Agenda packet — Los Banos City Council, July 6, 2022 (part 1 of 7)

LOs Banos
www.Iosbanos.org
AGENDA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
520 J Street
Los Banos, California
JULY 6, 2022 - 6:00 PM
Live stream on YouTube at:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3sy5 s1Yr344 7mZsrq 15T g Si requiere asistencia especial para atender o participar en esta junta por favor 1/ame a la oficina de la Secretaria de la ciudad al (209) 827-7000 a lo menos de 48 horas previas de /a junta.

La Cuidad de Los Banos cump/e con la Acta de Americanos con Deshabilidad (ADA) de 1990. · ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... · r~~~~=
and in the City Clerk's office located at City Hall, 520 J Street, Los Banos, California ·:::-
during normal business hours. In addition, such writings and documents may be posted on the City's website at www.losbanos.org.
* * * * * * * ** * * * * * * *
Cualquier escritura o los documentos proporcionaron a una mayorfa def Ayuntamiento respecto a cualquier artfcu/o en este orden def dfa sera hecho disponible para la inspecci6n publica en la reunion y en la oficina de la Secretaria de la ciudad en City Hall, 520 J Street, Los Banos,
California durante horas de oficina norma/es. Ademas, tales escrituras y los documentos pueden ser anunciados en el website de la ciudad en www.losbanos.org. -..................................................................................................................... , ............................ , ...................................................................................................................................... .

1. CALL TO ORDER - July 6, 2022 6:00 PM

2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.

3. ROLL CALL: (City Council Members)
Jones __ , Lambert __ , Lewis __ , Llamas __ , Faria __ Los Banos City Council Agenda - July 6, 2022 Page 1 of4 1 4. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGENDA

5. PUBLIC FORUM. (Members of the public may address the City Council Members on any item of public interest that is within the jurisdiction of the City Council; includes agenda and non-agenda items. No action will be taken on non-agenda items. Speakers are limited to a five (5) minute presentation. Detailed guidelines are posted on the Council Chamber informational table.)

6. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA (Items on the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine and will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the Consent Agenda by a City Council Member.) A Check Register for #233327 - #233820 in the Amount of $2,740,554.09.

Recommendation: Approve the check register as submitted.

B. City Council Resolution No. 6523 - Reauthorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings of the Legislative Bodies of the City of Los Banos Pursuant to the Provisions of AB 361.

Recommendation: Adopt the resolution as submitted.

C. City Council Resolution No. 6524 - Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a Contract Amendment Between the County of Merced and the City of Los · Banos to Extend Fire Stop-Gap Coverage for an Additional Two (2) Months.

Recommendation: Adopt the resolution as submitted.

D. City Council Resolution No. 6525 - Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a Professional Services Agreement for Interim Finance Director Services with BWK Consulting, LLC.

Recommendation: Adopt the resolution as submitted.

E. City Council Resolution No. 6526 - Approving and Authorizing the Mayor to Sign a Contract between Placer Labs, Inc. and the City of Los Banos for Mobile Data Analytics.

Recommendation: Adopt the resolution as submitted.

7. PUBLIC HEARING. (If you challenge the proposed action as described herein in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing.)
A Public Hearing - To Receive Public Comment and Consideration of an Amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan that will Govern Sustainable Groundwater Management Actions within the Jurisdictional Boundaries of this Plan Located in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Groundwater Basin: 5-022.07) Los Banos City Council Agenda - July 6, 2022 Page 2of4
2 as Encompassed by the Boundaries of the City of Los Banos Groundwater Sustainability Agency.
1) City Council Resolution No. 6527 - Acting as the City of Los Banos Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) Adopting the First Amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan for Portions of the Delta - Mendota Subbasin.

Recommendation: Receive staff report, open the public hearing, receive public comment, close the public hearing, and adopt the resolution as submitted.

B. Public Hearing - To Receive Public Comment and Consideration of a General Plan Amendment 2020-02, Zone Change #2020-02, and Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH #2021090191) for the Development of Two (2) Multi-Family Structures Totaling 18,136 Square Feet with Sixteen (16) Residential Units Located at 1133 F Street, More Specifically Identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers 025-152-005 (Stonefield Home, Inc.). 1) City Council Resolution No. 6520 - Approving Mitigated Negative Declaration (SCH#2021090191) and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan for F Street Multi-Family Project Located at 1133 F Street, More Specifically Identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 025-152-005. 2) City Council Resolution No. 6521 -Approving General Plan Amendment #2020-02 to Redesignate Approximately 0.9 Acres Located at 1133 F Street, More Specifically Identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 025- 152-005 from Industrial to High Density Residential.
3) Ordinance No. 1198 - Amending the Official Zoning Map by Rezoning Property Located at 1133 F Street on Assessor's Parcel Number 025- 152-005 From General Commercial (C-1) to High Density Residential (R-3). (Second Readng & Adoption)
Recommendation: Receive staff report, open the public hearing, receive public comment, close the public hearing, waive the second reading and adopt the ordinance as submitted.

8. ADVISEMENT OF PUBLIC NOTICES. (No Report)
Recommendation: Informational item only, no action to be taken.

9. CITY MANAGER REPORT.

Recommendation: Informational item only, no action to be taken.

10. REPORT/UPDATE ON MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (MCAG), PENINSULA CLEAN ENERGY (PCE), AND MEASURE V COMMITTEE.

Recommendation: Informational item only, no action to be taken. 11 . CITY COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS.

A. Brett Jones
Los Banos City Council Agenda - July 6, 2022 Page 3 of 4 B. Kenneth Lambert
C. Deborah Lewis
D. Refugio Llamas
E. Mayor Tom Faria

12. CLOSED SESSION - Public Employment, Title: Interim City Manager, Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.

13. ADJOURNMENT.

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing age~ as poste on he City Hall bulletin board not less than 72 hours prior to the meeting.

Dated this 30th day of June 2022
Los Banos City Council Agenda - July 6, 2022 Page 4 of4 CK# 233327 - # 233820 07/06/2022 $2,740,554.09
Bank Reconciliation
Checks by Date LOs Banos
User: jcanchola •" f• • :, I• •C~:·,.;-~: .:.:··o:-:.;D ,._;f ,.:~ ~_~.,:· ~-\~-~ ·: ~ :1. -: ~ ~ . .'' .

Printed: 06/29/2022 - 10:55AM
Cleared and Not Cleared Checks
Print Void Checks
Check No Check Date Name Module Void Amount
233327 6/9/2022 Trans County Title Co. AP 172,066.61
233328 6/10/2022 Animal Damage Management, Inc. AP 3,700.00 233329 6/10/2022 Anthony Gomes AP 3,299.00
233330 6/10/2022 Apex Annex Health Center, Inc. AP 716.00 233331 6/10/2022 Aramark Unifonn Ser Inc AP 90.98
233332 6/10/2022 AramarkUnifonn & Career Apparel Group, Inc. AP 283.52 233333 6/10/2022 AT&T Mobility AP 1,855.38
233334 6/10/2022 AT&T AP 1,942.51
233335 6/10/2022 AT&T AP 211.87
233336 6/10/2022 Eddie Agredano AP 300.00
233337 6/10/2022 Bartel Associates, LLC AP 2,455.00
233338 6/10/2022 Best Rubber Mulch LLC AP 4,692.15
233339 6/10/2022 Bound Tree medical LLC AP 1,022.80
233340 6/10/2022 Brenntag Pacific Inc AP 5,268.22
233341 6/10/2022 BSK Associates AP 1,263.00
233342 6/10/2022 CENCAL Machine & Fabrication Inc. AP 53.20 233343 6/10/2022 Clark Pest Control Inc AP 100.00
233344 6/10/2022 Coffee Break Service Inc. AP 230.28
233345 6/10/2022 Copy Shipping Solutions AP 61.84
233346 6/10/2022 Covanta Holding Company AP 365.42
233347 6/10/2022 CSG Consultants Inc. AP 81,699.19
233348 6/10/2022 Delta Wireless, Inc. AP 232.00
233349 6/10/2022 Employee Relations, Inc. AP 50.00
233350 6/10/2022 Employment Development Dept AP 82.00
233351 6/ 10/2022 Fun Express LLC AP 763.59
233352 6/10/2022 Government Revenue Solutions Holdings I, LLC AP 143.84 233353 6/10/2022 Grainger Parts Operations AP 76.10
233354 6/10/2022 InfoSend Inc. AP 3,359.64
233355 6/10/2022 Kully Supply, Inc. AP 168.53
233356 6/10/2022 Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings AP 414.00 233357 6/10/2022 Liebert Cassidy Whitmore AP 1,413.00
233358 6/10/2022 Lincoln Equipment Inc AP 217.41
233359 6/10/2022 Los Banos Downtown Assoc. AP 67,226.66 233360 6/10/2022 Lowe's AP 2,146.73
233361 6/10/2022 Lucas Business Systems AP 3,923.60
233362 6/10/2022 Lakeshore Homeowner AP 350.00
233363 6/10/2022 Merced MRI Medical Group AP 65.00
233364 6/10/2022 Madera Uniform & Accessories AP 2,062.67 233365 6/10/2022 The Office City AP 56.38
233366 6/10/2022 Cristina Oceguera AP 600.00
233367 6/10/2022 PG&E Company AP 8,967.26
233368 6/10/2022 Pinnacle Medical Group, Inc. AP 115.00 233369 6/10/2022 Pitney Bowes Inc AP 473.25
5 233370 6/10/2022 Production Sales of Silicon Valley AP 96.77 233371 6/10/2022 Provost and Pritchard Engineering, Inc. AP 5,863.00 233372 6/10/2022 Protech Security & Electronics, Inc. AP 192.00 233373 6/10/2022 Carlos Partida AP 600.00
233374 6/10/2022 Reliable Tennite Solutions, Inc. AP 95.00 233375 6/10/2022 Save Mart Supennarkets AP 117.77
233376 6/10/2022 Springbrook Software, Inc. Springbrook Holding Comi: AP 2,367.00 233377 6/10/2022 Sorensens True Value AP 2,047.94
233378 6/10/2022 Superior Pool Products, LLC AP 4,328.3] 233379 6/10/2022 Jasmine Sanchez AP 550.00
233380 6/10/2022 Thirkettle Corporation AP 5,307.00
233381 6/10/2022 Tractor Supply Credit Plan AP 483.50
233382 6/10/2022 Tyler Technologies, Inc. AP 1,235.00
233383 6/10/2022 DucVo AP 142.95
233384 6/10/2022 D.R. Horton AP 161.68
233385 6/10/2022 Meritage Homes AP 188.18
233386 6/10/2022 Pedro Murillo AP 85.89
233387 6/10/2022 Guillermo Ramirez Rodriguez AP 38.35
233388 6/10/2022 D.R. Horton AP 156.32
233389 6/10/2022 Todd Michael AP 114.42
233390 6/10/2022 Adel Shahal AP 63.71
233391 6/10/2022 Antonio Ayala AP 111.25
233392 6/10/2022 Omar Vidrio Rodriguez AP 93.03
233393 6/10/2022 Suren Sellamuttu AP 82.72
233394 6/10/2022 D.R. Horton AP 145.15
233395 6/10/2022 Aldina Real Estate, Inc. AP 95.39
233396 6/10/2022 D.R. Horton AP 160.15
233397 6/10/2022 Miguel Rodriguez AP 76.64
233398 6/10/2022 Sergio Gomez Barajas AP 117.58
233399 6/10/2022 Michael Ibarra AP 14.02
233400 6/10/2022 D.R. Horton AP 140.55
233401 6/10/2022 Carmen Soria AP 22.49
233402 6/10/2022 Meritage Homes AP 183
.58
233403 6/10/2022 MHP Builders Inc AP 168.58
233404 6/10/2022 Blossom Valley Realty AP 111.24
233405 6/10/2022 Robert Contreras AP 41.17
233406 6/10/2022 Solanye Carranza AP 143.94
233407 6/10/2022 D.R. Horton AP 148.22
233408 6/10/2022 Roque De Jesus Molina AP 48.70
233409 6/10/2022 Christina Sarinana AP 150.28
233410 6/10/2022 Nilda Mirandskobbar AP 13.84
233411 6/10/2022 Brianna Bostick AP 21.16
233412 6/10/2022 D.R. Horton AP 150.51
233413 6/10/2022 D.R. Horton AP 163.22
233414 6/10/2022 Christina Sarinana AP 47.86
233415 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 59.89
233416 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 526.47
233417 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 131.44
233418 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 395.52
233419 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 51.91
233420 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 51.63
233421 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 179.50
233422 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 69.89
233423 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 49.93
6 233424 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 227.82
233425 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 348.79
233426 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 143.56
233427 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 439.20
233428 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 76.52
233429 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 240.88
233430 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 31.67
233431 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 49.64
233432 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 209.51
233433 6/10/2022 Pacific Creidt Services AP 31.67
233434 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 61.49
233435 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 35.34
233436 6/10/2022 Pacific Credit Services AP 32.57
233437 6/10/2022 Pritam Grewal AP 155.61
233438 6/10/2022 D.R. Horton AP 154.79
233439 6/10/2022 Nancy Aguilar AP 51.02
233440 6/10/2022 Consuelo Contreras AP 51.02
233441 6/10/2022 D.R. Horton AP 163.98
233442 6/10/2022 D.R. Horton AP 163.98
233443 6/10/2022 Westside Water Conditioning AP 28.50
233444 6/10/2022 West Publishing Corporation AP 416.95
233445 6/10/2022 Windecker Inc AP 7,004.85
233446 6/10/2022 Mary Lou Gilardi AP 126.59
233447 6/10/2022 Merced County Clerk AP 2,598.00
233448 6/10/2022 Merced County Clerk AP 50.00
233449 6/10/2022 Jacob Sawyer AP 325.00
233450 6/10/2022 US Bank Corp Pymt System AP 35,629.56
233451 6/10/2022 Xerox Financial Services AP 2,464.46
233464 6/21/2022 Alhambra AP 317.85
233465 6/21/2022 Aramark Uniform Ser Inc AP 1,098.70
233466 6/21/2022 AT&T Mobility AP 389.44
233467 6/21/2022 AT&T AP 824.40
233468 6/21/2022 Dorothy June Baker AP 67.97
233469 6/21/2022 Barton Overhead Door Inc AP 325.00
233470 6/21/2022 Bruce's Tire Inc AP 4,814.34
233471 6/21/2022 BSK Associates AP 34.00
233472 6/21/2022 Cal Traffic AP 1,668.97
233473 6/21/2022 Cintas Corporation No.2 AP 214.84
233474 6/21/2022 Comcast AP 10.58
233475 6/21/2022 Copy Shipping Solutions AP 867.67
233476 6/21/2022 Deptartment of Transportation AP 250.00 233477 6/21/2022 Edges Electrical Group, LLC AP 11,943.65 233478 6/21/2022 Farmer Brothers Coffee AP 159.27
233479 6/21/2022 Manuel Thomas Faria III AP 678.49
233480 6/21/2022 Federal Express Corporation AP 12.58
233481 6/21/2022 Mary Lou Gilardi AP 517.87
233482 6/21/2022 Gouveia Engineering Inc. AP 459.38
233483 6/21/2022 Hach Company AP 397.21
233484 6/21/2022 Henley Pacific, LLC AP 201.57
233485 6/21/2022 Hi Tech Emergency Vehicle Services, Inc AP 5,183.54 233486 6/21/2022 Holt of California AP 2,523.75
233487 6/21/2022 Home Depot AP 3,055.76
233488 6/21/2022 JC's Pure Water & More AP 70.00
233489 6/21/2022 Kimball Midwest AP 29.58
7 233490
6/21/2022 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. AP 2,312
.50
233491
6/21
/2022 Kone Inc. AP 791.76
233492
6/21/2022 Lucas Business Systems AP 647
.96
233493 6/21/2022 Aleph The Kids Beauty Land AP 26
.71
233494
6/21/2022 BBQ-Pros AP 134
.00
233495 6/21/2022 ColetteA. Vaughn AP 32.52
233496
6/21/2022 Marfabinc AP 70
.51
233497
6/21/2022 MECOM Equipment LLC AP 89,610
.00
233498
6/21/2022 Merced County Regional Waste Management Authorit) AP 5,604.72 233499 6/21/2022 Madera Uniform & Accessories AP 184.88 233500
6/21/2022 Mid-Valley Disposal LLC AP 249,389
.07
233501
6/21
/2022 Monument Row, Inc. AP 24,582.63
233502 6/21/2022 Napa Auto Parts of Los Banos AP 175
.70
233503
6/21/2022 O'Reilly Auto Parts AP 431.97
233504
6/21/2022 PG&E Company AP 9.53
233505 6/21/2022 Pace Supply Corp. AP 2,576
.37
233506
6/21/2022 PSG Fencing Corp. AP 400.00
233507
6/21/2022 PlaceWorks, Inc. AP 25,226.45
233508 6/21/2022 Provost and Pritchard Engineering, Inc. AP 1,304 .02
233509
6/21
/2022 Protech Security & Electronics, Inc. AP 300.00
233510
6/21/2022 Quad Knopf, Inc. AP 1,157
.04
233511 6/21/2022 Razzari Dodge Chrysler Jeep AP 309.16
233512 6/21/2022 Safe T Lite of Modesto, Inc. AP 1,054
.90
233513
6/21/2022 Domingo Sandoval AP 600
.00
233514 6/21/2022 Smith & Loveless Inc AP 821.14
233515 6/21/2022 Sorensens True Value AP 903
.76
233516 6/21/2022 Triangle Rock Products AP 26,115
.74
233517
6/21/2022 Christina Molina AP 70
.61
233518
6/21/2022 Maria Martinez Jackson AP 89
.54
233519
6/21/2022 Los Banos Property Management Services AP 16. 83 233520
6/21/2022 Graystone Property Management AP 50.70
233521 6/21/2022 D.R. Horton AP 22.99
233522
6/21/2022 Lucio Dicochea AP 31.67
233523
6/21/2022 Richard Luna AP 100.00
233524 6/21/2022 Veronica Cortes AP 200
.00
233525
6/21/2022
D.R. Horton AP 161.68
233526
6/21/2022 D.R. Horton AP 160.48
233527 6/21/2022 D.R. Horton AP 162.45
233528
6/21
/2022 Jhonatan Quinteros AP 95.39
233529
6/21/2022 Home Sweet Home Property Management Co. AP 65.64 233530 6/21/2022 D.R. Horton AP 162.45
233531 6/21/2022 MHP Builders Inc AP 160.92
233532
6/21
/2022 Antonio Gutierrez AP 79.55
233533 6/21/2022 Giovanni Morfin AP 44.85
233534 6/21/2022 Jose Jr. Delbosque AP 76
.33
233535 6/21/2022 Katrina Dymoke AP 54
.60
233536
6/21/2022 Guadalupe Rocha AP 79.55
233537
6/21/2022 Law Offices of William A Vaughn AP 12,885
.50
233538
6/21/2022 Westside Water Conditioning AP 13
.05
233539
6/21/2022 Windecker Inc AP 33,164.02
233540 6/21/2022 Young's Air Conditioning AP 1,018.00
233541
6/21/2022 Aflac-Customer Service AP 319
.73
233542
6/21/2022 AFSCME District Council 57 AP 1,341.62
233543
6/21/2022 Los Banos Fitness & AP 350.00
8 233544 6/21/2022 Los Banos Police Assn AP 1,015.00
233545 6/21/2022 Los Banos Police Assn AP 245.00
233546 6/21/2022 MassMutual AP 1,205.16
233547 6/21/2022 MassMutual AP 3,355.00
233548 6/21/2022 Nationwide Retirement Solutions AP 4,475.00 233549 6/21/2022 Professional Fire Fighter AP 900.00
233550 6/21/2022 State Disbursement Unit AP 1,856.50
233551 6/21/2022 Vantagepont Transfer Agents
- 306797 AP 1,032.40
233552 6/21/2022 Vantagepoint Transfer Agents
- 80183 8 AP 5,925.00
233732 6/24/2022 Kasey Alim AP 75.00
233733 6/24/2022 Amerigas Propane, LP AP 110.43
233734 6/24/2022 Anthony Gomes AP 1,943.50
233735 6/24/2022 Apex Annex Health Center, Inc. AP 1,317.00 233736 6/24/2022 Aramark Uniform Ser Inc AP 534.29
233737 6/24/2022 AramarkUniform & Career Apparel Group, Inc. AP 283.52 233738 6/24/2022 AT&T AP 624.66
233739 6/24/2022 Dorothy June Baker AP 4,305.30
233740 6/24/2022 Barton Overhead Door Inc AP 474.81
233741 6/24/2022 BJ's Consumers Choice AP 96.00
233742 6/24/2022 Blue Rabbit Technologies LLC AP 2,671.85 233743 6/24/2022 Brinks Inc. AP 2,078.30
233744 6/24/2022 BSK Associates AP 559.00
233745 6/24/2022 Corinthia Bighem AP 600.00
233746 6/24/2022 CalPERS AP 988,834.00
233747 6/24/2022 CENCAL Machine & Fabrication Inc. AP 675.98 233748 6/24/2022 Chabin Concepts, Inc. AP 179.75
233749 6/24/2022 Challenger Teamwear AP 1,658.62
233750 6/24/2022 Oscar Covarrubias AP 500.00
233751 6/24/2022 Comcast AP 118.16
233752 6/24/2022 Ladonna Cleary AP 350.00
233753 6/24/2022 Sergio Contreras AP 350.00
233754 6/24/2022 Diamond Truck Body Manufacturing Inc. AP 35,386.85 233755 6/24/2022 Display Sales AP 4,364.24
233756 6/24/2022 Dos Palos Publishing Company AP 52.00
233757 6/24/2022 Downtown Ford Sales AP 34,283.32
233758 6/24/2022 F S Rod Inc AP 9,589.36
233759 6/24/2022 Fastenal Company AP 216.11
233760 6/24/2022 Gouveia Engineering Inc. AP 46,772.56
233761 6/24/2022 Halo Branded Solutions Inc. AP 284.32
233762 6/24/2022 Henley Pacific, LLC AP 922.41
233763 6/24/2022 Holt of California AP 534.37
233764 6/24/2022 Home Depot AP 3,074.82
233765 6/24/2022 Susan Holden AP 600.00
233766 6/24/2022 IDM Worldwide AP 350.62
233767 6/24/2022 Phil Jacob AP 700.00
233768 6/24/2022 Kimball Midwest AP 35.46
233769 6/24/2022 Krazan & Associates AP 1,728.25
233770 6/24/2022 Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings AP 414.00 233771 6/24/2022 Language Line Services AP Void 117.24
233772 6/24/2022 Los Banos Touchdown Club AP 2,200.00
233773 6/24/2022 Lowe's AP 2,049.39
233774 6/24/2022 Marfab Inc AP 69.60
233775 6/24/2022 McNamara Sports Inc AP 4,024.74
233776 6/24/2022 Miracle Playsystems, Inc. AP 25,599.09 9 233777 6/24/2022 Frederic Andy Nichols AP 2,400.00
233778 6/24/2022 OSE AP 286.50
233779 6/24/2022 O'Reilly Auto Parts AP 146.11
233780 6/24/2022 Brenda Olono AP 450.00
233781 6/24/2022 PG&E Company AP 141,643.35
233782 6/24/2022 Pace Supply Corp. AP 511.63
233783 6/24/2022 Pitney Bowes Inc AP 129.40
233784 6/24/2022 Provost and Pritchard Engineering, Inc. AP 20,017.12 233785 6/24/2022 Processing Tomato Adv. AP 300.00
233786 6/24/2022 SNAPCD AP 1,314.70
233787 6/24/2022 Gilbert Sanchez AP 26.92
233788 6/24/2022 Save Mart Supermarkets AP 40.19
233789 6/24/2022 Sorensens True Value AP 739.32
233790 6/24/2022 Sorensens True Value AP 43.24
233791 6/24/2022 Superior Pool Products, LLC AP 2,898.31 233792 6/24/2022 Swinerton Builders AP 272,626.92
233793 6/24/2022 Nancy Sierra AP 775.00
233794 6/24/2022 Miriam Silva AP 350.00
233795 6/24/2022 Starbuck Construction AP 1,000.00
233796 6/24/2022 Swan Pool AP 647.89
233797 6/24/2022 The Heil CO AP 4,015.74
233798 6/24/2022 The Radar Shop, Inc. AP 540.00
233799 6/24/2022 Tyler Technologies, Inc. AP 5,492.50
233800 6/24/2022 UC Davis AP 16,806.00
233801 6/24/2022 MHP Builders Inc AP 180.84
233802 6/24/2022 Briselda Lopez AP 17.58
233803 6/24/2022 D.R. Horton AP 180.07
233804 6/24/2022 D.R. Horton AP 180.07
233805 6/24/2022 MHP Builders Inc AP 177.01
233806 6/24/2022 Bessy Escobar AP 38.35
233807 6/24/2022 Century Communities AP 188.50
233808 6/24/2022 D.R. Horton AP 179.31
233809 6/24/2022 Omar Salazar AP 25.67
233810 6/24/2022 Alexandro Pulido Valencia AP 11.25
233811 6/24/2022 Christine Kinsley AP 60.15
233812 6/24/2022 MHP Builders Inc AP 180.84
233813 6/24/2022 Judith Aguilera Manriquez AP 130.58
233814 6/24/2022 Home Sweet Home Property Management Co. AP 57.35 233815 6/24/2022 Yuritzy Contreras AP 104.91
233816 6/24/2022 V anir Construction Management, Inc. AP 11 ,346.57 233817 6/24/2022 Verizon Wireless AP 570.15
233818 6/24/2022 Westamerica Bank - Cafeteria Plan AP 74,622.09 233819 6/24/2022 Robert Wiens AP 1,345.54
233820 6/24/2022 Young's Air Conditioning AP 72.00
Break in check sequence due to the following: Total Void Check Count:

Check# 233452 - # 233455 (Payroll) Total Void Check Amount: 117.24 Check# 233456 - # 233463 (Manual Void) Total Valid Check Count: 302 Check# 233553 - # 233731 (Payroll) Total Valid Check Amount: 2,740,436.85 Total Check Count: 303
Total Check Amount: 2,740,554.09
10 TO:

FROM:

DATE:

TYPE OF REPORT:

SUBJECT:

LOsBanos
At the Crossroo .s t~oli ·1 1
Agenda Staff Report
Mayor Faria and City Council Member~ A r
William A. Vaughn, City Attorney \}J ~
July 6, 2022
Consent Agenda
Remote Teleconferencing - Per AB 361

RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution No. ___ to allow for in person, virtual, and hybrid public meetings.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS

REAUTHORIZING REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE

LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF AB 361

BACKGROUND
On June 1, 2022 staff brought forward a resolution for City Council consideration concerning reauthorizing remote teleconference meetings pursuant to AB361. At that meeting the city council approved Resolution No .. 6494 to allow for flexibility to meet in person or virtually in response to COVID 19 changing conditions. Pursuant to AB361 the Resolution must be considered by the city council and the required findings must be made every thirty (30) days thereafter or it will expire. 11 DISCUSSION
California's Ralph M. Brown Act was amended to allow fully virtual public meetings during a state of emergency after the Governor signed Assembly Bill 361 into law on September 16, 2021. AB 361 provides that it will sunset on January 1, 2024.

AB 361 amends Section 54953 of the Brown Act to allow virtual public meetings through January 1, 2024 in any of the following circumstances:

1. The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.

2. The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

3. The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees.

The Governor's state of emergency remains, and the Cal OSHA Regulations related to social distancing remain in place.

Virtual meetings are currently allowed under AB 361 because state and local officials are continuing to recommend measures to promote social distancing. In the case of the pandemic, the requisite standards for holding virtual meetings are low. The City Council would only have to find that any state or local official is recommending measures to promote social distancing. Under the plain language of the statute, there does not have to be an order requiring social distancing, and the recommendation only needs to come from a state or local official. Nothing in the bill requires that the recommendation be a formal recommendation of a local health officer or in any sort of formal guideline.

The proposed resolution provides the City Council with the flexibility to allow its commissions and committees to host virtual meetings, while still maintain the City Council's jurisdiction to require in-person meetings as warranted.

AB 361 allows the use of fully virtual meetings under the foregoing conditions, but it does not prohibit hybrid meetings. By adopting the proposed resolution, and continuing to renew it as conditions warrant, the City Council and any subordinate boards are not precluded from holding meetings that have some traditional components and some virtual or telephonic components. The City Council (and other City boards) may hold meetings where some members join in the Council Chambers and some members join virtually. The City Council may also continue to allow both live and virtual 12 public comments, together with reduced capacity in the Chambers as conditions warrant. For any hybrid meetings, AB 361 requires that members of the public be able to make live public comments directly to the Council or other board using telephonic or electronic means and that the agenda identify the means for making public comments.

As noted above, by adopting the proposed Resolution, the City Council is not prohibited from conducting in-person meetings. The Resolution is intended to provide the option to utilize the AB 361 procedures in lieu of the Brown Act's standard teleconferencing requirements. At future City Council meetings, a consent calendar item will be placed on each agenda to reconsider and potentially renew the Resolution.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

CONCLUSION
Based upon the existing state of emergency and state officials recommendations to socially distance, the City of Los Banos has the ability to continue to meet remotely should if it so choose, assuming the City adopts the proposed resolution making the required findings. The proposed resolution does not require the City of Los Banos to hold meetings via remote teleconferencing and the City Council can continue to meet in person for the time being but allows flexibility to return to remote teleconferencing in response to changing COVID -19 circumstances.
13 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14 RESOLUTION NO. - --

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS

REAUTHORIZING REMOTE TELECONFERENCE MEETINGS OF THE

LEGISLATIVE BODIES OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF AB 361
WHEREAS, all meetings of the City of Los Banos' legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code 54950 - 54963), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City's legislative bodies conduct their business; and
WHEREAS, on September 16, 2021 Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 361, extending the authority of public agencies to conduct meetings by teleconference, including video conference, during the COVID-19 pandemic; and WHEREAS, in light of the on-going pandemic, AB 361 amends the Brown Act (specifically Government Code section 54953) and gives public agencies the option to continue meeting virtually under certain circumstances; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 54953(e), makes provisions for remote teleconferencing participation in meetings by members of a legislative body, without compliance with the requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3), subject to the existence of certain conditions; and
WHEREAS, a required condition is that a state of emergency is declared by the Governor pursuant to Government Code section 8625, proclaiming the existence of conditions of disaster or of extreme peril to the safety of persons and property within the state caused by conditions as described in Government Code section 8558; and WHEREAS, it is further required that state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing, or, the legislative body meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously adopted a Resolution 6405, on October 6, 2021, finding that the requisite conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City of Los Banos to conduct remote teleconference meetings without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of section 54953; and
WHEREAS, as a condition of extending the use of the provisions found in section 54953(e), the City Council must reconsider the circumstances of the state of emergency that exists in the City of Los Banos, and the City Council has done so; and WHEREAS, such conditions continue to exist in the City of Los Banos; and 15 WHEREAS, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a statewide emergency over the COVID-19 pandemic on March 4, 2020; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2021, Cal/OSHA issued new emergency temporary standards (ETS) on COVID-19 infection prevention for the workplace (subsequently revised on December 16, 2021). The regulations require all individuals at City worksites to abide by certain rules, including wearing face coverings and socially distancing; and WHEREAS, on November 10, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-21-21 which extended through March 31, 2022, the state of emergency in California related to the threat of COVID-19; and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2022 as mitigation for the Omicron variant, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) extended the requirement that masks to be worn by all employees in all indoor public settings, irrespective of vaccine status, through February 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2022 the CDPH announced that effective February 16, 2022: universal masking shall remain required in only specified settings; and only unvaccinated persons are required to mask in all indoor public settings; and fully vaccinated individuals are recommended to continue indoor masking when the risk may be high; and
WHEREAS, on February 28, 2022 Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N5-22, which suspends part of the Cal/OSHA Temporary Emergency Standards.

Specifically, effective March 1, 2022, unvaccinated employees are no longer required to wear a face covering in most California workplaces. Notably, however, the universal indoor mask mandate remains in place for certain high-risk settings, such as healthcare and congregate settings; and
WHEREAS, as a consequence of the declared statewide emergency; the guidance and orders of the State Public Health Officer; and the Cal/OSHA temporary standards (ETS) on COVID-19 infection prevention for the workplace, the Los Banos City Council does hereby find that the legislative bodies of the City of Los Banos may conduct their meetings without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Government Code section 54953, as authorized by subdivision (e) of section 54953, and that such legislative bodies shall comply with the requirements to provide the public with access to the meetings as prescribed in paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of section 54953.

WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Los Banos desires to have the flexibility to meet in person or by remote teleconferencing pursuant to Government Code section 54953(e) as changing COVID-19 circumstances may dictate.

NOW THEREFORE, the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS BANOS, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE and ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
16 Section 1. Recitals. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

Section 2. Affirmation. The City Council hereby finds that the requisite conditions exist for the legislative bodies of the City of Los Banos to conduct remote teleconference meetings without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of section 54953.

Section 3. Remote Teleconference Meetings. This Resolution does not prevent or prohibit the City Council or any commission, committee.or other Brown Act body of the City from holding hybrid meetings (containing both virtual and in-person components) or from meeting in-person, provided such meetings comply with AB 361 and with all state and local health orders. Commissions, committees and other Brown Act bodies shall comply with all rules established by the City Council and/or City Manager for attendance at meetings.

Section 4. Effective Date of Resolution. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be effective until the earlier of (i) 30 days from adoption, or such time the City Council adopts a subsequent resolution in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to extend the time during which the legislative bodies of City of Los Banos may continue to teleconference without compliance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of section 54953.

The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 6th day of July 2022, by Council Member _ _ ___ who moved for its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Council Member _ _____ , and the Resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Manuel Thomas Faria, Ill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
17 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
18 TO:

FROM:

DATE:

LOsBanos
At die Crossroads of C,dif ornici
Agenda Staff Report
Mayor and Council Members /J
Ray Reyna, Acting Fire Chief /lr
July 6, 2022
SUBJECT: Amendment to Fire Contract Between Merced County and the City of Los Banos for Chief Officer Fire Stop-Gap Coverage
TYPE OF REPORT: Consent Agenda
Recommendation:

That the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a contract amendment between the County of Merced and the City of Los Banos, for Stop-Gap Fire Protection Services.

Discussion:

On April 1, 2022, the City of Los Banos entered into a short-term two-month contract with the County of Merced for Chief Officer Fire Stop-Gap Coverage, for May and June of 2022. The contract was put in place to provide Chief Officer coverage during Fire related emergencies while the City of Los Banos recruited a full-time Fire Chief.

On June 1, 2022, the Acting Fire Chief requested the County of Merced prepare a twomonth contract amendment, extending stop-gap coverage to include July and August, 2022, while the City complete the recruitment and hiring process for a full-time Fire Chief.

Under the conditions of the contract, the City of Los Banos will continue to pay the County of Merced $11,044.00 per month for these services. This funding is available due to the salary savings the City has experienced due to the vacancies in the Fire Chief and Assistant Fire Chief positions.

This contract amendment has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. 19 Fiscal Impact:

This two-month contract extension is projected to cost the City of Los Banos $22,088.00. There are no additional costs associated with this contract amendment.

Attachments:

Resolution
July to August Contract Amendment
Original Contract
20 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF LOS BANOS APPROVING AND

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A CONTRACT

AMENDMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF MERCED

AND THE CITY OF LOS BANOS TO EXTEND FIRE

STOP-GAP COVERAGE FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO
MONTHS
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2022 County and City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding to implement temporary Stop-Gap Fire Protection Services for the months of May and June while the City is actively recruiting to fill the Fire Chief position; and WHEREAS, the MOU funds one (1) Battalion Chief, twenty-four (24) hours per day in the City to provide strengthened fire command and control capabilities for the City; and WHEREAS, County is specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform such services in connection with comprehensive fire protection and other emergency incident response; and
WHEREAS, County fire protection services are provided under a Cooperative Fire Services Agreement with CAL FIRE; and
WHEREAS, City has not completed the recruitment process for a new Fire Chief; and WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the term of the MOU an additional two months.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Banos hereby approves the amendment and authorizes the Mayor to execute a contract amendment between the City of Los Banos and the County of Merced, extending the term of the MOU through July 31, 2022, for Fire Stop-Gap coverage as presented.

