The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About9 January 2019_TAC Meeting PackageUkiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development Update January 9, 2020 Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Technical Advisory Committee Meeting ◼TAC Meeting Schedule ◼State of GSP Prior to This Meeting ◼Review and Commenting Process ◼Water Budget Discussion ⚫Hydrological Model (PRMS) ⚫Root Zone Water Budget (IDC) ⚫Groundwater Model (MODFLOW) ⚫Integration (GSFLOW) ◼Preliminary Discussion on Sustainable Management Criteria Outline ◼TAC Meeting Schedule ◼State of GSP Prior to This Meeting ◼Review and Commenting Process ◼Water Budget Discussion ⚫Hydrological Model (PRMS) ⚫Root Zone Water Budget (IDC) ⚫Groundwater Model (MODFLOW) ⚫Integration (GSFLOW) ◼Preliminary Discussion on Sustainable Management Criteria Outline Technical Advisory Committee Recommendations on the Hydrogeological Conceptual Model (HCM) 4 Preliminary TAC Meeting Schedule ◼January 2020: Water budget, Introduction to Sustainable Management Criteria (SMC) ◼March 2020: Goal of the plan, SMC: water quality ◼May 2020: Review Water Quality SMC, start subsidence ◼July 2020: Review Subsidence SMC, start SW/GW interactions ◼September 2020: SW/GW interactions ◼November 2020: SW/GW interactions ◼January 2021: TBD ◼TAC Meeting Schedule ◼State of GSP Prior to This Meeting ◼Review and Commenting Process ◼Water Budget Discussion ⚫Hydrological Model (PRMS) ⚫Root Zone Water Budget (IDC) ⚫Groundwater Model (MODFLOW) ⚫Integration (GSFLOW) ◼Preliminary Discussion on Sustainable Management Criteria Outline State of GSP Prior to this Meeting ◼First phase of DMS is conducted and ready to be delivered. ◼Draft HCM was presented to the TAC for commenting and review. ◼Preliminary results of the integrated hydrogeological model was presented for separate modeling parts: PRMS, IDC, MODFLOW. ◼Overview of TSS was discussed and next steps need to be taken. ◼TAC Meeting Schedule ◼State of GSP Prior to This Meeting ◼Review and Commenting Process ◼Water Budget Discussion ⚫Hydrological Model (PRMS) ⚫Root Zone Water Budget (IDC) ⚫Groundwater Model (MODFLOW) ⚫Integration (GSFLOW) ◼Preliminary Discussion on Sustainable Management Criteria Outline Review and Commenting Process ◼Given the large number of reviewers, accommodating track changes or other editing options within the original draft sections distributed to all members can be challenging. ◼Reviewer forms are distributed. Instructions were provided in the first page of the form and examples are written in the form. In summary, including the following would be increasingly helpful: ◼For suggested text changes, please copy and paste the text you wish to change and place your suggested edits in track changes or strikethrough features in this document. ◼Please note the line number Review and Commenting Process A GSP has five chapters: 1.Introduction 2.Plan Area and Basin Setting 3.Sustainable Management Criteria 4.Projects and Management Actions 5.Plan Implementation Review and Commenting Process 2.1. Description of 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 Information Needed for Ch 2 Section 2.1 2.1. Description of Plan Area 2.1.1. Summary of Jurisdictional Areas and Other Features ❖General information about the Russian River Watershed and PVP 2.1.2. Water Resources Monitoring and Management Programs ❖Check monitoring entities and see if we should add or remove any programs listed ❖Provide additional information, if available, for programs that are highlighted as needing feedback Information Needed for Ch 2 Section 2.1 2.1. Description of Plan Area 2.1.2. Water Resources Monitoring and Management Programs ❖Additional information regarding TMDLs would be helpful 2.1.3. Land Use Elements or Topic Categories of Applicable General Plans ❖We need information regarding the County’s zoning plan ❖Any other relevant plans other than the General Plan and UVAP that should be included and is missing. Information Needed for Ch 2 Section 2.1 2.1. Description of Plan Area 2.1.4. Additional GSP Elements Anything to include in or add to the following sections : ❖Migration of contaminated groundwater ❖Groundwater cleanup sites Relationships with State and federal regulatory agencies. ❖Impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems Example for reviewer form Reviewer name: Submission date: GSP sections reviewed: 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? 220 Example of how to make edits to original document text: In 2014, the State of California enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which includes requirements that must be addressed in the Scott Valley Basin, as this area is considered a medium priority groundwater basin. ◼TAC Meeting Schedule ◼State of GSP Prior to This Meeting ◼Review and Commenting Process ◼Water Budget Discussion ⚫Hydrological Model (PRMS) ⚫Root Zone Water Budget (IDC) ⚫Groundwater Model (MODFLOW) ⚫Integration (GSFLOW) ◼Preliminary Discussion on Sustainable Management Criteria Outline ET demand for crops is met by irrigation with groundwater or surface water Surface Water and Groundwater available for Agriculture IDC or GSFLOW Agriculture Model Streamflow Routing (SFR) in the MODFLOW Groundwater Model PRMS Rainfall Runoff Watershed Model Surface and groundwater flows Modeling: PRMS: PRMS: State of the Model ◼PRMS is setup and calibrated. ◼It is going through the final stages of refinement, including addressing TAC and Board comments on agricultural demands and frost protection. ◼We are awaiting the release of the Ag Package from the USGS. This is holding us back from implementing demands and diversions as we want into the model and limiting us mostly to natural hydrology simulation. This step will likely be implemented within GSFLOW. ◼Reservoir operation (Coyote Dam and PVP) will be added to the model for future projection. This will likely be implemented within GSFLOW. We are in the process of figuring out the best way to simulate the operation in coordination with Sonoma Water. PRMS: Assumptions and Data Gaps ◼All simulations are limited to the extent of data provided privately through members or available publicly. ◼Land Use is considered constant and consistent with 2010 Land Use Map for the entire simulation period for results presented today. We will consider implementing a change in land use in the next versions of the model. ◼For historical period, using USGS streamflow gauges at PVP and Mendocino Lake resembles their releases accurately enough. ◼In general, uncertainty driven from gauge measurement (streamflow and climate) is considered inherited and manual changes to these types of data have been avoided. PRMS: Assumptions and Data Gaps ◼All inputs with respect to soil type and properties have been driven from the SSURGO database. Uncertainties driven from this source is considered inherited and not addressed. ◼No water is imported into the model from outside of Russian River Watershed. ◼Streamflow network driven through the collaboration with the TAC is assumed to provided necessary detail and representation. ◼We are bound by all limitations of and assumptions incorporated in the PRMS. ◼Our simulation results and our capabilities are constrained by spatial and temporal resolutions defined: 100 x 100 meter cells and daily simulation. Integrated Water Flow Model Demand Calculator (IDC) ◼Model was completed and results were presented in the November Meeting. ◼Updates made to the model since then: ◼Included