HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-13-19 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, June 13, 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. CONSENT ITEMS
a. Approval of Minutes from the February 14, 2019 Meeting
b. Appointment of Beth Salomone as Alternate Member to the
Technical Advisory Committee Representing Russian River
Flood Control
4. STAFF UPDATES
5. 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.
UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1010 Ukiah California 95482 (707)463-4441 fax (707)463-7237
6. ACTION ITEMS
a. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding an Information
Update from Larry Walker and Associates Regarding the
Technical Advisory Committee’s Review of the Initial Ukiah
Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Phase I
Deliverables
Larry Walker and Associates will provide an overview of the comments
and recommendations received by the Technical Advisory Committee for
the Initial Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Phase I
Deliverables.
b. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Proposition 68
Solicitation for Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development
and Projects
The Board will receive a presentation regarding Proposition 68 funding
availability and staff recommendation regarding applying for additional
funding to support the development of the Ukiah Valley Groundwater
Sustainability Plan.
c. Update, Discussion and Possible Action Regarding the Ukiah
Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s Technical
Support Services Application
The Board will receive an update regarding the Agency’s Technical
Support Services application with the Department of Water Resources for
monitoring wells.
d. Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Presentation the
Development of Components of the Ukiah Valley Groundwater
Sustainability Plan
The Board will receive an update from Larry Walker and Associates
regarding components of the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability
Plan.
e. Discussion and Possible Adoption of the Proposed Fiscal Year
2019-20 Budget
The board will review the proposed Fiscal Year 2019-2020 budget for
approval.
UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1010 Ukiah California 95482 (707)463-4441 fax (707)463-7237
7. DIRECTOR REPORTS
8. 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 1
Item No.:3.a
Date:6/13/19
To:Board of Directors
Subject:Discussion and Possible Approval of Minutes from the February 14,2019 Regular
Meeting
Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing
Summary:
Discussion and Possible Approval of Minutes from February 14, 2019,Regular Meeting.
Recommended Action:
Approve the February 14, 2019, regular meeting minutes.
Background:
The Agency convened on February 14, 2019.
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
1:30 P.M. – February 14, 2019
Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Chambers,
501 Low Gap Road, Room 1070, CA 95482
ACTION MINUTES
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL (1:37 P.M)
Present: Director Douglas Crane; Director Alfred White; Director Jerry Cardoza; and Director
Carre Brown.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by: Director Douglas Crane.
3. ACTION ITEMS
3(a). Discussion and Possible Appointment of Tribal Stakeholder Director and
Alternate Director Seat and Agricultural Stakeholder Director and Alternate
Director Seat
Presenter/s: Ms. Sarah Dukett, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Mendocino County.
Public Comment: None.
Board Action: Upon motion by Director Crane, seconded by Director Brown, and carried (4/0/0);
IT IS ORDERED that Ms. Brandi Brown is appointed as the Tribal Stakeholder Director; Mr.
Sonny Elliot, Jr. appointed as the Tribal Stakeholder Alternate Director; Mr. Zachary Robinson
appointed as the Agriculture Stakeholder Director; and Mr. Levi Paulin appointed as the
Agriculture Stakeholder Alternate Director.
ALL APPOINTED DIRECTORS PRESENT AT THE DIAS - 1:42 P.M.
UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1010 Ukiah California 95482 (707)463-4441 fax (707)463-7237
2
3(b). Discussion and Possible Appointment of Officers Including Chairman, Vice-
Chairman, Secretary, and any Other Officers as Determined Necessary by the
Board of Directors
Presenter/s: Ms. Sarah Dukett, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Mendocino County.
Public Comment: None.
Board Action: Upon motion by Director Crane, seconded by Director Cardoza, and carried
(6/0/0); IT IS ORDERED that the Directors nominate and elect Director Carre Brown as Chair of
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the 2019 Calendar Year.
CHAIR BROWN PRESIDING - 1:44 P.M.
Board Action: Upon motion by Director White, seconded by Director Cardoza, and carried
(6/0/0); IT IS ORDERED that the Directors nominate and elect Director Crane as Vice-Chair of
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the 2019 Calendar Year.
Board Action: Upon motion by Director Cardoza, seconded by Vice-Chair Crane, and carried
(6/0/0); IT IS ORDERED that Ms. Brandi Brown is hereby re-appointed as Secretary of the Ukiah
Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency.
3(c). Discussion and Possible Approval of Minutes from the November 8, 2018,
Regular Meeting
Presenter/s: Director Carre Brown.
Public Comment: None.
Board Action: Upon motion by Director Crane, seconded by Director White, and carried (6/0/0);
IT IS ORDERED that the minutes from the November 8, 2018, Ukiah Valley Groundwater
Sustainability Agency are hereby approved.
3(d).Discussion and Possible Action to Approve the Ukiah Valley Basin
Groundwater Sustainability Agency Communication and Engagement Plan
Presenter/s: Director Carre Brown, Ms. Laura Foglia, PhD, Project Manager, Larry Walker and
Associates.
Public Comment: None.
Board Action: Upon motion by Director Crane, seconded by Director Cardoza, and carried
(6/0/0); IT IS ORDERED that the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Communicaton and Engagement Plan is hereby approved.
UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY
501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1010 Ukiah California 95482 (707)463-4441 fax (707)463-7237
3
3(e)Presentation, Discussion and Possible Action Regarding the Development of
Components of the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Presenter/s: Ms. Irene Ramirez, Data Analyst, GEI Consultants; Ms. Laura Foglia, PhD, Project
Manager, Larry Walker and Associates; and Mr. Sam Sandovol Solis, PhD, Strategic Advisor, U.C.
Davis.
Public Comment: Ms. Devon Jones; Mr. Mike Webster and Mr. Sean White.
Board Action: No action taken.
4. STAFF UPDATES
Presenter/s: Ms. Sarah Dukett, Deputy Chief Executive Officer.
5. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Presenter/s: None.
Public Comment: None.
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Presenter/s: Mr. Sean White; and Ms. Susan Canoff.
7. ADJOURNMENT (3:00 P.M.)
________________________________
CARRE BROWN, Chair
Attest: BRANDI BROWN
Secretary
________________________________
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 1 of 1
Item No.:3.b
Date:6/13/19
To:Board of Directors
Subject:Appointment of Beth Salomone as Alternate Member to the Technical Advisory
Committee Representing Russian River Flood Control
Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing
Summary:
The Russian River Flood Control is requesting to fill the vacant alternate member seat on the TAC
to their new General Manager Beth Salomone.
Recommended Action:
Appoint Beth Salomone as alternate member to the Technical Advisory Committee representing
Russian River Flood Control.
Background:
On March 8, 2017, the Board approved a Memorandum of Understanding for the Ukiah Valley
Basin Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to the Groundwater Sustainability Agency. Section
3.1 authorizes one regular and one alternate member from each of the UVBGSA members: County
of Mendocino, City of Ukiah, Upper Russian River Water Agency, Russian River Flood Control
and Water Conservation Improvement District, Tribal Seat and Agricultural Seat.
Fiscal Summary: N/A
Action: ___________________________________________________
Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 1 of 2
Item No.:6.a
Date:6/13/19
To:Board of Directors
Subject:Discussion and Possible Action Regarding an Informational Update from Larry Walker
and Associates Regarding the Technical Advisory Committee’s Review of the Initial
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Phase I Deliverables
Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing
Summary:
The Board will receive an update and presentation from Larry Walker and Associates regarding
the Technical Advisory Committee comments and review of the Phase I reports.
Recommended Action:
Accept with qualifications the Phase I reports based on the comments and suggestions provided
by the Technical Advisory Committee.
Background:
The Technical Advisory Committee meet on November 8, 2018 and April 16, 2019, to discuss and
review the Phase I reports related to the development of an Ukiah Valley Groundwater
Sustainability Plan. The attached memorandum summarizes 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 I of the UVB
Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Development. The Larry Walker Associates (LWA) Team
discussed the Phase I reports at a TAC meeting on November 8, 2018. The purpose of the
discussion and review was to assess the extent that the LWA Team can and should rely on the
information presented in reports produced during Phase I of the project. This memorandum
summarizes the review process and the comments received from TAC members.
