effects of real-time pumping on river stage and vice-versa. To
supplement the information available to assess the groundwater/surface water interaction, Data Gap
Report proposes to monitor temperature and other water quality constituents, as well. Moreover,
January 18, 2019 Page 6
Data Gaps Summary
temporal data gaps exist in the groundwater level data due to the few monitoring wells available
with a long history of data. It was proposed to obtain longer timeseries of data by collaborating with
agricultural users and stakeholders.
Figure 2. Groundwater Monitoring Data Gaps
January 18, 2019 Page 7
Data Gaps Summary
Recommendations and comments made by the TAC
After reviewing the Phase 1 reports, gathering data from the public databases, and reviewing the
data gathered during the Phase 1, the LWA Team prepared a data summary and discussed the
apparent data needs with the TAC and the County. Of course, the assessment was based on an
initial review of available data and may be subject to additions as the GSP preparation progresses.
Table 1 shows the summary made available to the TAC.
Discussion with the TAC members during the meeting on 8 November 2018, lead to two major
recommendations with regards to addressing the existing data gaps.
First, TAC members believed and the LWA Team agreed that the Phase 1 data gap analysis was
based on the lack of spatial coverage without having analyzed if those areas contribute to the
improvement of the water budget study or the understanding of the groundwater/surface water
interaction. Consensus was to perform further assessments, statistical or experimental, before
recommending additional wells to be drilled or gauges to be requested to see if such data would be
ultimately helpful in addressing the GSP requirements.
Second, the TAC and the GSA welcomed and emphasized the use of Technical Support Services
(TSS) grant made available by the DWR to address some of the data gaps. As a result, the LWA
Team has been working with the County to prepare the application materials. The approach
proposed have been explained and agreed upon by the GSA and the TAC during their public
meetings. The memorandum sent to the County on 27 November 2018 , titled: “Review of Possible
Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction Based on Existing Wells and
Proposed New Wells Using Initial Groundwater Sustainability Plan Findings” details the LWA
Team’s proposal to obtain additional information on the impacts of groundwater pumpage on
Russian River stage and streamflow (the mentioned memo is made available as an attachment to
this memorandum). To the Date of this memorandum, the TSS application has passed its first stage
and is moving along in its second phase.
The LWA Team will have further discussions about the data gaps with the TAC and the GSA after
setting up its Data Management System and upon the review of the HCM Chapter of the GSP. By
then, the LWA Team will have a better understanding of the data gaps that would affect the GSA’s
ability in analyzing and addressing the SGMA requirements within the basin.
January 18, 2019 Page 8
Data Gaps Summary
Table 1. Preliminary Discussion of available data and data gaps for the UVB proposed for the TAC meeting on 8 November 2018.
Data Format
Time
period Number Source Additional Information
Gathered Data (Phase 1 Data, Public and Online Databases)
Streams Shapefile
Springs Shapefile
Water bodies Shapefile
Streamflow
Measurements Shapefile/Table 1991-
2015
3 inside
the basin USGS
Precipitation 1 CIMIS
Precipitation 2 CDEC
Land Use
Shapefile 2010 1 DWR
Shapefile 2014 1 SGMA Portal
Land Use Viewer
Shapefile 2011 1 NLCD
Shapefile 2011 1 Mendocino
County
Vector Shapefile with no metadata: its year is not
specified.
Geology Shapefile
Elevation
(DEM)
Raters Lidar 2017 USGS
NED DEM from Mendocino County with 30m resolution
Wells
Shapefile/Table 38 CASGEM Few number of data points
Shapefile/Table 4 DWR
Shapefile/Table ~ 1999 to
~present 433 GeoTracker Varies based on remediation/cleanup site.
Soil Map/CSV 1 DWR/SSURGO
January 18, 2019 Page 9
Data Gaps Summary
Projected Data Needs Not Yet Available
Land Use Local Land Use maps going back to 25 to 30 years ago.
Streamflow
Measurements
4 NOAA(NFSM) Missing timeseries data. Shapefile was not shared but
Phase 1 Report has a figure for them.
3 CLSI On McNab Creek. Missing respective timeseries data.
Shapefile and location are available.
Geologic Cross
Sections Maps 3 LACO Prelim
Studies
Missing the maps.
Wells
More areal coverage and additional number of wells to be
monitored as part of incorporating them into CASGEM or
in the Monitoring Network of the GSP. Well completion
reports and geology logs of the wells made available for
Phase 1 and any additional logs that could be shared are
needed, as well.
River Bed
Properties
Some information from MODLFOW file and the LACO
Water Budget study made available.
January 18, 2019 Page 10
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Attachment A: LWA Memorandum titled: “Review of
Possible Transects to Monitor Surface
Water/Groundwater Interaction Based on Existing
Wells and Proposed New Wells Using Initial
Groundwater Sustainability Plan Findings”
November 27, 2018 Page 1
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Memorandum
DATE:
Tom Grovhoug, PE
Laura Foglia, PhD
1480 Drew Avenue, Suite 100
Davis, CA 95618
Phone: (530) 753 6400
Fax: (530) 753 7030
tomg@lwa.com
lauraf@lwa.com
Amir Mani, PhD, PE
720 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 204
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 394 1036
Fax: (310) 394 8959
amirm@lwa.com
11/27/2018
TO: Ms. Sarah Dukett, Mendocino County
COPY TO:
SUBJECT: Review of Possible Transects to Monitor
Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction Based
on Existing Wells and Proposed New Wells
Using Initial Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Findings
This memorandum has been prepared to provide supplemental information to the County of
Mendocino (County) and the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (UVBGSA) for
the second round of the Department of Water Resources (DWR) Technical Support Services (TSS)
grant application. Information included in this memorandum is exclusively based on publicly
available data and the work previously performed during Phase 1 of this project to prepare the
groundwater sustainability plan (GSP) for the Ukiah Valley Basin (UVB).
According to the discussions conducted with the UVBGSA, Mendocino County, and the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAC), we are proposing an inclusive set of transects that cross the Russian
River and include at least three wells to monitor the correlation of groundwater levels with
Russian River stage and streamflow. While new streamflow gages would be beneficial, this
memorandum focuses on use of the existing gages and proposes transects that best utilize
currently available equipment.