Dew Point as an extra factor in frost protection analysis. It did not lead to significant changes since the major factor is hourly climate data gaps. ◼Followed up with Farm Bureau, RCD, and Agricultural Representative to receive detailed data. We are in the process of assessing Boonville station data to see if we can eliminate some data gaps. Hard data from WDMP annual reports will be added after this meeting. Integrated Water Flow Model Demand Calculator (IDC) ◼Model was completed and results were presented in the November Meeting. ◼Updates made to the model since then: ◼Assessment of alternative ways for frost (i.e., based on daily data, which will be the model future temporal resolution) ◼Agricultural demands and diversion were estimated for the northern watershed and assigned to Surface Water and groundwater based on reasonable judgment and available data. ◼We are awaiting the release of Ag Package and will use these results as a basis for comparison and validation. Integrated Water Flow Model Demand Calculator (IDC): Surface water vs. Groundwater Groundwater Surfae Water Groundwater Surface Water Groundwater Surfae Water 1809 2192 2118 2318 3926 4510 21.4%26.0%25.1%27.5%46.5%53.5% 262 341 114 437 376 778 22.7%29.6%9.9%37.9%32.5%67.5% No Frost Protection With Frost Protection Total Grapes Pears IDC: Surface water vs. Groundwater IDC: Root Zone Budget in UVGB 27 MODFLOW: State of the Model ◼MODFLOW is setup and partially calibrated. Calibration and sensitivity analysis are still in progress due to improving boundary inputs such as pumping, recharge, etc. ◼Some refinements with respect to pumping and recharge values are in progress. These refinements will be easier to address when we move to GSFLOW since recharge from PRMS will be automatically transferred and Ag Package will add agricultural demands. ◼Since no comments were made on the HCM, geological model is set in the model to follow the HCM and IHCM findings. Groundwater Model: Preliminary results MODFLOW: Preliminary Results MODFLOW: Preliminary results MODFLOW: Preliminary Water Budget MODFLOW: Preliminary Water Budget MODFLOW: Preliminary Water Budget ◼TAC Meeting Schedule ◼State of GSP Prior to This Meeting ◼Review and Commenting Process ◼Water Budget Discussion ⚫Hydrological Model (PRMS) ⚫Root Zone Water Budget (IDC) ⚫Groundwater Model (MODFLOW) ⚫Integration (GSFLOW) ◼Preliminary Discussion on Sustainable Management Criteria Outline Preliminary Discussion on Sustainable Management Criteria Key Elements of Groundwater Sustainability Plans stakeholders engagement, learning, communication, management, decision making hydrology data collection, monitoring, modeling, assessment, future scenarios projects: groundwater supply enhancement groundwater demand reduction sustainable mgmt. criteria minimum thresholds, triggers, measurable objectives Key Elements of Groundwater Sustainability Plans stakeholders engagement, learning, communication, management, decision making hydrology data collection, monitoring, modeling, assessment, future scenarios projects: groundwater supply enhancement groundwater demand reduction sustainable mgmt. criteria minimum thresholds, triggers, measurable objectives M E T R I C T R I G G E R (s) ◼Healthy ◼Ill ◼Critically ill ◼Death ◼Sustainable Groundwater ◼Reversible undesirable impacts ◼Major undesirable impacts ◼Groundwater unusable/unavailable T H R E S H O L D (s) Health Maintenance •Nutrition •Exercise •Relationships/social engagement •Monitoring & Assessment Groundwater Management •Adaptive supply management •Adaptive demand management •Stakeholder engagement •Monitoring & Assessment Treatment Mode •Medication / therapy •Additional monitoring & Doctor’s assessment Extraordinary Measures •Supply enhancement / demand reduction •Additional monitoring & assessment Emergency Mode •Emergency Room •Surgery Emergency Mode •SGMA Chapter 11 •Probationary Status Thomas Harter, Univ. of California, 2019 M E T R I C T R I G G E R (s) ◼Healthy ◼Ill ◼Critically ill ◼Death ◼Sustainable Groundwater ◼Reversible undesirable impacts ◼Major undesirable impacts ◼Groundwater unusable/unavailable T H R E S H O L D (s) Health Maintenance •Nutrition •Exercise •Relationships/social engagement •Monitoring & Assessment Groundwater Management •Adaptive supply management •Adaptive demand management •Stakeholder engagement •Monitoring & Assessment Treatment Mode •Medication / therapy •Additional monitoring & Doctor’s assessment Extraordinary Measures •Supply enhancement / demand reduction •Additional monitoring & assessment Emergency Mode •Emergency Room •Surgery Emergency Mode •SGMA Chapter 11 •Probationary Status Thomas Harter, Univ. of California, 2019 GSP: Monitoring and Managing Sustainability Sustainability Indicators Mo n i t o r i n g [generalized examples of what to monitor] Measurable Objective (MO) Minimum Threshold (MT) modified from Ca DWR 2016 Triggers Sustainable Management Criteria Components ◼Sustainability Goal ◼Undesirable Results (UR) 41 Minimum Threshold ◼Minimum Thresholds (MT) ◼Measurable Objectives (MO) Exceeding this threshold causes Undesirable Results Sustainable Management Criteria Components ◼Sustainability Goal ◼Undesirable Results (UR) 42 Measurable Objective Minimum Threshold ◼Minimum Thresholds (MT) ◼Measurable Objectives (MO) Cannot be much lower than prior to January 1, 2015 Sustainable Management Criteria Components ◼Sustainability Goal ◼Undesirable Results (UR) 43 Measurable Objective Minimum Threshold Operational Range ◼Minimum Thresholds (MT) ◼Measurable Objectives (MO) Creates operational flexibility to account for droughts, climate change, etc. GSP: Monitoring and Managing Sustainability Sustainability Indicators Mo n i t o r i n g [generalized examples of what to monitor] Measurable Objective (MO) Minimum Threshold (MT) modified from Ca DWR 2016 Triggers ?? Some Guidance on Water Quality in GSPs: GSP: Monitoring and Managing Sustainability Sustainability Indicators Mo n i t o r i n g Measurable Objective (MO) Minimum Threshold (MT) modified from Ca DWR 2016 Triggers ? 47 Some Guidance on GW-SW Interaction: Key Elements of Groundwater Sustainability Plans stakeholders engagement, learning, communication, management, decision making hydrology data collection, monitoring, modeling, assessment, future scenarios projects: groundwater supply enhancement groundwater demand reduction sustainable mgmt. criteria minimum thresholds, triggers, measurable objectives …this will not be a one way street… Ca DFW Ca DWR BMP Framework 2017 … but a cycle of adaptive management … Surface water/GDE sections of the GSP ◼What is needed for the GDEs sections? ◼Starting point for discussion ◼Based on: ⚫GSP Annotated Outline ⚫Other GSP examples ⚫TNC mapping tool (limited utility) ◼Note: GSP will also include other beneficial uses of surface water 50 Surface water and GDEs Ch. 2, Groundwater Conditions 51 Surface water and GDEs Ch. 2, Groundwater Conditions 52 Source: TNC Dataset Viewer Webtool https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/NCDatasetViewer/ Surface water and GDEs Ch. 2, Groundwater Conditions 53So u r c e : T N C G D E G u i d a n c e d o c u m e n t ht t p s : / / w w w . s c i e n c e f o r c o n s e r v a t i o n . o r g / a s s e t s / d o w n l o a d s / G D E s U n d e r S G M A . p d f Surface water and GDEs Ch. 2, Groundwater Conditions 1. Identify and characterize (and prioritize?) GDEs 2. What flows and water quality are needed to maintain GDEs? 3. Identify a) the role of groundwater and b) factors outside the purview of the GSA 54 55 Ch. 3, Sustainable Management Criteria 56 Ch. 3, Sustainable Management Criteria Based on data and stakeholder deliberations Simulate with model; will involve uncertainty 57 Ch. 3, Sustainable Management Criteria 1. Define undesirable results 2. Define minimum thresholds to avoid undesirable results 3. Identify necessary monitoring 58 Ch. 4, Projects and Management Actions 1. Identify projects that could foster groundwater conditions that would avoid undesirable results 2. Prioritize projects 3. Describe any coordination with other, non - groundwater-based projects Thank you! Questions? Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainable Agency 1 Review Form Ukiah 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 your suggested edits in track changes or strikethrough features in this document. What is important is that technical staff can see both the original draft text and your distinct suggestions. − Note the line number—from the PDF version of the draft GSP section—where your comment, question or suggested text edit begins. − Examples of how to provide feedback are listed in the review form below. Feel free to delete these examples with your submission, and only include your feedback. DRAFT SECTIONS UNDER REVIEW: • GSP Chapter 2.1: Description of the Plan Area Please email comments directly to (duketts@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_PlanArea_[Your name]_date Please send your comments no later than February 10, 2019. 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: 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? 220 Example of how to make edits to original document text: In 2014, the State of California enacted the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, which includes requirements that must be addressed in the Scott Valley Basin, as this area is considered a medium priority groundwater basin. Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainable Agency 3 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin Groundwater Sustainable Agency 4 December 26, 2019 Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency and Technical Advisory Committee 501 Low Gap Road, Room 1010 Ukiah, CA 95482 RE: Release of Draft Chapter 2.1 of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for Ukiah Valley Groundwater The Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (UVBGSA), in coordination with our consultant, Larry Walker Associates, is in the process of developing a draft of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Plan) for the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin (Plan Area) that must be submitted to the California Department of Water Resources by January 31, 2022. In order to provide multiple opportunities for review and input from members of the UVBGSA Board and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), as well as interested members of the public, draft chapter segments will be presented to the Board and Committee for discussion and commenting throughout the Plan development process. This will facilitate discussion of the content of chapters as they are developed, allow time for review and feedback, and ideally generate consensus support over time for the Plan’s contents. These draft chapters represent a framework for the final document, and while information has been summarized, public input is needed to identify and fill gaps in data and incorporate local knowledge and viewpoints. Presented with this letter is Chapter 2.1 of the GSP titled: “Description of the Plan Area”. Chapter 2.1 is intended to provide an overview of the existing monitoring and management programs in the Plan Area and highlight how they relate to the development and implementation of the Plan. This section includes: ▪ 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 This Chapter in its current form is not complete and includes several notes that point to the type of information missing and the reason for the deficiency. Specific topics identified in the draft version of Chapter 2.1 that require additional input or review are commented using a “bold italic” format in the document and listed in Table 1, below. We intend to first, start the GSA’s official review and commenting process by proposing this Chapter as a starting point. Review and commenting process will be discussed during the upcoming meeting on 9 January 2020, in both the TAC and the Board meetings. Second, we hope to obtain comments from the members on the Chapter, as well as supplementary information and direction regarding the missing or incomplete subsections. Thank you for taking the time to review the draft documents and provide your input. The responses and feedback gained from this process are appreciated and will be used to guide development of this Plan. Sincerely, Table 1. Topics identified in the draft version of Chapter 2.1 that require additional input or review . Section Page Comments Jurisdictional Areas and Land Use 2 To be completed with appropriate (as needed) discussion of Russian River watershed and PVP project 2.1.2 Water Resources Monitoring and Management Programs 4-5 Feedback is needed to add/delete monitoring entities from the list. Each monitoring program should be explained if/how it will be incorporated or limit the flexibility in the GSP implementation. This type of information is not yet available sufficiently and more progress is needed to justify the writing. This Section will be updated accordingly. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 6 More information is needed about the monitoring programs conducted by CDFW. Not yet determined if the NMFS stream gauges should be included in the plan. Subsection will be updated upon receiving more information. Feliz Creek Monitoring 6 This is included in the Mendocino County Water Agency Action Plan as a monitoring program but seems to be one with limited scope. To be checked for details and incorporated accordingly. Agricultural Lands Discharge Program 7 To be checked to see if/which monitoring is being conducted under this program in the Basin and updated accordingly. Russian River Regional Monitoring Program (R3MP) 8 It seems that a monitoring plan is under development, but additional information is needed to include or see if it is relevant. Center for Western and Weather Extremes (CW3E) monitoring under Forecast-informed Reservoir Operation Planning 8 Feedback is needed to see if this program should be included. If so, this section will be updated accordingly through further coordination with the program. County of Mendocino Zoning Plan 9 To be updated with more information if this section is deemed relevant. Migration of contaminated groundwater 10 This section will be updated upon receiving additional information. Groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, diversions to storage, conservation, water recycling, conveyance, and extraction projects 10 This section will be updated upon receiving additional information. Land use plans and efforts to coordinate with land use planning agencies to assess activities 391 that potentially create risks to groundwater quality or quantity 11 This may include duplicate information as Land Use section and it may not be needed. Impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems 11 This section will be updated upon GSP progress. 