The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 6th day of July 2022, by Council Member ___ who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Council Member ___ and the Resolution adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Manuel Thomas Faria Ill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
21 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
22 AMENDMENT
TO
CONTRACT NO. 2022087

BETWEEN

MERCED COUNTY
AND

CITY OF LOS BANOS
THIS Amendmentto Contract No. 2022087, is executed by and between the County of Merced, a political subdivision oftheState of Califomia,(hereinaftercalled "County"),and City of Los Banos (hereinafter called "City").

This Amendment is hereby annexed to and made a part of the printed part of the Agreement to which it is attached, or modifies the existing Agreement between the parties. In each instance in which the provisions of this Amendment shall contradict or be inconsistent with the provisions of the printed portion of the original Agreement and any previous amendments, the provision of this Amendment shall prevail and govern and the contradicted or inconsistent provisions shall be deemed amended accordingly. Both parties agree that there is new and adequate consideration forth is Amendment.

This Amendment shall be deemed to have been duly approved when executed by both parties to the original Agreement. Once duly approved, this Amendment shall become effective as of the date signed by the Chairman of the Merced County Board of Supervisors.

MODIFICATIONS:

A). Section 2, entitled "TERM", is amended to read as follows:
"The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 1st day of May, 2022, and continue until the 31 st day of August, 2022. This Agreement may be terminated without cause by either City or County upon written notice of termination given to the other party at least fourteen (14) calendar days in advance of the effective date of termination. Notice of termination shall be personally served or mailed, postage prepaid to the address designated under Section 8 Notices; or to such other address as may be designated by written notice."
B). Section 3, entitled "COMPENSATION" is amended to read as follows:
"City agrees to pay the County Stop-Gap Fire Protection Services Eleven Thousand, Forty-Four Dollars and No Cents ($11,044.00) per month. Total Agreement Price not to exceed Forty-Four Thousand, One Hundred, Seventy-Six Dollars and No Cents ($44,176). The personnel costs will be billed to City on a monthly basis for the previous month. City shall pay amounts due within thirty (30) days following the receipt of an invoice from County.
23 ... .

The City agrees to allow the County Auditor-Controller to withhold amounts, the County has determined are past due and owed to County underthis Agreement, from the property tax revenue due from the County to the City at the time an apportionment for such property tax revenue is allocated and distributed to the City."
County of Merced
By Lloyd Pareira Jr.

Chairman Board of
Supervisors
Dated

APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM

MERCED COUNTY COUNSEL
By ___________ _
City of Los Banos
By
City Manager
Dated
24 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

BETWEEN

COUNTY OF MERCED
AND

CITY OF LOS BANOS
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and entered into by and between the County of Merced, a political subdivision of the State of California, (hereinafter referred to as "County"), and the City of Los Banos, CA 95635 (hereinafter referred to as "City").

WHEREAS, County and City desire to implement Stop-Gap Fire Protection Services as detailed in Exhibit A - Scope of Stop-Gap Fire Protection Services; and WHEREAS, City desires to fund one (1) Battalion Chief, twenty-four (24) hours per day in the City to provide strengthened fire command and control capabilities for the City; and WHEREAS, County is specially trained, experienced, and competent to perform such services in connection with comprehensive fire protection and other emergency incident response; and
WHEREAS, County fire protection services are provided under a Cooperative Fire Services Agreement with CAL FIRE; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to set forth herein the terms and conditions under which said services shall be furnished.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein contained, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1. SCOPE OF SERVICES
County, through its Cooperative Fire Services Agreement with CAL FIRE, shall provide comprehensive fire protection and other emergency incident response services. The following exhibits are specifically incorporated by reference, attached hereto, and made a part hereof, except when in conflict with this Agreement or modified herein:

Exhibit A - Scope of Stop-Gap Fire Protection Services

2. TERM
The term of this Agreement shall commence on the 1st day of May, 2022, and continue until the 30th day of June 2022. This Agreement may be terminated without cause by either City or County upon written notice of termination given to the other party at least fourteen (14) calendar days in advance of the effective date of termination. Notice of termination shall be personally served or mailed, postage Mt 11 ;~L, c .::Lrn, , CON r1:.c· 1 't.O l.t.b P7
25 prepaid to the address designated under Section 8 Notices; or to such other address as may be designated by written notice.

3. COMPENSATION
City agrees to pay the County Stop-Gap Fire Protection Services Eleven Thousand, Forty-Four Dollars and No Cents ($11,044.00) per month. Total Agreement Price not to exceed Twenty-Two Thousand, Eighty-Eight Dollars and No Cents ($22,088.00). The personnel costs will be billed to City on a monthly basis for the previous month. City shall pay amounts due within thirty (30) days following the receipt of an invoice from County.

The City agrees to allow the County Auditor-Controller to withhold amounts, the County has determined are past due and owed to County under this Agreement, from the property tax revenue due from the County to the City at the time an apportionment for such property tax revenue is allocated and distributed to the City.

4. NO EMPLOYEMENT OR AGENCY RELATIONSHIP
This Agreement is a funding agreement only. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create any employment or agency relationship between the parties or their officers, employees, or agents.

5. INSURANCE
The Parties shall maintain, at their own expense, Commercial General Liability (CGL) insurance, Automobile Liability insurance, and Workers Compensation insurance in such forms and amounts sufficient to cover claims arising from the duties and responsibilities under this Agreement.

6. INDEMNIFICATION
Nothing in the provisions of this Agreement is intended to affect the legal liability of either party by imposing any standard of care different from the standard of care imposed by law. Each party shall bear its own exposure for Workers' Compensation for its own personnel while furnished to the other party or likewise engaged.

City shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless, the County, its Board of Supervisors, officers, employees, agents and assigns from and against any and all claims, demands, liability, judgments, awards, interest, attorney's fees, costs, experts' fees and expenses of whatsoever kind or nature, at any time arising out of or in any way connected with the County providing fire suppression services to City by CAL FIRE employees or County Paid Call Firefighters, whether in tort, contract or otherwise. This shall include, but not be limited to, claims for bodily 26 injury, property damage, personal injury, and contractual damages or otherwise alleged to be caused to any person or entity including, but not limited to employees, agents and officers of City.

City's obligation shall extend to any allegation or claim of liability except in circumstances found by a jury or judge to be the sole and legal result of the willful misconduct of County. City's obligation shall arise at the first claim or allegation of liability against County. City will on request and at its expense, defend any action, suit, or proceeding arising hereunder. This clause for indemnification shall be interpreted to the broadest extent permitted by law.

7. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
This agreement and any additional or supplementary document(s) incorporated herein by specific reference (Exhibit A) contain all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other contracts, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall have any validity or bind any of the parties unless specifically identified within the Agreement.

8. RECORDS AND INSPECTIONS
County shall maintain full and accurate records with respect to all matters covered under this Agreement. To the extent permitted by law, City shall have free access at all proper times or until the expiration of four (4) years after the furnishing of services to such records, and the right to examine and audit the same and to make transcripts therefrom, and to inspect all data, documents, proceedings, and activities pertaining to this Agreement.

9. NOTICES
All notices, requests, demands or other communications under this Agreement shall be in writing. Information for notice to the parties to this Agreement at the time of endorsement of this Agreement is as follows:

County of Merced c/o
Merced County Fire Department
3500 Apron Ave
Atwater, CA 95301
City of Los Banos
2160 E Pacheco Blvd Ste U,
Los Banos, CA 93635
Any party may change its address or fax number by giving the other party notice of the change in any manner permitted by this Agreement.

Signature page to follow:
27 . ,•
County of Merced
By
Supervisors
APR 2 6 2022
Dated

APPROVEDASTOLEGALFORM

MERCED COUNTY COUNSEL
By ___t--At\ _ ____-16 __ _
Jeffrey B. Grant
3/1 &--I I d-d28
...

Exhibit A
Scope of Stop-Gap Fire Protection Services
The following details the fire protection services, by category, provided under this agreement. While the agreement is to fund one Battalion Chief for the City of Los Banos this scope of services memorializes the specific services that are typical of standard fire protection services and delineates organization responsibility where necessary.

Staffing:
• Merced County Fire Department shall assign staff to the City of Los Banos for command and control in the event the assigned staff in the City of Los Banos are committed to an incident.

Response by Type of Incident:
• Under the general direction of the Division Chief, Merced Division, the Battalion Chief is responsible for coordinating, managing and the field administrative activities within the City of Los Banos.
• Emergency Response and Coverage responsibilities: Responds and directs activities on all wild land and structure fires and other emergency operations where battalion chief officer coverage is required while providing suppression, administration, and evaluation capacities. Safely operates emergency vehicles and equipment. Responds to emergency incidents individually or with a crew and/or part of a larger team of resources, with little or no direction, and executes effective tactics to mitigate the emergency. Takes command in emergency incidents and develops effective strategies and tactics to manage and mitigate the incident, and coordinates and directs incoming resources. Make reasoned decisions that include actions necessary to mitigate quickly changing emergencies, care and treatment of ill or injured individuals, and maintains safety of emergency workers and civilians, etc. Work with the responding personnel to mitigate the emergency incidents to maintain the health and welfare of personnel, including internal and external contacts such as other State, Federal and Local law enforcement and fire departments, private citizens and organizations, paid call fire fighters and other volunteers
29 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
30 TO:

FROM:

DATE:

LOsBanos
Agenda Staff Report
Mayor & Council Members
Lucy Mallonee, MMC~
City Clerk/Human Resource Director
July 6, 2022
SUBJECT: Professional Services Agreement for Interim Finance Director Services BWK Consulting, LLC
TYPE OF REPORT: Consent Agenda
Recommendation:

That the City Council approve a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a Professional Services Agreement with BWK Consulting for Interim Finance Director Services.

Discussion:

In light of the recent resignation of the Finance Director, the City is in need of Interim Finance Director Services while the City goes through the recruitment process for a new Finance Director. The City has reached out to Brent Kuhn with BWK Consulting, LLC who has provided similar services to the City in the past and who has provided the City with a proposal to provide departmental oversight while the Finance Director position is vacant.

Under the conditions of the agreement, BWK Consulting, LLC as Interim Finance Director will plan, organize, direct and review the activities and operations of the Finance/IT Department and shall plan, organize, direct and review the activities and operations of the Finance/IT Department, and shall perform the following services, including but not limited to: providing accounting assistance in closing the City's books each month; providing analytical work in surveying expenditures and receipts; preparing journal entries as needed for year-end closing; overseeing the financial strategic planning by evaluating performance and potential risk; managing all finance and 31 information technology employees; supervising all audit and internal control processes; managing the Information Technology Consultant contract; making observations, recommendation and suggestion in regards to City's financial practices; take the lead in analyzing, reviewing and establishing best practices; coordinating with other departments an external entity on behalf of the City; and preparing various City Council Staff reports.

BWK Consulting, Inc. has designated Brent Kuhn as the Project Manager and will be available to the City 20-25 hours a week and available to attend City Council Meetings on an as needed basis. Brent Kuhn's hourly rate will be $150.

This agreement has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

Fiscal Impact:

This agreement is projected to cost the City of Los Banos approximately $15,000 a month.

Attachments:

Proposal
Resolution/Professional Services Agreement
32 1

BWK CONSULTING

PROPOSAL FOR INTERIM FINANCE

DIRECTOR SERVICES
For the City of Los Banos

OVERVIEW
BWK Consulting is pleased to submit a proposal for assisting the City of Los Banos with finance department administration and interim finance director services as outlined in the scope of services describe within this proposal.

Scope of Services
• Provide accounting assistance in closing the City's books each month • Provide analytical work in surveying expenditures and receipts • Prepare journal entries as needed for year-end closing • Oversee the financial strategic planning by evaluating performance and potential risk • Manage all finance and information technology employees • Supervise all audit and internal control processes
• Manage the Information Technology Consultant contract • Make observations, recommendation and suggestion in regard to the City's financial practices • Take the lead in analyzing, reviewing and establishing best practices • Coordinate with other departments and external entities on behalf of the City • Prepare various City Council Staff Reports
Summary of Qualifications
• 25 years of experience working with governmental agencies • Extensive knowledge of municipal finance including acting as Interim Finance Director for full-service and contract cities
• Expert in debt administration, and fiscal advising for new and refinanced bond issuances • Well-versed in wastewater operations, rate setting, financial/budgetary forecasting, cash flow projections, use of reserves, redevelopment/successor agencies and special districts • Full understanding of governmental pension, benefit programs, and labor negotiations • Demonstrated ability to manage staff and effectively establish and execute financial plans, policies, controls and systems
• Experienced with raising capital (equity and debt) through private and public financings, and effectively employing that capital
• Prepared strategic and financial assessments for a multiple of governments and special districts • Capable of managing financial and compliance audits by working closely with outside auditors and audit committees (Has conducted more than 100 audits)
33 1

BWK CONSULTING

PROPOSAL FOR INTERIM FINANCE

DIRECTOR SERVICES
For the City of Los Banos

Summary of Qualifications
• 25 years of experience working with governmental agencies • Extensive knowledge of municipal finance including acting as Interim Finance Director for full-service and contract cities
• Expert in debt administration, and fiscal advising for new and refinanced bond issuances • Well-versed in wastewater operations, rate setting, financial/budgetary forecasting, cash flow projections, use of reserves, redevelopment/successor agencies and special districts • Full understanding of governmental pension, benefit programs, and labor negotiations • Demonstrated ability to manage staff and effectively establish and execute financial plans, policies, controls and systems
• Experienced with raising capital (equity and debt) through private and public financings, and effectively employing that capital
• Prepared strategic and financial assessments for a multiple of governments and special districts • Capable of managing financial and compliance audits by working closely with outside auditors and audit committees (Has conducted more than 100 audits)
34 2
Timeline and Availability
• BWK Consulting has designated Brent Kuhn as the Project Manager and he shall be available to the City in the amount of 20-25 hours per week (either remotely or in person) depending on the requirements of the City
• He will also be available for City Council Meetings on an add-needed-basis • All services as noted in the scope of services shall be performed in a diligent and timely manner • Work on this project is expected to begin July 5, 2022 and will extend until the City has transitioned to a permanent Finance Director
Materials and Documents
Material and Documents are to be supplied the City of Los Banos for this project. In order for BWK Consulting the ability to provide the services stated in the scope of services, the City will need to provide the Project Manner with the documents and materials needed in a timely manner.

EXPECTED RESULTS
We expect to the proposed services the City of Los Banos will meet all the requirements outlined in the scope of services and also provide the following results:

Financial Benefits
• Timely and accurate financial reporting
• Identifying best practices for the administration of the finance department Technical Benefits
• Updates on GASS and other financial reporting requirements • Updates on current California Statutes affecting the City of Los Banos • Budgeting best practices

PRICING
The following table details the pricing for delivery of the services outlined in this proposal. This pricing is valid until the execution of the Professional Service Agreement:

Service Fee Hourly Rate
Disclaimer: The prices listed in the preceding table are an estimate for the services discussed with the City, and may change if additional scope of service is determined by the Professional Service Agreement. 35 CONCLUSION
I look forward to working with the City of Los Banos. I am confident that I can meet the finance director needs of the City.

If you have questions on this proposal, feel free to contact Brent Kuhn at your convenience by email at [email protected] or by phone at (949} 413-6879. I will be in touch with you this week to arrange a follow-up conversation on the proposal.

Thank you for your consideration,
f>J ~
Brent Kuhn
President BWK Consulting
3 36
RESOLUTION NO. __

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF LOS BANOS APPROVING AND

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR

INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR SERVICES WITH

BWK CONSUL TING, LLC
WHEREAS, the City of Los Banos desires to enter into a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to for Interim Finance Director Services; and WHEREAS, staff has negotiated the scope of services and the fees with BWK Consulting, LLC for Interim Finance Director Services; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney has reviewed the PSA to for Interim Finance Director Services with BWK Consulting, LLC.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Banos hereby approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Professional Services Agreement with BWK Consulting, LLC for Interim Finance Director Services as presented in Exhibit A.

The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 6th day of July 2022, by Council Member __ _ who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Council Member - -- and the Resolution adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Manuel Thomas Faria Ill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
37 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
38 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

FOR INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR SERVICES
[BWK CONSULTING, LLC]
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this __ day of ___ 20_, by and between the City of Los Banos, a municipal Corporation (herein referred to as "City") and BWK Consulting, a limited liability corporation (herein referred to as "Consultant").

RECITALS
A WHEREAS, City proposes to have Consultant perform the services described herein below;
B. WHEREAS, Consultant represents that it has that degree of specialized expertise contemplated within California Government Code, Section 3 7103, and holds all necessary licenses to practice and perform the services herein contemplated; C. WHEREAS, City has solicited and received a proposal from Consultant, has reviewed the previous experience and evaluated the expertise of Consultant, and desires to retain Consultant to render professional services under the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement;
D. WHEREAS, City and Consultant desire to contract for specific services described below and desire to set forth their rights, duties and liabilities in the services to be performed; and E. WHEREAS, no official or employee of City has a financial interest, within the provisions of California Government Code, Sections 1090-1092, in the subject matter of this Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions contained herein, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on July 7, 2022 and shall extend until the City has transitioned to a permanent Finance Director, unless terminated earlier as set forth herein.

2. Scope of Services Consultant shall diligently perform all the services described in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. The City may elect to delete certain tasks of the Scope of Services at its sole discretion.

Notwithstanding services described above, the City may request and Consultant may agree to perform other services. The scope of such services and compensation shall be agreed to in writing, signed by both parties and shall become a part of this Agreement.

Version 12.21.2017 1
39 2.1. All professional services shall be performed by Consultant or under Consultant's superv1s10n. All professional services to be provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be provided by personnel experienced in their respective fields and in a manner consistent with the standards of care, diligence and skill ordinarily exercised by professional Consultants in accordance with sound professional practices.

2.2 Consultant acknowledges that City may enter into agreements with other consultants for services similar to the services that are subject to this Agreement or may have its own employees perform services similar to those services contemplated by this Agreement.

3. Time of Performance. The services shall be performed to completion in a diligent and timely manner. The failure by Consultant to perform the services in a diligent and timely manner may result in termination of this Agreement by City.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall not be responsible for delays due to causes beyond Consultant's reasonable control. However, in the case of any such delay in the services to be provided for the Project, each party hereby agrees to provide notice to the other party so that all delays can be addressed.

4. Compensation. Consultant shall be paid in accordance with the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part of this Agreement (the "Fee Schedule").

4.1 Consultant shall submit monthly invoices to City describing the work performed the preceding month. Consultant's bills shall include the name of the person who performed the work, a brief description of the services performed and the specific Task in the Scope of Services to which it relates, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent on all work billed on an hourly basis, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. No billing rate changes shall be made during the term of this Agreement without the prior written approval of City. City shall pay Consultant no later than thirty (30) days after receipt of the monthly invoice by the City.

4.2 City shall reimburse Consultant only for those costs or expenses specifically approved in this Agreement, or specifically approved in advance by City. Unless otherwise approved, such costs shall be limited and in accordance with Schedule of fees set forth in the Scope of Services attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.

4.3 Consultant shall not receive any compensation for Additional Work without the prior written authorization of City. As used herein, "Additional Work" means any work that is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which is not included within the Scope of Services and which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Compensation for any authorized Additional Work shall be billed in accordance with the fees as set forth in Exhibit A and on the terms set forth in this Article 4.

5. Contract Administration. The Mayor shall have the authority to act for City under this Agreement. The Mayor or his/her authorized representative shall represent City in all Version 12.21.2017 2
40 matters pertaining to the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall designate a representative for purposes of this Agreement who shall have the authority to act for Consultant under this Agreement.

6. Project Managers. City shall designate a Project Manager to work directly with Consultant in the performance of this Agreement. Consultant shall designate a Project Manager, who shall coordinate all phases of the Project. This Project Manager shall be available to City at all reasonable times during the Agreement term. Consultant has designated Brent Kuhn, to be its Project Manager. Consultant shall not remove or reassign the Project Manager without the prior written consent of City. City's approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.

7. Indemnification. When the law establishes a professional standard of care for Consultant's Services, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless City and any and all of its officials, employees and agents from and against any and all losses, liabilities, damages, costs, and expenses, including legal counsel's fees and costs but only to the extent the Consultant (and its Sub consultants), are responsible for such damages, liabilities and costs on a comparative basis of fault between the Consultant (and its Sub consultants) and the City in the performance of professional services under this agreement.

Other than in the performance of professional services and to the full extent permitted by law, Consultant shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City, and any and all of its employees, officials and agents from and against any liability (including liability for claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs of any kind, whether actual, alleged or threatened, including legal counsel's fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees), where the same arise out of, are a consequence of, or are in any way attributable to, in whole or in part, the performance of this Agreement by Consultant or by any individual or City for which Consultant is legally liable, including, but not limited to officers, agents, employees, or subcontractors of Consultant.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing herein shall be construed to require Consultant to indemnify the Indemnified Parties from any Claim arising from the active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Nothing in this indemnity shall be construed as authorizing any award of attorney's fees in any action on or to enforce the terms of this Agreement. This indemnity shall apply to all claims and liability regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. The policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification to be provided by the Consultant.

In the event the City indemnitees are made a party to any action, lawsuit, or other adversarial proceeding arising from Consultant's performance of this agreement, the Consultant shall provide a defense to the City indemnitees, or at the City's option, reimburse the City indemnitees their costs of defense, including reasonable legal counsels' fees, incurred in defense of such claims.

8. Insurance. Without limiting Consultant's indemnification of City, and prior to commencement of work, Consultant shall obtain, provide and maintain at its own expense during Version 12.21.2017 3
41 the term of this Agreement, a policy or policies of liability insurance of the type and amounts described below and in a form satisfactory to City.

A. Certificates o( lnsurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Insurance certificates must be approved by the City Attorney prior to commencement of performance or issuance of any permit. Current certification of insurance shall be kept on file with City at all times during the term of this Agreement.

B. Signature. A person authorized by the insurer to bind coverage on its behalf shall sign certification of all required policies.

C. Acceptable Insurers. All insurance policies shall be issued by an insurance company currently authorized by the Insurance Commissioner to transact business of insurance in the State of California, with an assigned policyholders' Rating of A (or higher) and Financial Size Category Class VII (or larger) in accordance with the latest edition of Best's Key Rating Guide, unless otherwise approved by the City Attorney.

D. Coverage Requirements.
i. Workers' Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers' Compensation Insurance (Statutory Limits) and Employer's Liability Insurance with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000). Consultant shall submit to City, along with the certificate of insurance, a Waiver of Subrogation endorsement in favor of City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.
ii. General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance with coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office form CG 00 01, in an amount not less than two million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, four million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate, for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage, including without limitation, blanket contractual liability. Consultant's general liability policies shall be primary and non-contributory, and be endorsed using Insurance Services Office form CG 20 10 to provide that City and its officers, officials, employees, and agents shall be additional insureds under such policies. For construction contracts, an endorsement providing completed operations to the additional insured, ISO form CG 20 3 7, is also required. 111. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall provide auto liability coverage for owned, non-owned, and hired autos using ISO Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01, or the exact equivalent, with a limit of no less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident. If Consultant owns no vehicles, this requirement may be met through a non-owned auto endorsement to the CGL policy.
iv. Professional Errors and Omissions Insurance. Consultant shall maintain professional liability insurance that insures against professional errors and omissions that may be made in performing the Services to be rendered in connection with this Agreement, in the minimum amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and in the aggregate. Any policy Version 12.21.2017 4
42 inception date, continuity date, or retroactive date must be before the effective date of this agreement, and Consultant agrees to maintain continuous coverage through a period no less than three years after completion of the services required by this agreement. The cost of such insurance shall be included in Consultant's bid.

E. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be endorsed with the following specific language:
i. The City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insureds with respect to liability arising out of work performed by or on behalf of the Consultant.
ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers as respects to all claims, losses, or liability arising directly or indirectly from the Consultant's operations or services provided to City.

Any insurance maintained by City, including any self-insured retention City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and not contributory with the insurance provided hereunder. 111. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each, except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring company.
iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers.
v. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers.
vi. The insurance provided by this policy shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, or reduced in coverage or in limits, by either party except after thirty (30) calendar days (10 calendar days written notice of non-payment of premium) written notice has been received by City.

8.1 Nothing in this Section shall be construed as limiting in any way, the indemnification provision contained in this Agreement, or the extent to which Consultant may be held responsible for payments of damages to persons or property.

9. Nondiscrimination. In the performing of this Agreement, Consultant shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, marital status, sex, age, or sexual orientation race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age.

10. Independent Contractor. It is understood that City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and Consultant is not an agent or employee of City. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the control of Consultant, except to the extent they are Version 12.21.2017 5
43 limited by statute, rule or regulation and the expressed terms of this Agreement. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute approval for Consultant or any of Consultant's employees or agents, to be the agents or employees of City. Consultant shall have the responsibility for and control over the means of performing the work, provided that Consultant is in compliance with the terms of this Agreement. Anything in this Agreement that may appear to give City the right to direct Consultant as to the details of the performance or to exercise a measure of control over Consultant shall mean only that Consultant shall follow the desires of City with respect to the results of the services.
10 .1 The Consultant shall at all times remain an independent Contractor with respect to the services to be performed under this Agreement and shall be responsible for the payment of Federal and State Employer Withholding Taxes, Unemployment Insurance Taxes, FICA Taxes, Retirement, Life and/or Medical Insurance, and Worker's Compensation Insurance for the employees of the Consultant or any other person performing services under this Agreement.

Consultant and its employees are not entitled to the rights or benefits afforded to City's employees, including disability or unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, medical insurance, sick leave, or any other employment benefit. Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any claims, costs, losses, fees, penalties, interest, or damages suffered by City as a result of any claim by any person or entity contrary to the provisions of this Section 10.

11. Ownership of Documents. All documents, information and materials of any and every type prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall be the property of the City.

Such documents shall include but not be limited to all findings, reports, documents, information and data including, but not limited to, electronic media, computer tapes or discs, files, and tapes furnished or prepared or accumulated by the Consultant in performing work under this Agreement, whether completed or in process.

12. Confidentiality. All City information disclosed to Consultant during the course of performance of services under this Agreement shall be treated as confidential and shall not be disclosed to any other persons or parties except as authorized by City, excepting that information which is public record and subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act, or otherwise required by law. All documents, including drafts, notes and communications that result from the services in this Agreement, shall be kept confidential unless City authorizes in writing the release of information, excepting that information which is public record and subject to disclosure pursuant to the Public Records Act, or otherwise required by law.

13. Access to Records. Consultant shall maintain all books, records, documents, accounting ledgers, and similar materials relating to work performed for City under this Agreement on file for at least three (3) years following the date of final payment to Consultant by City. Any duly authorized representative(s) of City shall have access to such records for the purpose of inspection, audit and copying at reasonable times, during Consultant's usual and customary business hours. Consultant shall provide proper facilities to City's representative(s) for access and inspection. Consultant shall be entitled to reasonable compensation for time and expenses relate to such access and inspection activities, which shall be considered to be an additional service to the City, subject to the provisions of Section 4 hereinabove.

Version 12.21.2017 6
44 14. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant or its employees may be subject to the provisions of the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (the "Act"), which (1) requires such persons to disclose any financial interest that may foreseeably be materially affected by the work performed under this Agreement, and (2) prohibits such persons from making, or participating in making, decisions that will foreseeably financially affect such interest.

If subject to the Act, Consultant shall conform to all requirements of the Act. Failure to do so constitutes a material breach and is grounds for immediate termination of this Agreement by City. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City for any and all claims for damages resulting from Consultant's violation of this Section.

Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor any of its employees, agents or subcontractors, have a conflict of interest with respect to the work to be performed under this Agreement, nor shall such individuals, during this term of this Agreement, acquire any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performances of services hereunder.

15. Assignment. This is a personal service contract, and the duties set forth herein shall not be delegated or assigned to any person or entity without the prior written consent of City.

Consultant may engage a subcontractor(s) as permitted by law and may employ other personnel to perform services contemplated by this Agreement at Consultant's sole cost and expense.

16. Compliance with Laws, Rules, Regulations. Consultant shall perform the services required by this Agreement in compliance with all applicable Federal and California employment laws including, but not limited to, those laws related to minimwn hours and wages; occupational health and safety; fair employment and employment practices; workers' compensation insurance and safety in employment; and all other Federal, State and local laws and ordinances applicable to the services required under this Agreement. Consultant shall indemnify and hold harmless City from and against all claims, demands, payments, suits, actions, proceedings, and judgments of every nature and description including attorneys' fees and costs, presented, brought, or recovered against City for, or on account of any liability under any of the above-mentioned laws, which may be incurred by reason of Consultant's performance under this Agreement.

17. Integration; Amendment. This Agreement represents the entire understanding of City and Consultant as to those matters contained herein. No prior oral or written understanding shall be of any force or effect with respect to those matters covered in it. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except by amendment in writing sign by both parties.

18. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be inoperative, null, and void insofar as it is in conflict with said laws, but the remainder of the Agreement shall continue to be in full force and effect.

19. WaiverNalidity. Consultant agrees that waiver by City of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be construed as waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. The acceptance by the City of the performance of any work or services by Contractor shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any term or condition Version 12.21.2017 7
45 of this Agreement.

20. Jurisdiction. City and Consultant agree that the law governing this Agreement shall be that of the State of California. Any suit brought by either party against the other arising out of the performance of this Agreement shall be filed and maintained in the County of Merced.

21. Notice. Any notices required to be given pursuant to this Agreement shall be deemed to have been given by their deposit, postage prepaid, in the United States Postal Service, addressed to the parties as follows:

To City:

City of Los Banos
520 J Street
Los Banos, California 93635
Attn: Lucy Mallonee, Human Resources Director
To Consultant:

BWK Consulting, LLC
33 Creek Road, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92604
Attn: Brent Kuhn
Nothing hereinabove shall prevent either City or Consultant from personally delivering any such notices to the other.

22. Termination. City may, in its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason whatsoever by giving written notice of such termination to Consultant. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall immediately stop rendering services under this Agreement unless directed otherwise by the City. In the event of such termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for all services rendered and work performed for City to the date of such termination.

23. Order of Precedence. In the event of an inconsistency in this Agreement and any of the attached Exhibits, the terms set forth in this Agreement shall prevail. If, and to the extent this Agreement incorporates by reference any provision of the RFP or the Response, such provision shall be deemed a part of this Agreement. Nevertheless, if there is any conflict among the terms and conditions of this Agreement and those of any such provision or provisions so incorporated by reference, this Agreement shall govern over both the Response and the RFP and the Response shall govern over the RFP.

Version 12.21.2017 8
46 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates set forth below.

Date: _____ ___, 20
Date: 20 - ----~
ATTEST:

CITY CLERK
Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

William A. Vaughn, City Attorney
Version 12.21.2017 9
BWK Consulting, LLC
by: Brent Kuhn, Consultant
CITY OF LOS BANOS, a California
municipal corporation
by: Manuel Thomas Faria, III, Mayor
47 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
48 EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES

FINANCE DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION
BWK Consulting, LLC shall provide an Interim Finance Director. The Interim Finance Director shall plan, organize, direct and review the activities and operations of the Finance/IT Department, and shall perform the following services, including but not limited to:
■ Provide accounting assistance in closing the City's books each month. ■ Provide analytical work in surveying expenditures and receipts. ■ Prepare journal entries as needed for year-end closing. ■ Oversee the financial strategic planning by evaluating performance and potential risk. ■ Manage all finance and information technology employees. ■ Supervise all audit and internal control processes.
■ Manage the Information Technology Consultant contract. ■ Make observations, recommendation and suggestion in regards to City's financial practices.
■ Take the lead in analyzing, reviewing and establishing best practices. ■ Coordinate with other departments an external entity on behalf of the City ■ Prepare various City Council Staff reports
The Interim Finance Director shall be available 20-25 hours each week, and shall be paid $150 per hour for services provided pursuant to this scope of services. 49 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
50 TO:

FROM:

DATE:

LOsBanos
Agenda Staff Report
Mayor Faria and City Council Members
Stacy Souza Elms, Community and Economic Development Director ~ July 6, 2022
TYPE OF REPORT: Consent Agenda
SUBJECT: Contract Award for Placer.ai Mobile Data Analytics Platform Recommendation:

That the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a contract between Placer Labs, Inc. and the City of Los Banos for a Mobile Data Analytics Platform.

Discussion:

The purpose of Placer's Platform is to provide mobile data analytics to provide information to validate Los Banos' trade area when attracting retailers/ industry to locate in Los Banos.

In addition, to trade area information, the mobile data will be utilized to understand visits, customer journey, customer insights, dwell times, and visitations by hour/day to any location in Los Banos. A criticism we often face in economic development is that our trade area is too small, but we know with the amount of traffic of SR 152 (Pacheco Blvd.) our trade is much larger than just our population. We will be able to validate these statements by the data provided by Placer.ai.

The contract has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.

Fiscal Impact:

Fiscal Impact of $18,750 has been budgeted for in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 under account 100-419-100-269 for Economic Development Projects.
1 51
Attachments:
1 . Resolution

2. Placer.ai Contract
2 52
RESOLUTION NO. --

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF LOS BANOS APPROVING AND

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A

CONTRACT BETWEEN PLACER LABS, INC AND

THE CITY OF LOS BANOS FOR MOBILE DATA

ANALYTICS
WHEREAS, the City of Los Banos would like to utilize mobile data analytics to validate visits, trade areas, customer journey, customer insights, dwell times, and visitation by hour/day within the City of Los Banos; and WHEREAS, this mobile data analytics will be utilized by the Community and Economic Development Department for retail/ industry recruitment; and WHEREAS, this service has been allocated as an expenditure in the approved budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2033 in account 100-419-100-269 under Economic Development Projects; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Los Banos hereby approve and authorizes the Mayor to execute a contract between the Placer Labs, Inc. and the City of Los Banos for Mobile Data Analytics.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Manuel Thomas Faria 111, Mayor
ATTEST:

Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
1 53

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
54 ~ Placer.ai
PLACER LABS, INC.

ORDERFORM
City of Los Banos
Address:
("Customer")
520 J St
Placer Labs, Inc.

Address:
("Placer")
340 S Lemon Ave #1277,
Contact Person:

Los Banos, California 93635
Stacy Elms
[email protected]
209-827-7000
[email protected]
Walnut, California 91789
Contact Person Jordan Parlegreco
Email: Billing Contact Person: Melissa Anderson
Phone: Billing Email*: [email protected]
Billing Contact Email: Billing Phone*: 415-228-2444
*Not for use for official notices.

1. Services.

The services provided under this Order Form (the "Services") include:
• Access, via Placer Venue Analytics Platform ("Placer's Platform"), to all major venues within the United States • Access, via Placer's Platform, to reports, including Visits, Trade Areas, Customer Journey, Customer Insights, Dwell Times, and Visitation by Hour/Day
• Actionable insights include:
o Accurate foot traffic counts and dwell time
o True Trade Areas displaying frequent-visitors-density by home and work locations o Customers' demographics, interests, and time spent at relevant locations o Where customers are coming from and going to, and the routes they take o Benchmarking of Foot Traffic, Market Share, Audiences, and other key metrics o Competitive insights
o Void Analysis Reports
• Access to Xtra reports per ad hoc needs; in Excel, KML, Tableau, and other formats:
o Quarterly Maximum of 26 credits; Annual Maximum of 104 credits • Ad hoc property visitor time lapse video generation upon request • Premier Customer Support
o Regular meetings with Placer's Customer Success Team
o Live, Virtual Training support as reasonably needed
• Access to STI Demographics Bundle + Mosaic Data Set. The applicable Advanced Demographics and Psychographics are generated using the Input Datasets from the data vendors as set forth below:

Descri tion Vendors
S er os Technolo
STI Demographics Bundle · g Patterns
lace
Outlook
Ex erian Mosaic Mosaic Segmentation

2. Permitted Uses
The data, information and materials accessible via the Services are referred to as "Placer Data". Customer may use Placer Data solely for the following purposes ("Permitted Uses"): ( a) Customer may use Placer Data for Customer's internal business purposes; and (b) Customer may incorporate Placer Data into Research Data, as described and sub'ect to the restrictions below.
1 55
"Research Data" means datasets and other materials created by Customer that result in any part from Customer's use of Placer Data. The Customer may share Research Data with current and potential customers, and in marketing materials; provided that the Customer shall cite Placer as a provider of such information. Customer shall not, directly or indirectly, resell, distribute, sublicense, display or otherwise provide Placer Data to any third parties, except that Customer may display Placer Data as part of Research Data.

