SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA December 10, 2021 10:00 AM 2222 …

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA December 10, 2021

10:00 AM 2222 M Street, Board Room

Merced, CA

Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85793822051?pwd=Sk9nbStEZ1h6bU5SK3oxNGs1TkxmZz09

Meeting ID: 857 9382 2051 Dial in: +1 669 900 6833 Passcode: 640749

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Due to the ongoing COVID-19 Crisis, and as authorized by Assembly Bill 361, this meeting will be broadcast via conference call in addition to the meeting’s physical location.

Members of the public who wish to provide comment or observe the meeting may join in person or on the conference call.

Lloyd Pareira, Jr., County of Merced Chair

Nic Marchini, Western White Area Representative Vice Chair

Michael Gallo, Eastern White Area Representative Kole Upton, Le Grand-Athlone Water District Gino Pedretti, Sandy Mush Mutual Water Company Eric Swenson, Merquin County Water District

1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

3. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIODPublic opportunity to speak on any matter of public interest within the Board's jurisdiction includingitems on the Board's agenda. Testimony limited to three minutes per person.

4. APPROVAL OF MINUTESAction to approve the meeting minutes from the Governing Board meeting on November 12, 2021 andthe Board Workshop on November 18, 2021.

5. 2022 GOVERNING BOARD MEETING CALENDARAction to set the 2022 Governing Board meeting calendar dates as the second Thursday of each monthat 2PM, unless modified.

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85793822051?pwd=Sk9nbStEZ1h6bU5SK3oxNGs1TkxmZz09

Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Governing Board Meeting December 10, 2021 Page 2

Alternate formats of this agenda will be made available upon request by qualified individuals with disabilities. Appropriate interpretive services for this meeting will be provided if feasible upon

advance request by qualified individuals with disabilities. Please contact the Secretary at (209) 385-7654 for assistance and allow sufficient time to process and respond to your request. Copies of

agendas and minutes will be available at the Merced County Community and Economic Development Department and at www.countyofmerced.com/MercedSubbasinGSA.

6. WOODARD AND CURRAN CONTRACT AMENDMENT #5Action to approve a contract amendment with Woodard and Curran for the development of the 2021Annual Report and preparation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant Application for atotal cost of $95,342.

7. SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENTDiscussion and possible action on project selection process.

8. DWR EVALUATION OF MERCED SUBBASIN 2020 GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITYPLANInformation item regarding the November 18, 2021 letter from the California Department of WaterResources regarding the initial staff evaluation of the Merced Subbasin 2020 GroundwaterSustainability Plan.

9. STAFF REPORT

10. BOARD REPORTS

11. NEXT REGULAR MEETING

12. ADJOURNMENT

MERCED SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY JOINT POWERS GOVERNING BOARD

MINUTES FOR MEETING OF NOVEMBR 12, 2021

The agenda, original minutes, and all supporting documentation (for reference purposes only) of the Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Governing Board meeting of November 12, 2021 are available online at www.countyofmerced.com/MercedSubbasinGSA.

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The special public meeting of the Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability AgencyJoint Powers Authority Governing Board was called to order at 10:03 a.m., on November12, 2021, in person and via conference call due to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and asauthorized by Assembly Bill 361.

II. ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS

Board Members Present:

Kole Upton (Le Grand-Athlone Water District) Eric Swenson (Merquin County Water District)

Gino Pedretti (Sandy Mush Mutual Water Company) Michael Gallo (Eastern White Area Representative) Nic Marchini Vice Chair (Western White Area Representative) Supervisor Lloyd Pareira Chair (Merced County)

Board Members absent:

NONE

Staff Present: Mark Hendrickson Secretary Lacey McBride Water Resources Manager Desiree Dobbs Recording Secretary

III. STATE OF EMERGENCY TELECONFERENCE FINDINGS

Action Item: The Merced Subbasin GSA Governing Board will consider thecircumstances of the State of Emergency and determine whether to make thefollowing findings that any of the circumstances exist per AB 361:1. The State of Emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the membersto meet safely in person and/or2. State or Local Officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promotesocial distancing.

MERCED SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY GOVERNING BOARD JPA Minutes – NOVEMBER 12, 2021 Page 2

Jeanne Zolezzi, Legal Counsel, provided an introduction and summary of teleconferencing findings. MOTION: M/S MARCHINI – SWENSON, AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 6 – 0, THE BOARD MOVES TO DETERMINE FINDING 1. OF AB 361, “THE STATE OF EMERGENCY CONTINUES TO DIRECTLY IMPACT THE ABILITY OF THE MEMBERS TO MEET SAFELY IN PERSON” AND MOVES TO APROVE REMOTE ATTENDANCE, IF THE STATE OF EMERGENCY IMPEDES A BOARD MEMBER'S ABILITY TO ATTEND A MEETING WITHIN THE NEXT THIRTY DAYS.

IV. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

Public Comment period Open/Close

V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Action to approve the meeting minutes from the Governing Board meeting on October14, 2021.

MOTION: M/S GALLO – MARCHINI, AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 6 – 0, THEBOARD APPROVES THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 14, 2021 MEETING.

VI. TWO PHASED GSP IMPLEMENTATION APPROACH RESOLUTION

Action to adopt a resolution on the Two- Phased Approach to GroundwaterSustainability Plan implementation within the Merced Subbasin GSA.

Introduction and summary of the Two-Phased GSP Implementation approach resolutionprovided by Lacey McBride.

Board Member Swenson suggested revisions to the resolution Phase I, # 5 and Phase II,#2 to read:

“Immediately initiate a process to work with stakeholders to develop elements andapproaches to reductions in pumping as one mechanism to achieve the 2040 Objectivethrough establishment of a potential limit or “cap” on the overall net amount ofgroundwater that is removed from the subbasin, averaged over a ten-year period oftime, and potential methods for assigning portions of the capped amount to groundwaterpumpers in the form of a pumping allocation (Allocation Approach).”

“Design and adopt an additional Phase 2 Proposition 218 fee to fund or curtail continuedand expanded Phase I programs, and to fund projects and programs developed duringPhase I, potentially through a per acre extraction fee (Phase 2 Funding Mechanism).”

Ms. Zolezzi suggested including, “averaged over a period of time, to be determined by


the board”, instead of including a defined amount of time as earlier suggested in Phase I #5.

Public Comment Period Open/Close

MOTION: M/S SWENSON – MARCHINI, AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 6 – 0, THE BOARD APPROVES THE RESOLUTION WITH REVISIONS TO PHASE I, # 5 AND PHASE II, #2 AS SUGGESTED BY COUNSEL.

VII. LEGAL COUNSEL CONTRACT AMENDMENTAction to adopt an amendment to the Herum, Crabtree, Suntag contract increasing the compensation by $33,490 to $200,000 for the total term of the contract ending in August 2023.Public Comment Period Open/CloseMOTION: M/S SWENSON – GALLO, AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 6 – 0, THE BOARD MOVES TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT TO THE HERUM, CRABTREE, SUNTAG CONTRACT INCREASING THE COMPENSATION BY $33,490 IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000 FOR THE TOTAL TERM OF THE CONTRACT ENDING IN AUGUST 2023.

VIII. SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT GRANT PROPOSAL

SOLICITATION PACKAGE (PSP)

Discussion and possible action on the PSP and identifying projects in the

Merced basin and the Merced Subbasin GSAs.

Introduction and summary of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant

proposal presented by Mrs. McBride.

Public Comment Period Open

Brad Robson suggested applying for the grant and applying the money to Phase II of

the intertie project.

Lynn Sullivan commented on the short window of time and expressed concern about

data collection and proposed studies in the time permitted.

Public Comment Period Close.

Chairman Pareira inquired if the Board has the authority to delegate draft review to the

Coordinating Committee.

Ms. Zolezzi commented that the board does have the authority to delegate the task of


draft review, if the Coordinating Committee is willing to accept it.

MOTION: M/S SWENSON – GALLO, AND CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 6 – 0, THE BOARD MOVES TO APPROVE DELEGATION OF THE FINAL PSP DRAFT LETTER TO THE COORDINATION COMMITTEE, ONCE RECEIVED FROM MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND TURNER ISLAND.

