Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7-8-21 UVBGSA Agenda Packet UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY 340 Lake Mendocino Dr.  Ukiah  California 95482  (707)463-4363  fax (707)463-5474 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, July 8, 2021 Zoom Link: https://mendocinocounty.zoom.us/j/8480870030784808700307 Meeting ID: 848 0870 0307 Phone: +1 669 900 9128 Passcode: 602527 Due to COVID-19 the UVBGSA Board meetings will be conducted virtually and not available for in person public participation (pursuant to State Executive Order N 29 20). The public may participate digitally in meetings by sending comments to uvbgsa@mendocinocounty.org or by clicking the link above to join the Zoom meeting, in lieu of personal attendance. All email comment must be received by 8:00 A.M. the morning of the meeting in order to be published online prior to the meeting. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. CONSENT ITEMS a. Approval of Minutes from the June 10th, 2021 Meeting b. Approval of Agreement No. 0035, Agreement between the State of California Department of Water Resources and Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency, a Groundwater Sustainability Agency, under the Sustainable Groundwater Management, Technical Support Services Program c. Approval of the License Agreement between Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, State of California Department of Water Resources and Willow County Water District d. Approval of the License Agreement between Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, State of California Department of Water Resources and City of Ukiah UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY 340 Lake Mendocino Dr.  Ukiah  California 95482  (707)463-4363  fax (707)463-5474 e. Approval of Notice of Intent Letter to Adopt a Groundwater Sustainability Plan by the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency 4. Action Items a. Discussion and Possible Appointment Of Tribal Stakeholder Director and Alternate Tribal Stakeholder Director The Board shall review the Tribal Stakeholder nomination by the six (6) Tribes within the Ukiah Valley to confirm their appointment. b. Presentation and Ratification of Facilitation Support Services Application to Department of Water Resources Ratify the Facilitation Support Services Application submitted to Department of Water Resources. c. Receive Update from the Financial Ad-Hoc Committee and Discussion and Possible Direction Regarding Funding for the Implementation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan and Annual Groundwater Sustainability Agency Administration Costs Receive update from the Ad-Hoc Committee and give possible direction regarding funding mechanisms. d. Presentation on the Update of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development and Approval of the Release of the Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan for Public Comment Receive presentation on the update of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan development and approve the Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan developed by the Technical Team and Technical Advisory Committee to be released for public comment following the public meeting to be held on July 15, 2021. e. Authorization of Staff to Develop a Conceptual Plan to be Submitted to Department of Water Resources for Round 3 Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program Implementation Funds Authorize Staff to develop a Concept Proposal for Round 3 Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program Funds and submit to Department of Water Resources. f. Discussion and Possible Direction on the Public Meeting to be Held on July 15, 2021 Direct Staff on topics to be included in the Public Meeting Presentation. g. General Discussion on Ongoing 2021 Drought Crisis UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY 340 Lake Mendocino Dr.  Ukiah  California 95482  (707)463-4363  fax (707)463-5474 The Board will discuss and receive reports on water supplies in the Ukiah Valley Basin and drought mitigation measures in development. 5. DIRECTOR REPORTS 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA The Board will receive public comments on items not appearing on the agenda and within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Agency. The Board will not enter into a detailed discussion or take any action on any items presented during public comments. Such items may only be referred to staff for administrative action or scheduled on a subsequent agenda for discussion. Persons wishing to speak on specific agenda items should do so at the time specified for those items. The presiding Chair shall limit public comments to three minutes. 7. ADJOURNMENT The Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency complies with ADA requirements and upon request, will attempt to reasonably accommodate individuals with disabilities by making meeting material available in appropriate alternative formats (pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2). Anyone requiring reasonable accommodation to participate in the meeting should contact the Mendocino County Department of Transportation by calling (707) 463-4363 at least 5 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: 7/8/21 To: Board of Directors Subject: Approval of Minutes from the June 10th, 2021 Meeting Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing Summary: Approval of Minutes from the June 10th, 2021 Meeting Recommended Action: Approve the Minutes from the June 10th, 2021 Meeting Background: The Agency convened on June 10th, 2021 Fiscal Summary: No fiscal impact. Action: ___________________________________________________ Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________ UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY 340 Lake Mendocino Dr.  Ukiah  California 95482  (707)463-4363  fax (707)463-5474 Action Minutes – June 10, 2021 AGENDA ITEM NO. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL (1:35 P.M.) Present: Directors Glen McGourty, Douglas Crane, Alfred White, and Zachary Robinson. Chair McGourty presiding. Absent: Director James Green. Mendocino County Staff Present: Amber Fisette, Deputy Director of Transportation; James Linderman, Senior Environmental Compliance Specialist; Andrew Bake, CivicSpark Fellow; and Nicole French, Department Analyst II. Public Attendees: Laura Foglia, John Bliss, Elizabeth Salomone, Dominic Gutierrez, Jim Sullivan, Paul Z, Devon Jones, and Amir Mani. AGENDA ITEM NO. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Pledge of Allegiance was lead by: Director Robinson. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3. CONSENT ITEMS Presenter: Director McGourty. Public Comment: None. Board Action: Upon motion by Director Crane, seconded by Director Robinson, and carried unanimously (4/0, with Director Green absent); IT IS ORDERED that Consent Calendar item 4(a) is hereby approved as follows: a. Approval of Minutes from the May 13th, 2021 Meeting. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4A. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT OF TRIBAL STAKEHOLDER DIRECTOR Presenter: Andrew Bake. Public Comment: None. Board Action: No action taken. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4B. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION FOR FUNDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN AND ANNUAL GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY ADMINISTRATION COSTS INCLUDING RECEIVING DIRECTOR’S REPORTS ON VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS FROM GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY MEMBER AGENCIES Presenters: Amber Fissette, John Bliss, Dominic Gutierrez, and Laura Foglia. Public Comment: Devon Jones and Elizabeth Salomone. UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY 340 Lake Mendocino Dr.  Ukiah  California 95482  (707)463-4363  fax (707)463-5474 Board Action: Upon motion by Director Robinson, seconded by Director White, and carried unanimously (4/0, with Director Green absent); IT IS ORDERED that an ad hoc committee comprised of Director Robinson and Director Crane be created to work with members of the Technical Advisory Committee (noting interest from members Sean White and Elizabeth Salomone) to study funding options, rate structures, and models of implementation for funding the implementation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan and Annual Groundwater Sustainability Agency administration costs. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4C. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PROGRESS AND TIMELINE OF THE GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN DEVELOPMENT Presenters: Laura Foglia and Amber Fisette. Public Comment: None. Board Action: No action taken. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4D. GENERAL DISCUSSION ON ONGOING 2021 DROUGHT CRISIS Presenters: Director McGourty and Elizabeth Salomone. Public Comment: None. Board Action: No action taken. AGENDA ITEM NO. 5. DIRECTORS REPORTS Presenter/s: Board members. Public Comment: Elizabeth Salomone. Board Action: No action taken. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA Presenter/s: None. Public Comment: None. Board Action: No action taken. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7. ADJOURNMENT (3:25 P.M.) ________________________________ Glenn McGourty, Chair Attest: Secretary ________________________________ Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 1 of 2 Item No.: 3.b Date: 7/8/21 To: Board of Directors Subject: Approval of Agreement No. 0035, Agreement between the State of California Department of Water Resources and Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency, a Groundwater Sustainability Agency, under the Sustainable Groundwater Management, Technical Support Services Program Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing Summary: The Mendocino County Water Agency recommends the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency enter into Agreement No. 0035, Agreement between the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency, a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), under the Sustainable Groundwater Management, Technical Support Services (TSS) Program, to drill up to six monitoring wells within the Ukiah Valley Basin to augment the UVBGSA’s groundwater elevation monitoring and data collection efforts. Recommended Action: Approve Agreement No. 0035, Agreement between the State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency, a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), under the Sustainable Groundwater Management, Technical Support Services (TSS) Program; and authorize Chair to sign same. Background: State of California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) Technical Support Services (TSS) program supports Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) as they develop and implement their Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). TSS’s goal is to provide education, data, and tools to GSAs to build the capacity needed to achieve sustainability. DWR will drill up to six Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 2 of 2 wells between July and December of 2021, which will be in place for the next 20 years to provide long-term data on groundwater elevations and water quality in the Ukiah Valley Basin. Fiscal Summary: No fiscal impact. Action: ___________________________________________________ Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________ AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES (DWR) AND UKIAH VALLEY GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY, A GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY (GSA), UNDER THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT, TECHNICAL SUPPORT SERVICES (TSS) PROGRAM AGREEMENT NO. 0030 CALIFORNIA WATER CODE §10729 ET SEQ. 1) PURPOSE. Pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 10729) of Division 6, Part 2.74 of the California Water Code (CWC), the State shall provide in-kind and subcontracted technical services for investigating and gathering data on groundwater conditions in groundwater basins of California to assist Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in developing Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs), hereinafter collectively referred to as “Technical Support Services” or “TSS.” 2) TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of the Agreement begins on _____________________, the date the Agreement is executed by the State, and terminates upon completion of the useful life of the project which, at a minimum, is 20 years after the GSA’s GSP or Alternative implementation, or when all the Parties’ obligations under the Agreement are fully satisfied, whichever occurs earlier. Execution date is the date the State signs the Agreement indicated on page 4. 3) RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES. The GSA is solely responsible for design, operation, and maintenance of projects to be constructed by the State as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, Work Plan, Schedule, and Budget. Review or approval of plans, specifications, bid documents, or other construction documents by the State is solely for proper administration of the TSS by the State and shall not be deemed to relieve or restrict responsibilities of the GSA under the Agreement. The State may recommend modification to the designs, plans, or specifications prepared by the GSA to improve project outcomes, comply with well standards Bulletin 74-90, and/or construction efficiency. Such recommendations will be incorporated into the construction design at the GSA’s sole discretion, but the Department may terminate this Agreement if it determines that failure to make the recommended changes may pose a threat to water quality. 4) CONTINUING ELIGIBILITY. The GSA must meet the following ongoing requirements to remain eligible to receive TSS: a) Statutory requirements for GSA Establishment (CWC Section 10723 et seq.). b) Statutory requirements for Alternatives (CWC Section 10733.6 et seq.). c) Statutory requirements for GSP Initial Notification (CWC Section 10727.8 and §353.6 of the GSP Regulations [California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 1.5, Subchapter 2]). d) The basin or subbasin that the GSA occupies is current with periodic reporting requirements under DWR’s California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) and Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Programs, as applicable (CWC Sections 10920 et seq. and 10728, respectively). e) The basin or portion of the basin managed by the GSA must not be in a current condition of overlap that would disqualify the decision of the GSA to undertake groundwater management pursuant to SGMA (CWC Section 10723.8(c)). 5) INDEMNIFICATION. The GSA and State will exercise reasonable precautions to avoid damage to people and property. Each agrees that it is responsible for its own actions and those of its agents, subcontractors, employees, representatives and any other person acting on their behalf or at their direction, arising out of or as a result of, or in connection with this Agreement and hereby agrees, to the extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold the other parties and their respective officers and agents harmless, against any or asserted liability arising out of its (and its agents, subcontractors, employees, representatives and any other person acting on their behalf or at their direction) actions, either willful, negligent, or intentional, in implementing the project. Such indemnity will include any losses relating to any claim made, whether or not a court action is filed. 6) INDEPENDENT CAPACITY. The GSA, and the agents and employees of the GSAs, in the performance of the Agreement, shall act in an independent capacity and not as officers, employees, or agents of the State. 7) INSPECTIONS OF PROJECT. The State and GSA shall each have the right to inspect all project-related work as described in Exhibit A at all reasonable times and places during the term of the Agreement. The GSA TSS Agreement No. 0030 Page 2 of 14 and DWR shall include provisions ensuring such access in all their contracts entered into pursuant to its Agreement. 8) DEFAULT PROVISIONS. The GSA will be in default under this TSS Agreement if any of the following occur: a) Breaches of this TSS Agreement, or any supplement or amendment to it, or any other agreement between the GSA and the State evidencing or securing the GSA’s obligations. b) Making any false warranty, representation, or statement with respect to this TSS Agreement or the application filed to obtain this TSS Agreement. c) Failure to operate or maintain project(s) in accordance with this TSS Agreement. d) Failure to meet any of the requirements set forth in Paragraph 4, “Continuing Eligibility.” 9) RESPONSE TO DEFAULT. Should an event of default occur, the State shall provide a notice of default to the GSA and shall give the GSA at least ten (10) calendar days to cure the default from the date the notice is sent via first-class mail to the GSA. If the GSA fails to cure the default within the time prescribed by the State, the State may do any of the following: a) Terminate any obligation to perform future project work as described in Exhibit A. b) Terminate the TSS Agreement. c) Take any other action that it deems necessary to protect its interests. 10) ENTRY PERMIT OR OTHER DOCUMENT. For projects involving construction of improvements on publicly owned real property, including the installation of groundwater monitoring well(s), the GSA shall execute or obtain from the owner(s) of the real property a Land Use Agreement (LUA) or a renewable Temporary Entry Permit (TEP) document authorizing DWR’s officers, employees, agents, and contractors permission to enter said owner’s property with all necessary equipment to perform the work described under this Agreement in Exhibit A, including collection of data for the useful life of the project. Such work will be subject to site specific provisions to be described in the LUA or TEP prior to implementation of field/construction activities. In the event that a project is to be located on privately owned real property, the GSA shall be responsible for acquiring any necessary easement granting property rights to conduct the project as described in this agreement and shall execute a LUA or TEP providing DWR access to the site as described in this section. To the extent the GSA is unwilling or unable to obtain the property rights and access DWR deems as necessary to perform the work described under this Agreement in Exhibit A, DWR may terminate any obligation to perform future project work in accordance with Section 9.a above. 11) WORK AREA SAFETY. Prior to initiating any field work activities including initial site visits and reconnaissance, the State will perform a preliminary review of property to document the physical and environmental conditions and prepare a Job Hazards Analysis (JHA) that considers real and perceived job safety hazards related to site conditions and the work to be performed. The JHA will be reviewed and appropriately updated as site conditions and work activities progress or change. The JHA will outline any required safety precautions to be followed and any personal protective equipment to be worn for DWR staff to safely perform the work. All State and GSA officers, employees, agents, and contractors working at or visiting the project work area will be required and agree to read, be briefed on, and sign the JHA as acknowledgement of their awareness of its safety provisions before entering the work area on each day they are present. 12) OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PROJECT. For the useful life of projects and in consideration of the services provided by the State, the GSA agrees to ensure or cause to be performed the commencement and continued operation of each project, and shall ensure or cause each project to be operated in an efficient and economical manner; shall ensure all repairs, renewals, and replacements necessary to the efficient operation of the same are provided; and shall ensure or cause the same to be maintained in as good and efficient condition as upon its construction, ordinary and reasonable wear and depreciation excepted. The State shall not be liable for any cost of such maintenance, management, operation, closure, or removal. The GSA or their successors may, with the written approval of the State, transfer this responsibility to use, manage, and maintain the project. For purposes of this Agreement, “useful life” means the period during which an asset, property, or activity is expected to be usable for the purpose it was acquired or implemented; “operation costs” include direct costs incurred for material and labor needed for operations, utilities, insurance, and similar expenses, and “maintenance costs” include ordinary repairs and replacements of a recurring nature necessary for capital assets and basic structures and the expenditure of TSS Agreement No. 0030 Page 3 of 14 funds necessary to replace, reconstruct, close in-place, or remove capital assets or basic structures. Refusal of the GSA to ensure operation and maintenance of the project(s) in accordance with this provision may, at the option of the State, be considered a breach of this Agreement and may be treated as default under Paragraph 9, “Default Provisions.” 13) DESTRUCTION OF WELLS. At any point when a well drilled for purposes of the Project shall be abandoned, the GSA shall destroy the abandoned well in accordance with prevailing well completion and destruction standards. 14) NOTIFICATION OF STATE. The GSA shall promptly notify the State, in writing, of the following items: a) Events or proposed changes that could affect the scope, budget, or schedule of DWR’s performance under this TSS Agreement. The GSA agrees that no substantial change in the scope of a project will be undertaken until written notice of the proposed change has been provided to the State and the State has given written approval for such change. Substantial changes generally include changes to the work plan, schedule or term, and budget. b) Any public or media event publicizing the accomplishments and/or results of this TSS Agreement that provide an opportunity for attendance and participation by the State’s representatives. The GSA shall make such notification at least 14 calendar days prior to the event, or if the GSA does not have 14 calendar days' notice, as soon as practicable. c) Any inspections of completed project work by a California Professional Engineer or Geologist. The GSA shall notify the State’s Project Manager of the inspection date at least 14 calendar days prior to the inspection in order to provide the State the opportunity to participate in the inspection, or if the GSA does not have 14 calendar days' notice, as soon as practicable. 15) NOTICES. Any notice, demand, request, consent, or approval that either party desires or is required to give to the other party under this TSS Agreement shall be in writing. Notices may be transmitted by any of the following means: a) By delivery in person. b) By certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid. c) By “overnight” delivery service; provided that next-business-day delivery is requested by the sender. d) By electronic means. Notices delivered in person will be deemed effective immediately on receipt (or refusal of delivery of receipt). Notices sent by certified mail will be deemed effective given ten (10) calendar days after the date deposited with the U. S. Postal Service. Notices sent by overnight delivery service will be deemed effective one business day after the date deposited with the delivery service. Notices sent electronically will be effective on the date of transmission, which is documented in writing. Notices shall be sent to the addresses set forth in Paragraph 16. Either party may, by written notice to the other, designate a different address that shall be substituted for the one below. 16) PROJECT REPRESENTATIVES. The Project Representatives during the term of this TSS Agreement are as follows: Department of Water Resources Steven Springhorn acting Deputy Director Statewide Groundwater Management P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 Phone: (916) 651-9273 e-mail: steven.springhorn@water.ca.gov Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency Glen McGourty Chair, Board of Directors 340 Lake Mendocino Drive Ukiah, CA, 95482 Phone: (707) 234-6043 e-mail: mcgourtyg@mendocinocounty.org Direct all inquiries to: DWR Program Manager Steven Springhorn Project Manager for GSA Amber Fisette TSS Agreement No. 0030 Page 4 of 14 acting Deputy Director Statewide Groundwater Management P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 Phone: (916) 651-9273 e-mail: steven.springhorn@water.ca.gov Deputy Director of Water and Solid Waste 340 Lake Mendocino Drive Ukiah, CA, 95482 Phone: (707) 463-4363 e-mail: DWR TSS Region Office Lead Bill Brewster Senior Engineering Geologist DWR North Central Region Office 3500 Industrial Boulevard West Sacramento, CA 95691 Phone: (916) 376-9657 e-mail: bill.brewster@water.ca.gov DWR TSS Project Lead Jason Preece Senior Engineering Geologist Sustainable Groundwater Management Office P.O. Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 94236-0001 Phone: (916) 651-9636 e-mail: jason.preece@water.ca.gov Either party may change its Project Representative, Program Manager, or Project Manager upon written notice to the other party. 17) STANDARD PROVISIONS. The following Exhibits are attached and made a part of this TSS Agreement by this reference: Exhibit A – Work Plan, Schedule, and Budget Exhibit B – Standard Conditions IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this TSS Agreement. STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES ______________________________ Steven Springhorn, acting Deputy Director Statewide Groundwater Management Date__________________________ Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency ______________________________ Glen McGourty Chair, Board of Directors Date__________________________ Approved as to Legal Form and Sufficiency ______________________________ Erick Soderlund, Staff Counsel Office of Chief Counsel Date__________________________ TSS Agreement No. 0030 Page 5 of 14 Exhibit A Work Plan, Schedule, and Budget Work Plan Project Description (general) The project objective is to drill and construct one triple-completion and four single-completion groundwater monitoring wells to 1) collect hydro-stratigraphic data including aquifer/aquitard lithology and identification, 2) installation of groundwater level data loggers, and 3) groundwater samples for water quality analysis. The project is summarized in the following table. Site Names: UVBGSA-01 to 07 DWR Office: North Central Region Office GSA Name: Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Property Owner Name: UVGSA-01: Willow County Water District UVGSA-02: City of Ukiah UVGSA-03: Ukiah Unified UVGSA-05: Mendocino Co. UVGSA-06: Mendocino Co. UVBGSA-07: Mendocino Co. Project Location: See Table 1 under construction section Planned Exploration Depth: See Table 1 under construction section Planned Well Screen Depths: See Table 1 under construction section Well Casing Type and Diameter: Conductor: Steel, 16 inches Wells: Sch. 80 PVC, 2.5 inches Other Services: Geophysics, well development, groundwater sampling and analysis, installation of water level dataloggers Coordination of project activities will be managed by DWR staff from the above listed Region Office. Roles and Responsibilities Task DWR Role GSA Role Project Management and Resource Coordination ☒ ☐ USA Clearance ☒ ☐ Environmental/Cultural Reviews ☒ ☐ Traffic/Safety Clearance ☒ ☐ Drilling Permit ☒ ☐ CEQA Requirements ☒ ☐ Access Permission ☐ ☒ Waste Disposal ☒ ☐ Drilling and Well Construction ☒ ☐ Well Development ☒ ☐ Data Collection ☐ ☒ Wellhead Survey ☒ ☐ 1 – CEQA and Site Clearances DWR will assess the proposed well location prior to commencing any construction. DWR’s site evaluation may include a review of information provided by the GSA, independent on-site review, or both. If DWR determines that an on-site review is required, the GSA shall make the site accessible to DWR staff or contractors. If DWR determines that no exceptions exist to the project being exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, DWR will file a Notice of TSS Agreement No. 0030 Page 6 of 14 Exemption (NOE) with the Office of Planning and Research. If DWR determines that filing a NOE is not appropriate, the GSA may propose another well location, however DWR will not undertake any construction unless DWR determines that the site provided is eligible for a NOE. DWR’s contractor will provide the following traffic control services needed to perform the project activities in a safe and efficient manner. DWR and its drilling contractor will contact and conduct utility locating, as needed, to ensure safe execution of the project’s construction. 2 – Permitting Site Entry The project sites are to be located on public agency property and the GSA will contact and negotiate with the property or right-of-way owners to obtain all necessary easement permits and land use license agreements of enough size and accessibility to construct, operate, and maintain groundwater monitoring equipment as described herein for the useful life of the project. Other A well drilling and construction permit will be obtained by the GSA and DWR will assist in providing any needed drilling contractor information. DWR will not make reimbursements for any permit fees. 3 – Construction Activities Waste Disposal For disposal of waste materials, such as soil cuttings and fluids generated during drilling, DWR and its drilling contractor will perform the following tasks. 1. Determine viable options for both liquids and solids handling and disposal 2. If options exist, negotiate the most economical option. 3. It is anticipated that sonic core drill cuttings will be left at the drill site and air/mud-rotary cuttings and fluids will be contained on site in bins and disposed of a licensed disposal facility. 4. Label and track waste containers. 5. Direct waste management activities, as needed. Drilling and Well Construction Work crews will efficiently mobilize to the work site with all equipment necessary to construct the project improvements. On the first and every day of field work, a minimum 10-minute safety meeting will be conducted by work crews to review, discuss, and sign a daily Job Hazard Analysis sheet. The following details outline the project construction: 1. The work sites will be set-up for efficient execution of work tasks. 2. For UVBGSA-01, -04, and -05, sonic core drilling will be used to: a. Drill an 8-inch-diameter borehole to a total depth of 60 feet. b. Construct one single completion well. 3. Direct mud- or air-rotary drilling, drill fluid conditioning, and drill cuttings containment will be performed to: a. Drill 8-inch-diameter pilot holes to total depths of 310 feet at UVBGSA-02 (mud) and150 feet at UVBGSA-03 (air). b. Conduct geophysical logging to each total borehole depth including: natural gamma ray; spontaneous potential; short-normal, long-normal, and lateral (point) electrical resistivity, and; caliper logs. c. Enlarge each borehole, as needed to construct single or multi-completion wells. 4. All the following tasks will be completed under the direction of a Professional Geologist: TSS Agreement No. 0030 Page 7 of 14 a. Supervision of the drilling, well construction, and well development operations. b. Examination of drill cuttings during drilling and creation of a lithologic log of the boring. c. Review of the lithologic and geophysical logs alongside each other and selection of the final well screen depth intervals according to hydrostratigraphic interpretation and input from with the GSA if provide in a timely manner. d. Creation of a field as-built well construction diagram. 5. In general, well construction details will be as described in the table below: Table 1: Proposed Well Construction Details DWR Well ID (UVGSA Well ID) Approx. Well Location Proposed Depth (feet bgs) Borehole Diameter (inches) Number of Individual Well Casings Target Screen Intervals (feet bgs) Casing Type & Material Screen Slot Size (inches) UVGSA-01 (South Central 1a-3) 39.1188, -123.1926 310 16 3 30-60; 140-180; 250-300 2.5-inch SCH 80 PVC 0.020 UVGSA-02 (South Central 1a-4) 39.1219 -123.1984 60 10 1 22-52 2.5-inch SCH 40 PVC 0.020 UVGSA-03 (N. Redwood Valley 2-14) 39.2676, -123.2164 150 10 1 90-140 2.5-inch SCH 80 PVC 0.020 UVGSA-05 (Hopkins State St) 39.232412, -123.202566 60 10 1 22-52 2.5-inch SCH 80 PVC 0.020 UVGSA-06 (School Way Bridge Pullou) 39.26593 -123.209754 310 16 3 30-60; 140-180; 250-300 2.5-inch SCH 80 PVC 0.020 UVGSA-07 (East Rd Pullout) 39.2761012 -123.20668 60 10 1 22-52 2.5-inch SCH 80 PVC 0.020 a. A surface well seal of appropriate mixture and depth to meet well permit requirements will be set. b. The wells will be finished at the surface with either a traffic-rated, flush-mount, locking vault or a steel, aboveground, protective, locking cover depending on site specific needs. 6. Work crews will efficiently demobilize all equipment used to construct the project improvements, clean up all work-related waste and unused materials, and return work areas to their original condition. Well Development Well development will occur no sooner than 32 hours after the well surface seal has been completed. Well development will be accomplished by a combination of swabbing, surging, bailing to remove sediment, and purging with a submersible or air lift pump. Well development will be performed until there is good hydraulic connection between the formation and the well screen, or for a maximum of 8 hours if turbidity below 5 NTUs is not easily achieved or field water quality parameters do not readily stabilize. Termination of well development activities is at the discretion of the site Professional Geologist. TSS Agreement No. 0030 Page 8 of 14 4 – Data Collection Wellhead Reference Point Survey DWR will have the elevation and coordinates of a permanent reference point and the ground surface at the wellhead surveyed by a California-licensed Land Surveyor. The reference point will: 1) be permanently marked, 2) easily transferrable to the gradations on a water level meter or tape, and 3) appropriately detailed in the surveyor’s report. Groundwater Level Measurements After well development is complete and enough time has passed for the groundwater levels in each well casing to stabilize, groundwater elevation measurements will be collected and recorded by DWR with a water level meter or tape. DWR and the GSA will then corroborate on the accuracy of the measurements. Continued groundwater monitoring and reporting to DWR data systems (SGMA or CASGEM portals, whichever is applicable) will be performed by the GSA for the useful life of the project. Groundwater Sampling and Analyses At a minimum of 48 hours after well development is completed, groundwater samples will be collected by DWR following industry accepted procedures and analyzed by a California-certified analytical laboratory for the following constituents:  Total dissolved solids (Std Method 2540 C)  pH and total alkalinity (Std Method 2320 B)  Specific conductance (Std Method 2510 B)  Bicarbonate, carbonate, and hydroxide (Std Method 4500)  Chloride, nitrate, and sulfate (EPA 300.0)  Total phosphorus (EPA 365.4)  Total and dissolved metals – Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pb, Mn, Ni, Se, Ag, and Zn (EPA 1638)  Dissolved boron, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and sodium (EPA 200.7)  Dissolved hardness (Std Method 2340 B)  Ammonia (EPA 350.1)  Dissolved Ortho-phosphate (DWR-modified EPA 365.1)  Dissolved nitrate + nitrite (Std Method 4500-NO3-F) 5 – Other Field Activities Data Acquisition Automated downhole groundwater level monitoring equipment (dataloggers) will be installed in each of the monitoring well casings. The equipment will be purchased and installed by DWR in a coordinated fashion with the GSA. The GSA will be responsible for periodically downloading groundwater level measurements from the dataloggers, verifying measurement accuracy, and maintaining the equipment for the useful life of the project. Data collected will be reported to DWR (as described above in Section 4 for Groundwater Level Measurements) and made public by the GSA. 6 – Final Reporting Upon completion of project construction, activities will be summarized by DWR, with applicable input from the GSA, in a final report containing descriptions of project objectives, office and field activities, related outcomes, and field-collected data documentation. The report will contain the following items.  An Executive Summary  The project title and work objective  Names of partnering agencies  Description of outcome of work performed TSS Agreement No. 0030 Page 9 of 14  Log of drilling methods used and observed lithologies  Borehole geophysical logs  As-built well construction diagrams  Description of well development activities  Copy of the Well Completion Report filed by the drilling contractor through DWR’s Online System for Well Completion Reports  Descriptions of any ancillary equipment installed  Groundwater sample testing results  Field measurements TSS Agreement No. 0030 Page 10 of 14 Schedule Task Subtask Dates 1 – Site Clearances Mar 2019 - May 2021 2 – Permitting Mar 2019 - May 2021 3 – Construction Activities Jun 2021 – Aug 2021 4 – Data Collection Aug 2021 through the useful life of the Project 5 – Other Field Activities Aug 2021 6 – Final Reporting Oct 2021 – Dec 2021 TSS Agreement No. 0030 Page 11 of 14 Budget Budget Category DWR Contribution GSA Contribution Totals 1 – Site Clearances $10,000 $0 $10,000 2 – Permitting $1,000 $0 $1,000 3 – Construction Activities $363,000 $0 $363,000 4 – Data Collection $10,000 $50,000 Approx. ongoing monitoring costs $60,000 5 – Other Field Activities $15,000 $1,000 $16,000 6 – Final Reporting $4,000 $0 $4,000 TOTALS $403,000 $51,000 $454,000 TSS Agreement No. 0030 Page 12 of 14 Exhibit B Standard Conditions B.1) AMENDMENT: The Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the Parties, except insofar as any proposed amendments are in any way contrary to applicable law. Requests by the GSA for amendments must be in writing stating the amendment request and the reason for the request. B.2) APPROVAL: The Agreement is of no force or effect until signed by all parties to the Agreement. B.3) BUDGET CONTINGENCY: If the Budget Act of the current year covered under the Agreement does not appropriate sufficient funds for the TSS Program, the Agreement shall be of no force and effect. This provision shall be construed as a condition precedent to the obligation of the State to perform any services under the Agreement. In this event, the State shall have no liability to furnish any considerations under the Agreement and the GSA shall not be obligated to perform any provisions of the Agreement. If funding for any fiscal year after the current year covered by the Agreement is reduced or deleted by the Budget Act for purposes of this program, the State shall have the option to either cancel the Agreement with no liability occurring to the State or offer an Agreement amendment to the GSA to reflect the reduced amount of services to be provided. B.4) CEQA: Activities performed under the Agreement, regardless of funding source, must be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.). Information on CEQA may be found at the following links: Environmental Information: https://www.opr.ca.gov/ceqa/ California State Clearinghouse Handbook: https://www.opr.ca.gov/docs/SCH_Handbook_2012.pdf B.5) CLAIMS DISPUTE: Any claim that the GSA may have regarding performance of the Agreement including, but not limited to, claims for additional compensation or extension of time, shall be submitted to the State’s Project Representative, within thirty (30) days of the GSA’s knowledge of the claim. The State and the GSA shall then attempt to negotiate a resolution of such claim and process an amendment to the Agreement to implement the terms of any such resolution. B.6) DELIVERY OF INFORMATION, REPORTS, AND DATA: The GSA agrees to expeditiously provide throughout the term of the Agreement, such reports, data, information, and certifications as may be reasonably required by the State. If such data is generated and transmitted on a continuous basis (e.g., real-time with telemetry), the State shall also have full access to such capabilities. B.7) FINAL INSPECTIONS AND CERTIFICATION OF REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL: To the extent that the GSA provides professional engineering services as an integral component of the Project, the GSA shall provide for any final inspection and certification by the appropriate licensed professional (California Professional Civil Engineer or Geologist) that their work has been completed in accordance with licensure law and any submitted final plans and specifications and any modifications thereto and in accordance with the Agreement. B.8) GSA COMMITMENTS: The GSA accepts and agrees to comply with all terms, provisions, conditions and commitments of the Agreement, including all incorporated documents, and to fulfill all assurances, declarations, representations, and statements made by the GSA in the application, documents, amendments, and communications filed in support of its request for Technical Support Services. B.9) GSA NAME CHANGE: Approval of the State’s Program Manager is required to change the GSA’s name as listed on the Agreement. Upon receipt of legal documentation of the name change the State will process an amendment. B.10) GOVERNING LAW: The Agreement is governed by and shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. B.11) MODIFICATION OF OVERALL WORK PLAN: At the request of the GSA, the State may at its sole discretion approve non-material changes to the portions of Exhibit A which concern the scope, schedule, and TSS Agreement No. 0030 Page 13 of 14 budget without formally amending the Agreement. Non-material changes with respect to the budget are changes that only result in reallocation of the budget and will not result in an increase in the project budget amount. Non-material changes with respect to each Project schedule are changes that will not extend the term of the Agreement. Requests for non-material changes to the budget and schedule must be submitted by the GSA to the State in writing and are not effective unless and until specifically approved by the State’s Project Manager in writing. B.12) OPINIONS AND DETERMINATIONS: Where the terms of the Agreement provide for action to be based upon, judgment, approval, review, or determination of either party hereto, such terms are not intended to be and shall never be construed as permitting such opinion, judgment, approval, review, or determination to be arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. B.13) PERFORMANCE AND ASSURANCES: The GSA agrees to faithfully and expeditiously perform or cause to be performed all Project work in their charge as described in Exhibit A, “Work Plan” and to apply State resources received only to its charge in developing one or more GSPs in accordance with applicable provisions of the law. B.14) PROHIBITION AGAINST DISPOSAL OF PROJECT WITHOUT STATE PERMISSION: The GSA shall not sell, abandon, lease, transfer, exchange, mortgage, hypothecate, or encumber in any manner whatsoever all or any portion of any real or other property necessarily connected or used in conjunction with the Project without prior permission of the State. B.15) REMEDIES NOT EXCLUSIVE: The use by either party of any remedy specified herein for the enforcement of the Agreement is not exclusive and shall not deprive the party using such remedy of, or limit the application of, any other remedy provided by law. B.16) RIGHTS IN DATA: The GSA agrees that all data, plans, drawings, specifications, reports, computer programs, operating manuals, notes and other written or graphic work produced in the performance of the Agreement shall be made available to the State and shall be in the public domain to the extent to which release of such materials is required under the California Public Records Act., Cal. Gov’t Code §6250 et seq. The GSA may disclose, disseminate and use in whole or in part, any final form data and information received, collected and developed under the Agreement, subject to appropriate acknowledgement of credit to the State for financial support. The GSA shall not utilize the materials for any profit-making venture or sell or grant rights to a third party who intends to do so. The State shall have the right to use any data described in this paragraph for any public purpose. B.17) SEVERABILITY: Should any portion of the Agreement be determined to be void or unenforceable, such portion shall be severed from the whole and the Agreement shall continue as modified. B.18) STATE REVIEWS: The parties agree that review or approval of project applications, documents, permits, plans, and specifications or other project information by the State is for administrative purposes only and does not relieve the GSA of their responsibility to properly plan, design, construct, operate, maintain, implement, or otherwise carry out their commitments to completing the project. B.19) SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: The Agreement and all of its provisions shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties. No assignment or transfer of the Agreement or any part thereof, rights hereunder, or interest herein by the GSA shall be valid unless and until it is approved by the State and made subject to such reasonable terms and conditions as the State may impose. B.20) TERMINATION BY THE GSA: Subject to the State approval which may be reasonably withheld, the GSA may terminate the Agreement and be relieved of contractual obligations. In doing so, the GSA must provide a reason(s) for termination and is responsible for reimbursing costs incurred by DWR on the project as described in Exhibit A up to the time of notice of termination. B.21) TERMINATION FOR CAUSE: Subject to the right to cure under Paragraph 9, the State may terminate the Agreement and be relieved of any commitments should the GSA fail to perform the requirements of the Agreement at the time and in the manner herein, provided including but not limited to reasons of default under Paragraph 9 of this Agreement. B.22) TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE: The State may terminate the Agreement without cause on a 30-day advanced written notice. TSS Agreement No. 0030 Page 14 of 14 B.23) THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES: The parties to the Agreement do not intend to create rights in, or grant remedies to, any third party as a beneficiary of the Agreement, or any duty, covenant, obligation or understanding established herein. B.24) TIMELINESS: Time is of the essence in the Agreement. B.25) WAIVER OF RIGHTS: None of the provisions of the Agreement shall be deemed waived, unless expressly waived, in writing. It is the intention of the parties hereto that, from time to time, either party may waive any of its rights under the Agreement unless contrary to law. Any waiver by either party of rights arising in connection with the Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver with respect to any other rights or matters, and such provisions shall continue in full force and effect. Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 1 of 2 Item No.: 3.c Date: 7/8/21 To: Board of Directors Subject: Approval of Technical Support Services License Agreement with Willow County Water District Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing Summary: Department of Water Resources has entered into a Technical Support Services Agreement with the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency. The License Agreement with Willow County Water District approves DWR Contractors to enter onto the property located at 365 Norgard Lane, Ukiah, CA 95482 to drill a groundwater monitoring well. Recommended Action: Approve the Technical Support Services License Agreement with Willow County Water District Background: DWR’s Technical Support Services (TSS) supports Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) as they develop and implement their Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). TSS’s goal is to provide education, data, and tools to GSAs to build the capacity needed to achieve sustainability. TSS is available to GSAs through our Region Offices. DWR will drill these wells between July and October of 2021 and will be in place for the next 20 years to inform long term groundwater elevations. The UVBGSA has worked with DWR to drill wells at four sites within County of Mendocino Right of Way’s, a site owned by Willow County Water District and a site owned by the City of Ukiah. Fiscal Summary: No fiscal impact. Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 2 of 2 Action: ___________________________________________________ Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________ Page 1 of 6 LICENSE AGREEMENT This Agreement (Agreement), made and entered into on __________________ by and between the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (“UVBGSA”), a body corporate and politic, organized and existing under, and by virtue of, the laws of the State of California and a political subdivision of the State of California, the State of California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), and the Willow County Water District (“WCWD”). Hereinafter, UVBGSA and DWR are collectively called the “Licensee” and WCWD is called the “Licensor.” R E C I T A L S WHEREAS, Licensor is the owner of certain real property located in the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin, Mendocino County, California known as Assessor’s Parcel Number 184-080-07, and is hereinafter referred to as the “Licensor’s Property”; and WHEREAS, Licensee wishes to obtain a license for access and use of Licensor’s Property for geotechnical, hydrogeological, and geophysical studies which include; the drilling, installation, maintenance, and monitoring of groundwater monitoring wells for a monitoring network for the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan and California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program (the “Project”). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Premises as defined in section 2 of this Agreement and of the agreements of the respective parties herein set forth, it is mutually agreed as follows: A G R E E M E N T 1. License. Licensor hereby grants Licensee and its respective employees, agents, and contractors a license, subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement, to use that portion of Licensor’s Property described in Section 2 below. 2. Premises. Licensee is hereby permitted to use portions of Licensor’s Property as specifically described in Exhibit A and shown for reference in Exhibit A-1 attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter, the “Premises”), and also a right of ingress to and egress from the Premises over and across roads and lanes thereon, if such there be, otherwise by such roads or routes on Licensor’s Property as shall occasion the least practicable damage and inconvenience to Licensor. 3. Use. Licensee shall be able to use the Premises for the purpose of geotechnical, hydrogeological, and geophysical studies which include; the drilling, installation, maintenance, and monitoring of groundwater monitoring wells for a monitoring network for the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan and California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program. Page 2 of 6 4. Term. The initial term of this Agreement ("Initial Term") shall be 25 years, commencing on date of execution, which shall be the date of the final signature to this Agreement, and expiring at midnight on December 31, 2046, unless terminated by transfer of ownership of the Licensor’s Property. In the event of transfer of ownership, Licensor agrees to provide Licensee sixty (60) days prior written notification, of transfer of ownership of Licensor’s Property to facilitate negotiation of a new license agreement. 5. Destruction of the Monitoring Well. Licensee shall destroy the monitoring well within 180 days following the transfer of ownership notification if a license agreement is not negotiated with the new property owner. The destruction of the monitoring well shall be in accordance with all state and local regulations. Licensee shall reasonably restore Premises to condition prior to installation of the monitoring well. 6. Indemnification. (a) Duty to Indemnify. Each party shall indemnify, hold harmless, and release the other, its officers, agents, and employees, from and against any and all claims, loss, proceedings, damages, causes of action, liability, costs, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and witness costs) arising from or in connection with, or caused by any wrongful act, omission, or negligence of such indemnifying party. This indemnification obligation shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages or compensation payable to or for the indemnifying party under workers’ compensation acts, disability benefit acts, or other employee benefit acts. This indemnity provision survives the Agreement. 7. Notice. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing. Delivery of such written notice shall be conclusively taken as sufficiently given forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, with the postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed as follows: If to Licensee: Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Attn: Amber Fisette 340 Lake Mendocino Drive Ukiah, CA 95482 and Department of Water Resources North Central Region Office Groundwater Supply and Special Studies Section 3500 Industrial Blvd. West Sacramento, CA 95691 If to Licensor: Willow County Water District 151 Laws Ave Ukiah, CA 95482 Page 3 of 6 Any party may at any time change its address for notices by giving written notice of such change to the other party. 8. No Continuing Waiver. The waiver by Licensee of any breach of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of any subsequent breach of the same, or of any other provision of this Agreement. 9. General Provisions. 8.1 Time of Essence. Time is and shall be of the essence of this Agreement and of each and every provision contained in this Agreement. 9.2 Incorporation of Prior Agreements; Amendments. This Agreement contains all the agreements of the parties with respect to any matter mentioned herein. No prior agreement or understanding pertaining to any such matter shall be effective. This Agreement may be modified in writing only, signed by the parties in interest at the time of the modification, and this sentence may not be modified or waived by any oral agreement, whether executed or unexecuted. 9.3 Binding Effect; Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their personal representatives, successors, and assigns. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any action to enforce the terms of this Agreement or for the breach thereof shall be brought and tried in the County of Mendocino. 9.4 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to create and the parties do not intend to create any rights in third parties. 9.5 Construction of Agreement; Severability. To the extent allowed by law, the provisions in this Agreement shall be construed and given effect in a manner that avoids any violation of statute, regulation, or law. Licensee and Licensor agree that in the event any provision in this Agreement is held to be invalid or void by any court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity of any such provision shall in no way affect any other provision in this Agreement. Licensor and Licensee acknowledge that they have each contributed to the making of this Agreement and that, in the event of a dispute over the interpretation of this Agreement, the language of the Agreement will not be construed against one party in favor of the other. Licensor and Licensee further acknowledge that they have each had an adequate opportunity to consult with counsel in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement. 9.6 Relationship. The parties intend by this Agreement to establish the relationship of Licensor and Licensee only, and do not intend to create a partnership, joint venture, joint enterprise, or any business relationship other than that of Licensor and Licensee. Page 4 of 6 9.7 Captions. The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not a part of this Agreement. The captions do not in any way limit or amplify the provisions hereof and shall have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part hereof. LICENSOR HAS CAREFULLY READ AND CONSIDERED THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT AND HEREBY AGREES THAT LICENSOR SHALL BE BOUND BY ALL SAID TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Page 6 of 6 Exhibit A Premise Description APN: 184-080-07 Landowner Name: Willow County Water District Latitude: 39.1188 Longitude: -123.1926 Distance from mapped landmarks: .13 miles southeast of 101; west of Russian River Shown in Exhibit A-1 for reference @A184-080-07WILLOW COUNTY WATER DISTRICT US 101Russian Riverµ1:1,800015075Feet00.0250.0125MilesMENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT- 8/1/2019Named RiversPublic RoadsDriveways/Unnamed Roads@AMonitoring WellsEXHIBIT A-1 Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 1 of 2 Item No.: 3.d Date: 7/8/21 To: Board of Directors Subject: Approval of the License Agreement between Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, State of California Department of Water Resources and City of Ukiah Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing Summary: Mendocino County Water Agency recommends Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (UVBGSA) approve the License Agreement between UVBGSA, State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and City of Ukiah (City), which provides access onto the property owned by the City and located at 1475 South State Street, Ukiah, California, for the drilling, installation, maintenance, and monitoring of a groundwater monitoring well. The monitoring well will be used to augment the UVBGSA’s groundwater elevation monitoring and data collection efforts. The drilling and installation of the well will be performed through DWR’s Technical Support Services program. Recommended Action: Approve the License Agreement between Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency, State of California Department of Water Resources and City of Ukiah; and authorize Chair to sign same. Background: State of California Department of Water Resources’ (DWR) Technical Support Services (TSS) program supports Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) as they develop and implement their Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). TSS’s goal is to provide education, data, and tools to GSAs to build the capacity needed to achieve sustainability. DWR will drill up to six Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 2 of 2 wells between July and December of 2021, which will be in place for the next 20 years to provide long-term data on groundwater elevations and water quality in the Ukiah Valley Basin. Fiscal Summary: No fiscal impact. Action: ___________________________________________________ Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________ Page 1 of 6 LICENSE AGREEMENT This License Agreement (Agreement) is made and entered into on , 20 by and between the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (“UVBGSA”), a body corporate and politic, organized and existing under, and by virtue of, the laws of the State of California and a political subdivision of the State of California, the State of California Department of Water Resources (“DWR”), and the City of Ukiah (“City”). Hereinafter, UVBGSA and DWR are collectively called the “Licensee” and the City is called the “Licensor.” R E C I T A L S WHEREAS, Licensor is the owner of certain real property located in the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin, Mendocino County, California known as Assessor’s Parcel Number 003-330-62, and hereinafter referred to as the “Licensor’s Property” which is part of the Ukiah Regional Airport; and WHEREAS, Licensee wishes to obtain a license for access and use of Licensor’s Property for geotechnical, hydrogeological, and geophysical studies which include the drilling, installation, maintenance, and monitoring of groundwater monitoring wells for a monitoring network for the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan and California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program (the “Project”). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the Premises as defined in section 2 of this Agreement and of the agreements of the respective parties herein set forth, it is mutually agreed as follows: A G R E E M E N T 1. License. Licensor hereby grants Licensee and its respective employees, agents, and contractors a license, subject to all the terms and conditions of this Agreement, to use that portion of Licensor’s Property described in Section 2 below. 2. Premises. Licensee is hereby permitted to use portions of Licensor’s Property as specifically described in Exhibit A and shown for reference in Exhibit A-1 attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter, the “Premises”), and also a right of ingress to and egress from the Premises over and across roads and lanes thereon, if such there be, otherwise by such roads or routes on Licensor’s Property as shall occasion the least practicable damage and inconvenience to Licensor and the safe use and operation of the Airport. 3. Use. Licensee shall be able to use the Premises for the purpose of geotechnical, hydrogeological, and geophysical studies which include the drilling, installation, maintenance, and monitoring of groundwater monitoring wells for a monitoring network for the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan and California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program. Licensee’s use of the property shall be subject to any applicable laws and regulations related to Page 2 of 6 airport safety and security, which Licensor shall notify Licensee of and review with Licensee prior to Licensee’s use of the Premises and provide updates as necessary during the term of this License. 3.1 Licensee is limited to drilling a single well at the location designated on Exhibit A in accordance with plans approved by the Airport Manager and City Engineer. Any additional wells must be approved by the Airport Manager and City Engineer to assure that they do not interfere with airport operations. 3.2 Construction, repairs and monitoring authorized wells must be performed according to a schedule approved by the Airport Manager and using a path of travel across the Licensed Premises approved by the Airport Manager. 4. Term. The initial term of this Agreement ("Initial Term") shall be 25 years, commencing on date of execution, which shall be the date of the final signature to this Agreement, and expiring at midnight on December 31, 2044 unless terminated by transfer of ownership of the Licensor’s Property. In the event of transfer of ownership, Licensor agrees to provide Licensee sixty (60) days prior written notification of transfer of ownership of Licensor’s Property to facilitate negotiation of a new license agreement. 5. Destruction of the Monitoring Well. Licensee shall destroy the monitoring well within 180 days following the transfer of ownership notification if a license agreement is not negotiated with the new property owner. The destruction of the monitoring well shall be in accordance with all state and local regulations. Licensee shall reasonably restore Premises to condition prior to installation of monitoring well. 6. Indemnification. (a) Duty to Indemnify. Each party shall indemnify, hold harmless, and release the other, its officers, agents, and employees, from and against any and all claims, loss, proceedings, damages, causes of action, liability, costs, or expenses (including reasonable attorneys’ fees and witness costs) arising from or in connection with, or caused by any wrongful act, omission, or negligence of such indemnifying party, including its contractors or agents. This indemnification obligation shall not be limited in any way by any limitation on the amount or type of damages or compensation payable to or for the indemnifying party under workers’ compensation acts, disability benefit acts, or other employee benefit acts. This indemnity provision survives the Agreement. Page 3 of 6 7. Notice. Any notice required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing. Delivery of such written notice shall be conclusively taken as sufficiently given forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, with the postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed as follows: If to Licensee: Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Attn: Amber Fisette 340 Lake Mendocino Dr. Ukiah, CA 95482 and Department of Water Resources North Central Region Office Groundwater Supply and Special Studies Section 3500 Industrial Blvd. West Sacramento, CA 95691 If to Licensor: City of Ukiah 300 Seminary Avenue Ukiah, CA 95482 Any party may at any time change its address for notices by giving written notice of such change to the other party. 8. No Continuing Waiver. The waiver by Licensee of any breach of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of any subsequent breach of the same, or of any other provision of this Agreement. 9. General Provisions. 9.1 Time of Essence. Time is and shall be of the essence of this Agreement and of each and every provision contained in this Agreement. 9.2 Incorporation of Prior Agreements; Amendments. This Agreement contains all the agreements of the parties with respect to any matter mentioned herein. No prior arrangement or understanding pertaining to any such matter shall be effective. This Agreement may be modified in writing only, signed by the parties in interest at the time of the modification, and this sentence may not be modified or waived by any oral agreement, whether executed or unexecuted. 9.3 Binding Effect; Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their personal representatives, successors, and assigns. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any action to enforce the terms of this Agreement or for the breach thereof shall be brought and tried in the County of Mendocino. 9.4 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing contained in this Page 4 of 6 Agreement shall be construed to create and the parties do not intend to create any rights in third parties. 9.5 Construction of Agreement; Severability. To the extent allowed by law, the provisions in this Agreement shall be construed and given effect in a manner that avoids any violation of statute, regulation, or law. Licensee and Licensor agree that in the event any provision in this Agreement is held to be invalid or void by any court of competent jurisdiction, the invalidity of any such provision shall in no way affect any other provision in this Agreement. Licensor and Licensee acknowledge that they have each contributed to the making of this Agreement and that, in the event of a dispute over the interpretation of this Agreement, the language of the Agreement will not be construed against one party in favor of the other. Licensor and Licensee further acknowledge that they have each had an adequate opportunity to consult with counsel in the negotiation and preparation of this Agreement. 9.6 Relationship. The parties intend by this Agreement to establish the relationship of Licensor and Licensee only, and do not intend to create a partnership, joint venture, joint enterprise, or any business relationship other than that of Licensor and Licensee. 9.7 Captions. The captions in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not a part of this Agreement. The captions do not in any way limit or amplify the provisions hereof and shall have no effect upon the construction or interpretation of any part hereof. LICENSOR HAS CAREFULLY READ AND CONSIDERED THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THIS AGREEMENT AND HEREBY AGREES THAT LICENSOR SHALL BE BOUND BY ALL SAID TERMS AND CONDITIONS. Page 5 of 6 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first written above. Licensor: City of Ukiah By: Name: Sage Sangiacomo Title: City Manager Date: Licensee: Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency By: Glen McGourty, Chair Board of Directors Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM FOR LICENSEE: Christian Curtis County Counsel By: Deputy Department of Water Resources By: Linus A. Paulus Chief, Acquisition and Appraisal Section Date: Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: By: Karin Shine, Attorney IV Page 6 of 6 Exhibit A Premise Description APN: 003-330-62 Landowner Name: City of Ukiah Address: 1475 S State Street, Ukiah CA 95482 Latitude: 39.1219 Longitude: -123.1984 Distance from mapped landmarks: 0.25 miles west of HWY 101; inside Ukiah Airport Shown in Exhibit A-1 for reference µ 003-330-62 CITY OF UKIAH 1451 SO STATE ST A@ Public Roads Private Roads A Monitoring Wells 0 125 0 0.02 250 Feet 0.04 Miles 1:3,000 Driveways/Unnamed Roads EXHIBIT A-1 MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT- 8/2/2019 Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 1 of 2 Item No.: 3.e Date: 7/8/21 To: Board of Directors Subject: Approval of Notice of Intent Letter to Adopt a Groundwater Sustainability Plan by the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing Summary: Mendocino County Water Agency recommends Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (UVBGSA) approve the Notice of Intent (NOI) which informs all city and county governments within the area of the proposed Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (UVBGSP) that the UVBGSA will be adopting the UVBGSP no sooner than 90 days after delivering the NOI. The only city and county governments that fall within the boundaries of the UVBGSP are the City of Ukiah and County of Mendocino. Recommended Action: Approve the Notice of Intent (NOI) to Adopt a Groundwater Sustainability Plan and Direct Staff to Distribute the NOI to the City of Ukiah and County of Mendocino as required by law. Background: Legal requirement for the notice: California Code, Water Code - WAT § 10728.4 “A groundwater sustainability agency may adopt or amend a groundwater sustainability plan after a public hearing, held at least 90 days after providing notice to a city or county within the area of the proposed plan or amendment. The groundwater sustainability agency shall review and consider comments from any city or county that receives notice pursuant to this section and shall consult with a city or county that requests consultation within 30 days of receipt of the notice. Nothing in this section is intended to preclude an agency and a city or county from otherwise consulting or commenting regarding the adoption or amendment of a plan.” Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 2 of 2 Fiscal Summary: No fiscal impact. 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 Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan – Public Comment Period Open For Immediate Release: August **, 2021 Contact: The Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Board of Directors has released the Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) for the lands within the Agency’s jurisdictional boundary. The Draft GSP is the roadmap to understanding groundwater conditions, and determining necessary actions to ensure groundwater supplies remain sustainable for future needs. The Draft GSP is the result of an intensive effort by a wide range of stakeholders, including public agencies, engineers, scientists, farmers, private citizens, non-profit advocacy organizations, and business owners. The public is invited to review the document and provide written comments. The deadline for all written comments to be submitted is ***, 2021. A public hearing to consider adoption of the GSP will be held by the GSA’s Board of Directors on ***, 2021. Copies of the document are available at the following locations:  In PDF format at https://www.mendocinocounty.org/government/affiliated-agencies/ukiah-valley-basin-gsa  At the following public locations: o *** o *** Written comments can be submitted in four ways: 1. Email: uvbgsa@mendocinocounty.org 2. U.S. Mail: UVBGSA 340 Lake Mendocino Dr., Ukiah, CA 95482 3. Comment Cards available on the Agency website or during UVB GSA meetings. To obtain additional information, stay up to date with GSA’s activities and to receive announcements and meeting/workshop notices, please join our e-mail list at: https://www.mendocinocounty.org/government/affiliated-agencies/ukiah-valley-basin-gsa. Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 1 of 2 Item No.: 4.a Date: 7/8/21 To: Board of Directors Subject: Discussion and Possible Appointment of Tribal Stakeholder Director and Alternate Tribal Stakeholder Director Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing Summary: Article 7 of the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) provides that one stakeholder director shall be a representative of tribal stakeholders and interest with the Basin. One Tribal Stakeholder Director shall be appointed by the six tribes exercising jurisdiction over Indian lands within the Ukiah Valley Basin identified as Redwood Valley Rancheria, Coyote Valley Reservation, Pinoleville Pomo Nation, Potter Valley Rancheria, Guidiville Rancheria and the Hopland Reservation. Section 7.3.2 (b) of the JPA provides that the Board of Directors confirm the nomination for the Tribal Stakeholder Director submitted by the six Tribes within the Ukiah Valley. The Member Directors shall confirm the nominee at a regular meeting and shall appoint the Tribal Stakeholder Director upon simple majority vote of all Member Directors. Recommended Action: Review the nominees submitted by the six Tribes within the Ukiah Valley and confirm appointment of the Tribal Stakeholder Director and Alternate Tribal Stakeholder Director to the Board. Background: In 2019, the six Tribes of the Ukiah Valley Basin nominated Brandi Brown, Redwood Valley Tribal Treasurer as Tribal Stakeholder Director and Sonny Elliott Jr., Hopland Reservation as Alternate Tribal Stakeholder Director for a two year term representing Tribal interests on the UVBGSA Board and TAC. Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 2 of 2 Fiscal Summary: No fiscal impact. Action: ___________________________________________________ Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________ Lu-`trf I qc,qn. €arg,grme€q.RedrcodVffleylfi:theRIverBandOfpomoHdians Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 1 of 2 Item No.: 4.b Date: 7/8/21 To: Board of Directors Subject: Presentation and Ratification of Facilitation Support Services Application to Department of Water Resources Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing Summary: Staff will present the Facilitation Support Services Application and request the Board ratify the application for Facilitation Support Services (FSS) from Department of Water Resources (DWR) for increasing public engagement with the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (UVBGSA), determining funding mechanisms, and working with each of the Tribal Nations to increase engagement. Water Agency staff have already met with DWR to discuss the program and submitted the application as time was of the essence. Should the Board choose not to pursue facilitation services, the application could be withdrawn. Recommended Action: Ratify the Facilitation Support Services Application submitted to Department of Water Resources. Background: Facilitation Support Services (FSS) help local agencies work through challenging water management situations. Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs) shall encourage the active involvement of diverse social, cultural, and economic interests and consider all beneficial uses and users of groundwater when developing and implementing groundwater sustainability plans (GSPs). FSS can provide the help of professional facilitators to foster discussions among diverse water management interests and local agencies. Fiscal Summary: No fiscal impact. Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 2 of 2 Action: ___________________________________________________ Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________ *****Department of Water ResourcesFacilitation Support Services ApplicationThe Department of Water Resources (DWR) is offering Facilitation Support Services (FSS) to help GSAs and local water management groupsfoster discussions among diverse water management interests and jurisdictions in support of Sustainable Groundwater Management Act(SGMA) implementation.For questions or assistance with this FSS Application, please contact Heather Shannon at Heather.Shannon@water.ca.gov or (916) 651-9212.I. Applicant Background: (Questions 1-6 of 17)1) Select the groundwater basin/subbasin that is requesting FSS:UKIAH VALLEY (1-052)2) Enter applicant information:Applicant Name:Mendocino County Water AgencyPoint of Contact:Amber FisettePhone Number:707-234-2838Email Address:fisettea@mendocinocounty.org3) Is the applicant affiliated with a GSA?Which GSA is the applicant affiliated with, or if not affiliated with a GSA, briefly describe how the request for professionalfacilitation will aid SGMA implementation for the groundwater basin/subbasin identified above, and how the applicant plansto work with the GSAs.Yes, affiliated with a GSAThe County of Mendocino is the founding and administering agency for the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency(UVBGSA). The County is seeking facilitation support for increasing public outreach and engagement with the UVBGSA as well asdetermining the funding mechanism to pay for the ongoing administration costs and implementation responsibilities of the UVBGSA.The County is also seeking support in working with the six tribal nations in the Ukiah Valley Basin to encourage engagement and toensure their interests are represented in the SGMA process.4) Please provide a brief narrative discussion on the applicant's current involvement, roles, and responsibilities regardingSGMA implementation activities located within the groundwaterbasin/subbasin.The County is the administering agency of the UVBGSA ensuring budgetary responsibility, coordinating meetings and acting as theliaison between the UVBGSA members, technical advisory team, contracted consultant Larry Walker and Associates (LWA), and thepublic. The County which benefits from a higher level of capacity than other members in the UVBGSA has, on their behalf,implemented data gathering exercises to collect historical groundwater levels and better understand the interaction between surfacewater and groundwater in the Ukiah Valley Basin (UVB). The County is currently working with LWA on Groundwater SustainabilityPlan development including the planning and installation of stream gages and monitoring wells throughout the UVB to aid in futuredata collection and analysis by the UVBGSA. The County has also led public outreach and consultation efforts to inform communitymembers within the Ukiah Valley Basin about the roles and responsibilities of the UVBGSA and to source ideas for future projectsand management actions that would promote groundwater sustainability within the basin.5) What other professional facilitation funding or services has the applicant received from the State?NoneDWR Prop 1DWR Prop 68DWR Facilitation Support ServicesState Water Resources Control BoardOther(please specify)DWR Technical Support ServicesFSS Application https://sgma.gsae.water.ca.gov/SGMPUB/Print/fss/2020/PrintApplication...1 of 46/29/2021, 7:59 AM ****6) Please explain the scope of any active professional facilitation.There are currently no active professional facilitation services being provided to the UVBGSA. The UVBGSA has contracted LWA toprovide technical assistance in building a groundwater model and writing the Groundwater Sustainability Plan. LWA hassubcontracted SCI Consulting a public finance and urban economic consulting firm to provide recommendations on how to fund theUVBGSA.II. Collaboration within and across Groundwater Basin/Subbasin Boundaries: (Questions 7-10 of 17)7) List all GSAs (and/or other water management entities) within the groundwater basin/subbasin that the applicant iscurrently collaborating with, or intends to collaborate with, on SGMA implementation:Water Management Entities in the UVB:• City of Ukiaho -Pre-1914 Appropriative Water Rightso -Access to substantial groundwater resources• Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement Districto -8000 AF of water rights from Lake Mendocino• Upper Russian River Water Agencyo -5 water agencies that serve the majority of water users outside of the City of UkiahEntities the UVBGSA plans to collaborate with on SGMA Implementation Projects• City of Ukiaho Phase IV of the City of Ukiah Recycled Water Pipeline• Mendocino County Resource Conservation Districto -Forsythe Floodplain Restoration Project• Redwood Valley Little River Band of Pomo Indianso -Residential water meter replacement• Pinoleville Pomo Nationo -Rainwater Catchement Systems8) Are there any GSAs (and/or other water management entities) across the groundwater basin/subbasin boundary, that theapplicant currently is, or intends to collaborate with, on SGMA implementation?Sonoma Water located in Sonoma County is a lead agency for the Petaluma Valley, Sonoma Valley and Santa Rosa Plain GSA’s andhas been an active collaborator with the UVBGSA as they have a significant water right in Lake Mendocino and derive a portion oftheir water supply from Russian River flows. Sonoma Water is engaged in the UVBGSA planning process to support sustainableusage of groundwater and surface water on a regional level.9) Please discuss the nature of collaboration. What are the GSAs collaborating on?The UVBGSA is working in partnership with Sonoma Water to develop a GSFLOW model that will be able to input flows from theentire Russian River Watershed as well as adapted to any changing basin conditions.The majority of the UVBGSA collaboration is with agencies in the UVB mainly focused on Project and Management Actions inparticular water infrastructure projects as listed above.10) Which beneficial uses and users of groundwater has the applicant established a venue for engagement, or plans toestablish a venue for engagement?(List all applicable uses and users of groundwater – see Water Code Section 10723.2)Groundwater in the UVB is used for a variety of uses. With surface water rights curtailed for 2021, water users are relying heavily ongroundwater and in the City of Ukiah, their recycled water helps provide an alternative water source for grey-water users.To keep the public informed on the progress made by the UVBGSA, the UVBGSA has held public meetings over Zoom every 3months since October of 2020. A public meeting will be held in person in the middle of July since COVID-19 restrictions have recentlylifted. This meeting will be about a week before we distribute the GSP to the public for review.The Board of the UVBGSA is made up of members from each of the major water users and suppliers in the UVB. Board membersdisseminate information about GSP development to each of their respective agencies. A brief summary of each of the agenciesinvolved is listed below.• The County of Mendocino purveys no water but is in charge of distributing drought related funding and is in the process of building acollaborative water agency• Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation Improvement District manages water rights from Lake Mendocino mainly foragricultural use and also supplies some members of the Upper Russian River Water Agency with surface water diversions for publicconsumption.• Upper Russian River Water Agency is a consortium of the five major water agencies who supply residents with water in the UVBoutside of the City of Ukiah city limits. They have routinely shared information on GSP updates and public meeting venues.• City of Ukiah: Supplies the City of Ukiah with water diverted from both groundwater and surface water sources. They also have builtand operate a recycled water project that takes treated grey water from the sewage treatment plant and provide it for applicable grey-water uses.• Agricultural Representative: A nominee of the Mendocino Farm Bureau and owns and operates agricultural land in the UVB. Therepresentative distributes information on the progress of the GSP through the Farm Bureau network• Tribal Representative: This seat is currently vacant but the six tribes in the UVB may choose to nominate a representative whoinforms each of the tribes on the progress of the GSP and sources ideas on building multi-benefit projects between the UVBGSA andeach tribal nation.FSS Application https://sgma.gsae.water.ca.gov/SGMPUB/Print/fss/2020/PrintApplication...2 of 46/29/2021, 7:59 AM ****III. Facilitation Needs: (Questions 11-14 of 17)11) Please explain the key challenges the applicant has encountered that has led to the need for professional facilitation.The UVBGSA has two challenges that we would require facilitation support for.The first is a need for greater discussion with each of the members regarding the ongoing funding of the UVBGSA. The UVBGSAJoint Powers Agreement (JPA) does not require the member agencies to contribute any funding beyond 2021, instead it is allvoluntary contributions. SCI Consulting, a subcontractor for LWA has provided financial analysis for the UVBGSA and estimates thatthe annual operating costs for the UVBGSA are in the range of 150-250 thousand dollars. Some members have expressedreluctance at paying into the ongoing funding of the UVBGSA.The County would like assistance facilitating discussions with each of the member agencies and their respective boards to betterexplain the benefits of remaining in the UVBGSA, have a better understanding of what each agency is able to contribute for fundingand across the respective members, what an equitable funding strategy could look like. Additionally, should member agencies not beable to fund the GSA solely with member contributions, facilitation support is needed to help guide the Board through the decision-making process to determine alternative funding mechanisms.The second challenge is engaging the six tribal nations within the UVB. When the JPA was written the six tribes agreed to nominate asingle representative to represent their collaborative interests. The Tribal Representative seat has currently sat empty sinceNovember of 2020 as the six tribes are either unavailable to be reached or have not been able to come to a consensus on a jointrepresentative. As they are each sovereign nations, some have expressed concern that a single tribal representative is not sufficientto represent the diverse interests of six nations. However, when writing the JPA, the intention in allowing only a single tribalrepresentative to speak for the six nations was to ensure that votes on the Board were equally distributed and not favoring anyparticular group.The County of Mendocino working on behalf of the UVBGSA would like assistance in bringing each of the Tribal Nations to thediscussion table to assist them in discussing the nomination process of a single representative and present strategies on how toensure each Tribal nation has their voice heard through the single representative.12) DWR’s FSS program requires applicants to have a well-defined goal for the requested services. What is the applicant’sgoal for professional facilitation?To provide a comprehensive picture of the benefits of SGMA and participation within the UVBGSA to members and tribal nations,help facilitate public outreach, and assist with facilitation to help the Board determine appropriate and feasible funding mechanisms.13) Which facilitation support services are you seeking? (select all that apply)Stakeholder assessmentTribal government outreach and engagementMeeting facilitationIntra-basin and inter-basin coordination supportInterest-based negotiations/consensus buildingStakeholder communication and engagement planning and supportPublic and stakeholder outreachGovernance developmentTargeted outreach to underrepresented groundwater users - Severely disadvantaged communities/ disadvantaged communitiesTargeted outreach to underrepresented groundwater users - Private domestic well ownersTargeted outreach to underrepresented groundwater users - Small growersTargeted outreach to underrepresented groundwater users - Communities on small water systemsTargeted outreach to underrepresented groundwater users - Other (please specify)14) Regarding SGMA implmentation activities, is there any additional information you would like to provide thatprofessional facilitation will help support?IV. Applicant's Commitments: (Questions 15-16 of 17)15) DWR requires ALL of the following commitments from applicants benefiting from DWR’s FSS program. Please reviewand select the commitments you agree to:Commit to meet regularly and work diligently toward a clear and defined goal.Agree to work in an open, inclusive, and collaborative manner toward SGMA implementation.Support an inclusive process that encourage and welcomes involvement of all stakeholders and interested parties.Commit to providing a meeting space that is suitably located and sized.Is there any additional information you would like to add?FSS Application https://sgma.gsae.water.ca.gov/SGMPUB/Print/fss/2020/PrintApplication...3 of 46/29/2021, 7:59 AM 16) Are there any other considerations DWR should take into account?V. Anticipated Tasks and Timeline: (Questions 17 of 17)17) Please summarize anticipated tasks, deliverables, and completion dates to be completed with support of DWR FSS.(Applicants can use the text box or attach files below.)Tasks:• Meet with each of the member agencies to review funding structures and ability to pay• Facilitate discussion on development of alternative funding mechanisms• Provide information on the benefits of inclusion into the GSA as well as explaining alternative State Intervention if water is notmanaged locally.• Contact each Tribal Nation and organize meetings with County support• Present alternative nomination processes and meeting strategies to allow each of the six tribal nations in the UVB to have equalrepresentation of views and opinions on the Board of the UVBGSA• Help facilitate public outreachFSS Application https://sgma.gsae.water.ca.gov/SGMPUB/Print/fss/2020/PrintApplication...4 of 46/29/2021, 7:59 AM Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 1 of 2 Item No.: 4.c Date: 7/8/21 To: Board of Directors Subject: Receive Update from the Financial Ad-Hoc Committee and Discussion and Possible Direction Regarding Funding for the Implementation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan and Annual Groundwater Sustainability Agency Administration Costs Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing Summary: The Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) provides that the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) may be funded through additional voluntary contributions by GSA member agencies, and as otherwise provided in Chapter 8 of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. The Board will receive an update from the Financial Ad-Hoc Committee on possible funding mechanisms for annual administration costs and implementation of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Recommended Action: Receive update from the Ad-Hoc Committee and give possible direction regarding funding mechanisms. Background: An Ad-Hoc Committee was created at the June 10th Board Meeting to address GSA funding needs. Fiscal Summary: No fiscal impact. Action: ___________________________________________________ Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________ Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 2 of 2 Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 1 of 2 Item No.: 4.d Date: 7/8/21 To: Board of Directors Subject: Presentation on the Update of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development and Approval of the Release of the Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan for Public Comment Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing Summary: The Board will receive a presentation from Larry Walkers and Associates (LWA) on the update of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) development, including receiving a summary of the entire plan and draft Chapters 3 and 4. As time is of the essence, Water Agency Staff and LWA recommend the Board approve the draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan developed by the Technical Team and Technical Advisory Committee be released for public comment following the public meeting to be held on July 15, 2021. The Board will have the opportunity to review the Final Draft with public comment incorporated before release to Department of Water Resources by January of 2022. Recommended Action: Receive presentation on the update of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan development and approve the Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan developed by the Technical Team and Technical Advisory Committee to be released for public comment following the public meeting to be held on July 15, 2021. Background: LWA Consulting has been working with the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency on developing the GSP. Fiscal Summary: No fiscal impact. Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 2 of 2 Action: ___________________________________________________ Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________ Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainable Agency 1 Review FormUkiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Dear Reviewer, Per SGMA requirements, a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) is under development for the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin (UVBGSP). Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (UVBGSA) welcomes feedback on draft sections of the GSP by the broad interests and perspectives of the public. REVIEWER INSTRUCTIONS: Given the large number of reviewers, accommodating track changes or other editing options within the original draft sections distributed to all committee members can be challenging. As an alternative to tracked changes editing, please consider using this reviewer form with the following instructions: −Use the form below to provide comments. Feel free to expand the form as needed.−For suggested text changes, please copy and paste the text you wish to change and place yoursuggested edits in track changes or strikethrough features in this document. What isimportant is that technical staff can see both the original draft text and your distinctsuggestions.−Note the line number—from the PDF version of the draft GSP section—where yourcomment, question or suggested text edit begins.−Examples of how to provide feedback are listed in the review form below. Feel free to deletethese examples with your submission, and only include your feedback.DRAFT SECTIONS UNDER REVIEW: •GSP Chapters 3 and 4Please email comments directly to (bakea@mendocinocounty.org), with a Cc to Technical Consulting Team Lead Laura Foglia (lauraf@lwa.com). Please use the following file nomenclature in saving your review document: UVBGSP_Ch3&4_[Your name]_date Please send your comments no later than July 23, 2021. Thanks for contributing to the draft GSP for the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin. Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainable Agency 2 Reviewer name: Submission date: GSP sections reviewed: Section 3 & 4 Line number Suggested revision (please delete example text below once you submit) 69 Example: In the acknowledgements section, please add XXX as a partner 131 Example: Can you provide source of information, footnote or otherwise? Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainable Agency 3 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainable Agency 4 1 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan GROUNDWATER QUALITY Background In the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin, groundwater quality is generally good and has relatively consistent water quality characteristics which meet local needs for municipal, domestic, and agricultural uses. There are a few localized areas where groundwater has exceeded regulatory thresholds or water quality objectives. What We Know: Available Data The information currently available on Basin groundwater quality comes from the State Water Board’s Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) program. Water quality around the Basin varies on a local basis. The southern portion of the basin contains calcium-bicarbonate groundwater, while the east-central portion of the basin has magnesium-bicarbonate water. The recent formations of Quaternary alluvium have slightly higher total dissolved solids (TDS) and chloride levels than Russian River water. The groundwater in Aquifer II has higher levels of dissolved solids than Aquifer I. West of Redwood Valley, wells in Aquifer II have poor water quality. Ongoing monitoring programs show that some constituents, including boron, iron, and manganese exceed water quality standards in parts of the Basin (water quality standards are listed in the table on the next page). Exceedances may be caused by localized conditions and may not be reflective of regional water quality. In addition, there are potential risks of increasing salt and nutrient conditions from agricultural and municipal uses of water. Across the majority of the Basin, salt and nutrient concentrations are below levels of concern, with no upward trends. A few isolated areas have higher concentrations. Monitoring Issues Though groundwater quality data are available dating back to 1950 for some constituents, the data evaluated were limited to those collected from 1990 to 2020. Restricting the time span to data collected in the past 30 years increases confidence in data quality and focuses the evaluation on information that is considered reflective of current groundwater quality conditions. There are significant data gaps in terms of: • Temporal distribution of data (duration of data over years, frequency of data collection). • Spatial distribution of data (location of data points across the basin) • Basic information about well type and depth of well Monitoring Network The monitoring network will use information from existing programs in the Basin that already monitor for the constituents of interest (COIs), or programs where these constituents could be added as part of routine monitoring efforts in support of the GSP. Existing wells used for monitoring groundwater quality in the Basin include public water supply wells, monitoring wells at the City of Ukiah wastewater treatment plant, monitoring wells at known groundwater contamination sites within the Basin, and TSS-funded wells drilled for GSP monitoring that are perforated within a single aquifer. In the current groundwater quality monitoring network, eighteen wells are assigned to monitor nitrate on an annual basis and specific conductivity once every three years. From these wells, 5 are measuring Aquifer I water quality and 13 wells are sampling Aquifer II. Sixteen wells are designed to monitor iron, manganese, and boron once every three years. Four of these 16 wells sample Aquifer I and the rest measures the quality of Aquifer II (See Figure at the end of the Summary). 2 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan While the current selection provides sufficient coverage to assess overall groundwater quality in the basin, there exist areas and localities that wells were not available to monitor one or both principal aquifers. An assessment of the monitoring results for both spatial density and monitoring frequency suitability based on the proposed monitoring network will be performed to determine the need for expansion of the network with additional wells. This assessment is planned within the first five years of GSP implementation. Further evaluations of the monitoring network will be conducted on a five-year basis, particularly with regard to the sufficiency of the monitoring network in meeting the GSP’s monitoring objectives. The monitoring network may be modified or expanded in the future based on an evaluation of the data collected or changes in land use. Undesirable Results Relating to Groundwater Quality Significant and unreasonable degradation of groundwater quality is the degradation of water quality that would impair beneficial uses of groundwater within the Basin or result in failure to comply with groundwater regulatory thresholds including state and federal drinking water standards and Basin Plan water quality objectives. Undesirable results are experienced if the maximum thresholds are exceeded at 50% or more of the groundwater quality monitoring wells sampled in the respective sampling period for any COCs with a defined maximum threshold. Maximum Thresholds Relating to Degraded Groundwater Quality From the five COIs, boron, iron, and manganese are known to be naturally occurring in the basin at higher concentrations than their water quality objectives. Therefore, they will be monitored as part of the monitoring network and their results will be communicated with appropriate regulatory entities, but sustainable management criteria are not set for them at the moment. Maximum thresholds for the other two COIs (nitrate and specific conductivity) are set at the Primary (nitrate as N) or Secondary (specific conductivity) MCLs established in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (Table below). Measurable Objectives Relating to Degraded Groundwater Quality The measurable objective is defined for constituents that are determined not to be significantly driven by natural processes, namely nitrate and specific conductivity. Specifically, for nitrate and specific conductivity, the measurable objective is to maintain groundwater quality at a minimum of 90% of wells monitored for water quality at under 75% of the maximum threshold. GSA identified this unified approach as appropriate because there has been no significant number of exceedances in concentrations of nitrate and measured levels of specific conductivity in the Basin historically. Therefore, the set measurable objectives maintain a reasonable margin of operational flexibility from the maximum thresholds while maintaining the acceptable groundwater quality in the basin. 3 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan PROPOSAL FOR GROUNDWATER QUALITY SECTION IN GSP 1. In Chapter 2, identify and discuss the following Constituents of Concern (COIs): specific conductivity, boron, iron, manganese, and nitrate 2. Develop Sustainable Management Criteria (SMC) for Nitrate as nitrogen and Specific Conductivity: 3. Establish a monitoring network for boron, iron and manganese Proposed Actions for Identified Constituents of Interest Constituent Water Quality Threshold Regu- latory Basis Reason for Concern Proposed SMC Maximum Threshold Measurable Objective Nitrate as N 10 mg/L Title 22 Tracking sustainability 5 mg/L, trigger only 10 mg/L 7.5 mg/L Specific Conductivity 900 µmhos Title 22 Tracking sustainability 450 micromhos, trigger only 900 micromhos 675 micromhos Boron 1 mg/L CA DDW Naturally occurring No SMC, Monitoring only Iron 300 µg/L Title 22 Naturally occurring No SMC, Monitoring only Manganese 50 µg/L Title 22 Naturally occurring No SMC, Monitoring only 4 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan Water Quality Monitoring Network Figure (Above). 2021.06.29 1 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan SUBSIDENCE BACKGROUND Subsidence refers to decreased elevation of ground surface levels and can be evaluated in a variety of ways: • Ground surveys (standard surveying of fixed points or monuments) • InSAR (satellite and/or aerial mapping using radar images) • Aerial Electromagnetic Mapping (AEM) which uses a helicopter to fly a metal framework over an area of land Although subsidence refers to a sinking depression in the land surface, it is the result of conditions below the surface. Subsidence due to groundwater pumping is caused by relatively fine-grained sediments, like clay, becoming more compact as water is removed. This compaction of sediments can be either elastic (temporary) or inelastic (permanent). The greater the duration of dewatering, and the finer the sediments are, the greater the likelihood that subsidence will be inelastic (permanent). What We Know: Available Data Ground surveys: Currently unknown if any ground surveys for subsidence have been conducted. InSAR (satellite) data: DWR/TRE Altamira study conducted between 2015 and 2019 (and on-going spring data releases) • Using the TRE Altamira InSAR dataset provided by DWR, it is observed that the majority of the vertical displacement values in the Ukiah Valley are essentially zero, specifically within the range of 0.01 ft (uplift) to -0.02 ft (subsidence). Data uncertainty: These InSAR displacement values are roughly one order of magnitude smaller than the combined data and raster GIS (geographic information system) conversion error (0.1 ft) and are essentially noise in the data. This means that the data may or may not indicate actual subsidence related to groundwater removal or recharge potentially leading to land uplift. UNDESIRABLE RESULTS RELATING TO SUBSIDENCE Defining undesirable results should look at impacts to both private and public infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, canals and pipe. In flat terrain, such as the valley floor, changes in ground surface elevations could impact flood irrigation practices. 2021.06.29 2 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan CREATING A MONITORING NETWORK FOR SUBSIDENCE Ground- and aerial-based (including satellite) surveys are key components for evaluating land subsidence. Specific examples of these components are: InSAR satellite data, GPS stations, borehole extensometers. Other methods for tracking subsidence and calibrating key methods include: • Tracking subsidence trends over time, along with changes in ground surface elevations • Verifying satellite and aerial data with ground surveys • Evaluating ecological infrastructure (such as collapsing animal burrows) • The use of groundwater elevations as a sustainable management proxy to direct subsidence measurements PROPOSAL FOR SUBSIDENCE SECTION IN GSP The Minimum Threshold (MT) for land subsidence in the Basin is set at no more than 0.1 ft in any single year, resulting in no long-term permanent subsidence. This is set at the same magnitude as the estimated error in the InSAR data (+/- 0.1 ft), which is currently the only tool available for measuring basin-wide land subsidence consistently each year in the Basin. The minimum threshold for land subsidence in the Basin was selected as a preventative measure to ensure maintenance of current ground surface elevations and as an added safety measure for potential future impacts not currently present in the Basin The guiding Measurable Objective (MO) of this GSP for land subsidence in the Basin is the maintenance of current ground surface elevations. This measurable objective avoids significant and unreasonable rates of land subsidence in the Basin, which are those that would lead to a permanent subsidence of land surface elevations that impact infrastructure and agricultural production. As this subsidence measurable objective is essentially already met, the specific goal is to maintain this level of land subsidence (i.e., essentially zero) throughout the GSP implementation period. 1 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan DEPLETION OF INTERCONNECTED SURFACE WATERS (ISW) Background Conditions and features seen at ground level can be connected to and supported by groundwater resources. For example, streams may be connected to groundwater. Similarly, vegetation may rely on subsurface water supplies. These two concepts are similar yet different. Interconnected surface water involves connections to groundwater that occur at or very near the surface. Groundwater-dependent ecosystems consist of vegetation supported by groundwater supplies, along with other species that rely on that vegetation for feed or habitat. Groundwater levels more than 30 feet below the ground surface are not considered to support any GDEs, since the distance is too great for even the deepest root systems to reach. What We Know: Available Data Because the water table in parts of Ukiah Valley can be relatively shallow, the Russian River surface water network contains several miles of stream channel that are connected to groundwater, especially along its mainstem. The direction of flow exchange (i.e., gaining vs losing stream reaches) varies over both space and time. To identify river reaches that are interconnected to groundwater, streambed elevations were deducted from fall and spring groundwater elevation measurements from 2014 to 2020. If the difference was greater or equal to 10 ft for wells near the mainstem of the Russian River, or higher than 5 ft for wells close to the tributaries, the aquifer at the location of the corresponding well was considered to be interconnected with surface water. This analysis showed that groundwater is disconnected from surface water in 72% of the reaches during fall and in 63% of the reaches during spring. On the other hand, groundwater is connected to surface water in 6% and 9% of the reaches in fall and spring, respectively (Figure below). To account for uncertainties and data gaps and as a conservative measure, it is assumed that the groundwater Basin is interconnected with the mainstem Russian River, while the interconnection between surface and groundwater along the tributaries is seasonal and strongly impacted by the current incision on the mainstem Russian River. Most of the tributaries are ephemeral and more data are needed to fully demonstrate their connection or disconnection to the principal aquifer system. Depletion of Interconnected Surface Waters Monitoring Network The depletion of ISWs monitoring network measures groundwater elevations at shallower representative wells close to the surface water bodies identified to be interconnected with groundwater, and monitors groundwater elevations at deeper wells farther away from the water bodies to form an almost linear transect. Existing CASGEM wells and TSS-funded wells instrumented with continuous measurement devices to provide high-frequency groundwater level measurement. These transects are intended to provide the ability to effectively characterize the gradient, direction, and amount of groundwater flow towards or away from interconnected surface water bodies. They are formed along the sections of the streams and aquifers that are close to streamflow gages so that the relationship between streamflow and groundwater elevations and the corresponding gradients can be investigated. These measurements along with surface water diversion data help analytically evaluate surface water depletion and groundwater baseflow and also help improve model estimates of exchanges of water between the aquifers and interconnected streams. Wells and streamgages used in the monitoring network are shown in tables and figure below. 2 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan Undesirable Results Relating to Groundwater Quality Depletion of surface water due to groundwater extraction is considered significant and unreasonable when such lowering threatens the long-term viability of domestic, agricultural, municipal, or environmental users of groundwater. Operationally, an adaptive approach will be used to identify and avoid undesirable results due to the depletion of ISW. The adaptive approach is selected because it was deemed the most reasonable path to deal with existing data gaps and their imposed uncertainty while providing applicable measures to avoid undesirable results. Accordingly, during the first review period (first five years, or first ten years if data gathered during the first five years are not yet sufficient to justify a better alternative), similar undesirable results as the chronic lowering of groundwater elevations are proposed. This equates to groundwater levels at more than a third of the RMPs falling below their defined minimum thresholds in two consecutive years. Upon collection of sufficient data, depletion of ISW will be calculated using a combination of measured and modeled information at each monitoring transect. Measured information includes high-frequency groundwater level measurements at monitoring network wells, streamflow measurement at assigned gages, and available surface water diversion data. The calibrated model will quantify surface water depletion due to pumping by subtracting simulated streamflow of the “business-as-usual” scenario from that of the no-pumping scenario. The business-as-usual scenario is the simulation of the current conditions using the best available data and methods and includes existing and implemented PMAs. The no-pumping scenario is a replicate of the business-as-usual scenario with two primary differences: 1) all pumping from the Basin is removed from the simulation, and, 2) no PMAs are included in the simulation. Sustainable Management Criteria for Depletion of Interconnected Surface Waters During the first five (or 10 years if needed for data collection) the approach used to set chronic lowering of groundwater elevation sustainable management criteria is used for the depletion of ISWs. Please refer to chronic lowering of groundwater elevation summary sheet for the explanation of the approach. Upon collection of sufficient data, SMC will be revised accordingly to be based on the volume or rate of depletion estimated using the updated and calibrated model and data gathered from the monitoring transects. 3 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan PROPOSAL FOR DEPLETION OF ISW/GDE SECTION IN GSP Proposed Monitoring and SMCs for RMP wells are shown below. Monitoring locations for streambed assessment are also shown below – SMCs will be developed once more data is collected. Depletion of Interconnected Surface Waters monitoring wells and initial SMC (Table Below). Well Location Aquifer RMP? Monitoring Frequency MT (ft-bgs) Triggers (ft-bgs) MO (ft-bgs) 391918N1232003W001 I RMP Monthly 43 31 40 391225N1231852W001 I RMP Monthly 23 15 22 391285N1231607W001 II RMP Monthly 25 9 23 T0604500280 (MW-11) I - Monthly - - - Ukiah WWTP-MW1 II - Monthly - - - Depletion of ISW monitoring streamflow gages. SMC for the streamflow gage RMPs will be proposed based on depletion volume/rate upon revision and adaptation of SMC. Gage Stream Future RMP? Monitoring Frequency MT (ft-bgs) Triggers (ft-bgs) MO (ft-bgs) CDEC RRU West Fork RMP Daily TBD TBD TBD USGS 11461500 West Fork RMP Daily TBD TBD TBD USGS 11462080 West Fork RMP Daily TBD TBD TBD USGS 11462500 West Fork RMP Daily TBD TBD TBD CDEC CDM East Fork - Daily - - - GSA Redwood Valley Gage West Fork RMP Daily TBD TBD TBD GSA Forsythe Creek Gage Forsythe Creek RMP Daily TBD TBD TBD 391932N1232124W001 II - Monthly - - - TSS Drill(1) - Willow CWD I - Monthly - - - TSS Drill(2) - Ukiah Airport I - Monthly - - - TSS Drill(3) – Redwood Valley II - Monthly - - - TSS Drill(4) - Willow CWD I - Monthly - - - 4 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan Figure Above. Interconnected surface water reaches along the Russian River and its tributaries during Fall (Left) and Spring (Right) from 2014 to 2020. 5 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan Figure Above: Depletion of interconnected surface waters monitoring network. 1 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan Projects and Management Actions (PMAs) Background To achieve this Plan’s sustainability goal by 2042 and avoid undesirable results as required by SGMA regulations, multiple projects and management actions (PMAs) have been designed for evaluation and possible implementation by the GSA, in partnership with other entities and agencies active in the Basin, such as the RCD. PMAs are described in accordance with §354.42 and §354.44 of the SGMA regulations. Projects generally refer to infrastructure features and other capital investments, their planning, and their implementation, whereas management actions are typically programs or policies that do not require capital investments, but are geared toward engagement, education, outreach, changing groundwater use behavior, adoption of land use practices, monitoring, etc. PMAs discussed in this section will help achieve and maintain the sustainability goals and measurable objectives, and avoid the undesirable results identified for the Basin in Chapter 3. These efforts will be periodically assessed during the GSP implementation period. As planning is at varying early stages of development, complete information on construction requirements, operations, costs, permitting requirements, and other details are not uniformly available. In developing PMAs, priorities for consideration include minimizing impacts to the Basin’s economy, maximizing external funding, and prioritizing voluntary and incentive-based programs over mandatory programs. PMAs classification PMAs are classified under three main categories: 1) supply augmentation, including conjunctive use, 2) demand management and water conservation, and 3) other management actions. Furthermore, PMAs are organized into two tiers, that are reflective of their timeline for implementation: 1. TIER I: Existing PMAs that are currently being implemented and are anticipated to continue to be implemented. 2. TIER II: PMAs planned for near-term initiation and implementation (2022–2027) by individual member agencies, as well as additional PMAs that may be implemented in the future, as necessary (initiation and/or implementation 2027–2042). Level of detail provided in the PMA description is highly variable and some of them are still in the concept phase. We expect that a feasibility study will be developed ahead of any PMA implementation phase. The process of identifying, screening, and finalizing PMAs is illustrated below. 2 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan TIER I: Existing or Ongoing Projects and Management Actions The existing PMAs presented in Section 4.2 have been extracted from the following documents: • The County of Mendocino General Plan, August 2009 • Conceptual Model of Watershed Hydrology, Surface Water and Groundwater Interactions and Stream Ecology for the Russian River Watershed, September 2016. • Ukiah Valley Area Plan, August 2011 • Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report, August 2016 • The North Coast Resource Partnership projects (website) • Draft Lake Mendocino Master Plan, 2019 Revision • Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Evaluation Report, May 2013 • City of Ukiah Storm Water Management Plan, February 2006. • City of Ukiah 2015 Urban Water Management Plan • Southern Sonoma County Storm Water Resources Plan, May 2019 • Sonoma Water 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan • North Coast Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Phase III, August 2014 TIER II: Planned and Potential Future Projects and Management Actions Supply augmentation and conjunctive use Examples of supply augmentation projects included in the GSPs are: - Managed Aquifer Recharge and/or Injection Wells • City of Ukiah Groundwater Recharge • Rogina Mutual Water Company and Millview MAR and/or Injection Wells • Mendocino County Water Agency Groundwater Recharge • Purple Pipe Project Phase IV - Well rehabilitation in Redwood Valley 3 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan - City of Ukiah Western Hills Source Water Protection - Reduce evaporation losses from existing surface water storage - Additional construction of off-stream reservoirs or water tanks - Stream enhancement - Distributed Stormwater Managed Aquifer Recharge (DSWMAR) Demand management and water conservation - Pumps for Potable Water Intertie - Conservation Easements - Municipal and Irrigation Efficiency Improvements - Conservation Programs and green Infrastructures - Voluntary Land Repurposing - Alternative Lower Evapotranspiration Crop evaluation Other management actions include, but are not limited to: - Monitoring activities: Chapter 3 and the data gap appendix clearly describe the importance for establishing an extensive monitoring network which will be used to support the future GSP updates. - Well inventory program - Drought mitigation measures: Drought mitigation plans will be evaluated: all the districts and tribes are supposed to have them. In this action, the different conservation plans will be collected and reviewed. Results will be compared with the GSP metrics (Chapter 3) and the GSA will coordinate with other partners to develop a drought resiliency plan. - Forbearance: The project entails cost analysis and studies to support change petition on MCRRFC&WCID license to allow landowners to purchase surplus water supply when available and use in‐lieu of groundwater pumping, or for recharge (basins or Flood‐MAR), depending on conditions at the time water is available. Benefits are expected to include reduced groundwater pumping and potentially preventing or reducing loss of surface water to groundwater table in the critical summer months. - Future of the basin: This Project would entail developing a study of the economic impacts of the projects and management actions included in the GSP. - Voluntary wells metering program: Voluntary wells metering will be encouraged throughout the basin. Values collected can be successfully used to validate the estimates developed with the integrated hydrological model. - Outreach and education: Outreach and education will be a critical component of the future implementation of the GSP. Agencies such NRCS, RCD, etc can support the GSA and guarantee the successful implementation of the GSP by 2042. Outreach and education can also contribute to the development of a coordinated response to drought times and support the implementation of drought measures that can help with a drought resiliency plan. UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY 501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1010  Ukiah  California 95482  (707)463-4441  fax (707)463-7237 Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Plan Chapter 1 Introduction 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP or Plan) 1.2 Sustainability Goal 1.3 Agency Information (Reg. § 354.6) 1.3.1 Organization and Management Structure of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA or Agency) 1.3.2 Legal Authority of the GSA 1.3.3 Estimated Cost of Implementing the GSP and the GSA’s Approach to Meet Costs 1.4 GSP Organization 1.4.1 Description of how the GSP is organized 1.4.2 Preparation Checklist for GSP Submittal Chapter 2 Basin Settings 2.1 Description of the Plan Area 2.1.1 Summary of Jurisdictional Areas and Other Features 2.1.2 Water Resources Monitoring and Management Programs 2.1.3 Land Use Elements or Topic Categories of Applicable General Plans 2.1.4 Additional GSP Elements 2.1.5 Notice and Communication 2.2 Basin Setting 2.2.1 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model 2.2.2 Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions 2.2.3 Water Budget 2.2.4 Management Areas Chapter 3 Sustainable Management Criteria 3.1. Introduction to Sustainable Management Criteria and Definition of Terms 3.2 Sustainability Goal 3.3 Monitoring Networks 3.3.1 Reporting Monitoring Data to the Department (Reg § 354.40) 3.3.2. Monitoring Networks within the Basin 3.4 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels Sustainable Management Criteria 3.4.1 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Network 3.4.2 Undesirable Results – Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels 3.4.3 Minimum Thresholds – Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels 3.4.4 Measurable Objectives – Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels 3.5 Reduction of Groundwater in Storage Sustainable Management Criteria UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY 501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1010  Ukiah  California 95482  (707)463-4441  fax (707)463-7237 3.5.2 Undesirable Results – Reduction of Groundwater in Storage 3.5.3 Minimum Thresholds – Reduction of Groundwater in Storage 3.5.4 Measurable Objectives – Reduction of Groundwater in Storage 3.6 Seawater Intrusion Sustainable Management Criteria 3.7 Degraded Groundwater Quality Sustainable Management Criteria 3.7.1 Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network 3.7.2 Undesirable Results – Degraded Groundwater Quality 3.7.3 Maximum Thresholds – Degraded Groundwater Quality 3.7.4 Measurable Objectives- Degraded Groundwater Quality 3.8 Land Subsidence Sustainable Management Criteria 3.8.1 Subsidence Monitoring Network 3.8.2 Undesirable Results – Land Subsidence 3.8.3 Minimum Thresholds – Land Subsidence 3.8.4 Measurable Objectives- Land Subsidence 3.9 Depletion of Interconnected Surface Waters Sustainable Management Criteria 3.9.1 Depletion of Interconnected Surface Waters Monitoring Network 3.9.2 Undesirable Results – Interconnected Surface Waters 3.9.3 Minimum Thresholds – Interconnected Surface Waters 3.9.4 Measurable Objectives- Interconnected Surface Waters Chapter 4 Projects and Management Actions 4.1 Introduction and Overview 4.2 TIER I: Existing or Ongoing Projects and Management Actions 4.3 TIER II: Planned and Potential Future Projects and Management Actions 4.3.1 Supply Augmentation Projects 4.3.2. Demand Management Water Conservation 4.3.3 Other Management Actions. Chapter 5 Plan Implementation 5.1 Estimate of GSP Implementation Costs (Reg. § 354.6) 5.2 Schedule for Implementation 5.3 Annual Reporting 5.4 Periodic Evaluations Appendices (Preliminary list) Communication and Engagement Plan DWR Element checklist Summary of comments on GSP Record of public meetings and outreach Water Quality Evaluation Well hydrographs UKIAH VALLEY BASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY 501 Low Gap Rd., Rm. 1010  Ukiah  California 95482  (707)463-4441  fax (707)463-7237 Domestic well analysis Model Development Monitoring protocols PMA Prioritization- Description of Criteria and Weighting System Fee Study (SCI technical memo) DRAFT GSP Chapter 31Larry Walker Associates, Inc27/2/20213Contents43. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT CRITERIA253.1. Introduction to Sustainable Management Criteria and Definition of Terms. . . . . .363.2 Sustainability Goal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .473.3 Monitoring Networks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .483.3.1 Reporting Monitoring Data to the Department (Reg § 354.40). . . . . . . . .693.3.2. Monitoring Networks within the Basin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7103.4 Sustainable Management Criteria - Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels. . . .12113.4.1 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12123.4.2 Undesirable Results – Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels. . . . . . .16133.4.3 Minimum Thresholds – Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels. . . . . . .19143.4.4 Measurable Objectives – Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels. . . . . .28153.4.4.1 Path to Achieve Measurable Objectives – Chronic Lowering of Groundwater16Levels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29173.5 Sustainable Management Criteria - Reduction of Groundwater in Storage. . . . . .31183.5.2 Undesirable Results – Reduction of Groundwater in Storage. . . . . . . . .31193.5.3 Minimum Thresholds – Reduction of Groundwater in Storage. . . . . . . . .32203.5.4 Measurable Objectives – Reduction of Groundwater in Storage. . . . . . . .32213.6 Sustainable Management Criteria - Seawater Intrusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32223.7 Sustainable Management Criteria - Degraded Groundwater Quality. . . . . . . . .32233.7.1 Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33243.7.2 Undesirable Results – Degraded Groundwater Quality. . . . . . . . . . . .39253.7.3 Maximum Thresholds – Degraded Groundwater Quality. . . . . . . . . . .41263.7.3.1 Information and Methodology Used to Establish Maximum Thresholds and27Measurable Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42281 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.7.4 Measurable Objectives- Degraded Groundwater Quality. . . . . . . . . . .44293.7.4.1 Path to Achieve Measurable Objectives - Degraded Water Quality. . . . .44303.8 Sustainable Management Criteria - Land Subsidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48313.8.1 Subsidence Monitoring Network. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48323.8.2 Undesirable Results – Land Subsidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51333.8.3 Minimum Thresholds – Land Subsidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .51343.8.3.1 Information and Methodology Used to Establish Minimum Thresholds and35Measurable Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52363.8.4 Measurable Objectives- Land Subsidence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52373.8.4.1 Path to Achieve Measurable Objectives - Land Subsidence. . . . . . . . .53383.9 Sustainable Management Criteria - Depletion of Interconnected Surface Waters. . .54393.9.1 Depletion of Interconnected Surface Waters Monitoring Network. . . . . . .54403.9.2 Undesirable Results – Interconnected Surface Waters. . . . . . . . . . . .62413.9.3 Minimum Thresholds – Interconnected Surface Waters. . . . . . . . . . . .65423.9.3.1 Information and Methodology Used to Establish Minimum Thresholds and43Measurable Objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65443.9.4 Measurable Objectives- Interconnected Surface Waters. . . . . . . . . . .68453.9.4.1 Path to Achieve Measurable Objectives - Interconnected Surface Waters. .69462 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3. SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT CRITERIA47The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) requires each Groundwater Sustainability48Agency (GSA) to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP, or Plan) that outlines definitions49of “significant and unreasonable” impacts to sustainability indicators (California Water Code [CWC]50§ 10727(a)). Furthermore, SGMA defines Sustainable Management Criteria (SMC) as measurable51steps towards a Sustainability Goal, which culminates in the absence of undesirable results within5220 years of Plan implementation. SGMA defines six sustainability indicators (CWC § 10721(x)),53which are used to determine if “significant and unreasonable” impacts occur for beneficial users54and uses of groundwater:551.Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels,562.Reduction of Groundwater Storage573.Seawater Intrusion584.Degraded Water Quality595.Land Subsidence606.Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water (ISW)61This Section focuses on all sustainability indicators except for “Seawater Intrusion” which does62not apply to the Basin. The avoidance of significant and unreasonable impacts to sustainability63indicators is guided by SMC, which include Minimum thresholds (MTs), Measurable Objectives64(MOs), and Interim Milestones (IMs) asn defined inSection 3.1below.65SMC are thus “management goalposts” that inform discrete actions to be taken over the manage-66ment and implementation horizon and provide a quantitative means to evaluate progress towards67the Sustainability Goal. The scientifically-informed SMC presented herein have been designed68to protect beneficial uses and users of groundwater in the basin against significant and unrea-69sonable impacts that may be caused by unsustainable groundwater management, and reflect the70values expressed in stakeholder-driven discussions. The specific beneficial uses and users this71Plan emphasizes include domestic, agricultural, and public wells, groundwater dependent ecosys-72tems (GDE), and interconnected surface waters (ISW) that support sensitive aquatic habitats and73species. Detailed Technical Memoranda for impacts on GDEs and domestic wells are provided74as Appendices to this Section and impacts on ISWs is thoroughly discussed inSections 3.4.375and 3.9.3. Within this Section, an overview of these uses and users and the specific, quantitative76criteria that demonstrate the avoidance of significant and unreasonable impacts to these users is77presented and explained.78The SMC for groundwater levels, storage, and interconnected surface water have been co-79developed within an integrated approach to promote ease and efficiency of monitoring and80interpretation. As more information is collected, and understanding of the Basin improves over81time, certain SMC may change, for instance, during five-year Plan updates. However, at the82time of Plan submission, the SMC in this Section reflect the best available science applied to83the sustainable management of groundwater in the Basin. These SMC will ensure the Basin84operates in a steady condition over the implementation horizon, and achieves and then maintains85the Sustainability Goal beyond the implementation period ending in 2042.863 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.1. Introduction to Sustainable Management Criteria and Definition of Terms87The terms defined below are used throughout this chapter.88Sustainability Goal:The overarching goal for the Basin with respect to managing groundwater89conditions to ensure the absence of undesirable results.90Sustainability Indicators (SI):Six indicators defined under SGMA: chronic lowering of ground-91water levels, reduction of groundwater storage, seawater intrusion, degraded groundwater qual-92ity, land subsidence, and depletion of interconnected surface water. These indicators describe93groundwater-related conditions in the Basin and are used to determine the occurrence of undesir-94able results (23 CCR 354.28(b)(1)-(6)).95Sustainable Management Criteria (SMC):Minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, and un-96desirable results, consistent with the sustainability goal, that must be defined for each sustainability97indicator.98Undesirable Results:Conditions, defined under SGMA as:99“… one or more of the following effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout a100basin:1011. Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of102supply if continued over the planning and implementation horizon.1032. Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage.1043. Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion.1054. Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality, including the migration of contaminant106plumes that impair water supplies.1075. Significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land108uses.1096. Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse110impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.” (Wat. Code § 10721(x)(1)-(6))111Minimum Thresholds (MT):a quantitative value representative of groundwater conditions at a112site (or sites), that, if exceeded, may cause an undesirable result. The term “maximum threshold”113(MaxT) is the equivalent value for sustainable management criteria with a defined maximum limit114(e.g., groundwater quality).115MeasurableObjectives(MO):specificandquantifiablegoalsthataredefinedtoreflectthedesired116groundwater conditions in the Basin and achieve the sustainability goal within 20 years. Measur-117able objectives are defined in relation to the six undesirable results and use the same metrics as118minimum thresholds.119Interim Milestones:periodic goals (defined every five years, at minimum), that are used to mea-120sure progress toward measurable objectives and the sustainability goal.121Representative Monitoring Points (RMP):for each sustainability indicator, a subset of the en-122tire monitoring network where minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, and milestones are123measured and evaluated.124Projects and Management Actions (PMAs): creation or modification of a physical structure /125infrastructure (project) and creation of policies, procedures, regulations, or management actions126that are implemented to achieve Basin sustainability.1274 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.2 Sustainability Goal128The overall sustainability goal of groundwater management in the Basin is to maintain ground-129water resources in ways that best support the continued and long-term health of the people, the130environment, and the economy in Ukiah Valley, for generations to come. This includes managing131groundwater conditions for each of the applicable sustainability indicators in the Basin so that:132•Groundwater elevations and groundwater storage do not significantly decline below their his-133toricallymeasuredrange, protecttheexistingwellinfrastructurefromoutages, protectground-134water dependent ecosystems, and avoid significant additional streamflow depletion due to135groundwater pumping.136•Groundwater quality is suitable for the beneficial uses in the Basin and is not significantly or137unreasonably degraded.138•Significant and unreasonable land subsidence is prevented in the Basin. Infrastructure and139agriculturalproductioninUkiahValleyremainsafefrompermanentsubsidenceoflandsurface140elevations.141•Significant and undesirable streamflow depletions due to groundwater pumping are avoided142through projects and management actions consistent with existing regulatory requirements.143•The GSA’s groundwater management is efficiently and effectively integrated with other water-144shedandlanduseplanningactivitiesthroughcollaborationsandpartnershipswithlocal, state,145and federal agencies, private landowners, and other organizations, to achieve the broader146“watershed goal” of sufficient surface water flows that sustain healthy ecosystem functions.147The Sustainability Goal will be achieved by rigorous assessment of potential impacts to domestic,148urban, agricultural, industrial, and environmental beneficial users, and scientifically-informed man-149agement that avoids significant and unreasonable impacts to beneficial uses and users of ground-150water. Significant and unreasonable impacts to SMC are quantitatively and qualitatively defined151in each respective subsection below. This Plan acknowledges that climate change, unplanned152growth, and complex watershed coordination challenge sustainable groundwater management.153Thus, this Plan advances solutions to these challenges via:154•SMC rigorously tested on data and modeling of historical and projected groundwater use,155analyzed specifically with respect to the most sensitive groundwater users (vulnerable wells,156GDEs, and ISW) and designed to avoid significant and unreasonable impacts to these users;157•improved monitoring and scientific studies across the Basin to refine models and address158data gaps;159•substantial inter-agency coordination on conjunctive use projects and management actions160already underway (Chapter 4) that are estimated to increase net basin storage over the im-161plementation period and that will support sustainable pumping, bolster well reliability, improve162GDE water access, and maintain critical surface water flows.1633.3 Monitoring Networks164The monitoring networks described here support data collection to monitor the chronic lowering of165groundwater levels, reduction of groundwater in storage, degradation of water quality, land sub-166sidence, and depletion of interconnected surface water sustainability indicators. The monitoring1675 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholdersnetworks for each sustainability indicator are critical to demonstrating the Basin’s sustainability168over time. No monitoring network is identified for the seawater intrusion sustainability indicator as169it is not applicable to the Basin.170Per 23 CCR Section 354.34, monitoring networks should be designed to:171•Demonstrate progress towards achieving measurable objectives described in the Plan.172173•Monitor impacts to the beneficial uses or users of groundwater.174175•Monitor changes in groundwater conditions relative to measurable objectives and minimum176or maximum thresholds, and177178•Quantify annual changes in water budget components.179Monitoring networks are required to have sufficient spatial density and temporal resolution to eval-180uate the effects and effectiveness of plan implementation and represent seasonal, short-term, and181long-term trends in groundwater conditions and related surface conditions. Short-term is consid-182ered here to be a time span of 1 to 5 years, and long-term is considered to be 5–20 years. The183spatial densities and frequency of data measurement are specific to monitoring objectives, the pa-184rameter to be measured, degree of groundwater use, and Basin conditions, among other factors.185Network Enrollment and Expansion186With the exceptions of streamflow, land subsidence, and streamflow depletion due to groundwater187pumping, monitoring is performed using wells. Some wells will be monitored for water level, some188for water quality, some will be monitored for both. Prior to enrolling wells into the GSA’s monitoring189network, wells are evaluated, using the selection criteria listed below, to determine their suitability.190The selection criteria for potential wells to be added to the monitoring network include the following:191•Well location192•Monitoring History193•Well Information194•Well Access195Well Location196The location and design of a well network is important to ensure adequate spatial distribution,197coverage, and well density. Objectives for network design include sufficient coverage and den-198sity of wells to capture hydraulic gradients and overall groundwater in storage. Additionally, wells199important for the measurement of groundwater level and groundwater quality must be included in200areas within or adjacent to planned GSP projects and management actions and locally defined201areas where existing operations are found to pose a significant risk of affecting groundwater levels202or quality. Statistical methods will be used to aid in extrapolating measurements from a limited203number of monitoring sites to groundwater conditions in the entire Basin.204Monitoring History205Wells with a long monitoring record provide valuable historical groundwater level or water quality206data and enable the assessment of long-term trends. Such wells were preferentially selected for207a network over wells with limited monitoring data.2086 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersWell Information209In addition to well location, information about the construction of the well, including the well depth210and screened interval(s) is necessary to provide context for the measurement taken at the well,211such as which water bearing formation is being sampled. Well information is critical for an effective212well network, so the groundwater aquifer can be efficiently monitored. For wells that are candidates213forbeingaddedtothewellnetwork, theGSAwillcontinuetoverifywellinformationwithwelllogging.214Well Access/Agency Support215In order to be a functional component of the monitoring network, the ability to gain access to the216well to collect samples at the required frequency is critical.217Wells in existing monitoring programs, particularly for water quality, are located near populated ar-218eas, leaving sections of the remainder of the Basin without monitoring data. The planned additional219wells for inclusion in a network are intended to provide data representative of different land uses,220activities, and geologic units to improve upon the existing spatial coverage in the Basin. Any wells221added to the monitoring network will be evaluated using the criteria listed above to ensure well222suitability. A more detailed evaluation of the required spatial density and monitoring frequency of223the individual sustainability indicator monitoring network(s) will be conducted to determine appro-224priate attributes so that the monitoring network is representative of Basin conditions and enables225evaluations of seasonal, short-term, and long-term trends.226The monitoring networks will continue to be developed throughout GSP implementation. Individual227sustainability indicator monitoring networks will be modified throughout GSP implementation, as228necessary, to address monitoring objectives and support any projects and management actions229(PMAs). Expansion of individual sustainability indicator monitoring networks that rely on wells will230involve identification of additional existing wells in the Basin that could be included in the monitor-231ing network once evaluated, using the selection criteria, and approved for inclusion in the network.232Evaluations of the monitoring network will be conducted at least every five years to determine233whether additional wells are required to achieve sufficient spatial density, whether wells are repre-234sentative of the Basin conditions, and whether wells provide monitoring in key areas identified by235stakeholders. If additional sites are required to ensure sufficient spatial density, then existing wells236may be identified or new wells may be constructed at select locations, as required. The monitoring237frequency and timing that enable evaluation of seasonal, short-term, and long-term trends will also238be assessed throughout GSP implementation. Where it is necessary, the GSA will coordinate with239existing programs to develop an agreement for data collection responsibilities, monitoring proto-240cols, and data reporting and sharing. For existing monitoring programs implemented by agencies,241monitoring would be conducted by agency program staff or their contractors. For groundwater el-242evation monitoring, a subset of wells included in the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation243Monitoring (CASGEM)Program for Mendocino County is selected and migrated to the GSP mon-244itoring network administered by the GSA. For water quality monitoring, samples will be analyzed245at contracted analytical laboratories. To prevent bias associated with date of sample collection, all246samples should be collected on approximately the same date (i.e., +/- 30 days of each other) each247year.2483.3.1 Reporting Monitoring Data to the Department (Reg § 354.40)249Monitoring data will be stored in a data management system and a copy of the monitoring data will250be included in each Annual Report submitted electronically to DWR.2517 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.3.2. Monitoring Networks within the Basin252Existing and newly installed monitoring wells in the Basin will be used to collect and evaluate253monitoring data. Based on the Basin’s historical and existing conditions discussed inChapter2542, groundwater levels, groundwater storage, groundwater quality, land subsidence, and intercon-255nected surface water are the main sustainability indicators that must be monitored and controlled256to achieve sustainability.257Wells are selected for inclusion in each monitoring network based on their location, length of histor-258ical data records, and well construction information. Well location is important to assure sufficient259spatial coverage within the Basin. The length and quality (continuity of measurements over time)260of measurements are then evaluated to assure adequate temporal coverage. Due to major data261gaps in the Basin, the length of historical data has become a secondary factor. Information about262well depths, as well as the top and bottom perforation levels at each well, was extracted from well263completion reports or database records to identify whether the well is monitoring the shallow, the264deep, or both aquifers. However, not all well completion reports or well construction information265were available for the wells identified as suitable in the Basin.266A description of the existing and planned spatial density and data collection frequency is included267foreachmonitoringnetwork. Detaileddescriptions, assessments, andplansforimprovementofthe268monitoring network are provided for each sustainability indicator under its corresponding section.269An overview of the monitoring network established for each sustainability indicator is provided in270Table1.271In summary, there are four monitoring networks: a water level monitoring network, a water quality272monitoring network, a land subsidence monitoring system, and a streamflow depletion monitoring273network. The first two monitoring networks are independent, but potentially utilize some of the274same wells. The third network utilizes satellite remote sensing, and the fourth utilizes the wells,275streamflow gauges, and integrated hydrological model estimates adapted throughout the imple-276mentation period based on available data and tools. Groundwater storage is monitored using the277same wells included in the groundwater elevation monitoring network. Detailed descriptions, as-278sessments, and plans for future improvement of the well monitoring networks, along with protocols279for data collection and monitoring are addressed for each sustainability indicator in its correspond-280ing section.281Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Network282The Basin has two principal aquifers and a data gap exists for the number of groundwater wells283that specifically monitor the upper principal aquifer (Aquifer I). The monitoring network is designed284to span these two aquifers and provide adequate vertical coverage for as many wells as possible.285Importantly, monitoring well density is appropriate to extrapolate seasonal groundwater elevation286mapstosupporttheshallowwellprotectionanalysis, GDEimpactanalysis, andtomonitorseasonal287changes in hydraulic gradients that indicate changes in ISW depletion. Implementation actions are288proposedto cover datagaps that stillexist within thenetwork and improvements thatmay help such289assessments.290There are currently 45 CASGEM1(seeSection 2.2.2for details) wells monitored within the Basin.291These wells are normally sampled twice a year, once in Fall and once in Spring. Except for the four292wells monitored historically by DWR, measurement of groundwater levels for all the other wells2931The number of wells monitored for CASGEM program has been variable. The maximum number of wells monitoredthrough 2019 for any year has been 45 wells.8 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersTable 1:Summary of monitoring networks, metrics, and number of sites for sustainabilityindicators.SustainabilityIndicator1MetricNumber of Sites inCurrent NetworkChronic Lowering ofGroundwater Levels2Groundwater level25Reduction ofGroundwater StorageVolume of water per year,computed from water levelchangesUses chronic loweringof groundwater levelsnetworkGroundwater Quality Concentration of selected waterquality parameters19Land subsidenceDWR’s vertical displacementestimates derived fromInterferometric Synthetic ApertureRadar (InSAR) data3Spatially continuousStream depletion dueto groundwaterpumpingAdaptive evaluation of depletionamounts using availablecontinuous groundwater levelmeasurements, streamflow gages,and measured/modeled interactionof groundwater and surface watersystems. Evaluation approach willbe adopted as more measureddata is collected and modelestimates improve through fillingdata gaps.At three transectsections of the Basinfor the mainstemRussian River,integrated intorespective RMPs,including 10 wells andthree streamgages.1This table only includes monitoring networks used to measure sustainability indicators.It does not include additional monitoring necessary to monitor the various water budgetcomponents of the Basin (such as precipitation, etc.), described in Chapter 2, or tomonitor the impacts of implementation of projects and management actions, which aredescribed in Chapter 4.2The groundwater level monitoring network is also used for non-riparian groundwaterdependent ecosystems.3Land surface elevation changes are monitored through satellite remote sensing.9 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholdersstarted in 2014 or later. This results in a short historical coverage for the basin and a temporal294groundwater level measurement data gap. As described inSection 3.4.1, a subset of CASGEM295monitoring wells are included in the groundwater elevation monitoring network if they satisfied296regulatory requirements regarding their construction information, the aquifer they monitor, and their297accessibility. Well completion reports were not available for several of these CASGEM wells. As298a result, the availability of construction information criterion was relaxed to help the GSA design299and implement a more comprehensive and representative monitoring network using the existing300wells. Implementation actions are proposed to fill the construction information data gap through301video logs.302The selected subset of the CASGEM Program wells for the basin will be migrated accordingly to the303GSP monitoring network and administered by the GSA upon submission of the GSP. Mendocino304County CASGEM Program will be eliminated for the Basin when this migration is completed. The305GSA has received Technical Support Services (TSS) grants from DWR to drill four or five additional306wells. The TSS grant-funded wells will also be included in the groundwater elevation monitoring307network. Inaddition, asubsetofexistingCASGEMwellshasbeenselectedtobeinstrumentedwith308continuous measurement devices and combined with TSS-funded wells to form transects along the309river. These wells will be automatically included in the groundwater elevation monitoring network310and interconnected surface water monitoring network similar to the TSS-funded wells.311Monitoring frequency is important to characterize groundwater and surface water dynamics. All312wells will collect at least biannual measurements in Spring (mid-March) and Fall (mid-October) in313line with DWR Best Management Practices (CA-DWR, 2017). The subset of wells instrumented314with continuous measurement devices and TSS-funded wells will be monitored continuously to315provide a better understanding of surface water and groundwater interaction.316Groundwater Storage Monitoring Network317Groundwaterlevelisusedasaproxyforgroundwaterstorage(Section3.5). Thusthegroundwater318storagemonitoringnetworkisidenticaltothenetworkforgroundwaterlevel. Observationsobtained319forthegroundwaterlevelmonitoringnetworkwilldirectlyinformintegratedsurfaceandgroundwater320modeling in the Basin as model calibration targets.321Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network322To determine groundwater quality trends for water quality indicators, the GSA will collect sufficient323spatial and temporal data from each principal aquifer. The data from the network will provide324an ongoing water quality record for future assessments of groundwater quality. The spatial and325temporal coverage of the groundwater quality monitoring network will be designed to allow the326GSAs to take an effective and efficient adaptive management approach in protecting groundwater327quality, to minimize the risk for exceeding maximum water quality thresholds, to support the GSAs328in implementing timely projects and actions, and ultimately, to contribute to compliance with water329quality objectives throughout the Basin.330For this purpose, public and private water district wells are included in the groundwater quality mon-331itoring network. Similar to the groundwater elevation monitoring network, a subset of these wells332are selected based on their construction information, the aquifer they monitor, and their accessibil-333ity. These wells will be used to monitor concentrations of the five constituents of interest specified334inChapter 2: boron, iron, manganese, nitrogen, and specific conductivity. Public and private water335suppliers monitor their supply wells on different schedules and for different constituents according336to their monitoring and reporting plans. Those operations may result in sampling different wells for337the same constituent in consecutive years or sampling specific constituents in multi-year intervals.33810 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersCoordination will be conducted between existing monitoring programs and the GSA to develop an339agreement for data collection responsibilities, monitoring protocols, and data reporting.340Groundwater quality monitoring in the Basin in support of the GSP will rely largely on existing wells341used for monitoring groundwater quality in the monitoring network. Groundwater quality samples342will be collected and analyzed in accordance with the monitoring protocols outlined inSection3433.4.1.3. The monitoring network will use information from existing programs (seeSection 3.7.1) in344the Basin that already monitor for specific constituents of interest, and from other programs where345these constituents could be added as part of routine monitoring efforts in support of the GSP. New346wells will only be incorporated into the network as necessary to obtain information that will fill spatial347gaps in data gathered at existing wells.348The existing network will be augmented with additional TSS-funded wells that will be sampled and349monitored by the GSA. These wells will be suitably located to obtain representative spatial cover-350age and understanding of groundwater quality in the Basin to enable adequate spatial coverage351(distribution and density) to characterize groundwater quality conditions at a local and basin-wide352scale for all beneficial uses. As many of the wells in the Basin are used for public water supply, an353extensive record of water quality data is available for most wells.354Using the geographic location and screen elevation information of the municipal or monitoring355wells with historical groundwater quality records, an initial list of existing wells with groundwater356qualitymeasurementswascreatedforinclusioninthemonitoringnetwork. Waterqualitymonitoring357well locations and depths were intersected with the geological maps of the basin and principal358aquifers to determine the aquifer monitored by each well. When present, the screened interval359of the monitoring well was used to assign principal aquifers; otherwise, the depth of the well was360used. Major data gaps exist with regards to well completion reports available for supply wells as361well as principal aquifers’ depth at different well locations resulted from kriging. The best available362scientific information and professional judgment were used to complete this assessment. Existing363data gaps will be addressed through well video logs and projects and management actions outlined364in Chapter 4. Statewide geophysical surveys are underway by DWR that would help fill the data365gaps regarding the depth of different geological formations within the basin.366A total of 15 existing supply wells and 4 TSS-funded wells are included in the water quality monitor-367ing network based on the selection criteria explained above and are described inSections 3.4.1368and3.7.1. Similar to the groundwater elevation monitoring network, different subsets of wells are369used to monitor each of the two principal aquifers. Eighteen wells are assigned to monitor nitrate370on an annual basis and specific conductivity once every three years. Sixteen wells are designed371to monitor iron, manganese, and boron once every three years.372While the selection provides sufficient coverage to assess overall groundwater quality in the basin,373there exist areas and localities that wells were not available to monitor one or both principal374aquifers. An assessment of the monitoring results for both spatial density and monitoring fre-375quency suitability based on the proposed monitoring network will be performed to determine the376need for expansion of the network with additional wells. This assessment is planned within the first377five years of GSP implementation. Further evaluations of the monitoring network will be conducted378on a five-year basis, particularly with regard to the sufficiency of the monitoring network in meeting379the GSP’s monitoring objectives. The monitoring network may be modified or expanded in the380future based on an evaluation of the data collected or changes in land use.381Interconnected Surface Water Monitoring Network382To characterize the spatial and temporal exchanges between surface water and groundwater, and38311 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholdersto calibrate and apply the tools and methods necessary to calculate depletions of surface wa-384ter caused by groundwater extractions, both surface water and groundwater must be monitored385where interconnected surface water conditions exist. Data collected from the interconnected sur-386face water monitoring network will be used to characterize flow conditions including surface water387discharge, surface water head, and baseflow contribution; identify the approximate date and lo-388cation where ephemeral or intermittent flowing streams and rivers cease to flow; and characterize389temporal change in conditions due to variations in stream discharge and regional groundwater390extraction.391Groundwater level is used as a proxy for ISW depletion (Section 3.9). Thus, the surface water392depletion monitoring network is complementary to the network for groundwater level. The inter-393connected surface water monitoring network will include the newly installed TSS-funded wells,394newly instrumented CASGEM wells, four existing USGS streamgages, and two other recently in-395stalled streamgages. This network may be expanded using a subset of the groundwater elevation396monitoring network wells with relevant information and additional streamgages, if needed. Obser-397vations obtained at these key locations in the groundwater level monitoring network will directly398inform integrated surface and groundwater modeling in the Basin as model calibration targets.399Land Subsidence Monitoring Network400Vertical displacement estimates derived from Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR)401dataandprovidedbyDWRwillbeusedforthelandsubsidencemonitoringnetwork. Thesedatawill402monitor potential surface deformation trends related to subsidence. Data from the land subsidence403monitoring network will be reviewed annually.40412 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.4 Sustainable Management Criteria - Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels405Development of SMC for chronic lowering of groundwater levels and the monitoring network used406to evaluate the SMC is described in the section.4073.4.1 Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Network4083.4.1.1 Description of Monitoring NetworkFor the groundwater elevation monitoring network,409all CASGEM wells were the first to be considered. Subsequently, wells were categorized based410on the aquifer they monitor. Finally, a subset was selected that satisfied SGMA requirements and411provided sufficient spatial coverage of the aquifers with appropriate redundancy. This monitoring412network will also include the newly installed TSS-funded wells and newly instrumented CASGEM413wells. The monitoring network for the upper aquifer is limited in coverage due to the few CASGEM414wells available to monitor it, as shown inFigure2.415The groundwater elevation monitoring network will include representative monitoring points416(RMPs) for setting sustainable management criteria. RMPs are wells (or other monitoring facili-417ties) that are identified to be representative of groundwater conditions (here groundwater levels)418in their area and have a long and reliable measurement record. For this Basin, all four DWR wells419are identified as RMPs for the lower aquifer. Although one of the wells has not been monitored420since 2018, the Mendocino County Water Agency (MCWA) has been in contact with DWR with a421request to resume monitoring at that location. A similar arrangement of RMPs is proposed for the422first aquifer using existing CASGEM wells.423This monitoring network is designed based on the best available scientific information to best utilize424the existing facilities. The GSA has been working on adding monitoring wells throughout the basin425using DWR TSS funds and to cover spatial data gaps. However, major temporal data gaps still426exist within the basin with regard to groundwater level measurements that cannot be rectified. Fur-427thermore, recently drilled wells cannot be used as RMPs due to a lack of historical measurements428and this limits the ability of the GSP to identify and use proper RMPs. Therefore, an assessment429of the RMPs is paired with the assessment of the monitoring network at the next five-year imple-430mentation milestone to add or remove RMPs when more data and information will be available.43113 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersSalt Hollow CreekHoward CreekRussian River East ForkHowell CreekGibson CreekOrrs CreekRussian RiverHensley CreekSulphur CreekMcClure CreekNorth Fork Mill CreekMill CreekCold CreekMcNab CreekDoolin CreekRobinson CreekMorrison CreekUS Hwy 101State Hwy 20 WState Rte 20CalpellaPotter ValleyRedwood ValleyUkiahN0.00.51.01.52.02.5miGWE Monitoring WellsAquifer I - Monitoring WellAquifer I - RMPWatershed BoundaryGroundwater BasinCounty LineUS RoadState RoadSalt Hollow CreekHoward CreekYork CreekRussian River East ForkHowell CreekGibson CreekOrrs CreekRussian RiverHensley CreekSulphur CreekMcClure CreekForsythe CreekMill CreekNorth Fork Mill CreekJack Smith CreekMill CreekAckerman CreekMcNab CreekDoolin CreekRobinson CreekMorrison CreekUS Hwy 101State Rte 128State Rte 128State Rte 128BoonvilleCalpellaPhiloPotter ValleyRedwood ValleyUkiahN0.00.51.01.52.02.5miGWE Monitoring WellsAquifer II - Monitoring WellAquifer II - RMPWatershed BoundaryGroundwater BasinCounty LineUS RoadState RoadFigure 1:Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Network.14 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.4.1.2 Assessment and Improvement of Monitoring Network (Reg. § 354.38)An assess-432ment of the groundwater elevation monitoring network is planned for both spatial density and mon-433itoring frequency suitability within the first five years of GSP implementation. Further evaluations434of the monitoring network will be conducted on a 5-year basis, particularly with regard to the suf-435ficiency of the monitoring network in meeting the monitoring objectives. The monitoring network436may be modified or expanded based on an evaluation of the data collected or changes in land use.437The monitoring network would benefit from an additional RMP in the Redwood Valley area for438Aquifer I and in the Calpella area, between Redwood Valley and City of Ukiah, for Aquifer II. GSA439plans to drill wells in these areas. However, to set RMPs, additional data need to be gathered and440a temporal record needs to be established.441Not all monitoring points in the monitoring network contain construction information. After a thor-442ough review of well completion reports and available information in the Basin, 13 wells are missing443well completion reports, and 2 wells are missing a description of the perforated intervals. No wells444are missing depth information, as selection criteria mandates that at least one of depth or perfo-445rated intervals of these is present to understand vertical extent covered by the well. These data446gaps will be addressed before the five-year Plan update in 2027. During field visitations to the447monitoring sites, cameras and measuring tapes will be used to determine total completed depths448and screened intervals depths.4493.4.1.3 Protocols for Data Collection and Monitoring (Reg. § 352.2)Groundwater level data450collection may be conducted remotely via telemetry equipment or with an in-person field crew. The451following section provides a brief summary of monitoring protocols for groundwater level data col-452lection. Establishment of these protocols will ensure that data collected for groundwater elevation453are accurate, representative, reproducible, and contain all required information. All groundwa-454ter level data collection in support of this GSP is required to follow the established protocols for455consistency throughout the Basin and over time. These monitoring protocols will be updated as456necessary and will be re-evaluated every five years.457All groundwater elevation measurements are referenced to a consistent elevation datum, known458as the Reference Point (RP). For monitoring wells, the RP consists of a mark on the top of the well459casing. For most production wells, the RP is the top of the well’s concrete pedestal. The elevation460of the RP of each well is surveyed to the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD 29).461The elevation of the RP is accurate to at least 0.5 ft (15 cm), and most well RPs are accurate to4620.1 ft (3 cm) or less.463Groundwater level measurements are taken to the nearest 0.01 ft (0.3 cm) relative to the RP us-464ing procedures appropriate for the measuring device. Equipment is operated and maintained in465accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and all measurements are in consistent units of466feet, tenths of feet, and hundredths of feet.467Groundwater elevation is calculated using the following equation:468𝐺𝑊𝐶 = 𝑅𝑃𝐶 − 𝐶𝑅𝑊469where:470GWE refers to groundwater elevation, RPE is the reference point elevation, and DTW is the mea-471sured depth to water surface.47215 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersIn cases where the official RPE is a concrete pedestal, but the hand soundings are referenced off473the top of a sounding tube, the measured DTW is adjusted by subtracting the sounding tube offset474from the top of the pedestal.475All groundwater level measurements must include a record of the date, well identifier, time (in47624-hour military format), RPE, DTW, GWE, and comments regarding factors which may influence477the recorded measurement, such as nearby production well pumping, weather, flooding, or well478condition.479Manual Groundwater Level Measurement480Groundwater level data collected by an in-person field crew will be conducted according to the481following general protocols.482•Prior to sample collection, all sampling equipment and the sampling port must be cleaned.483•Manual groundwater level measurements are made with electronic sounders or steel tape.484Electronic sounders consist of a long, graduated wire equipped with a weighted electric sen-485sor. When the sensor is lowered into water, a circuit is completed and an audible beep is pro-486duced, at which point the sampler will record the depth to water. Some production wells may487have lubricating oil floating on the top of the water column, in which case electric sounders will488be ineffective. In this circumstance steel tape may be used. Steel tape instruments consist489of simple graduated lines where the end of the line is chalked so as to indicate depth to water490without interference from floating oil.491•All equipment is used following manufacturer specifications for use and maintenance.492•Measurements must be taken in wells that have not been subject to recent pumping. At least493two hours of recovery must be allowed before a hand sounding is taken.494•Foreachwell, multiplemeasurementsarecollectedtoensurethewellhasreachedequilibrium495such that no significant changes in groundwater level are observed.496•Equipment is sanitized between well locations in order to prevent contamination and maintain497the accuracy of concurrent groundwater quality sampling.498Data Logger Groundwater Level Measurement499Telemetry equipment and data loggers can be installed at individual wells to record continuous500water level data, which are then remotely collected via satellite to a central database and accessed501on the Water Level Portal in a web browser.502Installation and use of data loggers must abide by the following protocols:503•Prior to installation the field staff uses an electronic sounder or steel tape to measure and504calculate the current groundwater level in order to properly install and calibrate the transducer.505This is done following the protocols listed above.506•All data logger installations follow manufacturer specifications for installation, calibration, data507logging intervals, battery life, and anticipated life expectancy.508•Data loggers are set to record only measured groundwater level in order to conserve data509capacity; groundwater elevation is calculated later after downloading.51016 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders•In any log or recorded datasheet, the well ID, transducer ID, transducer range, transducer511accuracy, and cable serial number are all recorded.512•The field staff notes whether the pressure transducer uses a vented or non-vented cable513for barometric compensation. If non-vented units are used, data are properly corrected for514natural barometric pressure changes.515•All data logger cables are secured to the well head with a well dock or other reliable method.516This cable is marked at the elevation of the reference point to allow estimates of future cable517slippage.518•Data logger data are periodically checked against hand measured groundwater levels to mon-519itor electronic instrument drift, highlight cable movement, and ensure the data logger is oper-520ating correctly. This check occurs at least annually, typically during routine site visits.521•For wells not connected to a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system, trans-522ducer data are downloaded as necessary to ensure no data are overwritten or lost. Data is523enteredintothedatamanagementsystemassoonaspossible. Whenthetransducerdataare524successfully downloaded and stored, the data are deleted or overwritten to ensure adequate525data logger memory.5263.4.2 Undesirable Results – Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels527Chronic lowering of groundwater levels is considered significant and unreasonable when such528lowering threatens the long-term viability of domestic, agricultural, municipal, or environmental529users of groundwater. SGMA defines undesirable results related to groundwater levels as chronic530lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply if531continued over the planning and implementation horizon. The lowering of water levels during a532period of drought is not the same as (i.e., does not constitute) “chronic” lowering of groundwater533levelsifextractionsandgroundwaterrechargearemanagedasnecessarytoensurethatreductions534in groundwater levels or storage during a period of drought are offset by increases in groundwater535levels or storage during other periods.536Potential impacts and the extent to which they are considered significant and unreasonable were537determined by the GSA with input by technical advisors and members of the public. During the538development of the GSP, potential undesirable results identified include:539•Percentage of domestic, public, or agricultural wells going dry.540•Excessive reduction in the pumping capacity of existing wells.541•Need for well rehabilitation (lowering pumps and deepening wells).542•Financial burden to local agricultural interests.543•Adverse impacts to environmental uses and users, including interconnected surface water544and groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs).545•Land subsidence that impacts critical infrastructure (canals and roads).546Based on these values (and the absence of existing or anticipated land subsidence, seeSec-547tion 3.8), the extent of impact to beneficial users of groundwater levels that constitute undesirable548results for chronic lowering of groundwater was summarized as three quantitative criteria for vul-549nerable wells, GDEs, and ISW:5501.percentage of impacted domestic, agricultural, or public wells exceeds 5%55117 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders2.percentage decrease in connected GDE area exceeds 20% compared to the reference year5523.depletion of ISWs exceeds historical depletions recorded during past multi-year droughts553The scientific rationale behind Undesirable Results is based on a determination of impact analyses554to beneficial users of groundwater and discussed in detail inSection 3.4.3.555Operation criteria to define undesirable results for chronic lowering of groundwater are:556An undesirable result would occur if the groundwater level observations in the Fall season (i.e.,557the minimum elevation in any given water year) in more than third of the RMPs in the Basin fall558below their respective minimum thresholds for two consecutive years.559As discussed inSection 3.4.3, MTs for groundwater level are based on limited historical groundwa-560ter elevation data, which occur during the 2012-2016 drought. Thus, declines beyond MTs at a third561of monitoring wells for 2 consecutive years is designed to reflect the anticipated return of a drought562similar in intensity to the 2012-2016 drought, plus an additional margin to account for hydrologic563uncertainty. Input from the technical advisory committee members, stakeholders, and public led to564the determination that the 2012-2016 drought did not produce undesirable results although it put565significant stress on the water resources of the basin. Technical assessments conducted during566GSP development using the best available knowledge and data did not show impacts that would567amount to the above-mentioned criteria for undesirable results either.568Thus, the quantitative criteria to identify Undesirable Results consider reasonable hydrologic vari-569ability (e.g., water year type) that may be experienced in the Basin, the interaction of this hydrologic570variability with projected water use and climate change at the watershed scale, and the long-term571trajectory of groundwater levels in non-drought periods.5723.4.2.1 Potential Causes of Undesirable ResultsBasin groundwater pumping currently does573not exceed the sustainable yield of the Basin (as discussed inChapter 2). Future decline in water574levels in the Basin may occur due to several possible causes, not including overdraft (seeSection5752.2.3.3):576•Change in Basin pumping distribution and/or volumes.577•Reduction in natural recharge as a result of climate change, or other sources that reduce578recharge or increase groundwater pumping.579•A significant reduction in groundwater inflow from the surrounding watershed due to lower580precipitation.581•A significant change in managed releases from Lake Mendocino and the Potter Valley Project582that impact surface water interactions with groundwater aquifers.583584•Incision of Russian River and tributary channels585Changes in pumping distribution and volume may occur due to significant rural residential, agri-586cultural, and urban growth that depend on groundwater as a water supply. Climate change is587expected to raise average annual temperatures and intensify rainfall periods while extending dry588periods (CCTAG 2015). Together with possible vegetation changes in surrounding areas and along589tributaries, climate change may significantly increase or decrease recharge compared to historical590conditions. To the degree that climate change may lead to reduced recharge in and runoff from59118 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholderssurrounding areas, stream recharge to the Basin (especially on the upper alluvial fans) will be lower592and thus, reduce the dynamic equilibrium water level in the Basin (Section 2.2.3.3). On the other593hand, future increased recharge and runoff in the surrounding areas may have the opposite effects594and thus, raise water levels in the Basin.595The southern half of the basin is under the influence of managed releases from the Coyote Valley596Dam and Lake Mendocino. Storage in Lake Mendocino is largely impacted by the releases from597the Potter Valley Project (Section 2.1). Releases from Lake Mendocino impact the interaction of598surface water and groundwater in the basin as well as recharge from and discharge to the stream.599It also impacts the surface water users along the mainstem Russian River who use direct diversion600as part of their water supply. Decreases or changes to the releases from Lake Mendocino will601reduce streambed recharge and increase the discharge from the aquifer to the river. It may also602increase groundwater demand due to limited surface water supply. Both such effects would cause603groundwater decline in the basin.604The Russian River and the downstream reaches of tributaries have incised their beds over the605past 50 to 100 years (anthropogenic and natural incision). Principal Aquifer I occurs in a narrow606band along the river and major tributaries. The incision has likely impacted groundwater levels607and groundwater and surface water interaction in Aquifer I and areas near the stream in Aquifer II.608Most tributaries have not incised their beds along their entire lengths on the valley floor, but only609near the confluence with the Russian River. Therefore, further upstream incisions are possible in610the future that may cause further impacts on groundwater levels and contribute to the occurrence611of undesirable results.612The GSA will coordinate with relevant agencies and stakeholders within the Basin and the larger613watershed to implement management actions and projects to sustainably manage groundwater614levels in the Basin.6153.4.2.2 Effects of Undesirable Results on Beneficial Uses and UsersUndesirable results616wouldpreventaportionofprivate, agricultural, industrial, ormunicipalproductionwellsfromsupply-617ing groundwater to meet their water demands. Some wells may even go dry temporarily. Chronic618well outages are not expected in Ukiah Valley due to the lack of long-term overdraft and seasonal619variation in water levels. Temporary well outages may initially affect the shallowest wells, which620tend to be mostly domestic wells, located in the upstream part of the Valley. An extended analysis621of possible outages is presented inAppendix X.622The following provides greater detail regarding the potential impact of temporary well outages on623several major classes of beneficial users:624•Municipal Drinking Water Users –Undesirable results due to declining groundwater lev-625els can adversely affect current and projected municipal users, causing increased costs for626potable water supplies.627•Rural and/or Agricultural Residential Drinking Water Users –Seasonal low groundwater628levels can cause shallow domestic and stock wells to go dry, which may cause seasonal well629outages and restrict water access during periods of highest crop or pasture water demand630and stock watering demand.631•Agricultural Users –Excessive seasonal lowering of groundwater levels could necessitate632changes in irrigation practices and crops grown and could cause adverse effects to property633values and the regional economy.63419 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders•Environmental Uses –The magnitude and direction of depletions of ISW depend on hy-635draulic gradients between the surface water and adjacent groundwater. Hence, lowering636groundwater levels that propagate to streams may steepen hydraulic gradients and cause637additional depletions of ISW that reduce in-stream flows, prevent salmonid migration, impact638riparian ecosystems, and reduce surface water availability for downstream beneficial users of639surface water with riparian or appropriative surface water rights. GDEs are “ecological com-640munities or species that depend on groundwater emerging from aquifers or on groundwater641occurring near the ground surface” (23 CCR § 354.24(m)). Hence, lowering groundwater642levels may disconnect vegetative GDEs from saturated groundwater or reduce baseflow to643streams that depend on groundwater baseflow (especially during dry months), thus impacting644riparian ecosystems and aquatic species associated with GDEs.6453.4.3 Minimum Thresholds – Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels646Historical groundwater level measurements are limited to 4 DWR wells in the basin all determined647to be monitoring principal Aquifer II, and therefore, three of them are assigned as RMPs for that648aquifer. None of the CASGEM wells cover the period before 2014 and do not fully cover the 2012-6492016 drought period. As a result, the GSA is limited in its ability to fully evaluate the impacts650of extended drought on the basin, including its groundwater levels. While multiple scenarios were651evaluated using the calibrated integrated hydrological model, caution was needed in interpreting its652results due to significant uncertainties imposed on the model due to similar data gaps and sparsity.653Moreover, groundwater levels are measured twice a year for the majority of CASGEM wells includ-654ing wells monitored by DWR. These measurements are normally taken during the Fall (October-655November) and Spring seasons (April-May), corresponding to low and high groundwater levels,656respectively. However, the measurement dates may not necessarily correspond to the actual min-657imum and maximum groundwater level depths for the respective water year, and therefore, may658not be sufficiently accurate to be compared from one year to another. Continuous groundwater659level measurement during the implementation period will help assess the uncertainty and error660imposed by these biannual measurements in identifying annual high and low groundwater levels.661For the development of this GSP, groundwater level data from other basins were used to pro-662vide a justifiable margin to account for this uncertainty in the measurement of annual high and low663groundwater levels. A margin of 10% or 10 ft, whichever was lower, was determined appropriate to664be considered an overall ceiling. A well-specific assessment was performed and this margin was665decreased appropriately wherever the impact of low groundwater levels was deemed important to666ISW depletion and GDE needs.667According to the recommendations of the GSA, technical advisory committee, and stakeholder668working groups, and considering the aforementioned data gaps, MTs are estimated according to669the following framework:670•Wherever possible, the MT is set as the average of the three lowest (Fall season) historical671measurements on record for depth to groundwater taken during drought periods. A well-672specific margin, not exceeding the minimum of 10% or 10 ft, is further added to the MT to673account for uncertainty in measuring annual low groundwater levels. This criterion applies674to RMPs with historical groundwater level measurements that at least cover the 2012-2016675drought period.67620 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders•For RMPs with insufficient historical groundwater elevation data, The MT is set at the historic677maximum depth to water measurement, plus a well-specific margin, not exceeding the mini-678mum of 10% or 10 ft, to account for uncertainty in measuring annual low groundwater levels679(Table2).680The proposed RMPs for groundwater levels and associated MT depths to water are shown in681Figure2.682Triggers683The primary trigger (PT) for management actions will be if the water level falls below the historic684Spring season-low at any RMP. A secondary trigger for management actions will be if the number of685well outages reported exceeds 2% of active wells. The GSA has outlined a project inChapter 4to686implement an inventory of wells and track well outages. The GSA will use public tracking provided687by the DWR and reported individually to the GSA to track this trigger until the well inventory is688completely implemented. If either of these triggers occurs, the GSA will conduct an investigation689and may use management actions to proactively avoid the occurrence of (further) undesirable690results.69121 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersSalt Hollow CreekHoward CreekRussian River East ForkHowell CreekGibson CreekOrrs CreekRussian RiverHensley CreekSulphur CreekMcClure CreekNorth Fork Mill CreekMill CreekCold CreekMcNab CreekDoolin CreekRobinson CreekMorrison CreekUS Hwy 101State Hwy 20 WState Rte 20CalpellaPotter ValleyRedwood ValleyUkiahMT=43MO=41Trigger=32MT=23MO=22Trigger=15MT=28MO=26Trigger=14N0.00.51.01.52.02.5miGWE Representative Monitoring WellsAquifer I RMPWatershed BoundaryGroundwater