2.1.5 Notice and Communication 11 This section will summarize and reference, or include the full text of, Communication and Engagement Plan. D R A F T DRAFT GSP Chapter 2: Plan Area and Basin Setting1 Larry Walker Associates, Inc.2 12/22/20193 Contents4 2.1 Description of the Plan Area 25 2.1.1 Summary of Jurisdictional Areas and Other Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 Jurisdictional Areas and Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Current Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38 Well Records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39 2.1.2 Water Resources Monitoring and Management Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .410 Overview of Monitoring and Management Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .411 Detailed Monitoring and Management Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .512 2.1.3 Land Use Elements or Topic Categories of Applicable General Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . .813 The County of Mendocino General Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .814 County of Mendocino Zoning Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .915 Ukiah Valley Area Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .916 Well Permitting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1017 2.1.4 Additional GSP Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1018 Control of saline water intrusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1019 Well construction policies, wellhead protection, well abandonment, and well destruction program 1020 Migration of contaminated groundwater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1021 Replenishment of groundwater extractions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1022 Conjunctive use and underground storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1023 Groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, diversions to storage, conservation, water re-24 cycling, conveyance, and extraction projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1025 Ecient water management practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1026 Relationships with State and federal regulatory agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1127 Land use plans and eorts to coordinate with land use planning agencies to assess activities28 that potentially create risks to groundwater quality or quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . .1129 Impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1130 2.1.5 Notice and Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1131 References 1132 1 D R A F T 2.1 Description of the Plan Area33 2.1.1 Summary of Jurisdictional Areas and Other Features34 The Ukiah Valley groundwater basin (Basin) is located in Mendocino County (County) and underlies the35 Ukiah Valley, the Redwood Valley, and their tributaries (Figure 1). Under the 2018 basin prioritization36 conducted by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the Ukiah Valley groundwater basin37 (DWR Basin 1-052) was designated as medium priority (DWR 2019c).Elevations in the Basin vary from38 approximately 500 feet (ft) (150 meters (m)) mean sea level (msl) in the southern part of the Ukiah Valley39 to over 1000 feet (305 m) msl in the Redwood Valley. The Basin encompasses a surface area of 37,500 acres40 (59 square miles (mi); 152 square kilometers (km)) and is 22 mi (35.4 km) long and 4.6 mi (7.4 km) at its41 widest section just north of the City of Ukiah. cities of Ukiah, Redwood Valley, Calpella, and Talmage are42 the major municipalities within the Basin with populations of 16,075, 1,729, 1,130, and 679, respectively43 (U.S. Census Bureau 2018). The majority of the land within the Basin is privately owned except for small44 California Tribal Reservations and Rancheria areas, land owned by the State of California, and land in the45 proximity of Mendocino Lake that is owned by the federal government (Figure 2). The Russian River ﬂows46 through the entire length of the Basin and is joined by several smaller tributaries. Lake Mendocino borders47 the eastern side of the Basin and provides managed releases to the East Fork of the Russian River through48 the operation of Coyote Dam. The east and west forks of the Russian River merge north of the City of49 Ukiah and ﬂow southward towards the Basin drainage and the City of Hopland. The Basin is bounded by50 the Mendocino Range of the Coastal Ranges and is bordered by the Sanel Valley Groundwater Basin (1-053)51 to the south. The Mendocino Range is predominantly composed of the thick, late Mesozoic and Cenozoic52 sedimentary rocks of the Franciscan formation.53 Jurisdictional Areas and Land Use54 Ukiah Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency (UVBGSA) is the sole Groundwater Sustainability Agency55 (GSA) for the Basin and is responsible for the entire area covered by this Groundwater Sustainability Plan56 (GSP;Figure 1). UVBGSA consists of the County of Mendocino (County), the City of Ukiah, the Upper57 Russian River Water Agency, and the Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation and Improvement58 District(Figure 3). The County of Mendocino exercises land use authority on the land overlying the Basin.59 The City of Ukiah (City) is a local municipality that exercises water supply, water management, and land60 use authority within the City’s boundaries. The upper Russian River Water Agency is a joint powers61 authority representing Millview County Water District, Willow County Water District, Calpella County62 Water District, and Redwood Valley Water District within the Ukiah Valley Basin. The Russian River63 Flood Control and Water Conservation and Improvement District is a special district created by State64 Statute (State of California Statue § Act 4830) that exercises water supply and water management authority65 within the Basin. Rogina Water Company also provides water supply within the Basin but is not a GSA66 member. The boundaries of these agencies and the UVBGSA are shown in Figure 3.67 The Basin boundary encompasses the incorporated communities of Ukiah, Calpella, Talmage, and Redwood68 Valley. Four small portions of the Basin that are designated federal tribal lands and are not subject to SGMA69 requirements (Figure 2). These tribal lands are owned by the Guidiville Rancheria Tribe, Pinoleville Pomo70 Nation, Coyote Valley Tribe, and Redwood Valley little River Band of Pomo Indians. However, one tribal71 representative sits on each of the UVBGSA Board and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). Communi-72 ties within the Basin are designated as either Disadvantage Communities (DAC) or Severely Disadvantaged73 Communities (SDAC), as shown in Figure 4. Communities with an annual median household income (MHI)74 of less than 80% of the average annual MHI in California are classiﬁed as DACs, while communities with75 annual MHIs of less than 60% of California’s annual MHI are considered SDACs. According to the DWR’s76 DAC Mapping Tool (DWR 2019a), the statewide annual MHI for 2012-2016 is $63,783, which designates the77 City of Ukiah as a DAC with its annual MHI of $38,686. Moreover, the U.S. Census American Community78 Survey (ACS) further delineates census tracts within the Basin, each of which are designated as DAC or79 SDAC. The MHI (DWR 2019a) for each of these tracts is as follows:80 2 D R A F T •Tract 06045010900, population 5,044 – $44,296 (qualiﬁes for DAC)81 •Tract 06045011300, population 5,703 –$36,310 (qualiﬁes for SDAC)82 •Tract 06045011500, population, 6,616 – $38,662 (qualiﬁes for DAC)83 •Tract 06045011600, population 5,814 – $26,122 (qualiﬁes for SDAC)84 •Tract 06045011800, population 2,171 – $49,485 (qualiﬁes for DAC)85 All of the census tracts that are wholly within or intersect the Ukiah Valley Basin are designated as DAC or86 SDAC. In addition, the combined population of these DAC and SDAC census tracts is 25,348, which is about87 85% of the estimated 2010 population of the Ukiah Valley Basin (29,671), which includes the Ukiah Census88 County Division (CCD), the Calpella Census Designated Place (CDP), and the Redwood Valley CDP.89 To be completed with appropriate (as needed) discussion of Russian River watershed and PVP90 project91 Current Land Use92 Land use within the Basin is divided into three major categories: agricultural, urban, and native vegetation,93 which includes forests and riparian vegetation (Figure 5).Table 1 shows the acreages associated with94 dierent land uses within the Basin according to the 2010 Land Use Survey (“DWR Land Use Viewer” n.d.).95 Major agricultural crops within the basin are grape, pear, and pasture.96 Table 1: Acreage and percentage of total Basin area covered by each land use category according to 2010 Land Use Survey. Land Use Description Percentage (%) Area (acre) Agricultural-Undeveloped 1.86 700 Fruits and Nuts 3.23 1,212 Grain and Hay 0.50 189 Idle 1.36 509 Native and Riparian Vegetation 51.30 19,258 Pasture 0.40 149 Urban 19.14 7,185 Vineyard 20.70 7,769 Water 1.41 530 Total 99.90 37,500 Well Records97 Public data regarding wells is limited in the Basin. Using data from the DWR Online System for Well98 Completion Reports (DWR 2019b), it is possible to visualize the approximate distribution (i.e., well density)99 of domestic, agricultural production, and public drinking water wells in the Basin, aggregated to each100 Public Land Survey System (PLSS) section (Figures 6–9 ). Because OSWCR represents an index of Well101 Completion Report (WCR) records dating back many decades, this dataset may include abandoned wells,102 destroyed wells, or wells with quality control issues such as inaccurate, missing or duplicate records, but is103 nevertheless a valuable resource for planning eorts. The primary uses of the wells reviewed are shown in104 Table 2.105 During the development of the Initial Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (LACO Associates 2017) by the106 UVBGSA, a database of 2,490 WCRs (WCR Catalog) was obtained from DWR and analyzed. However,107 the number of WCRs that were located within the Basin and could be reliably located were lower. From108 the WCRs obtained, only 214 were selected and georeferenced to be used in the development of the report109 (LACO Associates 2017). UVBGSA analyzed and georeferenced 41 additional WCRs in the next phase of110 the development of the Hydrogeological Conceptual Model (HCM) outlined in this report in Section 2.2.1.111 3 D R A F T Table 2: Number of wells per recorded use category in the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin according to OSWCR (DWR 2019b). Recorded use Number of Wells Agriculture 117 Destructed 5 Domestic 1,058 Indusrial 11 Injection 46 Monitoring 344 Other 1,178 Public/Municipal 70 Remediation 33 Grand Total 2,862 While the number of WCRs in each category of recorded use in the WCR Catalog is dierent from Table112 2, the top categories remain consistent in their order of signiﬁcance; domestic, monitoring, agricultural, and113 public/municipal.114 2.1.2 Water Resources Monitoring and Management Programs115 There is historical and ongoing work in the Basin and the Russian River watershed (Watershed) related to116 monitoring and management of surface water and groundwater resources. This section ﬁrst lists the ongoing117 statewide, regional, and local monitoring programs. Then, it describes relevant monitoring and management118 programs to this GSP and outlines the current understanding of a) how those programs will be incorporated119 into GSP implementation and b) how they may limit operational ﬂexibility in GSP implementation.120 Overview of Monitoring and Management Programs121 Statewide Monitoring Agencies and Programs122 •California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) Groundwater Protection Program123 •Department of Water Resources124 –California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Groundwater125 –California Data Exchange Center (CDEC)126 –Water Data Library127 •California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)(Text to be added later)128 •California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB; State Water Board)129 –Division of Drinking Water (DDW)130 –Cannabis Cultivation Program131 –Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program (GAMA)132 –Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP)(Text to be added later)133 –Water Demand Management Program134 •United States Geological Survey (USGS)135 Regional Monitoring Programs136 •California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQC)137 4 D R A F T –National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits, Waste Discharge Require-138 ments (WDRs), Recycled Water Permits139 –Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)140 •Russian River Regional Monitoring Program (R3MP)141 •Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes (CW3E) monitoring under Forecast-Informed Reser-142 voir Operation Planning143 Local Monitoring Agencies and Programs:144 •Mendocino County Resource Conservation District (MCRCD)145 •Mendocino County Water Agency146 •City of Ukiah147 •Mendocino County Farm Bureau148 •The Russian River Flood Control and Water Conservation and Improvement District149 Feedback is needed to add/delete monitoring entities from the list. Each monitoring program150 should be explained if/how it will be incorporated or limit the ﬂexibility in the GSP implemen-151 tation. This type of information is not yet available suciently and more progress is needed152 to justify the writing. This Section will be updated accordingly.153 Detailed Monitoring and Management Programs154 California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) Groundwater Protection Program155 The CDPR obtains groundwater sampling data from other public agencies and through its own sampling156 program. Monitoring data includes those collected by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), SWRCB, SWRCB157 DDW, California Department of Public Health (CDPH), US Fish and Wildlife (USFS), and CDPR. These158 data are reported annually along with the actions taken by CDPR and the SWRCB to protect groundwa-159 ter from contamination by agricultural pesticides. CDPR samples groundwater to determine (1) whether160 pesticides with the potential to pollute groundwater are present in groundwater, (2) the extent and source161 of pesticide contamination, and (3) the eectiveness of regulatory mitigation measures (CDPR Website:162 https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/grndwtr/gwp_sampling.htm). According to the database available at163 the CDPR website (accessed in December 2018), a dataset consisting of 24 monitoring wells within the Basin164 that includes groundwater data for 155 chemical compounds collected at dierent dates starting in August165 1977 through the end of 2018.166 Department of Water Resources167 California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program168 