Fiscal Summary:N/A
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 2 of 2
Action: ___________________________________________________
Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________
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
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.
Ukiah Valley Groundwater
Sustainability Plan: Review of
Phase I Deliverables
June 13, 2019
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability
Agency Board Meeting
Major Comments (Hydrogeological
Conceptual Model)
2
Add a discussion of soils in the basin (Sonoma Water)
Refine/Revise Geologic Cross Sections:
Geologic units instead of conductivity-based units
Separate Terrace Deposits from Quaternary Alluvium (Sonoma
Water)
Resolve the disconnect between surficial geology of cross sections
and surficial geology map
Major Comments (Hydrogeological
Conceptual Model & Water Budget)
3
Further explanation about the interaction between the surface
water system and the groundwater system(plus maps of gaining
and losing stream reaches, recharge and discharge areas; Sonoma
Water)
Revise the defined no-flow boundary condition for the model
(Zac Robinson)
Improve the simulation of tributaries within the model (Zac
Robinson)
Major Comments (Sustainable Management
Criteria& Monitoring Protocol)
4
SMC report is inadequate as a basis for establishing Sustainable
Management Criteria due to its need for completion of a
thorough water budget (Sonoma Water).
Monitoring Protocol Report can be rewritten to follow the
DWR’s Best Management Practices.
The recommended monitoring frequency of twice per year
will not be sufficient for monitoring surface water-
groundwater interaction.
Minor Comments (Hydrogeological
Conceptual Model & Water Budget)
5
Enhance the understanding of the bottom of the basin (Sonoma
Water)
Exclude Franciscan Formation from the basin (Sonoma Water)
Describe existing Monitoring Network
Map of streamflow gauges and statistical assessment of flow
rates in the basin
Inclusion of USGS GAMA in the report
Summary
6
HCM: Can be utilized as the basis of Phase II work but with
consideration of the major revisions needed.
Water Budget: Needs major revision based on the modifications
to the HCM and the new approach and the level of detail taken
into account for Phase II.
Monitoring Protocol: Will need to be updated and revised to
follow Regs requirements and include changes to the network for
the final plan.
SMC: Mostly narrative report that will be re-written.
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 1 of 2
Item No.:6.b
Date:6/13/19
To:Board of Directors
Subject:Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Proposition 68 Solicitation for
Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development and Projects
Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing
Summary:
The Board will receive a presentation regarding Proposition 68 funding availability and staff
recommendation regarding applying for additional funding to support the development of the
Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
Recommended Action:
Provide direction to staff regarding the Proposition 68 solicitation for Groundwater Sustainability
Plan development and projects.
Background:
On May 3, 2019, DWR released the Draft SGM Grant Program Proposition 68 2019 Guidelines
and Planning Grant -Round 3 Proposal Solicitation Package (PSP) to conduct the third SGM
Planning Grant solicitation in mid-May to make approximately $47 million available for
competitive grants.
The Proposition 68 SGM Implementation Grant solicitation is anticipated to open in early 2020.
At least $88 million will be available for competitive grants for projects that address drought and
groundwater investments.
Fiscal Summary:N/A
Action: ___________________________________________________
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 2 of 2
Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________
Update and discussion on Prop. 68
June 13, 2019
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability
Agency Board Meeting
Possible tasks to be extended or added
Outreach and educational material
Development of new GSFLOW model
Instrumentation for more data collection
Project? Groundwater recharge as an example
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 1 of 1
Item No.:6.c
Date:6/13/19
To:Board of Directors
Subject:Update, Discussion and Possible Action Regarding the Ukiah Valley Basin
Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s Technical Support Services Application
Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing
Summary:
The Board will receive an update regarding the Agency’s Technical Support Services application
with the Department of Water Resources for monitoring wells.
Recommended Action:
Provide direction to staff regarding the Department of Water Resources Technical Support
Services application
Background:
On April 29, 2019, the Department of Water Resources tentatively approved the Agency’s
Technical Support Services application to drill monitoring wells in the Ukiah Valley to support
the Groundwater Sustainability Plan development and compliance.
Fiscal Summary:N/A
Action: ___________________________________________________
Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________
Technical Support Services
application
June 13, 2019
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability
Agency Board Meeting
Monitoring network approach
Goal: better understand surface water and
groundwater connections
Installation of continuous monitoring instruments in
either existing or new wells
Ideal cross-sections and well locations
New wells that should be drilled
1 Ukiah Valley (1-052)
2 Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Sarah Dukett
707-463-4441
uvbgsa@mendocinocounty.org
3(a)
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (UVBGSA) plans to implement monitoring well transects perpendicular to the river and near
existing streamflow gauges, and equipping these wells with continuous transducers for monitoring groundwater elevation and temperature. These
transects will include existing monitoring wells and additional newly drilled wells proposed in this application in order to monitor the long-term and
continuous interaction of groundwater and surface water within the basin. Since groundwater and surface water interaction has been the primary
undesirable results in the previous assessments of the basin, this TSS Well Service Request will help implement the proposed transects to fill data
gaps with respect to the effects of the change in groundwater elevation on river stage/flow and vice versa. It will also help 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. Using this data we may be able to identify vertical hydraulic head differences in the aquifer system and aquifer specific groundwater
conditions, especially in areas of potential surface water-groundwater interaction, sensitive ecosystems, and higher recharge potential. As a result,
this request will lead to significant progress for the UVBGSA in filling data gaps and reducing uncertainty, especially with regards to groundwater
and surface water interaction. In addition, it will help the UVBGSA better characterize the basin and monitor measurable objectives and minimum
thresholds through obtaining a better understanding of the basin, relevant aquifer properties, groundwater conditions, and establishing new
monitoring wells.
3(b)
UVBGSA has established its monitoring transect network with the goal of maximizing the benefits of the existing CASGEM, Geo Tracker, and other
existing wells. A limited number of existing wells are within private properties that will need further collaboration with the landowners. Regarding
the proposed, to be drilled wells; all proposed locations are within public lands. For these wells, coordination and collaboration is needed and is
currently happening to allocate the location and monitoring needs to be required. UVBGSA will provide supplemental information to the DWR if
any of the proposed locations need to be adjusted or changed due to the limitations of the public land authorities. In addition, proposed "Targeted
Depths of Monitored Aquifer Zones" for each well was assessed according to the geologic setting and nearby wells' perforation depths. This
information may need further adjustment and evaluation after the completion of the GSA's Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM) and/or during
the drilling. Therefore, the UVBGSA and the DWR need to collaborate prior to implementation of this request and any drilling. It is worth noting
that the UVBGSA has proposed contingent wells in addition to planned wells in order to provide alternatives in case any of the planned wells
cannot be drilled. These contingent wells will not be included in this request's cost estimate unless they are needed due to substitution with a
planned well.
Se
c
t
i
o
n
Traffic Permits
Access Arrangements/Agreements
Utility Locating
Traffic Control
Security Fencig or Patrol
On-going Data Collection/Verification
Regardless of the anticipated TSS needed from DWR, indicate which of the following services can be provided by the GSA:
Location Name:North Redwood Valley #2-13 Planned Well Drilling Services
Planned/Contingent Planned Hollow Stem Auger Drilling
PropoertyAddress Other Downhole Well Services
Geophysical Logging
Landowner Name UKIAH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Well Development
Landowner Address
Landowner Phone 707-472-5000 Total Depth of Planned Exploration (feet below
ground surface (bgs)):60
lease holder Name Targeted Depths of Monitored Aquifer Zones:
Lease Holder Phone Zone 1 (feet bgs)20 50
Zone 2 (feet bgs)
Lat 39.2675 Zone 3 (feet bgs)
Long -123.2104 Zone 4 (feet bgs)
Base Map Cost Estimate for this Well Service Location:$2500
Quad
Township
Range
Section
Describe distances from mapped landmarks:0.13 miles east of Middle Torrence and 0.11 mile
north of E School Way; On School property
Describe access to well:Access to the location should be made through
the School
Describe surrounding land use:Native Vegetation
Describe on-site water supplies (e.g. city meter,
well, canal, stream, none, etc.):Not Known
Describe any known cultural or biological
restrictions:Not Known
Describe ground surface at well location (e.g.
asphalt, concrete, grass, etc.): Native Soil
List any known subsurface investigations,
studies, or monitoring reports:Not Known
Are there nearby geophysical surveys available?No
Are there nearby borings or wells? (< 1 mile)Yes
Are there nearby well logs available?Yes
It is DWR’s intent to have groundwater level
monitoring sites equipped with automated data
collection and telemetry to the greatest extent
possible. Describe on-site access to power,
telephone, or digital line services for each
location:
Since it is located within a school, we expect
relatively easy access to power, telephone, and
digital services.