BasinCounty LineUS RoadState RoadSalt Hollow CreekHoward CreekYork CreekRussian River East ForkHowell CreekGibson CreekOrrs CreekRussian RiverHensley CreekSulphur CreekMcClure CreekForsythe CreekMill CreekNorth Fork Mill CreekJack Smith CreekMill CreekAckerman CreekMcNab CreekDoolin CreekRobinson CreekMorrison CreekUS Hwy 101State Rte 128State Rte 128State Rte 128BoonvilleCalpellaPhiloPotter ValleyRedwood ValleyUkiahMT=19MO=18Trigger=10MT=32MO=29Trigger=19MT=41MO=38Trigger=19N0.00.51.01.52.02.5miGWE Representative Monitoring WellsAquifer II RMPWatershed BoundaryGroundwater BasinCounty LineUS RoadState RoadFigure 2:Sustainable management criteria set for the groundwater levels and storagemonitoring network.22 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersTable 2:Groundwater elevation minimum thresholds, triggers, and measurable objectives for theRMPs within the Ukiah Valley Basin.Site CodeAquifer MT (ft-bgs) Triggers (ft-bgs; Spring GWE) MO (ft-bgs)391918N1232003W001 I433241391225N1231852W001 I231522390664N1231491W001 I281426392962N1232047W001 II191018391730N1232108W001 II321929391096N1231677W001 II401938[The following table may be updated once the monitoring network is revised/finalized and/or SMC692adjusted]6933.4.3.1 Information and Methodology Used to Establish Minimum Thresholds and Measur-694able ObjectivesGroundwater level analysis and interpolation and stakeholder input were used695to evaluate the impact of historically observed groundwater conditions (and MTs based on histor-696ical conditions) on well failure (i.e., domestic, agricultural, and public wells), depletions of ISW,697and impacts to groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs). Although some Basin RMPs have698historical groundwater level data as far back as 1970, these monitoring well data are sparse and699insufficient for basin-wide interpolation and analysis. However, from Spring 2014 to Fall 2018,700groundwater level data density is adequate for interpolation, thus data during this period were an-701alyzed at a seasonal level and used to define MTs. The impact of these MTs on well protection702measures, ISW depletion, and impacts to GDEs were assessed and found to not lead to significant703and unreasonable impacts.704Trends:Average precipitation over the past 20 years (2000–2020) has been approximately 14%705lower than the average precipitation during the measured record in the 20th century (seeChapter7062). Since 2000, the water years 2008, 2009, 2014, and 2020 have been critically dry in the Val-707ley, while 2006, 2017, 2019 have been the wettest years in recent history. Meanwhile, historical708water levels indicate that there is no overdraft and no long-term decline in water levels. Long-term709observations are only available for the three wells monitored by DWR that are screened through710Aquifer II. These observations date back to the late 1960s or early 1970s. Assessment of historical711groundwater elevation data show negligible downward or upward trend since 1990 (seeSection7122.2.2). At the RMPs screened through Aquifer I, groundwater elevation observations are available713after 2014. Similar stable trends are observable in these monitored wells during this limited period714of observation.715Water Year Types:Hydrographs and interpolated groundwater elevation maps demonstrate sea-716sonal oscillations that correspond to recharge and pumping, increasing groundwater levels during717above normal and wet water year types, and slight declines in groundwater levels during dry and718critical water year types. Prolonged dry and critical water year types especially during droughts719have historically led to increased groundwater use to supplement unavailable surface water supply720in the Basin. Conjunctive use and other projects and management actions (seeChapter 4) during721wet periods are expected to bolster groundwater levels and reduce groundwater level drawdown722in the Basin during dry and critical water year types.72323 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersThe minimum thresholds were selected based on historical groundwater level data and stakeholder724input. Historically, well outages have not been an issue in the Basin and maintaining ground-725water levels at or above historical levels should avoid future outages. Groundwater level trends726and current conditions are discussed inSection 2.2.2.1. In establishing minimum thresholds for727groundwater levels, the following information was considered:728Projected Water Use:The integrated hydrological model was used to simulate the future bud-729get, impacts of climate change, and effectiveness of PMAs such as the Recycled Water Project730(SeeSection 2.3). Future water budget projections did not show declining trends in storage or731a continuous and/or significant decline in groundwater levels using current pumping patterns in732the basin. Similar changes in groundwater levels based on historical data were observed showing733strong relationship between the water year types and seasonal changes. Climate change impacts734were shown to cause groundwater level declines of 5 to 10 feet, depending on the location over the735long-term. This amount of decline would be reversible through designed and proposed PMAs in736Chapter 4. These results show minimal impacts to vulnerable wells, GDE area, and ISW locations737and flow assuming projects and management actions occur, and median climate change outcomes738are experienced. Due to their importance as beneficial users of groundwater that the GSAs aim to739protect, the attached technical memoranda provide detailed in-depth studies and recommended740management criteria for vulnerable wells and GDEs.741Impacts on Wells:742A detailed analysis of well protection is presented in Appendix 3-A: Shallow Well Protection Tech-743nical Memorandum, and a summary is given here. The impact of a return to post-2015 low ground-744water levels on wells in the Basin was evaluated and did not suggest the need for significant and745unreasonable well protection measures. Next, similar to the GDE analysis Fall 2016 depth to746groundwater levels were increased by 10 ft and 20 ft to represent a very conservative depth to747groundwater surface for the conditions when MTs occur. Results (Table3) show that well outages748of 2%, 5%, and 9% of total domestic, agricultural, and supply wells would occur in the basin for the749conditions of returning to Fall 2016 levels, 10 ft below Fall 2016 levels, and 20 ft below Fall 2016750levels, respectively.751Well Completion Reports (CA-DWR, 2020) in the Basin were analyzed alongside groundwater752elevation data to estimate the number of active wells at present-day groundwater level initial con-753ditions. Next, potential significant and unreasonable impacts to vulnerable wells were evaluated754at the proposed MTs . Similar to the GDE analysis Fall 2016 depth to groundwater levels were755increased by 10 ft and 20 ft to represent a very conservative depth to groundwater surface of the756conditions for which MTs occur. The count, cost, and location of impacted wells were estimated757assuming MT levels were reached.758Results suggest 6 domestic wells (2% of total wells assessed) would be impacted by a return to759Fall 2016 levels. This number increases to 15 domestic wells and 1 agricultural well (5% of total760wells)when groundwater levels in the basin are 10 ft lower than Fall 2016. Lowering Fall 2016761groundwater levels by 10 ft would be a worse scenario than the conditions proposed by MTs since762the maximum difference in groundwater levels at RMPs and their respective MTs is 5 ft and this763difference is not basinwide. Increasing depth to groundwater by 20 ft from Fall 2016 levels would764cause 25 domestic wells and 1 agricultural well (9% of total wells) to go dry.765Unacceptable well impacts are defined as dewatering or lost access to groundwater at a well that766requires well deepening. Well rehabilitation costs for impacted wells, assuming a return to the MT767at all RMPs, were estimated to be between $320,000 and $850,000 following the cost structure76824 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersTable 3:Impact of groundwater level decline on different well typesWell TypeTotal # of Wells Return to Fall2016 LevelsDry Wells10 ft Below Fall2016 LevelsDry Wells20 ft Below Fall2016 LevelsDry WellsDomestic Wells27661525Agricultural Wells15011Public Wells6000Total # of DryWellsNA6 (2%)16 (5%)26 (8%)of Pauloo et al. (2021), EKI (2020), and Gailey (2019), but would likely be significantly less, as769significant and unreasonable impacts occur when a third of RMPs exceed MTs (Section 3.4.2),770and less expensive rehabilitation costs such as pump lowering may be more appropriate in some771situations (e.g., when operating margin exists).772Impacts on GDEs:773GDEs were mapped using the best available datasets across the Basin as discussed inSection7742.2.2. In order to assess the possible impacts of groundwater elevation change in the basin on775GDEs the following methodology was used:776•seasonally interpolated groundwater elevation raster maps (contour maps) were generated777using available groundwater elevation data from the CASGEM program. Due to the limited778temporal and spatial availability of CASGEM data in the basin, groundwater elevation contour779mapsaregeneratedfortheperiodof2016-2020. Itisworthnotingthatevenduringthisperiod,780the spatial coverage of the groundwater elevation data is not ideal to generate contour maps781and the resulting uncertainty needs to be considered.782•The map of likely connected GDEs produced inSection 2.2.2was utilized as the basis for783existing GDE coverage in the basin.784•Fall 2016 measured groundwater elevation at RMPs were compared to the proposed mini-785mum thresholds. The difference in measured groundwater elevation and proposed MTs at786RMPs varied between 1.9 to 5 ft. Two RMPs did not have a measurement taken in Fall 2016787and were excluded from this estimate of the groundwater level difference. Contour maps were788generated by adding 2.5 and 5 ft to the Fall 2016 depth to groundwater contour map. The re-789sulting contour maps (MT contour maps), essentially provided us with comparison baselines790of the groundwater elevations in the basin when MTs occur.791•The MT contour maps were used along with 2016-2020 seasonal contour maps to estimate792the total area of GDEs that remain likely connected to groundwater by comparing GDE rooting793depths with respective estimated depths to groundwater.794Results of this analysis are shown inFigure3and indicate that increasing depth to groundwater795by 2.5 and 5 ft basin-wide will result in GDE coverage loss of 13% and 20%, respectively. This is796well within historical margins and comparable to Fall 2015. In addition, considering the significant797uncertainties posed by spatial gaps in groundwater elevation data and the interpolation method,798the GSA and its technical advisory committee found that MTs are sufficiently protective of GDEs799in the basin and with the implementation of the GSP and its projects and management actions,800significant harm to GDEs will be avoided. The GSA is committed to cooperative, multi-benefit80125 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholdersprojects in coordination with land trusts, resource conservation agencies, and other stakeholders802to anticipate and mitigate impacts to GDEs that directly result from unsustainable groundwater803management.80426 Uk i a h G S P S e c t i o n 3 - I n t e r n a l A n n o t a t e d D r a f t w i t h P l a c e h o l d e r s Figure 3:Percent of likely connected GDEs lost due to different Fall season groundwater elevation conditions in the basin releative to Fall 2016 27 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersImpacts on ISWs:805A detailed analysis for the identification of ISWs is provided inSection 2.2.2and a comprehensive806explanation of the correlation of groundwater levels SMC with depletion of ISWs is provided in807Section 3.9.3.808Due to the extensive data gaps that exist in the Basin, significant uncertainties are imposed on809the integrated hydrological model. Lack of available information concerning surface water diver-810sion data, streambed elevation measurements and streambed conductivity data, high-resolution811groundwater elevation measurements near the streams and long-term groundwater elevation mea-812surements, and incision of the riverbeds limit the ability of the integrated hydrological model and813the GSA to provide reliable estimates of seepage and depletion in the basin. As a result of these814uncertainties and lack of existing depletion estimates to compare and calibrate the model, the GSA815decided to use groundwater elevation as a temporary proxy to set depletion of ISW sustainable816management criteria for the first five to ten years of the GSP implementation until sufficient data817is gathered and the model is reliably improved to calculate and estimate the depletions. In or-818der to protect ISWs during this period, minimum thresholds are set based on historical elevations819plus a small margin to account for uncertainties in measuring annual high and low groundwater820elevations. Through discussions with the GSA Board, technical advisory committee, stakeholder821groups, and the public, and considering the analysis conducted on impacts on other beneficial822users and uses in the basin, it was determined that impacts on ISWs and other beneficial uses and823users such as shallow domestic wells during the recent drought (2012-2016) was considerable824but not unreasonable. Therefore, since groundwater level MTs are set equal or very close to the825groundwater levels experienced during the recent drought, impacts on ISWs are expected not to826be significant and unreasonable during the first 5 to 10 years of the implementation.827As discussed above, developed MTs for chronic lowering of groundwater levels are based on a828consideration of analyses that find the absence of significant and unreasonable dewatering of829vulnerable wells (e.g., domestic, agricultural, and public wells), depletions of ISW, and impacts to830GDEs. The Basin’s developed MTs are expressly designed with beneficial users of groundwater831in mind. They represent groundwater levels which, if reached across the entire basin would result832in significant and unreasonable impacts to these beneficial users. However, the identification of833Undesirable Results which occurs when a third of monitoring wells exceeds MTs for 2 consecutive834years is also designed to be conservative: analyses of impacts to beneficial users assume 100%835of the Basin reaches the MT surface. Thus, the impacts actually experienced if criteria to identify836Undesirable Results are obsererved are likely to be less severe than analyses suggest (A third837of RMPs versus al of RMPs exceeding MTs). Importantly, some RMPs are in critical monitoring838locations, but may lack historical data or perforation interval information. These data gaps will839be addressed during the Plan implementation by collecting monitoring data and performing field840investigations (Section 3.4.1); thus, the MTs presented herein may change in the five-year Plan841update pending new information.842To ease interpretation and implementation, MTs are rounded to the nearest integer value (Table8432).8443.4.3.2 Relationship to Other Sustainability IndicatorsMinimum thresholds are selected to845avoid undesirable results for other sustainability indicators. In the Basin, groundwater levels are846directlyrelatedtogroundwaterstorageandgroundwaterdependentecosystemsoutsideofstreams84728 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholdersas discussed above. The relationship between groundwater level minimum thresholds and mini-848mum thresholds for other sustainability indicators are discussed below.849•Groundwater Storage –Groundwater levels are closely tied to groundwater storage, with850high groundwater levels associated with high groundwater storage. The undesirable result851for groundwater storage is measured and thus, defined as the occurrence of an undesirable852result for groundwater elevations.853•Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water –Groundwater level defines the steepness of854the hydraulic gradient between ISW and saturated groundwater, and hence the rate, volume,855and direction of ISW depletion. Dropping groundwater levels can result in increased ISW856depletion.857858•Seawater Intrusion –This sustainability indicator is not applicable in this Basin.859•Groundwater Quality –A significant and unreasonable condition for degraded water quality860is exceeding drinking water standards for COIs in supply wells due to PMAs proposed in861the GSP. Although lowering of groundwater levels does not directly cause degraded quality,862groundwater quality could potentially be affected by projects and management action-induced863changes in groundwater elevations and gradients. These changes could potentially cause864poor quality groundwater to flow towards supply wells that would not have otherwise been865impacted.866•Subsidence –Subsidence has not historically been a problem in Ukiah Valley. The ground-867water level SMC will ensure that there is no onset of subsidence in the future. The minimum868threshold for water level is sufficiently close to historic water levels that under the hydrogeo-869logic conditions prevalent in Ukiah Valley, no significant subsidence can occur due to lowering870of water levels within the limits set by the minimum threshold.8713.4.4 Measurable Objectives – Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels872The MO is defined individually as the desired groundwater level for each RMP. Due to variant873temporal coverage of groundwater elevation measurement at RMPs, different methods are used874to set MOs similar to MTs. The MO elevation is set at the average observed groundwater elevation875in Fall if the RMP has a longer historical measurement than the common CASGEM period starting876from 2014-2015. Otherwise, the 75th percentile of the Fall depth to groundwater measurement is877used as the MO. MOs are adjusted using a similar well-specific margin to MTs to account for the878uncertainty in measuring the minimum and maximum annual groundwater level measurements.879Measurable objectives are shown inTable2andFigure2.880Based on the limited data available, the basin has not experienced a significant decline in ground-881water elevations historically and is not in overdraft. Therefore, the historical average conditions882will represent a sustainable basin that can provide the same benefits it has provided historically883with no significant impacts on the beneficial uses and users in the basin. For the RMPs that do884not have groundwater elevation measurements covering the most recent drought, their historical885record will consist mostly of normal and wet water years from 2016-2020. Therefore, the 75th per-886centile of Fall groundwater elevations in those RMPs represents normal conditions and a healthy887and recharged groundwater basin. It would also better correlate with the MOs set for other RMPs888with longer historical records. As more data is gathered and better temporal coverage is available889for these RMPS that cover multiple different water year types, the GSA may revise the MOs and890use the average of historical records available for these wells.89129 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersThe difference in groundwater levels between the measurable objective and primary trigger gives892a margin of operational flexibility, or margin of safety, for variation in groundwater levels due to893seasonal, annual, or drought variations (Figure ??). Groundwater levels might drop in drought894years but rise in wet years to recharge the aquifer and offset the effects of drought years.8953.4.4.1 Path to Achieve Measurable Objectives – Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels896The GSA will support achievement of the measurable objectives by monitoring groundwater lev-897els and coordinating with agencies and stakeholders within the Basin to implement PMAs. The898GSA will review and analyze groundwater level data to evaluate any changes in groundwater899levels resulting from groundwater pumping or recharge projects in the Basin. Using monitoring900data collected as part of GSP implementation, the GSA will develop information (e.g., hydrograph901plots) to demonstrate that projects and management actions are operating to maintain or improve902groundwater level conditions in the Basin and to avoid unreasonable groundwater levels. Should903groundwater levels drop to a trigger or minimum threshold as the result of GSA project implemen-904tation, the GSA will implement measures to address this occurrence. This process is illustrated in905Figure4that depicts the high-level decision making that goes into developing SMC, the monitoring906to determine if criteria are met, and actions to be taken based on monitoring results.907To manage groundwater levels, the GSA will partner with local agencies and stakeholders to im-908plement PMAs. PMAs are presented in further detail inChapter 4. Implementation timelines and909approximate costs are discussed inChapter 5. Examples of possible GSA actions include stake-910holder education and outreach and support for impacted stakeholders.911Where the cause of groundwater level decline is unknown, the GSA may choose to conduct addi-912tional or more frequent monitoring or initiate additional modeling. The need for additional studies913on groundwater levels will be assessed throughout GSP implementation. The GSA may identify914knowledge requirements, seek funding, and help to implement additional studies.91530 Uk i a h G S P S e c t i o n 3 - I n t e r n a l A n n o t a t e d D r a f t w i t h P l a c e h o l d e r s Establish metrics for sustainability components [Minimum Threshold, Measurable Objective, Trigger (optional)] for wells used to evaluate Groundwater Elevation Sustainable Management Criterion (SMC) Monitor groundwater elevation at identified network wells at identified frequency Establish basis for determining compliance with SMC metric (magnitude of GW elevation decrease, elevation decrease in some % of wells, trend over time?) 1 5 Groundwater Elevation Sustainable Management Criterion Flow Chart Continue Monitoring >> 2 Are GW elevations in compliance with established GW elevation minimum thresholds? Report monitoring results, assessment of results, and/ or recommended actions to California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Do GW elevation data show a pattern of non-compliance per basis established in Box B? No No Yes Does GSP contain a plan of action to address finding of unanticipated non- compliance? Yes 3 A B C D Investigate potential causes of non-compliance and identify corrective action(s) and appropriate follow-up 4 No Yes Figure 4:Groundwater level sustainable management criteria flow chart. 31 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersInterim Milestones916Three Interim Milestones (IMs) at five-year intervals were defined by dividing the range of opera-917tional flexibility between the MO and MT at each RMP into 4 regions, such that the Basin makes918linear progress towards MOs in each five-year increment. For clarity, in five years following Plan919submission (2027), it is projected that the Basin will make 25% progress towards MOs; in 10 years920following Plan submission (2032), it is projected that the Basin will make 50% progress; in 15 years921following Plan submission (2037) it is projected that the Basin will make 75% progress; and finally,922in 20 years following Plan submission (2042), it is projected that the Basin will meet its long-term923Sustainability Goal. Thus, the IMs in 2042 are equal to the MOs.9243.5 Sustainable Management Criteria - Reduction of Groundwater in Storage925Due to the direct correlation between groundwater levels and storage, groundwater levels are926selected as the proxy for groundwater storage. Hence, the SMC for reduction of groundwater in927storageareidenticaltotheonessetforthechronicloweringofgroundwaterlevels. Accordingtothe928United States Geological Survey (USGS), estimates of groundwater storage rely on groundwater929level data and sufficiently accurate knowledge of hydrogeologic properties of the aquifer. Direct930measurements of groundwater levels can be used to estimate changes in groundwater storage931(USGS 2020). As groundwater levels fall or rise, the volume of groundwater storage changes932accordingly, where unacceptable groundwater level decline indicates unacceptable storage loss.933The hydrogeologic model outlined inChapter 2provides the needed hydrogeologic properties of934the aquifer.935Protecting against chronic lowering of groundwater levels will directly protect against the chronic936reduction of groundwater storage because the lowering of groundwater levels would directly lead937to a predictable reduction of groundwater storage. There cannot be a reduction in groundwater938storage without a commensurate, observable reduction in water levels. There are currently no939other state, federal, or local standards that relate to this sustainability indicator in the Basin.9403.5.2 Undesirable Results – Reduction of Groundwater in Storage941An undesirable result from the reduction of groundwater in storage occurs when reduction of942groundwater in storage interferes with beneficial uses of groundwater in the Basin. Since ground-943water levels are being used as a proxy, the undesirable result for this sustainability indicator occurs944if the Fall low groundwater level observations in more than a third of the RMPs in the Basin fall945below their respective minimum thresholds for two consecutive years. (Table2), as defined by946the undesirable result for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels. This should avoid significant947and unreasonable changes to groundwater storage, including long-term reduction in groundwater948storage or interference with the other sustainability indicators.9493.5.2.1 Potential Causes of Undesirable ResultsPossible causes of undesirable reductions950in groundwater storage are increases in well density or groundwater extraction or increases in951frequency or duration of drought conditions. Similar impacts can be generated from a significant952changes in aquifers and surface water interactions in the basin such as changes to Coyote Valley953Dam and Potter Valley Project releases.95432 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.5.2.2 Effects of Undesirable Results on Beneficial Uses and UsersAs before, potential ef-955fects of Undesirable Results on beneficial uses and users of groundwater due to reduced ground-956water storage are identical to those outlined due to chronic lowering of groundwater levels (Section9573.4.2.2).9583.5.3 Minimum Thresholds – Reduction of Groundwater in Storage959The minimum threshold for groundwater storage for this GSP is the minimum threshold for ground-960water levels. Information used to establish minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for961groundwater levels can be found inSection 3.4.9623.5.3.1 Relationship to Other Sustainability IndicatorsSince groundwater storage is defined963in terms of water level,Section 3.4.3.2for the water level indicator equally applies to define the964relationship of the groundwater storage SMC to other sustainability indicators.9653.5.4 Measurable Objectives – Reduction of Groundwater in Storage966The measurable objective for groundwater storage is the measurable objective for groundwater967levels as described inSection 3.4.4. The path to achieve measurable objectives and interim mile-968stones for the reduction in groundwater storage sustainability indicator are the same measurable969objectives and interim milestones as for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability970indicator described inSection 3.4.4.1.9713.6 Sustainable Management Criteria - Seawater Intrusion972Due to the distance between the Basin and the Pacific Ocean, bays, deltas, or inlets, seawater973intrusion is not present and is not likely to occur within the Basin in the future and therefore, it is974not an applicable sustainability indicator in the Basin.9753.7 Sustainable Management Criteria - Degraded Groundwater Quality976Groundwater quality in the Basin is generally well-suited for the municipal, domestic, agricultural,977and other existing and potential beneficial uses designated for groundwater in the Water Quality978Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan), as discussed inSection 2.2.3and in the979water quality assessment inAppendix 2-B.980SMC are defined for nitrate and specific conductivity, which are consistent with the threats to981groundwater quality highlighted in the Staff Report for the North Coast Hydrologic Region Salt982and Nutrient Management Planning Groundwater Basin Evaluation and Prioritization.2As part of983the sustainability goal for the Basin, the specific objective for groundwater quality is to maintain984a groundwater resource that meets the water quality needs of beneficial uses and users in the9852https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/board_info/board_meetings/04_2021/pdf/3/210316_CJW_er_Groundwater%20Basins%20-%20Staff%20Report.pdf33 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersBasin, as regulated by federal and state water quality standards and regional water quality ob-986jectives. Avoiding significant degradation of groundwater quality is central to protecting uses that987rely on groundwater. Categories of beneficial uses of groundwater in the North Coast Region, as988listed in the Basin Plan, include municipal and domestic supply, agricultural supply, industrial sup-989ply, aquaculture, and Native American culture. Specific uses of groundwater in the Basin include990groundwater use for irrigation in agriculture, a significant part of the local economy, as stock water,991and as a municipal and domestic water source. Importantly, beneficial uses also include ground-992water dependent ecosystems and instream habitat where and when groundwater contributes to993streamflow.994The role of the GSA is to provide additional local oversight of groundwater quality, collaborate with995appropriate parties to implement water quality PMAs, and to evaluate and monitor, as needed,996water quality effects of PMAs implemented to meet the requirements of other SMC. All future PMAs997implemented by the GSA will be evaluated and designed to avoid causing undesirable groundwater998quality outcomes. Federal and state standards for water quality, water quality objectives defined in999the Basin Plan, and the management of known and suspected contaminated sites within the Basin1000will continue to be managed by the relevant agency. Groundwater in the Basin is used for a variety1001of beneficial uses which are protected by NCRWQCB through the water quality objectives adopted1002in the Basin Plan.1003Availablehistoricalandcurrentgroundwaterqualitymonitoringdataandreportingeffortshavebeen1004used to establish and document conditions in the Basin, as discussed inSection 2.2.3. These1005conditions provide a baseline upon which to compare future groundwater quality and identify any1006changes observed, including those due to GSP implementation. Groundwater quality monitoring in1007theBasininsupportoftheGSPwillrelyontheexistingandplannedwellsinthemonitoringnetwork,1008as described inSection 3.7.1. Groundwater quality samples will be collected and analyzed in1009accordance with the monitoring protocols outlined inAppendix 3-A. The monitoring network will1010use information from existing programs in the Basin that either already monitor for the COIs or1011programs where these constituents could be added as part of routine monitoring efforts in support1012of the GSP. New wells will be incorporated into the network as necessary to obtain information to1013fill spatial gaps in data or to gather data that cannot be collected at existing wells. Because water1014quality degradation is typically associated with increasing rather than decreasing concentration of1015constituents, the GSA uses the term “maximum threshold” (MaxT) in the context of water quality1016instead of “minimum threshold”. The use of the term maximum threshold for this SMC is equivalent1017to the use of the term minimum threshold in other SMC or in the SGMA regulations.10183.7.1 Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network10193.7.1.1 Description of Monitoring NetworkThe objective of the groundwater quality monitoring1020networkdesignistocapturesufficientspatialandtemporaldetailtounderstandgroundwaterquality1021in the Basin. The monitoring network data will provide an ongoing water quality record for future1022assessments of groundwater quality. The spatial and temporal coverage of the groundwater quality1023monitoring network and the data it collects will be designed to allow the GSA to take an effective1024and efficient adaptive management approach in protecting groundwater quality, to minimize the1025risk for exceeding maximum water quality thresholds, to support the GSA in implementing timely1026water quality projects and actions, and ultimately to meet water quality objectives throughout the1027Basin.102834 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersThe monitoring network will use information from existing programs in the Basin that already moni-1029tor for the COIs, or programs where these constituents could be added as part of routine monitoring1030efforts in support of the GSP. Apart from a few open contamination sites, the Basin currently has1031very good groundwater quality, as described inSection 2.2.3. Existing wells used for monitoring1032groundwater quality in the Basin include public water supply wells, monitoring wells at the City1033of Ukiah wastewater treatment plant, monitoring wells at known groundwater contamination sites1034within the Basin, and TSS-funded wells drilled for GSP monitoring. Existing wells perforated within1035a single aquifer are considered to be included in the monitoring network (Table4andFigure5).1036Coordination will be conducted between existing monitoring programs and the GSA to develop an1037agreement for data collection responsibilities, monitoring protocols, and data reporting. Ground-1038water quality samples will be collected and analyzed in accordance with the monitoring protocols1039outlined inSection 3.7.1.3. GSA-owned wells (TSS-funded wells) will be monitored following the1040same monitoring protocols and determined frequency.1041The frequency and timing of groundwater quality monitoring will be evaluated to ensure that the1042evaluationofseasonal, short-term, andlong-termtrends ispossible. Groundwaterqualitysampling1043frequencies have been recommended for trend monitoring and surveillance for different aquifer1044types, flow mediums, and well depths. For the conditions in the Basin, an annual frequency, or per1045study design is recommended.3However, sample frequency requirements may change based on1046a number of factors including the variability in groundwater quality data and future changes in land1047use.1048In the current groundwater quality monitoring network, eighteen wells are assigned to monitor1049nitrate on an annual basis and specific conductivity once every three years. From these wells,10505 are measuring Aquifer I water quality and 13 wells are sampling Aquifer II. Sixteen wells are1051designed to monitor iron, manganese, and boron once every three years. Four of these 16 wells1052sample Aquifer I and the rest measures the quality of Aquifer II.1053[The following table may be updated once the WQ monitoring network is revised/finalized]1054Table 4:Elements of the groundwater quality monitoring network.Constituent # of wells inAquifer 1# of wells inAquifer 2SamplingFrequency(Months)ProgramBoron61136DDW Monitoring (SDWIS), WWTPNPDES Monitoring (CIWQS), GSAMonitoringIron41136DDW Monitoring (SDWIS), WWTPNPDES Monitoring (CIWQS), GSAMonitoringManganese41136DDW Monitoring (SDWIS), WWTPNPDES Monitoring (CIWQS), GSAMonitoringNitrate as N61412DDW Monitoring (SDWIS), WWTPNPDES Monitoring (CIWQS), GSAMonitoring3https://acwi.gov/sogw/ngwmn_framework_report_july2013.pdf35 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersTable 4:Elements of the groundwater quality monitoring network.(continued)Constituent # of wells inAquifer 1# of wells inAquifer 2SamplingFrequency(Months)ProgramSpecificConductivity51112DDW Monitoring (SDWIS), WWTPNPDES Monitoring (CIWQS), GSAMonitoring36 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersSalt Hollow CreekHoward CreekRussian River East ForkHowell CreekGibson CreekOrrs CreekRussian RiverHensley CreekSulphur CreekMcClure CreekNorth Fork Mill CreekMill CreekCold CreekMcNab CreekDoolin CreekRobinson CreekMorrison CreekUS Hwy 101State Hwy 20 WState Rte 20CalpellaPotter ValleyRedwood ValleyUkiahN0.00.51.01.52.02.5miGWQ Monitoring NetworkAquifer IAquifer IIWatershed BoundaryGroundwater BasinCounty LineUS RoadState RoadSalt Hollow CreekHoward CreekYork CreekRussian River East ForkHowell CreekGibson CreekOrrs CreekRussian RiverHensley CreekSulphur CreekMcClure CreekForsythe CreekMill CreekNorth Fork Mill CreekJack Smith CreekMill CreekAckerman CreekMcNab CreekDoolin CreekRobinson CreekMorrison CreekUS Hwy 101State Rte 128State Rte 128State Rte 128BoonvilleCalpellaPhiloPotter ValleyRedwood ValleyUkiahN0.00.51.01.52.02.5miMonitoring EntityCalpella County Water DistrictCity of 10,000 BuddhasCity of UkiahCity of Ukiah (WWTP)Flight RidgeMillvew County Water DistrictRiver Estates Mutual Water CompanyRogina Water CompanyWillow County Water DistrictYokayo TribeWatershed BoundaryGroundwater BasinCounty LineUS RoadState RoadFigure 5:Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network.37 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.7.1.2 Assessment and Improvement of Monitoring Network (Reg. § 354.38)While the1055current selection provides sufficient coverage to assess overall groundwater quality in the basin,1056there exist areas and localities where wells were not available to monitor one or both principal1057aquifers. An assessment of the monitoring results for both spatial density and monitoring frequency1058suitability based on the proposed monitoring network will be performed to determine the need for1059expansion of the network with additional wells. This assessment is planned within the first five1060years of GSP implementation. Further evaluations of the monitoring network will be conducted on1061a five-year basis, particularly with regard to the sufficiency of the monitoring network in meeting the1062GSP’s monitoring objectives. The monitoring network may be modified or expanded in the future1063based on an evaluation of the data collected or changes in land use.10643.7.1.3 Protocols for Data Collection and Monitoring (Reg. § 352.2)Sample collection will1065follow the USGS National Field Manual for the Collection of Water Quality Data (Wilde 2008) and1066Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (Rice et al. 2012), as applicable,1067in addition to the general sampling protocols listed below.1068The following section provides a brief summary of monitoring protocols for sample collection and1069testing for groundwater quality. Establishment of these protocols will ensure that data collected1070for groundwater quality are accurate, representative, reproducible, and contain all required infor-1071mation. All sample collection and testing for water quality in support of this GSP is required to1072follow the established protocols for consistency throughout the Basin and over time. All testing of1073groundwater quality samples will be conducted by laboratories with certification under the Califor-1074nia Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (ELAP). These monitoring protocols will be1075updated as necessary and will be re-evaluated every five years.1076Wells used for sampling are required to have a distinct identifier, which must be located on the well1077housing or casing. This identifier will also be included on the sample label to ensure traceability.1078Event Preparation:1079•Before the sampling event, coordination with any laboratory that will be used for sample anal-1080ysis is required. Coordination must include scheduling laboratory time for sample testing, and1081a review of the applicable sample holding times and preservation requirements that must be1082conducted before the sampling event.1083•Sample labels must include the sample ID, well ID, sample date and time, personnel re-1084sponsible for sample collection, any preservative in the sample container, the analyte to be1085analyzed, and the analytical method to be used. Sample containers may be labeled prior to,1086or during, the sampling event.1087Sample Collection and Analysis:1088•Sample collection must occur at, or close to, the wellhead for wells with dedicated pumps1089and may not be collected after any treatment, from tanks, or after the water has traveled1090through long pipes. Prior to sample collection, the sample collector should clean all sampling1091equipment and the sampling port. The sample equipment must also be cleaned with any1092change at each new sample location or well.1093•Sample collection in wells with low-flow or passive sampling equipment must follow protocols1094outlined in the EPA’s Low-flow (minimal drawdown) ground-water sampling procedures (Puls109538 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholdersand Barcelona 1996) and USGS Fact Sheet 088-00 (USGS Fact Sheet 088-01 2000), respec-1096tively. Prior to sample collection in wells without low-flow or passive sampling equipment, at1097least three well casing volumes should be purged prior to sample collection to make sure1098ambient water is being tested. The sample collector should use best professional judgment1099to ensure that the sample is representative of ambient groundwater. If a well goes dry, this1100should be noted, and the well should be allowed to return to at least 90% of the original level1101before a sample is collected.1102•Sample collection should be completed under laminar flow conditions.1103•Samples must be collected in accordance with appropriate guidance and standards and1104should meet specifications for the specific constituent analyzed and associated data qual-1105ity objectives.1106•In addition to sample collection for the target analyte (e.g., nitrate), field parameters, including1107temperature, pH, and specific conductivity, must be collected at every site during well purging.1108Field parameters should stabilize before being recorded and before samples are collected.1109Field instruments must be calibrated daily and checked for drift throughout the day.1110•Samples must be chilled and maintained at a temperature of 4∘C and maintained at this1111temperature until delivered to the laboratory responsible for the analysis.1112•Chain of custody forms are required for all sample collection and must be delivered to the1113laboratory responsible for analysis of the samples to ensure that samples are tested within1114applicable holding limits.1115•Laboratories must use reporting limits that are equivalent, or less than, applicable data quality1116objectives.111739 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.7.2 Undesirable Results – Degraded Groundwater Quality1118Significant and unreasonable degradation of groundwater quality is the degradation of water quality1119that would impair beneficial uses of groundwater within the Basin or result in failure to comply with1120groundwater regulatory thresholds including state and federal drinking water standards and Basin1121Plan water quality objectives. Based on the State’s 1968 antidegradation policy4, water quality1122degradation that is not consistent with the provisions of Resolution No. 68-16 is degradation de-1123termined to be significant and unreasonable. Furthermore, the violation of water quality objectives1124is significant and unreasonable under the State’s antidegradation policy. The NCRWQCB and the1125State Water Board are the two entities that determine if degradation is inconsistent with Resolution1126No. 68-16.1127Federalandstatestandardsforwaterquality, waterqualityobjectivesdefinedintheBasinPlan, and1128the management of known and suspected contaminated sites within the Basin will continue to be1129managed by the relevant agency (NCRWQCB). The role of the GSA is to provide local oversight1130of groundwater quality, collaborate with appropriate parties to implement water quality projects1131and actions, and to evaluate and monitor, as needed, water quality effects of projects and actions1132implemented to meet the requirements of other sustainable management criteria.1133GroundwaterintheBasinisusedforavarietyofbeneficialusesincludingagriculture, domesticuse,1134and municipal water supply. Groundwater is also an important component of streamflow and its1135water quality benefits groundwater-dependent ecosystems (GDEs) and instream environmental1136resources. These beneficial uses, among others, are protected by the NCRWQCB through the1137water quality objectives adopted in the Basin Plan. Project and management actions implemented1138as a result of the GSP need to consider, and monitor for, potential impacts to groundwater quality1139that could cause degradation below these water quality objectives and affect key beneficial uses1140of groundwater in the Basin.1141The COIs identified in the Basin, and their associated regulatory thresholds, are listed inSection11422.2.3. Undesirable results are experienced if the maximum thresholds are exceeded at 50% or1143more of the groundwater quality monitoring wells sampled in the respective sampling period for1144any COIs with a defined maximum threshold.11453.7.2.1 Potential Causes of Undesirable ResultsFuture GSA activities with potential to af-1146fect water quality may include changes in location and magnitude of Basin pumping, declining1147groundwater levels, and groundwater recharge projects. Altering the location or rate of groundwa-1148ter pumping could change the direction of groundwater flow which could result in movement of the1149known existing plumes or future contaminant plumes toward supply wells.1150Land use activities not associated with the GSA that may lead to undesirable groundwater quality1151include future contamination from urban and industrial sources, the application of fertilizers, cer-1152tain agricultural practices, and/or waste discharges that may result in exceedances of water quality1153objectives in groundwater. Existing leaks from underground storage tanks (USTs) in the Basin are1154currently monitored and managed, and though additional degradation is not anticipated from these1155known sources, new leaks may cause undesirable results due to constituents that, depending on1156the contents of a UST, may include petroleum hydrocarbons, solvents, or other contaminants.11574State Water Resources Control Board. “Resolution No. 68-16: Statement of Policy with Respect to MaintainingHigh Quality of Waters in California”, California, October 28, 1968.40 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersAgricultural activities in the Basin are dominated by grape, pear, pasture, and cannabis produc-1158tion. The risk