EKI TECHNICAL PRESENTATION #8 WHITE WOLF GSA BOARD OF DIRECTORS 1 OCTOBER 2019
OUTLINE Update on Groundwater Modeling Coordination Proposition 68 SGM Grant Application 2
5a. UPDATE ON GROUNDWATER MODELING COORDINATION 3
C2VSIMFG-KERN PROJECTED WATER BUDGET C2VSimFG-Kern projected water budget results for the White Wolf Subbasin (WWB) received 10 September 2019 Model period 2021-2070 with repeating pattern of hydrologic conditions Includes results from six scenarios: With no Projects With Projects Baseline conditions Baseline conditions 2030 Climate Change 2030 Climate Change 2070 Climate Change 2070 Climate Change Only includes projects in Kern County Subbasin, no projects in WWB Holds 2013 land use constant (e.g., does not factor in Grapevine Development) 4
THE PROJECTED WATER BUDGET IS INFLUENCED BY TWO KEY FACTORS 1. Reduction in imported water deliveries 2. Increase in groundwater pumping to meet crop demand 5
GROUNDWATER ST0RAGE IN THE WWB IS EXPECTED TO DECLINE ~10,000 AFY Projected groundwater storage decline under “no project” scenarios is about 20,000 AFY “Projects” in Kern County Subbasin cause increases in Kern County Subbasin water levels and reduced gradient across the fault 6
5b. PROPOSITION 68 SGM GRANT APPLICATION 7
PROPOSITION 68 SGM GRANT – ROUND 3 Round 3 Proposal Solicitation Package (PSP) released and solicitation period began September 9 th For applicants that received Proposition 1 (Round 2) funding, Grant amount must be between $200,000 and $2 million minus Round 2 grant amount: WWB = $2 million - $557,998 = $1,442,002 maximum application amount Applications are due November 1 st at 1 pm Expected final Grant awards in March, 2020 8
PROP 68 GRANT APPLICATION COMPONENTS Attachments: Board Resolution 1. Eligibility 2. Work Plan 3. Budget 4. Schedule 5. Disadvantaged Areas 6. documentation to support cost share reduction waiver, if applicable 9
ATTACHMENT 1 - RESOLUTION White Wolf GSA will be Applicant TCWD will be elected to execute the grant agreement with DWR White Wolf GSA Board must adopt Resolution authorizing the application submittal, specifying the Secretary of TCWD as the designee (agenda item #6) 10
ATTACHMENT 2 – ELIGIBILITY Eligibility Requirement Response Applicant White Wolf GSA Agricultural Water Management Plan AEWSD and WRMWSD have adopted 2015 AWMPs (AWMP) CASGEM Compliance White Wolf GSA is the CASGEM entity for Basin WRMWSD uploads data on behalf of the GSA semi-annually Climate Change GSP addresses climate change in the future projected water budget scenarios Groundwater Management Plan AEWSD and WRMWSD have adopted GWMPs (GWMP) Open and Transparent Water Data All data associated with the GSA’s SGMA monitoring network will be uploaded to DWR’s SGMA portal Note: Only applicable eligibility criterion are listed above. 11
ATTACHMENT 3 – WORK PLAN A. Project Description B. Project Benefits Templates are included in the C. Technical Expertise Board packet, request from: D. Project Details GSA’s (AEWSD, TCWD, WRMWSD, Kern County) Scope of Work A. Wind Wolves Preserve Deliverables B. Landowners E. Project Support: EKI must receive by 10/15/19 Letters of Support 12
KEY DIFFERENCES FROM PROP 1 APPLICATION: Justify that tasks identified are new tasks from those undertaken for Prop 1 Grant, and are informed by GSP development efforts to date Provide details on how GSP will be completed regardless of Prop 68 funding Demonstrate GSA’s / applicants prior qualifications with both grant management and large planning documents Outline what qualifications the GSA is looking for in a technical consultant Provide measurable, quantifiable, and meaningful benefits to DACs 13
THREE “PROJECTS” ARE PROPOSED THAT MEET THE GRANT CRITERIA 1. New Guidance Documents and Tools have been recently released, and 2. As part of the GSP development efforts to date, multiple important data and analysis gaps have been identified. Proposed “Projects”: Conduct additional analysis to confirm status of potential groundwater dependent 1. ecosystems (GDEs) consistent with TNC Guidance/Tools Develop a basin-specific numerical groundwater flow model 2. Improve the monitoring network to meet DWR’s requirements for SGMA and to 3. address GDE monitoring, if they are confirmed present 14