List recent seasonal and historic groundwater
levels in feet below ground surface (bgs) at each
site or in the general area:
Seasonal:
Shallow (ft bgs):10 01/03/2013
Seasonal:
Deep (ft bgs):12 11/14/2014
historic:
Shallow (ft bgs):8 01/27/2010
historic:
Deep (ft bgs):21 10/03/2012
Se
c
t
i
o
n
5
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
Location Name:North Central #1-8 Planned Well Drilling Services
Planned/Contingent Planned Hollow Stem Auger Drilling
PropoertyAddress Other Downhole Well Services
Geophysical Logging
Landowner Name MILLVIEW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Well Development
Landowner Address
Landowner Phone 707-462-7229 Total Depth of Planned Exploration (feet below
ground surface (bgs)):310
lease holder Name Targeted Depths of Monitored Aquifer Zones:
Lease Holder Phone Zone 1 (feet bgs)20 60
Zone 2 (feet bgs)130 175
Lat 39.1918 Zone 3 (feet bgs)250 300
Long -123.1977 Zone 4 (feet bgs)
Base Map Cost Estimate for this Well Service Location:$7000
Quad
Township
Range
Section
Describe distances from mapped landmarks:0.07 miles southeast of Riverview Dr, between
East Fork and West Fork
Describe access to well:Access to the location should be sought through
the Water District
Describe surrounding land use:Native Vegetation
Describe on-site water supplies (e.g. city meter,
well, canal, stream, none, etc.):Not Known
Describe any known cultural or biological
restrictions:Not Known
Describe ground surface at well location (e.g.
asphalt, concrete, grass, etc.): Native Soil
List any known subsurface investigations,
studies, or monitoring reports:Not Known
Are there nearby geophysical surveys available?No
Are there nearby borings or wells? (< 1 mile)Yes
Are there nearby well logs available?Yes
It is DWR’s intent to have groundwater level
monitoring sites equipped with automated data
collection and telemetry to the greatest extent
possible. Describe on-site access to power,
telephone, or digital line services for each
location:
Collaboration with the Water District will be
needed to access lines and power.
List recent seasonal and historic groundwater
levels in feet below ground surface (bgs) at each
site or in the general area:
Seasonal:
Shallow (ft bgs):40 04/30/2018
Seasonal:
Deep (ft bgs):47 10/25/2018
historic:
Shallow (ft bgs):37 04/12/2017
historic:
Deep (ft bgs):47 10/19/2016
Se
c
t
i
o
n
5
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
Location Name:South Central #1a-5 Planned Well Drilling Services
Planned/Contingent Planned Hollow Stem Auger Drilling
PropoertyAddress Other Downhole Well Services
Geophysical Logging
Landowner Name CITY OF UKIAH SUCCESSOR AGENCY Well Development
Landowner Address
Landowner Phone 707-463-6217 Total Depth of Planned Exploration (feet below
ground surface (bgs)):310
lease holder Name Targeted Depths of Monitored Aquifer Zones:
Lease Holder Phone Zone 1 (feet bgs)30 60
Zone 2 (feet bgs)140 180
Lat 39.1188 Zone 3 (feet bgs)250 300
Long -123.1926 Zone 4 (feet bgs)
Base Map Cost Estimate for this Well Service Location:$7000
Quad
Township
Range
Section
Describe distances from mapped landmarks:0.03 miles west of 101 Hwy; 0.1 miles from
Kingfisher Indian Food Associates
Describe access to well:
Access to the location to be available from
Airport Park Blvd and next to Mendocino
Brewery Co.
Describe surrounding land use:Native Vegetation
Describe on-site water supplies (e.g. city meter,
well, canal, stream, none, etc.):Not Known
Describe any known cultural or biological
restrictions:Not Known
Describe ground surface at well location (e.g.
asphalt, concrete, grass, etc.): Native Soil
List any known subsurface investigations,
studies, or monitoring reports:Not Known
Are there nearby geophysical surveys available?No
Are there nearby borings or wells? (< 1 mile)Yes
Are there nearby well logs available?Yes
It is DWR’s intent to have groundwater level
monitoring sites equipped with automated data
collection and telemetry to the greatest extent
possible. Describe on-site access to power,
telephone, or digital line services for each
location:
Not yet identified.
List recent seasonal and historic groundwater
levels in feet below ground surface (bgs) at each
site or in the general area:
Seasonal:
Shallow (ft bgs):15 05/03/2018
Seasonal:
Deep (ft bgs):20 10/30/2018
historic:
Shallow (ft bgs):13 04/14/2016
historic:
Deep (ft bgs):20 10/21/2016
Se
c
t
i
o
n
5
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
Location Name:South Central #1a-4 Planned Well Drilling Services
Planned/Contingent Planned Hollow Stem Auger Drilling
PropoertyAddress Other Downhole Well Services
Geophysical Logging
Landowner Name CITY OF UKIAH Well Development
Landowner Address
Landowner Phone 707-463-6217 Total Depth of Planned Exploration (feet below
ground surface (bgs)):60
lease holder Name Targeted Depths of Monitored Aquifer Zones:
Lease Holder Phone Zone 1 (feet bgs)20 50
Zone 2 (feet bgs)
Lat 39.1219 Zone 3 (feet bgs)
Long -123.1984 Zone 4 (feet bgs)
Base Map Cost Estimate for this Well Service Location:$2500
Quad
Township
Range
Section
Describe distances from mapped landmarks:0.25 miles west of 101; inside Ukiah Airport
Describe access to well:Access should be saught through airport
Describe surrounding land use:Native Vegetation
Describe on-site water supplies (e.g. city meter,
well, canal, stream, none, etc.):Not Known
Describe any known cultural or biological
restrictions:Not Known
Describe ground surface at well location (e.g.
asphalt, concrete, grass, etc.): Native Soil
List any known subsurface investigations,
studies, or monitoring reports:Not Known
Are there nearby geophysical surveys available?No
Are there nearby borings or wells? (< 1 mile)Yes
Are there nearby well logs available?Yes
It is DWR’s intent to have groundwater level
monitoring sites equipped with automated data
collection and telemetry to the greatest extent
possible. Describe on-site access to power,
telephone, or digital line services for each
location:
We expect the utilities will be available at airport
List recent seasonal and historic groundwater
levels in feet below ground surface (bgs) at each
site or in the general area:
Seasonal:
Shallow (ft bgs):15 05/03/2018
Seasonal:
Deep (ft bgs):20 10/30/2018
historic:
Shallow (ft bgs):13 04/14/2016
historic:
Deep (ft bgs):20 10/21/2016
Se
c
t
i
o
n
5
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
Location Name:South Central #1a-3 Planned Well Drilling Services
Planned/Contingent Contingent Hollow Stem Auger Drilling
PropoertyAddress Other Downhole Well Services
Geophysical Logging
Landowner Name WILLOW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Well Development
Landowner Address
Landowner Phone 707-462-2666 Total Depth of Planned Exploration (feet below
ground surface (bgs)):310
lease holder Name Targeted Depths of Monitored Aquifer Zones:
Lease Holder Phone Zone 1 (feet bgs)30 60
Zone 2 (feet bgs)140 180
Lat 39.1188 Zone 3 (feet bgs)250 300
Long -123.1926 Zone 4 (feet bgs)
Base Map Cost Estimate for this Well Service Location:$7000
Quad
Township
Range
Section
Describe distances from mapped landmarks:0.13 miles southeast of 101; west of Russian
River
Describe access to well:Access possible through Norgard Ln
Describe surrounding land use:Native Vegetation
Describe on-site water supplies (e.g. city meter,
well, canal, stream, none, etc.):Not Known
Describe any known cultural or biological
restrictions:Not Known
Describe ground surface at well location (e.g.