3. Term and Termination.

Initial Term: The initial term of this Order Form will begin as of the last signature date set forth below, and will continue for 12 consecutive months thereafter (the "Initial Term"). Each renewal or additional term, if any, is referred to as "Additional Term," and the Initial Term and any Additional Terms are referred to collectively as the "Term."
Additional Term: Placer will notify the Customer in writing (email is sufficient) at least thirty (30) days before expiration of the Initial Term or any Additional Term, and this Order Form shall be automatically renewed for additional periods of the same duration as the Initial Term, unless either party provides written notice of non-renewal prior to the expiration of the then-current term.

Termination: Either party may terminate this Order Form upon thirty (30) days' notice if the other party materially breaches any of the terms or conditions of this Order Form or the Agreement (as defined below), and the breach remains uncured during such thirty (30) days. In addition, Placer may immediately suspend Customer's access to the Services, or terminate the Order Form, in the event of non-payment by the Customer or breach by Customer of any restrictions regarding usage of the Services.

4. Fees.
$18,750/year invoiced: in full upon signing this Order Form.

Invoice sent electronically to Customer's billing contact email via NetSuite.

Customer shall pay the fees set forth above in this Order Form.

Unpaid amounts are subject to a finance charge of 1.5% per month on any outstanding balance, or the maximum permitted by law, whichever is lower, plus all expenses of collection.

Customer is responsible for all applicable taxes arising directly from the Services other than U.S. taxes based on Placer's net income.

If Customer believes that Placer has billed Customer incorrectly, Customer must contact Placer no later than sixty (60) days after the closing date on the first billing statement in which the error or problem appeared in order to receive an adjustment or credit. Inquiries should be directed to Placer's customer support department at [email protected].

In the event of any termination, Customer will pay in full for the Services up to and including the last day on which the Services are available to Customer.

All billing will be sent via electronic invoice to the Customer contact indicated above. Customer shall pay all fees within forty-five (45) days of the invoice date.

5. Support.

Placer will use commercially reasonable efforts to provide customer service and technical support in connection with the Services on weekdays during the hours of 9:00 A.M. through 5:00 P.M. Pacific Time, with the exclusion of federal holidays. For any such suooort, please contact us at [email protected].

CON-013281 2
56 6. Mutual NDA.

Each party (the "Receiving Party") understands that the other party (the "Disclosing Party") has disclosed or may disclose business, technical or financial information relating to the Disclosing Party's business (hereinafter referred to as "Proprietary Information" of the Disclosing Party). Proprietary Information of Placer includes, without limitation, non-public information regarding features, functionalities and performance of, and pricing for, the Services. The Receiving Party agrees: (i) to take reasonable precautions to protect such Proprietary Information, and (ii) not to use (except in performance of the Services or as otherwise permitted by the Agreement) or disclose to any third party any Proprietary Information. The foregoing shall not apply with respect to any information that the Receiving Party can document (a) is or becomes generally available to the public, (b) was in the possession of or known to the Receiving Party, prior to disclosure thereof by the Disclosing Party, without any restrictions or confidentiality obligations, ( c) was rightfully disclosed to it, without any restrictions or confidentiality obligations, by a third party, ( d) was independently developed without use of any Proprietary Information of the Disclosing Party, or ( e) is required to be disclosed by law, provided that the Receiving Party provides the Disclosing Party with prompt written notice of such requirement and reasonably cooperates with the Disclosing Party to limit or challenge such requirement. These provisions regarding Proprietary Information shall apply in perpetuity and shall survive any termination of the Order Form or the Agreement.

7. Miscellaneous.

All notices under the Order Form and the Agreement will be in writing and will be deemed to have been duly given (a) upon delivery by a recognized delivery service (e.g., FedEx) with delivery confirmation, (b) upon receipt, if sent by U.S. certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or ( c) when sent via email, if sent during normal business hours of the recipient, and on the next business day if sent after normal business hours of the recipient. Notices shall be sent to the addresses set forth in the Order Form, which addresses may be subsequently modified by written notice given in accordance with these provisions.

Customer grants Placer the right to use Customer's company name and company logo, for Placer's promotional purposes.

This Order Form is entered into by and between Customer and Placer effective as of the date of the last signature below. This Order Form and use of the Services are governed by, and Customer and Placer agree to, the License Agreement located at https://www.placer.ai/placer-license-agreement/ (the "Agreement"); provided, however, that in the event of any conflict between this Order Form and the Agreement, this Order Form shall control. Unless otherwise defined in this Order Form, capitalized terms herein have the same meaning as in the Agreement. "Customer" "Placer"
City of Los Banos Placer Labs, Inc.

By: By:

Name: Name: Jacov Ben-Zvi
Title: Title: President
Date: Date:

CON-013281 3
57 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
58 LOsBanos
At the Crossroads of California
Agenda Staff Report
TO: Mayor & City Council Members
c::

FROM: Nirom Than, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer DATE: July 6, 2022
SUBJECT: Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Amendment Approval TYPE OF REPORT: Public Hearing
Recommendation:

That the City Council of the City of Los Banos acting as the City of Los Banos Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) receive the staff report, open the Public Hearing, receive public comment, close the Public Hearing and adopt a resolution approving the First Amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP Group in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin (5-022.07) as it pertains to the City of Los Banos GSA.

Background:

In 2014, legislation passed that provides a statewide framework for sustainable groundwater management in California (SB 1168, AB 1739, and SB 1319). This legislation, collectively referred to as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), is intended to support local groundwater management through the oversight of local agencies. An overarching goal of SGMA is to achieve a groundwater balance in each basin or sub-basin by 2040.

Also in 2014, the Department of Water Resources (DWR) prioritized the alluvial groundwater basins and sub-basins in California for sustainability. Among others, the criteria used were: reliance on groundwater, overlying irrigated acreage, overdraft, and subsidence. DWR's findings designated the Delta-Mendota Sub-basin as High Priority.

Based on the findings described above, in August 2015 the Delta-Mendota Sub-basin was also placed on DWR's List of Critically Overdrafted Basins. 59 As such, local agencies in the Sub-basin, such as the City of Los Banos, were required to form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) or one multi-agency GSA by June 30, 2017. SGMA provides GSAs with the authority to:
• Conduct investigations of water rights;
• Require registration of groundwater wells;
• Require well-operators to measure and report extractions; • Require reporting of diversions of surface water to storage; • Regulate groundwater extractions, including limiting or prohibiting groundwater production;
• Impose fees and assessments;
• Request revisions of basin boundaries, including establishing new subbasins; and • Undertake enforcement actions for noncompliance.

The GSA(s) in critically Overdrafted Basins must develop Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) or one GSP by January 31, 2020. The SGMA allows the State to intervene where GSPs are found to be incomplete or inadequate. SGMA 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. SGMA then defines "undesirable result" as one or more of the following effects caused by groundwater conditions occurring throughout the basin:
• Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply if continued over the planning and implementation horizon;
• Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage; • Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion;
• Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality, including the migration of contaminant plumes that impair water supplies; • Significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses; and
• Depletions of interconnected surface water that has significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.

SGMA requires that GSPs include prescribed components set forth in State guidelines to achieve sustainable groundwater management to avoid the "undesirable results". GSPs must also include long-term planning goals, measurable objectives and milestones in increments of five years that are designed to achieve the basin's sustainability goal within twenty years of GSP implementation.

The City of Los Banos resides within the Delta-Mendota Sub-basin. The Delta-Mendota limits are roughly from Tracy in the north to Tranquility in the south. It is essentially bounded on the west by the coastal range and the east by the San Joaquin River. The San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority is taking the lead in facilitating GSA and GSP development in the basin.
60 At the January 18, 2017 Council Meeting, the City of Los Banos City Council adopted Resolution No. 5831 which made the City of Los Banos the exclusive Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for the portion of the proposed Delta-Mendota Subbasin within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City.

There have been twenty-three (23) Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA) that have formed in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin.

Currently, these GSA's have developed and adopted six (6) Groundwater SustainabHity Plans (GSP).

The GSP of the City of Los Banos GSA is a GSP in collaboration with the following GSA's a) City of Dos Palos GSA
b) City of Newman GSA
c) City of Firebaugh GSA
d) City of Gustine GSA
e) City of Los Banos GSA
f) City of Mendota GSA
g) Portion of Merced County GSA
h) Portion of Fresno County Area B GSA
i) Portion of Madera County 3 GSA
j) San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSA
k) Turner Island Water District GSA
This GSP collaboration is called the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP group.

At the November 7, 2018 City Council Meeting, the City Council, acting as the City of Los Banos Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA), approved entering into three agreements related to the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). These agreements were the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination Agreement, the Cost Sharing Agreement, and the MOU between the City of Los Banos Groundwater Sustainability Agency and the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Groundwater Sustainability Agency.

At the December 4, 2019 City Council adopted Resolution No. 6164 approving the GSP.

This GSP was subsequently submitted to the California Department of Water Resources on January 23, 2020.

Discussion:

On January 21, 2022, the California Department of Water Resources issued a notice advising the SJRECGSA, along with five other GSPs adopted within the basin by other GSAs, that the submitted GSP was deemed "incomplete" pursuant 61 to Section 355.2 (e)(2) of SGMA Regulations. This notice identified four potential deficiencies that required revision, and directed that necessary modifications be made to the 2019 SJRECGSA GSP prior to submitting a modified Groundwater Sustainability Plan to DWR for evaluation by not later than July 20, 2022 The four deficiencies identified in DWR's notice are summarized as follows:
• Potential Deficiency 1: The GSPs do not use the same data and methodologies.
• Potential Deficiency 2: The GSPs have not established common definitions of undesirable results in the Subbasin.
• Potential Deficiency 3: The GSPs in the Subbasin have not set sustainable management criteria in accordance with GSP regulations. • Potential Deficiency 4: The management areas established in the Plan have not sufficiently addressed the requirements specified in 23 CCR §354.20.

Attached to this staff report is the Draft response letter to the Department of Water Resources. This letter provide an executive summary of all the steps and methodologies taken to address these deficiencies. Staff also attached the draft amendment to the common chapter of the GSP.

In accordance with the requirements of Water Code Section 10728.4, the City of Los Banos GSA provided notice of its intent to adopt the First Amended SJRECGSA GSP at least 90 days before the date of adoption and engaged in all necessary consultation with the cities or counties that requested such consultation. The Notice of Intent was issued on April 8th, 2022 to all associated GSAs, cities, and counties effected by this GSP.

Fiscal Impact:

At this time there is no financial impact to the City
Attachments:

Resolution
Notice of Intents to Adopt
Draft Response to 'Incomplete' Determination Letter for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Draft Revised SJREC GSP
62 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF LOS BANOS ACTING AS THE CITY OF

LOS BANOS GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY

AGENCY (GSA) ADOPTING THE FIRST

AMENDED GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY

PLAN FOR PORTIONS OF THE DELTA -

MENDOTA SUBBASIN

RECITALS

1. In accordance with the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act the City of Los Banos Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) elected to become a GSA for those portions of the Delta - Mendota Subbasin (DWR Bulletin 118 Basin No. 5-22.07) located within its boundaries. The California Department of Water Resources designated the Delta-Mendota Subbasin a High Priority basin.

2. Following full compliance with SGMA requirements, on December 4, 2019, the ~ City of Los Banos GSA adopted Resolution No. 6164 approving the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for portions of the Delta - Mendota Subbasin subject to its jurisdiction ("2019 SJRECGSA GSP").

3. The SJRECGSA GSP was submitted to the California Department of Water Resources on January 23, 2020.

4. On January 21, 2022, in accordance with its obligation to issue an assessment of the GSP within two years of submittal, California Department of Water Resources, Sustainable Groundwater Management Office, issued a notice advising the 2019 SJRECGSA GSP, along with five other GSPs adopted within the basin by other GSAs, was deemed "incomplete" pursuant to Section 355.2 (e)(2) of SGMA Regulations.

5. The January 21, 2022, DWR Notice identified specific deficiencies that required revision, and directed that necessary modifications be made to the 2019 SJRECGSA GSP (and five other Plans) prior to submitting a modified Groundwater Sustainability Plan to DWR for evaluation by not later than July 20, 2022.

6. The City of Los Banos GSA City Council and staff have reviewed proposed revisions and determined the proposed revisions address the issues identified in DWR's January 21, 2022 Notice ("First Amended SJRECGSA GSP").

8. Consistent with DWR guidance, the City of Los Banos GSA with this action will adopt the First Amended SJRECGSA GSP which shall, for all purposes, supersede and replace the 2019 SJRECGSA GSP.
1 63

9. In accordance with the requirements of Water Code Section 10728.4, the City of Los Banos GSA provided notice of its intent to adopt the First Amended SJRECGSA GSP at least 90 days before the date of adoption and engaged in all necessary consultation with the cities or counties that requested such consultation.

10. In accordance with the requirements of Water Code Section 10725.2, the City of Los Banos GSA issued notice of its intent to adopt the First Amended SJRECGSA GSP on its internet website and provided electronic notice to all parties desiring to receive such notice.

11. In accordance with the requirements of Water Code Section 10728.4, the City of Los Banos GSA City Council convened a public hearing prior to considering this Resolution and adopting the First Amended SJRECGSA GSP. The City Council received and considered all written and oral comments made.

12. Pursuant to Water Code Section 10728.6, adoption of the First Amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan is not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, ORDERED, AND DIRECTED that:

1. The City of Los Banos GSA adopts the First Amended SJRECGSA GSP. A copy of the First Amended SJRECGSA GSP and supporting documentation shall be maintained in the offices of the City of Los Banos GSA.

2. The First Amended SJRECGSA GSP shall replace and supersede for all purposes the 2019 SJRECGSA GSP as the operative document for SGMA compliance within the jurisdiction of the City of Los Banos GSA .The 2019 SJRECGSA GSP is hereby rescinded for all purposes and that document shall have no further force or effect.

3. The City of Los Banos GSA shall exercise or cause to be exercised through its staff, the authorities, including without limitation, the 'Powers and Authorities' described in California Water Code Section 10725 et.seq., necessary to implement the First Amended SJRECGSA GSP within its territory.

4. By not later than July 20, 2022, City of Los Banos GSA shall submit or cause to be submitted the First Amended SJRECGSA GSP and all necessary supporting documentation to the Department of Water Resources.

5. The City of Los Banos GSA and its staff shall be authorized to do all things necessary to comply with Water Code Sections 10728 and 10728.2 regarding annual reports on plan implementation and plan evaluation.

The foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Los Banos held on the 6th day of July, 2022, by Council Member _ _ _ who moved its adoption, which motion was duly seconded by Council Member --- and the Resolution adopted by the following vote:
2 64
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Manuel Thomas Faria, Ill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Lucille L. Mallonee, City Clerk
3 65

THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
66 LOsBanos
At the Crossroads of California
CITY OF LOS BANOS GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABil,ITY AGENCY
April 8th, 2022
City of Los Banos
S20J Street
Los Banos, CA 9363S
Merced County
Lacey McBride
Merced County Water Resources Manager
2222 M Street
Merced, CA 95340
Re: Notice of Intent of the City of Los Banos to Adopt Amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan The City of Los Banos Groundwater Sustainability Agency hereby provides notice of its intent to adopt an amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan no earlier than 90 days from the date of this Notice. Adoption of the amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan shall occur as part of a public hearing to be held by the City of Los Banos Groundwater Sustainability Agency. Once adopted, the amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan will govern sustainable groundwater management actions within the jurisdictional boundaries of this plan located in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Groundwater Basin: 5-022.07) as encompassed by the boundaries of the City of Los Banos Groundwater Sustainability Agency. This notice is specifically given to the City of Los Banos and County of Merced, which ere the cities and counties within the area of the proposed amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP Group in the Delta-Mendota Subhasin (5_-022.07).

The Amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP Group in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin (S-022.07) that is the subject of this Notice will address and remediate the issues identified in the California Department of Water Resources January 21, 2022, c.orrespondence identifying corrective actions that must be completed within 180 days of the determination. 1
1 DWRts letter detennination can be accessed on DWR's SGMA Portal website:
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/portal/gsp/status.
67 Cities or counties that receive this notice may request in writing to consult with the City of Los Banos Groundwater Sustainability Agency concerning Amended Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP Group in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin (5-022.07). These requests must be received by the City of Los Banos Groundwater Sustainability Agency at the contact information provided below within 30 calendar days upon receipt of this notice.

City of Los Banos Groundwater Sustainability Agency
Attn: Nirom Than, PE
411 Madison Ave.

Los Banos, CA 93635
To download copies of the public drafts of the amended GSP and for other information, please visit https://www.sjrecwa.net/sgma/gsp/. A redline of any changes to the GSP will be made available to the cities and counties as soon as it is available. Please do not hesitate to contact me with further questions.

Sin
I ~ I •
Josh nheiro, City Manager
City of Los Banos Groundwater Sustainability Agency
68 July 20, 2022
Paul Gosselin
California Department of Water Resources
715 P Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
DELTAMENDOTA
SGMA
Re: Response to 'Incomplete' Determination Letter for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Dear Mr. Gosselin:

The Delta-Mendota Subbasin (Subbasin) received a Consultation Initiation Letter (CIL) on January 21, 2022 from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). The CIL identified four potential deficiencies across the six Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) which may preclude DWR's approval, as well as potential corrective actions to address each potential deficiency. The CIL initiated consultation between DWR, the Basin Manager, Plan Managers, and the Subbasin's 23 Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) on February 18, 2022 regarding the amount of time needed to address the potential deficiencies and corrective actions. Subsequent meetings were held on March 7, March 30, April 19, and May 24, 2022 to discuss the Subbasin's proposed approach to addressing the identified deficiencies.

This letter has been prepared in response to the deficiencies identified in the CIL, based on direction provided by the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination Committee (Coordination Committee), the Delta-Mendota Technical Working Group (Technical Working Group), the Subbasin GSAs and DWR. It is intended to document how the deficiencies identified in the CIL were addressed in the revised GSPs and associated Common Chapter, and where those revisions are addressed in the Common Chapter.

The four deficiencies identified in DWR's CIL are summarized as follows:

Potential Deficiency 1: The GSPs do not use the same data and methodologies.

Potential Deficiency 2: The GSPs have not established common definitions of undesirable results in the Subbasin.

Potential Deficiency 3: The GSPs in the Subbasin have not set sustainable management criteria in accordance with GSP regulations.

Potential Deficiency 4: The management areas established in the Plan have not sufficiently addressed the requirements specified in 23 CCR §354.20.

Response to Potential Deficiency 1
DWR's Deficiency 1 focused on the water budget (and associated water budget components), change in groundwater storage and sustainable yield as presented in the Common Chapter. For this deficiency, DWR stated that " ... the Plan lacks detail and confirmation that the six GSPs not only consider the other 69 GSPs within and adjacent to the Subbasin but have addressed the regulatory aspects of Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) in a manner that substantially complies with the GSP Regulations." Additionally, DWR stated that "Department staff find that the Plan for the Subbasin does not utilize same data and methodologies to support the various water budget, change in storage, and sustainable yield approaches; therefore, it is unclear how the GSAs will reach, let alone track, sustainability throughout the Subbasin in a coordinated manner." To address this deficiency, DWR recommended that "The 23 GSAs developing the six GSPs should provide supporting information that is sufficiently detailed and provide explanations that are sufficiently thorough and reasonable to explain how the various components of each GSP will together achieve the Subbasin's common sustainability goal. The explanation should describe how the sustainable management criteria established for each GSP (including management areas if applicable) relate to each other and how they are collectively informed by the basin setting, including the water budget, change in groundwater storage, and sustainable yield, on the Subbasin-wide level." To address Deficiency 1, the Technical Working Group and Coordination Committee met during the period from February through June of 2022 to clarify and explain how the six GSPs utilized common data and methodologies to develop the Subbasin water budget, change in groundwater storage and sustainable yield.

Use of Common Data and Methodologies
The CIL indicates that "a statement that the GSPs are coordinated without accompanying explanation is not sufficient coordination" and goes on to say that "Department staff find that the Plan for the Subbasin does not utilize same data and methodologies to support the various water budget, change in storage, and sustainable yield approaches; therefore, it is unclear how the GSAs will reach, let alone track, sustainability throughout the Subbasin in a coordinated manner." The following subsections summarize how the 23 GSAs and their respective six GSPs coordinated and used the same data and methodologies to support the "sum-of-the-parts" approach to compiling water budgets, change in storage calculations, and sustainable yield at the Subbasin-level using the same data and methods, as required by the SGMA and GSP Emergency Regulations, and is intended to supplement the amendments made to the Common Chapter in regards to the water budgets and change in storage and calculation of Subbasin sustainable yields.

Water Budget
Regarding coordination and use of the same data and methodologies for water budget development, the CIL states that "while the categories of inflows and outflows were agreed upon by the Coordination Committee for the land surface budget and groundwater budget, each of the GSP areas prepared separate water budgets using different modeling methods while often relying upon customized hydrogeological conceptual models which were then 'rolled-up' to the Subbasin level." DWR stated that "it is uncertain whether the outflow from a particular GSP within the Subbasin is comparable to the inflow from an adjacent GSP area, as there is no coordinated explanation provided in the Plan." Additionally, the CIL indicates that "some of the GSP groups used numerical models to calculate the inflows and outflows from the respective GSP areas while others used non-numerical and spreadsheet models - there was no explanation in the Common Chapter that indicated how these differing modeling approaches used the same data or methodology." The Letter also references Technical Memoranda #1 and #3, Common Datasets and Assumptions used in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin GSPs and Assumptions for the Historic, Current and Projected Water Budgets of the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, Change in Storage Cross-Check and Sustainable Yield, respectively.

Respond to DWR Consultation Initiation letter 2 July 20, 2022 70 The purpose of the eight Technical Memoranda appended to the Common Chapter is to document the use of common data and methodologies across the six Subbasin GSPs pursuant to Water Code Section 10727.6 and Title 23, California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 357.4 and as described in the Subbasin Coordination Agreement. In preparing the water budgets, each GSP group coordinated use of publicly available data sets along with the best available data for their GSP region. While the same data were used, the terminology used to describe those data sets were not consistent across the basin. The Delta-Mendota Subbasin GSAs acknowledge additional detail is needed to demonstrate that all water budget components across the six Subbasin GSPs utilize the same data and methodologies. As such, subsequent to receipt of the CIL, the Technical Working Group met to identify the specific data used and to develop a consistent terminology for the various water budget components. Additionally, the Technical Working Group attempted to simplify the presentation of the Subbasin water budgets through a reduction in the number of water budget components.

During development of the original GSPs, the Technical Working Group met monthly to ensure modeling methods and approaches were comparable between the six Subbasin GSP water budgets, including using comparable inflows and outflows between GSP regions. (Please note that all meetings were held according to the Brown Act and meeting notes available at deltamendota.org.) Technical Memorandum #1 appended to the Common Chapter states that "boundary flows were evaluated by comparing inflows and outflows assessed by each GSP Group's water budget analyses and associated data, as well as groundwater flow trends from groundwater contours and hydrogeologist input. Each set of neighboring GSP Groups had independent meetings to coordinate and compare their respective contributions to inflows and outflows, and the results were provided and discussed by the Technical Working Group and Coordination Committee." Regarding the use of numerical, analytical, and spreadsheet models by the six Delta-Mendota GSP groups, Technical Memorandum #3 appended to the Common Chapter documents meetings held in September and November 2017 with DWR representatives to discuss the use of numerical and analytical models in the Subbasin, demonstrating that the hydrologic principles and equations used for both types of modeling in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin are the same.

After agreeing to a set of common simplified definitions for water budget components, the six DeltaMendota GSP groups mapped their prior water budget components to the new common definitions.

Table CC-8 in the revised Common Chapter documents the data sources utilized in each of the six Subbasin GSPs' historical (Water Year [WY] 2003 to 2012) and current water budgets (WY 2013) according to the common simplified water budget component definitions, and Table CC-9 includes the same information for the projected water budget (WY 2014-2070). No water budget data were modified during this mapping process. And, as previously noted, efforts were made to use the same data sources throughout the Subbasin where available, due to variability in data availability throughout the Subbasin, the best available data were used and characterized appropriately.

The revised water budgets contained in the redline version of the Common Chapter utilize the simplified list of coordinated water budget components that utilize the same data and methods as contained in the original water budgets, simply mapped to a consistent set ofterminology. The revised land surface budget and groundwater budget tables that align with the revised data categories are presented respectively for the historical water budget in Tables CC-10 and CC-11, for the current water budget in Tables CC-12 and CC-13 and for the projected water budget with climate change factors and projects and management actions in Tables CC-14 and CC-15; narrative describing how the water budget inputs can be found starting on page CC-131 of the revised Common Chapter.

Respond to DWR Consultation Initiation letter 3 July 20, 2022 71 Change in Storage
DWR's CIL states that "additional explanation of historical, current, and projected change in groundwater storage for the Subbasin is warranted, as well as a straightforward quantification of overdraft throughout the Subbasin. The compilation of water budgets and the estimation of change in groundwater storage for the Subbasin does not appear to use the same data and methodology, or the Plan lacks adequate explanation for how or why the various approaches in the GSPs can be considered as using the same data and methodologies."
Additionally, the CIL stated "The explanation related to coordinated change in storage calculations and water budgets is insufficient, especially since information presented in text, and data displayed in figures and tables, do not seem to correlate with each other and it is uncertain what the current loss of storage is throughout the Subbasin. Statements in Common Chapter Section 4.2.3, state that, 'For information on how change in storage was calculated, refer to Section 4.3.3 - Water Budgets of this Common Chapter.' However, Section 4.3.2 only states, 'Individual historical, current, and projected water budgets were developed by each GSP Group for their respective Plan Area. For more information on the development of those water budgets, as well as tabular and graphical representation of the results, refer to the respective sections of the individual GSPs.' This fragmented and multi-staged presentation of information is insufficient to demonstrate that the various GSPs are coordinated - Section 4.2.3 of the Common Chapter refers readers to Section 4.3.2, which then refers readers to six different GSP sections. For the Upper Aquifer, four methods [were] chosen by the respective GSP regions and summed to a subbasin total.''
The change in groundwater storage from the Upper Aquifer was calculated using the coordinated water budgets at the Subbasin level. Water level hydrographs and groundwater storage coefficients were used to cross-check the inputs to the water budget.

The CIL also noted, for the Lower Aquifer," ... two methods [were] chosen by the respective GSP regions and summed to a Subbasin total.'' All six GSPs used observed land subsidence to determine Lower Aquifer change in groundwater storage. Where data were available, water budgets for the Lower Aquifer were used as a cross-check.

In response to both comments (Upper and Lower Aquifer changes in groundwater storage), please refer to Table CC-8 and Table CC-9 in the revised Common Chapter (with associated narrative found on pages CC-137 through CC-138) for information regarding the use of same data and methodologies used to calculate change in storage across the six Subbasin GSPs for the historical, current, and projected water budgets, respectively, with Subbasin-level change in storage presented in Table CC11 for the historical water budget, Table CC-13 for the current water budget, and Table CC-15 for the projected water budget.

Finally, the CIL noted a discrepancy in compiled cumulative change in storage values presented in the Common Chapter. The text on page CC-98 of the Common Chapter has been edited to address a typographical error and provide the correct cumulative change in storage in each principal aquifer between Water Years 2003 and 2013, which is -624,000 acre-feet in the Upper Aquifer and -375,000 acre-feet in the Lower Aquifer.

Sustainable Yield
Respond to DWR Consultation Initiation letter 4 July 20, 2022 72 The CIL states: "The Common Chapter (Section 4.3.4) and Technical Memoranda #3 address the methodology for calculating sustainable yield in the Subbasin. Of the six GSPs, three provide a sustainable yield specifically for the GSP area while the other three rely upon the estimate for the entire Subbasin." The CIL also notes that "as indicated throughout the Plan, a sustainable yield estimate is not established for each GSP area and those estimates are not correlated with undesirable results." The CIL also notes, under Deficiency 2, that common definitions for significant and unreasonable were not established at the Subbasin level and there were 17 management areas that created uncertainties as to how the SMCs were coordinated with the sustainable yield.

In response to these comments, the Subbasin has now established common definitions in response to Deficiency 2, and has removed management areas in response to Deficiency 4. Sustainable yield for each principal aquifer is discussed starting on page CC-150.

Additional Coordination Components
DWR's CIL also questions the use of same data and methodologies for groundwater elevation data, groundwater extraction data, surface water supply data, and total water use data (defined as evapotranspiration in the historic, current and projected water budgets). All of these components are inputs into the coordinated water budget; see Tables CC-8 and CC-9 and the associated water budget narrative beginning on page CC-131 of this revised Common Chapter.

Response to Potential Deficiency 2
The CIL for potential deficiency 2 states, "The GSPs have not established common definitions of undesirable results in the Subbasin." To address this deficiency, DWR's recommended corrective action was that the GSAs " ... should modify each of their respective GSPs, as well as any applicable coordination materials, to substantially comply with the GSP Regulations and define undesirable results in a manner that addresses groundwater conditions occurring throughout the Subbasin ... " The Technical Working Group and Coordination Committee met to develop, at a subbasin level, singular coordinated definitions and methods for establishing sustainable management criteria (SMC) for each applicable sustainability indicator. These revised definitions, and the associated numeric SMC developed using the agreed-upon methodologies, are summarized in the revised Common Chapter (see Tables CC-16 through CC-23 and Figures CC-65 through CC-70) and in the respective Sustainable Management Criteria chapters of each Subbasin GSP. Additionally, see the Response to Potential Deficiency 3, below, for more information relative to the development of the coordinated SMC.

Response to Potential Deficiency 3
DWR's Deficiency 3 comments built on their Deficiency 2 comments, stating that the Subbasin did not comply with the Emergency GSP Regulations in establishing common definitions and methodologies for SMC. In response to these comments, the six individual GSPs have been revised to reflect the agreed-upon Subbasin-wide sustainability goal as stated on page CC-153 of the revised Common Chapter, and the Technical Working Group and Coordination Committee met to develop common definitions of significant and unreasonable impacts, common methodologies for establishing numeric MTs and MOs, and common interim milestones for each sustainability indicator. See Tables CC-16 through CC-23 for these revised SMC, and narrative describing the process starting on page CC-154 of the revised Common Chapter.

Respond to DWR Consultation Initiation letter 5 July 20, 2022 73 Response to Potential Deficiency 4
Deficiency 4, as detailed in DWR's CIL, is related to the use of a total of 17 management areas in four of the six GSPs prepared for the Subbasin, stating "The Management Areas established in the Plan have not sufficiently addressed the requirements" ... defined in SGMA.

As a result, the Subbasin GSAs agreed to eliminate or rename the formerly identified management areas as monitoring zones throughout the six GSPs and Common Chapter, and to continue to monitor and manage groundwater use in these monitoring zones according to the metrics previously set forth.

Therefore, in the six GSPs and Common Chapter, all management areas have been renamed monitoring zones.

Sincerely,
John Brodie
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Plan Administrator
Respond to DWR Consultation Initiation letter 6 July 20, 2022 74 San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSA
City of Newman GSA
City of Gustine GSA
City of Los Banos GSA
City of Dos Palos GSA
City of Firebaugh GSA
City of Mendota GSA
Turner Island Water District-2 GSA
County of Madera-3 GSA
Portion of Merced County – Delta-Mendota GSA
Portion of Fresno County – Management Area B GSA
Groundwater Sustainability Plan
for the
San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP Group
in the
Delta-Mendota Subbasin (5-022.07)
December 2019June 2022
75 DELTA-MENDOTA SUBBASIN (5-022.07)
Groundwater Sustainability Plan for:

December 2019June 2022
Pursuant to the Professional Engineers Act, and California Code of Regulations, Title 23, Division 2, Chapter 1.5, Subchapter 2, I, Jarrett Martin, affix my professional seal to the following Sections of the enclosed Groundwater Sustainability Plan: Sections 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 7.2, 8.2, 9.2, 10.2, 11.2, 12.2, 13.2, 14.2,

15.2, and 16.2. In accordance with applicable regulations, those portions of the Plan bearing my seal have been prepared in accordance with engineering professional standards of practice.

Jarrett Wade Martin
California Professional
Civil Engineer No. 82048
76 i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Executive Summary provides a brief history of the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SJREC GSA) and the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority (SJRECWA or Exchange Contractors) and its member entities; Central California Irrigation District (CCID), San Luis Canal Company (SLCC), Firebaugh Canal Water District (FCWD) and Columbia Canal Company (CCC). The historical groundwater conditions are described along with historic groundwater management. The SJREC have managed groundwater sustainability which will be further described in the executive summary coupled with Sustainable Management Criteria (SMC). The GSA’s partnering to develop this plan include: San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSA, City of Newman GSA, City of Gustine GSA, City of Los Banos GSA, City of Dos Palos GSA, City of Firebaugh GSA, City of Mendota GSA, Turner Island Water District – 2 GSA, County of Madera – 3 GSA, a Portion of the Fresno County Management Area B GSA and a portion of the Merced County – Delta-Mendota GSA. This GSP used the GSP Annotated Outline prepared by DWR as the genesis for the organization of content.

Section 1 – Section 2.2.2 and Section 6 covers the SJREC GSP Group in its entirety with a major focus on the SJREC GSA covering almost 90% of the plan area. Section 2.2.3 – Section 5 is specific to the SJREC GSA. Each GSA will have its own discrete section for Water Budgets, SMC and Projects and Management Actions; Section 7 – Section 16. The final Section of this plan is the Appendices which are used to provide supporting documentation. Appendix B describes the Common Chapter for each GSP in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin which provides details on how each GSP in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin has coordinated to provide an overall sustainable plan for the subbasin. The Table of Contents can be used as a guide to organization of this GSP.

ES1 INTRODUCTION
In the 1860’s, John Bensley had a vision of digging the “Great Canal” from Mendota Pool north with aspirations of developing a barge traffic system from Tulare Lake to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

The first 40 miles of the canal was constructed from Mendota to the confluence of the Los Banos Creek.

During this time America was struggling with the post Civil War era and there was a financial panic which caused the cash flow to complete the barge traffic system to be discontinued. However, there was another man with a more practical vision for the area. By 1871, Henry Miller owned a large tract of land near the San Joaquin River and was fully developing all of the Riparian and Appropriative water rights on the San Joaquin River. Henry Miller purchased the Great Canal and expanded the facilities another 40 miles north. The Great Canal is still in use today and is the CCID Main Canal. This was at the genesis of development of water rights in California.

Fast forward to the post World War 1 America and the Federal Government had a vision of developing water supply to the eastside of the Central Valley. The vision was to construct a dam and reservoir on the San Joaquin River and divert flows into new facilities for delivery from Madera County south to Kern County. The major concern was Henry Miller had fully developed the water rights on the San Joaquin River. Ultimately, in 1939 Henry Miller sold the high flow water rights to the federal government under the “Purchase Contract”. The low flow water rights were retained by Henry Miller but through an agreement known as the “Exchange Contract”, the water right would not be exercised so long as the federal government delivered a substitute water supply. This exchange allowed for the development of surface water on the eastside of the valley.
77 ii
Ultimately, the Miller and Lux holdings were formed into four entities that maintained the historic water rights. The CCID was formed in 1951 and is the successor to the San Joaquin and Kings River Canal & Irrigation Company. The SLCC was formed in 1913. The CCC was formed in 1926. The Panoche Canal Company was incorporated in 1914 and was succeeded by the Firebaugh Canal Company in 1921. The Firebaugh Canal Company was succeeded by FCWD in 1988 and the district has remained the FCWD to date.

The groundwater around the City of Dos Palos, a Severely Disadvantaged Community (SDAC), was of poor quality. In 1936, the predecessor to CCID agreed to deliver surface water to the City of Dos Palos.

In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, CCID partnered with the local communities to jointly study and manage groundwater to ensure reliability for the communities that are completely dependent on groundwater. Those communities include: Newman (a DAC), Gustine (a DAC), Los Banos (a DAC), Firebaugh (a SDAC) and Mendota (a SDAC). The cities looked to CCID and the Exchange Contractors for a partnership to develop groundwater management strategies to promote long-term drinking water supply for these DAC’s. Each City met with the SJREC to discuss a collaborative effort to implement the requirements set forth in the SGMA. Each City determined that it was their independent best interest to form their own GSA. The SJREC GSA agreed to take the lead developing a joint GSP. Historically, CCID shared the costs to develop the groundwater studies around the City. Consistent with historical practice, the SJREC GSA agreed to offset the cost for the City section in the SJREC GSP through a 50% cost share and further reduce costs to the cities by offsetting expenses with the SGWP grant received by the SJREC GSA.