November 27, 2018 Page 2
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Monitoring Approach
We suggest equipping a number of wells in the UVB with continuous transducers for monitoring
groundwater elevation and temperature along different transects across the Russian River, as
sketched in Figure 3. The transducers will be equipped with a telemetry system and will transmit
data periodically to a web server. The project team and stakeholders will be able to check these
data regularly.
Figure 3. Continuous monitoring network design
This continuous monitoring program will yield the following benefits for the GSA and will help
support the development of the GSP:
• Groundwater-surface water interactions will be monitored long-term to ensure that we capture
different water years types;
• We will collect information and develop future projections of water available to the natural
environment and for multiple beneficial uses;
• We will be able to assess the occurrences and elements attributable to natural factors (e.g.,
precipitation, infiltration, surface water seepage to groundwater, groundwater discharge to
streams) and anthropogenic factors (e.g., pumping, managed aquifer recharge operations) that
affect groundwater levels and trends in the vicinity of the river;
• We will identify appropriate monitoring sites to evaluate surface water-groundwater interaction
and recharge/discharge mechanisms, including whether groundwater demand is affecting surface
water flows; and,
November 27, 2018 Page 3
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
• We will identify vertical hydraulic head differences in the aqui fer system and aquifer specific
groundwater conditions, especially in areas of potential surface water-groundwater interaction,
sensitive ecosystems, and higher recharge potential.
Available Information
In order to select the best possible transects, we relied on the currently available information
mostly obtainable from the publicly available datasets and the previous work conducted during
the phase 1 of the GSP. Primarily, four different datasets were utilized to obtain required
information for decision making:
1) Well database: A dataset including 2,412 well records was used to locate available wells.
This dataset contains 48 wells that are included in the CASGEM program, 436 wells
included in the GeoTracker program, and 1,928 wells that were extracted from the well
completion reports. Most of the wells have approximate latitude and longitude calculated
as the centroid of their township/range/section specification. These approximate locations
were used in our assessment due to lack of better information.
2) Geologic Map: The initial hydrogeologic conceptual model (HCM) report and preliminary
water budget study (Figure 4) produced during phase 1 of the GSP were used as the main
resource for our geological inference. Since phase 2 of the GSP has not yet developed its
findings with respect to the HCM, those two reports are the best available information at
present. Information from these reports concur with the geological maps provided by the
DWR in its Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Data Portal, as shown in
Figure 5.
3) Public/Private Lands: The 2017 parcel map was provided by the County and use in this
analysis. For this analysis, unassessed parcels were considered to be public lands (Figure 6).
4) Land Use and Land Cover: Land use and land cover data were used to double check the
primary use of the domestic wells within possible transects. Land cover map of 2014 was
obtained from the DWR SGMA Data Portal. Land use data was provided by the County and
refers to 2010 conditions.
5) Groundwater elevation/flow gradients: Groundwater elevation contours provided in the
phase 1 preliminary water budget study (Figure 7) were used to understand the general flow
of groundwater at each side of the river and facilitate decision making.
November 27, 2018 Page 4
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Figure 4. Geologic map extracted from the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin Preliminary Water Budget Study
November 27, 2018 Page 5
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Figure 5. Geologic map extracted from the DWR SGMA Portal showing the wells included in this assessment.
November 27, 2018 Page 6
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Figure 6. Depiction of all assessed transects and the location of public lands.
November 27, 2018 Page 7
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Figure 7. Simulated groundwater elevations provided in the Ukiah Valley Basin Initial Water Budget Study.
November 27, 2018 Page 8
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Selection Criteria
Based on our recent interviews and discussions with the stakeholders and findings of the phase 1
documents, we established the following set of criteria to guide us in the selection of optimum
transect locations:
- transects should include at least 3 wells, preferably four wells, with at least one well at
each side and in close proximity of the river;
- preference should be given to wells that are already included in the CASGEM program.
GeoTracker wells are the next group of wells to be included. Use of private domestic wells
should be avoided unless no other options are available;
- wells selected for a transect should withdraw from the same aquifer. This does not
necessarily require all wells to be screened and located within the same geological unit.
However, it does require wells to be located within the same layers (Quaternary Alluvium)
defined in the phase 1 preliminary water budget report;
- preference should be given to transects that need a maximum of one new well to be
drilled. Additional new wells can be proposed for transects where they would increase the
knowledge of the surface water/groundwater interaction.
- preference should be given to transects located sufficiently close to the existing
streamflow gages;
- selection of the transects should be spatially inclusive and provide sufficient knowledge of
the surface water/groundwater interaction for the entire basin; and,
- where new wells are needed to be drilled, available public lands should be proposed for
the new well location, if possible, to increase the chances of the transect being
implemented.
November 27, 2018 Page 9
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Proposed Transects
As shown in Figure 6, 18 transects were considered in this assessment simply due to the
arrangement of wells and their proximity to the river. According to the above -mentioned selection
criteria, Ukiah Valley Basin was divided into four geographical regions: 1) North – Redwood Valley,
2) North-Central, 3) South-Central, and 4) South-Drainage Point. Our initial assessment is that
having at least one transect in each of these regions will be helpful at understanding the
interaction of groundwater and surface water and its spatial variability. However, as mentioned
previously, our ability to implement these transects depends heavily on the availability of public
wells or volunteer private well owners. It is also highly preferable to use transects close to an
available stream gage so that groundwater levels can be correlated with gage height or stream
flows. Considering these factors, we decided to propose primary and alternative transects at each
region. This will help provide second and third options if, due to the reasons outlined, we are not
able to implement the primary transect. Moreover, due to the limited existence of groundwater
wells in the South-Drainage Point region (few wells and all for domestic use), an additional primary
transect is proposed in the South-Central region. This will provide supplemental information and a
better spatial coverage in case no transects are finalized in the South-Drainage Point region. We
are awaiting additional information from the City of Ukiah on the new wells drilled in the vicinity
of their wastewater treatment plant. Those new wells may be applicable to our proposed
transects and help limit the number of new wells we need to drill in the South -Central region.
As shown in Table 2, five primary and three alternative transects are proposed for the entire basin.
