Attachment 4 - Work Plan

Contents

Introduction to Work Plan...... 2

1Project Administration

1.1Grant Application Preparation

1.2Grant Administration

2Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement

2.1Develop Stakeholder Database

2.2Yolo Subbasin Stakeholder Engagement

2.3Interbasin GSA Coordination

3Public Notification and Communications

3.1Public Website Update

3.2Communication and Engagement Plan

4GSP Development

4.1Develop Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM)

4.2Water Budget

4.3Monitoring Network Update

4.4Data Management System Update

4.5Develop Sustainable Management Criteria

4.6Prepare GSP

Figures

Figure 1 – Map of Yolo Subbasin

Figure 2 – Generalized DMS Schematic

Figure 3 – Current screen shots of well selection tool and hydrograph tool

Figure 4 – Generalization of updated GIS web interface for well selection

Figure 5 – Generalization of updated well data page

Introduction to Work Plan

The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 is comprised of three bills, which create a framework that allows groundwater to be sustainably managed at a local level throughout California. The idea of “local control” is at the heart of the legislation, a progressive approach the stakeholders within Yolo County have been applying through the Water Resources Association of Yolo County (WRA) to achieve the following purposes:

  • Support the efforts of its members to obtain, protect, and maintain a high-quality water supply adequate for the present and future needs of Yolo County.
  • Educate its members, governmental authorities, and the public regarding all aspects of water use and water rights.
  • Provide a forum for the exchange of information among water purveyors.

Members (stakeholders) of the WRA include:

  • City of Davis
  • City of West Sacramento
  • City of Winters
  • City of Woodland
  • County of Yolo
  • Dunnigan Water District
  • Reclamation District 108
  • Reclamation District 2035
  • University of California, Davis
  • Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (YCFC&WCD)

Well in advance of the passage of SGMA, these stakeholders were monitoring, tracking, and reporting groundwater levels and groundwater quality to the Yolo Water Resources Information Database (WRID), a centralized database to facilitate the dissemination of information so proper management decisions can be made.

Yolo County had been previously split between four groundwater subbasins as described in the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Bulletin 118 (2003). After SGMA was enacted, the county stakeholders realized that local control and compliance with SGMA would be more manageable if these subbasins could be combined. In 2016, the stakeholders performed a jurisdictional groundwater subbasin consolidation and combined the Yolo County portions of the Colusa Subbasin, Capay Valley Subbasin, and Solano Subbasin with the Yolo Subbasin to create a new boundary for the Yolo Subbasin that encompasses most of the county. In 2018, the stakeholders intend to formally requesta second boundary modification during the open period for basin boundary modifications to incorporate into the Yolo Subbasin an additional portion of the Solano Subbasin that is near the City of Clarksburg in the southeastern portion of Yolo County. This boundary modification would incorporate RD 150 and RD 999; both reclamation districts have adopted resolutions allowing the Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency (YSGA) to submit an initial notification and formal basin boundary modification request to DWR.

The Yolo Subbasin Groundwater Agency (YSGA) was formed in June 2017 to serve asthe exclusive GSA for the Yolo Subbasin. The GSA is structured as a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) having members and affiliated parties that include those in the WRA and the following entities:

  • Esparto Community Services District
  • Madison Community Services District
  • Reclamation Districts: 537, 730, 765, 785, 787, 827, and 1600
  • YochaDehe Wintun Nation
  • California American Water Company – Dunnigan
  • Colusa Drain Mutual Water Company
  • Private pumper representative as appointed by the Yolo County Farm Bureau
  • Environmental party (will be determined through a YSGA subcommittee)

The YSGA is seeking a Sustainable Groundwater Planning (SGWP) grant, so the YSGA can continue being a leader in sustainable groundwater management in the Sacramento Valley. As will be discussed throughout this application, many of the actions central to the YSGA’s program for SGMA compliance are already in progress. Therefore, the YSGA seeks funding to augment and expand ongoing efforts and to initiate new activities as needed to create a complete Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The grant funding will be utilized immediately and efficiently to create a compliantGSP by an internal target date of the end of third-quarter, 2020, about one year prior to the deadlinemandated by SGMA.