for fertilizer-associated nitrate leaching from these activities has been historically low1159and nitrate pollution was not observed in historical water quality data (Section 2.2.3). NCRWQCB1160ResolutionNO.R1-2021-0006listedtheBasinas“high”priorityforthethreatofwaterqualitydegra-1161dation from salts and nutrients. The prioritization system used as the basis for the resolution relies1162on several attributes that can potentially contribute to salts and nutrients production and threat but1163does not indicate an existing problem or threat within the basin. The prioritization is intended to be1164used to direct NCRWQCB resources and focus in the near future according to the resolution and1165does not indicate any requirement for the Basin to develop a salt and nutrient management plan1166(SNMP) at this stage.11673.7.2.2 Effects of Undesirable Results on Beneficial Uses and UsersConcerns over potential1168or actual non-attainment of the beneficial uses designated for groundwater in the Basin are and will1169continue to be related to certain constituents measured at elevated or increasing concentrations,1170and the potential local or regional effects that degraded water quality can have on such beneficial1171uses.1172The following provides greater detail regarding the potential impact of poor groundwater quality on1173the major classes of beneficial users:1174•MunicipalDrinkingWaterUsers–UnderCalifornialaw, agenciesthatprovidedrinkingwater1175are required to routinely sample groundwater from their wells and compare the results to1176state and federal drinking water standards for individual chemicals. Groundwater quality that1177does not meet state drinking water standards may render the water unusable or may cause1178increased costs for treatment. For municipal suppliers, impacted wells potentially may be1179taken offline until a solution is found, depending on the configuration of the municipal system1180in question. Where this temporary solution is feasible, it will add stress to and decrease the1181reliability of the overall system.1182•Rural and/or Agricultural Residential Drinking Water Users –Residential structures not1183located within the service areas of the local municipal water agency will typically have private1184domestic groundwater wells. Such wells may not be monitored routinely and groundwater1185quality from those wells may be unknown unless the landowner has initiated testing and1186shared the data with other entities. Degraded water quality in such wells can lead to rural1187residential use of groundwater that does not meet potable water standards and results in the1188need for installation of new or modified domestic wells and/or well-head treatment that will1189provide groundwater of acceptable quality.1190•Agricultural Users –Irrigation water quality is an important factor in crop production and has1191a variable impact on agriculture due to different crop sensitivities. Impacts from poor water1192quality may include declines in crop yields, crop damage, changes in the crops that can be1193grown in an area, and other effects.1194•Environmental Uses –Poor quality groundwater may result in the migration of contaminants1195that could affect groundwater dependent ecosystems or instream environments and their res-1196ident species. Poor quality groundwater may also add nutrients to water bodies that produce1197adverse ecological effects, including eutrophication.119841 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.7.3 Maximum Thresholds – Degraded Groundwater Quality1199Maximum thresholds for groundwater quality in the Basin were defined using existing groundwater1200quality data, beneficial uses of groundwater in the Basin, existing regulations, including water qual-1201ity objectives under the Basin Plan, Title 22 Primary and Secondary MCLs, and consultation with1202the GSA advisory committee and stakeholders (seeSection 2.2.3). As a result of this process, five1203COIs were defined in the Basin: boron, iron, manganese, nitrate, and specific conductivity. Con-1204centrations of each of these five constituents were obtained from existing data derived from existing1205monitoring programs. From these five constituents, boron, iron, and manganese are known to be1206naturally occurring in the basin at higher concentrations than their water quality objectives. There-1207fore, they will be monitored as part of the monitoring network and results will be communicated with1208appropriate regulatory entities. However, sustainable management criteria are not set for boron,1209iron, and manganese since their concentrations are not representative of the general water quality1210of the Basin and are impacted significantly by natural processes and local geological conditions1211that are not controllable by the GSA.1212Maximum thresholds for the other two COIs (nitrate and specific conductivity) are set at the Primary1213(nitrate as N) or Secondary (specific conductivity) MCLs established in Title 22 of the California1214Code of Regulations(Table5).1215Table 5:Constituents of interest and their associated maximum thresholds and measurableobjectives.ConstituentReason for Concern Maximum ThresholdMeasurableObjectiveNitrate as NTrackingsustainability5 mg/L, trigger only7.5 mg/L10 mg/LSpecific Conductivity Trackingsustainability450 micromhos,trigger only675 micromhos900 micromhosBoronNaturally occurring--IronNaturally occurring--ManganeseNaturally occurring--Triggers1216The GSA will use concentrations of the identified COIs as triggers for preventative action in order1217to proactively avoid the occurrence of undesirable results and maintaining the good water quality1218within the basin. Trigger values are identified for nitrate and specific conductivity, as indicated in1219Table5and set at 50% of a constituent’s maximum threshold. Both Triggers are set to lower values1220than measurable objectives set below to provide the GSA with sufficient time for coordination and1221developing and implementing management actions to maintain groundwater quality at or below the1222measurable objectives and at existing conditions.122342 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.7.3.1 Information and Methodology Used to Establish Maximum Thresholds and Measur-1224able Objectives1225COIs were specifically selected due to measured exceedances in the past 30 years (boron, iron,1226manganese), importance for tracking sustainability in the future (nitrate and specific conductiv-1227ity), and/or stakeholder input and prevalence as a groundwater contaminant in California (nitrate1228and specific conductivity). A detailed discussion of the concerns associated with elevated levels1229of each constituent of interest is described inSection 2.2.3. As the COIs were identified using1230current and historical groundwater quality data, this list may be reevaluated during future GSP up-1231dates. In establishing maximum thresholds for groundwater quality, the following information was1232considered:1233•Feedback about water quality concerns from stakeholders.12341235•An assessment of available historical and current groundwater quality data from production1236and monitoring wells in the Basin.12371238•An assessment of historical compliance with federal and state drinking water quality stan-1239dards and Basin Plan water quality objectives.12401241•An assessment of trends in groundwater quality at selected wells with adequate data to1242perform the assessment.12431244•Information regarding sources, control options, and regulatory jurisdiction pertaining to COIs.12451246•Input from stakeholders resulting from the consideration of the above information in the form1247of recommendations regarding maximum thresholds and associated management actions.1248The historical and current groundwater quality data used in the effort to establish groundwater1249quality maximum thresholds are discussed inSection 2.2.3. Based on a review of these data,1250applicable water quality regulations, Basin water quality needs, and information from stakeholders,1251the GSA reached a determination that the state drinking water standards (MCLs and WQOs) are1252appropriate to define maximum thresholds for groundwater quality. The established maximum1253thresholds for groundwater quality protect and maintain groundwater quality for existing or potential1254beneficial uses and users. Maximum thresholds align with state drinking water standards, which1255are derived from the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) in Title 22 of the California Code of1256Regulations. The more stringent water quality objectives for specific conductivity, specified in the1257Basin Plan, are reflected in the trigger values defined for this constituent. New COIs may be added1258with changing conditions and as new information becomes available.1259Method for Quantitative Measurement of Maximum Thresholds1260Groundwater quality will be measured in wells in the monitoring network, as discussed inSec-1261tion 3.5.1. The maximum threshold values for constituent concentrations are shown inTable5.1262Figure6shows corresponding rulers for nitrate and specific conductivity, including the associated1263maximum thresholds, range of measurable objectives, and triggers.126443 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersNitrate as NitrogenMaximum Threshold (MT) 10 mg/L as NSpecific ConductivityMaximum Threshold (MT) 900 µmhos/cm Measurable Objective (MO) 675 µmhos/cmUkiah Valley Groundwater Basin Sustainable Management CriteriaTrigger 500 µmhos/cmMeasurable Objective (MO) 7.5 mg/L as NTrigger 5 mg/L as NFigure 6:Degraded water quality sustainable management criteria.44 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.7.3.2 Relationship to Other Sustainability IndicatorsGroundwater quality cannot typically1265be used to predict responses of other sustainability indicators. However, groundwater quality may1266be affected by groundwater levels and reductions in groundwater storage. In addition, certain1267implementation actions may be limited by the need to achieve minimum thresholds for other sus-1268tainability indicators.1269•Groundwater Levels –Declining water levels can potentially lead to increased concentra-1270tions of COIs in groundwater, may alter the existing hydraulic gradient, and may result in1271movement of contaminated groundwater plumes. Changes in water levels also may mobilize1272contaminants that may be present in unsaturated soils. The maximum thresholds established1273for groundwater quality may influence groundwater level minimum thresholds by affecting the1274location or number of projects, such as groundwater recharge, in order to avoid degradation1275of groundwater quality.1276•Groundwater Storage –Groundwater quality that is at or near maximum thresholds is not1277likely to influence pumping.1278•Depletion of Interconnected Surface Waters –Groundwater quality that is at or near max-1279imum thresholds may affect stream water quality.1280•Seawater Intrusion –This sustainability indicator is not applicable in this Basin.12813.7.4 Measurable Objectives- Degraded Groundwater Quality1282Measurable objectives for water quality are established to provide an indication of desired wa-1283ter quality at levels that are sufficiently protective of beneficial uses and users while considering1284a reasonable margin of operational flexibility from the maximum thresholds. Measurable objec-1285tives are defined on a well-specific basis, with consideration for historical water quality data. To1286establish a quantitative measurable objective that protects uses and users from unreasonable wa-1287ter quality degradation, the GSA has decided to establish a list of COIs, which include boron,1288iron, manganese, nitrate, and specific conductivity. The measurable objective is defined for con-1289stituents that are determined not to be significantly driven by natural processes, namely nitrate and1290specific conductivity. Naturally occurring COIs (boron, manganese, and iron) will be continuously1291monitored and tracked and changes in their concentrations and trends will be communicated with1292appropriate authorities.1293Specifically, for nitrate and specific conductivity, the measurable objective is to maintain ground-1294water quality at a minimum of 90% of wells monitored for water quality at under 75% of the max-1295imum threshold. GSA identified this unified approach as appropriate because there has been no1296significant number of exceedances in concentrations of nitrate and measured levels of specific1297conductivity in the Basin historically. Therefore, the set measurable objectives maintain a reason-1298able margin of operational flexibility from the maximum thresholds while maintaining acceptable1299groundwater quality in the basin. As mentioned above, triggers are set at lower concentrations1300than measurable objectives to help the GSA maintain groundwater quality at existing conditions1301and at or below the measurable objectives.13023.7.4.1 Path to Achieve Measurable Objectives - Degraded Water Quality1303The GSA will support the protection of groundwater quality by monitoring groundwater quality con-1304ditions and coordinating with other regulatory agencies that work to maintain and improve the130545 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholdersgroundwater quality in the Basin. All future projects and management actions implemented by1306the GSA will comply with state and federal water quality standards and Basin Plan water quality1307objectives and will be designed to maintain groundwater quality for all uses and users and avoid1308causing unreasonable groundwater quality degradation. The GSA will review and analyze ground-1309water monitoring data as part of GSP implementation in order to evaluate any changes in ground-1310water quality, including those changes resulting from groundwater pumping or recharge projects1311in the Basin. The need for additional studies on groundwater quality will be assessed throughout1312GSP implementation. The GSA may identify knowledge requirements, seek funding, and help to1313implement additional studies.1314Using monitoring data collected as part of project implementation, the GSA will develop informa-1315tion (e.g., time-series plots of water quality constituents) to demonstrate that PMAs are operating1316to maintain or improve groundwater quality conditions in the Basin and to avoid unreasonable1317groundwater quality degradation. Should the concentration of a constituent of interest increase to1318its maximum threshold (or a trigger value below that threshold), the GSA will determine an appro-1319priate response based on the process illustrated inFigure7, which depicts the high-level decision1320making that goes into developing SMC, the monitoring to determine if criteria are met, and actions1321to be taken based on monitoring results. Exceedances of the COIs water quality objectives will1322also be referred to NCRWQCB. Where the cause of an exceedance is unknown, the GSA may1323choose to conduct additional or more frequent monitoring.132446 Uk i a h G S P S e c t i o n 3 - I n t e r n a l A n n o t a t e d D r a f t w i t h P l a c e h o l d e r s Establish metrics for sustainability components [Minimum Threshold, Measurable Objective, Trigger (optional)] for each relevant water quality (WQ) parameter considered under the WQ Sustainable Management Criterion (SMC). Establish basis for determining compliance with SMC metric (single exceedance, % wells exceeding metric, trend over time?). Degraded Water Quality Sustainable Management Criterion Flow Chart A B C Monitor groundwater quality at identified network wells at identified frequency. Are GW quality data exceeding measurable objectives or trigger values as described in Box A? Report monitoring results, assessment of results, and/ or recommended actions to California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Are GW quality data failing to comply with SMC per the basis described in Box B? Yes Continue Monitoring >> No Does GSP specify GSA investigative action?Yes Investigate potential causes of non-compliance and identify corrective action(s) and appropriate follow-up. Yes Notify agency with jurisidiction for WQ parameter? No No 1 2 3 4 5 6 D Figure 7:Degraded water quality sustainable management criteria flow chart. 47 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersInterim Milestones1325As existing groundwater quality data indicate that groundwater in the Basin generally meets appli-1326cable state and federal water quality standards, the objective is to maintain existing groundwater1327quality. Interim milestones are therefore set equivalent to the measurable objectives with the goal1328of maintaining water quality within the historical range of values. The approach for sites that do1329exceed existing state or federal standards will be coordinated with the relevant agency having1330jurisdiction over the site.133148 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.8 Sustainable Management Criteria - Land Subsidence1332Groundwater extraction and lowering of groundwater levels can lead to subsidence of the ground1333surface that may occur elastically or inelastically. While inelastic land subsidence is generally1334irreversible and permanent, elastic land subsidence is the small, reversible lowering and rising of1335the ground surface.13363.8.1 Subsidence Monitoring Network13373.8.1.1 Description of Monitoring NetworkDWR provides vertical displacement estimates de-1338rived from InSAR data collected by the European Space Agency (ESA) Sentinel-1A satellite and1339processed under contract by TRE ALTAMIRA Inc. Point data are average vertical displacements of1340a 328-by-328 ft (100-by-100-m) area and Geographic Information System (GIS) rasters are inter-1341polated from the point data. As shown inFigure8, spatial distribution of the point data covers most1342of the Basin and the entire Basin area is covered through interpolation of rasters. The data provide1343good temporal coverage and are available on multiple timescales. The annual rasters begin and1344end on each month of the covered year and the cumulative rasters are available for the full time1345period (2015-2019). Monthly timeseries are available for each point data location.1346Representative Monitoring1347DWR/TRE ALTAMIRA InSAR data will be used to monitor subsidence in the Basin. There are1348no explicitly identified representative subsidence sites because the satellite data are based on1349thousands of points.Figure8shows the coverage of the subsidence monitoring network, which1350will monitor potential surface deformation trends related to subsidence. Data from the subsidence1351monitoring network will be reviewed annually.135249 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersFigure 8:Ukiah Valley InSAR Subsidence from June 2015 to September 201950 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.8.1.2 Assessment and Improvement of the Monitoring NetworkThere is one Continuous1353Global Positioning System (CGPS) station (UNAVCO Station #P190,Figure8) and no borehole1354extensometer stations within the Basin boundary. Since CGPS stations offer higher accuracy and1355frequencythansatellite-basedInSARdata, observationsfromStation#P190canbeusedtoground1356truth the satellite data and obtain better accuracy. As subsidence is currently not a significant1357concern for the Basin, and is not likely to be in the future, the InSAR-based subsidence monitoring1358network along with data from CGPS Station #P190 will allow sufficient monitoring both spatially and1359temporally to adequately assess that the measurable objective (currently in attainment) is being1360maintained. In addition, the data provided by DWR (TRE Altamira) are spatially and temporally1361adequate for understanding short-term, seasonal, and long-term trends in land subsidence and1362are consistent with the data and reporting standards outlined in Reg. § 352.4.1363There are data gaps in the subsidence network including the lack of data prior to 2015. DWR/TRE1364ALTAMIRA InSAR dataset is the only currently available major subsidence dataset that covers the1365entire Basin, but it only extends back to 2015. Historical subsidence data prior to 2015 is currently1366unavailable from DWR/TRE ALTAMIRA InSAR dataset. However, data from the existing CGPS1367station goes back to 2005. Due to little current evidence of subsidence since 2015 (seeSection13682.2.2.6), no future borehole extensometer or further CGPS stations are proposed for the Basin at1369this time. If subsidence becomes a concern in the future, then installation of CGPS stations and/or1370borehole extensometers can be proposed. The subsidence monitoring network will be used to de-1371termine if and where future CGPS stations would be installed or ground-based elevation surveys1372would be performed. In addition, if subsidence anomalies are detected in the subsidence monitor-1373ing network, ground truthing, elevation surveying, and GPS studies may need to be conducted.13743.8.1.3 Monitoring Protocols for Data Collection and MonitoringThe subsidence monitoring1375network currently depends on data provided by DWR through the TRE ALTAMIRA InSAR Sub-1376sidence Dataset. The following describes the data collection and monitoring completed by DWR1377contractors to develop the dataset. The GSA will monitor all subsidence data annually. If addi-1378tional data become available, they will be evaluated and incorporated into the monitoring network,1379as applicable.1380The statewide InSAR subsidence dataset was acquired by DWR to provide important SGMA-1381relevant data to GSAs for GSP development and implementation. InSAR is a satellite-based re-1382mote sensing technique that measures vertical ground surface displacements at high degrees of1383measurementresolutionandspatialdetail. TREALTAMIRAprocessedInSARdatacollectedbythe1384ESA Sentinel-1A satellite. Statewide data were collected between January 1, 2015 and September138519, 2019 and calibrated to data from 232 stations in the regional network of CGPS stations. TRE1386ALTAMIRA compiled time series of vertical displacement values for point locations on a grid with1387328 ft (100-m) spacing, with values representing averages of vertical displacement measurements1388within the immediate 328-by-328 ft (100-by-100-m) square areas of each point. Gaps in the spatial1389coverage of the point data are areas with insufficient data or data quality. TRE ALTAMIRA also1390created two sets of GIS rasters: annual vertical displacement and total vertical displacement rel-1391ative to the common start date of June 13, 2015, both in monthly time steps. An inverse distance1392weighted (IDW) method with a maximum search radius of 1,640 ft (500 m) was used to interpolate1393the rasters from the point data.1394Under contract with DWR, Towill Inc. conducted an independent study to ground truth and verify1395the accuracy of the InSAR dataset. In the study, variation in vertical displacement of California’s139651 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholdersground surface over time, as measured from InSAR satellites, was statistically compared to avail-1397able ground-based CGPS data. The study compared the InSAR-based vertical displacement point1398time series data to data from 160 CGPS stations that were not used for calibrating the InSAR data,1399as well as 21 CGPS stations that were used for calibrating InSAR data in Northern California.1400For the statewide dataset, the study provides statistical evidence that InSAR data accurately mea-1401sured vertical displacement in California’s ground surface to within approximately 0.6 in (16 mm)1402for the period January 1, 2015 through September 19, 2019. The statement of accuracy may vary1403for regional or localized area subsets.514043.8.2 Undesirable Results – Land Subsidence1405An undesirable result occurs when subsidence substantially interferes with beneficial uses of1406groundwater and land uses. Subsidence occurs as a result of compaction of (typically) fine-grained1407aquifer materials (i.e., clay) due to the overdraft of groundwater. As there has not been any his-1408torically documented subsidence in the Basin, and the aquifer materials are unlikely to present1409such a risk, it is reasonable to conclude that any land subsidence caused by the chronic lowering1410of groundwater levels occurring in the Basin would be considered significant and unreasonable.1411This is quantified as pumping induced subsidence greater than the minimum threshold of 0.1 ft (31412cm) in any single year; essentially zero subsidence accounting for measurement error.14133.8.2.1 Effects of Undesirable Results on Beneficial Uses and UsersSubsidence can result1414in substantial interference with land use including significant damage to critical infrastructure such1415as canals, pipes, or other water conveyance facilities. Flooding of land, including residential and1416commercial properties, can lead to financial losses.14173.8.3 Minimum Thresholds – Land Subsidence1418The minimum threshold for land subsidence in the Basin is set at no more than 0.1 ft (3 cm) in any1419single year, resulting in no long-term permanent subsidence. This is set at the same magnitude as1420the estimated error in the InSAR data (+/- 0.1 ft [3 cm]), which is currently the only tool available1421for measuring basin-wide land subsidence consistently each year in the Basin.1422The minimum thresholds for land subsidence in the Basin were selected as a preventative measure1423to ensure maintenance of current ground surface elevations and as an added safety measure for1424potentialfutureimpactsnotcurrentlypresentintheBasinandnearbybasins. Thisavoidssignificant1425and unreasonable rates of land subsidence in the Basin, which are those that would lead to a1426permanent subsidence of land surface elevations that would impact infrastructure and agricultural1427production in Ukiah Valley and neighboring groundwater basins. There are currently no other state,1428federal, or local standards that relate to this sustainability indicator in the Basin.14295California Department of Water Resources, March 24, 2020, TRE Altamira Subsidence Data. California NaturalResources Agency. Available:https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/tre-altamira-insar-subsidence.52 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.8.3.1 Information and Methodology Used to Establish Minimum Thresholds and Measur-1430able Objectives1431Recent InSAR data provided by DWR (TRE Altamira) as well as information regarding the specific1432geology of the aquifer materials comprising the Basin were used to establish minimum thresholds1433and measurable objectives.14343.8.3.2 Relationship to Other Sustainability IndicatorsBy managing groundwater pumping1435to avoid the undesirable result of chronic lowering of groundwater levels, the possibility of land1436subsidence, already unlikely due to aquifer geology, will be mitigated. Avoiding or limiting land1437subsidence through sustainably managed groundwater levels in the Basin will also lessen impacts1438due to declines in groundwater storage and/or impacts to the sensitive, and relatively shallow,1439interconnected surface water/groundwater system that defines much of the Basin.14403.8.4 Measurable Objectives- Land Subsidence1441Land subsidence is not known to be significant in Ukiah Valley. There is no historical record of1442inelastic subsidence in the Basin resulting in permanent land subsidence. Recent InSAR data1443provided by DWR (TRE Altamira) show no significant subsidence occurring during the period of1444mid-June 2015 to mid-September 2019. Small fluctuations observed in these datasets are likely1445due to seasonal variations in the local hydrologic cycle and agricultural practices and are not sig-1446nificant or unreasonable. Additionally, the specific geology of the aquifer materials comprising the1447Basin is not known to contain the thicker clay confining units that typically exhibit inelastic subsi-1448dence due to excessive groundwater pumping (i.e., overdraft conditions).1449The guiding measurable objective of this GSP for land subsidence in the Basin is the maintenance1450of current ground surface elevations. This measurable objective avoids significant and unrea-1451sonable rates of land subsidence in the Basin, which are those that would lead to a permanent1452subsidence of land surface elevations that impact infrastructure and agricultural production. As1453this subsidence measurable objective is essentially already met, the specific goal is to maintain1454this level of land subsidence (i.e., essentially zero) throughout the GSP implementation period.1455Land subsidence in the Basin is expected to be maintained throughout the implementation period1456via the sustainable management of groundwater pumping through the groundwater level measur-1457able objectives, minimum thresholds, and interim milestones, as well as the fact that the aquifer1458geology is not very likely to be susceptible to significant and unreasonable subsidence, even under1459groundwater overdraft conditions.1460Themarginofsafetyforthesubsidencemeasurableobjectivewasestablishedbysettingameasur-1461able objective to maintain current surface elevations and opting to monitor subsidence throughout1462the implementation period, even though there is no historical record of subsidence and the aquifer1463is not deemed likely to succumb to inelastic subsidence. This is a reasonable margin of safety1464based on the past and current aquifer conditions and more conservative than the alternative of1465simply setting the subsidence indicator as ‘not applicable’ in the Basin due to current and docu-1466mented historical evidence. As the current measurable objective is set to maintain the present1467land surface elevations of the Basin, the interim milestones are set as check-in opportunities to1468review year-to-year subsidence rates from the previous 5-year period to assess whether there are1469longer-period subsidence trends than may be observed in the annual reviews.147053 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.8.4.1 Path to Achieve Measurable Objectives - Land Subsidence1471Land subsidence in the Basin will be quantitatively measured by use of InSAR data (DWR-funded1472TRE Altamira or other similar data products). If there are areas of concern for inelastic subsidence1473in the Basin (i.e., exceedance of minimal thresholds) observed using the InSAR data, then ground-1474truthing studies could be conducted to determine if the signal is potentially related to changes in1475land use or agricultural practices or from groundwater extraction. If the subsidence is determined1476to result from groundwater extraction and is significant and unreasonable, then ground-based ele-1477vation surveys might be needed to monitor the situation more closely.147854 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.9 Sustainable Management Criteria - Depletion of Interconnected Surface Waters1479As described inChapter 2, the groundwater Basin is interconnected with the mainstem Russian1480River, while the interconnection between surface and groundwater along the tributaries is seasonal1481andstronglyimpactedbythecurrentincisiononthemainstemRussianRiver. Mostofthetributaries1482are ephemeral and more data are needed to fully demonstrate their connection or disconnection1483to the principal aquifer system.1484Additionally, as described inChapter 2, the Russian River stream network can sometimes become1485ecologically stressed due to insufficient baseflow conditions during the summer baseflow period1486in dry years. Ecosystem stresses in the Russian River stream network also include geomorphic1487conditions unrelated to flow, such as channel straightening and incision, sediment deposition.14883.9.1 Depletion of Interconnected Surface Waters Monitoring Network1489The depletion of interconnected surface waters (ISW) monitoring network measures groundwater1490elevations at shallower representative wells close to the surface water bodies identified to be inter-1491connected with groundwater, and monitors groundwater elevations at deeper wells farther away1492fromthewaterbodiestoformanalmostlineartransect. Thesetransectsareintendedtoprovidethe1493ability to effectively characterize the gradient, direction, and amount of groundwater flow towards or1494away from interconnected surface water bodies. They are formed along the sections of the streams1495and aquifers that are close to streamflow gages so that the relationship between streamflow and1496groundwater elevations and the corresponding gradients can be investigated. These measure-1497ments along with surface water diversion data help analytically evaluate surface water depletion1498and groundwater baseflow and also help improve model estimates of exchanges of water between1499the aquifers and interconnected streams.1500Groundwater elevation measurements are taken with high temporal frequency. The corresponding1501wells are selected at three transects distributed from north to south in the Basin, as shown inFigure15029. Selected wells to be included in the ISW monitoring network follow SGMA requirements and1503provide an appropriate spatial coverage. They include existing CASGEM wells instrumented with1504continuous groundwater level measurement sensors and telemetry, as well as newly drilled and1505instrumented wells funded through the TSS grant (shown inTable6). Each transect also includes1506an appropriately located streamflow gage to couple streamflow measurements with groundwater1507level measurements (shown inTable7). In the northern transect located in Redwood Valley, the1508newly installed streamflow gage installed and maintained by the GSA will be used. The central1509basin transect, located just south of Lake Mendocino, will use data from a combination of the USGS1510streamflow gage at Russian River West Fork (USGS 11461000) and CDEC Russian River East1511Fork gage (RRU). USGS 11461000 represents the natural flow from the West Fork Russian River1512and the RRU gage represents the releases from Lake Mendocino. The third and most southern1513transect, located along the City of Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), will include the1514USGS streamflow gage at Talmage (USGS 11462080).1515It is worth noting that this monitoring network was set up with the understanding that individual1516measurements of groundwater levels or streamflow do not sufficiently represent surface water1517depletion. Groundwater levels are affected by factors other than groundwater use. The typical1518variability induced by seasonal climate and pumping changes is greater than the changes in head1519that would correspond to a significant change in outflow to the stream system. In other words,1520the frequency of available head data is not adequate and may pose considerable uncertainty in152155 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholdersassessing streamflow depletion due to groundwater pumping. Similarly, streamflow is also affected1522by several factors other than groundwater use. At the USGS station 11462080 and CDEC station1523RRU, streamflow is a measure of the total groundwater contribution to the stream, as well as1524releases from Lake Mendocino during the summer baseflow season. The groundwater contribution1525to streamflow is a function of groundwater use, winter and Spring recharge from precipitation,1526irrigation on the Valley floor, winter and Spring recharge from tributaries on the upper alluvial fans,1527mountain front recharge, and surface water diversions. It is a function of both their total amounts1528and the temporal dynamics of these amounts (pumping, recharge, diversions, etc.).1529However, major data gaps exist in the Basin including the lack of high-frequency groundwater ele-1530vation measurements, spatial gaps in streamflow measurements and suitable wells along surface1531water bodies, a lack of information and data for tributary conditions and flows, and the short his-1532tory of available groundwater elevation measurements that do not cover significant droughts and1533historical climate trends, as discussed inChapter 2. The proposed network is intended to address1534such data gaps and help improve adaptive SMC set for depletion of ISW at the next GSP review1535milestones.1536This network will also help record data that can be used to improve integrated hydrological model1537estimates of groundwater and surface water interaction. As mentioned below, the integrated hy-1538drological model will ultimately be used to quantify ISW depletions from groundwater pumping and1539to assess the Basin’s compliance with its respective SMC. Therefore, the integrated hydrological1540model will be considered as a component of the monitoring network in this GSP, which will be1541maintained and updated as needed during the GSP implementation period. The GSA believes1542that this network in combination with the integrated hydrological model can sufficiently address1543SGMA requirements and provide accurate accounts of surface water depletion in the basin and its1544respective SMC.1545[The following tables may be updated once the monitoring network is revised/finalized and/or SMC1546are adjusted based on TAC input]154756 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersSalt Hollow CreekHoward CreekYork CreekRussian River East ForkHowell CreekGibson CreekOrrs CreekRussian RiverHensley CreekSulphur CreekMcClure CreekForsythe CreekMill CreekNorth Fork Mill CreekJack Smith CreekMill CreekCold CreekAckerman CreekMcNab CreekDoolin CreekRobinson CreekMorrison CreekUS Hwy 101State Hwy 20 WState Rte 20State Rte 128State Rte 128State Rte 128BoonvilleCalpellaPotter ValleyRedwood ValleyUkiah11461000 (RRU)1146150011462000 (CDM)1146208011462500West Fork Russian RiverRedwood Valley GageForsythe Creek GageN012345miISW Network WellsMonitoring WellMonitoring Well - Current RMPISW Network StreamgagesStreamgage - Installed by GSAUSGS StreamgageWatershed BoundaryGroundwater BasinCounty LineUS RoadState RoadFigure 9:Depletion of interconnected surface waters monitoring network.57 Uk i a h G S P S e c t i o n 3 - I n t e r n a l A n n o t a t e d D r a f t w i t h P l a c e h o l d e r s Table 6:Depletion of interconnected surface waters monitoring well locations. Minimum thresholds, triggers, and measurable objectives are proposed based on groundwater elevations at the start of the implementation period. Site Code Aquifer RMP? Monitoring Fre- quency MT (ft-bgs) Triggers (ft-bgs) MO (ft-bgs) 391918N1232003W001 I RMP Monthly 43 31 40 391225N1231852W001 I RMP Monthly 23 15 22 391285N1231607W001 II RMP Monthly 25 9 23 T0604500280 (MW-11)I -Monthly --- Ukiah WWTP-MW1 II -Monthly --- 391932N1232124W001 II -Monthly --- TSS Drill(1) - Willow CWD I -Monthly --- TSS Drill(2) - Ukiah Airport I -Monthly --- TSS Drill(3) - Eagle Park Middle School II -Monthly --- TSS Drill(4) - Willow CWD I -Monthly --- 58 Uk i a h G S P S e c t i o n 3 - I n t e r n a l A n n o t a t e d D r a f t w i t h P l a c e h o l d e r s Table 7:Depletion of interconnected surface waters monitoring streamflow gages. Minimum thresholds, triggers, and measurable objectives for the streamflow gage RMPs will be proposed based on depletion volume/rate upon revision and adaptation of SMC. Gage Stream Future RMP? Monitoring Frequency MT (ft-bgs) Triggers (ft-bgs) MO (ft-bgs) CDEC RRU West Fork Russian River RMP Daily TBD TBD TBD USGS 11461500 West Fork Russian River RMP Daily TBD TBD TBD USGS 11462080 West Fork Russian River RMP Daily TBD TBD TBD USGS 11462500 West Fork Russian River RMP Daily TBD TBD TBD CDEC CDM East Fork Russian River -Daily --- GSA Redwood Valley Gage West Fork Russian River RMP Daily TBD TBD TBD GSA Forsythe Creek Gage Forsythe Creek RMP Daily TBD TBD TBD Note: TBD: To be determined it will be determined upon gathering sufficient data for revision and adaptation of SMC during the first (or second) GSP review period 59 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersRegulatory Requirements for Quantifying Streamflow Depletion due to Groundwater Pump-1548ing1549Per Section 254.28(c) of DWR regulations, minimum thresholds for depletions of ISW shall be a1550rate or volume of surface water depletions caused by groundwater use that has adverse impacts1551on beneficial uses of the surface water and may lead to undesirable results. The regulatory re-1552quirements for the minimum threshold allow for the use of a numerical groundwater and surface1553water model to quantify (“monitor” or “measure”) the amount of surface water depletion due to1554groundwater pumping and to set the minimum threshold using the model.1555Quantifying Streamflow Depletion due to Groundwater Pumping with the integrated hydro-1556logical model1557The integrated hydrological model, described inChapter 2, is the best available tool to evaluate1558surface water depletion conditions in the Basin and to quantify the amount of depletion attributable1559to groundwater use. However, to use the model to set SMC for depletion of ISW, the GSA needs1560to fill critical data gaps such as continuous groundwater level measurements along the monitoring1561transects and streamflow measurements. Installation of transects mentioned above is expected to1562finish in 2021 or early 2022 and make this information available for incorporation into subsequent15635-year review periods.1564Depletion of ISW will be calculated using a combination of measured and modeled information at1565each monitoring transect. Measured information includes high-frequency groundwater level mea-1566surements at monitoring network wells, streamflow measurement at assigned gages, and avail-1567able surface water diversion data. The integrated hydrological model will be updated based on the1568measured data and re-calibrated to sufficiently match the streamflow and groundwater elevation1569measurements for the current period, which is defined as the recently completed water year at1570the time that new simulations are implemented. For example, if this modeling exercise is imple-1571mented in 2029, the current period would refer to the water year 2027 or 2028. The calibrated1572model will quantify surface water depletion due to pumping by subtracting simulated streamflow1573of the “business-as-usual” scenario from that of the no-pumping scenario. The business-as-usual1574scenario is the simulation of the current conditions using best available data and methods and1575includes existing and implemented PMAs. The no-pumping scenario is a replicate of the business-1576as-usual scenario with two primary differences: 1) all pumping from the Basin is removed from the1577simulation, and, 2) no PMAs are included in the simulation.1578This is designed to be an adaptive management process that evolves as new knowledge is gained.1579A detailed description of the relationship between the numerous data collection efforts and the1580process of updating the integrated hydrological model is provided in the following subsections.1581Adaptive Sustainable Management Criteria Approach for Depletion of Interconnected Sur-1582face Waters due to Existing Data Gaps1583As explained in the previous section, the lack of historical and high-frequency groundwater eleva-1584tion data in the Basin, spatial gaps in streamflow measurements, and lack of historical and current1585data regarding surface water diversions and groundwater pumping impose considerable uncertain-1586ties to the calculation of surface water depletions. Moreover, managed releases from the Coyote1587Valley Dam and Lake Mendocino to the central and southern regions of the Basin increase the com-1588plexity of such calculation and limit the use of simplified analytical methods. Acknowledging these1589uncertainties and existing data gaps, the GSA finds it inappropriate to define the interconnected1590surface water SMC based on calculated depletion rate or volume at this stage. Instead, the GSA1591proposes an adaptive approach that would help improve the SMC setting in the future using newly159260 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholderscollected data while addressing SGMA requirements and avoiding undesirable results throughout1593the implementation period. This adaptive approach uses the 5-year assessment periods as an op-1594portunity to adapt the SMC. The implementable SMC will be set ideally at the first, or ultimately the1595second 5-year assessment period and must be followed for the rest of the implementation period.1596The adaptive approach can be summarized as follows:1597𝑅𝑀𝐶(𝑀𝑅,𝑀𝑂,𝑎𝑛𝑑𝑃𝑅) = {if sufficient data is gathered:𝑓(calculated depletion)otherwise:𝑓(groundwater levels at RMPs)(1)The GSA will use groundwater levels as a proxy in the first 5 to 10 years of the implementation.1598The GSA will gather data and information during this period to improve its understanding of the1599surface water and groundwater interaction, cover existing data gaps, and re-calibrate and improve1600its integrated hydrological model. Upon gathering sufficient data and information, the GSA will1601reviseSMCforthedepletionofISWstobebasedonthevolumeorrateofdepletionofsurfacewater1602due to groundwater pumping at monitoring transect locations using measured data and model1603estimation.16043.9.1.2AssessmentandImprovementoftheMonitoringNetwork AssessingandImproving1605Related Monitoring Network1606As discussed above, the identified data gaps include high-frequency groundwater level measure-1607ments, streamflow measurements, surface water diversion and groundwater pumping information.1608The first two will be addressed by the proposed monitoring network including newly instrumented1609existing and drilled wells and newly installed stream gages. If the need is identified, the monitoring1610network will be expanded by adding new wells and stream gages.1611Assessing and Improving the integrated hydrological model1612The integrated hydrological model, as a monitoring instrument for surface water depletion due to1613groundwater pumping, will be assessed and updated every 5 to 10 years, utilizing the data and1614knowledgeused forthe original/previousmodel developmentupdate plus anyadditional monitoring1615data collected since the last model update. New data to be considered in the assessment and1616update of the model can be grouped into three general categories:1617•Validation and re-calibration data (“target” data).These include independently-collected field1618data, typically collected on a daily, monthly, or seasonal basis. These data are also pro-1619duced by the model as outputs, which include groundwater levels and streamflows within the1620Basin and the upper Russian River watershed. They are commonly used as calibration tar-1621gets during model (re-)calibration. In other words, model simulation results will be compared1622with measured data to adjust model parameters (within the limits of the conceptual model)1623to increase the precision of simulated results including groundwater levels, streamflow rates,1624etc.1625•Conceptual model data – hydrologic and hydrogeologic conditions (concept and “input” data).1626These are the model input data used to parameterize or conceptually design the model. Ex-1627amples of these data include precipitation data, hydrogeologic data obtained from well logs1628and pump tests, and research insights