These transects are shown in Figure 8 - Figure 11 based on their geographical regions. A total of
nine new wells are proposed to be drilled, of which five are mandatory for the transects to
perform as intended and four are optional to improve their application. Any combination of the
proposed transects would lead to a different number of wells to be drilled. For instance, using all
primary transects would lead to three mandatory and three optional new wells. With regards to
the depth of the wells to be drilled and their respective screening depths, further evaluations will
be needed after finalizing the transects and well locations.
November 27, 2018 Page 10
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Table 2. Summary of the proposed transects including existing and proposed to drill wells.
Section Well Name Program/Use Latitude (Approximate) Longitude (Approximate) Geological Unit
North - Redwood Valley #1
(Primary)
T0604500280 MW-6 GeoTracker 39.2640402 -123.2047303 Qt1
T0604500280 MW-10 GeoTracker 39.2638227 -123.2051953 Qt1
WCR2001-001925 Domestic 39.263055 -123.207222 Qal
392606N1232098W001 CASGEM 39.26057 -123.20981 Qt4
392594N1232129W001 CASGEM 39.25939 -123.21288 Qt4
North - Redwood Valley #2
(Alternative)
Optional Drilled Well Proposed New Well 39.26715 -123.21627 Qt4
Mandatory Drilled Well Proposed New Well 39.26671 -123.20961 Qt2
T0604500263 MW-9 GeoTracker 39.2660229 -123.2048732 Qt1
T0604500280 MW-1 GeoTracker 39.2651931 -123.2039004 Qt1
North - Central #1
(Primary)
T0604500351 MW-04 GeoTracker 39.193002 -123.2059654 Qt1
391918N1232003W001 CASGEM 39.19177 -123.20031 Qt1
391918N1232003W002 CASGEM 39.19177 -123.20031 Qt1
391918N1232003W003 CASGEM 39.19177 -123.20031 Qt1
391918N1232003W004 CASGEM 39.19177 -123.20031 Qt1
Mandatory Well to Drill Proposed New Well 39.19176 -123.19797 Qal
391917N1232000W001 CASGEM 39.191747 -123.200031 Qt1
North - Central #2
(Alternative)
WCR00003231 Domestic 39.18736 -123.20698 Qt1
WCR2010-005036 Domestic 39.18736 -123.20698 Qt1
WCR2011-004046 Domestic 39.18736 -123.20698 Qt1
391860N1232039W001 CASGEM 39.185992 -123.20388 Qt1
Mandatory Well to Drill Proposed New Well 39.18565 -123.19974 Qal/Qt1
November 27, 2018 Page 11
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Section Well Name Program/Use Latitude (Approximate) Longitude (Approximate) Geological Unit
South – Central #1(a)
(Primary)
391252N1231822W001 CASGEM 39.125238 -123.182166 Qt1
391248N1231848W001 CASGEM 39.124837 -123.184821 Qt1
391246N1231827W001 CASGEM 39.124642 -123.182678 Qt1
391236N1231869W001 CASGEM 39.12361 -123.18687 Qt1
Mandatory Well to Drill Proposed New Well 39.12247 -123.19536 Qt1
391225N1231852W001 CASGEM 39.12245 -123.1852 Qt1
Optional Well to Drill Proposed New Well 39.12192 -123.19844 Qt1
Optional Well to Drill Proposed New Well 39.11877 -123.19263 Qal/Qt1
South – Central #1(b)
(Primary)
391185N1231747W001 CASGEM 39.11847 -123.17469 Qt1
391174N1231836W001 CASGEM 39.11744 -123.18362 Qt1
391159N1231770W001 CASGEM 39.11586 -123.17695 Qt1
391156N1231788W001 CASGEM 39.1156 -123.17882 Qt1
Optional Well to Drill Proposed New Well 39.11321 -123.18304 Qal/Qt1
WCR2001-003345 Domestic 39.111944 -123.193055 Qt1
WCR0287224 Domestic 39.111507 -123.194447 Qt2
South - Central #2
(Alternative)
391096N1231677W001 CASGEM 39.1096 -123.1677 Qt1
391086N1231710W001 CASGEM 39.1086 -123.17101 Qt1
WCR2010-003208 Domestic 39.1075 -123.173888 Qt1
391046N1231647W001 CASGEM 39.104619 -123.164739 Qt1
391031N1231649W001 CASGEM 39.103106 -123.164941 Qt1
WCR00401701 Domestic 39.10208 -123.16885 Qt1
November 27, 2018 Page 12
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Section Well Name Program/Use Latitude (Approximate) Longitude (Approximate) Geological Unit
South - Drainage Point #1
(Primary)
T0604593406 MW-1 GeoTracker 39.0466055 -123.1495974 Qt1
390466N1231507W001 CASGEM 39.0466 -123.1507 Qt1
WCR2012-001494 Domestic 39.046111 -123.133888 Qt1
Mandatory Well to Drill2 Proposed New Well 39.04605 -123.13802 Qt1
1 Well name represents the group of domestic wells located in that vicinity.
2 Proposed well is not located on public land and the location should be further assessed and optimized .
November 27, 2018 Page 13
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Figure 8. Proposed transects for the North-Redwood Valley Region.
November 27, 2018 Page 14
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Figure 9. Proposed transects for the North-Central Region.
November 27, 2018 Page 15
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Figure 10. Proposed transects for the South-Central Region.
November 27, 2018 Page 16
Review of Possible Transects to Monitor Surface Water/Groundwater Interaction
Figure 11. Proposed transects for the South-Drainage Point Region.