IX. MSGSA GROUNDWATER WELL CONSISTENCY AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT Report from the Ad Hoc committee on determining consistency of groundwater well applications with the GSP.Mrs. McBride reported from the Ad Hoc Committee on determining consistency of groundwater well applications with the GSP. Mrs. McBride commented that the Ad Hoc Committee met to provide policy direction, Mrs. McBride further commented that the Committee is anticipated to meet again in November or early December to review the draft policy. Mrs. McBride reported that there has been GSA interest to meet for discussion on policy similarities and a basin wide evaluation with shared cost. Additionally, Mrs. McBride informed the Board that on November 16th there is an item going before the County Board of Supervisors, to discuss well consistency. Mrs. McBride commented that on November 16th, staff will be provided with direction and a date to return for action. Ad Hoc Committee members provided a report on their meeting. Public Comment Period Open/Close.NO ACTION TAKEN.

X. STAFF REPORT

Mrs. McBride provided four reports to the Board.

1. Reminder that the Public Workshop and Board meeting will be held on November 18, 2021 at the Merced College Business Resource Center located at 630 W. 19th

Street, Merced, CA2. Reminder that the Merced Subbasin GSA December meeting has been

rescheduled to December 10, 2021 at 10 a.m.3. Reminder that the annual report on GSP Soliciting Proposal for fiscal year 2021 is

due on April 1, 2022 and GSAs are awaiting a proposal by Woodard and Curran, to be returned to the Board for action.

4. Merced Irrigation District (MID) is applying for an urban and multi-benefit grant and is seeking a support letter from the Merced Subbasin GSA. This request has been made on short notice and direction from the Board will be needed to provide the letter, as requested.


Public Comment Period Open

Matt Beaman, MID Representative, provided summary of projects intended to benefit from the grant and spoke in favor of MSGSA support letter, via Zoom.

Board Member Swenson requested a PDF summary of the project for Board review.

Mr. Beaman agreed to send the PDF to staff for Board review.

Chairman Pareira inquired if a vote is required to provide staff with direction to send the support letter.

Ms. Zolezzi replied that staff has authorization to send a letter of support.

XI. BOARD REPORTS

Board Member Swenson reported that the Public workshop scheduled for November 18,2021 is a Board meeting, as well, and encouraged quorum attendance.

Board Member Upton reported that he attended a meeting with the San Joaquin ValleyBlueprint and reported that the goal of the agency is to have water imported from theDelta. Board Member Upton further reported that he would like to continue participation inthese meetings and come back to the Board if there is anything significant.

XII. NEXT REGULAR MEETING

Next meeting will be held on Thursday November 18, 2021 at 6 p.m. at the MercedCollege Business Resource Center located at 630 W. 19th Street, Merced.

Next special meeting will be held on December 10, 2021.

XIII. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.

MERCED SUBBASIN GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AGENCY GOVERNING BOARD

AND PUBLIC WORKSHOP

MINUTES FOR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18, 2021

The agenda, original minutes, and all supporting documentation (for reference purposes only) of the Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency Governing Board meeting of November 18, 2021 are available online at www.countyofmerced.com/MercedSubbasinGSA.

I. CALL MEETING TO ORDER

The special public meeting of the Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability AgencyJoint Powers Authority Governing Board was called to order at 6:00 p.m., on November18, 2021, in person at the Merced College Business Resource Center, 630 W. 19th

Street, Merced, CA, and via conference call due to the ongoing COVID-19 crisis and asauthorized by Assembly Bill 361.

II. ROLL CALL OF BOARD MEMBERS

Board Members Present:

Supervisor Lloyd Pareira Chairman (Merced County) Nic Marchini Vice Chair (Western White Area) Michael Gallo (Eastern White Area Representative) Gino Pedretti (Sandy Mush Mutual Water Company) Eric Swenson (Merquin County Water District)

Board Members absent:

Kole Upton (Le Grand-Athlone Water District)

Staff Present: Lacey McBride Water Resources Manager Greg Young Consultant with Tully and Young, Inc.

III. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

Public comment open/close

IV. THE SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT ACT (SGMA)

SGMA overview presented by Lacey McBride. Mrs. McBride presented an overviewof the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) and explained the history, purposeand limitations of the GSP. Mrs. McBride further presented GSP implementationexpectations, sustainability indicators, historical and projected water budgets,Sustainable Yield components and an overview of the demand reductionmanagement action in the GSP.


NO ACTION TAKEN.

V. MSGSA GROUNDWATER CONSUMPTION REDUCTION TARGETS

MSGSA Groundwater consumption targets presented by Greg Young. Mr. Youngpresented information about the sustainable native ground water available toMSGSA, existing use of native groundwater, the demand reduction objective,options for reduction and an overview of the Two-Phase approach adopted byMSGSA to meet reduction targets.

NO ACTION TAKEN.

VI. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF IMPLEMENTATION APPROACHES

Mr. Young presented details on a potential land repurposing program.

Public provided the opportunity to discuss the land repurposing program andsupplemental surface water to achieve the Water Year 2025 goal.

Mr. Young presented details and example of remote sensing to assist growers withwater budgets. Vice Chair Marchini described remote sensing data from the OpenET platform on his fields.

Public provided the opportunity to discuss the use of remote sensing to help withwater budgets.

Mr. Young discussed the proposed Phase I Proposition 218 fee to cover phase 1costs.

Public provided the opportunity to discuss the Phase I costs and fee structure.

VII. ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.

BOARD ACTION ITEM

TO: MEMBERS OF MERCED SUBBASIN GSA GOVERNING BOARD FROM: MARK HENDRICKSON, SECRETARY DATE: DECEMBER 10, 2021

SUBJECT: 2022 GOVERNING BOARD MEETING CALENDAR

SUMMARY: The Merced Subbasin GSA JPA Agreement, Article 12.2, requires the Governing Board to set the time and place for quarterly meetings. In 2020 the Governing Board started meeting monthly, in between the regular quarterly meetings.

The Merced Subbasin GSA Governing Board has been meeting on the second Thursday of each month at 2PM, in the Merced County Administration Building, Third Floor Board Room and via Zoom for public participation.

The following schedule identifies the regular quarterly and additional special monthly meetings for 2022 on the second Thursday of each month at 2PM and identifies the Merced County Administration Building, Board Room as the physical location.

Special meetings may be called in addition to this schedule. Meetings will be noticed, held, and conducted in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act and/or AB 361.

Merced Subbasin GSA 2022 Schedule of Board Meetings

LOCATION Merced County Administration Building Board Room, Third Floor 2222 M Street Merced, CA 95340

TIME 2PM

DATES January 13 February 10 March 10 April 14 May 12 June 9 July 14 August 11 September 8

October 13 November 10 December 8

REQUEST/RECOMMENDATION/ACTION NEEDED: Action to set the 2022 Governing Board meeting calendar dates as the second Thursday of each month at 2PM, unless modified.

BOARD ACTION ITEM


SUBJECT: WOODARD AND CURRAN CONTRACT AMENDMENT #5

SUMMARY: This item considers approval of a fifth amendment to the contract with Woodard and Curran, Inc. The original contract with Woodard and Curran was for the development of the GSP, it has been amended four times to approve development of the Proposition 68 Planning Grant Application, prepare two annual reports, the Data Gaps Plan, a remote sensing decision support tool, the Proposition 68 Implementation Round 1 grant application, and most recently for GSA meeting support and on-call technical services.

This fifth amendment approves two additional tasks to be added to the Woodard and Curran contract.

New Task 24 is the preparation of Water Year 2021 Annual Report and new Task 25 is for the development of the SGMA Implementation Planning and Projects Grant (Round 1) application.

Task 24 outlines the steps Woodard and Curran will take to prepare the Water Year 2021 Annual Report. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act regulations require GSAs to submit annual reports to the California Department of Water Resources. The report includes updated information in three key sections: general information, basin conditions and GSP implementation progress. This task is accomplished for the amount of $60,367, shared by the three Merced GSAs. The Merced Subbasin GSA budgeted $55,000 for its share of the annual report in FY 2021-2022.

Task 25 provides support to the GSAs for the preparation of the SGMA Implementation Planning and Projects Round 1 grant application. Preparation of the grant application will include establishing a project review committee and project scoring, drafting the application and submitting the final application. An optional task is to update the GSP Opti database, in the event the final solicitation package requires project to be listed in the GSP’s project database. This task is accomplished for the amount of $34,975, shared by the three Merced GSAs. The last grant application shared amongst the three GSAs was shared according to the project grant proportion. It is anticipated the Coordination Committee will recommend a similar split at a future meeting before the grant deadline. The Merced Subbasin GSA has budgeted $20,000 for grant writing in the FY 2021-2022 budget.

