SANTA CRUZ MID-COUNTY GROUNDWATER AGENCY (MGA)

Transcription

1 SANTA CRUZ MID-COUNTY GROUNDWATER AGENCY (MGA) 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Thursday, September 15, :00 p.m. Community Room, Capitola City Hall 420 Capitola Avenue, Capitola, California AGENDA 3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (Items not on the Agenda) 4. CONSENT AGENDA 4.1 Accept Minutes from May 19, 2016 MGA Meeting 5. ADMINSTRATIVE ITEMS 5.1 Approve Scope and Budget for Groundwater Model Effort by HydroMetrics WRI for FY INFORMATION ITEMS 6.1 Update on Quarterly Monitoring Data 6.2 Update on Groundwater Model 6.3 Update on Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Regulations 6.4 Update on Counties with Distressed Groundwater Basins Grant 6.5 Update on MGA s Basin Boundary Modification Request for the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin 6.6 Update on Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Formation Status for the MGA 6.7 Status Update on Hiring of Senior Water Resource Planner (Oral) 6.8 Treasurer s Report 7. ORAL REPORTS 7.1 Outreach Reports 7.2 Board Member Reports 7.3 Staff Reports 8. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 of 64

2 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 4.1 SANTA CRUZ MID-COUNTY GROUNDWATER AGENCY (MGA) Draft Meeting Minutes May 19, Call to Order: Mr. Jaffe called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. Roll Call Present: C. Abramson, J. Benich, B. Daniels (for T. LaHue), Z. Friend, B. Jaffe, J. Kennedy, J. Kerr, D. Lane, R. Marani, C. Mathews, J. Ricker (for J. Leopold) Absent: Staff : T. LaHue, J. Leopold T. Carson, R. Duncan, R. Menard, S. Ryan, M. Schumacher, L. Strohm, J. Townsend Others: There were approximately 16 members of the public in attendance. Presentations: There were no presentations. 3. Public Hearing 3.1 Hold a Public Hearing Regarding the MGA s Intent to File with the State to be Designated as the Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Santa Cruz Mid- County Groundwater Basin The public comment period was opened. Name: Doug Deitch, private well owner; Executive Director, Monterey Bay Conservancy Comments: Mr. Deitch expressed his objections to the process to date of private well representation. He referenced his testimony to the State Water Resources Control Board citing minute 11:00 at He stated that there has not been an equitable process in selecting the Private Well Owners (PWO) and questioned how they were selected. He added that the City of Santa Cruz should have one representative and that it will be 20 years before something has to be done. He then referenced water levels, his application to serve as part of the Basin Implementation Group, and asked the group to review the handout he provided. Mr. Deitch urged the group to enforce existing groundwater sustainability laws, and mentioned that groundwater emergencies are supposed to be considered through a public hearing process. Mr. Deitch noted that the last public hearing was in 2014, and that there is a well ordinance that makes it illegal to overdraft water basins. For the last thirty years, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) should have been ensuring that basins were not over drafted. He expressed a need for PWO to advocate for following the law and the local coastal plan. Mr. Deitch directed the group to and his letter requesting Charles Lester s resignation from the CCC. He suggested that fallowing acres in the Pajaro Valley would stop saltwater intrusion. He closed by highlighting the $11 billion available under Proposition 1 and reallocated rail funds. Page 2 of 64

3 Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency Meeting Minutes May 19, 2016 Page 2 of 6 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 4.1 Name: Brian Lockwood, Live Oak Resident; Senior Water Resources Hydrologist, Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (PVWMA) Comment: Mr. Lockwood provided comment as a resident of Live Oak and someone who is close to the water business. He expressed his opinion that with the challenges to keeping growth and conservation going, this group has done a great job of reaching out to the community as a whole. He continued that it is in the best interest of the area for this group to become the local Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), and that as a resident of Live Oak he fully supports that decision. Mr. Lockwood then spoke as a representative of the PVWMA and alluded to the long history of collaboration of people in the room which has been going on for decades. This collaboration is at the heart of what this group is trying to do, namely to help local agencies reach sustainability goals through collaboration. He closed by adding that the Pajaro Valley GSA looks forward to continued collaboration through data sharing and interbasin agreements. Mr. Lockwood reiterated his support for this group to become the GSA and noted that the PVWMA supports the group as well. Name: Elaine Rohlfes Comment: Ms. Rohlfes asked about the difference between an aquifer and a basin, and expressed her hope to learn something here. She asked whether she was in the right place, and added that it looks like this is a big business meeting. Ms. Rohlfes stated that she does not understand the language being used and questioned whether this gathering was going to be helpful. If not, she asked where to go to learn more about groundwater management in the area. Mr. Jaffe responded that he appreciated her feedback, and that the group will need to ensure there is enough information available online and in person for those that may be new to the process. Mr. Duncan offered to follow up personally with Ms. Rohlfes. There will be other opportunities for public input and engagement on the options and solutions that will be part of the process getting underway in the fall. MOTION: Mr. Lane; Second: Mr. Daniels. To close the public hearing. Motion passed unanimously. 3.2 Board Action Following Public Hearing on Filing with the State to be Designated as the GSA for the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin Mr. Jaffe noted as a point of order that the group should approve the bylaws before proceeding. Ms. Menard reviewed the process for becoming a GSA, and circulated a revised letter to the state with language from Cameron Tana at HydroMetrics WRI regarding the basin boundaries. The group proceeded to item 6.1 and then returned to this motion below. MOTION: Mr. Lane; Second: Ms. Mathews. To approve the attached resolution and authorize the chair to sign the letter and add attachments as necessary. Motion passed unanimously. Page 3 of 64

4 Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency Meeting Minutes May 19, 2016 Page 3 of 6 ATTACHMENT - ITEM Administrative Business 6.1 Review and Take Action to Adopt Agency Bylaws or Provide Direction for Further Revisions for Consideration by the Board at its July 21, 2106 Meeting Ms. Menard reviewed the work of the bylaws subcommittee to date and the bylaws generally. The group agreed on the need to create an ethics policy and conflict of interest policy as future actions to be adopted at a later date. Suggestion for a future amendment, to have ethics training as a requirement for all members that can be completed online. On p. 73 item 5.1, are temporary board committees subject to the Brown Act? The group reviewed the number of people required for financial decisions related to the Brown Act. The current Joint Powers Authority (JPA) requires 7 members to be present, but the group recommended changing it to 6 and having an attorney review this section further as a future action item. Any staff members present do not count towards the 6 members required. Short term non-brown Act subcommittees can make recommendations, but cannot vote on final decisions or substantive items. Those must come to the full board as public agenda items. On p. 76 inspection rights item 9.3 there is a typo Correct to read What does make extracts mean? In this context it is intended to mean excerpts or partial copy. MOTION: Mr. Daniels; Second: Ms. Mathews. To adopt agency bylaws with the changes recommended above. Motion passed unanimously. 4. Oral Communications (Items not on the Agenda) Mr. Daniels reported on an issue raised at the Association of California Water Agencies conference. Having a group with some individuals from agencies and others not could violate Proposition 218 since agencies would be spending rate payer money benefiting others that are not paying. He added that the group should design a funding solution sooner than later. Mr. Marani shared that other basins are fighting over who represents PWO and taxation without representation. He suggested getting legal input in the future. The group discussed the need to identify the relationship with PWO before establishing fees, the benefit to the county as a whole of a sustainably managed basin, and the need to represent different types of wells in the future. Mr. Daniels reported that the Soquel Creek Water District Board has hired a consultant to complete an Environmental Impact Review of a supplemental water Page 4 of 64

