EKI TECHNICAL PRESENTATION #8 WHITE WOLF GSA BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

EKI TECHNICAL PRESENTATION #8

WHITE WOLF GSA BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1 OCTOBER 2019

OUTLINE

 Update on Groundwater Modeling Coordination  Proposition 68 SGM Grant Application

2

3

• 5a. UPDATE ON GROUNDWATER MODELING

COORDINATION

 C2VSimFG-Kern projected water budget results for the White Wolf

Subbasin (WWB) received 10 September 2019

 Model period 2021-2070 with repeating pattern of hydrologic conditions  Includes results from six scenarios:

4

C2VSIMFG-KERN PROJECTED WATER BUDGET

With no Projects With Projects Baseline conditions Baseline conditions 2030 Climate Change 2030 Climate Change 2070 Climate Change 2070 Climate Change

 Only includes projects in Kern County Subbasin, no projects in WWB  Holds 2013 land use constant (e.g., does not factor in Grapevine

Development)

• 1. Reduction in imported

water deliveries

• 2. Increase in

groundwater pumping to meet crop demand

5

THE PROJECTED WATER BUDGET IS INFLUENCED BY TWO KEY FACTORS

 Projected groundwater

storage decline under “no project” scenarios is about 20,000 AFY

 “Projects” in Kern

County Subbasin cause increases in Kern County Subbasin water levels and reduced gradient across the fault

6

GROUNDWATER ST0RAGE IN THE WWB IS EXPECTED TO DECLINE ~10,000 AFY

7

• 5b. PROPOSITION 68 SGM GRANT APPLICATION

 Round 3 Proposal Solicitation Package (PSP) released

and solicitation period began September 9th

 For applicants that received Proposition 1 (Round 2)

funding, Grant amount must be between $200,000 and $2 million minus Round 2 grant amount:

 WWB = $2 million - $557,998 = $1,442,002 maximum

application amount

 Applications are due November 1st at 1 pm  Expected final Grant awards in March, 2020

8

PROPOSITION 68 SGM GRANT – ROUND 3

PROP 68 GRANT APPLICATION COMPONENTS

Attachments:

1.

Board Resolution

2.

Eligibility

3.

Work Plan

4.

Budget

5.

Schedule

6.

Disadvantaged Areas documentation to support cost share reduction waiver, if applicable

9

 White Wolf GSA will be Applicant  TCWD will be elected to execute

the grant agreement with DWR

 White Wolf GSA Board must adopt

Resolution authorizing the application submittal, specifying the Secretary of TCWD as the designee (agenda item #6)

10

ATTACHMENT 1 - RESOLUTION

ATTACHMENT 2 – ELIGIBILITY

11

Eligibility Requirement Response Applicant White Wolf GSA Agricultural Water Management Plan (AWMP) AEWSD and WRMWSD have adopted 2015 AWMPs CASGEM Compliance White Wolf GSA is the CASGEM entity for Basin WRMWSD uploads data on behalf of the GSA semi-annually Climate Change GSP addresses climate change in the future projected water budget scenarios Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) AEWSD and WRMWSD have adopted GWMPs Open and Transparent Water Data All data associated with the GSA’s SGMA monitoring network will be uploaded to DWR’s SGMA portal

Note: Only applicable eligibility criterion are listed above.

• A. Project Description
• B. Project Benefits
• C. Technical Expertise
• D. Project Details

A.

Scope of Work

B.

Deliverables

• E. Project Support:

 Letters of Support

 Templates are included in the

Board packet, request from:

• GSA’s (AEWSD, TCWD, WRMWSD,

Kern County)

• Wind Wolves Preserve

 Landowners

 EKI must receive by 10/15/19

12

ATTACHMENT 3 – WORK PLAN

KEY DIFFERENCES FROM PROP 1 APPLICATION:

 Justify that tasks identified are new tasks from those undertaken for

Prop 1 Grant, and are informed by GSP development efforts to date

 Provide details on how GSP will be completed regardless of Prop 68

funding

 Demonstrate GSA’s / applicants prior qualifications with both grant

management and large planning documents

 Outline what qualifications the GSA is looking for in a technical

consultant

 Provide measurable, quantifiable, and meaningful benefits to DACs

13

THREE “PROJECTS” ARE PROPOSED THAT MEET THE GRANT CRITERIA

• 1. New Guidance Documents and Tools have been recently released, and
• 2. As part of the GSP development efforts to date, multiple important data

and analysis gaps have been identified.

 Proposed “Projects”:

1.

Conduct additional analysis to confirm status of potential groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) consistent with TNC Guidance/Tools

2.

Develop a basin-specific numerical groundwater flow model

3.

Improve the monitoring network to meet DWR’s requirements for SGMA and to address GDE monitoring, if they are confirmed present

14

 Prop 1 grant only included money

for initial identification and screening of GDEs.

 In June and July 2019, TNC

released guidebook “Identifying GDEs Under SGMA Best Practices for using the NC Dataset” and a transient tool “GDE Pulse”.

15

NEW GUIDANCE AND TOOLS MAKES GDE EFFORT MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED

 EKI has preliminarily

eliminated some GDEs based on depth to GW in nearby wells based on TNC Guidance.

 For remaining GDEs:

1.

Verify certain GDEs using aerial imagery, field mapping, and TNC GDE Pulse tool

2.