REQUEST/RECOMMENDATION/ACTION NEEDED: Action to approve a contract amendment with Woodard and Curran for the development of the 2021 Annual Report and preparation of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Grant Application for a total cost of $95,342.

Amendment No. 5

to the Agreement between

Merced Irrigation-Urban Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MIUGSA), Merced Subbasin GSA,

and Turner Island Water District GSA - 1 (collectively, "Client") and

Woodard & Curran, Inc. ("W&C")

dated October 9, 2017 (the “Agreement”)

This Amendment No. 5 (“Amendment No. 5”) to the Agreement is entered on December 3, 2021.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Client and W&C entered into the Agreement dated as of October 9, 2017 under which

W&C shall provide certain services to Client related to preparation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan;

WHEREAS, Client and W&C executed a First Amendment to this Agreement on September 24, 2019 to

include work to prepare a Proposition 68 grant application;

WHEREAS, Client and W&C executed a Second Amendment to this Agreement on January 29, 2020 to

include work to prepare a first annual report for the Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan;

WHEREAS, Client and W&C executed a Third Amendment to this Agreement on December 2, 2020 to

include the work to prepare a GSP Data Gaps Plan and develop a remote sensing decision support tool,

develop a Water Year 2020 Annual Report, and prepare a Proposition 68 Implementation Round 1 Grant

Funding application;

WHEREAS, Client and W&C executed a Fourth Amendment to this Agreement on September 20, 2021

to include the work for GSA meeting support and on-call technical services;

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement to include the work to prepare a Water Year

2021 Annual Report and to coordinate and develop an application for the Round 1 SGMA

Implementation Planning and Projects Grant, as outlined in the attached Scope and Fee.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual promises of the parties, Client

and W&C hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

See attached Scope and Fee.

All other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

[Signatures on Next Page]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party hereto has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly

authorized representative on the day and year set forth below.

Woodard & Curran, Inc. Merced Irrigation-Urban Groundwater

Sustainability Agency (MIUGSA)

By: Jim Blanke By: _______________________________

Sign: _____________________________ Sign: ______________________________

Date: Date: ______________________________

Turner Island Water District GSA - 1 (TIWD GSA-1)

By: ______________________________

Sign: _____________________________

Date: _____________________________

Merced Subbasin GSA (MSGSA)

By: ______________________________

Sign: _____________________________

Date: _____________________________

jblanke

Typewritten Text

December 3, 2021

SCOPE

Note regarding task numbering: When Phase 2 began in March 2018, tasks were re-numbered from the order in the Agreement to match the order of tasks in the submitted Prop 1 Grant Application to better align with the anticipated DWR Grant Agreement. When Amendment 1 for preparation of the Prop 68 grant application was executed, two new tasks (Tasks 14 and 15) were added. When Amendment 2 for preparation of the Annual Report was executed, one new task (Task 16) was added. When Amendment 3 was executed, Tasks 17-21 were added. When Amendment 4 was executed, Task 22 and 23 were added. Upon approval of Amendment 5, the authorized task numbers will be:

Task 1 – PM and Coordination Task 2 – Plan Area and Authority Task 3 – Data Management System Task 4 – Data, Plan Area, and Basin Setting Task 5 – Sustainability Criteria Task 6 – Monitoring Networks Task 7 – Sustainability Thresholds Task 8 – Water Accounting Framework Task 9 – Management Program Task 10 – GSP Implementation Task 11 – GSP Compilation and Preparation Task 12 – Coordination and Outreach Task 13 – Interbasin Agreements and Coordination Task 14 – Coordination with Merced GSAs Task 15 – Preparation of Grant Application and Submittal to DWR Task 16 - Preparation of First Annual Report Task 17 – Address GSP Data Gaps Task 18 - Develop Remote Sensing Decision Support Tool for Subbasin Task 19 – Preparation of Water Year 2020 Annual Report Task 20: Prop 68 Implementation Grant Round 1 Coordination with Merced Subbasin GSAs Task 21: Preparation of Prop 68 Implementation Grant Round 1 Application and Submittal to DWR Task 22: GSA Meeting Support Task 23: On-Call Technical Support Task 24: Preparation of Water Year 2021 Annual Report (new task added under Amendment 5) Task 25: SGMA Implementation Planning and Projects Grant (Round 1) (new task added under Amendment 5)

Task 24 - Preparation of Water Year 2021 Annual Report

The Water Year (WY) 2021 Annual Report for the Merced Subbasin GSP will be due on April 1, 2022. Per California Code of Regulations §356.2 (SGMA regulations), annual reports must include three key sections: 1) General Information, 2) Basin Conditions, and 3) Plan Implementation Progress. Completion of the water year 2021 annual report is broken into the five subtasks below:

Subtask 24.1 – Project Management and Coordination

This subtask includes project management throughout the development of the WY 2021 Annual Report. Tasks will include implementing QA/QC protocols, providing timely progress reports and billing statements, and providing overall program management and management of subconsultants. In addition, this task includes up to 4 conference calls with GSA staff members for coordination on compilation and completion of the WY 2021 Annual Report.

Deliverables:

• Up to 4 conference calls with GSA staff (December through end of March).

• Monthly progress reports and invoices

Assumptions:

• Meeting information will be provided electronically.

Subtask 24.2 – Collect, Compile, and Analyze Data

The Basin Conditions section of the annual report will describe the current groundwater conditions and monitoring results, described further in the bullets below.

Woodard & Curran will work with the GSAs to develop a list of each necessary dataset, the responsible agency, and due dates for data collection (see “Schedule” section at end of Scope). Data will be compiled and reviewed for basic quality control (e.g. duplicate data or flagging data expected to have errors). Data will be analyzed and presented for each data type as follows:

• Groundwater Elevation

o Woodard & Curran will add new groundwater elevation data reported to the SGMA Portal to an existinggroundwater elevation database used during GSP development and the first two Annual Reports and developgroundwater elevation contour maps for each principal aquifer that illustrate seasonal high and seasonal lowgroundwater conditions for WY 2021. Specifically, this will include the following maps:

▪ Groundwater elevation contour maps for seasonal high and seasonal low (for WY 2021, totaling 6maps, two per principal aquifer)

▪ 1-year groundwater elevation change from fall WY 2020 to fall WY 2021 (three maps, one perprincipal aquifer)

o Hydrographs will also be compiled for each monitoring well, showing available historical groundwaterelevations through WY 2021 with reference to water year type.

• Groundwater Extraction

o Groundwater extraction estimates will be presented in a table, as required by DWR, summarizing groundwaterextractions by water use sector, with identification of the method of measurement (direct or estimate) andaccuracy of measurements. It is anticipated that estimates will be based on MercedWRM model runs.

o An accompanying map will illustrate the general location and volume of groundwater extractions per squaremile.

• Surface Water Supply and Use

o Surface water supply used or available for use (for groundwater recharge or in-lieu use) will be summarizedin tabular form, describing the annual volume and sources for WY 2021. Inputs used for calculations andreporting of surface water supplies include precipitation, streamflow, and local surface water. Precipitationand streamflow data will be obtained from public sources. Local surface water deliveries are assumed to beprovided directly by the GSAs and other local agencies where applicable.

• Total Water Use

o Total water use will be calculated based on groundwater extraction and surface water use data andsummarized by water use sector and water source type, along with measurement method and accuracy ofmeasurements, as required by DWR.

• Land Subsidence

o Woodard & Curran assumes that the latest land surface elevation data for USBR San Joaquin RiverRestoration Program control points will be readily available from the public website for the program. If so,updated subsidence maps will be prepared. Specifically, this is expected (depending on data availability) toinclude a total of three (3) maps, as follows:

▪ Map showing average subsidence from July 2012 - July 2021 OR December 2011 - December2021.

▪ Map showing total subsidence July 2015 - July 2021 OR December 2015 - December 2021.

▪ Map showing subsidence in the last year (July 2020 – July 2021 OR December 2020 – December2021)

• Groundwater Quality

o While annual reporting of groundwater quality is not specifically required by DWR (outside of measuringprogress against upcoming interim milestones), the GSAs have committed to providing an annual summaryof ongoing water quality coordination activities. Woodard & Curran will support this task by completing thefollowing activities:

▪ Woodard & Curran will review data submitted to public water quality databases, such as theDepartment of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), Division of Drinking Water (DDW), Department of ToxicSubstances Control (EnviroStor), and GeoTracker as part of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoringand Assessment (GAMA) database. New data will be compiled and imported into Merced SubbasinDMS.