The objectives of this Project are to:

  • Engage all water interests with a stake in sustainable management of the basin.
  • Update the WRID data management system to collect, compile, analyze, and report the wide variety of data that will be required to establish, target, and achieve sustainability.
  • Create a framework for water accounting and sustainable management that is simple to implement and understand, and which relies on empirical measurements as much as possible.
  • Update the monitoring network and incorporate additional wells for monitoring groundwater-level declines, interconnected surface-water depletions, water-quality degradation and groundwater-storage reduction sustainability indicators which are fundamental underpinnings of sustainable management.
  • Prepare a Communications and Engagement Plan to provide information to stakeholders and interested parties, and to enable stakeholders to help shape the GSP.
  • Develop a high-quality, consensus-based GSP that fully meets SGMA requirements and achieves sustainability by 2040. The GSP will set achievable goals for sustainably managing groundwater with recognized and verifiable actions and responsibilities. This includes development of a plan to effectively measure progress toward achieving sustainability, identifying and mitigating undesirable results, filling data gaps, and achieving steady progress to achievesustainability by 2040.

The following four tasks are presented to outline the method by which the YSGA will use the grant funds to develop a complete GSP that is compliant with the GSP Regulations.

  • Task 1 – Project Administration
  • Task 2 – Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement
  • Task 3 – Public Notification and Communications
  • Task 4 – GSP Development

The following Work Planprovides detailed descriptions ofthe four tasks and associated subtasks and provides a list of deliverables for each task. Figure 1 shows the Yolo Subbasin and the member agencies (excluding those that do not have a defined geographical boundary: private pumper [Yolo County Farm Bureau], YochaDehe Wintun Nation, and the environmental party).For all tasks listed below, there are no permits, environmental or otherwise, required at this time. During the development of the GSP, if additional tasks are determined to be necessary that require permitting or environmental compliance, the YSGA will comply and complete all required permitting.

Requested Budget

The YSGA is requesting a grant amount of $1,000,000. A local costshare of $1,033,244will be supplied by the YSGA member agencies. The localcost share has been divided into two categories; ‘Historical’ for the costs that have already been incurred by the YSGA, and ‘Future’, the proposed costshare contribution that the YSGA member agencies will provide moving forward through the GSP development process. The total project cost is budgeted as $2,033,244 to complete a GSP that meets SGMA and regulatory requirements.

Percentage Complete

The percentage complete for each of the four tasks listed above, with sub-tasks rolled up to the task level,is estimated by dividing the historical cost-share by the total cost of the task. The total cost of the taskis the summation of the requested grant amount, the historical cost-share, and the future cost-share for each task. The percentage complete reflects the cost-share expended since January 1, 2015 for each of the four tasks. The percentage complete does not include the deliverables that are presented in the work plan below. The cost of $27,000 presented in Task 1 for preparation of the grant application, although already expended, is presented as part of the grant request and is not included as a component of the historical cost share.

The YSGA will provide cost-share back-up data to DWR during the grant agreement process.

Figure 1– Map of Yolo Subbasin

1Project Administration

Task 1, project administration, includes grant application preparation and grant administration.

Task 1 –Percentage Complete: 24%

  • Grantapplication has been prepared.

1.1Grant Application Preparation

The YSGA solicited assistance for the preparation of the SGWP grant application and is seeking reimbursement for the funds expended. The YCFC&WCD assisted with the preparation and review of the grant application and will submit their time as historical cost share.

1.2Grant Administration

The YCFC&WCD (YSGA’s designated applicant)will utilize a part-time staff member to be the grant administrator and will use grant funds for the administration of the grant. The grant administration task encompasses management of the grant agreement, including agreement execution and amendment(s) (if necessary), communication with DWR on a timely basis, and maintenance of project files related to implementation of the grant agreement.

