attachment 4: work plan - water.ca. · pdf filecategory 1 project work ... be expected to...

Delta‐Mendota Subbasin Attachment 4 Sustainable Groundwater Plans and Projects Grant Application Work Plan

November 2017 Page 4‐1

ATTACHMENT 4: WORK PLAN

Attachment 4 consists of the following:

Category 1 Project Work Plans

Proposed work plans, including tasks, milestones and deliverables necessary for the two projects proposed under Category 1 are described in detail. Proposed projects are:

Project 1: Technical Assistance Project

Project 2: Generic Data Management System Framework and Santa Nella County Water District Data Management System Project

Category 2 Project Work Plans

At present, it is anticipated that six (6) Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) will be prepared for the Delta‐Mendota Subbasin (Subbasin) in a coordinated fashion. Category 2 funding requested herein will be distributed amongst the Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) developing the following GSPs, each discussed in this proposal as a Category 2 project:

Project 1: Northern and Central Delta‐Mendota Region GSP Development

Project 2: Grassland Water District GSP Development

Project 3: Farmers Water District GSP Development

Project 4: Aliso Water District GSP Development

Project 5: Fresno County Management Area A & B GSP Development

Project 6: San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP Development

Work plans for each project is presented below, including tasks, milestones and deliverables necessary to deliver SGMA‐compliant GSPs to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The GSPs will be the final deliverable submitted to DWR.



Category 1 Proposed Work Plans

This grant proposal includes two projects for Category 1 funding for the Subbasin. The proposed work plans included in this attachment include activities that serve and directly benefit Severely Disadvantaged Communities (SDACs), and are related to the planning and development of the six GSPs for the Subbasin.

Project 1: Technical Assistance Project

The Technical Assistance Project, will create a technical assistance fund, accessible by SDACs, to support active participation in regional groundwater sustainability planning efforts, leading to a more inclusive and effective stakeholder engagement process. SDAC priority needs will be better addressed when SDAC representatives are able to actively participate and/or be represented in discussions they might not otherwise have capacity to support. This project will provide direct funding SDAC community members to participate in GSP development activities and/or to hire a consultant with the sole purpose of representing their interests. Increased local SDAC presence will result in planning efforts that will be more cognizant of SDAC financial burdens, thus leading to more cost‐effective projects and targeted financial planning to avoid placing an undue financial burden on SDACs for GSP implementation. Creating a fund specifically to support SDAC involvement in GSP development activities will improve local participation and contribution to regional groundwater sustainability efforts.

We recognize and acknowledge that the scope of services proposed under this project is similar to that being proposed by others potentially serving SDACs in the Subbasin (Category 1 SGWP funding application to be submitted by Self Help Enterprises); however, per conversations with Self Help Enterprises, the areal extent to be covered by funding potentially received by Self Help Enterprises is much larger than just the Subbasin (which, itself, is a very large groundwater subbasin). Therefore, given the size of the Subbasin and the larger percentages of SDACs within the basin, we feel that additional funding is needed fully support the SDACs within the Subbasin and are thus including this project as a Delta‐Mendota Subbasin‐specific extension of the Self Help Enterprises’ proposed Technical Assistance Project.

(a) Direct Project Administration

Task1:ProjectAdministration(0%complete)Invoices from SDACs and/or their consultants will be checked and incorporated into monthly invoices that clearly show team members, hours, costs, and progress on Project tasks. A progress report will be prepared for each compiled invoice showing progress made during the month, next steps for the following billing cycle, and status of both schedule and budget. These monthly progress reports will document expenditures of the funding received for this Project. In addition, quarterly progress reports (including invoices) will be prepared and submitted to DWR that incorporates the monthly information on project progress and costs. A project completion report will also be submitted to DWR as a final deliverable under this task. This task falls under the Direct Project Administration budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task1Milestones:

MonthlyProgressReports

DWRQuarterlyProgressReports

DWRProjectCompletionReport



Task1Deliverables:




(b) Plan Development

This project does not include development of a plan.

(c) Stakeholder Engagement

Task2:SDACEngagementandEducationProgram(0%complete)The initial work item under Task 2 is an educational outreach program to SDACs in the Subbasin to educate these communities on SGMA, its implications, the availability of grant funding to support their participation in the GSP preparation process, and the means by which this funding will be allocated.

A consultant will be retained by the GSAs to act as the SDAC liaison, and will operate with direction and input from the Subbasin Coordination Committee. The SDAC liaison will be responsible for:

Acting on behalf of SDACs’ interest until individuals from the community can be engaged

Identifying SDACs in the Subbasin, document meeting occurrences, and establish points‐of contact

Developing and distributing education material at SDAC meetings

Reporting on developments of the Coordination Committee with regards to SGMA compliance and GSP development

Reporting concerns of SDACs to the Coordination Committee

Develop and distribute a Funding Request Form

Assist SDAC with completing Funding Request Form

The SDAC liaison is a temporary position until the SDACs become engaged. It may be that the communities are content with the SDAC liaison representing them; however, they will be given the opportunity to hire consultants specifically to represent their interests. To understand the potential financial burdens the SDACs may experience and in order to ensure a fair and equitable distribution of funding, each SDAC will be asked to prepare and submit a Funding Request Form for consideration by the Coordination Committee.

Funding Requests received will be evaluated as follows:

Establish guidelines for funding requests considering the needs of SDACs, compliance with SGMA, and the progress and status of the overall Subbasin efforts towards SGMA compliance.

Develop an application package that can be distributed through the SDAC liaisons efforts.

The Funding Request Form may provide technical assistance for:

o Direct representation;

o SGMA vulnerability assessments; and/or

o Conceptual project development.

Once applications have been received and the application deadline has passed, the applications will be delivered to the Coordination Committee or assigned to an Ad Hoc committee. The


November 2017 ‐4

committee will review requests and make recommendations based on need, both financial and for groundwater sustainability

Following completion of the activities that were awarded funding (Task 3 and 4, below), a summary of the awards and their activities will be prepared.

This task falls under the Stakeholder Engagement budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task2Milestones:

CompletionofEducationalMaterials(BoardPresentationsandHandouts)

CompilationofMeetingNotesforCompletedOutreachEfforts

DistributionofApplicationPackage

ReleaseofRequestRankingandListofFundstobeAllocated

MonthlyMeetings

CompletionofAwardedActivities

Task2Deliverables:

EducationalMaterials(BoardPresentationsandHandouts)

MeetingNotes

ApplicationPackage

FinalRequestRankingandListofFundstobeAllocated

SummaryofAwards

(d) Technical Assistance

Task3:SDACRepresentation(0%complete)To ensure SDACs have a voice in GSP preparation, funds will be set aside to provide the SDACs with a resource to allow participation. SDACs will be provided three options for assistance in representation:

1. Allow the assigned SDAC Liaison to continue providing representation 2. Request a consultant that the SDAC has an established relationship 3. Request funds to offset costs of SDAC staff or board member participation

The representative selected and approved will be expected to maintain the following records and provide the following services:

Maintain a contact list of interested parties in their respective SDAC

Outreach to SDAC prior to meeting

Coordinate with represented SDAC on timing of meetings, meeting objectives, and project status updates

Communicate meeting notifications to respective boards

Prepare meeting notes and monthly progress reports

The selected representative would be allocated funds for attendance at the following monthly meetings:

1. Respective SDAC Board Meetings 2. Coordination Committee Meetings 3. Technical Sub‐Committee Meetings



Funding may also be allocated for use in holding ‘internal’ SDAC meetings to provide coordination with and obtain feedback from their respective SDACs. This task falls under the Technical Assistance budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task3Milestones:

CompilationofMeetingAgendas,Handouts,andMinutes

AttendanceatBoardMeetings(specificmeetingdatesTBD)

AttendanceatCoordinationCommitteeMeetings(specificmeetingdatesTBD)

AttendanceatTechnicalAdvisoryCommitteeMeetings(specificmeetingdatesTBD)

AttendanceatSDAC‘Internal’Meetings(specificmeetingdatesTBD)

Task3Deliverables:

MeetingAgendas,Handouts,andMinutes


Task4:VulnerabilityAssessmentandProjectDevelopment(0%complete)The SDAC may request funds to perform a Vulnerability Assessment of their community. The results of the Vulnerability Assessment will be used to help direct resources and funding for conceptual Project Development Activities. These exercises will provide a better understanding of the groundwater sustainability issues that affect the SDAC, and potential remedies.

The Vulnerability Assessment may include the following activities:

Development of a SDAC rapid appraisal form/questionnaire that will attempt to summarize the potential issues in the community, the severity of the issues, and the potential implications if unmanaged. The form would request information in the following categories:

o Water Supply Sources o Recharge Sources o Rate/Fee information o Water Quality o Subsidence

Review and organization of data

Prepare a simplified water budget

Evaluation of groundwater sustainability factors

Prepare final Vulnerability Assessment Report of SDAC

Should remedies be required to become sustainable or comply with SGMA, the SDAC would then first prepare a conceptual project development memo, describing:

Problem being addressed

Description of project/actions to be taken to remedy impacts

Anticipated cost

Benefits to be obtained (including quantification of benefits where possible)

Recommended next steps

The conceptual project development memos would be evaluated by the coordination committee. If approved by the committee, the projects would then be further developed for inclusion into the GSP. Further development could include:



Prepare a feasibility study report

Conduct preliminary design activities

Identify funding opportunities (implementation / construction funding)

This task falls under the Technical Assistance budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task4Milestones:

CreationofSDACRapidAppraisalForm

SubmittalofVulnerabilityAssessmentReport

SubmittalofConceptualProjectDevelopmentMemos

SelectionofConceptualProjectsforGSPInclusion

Task4Deliverables:

SDACRapidAppraisalForm

CompletedVulnerabilityAssessmentReport

InitialConceptualProjectDevelopmentMemos

FinalConceptualProjectsforGSPinclusion

Project 2: Generic Data Management System Framework and Santa Nella County Water District Data Management System Project

Project 2, Generic Data Management System Framework and Santa Nella County Water District Data Management System Project, will create a generic data management system (DMS) to give SDACs a base platform from which to develop their own data management systems, allowing access to a key management tool that will enable them to take ownership of groundwater management in their communities. A generic DMS framework, made available to water agencies that serve SDACs, will help to streamline data and reporting processes, reducing costs to community rate payers. This will, in turn, reduce administration costs borne by water agencies who must comply with state and federal regulations (including meeting SGMA requirements for data management). The generic DMS framework will also allow for systematic ‘normalization’ of data, promoting a single format for data management, streamlining the consolidation of local data sets into a basin‐wide data set, and setting a framework for basin‐wide unity in data management.


Task4:ProjectAdministrationThis project will be administered by Santa Nella County Water District (SNCWD), and will include reviewing, approving and compiling invoices from SDACs and/or their consultants to ensure that clearly show team members, hours, costs, and progress on project tasks and to prepare a single invoice for submittal to DWR. A progress report will be prepared for each compiled invoice showing progress made during the month, next steps for the following billing cycle, and status of both schedule and budget. These monthly progress reports will document expenditures of the funding received for this project. In addition, quarterly progress reports (including invoices) will be prepared and submitted to DWR that incorporates the monthly information on project progress. A project completion report will also be submitted to DWR as a final deliverable under this task. This task falls under the Direct Project Administration budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.



Task4Milestones:




Task4Deliverables:





This project does not include development of a plan.


Task1:ConceptualDMSDevelopment(0%complete)Developing the generic DMS for SDACs in the Subbasin will require many interactions and design input meetings. Although SNCWD will be leading the DMS pilot program, for the DMS to be effective for the other SDACs and usable with the larger basin‐wide data collection effort, input will be necessary from multiple agencies with the Subbasin.

Through stakeholder outreach efforts, a small committee of roughly six agencies will be formed to develop the DMS. Agencies will be sought with diverse water portfolios and reporting requirements so that the generic DMS developed would encapsulate the need of the SDACs. Desired committee members include:

SDAC with Groundwater Supply

SDAC with Surface Water Supply

SDAC with Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Responsibilities

SDAC with known Water Quality Issues

Agricultural water supplier

A representative of the Delta‐Mendota Subbasin Coordination Committee

A single entity could be representative of one or more of the above qualifications. Additionally, it is desired that committee members have one or more regulatory programs to which they report.