• Change in Groundwater Storage

o Results from the updated MercedWRM (see Subtask 24.3) will be used to generate an estimated change instorage for each principal aquifer. A map will be generated to show the location of change in storage, as wellas graphical figures showing year type, groundwater use, the annual change in groundwater in storage, andthe historical cumulative change in groundwater in storage from WY 1995 through WY 2020.

o Updated land use data will be requested from agencies as appropriate, to inform the MercedWRM update(Subtask 24.3).

Subtask 24.3 – MercedWRM Update

The MercedWRM will be updated to establish a water budget for WY 2021 based on the updated groundwater elevation, surface water delivery data, evapotranspiration, and land use data collected in Subtask 24.2. Outputs from the MercedWRM will be used in Subtask 24.2 to construct charts and graphs for change in storage as well as supplement the summary tables for groundwater extraction and total water use. The update will be limited to extension of the period of simulation of the historical model to include WY 2021.

Subtask 24.4 – Document Plan Implementation Progress

The Plan Implementation section of the annual report will describe the progress made towards achieving interim milestones as well as implementation of projects and management actions.

Woodard & Curran will work with the GSAs to evaluate and report on the progress towards implementing the GSP, including the status of the shortlisted projects and ongoing development of management actions. Shortlisted projects will be summarized in tabular format. Management actions will be summarized in paragraph form. A discussion of new projects and development and use of an online list of projects and management actions will be incorporated as appropriate (see subtask 25.2).

Subtask 24.5 – Prepare Annual Report

The results of Subtasks 24.2, 24.3, and 24.4 will be used to develop the WY 2021 Annual Report, including an executive summary that highlights the key content of the annual report. The following sections will be included:

1. Executive Summary2. Introduction3. Basin Setting

a. Groundwater Elevationsb. Groundwater Extractionsc. Surface Water Supplyd. Total Water Usee. Change in Groundwater Storagef. Land Subsidenceg. Groundwater Quality

4. Plan Implementation Progress5. References

A Draft Report will be prepared for one round of review by the GSAs. Comments will be incorporated into a Final Report which will be distributed electronically (PDF). Woodard & Curran will also upload the final WY 2021 Annual Report and supporting documentation to the SGMA Portal.

Woodard & Curran will provide the GSAs a copy of the digital files for supporting data, such as Excel spreadsheets and GIS maps/shapefiles.

Task 25: SGMA Implementation Planning and Projects Grant (Round 1)

W&C will complete the SGMA Implementation Planning and Projects Round 1 Grant Application. This task consists of four subtasks required for coordination, preparation, review, and submittal of a completed application.

Subtask 25.1 – Project Review Committee and Project Scoring

In their draft Proposal Solicitation Package, DWR has recommended that grant applicants develop a project review committee that includes either a representative for each entity within a GSA or a representative from each GSA given that there are multiple GSAs. W&C will provide guidance based on the final Proposal Solicitation Package, but it is assumed that the GSAs will determine the membership of the committee and form the committee.

W&C assumes that the project review committee will develop one consensus scoring self-evaluation for each eligible project. W&C will coordinate with the GSAs to determine what projects and activities to include in the grant proposal through participation in up to four virtual meetings with the project review committee. Given the anticipated grant submittal deadlines, working with and soliciting input from the GSAs will take place in December and January.

The Merced GSP identified several high-priority near term projects and activities that need to be completed in the first five years of the GSP. Further, W&C will develop templates for new projects, and it is assumed that the GSAs will populate the templates, providing the necessary information on the projects. Using these lists as a starting point, W&C will facilitate discussions about the scoring of each project and ranking. Additional projects may be identified and added to the scoring discussion.

Subtask 25.2 (Optional) – Merced SGMA Data Management System Projects Opti Database Upgrade

At the direction of the GSAs, Woodard & Curran will add functionality to the Merced SGMA DMS to allow the subbasin to input and track GSP projects. Existing GSP projects will be imported into the DMS. Additional projects identified as part of committee meetings in Subtask 25.1 will also be added to the database.

Subtask 25.3 – Draft Application

A draft grant application will be prepared to address the various requirements for SGMA Implementation Planning and Projects Round 1 funding as documented in DWR’s draft Proposal Solicitation Package (which is assumed for scoping to be similar to the forthcoming final Proposal Solicitation Package). Work items to be conducted in preparing the application include the following:

• Complete Eligibility Self-Evaluation form and compile associated backup documentation.

• Develop scoring criteria sheet(s) per recommended project, including compilation of review notes and other justificationsand backup, including:

o Regional and Project maps

o Map depicting Underrepresented Communities that benefit from the project

o Scope of work for project at the task/subtask level

o Budget for project at the task/subtask level

o Schedule for project at the task/subtask level

• Compile final project ranking list (ordered based on scoring criteria from highest to lowest).

• Compile Resolution(s) adopted by the GSA governing bodies that designate an authorized representative to submit theapplication and execute an agreement with the State of California for the SGMA Implementation – Planning and Projectsgrant application.

• Prepare the Spending Plan.

Once the required information has been compiled and the required attachments drafted and/or compiled, a draft application will be prepared and submitted to the GSAs for review and comment.

Subtask 25.4 –Final Application

Following review and comment on the draft grant application materials listed in Subtask 25.3, W&C will incorporate comments and finalize all documents and submit to DWR via the [email protected] email address by the January 31, 2022 at 12 PM deadline (note, deadline and other grant items subject to change in the final Proposal Solicitation Package).

Deliverables for Task 25 will consist of draft and final electronic (Word and PDF) files of the SGMA Implementation Planning and Projects Round 1 Grant Application.

Overall Task 25 Assumptions

• W&C would conduct up to four virtual meetings with the project review committee to be formed by the GSAs.

• The project review committee will develop one consensus scoring self-evaluation for each eligible project.

• Project proponents for projects selected for inclusion in application will provide a scope of work, budget, and schedulefor inclusion in their respective attachments by December 31st.

• W&C will be responsible for overall coordination and production of the grant application, as well as submittal of the finalgrant application to DWR via [email protected] by noon on January 31st.

• Tasks developed here are based on the draft Proposal Solicitation Package. It is assumed that the final ProposalSolicitation Package will be substantially similar.

mailto:[email protected]


Estimated Schedule

The estimated schedule for Task 24 (Preparation of Water Year 2021 Annual Report) is shown below:

The estimated schedule for Task 25 (SGMA Implementation Planning and Projects Grant (Round 1)) is shown below.

Week Starting 6-Dec13-Dec

20-Dec

27-Dec

3-Jan10-Jan

17-Jan

24-Jan

31-Jan

Notice to Proceed; First Meeting of Project Review Committee

Additional Project Review Committee Meetings

Merced IRWM Projects Opti Database Upgrade (optional)

Import existing GSP projects into Opti (optional)

CLIENT to Provide Materials

W&C to Prepare Draft Submittal

CLIENT to Review Draft Submittal

W&C to Produce Final Submittal

W&C to Submit to DWR

This schedule is based on the schedule in the draft PSP. W&C proposes to complete the draft grant application by January 14th and have ready for the GSAs to review from January 14th to the 21st. The final application would be submitted on or before noon on January 31st.

CLIENT deadlines include:

• 12/20/2021: Project information is provided to W&C

• 1/21/2022: Comments on draft submittal provided to W&C

Fee EstimateMerced Irrigation District

Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Tasks Total

Ali Taghavi Jim Blanke Chris Hewes Liz DaBramoDominick Amador

Emily Honn Nolan MeyerThierry

RutaganiraAdam Fox

PICProject

ManagerPlanner Planner

Modeling /

Project

Engineer

Modeling /

Technical

Analysis

PlannerSoftware

EngineerGraphics Admin.