NEW GUIDANCE AND TOOLS MAKES GDE EFFORT MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED Prop 1 grant only included money for initial identification and screening of GDEs. In June and July 2019, TNC released guidebook “ Identifying GDEs Under SGMA Best Practices for using the NC Dataset ” and a transient tool “GDE Pulse”. 15
POTENTIAL GDEs REMAIN AFTER INITIAL SCREENING THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED IN THE GSP EKI has preliminarily eliminated some GDEs based on depth to GW in nearby wells based on TNC Guidance. For remaining GDEs: Verify certain GDEs using 1. aerial imagery, field mapping, and TNC GDE Pulse tool Install ~3 monitoring wells 2. and instrumentation to determine connectivity to principal aquifer in certain areas (Springs Fault) 16
THE GSA HAS CONCLUDED THAT A MORE ACCURATE BASIN MODEL IS DESIRED Prop 1 included money for development of an analytical water budget model to cover “historical” and “current” conditions Assumed “future” water budget scenarios would rely on adjacent Kern Subbasin work (C2VSimFG-Kern) The C2VSimFG-Kern does not accurately represent the White Wolf Subbasin and is not calibrated 17
A BASIN-SPECIFIC MODEL CAN BETTER REPRESENT LOCAL CONDITIONS Category C2VSimFG-Kern Developing Basin-specific model DWR is not releasing calibrated C2VSim-FG until at least Model development would start once Grant Agreement is in Timeline Spring 2020 (have missed all prior deadlines) place (~ Mar 2020) Basin boundary (WW Fault) can be accurately represented Grid elements do not align with Basin boundary Layering will be consistent with HCM Layering not consistent with HCM Smaller cell size will represent features with more detail and Basin Large cell sizes better accuracy which will support adaptive management Representation Reasonable calibration will be achieved for WWB Unknown calibration in WWB Developed specifically for WWB rather than subarea of much Only accurate for large basin-wide results larger model Does not accurately represent magnitude of Basin fluxes Will be developed and calibrated based on Basin-specific data Water Budget Will be developed to reflect estimated future Basin conditions Does not extend to 2072 or incorporate land use changes & P/MAs Immediately available for use once completed – maintains local Future Use ~1 month lead time on obtaining any results WW GSA control 18
A BASIN-SPECIFIC MODEL WILL HELP INFORM FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF THE BASIN Develop model based on the HCM and calibrate it using water level data Extend future simulated time period to 2072 Modify future land use to incorporate the Grapevine Development Incorporate local projects & management actions Refine cross-boundary flow estimates (Kern County Subbasin) 19
VERY FEW ADJACENT BASINS ARE USING THE SAME MODEL FOR SGMA Basin C2VSIM Platform 100-400 Foot Aquifer No MODFLOW Borrego Valley No MODFLOW Chowchilla Yes - modified IWFM Only 4 Central Valley subbasins have Cosumnes No IWFM? Cuyama No IWFM decided to try to improve No Delta-Mendota MODFLOW ESJ No IWFM Kaweah No MODFLOW C2VSimFG Kern Yes - modified IWFM Kings No (spreadsheet) Las Posas No MODFLOW Woodard & Curran is almost the Madera Yes - modified IWFM Merced No IWFM only consultant/model developer Modesto ? ? North American No IWFM using IWFM North Yuba No IWFM Oxnard Plain No MODFLOW Paso Robles No MODFLOW Most are using MODFLOW b/c Pleasant Valley No MODFLOW Salinas Valley - Arroyo Seco No IGSM publicly available pre- and post- Santa Cruz Mid-County No MODFLOW Santa Margarita No MODFLOW processing tools and user guides, Solano ? ? South American No IGSM No South Yuba IWFM long history of development and Tulare Lake No MODFLOW Tule No MODFLOW use, and is widely accepted in the Turlock Yes - modified IWFM Westside No MODFLOW groundwater modeling community Yolo No MODFLOW 20
THERE IS NOT A SGMA-COMPLIANT MONITORING NETWORK IN THE BASIN Prop 1 included money to assess the existing monitoring programs and infrastructure for application towards the SGMA-compliant monitoring network GSP Monitoring Network Requirements: Increased accuracy compared to CASGEM standards: surveyed coordinates with 30-ft horizontal and 0.5-ft vertical accuracy Known well construction details, including depth of screened interval 21
IMPROVE NETWORK WITH EXISTING WELLS Re-survey 17 CASGEM wells and up to 10 voluntary CASGEM wells Video logging to improve well construction knowledge of up to 10 voluntary CASGEM wells 22
Recommend
More recommend