California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program (CASGEM) aims to establish a permanent169 and locally-managed program to track seasonal and long-term groundwater elevation trends in groundwater170 basins statewide. On November 4, 2009, the State Legislature amended the Water Code with SBx7-6, which171 mandates collaboration between local monitoring entities and DWR. The primary task of the monitoring172 entity is to collect groundwater elevation data and report this data to DWR. The collection and evaluation173 of such data on a statewide scale is an important fundamental step toward improving the management of174 California’s groundwater resources. The County has been ocially recognized by the State Water Board,175 as of August 2014, as the monitoring entity for the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin and is currently in176 compliance. The County is coordinating the monitoring for the basins throughout the County, which involves177 collecting well data from the local agencies that are conducting the well monitoring and then formatting178 and uploading the information to the State system. The Mendocino County Resource Conservation District179 5 D R A F T (MCRCD) has been contracted to perform the monitoring in the Ukiah Valley. As of December 2019, 42180 wells have been incorporated into the Program within the Basin. Of the 42 wells, seven are under voluntary181 status meaning that the owners have contributed water level measurements to the program but the wells182 are not enrolled in the CASGEM Program. This leaves 35 wells that are currently enrolled in the CASGEM183 Program. CASGEM monitoring is ongoing within the Basin and the County has made a continuous eort184 to recruit additional wells into the Program. Measurements are normally done twice per year, once during185 spring (usually in May) and once in fall (usually in November).186 California Data Exchange Center (CDEC)187 DWR installs, maintains, and operates hydrologic and meteorological data collection networks throughout188 the state. The data collected includes river stage and streamﬂow, precipitation, reservoir storage and op-189 eration, snow, etc., and is made available to the public through a centralized internet location called the190 California Data Exchange Center (CDEC). CDEC also receives and exchanges data with various Federal and191 State agencies including the National Weather Service (NWS), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), U.S.192 Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Paciﬁc Gas & Electric (PG&E), Sacramento Municipal Utility District193 (SMUD), and USGS. As of December 2019, CDEC hosts a variety of meteorological and hydrologic data for194 two stations within the Basin: CDW and RRU.195 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)196 More information is needed about the monitoring programs conducted by CDFW. Not yet197 determined if the NMFS stream gauges should be included in the plan. Subsection will be198 updated upon receiving more information.199 Feliz Creek Monitoring200 This is included in the Mendocino County Water Agency Action Plan as a monitoring program201 but seems to be one with limited scope. To be checked for details and incorporated accordingly.202 California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB; State Board)203 Division of Drinking Water (DDW)204 The State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water, monitors public water system205 wells per the requirements of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations relative to levels of organic206 and inorganic compounds such as metals, microbial compounds, and radiological analytes (this eort was207 formerly performed by the California Department of Public Health). Data are available for active and208 inactive drinking water sources, for water systems that serve the public, and wells deﬁned as serving 15209 or more connections, or more than 25 people per day. In the Basin, Division of Drinking Water wells are210 monitored for Title 22 requirements.211 Cannabis Cultivation Program212 The SWRCB through Order No. WQ 2019-0001DWQ (Cannabis Cultivation Activities General Order) and213 the Cannabis Cultivation Policy, requires selective monitoring of cannabis cultivation sites and associated214 facilities to ensure that dischargers to waters of the state do not adversely aect the quality and beneﬁcial215 uses of such waters.216 6 D R A F T Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program (GAMA)217 The Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program was created by the SWRCB in218 2000 and is utilized to integrate existing monitoring programs and design new programs as necessary to219 monitor and assess groundwater quality in basins that account for 95% of California’s groundwater use.220 GAMA provides a centralized information hub for groundwater quality data for the public and decision-221 makers to help protect groundwater resources and improve statewide groundwater monitoring. The GAMA222 Program receives data from a variety of monitoring entities including DWR, USGS, and SWRCB. GeoTracker223 is a database and geographic information system (GIS) used by the GAMA program that was initially224 developed in 2000. It contains records for sites that require cleanup, such as leaking underground storage tank225 sites, Department of Defense sites, and cleanup program sites. GeoTracker also contains records for various226 unregulated projects as well as permitted facilities including Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, oil and gas227 production, operating permitted underground storage tanks, and land disposal sites. GeoTracker GAMA is228 a module that was added to the GeoTracker system to compile and share groundwater data regarding water229 quality, water levels, contaminant sources, and groundwater publications. Data are submitted to GeoTracker230 GAMA by CDPH, USGS, DWR, CDPR, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), State Water231 Board, and Regional Water Boards.232 Agricultural Lands Discharge Program233 To be checked to see if/which monitoring is being conducted under this program in the Basin234 and updated accordingly.235 Water Demand Management Program236 On September 20, 2011, the SWRCB adopted a Frost Protection Regulation for the Russian River Watershed237 that required any diversion of water for frost protection between March 15 and May 15 to be regulated under238 and according to an approved Water Demand Management Program (WDMP). WDMPs require management239 of instantaneous demand on the Russian River stream system during frost events to prevent stranding and240 mortality of salmonids. This is achieved partially through monitoring and reporting of: 1) the quantity241 of water diverted from the river system through a direct diversion or pumping of a well that is connected242 to the subterranean channel during each frost event; and, 2) the stream stage at an appropriate location.243 Currently, three WDMPs within the Basin are approved and conduct the required monitoring:244 •California Land Stewardship Institute - For diversions in Mendocino County not including from the245 main stem of the Russian River246 •Mendocino County Farm Bureau - For diversions from the main stem of the Russian River in Mendocino247 County248 •North Coast Resource Management (Individual WDMP for Dutra Vineyards) - For diversions from249 the West Fork of the Russian River in Mendocino County250 United States