$324 $298 $234 $224 $249 $198 $171 $156 $125 $116

Phase 24: Preparation of Water Year 2021 Annual Report

24.1 Project Management and Coordination 2 8 8 4 22 $5,368

24.2 Collection, Compile, and Analyze Data 1 6 16 40 50 113 $20,496

24.3 MercedWRM Update 2 20 94 116 $24,240

24.4 Document Plan Implementation Progress 1 2 4 7 $1,856

24.5 Prepare Annual Report 1 8 12 12 3 4 40 $8,407

Subtotal Task 24: 7 24 40 0 20 94 52 50 3 8 298 $60,367

Phase 25: SGMA Implementation Planning and Projects Grant (Round 1)

25.1 Project Review Committee and Project Scoring 2 16 16 34 $9,000

(Optional) 25.2 Merced IRWM Projects Opti Database Upgrade 1 4 16 21 $3,730

25.3 Draft Application 1 16 2 60 2 2 83 $19,592

25.4 Final Application 1 4 4 1 1 11 $2,653

Subtotal Task 25: 4 37 6 80 0 0 2 16 3 1 149 $34,975

TOTAL, with optional Subtask 25.2 11 61 46 80 20 94 54 66 6 9 447 $95,342

TOTAL, without optional Subtask 25.2 11 60 42 80 20 94 54 50 6 9 426 $91,612 $2,257,341 $2,352,683 $2,348,953

2. Subconsultants will be billed at actual cost plus 10%.3. Other direct costs (ODCs) such as reproduction, delivery, mileage (rates will be those allowed by current IRS guidelines), and travel expenses, will be billed at actual cost.

4. W&C reserves the right to adjust its hourly rate structure and ODC markup at the beginning of the calendar year for all ongoing contracts.

1. The individual hourly rates include salary, overhead and profit.

Budget previously authorized for Tasks 1-23 including contingency

Total authorized budget, without optional Task 25.2Total authorized budget, with optional Task 25.2

Labor

Total Fee

Total Hours

BOARD ACTION ITEM


SUBJECT: SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT GRANT PROPOSAL DEVELOPMENT

SUMMARY: Following up on the discussion the Board held at the November 12, 2021 meeting on the SGMA Implementation Proposal Solicitation Package (PSP) draft. The final PSP for this grant has not yet been released, but the GSA’s in the Merced Subbasin are starting to collect projects proposed to be included in the grant application.

This program will release $171 million in grant awards, $152 million will be available for critically overdrafted basins with a projected deadline of January 2022. The total amount will be split evenly among eligible basins to provide approximately $7.6 million in funding per critically overdrafted basin.

After inquiring of the member agencies and other agencies within the Merced Subbasin GSA, ten projects have been suggested. To be considered for prioritization, each of these projects will have to submit an information form by December 20, 2021 with details on the project.

Agency Potential Project Lone Tree Mutual Water Company (George Park)

Deadman Creek Canal Regulating and Flood Storage Reservoir

Amsterdam Water District (Bert Crane) Recharge and Conveyance Project La Paloma Mutual Water Company (Mike Gallo)

G Ranch - Groundwater Recharge and Ecosystem Enhancement Project

Stevinson Water District (Bob Kelley) Brasil Recharge Project Merquin County Water District (Eric Swenson) Integrated Water Resource Plan Project White area (Nic Marchini) TBD Project Le Grand Athlone Water District (Brad Robson) LGWD Intertie Canal Phase 2 Sandy Mush Mutual Water Company (Brad Samuelson) Vander Dussen Flood-Mar Sandy Mush Mutual Water Company (Brad Samuelson) Vander Woude Storage Reservoir Buchanan Hollow Mutual Water Company (Brad Samuelson) Recharge Project

In the November meeting the Board discussed having the Coordination Committee representatives work on this grant application. Staff informed the Board that the item would be brought back to finalize the representatives who will participate on the evaluation committee to

score and prioritize proposed projects within the basin to be included in the grant funding. MIUGSA and Turner Island Water District GSA are suggesting using the Coordination Committee for prioritization and scoring.

REQUEST/RECOMMENDATION/ACTION NEEDED: Discussion and possible action on project selection process.

BOARD ACTION ITEM


SUBJECT: DWR EVALUATION OF MERCED SUBBASIN 2020 GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY PLAN

SUMMARY: On November 18, 2021 the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) sent an initial DWR staff evaluation of the Merced GSP to the Merced Subbasin GSAs. This letter is posted publicly on the SGMA Portal. This staff evaluation is not DWR’s formal assessment of the plan, which is anticipated to come in January near the original GSP submission date of January 28. This letter is a staff evaluation of the major deficiencies they have identified that will stop DWR from approving the Merced GSP.

Unless these deficiencies are addressed over the next month, in January the GSAs will receive an incomplete letter, from there the Basin will have six months to resolve these issues. This staff evaluation is DWR’s effort to work with the GSAs to make sure GSPs are on track and to provide assistance if requested by the GSAs.

The three major deficiencies noted in the letter are:

1. The GSP lacks sufficient justification for identifying that undesirable results for chroniclowering of groundwater levels, subsidence, and depletion of interconnected surfacewaters can only occur in consecutive non-dry water year types.

2. The GSP does not provide sufficient information to support the selection of chroniclowering of groundwater levels sustainable management criteria.

3. The GSP does not provide sufficient information to support the selection of landsubsidence sustainable management criteria.

REQUEST/RECOMMENDATION/ACTION NEEDED: Information item regarding the November 18, 2021 letter from the California Department of Water Resources regarding the initial staff evaluation of the Merced Subbasin 2020 Groundwater Sustainability Plan.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES

SUSTAINABLE GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT OFFICE 901 P Street, Room 313-B | Sacramento, CA 95814 | P.O. Box 942836 | Sacramento, CA 94236-0001

STATE OF CALIFORNIA | GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR | CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY

November 18, 2021

Hicham Eltal Merced GSP Plan Manager 744 W. 20th Street, Merced, CA 95340 [email protected]

RE: Merced Subbasin - 2020 Groundwater Sustainability Plan

Dear Hicham Eltal,

The Merced Irrigation-Urban Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MIUGSA), Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MSGSA), and Turner Island Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency #1 (TIWD GSA-1; collectively, the GSAs) submitted the Merced Groundwater Subbasin (Subbasin) Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) to the Department of Water Resources (Department) for evaluation and assessment as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA).1

Department staff have substantially completed an initial review of the GSP and have identified potential deficiencies (see the enclosed document) which may preclude the Department’s approval.2 Department staff have also developed potential corrective actions3 for each potential deficiency. The potential deficiencies do not necessarily represent all deficiencies or discrepancies that the Department may identify in the GSP but focus on those deficiencies that staff believe, if not addressed, could lead to a determination that the GSP is incomplete or inadequate. This letter initiates consultation between the Department and the GSAs regarding the amount of time needed to address the potential deficiencies and corrective actions. The Department will issue a final determination as described under the GSP Regulations4 no later than January 28, 2022.

If the Department determines the GSP to be incomplete, the deficiencies precluding approval would need to be addressed within a period not to exceed 180 days from the determination. A determination of incomplete would allow the GSAs to formally address identified deficiencies and submit a revised GSP to the Department for further review and evaluation. Department staff will contact you before making the final determination to discuss the potential deficiencies and the amount of time needed to address the potential corrective actions detailed in the enclosed document.

1 Water Code § 10720 et seq. 2 23 CCR § 355.2(e)(2). 3 23 CCR § 355.2(e)(2)(B). 4 23 CCR Division 2, Chapter 1.5, Subchapter 2.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 90098AF4-85B5-4D3D-9995-AF15E867F30B

Page 2 of 2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA | GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR | CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY

Materials submitted to the Department to address deficiencies must be part of the GSP. The GSAs must justify that any materials submitted are part of the revised GSP; this justification is also part of the submittal. To facilitate the Department’s review of the revised GSP, the GSAs should also provide a companion document with tracked changes of modifications made to address deficiencies. The GSAs must submit their revised GSP through the DWR SGMA Portal where, as is currently available, interested parties may provide comments on submitted materials to the Department.

Department staff will work expeditiously to review materials submitted to address deficiencies and to evaluate compliance of the revised GSP. The Department will keep a GSP status designated as incomplete during its review of the submitted materials. The Department could subsequently approve an incomplete GSP if the GSAs have taken corrective actions to address deficiencies identified by the Department within a period not to exceed 180 days from the determination. The Department could also issue a determination of inadequate for an incomplete GSP if the Department, after consultation with the State Water Resources Control Board, determines the GSAs have not taken sufficient actions to correct the deficiencies identified by the Department.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Sustainable Groundwater Management Office staff by emailing [email protected].

Thank you,

Paul Gosselin Deputy Director for Sustainable Groundwater Management Enclosure:

1. Potential Deficiencies and Corrective Actions



2020 Groundwater Sustainability Plan Merced Subbasin (Basin No. 5-022.04)

California Department of Water Resources Sustainable Groundwater Management Office Page 1 of 12

Potential Deficiencies and Corrective Actions Department of Water Resources (Department) staff have identified deficiencies regarding the Merced Subbasin (Subbasin) Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) that may preclude the Department’s approval. Therefore, consistent with the GSP Regulations, Department staff are considering corrective actions that the Merced Irrigation-Urban Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MIUGSA), Merced Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (MSGSA), and Turner Island Water District Groundwater Sustainability Agency #1 (TIWD GSA-1; collectively, the GSAs) should review to determine whether and how the deficiencies can be addressed. The deficiencies and potential corrective actions are explained below, including the general regulatory background, the specific deficiencies identified in the GSP, and specific actions to address the deficiencies. The specific actions identified are potential corrective actions until the Department makes a final determination.