The YCFC&WCD will prepare and submit invoices to DWR, track task progress and schedule, and manage contracts and budgets associated with the grant agreement. The YCFC&WCD will administer and track any contracts with consultants or other agencies that are necessary to complete tasks in the Work Plan and compile the required invoice back-up information.

The YCFC&WCD will compile quarterly progress reports for submittal to DWR. Consultants will be retained as needed to assist with preparation and submittal of the quarterly progress reportsand the Final Grant Completion Report. These reports will contain, at minimum, a discussion of the following topics at a task level:

  • Percent complete estimate
  • Discussion of work accomplished during the reporting period
  • Milestones or deliverables completed/submitted during the reporting period
  • Meetings held or attended
  • Scheduling concerns and issues encountered that may delay completion of the task.

In addition to the required parts listed above the following topics will be discussedat a project level:

  • Work anticipated for the next reporting period
  • Photo documentation, as appropriate
  • Any schedule or budget modification approved by DWR during the reporting period.

At the completion of the Work Plan, the final GSP will be submitted to DWR, and a final Grant Completion Report will be prepared and submitted to DWR. The GrantCompletion Report will contain an executive summary and will provide reports and/or products that have not been previously provided as a deliverable.

Task 1.2 Deliverables

  • Executed grant agreement
  • Amendments(s) (if necessary)
  • Invoices and associated back-up documentation
  • Quarterly progress reports
  • Final GSP
  • Draft and Final Grant Completion Report

2Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement

Task 2, Stakeholder Outreach and Engagement, includes development of a stakeholder database, Yolo Subbasin stakeholder engagement, and interbasin GSA coordination.

Task 2 - Percentage Complete: 63% (Historical cost-share: $196,771)

  • Five (5) planning workshops were conducted during GSA formation
  • Intrabasin GSA coordination meetings were conducted in 2015 and 2016 and a basin boundary modification was approved by DWR

2.1Develop Stakeholder Database

In addition to the members of the YSGA, all the landowners/groundwater users in the subbasin are considered stakeholders. The YSGA has worked with their member agencies, the County, and the Yolo County Farm Bureau to develop a list of interested parties/stakeholders who have been notified of meetings throughout the process of forming the Groundwater Sustainability Agency in the Yolo Subbasin. Due to the breadth of topics that are covered by SGMA, the interested parties/stakeholders will change as new topics are introduced and as new stakeholders become interested. The database of stakeholders will be updated at each stakeholder meeting and public meeting as described in the tasks below. Quarterly update memorandums will be provided to DWR that state the number of stakeholders and interested parties that are in the database.

Task 2.1 Deliverable:

  • Quarterly update of stakeholder database as provided in the quarterly reporting

2.2Yolo Subbasin Stakeholder Engagement

CaliforniaWater Code §10732.2 requires consideration of all beneficial uses and users of groundwater when planning and implementing a GSP. Agriculture makes up 95% of water use in Yolo County, so farming and farmers are substantial beneficial uses/users within the YSGA. Stakeholder involvement has been facilitated through conducting farmer surveys, information gathering meetings with YSGA entities, participatory planning workshops with the YSGA, and the development of groundwater management case studies. The focus groups and farmers were surveyed to assess farmer perceptions of SGMA, current water management concerns, and preferences for groundwater management options for the future. During the formation ofthe YSGA, there were two rounds of public workshops in 2016 and 2017, with a total of five (5) meetings. Mailers were sent by the Yolo County Farm Bureau indicating the meeting topic, time, and location to all the landowners, and over 700 people attended the series of workshops.

Participatory planning workshops

Part of YSGA’s proactive approach to stakeholder engagement has been completion and analysis of farmer focus group interviews and surveys. The results will be presented to the stakeholders through six (6) participatory planning workshops that will be conducted over a one-year period. These workshops will be used to facilitate the development and articulation of sustainable management criteria and their respective thresholds,along withprojects and management actions that will be necessary for successful local management of the Yolo Subbasin.