5 Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency Meeting Minutes May 19, 2016 Page 4 of 6 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 4.1 supply option, the Advanced Purified Groundwater Replenishment Project, in the next 18 months. Mr. Jaffe and Mr. Ricker attended the Santa Margarita Groundwater Advisory Committee meeting on May 11 th and reported that the group wants to know about the MGA s process. 5. Consent Agenda 5.1 Approve Minutes of the March 17, 2016 MGA Meeting 5.2 Approve Agreement with Community Foundation for Staffing Services 5.3 Approve Letter of Representation with the County Counsel for Legal Services 5.4 Filing Notifications to Establish the MGA via a JPA MOTION: Mr. Lane; Second: Ms. Mathews. To pass the consent agenda as amended by removal of item 5.1. Motion passed unanimously. Items Removed from the Consent Agenda: 5.1 Approve Minutes of the March 17, 2016 MGA Meeting Replace Ms. Menard with Ms. Mathews where she seconded on p.47 of 112. MOTION: Ms. Mathews; Second: Mr. Ricker. To approve the minutes of March 17, 2016 as amended. Motion passed unanimously. Abstentions: Mr. Daniels, Mr. Lane. 6. Administrative Business Continued 6.2 Appointment of Board of Director Representatives of PWO MOTION: Mr. Daniels; Second: Ms. Mathews. To reappoint the present PWO representatives. Motion passed unanimously. The group discussed the need to assuage potential public perception that the agencies are picking PWO that have the same views that they do, and acknowledged that the goal was to have diverse views represented during the selection process. One suggestion was to require applicants to get 20 signatures from their neighbors. It is possible that the PWO might organize themselves in the future and form an association that promotes specific representatives. Ultimately the agencies have to select the representatives. How were the PWO selected? 25 people applied, the subcommittee narrowed the group down to 10 applicants that represented a range of viewpoints. Where was the position posted? At each of the eight public meetings, and with notices in the paper. Page 5 of 64

6 Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency Meeting Minutes May 19, 2016 Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 4.1 The group acknowledged that the process for getting the word out could be improved in the future. MOTION AMENDED: Mr. Daniels; Second: Ms. Mathews. To reappoint the existing PWO representatives, and designate two appointees with two year terms and one appointee with a four year term who serves what terms (4 year vs. 2 year) will be determined at the next meeting. Motion passed unanimously. The group needs to appoint an alternate PWO by the next meeting, how will that be handled? There was a suggestion made to look at the list of original applicants that were rated and contact the next person in line to see if they are still interested in participating. The group agreed by consensus that staff should proceed as indicated above outside of this meeting. 6.3 Approve Report from HydroMetrics WRI titled Shallow Groundwater Elevation The group discussed the analysis presented in the report and the potential significance of the findings. MOTION: Ms. Mathews; Second: Mr. Kennedy. To accept the report from HydroMetrics WRI titled Shallow Groundwater Elevation. Motion passed unanimously. 7. Information Items 7.1 Additional MGA Contributions Mr. Duncan reviewed the memo submitted for this item. 8. Oral Reports 8.1 Board Member Reports None 8.2 Staff Reports Mr. Ricker noted that the county is working with the Department of Water Resources to finalize a grant for counties with distressed water basins. They are in the process of finalizing the work plan and expect to start work in July. When can the group expect the groundwater model from HydroMetrics WRI? Hopefully at the end of the summer, they are currently incorporating various climate change scenarios and resolving coding issues. Page 6 of 64

7 Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency Meeting Minutes May 19, 2016 Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 4.1 The Groundwater Resources Association of California will be hosting an event on June 8-9 th in Sacramento on Developing Groundwater Sustainability Plans for Success. For more information go to: Ms. Menard reported that the Senior Water Resource Planner position has been open for three weeks and the deadline may be extended. She reviewed the hiring process and next steps regarding transitioning into the plan development stage. Staff circulated an electronic mailing list signup sheet to members of the public. Why HydroMetrics WRI? The Soquel Creek Water District will reassess next year, the decision was made with input by experts and the District s technical oversight committee. There are overlapping models on each side of Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin. Ultimately these models are all going to have to be consistent with each other, the process of selecting which ones to use will be an ongoing process. Mr. Friend raised a point of order, namely that the group should only discuss items listed on the agenda moving forward. 9. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:22 p.m. The next meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. on July 21 st a location to be determined and posted at SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Julia Townsend, Program Associate Regional Water Management Foundation Cynthia Mathews Board Secretary Page 7 of 64

8 September 15, 2016 MEMO TO THE MGA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Subject: Agenda Item 5.1 Title: Approve Scope and Budget for Groundwater Model Effort by HydroMetrics WRI for FY Attachment 1. HydroMetrics WRI Groundwater Model Update and Scope for Fiscal Year DISCUSSION This memo requests approval of the Scope of Work (SOW) and associated budget for the groundwater modeling work by HydroMetrics WRI. In summary, the SOW includes integration of the watershed and groundwater models, calibration of the integrated model, simulation of groundwater management alternatives, and development and simulation of a climate change scenario. The SOW also discusses schedule and budget constraints that result in proposed re-prioritization of task items in the model work plan approved by the Soquel-Aptos Basin Implementation Group on March 25, This reprioritization will allow model results to be available to the MGA to evaluate groundwater management alternatives by early The details of the SOW and the budget are presented in Attachment 1. The requested budget amount for the work is $239,085 and has been budgeted in the MGA fiscal year (FY) 2016/17 budget. At the March 17, 2016, meeting (Item 5.1), the Board approved $356,000 for the groundwater modeling work. That budget included $70,000 of work by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and another $70,000 related to a County grant. The joint funding agreement with the USGS has been amended and should only require approximately $47,000 funding this fiscal year. Item 6.2 summarizes the update of the groundwater modeling work included in Attachment 1. It should be noted that to keep the model work in progress and on schedule Ron Duncan (GM of Soquel Creek Water District) authorized (as is allowed under the MGA polices) HydroMetrics to proceed with up to $40,000 of the proposed SOW. Derrik Williams of HydroMetrics WRI will be present at the September 15th meeting and available to answer questions on the SOW. Possible Board Action: 1. By MOTION, approve the Scope of Work presented in Attachment 1 and the budget not-to-exceed $239,085. Page 8 of 64

9 MGA Board of Directors September 15, 2016 Page 2 of 2 By Ron Duncan On behalf of the staff executive team of Ron Duncan, Rosemary Menard, John Ricker, and Ralph Bracamonte Page 9 of 64

10 ATTACHMENT - ITEM Franklin St, Suite 501 Oakland, CA Mr. Ron Duncan General Manager, Soquel Creek Water District On behalf of Santa Cruz Mid County Groundwater Agency Executive Staff PO Box 1550 Capitola, CA September 2, 2016 Subject: Groundwater Model Update and Scope for Fiscal Year Dear Mr. Duncan: This letter provides an update on the Santa Cruz Mid County Basin groundwater model that HydroMetrics WRI is developing for the Santa Cruz Mid County Groundwater Agency (MGA) and includes scope and cost estimate for continued development of the model this fiscal year ( ). We have been developing the model under the work plan approved by the Soquel Aptos Basin Implementation Group (BIG) on March 25, 2015 with subsequent schedule revisions. This letter proposes re prioritizing and revising items in the work plan to meet schedule and budget constraints. Below is a general update and summary of the need to change the work plan with a cost estimate that includes revisions to work plan tasks. GROUNDWATER MODEL UPDATE The model will use the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) model code GSFLOW (Markstrom et al., 2008) that is a fully integrated watershed groundwater model. The new regulations for Groundwater Sustainability Plans set surface water groundwater models as a technical standard, and DWR staff has provided positive feedback on MGA s choice to use GSFLOW. GSFLOW will combine the Precipitation Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) model for surface watersheds with a MODFLOW groundwater model. To date, we have developed working versions of the PRMS watershed model and MODFLOW subsurface groundwater model and are scheduled to integrate them into GSFLOW by the end of this month. We have held two Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings. The first meeting focused on the subsurface groundwater model construction. The second meeting was HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc Franklin Street, Suite 501 Oakland, CA (510) (510) (fax) Page 10 of 64