General Background

Potential deficiencies identified in the Merced Subbasin GSP relate to the development and documentation of sustainable management criteria, including undesirable results and minimum thresholds that define when undesirable results may occur.

The Department's GSP Regulations describe several required elements of a GSP under the heading of “Sustainable Management Criteria”5, including undesirable results, minimum thresholds, and measurable objectives. These components of sustainable management criteria must be quantified so that GSAs, the Department, and other interested parties can monitor progress towards sustainability in a basin consistently and objectively.

A GSA relies on local experience, public outreach and involvement, and information about the basin it has described in the GSP basin setting (i.e., the hydrogeologic conceptual model, the description of current and historical groundwater conditions, and the water budget), among other factors, to develop criteria for defining undesirable results and setting minimum thresholds and measurable objectives.6  

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) defines sustainable groundwater management as the management and use of groundwater in a manner that can be maintained during the planning and implementation horizon without causing undesirable results.7 The avoidance of undesirable results is thus explicitly part of sustainable groundwater management as established by SGMA and critical to the success of a GSP.

5 23 CCR § Article 5, Subarticle 3. 6 23 CCR §§ 354.8, 354.10, 354.12 et seq. 7 Water Code § 10721(v).




The definition of undesirable results is critical to establishing an objective method to define and measure sustainability for a basin. As an initial matter, SGMA provides a qualitative definition of undesirable results as “one or more” of six specific “effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout the basin.”8

GSAs define, in their GSPs, the specific significant and unreasonable effects that would constitute undesirable results and the groundwater conditions that would produce those results in their basins.9 The GSAs’ definition must include a description of the processes and criteria relied upon to define undesirable results and describe the effect of undesirable results on the beneficial uses and users of groundwater, surface land uses (for subsidence), and surface water (for interconnected surface water).10

SGMA leaves the task of establishing undesirable results and setting thresholds largely to the discretion of the GSAs, subject to review by the Department. In its review, the Department requires a thorough and reasonable analysis of the groundwater conditions and the associated effects the GSAs must manage the groundwater basin to avoid, and the GSAs’ stated rationale for setting objective and quantitative sustainable management criteria to prevent those undesirable conditions from occurring.11 If a GSP does not meet this requirement, the Department cannot evaluate the GSAs’ likelihood of achieving their sustainability goal. That does not necessarily mean that the GSP or its objectives are inherently unreasonable; rather, the Department cannot evaluate whether the GSP's implementation would successfully achieve sustainable management if it is unclear what undesirable conditions the GSAs seek to avoid.

Potential Deficiency 1. The GSP lacks sufficient justification for identifying that undesirable results for chronic lowering of groundwater levels, subsidence, and depletion of interconnected surface waters can only occur in consecutive non-dry water year types.

The first potential deficiency relates to the GSP’s requirement of two consecutive non-dry (i.e., below normal, above normal, or wet) water-year types and the exclusion of dry and critically dry water-year type in the identification of undesirable results for chronic lowering of groundwater levels, land subsidence, and by proxy for depletions of interconnected surface water.

Background

SGMA defines the term “Undesirable Result,” in part, as one or more of the following effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout the basin:12

8 Water Code § 10721(x). 9 California Department of Water Resources, Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater: Sustainable Management Criteria (Draft), November 2017. 10 23 CCR §§ 354.26(b), 354.28(c)(5), 354.28(c)(6). 11 23 CCR § 355.4(b)(1). 12 Water Code § 10721(x).




• Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonabledepletion of supply if continued over the planning and implementation horizon.Overdraft during a period of drought is not sufficient to establish a chronic loweringof groundwater levels if extractions and groundwater recharge are managed asnecessary to ensure that reductions in groundwater levels or storage during aperiod of drought are offset by increases in groundwater levels or storage duringother periods.

• Significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes withsurface land uses.

• Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonableadverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.

Potential Deficiency Details

The GSP identifies that an undesirable result for chronic lowering of groundwater levels occurs “…when November groundwater levels at greater than 25% of representative monitoring wells (at least 7 of 25) fall below their minimum thresholds for two consecutive years where both years are categorized hydrologically as below normal, above normal, or wet.”13 Department staff find that the water-year type requirement in the definition of the undesirable result for chronic lowering of groundwater levels (i.e. two consecutive non-dry years) is not consistent with the intent of SGMA and could potentially allow for an unmanaged and continued lowering of groundwater levels under certain hydrologic or climatic conditions that have occurred historically. A review of the historical San Joaquin Valley water-year type classifications14 indicates the potential for dry periods without the occurrence of two consecutive non-dry water years to persist for greater than 10 years. (See e.g., the 11-year period from water years 1985 through 1995, where the lack of concurrent below normal/above normal/wet years would have rendered groundwater level minimum threshold exceedances not applicable by the GSA’s definition. Department staff also note that concurrent below-normal, above-normal, or wet years occurred in only five of the last twenty water years from 2001 through 2020.) By requiring minimum thresholds to be exceeded for two consecutive non-dry years to trigger an undesirable result for the Subbasin, it appears that the GSAs in the Subbasin could disregard potential impacts associated with groundwater level declines below minimum thresholds during extended periods of dry years, even if interrupted by below-normal, above-normal, or wet years.

Department staff also find this methodology inconsistent with other portions of the GSP. For example, while describing measurable objectives for groundwater levels, the GSP states “the condition between the measurable objective and the minimum threshold is

13 Merced GSP, Sec. 3.3.1, p. 243. 14 Chronological Reconstructed Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley Water Year Hydrologic Classification Indices, Water Year 1901 through 2020. California Department of Water Resources, https://cdec.water.ca.gov/reportapp/javareports?name=WSIHIST.


https://cdec.water.ca.gov/reportapp/javareports?name=WSIHIST



known as the margin of operational flexibility. The margin of operational flexibility is intended to accommodate droughts, climate change, conjunctive use operations, or other groundwater management activities.”15 Based on these statements, it appears that the minimum thresholds are already defined at values that accommodate drought conditions, so it is unclear why minimum threshold exceedances during dry water years would be excluded from the GSP’s definition of undesirable results. (See Potential Corrective Action 1a.)

SGMA states that “overdraft during a period of drought is not sufficient to establish a chronic lowering of groundwater levels if extractions and groundwater recharge are managed as necessary to ensure that reductions in groundwater levels or storage during a period of drought are offset by increases in groundwater levels or storage during other periods.”16 In response to public comments on the draft GSP that questioned the exclusion of dry and critically dry years in the definition of undesirable results, the GSAs provide a response referencing that portion of the law.17 However, if the GSP intended to incorporate this concept into its definition of the undesirable result for chronic lowering of groundwater levels, the GSP fails to identify specific extraction and groundwater recharge management actions that would be implemented,18 or otherwise describe how the Subbasin will be managed to offset, by increases in groundwater levels or storage during other periods, dry year reductions of groundwater in storage. The GSP identifies many projects that, once implemented, may lead to the elimination of long-term overdraft conditions in the Subbasin; however, Department staff find that the GSP does not present specific detail for how projects and management actions, in conjunction with the proposed chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainable management criteria, will offset drought-related groundwater reductions and avoid significant and unreasonable impacts when groundwater levels identified as minimum thresholds are potentially exceeded for an extended period of time in the absence of two consecutive non-dry years. (See Potential Corrective Action 1b.)

The GSP uses a similar approach for land subsidence (i.e., stating that undesirable results occur when of minimum threshold subsidence rates are exceeded at three or more of the four proposed monitoring sites for two consecutive non-dry years19), and uses the same approach for depletion of interconnected surface waters, which use the chronic lowering of groundwater level sustainable management criteria as a proxy. However, while SGMA states that overdraft resulting in groundwater level or groundwater storage declines during periods of drought could be managed with increases during other periods, as noted above; SGMA does not extend this premise to land subsidence and depletions

15 Merced GSP, Sec. 3.3.3, p. 248. 16 Water Code § 10721(x)(1). 17 Merced GSP, Appendix O, p. 1128. 18 23 CCR § 354.44(b)(9).




of interconnected surface water. The greatest impacts to infrastructure from land subsidence and beneficial uses of surface water from depletions of interconnected surface water are likely to occur when groundwater levels are lowest, which would likely be during dry and critically dry water years. (See Potential Corrective Action 1c.)