Geological Survey (USGS)251 USGS monitors and collects streamﬂow data from three gauges within the Basin (11461000, 11462000,252 11462080)and one just south of the Basin near Hopland (11462500, which represents the drainage from the253 Basin). Station 11462000 is representative of the East Fork Russian River and releases from Lake Mendocino,254 while Station 11461000 represents the West Fork Russian River up to the north of the City of Ukiah and255 before the conﬂuence of the East Fork and West Fork. Stations 11462000 and 11461000 are no longer256 monitored by the USGS and have been reassigned to DWR and monitored for reporting to CDEC under257 Site IDs CDM and RRU, respectively.258 California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQC)259 7 D R A F T National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits, Waste Discharge Re-260 quirements (WDRs), and Recycled Water Permits261 Stormwater and wastewater discharges to water bodies are regulated under NPDES Permits. Within the262 Basin area, the City of Ukiah is a co-permittee to the stormwater Phase I Municipal Separate Storm Sewer263 Systerm (MS4) Permit in the North Coast Region (Order No. R1-2015-0030). The County of Mendocino264 discharges are regulated under the Phase II Small MS4 Program (Order No. 2013-0001 DWQ, permit WDID265 438918 1 23M2000162). Both orders require monitoring and reporting of pollutants including but not limited266 to organics, inorganics and metals, pesticides, indicator bacteria, and toxicity at outfalls and receiving water267 bodies during dry and wet weather. The City of Ukiah Wastewater Treatment Plant (Ukiah WWTP)268 is regulated under Order No. R1-2018-0035 (NPDES Permit No. CA0022888) and is required to monitor269 pollutants in its in inﬂuent and euent, upstream and downstream of its discharge to the Russian River,270 and in ﬁve groundwater wells as prescribed in the Order’s Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MRP).271 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)272 A TMDL for Pathogens/Fecal Indicator Bacteria is under development for the Russian River and its tributary273 creeks. Actions have been proposed in the NCRWQC Sta Workplan under the TMDL Implementation274 Policy Statement for Sediment Impaired Receiving Waters in the North Coast Region ( Sediment TMDL275 Implementation Policy) but no mandatory monitoring has been required. Lake Mendocino is listed as276 impaired under Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act for mercury pollution and is expected to be regulated277 under the statewide Mercury TMDL. A temperature TMDL has been proposed by the NCRWQC, but has278 not yet been scheduled. To summarize, no required TMDL monitoring is required within the Basin as the279 date of this report.280 Russian River Regional Monitoring Program (R3MP)281 It seems that a monitoring plan is under development, but additional information is needed282 to include or see if it is relevant.283 Center for Western Weather and Water Extremes (CW3E) monitoring under Forecast-284 Informed Reservoir Operation Planning285 Feedback is needed to see if this program should be included. If so, this section will be updated286 accordingly through further coordination with the program.287 2.1.3 Land Use Elements or Topic Categories of Applicable General Plans288 The County of Mendocino General Plan289 The County of Mendocino General Plan (General Plan) (PMC for Mendocino County 2009) serves to chart a290 course for County government over the next 20 years. The goals, policies, and programs in the General Plan291 represent the County’s statement of how it should grow or change in the coming decades (or where/how it292 should remain the same) and how today’s challenges will be met. The General Plan identiﬁes overarching293 principles that provide the basis for the goals and policies included in the rest of the plan. The principles294 embody key issues identiﬁed by the residents of Mendocino County, such as stewardship of County resources,295 planning for growth, and the ecient and equitable provision of public services. The components of the296 General Plan with the most relevance to the GSP include the Development Goals and Policies and the297 Resource Management Element. There are also community-speciﬁc policies deﬁned for the Redwood Valley298 Area that are relevant to this GSP. Many of the objectives and policies within the General Plan align with the299 goals of the GSP and signiﬁcant changes to water supply assumptions within these plans are not anticipated.300 The General Plan outlines development goals related to various topics including land use, infrastructure,301 water/sewer, ﬂooding/inundation, and geologic conditions that are relevant to this GSP. All these goals302 8 D R A F T follow the aforementioned principals and in turn lead to policies and objectives for the development of the303 County. The General Plan aims: 1) for the land use patterns to preserve the County’s natural resources304 (Goals DE-1 and DE-3 of the General Plan); 2) to provide sucient, ecient, and adequate water and sewer305 service infrastructure for existing and future development (Goals DE-7 and DE-16); and, 3) to protect life306 and property while also protecting and managing natural drainage ways, ﬂoodplains and ﬂood retention307 basins and maintain ﬂood-carrying capacity in harmony with environmental, recreational and open space308 objectives (Goals DE-18 and DE-19). These goals are in line with the purpose of the GSP and provide no309 conﬂicting horizon. The Resource Management Element of the General Plan emphasizes the vital role of310 water for a healthy environment and economy. It recognizes the importance of watersheds, groundwater311 and recharge, water supply, water quality, ecosystem, biological resources, freshwater and marine resources,312 open spaces, rural landscapes, and scenic resources (among others) as the pillars of the element, provides313 an overview of each topic and its existing condition and role within the County, and aims at protecting and314 enhancing these resources. This Element deﬁnes the County’s goals as follows:315 •Goal RM-1 (Watersheds): Land uses, development patterns and practices that facilitate functional and316 healthy watershed ecosystems.317 •Goal RM-2 (Water Supply): Protection, enhancement, and management of the water resources of318 Mendocino County.319 •Goal RM-3 (Water Quality): Land use development and management practices that protect or enhance320 water quality.321 •Goal RM-4 (Ecosystems): Protection and enhancement of the county’s natural ecosystems and valuable322 resources.323 •Goal RM-7 (Biological Resources): Protection, enhancement and management of the biological re-324 sources of Mendocino County and the resources upon which they depend in a sustainable manner.325 •Goal RM-8 (Marine Resources): Protection and restoration, and enhancement of Mendocino County’s326 freshwater and marine environments.327 As a result of these goals, the County continues to outline policies for resource management that align with328 the objectives of this GSP. To provide a few examples, Policy RM-6 under Water Resources Policies intends to329 “promote sustainable management and conservation of the County’s water resources.” Furthermore, Policy330 RM-12 under the same section requires that “the County supports the creation of a comprehensive plan331 for surface and groundwater resources in Mendocino County.” These highlighted Policies