11 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 5.1 Page 2 held on August 24, and focused on watershed model construction. The reprioritization of work plan items proposed here were also discussed at this second meeting. After integrating each model into GSFLOW, we are scheduled to calibrate the GSFLOW model to groundwater levels in October, evaluate groundwater management alternatives with the model by January 2017, and evaluate those management alternatives with a climate change scenario by March SCHEDULE CONSTRAINTS MGA member agencies Soquel Creek Water District (SqCWD) and City of Santa Cruz (City) require the model to be developed and calibrated on schedule in order to be used for evaluating supplemental supply options. SqCWD will use the model for its environmental review of groundwater replenishment with advanced water purification, and the City will use the model to evaluate its top recommended projects: Water Transfers for In lieu Recharge and Aquifer Storage Recovery (ASR) using treated surface water. The model will support SqCWD s environmental review of a project to inject advanced purified water. This injection is designed to recover and maintain groundwater levels in the basin. The environmental review includes an Environmental Impact Report, permitting, and salt and nutrient anti degradation analysis. The schedule for this work requires project evaluation with the calibrated model by December 2016, and project evaluation under a climate change scenario by February The SqCWD Board is scheduled to consider a scope of work for modeling support of this environmental review on September 6. The model will help the City evaluate both in lieu recharge options, ASR, and combinations of in lieu and ASR. The City s consultants will develop the model scenarios by December The County of Santa Cruz will receive a Proposition 1 grant from the state that will include funds for using the model to assess the relative impacts of various classifications of municipal and non municipal groundwater pumping on basin conditions. The grant schedule lists completion of this work in September October HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc Franklin Street, Suite 501 Oakland, CA (510) (510) (fax) Page 11 of 64

12 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 5.1 Page 3 RE PRIORITIZED WORK PLAN ITEMS Given the above schedule constraints, we proposed to the TAC that several items in the work plan be postponed and added to the model after the model is used to evaluate groundwater management alternatives for the MGA, groundwater replenishment with advanced water purification for SqCWD, and in lieu recharge and ASR scenarios for the City. These postponed items depend on the use of recently developed capabilities for the GSFLOW software. Newly developed capabilities will take longer to implement and are more likely to result in delays as implementation issues arise. The three items we propose for postponement are: 1. Water Use Module in PRMS. Subtask 2.5 of the work plan states that return flow occurs at the surface and can both recharge the basin or flow to streams so this source of water needs to be added to the PRMS model of the surface system. A newly developed water use module for PRMS appears to be the best option for accomplishing this. The TAC also encouraged us to explore whether use of the module was necessary. One of the primary motivations for including this capability is to support the County s Proposition 1 analysis of relative impacts from various water use classifications, but the schedule for that analysis allows more time for re consideration and implementation. In the interim, the model will assume that return flow is added directly to groundwater recharge. 2. Seawater Interface Package, SWI2. Work plan Subtask 4.6 is to implement seawater interfaces in the Aromas and Purisima aquifer units using the SWI2 package. Under an agreement with SqCWD and using funding from the MGA (work plan Subtask 4.5), the USGS has added the SWI2 package to the GSFLOW code but requires a working version of the GSFLOW model to test it. Effects of groundwater management alternatives and other scenarios on seawater intrusion risk can be evaluated based on coastal groundwater level results prior to this package being implemented. 3. Downscaled climate change scenarios. Work plan Subtask 5.1 states that the USGS will downscale four future climate scenarios (LOCA AR5) at daily time steps to the resolution of the model grid. After the USGS provided gridded data for historical climate to HydroMetrics WRI (Subtask 2.4), we recognized the difficulties in using the gridded data in PRMS and decided that we would use specific PRMS capabilities to distribute climate parameters for historical climate and any climate change scenarios to the model grid. Our subconsultant, Huntington Hydrologic, has provided a proposal to downscale global climate models to PRMS, but the USGS has recommended using either the Priestly Taylor or Penman Monteith formulation for potential evapotranspiration when using global climate projections. These evapotranspiration formulations have HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc Franklin Street, Suite 501 Oakland, CA (510) (510) (fax) Page 12 of 64

13 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 5.1 Page 4 only recently been added to PRMS. The TAC provided a recommendation for developing a climate change scenario for initial analysis that does not require downscaling and should not need a different evapotranspiration formulation. This approach categorizes years from historical climate as representative of climate change if extended over a longer period of time; the attached cost estimate reflects this approach. Re prioritizing these work plan items will facilitate meeting the schedule for providing the MGA, SqCWD, and City with model results to evaluate groundwater management alternatives and supplemental supply options by early BUDGET OVERVIEW ADDITIONAL EFFORT FOR WORK THROUGH FISCAL YEAR For tasks worked on through fiscal year , we expended more budget than estimated by the work plan. The two main contributors to exceeding our estimation are as follows: 1. For Task 2: developing the PRMS watershed model, HydroMetrics WRI and our subconsultant, Huntington Hydrologic, took on developing the climate inputs for PRMS after we decided against using gridded data sets provided by the USGS (Subtask 2.4). This included trying different climate distribution options in PRMS, different climate data sets, and testing the new potential evapotranspiration formulations in PRMS. Following a suggestion from the TAC, we are continuing to refine the rainfall distribution in the model. 2. Task 3: developing the MODFLOW subsurface model, took much more effort than anticipated to model the geology of the Basin, particularly adding cells representing shallow alluvium and Terrace deposits on top of outcrops of dipping geologic units. This complex geology also contributed to issues when adding pumping well data and assigning boundary conditions. The attached budget lists the Work Plan estimates for each task and the amount expended through fiscal year It also identifies items completed before July REVISED U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AGREEMENT As discussed above, the scope to provide future climate scenarios downscaled to the GSFLOW model grid has been removed from the USGS scope. As a result, the joint funding agreement between USGS and SqCWD has been amended. The joint funding HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc Franklin Street, Suite 501 Oakland, CA (510) (510) (fax) Page 13 of 64