Once a committee is in place, the database developer will prepare draft wireframes and a database structure based on the general understanding of the SDAC needs. A series of design charrettes would then be hosted that would allow the committee to provide input on the functionality and needs of the DMS. After each charrette, the developer will revise the DMS prototype. It is envisioned that roughly four iterations will be needed to develop a DMS that would be ready for testing by SNCWD. This task falls under the Stakeholder Engagement budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.



Task1Milestones:

CommitteeFormation

CompletionoffourCharrettes

CompletionofDraftWireframe

CompletionoffouriterationsoftheDMSPrototype

Task1Deliverables:

CommitteeMemberRoster

MeetingMinutes

DraftWireframeandPrototypeDatabaseStructure

(d) DMS Development

Task2:DataCollectionandOrganization(0%complete)SNCWD provides municipal groundwater and surface water, and also collects wastewater for the community of Santa Nella. Because of the various supplies and functions, they have reporting requirements to the State Water Resources Control Board ‐ Division of Drinking Water as well as the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Also, since a portion of their water supply is from the federal Central Valley Project (CVP), reports are due to the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. With so many data sources and reporting requirements, the SNCWD’s data exist in a myriad of spreadsheets that require a great deal of institutional knowledge to navigate. This makes it difficult to disseminate information in‐house, let alone report it to other agencies of the Delta‐Mendota Subbasin, for inclusion in annual reports as will be required for SGMA compliance. Data collection needs of SNCWD could include:

Surface water diversions

Groundwater pumped

Water deliveries

Well construction data

Well pump test data

Drinking water quality

Distribution system water quality

Groundwater water levels

WWTP inflows

Land use

To transfer the data in the DMS, the files will need to be sorted and organized. Additionally, for the data to be in a usable format for the ultimate goal of common data management throughout the basin, the format in which the data are organized will be influenced by the Delta‐Mendota Subbasin technical sub‐committee. The technical sub‐committee will determine the monitoring protocols and the ultimate format for data collection. The DMS team will filter and organize the data considering the needs of the overall groundwater basin. This task falls under the Stakeholder Engagement budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.



Task2Milestones:

DataCompilation

CompletionofDataCollectionTemplate

Task2Deliverables:

DataCollectionTemplate

Task3:FinalDMSTestingandImplementation(0%complete)Once the DMS Prototype is developed and the data are organized, beta testing of the DMS can begin. SNCWD will begin using the system as new data becomes available. The test period will be conducted over a six‐month period, which should provide sufficient time to go through a cycle of data collection. During this period, the developer will check in bi‐weekly to discuss any issues and provide modifications to the DMS. At two‐month intervals, the committee will be debriefed by SNCWD with issues encountered and desired modifications. The modifications will be evaluated by the committee to ensure it will be useful to those SDACs that would eventually use the DMS and changes authorized by the committee prior to implementation by the software developer. At the conclusion of beta testing, the system will be made available to the other SDACs for use in complying with SGMA and the Subbasin reporting requirements. This task falls under the DMS Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task3Milestones:

Sub‐CommitteeMeetings

CompletionofDMS

Task3Deliverables:

MeetingAgendas,Handouts,andMinutes

FinalDMSWireframe

DMSTechnicalDocumentation



Category 2 Proposed Work Plans

West Stanislaus Irrigation District (ID) is also requesting funding on behalf of the 23 Subbasin GSAs in the Subbasin for activities associated with planning, development, and preparation of six Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs). Work plans for each Category 2 project is provided below, describing all tasks associated with planning, development, and preparation of the six Subbasin GSPs that will comply with GSP regulations, incorporate appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) as developed by DWR, and develop a more complete understanding of the Subbasin to support sustainable groundwater management. The scope of work and project deliverables for each project, as well as the percent of completion for each task, are described in this attachment.

Project 1: Northern and Central Delta‐Mendota Region GSP Development

The following Work Plan is part of a Category 2 grant funding request by Northern Delta‐Mendota Region GSAs including the Central Delta‐Mendota Region Multi‐Agency GSA, City of Patterson GSA, DM‐II GSA (Del Puerto and Oak Flat Water Districts), Northwestern Delta‐Mendota GSA (Merced County and Stanislaus County), Patterson Irrigation District GSA, and West Stanislaus Irrigation District GSAs.


Task1:FundingAdministration(0%complete)Activities under Task 1 will begin starting with receipt of Notice to Proceed (anticipated to occur at the end of November 2017) in order to meet the SGMA deadline of January 31, 2020 for the Subbasin.

Project funding and administration activities carried out under Task 1 are exclusive to GSP development activities and are therefore not duplicative of activities carried out under the following projects, which partially overlay the Subbasin and are funded under the SGWP Proposition 1 Counties with Stressed Basins grant program:

Fresno County’s Kings/Westside Subbasin Boundary Monitoring Project

Madera County’s Madera Subbasin and Chowchilla Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Formation

Merced County’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Readiness Program

San Joaquin County’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Readiness Project

Stanislaus County’s Programmatic EIR (PEIR) for Implementation of Stanislaus County Groundwater Ordinance

Activities to be conducted under this task are related to grant administration, including invoicing and reporting. Specifically, this task will include processing eight (8) quarterly reports (including invoices) throughout the extend of the funding agreement as well has a project completion report upon submittal of the Final GSP to DWR. This task falls under the Direct Project Administration budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task1Milestones:





Task1Deliverables:




Task2:DataManagement(5%complete)To date, the Subbasin has been managed without a complete understanding of subsurface inflows and outflows with adjoining subbasins, as well as groundwater‐surface water interactions within the Subbasin. The intent of Task 2 is to compile data and develop a Data Management System (DMS), as required under GSP Regulations § 352.6, which states that each GSA develop and maintain a DMS that is capable of storing and reporting information relevant to the development or implementation of the GSP and monitoring of the subbasin.

The GSP will focus on improving hydrogeologic and hydrologic understanding and developing monitoring networks capable of collecting more focused data for future use. The GSP will also build on existing data being compiled by Stanislaus County under the PEIR with SGWP Proposition 1 Counties with Stressed Basins grant funding, including a well database, datasets for development of a groundwater model, and a library of planning documents and technical publications. The Subbasin includes portions of Stanislaus and Merced Counties (in addition to other counties) and therefore data collection efforts are not duplicative of model development for the Discretionary Well Permitting and Management Program funded by the SGWP Proposition 1 Counties with Stressed Basins program. These materials are going to be incorporated into the GSP where applicable.

Additional effort is required to compile and check datasets and organize them into a central clearinghouse that will support hydrogeologic analyses, numerical model revisions, and a credible analysis of sustainability indicators in the Subbasin, as well as display and disseminate the information to interested parties and simplify annual reporting requirements. Compilation of data and information to support the GSP will adhere to applicable standards for data, reporting, monitoring, and GIS, when applicable (Reg. § 352).

At a minimum, GSP data will be organized into standardized data sets using typical formats for groundwater data including a Project Access database coupled with a Geographical Information System (GIS) geodatabase. However, it is more likely that the wireframe DMS developed as part of the Generic Data Management System (Category 1 Project 2) will be evaluated relative to the needs of the Northern and Central Delta‐Mendota Regions for use in these portions of the groundwater basin, and modifications/changes to the system identified as required to both comply with SGMA and meet the needs of the Northern and Central Delta‐Mendota Region. All data compiled into the DMS will undergo quality control checks, reconciled to standardized benchmarks, and in a consistent format.

While groundwater and surface water data have been collected in the Subbasin for decades, data exists as local data sets primarily collected and maintained by local agencies to meet agency‐specific objectives. The existing data is stored in multiple formats and needs to be centralized to display and disseminate the information to interested parties, as well as simplify annual reporting requirements. Various options for DMS will be identified and compared, with a single platform selected by the GSAs of the Northern and Central Delta‐Mendota Region for use in these portions of the groundwater basin.

Upon identification of the DMS, data collected and reviewed will be compiled within the selected DMS, and appropriate reporting formats and data management protocols developed.



A Coordinated DMS will be developed in a format similar to the DMS developed for this GSP. This Coordinated DMS will compile individual data from other coordinating GSPs in the Subbasin. The Coordinated DMS will be utilized by all various GSAs and GSPs in the Subbasin for the purposes of reporting coordinated data specific to the Subbasin monitoring network and tracking of Subbasin undesirable results and sustainability indicators. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task2Milestones:

QA/QCofdatatosupportGSP

Descriptionofsources,types,management,andQA/QCofdatatosupportGSP

Task2Deliverables:

Compiled Data Management System (Northern and Central Delta‐Mendota Region)

DataManagementProtocols

CoordinatedDataManagementSystem(Delta‐MendotaSubbasin‐wide)

Task3:FlowModeling(15%complete)The intent of Task 3 is to refine and enhance an existing local groundwater flow model within the Subbasin and develop a robust, defensible, and reliable integrated hydrologic conceptual model (HCM) to support GSP Regulation § 354.14, which requires the development of a HCM. The HCM will be used for assessment of the historical and baseline hydrologic conditions for the groundwater system, as well as the land surface processes, stream system, and interactions among these physical systems. The HCM will be used to refine the groundwater numerical model to assess management options and scenarios that achieve a long‐term, sustainable groundwater system. Groundwater analyses are designed to comply with Reg. § 354.16 and to provide for an improved understanding of current groundwater conditions to support sustainable management. BMPs for developing the HCM will be incorporated under Task 3 where feasible.

To date, the Subbasin has been managed without a complete understanding of subsurface inflows and outflows with adjoining subbasins, as well as groundwater‐surface water interactions in the Subbasin. The GSP will focus on improving hydrogeologic and hydrologic understanding and developing monitoring networks capable of collecting more focused data for future use.

Three counties that overlay the Subbasin have projects funded under the Proposition 1 Counties with Stressed Basins grant program that require work related to Task 3. Work being done in each project will not be duplicated, but rather built upon, in Task 3. Merced County’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Readiness Project includes a summary of available models and their suitability to perform water budget analyses. This information about local models will be compiled and incorporated into Task 3. The Merced project will also make revisions to the bottom of the Merced Water Resources Model (MercedWRM). However, the MercedWRM model only covers 44% of the Subbasin geographic area and therefore would need to be expanded to include the entire Subbasin should MercedWRM be selected as the local model to support GSP development. San Joaquin County’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Readiness Project includes an update to the County’s model, development of a comprehensive basin‐scale water budget. However, the San Joaquin County only covers 1% of the Subbasin’s geographic area and therefore modeling efforts proposed under Task 3 would not be duplicative to efforts done in San Joaquin County. The PEIR for Implementation of the Stanislaus County Groundwater Ordinance is working to develop the Stanislaus County Hydrologic Model (SCHM) and will serve as a key tool for characterizing groundwater conditions in Stanislaus County. Stanislaus County cover 19% of the Subbasin and, therefore, the SCHM can be used to refine the model being developed under Task 3.



A comprehensive texture analysis of the available data will be conducted, and will take into consideration the subbasin characterizations of the adjacent groundwater basins to facilitate the most effective coordination and compatibility for inter‐basin flows. The comparison of subbasin characterization of the HCM with what is contained in C2VSim will also be conducted to proactively facilitate DWR’s evaluation of this component of the GSP.

This task will develop a robust, defensible, and reliable integrated HCM to be used for assessment of the historical and baseline hydrologic conditions for the groundwater system, as well as the land surface processes, stream system, and interactions among these physical systems. The HCM will be used to refine the groundwater numerical model to assess management options and scenarios that achieve a long‐term, sustainable groundwater system. This task will rely on the refinement and enhancement of existing models in the region (CVHM) using field well‐log data and other data provided by stakeholders.

Following completion of the HCM, a model selection, refinement, and enhancement effort will take place in an open and transparent stakeholder‐driven process to support GSP development, if necessary. Additional screening of the modeling tools will be conducted to select a robust and defensible tool for GSP development that is consistent with local information. Existing models, CVHM, developed by USGS, and C2VSim, developed by DWR, will be refined using local‐scale data, field well‐log data, and other data provided by stakeholders. The task will include a comprehensive texture analysis of the available data and will consider subbasin characterizations of the adjacent groundwater basins to facilitate the most effective coordination and compatibility for inter‐basin flows. Model refinement for local conditions will be conducted following model selection and the development of a detailed approach to implement necessary model refinements. The updated and refined model will be calibrated for several target calibration criteria, including water budget, groundwater levels, and streamflows, and be used to measure the performance of the model for GSP development needs. The calibrated model will result in an evaluation of historical hydrologic conditions of the groundwater basin and development of water budgets representing historical basin conditions. To evaluate the basin in terms of current and future management and operational conditions, two baseline scenarios should be developed, representing the current and future land/water use conditions, respectively. Annual groundwater budgets will be used to assess the short‐term and long‐term groundwater storage, which will result in estimation of overdraft condition, along with stream budgets and groundwater levels at key locations, which will be used to estimate sustainable yield of the groundwater basin. Final model files will be packaged and submitted to DWR.