The SJREC also have a great partnership with Grassland Water District (GWD) and the state and federal refuge complex in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. Most of the water provided to the habitat in GWD and the refuges is delivered through the SJREC facilities. From 2009-2018, the SJRECWA wheeled about 200,000 acre-feet per year on average to the grassland area. The SJREC value the ecological importance of the Great Grassland Area and its significance to the Pacific Flyway for migratory waterfowl and the habitat it provides for endangered species. The Exchange Contractors are partnering with GWD on several local water resource projects to efficiently put more water to beneficial use in the area and help the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) meet the water supply requirements prescribed in the Central Valley Improvement Project (CVPIA).

The SJREC have been working on water resource management projects with the four counties in the service area; Stanislaus County, Merced County, Madera County and Fresno County. This long partnership working jointly on water resource management with the Cities, Counties and refuges have afforded this SJREC GSA a great relationship to cooperate and solve regional problems. The SJREC have a proven track record of consulting with these parties and developing a strategic vision that benefits the area holistically.

The Sustainability Goal is defined as the existence and implementation of one or more GSP’s that achieve sustainable groundwater management by identifying and causing the implementation of measures targeted to ensure that the applicable basin (or plan) is operated within its sustainable yield.

Sustainable Yield is defined as managing groundwater that culminates in the absence of undesirable results by 2040. The SJREC GSP Group will manage the sustainability goal consistent with the Sustainable Management Criteria described in Section 3 of this plan. 78 iii
ES2 BASIN SETTING
The genesis of drafting the Basin Setting for the SJREC GSP Group started in the 1990’s when the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority (SJRECWA) worked with Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates (KDSA) on to develop reports on groundwater conditions in and around the Exchange Contractors service area. The groundwater conditions were further studied with KDSA in collaboration with the cities within the Exchange Contractors service area. These reports are referenced in Section 6 of this plan.

The Cities (Newman, Gustine, Los Banos, Dos Palos, Firebaugh, Mendota) and Counties (Merced, Madera, Fresno) have land use planning authority and are each respectively members of this GSP. This plan, consistent with the SGMA, reaffirms the land use planning authority maintains with the appropriate City and County and is a continuation of historical collaboration to manage water resources.

The monitoring and management actions proposed in this plan have mostly been in place for years with coordination of the local agencies.

The Delta-Mendota Subbasin is part of the Central Valley Basin and extends from the town of Tranquility in the south up to the near the City of Tracy in the north and covers about 750,000 acres. The subbasin has two principal aquifers throughout the majority of the area separated by an aquitard termed the Corcoran Clay. The Upper Aquifer is typically the unconfined area above the Corcoran Clay. The Lower Aquifer is the confined area below the Corcoran Clay. The depth to the Corcoran Clay in this GSP ranges from a depth of 100 feet to 450 feet below ground surface. The Corcoran Clay is deepest to the south and pinches out near the western boundary of the plan area. The definable bottom of the basin is consistent with the 1973 United States Geologic Survey report defined as an electrical conductivity of 3,000 micromhos per centimeter at 25°C to delineate the regional base of the fresh groundwater in the San Joaquin Valley. The depth below ground to the definable bottom of the basin ranges from 300 feet to 800 feet deep.

The primary beneficial users of groundwater are for agriculture and municipal water supply. Additional users of groundwater include domestic water supply, industry use and Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDE). The lateral flow of groundwater in the upper aquifer generally flows to the east. In dry years there is a hydraulic divide in Stanislaus County and in Fresno County south of Dos Palos where water from the SJREC GSP Group flows to the west from the western boundary and flows east from the eastern boundary (refer to Appendix I for further details). In the lower aquifer groundwater typically flows east from the northern portion of the plan area. The southern portion of the plan area has lateral groundwater outflow from the lower aquifer to the south along the southwestern border and to the northeast from the eastern border. The lateral outflow of groundwater from the SJREC GSP area is indicative of sustainable pumping within the plan area. This is due to the significant recharge provided by the SJREC GSA. The primary sources of recharge include deep percolation of irrigation water and seepage from the unlined canals/ditches in the area. Additionally, some recharge is provided by precipitation and also recharge and recovery projects.

The SJREC hold senior water rights on the San Joaquin River. In 1939, the predecessors to the Central California Irrigation District, San Luis Canal Company, Firebaugh Canal Water District and Columbia Canal Company, collectively referred to as the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors (SJREC), entered into an agreement with the federal government to not exercise their water rights on the San Joaquin River in exchange for a substitute water supply currently delivered via the Delta-Mendota Canal. The contract is 79 iv
commonly referred to as the “Exchange Contract”. The primary water supply for this GSP is the surface water supply of the SJREC. The historic water budget for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin was defined as Water Years 2003-2012. This time period represented a near normal 10-year hydrologic cycle. The most accurate method to estimate changes in groundwater storage is to evaluate water level trends and specific yields for the upper aquifer. The SJREC GSP reviewed the results of the water budget analysis and compared to the measured changes in groundwater levels to double check the results of the computational water budget. The change in groundwater storage for the historic water budget averaged -13,000 acre-feet/year for the upper aquifer. The current water budget year was defined as Water Year 2013 and an overdraft of 37,000 acre-feet was observed. After the current water year, California entered into a record drought that had devastating impacts across the state. Even after going through the worst drought on record, the water levels in the SJREC service area had fully recovered by 2019 indicating full recovery of groundwater storage in the upper aquifer. The projected water budget followed sequentially after the current year and represents Water Years 2014-2070. Actual data was used in the projected water budget for years 2014-2017. To represent a long hydrologic cycle, historic data from Water years 1965-2017 were used as a baseline for conditions. Once the baseline was established, impacts from Climate Change and population growth were used to refine the projected modeled water budget. Additionally, existing projects and projects under development were analyzed.

The net result of the projected water budget shows no change in groundwater storage for the upper aquifer through the planning and implementation horizon (2070). The lower aquifer water budget has significantly fewer parameters than the upper aquifer. Primarily the water budget consists of: 1) extractions from the lower aquifer, 2) flow through the Corcoran Clay between the upper and lower aquifers, 3) lateral groundwater inflow and 4) lateral groundwater outflow. It should be noted that a confined aquifer cannot simply add these four parameters together to determine the change in storage.

The most accurate method to determine the change in groundwater storage of the lower aquifer is to determine how much subsidence has occurred below the Corcoran Clay which reduces the total volume of groundwater that can be stored. Inelastic land subsidence causes a permanent reduction in groundwater storage in the lower aquifer. As described in further detail later in this plan, the SJREC GSP have very minimal groundwater extractions that are well below the established sustainable yield for the subbasin. The change in groundwater storage for the historic, current, and projected water budgets are respectively -10,000 acre-feet/year, -24,000 acre-feet, and -5,000 acre-feet/year. Land subsidence outside the Delta-Mendota subbasin is causing impacts in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. The SJREC are working on several projects to mitigate land subsidence and further details are discussed in the plan.

The key assumption in the projected water budget is that areas causing significant land subsidence outside the SJREC GSP area, will begin to ramp down their pumping from the lower aquifer to the point where subsidence has been mitigated between the 2030 and 2035 GSP updates.

Establishment of groundwater management areas for the SJRECWA was recommended by KDSA in the 1997 AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan. That recommendation has carried through from the AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan to the SGMA required Groundwater Sustainability Plan. In an effort to avoid confusion, the historic management areas established in 1997 will be reclassified, this GSP will refer to those “management areas” as “monitoring zones”. This update is done in coordination with DWR staff to address deficiency #4. Removing the (11) management areas from the SJREC GSP will simplify review on how SMC’s will allow for sustainable groundwater management through the planning and implementation horizon.
80 v
ES3 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
The indication of sustainable groundwater management is defined as the absence of Undesirable Results. The path to sustainability starts with good data. The SJREC started collecting groundwater data in the 1960’s. With each passing decade, the SJREC sharpened their knowledge of the local groundwater conditions to the point where the area was operated under a groundwater management plan accompanied by annual groundwater assessments reports. With a broadening understanding of the groundwater conditions, the SJREC were monitoring the data and were able to implement groundwater management that was protective of the aquifers. Experience successfully managing groundwater leads to an understanding of the sustainability goal and how to maintain sustainable management criteria to less than significant and unreasonable.

The next step in the process is to define what constitutes significant and unreasonable. With good data and an understanding of the sustainability goal for the plan, the SJREC developed minimum thresholds to meet the goals set forth. The next step was to establish measurable objectives to provide operational flexibility to the beneficial users of groundwater, accounting for annual fluctuations of hydrology. With a good understanding of the operational bookends, the SJREC expanded their historic groundwater management strategies to comply with the SGMA.

Chronic lowering of groundwater is best managed through establishing water levels that trigger a management action to mitigate the risk of water levels declining to the minimum threshold. For the SJREC GSP, a trigger water level has been suggested to limit groundwater extractions leaving the management areasmonitoring zones when water levels have declined below the trigger level. This management was in place in the impacted areas during the drought of 2013-2016 and was successful in limiting aquifer impacts. By 2019, the water levels had fully recovered without any significant or unreasonable impacts.

The SJREC have managed and will continue to manage a reduction in groundwater storage consistent with the triggers established to keep water levels from chronically lowering. Furthermore, the SJREC recharge more surface water than they extract and have a positive impact on groundwater storage. The impacts of climate change have been included in this plan and will be monitored to maintain sustainability.

The Delta-Mendota Subbasin is unlikely to experience seawater intrusion and therefore sustainable management criteria have not been established for this sustainability indicator.

Degraded water quality is managed to mitigate the impacts of the migration of poor quality water from lands outside of this GSP. The Camp 13 area of CCID and FCWD have been actively mitigating the impacts of drainage water entering the service area. These projects principally either blend the poor quality water with surface, dispose of the drainage water to the San Joaquin River Improvement Project (SJRIP) or through groundwater elevation control of tile drainage lines to keep the root zone from being inundated by the drainage water.

In the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, inelastic land subsidence is caused by groundwater extractions from the lower aquifer. The SJREC are pumping well below the sustainable yield of the lower aquifer established for the subbasin. The SJREC have been impacted by groundwater pumping from outside its service area. 81 vi
The SJREC have not proposed to has developed measurable objectives and interim milestones to address depletions of interconnected surface water and groundwater. Rather than developing a plan to mitigate a problem after the problem has presented itself, the SJREC GSP group has proposed to work with the counties to develop well construction standards to fully mitigate the potential for wells installed near the San Joaquin River to have an impact to the surface water flows.

ES4 PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The SJREC has been actively managing groundwater conditions and independently have sustainable resource as described in Sections ES2 and ES3 above. The projects described in this plan are part of the SJRECWA Water Resources Plan. In 2012, the SJREC modeled the reliability to receive their surface water and decided that it was in their best interest, and the communities and habitat included in this GSP, to develop a water resource plan with the goal of having 50,000 acre-feet of local dispatchable storage. The goal would offset reductions in water supply during critical years under the Exchange Contract.

The Los Banos Creek Diversion Facility is a joint project with San Luis Water District (CVP contractor), Grasslands Water District (Refuge supply) and the SJREC. This project has an average annual yield of about 7,000 acre-feet and provides benefits to the Riparian corridor along the Los Banos Creek, improves wetland habitat, flood protection to the City of Los Banos, and water supply for the Riparian water users.

The Los Banos Creek Recharge and Recovery Project provides 7,000 acre-feet of water supply to the SJREC during a Critical year under the Exchange Contract. This project also benefits the riparian corridor in portions of the Los Banos Creek and provides a water quality benefit to the City of Los Banos (DAC).

In 2017, the SJREC recharged a significant amount of water as part of this project. One of the City of Los Banos supply wells is located near the creek and experienced a reduction in hexavalent chromium due to the recharge of better quality water from the project. Furthermore, the domestic well users in the area reached out to the SJREC and were pleased to see the water level in their wells become shallower which reduces the cost to pump the water for their use. These projects will recharge more water than will be extracted, contributing to an improved overall water budget.

The Los Banos Creek Storage Project is another joint project with San Luis Water District, Grasslands Water District and the SJREC. This project will increase the beneficial use of the Los Banos Creek Detention Reservoir by making releases during the flood control season and provide that water to the Riparian landowners. These releases will also increase the flood protection. The project will provide 8,000 acre-feet of water supply to the SJREC during a Critical year under the Exchange Contract. In all other years, the SJREC will make the 8,000 acre-feet stored in the reservoir available to Grasslands Water District and San Luis Water District.

The Orestimba Creek Recharge and Recovery Project is a joint project with Del Puerto Water District and provides about 7,500 acre-feet of water supply to the SJREC during a Critical Year under the Exchange Contract. This project also provides a flood protection benefit to the City of Newman (DAC). These projects will recharge more water than will be extracted, contributing to an improved overall water budget.

The BB Limited and Farmers Water District Recharge Projects both have the ability to capture and recharge flood flows which will help reduce the potential flooding impact to the City of Firebaugh (SDAC) 82 vii
during high flow events from either the San Joaquin River or Kings River through the Fresno Slough.

These projects will provide the SJREC about 8,000 acre-feet of water supply during a Critical year under the Exchange Contract. These projects will recharge more water than will be extracted, contributing to an improved overall water budget.

These projects combine to provide the SJREC withwill about 30,000 acre-feet of water supply during a Critical year under the Exchange Contract. This supply would have historically used groundwater to meet demand. The implementation of these projects will offset groundwater impacts during critically dry years by using stored water from these projects. The overall groundwater conditions are expected to improve as a result of these projects since some water will be left behind as a contribution to the local aquifers.

Another project the SJREC are participating in is the Red Top Area Subsidence Mitigation project. This project is helping to solve a regional problem that has impacted the SJREC due to groundwater extractions outside the SJREC service area and also outside of the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. The project includes the installation of recharge basins, facilities to capture and use flood flows and a pipeline under the San Joaquin River to deliver surface water to the Red Top area on the eastside of the river. Much of the area has recently used extractions from the lower aquifer to meet irrigation demands. This pumping has caused significant subsidence. The SJREC reached out to the landowners in the Red Top to area to assess the problem and develop a vision to mitigate subsidence. The general concept is to capture flood flows and either recharge the upper aquifer or directly apply the water to meet crop demand (in-lieu recharge). The recharged water will create underground storage that can be used in later years. The subsidence reduction is achieved by abandoning wells in the lower aquifer and drilling shallower wells to use the recharged water in the upper aquifer. In 2017, almost 50,000 acre-feet was recharged directly and in-lieu of pumping groundwater. In 2018, an additional 10,000 acre-feet of surface water was put to beneficial use on the ranch. The current project is about 50% complete and the subsidence rate at Sack Dam (SLCC headworks) has reduced from 0.5’/year to 0.15’/year. Once the project is complete, the subsidence is expected to reduce to background levels.

The SJREC also have several management actions that were in place prior to the SGMA. One valuable management is the Annual Groundwater Assessment Report that reviews groundwater conditions for the SJREC management areasmonitoring zones. Each year the report is updated to track and compare the current year conditions with historical observations. The report includes water level trends, water quality trends, well pumping volumes, and well pump tests. Kenneth D Schmidt and Associates (KDSA) prepares an analysis of the groundwater conditions for the current year and makes recommendations on specific groundwater management strategies to be implemented to maintain a healthy aquifer.

Three areas have historically been impacted during drought years; Management AreaMonitoring Zone A, Management AreaMonitoring Zone G and the Los Banos Creek Sub-area of Management AreaMonitoring Zone C. Water levels and groundwater impacts from these areas were below the established triggers in the recent drought, and it was recommended to limit extractions in these areas.

As a result, the water levels fully recovered by 2019 without any significant impacts to the beneficial users of groundwater.

The SJREC allow private well owners to pump into district facilities for credit. Groundwater pumped into district facilities must meet water quality standards and have overall limits on how much groundwater can be pumped while monitoring and mitigating damage to other beneficial users. Since 2000, about 83 viii
70% of the total pumping within the SJREC area has been subject to these policies and the recommendations based on the annual groundwater report. Additionally, during 2014 and 2015 about 90% of the total pumping was subject to these policies which are the years of highest stress on the local aquifers. This management has afforded the SJREC the ability to monitor and manage groundwater conditions each year, allowing KDSA to review potential problems and provide monitoring and management strategies to mitigate the potential problem.

The SJREC have periodically updated joint groundwater condition reports with the cities adjacent to the SJREC service area. These updates allow collaboration on impacts to groundwater as the cities demand on water increases to support impacts from climate change and population growth.

The SJREC have been managing groundwater quality impacts from drainage from the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project. The areas primarily impacted are the Firebaugh Canal Water District (FCWD) and the Camp 13 area within the Central California Irrigation District (CCID). The SGMA requires that a GSP shall not affect the ability of another GSP to achieve sustainability. In order to mitigate the water quality impacts from lands upslope, the SJREC have an active mitigation plan for the migration of shallow saline groundwater. Such projects include 1) point source control through installation of high efficiency irrigation systems and canal lining projects, 2) groundwater management including blending some poor quality groundwater, 3) installation of tile drainage systems along with a pipeline to dispose of the drain water on a reuse area and 4) potential groundwater treatment options. This management has been vital to maintain water levels below the effective root zone. Due to this poor quality groundwater migrating through the area, the cities of Firebaugh and Mendota (both are SDAC’s) have worked with the SJREC do develop urban water supply wells on the opposite East side of the San Joaquin River so they can supply safe and affordable drinking water to their residents.

Most of these projects and management actions have been in place prior to the enactment of SGMA.

The SJREC are committed to continue their partnership with local agencies to better manage water resources through collaborative and inclusive projects and management actions that can benefit the whole community. Groundwater recharged by the SJREC is used to offset overdraft from the GSA’s partnering in this plan.

ES5 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The development of the SJREC GSP is estimated to cost $700,000. The SJREC GSA participated in grant funding on behalf of all of the GSA’s in the SJREC GSP and have been awarded about $335,000 in Category 2 funding and also received Category 1 funding to offset costs to the Severely Disadvantaged Communities. The SJREC have been sustainably managing groundwater for decades and will continue to implement projects and management actions that will enhance the sustainability of the local aquifers and help neighboring GSA’s and GSP Groups achieve and maintain sustainability. 84 ix
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... i ES1..................................................................................................................................... INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... i ES2 ..................................................................................................................................... BASIN SETTING ................................................................................................................................................................. iii ES3............................................................................................... SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT CRITERIA ............................................................................................................................................................... viv ES4..............................................................................................PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ................................................................................................................................................................. vi ES5.......................................................................................................................PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................................................................................... viii

1.0 INTRODUCTION:................................................................................................................................1

1.1 ............................................................ Purpose of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP or Plan) ..................................................................................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Key Definitions......................................................................................................................2

1.1.2 Acronyms ..............................................................................................................................3

1.2 ................................................................................................................................. Sustainability Goal ..................................................................................................................................................................4

1.3 ..............................................................................................................................Agency Information ..................................................................................................................................................................5

1.3.1 SJREC GSA Information .........................................................................................................5

1.3.2 City of Newman GSA Information.........................................................................................8

1.3.3 City of Gustine GSA Information...........................................................................................9

1.3.4 City of Los Banos GSA Information .....................................................................................10

1.3.5 City of Dos Palos GSA Information......................................................................................10

1.3.6 City of Firebaugh GSA Information .....................................................................................11

1.3.7 City of Mendota GSA Information.......................................................................................12

1.3.8 Turner Island Water District-2 GSA Information.................................................................12

1.3.9 County of Madera-3 GSA Information................................................................................13

1.3.10 Portion of Merced County – Delta-Mendota GSA Information ..........................................13

1.3.11 Portion of Fresno County – Management Area B GSA Information ...................................14

1.4 ...................................................................................................................................GSP Organization ................................................................................................................................................................14

1.4.1 Description of how the GSP is organized............................................................................14 85 x

1.4.2 Preparation Checklist for GSP Submittal.............................................................................17

2.0 PLAN AREA AND BASIN SETTING.....................................................................................................23

2.1 ..................................................................................................................Description of the Plan Area ................................................................................................................................................................23

2.1.1 Description of Jurisdictional Areas and Other Features .....................................................23

2.1.2 Water Resources Monitoring and Management Programs................................................35

2.1.3 Land Use Elements or Topic Categories of Applicable General Plans.................................36

2.1.4 Additional GSP Elements.....................................................................................................40

2.1.5 Notice and Communication ................................................................................................49

2.2 .......................................................................................................................................... Basin Setting ................................................................................................................................................................52

2.2.1 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model.......................................................................................53

2.2.2 Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions................................................................53

2.2.3 Water Budget Information..................................................................................................53

2.2.4 Management Areas.............................................................................................................89

2.2.5 Combined Water Budgets for the SJREC GSP Group ..........................................................91

3.0 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT CRITERIA.........................................................................................96

3.1 ................................................................................................................................. Sustainability Goal ................................................................................................................................................................96

3.1.1 Upper Aquifer Sustainable Yield .....................................................................................9796

3.1.2 Lower Aquifer Sustainable Yield .....................................................................................9796

3.2 ..........................................................................................................................Measurable Objectives ............................................................................................................................................................9897

3.2.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels.......................................................................9897

3.2.2 Reduction of Groundwater Storage................................................................................9997

3.2.3 Seawater Intrusion..........................................................................................................9997

3.2.4 Degraded Water Quality .................................................................................................9998

3.2.5 Land Subsidence............................................................................................................10098

3.2.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water...............................................................10098

3.3 .............................................................................................................................Minimum Thresholds ..........................................................................................................................................................10098

3.3.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels.....................................................................10098

3.3.2 Reduction of Groundwater Storage............................................................................105102

3.3.3 Seawater Intrusion......................................................................................................105102 86 xi

3.3.4 Degraded Water Quality .............................................................................................106102

3.3.5 Land Subsidence..........................................................................................................107103

3.3.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water.............................................................111106

3.4 ...............................................................................................................................Undesirable Results ........................................................................................................................................................113108

3.4.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels...................................................................113108

3.4.2 Reduction of Groundwater Storage............................................................................113108

3.4.3 Seawater Intrusion......................................................................................................114108

3.4.4 Degraded Water Quality .............................................................................................114109

3.4.5 Land Subsidence..........................................................................................................114109

3.4.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water.............................................................115109

3.5 .............................................................................................................................Monitoring Network ........................................................................................................................................................115109

3.5.1 Description of Monitoring Network............................................................................115109

3.5.2 Monitoring Protocols for Data Collection and Monitoring.........................................116111

3.5.3 Representative Monitoring.........................................................................................116111

3.5.4 Assessment and Improvement of Monitoring Network .............................................117112

4.0 PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS TO ACHIEVE SUSTAINABILITY GOAL......................119113

4.1 .................................................................................................................................................Projects ........................................................................................................................................................119113

4.1.1 Los Banos Creek Diversion Facility..............................................................................119113

4.1.2 Los Banos Creek Recharge and Recovery ...................................................................120114

4.1.3 Los Banos Creek Storage Project.................................................................................120114

4.1.4 Orestimba Creek Recharge and Recovery...................................................................122116

4.1.5 BB Limited Recharge and Recovery ............................................................................123117

4.1.6 Farmers Water District Recharge and Recovery.........................................................123117

4.1.7 Summary of Active Water Resource Projects 1-6.......................................................124118

4.1.8 Red Top Area Subsidence Mitigation..........................................................................124118

4.2 ............................................................................................................................ Management Actions ........................................................................................................................................................125119

4.2.1 Annual Groundwater Assessment Report ..................................................................125119

4.2.2 Private Well Pumping for Credits................................................................................126120

4.2.3 Joint Groundwater Conditions Studies Between CCID and Neighboring Cities..........126120

4.2.4 Mitigation for Migration of Shallow Saline Groundwater ..........................................127121 87 xii

4.3 ........................................................................ Implementation of Projects and Management Actions ........................................................................................................................................................127121

5.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION.........................................................................................................129123

5.1 .................................................................................................Estimate of GSP Implementation Costs ........................................................................................................................................................129123

5.2 ................................................................................................................. Schedule of Implementation ........................................................................................................................................................129123

5.3 ...................................................................................................................................Annual Reporting ........................................................................................................................................................129123

5.4 .............................................................................................................................. Periodic Evaluations ........................................................................................................................................................129123

6.0 REFERENCES AND TECHNICAL STUDIES ..................................................................................130124

7.0 CITY OF NEWMAN GSA AREA........................................................................................................133127

7.1 .......................................................................................................... Background for City of Newman ........................................................................................................................................................133127

7.2 ...............................................................................................Water Budgets for the City of Newman ........................................................................................................................................................133127

7.2.1 Historic Water Budget for the City of Newman..........................................................133127

7.2.2 Current Water Budget for the City of Newman..........................................................135129

7.2.3 Projected Water Budget for the City of Newman.......................................................135129

7.3 .................................................................. Sustainable Management Criteria for the City of Newman ........................................................................................................................................................137131

7.3.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels...................................................................137131

7.3.2 Reduction in Groundwater Storage ............................................................................137131

7.3.3 Seawater Intrusion......................................................................................................137131

7.3.4 Degraded Water Quality .............................................................................................137131

7.3.5 Land Subsidence..........................................................................................................137131

7.3.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water.............................................................138132

7.4 ................................................................Projects and Management Actions for the City of Newman ........................................................................................................................................................138132

7.5 ...................................................................................... Plan Implementation for the City of Newman ........................................................................................................................................................138132

8.0 CITY OF GUSTINE GSA AREA..........................................................................................................140134

8.1 ............................................................................................................ Background for City of Gustine ........................................................................................................................................................140134 88 xiii

8.2 ................................................................................................. Water Budgets for the City of Gustine ........................................................................................................................................................140134

8.2.1 Historic Water Budget for the City of Gustine............................................................140134

8.2.2 Current Water Budget for the City of Gustine............................................................142136

8.2.3 Projected Water Budget for the City of Gustine.........................................................142136

8.3 .................................................................... Sustainable Management Criteria for the City of Gustine ........................................................................................................................................................144138

8.3.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels...................................................................144138

8.3.2 Reduction in Groundwater Storage ............................................................................144138

8.3.3 Seawater Intrusion......................................................................................................144138

8.3.4 Degraded Water Quality .............................................................................................144138

8.3.5 Land Subsidence..........................................................................................................144138

8.3.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water.............................................................145139

8.4 ..................................................................Projects and Management Actions for the City of Gustine ........................................................................................................................................................145139

8.5 ........................................................................................ Plan Implementation for the City of Gustine ........................................................................................................................................................145139

9.0 CITY OF LOS BANOS GSA AREA .....................................................................................................147141

9.1 .........................................................................................................Background for City of Los Banos ........................................................................................................................................................147141

9.2 ..............................................................................................Water Budgets for the City of Los Banos ........................................................................................................................................................148142

9.2.1 Historic Water Budget for the City of Los Banos ........................................................148142

9.2.2 Current Water Budget for the City of Los Banos ........................................................149143

9.2.3 Projected Water Budget for the City of Los Banos.....................................................149143

9.3 .................................................................Sustainable Management Criteria for the City of Los Banos ........................................................................................................................................................151145

9.3.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels...................................................................151145

9.3.2 Reduction in Groundwater Storage ............................................................................151145

9.3.3 Seawater Intrusion......................................................................................................151145

9.3.4 Degraded Water Quality .............................................................................................151145

9.3.5 Land Subsidence..........................................................................................................152146

9.3.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water.............................................................152146

9.4 .............................................................. Projects and Management Actions for the City of Los Banos ........................................................................................................................................................152146 89 xiv

9.5 .....................................................................................Plan Implementation for the City of Los Banos ........................................................................................................................................................153147

10.0 CITY OF Dos Palos GSA AREA ......................................................................................................154148

10.1 ....................................................................................................... Background for City of Dos Palos ........................................................................................................................................................154148

10.2 ............................................................................................ Water Budgets for the City of Dos Palos ........................................................................................................................................................154148

10.2.1 Historic Water Budget for the City of Dos Palos.........................................................154148

10.2.2 Current Water Budget for the City of Dos Palos.........................................................156150

10.2.3 Projected Water Budget for the City of Dos Palos......................................................156150

10.3 ............................................................... Sustainable Management Criteria for the City of Dos Palos ........................................................................................................................................................158152

10.3.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels...................................................................158152

10.3.2 Reduction in Groundwater Storage ............................................................................158152

10.3.3 Seawater Intrusion......................................................................................................158152

10.3.4 Degraded Water Quality .............................................................................................158152

10.3.5 Land Subsidence..........................................................................................................158152

10.3.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water.............................................................158152

10.4 .............................................................Projects and Management Actions for the City of Dos Palos ........................................................................................................................................................158152

10.5 ................................................................................... Plan Implementation for the City of Dos Palos ........................................................................................................................................................159153

11.0 CITY OF FIREBAUGH GSA AREA...................................................................................................160154

11.1 .......................................................................................................Background for City of Firebaugh ........................................................................................................................................................160154

11.2 ............................................................................................Water Budgets for the City of Firebaugh ........................................................................................................................................................160154

11.2.1 Historic Water Budget for the City of Firebaugh ........................................................160154

11.2.2 Current Water Budget for the City of Firebaugh ........................................................162156

11.2.3 Projected Water Budget for the City of Firebaugh .....................................................162156

11.3 ...............................................................Sustainable Management Criteria for the City of Firebaugh ........................................................................................................................................................164158

11.3.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels...................................................................164158

11.3.2 Reduction in Groundwater Storage ............................................................................164158

11.3.3 Seawater Intrusion......................................................................................................164158 90 xv

11.3.4 Degraded Water Quality .............................................................................................164158

11.3.5 Land Subsidence..........................................................................................................165159

11.3.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water.............................................................165159

11.4 ............................................................Projects and Management Actions for the City of Firebaugh ........................................................................................................................................................165159

11.5 ...................................................................................Plan Implementation for the City of Firebaugh ........................................................................................................................................................165159

12.0 CITY OF MENDOTA GSA AREA.....................................................................................................167161

12.1 ........................................................................................................Background for City of Mendota ........................................................................................................................................................167161

12.2 .............................................................................................Water Budgets for the City of Mendota ........................................................................................................................................................167161

12.2.1 Historic Water Budget for the City of Mendota..........................................................167161

12.2.2 Current Water Budget for the City of Mendota..........................................................169163

12.2.3 Projected Water Budget for the City of Mendota ......................................................169163

12.3 ................................................................Sustainable Management Criteria for the City of Mendota ........................................................................................................................................................171165

12.3.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels...................................................................171165

12.3.2 Reduction in Groundwater Storage ............................................................................171165

12.3.3 Seawater Intrusion......................................................................................................171165

12.3.4 Degraded Water Quality .............................................................................................171165

12.3.5 Land Subsidence..........................................................................................................172166

12.3.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water.............................................................172166

12.4 ............................................................. Projects and Management Actions for the City of Mendota ........................................................................................................................................................172166

12.5 ....................................................................................Plan Implementation for the City of Mendota ........................................................................................................................................................172166

13.0 TURNER ISLAND WATER DISTRICT – 2 GSA AREA .......................................................................174168

13.1 ..................................................................................... Background for Turner Island Water District ........................................................................................................................................................174168

13.2 ..........................................................................Water Budgets for the Turner Island Water District ........................................................................................................................................................174168

13.2.1 Historic Water Budget for the Turner Island Water District.......................................174168

13.2.2 Current Water Budget for the Turner Island Water District.......................................175169

13.2.3 Projected Water Budget for the Turner Island Water District....................................175169 91 xvi

13.3 ............................................. Sustainable Management Criteria for the Turner Island Water District ........................................................................................................................................................178172

13.3.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels...................................................................178172

13.3.2 Reduction in Groundwater Storage ............................................................................178172

13.3.3 Seawater Intrusion......................................................................................................178172

13.3.4 Degraded Water Quality .............................................................................................178172

13.3.5 Land Subsidence..........................................................................................................178172

13.3.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water.............................................................179172

13.4 ...........................................Projects and Management Actions for the Turner Island Water District ........................................................................................................................................................179173

13.5 ................................................................. Plan Implementation for the Turner Island Water District ........................................................................................................................................................179173

14.0 MADERA COUNTY-3 GSA AREA...................................................................................................180174

14.1 .....................................................................................................Background for County of Madera ........................................................................................................................................................180174

14.2 ..........................................................................................Water Budgets for the County of Madera ........................................................................................................................................................180174

14.2.1 Historic Water Budget for the County of Madera ......................................................180174

14.2.2 Current Water Budget for the County of Madera ......................................................181175

14.2.3 Projected Water Budget for the County of Madera ...................................................181175

14.3 .............................................................Sustainable Management Criteria for the County of Madera ........................................................................................................................................................184178

14.3.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels...................................................................184178

14.3.2 Reduction in Groundwater Storage ............................................................................184178

14.3.3 Seawater Intrusion......................................................................................................184178

14.3.4 Degraded Water Quality .............................................................................................184178

14.3.5 Land Subsidence..........................................................................................................184178

14.3.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water.............................................................185179

14.4 .......................................................... Projects and Management Actions for the County of Madera ........................................................................................................................................................185179

14.5 .................................................................................Plan Implementation for the County of Madera ........................................................................................................................................................185179

15.0 PORTION OF MERCED COUNTY DELTA-MENDOTA GSA AREA....................................................186180

15.1 ..................................................................................................... Background for County of Merced ........................................................................................................................................................186180 92 xvii

15.2 ..........................................................................................Water Budgets for the County of Merced ........................................................................................................................................................186180

15.2.1 Historic Water Budget for the County of Merced.......................................................186180

15.2.2 Current Water Budget for the County of Merced.......................................................187181

15.2.3 Projected Water Budget for the County of Merced ...................................................187181

15.3 .............................................................Sustainable Management Criteria for the County of Merced ........................................................................................................................................................190184

15.3.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels...................................................................190184

15.3.2 Reduction in Groundwater Storage ............................................................................190184

15.3.3 Seawater Intrusion......................................................................................................190184

15.3.4 Degraded Water Quality .............................................................................................190184

15.3.5 Land Subsidence..........................................................................................................191185

15.3.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water.............................................................191185

15.4 .......................................................... Projects and Management Actions for the County of Merced ........................................................................................................................................................191185

15.5 .................................................................................Plan Implementation for the County of Merced ........................................................................................................................................................191185

16.0 PORTION OF FRESNO COUNTY MANAGEMENT AREA B GSA AREA............................................192186

16.1 .......................................................................................................Background for County of Fresno ........................................................................................................................................................192186

16.2 ........................................................................................... Water Budgets for the County of Fresno ........................................................................................................................................................192186

16.2.1 Historic Water Budget for the County of Fresno ........................................................192186

16.2.2 Current Water Budget for the County of Fresno ........................................................193187

16.2.3 Projected Water Budget for the County of Fresno.....................................................193187

16.3 .............................................................. Sustainable Management Criteria for the County of Fresno ........................................................................................................................................................196190

16.3.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels...................................................................196190

16.3.2 Reduction in Groundwater Storage ............................................................................196190

16.3.3 Seawater Intrusion......................................................................................................196190

16.3.4 Degraded Water Quality .............................................................................................196190

16.3.5 Land Subsidence..........................................................................................................196190

16.3.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water.............................................................197191

16.4 ............................................................Projects and Management Actions for the County of Fresno ........................................................................................................................................................197191 93 xviii