If, after considering this potential deficiency, the GSA retains minimum thresholds that allow for continued lowering of groundwater levels, then it is reasonable to assume that some groundwater well impacts (e.g., loss of production capacity) may occur (e.g., to the outlier wells mentioned above) during the implementation of the GSP. SGMA requires GSAs to consider the interests of all groundwater uses and users and to implement their GSPs to mitigate overdraft conditions.20 Implementing specific projects and management actions prevents undesirable results and achieves the sustainable yield of the basin. The GSA should describe how projects and management actions would address drinking water impacts due to continued overdraft between the start of GSP implementation and the achievement of the sustainability goal. If the GSP does not include projects or management actions to address drinking water impacts, the GSP should contain a thorough discussion, with supporting facts and rationale, explaining how and why the GSA determined not to include specific actions to address those impacts that result from continued groundwater lowering below pre-SGMA levels. (See Potential Corrective Action 1d.)

Additionally, related to the groundwater level declines allowed for by the GSA’s minimum thresholds, the GSAs have not explained how those groundwater level declines relate to the degradation of groundwater quality sustainability indicator. GSAs must describe, among other items, the relationship between minimum thresholds for a given sustainability indicator (in this case, chronic lowering of groundwater levels) and the other sustainability indicators.21 The GSAs generally commit to monitoring a wide range of water quality constituents but they have only developed sustainable management criteria for total dissolved solids because they state they have not observed a causal nexus between groundwater management and degradation associated with the other constituents. While Department staff are not aware of evidence sufficient to conclude that the GSAs acted unreasonably by focusing on total dissolved solids, it is clear that the GSAs did not consider, or at least did not document, the potential for degradation to occur due to further lowering of groundwater levels beyond the historic lows. (See Potential Corrective Action 1f.)

Potential Corrective Action 1

a) Department staff believe the management approach described in the GSP, whichcouples minimum thresholds and measurable objectives that account for operationalflexibility during dry periods with a definition of undesirable results that disregards

20 23 CCR §§ 355.4(b)(4), 355.4(b)(6). 21 23 CCR § 354.28(b)(2).




minimum threshold exceedances in all years except consecutive below normal, above normal, or wet years, to be inconsistent with the objectives of SGMA. Therefore, the GSAs should remove the water-year type requirement from the GSP’s undesirable result definition.

b) The GSP should be revised to include specific projects and management actions theGSAs would implement to offset drought-year groundwater level declines.

c) The GSA should thoroughly explain how their approach avoids undesirable results forsubsidence and depletion of interconnected surface waters, as SGMA does notinclude an allowance or exemption for those conditions to continue in periods ofdrought.

d) The GSAs should revise the GSP to describe how they would address drinking waterimpacts caused by continued overdraft during the period between the start of GSPimplementation and achieving the sustainability goal. If the GSP does not includeprojects or management actions to address those impacts, the GSP should contain athorough discussion, with supporting facts and rationale, explaining how and why theGSA determined not to include specific actions to mitigate drinking water impacts fromcontinued groundwater lowering below pre-SGMA levels.

e) The GSP should be revised to explain how the GSAs will assess groundwater qualitydegradation in areas where further groundwater level decline, below historic lows, isallowed via the minimum thresholds. The GSAs should further describe how they willcoordinate with the appropriate groundwater users, including drinking water,environmental, and irrigation users as identified in the GSP. The GSAs should alsodiscuss efforts to coordinate with water quality regulatory agencies and programs inthe Subbasin to understand and develop a process for determining if continuedlowering of groundwater levels is resulting in degraded water quality in the Subbasinduring GSP implementation.

Potential Deficiency 2. The GSP does not provide sufficient information to support the selection of chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainable management criteria.

The potential deficiency relates to the GSP’s lack of sufficient information to support the selection of chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainable management criteria, particularly for minimum thresholds and undesirable results.

Background

The GSP Regulations require that a GSP include a description of the processes and criteria relied upon to define undesirable results applicable to the basin.22 The criteria to describe undesirable results must be based on a quantitative combination of minimum

22 23 CCR § 354.26(a).




threshold exceedances that cause significant and unreasonable effects in the basin.23 The minimum threshold for chronic lowering of groundwater levels must be based on groundwater elevation indicating a depletion of supply at a given location that may lead to undesirable results. Additionally, the consideration of beneficial uses and users of groundwater is a key component of SGMA and the GSP Regulations. Related to this potential corrective action, GSP Regulations require that the description of minimum thresholds include “how minimum thresholds may affect the interests of beneficial uses and users of groundwater or land uses and property interests,”24 and that the description of undesirable results include “potential effects on the beneficial uses and users of groundwater, on land uses and property interests, and other potential effects that may occur or are occurring from undesirable results.”25


The GSP defines an undesirable result as “…sustained groundwater elevations that are too low to satisfy beneficial uses within the basin over the planning and implementation horizon of this GSP.”26 The GSP also identifies specific “potential undesirable results” that it says were identified by stakeholders, including significant and unreasonable stranding of groundwater infrastructure, reduced groundwater production, increased lift costs, and shallow domestic wells going dry.27 The GSP defines the minimum threshold for chronic lowering of groundwater levels as equivalent to the construction depth of the shallowest domestic well within a 2-mile radius of a representative monitoring well.28 In response to public comments, the GSP states that representative wells are intended to represent groundwater level conditions beyond the 2-mile radius.29

While the apparent goal of the minimum thresholds, defined by the shallowest domestic well depth, is, at face value, reasonable and consistent with the GSP’s goals, several items have raised concern during review by Department staff. Public comments and publicly available reports analyzing the effects of groundwater-level minimum thresholds on well infrastructure indicate the potential for more than 1,000 domestic wells to go dry at the GSP’s minimum thresholds.30 It is not entirely clear to Department staff what caused the apparent discrepancy between the objective of the thresholds to protect the

23 23 CCR § 354.26(b)(2). 24 23 CCR § 354.28(b)(4). 25 23 CCR § 354.26(b)(3). 26 Merced GSP, Sec. 3.3.1, p. 243. 27 Merced GSP, Sec. 3.3.1, p. 243. 28 Merced GSP, Section 3.3.2, p. 246. 29 Merced GSP, Appendix O, p. 1128. 30 See public comments submitted to DWR on the SGMA Portal from the State Water Resources Control Board, which concluded between 395 to 1,195 domestic wells outside or above the Corcoran Clay could go dry at the minimum thresholds. A study by a group affiliated with UC Davis found 415 wells could go dry at the minimum threshold (see Table 3 in the paper: Bostic, Darcy; Kristen Dobbin; Rich Pauloo; Jessica Mendoza; Michael Kuo; Jonathon London. 2020. Sustainable for Whom? The Impact of Groundwater Sustainability Plans on Domestic Wells. UC Davis Center for Regional Change).




shallowest wells and the results of those studies indicating potentially significant quantities of domestic wells could go dry. However, several factors, which the GSAs should assess and disclose, may be important. First, based on Department staff’s assessment of information in the GSP, approximately 60 percent of the area of the Subbasin is outside of the 2-mile radius of the GSP’s 25 representative wells. It is unclear to Department staff how many domestic wells exist outside of the buffer area, but that should be assessed by the GSAs and additional representative monitoring wells to cover these areas should be considered. Second, the GSP describes in a footnote that “outliers” from its domestic well dataset were removed, and it also describes the quantitative rules for the removal. However, the GSP does not describe the number of wells that the outlier analysis ultimately removed from consideration or the characteristics of those wells. Third, the GSP notes that its analysis is based on Merced County’s electronic well permitting database,31 while Department staff’s understanding is that others have used well completion reports in the Department’s Online System for Well Completion Reports32 (OSWCR) repository. The GSAs should evaluate and discuss the additional data that may be present in the OWSCR repository, if applicable. To the extent that those, or other factors, led to the apparent discrepancy, then those should be examined by the GSAs and described to better understand the potential impacts of the minimum thresholds on beneficial uses and users of groundwater. (See Potential Corrective Action 2a.)


a) As required by the GSP Regulations, the GSP must provide a description of how theminimum thresholds may affect the interests of beneficial uses and users ofgroundwater or land uses and property.33 In particular, the GSAs should address theapparent or potential discrepancies between the stated rationale for the minimumthresholds versus the results of multiple studies showing a potentially significantnumber of well impacts if groundwater levels are operating near those minimumthresholds. Furthermore, the GSAs should explain whether other drinking water usersthat may rely on shallow wells, such as public water systems and state small watersystems, were considered in the GSAs’ site-specific thresholds. If not, the GSAsshould conduct outreach with those users and incorporate their shallow wells, asapplicable, into the site-specific minimum thresholds and measurable objectives.