asphalt, concrete, grass, etc.): Native Soil
List any known subsurface investigations,
studies, or monitoring reports:Not Known
Are there nearby geophysical surveys available?No
Are there nearby borings or wells? (< 1 mile)Yes
Are there nearby well logs available?Yes
It is DWR’s intent to have groundwater level
monitoring sites equipped with automated data
collection and telemetry to the greatest extent
possible. Describe on-site access to power,
telephone, or digital line services for each
location:
We expect the utilities will be accessible within
the Water District property
List recent seasonal and historic groundwater
levels in feet below ground surface (bgs) at each
site or in the general area:
Seasonal:
Shallow (ft bgs):16 04/30/2018
Seasonal:
Deep (ft bgs):21 10/29/2018
historic:
Shallow (ft bgs):14 04/19/2017
historic:
Deep (ft bgs):21 12/18/2016
Se
c
t
i
o
n
5
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
Location Name:South Drainage #1-1 (Contingent)Planned Well Drilling Services
Planned/Contingent Planned Hollow Stem Auger Drilling
PropoertyAddress Other Downhole Well Services
Geophysical Logging
Landowner Name CHARTER OAK VINEYARDS LLC Well Development
Landowner Address
Landowner Phone 707-963-2298 Total Depth of Planned Exploration (feet below
ground surface (bgs)):40
lease holder Name Targeted Depths of Monitored Aquifer Zones:
Lease Holder Phone Zone 1 (feet bgs)2 30
Zone 2 (feet bgs)
Lat 39.0461 Zone 3 (feet bgs)
Long -123.1380 Zone 4 (feet bgs)
Base Map Cost Estimate for this Well Service Location:$2000
Quad
Township
Range
Section
Describe distances from mapped landmarks:0.03 miles west of White Oak Ranch
Describe access to well:
Access should be saught through the winery,
location subject to change due to access
restriction or winery limitations. Please
coordinate with the GSA and the Mendocino
County
Describe surrounding land use:Vineyard (Grapes)
Describe on-site water supplies (e.g. city meter,
well, canal, stream, none, etc.):Not Known
Describe any known cultural or biological
restrictions:Not Known
Describe ground surface at well location (e.g.
asphalt, concrete, grass, etc.): Vines/Native Soil
List any known subsurface investigations,
studies, or monitoring reports:Not Known
Are there nearby geophysical surveys available?No
Are there nearby borings or wells? (< 1 mile)Yes
Are there nearby well logs available?Yes
It is DWR’s intent to have groundwater level
monitoring sites equipped with automated data
collection and telemetry to the greatest extent
possible. Describe on-site access to power,
telephone, or digital line services for each
location:
We expect the utilities will be available due to
the existing winery but should be provided
through the county.
** Note about the groundwater elevations
below: No recent data on seasonal elevations is
available nearby. Values provided are
assumptions based on historical elevations.
List recent seasonal and historic groundwater
levels in feet below ground surface (bgs) at each
site or in the general area:
Seasonal:
Shallow (ft bgs):NA 3 04/27/2018
Seasonal:
Deep (ft bgs):NA 10 11/02/2018
historic:
Shallow (ft bgs):3 02/02/2004
historic:
Deep (ft bgs):10 10/29/2003
Se
c
t
i
o
n
5
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
Location Name:North Central #2-7 Planned Well Drilling Services
Planned/Contingent Planned Hollow Stem Auger Drilling
PropoertyAddress Other Downhole Well Services
Geophysical Logging
Landowner Name MILLVIEW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT Well Development
Landowner Address
Landowner Phone 707-462-7229 Total Depth of Planned Exploration (feet below
ground surface (bgs)):30
lease holder Name Targeted Depths of Monitored Aquifer Zones:
Lease Holder Phone Zone 1 (feet bgs)205 25
Zone 2 (feet bgs)
Lat 39.1857 Zone 3 (feet bgs)
Long -123.1997 Zone 4 (feet bgs)
Base Map Cost Estimate for this Well Service Location:$2000
Quad
Township
Range
Section
Describe distances from mapped landmarks:
0.35 miles west of Rademeyer Rd; 0.05 miles east
of Russian River; 0.2 mile northeast of Hollow
Tree Rd
Describe access to well:Access to the location should be sought through
the water district
Describe surrounding land use:Native Vegetation
Describe on-site water supplies (e.g. city meter,
well, canal, stream, none, etc.):Not Known
Describe any known cultural or biological
restrictions:Not Known
Describe ground surface at well location (e.g.
asphalt, concrete, grass, etc.): Native Soil
List any known subsurface investigations,
studies, or monitoring reports:Not Known
Are there nearby geophysical surveys available?No
Are there nearby borings or wells? (< 1 mile)Yes
Are there nearby well logs available?Yes
It is DWR’s intent to have groundwater level
monitoring sites equipped with automated data
collection and telemetry to the greatest extent
possible. Describe on-site access to power,
telephone, or digital line services for each
location:
Collaboration with the Water District will be
needed to access lines and power.
List recent seasonal and historic groundwater
levels in feet below ground surface (bgs) at each
site or in the general area:
Seasonal:
Shallow (ft bgs):18 04/19/2017
Seasonal:
Deep (ft bgs):23 10/29/2018
historic:
Shallow (ft bgs):17 04/13/2016
historic:
Deep (ft bgs):23 10/16/2015
Se
c
t
i
o
n
5
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
Location Name:North Central #2-6 Planned Well Drilling Services
Planned/Contingent Contingent Hollow Stem Auger Drilling
PropoertyAddress Other Downhole Well Services
Geophysical Logging
Landowner Name STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CalFire Ukiah Station
Station Well Development
Landowner Address
Landowner Phone 707-462-7448 Total Depth of Planned Exploration (feet below
ground surface (bgs)):30
lease holder Name Targeted Depths of Monitored Aquifer Zones:
Lease Holder Phone Zone 1 (feet bgs)5 25
Zone 2 (feet bgs)
Lat 39.1852 Zone 3 (feet bgs)
Long -123.2108 Zone 4 (feet bgs)
Base Map Cost Estimate for this Well Service Location:$2000
Quad
Township
Range
Section
Describe distances from mapped landmarks:0.01 miles south of Hensley Creek Rd; 0.03 miles
east of Redwood Hwy; In Cal Fire Ukiah Station
Describe access to well:Access to the location should be sought through
the Fire Station
Describe surrounding land use:Native Vegetation
Describe on-site water supplies (e.g. city meter,
well, canal, stream, none, etc.):Not Known
Describe any known cultural or biological
restrictions:Not Known
Describe ground surface at well location (e.g.
asphalt, concrete, grass, etc.): Native Soil
List any known subsurface investigations,
studies, or monitoring reports:Not Known
Are there nearby geophysical surveys available?No
Are there nearby borings or wells? (< 1 mile)Yes
Are there nearby well logs available?Yes
It is DWR’s intent to have groundwater level
monitoring sites equipped with automated data
collection and telemetry to the greatest extent
possible. Describe on-site access to power,
telephone, or digital line services for each
location:
We assume it is available due to it being located
within the fire station
List recent seasonal and historic groundwater
levels in feet below ground surface (bgs) at each
site or in the general area:
Seasonal:
Shallow (ft bgs):18 04/19/2017
Seasonal:
Deep (ft bgs):23 10/29/2018
historic:
Shallow (ft bgs):17 04/13/2016
historic:
Deep (ft bgs):23 10/16/2015
Se
c
t
i
o
n
5
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
Location Name:South Central #1b-2 Planned Well Drilling Services
Planned/Contingent Contingent Hollow Stem Auger Drilling
PropoertyAddress Other Downhole Well Services
Geophysical Logging
Landowner Name City of Ukiah Well Development
Landowner Address
Landowner Phone 707-463-6217 Total Depth of Planned Exploration (feet below
ground surface (bgs)):310
lease holder Name Targeted Depths of Monitored Aquifer Zones:
Lease Holder Phone Zone 1 (feet bgs)30 60
Zone 2 (feet bgs)140 180
Lat 39.1132 Zone 3 (feet bgs)250 300
Long -123.1830 Zone 4 (feet bgs)
Base Map Cost Estimate for this Well Service Location:$7000
Quad
Township
Range
Section
Describe distances from mapped landmarks:West of Russian River east of Ukiah WWTP
middle storage Pond
Describe access to well:Access can be made through City of Ukiah WWTP
Describe surrounding land use:Native riparian vegetation
Describe on-site water supplies (e.g. city meter,
well, canal, stream, none, etc.):Not Known
Describe any known cultural or biological
restrictions:Not Known
Describe ground surface at well location (e.g.