Install ~3 monitoring wells and instrumentation to determine connectivity to principal aquifer in certain areas (Springs Fault)

16

POTENTIAL GDEs REMAIN AFTER INITIAL SCREENING THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED IN THE GSP

THE GSA HAS CONCLUDED THAT A MORE ACCURATE BASIN MODEL IS DESIRED

• Prop 1 included money for development of

an analytical water budget model to cover “historical” and “current” conditions

• Assumed “future” water budget scenarios

would rely on adjacent Kern Subbasin work (C2VSimFG-Kern)

• The C2VSimFG-Kern does not accurately

represent the White Wolf Subbasin and is not calibrated

17

Category C2VSimFG-Kern Developing Basin-specific model Timeline DWR is not releasing calibrated C2VSim-FG until at least Spring 2020 (have missed all prior deadlines) Model development would start once Grant Agreement is in place (~ Mar 2020) Basin Representation Grid elements do not align with Basin boundary Basin boundary (WW Fault) can be accurately represented Layering not consistent with HCM Layering will be consistent with HCM Large cell sizes Smaller cell size will represent features with more detail and better accuracy which will support adaptive management Unknown calibration in WWB Reasonable calibration will be achieved for WWB Only accurate for large basin-wide results Developed specifically for WWB rather than subarea of much larger model Water Budget Does not accurately represent magnitude of Basin fluxes Will be developed and calibrated based on Basin-specific data Does not extend to 2072 or incorporate land use changes & P/MAs Will be developed to reflect estimated future Basin conditions Future Use ~1 month lead time on obtaining any results Immediately available for use once completed – maintains local WW GSA control

18

A BASIN-SPECIFIC MODEL CAN BETTER REPRESENT LOCAL CONDITIONS

A BASIN-SPECIFIC MODEL WILL HELP INFORM FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF THE BASIN

• Develop model based on the HCM and calibrate it using water level

data

• Extend future simulated time period to 2072
• Modify future land use to incorporate the Grapevine Development
• Incorporate local projects & management actions
• Refine cross-boundary flow estimates (Kern County Subbasin)

19

 Only 4 Central Valley subbasins have

decided to try to improve C2VSimFG

 Woodard & Curran is almost the

• nly consultant/model developer

using IWFM

 Most are using MODFLOW b/c

publicly available pre- and post- processing tools and user guides, long history of development and use, and is widely accepted in the groundwater modeling community

Basin C2VSIM Platform 100-400 Foot Aquifer No MODFLOW Borrego Valley No MODFLOW Chowchilla Yes - modified IWFM Cosumnes No IWFM? Cuyama No IWFM Delta-Mendota No MODFLOW ESJ No IWFM Kaweah No MODFLOW Kern Yes - modified IWFM Kings No (spreadsheet) Las Posas No MODFLOW Madera Yes - modified IWFM Merced No IWFM Modesto ? ? North American No IWFM North Yuba No IWFM Oxnard Plain No MODFLOW Paso Robles No MODFLOW Pleasant Valley No MODFLOW Salinas Valley - Arroyo Seco No IGSM Santa Cruz Mid-County No MODFLOW Santa Margarita No MODFLOW Solano ? ? South American No IGSM South Yuba No IWFM Tulare Lake No MODFLOW Tule No MODFLOW Turlock Yes - modified IWFM Westside No MODFLOW Yolo No MODFLOW

20

VERY FEW ADJACENT BASINS ARE USING THE SAME MODEL FOR SGMA

 Prop 1 included money to assess the existing monitoring programs and

infrastructure for application towards the SGMA-compliant monitoring network

 GSP Monitoring Network Requirements:

 Increased accuracy compared to CASGEM standards: surveyed coordinates with

30-ft horizontal and 0.5-ft vertical accuracy

 Known well construction details, including depth of screened interval

21

THERE IS NOT A SGMA-COMPLIANT MONITORING NETWORK IN THE BASIN

 Re-survey 17

CASGEM wells and up to 10 voluntary CASGEM wells

 Video logging to

improve well construction knowledge of up to 10 voluntary CASGEM wells

22

IMPROVE NETWORK WITH EXISTING WELLS

Budget – Subject to Revision

 Total cost share obligation per District: $57,000  Travel and per diem costs are not eligible for grant reimbursement or

cost share

 Total voluntary cost share obligation per District: $4,300

23

ATTACHMENT 4 - BUDGET

Budget Categories Requested Grant Amount Local Cost Share: Non-State Fund Source Total Cost % Local Cost Share Component 1 Grant Administration $24,000 $8,000 $32,000 25% Component 2: GSP Development $359,250 $119,750 $479,000 25% Component 3: Well Installation $129,750 $43,250 $173,000 25% Grand Total $513,000 $171,000 $684,000 25%

Schedule – Subject to Revision

24

ATTACHMENT 5 - SCHEDULE

Categories Start Date End Date Component 1: Grant Agreement Administration 3/1/2020 4/30/2022 Component 2: GSP Development 3/1/2020 6/30/2021 Component 3: Monitoring Well Installation 4/1/2020 6/30/2021

 WWB has 23% DAC coverage based on 2013-2017 U.S. Census

data, per PSP Guidelines

 Cost share reduction is not applicable

25

ATTACHMENT 6 – DACS (NOT APPLICABLE)

NEXT STEPS

 Finalize Prop 68 SGM Grant application

 Letters of Support needed by October 15th  Application due to DWR by November 1st

 Work with GSA representatives to plan data gaps filling efforts

 Further attempt to contact Tut Brothers for GPS/mapped location of their well(s)  Update groundwater elevation maps and hydrographs through 2019

 Assess monitoring network

 Best suited to be completed concurrently with Sustainable

Management Criteria development (EKI Task Order task 3, pending approval)

 Submit TSS grant application, as applicable

26

QUESTIONS?

Anona Dutton, P .G., C.Hg. adutton@ekiconsult.com 650-292-9100

27

www.ekiconsult.com Burlingame, CA | Los Angeles, CA Oakland, CA | Centennial, CO