14 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 5.1 Page 5 agreement now totals $60,030 with matching funds of $6,268 to cover the USGS s review role and implementation and testing of SWI2 in GSFLOW. Cost to SqCWD now is $53,762, to be reimbursed by the MGA. It should be noted that the USGS is not allowed to have a joint funding agreement directly with the MGA because there are private representatives on the MGA Board. The estimated total amount billed to the agreement in fiscal year is $6,800, so the approximate MGA budget to fund the agreement in this fiscal year is $47,000. $70,000 was included in the MGA budget for the USGS. COST ESTIMATE FOR PRIORITY TASKS THROUGH MARCH 2017 The attached cost estimate includes level of effort from July 2016 on subtasks that are priorities through March 2017 and excludes level of effort on the re prioritized subtasks. It also excludes evaluation of predictive uncertainty (Subtask 5.4) and the final model report (Task 6) in order to keep our cost estimate to approximately $239,000. Evaluation of predictive uncertainty is an advanced analysis that is not required to meet scheduling constraints for member agency uses of the model. The final model report is planned to document the additional re prioritized capabilities after they are added. The MGA can use draft technical memorandums that will be produced on the model (Subtask 4.7) and groundwater management alternative evaluations (Subtask 5.5) and reviewed by the TAC to guide its planning in advance of a final report. The $239,085 budget represents the initial $216,000 budgeted for the HydroMetrics WRI team for this fiscal year, plus $23,000 of USGS budget in excess of the remaining amount on that funding agreement. It should be noted that when providing the $216,000 budget estimate for our work this fiscal year, we projected that we would have expended a total of approximately $330,000 of the planned budget in the work plan through last fiscal year; the actual expenditure through last fiscal year was $27,000 less than that estimate. Therefore, using some of the USGS budget does not represent an increase in budget allocated for HydroMetrics WRI work. The $70,000 funded by the County s Prop 1 grant is not included in the cost estimate. Additional budget will be required to implement all the re prioritized items discussed above. BUDGET FOR NEW TAC MEMBER Subtask 1.4 is added to the cost estimate to provide compensation to Balance Hydrologics Senior Principal, Barry Hecht, who has been added to the TAC. We wanted to add a surface water expert to the TAC and John Ricker of the County HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc Franklin Street, Suite 501 Oakland, CA (510) (510) (fax) Page 14 of 64

15 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 5.1 Page 6 recommended Mr. Hecht for his experience with stream aquifer interactions. As a private consultant, Mr. Hecht should be compensated for his time. This is common practice for private consultants who serve on TACs. Although compensation to Balance Hydrologics will be executed via our contract, Balance is not our subconsultant and we will not have control over Mr. Hecht s advice. Robert Marks of Pueblo Water Resources is also a member of the TAC and is compensated by the City of Santa Cruz. Andy Fisher (UC Santa Cruz), Bruce Daniels (Soquel Creek Water District Board President and PhD in hydroclimatology), and Brian Lockwood (Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency) are volunteering their time on the TAC. PROJECT TEAM UPDATE There have been changes to our project team since the work plan was submitted. For HydroMetrics WRI, Derrik Williams and Cameron Tana will remain Technical Lead and Project Manager, respectively. Georgina King, a Principal Hydrogeologist with HydroMetrics WRI who led the previous recharge study of the Soquel Aptos area using PRMS, has increased her role working with PRMS aspects of the model. Sean Culkin, Senior Hydrogeologist with HydroMetrics WRI, has been working on the subsurface model and assisting Cameron with project management. Sean is a Certified Hydrogeologist in California and has over eight years of experience in water resources, environmental, and geotechnical consulting, with an emphasis on quantitative hydrogeology and groundwater modeling. Justin Huntington of Huntington Hydrologic and also Desert Research Institute will continue to be a subconsultant. His main role going forward under this scope will be developing packages for GSFLOW integration. Please let me know if you have any questions. Derrik Williams will attend the September 15 MGA Board meeting and will be available to address any questions. Sincerely, Cameron Tana, Vice President HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc. HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc Franklin Street, Suite 501 Oakland, CA (510) (510) (fax) Page 15 of 64

16 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 5.1 Page 7 Cc: Ralph Bracamonte, Central Water District Rosemary Menard, City of Santa Cruz John Ricker, County of Santa Cruz HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc Franklin Street, Suite 501 Oakland, CA (510) (510) (fax) Page 16 of 64

17 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 5.1 Cost Estimate for Scope of Professional Services to Mid County Basin Groundwater Model Fiscal Year through March 2017 HydroMetrics WRI Hours Huntington Hydrologic Tasks Derrik Williams Cameron Tana Georgina King Land Use Technical Project Analysis Lead Manager Le ad/prms Modeler Sean Mike Justin Staff Admin Staff Expended Culkin Cloud Huntington BIG Work Cost ODC before FY 16 Plan Total 17 Groundwater Modeler Hydrologist/ Modeler/GIS Office Geologist PRMS/GSFLOW Support Expert Watershed Modeler Rates per hour $195 $175 $165 $155 $115 $60 $150 $138 $110 ($) ($) ($) ($) ($) FY Total Task 1 Scoping Effort BIG Work Plan Cost Estimate $ 18,070 $ 450 $ 18,970 $ 25, Scoping Meetings (assume 2) Complete before FY Draft Memorandum on Potential Model Uses Complete before FY Develop Work Plan and Revise Cost and Schedule Complete before FY Additional TAC Member Compenation $ 8,920 $ 8,920 Task 1 Subtotal $ 18,970 $ 25,246 $ 8,920 Task 2 Develop Model of Surface System BIG Work Plan Cost Estimate $ 132,540 $ 1,144 $ 134,234 $ 98, Define Model Grid for Groundwater Model Complete before FY Refine Model Grid for PRMS and Define Stream/Subwatershed Network Complete before FY Compile Land Surface Data from Sub Watershed Based PRMS Complete before FY Climate Data for PRMS $ 12,090 $ $ 12, Land Use Analysis for Water Use and Return Flow $ 14,440 $ $ 14, Implement PRMS Water Use Module to Simulate Return Flow Postpone to after January 2017 or develop alternative (funded by County Prop 1 Grant) 2.6 Draft Technical Memo and Review of PRMS Inputs $ 10,530 $ 200 $ 10, Construct Grid Based PRMS for GSFLOW $ 9,460 $ $ 9, Calibrate PRMS $ 10,640 $ $ 10,640 Task 2 Subtotal $ 134,234 $ 98,193 $ 57,360 Task 3 Develop Model of Sub surface System BIG Work Plan Cost Estimate $ 101,678 $ 200 $ 102,078 $ 164, Develop Sub surface Hydrogeologic Structure Complete before FY Define Boundary Conditions $ 6,750 $ $ 6, Develop Pumping Time Series $ 6,660 $ $ 6, Draft Technical Memos and Review of MODFLOW Inputs $ 8,050 $ 200 $ 8, Compile Groundwater Level Calibration Data Complete before FY Create Recharge Package Based on HRU Based PRMS $ 6,990 $ $ 6, Roughly Calibrate Subsurface MODFLOW $ 14,060 $ $ 14,060 Task 3 Subtotal $ 102,078 $ 164,118 $ 42,710 Task 4 Develop Integrated Model of Surface and Sub surface Systems BIG Work Plan Cost Estimate $ 132,415 $ 1,782 $ 134,197 $ 15, Implement SFR and UZF Package $ 9,345 $ $ 9, Create GSFLOW $ 9,445 $ $ 9, Draft Technical Memo and Review of GSFLOW Integration Combine with 4.7 Memo and Review 4.4 Calibrate GSFLOW $ 34,660 $ $ 34, Implement SWI2 Code in GSFLOW (coordinate with USGS) $ 2,755 $ $ 2, Incorporate Density Dependence for Seawater Intrusion Postpone to after January Draft Technical Memo and Review of GSFLOW $ 18,420 $ 200 $ 18, Review of GSFLOW with SWI2 Postpone to after January 2017 Task 4 Subtotal $ 134,197 $ 15,803 $ 74,825 Task 5 Model Simulations BIG Work Plan Cost Estimate $ 69,690 $ $ 69,690 $ 5.1 Develop Climate Change Scenario Based on Historical Record $ 11,800 $ $ 11, Develop Additional Climate Change Scenario Such as GCM Downscaling Postpone to after January Evaluate Groundwater Management Alternatives and Scenarios $ 16,140 $ $ 16, Run Alternatives with Climate Change Scenario Based on Historical Record $ 12,760 $ $ 12, Run Selected Alternatives with Additional Climate Change Scenarios Postpone to after January Evaluate Predictive Uncertainty for Preferred Alternative Postpone to after January Draft Technical Memo and Review of Model Simulations $ 14,570 $ $ 14,570 Task 5 Subtotal $ 69,690 $ $ 55,270 Task 6 Final Model Report BIG Work Plan Cost Estimate $ 20,900 $ $ 20, Final Draft Report Postpone to after January Final Report Postpone to after January 2017 Task 6 Subtotal $ 20,900 $ $ TOTAL $ 480,069 $ 303,360 $ 239,085 HydroMetrics Water Resources Inc Franklin Street, Suite 501 Oakland, CA (510) (510) (fax) Page 17 of 64