The calibrated model will also be used to evaluate impacts of management options on the groundwater basin and undesirable results due to future projects and management actions that are formulated to achieve sustainability in 20 years. A streamlined protocol will be developed for modifying the model input files to capture the projects definitions in the model and for processing the model output to meaningful and easy‐to‐understand comparative graphics for managers and decision makers. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task3Milestones:

CompletionofDraftTechnicalAppendixtoGSPwithmodeldocumentation

Task3Deliverables:

AdministrativeDraftandDraftTechnicalAppendixtotheGSPwithmodeldocumentation

FinalmodelfilespackagedforreleasetoDWR



Task4:Monitoring(5%complete)The intent of Task 4 is to establish a monitoring network and monitoring protocols with the collection of data of sufficient quality, distribution, and frequency to characterize groundwater and related surface water conditions and to track changes, including short‐term, seasonal, and long‐term trends, per GSP Regulations Subarticle 4 (§ 354.32 – 354.40) and § 352.2 – 352.4.

Four counties that overlay the Subbasin have projects funded under the Proposition 1 Counties with Stressed Basins grant program that require work related to Task 4. Monitoring‐related work being done in each of the four projects will be built upon in Task 4 and are not duplicative of the efforts being proposed in the proposal. Fresno County’s Kings/Westside Subbasin Boundary Monitoring Project includes expansion and integration of a groundwater monitoring network to provide better data for sustainable groundwater management. It will also include the construction of monitoring wells where there are gaps. Fresno County overlays about 29% of the Subbasin geographic area. Work being done to implement a monitoring network in the Subbasin regional will expand upon what is already being done in Fresno County, but will also include areas outside of the Fresno County jurisdiction. The PEIR for Implementation of the Stanislaus County Groundwater Ordinance includes a GSA Support task which would include an evaluation of the adequacy of currently monitoring networks within Stanislaus County. As mentioned in Task 3, Stanislaus County only covers 19% of the Subbasin and, therefore, work done as part of the PEIR will only partially satisfy the monitoring needs of the Subbasin. Merced County’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Readiness Project is conducting a county‐wide monitoring assessment and developing a county‐wide monitoring plan. As Merced County counts for about 44% of the Subbasin, the work being done as part of Merced County’s project will significantly support Task 4 efforts. San Joaquin County’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Readiness Project is expanding and modernizing San Joaquin County’s existing monitoring well program. This effort will only partially help Task 4 as San Joaquin County only overlays 1% of the Subbasin.

A broad range of monitoring information currently exists within the context of each GSA and/or agency operations in the Subbasin. For the purposes of establishing a basin‐wide comprehensive monitoring program, these existing networks, and their associated data sets, will be evaluated for applicability to SGMA‐related monitoring, starting with the Subbasin’s existing CASGEM monitoring program.

The CASGEM Monitoring Plan was established in July 2015. San Luis & Delta‐Mendota Water Authority (SLDMWA) member agencies’ CASGEM data was compiled into a single geodatabase, which will help facilitate efforts to assess the Subbasin’s current monitoring network.

Data gaps will be identified, and an action plan developed to chart a pathway forward to completion of one or more monitoring networks that meet SGMA reporting requirements, provide necessary feedback relative to the success of management actions and programs, and allow for regular assessment relative to the achievement of sustainability goals. Ultimately, the intent of the monitoring network will be the collection of data of sufficient quality, distribution, and frequency to characterize groundwater and related surface water conditions and to track changes, including short‐term, seasonal, and long‐term trends.

The monitoring network will be designed to support achievement of the Subbasin’s identified sustainability goals and objectives, with identification of the data and analytical methods to evaluate sustainability indicators, define performance criteria, and allow for development of a plan for obtaining data. Implementation of the monitoring network will be described in terms of objectives, specifically how the network will demonstrate progress toward achieving the measurable objectives, monitor impacts to beneficial uses or users of groundwater, monitor changes in groundwater conditions, and quantify annual changes in water budget components



The monitoring plan will be described in terms of its coverage of the relevant sustainability indicators, including the following:

Density of monitoring sites and frequency of measurements to demonstrate short‐term, seasonal, and long‐term trends

Scientific rationale for site selection

Consistency with data and reporting standards

Corresponding sustainability indicator, minimum threshold, measurable objective, and interim milestone

Location and type of each site on a map.

If management areas are used, this description of the monitoring network will provide detail appropriate for each management area. The monitoring network also will be developed to support consistency of data across basin boundaries both spatially and temporally

Protocols for collecting data under the basin‐wide monitoring program to ensure reliable and comparable data and methodologies, and for incorporating those data into the DMS developed under Task 2 will be established to facilitate data analysis for demonstration of compliance with SGMA regulations. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task4Milestones:

CompletionofMonitoringPlan

CompletionofDataGapAnalysisTechnicalMemorandum(TM)

Task4Deliverables:

MonitoringPlan

DataGapAnalysisTM

Task5:Intra‐basinCoordinationandProgramManagement(5%complete)The intent of this task will be to provide technical support for a comprehensive Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement Plan as described in Task 9, Outreach and Education. The focus of this task will be on coordinating technical analyses across the Subbasin per GSP Regulation Article 8, § 357.

Twelve (12) technical workshops/meetings will be conducted amongst the Northern and Central Delta‐Mendota GSAs and are envisioned to be presented on a quarterly basis throughout the project to keep the Northern and Central Delta‐Mendota GSAs informed of the ongoing technical analysis as appropriate for the given audience. Each technical workshop/meeting will be focused on a particular portion of the GSP. Meeting minutes and action items will be made available following each meeting.

In addition, 21 technical GSP meetings and 21 policy GSP meetings will be held among all the GSAs in the Subbasin responsible developing the anticipated six (6) GSPs. These meetings will address specific topics such as data and information sharing, coordination of shared technical and policy tasks (e.g. coordinated basin‐wide monitoring), and overall GSP coordination to provide coordinated coverage for the Subbasin as a whole. Meeting minutes and action items will be made available following each meeting

Intra‐basin coordination activities carried out under Task 5 are exclusive to GSP development activities and are therefore not duplicative of activities carried out under projects funded under the SGWP Proposition 1 Counties with Stressed Basins grant program (listed in Task 1).

Program management will oversee Subbasin SGMA activities and coordination of GSPs throughout the Subbasin. The goal of this task is to ensure, during development, each of the individual GSPs utilize the



same methodologies and assumptions, definitions, and monitoring network. A consultant will work with individual consultants and GSP development teams to ensure that all Plans are coordinated and do not adversely affect one another. This task will ensure the Subbasin is covered by adequate plans, and there are no adverse impacts or conflicting results.

This task provides for a Project Management Plan that establishes the structure, roles, and responsibilities of the member agencies staff, managers, and consultants and provides the framework for measuring progress and success—typically referred to as Key Performance Indicators—to provide the basis for ensuring effective and efficient project delivery. The Project Management Plan will cover an approximate 2.5‐year period and will require active management among Project team members and Agency personnel. In addition, a 100‐day plan will be developed that will define critical activities in order to establish project direction.

Also included in this task is the coordination of the activities of all GSP program team members. The project team will conduct bi‐weekly to monthly progress report conference calls to ensure coordination among tasks and sharing of information and data. Work progress will be effectively tracked and obstacles will be identified at the earliest possible time. Team members will meet on occasion to coordinate work tasks with close collaboration and coordinated work sessions, as needed.

Quarterly progress reports will be prepared and submitted to DWR that incorporates monthly information from the Project Management Plan as the project progresses. Additionally, an internal document storage, recovery and sharing system will be established using OptiPM, a password protected document management and sharing tool, to allow the entire GSP team to manage documents from any location via the web. Invoices from subconsultants will be checked and incorporated into monthly invoices that clearly show team members, hours, costs, and progress on Project tasks. A progress report will be prepared for each invoice showing progress made during the month, next steps for the following billing cycle, and status of both schedule and budget.

Prior to hiring a consultant, GSAs within the Northern and Central Delta‐Mendota Region entered into Activity Agreements to provide services related to SGMA compliance, including GSA formation and Subbasin coordination. These formalized coordination agreements acted as the foundation for the project administration and coordination tasks included in this work plan. The SGMA Program Guide was also developed. The document was and continues to be used to direct planning, budgeting, and coordination efforts to maintain SGMA compliance. This task falls under the Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task5Milestones:

FinalizationofProjectManagementPlan

Finalizationof100‐dayActionPlan

Twelve(12)TechnicalWorkshops

ProgressMeetings/ConferenceCalls(ongoing)

CompletionofBasinGSPcomparisons

Task5Deliverables:

Monthlyprogressreportsincludingcombinedinvoicesandupdatesonbudgetandschedule

FinalProjectManagementPlan

Final100‐dayActionPlan

ProgressMeeting/ConferenceCallnotesandactionitems



OptiPMDocumentSharingSystem

PresentationmaterialsforTechnicalWorkshops

MeetingMinutesandActionItemsformeetingswithGSAsandSubbasinpersonnel

Agreed‐upontechnicalapproachforaspectsofcoordination

InternalGSPWorkgroupCoordinationCallhighlightsandactionitemssummary

InternalGSPWorkgroupupdatestoprojectworkplanandprojectscheduleasneeded

Task6:Inter‐basinCoordination(0%complete)The intent of Task 6 will be to provide technical support for a comprehensive Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement Plan, as described in Task 9, Outreach and Education. The focus of this task will be on coordinating technical analyses with adjacent subbasins per GSP Regulation Article 8, § 357.

Following development of a Regional Coordination Committee, approximately seven (7) technical workshops with adjacent groundwater basins, are anticipated. The purpose of these meetings will be to coordinate with the schedules of the adjacent basins that are also critically‐overdrafted. Topics of these meetings will focus on key aspects of the technical work that require coordination, including (but not limited to) modeling assumptions and data sharing. Following the grant application submittal deadline, GSP development schedules will be compared and an early coordination meeting will be held that will focus on developing an agreed‐upon technical approach for aspects of coordination between adjacent basins. Meeting minutes and action items will be made available to participants and stakeholders following each meeting.

This task will cover each of the individual GSP Project teams, and will facilitate inter‐basin coordination for the subbasin as a whole.

Inter‐basin coordination activities carried out under Task 6 are exclusive to GSP development activities and are therefore not duplicative of activities carried out under projects funded under the SGWP Proposition 1 Counties with Stressed Basins grant program (listed in Task 1). This task falls under the Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task6Milestones:

Seven(7)JointTechnicalWorkshopswithAdjacentSubbasins

Four(4)Inter‐basinCoordinationCommitteeMeetings

Task6Deliverables:

JointTechnicalWorkshopwithAdjacentSubbasinsagendas,facilitationplans,materials,meetingminutes,actionitems,andoutreachmaterials(asapplicable)

Agreed‐upontechnicalapproachforaspectsofcoordination

Inter‐basinCoordinationCommitteeMeetingsagenda,materials,highlights,andactionitemssummary

Task7:GSPPreparation(0%complete)SGMA requires (per GSP Regulations § 355.2) the preparation and submittal of a GSP to DWR for review; as such, a formal GSP document will be compiled, incorporating the work conducted under all other tasks outlined in this Scope, along with other work items as described below. This work can be generally divided into four subtasks, each of which is described further in the following sections.



Preparation of the GSP document carried out under Task 7 is exclusive to GSP development activities and is, therefore, not duplicative of activities carried out under the Stanislaus County Groundwater Ordinance and Merced County’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Readiness Project, which is funded under the SGWP Proposition 1 Counties with Stressed Basins grant program. GSA/GSP Support activities carried out by Merced County with Counties with Stressed Basins funding are focused on GSA development and technical support rather than direct development of the GSP document.