obtained from projects to further understand the hy-1629drogeology of the Basin.163061 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders•Data about implementation of projects and management actions (“PMA” data).These are1631(monitoring) data collected specifically to characterize the implementation of PMAs to inform1632the GSA, stakeholders, and the design of future model scenario updates. The specific data1633to be collected depend on each PMA and are described inChapter 4.1634These newly collected data will be used by the model in three ways:16351.Precipitation and streamflow data measured at weather stations and stream gages will be1636used to extend the simulation time horizon of the model without any adjustments to parame-1637ters, boundary conditions, or scenarios included in the original time horizon of the model. This1638is a relatively inexpensive model application that allows for updated comparison of simulated1639water level and streamflow predictions against measured data under baseline and (existing)1640scenario conditions through the most current time period for which data are available. This1641type of model application is anticipated to occur at least once every five years concurrently1642with the 5-year assessments, or possibly annually.16432.In addition to (1), data about PMA implementation will be used to update the model to include1644new, actual PMA implementation data on the correct timeline. This provides a model update1645that appropriately represents recent changes in PMA implementation and a more consistent1646evaluation of simulated versus measured water level and streamflow data. This type of model1647application is anticipated to occur at least once every five years concurrently with the 5-year1648assessments.16493.In addition to (1) and (2), conceptual model data are used to update model parameters and1650model boundary conditions unrelated to PMAs to improve the conceptual model underlying1651the integrated hydrological model based on newly measured data and information. This will1652typically (but not automatically) require a re-calibration of the model against measured target1653data. After the re-calibration, all scenarios of interest will be updated using the re-calibrated1654model to allow for consistent comparison of streamflow. This type of model application is1655anticipated to occur at least every ten years.1656The above protocol ensures tight integration between monitoring programs, PMAs implementa-1657tion, and the integrated hydrological model. It provides the most accurate estimation not only of1658streamflow depletion, but also of associated information about water level dynamics, streamflow1659dynamics and their spatial, seasonal, interannual, and water-year-type-dependent behavior. Ex-1660amples of future field monitoring data used to assess and improve the model are listed below:1661•Validation and re-calibration data (“target” data):1662–Groundwater levels from the groundwater elevation monitoring network.1663–Daily streamflows measured at the existing and newly installed stream gages.1664–Data documenting dates and locations of dry sections in the stream network.1665•Hydrologic and hydrogeologic conditions (concept and “input” data):1666–Precipitation data from existing climate stations.1667–Potential ET data computed from existing climate stations.1668–Daily streamflows measured at locations near tributary streamflows to Ukiah Valley.1669–Pump test data that contain information about hydrogeologic properties in the vicinity of1670a well.167162 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders–Geologic information obtained from the new well drilling logs.1672–Data collected in conjunction with research and pilot projects characterizing hydrologic1673and hydrogeologic conditions in the Basin.1674•Data about projects and management actions (“PMA” data); see Chapter 4:1675–Date when certain PMA phases begin.1676–Location of PMA implementation:1677*The location of all fields participating in managed aquifer recharge (MAR) activities1678during a given water year.1679*The location of conservation easements with altered diversion or pumping patterns1680during a given water year.1681–Changes in timing and volumes of water budget components associated with PMA im-1682plementation:1683*The total volume of water recharged in MAR activities during a specific month of a1684given water year.1685*The amount of streamflow diversion dedicated to instream flow in a specific month1686of a given water year.1687*The amount of pumping reduction implemented in a given month of a given water1688year.1689*The reduction in ET over the total growing season in a conservation easement.1690*First installation date of improved irrigation systems with higher irrigation efficiencies1691and estimated improvements in irrigation efficiency.16923.9.1.3 Monitoring Protocols for Data Collection and Monitoring[PLACEHOLDER, but we1693might end up not including this section especially streamflow monitoring and maintenance proto-1694cols.]16953.9.2 Undesirable Results – Interconnected Surface Waters1696Depletion of surface water due to groundwater extraction is considered significant and unreason-1697able when such lowering threatens the long-term viability of domestic, agricultural, municipal, or1698environmental users of groundwater. Depletion of surface water in the Basin has the potential to1699limit surface water diversions under appropriative or riparian rights for different water use sectors1700and can negatively impact the fish and riparian habitat. It may also reduce the ability to meet1701instream flow requirements in the watershed.1702Operationally, an adaptive approach will be used to identify and avoid undesirable results due to1703depletion of ISW, as discussed inSection 3.9.1. The adaptive approach is selected because it was1704deemed the most reasonable path to deal with existing data gaps and their imposed uncertainty1705while providing applicable measures to avoid undesirable results. Accordingly, during the first1706review period (first five years, or first ten years if data gathered during the first five years are not1707yet sufficient to justify a better alternative), similar undesirable results as the chronic lowering of1708groundwater elevations are proposed. This equates to groundwater levels at more than a third of1709the RMPs falling below their defined minimum thresholds in two consecutive years. The Basin has1710not experienced significant and unreasonable depletion of interconnected surface water bodies171163 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholdersdue to groundwater extraction in the recent historical period. Therefore, this measure is expected1712to protect against such undesirable results for the proposed implementation period. Upon revision1713of the SMC, including Minimum Thresholds, the volume of calculated depletion will be used at1714each transect location (stream gages in the monitoring network) as the metric to define minimum1715thresholds, measurable objectives, and consequently, the undesirable results.17163.9.2.1 Potential Causes of Undesirable ResultsPotential causes of water depletion in the1717mainstem Russian River include consumptive use of surface water and groundwater (some of1718which can be modified through PMAs) and extreme climate variability (which must be accounted1719for in the GSP). Some consumptive uses of groundwater may have a more immediate impact on1720streamflow than others. For example, a well that begins pumping groundwater in the proximity of1721the riverbank may cause streamflow depletion hours or days later, while a well that begins pumping1722further away from the riverbank may not influence streamflow for months or a few years (detailed1723analysis is expected to be performed as part of the implementation phase). Watershed manage-1724ment decisions such as changes to the Potter Valley Project and Coyote Valley Dam operations1725and releases may indirectly cause changes to consumptive uses in the basin and impact the in-1726teraction of groundwater aquifers and surface waters. This may result in groundwater use and1727reduced streambed recharge scenarios that would contribute to causing undesirable results. Pos-1728sible causes of undesirable results include increasing frequency or duration of drought conditions,1729increased groundwater extraction, continued surface water diversions, and significant changes in1730operation rules for Coyote Valley Dam and the Potter Valley Project.17313.9.2.2 Effects of Undesirable Results on Beneficial Uses and Users Agricultural Land1732Uses and Users –depletions of interconnected surface water due to groundwater pumping can1733reduce the surface flow available to downstream diverters. Some of the PMAs considered in the1734GSP development process, which are designed to reduce streamflow depletion during the criti-1735cal summer months or when releases are expected to decrease due to lack of precipitation, can1736make less water available for consumptive use, which would negatively impact some agricultural1737operations.1738DomesticandMunicipalWaterUsesandUsers–depletionsofinterconnectedsurfacewatercan1739negatively affect municipalities that are reliant on surface water as a drinking water source. None1740of the PMAs considered in the GSP development process would change operations for domestic1741water users pumping less than 2 AFY (2,467 m3/year), as these are de minimis groundwater users1742whoare not regulatedunder SGMA. Afew of thePMAs discussed in theGSP development process1743would affect municipal water users due to re-distributing supply and demand to reduce impact on1744interconnected streams during low flow and high demand months.1745Recreation –depletions of interconnected surface water can affect the ability of users to partake1746in recreational activities on surface water bodies in the Basin.1747Environmental Land Uses and Land Users –depletions of interconnected surface water may1748negatively affect the following: near-stream habitats for plant and animal species; instream ecosys-1749tems, including habitat necessary for reproduction, development, and migration of fish and other1750aquatic organisms; terrestrial ecosystems reliant on surface water; and wildlife that rely on surface1751waters as a food or water source. Additionally, low flow conditions can result in increased stream1752temperature that can be inhospitable to aquatic organisms, including anadromous fish.175364 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.9.2.4 Undesirable Results to Define a Minimum Threshold for ISWs versus the “Watershed1754Goal”According to SGMA guidance, “Undesirable results occur when significant and unreason-1755able effects for any of the sustainability indicators are caused by groundwater conditions occurring1756throughout the basin” (23 CCR § 354.26). For the interconnected surface water sustainability indi-1757cator, undesirable results commonly arise from habitat conditions that are affected by the amount1758of streamflow, as described above. However, streamflow – even during periods of baseflow – is1759not identical to streamflow depletion due to groundwater pumping, and subject to several contribut-1760ing factors as described above and inSection 3.9.1(Interconnected Surface Waters Monitoring1761Network).1762For improving streamflow conditions, various agencies and non-governmental organizations1763(NGOs) managing a watershed typically develop one or several “watershed goals”. The SGMA1764undesirable result, which is the portion of the streamflow degradation that can be attributed to1765surface water depletion due to groundwater pumping is therefore only partially responsible for1766impairing such watershed goals. While its enforcement responsibilities are more narrowly focused1767on groundwater extraction, the GSA’s management goals are broader than its enforcement1768responsibilities and include supporting watershed goals and collaboration with the many partners1769engaged in watershed management. The GSP seeks to reflect these efforts in the design of the1770measurable objective for ISW. Consequently, for the ISW sustainability indicator, this GSP makes1771a distinction between Undesirable Result (which must be attributable to groundwater use) and1772overall challenges related to insufficient environmental flows in ISW. This distinction reflects the1773fact that SGMA can address only a portion of the water supply challenges of the Ukiah Valley1774Basin, as it does not regulate surface water diversions.1775The objective of securing sufficient environmental flows has been referred to as a “watershed1776goal,” indicating that the action of all water users in the watershed may be necessary to achieve1777it. The watershed goal should be obtained by a set of PMAs which will help the entire Basin to1778not only reach sustainability, but also to create the needed resiliency to deal with the frequent ex-1779treme drought conditions that have occurred in recent years. Using this watershed goal as the1780MO rather than a quantitative value for the desired maximum stream depletion (consistent with the1781quantification/measurement of streamflow depletion that is used to establish the minimum thresh-1782old) is a deviation from DWR regulation (23 CCR § 354.30): “(b) measurable objectives shall be1783established for each sustainability indicator, based on quantitative values using the same metrics1784and monitoring sites as are used to define the minimum thresholds”. However, the GSA seeks1785to elevate its priority for being an active partner in an integrated watershed management process1786involving many collaborations and partnerships by choosing this broader, integrated watershed1787management goal as the more comprehensive measurable objective for guiding its sustainable1788groundwater management. The GSA considers this measurable objective for the interconnected1789surface water sustainability indicator also more appropriate as it reflects that the driver behind the1790ISW SMC is the Clean Water Act, the Public Trust Doctrine obligations, the Endangered Species1791Act, and SGMA.1792To summarize, the ISW Undesirable Result is smaller in scope than the overall low flow challenges1793in the Russian River stream network and is defined as “significant and unreasonable streamflow1794depletion due to groundwater extraction from wells subject to SGMA.” It is protected by the MT.1795However, the efforts are part of a broader, integrated effort across multiple partners to address1796overall low flow challenges in the Basin, which is reflected in the MO.179765 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.9.3 Minimum Thresholds – Interconnected Surface Waters1798During the first five years of Plan implementation (or 10 years if the newly acquired data are not1799sufficient after five years to justify a better alternative), groundwater elevations will be used as a1800proxy and the MT defined for chronic lowering of groundwater elevation in Aquifer I will be used as1801the MT for the depletion of ISW (Table6). For each RMP in the monitoring network, MT is defined1802as the lowest historical groundwater depth to water plus 10% of its value or 10 ft (3 m), whichever is1803less. Existing data for the Basin have been gathered biannually during Fall and Spring of each year.1804These data do not necessarily capture the lowest and highest elevations at each well. Therefore,1805the subtraction of 10% of historical low or 10 ft (3 m), whichever is less, intends to account for1806possible errors in measurement of the lowest groundwater elevations and serves as a buffer to1807avoid unexpected non-compliance that is not due to changes in groundwater extraction, but rather1808rooted in data gaps and uncertainty in defining the MT.1809Since no long-term decline in groundwater levels has been identified, the Basin is not in overdraft,1810and no historical undesirable results have been experienced with respect to depletion of ISW. To1811this end, the minimum threshold defined above is expected to be protective against future potential1812undesirable results during the first five to ten years of the implementation period. Upon receiving1813better information and data, minimum thresholds will be revised to be defined based on the volume1814of depletion at stream gages in the monitoring network at the identified transects (Table7).18153.9.3.1 Information and Methodology Used to Establish Minimum Thresholds and Measur-1816able Objectives1817The minimum threshold is defined initially based on groundwater elevations as a proxy and is pro-1818posed to be adaptively revised to be defined in terms of modeled stream depletions once more data1819and information become available. A detailed discussion about ISW and groundwater dependent1820ecosystems in the Basin is described inSection 2.2.2.7. In establishing minimum thresholds for1821depletions of interconnected surface water, the following information was considered:1822•Feedback on concerns about depletions of ISW and feasibility of PMAs from stakeholders.1823•An assessment of interconnected surface water in the Basin.1824•Results of the integrated hydrological model, which was used to calculate surface water de-1825pletion under a variety of scenarios.1826•Input from stakeholders resulting from the consideration of the above information in the form1827of recommendations regarding minimum thresholds and associated management actions.1828The initial minimum thresholds, set using groundwater levels, were selected based on available1829historical data and conditions and the scenarios that were run using the integrated hydrological1830model. Feedback from stakeholders, including members of the technical committee and subject1831matter working groups, was incorporated so that the selected minimum thresholds for the chronic1832loweringofgroundwaterelevationsanddepletionofISWareprotectiveofbeneficialusesandusers1833in the Basin.1834The adaptive minimum thresholds will be selected using the updated and re-calibrated integrated1835hydrological model and based on different scenarios, which will be used to identify a realistic and1836reasonable amount of surface water depletion that can be managed and maintained through ex-1837isting, planned, and proposed PMAs. Outputs from the integrated hydrological model will also be1838used to compute other relevant project outcome metrics, including:183966 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders•The ratio of Depletion Reversal and Total Depletion, which is the “Relative Depletion Rever-1840sal”, measured in percent. The computation of this value is shown inFigure10. This graphic1841also shows the computation of the Total Depletion and the Depletion Reversal as defined1842above. The Relative Depletion Reversal is a unitless fraction. Multiplied by 100, it has units1843of percent [%]. PMAs may lead to less than 100% Relative Depletion Reversal, or even more1844than 100% Relative Depletion Reversal. Just like Total Depletion and project or management1845action-specific Depletion Reversal, the Relative Depletion Reversal varies from day to day.1846•For each group of projects and management actions that are implemented, the Depletion1847Reversal is a measure of the amount of surface water depletion that is reversed relative1848to the Business-As-Usual (BAU) conditions. PMAs are therefore – through the integrated1849hydrological model – inextricably, deterministically, and directly linked to specific “measured”1850outcomes: streamflow, streamflow gains, Depletion Reversal, Relative Depletion Reversal,1851number of days gained in stream connectivity, etc.1852•Streamflow on any given day and location, a metric relevant to the measurement of environ-1853mental outcomes.1854•The number of days gained in stream connectivity in dry and some average years, both in the1855summer after the end of the Spring flow recession, and in the Fall when streamflow increases1856for the first flush.1857•Other relevant metrics including the timeseries of relative streamflow increase and simulated1858streamflow.1859•Evaluation under Future Climate Conditions: The Total Depletion under future climate condi-1860tions, as well as the Depletion Reversal under future climate conditions, can be modeled in1861the same way as for the 1991-2018 models, using future climate data and DWR’s protocol1862for simulating climate change conditions.1863•Uncertainty Analysis: The integrated hydrological model also allows for uncertainty analysis1864in predicting Total Depletion, as well as Depletion Reversal for specific projects and manage-1865ment actions under current or future climate conditions. A full portfolio of the scenarios and1866results are included inAppendix 4-A.186767 Uk i a h G S P S e c t i o n 3 - I n t e r n a l A n n o t a t e d D r a f t w i t h P l a c e h o l d e r s Figure 10:Computation of the Relative Depletion Reversal as the ratio of Depletion Reversal (due to PMAs) and Total Depletion. 68 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders3.9.3.2 Relationship to Other Sustainability IndicatorsMinimum thresholds are selected to1868avoid undesirable results for other sustainability indicators. Depletion of ISW is a complex function1869of groundwater storage and groundwater level dynamics that are in turn the result of groundwater1870pumping patterns. The relationship between depletion of ISW minimum thresholds and minimum1871thresholds for other sustainability indicators are discussed below.1872•Groundwater Level –depletions of ISW occur in conjunction with decreases in groundwater1873levels measured in shallow groundwater wells, relative to the (unmeasured) conditions under1874no-pumping or less-pumping. Minimum thresholds for groundwater levels may serve to avoid1875significant additional streamflow depletion due to groundwater pumping, but are insufficient1876as a tool to manage the ISW sustainability indicator.18771878•Groundwater Storage –depletions of ISW are related to groundwater storage similar as to1879how they are related to water level changes.18801881•Seawater Intrusion –This sustainability indicator is not applicable in this Basin.18821883•Groundwater Quality –groundwater quality is not directly related to depletions of ISW.18841885•Subsidence –subsidence is not directly related to depletions of ISW except that widespread1886onset of subsidence would indicate significant but unquantified increases in streamflow de-1887pletion due to groundwater pumping depending on the location of subsidence.18883.9.4 Measurable Objectives- Interconnected Surface Waters1889More than any other sustainable management criteria besides water quality, the interconnected1890surface water SMC are tightly linked to water management efforts which do not fall exclusively1891under groundwater management. Managing to comply with the interconnected surface water SMC1892is part of a broader watershed portfolio of PMAs that engages multiple federal, state, and local1893agencies, NGOs, and volunteer groups. To be successful, it must be closely integrated with these1894broader, collaborative water management efforts. To articulate the integrated water management1895characteristic of this SMC, the Measurable Objective is set to be part of the overall, aspirational1896“watershed goal”, which constitutes a management objective covering all consumptive water uses,1897as well as land management in the Basin and its surrounding watershed. Because the GSA has1898no regulatory authority over some of these uses, collaboration with surface water users in the1899Basin, land managers, local organizations, and state and federal agencies will be necessary to1900work towards this aspirational watershed goal.1901Consistent with the metrics for the minimum threshold, the measurable objective is defined adap-1902tively and upon gathering better data and information. Accordingly, an initial MO is set that mirrors1903the MO set for the chronic lowering of groundwater elevations. That is the 75thpercentile of the Fall1904season groundwater levels measured in each well with insufficient groundwater elevation histori-1905cal data (not covering the most recent drought period of 2012-2016); or, the average historical Fall1906season groundwater elevation measured in wells with sufficient historical groundwater level data1907(groundwater level data that at least covers the recent drought period of 2012-2016). However,1908the MO will be revised and adapted as better data and information become available to be based1909on the volume or rate of surface water depletion at streamgages in the monitoring network for each1910monitoring transect.191169 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersThe final MO will be part of a broader, albeit aspirational, integrated water management goal to1912establish appropriate, healthy stream and streamflow conditions. The implementation of the plan1913contributes, in collaboration with other agencies and groups, to achieving compliance with the1914PublicTrustDoctrineandresolveswatershed-widewatermanagementissues. Thisexplicitlinkage1915between the measurable objective with the aspirational watershed goal also provides flexibility1916for compliance with potential future regulations or actions in an integrated water management1917approach.1918An integrated approach to setting the measurable objective is consistent with existing regulations,1919which allow the GSA to “establish measurable objectives that exceed the reasonable margin of1920operational flexibility for the purpose of improving overall conditions in the Basin, but failure to1921achieve those objectives shall not be grounds for a finding of inadequacy of the Plan”. (23 CCR1922Section 354.30(g)). The aspirational watershed goal is not a specific quantitative metric at this time1923due to the reasons outline above for the selection of an adaptive approach.19243.9.4.1 Path to Achieve Measurable Objectives - Interconnected Surface Waters1925The GSA will support achievement of the measurable objective by conducting monitoring related1926to ISW, including streamflow monitoring and groundwater elevation monitoring applicable to the1927beneficial uses and users of interconnected surface water in the Basin. PMAs to reverse surface1928water depletion and ensure compliance with the minimum threshold will be undertaken by the1929GSA, as needed, either as the lead agency, or as a project partner. The GSA will review and1930analyze data and update the model to evaluate any changes in depletion of surface water due1931to groundwater pumping or PMAs implemented in the Basin. Using monitoring data collected as1932part of GSP implementation, the GSA will develop information to adapt and revise the SMC and1933to further demonstrate that PMAs are operating to maintain or improve conditions related to the1934depletion of ISW in the Basin and to avoid undesirable results. Should the minimum threshold be1935exceeded, the GSA will implement measures to address this occurrence.1936To manage depletions of ISW, the GSA will partner with local agencies and stakeholders to im-1937plement PMAs. PMAs are presented in further detail inChapter 4. Implementation timelines and1938approximate costs are discussed inChapter 5. The GSA may choose to conduct additional or1939more frequent monitoring. The need for additional studies on depletion of ISW will be assessed1940throughout GSP implementation. The GSA may identify knowledge requirements, seek funding,1941and help to implement additional studies.1942References1943Puls, R. W., and M. J. Barcelona. 1996. “LOW-FLOW (MINIMAL DRAWDOWN) GROUND-1944WATER SAMPLING PROCEDURES.” USEPA.https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-194506/documents/lwflw2a.pdf.1946Rice, E. W., L. Bridgewater, American Public Health Association, and Water Environment Feder-1947ation. 2012.Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater. Washington, D.C.:1948American Public Health Association.1949USGS Fact Sheet 088-01. 2000. “Use of Passive Diffusion Samplers for Monitoring Volatile Or-1950ganic Compounds in Groundwater.” United States Geological Survey.https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-1951088-00/pdf/fs-088-00.pdf.195270 Ukiah GSP Section 3 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersWilde, F. D. 2008. “Chapter A6. Section 6.0. General Information and Guidelines for Field-1953Measured Water-Quality Properties.” United States Geological Survey.https://doi.org/https://doi.1954org/10.3133/twri09A6.0.195571 1 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan GROUNDWATER LEVELS Background Groundwater levels fluctuate with the amount of recharge (supply) and groundwater use (demand) that occurs. Groundwater elevations increase as recharge increases and/or as groundwater use decreases. Similarly, groundwater levels decline as recharge decreases and/or groundwater use increases. Groundwater levels are also closely tied to – and can serve as an indicator for – groundwater storage (or the volume of groundwater stored in the main aquifer). As groundwater levels decline or increase, the volume of groundwater stored in the aquifer also decreases or increases. Also, total groundwater storage can be reduced by land subsidence. Although subsidence refers to a depression in the land surface, it is the result of conditions below the surface. Subsidence due to groundwater pumping is caused by relatively fine-grained sediments, like clay, becoming more compact as water is removed. What We Know: Available Data Groundwater elevations in the Basin have been relatively stable over the past 30 years while showing small seasonal fluctuations. Due to limited historical data (only three wells have been historically monitored by DWR), it is difficult to produce reliable groundwater elevation contours for the historical period. However, the three DWR wells that provide a long-term time-series of groundwater elevations show the stability of the groundwater elevations and the magnitude of seasonal fluctuations The lowest elevations can be expected around October of each year before the start of the wet season and the highest elevations are normally observed in spring, during March or April. The magnitude of seasonal fluctuations varies depending on the location of the wells, from the north of the Basin to the south. The majority of the wells show a range between 5 ft to 15 ft for their seasonal changes in groundwater elevation but changes as low as 1 ft and as high as 28 ft are also recorded in the historical data. The magnitude of fluctuations is slightly higher during droughts, but the Basin is shown to maintain its stable levels despite this change and rebounds to approximately the same levels as pre-drought conditions once drought conditions subside. 2 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels Monitoring Network The groundwater elevation monitoring network will include a subset of existing CASGEM wells and TSS-funded drilled wells (See figure below). A few existing wells that are used in the interconnected surface water (ISW) monitoring network and TSS-funded drilled wells will be continuously monitored. Other wells will be measured twice per year. Representative monitoring points (RMPs) are used for setting sustainable management criteria. RMPs are wells (or other monitoring facilities) that are identified to be representative of groundwater conditions (here groundwater levels) in their area and have a long and reliable measurement record. For this Basin, all four DWR wells are identified as RMPs for the lower aquifer. A similar arrangement of RMPs is proposed for the first aquifer using existing CASGEM wells. Monitoring Issues Major temporal data gaps still exist within the basin with regard to groundwater level measurements that cannot be rectified. Furthermore, recently drilled wells cannot be used as RMPs due to a lack of historical measurements and this limits the ability of the GSP to identify and use proper RMPs. Therefore, an assessment of the RMPs is paired with the assessment of the monitoring network at the next five-year implementation milestone to add or remove RMPs when more data and information will be available. There are significant data gaps in terms of: • Temporal distribution of data (duration of data over years, frequency of data collection). • Spatial distribution of data (location of data points across the basin) • Basic information about well type and depth of well Undesirable Results Relating to Groundwater Quality Chronic lowering of groundwater levels is considered significant and unreasonable when such lowering threatens the long-term viability of domestic, agricultural, municipal, or environmental users of groundwater. the level of impact to beneficial users of groundwater level that constitute undesirable results for chronic lowering of groundwater was summarized to three quantitative criteria for vulnerable wells, GDEs, and ISW: 1. percentage of impacted domestic, agricultural, or public wells exceeds 5% 2. percentage decrease in connected GDE area exceeds 20% compared to the reference year 3. depletion of ISWs exceeds historical depletions recorded during past multi-year droughts An undesirable result would occur if the groundwater level observations in the fall season (i.e., the minimum elevation in any given water year) in more than a third of the RMPs in the Basin fall below their respective minimum thresholds for two consecutive years. Minimum Thresholds Relating to Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels Wherever possible, the MT is set as the average of the three lowest (fall season) historical measurements on record for depth to groundwater taken during drought periods. A well-specific margin, not exceeding the minimum of 10% or 10 ft, is further added to the MT to account for uncertainty in measuring annual low groundwater levels. This criterion applies to RMPs with historical groundwater level measurements that at least cover the 2012-2016 drought period. For RMPs with insufficient historical groundwater elevation data, The MT is set at the historic maximum depth to water measurement, plus a well-specific margin, not exceeding the minimum of 10% or 10 ft, to account for uncertainty in measuring annual low groundwater levels. Measurable Objectives Relating to Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels 3 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan The Measurable Objectives (MO) elevation is set at the average observed groundwater elevation in fall if the RMP has a longer historical measurement than the common CASGEM period starting from 2014-2015. Otherwise, the 75th percentile of the fall depth to groundwater measurement is used as MO. MOs are adjusted using a similar well-specific margin to MTs to account for the uncertainty in measuring the minimum and maximum annual groundwater level measurements. PROPOSAL FOR GROUNDWATER LEVEL SECTION IN GSP Proposed monitoring network is shown in the Figures following the table. Proposed SMC are shown below. Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels SMC (see Figure below monitoring network) Well Location Aquifer Minimum Threshold (ft-bgs) Triggers (ft-bgs; Spring GWE) Measurable Objectives (ft-bgs) 391918N1232003W001 I 43 32 41 391225N1231852W001 I 23 15 22 390664N1231491W001 I 28 14 26 392962N1232047W001 II 19 10 18 391730N1232108W001 II 32 19 29 391096N1231677W001 II 40 19 38 4 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan Groundwater Level Monitoring Network (Above). 5 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan . Sustainable Management Criteria (SMC) Metrics for Representative Monitoring Points (Above). DRAFT GSP Chapter 41Larry Walker Associates, Inc207/02/20213Contents44. Projects and Management Actions254.1 Introduction and Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .264.2 TIER I: Existing or Ongoing Projects and Management Actions. . . . . . . . . . .674.3 TIER II: Planned and Potential Future Projects and Management Actions. . . . . .1184.3.1 Supply Augmentation Projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1194.3.2. Demand Management Water Conservation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17104.3.3 Other Management Actions.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20111 Ukiah GSP Section 4 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders**Note: this section is still a work in progress and will require iterations with the TAC and the12Board over the next few weeks to further refine the content prior to the development of the DRAFT13GSP. Meetings with stakeholders are already planned for the next days and will help refine the14information provided here.**154. Projects and Management Actions164.1 Introduction and Overview17To achieve this Plan’s sustainability goal by 2042 and avoid undesirable results as required by18SGMA regulations, multiple projects and management actions (PMAs) have been designed for19evaluation and possible implementation by the GSA, in partnership with other entities and agen-20cies active in the Basin, such as the RCD. PMAs are described in accordance with §354.42 and21§354.44 of the SGMA regulations. Projects generally refer to infrastructure features and other22capital investments, their planning, and their implementation, whereas management actions are23typically programs or policies that do not require capital investments, but are geared toward en-24gagement, education, outreach, changing groundwater use behavior, adoption of land use prac-25tices, monitoring, etc.26PMAs discussed in this section will help achieve and maintain the sustainability goals and mea-27surable objectives, and avoid the undesirable results identified for the Basin inSection 3. These28efforts will be periodically assessed during the GSP implementation period. As planning is at vary-29ing early stages of development, complete information on construction requirements, operations,30costs, permitting requirements, and other details are not uniformly available. A conceptual descrip-31tion of the operation of PMAs as part of the overall GSP is provided in this section and inSection325. In developing PMAs, priorities for consideration include minimizing impacts to the Basin’s econ-33omy, maximizing external funding, and prioritizing voluntary and incentive-based programs over34mandatory programs.35In Ukiah Valley, the PMAs are designed to achieve the following objectives related to the SMC: to36achieve the thresholds and objectives for the interconnected surface water sustainability indicator37(Section 3.9), to provide sufficient capacity for conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water to38prevent water shortage during periods of low surface water availability, and to prevent the lowering39of groundwater levels to protect wells from outages, preserve groundwater dependent ecosystems,40and avoid additional stresses on interconnected surface waters and their habitat.41PMAs included in this GSP will not only be important for the above SMC related objectives, but42can represent a critical tool to develop water resiliency in the Basin: the current critical drought43conditions are demonstrating the need to develop a new, integrated framework that can support44the County and all the water agencies in responding to future drought conditions.45TheidentifiedPMAsreflectarangeofoptionstoachievethegoalsoftheGSPandwillbecompleted46through an integrative and collaborative approach with other agencies, organizations, landown-47ers, and beneficial users. The GSA considers itself to be one of multiple parties collaborating to48achieve overlapping, complementary, and multi-benefit goals across the integrated water and land49use management nexus in the Basin. Furthermore, PMAs related to water quality, interconnected50surface waters, and groundwater-dependent ecosystems will be most successful if implemented512 Ukiah GSP Section 4 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholdersto meet the multiple objectives of collaborating partners. For many of the PMAs, the GSA will en-52ter into informal or formal partnerships with other agencies, NGOs, or individuals. These partner-53ships may take various forms, from GSA participation in informal technical or information exchange54meetings, to collaboration on third-party proposals, projects, and management actions, to the lead55agency on proposals and the subsequent implementation of PMAs.56The GSA and individual GSA partners will have varying but clearly identified responsibilities with57respect to permitting and other specific implementation oversight. These responsibilities may vary58from PMA to PMA or even within individual phases of a PMA. Inclusion of a PMA in this GSP does59not forego any obligations under local, state, or federal regulatory programs. Inclusion in this GSP60also does not assume any specific project governance or role for the GSA. While the GSA does61have an obligation to oversee progress towards groundwater sustainability, it is not the primary62regulator of land use, water quality, or environmental project compliance. It is the responsibility of63the respective implementing, lead agency to collaborate with appropriate regulatory agencies to64ensure that the PMAs for which the lead agency is responsible are in compliance with all appli-65cable laws. The GSA may choose to collaborate with regulatory agencies on specific overlapping66interests such as water quality monitoring and oversight of projects developed within the Basin.67PMAs are classified under three main categories: 1) supply augmentation, including conjunctive68use, 2) demand management and water conservation, and 3) other management actions. Fur-69thermore, PMAs are organized into two tiers, explained inSection 4.2andSection 4.3, that are70reflective of their timeline for implementation:711.TIER I: Existing PMAs that are currently being implemented and are anticipated to continue72to be implemented.732.TIER II: PMAs planned for near-term initiation and implementation (2022–2027) by individual74member agencies, as well as additional PMAs that may be implemented in the future, as75necessary (initiation and/or implementation 2027–2042).76The process of identifying, screening, and finalizing PMAs is illustrated inFigure1. Existing and77planned projects were first identified through review of different reports, documents, and websites.78Planned and new projects also received stakeholder input in their identification. These projects79were then categorized into four categories: supply augmentation, conjunctive use, water conser-80vation, and water quality enhancement. In the next step, all projects were evaluated to identify81those with the highest potential to be included in the GSP. Using the integrated hydrological model,82the effectiveness of each project, or a combination of projects, can be assessed to identify those83projects that, if implemented, will most likely bring the Basin into sustainability. Monitoring will be84a critical component in evaluating PMA benefits and measuring potential impacts from PMAs.85The ability to secure funding is an important component in the viability of implementing a particular86PMA. Funding sources may include grants or other fee structures (Section 5). Under the Sus-87tainable Groundwater Management Implementation Grant Program Proposition 68, grants can be88awarded for planning activities, monitoring, and for projects with a capital improvement compo-89nent. As such, state funds for reimbursing landowners for implementation of PMAs, including land90fallowing and well shut offs, currently cannot be obtained under this program, but Department of91Water Resources is still evaluating different options.92In 2020, the California Land Stewardship Institute (CLSI) received one of only five watershed coor-93dinator grants in California to work with the Ukiah Valley GSA. CLSI has worked in the Ukiah Valley94for over 25 years primarily completing numerous Fish Friendly Farming and Ranching plans and953 Ukiah GSP Section 4 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholdersprojects, running the Russian River Frost program, and implementing many water storage, conser-96vation, and recycled water projects with landowners and cities. The grant work plan addresses the97need for a community-based watershed plan that identifies specific actions needed to implement98SGMA and address federal, state, and local planning goals.99The watershed coordinator will support the identification of projects to improve groundwater levels,100restore fish and wildlife habitat, and reduce fire fuels in the watershed. The watershed coordinator101will work with the GSA, Technical Advisory Committee, Mendocino County, and other partners102to define project locations for groundwater recharge and conjunctive use , evaporation reduction103, stream revegetation, and fire/fuel reduction and work with landowners to assure such projects104can be implemented in a collaborative manner. Project identification starts in May 2021 and will105produce a first round of easy-to-implement projects within 2021. CLSI will work with local partners106and the GSA to implement projects, and can also rapidly implement projects directly.1074 Uk i a h G S P S e c t i o n 4 - I n t e r n a l A n n o t a t e d D r a f t w i t h P l a c e h o l d e r s Figure 1:Process for identification and prioritization of PMAs. 5 Ukiah GSP Section 4 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders4.2 TIER I: Existing or Ongoing Projects and Management Actions108The existing PMAs presented inSection 4.3have been extracted from the following documents:109•The County of Mendocino General Plan, August 2009110•Conceptual Model of Watershed Hydrology, Surface Water and Groundwater Interactions and111Stream Ecology for the Russian River Watershed, September 2016.112•Ukiah Valley Area Plan, August 2011113•Fish Habitat Flows and Water Rights Project, Draft Environmental Impact Report, August1142016115•The North Coast Resource Partnership projects (website)116•Draft Lake Mendocino Master Plan, 2019 Revision117•Lake Mendocino Water Supply Reliability Evaluation Report, May 2013118•City of Ukiah Storm Water Management Plan, February 2006.119•City of Ukiah 2015 Urban Water Management Plan120•Southern Sonoma County Storm Water Resources Plan, May 2019121•Sonoma Water 2020-2025 Capital Improvement Plan122•North Coast Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Phase III, August 2014123Table1presents the existing and ongoing (Tier I) PMAs in the Basin.1246 Uk i a h G S P S e c t i o n 4 - I n t e r n a l A n n o t a t e d D r a f t w i t h P l a c e h o l d e r s Table 1:PMA Summary Table. Lead Agency Project Title Funding Request Total Project Cost Project Summary Status of Project Estimated Comple- tion Date Project Type City of Ukiah’s Water Resources Department Purple Pipe Project (Phase I through III) $10,276M $32,085M The Purple Pipe Project is a recycled water project that includes nearly eight miles of pipeline, a 66-million-gallon water storage reservoir, upgraded treatment facilities and improved water and wastewater infrastructure on Oak Manor Drive to serve agricultural and urban irrigation and frost protection demands of about 1,320 AFY. This allows the City to serve approximately 325 million gallons of water to farmers, parks, and schools. Completed 2020 Supply Augmentation Redwood Valley Little River Band of Pomo Indians Water Meter Replacement $10,000 $18,000 The Redwood Valley Tribe will replace all 35-year old, malfunctioning residential water meters. The new radio read meters will allow accurate measuring of water usage, identification of possible leaks, and inform the district of residents using excess water. Redwood Valley Tribe receives water from the Redwood Valley County Water District which is extremely limited, and this project will reduce water needs from the District. 