18 September 15, 2016 MEMO TO THE MGA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Subject: Agenda Item 6.1 Title: Update on Quarterly Monitoring Data Attachment 1. Hydrographs and Salt Concentration Chemographs from Coastal Monitoring Wells Used to Evaluate Seawater Intrusion in the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin BACKGROUND In the past HydroMetrics WRI has provided written quarterly monitoring reports of data from coastal monitoring wells used to evaluate seawater intrusion in the basin. These reports can be found at the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency s (MGA s) online resource library: However, at the March 17, 2016 meeting, the Board approved an alternative approach of HydroMetrics WRI continuing to review the data, but just present it verbally with potentially some visual aids (e.g. graphs, etc.) via webcast to MGA member agency staff. The reason for this new approach was that the written reports were not providing a beneficial value for money spent and due to the slow changes in the monitoring data. This approach allows the costs to be reduced from $12,000 per year to $4,000 per year. A biennial report is budgeted to be produced to cover conditions for Water Years 2015 and 2016 and HydroMetrics WRI will submit a proposal to produce the report at the November MGA Board meeting. DISCUSSION In an update to MGA member agency staff in May 2016, Cameron Tana of HydroMetrics WRI noted that coastal groundwater levels had risen above protective elevations at nearly all of the coastal monitoring wells likely as a result of recent reductions in basin pumping. However, Cameron stressed that this did not indicate that the basin had achieved recovery. Protective elevations are based on long-term groundwater levels to protect against seawater intrusion so the annual average groundwater level needs to be compared to protective elevations to evaluate recovery. At a web meeting with MGA member agency staff August 31, 2016, HydroMetrics WRI reviewed the attached graphs and noted that: Groundwater levels are declining to or below protective elevations (green lines) at many of the wells since the high levels observed in the spring. Salt concentration trends do not appear to have changed significantly over the last year. One main indicator of seawater intrusion is chloride concentrations rising above 250 milligrams per liter (mg/l), the maximum contaminant limit in drinking water. Page 18 of 64

19 MGA Board of Directors September 15, 2016 Page 2 of 2 HydroMetrics WRI also noted that City of Santa Cruz does have water quality data earlier than what is displayed, which shows concentrations declining long-term at the Moran Lake well and that concentrations at the Soquel Point well have been elevated since installation of the well in Derrik Williams of HydroMetrics WRI will be present at the Board meeting and can answer any questions. Possible Board Action: 1. Receive update and discuss as needed. By Ron Duncan On behalf of the staff executive team of Ron Duncan, Rosemary Menard, John Ricker, and Ralph Bracamonte Page 19 of 64

20 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1 Figure 1. Locations of Coastal Monitoring Wells where Target or Protective Groundwater Elevations Have Been Estimated Page 20 of 64

21 Page 21 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

22 Page 22 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

23 Page 23 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

24 Page 24 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

25 Page 25 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

26 Page 26 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

27 Page 27 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

28 Page 28 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

29 Page 29 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

30 Page 30 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

31 Page 31 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

32 Page 32 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

33 Page 33 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

34 Page 34 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

35 Page 35 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

36 Page 36 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

37 Page 37 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

38 Page 38 of 64 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.1

39 September 15, 2016 MEMO TO THE MGA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Subject: Agenda Item 6.2 Title: Update on Groundwater Model DISCUSSION An update on the progress of the groundwater model is provided as part of the attachment to agenda item 5.1. The purpose of the model is to simulate effects of groundwater management alternatives such as reduced pumping/in-lieu recharge, injection of supplemental supplies, and pumping redistribution on groundwater basin conditions, including groundwater levels, streamflows, and seawater intrusion. The model is an integrated surface water-groundwater model using U.S. Geological Survey software GSFLOW. The California Department of Water Resources emergency regulations for Groundwater Sustainability Plans set surface water-groundwater models as the technical standard for analyses. The work to date on the model includes: 1. Development of the watershed model using Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) 2. Development of the subsurface groundwater model using MODFLOW 3. Initial calibration of the PRMS model and MODFLOW model to streamflows and groundwater levels, respectively Future work includes: 1. Integration of the PRMS and MODFLOW models into GSFLOW 2. Calibration of the GSFLOW model to streamflows and groundwater levels 3. Simulation of groundwater model alternatives 4. Development of a climate change scenario and evaluation of groundwater model alternatives under that scenario The attachment to agenda item 5.1 also discusses re-prioritization of items in the model work plan approved by the Soquel-Aptos Basin Implementation Group in March Derrik Williams of HydroMetrics WRI will attend the September 15th MGA meeting and be available to answer questions on the groundwater model. Possible Board Action: 1. Informational only. By Ron Duncan On behalf of the staff executive team of Ron Duncan, Rosemary Menard, John Ricker, and Ralph Bracamonte Page 39 of 64

40 September 15, 2016 MEMO TO THE MGA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Subject: Agenda Item 6.3 Title: Update on Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Regulations Attachment 1. Copy of presentation slides Derrik Williams of HydroMetrics WRI will provide a presentation at the Board Meeting about the status for the Groundwater Sustainability Plan regulations. The main points he will be discussing include: 1. Defining important terms and concepts introduced by the regulations 2. Clarifying the definition of sustainability 3. Outlining ongoing uncertainties in how California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is implementing the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) As a representative of Soquel Creek Water District, Derrik currently sits on the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA s) SGMA Implementation Policy Committee as well as ACWA s SGMA Policy Advisory Workgroup. He is HydroMetrics WRI s lead on a contract with DWR to write SGMA Best Management Practices in accordance with the SGMA legislation. Possible Board Action: 1. Informational only. By, Ron Duncan On behalf of the staff executive team of Ron Duncan, Rosemary Menard, John Ricker, and Ralph Bracamonte Page 40 of 64

41 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.3 9/1/2016 Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency September 15, 2016 Derrik Williams 2 Comprehensive Legislation to Sustainably Manage Groundwater in California Compromise between local and state authority Requires formation of a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Must be formed by local public agencies with water management authority or land use authority Gives GSAs the tools and authorities to manage groundwater 3 Requires GSAs develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSP) Plans must be written by 2020 or 2022 Achieve sustainability in 20 years Maintain sustainability for 50 years DWR can refer a basin to SWRCB for intervention if the GSA misses certain deadlines or requirements SWRCB will manage the basin pumping 4 Adopted June 1, 2016, Provide details and direction on implementing the legislation Some items require further clarification in the Best Management Practices (BMPs) Enforceable Advisory SGMA Legislation Emergency Regulation Two BMPs Remaining BMPs Increasing Clarity/Guidance Introductory Provisions Definitions Technical and Reporting Standards Procedures Plan Contents Department Evaluation and Assessment Annual Reports and Periodic Evaluations by the Agency Interagency Agreements Adjudicated Areas and Alternatives 5 6 Page 41 of 64 1