16.5 ...................................................................................Plan Implementation for the County of Fresno ........................................................................................................................................................197191 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix A. ........................................................................................................................ Senate Bill 372 ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix B. ...............Delta-Mendota Subbasin Common Chapter (including Coordination Agreement) ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix C. .......................................Cost Sharing Agreement – Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix D. ..........................................................................................Notice of Intent to Develop a GSP ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix E. .............................................................................................................List of Public Meetings ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix F. ..........................................................................................................List of Interested Parties ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix G......................................................................Delta-Mendota Subbasin Communications Plan ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix H. ...............................................................................................................Comments Received ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix I. ...Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and Groundwater Conditions for the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Service Area GSP.........................................................................................198192 Appendix J. ................................................................................................................................ HCM BMP ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix K. .................................................................................................................Water Budget BMP ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix L. .........................................................................................................................Modeling BMP ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix M. ............................................................................................................................... SMC BMP ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix N. .....................................................................................................Monitoring Protocols BMP ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix O. ...................................................................................................... Monitoring Network BMP ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix P. ....................................................................................... Grassland Bypass Project Summary ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix Q. .................Update on Groundwater Conditions in the Newman Sub-Area of the SJREC GSP ........................................................................................................................................................198192 94 xix
Appendix R. ...................Update on Groundwater Conditions in the Gustine Sub-Area of the SJREC GSP ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix S.Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model, Groundwater Conditions, and Water Budget for the City of Los Banos GSA.............................................................................................................................198192 Appendix T. ...................................Groundwater Conditions in the Dos Palos Sub-Area of the SJREC GSP ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix U.............................Updated Groundwater Conditions in the Vicinity of the City of Firebaugh ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix V.................. Update on Groundwater Conditions in the Mendota Sub-Area of the SJREC GSP ........................................................................................................................................................198192 Appendix W....................................Groundwater Conditions in the Turner Island Water District – 2 GSA ........................................................................................................................................................198192 95 xx
List of Figures
Figure 1 - Delta-Mendota Subbasin Governance Structure........................................................................16 Figure 2 - Map of GSA's in the SJREC GSP Group........................................................................................26 Figure 3 - Jurisdictional Boundaries of State and Federal Lands................................................................28 Figure 4 - 2014 Land Use From CADWR......................................................................................................31 Figure 5 - Well Density Map for Domestic Wells........................................................................................33 Figure 6 - Well Density Map for Production Wells .....................................................................................34 Figure 7 - 2018 Land Use Zoning Codes......................................................................................................38 Figure 8 - Vegetation Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems .....................................................................47 Figure 9 - Wetland Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems.........................................................................48 Figure 10 – Historic Free-Body Diagram for Surface Water Interaction.....................................................62 Figure 11 – Historic Free-Body Diagram for Groundwater Interaction ......................................................63 Figure 12 – Annual Historic Change in Groundwater Storage Graph .........................................................64 Figure 13 - Cumulative Historic Change in Groundwater Storage Graph...................................................65 Figure 14 - Projected Free-Body Diagram for Surface Water Interaction ..................................................85 Figure 15 - Projected Free-Body Diagram for Groundwater Interaction....................................................85 Figure 16 - Annual Projected Change in Groundwater Storage..................................................................88 Figure 17 - Cumulative Projected Change in Groundwater Storage...........................................................88 Figure 18 - Annual Historic Change in Groundwater Storage for SJREC GSP Group...................................92 Figure 19 - Cumulative Historic Change in Groundwater Storage for SJREC GSP Group............................92 Figure 20 - Annual Projected Change in Groundwater Storage for SJREC GSP Group ...............................95 Figure 21 - Cumulative Projected Change in Groundwater Storage for SJREC GSP Group ........................95 Figure 22 - Monitor Locations for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels and Groundwater Quality 104 Figure 23 - Monitoring Sites for Land Subsidence ....................................................................................110 Figure 24 - Monitoring Sites for Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water........................................112 Figure 25 - SAGBI Map ..............................................................................................................................128 Figure 26 - City Water Use Diagram..........................................................................................................134 Figure 27 - City Water Use Diagram..........................................................................................................142 Figure 28 - City Water Use Diagram..........................................................................................................149 Figure 29 - City Water Use Diagram..........................................................................................................156 Figure 30 - City Water Use Diagram..........................................................................................................162 Figure 31 - City Water Use Diagram..........................................................................................................169 96 xxi
List of Tables
Table 1 – Preparation Checklist for GSP Submittal.....................................................................................22 Table 2 - GSA's in Subbasins Adjacent to the Delta-Mendota Subbasin.....................................................24 Table 3 - GSA's in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin by GSP Group..................................................................25 Table 4 – Existing General Plans within the SJREC GSP Boundary..............................................................37 Table 5 - Well Setback Requirements from Potential Contamination Sources..........................................41 Table 6 - Well Annular Seal Depths.............................................................................................................42 Table 7 - Surface Seal Standards.................................................................................................................42 Table 8 – Summary of setback distances for wellhead protection.............................................................45 Table 9 - WY 2007-2017 Mean Monthly Temperatures (°F).......................................................................54 Table 10 - San Joaquin Valley Water Year Type Index ................................................................................56 Table 11 – Historic Surface Water Allocation and Delivery ........................................................................57 Table 12 – Historic Groundwater Extractions.............................................................................................58 Table 13 – Historic Precipitation.................................................................................................................58 Table 14 – Historic Stream Recharge..........................................................................................................59 Table 15 – Historic Total Surface Water Outflow .......................................................................................60 Table 16 – Historic Evapotranspiration (Consumptive Use).......................................................................61 Table 17 – Historic Lateral Groundwater Flows..........................................................................................62 Table 18 – Change in Groundwater Storage for the Historical Water Budget ...........................................64 Table 19 - Current Surface Water Allocation and Delivery.........................................................................65 Table 20 - Current Groundwater Extractions..............................................................................................65 Table 21 - Current Precipitation..................................................................................................................66 Table 22 - Current Stream Recharge...........................................................................................................66 Table 23 - Current Total Surface Water Outflow........................................................................................66 Table 24 - Current Evapotranspiration (Consumptive Use)........................................................................66 Table 25 - Current Lateral Groundwater Flows ..........................................................................................66 Table 26 - Change in Groundwater Storage for the Current Water Budget...............................................67 Table 27 - Surrogate Water Years...............................................................................................................69 Table 28 - Projected Surface Water Delivery..............................................................................................71 Table 29- Projected Groundwater Extractions ...........................................................................................73 Table 30 - Projected Precipitation ..............................................................................................................75 Table 31 - Projected Stream and Intentional Recharge..............................................................................78 Table 32 - Projected Total Surface Outflow................................................................................................80 Table 33 - Projected Evapotranspiration ....................................................................................................82 Table 34 - Projected Later Groundwater Flows..........................................................................................84 Table 35 - Change in Groundwater Storage for the Projected Water Budget............................................87 Table 36 - Combined SJREC GSP Group Historic Water Budget..................................................................91 Table 37 - Combined SJREC GSP Group Current Water Budget..................................................................93 Table 38 - Combined SJREC GSP Group Projected Water Budget ..............................................................95 Table 39 - Water Level Triggers for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels........................................103 Table 40 – SMC’s for Groundwater Quality .............................................................................................107 Table 41 - City of Newman Historic Water Budget Data ..........................................................................134 Table 42 - City of Newman Current Water Budget Data ..........................................................................135 Table 43 – City of Newman Projected Water Budget Data ......................................................................136 97 xxii
Table 44 - City of Gustine Historic Water Budget Data.............................................................................141 Table 45 - City of Gustine Current Water Budget Data.............................................................................142 Table 46 - City of Gustine Projected Water Budget Data .........................................................................143 Table 47 - City of Los Banos Historic Water Budget Data.........................................................................148 Table 48 - City of Los Banos Current Water Budget Data.........................................................................149 Table 49 – City of Los Banos Projected Water Budget Data.....................................................................150 Table 50 – City of Dos Palos Historic Water Budget .................................................................................155 Table 51 - City of Dos Palos Current Water Budget Data .........................................................................156 Table 52 – City of Dos Palos Projected Water Budget Data .....................................................................157 Table 53 - City of Firebaugh Historic Water Budget Data.........................................................................161 Table 54 - City of Firebaugh Current Water Budget Data.........................................................................162 Table 55 – City of Firebaugh Projected Water Budget Data.....................................................................163 Table 56 - City of Mendota Historic Water Budget Data ..........................................................................168 Table 57 - City of Mendota Current Water Budget Data ..........................................................................169 Table 58 – City of Mendota Projected Water Budget Data ......................................................................170 Table 59 - TIWD Historic Water Budget Data ...........................................................................................175 Table 60 - TIWD Current Water Budget Data ...........................................................................................175 Table 61 – TIWD Projected Water Budget Water Year Data ....................................................................176 Table 62 - TIWD Projected Water Budget.................................................................................................177 Table 63 - County of Madera Historic Water Budget Data .......................................................................181 Table 64 - County of Madera Current Water Budget Data.......................................................................181 Table 65 – County of Madera Projected Water Budget Water Year Data................................................182 Table 66 - County of Madera Projected Water Budget ............................................................................183 Table 67 - County of Merced Historic Water Budget Data .......................................................................187 Table 68 - County of Merced Current Water Budget Data .......................................................................187 Table 69 – County of Merced Projected Water Budget Water Year Data................................................188 Table 70 - County of Merced Projected Water Budget ............................................................................189 Table 71 - County of Fresno Historic Water Budget Data.........................................................................193 Table 72 - County of Fresno Current Water Budget Data.........................................................................193 Table 73 – County of Fresno Projected Water Budget Water Year Data..................................................194 Table 74 - County of Fresno Projected Water Budget..............................................................................195 98 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION:

This section describes the purpose of this GSP and how each GSA will work together to meet the sustainability goal of this plan and the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. Some background information for each GSA is provided detailing the organization and management structure along with the legal and financial authority to implement this plan. DWR provided a checklist for GSP submittal which is included at the end of this section for reference.

1.1 Purpose of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP or Plan) In 1914, the California Water Commission Act was enacted to create a state water commission for control of appropriation and use of surface water. California recognizes a dual doctrine system that allows both Riparian and Appropriative water rights. Appropriated water rights have seniority based on “first in time, first in right”. One-hundred years after enacting the Water Commission Act, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., signed a group of three bills collectively known as the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) into law in September 2014. SGMA established a framework for local agencies to develop a Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) to sustainably manage groundwater through implementation of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). All high and medium priority basins, as defined in the Department of Water Resources Bulletin 118, must have complete GSA coverage by June 30, 2017. Failure to have full GSA coverage by the deadline allows the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) to deem that basin “probationary” and assess non-compliance fees to fund the review of annual groundwater extractions and the development of an interim plan for the basin. Critically overdrafted high and medium priority basins must be managed under a GSP by January 31, 2020. If a basin is not managed under a GSP or the GSP is inadequate to achieve sustainability, the State Board may designate that basin as probationary and assume the management responsibility. The goal of SGMA is to have sustainably managed groundwater within 20 years of the initial GSP submittal and maintain sustainability for a 50-year planning and implementation horizon.

Each basin must submit annual progress reports to DWR for analysis. An updated GSP must be submitted to DWR starting in 2025 and every year thereafter that ends in a (0) or a (5).

DWR is responsible for developing regulations to modify groundwater basin boundaries. California’s existing groundwater basins and subbasins are described in DWR’s Bulletin 118 and have been revised based on the best available information during each update. The Basin Boundary Modification (BBM) process builds off historical knowledge of the basin and provides a mechanism to modify boundaries based on new scientific information and local groundwater management knowledge to improve coordination and promote statewide sustainable groundwater management. The legislative intent and fundamental goal of SGMA is for groundwater to be managed locally. Successful groundwater management may, at times, require a BBM based on scientific and/or jurisdictional justification. A scientific modification is based on the geologic or hydrologic conditions that define that basin. A jurisdictional modification is based on coordination of local agencies t implement strategies towards sustainable groundwater management.

Local groundwater management is best achieved with involvement of stakeholders. Outreach is critical for successful implementation of the SGMA. Each GSP shall include a summary of information relating to notification and communication by the GSA to other stakeholders. Some stakeholders include:
99 2
• State, Federal and Tribal Governments: Governor's Administration, Legislature and key State and federal agencies, tribes
• Regional and local governments and agencies: Water and groundwater management agencies and districts; land use entities such as counties and cities • Other stakeholders: Non-governmental organizations representing water, groundwater, environmental, environmental justice, and agriculture interests as well as universities • The public
SGMA requires that each basin prepare a GSP(s) consistent with the goals of the legislation. All of the GSA’s in a basin must coordinate implementation efforts to comply with the GSP regulations. As of 2018, DWR published the first six Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to provide guidance to help GSA’s develop essential elements of a GSP. BMP refers to a practice, or combination of practices, that are designed to achieve sustainable groundwater management and have been determined to be technologically and economically effective, practicable, and based on best available science. A GSA may use BMP’s established by DWR or develop their own BMP’s. BMP’s will provide a consistent framework on data collection and management for the basin. The following is a list of currently available DWR published BMP’s.
• BMP 1 – Monitoring Protocols Standards and Sites
• BMP 2 – Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps • BMP 3 – Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
• BMP 4 – Water Budget
• BMP 5 – Modeling
• BMP 6 – Sustainable Management Criteria (DRAFT)
The SGMA established six Undesirable Results that, if applicable, must be sustainably managed. Triggers and thresholds may be established to prevent the occurrence of Undesirable Results in the basin. Those Undesirable Results include:
• Chronic lowering of groundwater levels indicating a significant and unreasonable depletion of supply if continued over the planning and implementation horizon. • Significant and unreasonable reduction of groundwater storage. • Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion.
• Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality, including the migration of contaminant plumes that impair water supplies
• Significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses.
• Depletions of interconnected surface water that has significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.

1.1.1 Key Definitions
• Refer to California Code of Regulations, Title 23. Waters, Division 2. Department of Water Resources, Chapter 1.5 Groundwater Management, Subchapter 2. Groundwater Sustainability Plans, Article 2. Definitions, § 351. Definitions.
• GSP Group – Collection of GSA’s working together to prepare a Groundwater Sustainability Plan 100
3 • San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors GSP Group – The following group of GSA’s working together to develop a GSP in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin: SJREC GSA, City of Newman GSA, City of Gustine GSA, City of Los Banos GSA, City of Dos Palos GSA, City of Firebaugh GSA, City of Mendota GSA, TIWD GSA, Madera County – 3 GSA, Portion of Merced County – Delta-Mendota GSA, and Portion of Fresno County Management Area B GSA • Shallow Zone/Aquifer – locally termed aquifer above the A-Clay • Deep Zone/Aquifer – locally termed aquifer between the A-Clay and Corcoran Clay

1.1.2 Acronyms
• AB 3030 – 1992 California Assembly Bill 3030
• AWMP – Agriculture Water Management Plan
• BMP – Best Management Practices
• CASGEM – California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring • CCC – Columbia Canal Company
• CCF – Climate Change Factors
• CCID – Central California Irrigation District
• CDFW – California Department of Fish and Wildlife
• CFS – Cubic Feet per Second
• CVP – Central Valley Project
• CVRWQCB – Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board • DAC – Disadvantaged Community
• DMC – Delta-Mendota Canal
• DPDD – Dos Palos Drainage District
• DPWD – Del Puerto Water District
• DWR – California Department of Water Resources
• ET – Evapotranspiration
• ETc – Total Crop Evapotranspiration
• ETiw – Crop Evapotranspiration of Irrigation Water
• ETmisc – Miscellaneous Evapotranspiration including; canal evaporation, consumptive use of phreatophytes, etc.
• ETprecip – Evapotranspiration from precipitation
• FCWD – Firebaugh Canal Water District
• FNF – Full Natural Flow
• GDD – Gustine Drainage District
• GDE – Groundwater Dependent Ecosystem
• GPM – Gallons Per Minute
• GRCD – Grassland Resource Conservation District
• GSA – Groundwater Sustainability Agency
• GSP – Groundwater Sustainability Plan
• GWD – Grassland Water District
• GWMP – Groundwater Management Plan
• HCM – Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
• HMRD – Henry Miller Reclamation District
101
4 • ILRP – Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program
• IRWMP – Integrated Regional Water Management Plan
• JPA – Joint Powers Authority
• KDSA – Kenneth D. Schmidt & Associates
• LSCE – Luhdorff and Scalmanini Consulting Engineers
• MAF – Million Acre-Feet
• KDSA – Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates
• NASA JPL – National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsions Laboratory • P&P – Provost and Pritchard Consulting Group
• SAGBI – Soil Agriculture Groundwater Banking Index
• SB 372 – 2017 California Senate Bill 372
• SGMA – Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
• SGWP – Sustainable Groundwater Planning
• SJREC – San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors
• SJREC GSA – San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Groundwater Sustainability Agency • SJRECWA – San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority or Exchange Contractors • SJRIP – San Joaquin River Improvement Project
• SJRRP – San Joaquin River Restoration Program
• SLCC – San Luis Canal Company
• SLDMWA – San Luis and Delta-Mendota Water Authority
• SLWD – San Luis Water District
• SMC – Sustainable Management Criteria
• SWP – State Water Project
• SWRCB – State Water Resources Control Board
• TAF – Thousand Acre-Feet
• TIWD – Turner Island Water District
• TNC – The Nature Conservancy
• USACE – United States Army Corp of Engineers
• USBR – United States Bureau of Reclamation
• USF&WS – United State Fish and Wildlife Service
• USGS – United States Geological Survey
• UWMP – Urban Water Management Plan
• WSIP – Water Storage Investment Program
• WWD – Westlands Water District
• WWTF – Waste Water Treatment Facility

1.2 Sustainability Goal
Each Agency shall establish in its Plan a sustainability goal for the basin the culminates in the absence of undesirable results within 20 years of the applicable statutory deadline. The Plan shall include a description of the sustainability goal, including information from the basin setting used to establish the sustainability goal, a discussion of the measures that will be implemented to ensure that the basin will be operated within its sustainable yield, and an explanation of how the sustainability goal is likely to be 102
5 achieved within 20 years of Plan implementation and is likely to be maintained through the planning and implementation horizon.

For a more in depth analysis of the sustainability goal of this plan refer to Section 3.1. The SJREC GSP Group has developed this plan to achieve independent plan sustainability while also working with the other GSP’s in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin to coordinate the plans together to achieve sustainability for the subbasin. The Delta-Mendota Subbasin Sustainability Goal is further described in the DeltaMendota Subbasin Common Chapter; Appendix B.

1.3 Agency Information

1.3.1 SJREC GSA Information
The San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority (SJRECWA or Exchange Contractors) was established as a Joint Powers Authority in May 1993 and consists of four water agencies, Central California Irrigation District, San Luis Canal Company, Firebaugh Canal Water District and Columbia Canal Company (member entities) serving approximately 240,000 acres of prime agricultural land east of Interstate1-5 and west of the San Joaquin River with about 16,000 acres situated east of the San Joaquin River. These lands span four counties: Fresno, Madera, Merced and Stanislaus, from the town of Mendota in the south to Patterson in the north. The Exchange Contractors hold some of the oldest water rights in the state which date back to the late 1800's. The rights were established by Henry Miller of the legendary Miller and Lux cattle empire. Today several of the original Miller and Lux canals continue to be operated by the Exchange Contractors entities. The Exchange Contractors mission is to monitor environmental, legislative and legal issues which may impact any of the four entities.

The Exchange Contractors' water rights are based on the riparian and pre-1914 diversions made by Henry Miller. When construction of Friant Dam of the Central Valley Project was under consideration, feasibility studies showed that no extensive development could occur on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley between Chowchilla and Bakersfield unless water could be diverted from the San Joaquin River to those areas. In the 1930's, the Exchange Contractors were asked by the United States to quantify their water rights and "exchange" their right to divert San Joaquin and Kings River water for guaranteed deliveries of "substitute" water from the Sacramento River by means of the Delta-Mendota Canal; hence the name, "San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors." In 1939, the United States Government signed two contracts with Miller and Lux and the four entities, to exchange where they exchanged use of their pre-1914 Appropriative and Riparian water from the San Joaquin and Kings Rivers for substitute water delivered from the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC). This agreement is commonly referred to as the “Exchange Contract” and was accompanied by what is known as the “Purchase Contract”. The Exchange Contractors are currently operating under the “Second Amended Contract for Exchange of Waters” executed in 1968.

The Exchange Contractors did not abandon their San Joaquin River water rights. Instead, they agreed not to exercise those water rights as long as guaranteed deliveries continued to be made to them by the U.S.

Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) through the Delta-Mendota Canal or from other Bureau sources. In the event that the Bureau is unable to make its contracted deliveries of substitute water to the Exchange Contractors, the Exchange Contractors have reserved the right to return to the San Joaquin River to satisfy their historic water rights. In non-critical years under the Exchange Contract, the United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) will deliver of 100% of the contractual water allotment (840,000 acre-feet) and will deliver 77% (650,000 acre-feet) during critical years. This water is delivered through the DMC when 103
6 available and down the San Joaquin River during those times when conveyance down the DMC cannot meet the obligations set forth in the “Exchange and Purchase Contracts”.

The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) deemed the Exchange Contractors as the Exclusive GSA for the service area on March 28, 2016. The SJREC GSA, through SB 372, is the successor to the SJRECWA GSA as the exclusive GSA for the Exchange Contractor member’s service area. The Exchange Contractors service area delivers water to approximately 240,000 acres. Figure 2 shows the SJREC GSP area. The SJREC members have proactively monitored groundwater pumping since the 1960’s. A stable surface water supply coupled with active groundwater management has enabled sustainable groundwater management over that period.

1.3.1.1 Organization and Management Structure of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA or Agency)
Contact Information:

Website: http://sjrecwa.net/groundwater.html
SJREC GSA Board of Directors
Eric FontanaJames O’Banion (Chair), Kimberly Brown (Vice-Chair), James Nickel, and Mike Stearns San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority & SJREC GSA Chris White, Executive Director: [email protected]
541 H Street
Los Banos, CA 93635
(209) 827-8616
Central California Irrigation District
Jarrett Martin, Deputy General Manager: [email protected] 1335 West I Street
Los Banos, CA 93635
(209) 826-1421
San Luis Canal Company
John Wiersma, General Manager: [email protected]
11704 W. Henry Miller Road
Dos Palos, CA 93620
(209) 826-5112
Columbia Canal Company
Randy Houk, General Manager: [email protected]
6770 Avenue 7-1/2
Firebaugh, CA 93622
(559) 659-2426
Firebaugh Canal Water District
Jeff Bryant, General Manager: [email protected] 104
7 2412 Dos Palos Road
Mendota, CA 93640
(559) 655-4761
Included herein is the contact information for the other partnering GSA’s within the SJREC GSP Group City of Newman GSA
Michael Holland, City Manager [email protected] 938 Fresno Street
Newman, CA 95360
(209) 862-3725
City of Gustine GSA
Doug Dunford, City Manager [email protected]
352 Fifth Street
Gustine, CA 95322
(209) 854-9403
City of Los Banos GSA
Mark FachinNirorn Than, Public Works Director [email protected] 520 J Street
Los Banos, CA 93635
(209) 827-7056
City of Dos Palos GSA
Darrell Fonseca, City Manager [email protected]
2174 Blossom Street
Dos Palos, CA 93620
(209) 392-2174
City of Firebaugh GSA
Ben Gallegos, City Manager [email protected] 1133 P Street
Firebaugh, CA 93622
(559) 659-2043
City of Mendota GSA
Cristian Gonzalez, City Manager [email protected] 643 Quince Street
Mendota, CA 93640
(559) 655-4298
Turner Island Water District – 2 GSA
Scott SkinnerKel Mitchel, [email protected] 1269 West I Street7543 North Ingram, Suite 102
FresnoLos Banos, CA 9371193635
105
8 County of Merced Delta-Mendota GSA
Lacey KiriakouMcBride, Water Resources Coordinator [email protected] 2222 M Street
Merced, CA 95340
(209) 385-7654
County of Madera – 3 GSA
Stephanie Anagnoson, Director of Water and Natural Resources [email protected]
200 W. Fourth Street
Madera, CA 93637
(559) 675-7703
County of Fresno Management Area B GSA
Augustine Ramirez, Senior Engineer [email protected] 2220 Tulare Street
Fresno, CA 93721
(559) 600-4022

1.3.1.2 Legal Authority of the GSA
The SJREC GSA received Special Act Legislation (SB 372) with an update Water Code Section 10723 to include the SJREC GSA as an agency created by statute to manage groundwater and is deemed the exclusive local agency within its respective statutory boundary. Refer to Appendix A for SB 372.

1.3.1.3 Estimated Cost of Implementing the GSP and the GSA’s Approach to Meet Costs The Exchange Contractors are currently funding much of the obligations of the SGMA through current programs. Funding for implementing the GSP is part of the standard operating budget for the agency and will continue to be funded through those existing mechanisms. The estimated cost to develop and implement the GSP for the SJREC GSA is $505,000. Refer to Section 5.1 of this GSP for a more detailed explanation.

1.3.1.4 Contact Information of Plan Manager
The collective GSP Groups in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, through the Coordination Agreement (Appendix B), have authorized Andrew Garcia of the SLDMWA to be the Plan Manager for the Subbasin.

The contact information for Andrew GarciaJohn Brodie is below:
• Seth HarrisJohn Brodie, Plan Manager: [email protected] [email protected] San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority
842 6th Street
Los Banos, CA 93635
(209) 832-6200 / Fax (209) 833-1034

1.3.2 City of Newman GSA Information
The City of Newman was incorporated on June 10, 1908. Currently, the only source of potable water for the residents of Newman is treated groundwater. With a vested interest in sustainable groundwater management, the City Council approved filing as the local GSA for the City limits. 106
9 1.3.2.1 Organization and Management Structure of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA or Agency)
The City of Newman GSA uses the same organization and management structure for both GSA and City operations. The three main departments engaged in development of this GSP include: Administration, Public Works and Planning.

1.3.2.2 Legal Authority of the GSA
Any local public agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities in a basin can decide to become a GSA. The City of Newman, a political subdivision of the State of California, notified the DWR of its intent to be the Exclusive GSA for the City limits on December 13, 2016. DWR deemed the GSA exclusive on March 13, 2017.

1.3.2.3 Estimated Cost of Implementing the GSP and the GSA’s Approach to Meet Costs The estimated cost to develop and implement the GSP for the City of Newman is $20,000. The CCID has a long-standing history jointly developing groundwater assessment reports and equally splitting the associated costs for the area in and around the City. Both the SJREC GSA and the City GSA intend to build off this successful partnership and develop a sustainable groundwater management plan. The SJREC GSA has participated in the SGWP Grant in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin on behalf of the SJREC GSP Group. The costs associated with covering the City in this Plan, will receive a portion of the SGWP grant funds. The remaining costs will be equally split between the SJREC GSA and the City GSA. The City plans to cover their share of the costs as part of their annual budget. These costs will be updated consistent with current laws and practices utilizing a rate adjustment to cover City costs.

1.3.3 City of Gustine GSA Information
The City of Gustine was incorporated on November 11, 1915. Currently, the only source of potable water for the residents of Gustine is treated groundwater. With a vested interest in sustainable groundwater management, the City Council approved filing as the local GSA for the City limits.

1.3.3.1 Organization and Management Structure of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA or Agency)
The City of Gustine GSA uses the same organization and management structure for both GSA and City operations. The three main departments engaged in development of this GSP include: Administration, Public Works and Planning.

1.3.3.2 Legal Authority of the GSA
Any local public agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities in a basin can decide to become a GSA. The City of Gustine, a political subdivision of the State of California, notified the DWR of its intent to be the Exclusive GSA for the City limits on June 23, 2017. DWR deemed the GSA exclusive on September 21, 2017.

1.3.3.3 Estimated Cost of Implementing the GSP and the GSA’s Approach to Meet Costs The estimated cost to develop and implement the GSP for the City of Gustine is $15,000. The CCID has a long-standing history jointly developing groundwater assessment reports and equally splitting the associated costs for the area in and around the City. Both the SJREC GSA and the City GSA intend to build off this successful partnership and develop a sustainable groundwater management plan. The SJREC GSA has participated in the SGWP Grant in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin on behalf of the SJREC GSP Group. The costs associated with covering the City in this Plan, will receive a portion of the SGWP 107
10 grant funds. The remaining costs will be equally split between the SJREC GSA and the City GSA. The City plans to cover their share of the costs as part of their annual budget. These costs will be updated consistent with current laws and practices utilizing a rate adjustment to cover City costs.

1.3.4 City of Los Banos GSA Information
The City of Los Banos received its first post office in 1873. Currently, the only source of potable water for the residents of Los Banos is treated groundwater. With a vested interest in sustainable groundwater management, the City Council approved filing as the local GSA for the City limits.

1.3.4.1 Organization and Management Structure of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA or Agency)
The City of Los Banos GSA uses the same organization and management structure for both GSA and City operations. The three main departments engaged in development of this GSP include: Administration, Public Works and Planning.

1.3.4.2 Legal Authority of the GSA
Any local public agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities in a basin can decide to become a GSA. The City of Los Banos, a political subdivision of the State of California, notified the DWR of its intent to be the Exclusive GSA for the City limits on February 9, 2017. DWR deemed the GSA exclusive on May 10, 2017.

1.3.4.3 Estimated Cost of Implementing the GSP and the GSA’s Approach to Meet Costs The estimated cost to develop and implement the GSP for the City of Los Banos is $75,000. The CCID has a long-standing history jointly developing groundwater assessment reports and equally splitting the associated costs for the area in and around the City. The local CVP contractors have engaged the City of Los Banos for local water resource projects. As a result, the SJREC GSA, GWD GSA and SLWD are working with the City to develop sustainable groundwater management within the greater Los Banos area. More details on this joint effort is described in Section 9.0. The SJREC GSA has participated in the SGWP Grant in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin on behalf of the SJREC GSP Group. The costs associated with covering the City in this Plan, will receive a portion of the SGWP grant funds. The remaining costs will be equally split between the SJREC GSA, GWD GSA, SLWD and the City GSA. The City plans to cover their share of the costs as part of their annual budget. These costs will be updated consistent with current laws and practices utilizing a rate adjustment to cover City costs.

1.3.5 City of Dos Palos GSA Information
The City of Dos Palos was incorporated on May 24, 1935. Currently, the City provides treated surface water for residents. In the event of a catastrophic failure to the delivery system, the City is planning to use groundwater as an emergency supply. With a vested interest in sustainable groundwater management, the City Council approved filing as the local GSA for the City limits.

1.3.5.1 Organization and Management Structure of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA or Agency)
The City of Dos Palos GSA uses the same organization and management structure for both GSA and City operations. The three main departments engaged in development of this GSP include: Administration, Public Works and Planning.
108
11 1.3.5.2 Legal Authority of the GSA
Any local public agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities in a basin can decide to become a GSA. The City of Dos Palos, a political subdivision of the State of California, notified the DWR of its intent to be the Exclusive GSA for the City limits on June 29, 2017. DWR deemed the GSA exclusive on September 27, 2017.

1.3.5.3 Estimated Cost of Implementing the GSP and the GSA’s Approach to Meet Costs The estimated cost to develop and implement the GSP for the City of Dos Palos is $5,000. The CCID has a long standing history jointly developing groundwater assessment reports and equally splitting the associated costs for the area in and around the City. Both the SJREC GSA and the City GSA intend to build off this successful partnership and develop a sustainable groundwater management plan. The SJREC GSA has participated in the SGWP Grant in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin on behalf of the SJREC GSP Group. The costs associated with covering the City in this Plan, will receive a portion of the SGWP grant funds. The remaining costs will be equally split between the SJREC GSA and the City GSA. The City plans to cover their share of the costs as part of their annual budget. These costs will be updated consistent with current laws and practices utilizing a rate adjustment to cover City costs.

1.3.6 City of Firebaugh GSA Information
The City of Firebaugh received its first post office in 1865. Currently, the only source of potable water for the residents of Firebaugh is treated groundwater. With a vested interest in sustainable groundwater management, the City Council approved filing as the local GSA for the City limits.

1.3.6.1 Organization and Management Structure of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA or Agency)
The City of Firebaugh GSA uses the same organization and management structure for both GSA and City operations. The three main departments engaged in development of this GSP include: Administration, Public Works and Planning.

1.3.6.2 Legal Authority of the GSA
Any local public agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities in a basin can decide to become a GSA. The City of Firebaugh, a political subdivision of the State of California, notified the DWR of its intent to be the Exclusive GSA for the City limits on May 18, 2017. DWR deemed the GSA exclusive on August 16, 2017.

1.3.6.3 Estimated Cost of Implementing the GSP and the GSA’s Approach to Meet Costs The estimated cost to develop and implement the GSP for the City of Firebaugh is $15,000. The CCID has a long-standing history jointly developing groundwater assessment reports and equally splitting the associated costs for the area in and around the City. Both the SJREC GSA and the City GSA intend to build off this successful partnership and develop a sustainable groundwater management plan. The SJREC GSA has participated in the SGWP Grant in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin on behalf of the SJREC GSP Group. The costs associated with covering the City in this Plan, will receive a portion of the SGWP grant funds. The remaining costs will be equally split between the SJREC GSA and the City GSA. The City plans to cover their share of the costs as part of their annual budget. These costs will be updated consistent with current laws and practices utilizing a rate adjustment to cover City costs. 109
12 1.3.7 City of Mendota GSA Information
The City of Mendota received its first post office in 1892. Currently, the only source of potable water for the residents of Mendota is treated groundwater. With a vested interest in sustainable groundwater management, the City Council approved filing as the local GSA for the City limits.

1.3.7.1 Organization and Management Structure of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA or Agency)
The City of Mendota GSA uses the same organization and management structure for both GSA and City operations. The three main departments engaged in development of this GSP include: Administration, Public Works and Planning.

1.3.7.2 Legal Authority of the GSA
Any local public agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities in a basin can decide to become a GSA. The City of Mendota, a political subdivision of the State of California, notified the DWR of its intent to be the Exclusive GSA for the City limits on February 3, 2017. DWR deemed the GSA exclusive on May 4, 2017.

1.3.7.3 Estimated Cost of Implementing the GSP and the GSA’s Approach to Meet Costs The estimated cost to develop and implement the GSP for the City of Mendota is $15,000. The CCID has a long-standing history jointly developing groundwater assessment reports and equally splitting the associated costs for the area in and around the City. Both the SJREC GSA and the City GSA intend to build off this successful partnership and develop a sustainable groundwater management plan. The SJREC GSA has participated in the SGWP Grant in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin on behalf of the SJREC GSP Group. The costs associated with covering the City in this Plan, will receive a portion of the SGWP grant funds. The remaining costs will be equally split between the SJREC GSA and the City GSA. The City plans to cover their share of the costs as part of their annual budget. These costs will be updated consistent with current laws and practices utilizing a rate adjustment to cover City costs.

1.3.8 Turner Island Water District-2 GSA Information
Turner Island Water District is a conjunctive use district that facilitates the delivery of water to the landowners. TIWD lies within both the Merced Subbasin (05-022.04) and the Delta-Mendota Subbasin (05-022.07). TIWD-2 GSA is the portion of the district within this GSP and the Delta-Mendota Subbasin.

However, TIWD intends to maintain flexibility to deliver water to the landowners in each Subbasin. A more detailed analysis on sustainable groundwater management for TIWD is described in Section 13.0.

1.3.8.1 Organization and Management Structure of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA or Agency)
The TIWD-2 GSA uses the same organization and management structure for both the GSA and Water District.

1.3.8.2 Legal Authority of the GSA
Any local public agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities in a basin can decide to become a GSA. The TIWD, a public agency, notified the DWR of its intent to be the Exclusive GSA for the district lands in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin on March 27, 2017. DWR deemed the GSA exclusive on June 25, 2017.
110
13 1.3.8.3 Estimated Cost of Implementing the GSP and the GSA’s Approach to Meet Costs The estimated cost to develop and implement the GSP for the TIWD-2 GSA is $15,000. The SLCC and TIWD have a long-standing relationship managing surface water and groundwater. The SJREC GSA has participated in the SGWP Grant in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin on behalf of the SJREC GSP Group. The costs associated with covering TIWD in this Plan will receive a portion of the SGWP grant funds. The remaining costs will be covered by TIWD. These costs will be updated consistent with current laws and practices. The TIWD implemented a landowner agreement in lieu of a Prop 218 election.

1.3.9 County of Madera-3 GSA Information
Madera County was founded in 1893. With a vested interest in sustainable groundwater management, the County Board of Supervisors approved filing as the local GSA for white areas in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin.

1.3.9.1 Organization and Management Structure of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA or Agency)
The County of Madera - 3 GSA uses the same organization and management structure for both GSA and County operations. The three main departments engaged in development of this GSP include:

Administration, Water & Natural Resources, and Planning.

1.3.9.2 Legal Authority of the GSA
Any local public agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities in a basin can decide to become a GSA. The County of Madera, a political subdivision of the State of California, notified the DWR of its intent to be the Exclusive GSA for the white areas in the County on February 9, 2017. DWR deemed the GSA exclusive on May 10, 2017.