January 18, 2019 Page 1
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
Memorandum
DATE:
Tom Grovhoug, PE
Laura Foglia, PhD
1480 Drew Avenue, Suite 100
Davis, CA 95618
Phone: (530) 753 6400
Fax: (530) 753 7030
tomg@lwa.com
lauraf@lwa.com
Amir Mani, PhD, PE
720 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 204
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 394 1036
Fax: (310) 394 8959
amirm@lwa.com
1/18/2019
TO: Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater
Sustainability Agency Technical
Advisory Committee
COPY TO: Ms. Sarah Dukett
SUBJECT: Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical
Advisory Committee
This memorandum has been prepared to summarize the input received from the members of the
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (UVBGSA) Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) for the review of completed reports for Phase 1 of the UVB Groundwater
Sustainability Plan (GSP) Development. The Larry Walker Associates (LWA) Team, per its scope
of work for Phase 2, discussed the Phase 1 reports at a TAC meeting on 8 November 2018. The
purpose of the discussion and the review in general was to assess the extent that the LWA Team can
and should rely on the information presented in reports produced during Phase 1 of the project. This
memorandum summarizes the review process and the comments that were received from TAC
members. It also defines the next steps the LWA Team will take in utilizing the Phase 1 reports. It
is anticipated that following the TAC review and this memorandum, the UBVGSA Board will take
action to either accept or accept with qualification the Phase I reports based on the comments and
suggestions provided by the TAC. The Phase 1 reports which were subject to the TAC review
included the following (also shown in Table 1):
Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin Draft Groundwater Monitoring Protocol Manual
Data Gap Analysis
Initial Groundwater Sustainability Plan Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (IHCM)
Initial Groundwater Sustainability Plan Preliminary Water Budget Study
January 18, 2019 Page 2
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
Preliminary Water Demand Review
Preliminary Sustainable Management Criteria
Review of Phase I Documents
The LWA Team reviewed the Phase 1 reports and highlighted the sections believed to be of
primary importance. The results of the LWA Team review were captured in Table 1 and distributed
to TAC members ahead of the November 8 meeting. The LWA review was focused on those areas
of available information that will be used as the foundation of work during Phase 2 of the project.
As the goal of the Phase 1 reports was to produce specific sections of an initial groundwater
sustainability plan, it is important to note that some sections are more beneficial to Phase 2 of the
project, such as those describing detailed and specific data and information, summarizing a
thorough literature review, or elaborating on a qualitative subject. For example, a significant effort
in preparing a hydrogeologic conceptual model (HCM) is to review the literature and process the
available information and data. Similarly, evaluation of data gaps includes processing the historical
and available data and identifying gaps that may affect the preparation of the GSP. As such, these
reports are entirely applicable and useful to Phase 2 of the project and will help, if deemed
adequate, in avoiding unnecessary, repeated efforts. On the other hand, subjects such as defining
management actions, sustainable management criteria, and estimating the water budget are entirely
dependent on additional work that will be performed during Phase 2 and the Phase 1 reports will be
most beneficial in providing background information.
To assist the TAC in its review of the Phase 1 documents, the LWA Team developed a number of
key questions to be addressed by the TAC upon their review of these reports. These key questions
were intended to provide suggested structure for the TAC review:
What is the overall evaluation of the findings and conclusions in the reports? Are there any
specific findings or conclusions that TAC members strongly agree or disagree with?
Are there specific assumptions made in the reports that do not seem reasonable and/or need
to be adjusted?
Are there missing sources of data and information that need to be added? Or, are there
sources of data and information used that are not truly representative and need to be
corrected?
Can the TAC come to a final recommendation to the UVBGSA board regarding approval of
the documents?
Are there any other comments and observations not covered by the above questions?
In addition to the questions above, specific questions for some reports were included in Table 1 and
shared with the TAC to help the LWA Team in its future work in using information contained in the
Phase1 reports. These questions and reports were discussed during the TAC meeting on 8
November 2018 and TAC members were given additional time to provide supplemental comments
after the meeting.
In addition to the comments received during the meeting, the LWA Team received comments from
the Sonoma County Water Agency1 and Mr. Zac Robinson, the agricultural representative on the
1 Memorandum from Mr. Don Seymour and Mr. Marcus Trotta to Dr. Laura Foglia dated 14 December 2018 and titled:
Comments Regarding Phase I Ukiah Valley Basin Reports. This memorandum is made available as an attachment.
January 18, 2019 Page 3
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
GSA, through an email to Dr. Foglia on 13 December 2018. A summary of these comments is
provided in the next Section.
January 18, 2019 Page 4
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
Table 1. LWA’s suggested review process for the Phase 1 reports.
Document Title
Date
Produced
Goal of the
Document
Pages/Section to
Review
Important
Sections Specific/Detailed Questions
Ukiah Valley Groundwater
Basin Draft Groundwater
Monitoring Protocol Manual
October,
2016
Define Monitoring
Objectives
Section 1.2, and
Section 2-6 (9 pages) Sections 2-6
Data Gap Analysis December,
2016
Data Management
System/Data Gap
Sections 1-6 along
with related figures in
App A (10 pages)
Sections 2, 3, 6;
probably 4 and 5
Initial Groundwater
Sustainability Plan
Hydrogeologic Conceptual
Model (IHCM)
December 28,
2017 HCM
Sections 1-8 along
with respective figures
(20 pages)
Sections 2
through 8
Are surface water bodies and surface water/groundwater
interactions accurately presented in the report?
Is there a need to include imported water in this report?
How complete does the TAC find the WCR database?
What is the overall perception of the TAC with regards to
the Transmissivity, Specific Capacity, and other
hydrogeological properties estimated? Are the values of
these parameters in agreement with the general
knowledge of the basin that the TAC has?
Can LWA rely on the estimated bottom of the basin
provided or there is a need for further studying?
Initial Groundwater
Sustainability Plan
Preliminary Water Budget
Study
December 29,
2017
Water
Budget/Modeling
Sections 1-6 with
respective figures (18
pages)
Sections 1.2,
and 6.
What is the TAC's evaluation of the adequacy of the
model based?
Following the above question and considering the
limitations outlined in Section 6, to what extent or in what
specific categories of input data should the LWA rely on
the developed model?
Since the produced results of the water budget differs
from the 2017 study, how accurate the overall trend of
flow rates and groundwater budget looks to TAC members
based on the local knowledge of the basin?
Preliminary Water Demand
Review
December 29,
2017
Future Water
Budget
Just the memorandum
without the appendix
(4 pages)
Section 4
This memorandum relies heavily on the "Water Supply
Assessment for the Ukiah Valley Area Plan" report prepared
by the Mendocino County Water Agency in October 2010. Are
there any concerns among the TAC members regarding the
2010 report that LWA needs to be aware of or address?