42 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.3 9/1/2016 Informative highlights, far from exhaustive the supporting information is sufficiently detailed and the analyses sufficiently thorough and reasonable [for DWR] to evaluate the Plan, and any discrepancy would not materially affect the ability of the Agency to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin. This is the standard for plan approval Acknowledges imperfect understanding/incomplete data Includes reasonableness and feasibility standards Plans must be complete 7 8 Formerly undesirable results Undesirable results are now the condition when these indicators are significant and unreasonable Representative Monitoring Point (RMP) 9 Chronic lowering of groundwater elevations Reduction of groundwater storage Seawater intrusion Degraded water quality Land subsidence Depletion of interconnected surface waters Other Monitoring Point (MP) Sustainability assessed on data from RMPs. You must show that RMPs are representative of surrounding MPs 10 Defined basinwide Set for each sustainability indicator Based on significant and unreasonable conditions Significant and unreasonable is locally defined 11 Undesirable Results Quantitative value that is used to define an undesirable result Set at each representative monitoring point Set for each sustainability indicator Related to enforceable sustainability outcomes Undesirable Result Overly Simplified Minimum Threshold 12 Page 42 of 64 2

43 Groundwater Level Historical IM#1 Measurable Objective Minimum Threshold IM#2 Future IM#3 Su stainab le Groundwater Level Historical IM#1 Measurable Objective Minimum Threshold IM#2 Future IM#3 Su stainab le Groundwater Level Historical Measurable Objective Minimum Th reshold IM#1 IM#2 Future IM#3 Sustainable ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.3 9/1/2016 Quantitative target or goal in a Plan Set at each representative monitoring point Set for each sustainability indicator NOT related to enforceable sustainability outcomes Example: Protective Elevations Undesirable Result Measurable Objective Minimum Threshold 13 Groundwater Level Minimum WL Historical Average WL? Measurable Objective Minimum Threshold Future IM#1 IM#2 IM#3 Sustainable Undesirable results are a FUNCTION of minimum thresholds Example: It is undesirable for GWEs in more that 22% of the RMPs to be below the associated Minimum Thresholds There are exceptions to this general model Define undesirable results in a public forum with stakeholder input 2. Somehow identify minimum thresholds at each RMP 3. Define your function such that the minimum thresholds reflect your agreed to undesirable result This iterative process will likely take time 16 All hinges on avoiding undesirable results Sustainability Goal Sustainability Goal No value of sustainable yield is necessary Sustainable GW Mgmt. Sustainable Yield Sustainable GW Mgmt. Sustainable Yield Basin Wide No Undesirable Results UR Function No Undesirable Results RMP Specific Page 43 of 64 3

44 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.3 9/1/2016 You can divide a basin into areas with different: Minimum Thresholds Measurable Objectives Monitoring Requirements Projects or Management Actions Example of management areas divided based on water use demand However, the undesirable result must still be defined basinwide (across management areas) Might use this for seawater intrusion Possibly used in a basin with variable water sources, demands, etc. Circles indicate RMPs Not relevant to Santa Cruz Mid-County GSA, assuming there is only one GSP for the basin Basin boundary modification approved One GSA for entire Santa Cruz Mid-County Basin 21 Not required However, regulations state that your GSP must: Demonstrate how minimum thresholds avoid causing undesirable results in adjacent basins Adjust groundwater monitoring plan to show how you are not adversely affecting an adjacent basin s GSP Santa Margarita West S.C. Terrace Mid County Corralitos (Purisima Highlands) Corralitos (Pajaro) You have the advantage of good communication and relationships with your neighbors 22 capable of storing and reporting information relevant to the development or implementation of the Plan and monitoring of the basin. Basin-wide data management Need to store model information in the DMS is unclear SqCWD has implemented WISKI system 23 Flexible process defined by GSA GSP must have a communication section that describes opportunities for public engagement. Must describe all beneficial uses and users, along with the nature of consultation, how undesirable results and minimum thresholds affect the interests of beneficial uses and users One criteria for acceptance is whether the interests of beneficial uses and users have been considered 24 Page 44 of 64 4

45 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.3 9/1/ : Each Plan shall include a description of the projects and management actions the Agency has determined will achieve the sustainability goal for the basin. The description must include: Adescription of the measurable objective that is expected to benefit from the project A description of the circumstances under which projects shall be implemented A summary of the permitting and regulatory process required for each project An explanation of the benefits that are expected to be realized from the project A time table for expected initiation and completion, and the accrual of expected benefits A description of the estimated cost for each project and management action and a description of how the Agency plans to meet those costs The basin is in overdraft. Therefore the GSP shall describe projects or management actions, including a quantification of demand reduction or other methods, for the mitigation of overdraft GSPs no longer require a funding plan GSPs must include, An estimate of the cost of implementing the Plan and a general description of how the Agency plans to meet those costs. One of DWR s considerations in approving a GSP is Whether the Agency has the financial resources necessary to implement the Plan. SGMA implementation is an ongoing process BMPs are still being developed DWR is still testing its ideas DWR is willing to work with GSAs as they develop their GSPs Developing the GSP is an iterative process that takes negotiations and time. Writing is not the hard part! Page 45 of 64 5

46 September 15, 2016 MEMO TO THE MGA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Subject: Agenda Item 6.4 Title: Update on Counties with Distressed Groundwater Basins Grant Attachments 1. Task List, Budget, and Schedule from Final Grant Agreement The County of Santa Cruz recently completed contracting on a grant submitted to the Department of Water Resources for the Counties with Distressed Groundwater Basins solicitation. The project, entitled the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Management Program brings additional resources to support the development of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Some of the tasks include: Updating the County s database on private wells and water users to create a comprehensive list of properties which use wells for domestic and nondomestic purposes. Refining of the groundwater model to allow for simulating extraction, recharge, water levels, sea water intrusion, and surface water-groundwater interactions under a variety of climate scenarios. Some of the simulations will focus on assessing the impacts of non-municipal pumping in the basin, as well as analyzing the effects of potential management scenarios. Collecting data with a focus on streamflow and inland groundwater level monitoring to better calibrate the groundwater model and understand stream baseflow conditions. Using the results of the model, and ongoing work done by Dr. Andy Fisher at UCSC, to assess areas within the basin that are suitable for groundwater recharge projects. Sites with high suitability on public land will be placed in an initial project site selection inventory. The most promising locations will be selected for preliminary designs for enhanced stormwater recharge projects. Assessing the impact of various classifications of municipal and nonmunicipal groundwater pumping in the basin. The task will include the investigation of technical and policy implications and will help provide the basis for assigning for calculating groundwater extraction fees to fund basin management. Expanding outreach and education activities, particularly those targeted to private well owners. The total awarded through this funding is $249,000 which required an equivalent local match contribution. Match, which could go back to November 2014, is coming Page 46 of 64

47 from previous investments in the groundwater model, and staff time to participate in the GSA. Work on this grant is commencing now and must be completed by December, Possible Board Actions: 1. Receive memo and report and discuss as needed. By John Ricker and Sierra Ryan County of Santa Cruz Page 47 of 64