1.3.9.3 Estimated Cost of Implementing the GSP and the GSA’s Approach to Meet Costs The estimated cost to develop and implement the GSP for the County of Madera-3 GSA is $5,000. The SJREC GSA has participated in the SGWP Grant in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin on behalf of the SJREC GSP Group. The costs associated with covering the County of Madera-3 in this Plan will receive a portion of the SGWP grant funds. The remaining costs will be covered by the County. These costs will be updated consistent with current laws and practices.

1.3.10 Portion of Merced County – Delta-Mendota GSA Information Merced County was founded in 1855. With a vested interest in sustainable groundwater management, the County Board of Supervisors approved filing as the local GSA for white areas in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. A portion of the GSA is covered by this Plan.

1.3.10.1Organization and Management Structure of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA or Agency)
Merced County – Delta-Mendota GSA uses the same organization and management structure for both GSA and County operations. The three main departments engaged in development of this GSP include:

Administration, Community & Economic Development, and Planning.

1.3.10.2 Legal Authority of the GSA
Any local public agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities in a basin can decide to become a GSA. The County of Merced, a political subdivision of the State of California, 111
14 notified the DWR of its intent to be the Exclusive GSA for the white areas in the County on March 28, 2017. DWR deemed the GSA exclusive on June 26, 2017.

1.3.10.3Estimated Cost of Implementing the GSP and the GSA’s Approach to Meet Costs The estimated cost to develop and implement the GSP for the Portion of Merced County – DeltaMendota GSA is $25,000. The SJREC GSA has participated in the SGWP Grant in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin on behalf of the SJREC GSP Group. The costs associated with covering the Portion of Merced County – Delta-Mendota GSA in this Plan will receive a portion of the SGWP grant funds. The remaining costs will be covered by the County. These costs will be updated consistent with current laws and practices.

1.3.11 Portion of Fresno County – Management Area B GSA Information Fresno County was founded in 1856. With a vested interest in sustainable groundwater management, the County Board of Supervisors approved filing as the local GSA for white areas in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin.

1.3.11.1Organization and Management Structure of the Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA or Agency)
Fresno County – Management Area B GSA uses the same organization and management structure for both GSA and County operations. The Department of Public Works and Planning was engaged in the development of this GSP.

1.3.11.2 Legal Authority of the GSA
Any local public agency that has water supply, water management, or land use responsibilities in a basin can decide to become a GSA. The County of Fresno, a political subdivision of the State of California, notified the DWR of its intent to be the Exclusive GSA for the white areas in the County on May 30, 2017. DWR deemed the GSA exclusive on August 28, 2017.

1.3.11.3 Estimated Cost of Implementing the GSP and the GSA’s Approach to Meet Costs The estimated cost to develop and implement the GSP for the Portion of Fresno County – Management Area B GSA is $5,000. The SJREC GSA has participated in the SGWP Grant in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin on behalf of the SJREC GSP Group. The costs associated with covering the Portion of Fresno County – Management Area B GSA in this Plan will receive a portion of the SGWP grant funds. The remaining costs will be covered by the County on a pro-rata share with the SJREC GSA costs to develop and implement the GSP. It is anticipated that the County may impose extractions fees for non-minimum pumpers, through Proposition 218, to recover expenses.

1.4 GSP Organization

1.4.1 Description of how the GSP is organized
The Delta-Mendota Subbasin (5-022.07) has twenty-three GSA’s working to coordinate six GSP’s. Figure 1 gives a graphical representation of the governance structure for the GSA’s and GSP’s in the DeltaMendota Subbasin. The GSA’s held a meeting to discuss GSP coordination consistent with the requirements defined in the SGMA. The group collectively decided to form a Coordination Committee with the initial task of developing a Coordination Agreement and accompanying Cost Sharing Agreement; Appendices B and C respectively. In addition, the Coordination Committee approves recommendations of the other committees and also authorizes coordinated expenditures. The 112
15 Coordination Committee recommended the formation of a Technical Subcommittee tasked with coordinating GSP development and implementation. One recommendation from the Technical Subcommittee was for all six GSP’s to have a Common Chapter for the subbasin wide coordinated elements; refer to Appendix B of this GSP. For more details about the Coordination Committee refer to Appendix B.

The GSA’s in the SJREC GSP Group have elected a representative from the SJREC GSA to represent the entire group on the various committees and sub-committees established for coordinating development and implementation of the six GSP’s in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. The SJREC GSA representative is tasked with keeping the group informed of pertinent information and will ask for each GSA to weigh in on decisions that may affect that respective GSA. The SJREC GSA has an MOU directly with each other GSA that is party to the SJREC GSP Group. The MOU describes how development and implementation of the GSP occurs and each party’s respective role and responsibility.

This GSP used the GSP Annotated Outline prepared by DWR as the genesis for the organization of content. Section 1 – Section 2.2.2 and Section 6 covers the SJREC GSP Group in its entirety with a major focus on the SJREC GSA covering almost 90% of the plan area. Section 2.2.3 – Section 5 is specific to the SJREC GSA. Each GSA will have its own discrete section for Water Budgets, SMC and Projects and Management Actions; Section 7 – Section 16. Section 17 describes the Common Chapter for each GSP in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. The final Section of this plan is the Appendices which are used to provide supporting documentation. The Table of Contents can be used as a guide to organization of this GSP. 113
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination Committee

Communications Workgroup Technical Workgroup
Grassland GSP Fresno County GSP
Farmers Water
District (WD) GSP
Aliso WD GSP
North and Central
Delta-Mendota
Region GSP
Patterson
Irrigation
District (ID)
GSA 4
DM-II
GSA 3, 4
NorthWestern
GSA 3, 4
City of
Patterson
GSA 3
Central DeltaMendota MultiAgency GSA 3, 4
Northern Delta-Mendota Management Committee
Widren
GSA
Central Delta-Mendota
Management Committee
Oro
Loma
GSA 4
 
Turner
Island
WD-2
GSA 4

SJRECWA
GSA 3, 4
City of
Firebaugh
GSA
City of
Los
Banos
GSA
City of
Mendota
GSA
City of
Gustine
GSA
City of
Dos
Palos
GSA
City of
Newman
GSA
Madera
County
GSA
Portion of
Merced
County
GSA
3 ,
4 San Joaquin River Exchange
Contractors Water Authority
(SJRECWA) GSP

Patterson
ID1
West
Stanislaus
ID1
City of
Patterson2
Del Puerto
WD1
Merced
County2
Stanislaus
County2
San Luis
WD1
Mercy
Springs WD2
Tranquillity
ID1
Fresno Slough
WD 1
Panoche
WD1
Pacheco WD1
Eagle Field
WD1
Merced
County2
Fresno
County2
Oak Flat
WD2
Widren
WD2
Oro Loma
WD
Central
California ID
Columbia
Canal
Company
Firebaugh
Canal WD
Turner Island
WD
City of
Mendota
City of
Firebaugh
City of Los
Banos
City of Dos
Palos
City of
Gustine
City of
Newman
Madera
County
Merced
County
Fresno
County
GSA
3, 4
Grassland
GSA
3, 4
Aliso WD
GSA
3, 4
Farmers WD
GSA
3, 4
Grassland
WD
Farmers WD Fresno
County
Aliso WD
   
Central DeltaMendota MultiAgency GSA
Steering
Committee
Coordination
and Cost
Share
Agreement
Parties
Grassland
Resource
Conservation
District
Delta-Mendota Subbasin SGMA Governance Structure 5/2/19 Version San Luis
Canal
Company
San Luis & DeltaMendota Water
Authority
Santa Nella
County WD2
West
Stanislaus ID
GSAs 1 and 2
Key:
1 Participation in North-Central Delta-Mendota
Region GSP through Activity Agreement with the
Authority
2 Participation in North-Central Delta-Mendota
Region GSP through Memorandum of Agreement
with the Authority.
3 Communications Workgroup Member
4 Technical Workgroup Member
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination
Committee Voting Member
Twin Oaks ID
Merced
County

Fresno
County
Management
Area A GSA
Fresno
County
Portion of
Fresno County
Management
Area B GSA
3 ,
4 Fresno
County
Portion of
Merced
County
GSA
3 ,
4 Portion of
Fresno County
Management
Area B GSA
3 ,
4 16
114
17 1.4.2 Preparation Checklist for GSP Submittal
GSP
Regulations
Section
Water
Code
Section Requirement Description
Section(s) or
Page
Number(s) in
the GSP
Article 3. Technical Reporting Standards
352.2 Monitoring
Protocols
Monitoring protocols adopted by the GSA for
data collection and management

3.5.2 Monitoring protocols that are designed to
detect changes in groundwater levels,
groundwater quality, inelastic surface
subsidence for basins for which subsidence
has been identified as a potential problem,
and flow and quality of surface water that
directly affect groundwater levels or quality
or are caused by groundwater extraction in
the basin

3.5.2 Article 5. Plan Contents, Subarticle 1. Administrative Information 354.4 General
Information Executive Summary
Executive
Summary
List of references and technical studies 6
354.6 Agency
Information
GSA Mailing List 1.3.1
Organization and management structure 1.3.1
Contact information of Plan Manager

1.3.1.4 Legal authority of GSA 1.3.2
Estimate of implementation costs 1.3.3 & 5.1
354.(a) 10727(a
)(4)
Map(s) Area covered by GSP 2.1.1
Adjudicated areas, other agencies within the
basin, and areas covered by an Alternative
N/A
Jurisdictional boundaries of Federal or State
land

2.1.1 Existing land use designations 2.1.3
Density of wells per square mile 2.1.1
354.8(b)
Description of
the Plan Area
Summary of jurisdictional areas and other
features 2.1.1
354.8(c)
354.8(d)
354.8(e)
10727.2(
g)
Water Resource
Monitoring and
Management
Programs
Description of water resources monitoring
and management programs

2.1.2 (see
GSA specific
Section 7.0 -
Section 16.0)
Description of how the monitoring networks
of those plans will be incorporated into the
GSP
Description of how those plans may limit
operational flexibility in the basin
Description of conjunctive use programs
115
18 354.8(f) 10727.2(
g)
Land Use
Elements or
Topic Categories
of Applicable
General Plans
Summary of general plans and other land use
plans

2.1.3 Description of how implementation of the
GSP may change water demands or affect
achievement of sustainability and how the
GSP addresses those effects
Description of how implementation of the
GSP may affect the water supply assumptions
of relevant land use plans
Summary of the process for permitting new
or replacement wells in the basin
Information regarding the implementation of
land use plans outside the basin that could
affect the ability of the Agency to achieve
sustainable groundwater management
354.8(g) 102727.
4 Additional GSP
Contents
Description of Actions Related To:

Control of saline water intrusion

2.1.4 Wellhead protection
Migration of contaminated groundwater
Well abandonment and well destruction
program
Replenishment of groundwater extractions
Conjunctive use and underground storage
Well construction policies
Addressing groundwater contamination
cleanup, recharge, diversions to storage,
conservation, water recycling, conveyance,
and extraction projects
Efficient water management practices
Relationships with State and Federal
regulatory agencies
Review of land use plans and efforts to
coordinate with land use planning agencies to
assess activities that potentially create risks
to groundwater quality or quantity 2.1.3
Impacts on groundwater dependent
ecosystems 2.1.4
354.10 Notice and
Communication
Description of beneficial uses and users

2.1.5 List of public meetings
GSP comments and responses
Decision-making process
Public engagement
Encouraging active involvement
116
19 Informing the public on GSP implementation
progress
Article 5. Plan Contents, Subarticle 2. Basin Setting
354.14 Hydrogeologic
Conceptual
Model
Description of the Hydrogeologic Conceptual
Model

2.2.1 Two scale cross-sections
Map(s) of physical characteristics:
topographic information, surficial geology,
soil characteristics, surface water bodies,
source and point of delivery for imported
water supplies
354.14(c)(4) 10727(a
)(5)
Map of
Recharge Areas
Map delineating existing recharge areas that
substantially contribute to the replenishment
of the basin, potential recharge areas, and
discharge areas 2.2.1
10727.2(
d)(4)
Recharge Areas Description of how recharge areas identified in the plan substantially contribute to the
replenishment of the basin 2.2.1
354.16 10727.2(
a)(1)
10727.2(
a)(2)
Current and
Historical
Groundwater
Conditions
Groundwater elevation data

2.2.2 Estimate of groundwater storage
Seawater intrusion conditions
Groundwater quality issues
Land subsidence conditions
Identification of interconnected surface
water systems
Identification of groundwater-dependent
ecosystems 2.1.4
354.18 10727.2(
a)(3)
Water Budget
Information
Description of inflows, outflows, and change
in storage

2.2.3 Quantification of overdraft
Estimate of sustainable yield
Quantification of current, historical, and
projected water budgets
10727.2(
d)(5)
Surface Water
Supply
Description of surface water supply used or
available for use for groundwater recharge or
in-lieu use 1.3 and 2.2.3
354.20 Management
Areas
Reason for creation of each management
area

2.2.4 and 3
Minimum thresholds and measurable
objectives for each management area
Level of monitoring and analysis
Explanation of how management of
management areas will not cause undesirable
results outside the management area
117
20 Description of management areas
Article 5. Plan Contents, Subarticle 3. Sustainable Management Criteria 354.24 Sustainability
Goal Description of the sustainability goal 3.1
354.26 Undesirable
Results
Description of undesirable results 3.4
Cause of groundwater conditions that would
lead to undesirable results 3.4
Criteria used to define undesirable results for
each sustainability indicator 3.4
Potential effects of undesirable results on
beneficial uses and users of groundwater 3.4
354.28 10727.2(
d)(1)
10727.2(
d)(2)
Minimum
Thresholds
Description of each minimum threshold and
how they were established for each
sustainability indicator 3.3
Relationship for each sustainability indicator 3.3
Description of how selection of the minimum
threshold may affect beneficial uses and
users of groundwater 3.3
Standards related to sustainability indicators 3.3
How each minimum threshold will be
quantitatively measured 3.3
354.30 10727.2(
b)(1)
10727.2(
b)(2)
10727.2(
d)(1)
10727.2(
d)(2)
Measurable
Objectives
Description of establishment of the
measurable objectives for each sustainability
indicator 3.2
Description of how a reasonable margin of
safety was established for each measurable
objective 3.2
Description of a reasonable path to achieve
and maintain the sustainability goal, including
a description of interim milestones 3.2
Article 5. Plan Contents, Subarticle 4. Monitoring Networks 354.34 10727.2(
d)(1)
10727.2(
d)(2)
10727.2(
e)
10727.2(
f)
Monitoring
Networks
Description of monitoring network 3.5.1
Description of monitoring network objectives 3.5.1
Description of how the monitoring network is
designed to: demonstrate groundwater
occurrence, flow directions, and hydraulic
gradients between principal aquifers and
surface water features; estimate the change
in annual groundwater in storage; monitor
seawater intrusion; determine groundwater
quality trends; identify the rate and extent of
land subsidence; and calculate depletions of
surface water caused by groundwater
extractions 3.5.1
118
21 Description of how the monitoring network
provides adequate coverage of Sustainability
Indicators 3.5.1
Density of monitoring sites and frequency of
measurements required to demonstrate
short-term, seasonal, and long-term trends 3.5.1
Scientific rational (or reason) for site
selection 3.5.3
Location and type of each monitoring site
within the basin displayed on a map, and
reported in tabular format, including
information regarding the monitoring site
type, frequency of measurement, and the
purposes for which the monitoring site is
being used 3.5.1
Description of technical standards, data
collection methods, and other procedures or
protocols to ensure comparable data and
methodologies 3.5.2
354.36 Representative
Monitoring
Description of representative sites 3.5.3
Demonstration of adequacy of using
groundwater elevations as proxy for other
sustainability indicators 3.5.3
Adequate evidence demonstrating site
reflects general conditions in the area 3.5.3
354.38 Assessment and
Improvement of
Monitoring
Network
Review and evaluation of the monitoring
network 3.5.4
Identification and description of data gaps 3.5.4
Description of steps to fill data gaps 3.5.4
Description of monitoring frequency and
density of sites 3.5.4
Article 5. Plan Contents, Subarticle 5. Projects and Management Actions 354.44 Projects and
Management
Actions
Description of projects and management
actions that will help achieve the basin's
sustainability goal
4 Measurable objective that is expected to
benefit from each project and management
action
Circumstances for implementation
Public noticing
Permitting and regulatory process
Time-table for initiation and completion, and
the accrual of expected benefits
Expected benefits and how they will be
evaluated
119
22 How the project or management action will
be accomplished. If the projects or
management actions rely on water from
outside the jurisdiction of the Agency, an
explanation of the source and reliability of
that water shall be included
Legal authority required
Estimated costs and plans to meet those
costs
Management of groundwater extractions and
recharge
354.44(b)(2)
10727.2(
d)(3)
Overdraft mitigation projects and
management actions
Article 8. Interagency Agreements
357.4 10727.6 Coordination
Agreements -
Shall be
submitted to
the Department
together with
the GSP’s for
the basin and, if
approved, shall
become part of
the GSP for each
participating
Agency.

Coordination Agreements shall describe the
following:

A point of contact
Appendix B
Responsibilities of each Agency
Procedures for the timely exchange of
information between Agencies
Procedures for resolving conflicts between
Agencies
How the Agencies have used the same data
and methodologies to coordinate GSP’s
How the GSP’s implemented together satisfy
the requirements of SGMA
Process for submitting all Plans, Plan
Amendments, supporting information, all
monitoring data and other pertinent
information, along with annual reports and
periodic evaluations
A coordinated data management system for
the basin
Coordination agreements shall identify
adjudicated areas within the basin, and any
local agencies that have adopted an
Alternative that has been accepted by the
Department
Table 1 – Preparation Checklist for GSP Submittal
120
23 2.0 PLAN AREA AND BASIN SETTING
This section describes the SJREC GSP Group plan area and Basin Setting. More specifically, this section describes the location of the geographic areas covered in this GSP and the following categories, that when coordinated, provide a robust plan for sustainability for the area. The plan area includes some State and Federal Jurisdictional Areas. This section will discuss coordination with state and local agencies to coordinate sustainable management criteria with existing and planned land use designations, land use zoning, well permitting, well construction standards, well destruction standards and wellhead protection. Additionally, this plan will have coordinated goals with existing water management plans including Agriculture Water Management Plans (AWMP), Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP), Groundwater Management Plans (GWMP), California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM), Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) and Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). A description of each GSA’s water source and water use will be discussed and how the information provided in the Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM), Groundwater Conditions, Water Budgets and Management AreasMonitoring Zones, will further the goal of sustainability and efficient water use. Notice and communication with the public and beneficial users of groundwater is discussed below.

2.1 Description of the Plan Area

2.1.1 Description of Jurisdictional Areas and Other Features The Delta-Mendota Subbasin (5-022.07) lies within the greater San Joaquin Valley Basin (5-022).

Effective groundwater management requires coordination with areas adjacent to the Delta-Mendota Subbasin to ensure groundwater management of one subbasin does not negatively impact the groundwater management of another subbasin. As a result, the GSA’s in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin have engaged the GSA’s in the following subbasins of the San Joaquin Valley Basin that are adjacent to the Delta-Mendota Subbasin: Tracy Subbasin (05-022.15), Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin (05-022.01), Modesto Subbasin (05-022.02), Turlock Subbasin (05-022.03), Merced Subbasin (05-022.04), Chowchilla Subbasin (05-022.05), Madera Subbasin (05-022.06), Kings Subbasin (05-022.08), and Westside Subbasin (05-022.09).
121
24 SUBBASIN GSA SUBBASIN GSA
Chowchilla
Subbasin
(5-022.05)
Triangle T Water District GSA
Madera
Subbasin
(5-022.06)
County of Madera - 2
County of Merced - Chowchilla Subbasin GSA New Stone Water District County of Madera - 1 City of Madera
Chowchilla Water District Madera Water District
Eastern San
Joaquin
Subbasin (5-
022.01)
Eastside San Joaquin GSA Root Creek Water District
South San Joaquin GSA Gravelly Ford Water District
Oakdale Irrigation District GSA Madera Irrigation District Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District Merced
Subbasin
(5-022.04)
Merced Irrigation - Urban GSA
South Delta Water Agency Merced Subbasin GSA
Central Delta Water Agency Turner Island Water District - 1 City of Lathrop Modesto
Subbasin
(5-022.02)
Tuolumne GSA
Woodbridge Irrigation District Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers Groundwater Basin Association
City of Manteca
Tracy
Subbasin
(5-022.15)
Stewart Tract GSA
Linden County Water District Byron-Bethany Irrigation District North San Joaquin Water Conservation District City of Antioch City of Lodi Diablo Water District
San Joaquin County - ESJ East Contra Costa Irrigation District San Joaquin County No. 2 Contra Costa County
City of Stockton Discovery Bay Community Services District Lockeford Community Service District County of Sacramento Stockton East Water District City of Brentwood
Kings
Subbasin
(5-022.08)
Tulare County GSA West Side Irrigation District
South Kings GSA City of Tracy
McMullin Area GSA Banta-Carbona Irrigation District
Central Kings GSA San Joaquin County - Tracy
North Fork Kings GSA Turlock
Subbasin
(5-022.03)
East Turlock Subbasin GSA
North Kings GSA West Turlock Subbasin GSA
Kings River East GSA Westside
Subbasin
(5-022.09)
Fresno County - Westside Subbasin
James Irrigation District Westlands Water District
Table 2 - GSA's in Subbasins Adjacent to the Delta-Mendota Subbasin The Delta-Mendota Subbasin has twenty-three GSA’s coordinating the development of six GSP’s. The SJREC are working with the other GSA’s in the subbasin to develop and implement a coordinated effort for the development of a sustainable plan for the subbasin. The table below is color coordinated into each of the GSP’s in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. Fresno County Management Area B has a portion of the GSA in the SJREC GSP and the remaining portion in the Fresno County GSP. The Merced County – Delta Mendota has a portion of the GSA in the SJREC GSP and the remaining portion in the Grassland GSP.
122
25 City of Dos Palos Central Delta-Mendota Region MultiAgency GSA City of Firebaugh City of Patterson
City of Gustine DM-II (Del Puerto WD)
City of Los Banos Northwestern Delta-Mendota GSA
City of Mendota Ora Loma Water District
City of Newman Patterson Irrigation District
County of Madera - 3 West Stanislaus Irrigation District San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Widren Water District GSA Turner Island Water District - 2 Aliso Water District
Fresno County - Management Area B Fresno County - Management Area A Merced County - Delta Mendota Farmers Water District
Grasslands GSA
Table 3 - GSA's in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin by GSP Group Description of the Plan Area: The San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors (SJREC) GSP contains eleven GSA’s within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. Nine of the GSA’s are wholly contained within the limits of the SJREC GSP and are respectively; SJREC GSA, City of Newman GSA, City of Gustine GSA, City of Los Banos GSA, City of Dos Palos GSA, City of Firebaugh GSA, City of Mendota GSA, Turner Island Water District – 2 GSA, and County of Madera – 3 GSA. Two of the GSA’s, Merced County – Delta-Mendota GSA and Fresno County – Management Area ‘B’ GSA, are only partially included in the SJREC GSP. The remaining area in the Merced County – Delta-Mendota GSA will be included in the GSP prepared by the Grassland GSA. The remaining area in the Fresno County - Management Area ‘B’ GSA will be included jointly in the GSP prepared with the Fresno County – Management Area A GSA.

Each of the City GSA’s in the SJREC GSP Group (Newman, Gustine, Los Banos, Dos Palos, Firebaugh, and Mendota) geographically covers the City limits. The TIWD GSA covers all of the land in the district that is in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. The Madera County GSA covers all white areas in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. The portion of Fresno County Management Area B in the SJREC GSP Group is generally defined as the County white area in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin and north of the City of Mendota GSA; refer to Figure 2 for the geographic locations depicted on a map. The portion of Merced County – DeltaMendota GSA in the SJREC GSP Group is generally defined as the County white area in the DeltaMendota Subbasin, primarily consisting of farmland, east of the SJREC GSA western boundary; refer to Figure 2 for the geographic locations depicted on a map. 123
Stanislaus
Merced
Madera
Merced
Merced
Fresno
Merced Santa Clara
Merced
San Benito
Merced
Madera
Merced
Stanislaus
33 34
35 36
31 6
5 4 3 2 1 6
5 4
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
22 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28
27 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
2 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10
11 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
19 20 21 22 23
24 19 20 21 22 23
24 30
29 28
27 26
29 30 25 28 27 26
25 32 33 34 35
36 31
32 33 34 35 36
5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
6 8
9 10 11 12
8 7
9 10 11 12
7 17
16 15 14 13 18 17
16 15 14 13 18
17 16
20 21 22 23
24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20
22 21
28 27 26 25 30
29 28
27 26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 29
33 34 35 36 31 32
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32
33 34
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4
3 2 9
10 11 12 8 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7
15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17
22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 27
26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 2
1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 12
7 8 9
10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 18
17 16 15 14 13 18 16 17 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 20
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 23 21 24 19 20 28
27 26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30
29 28
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32
33 3
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6
5 4
3 2 1 6 5 4
3 11
12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 11 7 12 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 13
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
18 14 13 17 15 18 16 17 16 15
14 19
20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 24 20 23 21 19 22 20 21 22 23
24 29
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 25 27 30 26 29 28 30 27 26
25 33
34 35 36 31 32 33
12 7 8 12 7 9 8 9 10 7 11 12 10
11 8 9 10 11
14 13 18
16 15 14 13
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36
31 32 33 34 35
31 32 33 36 31 34 35 36
3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 2 1 3 6 4 5 11 12 7 8 9 7 8 10
9 11 12 10 9 10 7 11 11 8 12 12 7
8 7
16 11 12 9 10
13 18 18 17 16
17 15 15 14 16 13 18 17 16 14 14 13 15 18 13 17 18
17 15 14 13
24 19 20 21 22
30 29 28 27
32 33 34
5 4
3 9
10 15
23 24 20 21 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 19 20 19 21 24 23 20 21 24 22 23
25 30 26 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 5 2 1 6 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
2 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
17 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 14 15 14 17 16 14 13
13 15 18
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 20 21 24 19 22 23 22
24 23 23 24 19 22 20 21
27 26 25 30 25 30
29 27 26
26 28 27
28 29
8 SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

BRAVEL SLOUGH

FR ESNO
SLOUGH
SALT
SLOUGH
OWENS
CREEK

OWENS CREEK
OWENS
CREEK

OWENS CREEK

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER

EAST SIDE
BYPASS

EAST SIDE BYPASS

EAST SIDE
BYPASS

EAST SIDE BYPASS
BYPASS
SIDE
EAST
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER
LAKE
HONDA
ASH
SLOUGH
DUCK
POND

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

ASH SLOUGH
ASH
SLOUGH

OLSON POND

EL NIDO

RESERVOIR
FLAT
POND
ASH
SLOUGH

MUD SLOUGH
MUD
SLOUGH

LITTLE PANOCHE CREEK
LOWER

RUTH LAKE
UPPER
RUTH
LAKE

DELTA MENDOTA
CANAL

DELTA MENDOTA
CANAL
WELL
POND

BERENDA
SLOUGH
SLOUGH
MUD

DEEP SLOUGH
CREEK
BEAR
LONE
WILLOW
SLOUGH
SALT
SLOUGH
SALT
SLOUGH
DUCK
POND
LAS
GARZAS
CREEK

LAS GARZAS
CREEK

LOS BANOS
CREEK

LOS BANOS CREEK
FRESNO
RIVER
BEAR
CREEK
CREEK
QUINTO
LOS
BANOS
CREEK
MUD
SLOUGH
FRESNO
RIVER

MUD SLOUGH
LITTLE

BUTTONWILLOW
LAKE

BUTTONWILLOW SLOUGH
CHOW
RIVER

FRESNO RIVER

BIG WATER
LAKE

DEEP SLOUGH

FR ESNO RIVER

DUCK POND

SAN LUIS

RESERVOIR

BEAR CREEK
BEAR
CREEK
LONE
WILLOW
SLOUGH

BEAR CREEK

BERENDA
SLOUGH

CHOWCHILLA RIVER

CHOWCHILLA
RIVER

FRESNO RIVER

EAST SIDE
BYPASS

COTTONWOOD
CREEK

CHOWCHILLA
RIVER

COTTONWOOD
CREEK
MERCED
RIVER
MERCED
RIVER

MERCED R IVE
LITTLE

PANOCHE

RESERVOIR
MUD
SLOUGH
SLOUGH

BERENDA
DUCK
POND

BERENDA
SLOUGH
ASH
SLOUGH
SLOUGH

BERENDA
LOS

BERENDA
SLOUGH

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

NORTH FORK LOS

BANOS CR EEK
DRY
CREEK

DRY C REEK

PANOCHE
CREEK

PANOCHE CREEK

PANOCHE
CREEK
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER
SOUTH

LOS BANOS CREEK
FORK
SOUTH

FORK LOS BANOS
CREEK

LONE WILLOW
SLOUGH
ASH
SLOUGH

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
LITTLE

PANOCHE
CREEK
LITTLE

PANOCHE
CREEK
LOS
BANOS

RESERVOIR

FR ESNO RIVER

ORESTIMBA
O`NEILL

FOREBAY

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT
CREEK
BANOS
CREEK

ORESTIMBA
CREEK
Newman
Gustine
Los Banos
Dos Palos
Firebaugh
Mendota
0 .
2 4 8 12 16
Miles
FIGURE 2 - MAP OF GSA'S IN THE SJREC GSP GROUP
EXPLANATION:

City of Dos Palos GSA
City of Newman GSA
City of Firebaugh GSA
City of Mendota GSA
City of Gustine GSA
City of Los Banos GSA
Portion of Merced County-Delta-Mendota GSA
Madera County-3 GSA
Turner Island Water District-2 GSA

SJREC GSA
Portion of Fresno County GSA
Delta-Mendota Subbasin
26 25
124
27 The Delta-Mendota Subbasin does not have any areas managed through an Adjudication of Groundwater Rights.

There are several State and Federal jurisdictional areas within the SJREC GSP. Those areas are depicted on Figure 3. The United States Bureau of Reclamation manages the Central Valley Project and owns certain facilities in the SJREC GSP including the Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC), shared ownership with DWR on the California Aqueduct (San Luis Canal), San Luis Drain, Newman Spillway, Volta Spillway and the Firebaugh Spillway. The United States Fish & Wildlife Service owns land east of the City of Los Banos. There are several parcels of land that have a California Conservation Easement. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife own and operate lands included California Protected Areas and Wildlife Areas.

The SJREC have a great partnership with Grassland Water District (GWD) and the state & federal refuge complex. Most of the water provided to the habitat in GWD and the refuges is delivered through the SJREC facilities. In March 1989, the Report on Refuge Water Supply Investigations was published by USBR. The report presented information on water needs and potential water sources and conveyance systems for providing a firm water supply of good quality to ten National Wildlife Refuges, four Wildlife Management Areas and one privately managed wetland area (GRCD). In December 1989, USBR, USF&WS and California Department of Fish and Game (currently CDFW) released the Action Plan Report which identified wetland enhancement. In October 1992, the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) was enacted into law, which requires the Secretary of the Interior to provide firm water supplies in accordance with the 1989 Investigation Report. Several subsequent reports were published consistent with public engagement to review conveyance alternatives based on environmental, technical and economic factors. The SJREC member entities own and operate various canals which have historically been used to make deliveries to GrasslandGWD. In 1998, the USBR and CCID entered into a contract to deliver refuge water supplies consistent with CVPIA. Much of the infrastructure was in place and some improvements were necessary to deliver adequate supplies to meet wetland management needs. Currently, water deliveries are made under the “Contract Between the United States and Central California Irrigation District for the Conveyance of Refuge Water Supplies to the China Island and Salt Slough Units of the North Grasslands Wildlife Area, Los Banos Wildlife Area, Freitas and Kesterson Units of the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge and Grassland Resource Conservation District. The current contract is in effect until February 28, 2042. From 2009-2018, the SJRECWA wheeled about 200,000 acre-feet per year on average to GWD and the refuges. The SJREC value the ecological importance of the Grassland area and its significance to the Pacific Flyway for migratory waterfowl. The SJREC are working on joint projects with GWD to efficiently put more water to beneficial use in the area. Some of these projects are referenced in Section 4 of this plan. GWD and the SJRECWA have peak water demands during different times of the year. A natural partnership with GWD enhances our ability to efficiently use our local water resources throughout the year while maintaining flexibility to meet demand.
125
AQUIN
ER
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

BRAVEL SLOUGH

FRESN O

SL OUGH

FRESN O

SL OUGH
SALT
SLOUGH
OWENS
CREEK

OWENS CREEK
OW ENS
CREEK

OW ENS CR EEK
OW ENS
CREEK

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER

EAST SIDE
BYPASS

EAST SIDE BYPASS

EAST SIDE
BYPASS

EAST SIDE BYPASS
EAST
SIDE
BYPASS

JOAQUIN
SAN
RIVER
LAKE
HONDA
ASH

SL OUGH
DUC K
PON D

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

ASH SLOU GH
LAKE
MONA
ASH
SLOUGH

OLSON POND

EL N ID O

RESERVOIR
FLAT
POND
ASH

SL OUGH

MUD SLOUGH
MUD
SLOUGH

LIT TL E PA NOC HE CREEK

LIT TL E PA NOC HE CREEK
LOWER

RUTH LAKE
UPPER
RUTH
LAKE

DELTA MENDOTA
CANAL

DELTA MENDOTA
CANAL
WELL
POND
PEAR
SLOUGH
SLOUGH
MUD

DEEP SLOUGH
CREEK
BEAR
LONE
WILLOW
SLOUGH
SALT
SLOUGH
SALT
SLOUGH
DUC K
PON D
LAS
GARZAS
CREEK

LAS GARZAS
CREEK

LOS BANOS
CREEK

LOS BANOS CREEK
FRESNO
RIVER
BEAR
CREEK
QUINTO
CREEK
LOS
BANOS
CREEK
MUD
SLOUGH
FRESNO
RIVER

MUD SLOUGH
LITTLE

BUTTONWILLOW
LAKE
SA N

JOA QUIN
RIVER

SA N JOAQUIN RIVER

BUTTONWILLOW SLOUGH

FRESNO RIVER

BIG WATER
LAKE

DEEP SLOUGH

FRESN O R IVER

DUCK POND

SAN LUIS

RESERVOIR

BEAR CREEK
BEAR
CREEK
LONE
WILLOW
SLOUGH

BEAR C REEK
SILVER
CREEK

SILVER CR EEK

BERENDA
SLOUGH

CHOW CH IL LA RIVER

CHOW CH IL LA
RIVER

FRESNO RIVER

EAST SIDE
BYPASS

COTTONWOOD
CREEK

CHOWCHILLA
RIVER

COTTONWOOD
CREEK
MERCED
RIVER
MERCED
RIVER

MERC ED RIVER

LIT TL E

PAN OCHE

RESERVOIR
MUD
SLOUGH

BERENDA
SLOUGH
DUCK
POND

BERENDA
SLOUGH
ASH
SLOUGH

BEREN DA

SL OUGH
LOS

BEREN DA

SL OUGH

JA MES BYPA SS

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
BEAR
CREEK

NORT H F ORK L OS

BAN OS C REEK
DRY
CREEK

DRY C REEK

PAN OCHE CR EEK

PAN OCHE
CREEK

PAN OCHE CR EEK PANOCHE
CREEK
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER
SOU TH
FORK