DevelopSustainabilityGoalsandIndicatorsSGMA 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” (Section 10721 (v), Water Code). Therefore, as part of this subtask, the GSAs will work with the technical team and stakeholders to develop parameters defining how groundwater may be managed over the 20‐year planning and implementation horizon to achieve a variety of goals for the subbasin. This effort will occur in several steps as follows:

Define undesirable results

Define sustainability and associated sustainability goals

Define minimum thresholds and measurable objectives that will prevent and/or mitigate undesirable results and achieve the sustainability goal

Identify five‐year interim milestones

Define Undesirable Results

This subtask will evaluate the five sustainability indicators (all except seawater intrusion) for the Subbasin and for the Northern and Central Delta‐Mendota Region to define conditions determined to be significant and unreasonable for each indicator. These will be defined as undesirable results for the Subbasin. For the sustainability indicators, current beneficial uses of groundwater and surface water in the Subbasin will be considered. Potential effects on land use and property interests will be considered and discussed with stakeholders. The analysis will follow requirements in Reg. § 354.26.

For this analysis, the revised groundwater flow model will be applied to simulate conditions in the basin under current land use, groundwater use, and water resources management operations. These conditions will be projected 50 years into the future to evaluate changes in the groundwater basin assuming current conditions. This will be used to determine if current management of the Subbasin meets sustainability criteria.

The undesirable results will be described in the GSP. The text will also explain what groundwater conditions lead to the undesirable results. This understanding will be based on the HCM, analysis of current groundwater conditions, and the results of the water budget modeling from previous tasks. This understanding is also needed to determine minimum thresholds in the following task.

The definition of undesirable results will consider various applicable local, state, and federal standards, especially as applied to beneficial uses. Water quality objectives in the water quality control plan (Basin Plan) for the Subbasin will be considered along with state and federal drinking water standards. Agricultural water standards and problematic constituents for various crops will also be incorporated into the analysis. Definitions for undesirable results will include specificity on when, where, and why certain conditions occur. The analysis will consider whether the definitions of undesirable results for each indicator applies to all Management Areas. If not, one or more undesirable results will be defined on a Management‐Area basis. The analysis will be linked to the determination of minimum thresholds in the following task. Those numeric thresholds will be used to define undesirable results in specific areas.



Determine Minimum Thresholds

Minimum thresholds are numeric values that are quantified for each sustainability indicator and used to define undesirable results. Using water levels as an example, a certain groundwater elevation may be determined to indicate that there is a significant and unreasonable lowering of water levels in a certain area and if water levels fall below that groundwater elevation, then the basin would experience an undesirable result. In this example, the groundwater elevation would be determined to be the minimum threshold for that sustainability indicator. Assuming that water levels will be used at least as a minimum threshold for at least one (or more) sustainability indicator(s), the minimum threshold will likely need to differ across the Subbasin. Accordingly, minimum thresholds will require definition at each monitoring network well or representative monitoring site (Reg. § 354.28), allowing undesirable results to be monitored for the entire Subbasin.

The GSP will explain how each minimum threshold was determined and how it can avoid undesirable results. In accordance with Reg. § 354.20 (b) (2), minimum thresholds will be established for each sustainability indicator applicable to each Management Area. The GSP will describe the rationale for selection of each minimum threshold. The text will also describe relationships between different minimum thresholds over the Subbasin and how they relate to the minimum thresholds for the other sustainability indicators.

It is likely that water levels would be used as a proxy for other sustainability indicators including chronic lowering of water levels, depletion of groundwater storage and subsidence. Under certain conditions, water levels may also serve as a proxy for groundwater quality if there are areas of the Subbasin where water levels need to be maintained to avoid upcoming of poor quality groundwater at depth and/or as a proxy for depletion of surface water or groundwater dependent ecosystems. If used for more than one indicator, water levels may be set at one level to avoid undesirable results for one sustainability indicator and at another level in the same location to avoid undesirable results for a different sustainability indicator. Ultimately, the most stringent threshold will apply for each area. Notwithstanding the potential usefulness of defining water levels as minimum thresholds, numerous additional types of thresholds will be considered in the analysis including drinking water standards, agricultural water standards, surface water flows or quality, and other criteria.

Establish Measurable Objectives

Measurable objectives are quantifiable goals for the maintenance or improvement of specified groundwater conditions related to each sustainability indicator to achieve the Subbasin sustainability goal. This subtask will establish measurable objectives for the Subbasin using the same metrics as used for minimum thresholds and following additional requirements in Reg. § 354.30. When considered with each minimum threshold, the measurable objective will provide an effective operating range for applicable sustainability indicators. In addition, the measurable objective will be established such that minimum thresholds can be avoided.

A measurable objective will be established for each sustainability indicator in each Management Area (Reg. § 354.20 (b) (2)). The rationale for selecting the measurable objectives will be described for each Management Area. The GSP will also include an analysis of how different measurable objectives for different Management Areas will not adversely impact other Management Areas or adjacent subbasins.

Recognizing that the groundwater analysis will be associated with some level of uncertainty, a reasonable “margin of safety” measurable objective will be defined. The uncertainty may be associated with determining the amount of time needed to recognize that objectives are not being met and to implement a management action such that undesirable results are avoided. This may involve setting an objective higher than would be established if sufficient information were available.



Similar to the process of determining minimum thresholds, the establishment of measurable objectives may include water levels as a proxy for more than one sustainability indicator. In addition, measurable objectives may be established at discrete monitoring sites or representative monitoring sites across the Subbasin.

Develop Five‐Year Interim Milestones

In order to track the progress of achieving the sustainability goal for the basin and as required by SGMA, five‐year milestones will be developed for each measurable objective in each Management Area. The milestones will provide a means for evaluating the performance of the GSP and whether measurable objectives are being reached or maintained. As required in Reg. § 354.30 (e), milestones will be developed in increments of five years over the planning horizon. For the 20‐year planning horizon for meeting the sustainability criteria, milestones will be developed for 5, 10, 15, and 20 years from GSP development.

DevelopActionPlanOnce groundwater sustainability has been defined, basin sustainability objectives identified (including minimum thresholds and measurable objectives), and the Subbasin’s water budget established, sufficient information should exist to determine how far groundwater basin conditions are relative to its sustainability goal. It is at this point (consistent with Reg. § 354.44) that steps are taken to develop an implementation program to meet the sustainability goal.

Several steps are required for developing a sustainability program; these include the following:

1. Identifying possible management actions, programs and projects (called components herein) that can be implemented to help achieve sustainability.

2. Screening the identified components for technical, environmental, economic, social and regulatory feasibility and removing those most likely not to succeed.

3. Combining the remaining components into various combinations to form implementation portfolios.

4. Screening the preliminary portfolios for technical, environmental, economic, social and regulatory feasibility and removing those most likely not to succeed.

5. Simulating the top portfolios via numerical groundwater modeling and possible other methodologies (e.g. economic analyses) to provide a basis for comparison.

6. Selecting the preferred alternative for inclusion in the GSP for implementation.

The following subtasks describe this process in more detail.

Identify Management Actions, Programs and Projects

Potential components (specific management actions, programs or projects) for achieving groundwater sustainability will be identified based on existing planning documents (including County General Plans, Integrated Regional Water Management Plans and other similar planning documents), along with other sources of input to the planning process. A selection of water supply and demand management components will be identified, including those required for sustaining groundwater dependent ecosystems and aiding disadvantaged communities.

Planned, funded or previously evaluated project by individual cities, water districts, groundwater sustainability agencies will be evaluated initially and recommended for prioritization to leverage other efforts and reduce costs.

Once the list of potential management actions, programs and projects has been developed, the individual components will be evaluated and screened to eliminate those least likely to meet the overall



sustainability goals and objectives. Specifically, a screening methodology will first be developed that includes criteria to establish which components best meet the program objectives. This screening methodology will begin with the application of ‘exclusionary’ criteria, representing a “fatal flaw” analysis. If a component does not meet the exclusionary criteria, then it is eliminated. The exclusionary criteria will most likely include technical, operational, economic and legal feasibility.

After components are evaluated against exclusionary criteria, the remaining selections will be tested against an array of ‘evaluating’ criteria utilizing a weighted approach to incorporate decision‐making preferences. This step will also yield a sensitivity analysis of how amending the weighting assigned to the various criteria affects the ranking of the water supply components array. It should be noted that multi‐benefit projects are preferred over single‐benefit projects due to the higher likelihood of receiving outside funding for implementation. Nonetheless, single‐benefit projects may be required to ensure that sustainability goals are met.

After potential management actions, programs and projects (components) have been identified and screened, the best‐fit components will be used to develop management scenarios for simulation using the numerical groundwater model. The best‐fit components will be grouped in ‘portfolios’ developed to meet the Subbasin’s sustainability goals and planning objectives of GSP while minimizing cost and risk. It is anticipated that each groundwater management portfolio will likely contain an array of both supplemental supply and demand management components. There will be no limits on the number of components per portfolio nor the number of times any one component can be included in a portfolio.

After the portfolios are assembled using the best‐fit components, a two‐step screening process will be implemented to evaluate the established portfolios and identify a preferred groundwater management portfolio. The details of this screening process will be developed in conjunction with the GSAs, however, both levels of portfolio screening will consider wet, normal and dry years, with a multi‐year drought represented by the drought sequences included in the proposed simulation period and/or by other methods. It is anticipated that the preliminary portfolio screening will occur in a manner similar to that used for the components evaluation, described above. This weighted analytical screening process will eliminate the weaker portfolios based on pre‐determined criteria. The remaining portfolios will then go through a detailed screening analysis that will include the use the evaluation criteria – operational, engineering, reliability, public health, environmental, institutional, risk assessment and policy in conjunction with the numerical groundwater model and/or other identified models (such as a Decision Support System model similar to WEAP) to identify a subset of preferred portfolios. Additional evaluation criteria for meeting scheduling/phasing requirements, permitting, grant application, and/or regional and state planning documents (e.g., California Water Plan), performance under extreme conditions, and climate change may also be considered during this detailed screening process.

Following the detailed screening process, the preferred portfolios will be presented to the GSAs for consideration, with up to five portfolios selected for detailed simulation. At this time, it is anticipated that two of these portfolios will ‘bookend’ alternatives (one portfolio consisting of only demand‐management actions and a second portfolio consisting of only supplemental supply components). The remaining three portfolios to be simulated will contain a mix of demand‐management and supplemental supply alternatives and will provide an internal range of results between the ‘bookends’. The selected portfolios will be presented to the public and basin stakeholders for comment, along with the alternatives development and evaluation process.

The results of management portfolios modeled will be compared against both current and future baseline conditions. The model results to be used for comparison of parameters such as comprehensive water budgets, groundwater levels at key locations, groundwater level contours, and streamflows at key gaging stations. Model results will be evaluated in the context of development of sustainable groundwater



conditions; for example, groundwater levels will be evaluated in the context of thresholds and objectives at key wells.

DevelopImplementationPlanOnce the recommended approach for obtaining and maintaining subbasin sustainability has been identified, the implementation chapter of the GSP will be prepared. This effort will identify the steps, schedule, and a fiscal strategy for implementing the GSP (see Task 8). The GSP schedule will incorporate the planning for annual reporting and periodic evaluations.

As provided in Reg. § 354.6 and described in Task 8, the cost for GSP implementation will be estimated, and will include costs for the projects and management actions described in the Action Plan section of the GSP. Depending on the project, costs may be amortized over time. In addition to projects, costs will be developed for monitoring network improvements that may be recommended during GSP development.

The GSP will include a schedule for Plan implementation. The schedule for project development will depend on available funding and the benefits of the project to achieve certain milestones and measurable objectives. Schedules for improvements to the monitoring network may also depend on cooperation with local agencies or permission to access private property.

As required by SGMA, the Subbasin GSAs will conduct annual reporting of groundwater conditions and water resources in the Subbasin. Using groundwater level data from the monitoring network, groundwater elevation contour maps will be developed for each principal aquifer and management area in the Subbasin illustrating seasonal highs and lows. Representative hydrographs will also be included based on the groundwater elevation data. The time period for which to present hydrographs is yet to be determined, but will include historical data up to and including January 1, 2015 and will likely include the proposed 27‐year study period for the water budget analysis.

The Implementation Plan section of the GSP will also describe the process of required periodic evaluations, including a re‐examination of the GSP at five‐year increments. These evaluations allow assessment of progress in meeting milestones and measurable objectives. Evaluations will be used to report the performance of the GSP and determine if revisions are required.