asphalt, concrete, grass, etc.): Native Soil
List any known subsurface investigations,
studies, or monitoring reports:Not Known
Are there nearby geophysical surveys available?No
Are there nearby borings or wells? (< 1 mile)Yes
Are there nearby well logs available?Yes
It is DWR’s intent to have groundwater level
monitoring sites equipped with automated data
collection and telemetry to the greatest extent
possible. Describe on-site access to power,
telephone, or digital line services for each
location:
We expect the utilities will be available
throughout the WWTP facility
List recent seasonal and historic groundwater
levels in feet below ground surface (bgs) at each
site or in the general area:
Seasonal:
Shallow (ft bgs):16 04/30/2018
Seasonal:
Deep (ft bgs):21 10/29/2018
historic:
Shallow (ft bgs):14 04/19/2017
historic:
Deep (ft bgs):21 12/18/2016
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
Se
c
t
i
o
n
5
Location Name:North Redwood Valley #2-12 Planned Well Drilling Services
Planned/Contingent Contingent Hollow Stem Auger Drilling
PropoertyAddress Other Downhole Well Services
Geophysical Logging
Landowner Name REDWOOD VALLEY CALPELLA FIRE Department Well Development
Landowner Address
Landowner Phone 707-485-8121 Total Depth of Planned Exploration (feet below
ground surface (bgs)):25
lease holder Name Targeted Depths of Monitored Aquifer Zones:
Lease Holder Phone Zone 1 (feet bgs)5 20
Zone 2 (feet bgs)
Lat 39.2654 Zone 3 (feet bgs)
Long -123.2034 Zone 4 (feet bgs)
Base Map Cost Estimate for this Well Service Location:$2000
Quad
Township
Range
Section
Describe distances from mapped landmarks:0.05 miles east of East Rd; In Redwood Valley-
Calpella Fire Department
Describe access to well:Access to the location should be made through
the fire department
Describe surrounding land use:Native Vegetation
Describe on-site water supplies (e.g. city meter,
well, canal, stream, none, etc.):Not Known
Describe any known cultural or biological
restrictions:Not Known
Describe ground surface at well location (e.g.
asphalt, concrete, grass, etc.): Native Soil
List any known subsurface investigations,
studies, or monitoring reports:Not Known
Are there nearby geophysical surveys available?No
Are there nearby borings or wells? (< 1 mile)Yes
Are there nearby well logs available?Yes
It is DWR’s intent to have groundwater level
monitoring sites equipped with automated data
collection and telemetry to the greatest extent
possible. Describe on-site access to power,
telephone, or digital line services for each
location:
We assume it is available being located within
the fire station
List recent seasonal and historic groundwater
levels in feet below ground surface (bgs) at each
site or in the general area:
Seasonal:
Shallow (ft bgs):10 11/14/2014
Seasonal:
Deep (ft bgs):12 01/27/2010
historic:
Shallow (ft bgs):8 01/27/2010
historic:
Deep (ft bgs):21 10/03/2012
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
Se
c
t
i
o
n
5
Location Name:North Redwood Valley #2-14 Planned Well Drilling Services
Planned/Contingent Contingent Hollow Stem Auger Drilling
PropoertyAddress Other Downhole Well Services
Geophysical Logging
Landowner Name UKIAH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Well Development
Landowner Address
Landowner Phone 707-472-5000 Total Depth of Planned Exploration (feet below
ground surface (bgs)):60
lease holder Name Targeted Depths of Monitored Aquifer Zones:
Lease Holder Phone Zone 1 (feet bgs)20 50
Zone 2 (feet bgs)
Lat 39.2676 Zone 3 (feet bgs)
Long -123.2164 Zone 4 (feet bgs)
Base Map Cost Estimate for this Well Service Location:$2500
Quad
Township
Range
Section
Describe distances from mapped landmarks:0.2 miles from West Rd; On Eagle Peak Middle
School Property close to the track and field
Describe access to well:Access to the location should be made through
the School
Describe surrounding land use:Native Vegetation
Describe on-site water supplies (e.g. city meter,
well, canal, stream, none, etc.):Not Known
Describe any known cultural or biological
restrictions:Not Known
Describe ground surface at well location (e.g.
asphalt, concrete, grass, etc.): Native Soil
List any known subsurface investigations,
studies, or monitoring reports:Not Known
Are there nearby geophysical surveys available?No
Are there nearby borings or wells? (< 1 mile)Yes
Are there nearby well logs available?Yes
It is DWR’s intent to have groundwater level
monitoring sites equipped with automated data
collection and telemetry to the greatest extent
possible. Describe on-site access to power,
telephone, or digital line services for each
location:
We assume it is being located throughout the
school
List recent seasonal and historic groundwater
levels in feet below ground surface (bgs) at each
site or in the general area:
Seasonal:
Shallow (ft bgs):63 04/18/2018
Seasonal:
Deep (ft bgs):76 10/31/2018
historic:
Shallow (ft bgs):49 04/20/2017
historic:
Deep (ft bgs):93 10/18/2016
Se
c
t
i
o
n
4
Se
c
t
i
o
n
5
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 1 of 2
Item No.:6.d
Date:6/13/19
To:Board of Directors
Subject:Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Presentation on 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 to
the Board on a regular basis to review components of the GSP for feedback and approval.