The process that will be utilized for decision making is called XLRM, which some YSGA entities are already familiar with, and which DWR has used (with the RAND Corporation) in their Water Plan Update. The process stands for: X = uncertainties; L = levers or management actions; M = metrics or measurable objectives; and R = relationships that describe how uncertainties and management actions relate to the achievement of measurable objectives. XLRM presents the information gathered during the planning workshops in a simplified, collaborative way for decision-makers. This process allows the decision-makers (working group) to assess multiple planning scenarios in a matrix and identify the optimal solutions, or management actions.

Intrabasin GSA coordination

The YSGA intends to create a GSP that responds to the concerns of individual YSGA entities, as well as the Yolo Subbasin as a whole. Achieving this goal requires extensive coordination within the basin. An example of past coordination efforts is the series of meetings that began in 2015 and continued through 2016 with different entities in Yolo County to achieve the level of agreement needed to perform the successful jurisdictional basin boundary modification that consolidated four subbasins into a single Yolo Subbasin. YSGA will continue this type of close communication within the basin to facilitate the decision-making process that will come with GSP development. For example, a small area in the southeastern portion of Yolo County is still within the Solano Subbasin, but the Solano Subbasin and Yolo Subbasin are in communication, and in 2018 an additional boundary adjustment will be requestedto bring this portion of the Solano Subbasin into the Yolo Subbasin.

The outcome of the basin boundary modification requests will be the creation of one GSA covering the entire county with one GSP to be developed for the Yolo Subbasin. Implementing this planinvolves collecting detailed entity-level information through in-person meetings, conference calls, and secondary data search. In addition to gathering data from the local entities, 18groundwater basins in California and the southwestern U.S. have already been surveyed through grant funding and data from this survey are available to the YSGA. The purpose of the survey is to inform the YSGA of different groundwater management strategies and local policies as the YSGA creates new management strategies that are supported by and inclusive of each of the YSGA entities. These case studies will be presented to the YSGA working group and other interested parties over the course of the grant period.

Knowledge gained from the case studies will assist YSGA and their member entities within the Yolo Subbasin in developing their own policies and management strategies, as required within the Projects and Management Actions (GSP Regulations Article 5, Subarticle 5) sections of the GSP Regulations.

A focal point of intrabasin coordination will be establishment of management areas.Management areasare already in the process of being developed around similar hydrogeologic conditions within the subbasin. A level of autonomy for each of the management areas will be one of the benefits of creating management areas. The YSGA will conduct ‘stress tests’ on each management area to determine if they are operating sustainably. If the management areas are determined to be operating sustainably they will continue to meet their baseline conditions and move towards the overall sustainability goal. If undesirable results are observed then the YSGA will take steps to get the management area back on track within the sustainability goal timeline, prior to enforcement actions, or potential State Water Resources Control Board intervention. The initial delineation of the management areas is complete, but the draft boundaries need to be vetted and potentially adjusted by agency and member boundaries.

Task 2.2Deliverables:

  • Meeting minutes from six participatory planning workshops
  • Results of XLRM process that will be used to refine the water budget through use of the Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) model in Task 4.2, as described later in this grant application.
  • Outline of acceptable minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for each sustainability indicator
  • Minutes from in-person stakeholder meetings
  • Minutes from conference calls
  • List of secondary data gathered (summary report of the case studies)
  • Minutes from YSGA working group meetings that discuss the case studies

2.3Interbasin GSA Coordination

The YSGA has been collaborating with adjacent subbasins since the beginning of the SGMA process. YSGA worked closely with the Colusa and Solano subbasins and with DWR to complete the basin boundary adjustment that resulted in the consolidation of four subbasins into one. The YSGA participates in the Colusa and Solano subbasin GSA meetings and maintains an open line of communication with key stakeholders to facilitate sustainable groundwater management at the subbasin boundaries.