Preliminary Sustainable
Management Criteria
January 2,
2018
Sustainable
Management
Criteria
Sections 2 and 3 (5
pages)
Sections 2.7 and
3.1.6
How does the TAC find the Sustainability indicators
outlined in Table 2, overall?
How does the TAC find the Tier framework proposed on
page 9 of the report?
January 18, 2019 Page 5
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
Summary of Comments
One key point made during the discussion with the TAC members on November 8 was on filling
data gaps: a better concept of “data needs” (rather than a focus on spatial or temporal coverage) is
to identify the most important/impactful information using either statistical or modelling tools and
analysis. In other words, there is no need to try to cover all possible data gaps but prioritizing what
seems to be important in understanding the basin and responding to potential undesirable results.
This was discussed due to the relatively large data gaps pointed out in the Phase 1 reports and the
expensive nature of adding monitoring wells and streamflow gauges to address all of those gaps.
In addition, TAC members discussed the issue of “underflow” wells and the inefficiency in which
they were addressed in the Phase 1 reports. The need to have a separate discussion about underflow
wells and the way to address them was highlighted.
Also, TAC members were not content with how the seasonal nature of tributaries and their
contribution to aquifer recharge and the Russian River were considered in the Water Budget Study.
A better explanation and consideration of tributary reaches in the modeling and the water budget is
necessary.
Moreover, many TAC members registered concerns about potential future changes in the operation
of the Potter Valley Project and how such changes may affect the water balance in the watershed.
This was not specifically addressed in the Phase 1 Reports since they did not consider future
scenarios and management actions. However, it was agreed this should be a specific focus of the
GSP when we reach the scenario development and evaluation element of the planning effort.
Written comments were received from the Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma Water) and Mr.
Zac Robinson after the TAC meeting.
In its comments, Sonoma Water comprehensively addresses the shortcomings of the HCM report in
its point of view (made available as an attachment to this memo). Sonoma Water offers comments
with regards to lumping the Terrace Deposits and Quaternary Alluvium geological units, which
affect a majority of the HCM report and lead to changes in the defined principal aquifers, and
subsequently, changes to the groundwater model layering and water budget. The LWA Team will
discuss this comment further with Sonoma Water and others at the next TAC meeting to decide on
how to best respond. In addition, comments are made with respect to the geological cross sections
that the LWA Team will need to address in the final HCM Chapter of the GSP. Sonoma Water also
made comments with regards to specific sections of the report that LWA will need to consider in
producing the final HCM Chapter.
With respect to the Water Budget Report, as the report itself points out and Sonoma Water mentions
in its memo, the proposed water budget does not meet all the requirements of SGMA. However, the
report provides a valuable starting point for the groundwater model to be developed by the LWA
Team. As Sonoma Water points out, the temporal discretization and the hydrological baseline of the
model is insufficient in addressing the GSP requirements. In his comments, Mr. Robinson also
presents doubts on defining no-flow boundaries for the majority of the basin perimeter. In addition,
he emphasizes a need for a better representation of the tributaries in the model as they play an
important role in the groundwater/ surface water interaction that the GSP will be needed to address.
The Data Gap report will be addressed and explained to the County and the TAC in a separate
memorandum. The Data Gap report has been used extensively by the LWA Team in the data
January 18, 2019 Page 6
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
gathering process and has been discussed in-depth with the TAC during the meeting on 8 November
2018.
The remaining three reports as discussed by the LWA Team in the last meeting and stated by
Sonoma Water, will be used as informative reports since they are incomplete in addressing their
subject matter due to the nature of the Phase 1 study and do not completely follow the Best
Management Practices published by the DWR. In Phase 2, the LWA Team will work
comprehensively on the subjects of Water Budget, Sustainable Management Criteria, and
developing representative monitoring protocols and will prepare complete reports addressing those
subjects consistent with the requirements of the GSP.
Fulfillment of Phase 2 Scope Requirements
The work described in this memorandum is intended to fulfill the requirements of Tasks 7,8, and 9
with respect to reviewing the Phase 1 reports and including comments made by the TAC, as
described in the Phase 2 scope of services.
January 18, 2019 Page 7
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
Attachment A: Sonoma Water Memorandum titled:
“Comments Regarding Phase I Ukiah Valley Basin
Reports”
January 18, 2019 Page 8
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
MEMORANDUM
FILE:
DATE: 12/14/2018
TO: Laura Foglia
FROM: Don Seymour/Marcus Trotta
SUBJECT: Comments Regarding Phase I Ukiah Valley Basin Reports
Introduction
The Sonoma County Water Agency (Sonoma Water) has completed its review of six documents
relating to the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The six reviewed documents
include:
Initial groundwater sustainability plan; hydrogeologic conceptual model; Ukiah Valley
Groundwater Basin, Mendocino County, California (LACO Associates, 2017a)
Initial groundwater sustainability plan; preliminary water budget study; Ukiah Valley
groundwater basin, Mendocino County, California (LACO, 2017b)
Technical memorandum; Preliminary water demand review; Ukiah Valley groundwater
basin, Mendocino County, California (LACO, 2017c)
Preliminary sustainable management criteria report; Ukiah Valley groundwater basin initial
groundwater sustainability plan (LACO, 2018)
Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin Draft Groundwater Monitoring Protocol Manual (LACO,
2016)
January 18, 2019 Page 9
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
Memorandum to Ms. Sarah Dukett Re: Technical review of phase 1 reports (Grovhoug et
al., 2018)
In general, we found the first five reports to exhibit various levels of completeness and are generally
insufficient as SGMA GSP chapters, but do contain some useful data and information that can be a
starting point for the GSP. Additionally, there are some instances where the reports contain
misleading and erroneous information. We have tried to include comments that will help guide the
process of developing these reports into GSP chapters.
The Technical Review of Phase 1 Reports was the last document we reviewed. This document had
specific questions regarding the other four reports. We have provided answers to almost all of the
specific questions based on our report reviews. To avoid the need to rewrite our reviews, detailed
below, we have simply highlighted in red the sections that specifically answer questions on Table 1
of the Technical Review of Phase 1 Reports. The only question we did not specifically answer was
the last question regarding the preliminary water budget study. This question requests an
assessment of, “…how accurate the overall trend of flow rates and groundwater budgets looks
based on the current knowledge of the Basin.” We did not take the time to compare this water
budget to other water budgets.
Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model Report Review
This report has two stated purposes:
To characterize the extent and geometry of the water bearing subsurface geologic
formations, and estimate the hydrogeologic properties;
Provide a foundation for a MODFLOW-2005 model that supplements the draft water budget
study prepared by LACO in December, 2017.
Overall, this is a competent if not extensive conceptual model. It provides a start for the
Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model chapter of the GSP. The text correctly points out that future
work is needed to fully address the SGMA regulations. In addition to the future work detailed in
the report, we would suggest including:
A discussion of soils in the Basin;
A map and discussion of gaining and losing stream reaches;
A discussion of data gaps;
A contour map showing the base of the Basin. Note that refining the base of the Basin will
have little to no impact on groundwater sustainability. Sustainability relies on achieving
minimum thresholds that avoid undesirable results: which largely translates into maintaining
January 18, 2019 Page 10
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
certain agreed-upon groundwater elevations. The total depth of the Basin will have little
influence on the GSA’s ability to meet minimum thresholds.; and
A differentiation between geologic cross sections and the extent of aquifers. (Further
discussed below).
Significant concerns that should be addressed before using this report as the Hydrogeologic
Conceptual Model chapter in the GSP include the following:
The cross-sections are generally confusing, in part because legends for the cross-sections are
not included in the report. Although the report includes a brief description of geologic units,
the cross-sections do not clearly display the geologic units. Neither do the cross-sections
attempt to show the continuity of sands or clay beds. Rather than display geologic contacts
or continuity of clay and sand zones, the cross-sections divide the geology into Qal, Low K
Qtub, High K Qtub, and Qtub. Interpreting from the text in section 6.4.2, we assume that
these correspond to Quaternary alluvium, continental deposits with high hydraulic
conductivity, with low hydraulic conductivity, and continental deposits with undetermined
hydraulic conductivity. This type of interpretation about hydrogeologic properties is more
appropriate in the Principal Aquifer and Aquitards section. The geologic cross-sections
should retain geologic information. The WCR database should be further evaluated to
determine if sufficient information is available to infer and display the distribution of clay
and sand zones in the Basin;
The report lumps Terrace Deposits sand Quaternary Alluvium together in both the geologic
cross sections and the discussion of principal aquifers. This causes significant confusion
and misrepresents groundwater conditions. Significant problems include:
The geologic map on Figure 2 shows that most of cross-section A-A’ is covered by Terrace
Deposits - now known as Quaternary Alluvium. However, the cross-sections show
continental deposits at the surface. This results in a disconnect between the geologic map
and the cross-sections;
The discussion of the Aquifer-I physical properties confuses the area mapped as Qal and the
combined Qal and Terrace Deposits. For example, the text indicates that the lateral extent
of Aquifer-I is consistent with the mapped geologic extent of the Quaternary Alluvium. The
text goes on, however, to discuss the older alluvium and Terrace Deposits on the upper
elevations of the margins of the Valley; not part of the mapped geologic extents of the
Quaternary Alluvium;
Table 4: Aquifer-1 Hydrogeologic Properties clearly demonstrates the problem of lumping
the Quaternary alluvium with the Terrace deposits into a single aquifer. While the text
states that the Quaternary alluvium has high hydraulic conductivities, Table 4 demonstrates
that the hydraulic conductivities range from 0.1 to 153 feet per day. This range of hydraulic
conductivities is not representative of the alluvium that borders the Russian River and its
January 18, 2019 Page 11
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
tributaries. This will be important when discussing the influence of pumping on surface
water depletions;
The Quaternary Alluvium and Terrace Deposits should be separated in both the geologic
cross sections and the principal aquifer discussion;
The surface water data collection programs section is as much a discussion of the Russian
River and its tributaries as it is a discussion of data collection programs. Further
explanation about the interaction between the surface water system and the groundwater
system is required. The discussion of the surface water system is too perfunctory and is
inadequate for this report. We would suggest reviewing chapter 3 of Sonoma Water’s Fish
Habitat Flows & Water Rights Project Draft Impact Report, which provides a detailed
description of the Russian River System;
Figures 6, 7, 8, and 9 are included at the end of the report, but are never discussed nor called
out in the text. This is an inadequate response to § 354.14. Text must be included that
describes the types of soils in the Basin, the surface water system and how it is significant to
the management of the Basin, how recharge areas that substantially contribute to the
replenishment of the Basin are designated, the source and point of delivery of imported
water supplies; and
There is no discussion, nor any map showing discharge areas including significant active
springs, seeps and wetlands within or adjacent to the Basin (§ 354.14 (d) (6)).
Other observations on how to improve the Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model include the following:
Information on existing monitoring networks should be addressed in the Plan Area section
of the GSP rather than the Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model. The discussion of surface
water data collection would be greatly improved with a map showing the locations of the 10
streamflow gages in the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin. This would allow readers to
visually assess the relationship between the gages, and will become important when
discussing the locations of gaining and losing streams;
In addition to average flow rates for the Russian River, the report should identify the
maximum and minimum flow rates. Some type of statistical assessment, such as a flow rate
exceedances graph, would be helpful to demonstrate whether the average flow rate
represents the flow rate at average times, or if it is highly influenced by rare flood flows.
From a sustainability standpoint, streamflow depletions during low flows are the most
significant, and the average flow rate tells us little about this;
Because groundwater quality is one aspect of SGMA, the report should identify the USGS’
GAMA monitoring as an ongoing monitoring program;
January 18, 2019 Page 12
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
Figure 2 does not appear to include 479 wells as stated in Section 3.0, however this may be
a function of many wells being located very near each other. Additional explanation would
be helpful;
Although not specifically stated in the SGMA regulations, one geologic cross-section that
runs the length of Ukiah Valley would be helpful. This would show how the geology
changes from north to south in the Valley;
Groundwater elevation data should be included on the cross-sections if known;
The database of georeferenced wells identified in Section 4 heavily favors domestic wells.