Fiscal Summary:N/A
Action: ___________________________________________________
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 2 of 2
Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________
Ukiah Valley Groundwater
Sustainability Plan Development
Process and Data Availability
June 13, 2019
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability
Agency Board Meeting
Overview of Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP) structure
GSP Chapters
Hydrologeologic conceptual model
Groundwater conditions
Water budget
Data Availability
Data Quality
Gaps to Fill
Outline
Introduction
Plan Area and Basin Setting (June and
October TAC Meetings)
Sustainable Management Criteria (preliminary
discussion in January)
Projects and Management Actions
Plan Implementation
GSP Chapters
1)Introduction
2)Plan Area and Basin Setting
2.2.1. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
2.2.2 Groundwater Conditions (current and historical)
2.2.3 Water Budget (historical and projected)
3)Sustainable Management Criteria
4)Projects and Management Actions
5)Plan Implementation
GSP Chapters
1)Introduction
2)Plan Area and Basin Setting
2.2.1. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
2.2.2 Groundwater Conditions (current and historical)
2.2.3 Water Budget (historical and projected)
3)Sustainable Management Criteria
4)Projects and Management Actions
5)Plan Implementation
GSP Chapters
1)Introduction
2)Plan Area and Basin Setting
2.2.1. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
2.2.2 Groundwater Conditions (current and historical)
2.2.3 Water Budget (historical and projected)
3)Sustainable Management Criteria
4)Projects and Management Actions
5)Plan Implementation
GSP Chapters
1)Introduction
2)Plan Area and Basin Setting
2.2.1. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
2.2.2 Groundwater Conditions (current and historical)
2.2.3 Water Budget (historical and projected)
3)Sustainable Management Criteria
4)Projects and Management Actions
5)Plan Implementation
GSP Chapters
1)Introduction
2)Plan Area and Basin Setting
2.2.1. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
2.2.2 Groundwater Conditions (current and historical)
2.2.3 Water Budget (historical and projected)
3)Sustainable Management Criteria
4)Projects and Management Actions
5)Plan Implementation
GSP Chapters
1)Introduction
2)Plan Area and Basin Setting
2.2.1. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
2.2.2 Groundwater Conditions (current and historical)
2.2.3 Water Budget (historical and projected)
3)Sustainable Management Criteria
4)Projects and Management Actions
5)Plan Implementation
GSP Chapters
Overview of Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP) structure
GSP Chapters
Hydrologeologic conceptual model
Groundwater conditions
Water budget
Data Availability
Data Quality
Gaps to Fill
Outline
Boundaries
Groundwater
basin
Watershed
Towns
Topography
HCM
Overview of Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP) structure
GSP Chapters
Hydrologeologic conceptual model
Groundwater conditions
Water budget
Data Availability
Data Quality
Gaps to Fill
Outline
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater elevation
Land subsidenceGroundwater in storage
Groundwater quality
Seawater intrusion
Interconnected
surface water
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater elevation
Land subsidenceGroundwater in storage
Groundwater quality
Seawater intrusion
Interconnected
surface water
Not a problem
Characterize to show acceptable
Characterize for management
Category
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater elevation
Land subsidenceGroundwater in storage
Groundwater quality
Seawater intrusion
Interconnected
surface water
Not a problem
Characterize to show acceptable
Characterize for management
Category
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater elevation
Land subsidenceGroundwater in storage
Groundwater quality
Seawater intrusion
Interconnected
surface water
Not a problem
Characterize to show acceptable
Characterize for management
Category
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater elevation
Land subsidenceGroundwater in storage
Groundwater quality
Seawater intrusion
Interconnected
surface water
Not a problem
Characterize to show acceptable
Characterize for management
Category
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater Conditions - North
Groundwater Conditions - Central
Groundwater Conditions - South
Streamflow
Streamflow
Overview of Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP) structure
GSP Chapters
Hydrologeologic conceptual model
Groundwater conditions
Water budget
Data Availability
Data Quality
Gaps to Fill
Outline
Water budget: Three Subsystem Model
Soil
Aquifer
Surface water
Water budget: Three Subsystem Model
Soil
Aquifer
Surface water
ET
Rainfall
Water budget: Three Subsystem Model
Soil
Aquifer
Surface water
Irrigation
(diverted)ET
Rainfall
Water budget: Three Subsystem Model
Soil
Aquifer
Surface water
Irrigation
(diverted)
Recharge
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
(p
u
m
p
e
d
)
ET
Rainfall
Water budget: Three Subsystem Model
Soil
Aquifer
Surface water
Irrigation
(diverted)
Infiltration
Recharge
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
(p
u
m
p
e
d
)
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
ET
Rainfall
Water budget presentation planned
for October
Water Budget
Water Budget Information (Reg. § 354.18)
Description of inflows, outflows, and
change in storage
Quantification of overdraft (as applicable)
Estimate of sustainable yield
Quantification of current, historical, and
projected water budget
Description of surface water supply used
or available for use for groundwater
recharge or in-lieu use
Overview of Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP) structure
GSP Chapters
Hydrologeologic conceptual model
Groundwater conditions
Water budget
Data Availability
Data Quality
Gaps to Fill
Outline
Well information sources : State agency data
(available online)
Well permits (Well Completion Reports)
CASGEM
DWR Water Data Library
Municipal and Industrial Pumpage (County, Cities,
and Water Agencies)
Well Data
Surface Water Data
Streamflow data from the gages on tributaries
will be helpful
Land Use data going back to 1990 or information
to help with the pace of its change
River cross-sections (as USGS)
GSFLOW Integrated Hydrological Model
Integrated Hydrological Modelling
PRMS Rainfall Runoff Model MODFLOW Groundwater Model
Model extent
Area of the Upper
Russian River watershed
included in the model is
970 Km
2 (~ 375 Sq.
Miles).
Area of the UVGB is 156
Km2 (~ 60 Sq. Miles).
Model Grid
Watershed and
groundwater model grid
cell size 100m x 100m.
484 Rows
343 Columns
Ukiah Modelling
Model
Description
GSFLOW
1. PRMS 2. MODFLOW
1. Model extent Upper Russian River including UVGB
2. Grid size 100 m* 100 m
3. Time period 1991 - 2018
4. Stress period Daily Monthly (maybe bi-weekly or daily)
5. Time step Daily
6. Components
Hydrologic Response Units
(HRUs)
Principal Aquifers (Layers)
1. Land Use (2010) + Crop
Map (2014)
2 to 3 Aquifers(Alluvium and Continental
Deposits) + Franciscan (Bottom of the
Basin)
2. Soil properties Set of boundary conditions
3. Water bodies and Stream
Network 1. Wells and Pumping Information
4. Climatic and Gauge Data 2. General Head Boundary on the Southern
end of UVGB
5. Water Diversion, Water
Use, Irrigation Patterns
3. Lake Mendocino
4.Recharge
5.No flow
SFR – Streamflow Routing Package
Appendices
References
Maps and data
DWR suggested GSP outline
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/GD_GSP_Outline_Final_2
016-12-23.pdf
DWR Emergency Regulations
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/GSP_Emergency_Regulat
ions.pdf
DWR GSP Submittal Checklist
https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-
Management/Sustainable-Groundwater-Management/Best-Management-
Practices-and-Guidance-Documents/Files/Preparation-Checklist-for-GSP-
Submittal.pdf
SGMA legislation text
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/2014_Sustainable_Groundwater_Management_Legislation
_092914.pdf
References
Streams
Stream gauges
HCM
Ukiah Valley Groundwater
Sustainability Plan Development
Process and Data Availability
June 13, 2019
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability
Agency Board Meeting
Overview of Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP) structure
GSP Chapters
Hydrologeologic conceptual model
Groundwater conditions
Water budget
Data Availability
Data Quality
Gaps to Fill
Outline
Introduction
Plan Area and Basin Setting (June and
October TAC Meetings)
Sustainable Management Criteria (preliminary
discussion in January)
Projects and Management Actions
Plan Implementation
GSP Chapters
1)Introduction
2)Plan Area and Basin Setting
2.2.1. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
2.2.2 Groundwater Conditions (current and historical)
2.2.3 Water Budget (historical and projected)
3)Sustainable Management Criteria
4)Projects and Management Actions
5)Plan Implementation
GSP Chapters
1)Introduction
2)Plan Area and Basin Setting
2.2.1. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