48 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.4 Grant Agreement No Page 7 of 24 EXHIBIT A WORK PLAN PROJECT TITLE: Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Management Program PROJECT SUMMARY: The objective of this Project is to inform the development of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) through the following tasks: form a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), provide more outreach and services to private pumpers, update three ordinances to address current impacts of over-pumping, enhance the comprehensive groundwater model for the Mid-County Groundwater Basin, fill data gaps, identify recharge projects, and assess the impact on the basin of different pumping classes to help inform future policies. TASK 1 GRANT ADMINISTRATION TASK 1.1 GRANT MANAGEMENT Manage this grant Agreement including: compliance with Agreement requirements, development, preparation and submission of supporting grant documents and this Agreement. This task also includes administrative responsibilities associated with the Project such as coordinating with partnering agencies and managing consultants/contractors. Deliverables: Environmental Information Form (EIF) Audited Financial Statement Form Executed Grant Agreement TASK 1.2 REPORTING Prepare progress reports detailing work completed during reporting period as outlined in Exhibit (F) of this Agreement. Progress reports will include sufficient information for DWR program manager to understand and review backup documentation submitted with invoices. Submit reports to DWR. Prepare Draft Grant Completion Report and submit to DWR for DWR Project Manager s comment and review no later than 90 days after work completion. Prepare Final Report addressing DWR s comments. The report shall be prepared and presented in accordance with the provision of Exhibit F. Deliverables: Project Progress Reports Grant Completion Report TASK 1.3 INVOICING Prepare draft invoice for submission to DWR per direction provided by DWR project manager using the invoice template provided by DWR. Collect and organize back-up documentation by task, prepare summary excel document detailing contents of backup documentation organized by task (to match task in grant agreement budget), track budget, and verify math prior to submitting each draft invoice. Respond to DWR project manager s comments on draft invoice in a timely manner. Submit draft and final invoices. Deliverables: Draft and final invoices Backup documentation and summary document TASK 2 GSA FORMATION Participate in the formation of the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee (SAGMC) and successor Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency, including the development of Memorandums of Understanding (MOU's) and joint powers authority (JPA) and attend appropriate GSA meetings. Deliverables: Page 48 of 64

49 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.4 Grant Agreement No Page 8 of 24 Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency MOU Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency JPA Notice of GSA formation submitted to DWR Meeting Agendas, attendance lists, notifications, materials upon request TASK 3 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS TASK 3.1 COMPILATION AND UPDATE OF EXISTING DATA Update the County s database on private wells and water users to create a comprehensive list of properties in the basin indicating their source of water and estimated amount of water use. This list will include properties that use wells for domestic and non-domestic purposes. Well depth monitoring at strategic locations throughout the Mid-County basin with landowner permission will be included in this database. Deliverables: Data output from the County's updated geodatabase TASK 3.2 ENHANCEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE GROUNDWATER MODEL FOR THE MID-COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASIN Develop a groundwater model for the Santa Cruz Mid-County Basin using the following U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS) models: Precipitation-Runoff Modeling System (PRMS) and Groundwater and Surface-water flow model (GSFLOW). The new model should allow for simulating extraction, recharge, water levels, sea water intrusion, and surface water-groundwater interactions under a variety of climate scenarios and allow simulations to be run to assess impacts of non-municipal pumping in the basin and effects of potential management scenarios. Deliverables: Modeling method Source data used to construct model Completed Model Summary of results TASK 3.3 DATA COLLECTION Collect data focusing on streamflow and inland groundwater level monitoring to better calibrate the groundwater model and understand stream baseflow conditions. Streamflow measurements and water level measurements will be taken by county staff at monitoring locations throughout the basin on a monthly basis. Deliverables: Streamflow data results Water level data results Incorporation of data into model Submittal of updated model TASK 3.4 DEVELOPMENT OF A RECHARGE PROJECT STRATEGY Using the results of the model and ongoing work to assess areas that are suitable for recharge, create a preliminary site selection and preliminary designs for stormwater recharge projects that may recharge 5-50 acre-feet per year per site. Deliverables: List of potential recharge site locations Design parameters Preliminary designs for selected sites TASK 3.5 METHODOLOGY FOR ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF VARIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS OF MUNICIPAL AND NON-MUNICIPAL GROUNDWATER PUMPING IN A BASIN Page 49 of 64

50 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.4 Grant Agreement No Page 9 of 24 Use pumping statistics from the basin and return flows, activities and landscaping that provide recharge to the basin in the development of the methodology. The task will include the investigation of technical and policy implications resulting from the impacts (both benefits and costs) for the consideration of extraction fees on all users. The development of a white paper describing the assessment of net impact based on land use type and outlining and implication will be submitted to SAGMC. Deliverables: White Paper TASK 4 ORDINANCE DEVELOPMENT Update the Water Conservation Ordinance (chapter 7.69) to add additional restrictions on inefficient water usage in the County. Update the Small Water System Ordinance (chapter 7.71) to require source metering on all small water systems between connections, and require connection metering on all community water systems between connections. Update the Well Ordinance (chapter 7.70) to require implementation of water conservation measures for all non-domestic users when applying for new well permits. This may include additional metering and reporting requirements. Deliverables: Final ordinances approved by County Board of Supervisors TASK 5 EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Create a brochure targeted to rural water users which will include information on rural water conservation, the benefits of metering, how to maintain wells and pumps, and how much a leak can cost a pump in terms of energy and pump life. Complete voluntary well sounding and water use assessment services for private well owners to determine their well water level depth, current water use, approximate water savings potential, and assess interest in future rebates. Attend Mid-County Groundwater Stakeholder meetings and workshops to educate the public and receive input about the GSA for the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Basin. Deliverables: Completed brochure List of private well owner sites visited and analysis of results Meeting agendas and minutes Page 50 of 64

51 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.4 Grant Agreement No Page 10 of 24 EXHIBIT B BUDGET Project Title: Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Management Program Tasks Grant Amount Required Local Cost Share (nonstate source) Other Cost Share Total Project Cost (a) Task 1 Grant Administration $22,000 $0 $0 $22,000 (b) Task 2 GSA Development $0 $28,090 $0 $28,090 (c) Task 3 Data Collection and Analysis $181,000 $217,600 $0 $395,100 (d) Task 4 Ordinance Development $1,500 $3,000 $0 $4,500 (e) Task 5 Education and Outreach $44,500 $9,087 $0 $57,087 Total $249,000 $257,777 $0 $506,777 Page 51 of 64

52 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.4 Grant Agreement No Page 11 of 24 EXHIBIT C SCHEDULE Tasks Start Date End Date Task 1 Grant Administration July 2016 March 2018 Task 2 GSA Development November 2014 August 2016 Task 3 Data Collection and Analysis November 2014 September 2017 Task 4 Ordinance Development November 2014 December 2017 Task 5 Education and Outreach November 2014 December 2017 Page 52 of 64