PrepareGSPSGMA requires the preparation of a document (GSP) that will be submitted to DWR for review. As such, various sections of the GSP will be prepared as the project progresses and as work is completed in tasks described in this Work Plan. GSA and technical reviewer comments will be incorporated into each GSP section as the draft plan is prepared. Therefore, this task involves assembling the document into a coordinated and unified report that clearly describes the data, methods, and analyses.

Draft GSP sections will be compiled and assimilated into a comprehensive GSP. The Draft GSP will be presented at one of the last technical workshops, involving both GSAs and stakeholders. Comments will be received at the workshop, as well as written comments submitted following the workshop, and will be incorporated into the Final GSP. The Final GSP will then be submitted to the GSAs for final review and presented at a public hearing. Additional presentations will be made to the various GSA Boards of Directors and/or City Councils as required to facilitate plan adoption.

Following completion and adoption of the Final GSP, the document will be submitted to DWR for review. At this time, the format for filing the supporting information for the GSP is not known; however, it is anticipated that the DMS, supporting documents, and appendices along with the GSP will be prepared for upload to DWR as needed.

This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.



Task7Milestones:

IdentifySustainabilityGoals

IdentifySustainableManagementCriteria

CompletionofSustainableManagementCriteriaGSPChapter

CompletionofManagementActions&ProjectsGSPChapter

CompletionofMonitoringNetworkandProtocolsGSPChapter

CompletionofActionPlanGSPChapter

CompletionofImplementationGSPChapter

ReleaseofDraftGSP

ReleaseofFinalGSP

Task7Deliverables:

SustainableManagementCriteriaGSPChapter

ManagementActions&ProjectsGSPChapter

MonitoringNetworkandProtocolsGSPChapter

ActionPlanGSPChapter

ImplementationPlanGSPChapter

Electronicversion(.pdfformat)ofDraftandFinalGSP

15PrintedcopiesofFinalGSP

AppendicesandDMSforDWRsubmittal

Task8:Financing(0%complete)As provided in Reg. § 354.6, the estimated costs for implementation of the GSP will be calculated and presented in the implementation section of the GSP along with a plan for financing plan implementation. Costs to be considered in this analysis include costs for the projects and management actions for the GSP components, in addition to administrative costs associated with other GSP‐related activities, including monitoring, data analyses and sharing, annual reporting and regular plan updates as required by SGMA. Depending on the project or management actions, costs may be amortized over time. In addition to projects and management actions, costs will be developed for monitoring network improvements and to address data gaps that may be recommended during GSP development.

Once the estimated cost of GSP implementation has been determined, a financing plan will be prepared that will evaluate potential alternatives for obtaining necessary implementation funding. These actions may include the assessment of regulatory fees per the Prop 218 process, and/or the assessment of penalties relative to specific management actions.

Also included as part of this task will be the identification of potential outside funding, including state and federal grants and low interest loans. Securing additional funding sources that may be used to assist the GSAs in developing a meaningful financing plan that addresses the economic realities of the region while providing the basis for implementing the proposed programs and projects included in the final GSP. This task falls under the Direct Project Administration budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task8Milestones:

CompletionofFinancingPlanforGSP



Task8Deliverables:

FinancingPlanforGSP


Task9:OutreachandEducation(5%complete)Outreach and Education involves communication, outreach, and engagement with and between interested parties and beneficial users of groundwater within the Subbasin. These tasks shall be supported by a consultant Program Management team and lead facilitator working with SLDMWA staff retained to support overall outreach and stakeholder involvement, and by the Subbasin GSAs members’ staff. Outreach and education activities will fulfill GSP Regulation § 354.10.

Outreach and education activities carried out under Task 9 are exclusive to GSP development activities and are therefore not duplicative of activities carried out under projects funded under the SGWP Proposition 1 Counties with Stressed Basins grant program (listed in Task 1).

This subtask will include the development of a new webpage which will provide links to other GSA member websites and the DWR’s SGMA website. The new webpage will provide greater opportunity for open dialogue and communication. This task will also include webpage maintenance and updates as new information becomes available.

The GSP public outreach and education efforts will focus on the coordinated outreach activities shared by the Subbasin GSAs. Facilitators will assist them in identifying shared and individual messages. Activities will focus on accomplishing the following outreach goals: educate stakeholders about SGMA, its requirements, and outcomes; communicate deadlines and important dates; encourage stakeholder engagement in GSP development and implementation; and receive early feedback from stakeholders on Subbasin GSAs’ activities.

Stakeholders and the general public will be provided regular updates and information in a manner they can understand and that speaks to their individual interests as they relate to GSP development and the general SGMA process. All Subbasin GSA meetings and workshops are open to the public. In addition, Subbasin GSAs will develop regular updates and materials to educate and inform stakeholders on the GSA activities; explain how GSP components are developed; explain how the GSP and its implementation will impact stakeholder groundwater access and use; and help stakeholders identify the best opportunities for them to engage in GSA activities, GSP development, and implementation. Facilitators will work with Subbasin GSAs to develop materials and coordinate messaging. General outreach materials, updates, and notices as well as a Delta‐Mendota Subbasin Meeting Calendar will be made publicly available. Public outreach efforts will be incorporated into the Delta‐Mendota Outreach and Stakeholder Involvement Work Plan and is discussed in its existing Communication Plan.

The Subbasin GSAs shall conduct up to five (5) bi‐annual Public Workshops. These workshops will be an engagement opportunity for all Delta‐Mendota Subbasin Stakeholders. The workshops will be held throughout the Subbasin to maximize opportunities for stakeholder participation. The general goals of these workshops will include: sharing information and updates on GSP development activities, ensuring stakeholders understand GSP components and impacts, and soliciting stakeholder input on GSA activities. Specific workshop goals and themes will depend on the components under development at the time of the workshops, consistent with the project schedule. In general, and for all public workshops, the following steps/services will be employed: preparation, outreach, facilitation, workshop summaries, and follow‐up. This task falls under the Stakeholder Engagement budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.



Task9Milestones:

PublicationofactiveGSPwebsite

PostedDelta‐MendotaSubbasinMeetingCalendaronwebsite

FinalizationofDelta‐MendotaOutreachandStakeholderInvolvementWorkPlan

Five(5)PublicWorkshops

InternalGSPWorkgroupCoordinationCalls

Task9Deliverables:

GSPwebsite

Generaloutreachmaterials,updates,andnoticesdevelopedincoordinationwiththeSubbasinGSAs

Delta‐MendotaSubbasinMeetingCalendar

Delta‐MendotaOutreachandStakeholderInvolvementWorkPlan

PublicWorkshopagendas,facilitationplans,andmaterials

PublicWorkshopoutreachmaterials

FinalPublicworkshopsummaries

Project 2: Grassland Water District GSP Development

The following Draft Work Plan is part of a Category 2 grant funding request by the Grassland GSA to support preparation of a GSP for the portion of the Delta‐Mendota Subbasin underlying its jurisdictional area and for coordinating GSPs with other GSAs overlying the Subbasin to ensure complete coverage of the Subbasin and preparation of SGMA‐compliance GSPs. All tasks associated with planning, development, and preparation of a coordinated GSP is described below.


Task1:ProjectManagementandMeetings(5%complete)This task includes overall project administration, subconsultant management, preparing monthly progress reports, and contract administration. Quarterly reports (including invoices) will be prepared and submitted to DWR that summarizes the work completed under this project. A Project Completion Report will be prepared and submitted to DWR following completion of the activities described in the work plan for this project. This task also includes attending monthly GSA meetings as well as other meetings (e.g. Board meetings) deemed to be beneficial in the pursuit of accomplishing the work. Focused workshops, such as sustainability goals, may also be part of this work task. An initial meeting will be held to review the GSP requirements, provide an overview of the proposed work, budget and schedule, confirm the approach with the board and develop a plan for stakeholder involvement and outreach. It is assumed that the GSA Board will meet monthly to discuss the GSP and other relevant business. This task falls under the Direct Project Administration budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task1Milestones:

SubmittalofDWRProgressReports

SubmittalofDWRProjectCompletionReport

KickoffMeeting

Board Meetings



Task1Deliverables:

QuarterlyProgressReports

ProjectCompletionReport

KickoffMeetingmaterials(includingproposedwork,budgetandschedule)

Board Meeting materials


Task3:DataManagementSystem(0%complete)Under this task, a data collection plan and protocol will be developed and confirmed with the GSA. In conjunction with these protocols, a simple data management system will be developed that will meet the requirements of SGMA reporting requirements and simplify the development of water budget. Discussions will be held with the group to understand the level of development necessary, and the potential of participating in a basin‐wide DMS that may be developed. The DMS, once developed, will be updated periodically with new data as it becomes available. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task3Milestones:

CompletionofDataCollectionPlanandProtocol

CompletionofDMSsetup

Task3Deliverables:

DataCollectionPlanandProtocol

Datamanagementsystem

Task4:Coordination(0%complete)This task involves representation and technical work and/or studies to support the Districts discussion with the adjacent GSAs, and will include completion of the coordination agreement amongst Subbasin GSAs and regular subbasin‐wide coordination meetings to address inter‐basin coordination issues. Specifically, this work could be envisioned to include development of the data and information related to the basin boundary conditions. This task falls under the Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task4Milestones:

Subbasin‐wideCoordinationMeetings

FinalizationofCoordinationAgreement

Task4Deliverables:

CoordinationAgreement

Task5:GSPDevelopment(10%complete)This task is composed of work required to complete a SGMA‐compliant GSP.



DataCollection,Compilation,EvaluationandManagementThis task includes the following work items:

• Review and compare data needs for each initial section and existing Coordinated Efforts

• Gather existing reports, studies and plans

• Prepare a matrix for reports/studies by topic

• Establish list of figures and maps needed by topic

• Prepare list of needed supplemental data and request info from plan participants

• Collect the data needed for several GSP sections including Plan Area and Basin Setting

• Collect the data needed to perform a conceptual spreadsheet water budget to compare to a regional water budget model

The following two sections include the bulk of the technical work to develop the draft GSP. There has been much discussion regarding the “best” approach to develop the GSP. The goal is to structure the work to be as cost effective as possible on identifying the goals, developing and completing the technical work (developing the solutions) and then preparing the report. The District has a Groundwater Management Plan with much information that can be utilized. The technical analysis and project development phase is intended to get to the solutions part of work while still recognizing the solutions will need to be incorporated into the GSP which is the final work task.

TechnicalAnalysisandProjectDevelopmentThis task includes performing the technical analysis necessary to develop water budgets, develop the hydrogeologic conceptual model (hydrogeologic definition), and identify the strategies and projects that can be initiated during the SGMA implementation horizon. The results of the technical analyses will provide the GSA with quantification of undesirable results, identification of the sustainability goal, quantification of the required measurable objectives and minimum thresholds, and implementation actions to achieve and maintain sustainability. Projects will be identified as to their ability to provide the pathway to sustainability. A hydrologic analysis of water supplies will also be performed as well as to help predict future operational methodologies. A grant from the California Department of Conservation (DOC), will help to fund the development of the hydrogeologic model, which will help to inform the water budget and better understand the groundwater basin hydrology. Finally, a monitoring network will be developed for the area encompassed by Grassland WD, coordinated with other subbasin GSAs.

DraftGSPDevelopmentandFinalSubmittalAt the onset it is expected that the following five fundamental technical elements would be completed:

• Basin Setting

o Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model

o Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions

o Water Budget Information

• Identification of Management Areas

• Sustainable Management Criteria

o Sustainability Goal

o Undesirable Results

o Minimum Thresholds

o Measurable Objectives

• Monitoring Network



o Groundwater Levels

o Groundwater Storage

o Groundwater Quality

o Land Subsidence

o Depletion of Interconnected Surface Water

• Project and Management Actions

o Hydrologic analysis of available surface water supplies

o Identification of mitigation projects

o Identification of water saving policies/programs

At the beginning of this stage it is expected that the following four sections will be initiated, which include:

1. Agency Information and Description of Plan Area

2. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model

3. Groundwater Conditions

4. Monitoring Network Assessment and Improvement

5. Water Budget

In the second phase of the GSP development, the following sections will be prepared after coordination with other GSAs in Delta Mendota Subbasin:

6. Sustainable Management Criteria

7. Project Management Actions

8. Plan Implementation

As the final part of the GSP preparation, the following sections will be prepared:

9. Executive Summary

10. Introduction

11. References

12. Appendices and Supporting Documentation

The tasks for each section development are:

• Chapter outline / chapter format / legal code,

• Start developing draft GSP language for initial section,

• Attend monthly progress meetings

• Finalize draft GSP Plan section,

• QA/QC process, and

• Get comments and update section accordingly.