60% Complete Summe 2021 Water Conservation 7 Uk i a h G S P S e c t i o n 4 - I n t e r n a l A n n o t a t e d D r a f t w i t h P l a c e h o l d e r s Table 1:PMA Summary Table.(continued) Lead Agency Project Title Funding Request Total Project Cost Project Summary Status of Project Estimated Comple- tion Date Project Type Pinoleville Pomo Nation Rainwater Catchment & Usage $125,000 $125,000 Pinoleville Pomo Nation will install a 60,000 gallon rainwater catchment tank at our administrative offices to support the food garden, ornamental landscape. This water will reduce the amount we use from Millview Water District, whose source of water is from the Russian River. 50% Complete Fall 2022 Water Conservation 12th District Agriculture Association Redwood Empire Fairgrounds Water System Upgrade $1.5M $20M The aged (ca. 1950) and leaking plumbing system at the fairgrounds has been a problem for many years, but funds to secure a phased upgrade/replacement have not been secured. This site represents the third largest water customer to the City of Ukiah, and leaks may represent 15-20% of total water delivered. Purchasing a ”leak detection wand” is important to monitor the segments where upgrade/replacement will not occur during Phase 1. 50% Complete Fall 2022 Water Conservation 8 Uk i a h G S P S e c t i o n 4 - I n t e r n a l A n n o t a t e d D r a f t w i t h P l a c e h o l d e r s Table 1:PMA Summary Table.(continued) Lead Agency Project Title Funding Request Total Project Cost Project Summary Status of Project Estimated Comple- tion Date Project Type Mendocino College Irrigation upgrades and turf to xeric landscape conversion $58,000 $73,000 Mendocino College Ukiah campus will replace irrigation components on ornamental landscapes to increase efficiency, and will convert two turf lawns to xeric landscapes to save water. Purchase of turf aerator will promote deeper root growth on sports fields, thus requiring less frequent irrigation ($4,500). 75% complete Fall 2021 Water Conservation Ukiah Unified School District Sports field conversion to non-irrigated surface $1.4M $2.5M The soccer field at Ukiah High School will be converted from an irrigated turf surface to an artificial year-round playing surface. Staff have calculated the annual water saving to be at least 2,240,000 gallons. The entire soccer facility upgrade cost estimate is $6,700,000. Division of the State Architect is in review and approval process of 100% design. Fall 2022 Water Conservation9 Uk i a h G S P S e c t i o n 4 - I n t e r n a l A n n o t a t e d D r a f t w i t h P l a c e h o l d e r s Table 1:PMA Summary Table.(continued) Lead Agency Project Title Funding Request Total Project Cost Project Summary Status of Project Estimated Comple- tion Date Project Type Mendocino County RCD Forsythe Floodplain Restoration Project $270,000 $2.7 M Removal of levee on Forsythe Creek will allow expansion of floodwaters, reducing erosion, and increasing infiltration. Armoring opposite bank will protect private residences from further property damage. Restoring riparian community will promote natural species recovery. 60% design complete. CEQA MND complete Fall 2025 Water Quality Enhancement 10 Ukiah GSP Section 4 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders4.3 TIER II: Planned and Potential Future Projects and Management Actions125Tier II PMAs, planned for near-term feasibility evaluation, initiation and/or implementation (2022-1262027) by individual agencies, exist at varying stages in their development. Project descriptions127are provided below for each of the identified Tier II PMAs. The level of detail provided for the128PMAs described below depends on the status of the PMA; where possible the project descriptions129include information relevant to§354.42 and §354.44 of the SGMA regulations. Evaluation and130implementation of some of these PMAs is still subject to funding availability. Projects are described131through the following categories: 1) supply augmentation, 2) demand management and water132conservation, and 3) other management actions.1334.3.1 Supply Augmentation Projects1344.3.1.1 Conjunctive UseMany of the projects considered in this analysis can be considered135elements of “conjunctive use”. Conjunctive use commonly refers to the coordinated use of ground-136water and surface water to meet water supply needs and preserve groundwater sustainability.137According to the Water Education Foundation, conjunctive use can be categorized into passive138and active actions. In passive conjunctive use, or in-lieu conjunctive use, surface water is used139in wet years and groundwater is relied upon during dry years. In active conjunctive use, surface140water is purposefully diverted to injection wells or ponds to recharge the underlying groundwater141aquifer during wet years for later use in dry years. Conjunctive use practices enable water man-142agers to utilize groundwater basins for storage to accumulate and reserve water for use at a later143date. They also provide a strategy for adjusting supplies to meet demands under highly variable144hydrological conditions. Various strategies rely on these practices including groundwater banking145and groundwater transfers. In the case of the Ukiah Valley Basin, there is the opportunity to utilize146conjunctive use practices to the benefit of water users in the Basin. This is due to the Basin’s prox-147imity to significant surface water storage in Lake Mendocino and the Russian River, the existence148of surface water rights, and the presence of numerous surface water diversions and conveyance149facilities. To take advantage of the opportunities provided by the presence of these facilities, any150proposed action that will rely on facilities managed by DWR or Bureau of Reclamation will have to151comply with requirements imposed by those agencies as articulated in the Water Transfer White152Paper (DWR and Reclamation, 2019). These requirements are:153•Transfer will result in providing the agreed-upon amount of transfer water. Transfer will not154unreasonably affect fish, wildlife, other instream beneficial uses, or the environment and will155have no significant unmitigated environmental effects.156•Transfer will not injure other legal users of water.157•Proposalshowsthatanadequatemonitoringandmitigationplanisinplacepriortothetransfer158to document that the above conditions are met. Successful proposals will generally consist159of the following components:160•Documentation of surface water rights and the method used to quantify the amount of surface161water available for the transfer.162•The location and characteristics of the wells proposed for use in pumping groundwater.163•The historic groundwater pumping in non-water transfer years to establish an appropriate164baseline for groundwater pumping volumes that would occur absent the transfer program.165•The proposed volume and schedule of transfer-related groundwater pumping.166•A monitoring plan designed to assess the effects of the transfer.16711 Ukiah GSP Section 4 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders•A mitigation plan designed to alleviate possible injury to other legal users of water.168•Demonstration that the transfer is consistent with the local requirements and applicable169GSP(s) of the groundwater basins where the additional groundwater pumping would occur170under the transfer proposal; or written notification to the relevant GSA(s) if a GSP has not171been implemented at the time the transfer is being proposed.172Additional requirements are typically imposed that protect the overall amount of groundwater stor-173age in the Basin. A typical requirement is the specification of an “unrecoverable loss” factor to174account for a combination of the lateral movement of groundwater out of the area and a mitigation175factor which requires a percentage “leave behind” volume. The net result of these requirements is176a system that provides a net positive, accumulating benefit to groundwater storage in the basin.1774.3.1.2 Managed Aquifer Recharge and Injection WellsGeophysical analysis conducted dur-178ing the GSP development indicated presence of conductive soils in the Basin that could contribute179toward groundwater recharge from surface water sources. However, there are currently insuffi-180cient data to fully analyze the geology below these soils using the integrated hydrological model to181determine operational locations for groundwater recharge projects. If funding becomes available,182additional geological analyses can be performed to specify pilot groundwater recharge projects183within the Basin.184Both active and passive conjunctive uses can be considered in the Basin and upper Russian185River watershed to provide water supplies. As explained above, active conjunctive use, or di-186rect recharge, includes any practice that delivers water to the aquifer and increases groundwater187storage. Passive conjunctive use, or indirect recharge, includes conjunctive use practices (i.e.,188coordinated uses of surface water and groundwater) that reduce the amount of groundwater with-189drawals which leads to increased aquifer storage. Direct recharge can be done by:190•Spreading basins:Spreading basins facilitate the movement of water from the ground sur-191face to the underlying hydraulically connected unconfined aquifer. A large volume of infiltrat-192ing water is concentrated on the ground surface which provides opportunities for recharge193over larger areas and for longer time periods than what would otherwise occur.194•Flooding agricultural fields (Flood-MAR):This practice involves use of flood water or195stormwater for managed aquifer recharge on agricultural lands and proper landscapes.196Flood-MAR projects provide multiple benefits to the water supply system, ecosystem, and197wildlife habitat by increasing water supply reliability, flood risk mitigation, drought prepared-198ness, aquifer replenishment, ecosystem enhancement, subsidence mitigation, water quality199improvement, working landscape preservation and stewardship, climate change adaptation,200recreation, and aesthetics.201•Injection wells and/or dry wells:Using injection or dry wells involves installation and op-202eration of equipment to inject water into specific aquifers. Aquifer storage and recovery203(ASR) wells are the most common injection method used in California. Groundwater injec-204tion projects are typically most effective when utilizing a consistent, designated water supply205(such as recycled water). ASR wells do not have seasonal constraints and do not depend206on surficial soil characteristics, but require controlled operation and regular maintenance to207sustain adequate recharge rates.208•Streams and canals:These features can be used to infiltrate water and increase groundwa-209ter recharge. For example, diverting water during non-irrigation seasons into unlined canals210can supplement groundwater recharge if canal seepage reaches the underlying aquifers.21112 Ukiah GSP Section 4 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders•Indirect recharge:This practice involves supplying a water demand with an alternative water212source that would otherwise be met by groundwater extraction or surface water diversion.213Except for streams and canal recharge, the rest of the above methods are applicable in the Ukiah214Valley Basin and upper Russian River watershed. For direct recharge practices, the initial process215to identify possible locations would include:2161.Identifying potential sites through stakeholder coordination, infrastructure feasibility, and long-217term planning efforts.2182.Performing site-specific analyses based on the ongoing efforts of the UVBGSA to assess the219following:220a.Local groundwater levels and aquifer characteristics and capacity.221b.Local infiltration capacity of soils using SSURGO and/or UC Davis SAGBI databases.222c.Local water quality and possible water quality implications of recharge.223d.Potential environmental impacts.2243.Perform groundwater flow analysis using the integrated hydrological model to assess:225a.Residence time of recharged groundwater prior to the closest withdrawal location.226b.Estimate recharge rate.227c.Whether the recharged groundwater would be directed to streams or can offset demands228in the basin.2294.Perform site-specific geophysical field work and studies to assess hydrogeological character-230istics and help conceptual design.2315.Develop cost estimate and prioritize feasible sites for pilot projects or larger-scale implemen-232tation.233Steps (1) to (3) can be accomplished as a follow-up step to what the UVBGSA is doing by using the234existing data analysis and identifying new model scenarios. However, findings from these three235steps need to be verified by conducting geophysical studies mentioned in step (4) before proposed236recharge sites are considered for design and pilot studies.237The use of surface-based geophysical surveying methods to investigate groundwater aquifer sys-238tems and recharge pathways is well documented and is a potentially fast and cost-effective way to239identify subsurface targets of interest. Two dominant surface geophysical methods used in ground-240water exploration studies are electrical resistivity and electromagnetic conductivity surveying, both241of which are occasionally referred to as geoelectric techniques. Using a combination of these two242techniques at specific sites of interest across the valley floor is proposed for this GSP. Each are243based on the principle of how resistive or conductive the combination of rock, sediment, and/or244water and other fluids in the subsurface are to a passing electrical current. Various combinations245of saturated and unsaturated subsurface material create a wide spectrum of electrical responses246that can be roughly correlated to a geologic material. Both methods produce cross-sectional im-247ages of varying resistivity with depth along the surveyed lines. These methods are ideal for using248differences in conductivity to identify the elevation of the water table (the saturated zone is more249conductive than the unsaturated zone within the same geologic unit), the contact between porous250rock or sediment and impermeable bedrock (resistive), and to determine the location of freshwater-251saturated coarse sediment (more resistive) and clay layers (less resistive). Where the feasibility252of managed aquifer recharge and conjunctive use projects are to be explored, electrical resistivity25313 Ukiah GSP Section 4 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholderssurveying is utilized, which requires lines of connected, grounded electrodes, to estimate surface254properties and structure.255Some more detailed suggestions for possible Managed Aquifer Recharge/Injection Wells project256are presented here:2571) City of Ukiah Groundwater Recharge258The City of Ukiah has proposed a groundwater recharge project through the construction of a259recharge basin at Riverside Park that would facilitate aquifer recharge and create seasonal wet-260lands. Estimated costs for the design and construction of this recharge basin, which could poten-261tially recharge the aquifer by 1,000 AFY is approximately $1,750,000. Construction of this recharge262basin would improve groundwater supply and reliability while also creating riparian and wetland263habitat in a natural park setting.264The following three subsections must be included underneath each of the PMAs. The texts may265need to be modified accordingly.266Legal Authority267The entities sponsoring this project, mainly the City of Ukiah and the GSA, have the legal authority268to implement this project.269Public Noticing270TheagenciessponsoringthisprojectwillmeetpublicnoticingandCEQArequirementstotheextent271they are applicable.272Permitting and Regulatory Process273The agencies sponsoring this project will obtain necessary permits and meet regulatory require-274ments to the extent they are applicable.2752) Rogina Mutual Water Company and Millview MAR and/or Injection Wells276Rogina Mutual Water Company (customer of RRFCD) and Millview have direct diversion rights277from the river. With this project, feasibility of managed recharge project and/or injection well in278both areas will be established.2793) Mendocino County Water Agency Groundwater Recharge Projects280There are several areas across the Basin, such as reclaimed mines and gravel pits, that would281require minimal infrastructural improvements to recharge the underlying aquifer. A Geophysical282study must be conducted on these areas to identify geologically suitable locations for recharging283the aquifer by stormwater and river diversions. Followed by geophysical studies, the UVBGSA284can begin working on contracting or purchasing these tracts of land to implement pilot recharge285projects and conduct additional studies with the ultimate goal of implementing effective recharge286basins. Some examples of these reclaimed mines include:287•Ford Gravel - Talmage: this is a sand and gravel dredged site owned by NORCAL Recycled288Rock in Talmage area. it includes 95 acres of permitted and 26.5 acres of disturbed land289(reclamation in progress).290•Redwood Valley Gravel Products Mine: Located in Redwood Valley area, this is a291streambed/gravel bar pitting site that includes 56 acres of permitted and 2 acres of292disturbed land (none reclaimed).29314 Ukiah GSP Section 4 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders•Nor-Cal Investment Co., Inc. Mine : Located in the west of town of Calpella, this site includes2943 acres of disturbed land with no listed excavation or completed reclamation.295•Kunzler Terrace Mine Project: Located just north of the City of Ukiah, this site was inteneded296to be developed as a sand and gravel quarry by thte Granite Construction Company. A CEQA297EIR was completed in 2010 for this site, but the project was never excavated.2984) Purple Pipe Project – Phase IV299City of Ukiah’s Water Resources Department plans to implement Phase IV of the Purple Pipe300Project, which will add six miles of pipeline, a one million gallon storage tank, ponds, and a booster301station to provide an additional 400 AFY of recycled water to serve schools, parks, the cemetery,302and golf course. This phase of the project is expected to cost approximately $18 million.3035) Well Rehabilitation in Redwood Valley304Using the California Well Completion Report (WCR) database, UVBGSA conducted an analysis305to evaluate impacts of returning to Fall 2016 groundwater levels. The analysis showed that such306practice would dry at least 3% of wells in the Basin. If the groundwater levels decline 10 ft (3 m)307below Fall 2016 conditions about 10% of domestic users with shallow or ill-designed wells may308also be impacted. All wells that will become dry are shallow domestic wells and almost all these309wells are located in the Redwood Valley area and around Lake Mendocino. Most of these wells are310shallow and located around surface water bodies, which would increase the likelihood of short-term311impacts on surface water bodies, especially when pumping is at its peak. There are also several312riparian users and surface water rights holders along the Russian River that use such rights to313divert water as their primary source of supply, including a few public water purveyors. A portion314of the rights holders do not have reliable wells to use in low-flow years and/or the number and315condition of their wells cannot satisfy their existing demand.316Thesefindingsemphasizetheimportanceofreconditioningwells, specificallyfortheshallowand/or317old wells, to improve supply reliability for domestic users in the Basin by making it possible to318alternate between sources of supply and to increase conjunctive use of water in the Basin. This319would also help adaptively manage undesirable results through different pumping patterns and320diversions.321Additionally, the UVGBSA has been using an integrated hydrological model that simulates the322Basin and upper Russian River watershed (upstream of Hopland) to evaluate different future sce-323narios so that effective and adaptive management can be implemented for the Basin to achieve324and maintain sustainability. This model can also be used to plan for locating new wells and for the325reconditioning of existing wells. The model can help define and optimize the following projects and326management actions especially during droughts:327•Locate additional supply wells to be drilled and identify effective pumping patterns that would328maximize the supply while causing no significant and unreasonable impacts.329•Evaluate appropriate recharge locations to store and improve Basin conditions.330•Demonstrate that new or reconditioned wells can be developed in locations where no impact331will be noticed to the sustainability indicators applicable to the UVB.332The above list is not all inclusive and the model can simulate further scenarios as needed.3336) City of Ukiah Western Hills Source Water Protection33415 Ukiah GSP Section 4 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersThe current hydrology of the western hills of the Ukiah Valley is a major driver for recharging the335underlying aquifer. Preserving these properties will protect these important resources. This project336is proposed to acquire, through purchase, undeveloped headwater properties in the western hills.337The estimated capital cost for this project is $3.5 million. Preservation of headwater properties in338the western hills of the Ukiah Valley will help ensure that natural runoff and groundwater recharge339patterns will continue in perpetuity.3407) Reduce Evaporative Losses from Existing Surface Water Storage341While the area of most agricultural off-stream ponds within Ukiah Valley is between 1 to 5 acres,342these ponds vary in volume from 0.5 AF to over 50 AF. There are also municipal storage ponds343within the Basin. Although these ponds provide storage benefits, they are subject to significant344evaporative losses in this area. Some short-term solutions that can limit the evaporative loss345include:346•Shade Balls:Shade balls are made from various materials in different sizes. These shade347balls are floated on the surface of water storage ponds to reduce evaporative loss and water348quality impacts (algal blooms). Depending on the manufacturer producing the shade balls,349they can reduce evaporative loss by as much as 90%.350•WaterSavr:WaterSavr is a patented hydrated lime powder containing hydroxy-alkanes (food351grade and potable approved) that is applied to the surface of the water. Ionic repulsion causes352the hydroxy-alkanes to self-spread, resulting in a mono-molecular film on the surface of the353water. This is an inexpensive method suitable for most water bodies, such as reservoirs,354canals, irrigation ponds, and rice paddies. A local application of WaterSavr on an off-stream355agricultural pond verified an over 30% reduction in evaporative loss. The cost would be ap-356proximately $27.50 per acre per month, while the dispensing unit would cost between $3,000357to $5,000.3588) Additional Construction of Off-stream Reservoirs359Existing surface water storage ponds within the Ukiah Valley are essential for reducing instanta-360neous demand on water sources, especially for reducing surface water diversions, and for provid-361ing additional water supply security in drier water years. The reduction in instantaneous demand362is also beneficial for reducing the risk of impacts to fishery resources. Between 2009-2013, there363were 12 off-stream agricultural ponds built with cost share funding as part of a $5 million grant from364the USDA Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP) administered by the CLSI. While sev-365eral other off-stream agricultural ponds were built without funding assistance, initial surveys show366that at least eight new agricultural ponds could possibly be added if funding is available.3679) Additional Construction of Off-stream tank for storage368A feasibility study needs to be considered at first. The project can look at small scale, at municipal369and district scale. Redwood valley appears to be as a very good candidate for this type of project.37019) Stream enhancements371Storing flows in the tributaries. In Navarro RCD did off stream storage projects funded by Wildlife372conservation board. With this, people are not withdrawing in the summer months. Beaver dam37311) Rehabilitation of Existing Reservoirs374There are two primary practices that could help rehabilitate existing reservoirs. These include:37516 Ukiah GSP Section 4 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders•Pond Liners:Older agricultural ponds could benefit from the installation of either synthetic376liners or clay-based liners to reduce water loss due to percolation. Initial surveys show that at377least five existing ponds could be considered for liner installation if funding is available. The378estimated cost would be approximately $1 per square foot.379•Pond Clean OutExisting, unlined ponds could benefit from reconditioning; i.e. removal of380soil/debris to return pond capacity to original levels, during low water years if storage condi-381tions allow. Such reconditioning practices would also prepare existing ponds for pond liner382installation as applicable. The estimated cost would be approximately $20 per cubic yard.38312) Distributed Storm Water Managed Aquifer Recharge (DSWMAR)384Evaluate how to take advantage of stormwater for groundwater recharge3854.3.2. Demand Management Water Conservation3864.3.2.1 Pump(s) For Potable Water IntertieThe City of Ukiah is proposing to install two pumps387within an intertie system to provide potable drinking water to the adjoining county water districts,388Millview County Water District to the north and Willow County Water District to the south. The cost389for each pump would be about $140,000.390The management actions listed below provide suggestions and should be used as a starting point391for more discussion. We do not expect them to be applicable completely in the Basin, but we392extracted them from other GSPs to provide preliminary ideas.3934.3.2.2 Conservation Easements**This text needs some expert revision394These projects are the result of voluntary land repurposing. They involve conservation easements395that reduce or eliminate surface water irrigation (streamflow augmentation), which functions to396offset depletions of interconnected surface water. These projects may also involve groundwa-397ter irrigation (surface water depletion reduction) for part or all of the irrigation season, in some398or all years, on currently irrigated acreage. Conservation easements may also include floodplain399reconnection/expansion projects. Depending on the circumstances of an individual project, con-400servation easements may include habitat conservation easements, wetland reserve easements,401or other easements that limit irrigation on a certain area of land. It may be established that certain402portions of a property may be suitable for an easement, while the rest of the property remains in403irrigated agriculture.404Implementation of this project type includes consideration of the following elements:405•Exploration of program structure.406•Contracting options.407•Exploration and securing of funding source(s).408•Identification of areas and options for conservation easements.409Anticipated benefits from this type of project include improvement in instream flow conditions on410the Russian River and its tributaries during critical summer and fall low-flow periods.411Monitoring data to be collected in this conservation easements program include, but are not limited412to:41317 Ukiah GSP Section 4 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders•Location, acreage, and current and future anticipated cropping system/land use on enrolled414acreage.415•Quantification and timeline of surface water dedications to instream flow specified in the ease-416ment.417•Quantification and timeline of groundwater pumping curtailments, including water year type418or similar rule to be applied and specified in the easement.4194.3.2.3 Conservation Programs and Green InfrastructureThe objective of these types of420projects is to increase water yield from the watershed through green infrastructure. Green infras-421tructure may include fuel reduction, road improvements, canopy opening to manage snow shade422and accumulation, and other actions that reduce flows to surface waters. Anticipated benefits from423these types of projects include increased water storage in the watershed during the wet season, im-424proved flows from the watershed during the dry season, and the support of desired instream flow425conditions. Changes in streamflow entering the Basin will be monitored and evaluated through426existing and proposed new streamflow gauges and through statistical analyses of acquired data.4274.3.2.4 Irrigation Efficiency ImprovementsAchieving increases in irrigation efficiency through428equipment improvements are anticipated to reduce overall water demand, lessening the chance of429river disconnection during critical dry periods. This is expected to support desired instream flows,430fish migration, and aquatic habitat. This project involves an exploration of options to improve431irrigation efficiency, assessment of irrigator willingness, outreach and extension activities, and de-432velopment of funding options, primarily by cooperators, possibly in cooperation with NRCS. This433PMA is likely to be accomplished through a voluntary, incentive-based program. Cost estimates434have not yet been completed for this PMA.435Monitoring data to be collected in this irrigation efficiency improvement program include, but are436not limited to:437•Total acreage with improved irrigation efficiency equipment.438•Location of fields under improved irrigation efficiency equipment.439•Assessment of the increase in irrigation efficiency, with particular emphasis on assessing the440reduction or changes in consumptive water use (evaporation, evapotranspiration) based on441equipment specification, scientific literature, or field experiments.442•Cropping systems in fields with improved irrigation efficiency equipment.4434.3.2.5 Voluntary Land Repurposing (excluding Conservation Easements)Conservation444easements (see above) are one form of voluntary land repurposing that support a move away445from full-season irrigated agriculture and act to reduce water use. This voluntary land repurposing446program will encourage a range of activities that would reduce water use in the Basin. These447activities may include any of the following:448TermContracts:Insomecircumstances, programsliketheConservationReserveProgram(CRP)449could provide a means of limiting irrigation on a given area for a term of years. Because of low450rates, the CRP has not been utilized much in California, but this could change in the future. In451addition, other term agreements may be developed at the state or local level.45218 Ukiah GSP Section 4 - Internal Annotated Draft with PlaceholdersCrop Rotation:Landowners may agree to include a limited portion of their irrigated acreage in453crops that require only early season irrigation. For example, a farmer may agree to include 10%454of their land in grain crops that will not be irrigated after June 30.455Irrigated Margin Reduction:Farmers could be encouraged to reduce irrigated acreage by ceas-456ing irrigation of field margins where the incentives are sufficient to offset production losses. For457corners, irregular margins, and pivot end guns, this could include ceasing irrigation after a certain458date or even ceasing irrigation entirely in some instances.459Crop Support:To support crop rotation, particularly for grain crops, access to crop support pro-460grams may be important to ensure that this option is economically viable. Some type of crop in-461surance and prevented planting payment programs could provide financial assurances to farmers462interested in planting grain crops.463Other Uses:In some circumstances, portions of a farm that are currently irrigated may be well464suited for other uses that do not consume water. For example, a corner of a field may be well465suited for wildlife habitat or solar panels.466Monitoring data to be collected in this voluntary land repurposing program include, but are not467limited to:468•Total acreage of land repurposing.469•Location of parcels with land repurposing.470•Assessment of the effective decrease in evapotranspiration and water use.471•Description of the alternative management on repurposed land.4724.3.2.6 Alternative, Lower ET CropsThe “alternative, lower ET crop” PMA defines and intro-473duces alternative crops with lower ET, but adding sufficient economic value to the Basin’s agricul-474tural landscape. The objective of this PMA is to facilitate crop conversion in some of the agricultural475landscape that will reduce total crop consumptive use (evapotranspiration) of water in the Basin, as476needed. The management action is to develop a program to develop and implement pilot studies477with alternative crops that have a lower net water consumption for ET, and to provide extension478assistance and outreach to growers to facilitate and potentially incentivize the crop conversion479process. In the conceptual phase, this project involves:480•Scoping of potential crops.481•Pilot research and demonstrations.482•Defining project plan.483•Exploration of funding options.484•Securing funding.485•Development of an incentives program.486•Implementation.487Anticipated benefits from this project include lower consumptive water use and either an increase488in recharge (on surface water irrigated crops) or a reduction in the amount of irrigation or both. As489a result, water levels in the aquifer system will rise. This will also lead to an increase in instream490flows.491Monitoring data to be collected in this alternative, lower evapotranspiration program include, but492are not limited to:49319 Ukiah GSP Section 4 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholders•Total acreage with alternative, lower ET crops.494•Location of fields with alternative, lower ET crops.495•Assessment of the effective decrease in ET.496•Cropping systems used as alternative, lower ET crops.4974.3.3 Other Management Actions.4984.3.3.1 Monitoring activities Chapter 3and the data gap appendix (Appendix X) clearly de-499scribe the importance for establishing an extensive monitoring network which will be used to sup-500port the future GSP updates.501A summary of the monitoring activities include, but are not limited to:502•Development of new RMPs (Representative Monitoring Points) to support water level SMC503and Interconnected Surface Water SMC504•New streamgages in both the main stem of the Russian river and along some key tributaries505•Development of an isotope study to fully evaluate movement of water throughout the basin506and to better represent and characterize underflow wells507•Use of satellite images, twice per year, to fully evaluate status of Groundwater Dependent508Ecosystems5094.3.3.1 Well inventory programIn other GSPs feedback, DWR requested better inventory and510definition of active wells and impacts to them in annual reports since the plan indicated some511shallow wells may be impacted if MTs are reached.512A detailed well inventory will improve the understanding of the Basin’s conditions, and will enhance513model results. It will also help solving ongoing issues with evaluation of de-minimis users and their514proper inclusion in the hydrological numerical model.5154.3.3.2 Drought mitigation measuresDrought mitigation plans will be evaluated: all the districts516and tribes are supposed to have them. In this action, the different conservation plans will be517collected and reviewed. Results will be compared with the GSP metrics (Chapter 3) and the GSA518will coordinate with other partners to develop a drought resiliency plan.5194.3.3.3 ForbearanceThe project entails cost analysis and studies to support change petition on520MCRRFC and WCID license to allow landowners to purchase surplus water supply when available521and use in-lieu of groundwater pumping, or for recharge (basins or Flood-MAR), depending on522conditions at the time water is available. Benefits are expected to include reduced groundwater523pumping and potentially preventing or reducing loss of surface water to groundwater table in the524critical summer months.5254.3.3.4 Future of the basinThis Project would entail developing a study of the economic impacts526of the projects and management actions included in the GSP. This would include an evaluation of527how implementation of the project could affect the economic health of the region and on local528agricultural industry. It would also consider the projected changes to the region’s land uses and52920 Ukiah GSP Section 4 - Internal Annotated Draft with Placeholderspopulation and whether implementation of these projects would support projected and planned530growth.5314.3.3.5 Voluntary wells metering programVoluntary wells metering will be encouraged532throughout the basin. Values collected can be successfully used to validate the estimates533developed with the integrated hydrological model.5344.3.3.6 Outreach and educationOutreach and education will be a critical component of the535future implementation of the GSP. Agencies such NRCS, RCD, etc can support the GSA and536guarantee the successful implementation of the GSP by 2042. Outreach and education can also537contribute to the development of a coordinated response to drought times and support the imple-538mentation of drought measures that can help with a drought resiliency plan.53921 Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 1 of 2 Item No.: 4.e Date: 7/8/21 To: Board of Directors Subject: Authorization of Staff to Develop a Conceptual Plan to be Submitted to Department of Water Resources for Round 3 Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program Implementation Funds Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing Summary: The State of California Department of Water Resources (DWR) will begin accepting concept proposals for Round 3 Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program (GWGP) implementation funds. The deadline for the concept proposals is September 7, 2021. The next Board meeting is not scheduled until after that deadline. As time is of the essence, Staff recommends and requests the Board authorize Staff, with the assistance of Larry Walker and Associates, to develop and submit to DWR a concept proposal to notify DWR of the Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency’s (UVBGSA) interest in applying for GWGP Round 3 Funds. Recommended Action: Authorize Staff to develop a Concept Proposal for Round 3 Proposition 1 Groundwater Grant Program Funds and submit to Department of Water Resources. Background: Proposition 1 was passed by voters in November 2014 and provided $900 million for a Groundwater Sustainability Program. The Proposition 1 GWGP Round 3 solicitation for implementation projects will be available for application in March of 2022. To apply for those funds the UVBGSA must submit an initial concept proposal to DWR for proposed implementation projects which demonstrates positive, quantifiable environmental outcomes, and consistency with the Proposition 1 GWGP Guidelines. The Concept Proposal is due for submittal by September 7th. Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 2 of 2 Fiscal Summary: No fiscal impact. Action: ___________________________________________________ Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________ “Helpful Hints” forProposition 1 (Prop 1) Groundwater Grant Program (GWGP)Round 3 Solicitation for Implementation ProjectsGeneral InformationThis document is intended to provide a snapshot of useful information, but is not all encompassing. Applicants are expected to review the Prop 1 GWGP Guidelines before submitting a Concept Proposal through the Financial Assistance Application Submittal Tool (FAAST). If you do not already have the Concept Proposal attachments, please send an email request to gwquality.funding@waterboards.ca.gov and include “Prop 1 Concept Proposal (Attachments and Templates) Request” in the email subject line. Applicants are also advised to sign up for email notifications to receive program updates.EligibilityIn general, projects that will cleanup or prevent contamination of groundwater that serves or has served as a source of drinking water are eligible for Prop 1 GWGP funds. Please note the following, and refer to the section of the Prop 1 GWGP Guidelines noted in parentheses for more information:·Eligible applicants include public agencies, non-profit organizations, public utilities, tribes, and mutual water companies (Section 4).·Contamination in groundwater is defined, and is typically tied to exceedances of a primary Maximum Contaminant Level or notification level (Appendix A). ·Costs that identified responsible parties are able and willing to pay are not eligible (Section 9).·Typical match is 50% of the total project cost, with reductions considered for disadvantaged communities (Section 5). For Round 3, DFA staff is not accepting applications for planning projects. Implementation proposals should demonstrate positive, quantifiable environmental outcomes, and consistency with the Prop 1 GWGP Guidelines. Full design is not necessarily required for the award of implementation funds but the intent, scope, and budget for the project should be reasonably well developed, at least at a conceptual level. Examples of Eligible Projects Funded in Round 1 and 2Implementation projects awarded funds during Rounds 1 and 2 include primarily extraction and treatment systems, as well as seawater intrusion prevention projects, and well abandonment projects. Applicants are encouraged to review the list of awarded projects for more information.Project Timelines In completing Concept Proposals, applicants should assume that Round 3 projects must be completed by March 2024. As needed, DFA will provide further direction to applicants in the invitation for Full Proposals.Cost Eligibility Eligible costs incurred after November 4, 2014 may be claimed for match. Reimbursement of eligible costs will not occur until after agreement execution. The grant agreement will indicate the eligible start date, after which eligible reimbursable costs may be incurred. For the purposes of the Concept Proposal, applicants can assume an eligible start date of July 1, 2022. Keep in mind that indirect costs, overhead, contingency, as well as operations and maintenance costs are not eligible expenses. See more on ineligible costs in Section 10 of the Prop 1 GWGP Guidelines.Coordination with Regulatory AgenciesDivision of Financial Assistance staff will coordinate with regulatory agencies in reviewing proposals to ensure that proposed projects are considered a high priority. In developing projects, potential applicants are encouraged to coordinate with local regulatory staff, including the Division of Drinking Water, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, etc.Other Related Funding SourcesSite Cleanup Subaccount Program (SCAP)The Prop 1 GWGP is closely coordinated with the SCAP. SCAP funds can also be utilized to remediate groundwater contamination, but for human-made contaminants only. Typically work must be implemented consistent with a regulatory agency issued directive, and projects are only SCAP-eligible if the responsible party lacks financial resources to complete the work. Eligible recipients differ from the Prop 1 GWGP, and may include individuals or businesses. Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)Prop 1 GWGP eligibility is largely focused on funding projects that will cleanup or prevent contamination in the aquifer, but additionally allows for grants to eligible disadvantaged communities for implementation projects that treat groundwater for direct potable use, with no cleanup or remediation of the aquifer. Typically this is only considered if the nature and extent of contamination is not conducive to cleanup in the aquifer. These projects are considered “drinking water treatment” projects, and may also be eligible for grants and loans through the DWSRF. Applicants for these projects should not complete the Prop 1 GWGP solicitation and should instead apply to the DWSRF Program. DFA staff will coordinate on Prop 1 GWGP eligibility and joint funding opportunities. Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)The Prop 1 GWGP can also provide grants to disadvantaged communities for wastewater projects, including septic-to-sewer projects that will prevent or reduce contamination of groundwater. These projects may also be eligible for grants and loans through the CWSRF. Applicants for these projects should not complete the Prop 1 GWGP solicitation and should instead apply to the CWSRF Program. DFA staff will coordinate on Prop 1 GWGP eligibility and joint funding opportunities. Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 1 of 1 Item No.: 4.f Date: 7/8/21 To: Board of Directors Subject: Discussion and Possible Direction on the Public Meeting to be Held on July 15, 2021 Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing Summary: Board will review a summary, have a discussion, and provide possible direction to Staff on proposed topics for the Public Meeting to be held on July 15, 2021. Recommended Action: Direct Staff on topics to be included in the Public Meeting Presentation. Background: The Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (UVBGSA) has held public meetings every two months since October of 2020 to inform the public of the efforts to build groundwater sustainability in the basin and solicit public input. The meetings have been held over Zoom to this point. As Covid-19 restrictions have now been lifted, the UVBGSA will be holding their first in-person public meeting on July 15, 2021 at 5:30 PM outdoors at Lions Club Park. Fiscal Summary: No fiscal impact. Action: ___________________________________________________ Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________ Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Agenda Summary Page 1 of 1 Item No.: 4.g Date: 7/8/21 To: Board of Directors Subject: General Discussion on Ongoing 2021 Drought Crisis Consent Agenda Regular Agenda Noticed Public Hearing Summary: The Board will hear reports on water supplies in the Ukiah Valley Basin and drought mitigation measures in development. Recommended Action: None. Background: The 2021 Drought has made the modeling, mitigation and recharge projects the UVBGSA has been planning critical to the ongoing sustainability of the Basin. Fiscal Summary: No fiscal impact. Action: ___________________________________________________ Motion:_____________________ 2nd:__________________________