53 September 15, 2016 MEMO TO THE MGA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Subject: Agenda Item 6.5 Title: Update on MGA s Basin Boundary Modification Request for the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin Attachment 1. Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin Boundary On March 16, 2016, the Soquel-Aptos Groundwater Management Committee (SAGMC) submitted its request for a groundwater basin boundary modification to the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). The MGA assumed management of this request upon its formation March 17, The requested basin boundary modification was primarily to consolidate all or parts of four existing Bulletin 118 groundwater basins, Soquel Valley, Pajaro Valley, West Santa Cruz Terrace, and Santa Cruz Purisima Formation Groundwater Basins, into the Santa Cruz Mid- County Groundwater Basin. A report detailing this request can be found at modification.pdf and the official online request can be found at DWR has approved the basin boundary modification for the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin in its list of draft approved basin boundary modifications ( There are DWR documents online that refer to the request as Approved, as modified, but DWR confirmed on a conference call with staff July 11, 2016 that the request was approved as submitted. DWR is scheduled to publish the final basin boundary modifications in September and present them to the California Water Commission on September 21, The modified basin definitions will then be evaluated under the basin prioritization process and documented in the interim update of Bulletin 118, scheduled for later this year. Staff expects that the Basin will continue to be considered medium or high priority, requiring management under SGMA. In the call on July 11, 2016, DWR indicated that it would not update its list of basins in critical overdraft. However, the basin boundary modification request stated that the critical overdraft designation of the Soquel Valley and Pajaro Valley Basins should apply to the Santa Cruz Mid-County Basin because that designation is based on the risk of seawater intrusion that also exists for the Santa Cruz Mid-County Basin. Basins in critical overdraft are required to submit a Groundwater Sustainability Plan by Also, DWR approved as modified the requests for modifications of basins adjacent to the Santa Cruz Mid-County Basin. These requests were submitted by Scotts Page 53 of 64

54 Board of Directors September 15, 2016 Page 2 of 2 Valley Water District for the Santa Margarita Basin and by Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency for the Pajaro Valley Sub-basin. An interactive map of these and other approved basins can be found at Possible Board Action: 1. Informational only. By Ron Duncan On behalf of the staff executive team of Ron Duncan, Rosemary Menard, John Ricker, and Ralph Bracamonte Page 54 of 64

55 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.5 Page 55 of 64

56 September 15, 2016 MEMO TO THE MGA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Subject: Agenda Item 6.6 Title: Update on Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Formation Status for the MGA Attachment 1. Letter from John Ricker, County of Santa Cruz, to California Department of Water Resources (DWR) re: Area to be Managed by the MGA On May 19, 2016 the MGA passed Resolution to become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) for the proposed Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin. DWR posted notice of the GSA Formation on June 2, 2016 as covering parts or all of the four existing Bulletin 118 basins (Soquel Valley, Pajaro Valley, West Santa Cruz Terrace, and Santa Cruz Purisima Formation), because the proposed Mid-County Basin had not yet been approved. The MGA s GSA Formation notice indicated that the GSA would manage the area of the proposed Mid-County Basin but DWR noted that the SGMA does not allow the GSA to manage areas outside existing Bulletin 118 basins while the basin boundary modification is pending. On June 21, 2016, John Ricker of the County of Santa Cruz wrote the attached letter on behalf of MGA executive staff clarifying the area to be managed by the MGA. DWR has since provided draft approval of the Mid-County Basin boundaries, but it will not be official until included in the Interim Update of Bulletin 118 scheduled for later this year. Additional GSA notification to DWR will not be required after the basin becomes official. The 90 day period to establish the MGA as the exclusive GSA for the approved Mid-County Basin ended on August 31, The MGA is now the exclusive GSA for the entire Mid- County Basin. Possible Board Action: 1. Informational only. By Ron Duncan On behalf of the staff executive team of Ron Duncan, Rosemary Menard, John Ricker, and Ralph Bracamonte Page 56 of 64

57 County of Santa Cruz HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY ATTACHMENT - ITEM OCEAN STREET, ROOM 312, SANTA CRUZ, CA (831) FAX: (831) ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Mark Nordberg, GSA Project Manager, Senior Engineering Geologist Sustainable Groundwater Management Program California Department of Water Resources 901 P Street, Room 213-B P.O. Box Sacramento, CA Mark.Nordberg@water.ca.gov Subject: Area to be Managed Under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act by Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency (MGA) Dear Mr. Nordberg: The Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency (MGA) provided notice of intent pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to become a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) on May 19, The MGA is a newly formed joint exercise of powers agency including Central Water District, the City of Santa Cruz, the County of Santa Cruz, and the Soquel Creek Water District. We appreciate the Department of Water Resources (DWR) prompt posting of MGA s notice of intent on June 2, Thank you for this opportunity to provide additional information on the area proposed to be covered by the GSA. As stated in the notice of intent, MGA will manage the proposed Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin, which is part of a basin boundary modification request that was deemed complete by DWR on March 24, The proposed Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Basin is generally a basin consolidation of all or parts of four existing Bulletin 118 groundwater basins: Soquel Valley (3-1), West Santa Cruz Terrace (3-26), Santa Cruz Purisima Formation (3-21), and Pajaro Valley (3-2) Groundwater Basins. It is the intention of MGA to manage the modified basin as approved by the DWR even if the approved basin includes minor revisions to the proposed basin in the basin boundary modification request (Attachment). However, since SGMA specifically only authorizes DWR to recognize GSA areas within existing Bulletin 118 groundwater basins, we are providing a Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefile for the area of existing Bulletin 118 basins within the proposed modified basin. This shapefile clips the proposed basin to the boundaries of the West Santa Cruz Terrace and Santa Cruz Purisima Formation basins. This area and the area of the proposed basin outside existing basins are shown in the Attachment. When DWR approves the Santa Cruz Mid-County basin boundary modification request, we understand DWR will recognize the entire approved basin as MGA s GSA management area. An Page 57 of 64

58 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.6 additional notification and 90 day period to establish exclusivity for the approved basin modification as a GSA area should not be necessary. The only eligible agencies in the proposed basin, including areas outside of existing basins, are the MGA members. Please contact myself or our consultant Cameron Tana of HydroMetrics WRI at (510) x302 or Cameron@HydroMetricsWRI.com if you have any questions or would like to discuss further. Sincerely, John A. Ricker, County of Santa Cruz Water Resources Division Director On Behalf of Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency Executive Staff Encl. GIS shapefile DWR_GSA_poly.shp: Area of Existing Bulletin 118 Basins within Proposed Santa Cruz Mid-County Basin cc: Cameron Tana, Hydrometrics Rosemary Menard, City of Santa Cruz Ron Duncan, Soquel Creek Water District Ralph Bracamonte, Central Water District Page 58 of 64

59 ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.6 Attachment 1: Existing Basin Area within Proposed Santa Cruz Mid-County Basin Page 59 of 64

60 September 15, 2016 MEMO TO THE MGA BOARD OF DIRECTORS Subject: Agenda Item 6.8 Title: Treasurer s Report Attachment 1. Treasurer s Report for the Period Ended August 31, 2016 Attached is the Treasurer s Report for July and August The report contains three sections: Statement of Changes in Revenues, Expenses and Net Position o This interim financial statement provides information on the revenue that has been invoiced to the member agencies and the expenses that have been recorded as of August 31, Statement of Net Position o This interim financial statement details the cash balance at Wells Fargo Bank, the depository institution for the Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency (MGA), the membership revenue still owed through accounts receivable, and the resulting net income as reported on the Statement of Changes in Revenues, Expenses and Net Position from the preceding page. Warrants o The list of warrants reflects all payments made by the MGA, either by check or electronic means, for the period covered by the Treasurer s Report. The Treasurer s Report will be provided on a monthly basis according to statutory requirement and to promote transparency of agency financial transactions. Possible Board Action: 1. Informational only. By Leslie Strohm Treasurer Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency Page 60 of 64

61 Treasurer's Report ATTACHMENT - ITEM 6.8 Santa Cruz Mid-County Groundwater Agency For the period ended August 31,2016 Prepared by Leslie Strohm Prepared on September 1,2016 Page 61 of 64