31 Merced GSP, Section 3.3.2, p. 246. 32 Well Completion Report Map Application. California Department of Water Resources, https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Wells/Well-Completion-Reports. 33 23 CCR § 354.28(b)(4).


https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Wells/Well-Completion-Reports



Potential Deficiency 3. The GSP does not provide sufficient information to support the selection of land subsidence sustainable management criteria.

The potential deficiency relates to the GSP’s justification and lack of sufficient information to support the selection of land subsidence sustainable management criteria, particularly for minimum thresholds and undesirable results.

Background

The GSP Regulations require minimum thresholds for land subsidence based on the rate and extent of subsidence.34 The GSP Regulations require that the description of minimum thresholds include “[h]ow minimum thresholds may affect the interests of beneficial uses and users of groundwater or land uses and property interests,”35 and that the description of undesirable results include “[p]otential effects on the beneficial uses and users of groundwater, on land uses and property interests, and other potential effects that may occur or are occurring from undesirable results.”36 Also, in the development of minimum thresholds for land subsidence, the GSP Regulations require the identification of land uses and property interests that have been affected or are likely to be affected by land subsidence in the basin, including an explanation of how those uses and interests were determined and considered, and the rationale for establishing minimum thresholds in relations to those effects.37


The GSP describes land subsidence as a significant issue in the southwestern portion of the Subbasin and states that the subsidence is likely a result of groundwater extraction from below the Corcoran Clay.38 The GSP defines an undesirable result for land subsidence as “[t]he significant and unreasonable reduction in the viability of the use of infrastructure over the planning and implementation horizon...”.39 The GSP further explains that the Eastside Bypass in the southwest corner of the Subbasin has the largest potential to be damaged due to subsidence.40 The GSAs identify land subsidence as an area of concern in the Subbasin but do not, at this time, consider land subsidence to have caused a significant and unreasonable reduction in the viability of the use of infrastructure. The GSP states that land subsidence observed over the last 50 years has caused a reduction in freeboard of the Middle Eastside Bypass and caused problems in neighboring subbasins, highlighting the need for further monitoring and management.41

34 23 CCR § 354.28(c)(5). 35 23 CCR § 354.28(b)(4). 36 23 CCR § 354.26(b)(3). 37 23 CCR § 354.28(c)(5). 38 Merced GSP, Section 2.2.5, p. 180. 39 Merced GSP, Section 3.7.2, p. 256. 40 Merced GSP, Section 3.7.2, p. 257. 41 Merced GSP, ES-3, p. 24.




The GSP includes minimum thresholds and measurable objectives defined as rates of subsidence, but both are poorly supported relative to the requirements of the GSP Regulations. The minimum threshold, defined as 0.75 feet per year of subsidence, is described as “slightly higher” than measured subsidence rates between 2011 and 2018, the effects of which “…did not result in significant and unreasonable effects within the Merced Subbasin.”42 However, whether or not those historical rates were considered significant and unreasonable is immaterial to a prospective evaluation of sustainability. Rather, the GSAs should be concerned with whether and how future rates of subsidence could interfere with beneficial uses and users of groundwater or surface land uses and property interests. To properly address that concern, the GSAs should understand, through efforts such as coordination and technical studies, the amount of subsidence that would be significant and unreasonable, because it would substantially interfere with groundwater and land surface beneficial uses and users. That understanding would inform not only the selection of sustainable management criteria, but also the types and timing of projects and management actions that would be needed to avoid the significant and unreasonable effects. (See Potential Corrective Action 3a.)

The measurable objective, set to 0.25 feet per year, is described as being “based on recent subsidence rates, which are believed to be reflective of subsidence due to historical dewatering.”43 The GSP specifically notes that rates of subsidence were between 0.17 and 0.32 feet per year from December 2017 to December 2018. The GSP states that “some level of future subsidence, likely at rates similar to those currently experienced, is likely to be underway already and will not be able to be prevented.”44 Here, the GSP appears to be referring to residual or delayed compaction, and Department staff do not dispute that some level of residual compaction is expected after groundwater level decline is arrested. However, the GSP contains no evidence to support its conclusion that the 2017-2018 rates would be likely to continue over the planning and implementation horizon of the GSP. Evidence presented by the GSAs45 and by others46 has shown that, at least in some areas, compaction rates quickly attenuate following recovery of groundwater levels. The GSAs should substantiate its apparent residual compaction rates with data and analyses or explain how they intend to address this data gap. (See Potential Corrective Action 3b.)

It was the intent of the legislature that implementation of SGMA would avoid or minimize subsidence47 once basins achieve their sustainability goals. To be consistent with that intent, and in the absence of compelling information as to why additional long-term

42 Merced GSP, Section 3.7.2, p. 258-259. 43 Merced GSP, Section 3.7.3, p. 259. 44 Merced GSP, Section 3.7.2, p. 258. 45 Merced GSP, Section 2.2.5, p. 183-186. 46 Figure 6a and accompanying discussion, Faunt, C.C., Sneed, M., Traum, J. et al. Water availability and land subsidence in the Central Valley, California, USA. Hydrogeology Journal 24, 675–684 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-015-1339-x. 47 Water Code § 10720.1(e).


https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-015-1339-x



subsidence is acceptable for a basin, Department staff suggest that the measurable objective be zero inelastic subsidence and that the minimum thresholds be set commensurate with expected residual subsidence. It may be that those rates are exceeded during the implementation period (i.e., between 2020 and 2040), as projects and management actions are implemented and sustainability is achieved, but that can be acceptable if the GSAs are making adequate progress in implementing their GSP. As stated above, the rates at which projects and management actions are implemented should be consistent with the cumulative subsidence that the GSAs determine need to be avoided, as informed by the understanding of potential impacts or interference to beneficial uses and users of groundwater and surface land uses. (See Potential Corrective Action 3c.)

The GSAs have identified that “…sensitivity of local infrastructure to land subsidence is not well understood…”48, that they “…will continue to coordinate efforts with surrounding subbasins to develop regional and local solutions to subsidence occurring in the Merced, Chowchilla, and Delta-Mendota Subbasins…”49, and that they will identify a plan, including coordinating with other agencies and developing timelines, to fill data gaps within two years of the GSP being approved by the Department.50 Department staff agree that all of those items are important and should be implemented immediately, without waiting for approval of the GSP by the Department. However, staff do not believe that the GSP, in a Subbasin with significant historical subsidence and with infrastructure identified as being susceptible to future subsidence, should be recommended for approval without identifying the total cumulative amount of subsidence that can occur without causing significant and unreasonable impacts to beneficial uses and users, surface land uses, and property interests. Department staff recognize that the total allowable cumulative subsidence may be modified as the GSP is implemented, data gaps are filled, and additional analyses are conducted, and therefore Department staff encourage the GSAs to actively evaluate and adjust management criteria as new information and data are acquired.


a) The GSAs should identify the amount of subsidence that can be tolerated by critical infrastructure during the implementation of the GSP. This identification should be supported by information on the effects of subsidence on land surface and groundwater beneficial uses and users, and the amount of subsidence that would substantially interfere with those uses and users.

b) If, pending resolution of this potential corrective action, rates of delayed or residual compaction are used to inform minimum thresholds or measurable objectives, then

48 Merced GSP, Section 3.7.2, p. 257. 49 Merced GSP, Section 3.7.2, p. 259. 50 Merced GSP, Section 4.9.7, p. 294.




information should be provided to substantiate those rates, or explanation should be provided for how those rates will be evaluated as a data gap.

c) The GSAs should revise their minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for landsubsidence to reflect the intent of SGMA that subsidence be avoided or minimizedonce sustainability is achieved. Explain how the implementation of the projects andmanagement actions is consistent both with achieving the long-term avoidance orminimization of subsidence and with not exceeding the tolerable amount of cumulativesubsidence (i.e., less than substantial interference).


Documents

SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA December 10, 2021 10:00 AM 2222 …