2.2.2 Groundwater Conditions (current and historical)
2.2.3 Water Budget (historical and projected)
3)Sustainable Management Criteria
4)Projects and Management Actions
5)Plan Implementation
GSP Chapters
1)Introduction
2)Plan Area and Basin Setting
2.2.1. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
2.2.2 Groundwater Conditions (current and historical)
2.2.3 Water Budget (historical and projected)
3)Sustainable Management Criteria
4)Projects and Management Actions
5)Plan Implementation
GSP Chapters
1)Introduction
2)Plan Area and Basin Setting
2.2.1. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
2.2.2 Groundwater Conditions (current and historical)
2.2.3 Water Budget (historical and projected)
3)Sustainable Management Criteria
4)Projects and Management Actions
5)Plan Implementation
GSP Chapters
1)Introduction
2)Plan Area and Basin Setting
2.2.1. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
2.2.2 Groundwater Conditions (current and historical)
2.2.3 Water Budget (historical and projected)
3)Sustainable Management Criteria
4)Projects and Management Actions
5)Plan Implementation
GSP Chapters
1)Introduction
2)Plan Area and Basin Setting
2.2.1. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
2.2.2 Groundwater Conditions (current and historical)
2.2.3 Water Budget (historical and projected)
3)Sustainable Management Criteria
4)Projects and Management Actions
5)Plan Implementation
GSP Chapters
Overview of Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP) structure
GSP Chapters
Hydrologeologic conceptual model
Groundwater conditions
Water budget
Data Availability
Data Quality
Gaps to Fill
Outline
Boundaries
Groundwater
basin
Watershed
Towns
Topography
HCM
Overview of Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP) structure
GSP Chapters
Hydrologeologic conceptual model
Groundwater conditions
Water budget
Data Availability
Data Quality
Gaps to Fill
Outline
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater elevation
Land subsidenceGroundwater in storage
Groundwater quality
Seawater intrusion
Interconnected
surface water
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater elevation
Land subsidenceGroundwater in storage
Groundwater quality
Seawater intrusion
Interconnected
surface water
Not a problem
Characterize to show acceptable
Characterize for management
Category
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater elevation
Land subsidenceGroundwater in storage
Groundwater quality
Seawater intrusion
Interconnected
surface water
Not a problem
Characterize to show acceptable
Characterize for management
Category
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater elevation
Land subsidenceGroundwater in storage
Groundwater quality
Seawater intrusion
Interconnected
surface water
Not a problem
Characterize to show acceptable
Characterize for management
Category
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater elevation
Land subsidenceGroundwater in storage
Groundwater quality
Seawater intrusion
Interconnected
surface water
Not a problem
Characterize to show acceptable
Characterize for management
Category
Groundwater Conditions
Groundwater Conditions - North
Groundwater Conditions - Central
Groundwater Conditions - South
Streamflow
Streamflow
Overview of Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP) structure
GSP Chapters
Hydrologeologic conceptual model
Groundwater conditions
Water budget
Data Availability
Data Quality
Gaps to Fill
Outline
Water budget: Three Subsystem Model
Soil
Aquifer
Surface water
Water budget: Three Subsystem Model
Soil
Aquifer
Surface water
ET
Rainfall
Water budget: Three Subsystem Model
Soil
Aquifer
Surface water
Irrigation
(diverted)ET
Rainfall
Water budget: Three Subsystem Model
Soil
Aquifer
Surface water
Irrigation
(diverted)
Recharge
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
(p
u
m
p
e
d
)
ET
Rainfall
Water budget: Three Subsystem Model
Soil
Aquifer
Surface water
Irrigation
(diverted)
Infiltration
Recharge
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
(p
u
m
p
e
d
)
Di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
ET
Rainfall
Water budget presentation planned
for October
Water Budget
Water Budget Information (Reg. § 354.18)
Description of inflows, outflows, and
change in storage
Quantification of overdraft (as applicable)
Estimate of sustainable yield
Quantification of current, historical, and
projected water budget
Description of surface water supply used
or available for use for groundwater
recharge or in-lieu use
Overview of Groundwater Sustainability Plan
(GSP) structure
GSP Chapters
Hydrologeologic conceptual model
Groundwater conditions
Water budget
Data Availability
Data Quality
Gaps to Fill
Outline
Well information sources : State agency data
(available online)
Well permits (Well Completion Reports)
CASGEM
DWR Water Data Library
Municipal and Industrial Pumpage (County, Cities,
and Water Agencies)
Well Data
Surface Water Data
Streamflow data from the gages on tributaries
will be helpful
Land Use data going back to 1990 or information
to help with the pace of its change
River cross-sections (as USGS)
GSFLOW Integrated Hydrological Model
Integrated Hydrological Modelling
PRMS Rainfall Runoff Model MODFLOW Groundwater Model
Model extent
Area of the Upper
Russian River watershed
included in the model is
970 Km
2 (~ 375 Sq.
Miles).
Area of the UVGB is 156
Km2 (~ 60 Sq. Miles).
Model Grid
Watershed and
groundwater model grid
cell size 100m x 100m.
484 Rows
343 Columns
Ukiah Modelling
Model
Description
GSFLOW
1. PRMS 2. MODFLOW
1. Model extent Upper Russian River including UVGB
2. Grid size 100 m* 100 m
3. Time period 1991 - 2018
4. Stress period Daily Monthly (maybe bi-weekly or daily)
5. Time step Daily
6. Components
Hydrologic Response Units
(HRUs)
Principal Aquifers (Layers)
1. Land Use (2010) + Crop
Map (2014)
2 to 3 Aquifers(Alluvium and Continental
Deposits) + Franciscan (Bottom of the
Basin)
2. Soil properties Set of boundary conditions
3. Water bodies and Stream
Network 1. Wells and Pumping Information
4. Climatic and Gauge Data 2. General Head Boundary on the Southern
end of UVGB
5. Water Diversion, Water
Use, Irrigation Patterns
3. Lake Mendocino
4.Recharge
5.No flow
SFR – Streamflow Routing Package
Appendices
References
Maps and data
DWR suggested GSP outline
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/GD_GSP_Outline_Final_2
016-12-23.pdf
DWR Emergency Regulations
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/GSP_Emergency_Regulat
ions.pdf
DWR GSP Submittal Checklist
https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-
Management/Sustainable-Groundwater-Management/Best-Management-
Practices-and-Guidance-Documents/Files/Preparation-Checklist-for-GSP-
Submittal.pdf
SGMA legislation text
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/2014_Sustainable_Groundwater_Management_Legislation
_092914.pdf
References
Streams
Stream gauges
HCM
Land Use
(DWR, 2010)
HCM
HCM (Change in Land Use)
Year Apples Cherrie
Grapes,
Red Wine
Grapes,
White Wine
Grapes,
Rootstock Olive Pears,
Bartlett
Pears,
Other Pistachio Walnuts,
English Pasture Grapes,
Raisin
1990 0.80 1.80 2,849 1,977 0 0 1,554 98.40 12.60 33.40 0 0
1991 0.80 1.80 3,015 2,083 0 2.00 1,554 114.40 12.60 33.40 0 0
1992 0.80 1.80 3,155 2,251 0 2.00 1,554 114.40 12.60 33.40 0 0
1993 0.80 1.80 3,345 2,349 0 2.00 1,554 116.40 12.60 33.40 0 0
1994 0.80 1.80 3,574 2,435 1.70 2.00 1,554 116.40 12.60 33.40 0 0
1995 0.80 1.80 3,797 2,516 1.70 6.00 1,554 125.90 12.60 33.40 210 0
1996 1.00 1.80 4,151 2,666 1.70 6.00 1,556 125.90 12.60 33.40 210 0
1997 1.00 1.80 4,410 2,752 1.70 6.00 1,556 125.90 12.60 33.40 210 0
1998 1.00 1.80 4,868 2,864 1.70 6.20 1,556 125.90 12.60 33.40 210 0
1999 1.00 1.80 5,117 2,906 1.70 6.20 1,556 125.90 12.60 33.40 210 0
2000 1.00 1.80 5,386 3,005 7.20 6.20 1,556 125.90 12.60 33.40 210 0
2001 1.60 1.10 5,280 2,601 3.60 9.50 1,240 101.40 12.60 24.90 210 0
2002 2.20 0.40 5,175 2,196 0 12.80 924 76.90 12.60 16.40 0 0
2003 2.20 0.40 5,268 2,232 0 14.20 924 83.30 12.60 16.40 0 0
2004 2.20 0.40 5,333 2,303 0 14.40 924 89.30 12.60 16.40 0 0
2005 2.20 0.40 5,392 2,328 0 15.00 924 89.30 12.60 16.40 0 0
2006 2.20 0.40 5,290 2,049 0 19.20 916 79.80 12.60 16.40 0 0
2007 2.20 0.40 5,370 2,198 0 20.50 921 79.80 12.60 16.40 0 0
2008 2.20 0.40 5,389 2,265 0 20.50 926 79.80 12.60 16.40 0 0
2009 2.20 0.40 5,420 2,382 0 20.50 926 79.80 12.60 16.40 0 0
2010 3.20 0.40 5,479 2,391 0 20.50 926 79.80 12.60 16.40 0 0
2011 3.20 0.40 5,539 2,421 0 20.50 926 79.80 12.60 16.40 0 0
2012 3.20 0.40 5,702 2,502 0 20.50 926 82.50 12.60 16.40 0 0.10
2013 3.20 0.40 5,781 2,532 0 20.50 926 82.50 12.60 16.40 0 0.10
2014 3.20 0.40 5,823 2,551 0 20.50 926 82.50 12.60 16.40 0 0.10
2015 3.20 0.40 5,875 2,611 0 20.50 926 82.50 12.60 17.70 0 0.10
Geological Setting
(USGS, 1965)
HCM
Agricultural,
Industrial &
Municipal (from
LACO model
during 2014-2016),
and CASGEM
Wells
HCM
Data Time period Number Source Additional Information Data gap
Monitoring Wells 2014- 2018 49 CASGEM
Few number of data
points Longer time series
GeoTracker
Wells
~ 1999 to
~present 433 GeoTracker
Groundwater elevation
and/or quality. Varies
based on
remediation/cleanup site.