are just two of332 a long list of policies outlined in this Element of the General Plan that promote sustainable management,333 protection, and enhancement of water, habitat, and ecosystem resources.334 County of Mendocino Zoning Plan335 To be updated with more information if this section is deemed relevant.336 Ukiah Valley Area Plan337 The Ukiah Valley Area Plan (UVAP) (“The Ukiah Valley Area Plan” 2011) provides comprehensive, long-338 term policy direction for growth and development by reﬁning and supplementing the policies in the County’s339 General Plan to focus on issues of importance in the Ukiah Valley. Land use and community development,340 water management, and open space and conservation sections are the most relevant sections of the plan to341 this GSP. Land use and community development Section aims at creating communities that can achieve its342 principles of sustainability. The Water Management Section promotes eorts to protect and increase water343 supply storage and capacity, reclamation and conservation of water, and protection of water quality. As344 a result, the UVAP is founded upon similar principles as the General Plan and this GSP, and therefore,345 presents visions and goals that align with the objectives of this GSP.346 9 D R A F T Well Permitting347 Water well permitting is administered by the County’s Environmental Health Division and under the Men-348 docino County Well Ordinance §16.04 and regulations of the State of California as they pertain to water349 well construction and destruction. Well permit applications require information from the applicant, from an350 authorized well contractor, as well as payment of a fee.351 2.1.4 Additional GSP Elements352 Control of saline water intrusion353 There is no evidence of saline water intrusion within the Basin. As an undesirable result under the SGMA,354 this is discussed in more detail in Section 2.2.2.355 Well construction policies, wellhead protection, well abandonment, and well destruction pro-356 gram357 As mentioned in Section 2.1.3, all well permitting, well construction, well abatement, and well destruction358 within the County and the Basin is conducted according to the Mendocino County Well Ordinance §16.04359 and appropriate State standarads and Federal suggested practices.360 Migration of contaminated groundwater361 This section will be updated upon receiving additional information.362 Replenishment of groundwater extractions363 No artiﬁcial groundwater replenishment is currently operational within the Basin364 Conjunctive use and underground storage365 No conjunctive use projects are currently operational within the Basin. Ukiah WWTP owns and operates366 euent and recycled water percolation ponds that subsequently recharge the groundwater aquifer and ﬂow to367 the Russian River. Discharges to the percolation ponds are conducted in accordance with the Ukiah WWTP368 NPDES Permit and required monitoring data are reported to the NCWQRC via the California Integrated369 Water Quality System (CIWQS).370 Groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, diversions to storage, conservation, water re-371 cycling, conveyance, and extraction projects372 This section will be updated upon receiving additional information.373 Ecient water management practices374 The County has adopted County Ordinance §16.24 – Water Conservation that outlines speciﬁc requirements375 for conservation devices to be met in order for a building permit to be issued. Water conservation and use376 eciency are also included as the main goals of the County General Plan and UVAP. In addition, the City377 conducts an ongoing water conservation program according to the City’s Urban Water Management Plan378 (Ukiah 2011). The program consists of a variety of demand management measures for conserving water379 10 D R A F T following the general memorandum of understanding regarding urban water conservation in California (the380 City is not a signatory). The City has also advocated for emphasis on recycled water use and has expanded381 its recycled water program to deliver 1,000 acre-feet per year (AFY; 1.2 million cubic meters per year). The382 City will further expand its recycled water delivery upon completion of Phase IV of it recycled water project383 to 1,400 AFY (1.7 million cubic meters per year).384 Relationships with State and federal regulatory agencies385 In the Basin, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (UACE), and California Department386 of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) are major landowners. UACE manages the Coyote Dam on Mendocino Lake387 for the purposes of ﬂood protection. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 9, SWRCB,388 NCWQCB, DWR, and CDFW are major regulatory agencies involved within the Basin and the Russian389 River Watershed.390 Land use plans and eorts to coordinate with land use planning agencies to assess activities391 that potentially create risks to groundwater quality or quantity392 This may include duplicate information as Land Use section and it may not be needed.393 Impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems394 This section will be updated as GSP progresses.395 2.1.5 Notice and Communication396 This section will summarize and reference, or include the full text of Communication and397 Engagement Plan.398 References399 DWR. 2019a. “DAC Mapping Tool.” https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/.400 ———. 2019b. “DWR Online System for Well Completion Reports (OSWCR).” https://civicnet.resources.ca.gov/DWR{\_}WELLS/.401 ———. 2019c. “Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 2018 Basin Prioritization.”402 “DWR Land Use Viewer.” n.d. Accessed 2019. https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/.403 LACO Associates. 2017. “Initial Groundwater Sustainability Plan Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model.” Ukiah:404 IHCM.405 PMC for Mendocino County. 2009. “The County of Mendocino General Plan.”406 “The Ukiah Valley Area Plan.” 2011. Ukiah.407 Ukiah, Carollo Engineers for City of. 2011. “2010 Urban Water Management Plan.” Ukiah.408 U.S. Census Bureau. 2018. “2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.” http://www.dof.ca.gov/Reports/Demographic{\_}Reports/American{\_}Community{\_}Survey/{\#}ACS2017x5.409 11 D R A F T Figure 1: Ukiah Valley Bulletin 118 basin boundary and area. 12 D R A F T Figure 2: Land Jurisdiction and Topography in the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin. 13 D R A F T Figure 3: Water Districts in the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin. 14 D R A F T Figure 4: Disadvantaged and severely disadvantaged communities in the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin (order of overlay: census place, census, tract, census blocks). 15 D R A F T Figure 5: Land Use in the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin according to 2010 Land Use Survey. 16 D R A F T Figure 6: Total well density within the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin according to the OSWCR (DWR 2019b) 17 D R A F T Figure 7: Production well density within the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin according to the OSWCR (DWR 2019b) 18 D R A F T Figure 8: Public well density within the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin according to the OSWCR (DWR 2019b) 19 D R A F T Figure 9: Domestic well density within the Ukiah Valley Groundwater Basin according to the OSWCR (DWR 2019b) 20