LOS B AN OS CR EEK
SOU TH

FORK L OS BA NOS
CREEK

LONE WILLOW
SLOUGH

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
LITTLE

PANOCHE
CREEK
LITTLE

PANOCHE
CREEK
LOS
BANOS

RESERVOIR

FRESN O R IVER

ORESTIMBA
O`NEILL

FOREBAY

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT
CREEK
BANOS
CREEK

ORESTIMBA
CREEK
Firebaugh
Mendota
Newman
Turlock
Atwater
Delhi
Dos
Palos
Gustine
Hilmar-Irwin
Livingston
Los
Banos
Madera
Madera
Acres
33 34
35 36
31 6
5 4 3 2 1 6
5 4
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
22 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28
27 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
2 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10
11 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
19 20 21 22 23
24 19 20 21 22 23
24 30
29 28
27 26
29 30 25
28 27 26
25 32 33 34 35
36 31
32 33 34 35 36
5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
6 8
9 10 11 12
8 7
9 10 11 12
7 17
16 15 14 13 18 17
16 15 14 13 18
17 16
20 21 22 23
24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20
22 21
28 27 26 25 30
29 28
27 26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 29
33 34 35 36 31 32
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32
33 34
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4
3 2 9
10 11 12 8 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7
15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17
22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 27
26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 2
1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 12
7 8 9
10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 18
17 16 15 14 13 18 16 17 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 20
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 23 21 24 19 20 28
27 26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30
29 28
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32
33 3
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6
5 4
3 2 1 6 5 4
3 11
12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 11 7 12 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 13
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
18 14 13 17 15 18 16 17 16 15
14 19
20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 24 20 23 21 19 22 20 21 22 23
24 29
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 25 27 30 26 29 28 30 27 26
25 33
34 35 36 31 32 33
12 7 8 12 7 9 8 9 10 7 11 12 10
11 8 9 10 11
14 13 18
16 15 14 13
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36
31 32 33 34 35
31 32 33 36 31 34 35 36
3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 2 1 3 6 4 5 11 12 7 8 9 7 8 10 9 11 12 10 9 10 7 11 11 8 12 12 7
8 7
16 11 12 9 10
13 18 18 17 16
17 15 15 14 16 13 18 17 16 14 14 13 15 18 13 17 18
17 15 14 13
24 19 20 21 22
30 29 28 27
32 33 34
5 4
3 9
10 15
23 24 20 21 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 19 20 19 21 24 23 20 21 24 22 23
25 30 26 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 5 2 1 6 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
2 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
17 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 14 15 14 17 16 14 13
13 15 18
21 22 23 24 19
20 21 20 21 24 19 22 23 22
24 23
23 24 19 22 20 21
27 26 25 30
25 30 29 27 26
26 28 27
28 29
8 Stanislaus
Merced
Stanislaus
Santa Clara
Merced
Fresno
S
Merced
anta Clara
Merced
San Benito
Merced
Madera
Stanislaus
Merced
R.8E
R.9E
R.7 E
R.8 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.9 E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9 E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.9 E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R .11E
R.1 2E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.8 E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10 E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12 E
R.13E
R.13 E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15 E
R.8E
R.9 E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.11 E
R.12 E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15 E
R.16 E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
T.5S
T.6S
T.5S
T.6S
T.5S
T.6S
T.6 S
T.7S T.6S
T.7S
T.6S
T.7S
T.6S
T.7S
T.6S
T.7S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8 S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8 S
T.9S
T.9S
T.10S T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10S T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.10 S
T.11S T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12 S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.12S
T.13 S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13 S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S T.13S
T.14S
T.14S
T.15S

VALERIA
AVE

S FAITH HOME RD

W BELMONT
AVE
M ST
W
H ST
OCUS
A
T
VE
L ST W
POMELO
AVE

MC CLINTOCK RD

BYSTRUM
RD

VOLTA RD
S
N ST
W

ALMON D
AVE

EUCALYPTUS RD W
HWY 33

MERRILL AVE

BRANNON AVE

N DOS PALOS RD
I
ST

ORE AVE

S DERRICK AVE
ELG
AV
IN
E

W NEE S AVE

PALM AVE S

W MERRILL AVE

N FAIRFAX AVE

CENTER AVE
S

PIONE ER RD W
HWY 165 S

MERCEY SPRINGS RD S
HWY 33

SANTA NELLA BLVD S

SNYDER RD
W

OLLER ST
P ST W
4TH
ST
N ST

INGOMAR RD S

O RESTIMBA
RD

FRONTIER ST
W

HENRY MILLER AVE W

HUNT RD S

N SAN DIEGO AV E

N DOUGLAS
AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

SUNS ET AVE W

N DOS PALOS RD

HUNT RD S

COTTON GIN RD W

SHAIN AVE

V LI LA

FOLSOM AVE
L
ST
BASS
AVE

CENTER AVE S

S PRAIRIE FLOWER RD

ELM AVE

FIALHO AVE W

SANTA FE GRD

SHIELLS RD

W SHAIN AV E

N DOS PALOS RD

ARMS TRONG RD

BADGER FLAT RD S

CAPRI AVE
W

W HERNDON AVE

MOFFETT RD

N CAM BRIA AVE

FAHEY RD W

W BULLARD AVE

N FAIRFAX
AVE

S MITCHELL RD
HOYER
RD

W MINT AVE
HWY 152 W

S CENTRAL AVE

GRAND AVE W

JOHNSON RD
S
I-5 I-5
I-5

DRAPER RD

N LYON AVE

LINDEN AVE W

SANTA LUCIA
AVES

W MCKINLEY AVE

HOLSTEIN RD W
HWY 140 W

BELL RD

INGOMAR GRD W

KNIEBES R
S
D

REYNOLDS AVE S

ANDERSON RD

COPA DE ORA AVE W

N ORLEANS AVE

UPPER RD

W SILAXO AVE

MIDDLE RD
W

COZZI R
S
D

N WAS HOE AVE

W LINWOOD

AVE HICKORY
AVE

JENS EN RD S

W HARDING RD
E
ST

S MORGAN RD

LEXING TON AVE
S

N DOUGLAS
AVE
FIG
LN

N OXFORD AVE

NOBLE RD
W
HOBART
AVE
EASTIN
RD

W ALTHEA AVE

N FAIRFAX AVE

W BEHYMER
AVE
CANAL
HWY 152 S

SAN MATEO AVE

MINT RD W

JULIP R
S
D

PACHECO BLVD W

N NEWCOMB AVE

HENRY MILLER
AVE W

N LYON AVE
I-5 W

TERCEIRA RD S
H ST W

AUGUST RD
W SAN

JOSE AVE

PIONE ER RD W
SHY ST
S

ESTHER AVE
S
ELGIN
AVE

EMORY AVE
W
HWY 33 S

E MARSHALL RD

W GETTYSBURG
AVE

KILBURN RD

CANAL SCHOOL RD S

W SHIELDS AVE

S BLAKER RD

W MARSHALL RD

LODI RD
S

W LINWOOD AVE
S OHIO
AVE
MORRIS
RD
LUNDY
RD

SIMMONS
RD

W VALERIA AVE

BRADBURY
RD
PUMP
RD
CHERRY
AVE

N CUSTER
AVE
CUSTER
AVE

TULIP AV
HWY 140 W

PRINCE R
S
D

EHRLICH RD

SULLIVAN
RD
WARD R
S
D

HUTCHINS RD W

PARADISE AVE

W CARMELLIA AVE

DENTON & LEAK RD W

W MILLER AVE

ROXBURY RD W
DIEHL
RD
SHAIN
AVE

SIMMONS RD

CARMELLIA AVE W

AUBREY AVE
S

CYPRESS RD
W

W HARDING RD

ELAINE RD

WEST MAIN ST

EUCALYPTUS RD
W

W SIMMONS RD
CHERRY
AVE

GUN CLUB RD W

TAGLIO RD W

ARROYA AVE S

RUBLE RD
N SAN

BERNARDINO AVE

ORTIGALITA RD
S
LUX
AVE

N ELGIN AVE

N DAVIDSON AVE
HOYER
RD

MILLS RD
S

N EVANS
AVE

ALMOND DR W

N BRANNON RD

MOFFETT RD

PHILLIPS RD W

MOFFATT RD S

CHINA CAMP RD W

FENTE M RD W
GAY ST
W

DIANA RD S
WEST
RD

N NEWCOMB AVE
N SAN

DIEG O AVE

INDIANA AVE S

N JERROLD AVE

N HUDSO N
AVE

LEWIS RD
BRYANT
AVE

CLAUSEN
RD

N MILLUX RD

MAS ON RD W

PUMPRDW

WILLIS RD S

E STUHR
RD

N HUDSON AVE

CARLUCCI RD
S

PFITZER RD W

N JERROLD AVE
ISLAND
AVE

S DERRICK AVE
DODDS

EHRLICH RD

WANGENHEIM

RD TAGLIO RD
W

RAMOS RD W

W KEY AVE

PRESTON RD W

APRICOT AVE
HWY 152 S

HALE RD

BATTEN RD W

VOLTA R
S
D

N FAIRFAX AVE

AZEVEDO RD

W BRADBURY
RD

LEOTA ST
S

BRAZO RD W

DENTON & LEAK RD W

W COPPER
AVE

W OXALIS AVE

W CALIFORNIA
AVE

SANTA RITA GRD W

ROMERO RD W

PFITZER RD W
S SAN

BERNARDINO AVE

W SAN JOSE AVE

PALM AVE S

DOS PALOS
RD

S CARPENTER RD

N RUS SELL AVE

AZEVEDO RD S

ORCHARD RD S

HUSMAN RD
W
MILLUX
AVE

MERVEL AVE W

CACTUS DR
W

LAGUNA RD
W

JERS EY RD S

NANTES AVE S

N MILLUX RD

N JERRO
AV
LD
E
APPLE
AVE

HILMAR RD

HARVEY RD
VENICE
RD

JORGENSEN RD
W

CANYON RD S

N OHIO AVE

RAMOS RD S

N HUDSON AVE

W WHITESBRIDGE AVE
N SAN

BERNARDINO AVE

WORTHINGTON RD
W

GUN CLUB RD W

WILSON RD S

BORBA RD
W

W OLIVE AVE

ROSE GARDEN
RD W

NEWSOM RD
S

HALEY RD W

LOCKE AVE

CLEMENT AVE S

ALMOND DR W

CREEK RD S

JOHNSON RD S
I-5 S
MADERA
RD

N BRANNON
RD

FINK RD

ORCHARD RD S

W IKE CROW RD

WHARDING RD
HOGIN

HEARSTRD W

HELM CANAL RD

POLE LINERD S

W ORMSBY AVE

RIVER RD

SANTA FE GRD W

S SAN BENITO AVE

WARD RD
S

CATRINA ST W
HWY 152

WOO RD S

CHEROKEE RD

W PANOCHE RD

MORAGA AVE S

INGOMAR GRD W

WASHINGTON RD W

WARD AVE

SANTA FE GRD W

MEDLIN RD

AUGUST RD

JORGENSE N RD

SWIFT AVE S

WILD DUCK RD S

W WHITESBRIDG E AVE

HUSM AN RD W

S ANTA FE GRD

SANTA CRUZ GUN CLUB RD S
CAMP 13 RD W

POLE LINE RD W
I-5 S

SANTA FE GRD W

CROWS LAND NI G RD

POME GRANATE AVE

PEAR AVE
E
HWY 152 W
HWY 33 S

DAVIS RD

W HERNDON
AVE

MORAN RD MORAN RD

W STUHR RD

PETE M LI LER RD

HILLS FERRY RD

INDIANA RD
A
S
LFALFA
RD

N DOUGLAS
AVE
PRUNE
AVE

FREITAS RD

J T CROW RD
HWY 140 W
HWY 140 W

BLUE HILL

HELM DITCH RD

FINK RD

W SHAW AVE

SCHM IDT RD S

PETE MILLER RD

COTTON RD W

BUNKER RD
W

ORESTIMBA RD

COTTONWOOD RD
W

CHARLESTON RD W

WHITWORTH RD S

HALLOWELL RD

NETHERTON RD W

N RUS SELL AVE

N GALVEZ AV E

MANUCHA RD

DODDS RD
Firebaugh
Mendota
Newman
Turlock
Atwater
Delhi
Dos
Palos
Gustine
Hilmar-Irwin
Livingston
Los
Banos
Madera
Madera
Acres

DELTA-MENDOTA

SUBBASIN
FIGURE 3 - JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF STATE AND FEDERAL LANDS 0 1 2 4 6 8
Miles
.

EXPLANATION:

State Parks
Federal Wildlife Areas
Ca Conservation Easement (CCED)
Ca Protected Areas (CPAD-State)
Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Delta_Mendota Subbasin
State Wildlife Areas
28 126
29 A majority of the area in the SJREC GSP is agriculture. Refer to Figure 4 for a map of the current Land Use Designations. This information was collected from the CADWR Land Use Viewer for 2014:
https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/. The data inis this map is used for consistency in the Basin and it should be noted that the actual Land Use for this area has not been vetted by the SJREC GSA for accuracy. It should further be noted that land use may change from year to year and the data from this should be used as a point in time and may not be representative as a surrogate for past or future land use. Each GSA in the SJREC GSP has differing Water Source Types and Water Use Sectors.

Following is a general explanation. A more detailed understanding of water source type and water use sector for each GSA is described in their respective water budget section.

The primary source of water for the SJREC GSP group is from the Central Valley Project. The major facilities are included below.

C. W. “Bill” Jones Pumping Plant (Jones Pumping Plant): The Jones Pumping Plant lifts water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta into the Delta-Mendota Canal. Most of the water supplied to the Jones Pumping Plant comes from CVP reservoirs located in northern California. Water is released from these reservoirs and routed across the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, from the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, to the intakes of the pumps. The Plant has six pumps that lift the water about 200 feet from the intake to the headworks of the DMC at a maximum flow rate of 5,200 cfs.

Delta-Mendota Canal (DMC): The headworks of the DMC is at the Jones Pumping Plant. The DMC carries water from Jones Pumping Plant and terminates at the Mendota Pool. The DMC was completed in 1951 with a capacity of 4,600 cfs at the head that gradually decreases to 3,200 cfs after the 116 mile journey to the Mendota Pool.

O’Neill Pumping-Generating Plant: Located about twelve miles west of the City of Los Banos on the DMC, the O’Neill Pumping Plant connects the DMC to the O’Neill Forebay and ultimately the San Luis Reservoir. This plant was completed in 1968 and is capable of pumping about 3,900 cfs into the O’Neill Forebay and is ultimately pumping into the San Luis Reservoir. The O’Neill Plant is also capable of generating power when water is released from the San Luis Reservoir into the O’Neill Forebay and then released into the DMC. This facility was constructed along with the State Water Project to allow for storage of water south of the Delta.

San Luis Reservoir and O’Neill Forebay: The State Water Project (SWP) received authorization of the Legislature in 1951 to begin construction of a water storage and supply system. One of the projects was a joint venture between the USBR and DWR to construct the California Aqueduct (San Luis Canal), O’Neill Forebay and the San Luis Reservoir to provide additional surface water to agriculture and urban areas south of the Delta. The San Luis Reservoir can store over 2.0 MAF shared between the SWP contractors and the CVP contractors.

Mendota Pool: The Mendota Pool is located near the City of Mendota at the confluence of the San Joaquin River and Fresno Slough (Kings River). The Mendota Pool is also the terminus of the DMC. CCID, FCWD and CCC receive their water from Mendota Pool.

Sack Dam: Sack Dam is located on the San Joaquin River downstream of the Mendota Pool and is the headworks where SLCC takes delivery of surface water.
127
30 • SJREC GSA – The water source type is conjunctive use of San Joaquin River water, Central Valley Project water, groundwater, local supplies and precipitation. The Water Use Sector is agriculture, managed wetlands, managed recharge and native vegetation. The SJRECWA’s member entities submitted 2016 AWMP’s. Documented in the 2016 AWMP’s are water conservation and efficiency measures implemented by each agency. One major water conservation effort is installation of canal lining and high efficiency irrigation systems to reduce the amount of water lost to shallow saline groundwater in the southwestern area of the GSA.

The SJREC actively manage their surface water, groundwater and conserved water resources conjunctively, and manage water application within their service area to minimize drainage discharges from their service area in accordance with existing laws and regulations. Additionally, the SJRECWA adopted an updated AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan in 2014. A valuable management tool employed by each entity is installing conservation projects that increase water use efficiency. While the SJREC primarily use surface water to meet consumptive use, groundwater extractions are vital to meet demand during drought years. Groundwater pumping in the SJREC area is also necessary to control the water levels from rising too high and saturating the effective rooting depths.
• City of Newman GSA – The water source type is groundwater, local supplies and precipitation.

The Water Use Sector is urban and industrial. The City of Newman is developing a strategy to capture runoff to offset groundwater extractions.
• City of Gustine GSA – The water source type is groundwater, local supplies and precipitation.

The Water Use Sector is urban and industrial. The City of Gustine is developing a strategy to capture runoff to offset groundwater extractions.
• City of Los Banos GSA – The water source type is groundwater, local supplies and precipitation.

The Water Use Sector is urban and industrial. The City of Los Banos is developing a strategy to capture runoff to offset groundwater extractions.
• City of Dos Palos GSA – The water source type is Central Valley Project, local supplies and precipitation. The Water Use Sector is urban and industrial. • City of Firebaugh GSA – The water source type is groundwater, local supplies and precipitation.

The Water Use Sector is urban and industrial.
• City of Mendota GSA – The water source type is groundwater, local supplies and precipitation.

The Water Use Sector is urban and industrial.
• Turner Island Water District – 2 GSA - The water source type is groundwater, surface water supplies, local supplies and precipitation. The Water Use Sector is agriculture. • Madera County – 3 GSA - The water source type is groundwater, local supplies and precipitation.

The Water Use Sector is agriculture.
• Merced County Delta-Mendota GSA - The water source type is groundwater, local supplies and precipitation. The Water Use Sector is agriculture and industrial. • Fresno County Management Area ‘B’ GSA - The water source type is groundwater, local supplies and precipitation. The Water Use Sector is agriculture. 128

VALERIA
AVE

S FAITH HOM E RD

W BELMONT
AVE
M ST
W
H ST
LOCUST
AV E
L ST W
I-5

POM ELO
AVE

E LA S PALMA S AVE

MC CLINTOCK RD

BYSTRUM
RD

VOLTA RD
S
N ST
W

ALMON D
AVE

EUCALYPTUS RD W
HWY 33

POPLAR AVE

MERRILL AVE

BRANNON AVE
S DEL

PUERTO AVE

N D OS PALOS RD
I
ST

SYCAM ORE AVE

S DERRICK AV E
ELG
AV
IN
E

W NEES AV E

PALM AVE S

W M ERRILL AV E

N FAIRFAX AVE

CENTE R AVE
S

PIONEE R RD W
HWY 165 S

MERCE Y SPRINGS RD S
HWY 33

SANTA NELLA BLVD S

S NYDER RD
W

OLLE R ST

P S T W
4TH
ST
N ST

INGOM AR RD S

ORESTIMBA
RD

FRONTIE R ST
W

HENRY M ILLE R AVE W

HUNT RD S

N SAN DIEGO AV E

N DO UGLAS
AVE

W ASHLAN AV E

SUNSE T AVE W
BARTCH
AVE

N DOS PALOS RD

HUNT RD S

COTTON GIN RD W

SHAIN AVE
VILLA

FOLS OM AVE
L
ST
BA SS
AVE

CENTER AV E S

S P RAIRIE FLOWER RD

ELM AVE

FIALHO AVE W

SANTA FE GRD

ORANGE AV E

SHIELLS RD

W S HAIN AVE

N DOS PALOS RD

ARMSTRONG RD

BADGE R FLAT RD S

CAPRI AVE
W

W HERNDON AV E

MOFFETT RD

N CAMBRIA AVE

FAHEY RD W

W BULLARD AVE

N FAIRFAX
AVE

S MITCHELL RD
HO YER
RD

W M INT AVE
HWY 152 W

S CENTRAL AVE

GRAND AVE W
I-5

JO HNSON RD
S
I-5 I-5
I-5

DRAP ER RD

N LYON AVE

LINDE N AVE W

SANTA LUCIA
AVE S

W M CKINLEY AV E

HOLSTEIN RD W
HWY 140 W

BELL RD

INGOMAR GRD W

KNIEBES R
S
D

REY NOLDS AVE S

ANDE RS ON RD

COPA DE ORA AV E W

N ORLE ANS AVE

UPP ER RD

W SILAXO AVE

MIDDLE RD
W

COZZI R
S
D

N WASHOE AVE

W LINWOOD

AVE HICKORY
AVE

OL VI E
AVE

JENSEN RD S

W HARDING RD
E
ST

S MORGAN RD

LEXING TON AVE
S

N DOUG LAS
AVE
FIG
LN

N OXFORD AVE

NO BLE RD
W

HO BART
AVE
EASTIN
RD

W ALTHEA AVE

N FAIRFAX AVE

ASH AVE

W BEHYMER
AVE
CANAL
HWY 152 S

SAN MATEO AVE

MINT RD W

JULIP R
S
D
HOLLY
AVE

PACHECO BLVD W

N NEWCOM B AVE

HE NRY MILLER
AVE W

N LYON AVE
I-5 W

TE RCEIRA RD S
H ST W

AUGUS T RD
W S AN

JO SE AVE

PIONEE R RD W
SHYST
S

ELFERS RD

ESTHER AVE
S
ELGIN
AVE

EMORY AVE
W
HWY 33 S

E MARSHA LL RD

W GETTYSBURG
AVE

KILBURN RD

CANAL SCHOOL RD S

W S HIELDS AVE

S BLAKE R RD

W M ARSHALL RD

LODI RD
S

W LINWOOD AVE

S O HIO
AVE
MORRIS
RD
LUNDY
RD

SIMMO NS
RD

W VALERIA AVE

BRADBURY
RD
PUMP
RD
CHERRY
AVE

N CUSTER
AVE
CUSTER
AVE

TULIP AV
HWY 140 W

PRI NCE R
S
D

EHRLICH RD

SULLIVAN
RD
WARD R
S
D

HUTCHINS RD W

PARADISE AVE

W CARM ELLIA AV E

DENTON & LE AK RD W

W M ILLE R AVE

ROXBURY RD W
DIEHL
RD
SH AIN
AVE

SIMMONS RD

CARM ELLIA AVE W

AUBREY AVE
S

CYPRESS RD
W

W HARDING RD
ACACIA
AVE

ELAINE RD

WEST MAIN ST

EUCALYPTUS RD
W

W S IM MONS RD
CHERRY
AVE

G UN CLUB RD W

TAGLIO RD W

ARROYA AVE S

RUBLE RD

WALNUT AVE
N S AN

BERNARDINO AVE

ORTIGALI TA RD
S
LUX
AVE

N ELGIN AVE

N DAVIDS ON AVE
HOYER
RD

MILLS RD
S

N EVANS
AVE

ALMOND DR W

N BRANNON RD

MOFFETT RD

PHILLIPS RD W

MOFFATT RD S

CHINA CAMP RD W

FE NTEM RD W
GAY ST
W

DIANA RD S
WEST
RD

N NEWCOM B AVE
N SAN

DIEG O AVE

INDIANA AVE S

N JE RROLD AVE

N HUDS ON
AVE

LE WIS RD
BRYANT
AVE

CLAUSEN
RD

N MILLUX RD

M ASON RD W

PUMP RD W

WILLIS RD S

E STUHR
RD

N HUDSON AV E

CARLUCCI RD
S

PFITZE R RD W

N JERROLD AVE
ISLAND
AVE

S DERRICK AV E
DODDS

EHRLICH RD

JENNINGS RD

WANGE NHEIM

RD TAGLIO RD
W

RAMOS RD W

W KEY AVE

PRESTON RD W

A PRICOT AV E
HWY 152 S

HALE RD

BATTEN RD W

VOLTA R
S
D

N FAIRFAX AVE

AZEVEDO
RD

W BRADBURY
RD

LEOTA ST
S

BRAZO RD W

DENTON & LE AK RD W

W COPPER
AVE

W OX ALIS AVE

W CALIFO RNIA
AVE

SANTA RITA GRD W

ROMERO RD W

PFITZE R RD W
S S AN

BERNARDINO AVE

W SAN JOSE AVE

PALM AVE S

DOS PALOS
RD

S CA RPENTER RD

N RUSS ELL AV E

AZEV EDO RD S

ORCHARD RD S

HU SMAN RD
W
MILLUX
AVE

MERVEL AVE W

CACTU S DR
W

LAGUNA RD
W

JERSEY RD S

NANTE S AV E S

N MILLUX RD

N JERRO LD
AVE
APPLE
AVE

HILMAR RD

HARV EY RD
VENICE
RD

JORGENSEN RD
W

CANY ON RD S

N OHIO AVE

RAMOS RD S

N HUDSON AV E

W WHITESBRIDGE AVE
N SAN

BERNARDINO AVE

WORTHINGTON RD
W

GUN CLUB RD W

WILSON RD S

BORBA RD
W

W OLIVE AVE

ROSE GARDEN
RD W

NEWSOM RD
S

HA LEY RD W

LOCKE AVE

CLEM ENT AVE S

ALMOND DR W

CREE K RD S

JOHNS ON RD S
I-5 S

M ADERA
RD

N BRANNO N
RD

FINK RD

ORCHARD RD S

W IKE CROW RD

W HARDING RD
HOG IN

HE ARSTRD W

HELM CANAL RD

POLE LINERD S

W ORMS BY AVE

RIVER RD

SANTA FE GRD W

S SAN BE NITO AVE

WARD RD
S

CATRINA ST W
HWY 152

WOO RD S

CHEROKEE RD

W PANOCHE RD

MORAG A AVE S

INGOMAR GRD W

WASHINGTON RD W

WARD AVE

SANTA FE GRD W

MEDLIN RD

AUGUS T RD

JORGENSEN RD

SWIFT AVE S

WILD DUCK RD S

W WHITESBRIDG E AVE

HUSMAN RD W

SANTA FE GRD

SANTA CRUZ GUN CLUB RD S
CA MP 13 RD W

P OLE LINE RD W
I-5 S

SANTA FE GRD W

CROWS LAND NI G RD

POMEGRANATE AVE

PEAR AVE
FIG
AVE
HWY 152 W
HWY 33 S

DAV IS RD

W HERNDO N
AVE

MORAN RD MORAN RD

W S TUHR RD

PE TE M LI LER RD

HILLS FERRY RD

INDIANA RD
A
S
LFALFA
RD

OLD LAS

PALMAS AV E

N DOUGLAS
AVE
PRUNE
AVE

FREITAS RD

J T CROW RD
HWY 140 W
HWY 140 W

BLUE HILL

HELM DITCH RD

FINK RD

W S HAW AVE

SCHMIDT RD S

PETE MIL LER RD

COTTON RD W

BUNKER RD
W

OREST MI BA RD

CO TTONWOO D RD
W

CHARLESTON RD W

OAK FLAT RD

WHITWORTH RD S

HALLOWELL RD

NETHERTON RD W

N RUSS ELL AV E

N GALVEZ AVE

MANUCHA RD

DODDS RD
33 34
35 36
31 6
5 4 3 2 1 6
5 4
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
22 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28
27 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
2 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10
11 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
19 20 21 22 23
24 19 20 21 22 23
24 30
29 28
27 26
29 30 25 28 27 26
25 32 33 34 35
36 31
32 33 34 35 36
5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
6 8
9 10 11 12
8 7
9 10 11 12
7 17
16 15 14 13 18 17
16 15 14 13 18
17 16
20 21 22 23
24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20
22 21
28 27 26 25 30
29 28
27 26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 29
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4
3 2 9
10 11 12 8 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7
15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17
22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 27
26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 2
1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 12
7 8 9
10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 18
17 16 15 14 13 18 16 17 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 20
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 23 21 24 19 20 28
27 26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30
29 28
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32
33 3
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6
5 4
3 2 1 6 5 4
3 11
12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 11 7 12 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 13
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
18 14 13 17 15 18 16 17 16 15
14 19
20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 24 20 23 21 19 22 20 21 22 23
24 29
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 25 27 30 26 29 28 30 27 26
25 33
34 35 36 31 32 33
12 7 8 12 7 9 8 9 10 7 11 12 10
11 8 9 10 11
14 13 18
16 15 14 13
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36
31 32 33 34 35
31 32 33 36 31 34 35 36
3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 2 1 3 6 4 5 11 12 7 8 9 7 8 10 9 11 12 10 9 10 7 11 11 8 12 12 7
8 7
16 11 12 9 10
13 18 18 17 16 17
15 15 14 16 13 18 17 16 14 14 13 15 18 13 17 18
17 15 14 13
24 19 20 21 22
30 29 28 27
32 33 34
5 4
3 9
10 15
23 24 20 21 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 19 20 19 21 24 23 20 21 24 22 23
25 30 26 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 5 2 1 6 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
2 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
17 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 14 15 14 17 16 14 13
13 15 18
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 20 21 24 19 22 23 22
24 23 23 24 19 22 20 21
27 26 25 30 25 30 29 27 26
26 28 27 28 29
8 SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

BRAVEL SLOUGH
SALT
SLOUGH
OWENS
CREEK

OWENS CREEK
OWENS
CREEK

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER

EAST SIDE
BYPASS

EAST SIDE BYPASS

EAST SIDE
BYPASS

EAST SIDE BYPASS
EAST
SIDE
BYPASS

JOAQUIN
SAN
RIVER
LAKE
HONDA
ASH
SLOUGH
DUCK
POND

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

ASH SLOUGH
LAKE
RAMONA
ASH
SLOUGH

OLSON POND

EL NIDO

RESERVOIR
FLAT
POND
ASH
SLOUGH

MUD SLOUGH
MUD
SLOUGH

LITTLE PANOCHE CREEK

E PANOCHE CREEK
LOWER

RUTH LAKE
UPPER
RUTH
LAKE

DELTA MENDOTA
CANAL

DELTA MENDOTA
CANAL
WELL
POND
PEAR
SLOUGH
SLOUGH
MUD

DEEP SLOUGH
CREEK
BEAR
LONE
WILLOW
SLOUGH
SALT
SLOUGH
SALT
SLOUGH
DUCK
POND
LAS
GARZAS
CREEK

LAS GARZAS
CREEK

LOS BANOS
CREEK

LOS BANOS CREEK
FRESNO
RIVER
BEAR
CREEK
QUINTO
CREEK
LOS
BANOS
CREEK
MUD
SLOUGH
FRESNO
RIVER

MUD SLOUGH
LITTLE

BUTTONWILLOW
LAKE

BUTTONWILLOW SLOUGH

FRESNO RIVER

BIG WATER
LAKE

DEEP SLOUGH

FRESNO RIVER

DUCK POND

SAN LUIS

RESERVOIR

BEAR CREEK
BEAR
CREEK
LONE
WILLOW
SLOUGH

BEAR CREEK

BERENDA
SLOUGH

CHOWCHILLA RIVER

CHOWCHILLA
RIVER

FRESNO RIVER

EAST SIDE
BYPASS
ENS
CREEK

COTTONWOOD
CREEK

CHOWCHILLA
RIVER
MERCED
RIVER
MERCED
RIVER

MERCED RIVER

MERCED RIVER
LITTLE

PANOCHE

RESERVOIR
MUD
SLOUGH

BERENDA
SLOUGH
DUCK
POND

BERENDA
SLOUGH
ASH
SLOUGH

BERENDA
SLOUGH
LOS

BERENDA
SLOUGH

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
BEAR
CREEK

NORTH FORK LOS

BANOS CREEK
DRY
CREEK

DRY CREEK

PANOCHE
CREEK

PANOCHE CREEK PANOCHE
CREEK
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER
SOUTH
FORK

LOS BANOS CREEK
SOUTH

FORK LOS BANOS
CREEK

LONE WILLOW
SLOUGH

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
LITTLE

PANOCHE
CREEK
LITTLE

PANOCHE
CREEK
LOS
BANOS

RESERVOIR

FRESNO RIVER

ORESTIMBA
O`NEILL

FOREBAY

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT
CREEK
BANOS
CREEK

ORESTIMBA
CREEK
R.8E
R.9E
R.7 E
R.8 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.9 E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13 E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15 E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12 E
R.11 E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15 E
R.16 E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
T.5S
T.6S
T.5S
T.6S
T.5S
T.6S
T.6 S
T.7S T.6S
T.7S
T.6S
T.7S
T.6S
T.7S
T.6S
T.7S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.9S
T.10S T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9 S
T.10S T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.10 S
T.11S T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.12S
T.13S T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13 S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S
T.14S
T.15S
Firebaugh
Mendota
Newman
erson
Turlock
Atwater
Delhi
Dos
Palos
Gustine
Hilmar-Irwin
Livingston
Los
Banos
Winton Chowchilla
0 1 2 4 6 8
Miles

DELTA-MENDOTA

SUBBASIN
FIGURE 4 - 2014 LAND USE FROM CADWR
.

EXPLANATION:

SJREC GSP Group Area
Delta-Mendota Subbasin
Statewide Crop Mapping 2014
C | CITRUS AND SUBTROPICAL
D | DECIDUOUS FRUITS AND NUTS
F | FIELD CROPS
G | GRAIN AND HAY CROPS
I | IDLE
NR | RIPARIAN VEGETATION
P | PASTURE
R | RICE
T | TRUCK NURSERY AND BERRY CROPS
U | URBAN
V | VINEYARD
Y | YOUNG PERENNIAL
31 129
32 Figure 5 shows the density of domestic wells per square mile within the SJREC GSP. Data for Figure 5 used the information provided on the DWR Well Completion Report Map Application (https://dwr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=181078580a214c0986e2da28f8623b 37). These wells are typically referred to as “de minimis” extraction wells. Figure 6 shows the density of production (agriculture, City, industry, etc.) wells per square mile within the SJREC GSP. Data for Figure 6 was provided from historic field surveys of active wells in the area. Field surveys provide the most reliable data to map active wells in an area. Primarily, all communities are dependent upon groundwater or plan to use groundwater as an emergency water supply. 130
R.7 E
R.8 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.9 E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12 E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9 E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14 E
R.8 E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13 E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15 E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.11 E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15 E
R.16 E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
T.5S
T.6S
T.5S
T.6S
T.5S
T.6S
T.6 S
T.7 S T.6S
T.7S
T.6S
T.7S
T.6S
T.7 S
T.6S
T.7S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8 S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.9S
T.10S T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9 S
T.10S T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.10 S
T.11S T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.12S
T.13 S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S
T.14S
T.15
S
S
tanislaus
Merced
Stanislaus
Santa
Clara
Merced
Fresno
S
Merced
anta Clara
Merced
San Benito
Merced
Madera
Stanislaus
Merced
06 06
05 30
07 06
31 31
11 04
11 03
01 30
06 19
11 11
11 11
13 11
07 11
36 11
01 19
05 11
18 11
17 11
11 11
11 11
15 11
31 20
11 02
12 19
19 18
11 24
06 04
20 24
27 22
31 32
05 18
30 19
14 29
24 05
30 20
11 24
02 30
04 12
36 01
19 05
23 13
02 14
31 26
30 23
14 30
17 27
23 19
25 09
29 10
29 14
07 32
13 07
03 19
02 01
27 25
24 15
20 30
30 25
22 22
14 23
24 06
19 23
02 01
26 33
03 35
18 32
15 08
34 26
03 22
23 18
33 22
26 25
27 33
25 04
16 11
22 21
22 14
21 10
33 10
19 25
13 21
19 30
15 31
08 32
06 36
19 02
01 28
03 26
31 16
31 32
29 30
35 33
10 07
05 12
35 18
13 07
35 16
18 01
18 34
30 30
08 36
25 03
35 08
17 24
15 30
28 13
23 17
25 28
01 32
35 32
14 25
24 36
03 27
13 09
35 19
16 17
25 35
31 12
13 27
15 21
09 20 36
34 18
30 34
28 03
29 31
20 06
12 15
16 12
05 08
35 21
32 14
05 33
03 04
27 34
04 26
06 24
19 34
26 35
33 32
30 36
27 08
29 07
20 04
34 29
26 24
26 19
08 22
17 33
23 09
23 36
05 29
28 24
30 34
10 24
24 22
08 27
11 09
29 35
32 29
33 36
20 34
14 10
18 27
22 31
36 26
21 06
31 20 10
09 35
24 33
09 01 09
21 23
18 30
25 29
23 36
29 06
33 31
06 35
35 28
34 21
04 26
15 13
12 34
29 03
13 28
34 29
28 24
19 14
21 14
27 01
05 13
13 18
22 03
35 09
06 08
01 12
32 04
05 23
14 07
21 22
20 04
31 13
16 16
09 31
36 23
20 12
14 32
32 13
25 10
28 09
34 14
27 27
36 01
01 02
15 23
01 33
28 06
17 18
36 36
15 17
24 13
17 22
01 02
23 17
05 19
15 28
08 08
13 10
15 24
14 02 03
18 02
15 09
16 22
15 19
25 16
25 21
20 09
20 36
26 27
09 32
08 25
26 07
09 06
07 02
26 09
21 02
20 12
23 10
06 21
20 01
26 31
30 12
13 18
08 19
15 12
20 16
15 27
17 33
07 13
13 02
17 18
05 20
08 14
20 34
12 26
04 02
02 17
07 02
09 35
36 32
27 34 28
22 12
32 30
12 01
30 28
10 05 10
21 03
32 08 16
26 22
26 21
22 12
17 31
06 33
22 15
27 04
15 14
25 22
10 28
17 03
03 15
18 29
21 23
04 25
13 19
24 19
29 09
18 24
20 08
16 24
29 05
15 23
24 08
07 17
09 05
16 28
19 36
32 28
02 26
24 34
23 08
30 36
29 20
21 14
08 16
14 10
26 18
15 10
16 13
01 16
05 07
34 16
32 05
31 16
03 17
31 23
25 04
28 17
10 10
27 10
01 31
34 35
35 27
05 09
17 25
36 16
26 31
31 31
19 02
10 24
06 10
07 33
08 18
32 16
25 15
21 28
29 36
03 21
25 12
33 30
32 33
20 22
33 18
33 34
04 06
08 27
07 21
28 10
04 09
07 14
06 32
34 04
02 35
32 27
09 29
17 16
31 07
23 20
17 24
04 08
28 22
35 03
02 08
07 28
10 23
29 14
30 05
02 16
05 32
26 16
06 06
36 04
03 01
06 36
29 17
22 07
15 36
28 35
05 09
01 25
33 07
06 03
26 12
34 20
34 27
17 16
05 13
28 14
17 06
04 03
08 15
36 03
23 21
33 07
12 02
26 12
22 33
08 24
10 07
14 01
23 35
31 06
05 02
35 18
03 03
09 30
02 13
01 22
04 25
10 04
21 17
01 05
23 16
12 19
09 29
05 04
26 23
07 21
08 07
32 33
12 26
32 20
14 07
17 25
36 04
16 21
31 13
16 35
29 14
27 29
33 04
35 12
27 31
33 09
14 23
25 13
20 06 08
26 25
29 19
26 11
18 30
01 17
31 25
34 16
13 15
34 25
21 34
35 02
35 11
04 20
19 35
12 05
09 15
07 27
32 18
16 13
33 36
08 07
11 29
24 19
11 32
17 10
12 27
12 24
30 04
14 30
23 28
22 14
30 24
28 17
17 26
29 22
18 28
34 23
31 36
14 28
18 12
01 02
10 34
06 18
06 21
08 21
20 15
36 12
33 24
02 11
28 22
35 19
27 21
27 09
29 27
35 24
30 06
35 18
34 16
15 20
27 25
18 21
22 13
34 26
25 15
31 21
02 01
01 26
02 26
35 10
20 03
12 05
36 01
05 33
07 15 11 18
03 05
27 05
35 03
27 01
17 17
10 32
33 08
08 34
30 01
32 34 01
12 30
14 02
33 33
01 28
16 27
25 01
34 22
03 29
22 20
08 28
04 09
05 11
01 19
15 13
32 36
10 05
28 31
04 19
36 33
01 17
18 19
19 17
11 11
23 22
20 14
22 21
34 04
13 33
36 13
20 30
10 19
0 2.5 5 10
Miles
FIGURE 5 - WELL DENSITY MAP FOR DOMESTIC WELLS
.