Wells of the
water treatment
plant
1990-2015 6 UCD/Ukiah city
Verify the coordinates
And 2 new wells
(2009/2011) with less data
Updates till 2018
Wells (with
modelled
pumping rates)
2014-2016 38 LACO
Digitalized from the LACO
map and the pumping
data from the LACO
MODFLOW
Verify the exact
coordinates & Longer time
series
(1990-2018)
Wells
completion
reports
- 1928 UCD
Well completion, data on
pdf format
Well Data
Other available well data that can be shared?
Water quality data?
Surface Water Data
Data Time period Number Source Additional Information
Stream Network GIS Analysis of
DEM
Multiple networks are created and TAC will
determine the level of detail needed.
Streamflow
Measurements
Variable 14 USGS QA/QC is ongoing
Unknown 4 NMFS
Based on a shapefile; No data available; Quality
of data has been questioned
Unknown 3 CLSI We think 3 exist; is it shareable?
Variable 6 CDEC
3 River Discharge; 3 River Stage datasets. Data
may have overlaps with USGS data; QA/QC
Ongoing.
Water bodies
Natural Bodies of
Water Shapefile is available
Irrigation Ponds Shapefile created and validated to an acceptable
threshold
Precipitation 4 CDEC QA/QC Ongoing
Precipitation 1 USGS in Santa Rosa, very far
Precipitation 1 CIMIS far from basin
Precipitation 1 NOAA QA/QC Ongoing
Land Use 2010 1 DWR
Land Use 2014 1 DWR crop map
Soil 1 DWR/SSURGO
Elevation 2017 LiDar used as default DEM
Irrigation Ponds
13 June 2019
•Data Gap Analysis
•Monitoring Network Design
10 October 2019
•Data Management System
•Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
9 January 2020
•Integrated Hydrological Model
12 March 2020
•Sustainable Management Criteria
•Measurable Objectives
9 July 2020
•Future Baseline Water Budget
•Alternative Scenarios
10 September 2020
•Final Sustainable Management Criteria
•Final Measurable Objectives
12 November 2020
•Final GSP Implementation Plan
11 March 2021
•Final GSP Draft/ GSP Submittal
UVBGSA Important Dates for Deliverables
13 June 2019
•Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
•Preliminary Integrated Hydrological Model
10 October 2019
•Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
•Integrated Hydrological Model (Preliminary
Water Budget Results)
9 January 2020
•Integrated Hydrological model
•Sustainable Management Criteria
•Measurable Objectives
12 March 2020
•Future Baseline Water Budget
•Alternatives Evaluation
9 July 2020
•Sustainable Management Criteria
•Measurable Objectives
14 January 2021
•Draft GSP
11 March 2021
•Draft GSP
Technical Advisory Committee
Deliverable Schedule
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 1 of 2
Item No.:6.e
Date:6/13/19
To:Board of Directors
Subject:Discussion and Possible Adoption of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2019-20
Budget
Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing
Summary:
The Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) requires that the Agency adopt a budget pursuant to the
schedule and provisions described below. The Board should review the current financial status
and consider the proposed FY 2019-2020 budget adoption.
Recommended Action:
Adopt the proposed Fiscal Year 2019-20 budget.
Background:
Section 15.1 requires within (90) days after the first meeting of the Governing Board of the Agency
and thereafter prior to the commencement of each fiscal year (July 1st), the Board of Directors
adopt a budget for the Agency for the ensuing fiscal year.
The Trust Account FY 2018-19 year-end balance projected balance is $9,741. FY 2019-20
appropriates $8,700 of the Trust Account for the administration of the UVBGSA.
The County of Mendocino manages the trust account and the budget is administered by the
Mendocino County Water Agency. This management structure allows the County to include
UVBGSA in the County’s annual audit, therefore meeting the UVBGSA audit requirement.
Fiscal Summary:$8,700
Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Agenda Summary
Page 2 of 2
Action: ___________________________________________________
Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________
Description FY 2017-18 Actual FY 2018-19 Projected Year-End FY 2019-2020 Proposed Detail
Revenue
Other Govt Aid $0 $0
Other $0 $0
Grant Revenue $0 $0
Fees $0 $0
Membership Dues ($20,000)($15,691)($9,741)Projected FY 18-19 trust account carryforward
Total Revenues ($20,000)($15,691)($9,741)
Administrative Services
Clerk Services $1,114 $1,500 $2,000 Provided by Mendocino County - records management/publicans/agendas
Administrative Services $3,195 $4,300 $5,000 Provided by Mendocino County Water Agency - administrative support
Total Administrative Services $4,309 $5,800 $7,000
Services & Supplies
Communications $0 $50 $100 Mail, public noticing
Insurance - General $0 $0 $0
Maint - Equip $0 $0 $0
Memberships $0 $0 $0
Office Expense $0 $100 $200
Education & Training $0 $0 $0
Prof/Spec Svcs - Other $0 $0 $1,000 Legal services
Rent/Lease Equip $0 $0 $0
Small Tool/Instrument $0 $0 $0
Spec Dept Expense $0 $0 $300 Misc expenses
Travel $0 $0 $100
Total Services & Supplies $0 $150 $1,700
Fixed Assets
Equipment $0 $0 $0
Total Fixed Assets $0 $0 $0
Other Charges $0 $0
Pmt Other Gov Agency $0 $0 $0
Total Other Charges $0 $0 $0
Total FY 19-20 Expenditures $4,309 $5,950 $8,700
Remaining Trust Account Total ($15,691)($9,741)($1,041)
UVBGSA Fiscal Year 2019-2020 Proposed Budget
05/23/2019 10:25 |MENDOCINO COUNTY PRODUCTION v11.3 |P 1
clarkj |G/L ACCOUNT DETAIL |glactinq
Org: 2110 Object: 760256
UK VLY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUS 2110-00-000-0000-000-00-000000-000000-760256-
YEAR PER JOURNAL EFF DATE SRC T PO/REF2 REFERENCE AMOUNT P CHECK NO WARRANT VDR NAME/ITEM DESC COMMENTS_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2019 11 597 05/15/2019 GEN 1 JAN-MARCH 330.81 Y 0 ADMIN SER
2019 11 596 05/15/2019 GEN 1 JAN-MARCH 1,069.94 Y 0 ADMIN SER
2019 09 37 03/04/2019 GEN 1 ADMIN SERV 2,297.04 Y 0 ADMIN SER
2019 09 37 03/04/2019 GEN 1 ADMIN SERV 626.10 Y 0 ADMIN SER
2019 00 5 07/01/2018 SOY 1 SOY BAL -15,691.47 Y 0 OPENING B
2018 12 1358 06/27/2018 GEN 1 UVBGSA ADM 1,113.98 Y 0 031618-06
2018 10 947 04/24/2018 CRP 1 183031 -5,000.00 Y 0 CITY OF UKIAH UVBGSA -
2018 10 19 04/02/2018 GEN 1 7/1-032818 3,194.55 Y 0 EO TIME R
2018 07 1098 01/29/2018 CRP 1 178923 -5,000.00 Y 0 MENDO CO RUSSIAN UVBGSA DU
2018 07 470 01/12/2018 CRP 1 178183 -5,000.00 Y 0 UPPER RUSSIAN RIV DUES UK V
2018 06 212 12/07/2017 GEN 1 INVOICE 1 UVBGSA -5,000.00 Y 0 INVOICE #
Total Amount: -27,059.05
** END OF REPORT - Generated by Janet Clark **