Domestic wells are commonly shallower than irrigation or municipal wells. Using
predominantly domestic wells may therefore result in data that is focused on shallow
groundwater data. This may not be a problem, but should be acknowledged;
The Franciscan formation is not part of the Basin. It should be identified as a geologic
formation outside of the Basin, and not as a part of the Basin’s geology;
The legend in Figure 2 does not list the geologic formations in temporal order. It would be
clearer to list the geologic formations with youngest at the top of the legend and oldest at the
bottom;
The discussion of the Maacama fault should include a discussion on its impact or influence
on groundwater flow, if known;
There is no need to include a discussion of the Franciscan Formation in the Primary
Aquifers section: as noted earlier in the report, it is not a significant aquifer;
The values of specific capacity and transmissivity are possibly reasonable. However, they
may not make a large difference in how we sustainability is reached. The most significant
problem is that by lumping the Quaternary Alluvium with the Terrace Deposits, this report
does not differentiate between important zones of significantly different transmissivity; and
The specific yield number of 8% is likely low. This is a common problem with the USGS
approach to estimating specific yield. The report proposes estimating specific yield through
aquifer tests. While this would be a preferred approach, aquifer tests must often be
conducted for weeks or months to establish a true specific yield. It may be more practical to
establish a specific yield based on analyzing a number of core samples.
Preliminary Water Budget Review
This report presents a water budget from a numerical groundwater model. The model used for the
water budget covers only three years. Therefore, the expected range of climatic variation, and
January 18, 2019 Page 13
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
subsequent range of water budget terms, is not reflected in this report. The report specifically states
that the water budget derived from the model does not meet all of the water budget requirements
proposed by SGMA. Because the report does not meet the water budget requirements proposed by
SGMA, this report is not adequate for the GSP water budget chapter.
The model is very cursory. While it represents a good effort at an initial model, it will need to be
expanded and improved in order to be useful for the GSP. In particular, historical water budgets in
GSPs must cover a period of at least 10 years. It is wise to choose a time period that is
representative of average conditions. Future water budgets must be based on 50 years of historical
hydrology. It is our understanding that the GSA intends to develop a GSFLOW model of the Ukiah
Valley in coordination with the USGS’ efforts to develop a GSFLOW model of the Russian River
Watershed.
Because the model developed for the water budget analysis is only an initial effort, and the resulting
water budget is too limited to be used in a GSP, we spent limited time on the review of the water
budget analysis. Specific improvements to the report that we noted include the following;
This report continues the problem of combining Terrace Deposits and Quaternary Alluvium
into a single unit. These two units have different hydrogeologic characteristics. To
accurately estimate surface water depletions, Quaternary Alluvium should be separated from
Terrace Deposits;
The water budget results are lumped into categories that are overly broad. The more refined
the water budget, the more useful it will be for groundwater management because it will
allow individual components to be targeted for management. For example, pumping should
be divided into municipal, agricultural, and domestic pumping; and
It will be informative to plot net surface water/groundwater interaction as a percentage of
river flow leaving the Basin. We suspect in winter months the surface water/groundwater
interaction is a small percentage of the total flow leaving the Basin. However, in summer
and fall months the surface water/groundwater interaction may be a more significant portion
of the flow leaving the Basin. This will demonstrate the impact of surface water depletions
on surface water flows during critical months.
An accurate model will be necessary to assess the anticipated impacts and likely success of any
project or management action that may be needed in the future. In particular, a reliable
groundwater model is necessary to assess groundwater/surface water interactions. SGMA
regulations §354.28 (c) (6) (B) specifically requires, “A description of the groundwater and surface
water model used to quantify surface water depletion.” While this regulation goes on to state that a
numerical model is not specifically necessary, the importance of surface water depletion in this
Basin supports the need for a reliable numerical model. Simulating surface water depletions should
be a primary focus of the updated groundwater model.
January 18, 2019 Page 14
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
Preliminary Water Demand Review
There is no specific requirement in SGMA to develop a water demand. We assume that the water
demands in this report will be incorporated into the ultimate groundwater model and water budget.
This report is relatively confusing. The main confusion seems to stem from this report citing
various background reports that lump demands into different sets; and the report’s failure to
adequately differentiate between groundwater production and surface water supplies. This report
would benefit significantly from a simple table that shows the various estimates of average annual
and recent:
Groundwater pumped for agricultural purposes
Groundwater pumped for municipal purposes
Groundwater pumped for domestic purposes
Groundwater pumped for industrial purposes (if known)
Surface water delivered for agricultural purposes
Surface water delivered for municipal purposes
Surface water delivered for domestic purposes
Surface water delivered for industrial purposes (if known)
This table would demonstrate the range of estimates and uncertainty in these estimates.
Understanding this uncertainty is vital because groundwater pumping is one of the primary
components of the Basin’s groundwater budget.
Because the estimates of groundwater pumping for agriculture are apparently rough, it would be
beneficial to refine these estimates using data available from DWR. Detailed crop data are
available from the DWR Land Use Viewer site for 2014; and 2016 data are expected to be available
soon. (https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/). A relatively accurate estimate of
water use could be developed by applying crop duties and irrigation efficiencies to the data from the
site. Unfortunately, this approach will not differentiate between the amount of groundwater and the
amount of surface water used for irrigation.
Estimating future water use may require a hybrid of the methodologies presented in section 3 of this
report. The methodologies are clearly not applicable to all water use sectors. For example, the
population-based methodology arrives at the extraordinarily high estimate of 234 gallons per capita
per day (gpcd). This is approximately twice the statewide average, and is likely due to the fact that
this estimate includes all agricultural use. Estimates of gpcd water use are customarily only applied
to municipal and domestic water uses. This approach should only be applied to the domestic
portion of water use when estimating future water demands.
Similarly, the connection-based methodology only addresses water delivered by municipal or
mutual water systems. Agricultural water demands should be addressed using the land used based
methodology.
January 18, 2019 Page 15
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
Preliminary Sustainable Management Criteria Report Review
The purpose of this report is to assist with developing the sustainable management criteria (SMC)
for the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin. This report was produced in January, 2018. DWR’s Best
Management Practice (BMP) document for SMC’s was released in November, 2017. It is unclear
whether the author had time to review the BMP for SMC’s prior to writing this report.