As the technical work gets completed the Plan section chapters will be completed in accordance with the DWR guidelines. California DOC grant funds will also be used to help prepare the GSP, and circulate the GSP for public review and comment on sustainability objectives, options and effectiveness for achieving sustainability, and water budget management options. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.



Task5Milestones:

Completion of Data Collection activities

Finalization of Water Budget

Finalization of HCM

Project identification

Quantification of undesirable results

Identification of Sustainability Goal

Identification of Monitoring Network

Release of Draft GSP

Submittal of Final GSP

Task5Deliverables:

50% Draft GSP

90% Draft GSP

Public Draft GSP delivered to DM Subbasin Coordination Agreement Project Manager by May 2019

Final GSP to DWR by January 31, 2020

Task6:MonitoringWells–SJRIPPotentialImpacts(0%complete)Eight shallow monitoring wells and two double completed wells will be constructed along the southern boundary of the Grassland WD to monitor for any potential groundwater quality impacts from the continued operation of the San Joaquin River Improvement Project (SJRIP). This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task6Milestones:

Completion of construction of ten (10) monitoring wells

Task6Deliverables:

Post construction report with proposed monitoring plan


Task2:Communication,EducationandOutreach(0%complete)

Stakeholder outreach and engagement is a requirement of the SGMA regulations. This task includes supporting Grassland GSA with development of programs to inform and engage the Grassland WD constituents as to the data being collected and work being conducted to develop the GSP. Up to five (5) Stakeholder Engagement workshops will be held periodically throughout the development of the GSP. Outreach will be performed cooperatively by the 23 Subbasin GSAs as described in the Delta‐Mendota Subbasin Cooperation Agreement. It is assumed that a website will be developed and maintained for Grassland GSA. This task falls under the Stakeholder Engagement budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.



Task2Milestones:

PublicationofliveGSAwebsite

CreationofOutreachmaterials

Five(5)StakeholderEngagementWorkshops

Task2Deliverables:

GSAwebsite

Outreachmaterials

StakeholderEngagementWorkshopmaterials

Project 3: Farmers Water District GSP Development

The following Draft Work Plan is part of a Category 2 grant funding request by the Farmers WD GSA to support preparation of a GSP for the portion of the Delta‐Mendota Subbasin underlying its jurisdictional area and for coordinating GSPs with other GSAs overlying the Subbasin to ensure complete coverage of the Subbasin and preparation of SGMA‐compliance GSPs. All tasks associated with planning, development, and preparation of a coordinated GSP is described below.


Task12:ProjectManagement(0%complete)Task 12 involves project management, budget administration, and correspondence with Farmers WD. It is anticipated that quarterly progress reports (including invoices) will be provided by Farmers WD to DWR on the status of the GSP development effort and coordination with other Subbasin GSAs. It is expected that there will be a total of five (5) meetings to provide updates to the Farmers WD Board of Directors regarding the status of the activities in this scope of work. This task falls under the Direct Project Administration budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task12Milestones:

SubmittalofDWRQuarterlyProgressReports


FarmersWDBoardMeetings

KickoffMeeting

Task12Deliverables:



FarmersWDBoardMeetingspreparationmaterials


Task2:MonitoringProtocols(0%complete)Each GSA is required to adopt monitoring protocols according to best management practices. Protocols have been developed by the DWR that a GSA may use, or the GSA may develop similar protocols that will yield comparable data. If this GSP is to be incorporated into a larger GSP, any differences in protocols among the GSAs will need to be reconciled so that the monitoring protocols are consistent. Farmers WD



will develop monitoring protocols based on best management practices under this task. The protocols will establish standards for manual measurements and automated devices to collect monitoring data as part of the GSP implementation. This includes measurements for groundwater levels, groundwater quality, groundwater extraction, and land subsidence. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task2Milestones:

AdoptionofMonitoringProtocolsdocument

Task2Deliverables:

MonitoringProtocolsdocument

Task3:DataandReportingStandards(25%complete)Data reporting and standards are to be reviewed prior to data collection and analysis to make sure all data are usable and in the proper format. This task will include the initial stages of data collection by accessing all publicly available data in state and federal on‐line databases for water levels, water quality, streamflow, and subsidence in the Subbasin. This task will also include submitting data requests to other Subbasin GSAs. The data collected from other Subbasin GSAs are assumed to be in similar formats, units, and frequencies requiring minimal modification to be input into a data management system in Task 4, below. If a coordination agreement is not finalized in 2017, additional work will be required in a later timeframe to complete the data collection effort as part of the coordination agreement from each Subbasin GSA. This effort will be necessary to ensure a consistent dataset for GSP development. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task3Milestones:

DistributionofDataRequesttoNeighboringGSAs

Task3Deliverables:

DataRequestformforNeighboringGSAs

Task4:DataManagementSystem(25%complete)GSAs are required to develop and maintain a DMS for the development and implementation of the GSP. To date, a GSA‐bounded DMS has been developed and maintained in the form of a database containing monitoring data and information from the Mendota Pool Group's (MPG’s) Exchange Monitoring Program. This DMS will need to be revised to incorporate GSP‐related monitoring data and formats consistent with DWR guidelines. The DMS will be utilized and modified to incorporate monitoring data collected under Task 3 for the sustainability indicators that exist in the Subbasin and Farmers WD. This updated database will be the DMS for the Farmers WD GSP and will be utilized to exchange data and information with other GSAs in the Subbasin once a coordinating agreement is approved and implemented. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task4Deliverables:

FinalizationofDataManagementSystem

Task4Deliverables:

DataManagementSystem



Task5:AdministrativeInformationforGSPDevelopment(0%complete)Each GSP is required to include administrative information such as GSA information, maps of the Subbasin, jurisdictional boundaries of state and federal lands, existing land use designations, along with the density of wells per square mile. In addition, a description of the GSP area, water resource monitoring and management programs, summary of land use plans in the Subbasin, summary of the permitting process for new and replacement wells in the Subbasin, wellhead protection, well abandonment and destruction program, well construction policies, efficient water management practices, and impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems. These items will be developed under Task 2, in addition to under this task. The maps and policies and procedures related to well construction and permitting, wellhead protection, abandonment and destruction will utilize existing documents prepared by other GSAs in the Subbasin and be modified as appropriate for conditions within Farmers WD. Drafts of these deliverables will be submitted to Farmers WD for review. This task falls under the Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task5Milestones:

CompletionofAdministrativeChapterofGSP

CompletionofGSPmaps

Completionofwellconstruction,permitting,wellheadprotection,abandonmentanddestructionpoliciesdocument

Task5Deliverables:

AdministrativeChapterofGSP

GSPmaps

Wellconstruction,permitting,wellheadprotection,abandonmentanddestructionpoliciesdocument

Task6:CoordinationAgreementandGSPCoordination(0%complete)As a result of multiple GSPs being prepared for the Subbasin, a coordination agreement must be entered into by the GSAS that will ensure that GSPs will utilize the same data and methodologies in evaluating groundwater levels, groundwater pumping data, surface water supply, total water use, and estimating change in groundwater storage, water budget development and sustainable yield. In this task, the technical elements of the draft coordination agreement will be reviewed and comments provided. This task will also include attendance at technical committee meetings of the Subbasin GSAs throughout the September 2017 through December 2019 period. For budget purposes, it is assumed that the technical committee meetings will be held monthly in the Los Banos area. This task falls under the Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task6Milestones:

Ten(10)Basin‐wideCoordinationMeetings

ExecutedCoordinationAgreement

Task6Deliverables:




Task7:HydrogeologicConceptualModel,GroundwaterConditions,andWaterBudget(10%complete)This task includes the development of information on the physical setting and characteristics of the basin and will consist of three primary components: a HCM, Groundwater Conditions assessment, and Water Budgets. Although major portions of these components have been prepared as part of the recent MPG Exchange Monitoring Program environmental impact statement/environmental impact report (MPG EIS/EIR) in the vicinity of Farmers WD, additional work will need to be conducted to encompass sustainability indicators and other GSP required information not addressed in the MPG EIS/EIR work and also to expand the effort to include the entire Subbasin, as necessary. This task will utilize data collected in previous tasks to describe historical and current conditions in the Subbasin, as a whole, and Farmers WD as a management area. During the development of the conceptual model and water budget, identification of data gaps will be conducted as a means of assessing the level of uncertainty in the data, conceptual model, water budget, and sustainable yield.

The development of the conceptual model and water budget will include the evaluation of groundwater levels, groundwater quality, geologic reports, well construction, and groundwater‐surface water interaction, and subsidence. These data, along with an existing numerical flow model that encompasses Farmers WD will be used to determine historical and current water demands and budgets, along with a sustainable yield for the Subbasin. The estimated water budget and sustainable yield from monitoring data will be compared to the results from an existing regional numerical flow model to assess the ability of the regional model to represent groundwater conditions in the Subbasin and Farmers WD. Modifications to the regional model will be conducted, if necessary, to improve the ability of the model to simulate historical groundwater conditions over a representative study period. The regional model will be utilized in Task 11 to develop projected water budgets and the effectiveness of projects and management actions to achieve sustainability in the Subbasin by 2040. The utilization of a numerical model in evaluating the effectiveness of management actions and projects to achieve sustainability will likely be necessary to demonstrate to DWR that the GSP is adequate and able to demonstrate the achievement of sustainability by 2040. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task7Milestones:

FinalizationofHydrogeologicConceptualModel

Task7Deliverables:

HydrogeologicConceptualModel

WaterBudgets

SubbasinSustainableYield

Task8:SustainabilityManagementCriteria(0%complete)GSPs are required to include a Sustainability Goal (Section 354.24) which is the absence of undesirable results 20 years from the beginning of GSP implementation. The GSP shall also include a process for defining undesirable results (Section 354.26). Undesirable results are based on the six sustainability indicators (groundwater level declines, groundwater storage decline, seawater intrusion, subsidence, groundwater quality impacts, and impacts on the beneficial uses of surface water). Both the sustainability goal and defining undesirable results must be consistent throughout the entire Subbasin and will initially be developed in this task. Minimum thresholds (Section 354.28) and measurable objectives (Section 354.30) must be established for the Subbasin, but these may differ by management areas. To have



different minimum thresholds and measurable objectives, an explanation must be provided as to why the different standards are appropriate, and how it will not result in undesirable results outside of the management area. The regional model will be utilized to develop minimum thresholds and measurable objectives during the implementation and planning horizon for the GSP. These will be developed for management actions and projects that may be planned in the Subbasin to achieve sustainability. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task8Milestones:

Establishmentofsustainabilitygoal

Definitionofundesirableresults

Establishmentofminimumthresholdsandmeasurableobjectives

Task8Deliverables:

GSPsectionsthatdescribethesustainabilitygoals,definitionofundesirableresultsintheSubbasin,minimumthresholds,andmeasurableobjectives

Task9:MonitoringNetwork(5%complete)Each GSP must include a monitoring network for the entire Subbasin that will collect sufficient data to represent short term and long‐term trends and fluctuations in groundwater and surface water conditions in order to implement the GSP(s). The network will need to include the entire Subbasin and will involve coordination with other GSAs in the development of a monitoring network for all sustainability indicators that exist in the Subbasin and the identification of areas where new monitoring facilities may be necessary. The development of monitoring protocols that were included in Task 2 will be added to the deliverable for this task. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task9Milestones:

FinalizationofMonitoringNetwork

FinalizationofMonitoringNetworkObjectivesandDescriptionDocument

Task9Deliverables:

MonitoringNetworkObjectivesandDescriptionDocument

Task10:ProjectsandManagementActions(0%complete)Each GSP must include a description of projects and management actions that will help achieve the sustainability goal for the Subbasin and management area(s). This includes the circumstances under which any project or management action is to be implemented, the process of implementing the project and how it will be beneficial, and a cost estimate for each project and management action. It is assumed that descriptions of projects and management actions developed by other GSAs in the Subbasin will be provided for incorporation into the Farmers WD GSP. This work will involve coordination among the GSAs as part of the coordination agreement. The regional model will be utilized to assess the effectiveness of the proposed management actions and projects (both Farmers WD and other GSAs) and the ability of each management action and project to achieve sustainability will be evaluated. As part of overall GSA coordination, this task will also utilize the existing regional model of the Subbasin to develop a projected water budget and a projected baseline condition to compare the results of the management actions and



projects to achieve sustainability in the Subbasin. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task10Milestones:

Finalizationofdescriptionofmanagementactionsandprojectsandbenefits

Task10Deliverables:

Descriptionofmanagementactionsandprojectsandbenefits

Task11:GSPPreparation(0%complete)Task 11 will involve the preparation of the draft and final GSP. This task will also identify areas where monitoring will be needed to collect data on the effectiveness of those selected projects and management actions chosen to achieve sustainability in the Subbasin by 2040. This element of the monitoring network evaluation will supplement monitoring network‐related work conducted in previous tasks which were not focused on monitoring the effectiveness of selected management actions and projects. The draft GSP will be submitted to the Farmers WD Board of Directors for review. Upon receipt of comments, the GSP will be finalized for adoption by the Farmers WD Board of Directors. Following adoption, the GSP will be submitted in a coordinated effort with other GSPs to meet DWR’s timeframe. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task11Milestones:

ReleaseofDraftGSP

ReleaseofFinalGSP

SubmittalofAdoptedGSPtoDWR

Task11Deliverables:

FinalGSP


Task1:NotificationandPublicOutreach(0%complete)DWR requires that GSAs that plan to develop a GSP notify the department prior to the development of the GSP. This notification will include general information on:

1. The process that will be used,

2. How interested parties can contact Farmers WD, and

3. How parties can participate in the development of the GSP.

Farmers WD and their consultant will develop the content for the notification and prepare a notification letter to DWR. The letter will be reviewed by Farmers WD and a final version submitted to DWR. Public outreach will require a website to be created to display all relevant information on the GSP development process, public outreach and workshops to allow interested parties to comment on the GSP process. Farmers WD will coordinate with Subbasin GSAs in public outreach efforts, including SLDMWA’s website. Farmers WD and their consultant will conduct public outreach by providing periodic updates on GSP implementation progress. This task falls under the Stakeholder Engagement budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.



Task1Milestones:

SubmittalofDWRnotificationletter

Publicationoflivewebsite

Finalizationofworkshopcontent

Public workshops (final dates TBD)

Finalization of outreach materials

Task1Deliverables:

DWRnotificationletter

Websitetechnicalcontent

Workshopcontentdevelopment

Outreach materials

Project 4: Aliso Water District GSP Development

The following Draft Work Plan is part of a Category 2 grant funding request by the Aliso WD GSA to support preparation of a GSP for the portion of Delta‐Mendota Subbasin underlying its jurisdictional area and for coordinating GSPs with other GSAs overlying the Delta‐Mendota Subbasin to ensure complete coverage of the Delta‐Mendota Subbasin and preparation of SGMA‐compliance GSPs. All tasks associated with planning, development, and preparation of a coordinated GSP is described below.


Task1:ProjectManagementandMeetings(0%complete)This task includes overall project administration, subconsultant management, preparing monthly progress reports, and contract administration. Funding administration activities, including preparation of quarterly progress reports (including invoices) and a Project Completion Report for DWR, will be completed under this task. This task also includes attending monthly GSA meetings as well as other meetings (e.g. Board meetings) deemed to be beneficial in the pursuit of accomplishing the work. Focused workshops, such as sustainability goals, may also be part of this work task. An initial meeting will be held to review the GSP requirements, provide an overview of the proposed work, budget and schedule, confirm the approach with the board and develop a plan for stakeholder involvement and outreach. It is assumed that Aliso WD Board of Directors will meet monthly to discuss the GSP and other relevant business. This task falls under the Direct Project Administration budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task1Milestones:


KickoffMeeting

Board Meetings

Submittal of DWR Project Completion Report

Task1Deliverables:


KickoffMeetingmaterials(includingproposedwork,budgetandschedule)

BoardMeetingmaterials





Task3:DataManagementSystem(0%complete)Under this task, a data collection plan and protocol will be developed and confirmed with the GSA. In conjunction with these protocols, a simple data management system will be developed that will meet the requirements of SGMA reporting requirements and simplify the development of water budget. Discussions will be held with the group to understand the level of development necessary, and the potential of participating in a basin‐wide DMS that may be developed. The DMS, once developed, will be updated periodically with new data as it becomes available. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task3Milestones:

Finalization of Data Collection Plan and Protocol


RegularDMSUpdates

Task3Deliverables:

Data Collection Plan and Protocol


Task4:Coordination(5%complete)This task involves representation and technical work and/or studies to support the District’s discussion with the adjacent GSA’s, and will include completion of the coordination agreement amongst Subbasin GSAs and regular basin‐wide coordination meetings to address inter‐basin coordination issues. Specifically, this work could be envisioned to include development of the data and information related to the basin boundary conditions. This task falls under the Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task4Milestones:

Subbasin‐wideCoordinationMeetings

Executionofcoordinationagreement

Task4Deliverables:

Coordinationagreement

Task5:GSPDevelopment(0%complete)This task is composed of work required to complete a SGMA‐compliant GSP.

DataCollection,Compilation,EvaluationandManagementThis subtask includes the following work items:

• Review and compare data needs for each initial section and existing Coordinated Efforts,

• Gather existing reports, studies and plans,

• Prepare a matrix for reports/studies by topic,



• Establish list of figures and maps needed by topic,

• Prepare list of needed supplemental data and request info from plan participants.

• Collect the data needed for several GSP sections including Plan Area and Basin Setting

• Collect the data needed to perform a conceptual spreadsheet water budget to compare to a regional water budget model

The following two sections include the bulk of the technical work to develop the draft GSP. There has been much discussion regarding the “best” approach to develop the GSP. The goal is to structure the work to be as cost effective as possible on identifying the goals, developing and completing the technical work (developing the solutions) and then preparing the report. The District has a Groundwater Management Plan with much information that can be utilized. The technical analysis and project development phase is intended to get to the solutions part of work while still recognizing the solutions will need to be incorporated into the GSP which is the final work task.

TechnicalAnalysisandProjectDevelopmentThis task includes performing the technical analysis necessary to develop water budgets, develop the HCM, and identify the strategies and projects that can be initiated during the SGMA implementation horizon. The results of the technical analyses will provide the GSA with quantification of undesirable results, identification of the sustainability goal, quantification of the required measurable objectives and minimum thresholds, and implementation actions to achieve and maintain sustainability. Projects will be identified as to their ability to provide the pathway to sustainability. A hydrologic analysis of water supplies will also be performed as well as to help predict future operational methodologies. Finally, a monitoring network will be developed for the area encompassed by the Aliso WD GSA, coordinated with other Subbasin GSAs.

DraftGSPDevelopmentAt the onset, it is expected that the following five fundamental technical elements would be completed:

• Basin Setting

o Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model

o Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions

o Water Budget Information

• Identification of Management Areas

• Sustainable Management Criteria

o Sustainability Goal

o Undesirable Results

o Minimum Thresholds

o Measurable Objectives

• Monitoring Network

o Groundwater Levels

o Groundwater Storage

o Groundwater Quality

o Land Subsidence

o Depletion of Interconnected Surface Water

• Project and Management Actions

o Hydrologic analysis of available surface water supplies



o Identification of mitigation projects

o Identification of water saving policies/programs

At the beginning of this stage it is expected that the following four sections will be initiated, which include:

1. Agency Information and Description of Plan Area

2. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model

3. Groundwater Conditions

4. Monitoring Network Assessment and Improvement

5. Water Budget

In the second phase of the GSP development, the following sections will be prepared after coordination with other Subbasin GSAs:

6. Sustainable Management Criteria

7. Project Management Actions

8. Plan Implementation

As the final part of the GSP preparation, the following sections will be prepared:

9. Executive Summary

10. Introduction

11. References

12. Appendices and Supporting Documentation

The tasks for each section development are:

• Chapter outline / chapter format / legal code,

• Start developing draft GSP language for initial section,

• Attend monthly progress meetings

• Finalize draft GSP Plan section,

• QA/QC process, and

• Get comments and update section accordingly.

As the technical work gets completed the Plan section chapters will be completed in accordance with the DWR guidelines. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task5Milestones:

Completion of Data Collection

Completion of Technical Analysis and Project Development

50% Draft GSP

90% Draft GSP

Release of Public Draft GSP

Adoption of Final GSP

Submittal of Final GSP to DWR

Task5Deliverables:

Final GSP




Task2:Communication,EducationandOutreach(0%complete)

Stakeholder outreach and engagement is a requirement of the SGMA regulations. This task includes supporting the Aliso WD GSA with development of programs to inform and engage the Aliso WD GSA constituents as to work to GSP development. The GSA has not yet determined the desired level of effort involved in this task; however, it is assumed that a website will be developed and maintained for the Aliso WD GSA. This task falls under the Stakeholder Engagement budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task2Milestones:

PublicationofliveGSAwebsite

RegularupdatestoGSAwebsite

Finalizationofoutreachmaterials

StakeholderEngagementWorkshops

Task2Deliverables:

GSAwebsite

Outreachmaterials

Project 5: Fresno County Management Area A & B GSP Development

The following Draft Work Plan is part of a Category 2 grant funding request by the Fresno County Management Area A & B (FCMA) GSA to support preparation of a GSP for the portion of Delta‐Mendota Subbasin underlying its jurisdictional area and for coordinating GSPs with other Subbasin GSAs overlying the Subbasin to ensure complete coverage of the Subbasin and preparation of SGMA‐compliance GSPs. All tasks associated with planning, development, and preparation of a coordinated GSP is described below.


Task12:ProjectManagement(0%complete)Task 12 involves project management, budget administration, and correspondence for FCMA. FCMA will provide DWR with quarterly progress reports (including invoices) on the status of the GSP development effort and coordination with Subbasin GSAs. A Project Completion Report will be developed and submitted to DWR following completion of the activities in the work plan for this project. It is expected that there will be a total of five (5) meetings with FCMA during the 2017 to 2020 timeframe of this scope of work for project updates to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. This task falls under the Direct Project Administration budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task12Milestones:

KickoffMeeting



FCMABoardMeetings

FinalizationofFCMABoardMeetingmaterials



Task12Deliverables:



FCMABoardMeetingmaterials


Task2:MonitoringProtocols(0%complete)Each GSA is required to adopt monitoring protocols according to best management practices. Protocols have been developed by the DWR that a GSA may use, or the GSA may develop similar protocols that will yield comparable data. If this GSP is to be incorporated into a larger GSP, any differences in protocols among the GSAs will need to be reconciled so that the monitoring protocols are consistent. FCMA will develop monitoring protocols based on best management practices under this task. The protocols will establish standards for manual measurements and automated devices to collect monitoring data as part of the GSP implementation. This includes measurements for groundwater levels, groundwater quality, groundwater extraction, and land subsidence. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task2Milestones:

FinalizeMonitoringProtocols

Task2Deliverables:

MonitoringProtocolsdocument

Task3:DataandReportingStandards(25%complete)Data reporting and standards are to be reviewed prior to data collection and analysis to make sure all data are usable and in the proper format. This task will include the initial stages of data collection by accessing all publicly available data in state and federal on‐line databases for water levels, water quality, streamflow, and subsidence in the Subbasin. This task will also include submitting data requests to Subbasin GSAs. The data collected from Subbasin GSAs are assumed to be in similar formats, units, and frequencies requiring minimal modification to be input into a data management system in Task 4, below. If a coordination agreement is not finalized in 2017, additional work will be required in a later timeframe to complete the data collection effort as part of the coordination agreement from each Subbasin GSA. This effort will be necessary to ensure a consistent dataset for GSP development. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task3Milestones:

DistributionofDataRequeststoNeighboringGSAs

Task3Deliverables:

DataRequestformforNeighboringGSAs

Task4:DataManagementSystem(25%complete)GSAs are required to develop and maintain a data management system (DMS) for the development and implementation of the GSP. To date, a FCMA GSA‐bounded DMS has been developed and maintained in the form of a database containing monitoring data and information from the MPG's Exchange Monitoring Program. This DMS will need to be revised to incorporate GSP‐related monitoring data and formats



consistent with DWR guidelines. The DMS will be utilized and modified to incorporate monitoring data collected under Task 3 for the sustainability indicators that exist in the Subbasin and FCMA. This updated database will be the DMS for the FCMA GSP and will be utilized to exchange data and information with other Subbasin GSAs once a coordinating agreement is approved and implemented. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task4Milestones:

CompletionofDataManagementSystem

Task4Deliverables:


Task5:AdministrativeInformationforGSPDevelopment(0%complete)Each GSP is required to include administrative information such as GSA information, maps of the Subbasin, jurisdictional boundaries of state and federal lands, existing land use designations, along with the density of wells per square mile. In addition, a description of the GSP area, water resource monitoring and management programs, summary of land use plans in the Subbasin, summary of the permitting process for new and replacement wells in the Subbasin, wellhead protection, well abandonment and destruction program, well construction policies, efficient water management practices, and impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems. These items will be developed under Task 2, in addition to under this task. The maps and policies and procedures related to well construction and permitting, wellhead protection, abandonment and destruction will utilize existing documents prepared by other GSAs in the Subbasin and be modified as appropriate for conditions within FCMA. Drafts of these deliverables will be submitted to FCMA for review. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task5Milestones:

FinalizationofAdministrativeChapterofGSP

FinalizationofGSPMaps

Finalizationofwellconstruction,permitting,wellheadprotection,abandonmentanddestructionpoliciesdocument

Task5Deliverables:

AdministrativeChapterofGSP

GSPMaps

Wellconstruction,permitting,wellheadprotection,abandonmentanddestructionpoliciesdocument

Task6:CoordinationAgreementandGSPCoordination(0%complete)As a result of multiple GSPs being prepared for the Subbasin, a coordination agreement must be entered into by the GSAs that will ensure that GSPs will utilize the same data and methodologies in evaluating groundwater levels, groundwater pumping data, surface water supply, total water use, and estimating change in groundwater storage, water budget development and sustainable yield. In this task, the technical elements of the draft coordination agreement will be reviewed and comments provided. This task will also include attendance at technical committee meetings of Subbasin GSAs throughout the September 2017 through December 2019 period. For budget purposes, it is assumed that the technical



committee meetings will be held monthly in the Los Banos area. This task falls under the Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task6Milestones:

Basin‐wideCoordinationMeetings

ExecutionofCoordinationAgreement

Task6Deliverables:


Task7:HydrogeologicConceptualModel,GroundwaterConditions,andWaterBudget(10%complete)This task includes the development of information on the physical setting and characteristics of the basin and will consist of three primary components: a Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model, Groundwater Conditions assessment, and Water Budgets. Although major portions of these components have been prepared as part of the recent MPG EIS/EIR in the vicinity of FCMA, additional work will need to be conducted to encompass sustainability indicators and other GSP required information not addressed in the MPG EIS/EIR work and also to expand the effort to include the entire Subbasin. This task will utilize data collected in Tasks 3 and 4 to describe historical and current conditions in the Subbasin as a whole and FCMA as a management area. During the development of the conceptual model and water budget, identification of data gaps will be conducted as a means of assessing the level of uncertainty in the data, conceptual model, water budget, and sustainable yield.

The development of the conceptual model and water budget will include the evaluation of groundwater levels, groundwater quality, geologic reports, well construction, and groundwater‐surface water interaction, and subsidence. These data, along with an existing numerical flow model that encompasses FCMA, will be used to determine historical and current water demands and budgets, along with a sustainable yield for the Subbasin. The estimated water budget and sustainable yield will be compared to an existing regional numerical flow model to assess the ability of the regional model to represent groundwater conditions in the Subbasin and FCMA. Modifications to the regional model will be conducted, if necessary, to improve the ability of the model to simulate historical groundwater conditions over a representative study period. The regional model will be utilized in Task 11 to develop projected water budgets and the effectiveness of projects and management actions to achieve sustainability in the Subbasin by 2040. The utilization of a numerical model in evaluating the effectiveness of management actions and projects to achieve sustainability will likely be necessary to demonstrate to DWR that the GSP is adequate and able to demonstrate the achievement of sustainability by 2040. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task7Milestones:

FinalizationofHydrogeologicConceptualModel

FinalizationofWaterBudgets

IdentificationofSubbasinSustainableYield

Task7Deliverables:

HydrogeologicConceptualModel

WaterBudgets

SubbasinSustainableYield



Task8:SustainabilityManagementCriteria(0%complete)GSPs are required to include a Sustainability Goal (Section 354.24) which is the absence of undesirable results 20 years from the beginning of GSP implementation. The GSP shall also include a process for defining undesirable results (Section 354.26). Undesirable results are based on the six sustainability indicators (groundwater level declines, groundwater storage decline, seawater intrusion, subsidence, groundwater quality impacts, and impacts on the beneficial uses of surface water). Both the sustainability goal and defining undesirable results must be consistent throughout the entire Subbasin and will initially be developed in this task. Minimum thresholds (Section 354.28) and measurable objectives (Section 354.30) must be established for the Subbasin, but these may differ by management areas. To have different minimum thresholds and measurable objectives, an explanation must be provided as to why the different standards are appropriate, and how it will not result in undesirable results outside of the management area. The regional model will be utilized to develop minimum thresholds and measurable objectives during the implementation and planning horizon for the GSP. These will be developed for management actions and projects that may be planned in the Subbasin to achieve sustainability. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task8Milestones:

Establishmentofsustainabilitygoal

Definitionofundesirableresults

Establishmentofminimumthresholdsandmeasurableobjectives

Task8Deliverables:

GSPsectionsthatdescribethesustainabilitygoals,definitionofundesirableresultsintheSubbasin,minimumthresholds,andmeasurableobjectives

Task9:MonitoringNetwork(5%complete)Each GSP must include a monitoring network for the entire Subbasin that will collect sufficient data to represent short term and long‐term trends and fluctuations in groundwater and surface water conditions in order to implement the GSP(s). The network will need to include the entire Subbasin and will involve coordination with other GSAs in the development of a monitoring network for all sustainability indicators that exist in the Subbasin and the identification of areas where new monitoring facilities may be necessary. The development of monitoring protocols that were included in Task 2 will be added to the deliverable for this task. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task9Milestones:

FinalizationofMonitoringNetwork

FinalizationofMonitoringNetworkObjectivesandDescriptionDocument

Task9Deliverables:

MonitoringNetworkObjectivesandDescriptionDocument

Task10:ProjectsandManagementActions(0%complete)Each GSP must include a description of projects and management actions that will help achieve the sustainability goal for the Subbasin and management area(s). This includes the circumstances under which any project or management action is to be implemented, the process of implementing the project and



how it will be beneficial, and a cost estimate for each project and management action. It is assumed that descriptions of projects and management actions developed by other Subbasin GSAs will be provided for incorporation into the FCMA GSP. This work will involve coordination among the GSAs as part of the coordination agreement. The regional model will be utilized to assess the effectiveness of the proposed management actions and projects (both FCMA and other GSAs) and the ability of each management action and project to achieve sustainability will be evaluated. As part of overall GSA coordination, this task will also utilize the existing regional model of the Subbasin to develop a projected water budget and a projected baseline condition to compare the results of the management actions and projects to achieve sustainability in the Subbasin. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task10Milestones:

Finalizationofmanagementactionsandprojectsandbenefits

Task10Deliverables:

Descriptionofmanagementactionsandprojectsandbenefits

Task11:GSPPreparation(0%complete)Task 11 will involve the preparation of the draft and final GSP. This task will also identify areas where monitoring will be needed to collect data on the effectiveness of those selected projects and management actions chosen to achieve sustainability in the Subbasin by 2040. This element of the monitoring network evaluation will supplement monitoring network‐related work conducted in previous tasks which were not focused on monitoring the effectiveness of selected management actions and projects. The draft GSP will be submitted to the Fresno County Board of Supervisors for review. Upon receipt of comments, the GSP will be finalized for adoption by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. Following adoption, the GSP will be submitted in a coordinated effort with other GSPs to meet DWR’s timeframe. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task11Milestones:

ReleaseofDraftGSP

ReleaseofFinalGSP

SubmittalofAdoptedGSPtoDWR

Task11Deliverables:

FinalGSP


Task1:NotificationandPublicOutreach(0%complete)DWR requires that GSAs that plan to develop a GSP notify the department prior to the development of the GSP. This notification will include general information on:

1. The process that will be used,

2. How interested parties can contact FCMA, and

3. How parties can participate in the development of the GSP.



FCMA and their consultant will develop the content for the notification and prepare a notification letter to DWR. The letter will be reviewed by FCMA and a final version submitted to DWR. Public outreach will require a website to be created to display all relevant information on the GSP development process, public outreach and workshops to allow interested parties to comment on the GSP process. It is assumed FCMA will engage a website developer to create a FCMA website. FCMA and their consultant will conduct public outreach by providing periodic updates on GSP implementation progress. This task falls under the Stakeholder Engagement budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task1Milestones:

SubmittalofDWRnotificationletter

Publicationoftechnicalcontentonlivewebsite

Finalizationofworkshopcontent

Publicworkshops

Finalizationofoutreachmaterials

Task1Deliverables:

DWRnotificationletter

Websitetechnicalcontent

Workshopcontent

Outreachmaterials

Project 6: San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP Development

The following Draft Work Plan is part of a Category 2 grant funding request by the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors (Exchange Contractors) GSA to support preparation of a GSP for the portion of Subbasin underlying its jurisdictional area and the management area of collaborating GSAs, and for coordinating GSPs with other Subbasin GSAs to ensure complete coverage of the Subbasin and preparation of the six SGMA‐compliant GSPs. The other GSA’s include: City of Newman, City of Gustine, City of Los Banos, City of Dos Palos, City of Firebaugh, City of Mendota, Turner Island Water District, County of Madera, Merced County GSA, and a portion of the Fresno County Management Area B. All tasks associated with planning, development, and preparation of a coordinated GSP is described below.


There is no direct project administration for this Project. The GSA will be responsible for meeting all funding agreement requirements for receipt of funding and will directly absorb all costs and responsibilities accordingly. Submittal of reports and invoices to DWR for funding administration requirements for this project is included under Task 4 GSP Coordination, below.


Task2:DataManagementSystem(50%complete)A DMS is a requirement of the SGMA. This task includes the development of a DMS for the Exchange Contractors GSA and the potential to expand the framework into the Coordinated DMS for the Delta‐



Mendota Subbasin. The DMS will be enhanced periodically to reflect reporting requirements. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task2Milestones:


Task2Deliverables:


Task3:GSPDevelopment(30%complete)SGMA requires that a GSP cover the entire Subbasin and is submitted to DWR by January 31, 2020 for the Delta‐Mendota Subbasin. This task includes the development of a GSP compliant with the SGMA for the GSA’s directly working with the Exchange Contractors GSA to develop and implement the GSP within their jurisdictional area. This task falls under Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task3Milestones:

FinalizationofBasinSetting

IdentificationofManagementAreas

FinalizationofSustainableManagementCriteria

IdentificationofMonitoringNetwork

IdentificationofProjects

ReleaseofDraftGSP

ReleaseofFinalGSP

Task3Deliverables:

DraftGSP

FinalGSP

Task4:GSPCoordination(5%complete)The Delta‐Mendota Subbasin is intending to have multiple GSPs prepared that will be coordinated and will cover the entire subbasin. As a result of having multiple GSPs, the GSAs within the Subbasin will prepare a coordination agreement to ensure that each GSP utilizes the same data and methodologies, and that elements of the plans necessary to achieve the sustainability goal for the Subbasin are based upon consistent interpretations of the basin setting. This task will also include engaging neighboring subbasins on assumptions for boundary conditions and coordinated GSP development. Additionally, this task will include direct project administration and management among GSA member agencies. This task falls under the Plan Development budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task4Milestones:

ExecutionofDelta‐MendotaSubbasinCoordinationAgreement





Task4Deliverables:

Delta‐MendotaSubbasinCoordinationAgreement

CompliancewiththeSGMAforcoordinationwithneighboringsubbasins




Task1:CommunicationandOutreach(25%complete)Stakeholder outreach and engagement is a requirement of the SGMA. This task includes development of an active website to keep the public informed of any progress made as part of the SGMA compliance. The GSA will keep a record of any interested party, and will actively engage the stakeholders. This task falls under the Stakeholder Engagement budget category, as indicated in Attachment 5, Budget.

Task1Milestones:

PublicationofliveGSA/GSPwebsite

Developmentoflistofinterestedparties

Finalizationofpublicoutreachmaterials

Task1Deliverables:

GSA/GSPwebsite

Listofinterestedparties

Publicoutreachmaterials

attachment 4: work plan - water.ca. · pdf filecategory 1 project work ... be expected to...

Documents