It is clear that this report could be improved through a more rigorous reading of the SMC BMP.
This report is inadequate as a basis for establishing Sustainable Management Criteria. There are a
number of fundamental errors in this report that could lead to an unacceptable GSP. Examples of
these fundamental errors include the following:
This report presents undesirable results as narratives. DWR has stated that undesirable
results are quantitative combinations of minimum thresholds. The GSP should not adopt
the definition of undesirable results included in this report. Section 2 of this report is titled
undesirable results; however, it actually addresses significant and unreasonable effects as
well as existing conditions. Undesirable results will likely only be estimated after minimum
thresholds have been established.
Section 3 of the report incorrectly states that minimum threshold definitions and values are
not required because there are no undesirable results in the Basin. This is a
misrepresentation of both the definition of undesirable results and the requirement for
minimum thresholds. Minimum thresholds will be required at every representative
monitoring point for each sustainability indicator, regardless of existing conditions.
The report misrepresents the undesirable effect from surface water depletions. Citing a
study by Marquez et al. (2017), the report states that the total average net gain of the
Russian River over a year is approximately 18,560 acre feet. The report goes on to say that
surface water depletion does not have an undesirable result in the Basin. This analysis fails
to meet the SGMA requirements of assessing the adverse effect on all beneficial users of
surface water. This analysis appears to only address the effects of surface water depletions
on groundwater storage in the Basin. A far more complete analysis of the beneficial uses of
surface water is necessary for the GSP. This analysis should additionally include a temporal
aspect to beneficial uses, and not lump the surface water/groundwater interaction into a
single annual number.
The minimum thresholds for surface water depletion presented in this report are not SGMA
compliant. Minimum thresholds must be quantitative, not the qualitative tiered approach as
presented in this report. Quantitative values of surface water depletion must be developed
for both a Minimum Threshold and Measurable Objective.
The report only provides a generalized discussion of what measurable objectives are.
Additional effort will be needed to set measurable objectives at each representative
monitoring site in the Basin for each of the six sustainability indicators.
January 18, 2019 Page 16
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
Other, less significant comments about this report include the following:
The report states that groundwater extraction from deeper wells is likely to have less impact
on surface water flows when clay layers are present. This is true for short periods of time.
However, extended periods of groundwater extraction may impact surface water flows years
or decades in the future. This must be acknowledged, and can be addressed with an accurate
and well-calibrated model;
The report provides a good start at a sustainability goal. The sustainability goal in the GSP
must be a three-part goal including a sustainability statement, a discussion of undesirable
results, and a path for avoiding undesirable results. The sustainability goal cannot be
developed until the minimum thresholds and undesirable results are quantified;
The recommended projects presented in this report focus on filling data gaps. This will be
an important activity after the GSP is developed. However, the GSP will also need a list of
projects that could be implemented should undesirable results be observed in the Basin.
This will include actions that can be taken should surface water depletions impact beneficial
users of the Russian River and its tributaries; and
Table 2 correctly identifies the relevant sustainability indicators and the correct variables
that must be measured for each sustainability indicator. Unfortunately, the remainder of the
report does not tie each sustainability indicator to specific quantitative measurements as
required by SGMA.
Overall, significant work will be needed on the sustainable management criteria and projects before
these chapters are SGMA compliant.
Preliminary Sustainable Management Criteria Report Review
The purpose of this report is to describe monitoring objectives, data and reporting standards and
monitoring protocols for the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin. This report should reference
DWR’s Best Management Practice (BMP) document for Monitoring Protocols.
Section 1.3 should be removed from this document, as it is duplicative with information that
will be included in the Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model chapter of the Basin Setting.
Section 2 of the document should also be removed and replaced with objectives that are
developed following the development of Sustainable Management Criteria.
The recommended monitoring frequency of twice per year will not be sufficient for
monitoring surface water-groundwater interaction.
January 18, 2019 Page 17
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
Section 6 is titled Surface Water-Groundwater Interaction Data Reporting, but does not
appear to address reporting. The approach for using the elevation of the top of the well
casing for correlating surface water and groundwater interactions is flawed, as this
interaction is driven by water-level elevation not the elevation of the wellhead.
Conclusions
The reviewed documents have variable levels of completeness and utility. The Hydrogeologic
Conceptual Model document comes the closest to providing a reasonable start for a chapter of the
GSP. However, as stated in the document itself, additional work is still required before a complete
Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model can be developed.
The Sustainable Management Criteria document is likely the farthest from providing a reasonable
start for a chapter of the GSP. This document includes significant errors and misunderstandings of
the SGMA regulations.
January 18, 2019 Page 18
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
Attachment B: Comments made by the Agricultural
Representative, Mr. Zachary Robinson, through email
communication
January 18, 2019 Page 19
Review of Phase 1 Reports by the Technical Advisory Committee
From: Zac Robinson [mailto:zac@huschvineyards.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 10:38 AM
To: Laura Foglia <lauraf@lwa.com>
Subject: RE: stakeholders interviews
Laura,
Sorry for the delayed response. It seems to be a busy year end for my winery.
From memory, I would point out the following items:
The question of boundaries in the LACO model requires some additional thought. I suspect
their choice of a no flow boundary led to some odd results which show in their variance
report. In my mind leakage from Lake Mendocino is a similar issue (since the Lake is a
boundary).
The LACO data gap analysis was based on the concept of “data point deserts”. Implicit in
this thinking is that monitoring stations need to be uniformly distributed across the basin. I
am hoping you can be more sophisticated and ask about the value of information at a given
location.
The LACO handling of flow in the tribs was too simplistic to address our interest in
surface/groundwater interaction. By the way, I still intend to share that creek monitoring
data with you, but I have a few permissions I still need to acquire.
I understand your scope of work may influence your ability to explore some topics. Nonetheless I
hope we can learn more about:
How Coyote Dam releases affect groundwater head and the transfer of river/groundwater
interaction.
How channel excision is affecting our groundwater heads and storage.
Seasonal shifts with the surface/groundwater interaction.
A good understanding on how the regions creeks supply the groundwater.
How the basin responds to drought.
Can we buy “insurance” with ideas like recharge basins
Thanks.
-zac