EXPLANATION:

Domestic Well Count:

DELTA-MENDOTA SUBBASIN
0 1 - 5
6 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30

SJREC GSA BOUNDARY
33 131
R.7 E
R.8 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.9 E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12 E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9 E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14 E
R.8 E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13 E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15 E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.11 E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15 E
R.16 E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
T.5S
T.6S
T.5S
T.6S
T.5S
T.6S
T.6 S
T.7 S T.6S
T.7S
T.6S
T.7S
T.6S
T.7 S
T.6S
T.7S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8 S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.9S
T.10S T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9 S
T.10S T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.10 S
T.11S T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.12S
T.13 S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S
T.14S
T.15
S
S
tanislaus
Merced
Stanislaus
Santa
Clara
Merced
Fresno
S
Merced
anta Clara
Merced
San Benito
Merced
Madera
Stanislaus
Merced
06 06
05 30
07 06
31 31
11 04
11 03
01 30
06 19
11 11
11 11
13 11
07 11
36 11
01 19
05 11
18 11
17 11
11 11
11 11
15 11
31 20
11 02
12 19
19 18
11 24
06 04
20 24
27 22
31 32
05 18
30 19
14 29
24 05
30 20
11 24
02 30
04 12
36 01
19 05
23 13
02 14
31 26
30 23
14 30
17 27
23 19
25 09
29 10
29 14
07 32
13 07
03 19
02 01
27 25
24 15
20 30
30 25
22 22
14 23
24 06
19 23
02 01
26 33
03 35
18 32
15 08
34 26
03 22
23 18
33 22
26 25
27 33
25 04
16 11
22 21
22 14
21 10
33 10
19 25
13 21
19 30
15 31
08 32
06 36
19 02
01 28
03 26
31 16
31 32
29 30
35 33
10 07
05 12
35 18
13 07
35 16
18 01
18 34
30 30
08 36
25 03
35 08
17 24
15 30
28 13
23 17
25 28
01 32
35 32
14 25
24 36
03 27
13 09
35 19
16 17
25 35
31 12
13 27
15 21
09 20 36
34 18
30 34
28 03
29 31
20 06
12 15
16 12
05 08
35 21
32 14
05 33
03 04
27 34
04 26
06 24
19 34
26 35
33 32
30 36
27 08
29 07
20 04
34 29
26 24
26 19
08 22
17 33
23 09
23 36
05 29
28 24
30 34
10 24
24 22
08 27
11 09
29 35
32 29
33 36
20 34
14 10
18 27
22 31
36 26
21 06
31 20 10
09 35
24 33
09 01 09
21 23
18 30
25 29
23 36
29 06
33 31
06 35
35 28
34 21
04 26
15 13
12 34
29 03
13 28
34 29
28 24
19 14
21 14
27 01
05 13
13 18
22 03
35 09
06 08
01 12
32 04
05 23
14 07
21 22
20 04
31 13
16 16
09 31
36 23
20 12
14 32
32 13
25 10
28 09
34 14
27 27
36 01
01 02
15 23
01 33
28 06
17 18
36 36
15 17
24 13
17 22
01 02
23 17
05 19
15 28
08 08
13 10
15 24
14 02 03
18 02
15 09
16 22
15 19
25 16
25 21
20 09
20 36
26 27
09 32
08 25
26 07
09 06
07 02
26 09
21 02
20 12
23 10
06 21
20 01
26 31
30 12
13 18
08 19
15 12
20 16
15 27
17 33
07 13
13 02
17 18
05 20
08 14
20 34
12 26
04 02
02 17
07 02
09 35
36 32
27 34 28
22 12
32 30
12 01
30 28
10 05 10
21 03
32 08 16
26 22
26 21
22 12
17 31
06 33
22 15
27 04
15 14
25 22
10 28
17 03
03 15
18 29
21 23
04 25
13 19
24 19
29 09
18 24
20 08
16 24
29 05
15 23
24 08
07 17
09 05
16 28
19 36
32 28
02 26
24 34
23 08
30 36
29 20
21 14
08 16
14 10
26 18
15 10
16 13
01 16
05 07
34 16
32 05
31 16
03 17
31 23
25 04
28 17
10 10
27 10
01 31
34 35
35 27
05 09
17 25
36 16
26 31
31 31
19 02
10 24
06 10
07 33
08 18
32 16
25 15
21 28
29 36
03 21
25 12
33 30
32 33
20 22
33 18
33 34
04 06
08 27
07 21
28 10
04 09
07 14
06 32
34 04
02 35
32 27
09 29
17 16
31 07
23 20
17 24
04 08
28 22
35 03
02 08
07 28
10 23
29 14
30 05
02 16
05 32
26 16
06 06
36 04
03 01
06 36
29 17
22 07
15 36
28 35
05 09
01 25
33 07
06 03
26 12
34 20
34 27
17 16
05 13
28 14
17 06
04 03
08 15
36 03
23 21
33 07
12 02
26 12
22 33
08 24
10 07
14 01
23 35
31 06
05 02
35 18
03 03
09 30
02 13
01 22
04 25
10 04
21 17
01 05
23 16
12 19
09 29
05 04
26 23
07 21
08 07
32 33
12 26
32 20
14 07
17 25
36 04
16 21
31 13
16 35
29 14
27 29
33 04
35 12
27 31
33 09
14 23
25 13
20 06 08
26 25
29 19
26 11
18 30
01 17
31 25
34 16
13 15
34 25
21 34
35 02
35 11
04 20
19 35
12 05
09 15
07 27
32 18
16 13
33 36
08 07
11 29
24 19
11 32
17 10
12 27
12 24
30 04
14 30
23 28
22 14
30 24
28 17
17 26
29 22
18 28
34 23
31 36
14 28
18 12
01 02
10 34
06 18
06 21
08 21
20 15
36 12
33 24
02 11
28 22
35 19
27 21
27 09
29 27
35 24
30 06
35 18
34 16
15 20
27 25
18 21
22 13
34 26
25 15
31 21
02 01
01 26
02 26
35 10
20 03
12 05
36 01
05 33
07 15 11 18
03 05
27 05
35 03
27 01
17 17
10 32
33 08
08 34
30 01
32 34 01
12 30
14 02
33 33
01 28
16 27
25 01
34 22
03 29
22 20
08 28
04 09
05 11
01 19
15 13
32 36
10 05
28 31
04 19
36 33
01 17
18 19
19 17
11 11
23 22
20 14
22 21
34 04
13 33
36 13
20 30
10 19
0 2.5 5 10
Miles
FIGURE 6 - WELL DENSITY MAP FOR PRODUCTION WELLS
.

EXPLANATION:

Production Well Count:

DELTA-MENDOTA SUBBASIN
0 1 - 5
6 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30

SJREC GSA BOUNDARY
34 132
35 2.1.2 Water Resources Monitoring and Management Programs Agricultural Water Management Plans (AWMP’s) are required through the state enacted Water Conservation Act of 2009 (Senate Bill X7-7). The SJRECWA has adopted the 2016 AWMP on behalf of its member agencies. Data reported in the AWMP’s will be used to supplement other data sets to successfully manage groundwater through the SGMA.

The Urban Water Management Planning Act was enacted through the California Legislature in 1983.

Every urban water supplier that provides over 3,000 acre-feet of water annually or serves more than 3,000 urban connections is required to submit an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). UWMP’s are prepared by urban water suppliers every five years. The primary purpose of the UWMP is to provide urban water suppliers with a long-term plan to ensure that adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water needs. The City of Newman GSA and the City of Los Banos GSA have adopted an UWMP. Water Resource planning requires flexibility to changing water supply and demand.

A more detailed analysis on urban water management can be found in the respective City GSA Section in this GSP.

The Groundwater Management Act (AB 3030) was enacted through the California Legislature in 1992.

Groundwater Management Plans (GWMP’s) provided a planned and coordinated monitoring, operation, and administration of groundwater basins with the long-term goal of groundwater resource sustainability. The GSP’s required through the SGMA, once adopted, will replace GWMP’s. The SJRECWA is currently managing groundwater through their AB 3030 GWMP adopted in 2014. The SJRECWA AB 3030 plan is the foundation for the successful management of groundwater within the SJRECWA service area. One of the key elements of the plan iswas establishing management areas, which are now called monitoring zones, based on hydrogeological characteristics.

The California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program was enacted through the California Legislature in 2009 (Senate Bill X7-6). CASGEM was established to systematically monitor and manage groundwater in California. Data reported in CASGEM will be used to supplement other data sets to successfully manage groundwater through the SGMA. The Groundwater Monitoring Program in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin is managed by the SLDMWA and characterizes the groundwater basin and outlines monitoring procedures.

The Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) was initiated in 2003 to prevent agricultural runoff from impairing surface waters, and in 2012, groundwater regulations were added to the program. ILRP in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin is managed by the CVRWQCB. All irrigated lands used commercially, require an ILRP discharge permit. All irrigated agriculture in the SJREC GSA has coverage through the Westside San Joaquin River Watershed Coalition. Data reported in ILRP will be used to supplement groundwater quality data sets to successfully manage groundwater through the SGMA.

The Regional Water Management Planning Act (Senate Bill 1672) was passed by the California Legislature in 2002. Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) is a collaborative effort to identify and implement water management solutions on a regional scale that increase regional self-reliance, reduce conflict, and manage water to concurrently achieve social, environmental, and economic objectives. The SJREC GSP group participates in the Westside San Joaquin Integrated Water Resources Plan. This integrated regional plan has promoted collaborative water resource management. This process is a continuation of regional collaboration to implement local water resource projects that 133
36 provide resiliency to surface water and groundwater supply. It is anticipated that projects listed in the IRWM grant will be part of regional Projects to maintain and/or achieve sustainability in the DeltaMendota Subbasin. The SLDMWA is acting as the Regional Water Management Group for the region and let the effort in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin for the 2018 Westside-San Joaquin IRWM Plan.

Since 1996, the CCID has prepared an annual Deep Well Study Summary of Central California Irrigation District Wells and Private Wells. Each year the results of the study were provided to KDSA for review.

The annual deep well study works in conjunction with the SJRECWA AB 3030 GWMP. Water levels in each management areamonitoring zone are reviewed to determine the status of the aquifer. In a few management areasmonitoring zones, where the aquifer is stressed during times of drought, trigger levels have been established for transferring groundwater out of the area. In the drought of 2014-2016, the water level in Management AreasMonitoring Zones A and C were below the established trigger and therefore KDSA recommended restricting the transfer of groundwater from parts those areas. By 2017, the water levels in those areas had fully recovered and KDSA recommended allowing groundwater transfers from the area consistent with the CCID Rules Governing Pumping of Private Wells for Water Credits in Other Districts. This study and the resulting analysis have proven invaluable to the success of the groundwater management within the SJREC GSA.

The member agencies of the SJRECWA have taken an active role managing groundwater dating back to the 1950’s. There is a deep understanding of the aquifer as a result of over 60 years of actively monitoring and managing groundwater through local independent assessments, to voluntary state legislative programs, to the landmark SGMA. The SJRECWA has proven success to sustainably manage groundwater and successful implementation of SGMA, in coordination with other monitoring and management programs, will continue through the SJREC GSA. The existing monitoring programs in place will be reviewed by a Hydrogeologist/Engineer and implemented into the SJREC GSP where applicable in analyzing potential impacts to the six Undesirable Results outlined in the SGMA.

The primary water supply to CCID, SLCC, FCWD and CCC (member agencies of the SJREC GSA) is surface water delivered as part of the CVP. However, the use of groundwater has proven an effective water management planning tool. The member agencies of the SJREC GSA and their landowners, own and operate a series of groundwater extraction wells. Typically, groundwater is used to meet peak demand, provide flexibility to operational delivery and provide additional supply during critically dry years.

Pumping groundwater is also an effective tool to help control the migration of poor water quality in certain areas and can also relieve a perched water table. Groundwater recharge is vitally important to the sustainability within the SJREC GSA. The SJREC will continue to maintain groundwater management sustainability through a positive contribution to groundwater storage. The SJREC GSA, through the SJRECWA, is actively pursuing Projects to increase groundwater recharge. A more in depth analysis on Projects can be found in Section 4.0.

2.1.3 Land Use Elements or Topic Categories of Applicable General Plans California state law requires each City and County to develop and adopt a general plan. The General Plan, amended from time to time, consists of the respective community’s vision for the future. Some mandatory elements that are addressed in the plan include: land use planning, transportation, housing, conservation, open space, noise and safety. Of these, the most important elements that are directly relevant in SGMA are land use planning and population predictions. The SJREC GSA includes six City General Plans and four County General Plans. The SJREC GSA in coordination with other GSA’s as part of 134
37 the SJREC GSP group are working together to coordinate GSP development consistent with approved General Plans. Following is a table of current General Plans that are covered within this GSP.

Entity
Year Adopted
or Last
Amended Planning Area
City of Newman 2016
City and unincorporated land north of W
Stuhr Road to Lundy Road, Draper Road to
Eastin Road, and south of Newman to the
Newman Wasteway
City of Gustine 2017
City and 1/4 to 1/2 mile north of North
Avenue, 1/4 mile east of East Avenue,
Gun Club Road to the south, and Jensen
Road to the west
City of Los Banos 2016
City and agricultural land and residential,
commercial and industrial developments
as well as public facilities, including parks,
schools, and the Waste Water Treatment
Plant
City of Dos Palos 2003 City and SOI north to Carmelia Road City of Firebaugh 2016
City and approximately 3,410 acres
outside City limits
City of Mendota 2016
City and approximately 2,500 acres
outside City limits
County of Stanislaus 2016 County, including unincorporated land County of Merced 2016 County, including unincorporated land County of Madera 2015 County, including unincorporated land County of Fresno 2016 County, including unincorporated land Table 4 – Existing General Plans within the SJREC GSP Boundary The existing land use designations are shown on Figure 7. The following categories, depicted on Figure 7, represent the zoning codes for land use descriptions. 135
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.9 E
R.10E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
12E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13 E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15 E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.11 E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16 E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
T.5S
T.6S
T.6S
T.7S
T.6S
T.7S
T.6S
T.7S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S T.8S
T.9S T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.9S
T.10S T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9 S
T.10S T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.10S
T.11S T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S T.11S
T.12S
T.12S
T.13S T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S
T.14S
T.15S
Stanislaus
Merced
Merced
Fresno
Merced Santa Clara
Merced
San Benito
Merced
Madera
Merced
Stanislaus
Firebaugh
Mendota
Newman
Dos
Palos
Gustine
Los
Banos
Ma
Ac

VA LER IA
AVE

W BELM ON T
AVE
M S T
W
H S T
L ST W

P OM ELO
AVE

MC CLINTOCK RD

VOLTA RD
S
N ST
W

A LM O ND
AVE

EUCALYP TUS RD W
HW Y 33

ME RRILL AV E

BRANNO N AV E

N DOS PALO S RD
I
ST
VE

S DE RRICK AVE
ELGIN
AVE

W NE ES AV E

PALM AVE S

W M ERRILL AVE

N FA IR FAX AVE

C ENTER AVE
S

PIONE E R RD W
HW Y 165 S

ME RCEY SP RINGS RD S
HW Y 33

SANTA NE LL A BLV D S

SN YDER RD
W

OLLE R ST

P S T W
4TH
ST
N ST

ING OMA R RD S

O REST IMBA
RD

FRO NTIER S T
W

HE NRY M ILLE R AV E W

HUNT RD S

N S AN DIEG O AV E

N D OU GLAS
AVE

W ASHL AN AVE

SUNS ET AVE W

N D OS PALO S RD

HUNT RD S

CO TTO N G IN RD W

SHAIN AV E
VILLA

FOLS OM AV E
L
ST
BASS
AVE

CE NTE R AV E S

FIALHO AV E W

SANTA F E G RD

SHIE LLS RD

W S HAIN AVE

N DOS PALOS RD

ARM S TRONG RD

BADG ER F LAT RD S

C APR I AVE
W

W HE RNDON AV E

N CAM BRIA AV E

FAH EY RD W

W BULLARD AVE

N FAIRFAX
AVE
H OYER
RD

W M INT AV E
HW Y 152 W

GRAND AV E W

J O HNSO N RD
S
I- 5 I- 5
I- 5

DRAP E R RD

N LY ON AV E

LINDEN AV E W

S ANTA LU CIA
AVE S

W M CKINLEY AV E

HOL STEIN RD W
HW Y 140 W

BE LL RD

ING OM AR GRD W

K NIE BES RD
S

RE Y NOLDS AV E S

ANDE RS ON RD

CO PA DE O RA AV E W

N O RLE ANS AV E

UP P ER RD

W S ILAX O AVE

M IDDLE R D
W

C OZZI RD
S

N W ASHO E AV E

JE NS EN RD S
E
ST

LEXINGTO N AVE
S

N D OU GLA S
AVE
F
L
IG
N

N O XF ORD AV E

N OB LE RD
W

H OB ART
AVE

E A STIN
R D

W ALT HEA AV E

N FAIRFAX AVE

W BE HYME R
AVE
CANAL
HW Y 152 S

SAN M ATE O AVE

MIN T R D W

J UL IP R
S
D

PACHECO BLV D W

N NE W COM B AVE

HE NR Y MILLE R
AVE W

N LY ON AV E
I- 5 W

TERCE IRA RD S

H S T W

AUG UST RD
W S AN

JOSE AVE

PIONE E R RD W

SH Y ST
S

ESTHER AVE
S
EL GIN
AVE

EM ORY AVE
W
HW Y 33 S

E MAR SHALL RD

W G ETTYSBU RG
AVE

KIL BURN RD

CANAL S CHOO L RD S

W S HIE LDS AV E

LO DI RD
S

S OH OI
AVE

M ORRIS
RD
LUN DY
RD

W VALE RIA AVE
PUM P
R D

CH ERRY
AVE

N CU STE R
AVE
CUSTER
AVE

TULIP AV
HW Y 140 W

PRINC E RD
S

EH RLIC H R D

SULL IV AN
RD

WAR D R D
S

HU TC HINS RD W

PARADIS E AVE

W CARM EL LIA AVE

DE NTO N & L EAK RD W

W M ILLE R AVE

RO XBURY RD W
DIE HL
RD

S HA IN
AVE

CARM E LLIA AV E W

AUB REY AVE
S

CYP RESS RD
W

EUC ALYPTUS RD
W

CHE R RY
AV E

GU N CLUB RD W

TAG LIO RD W

ARRO YA AVE S
N SAN

BER NA RDINO AVE

O RTIGA LITA RD
S
LU X
AVE
N
AV E
E LGIN

N DAV IDS ON AVE
HO YER
R D

MILLS R D
S

N EVAN S
AVE

AL MO ND DR W

N BRANNO N RD

PHILLIP S RD W

MO FFATT RD S

CHINA CAM P RD W

FENT EM RD W

G AY ST
W

DIANA RD S
W EST
R D

N NE W COM B AVE

N S A N

DIEGO AVE

INDIANA AV E S

N JE RROLD AVE

N H UDSO N
AVE

LEW IS RD
BRYANT
AVE

N M ILL UX RD

MASO N RD W

PUM P RD W

WILLIS RD S

E STUHR
RD

N HUDS ON AVE

CAR LU CCI RD
S

PFITZ ER RD W

N JER ROL D AVE

ISLAN D
AVE

S DE RRICK AVE
DODDS

W ANG ENH EIM

R D TAGLIO RD
W

RAM O S RD W

W KE Y AV E

PRESTON RD W

A PR IC OT AVE
HW Y 152 S

HAL E RD

BAT TEN R D W

V OLTA RD
S

N FAIRFAX AVE

AZE VE DO
RD

W BRA DB URY
RD

LEO TA ST
S

BRAZ O RD W

DE NTO N & L EAK RD W

W CO PPE R
AVE

W OX ALIS AVE

W CALIFO RN IA
AVE

SA NTA R ITA GR D W

RO ME RO RD W

PFITZ ER RD W
S S AN

BERN ARD IN O AVE

W SAN JO SE AVE

PALM AVE S

DOS P ALOS
RD

S CAR PE NTE R RD

N RUS S ELL AVE

AZ EV E DO RD S

ORCHARD RD S

HUS M A N R D
W

MILL UX
AVE

ME RVE L AV E W

CAC TU S D R
W

LA GU NA RD
W

JE RS EY RD S

NANT ES AV E S

N M ILL UX RD

N JER RO LD
AVE
A PPLE
AVE

HIL MAR RD

HARV E Y RD

VEN ICE
RD

JORGEN SEN RD
W

CANY ON RD S

N O HIO AV E

RAM O S RD S

N HUDS ON AVE

W WHIT ES BRIDGE AV E
N S AN

B ERNA RDINO AVE

WO RTHING TON R D
W

GUN CLUB RD W

WILS ON RD S

BORB A R D
W

W OL IV E AVE

RO SE GA RDEN
R D W

NE WSO M RD
S

HALEY R D W

LOCKE AVE

CL EM E NT AV E S

AL MO ND DR W

CRE E K RD S

JO HNSO N RD S
I- 5 S

M ADERA
RD

N BR ANN ON
RD

ORCHARD RD S

W IKE CRO W RD
HO GIN

H E AR S TR D W

HE LM CANAL RD

PO LE LIN ERD S

W ORM S BY AV E

RIV E R RD

SANTA F E G RD W

S S AN BENITO AVE

WA RD R D
S

CATR IN A ST W
HW Y 152

WOO RD S

C HER OK EE R D

W PANOCHE RD

MOR AG A AVE S

ING OM AR GRD W

WASHING TON RD W

SANTA F E G RD W

ME DLIN RD

AUG UST RD

JO RGE NSE N RD

SW IFT AV E S

WILD D UC K RD S

W WHITES BRIDGE AVE

HUS M AN RD W

SANTA FE G RD

SANTA CRUZ GUN CLUB RD S
CAM P 13 RD W

POLE LIN E R D W
I- 5 S

SA NTA FE GR D W

CRO WS LANDING RD

POM E GRANATE AVE

PE AR AVE
HW Y 152 W
HW Y 33 S

DAV IS RD

W H ER NDON
AVE

MO RAN RD

W S TUHR RD

PET E M ILLE R RD

HIL LS F ERRY RD

IND IANA RD S

ALFAL FA
RD

N DO UG LAS
AVE

P R UNE
AVE

FREITAS RD

J T CRO W RD
H WY 140 W
HW Y 140 W

BL UE HILL

HELM DITCH RD

FINK RD

W S HAW AVE

SCHM IDT RD S

PETE M ILLE R RD

CO TTO N RD W

B UNK ER RD
W

ORE STIM BA R D

C OTTO N WO OD RD
W

CHARL ES TON RD W

WHITW ORTH RD S

HAL LOW EL L RD

NE THE RTON RD W

N RUS S ELL AVE

N G ALVE Z AV E

MANUCHA RD

DODDS RD
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

BRAVEL SLOUGH
SALT
SLOUGH
OWENS
CREEK

OWENS CREEK
OWENS
CREEK

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER

EAST SIDE
BYPASS

EAST SIDE BYPASS

EAST SIDE
BYPASS

EAST SIDE BYPASS
EAST
SIDE
BYPASS
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER
LAKE
HONDA
ASH
SLOUGH
DUCK
POND

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

ASH SLOUGH
ASH
SLOUGH

OLSON POND

EL NIDO

RESERVOIR
FLAT
POND
ASH
SLOUGH

MUD SLOUGH
MUD
SLOUGH

LITTLE PANOCHE CREEK

HE CREEK
LOWER

RUTH LAKE
UPPER
RUTH
LAKE

DELTA MENDOTA
CANAL

DELTA MENDOTA
CANAL
WELL
POND
SLOUGH
MUD

DEEP SLOUGH
CREEK
BEAR
LONE
WILLOW
SLOUGH
SALT
SLOUGH
SALT
SLOUGH
DUCK
POND
LAS
GARZAS
CREEK

LAS GARZAS
CREEK

LOS BANOS
CREEK

LOS BANOS CREEK
FRESNO
RIVER
BEAR
CREEK
CREEK
QUINTO
LOS
BANOS
CREEK
MUD
SLOUGH
FRESNO
RIVER

MUD SLOUGH
LITTLE

BUTTONWILLOW
LAKE

BUTTONWILLOW SLOUGH

FRESNO RIVER

BIG WATER
LAKE

DEEP SLOUGH

FRESNO RIVER

DUCK POND

SAN LUIS

RESERVOIR

BEAR CREEK
BEAR
CREEK
LONE
WILLOW
SLOUGH

BERENDA
SLOUGH

CHOWCHILLA RIVER

CHOWCHILLA
RIVER

FRESNO RIVER

EAST SIDE
BYPASS

COTTONWOOD
CREEK

CHOWCHILLA
RIVER
MERCED
RIVER
MERCED
RIVER
LITTLE

PANOCHE

RESERVOIR
MUD
SLOUGH
SLOUGH

BERENDA
DUCK
POND

BERENDA
SLOUGH
ASH
SLOUGH
SLOUGH

BERENDA
LOS

BERENDA
SLOUGH

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

NORTH FORK LOS

BANOS CREEK
DRY
CREEK

DRY CREEK

PANOCHE
CREEK

PANOCHE CREEK

PANOCHE
CREEK
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER
SOUTH

LOS BANOS CREEK
FORK
SOUTH

FORK LOS BANOS
CREEK

LONE WILLOW
SLOUGH
LITTLE

PANOCHE
CREEK
LITTLE

PANOCHE
CREEK
LOS
BANOS

RESERVOIR

FRESNO RIVER
FRESNO

ORESTIMBA
O`NEILL

FOREBAY

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT
CREEK
BANOS
CREEK

ORESTIMBA
CREEK
33 34
35 36
31 5 4 3 2 1 6
5 4
8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
22 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28
27 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
2 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10
11 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
19 20 21 22 23
24 19 20 21 22 23
24 30
29 28
27 26
29 30 25
28 27 26
25 32 33 34 35
36 31
32 33 34 35 36
5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
6 8
9 10 11 12
8 7
9 10 11 12
7 17
16 15 14 13 18 17
16 15 14 13 18
17 16
20 21 22 23
24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20
22 21
28 27 26 25 30
29 28
27 26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 29
33 34 35 36 31 32
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32
33 34
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4
3 2 9
10 11 12 8 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7
15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17
22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 27
26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 2
1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 12
7 8 9
10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 18
17 16 15 14 13 18 16 17 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 20
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 23 21 24 19 20 28
27 26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30
29 28
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32
33 3
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6
5 4
3 2 1 6 5 4
3 11
12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 11 7 12 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 13
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
18 14 13 17 15 18 16 17 16 15
14 19
20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 24 20 23 21 19 22 20 21 22 23
24 29
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 25 27 30 26 29 28 30 27 26
25 33
34 35 36 31 32 33
12 7 8 12 7 9 8 9 10 7 11 12 10
11 8 9 10 11
14 13 18
16 15 14 13
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36
31 32 33 34 35
31 32 33 36 31 34 35 36
3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 2 1 3 6 4 5 11 12 7 8 9 7 8 10 9 11 12 10 9 10 7 11 11 8 12 12 7
8 7
16 11 12 9 10
13 18 18 17 16
17 15 15 14 16 13 18 17 16 14 14 13 15 18 13 17 18
17 15 14 13
24 19 20 21 22
30 29 28 27
32 33 34
5 4
3 9
10 15
23 24 20 21 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 19 20 19 21 24 23 20 21 24 22 23
25 30 26 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 5 2 1 6 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
2 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
17 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 14 15 14 17 16 14 13
13 15 18
21 22 23 24 19
20 21 20 21 24 19 22 23 22
24 23
23 24 19 22 20 21
27 26 25 30
25 30 29 27 26
26 28 27 28 29
8 0 1.5
.
3 6 9 12
Miles
FIGURE 7 - 2018 LAND USE ZONING CODES
EXPLANATION:

Industrial/Commercial (P/C/O/H/M)
Ag Commercial (AC)
Ag Limited 20 Acre (AL 20)
Ag Exclusive 20 Acre (A-2/AE20/ARE-20)
Ag Exclusive 40 Acre (ARE-40)
Urban (RR/R-1 - R-4)
Ag General 40 Acre (A-2-40)
Ag General 10 Acre (A-2-10)
SJREC GSA Boundary
Delta-Mendota Subbasin Boundary
Ag Residential (A-R)
Agricultural General (A-1/AR-5)
3837
136
39 • Ag Residential (A-R): The purpose of the agricultural-residential zone is to provide areas for rural residential development, hobby farming and limited animal raising operations with less than a full range of urban services. It is intended that this zone typically serve as a transitional area between more dense urban communities and agricultural uses with the option of allowing either one unit or three units per acre.
• Urban/Residential (R-#, RR): The purpose of the Residential Zone is to provide a full range of urban services and reserve appropriately located areas for family living at a range of low, medium (up to 15 dwellings per acre), and high (up to 33 dwellings per acre) population densities consistent with sound standards of public health, welfare, and safety. It is the intent of this zone to protect the residential characteristics of an area. • Ag Exclusive 20 Acre (A-2, AE20, ARE-20): The purpose of the exclusive agricultural zone (A-2) is to allow for considerably expanded agricultural enterprises, due mainly to the requirement of larger size land parcels which are more economically suitable to support farming activities occurring in the area. The district shall be accompanied by an acreage designation which establishes the minimum size lot that may be created within the District. Acreage designations of 640, 320, 160, 80, 40, 20, 5 are provided for this purpose. • Industrial/Commercial (P, C, O, H, M): The purpose of the commercial-professional office zone (C, P) is to provide areas for development and operation of professional and administrative offices and personal services rather than retail trade. Typical uses in this zone include medical/dental offices, insurance/travel agencies, government offices, and banks and savings and loans offices. This zone is intended for smaller scale developments that are compatible with residential zoning. The purpose of the highway interchange center zone (H) is to provide areas for commercial uses adjacent to highway interchanges oriented almost exclusively to serve the needs of travelers. The purpose of the general manufacturing zone (M) is to provide for all types of manufacturing, distribution and storage uses.
• Ag General 40 Acre (A-2-40): The purpose of the general agricultural zone is to provide areas where the forty (40) acre minimum parcel size of the zone allows for the widest variety of farming operations including agricultural commercial/industrial uses which are dependent on medium to higher quality soils, water availability and larger parcel sizes away from urban areas. • Ag General 10 Acre (A-2-10): The purpose of the general agricultural zone is to provide areas where the ten (10) acre minimum parcel size of the zone allows for the widest variety of farming operations including agricultural commercial/industrial uses which are dependent on medium to higher quality soils, water availability and larger parcel sizes away from urban areas. • Agricultural General (A-1/AR-5): The purpose of the general agricultural zone is to provide areas where an assigned parcel size of the zone allows for the widest variety of farming operations including agricultural commercial/industrial uses which are dependent on medium to higher quality soils, water availability and larger parcel sizes away from urban areas. • Ag Commercial (AC): This district is intended to provide for the location of commercial centers within agricultural areas for the purpose of providing food and services to the surrounding farm community.
• Ag Limited 20 Acre (AL 20): It is intended to protect the general welfare of the agricultural community by limiting intensive uses in agricultural areas with a twenty (20) acre minimum parcel size where such uses may be incompatible with, or injurious to, other less intensive agricultural operations. The District is also intended to reserve and hold certain lands for future 137
40 urban use by permitting limited agriculture and by regulating those more intensive agricultural uses.

The SJREC GSP, consistent with local/state laws and regulations, will not preempt the City or County land use planning authorities. The SJREC GSA in coordination with the other GSA’s as part of the SJREC GSP Group are establishing a plan to achieve and maintain groundwater sustainability. Implementation of this plan will be managed directly with the six cities and four counties in and around the SJREC GSP area.

The City and County respective General Plans will require updates from time to time. As those General Plans are updated, close coordination with the SJREC GSP group will prove beneficial for the long-term sustainability of groundwater management in the area. Management actions and Projects are being analyzed to achieve/maintain sustainability for each GSA. As the demand for water changes in each respective GSA, the SJREC GSA will help lead a technical effort to analyze new management actions and/or projects to maintain sustainability. A more detailed description of water demands for projected water budgets for each GSA can be found in the respective Section in this GSP.

The GSA’s in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin have been engaging with the neighboring subbasins to coordinate GSP assumptions and implementation of SMC. A successful plan to sustainably manage groundwater in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin requires public outreach to beneficial users of groundwater in those subbasins that are adjacent. The SJREC GSP Group is already successfully managing groundwater, within the boundaries of the plan, in a sustainable fashion. In addition, the SJRECWA has been actively involved to reduce and mitigate subsidence in the Chowchilla Subbasin. A more detailed description of the subsidence mitigation project can be found in Section 4.1.7 under the Red Top Subsidence Mitigation Project. It is anticipated that management actions in adjacent subbasins is unlikely to affect the ability of the SJREC GSP Group to maintain sustainability. Rather, the SJREC will continue efforts to work with the neighboring subbasins to help the region achieve sustainability through projects and management actions.

2.1.4 Additional GSP Elements
Well Permitting: California State requirements for the well permitting process must follow Article 3 of Division 7 of the California Water Code. This states that No person shall undertake to dig, bore, or drill a water well, cathodic protection well, groundwater monitoring well, or geothermal heat exchange well, to deepen or re-perforate such a well, or to abandon or destroy such a well, unless the person responsible for that construction, alteration, destruction, or abandonment possesses a C-57 Water Well Contractor’s License. Every person who digs, bores, or drills a water well, cathodic protection well, groundwater monitoring well, or geothermal heat exchange well, abandons or destroys such a well, or deepens or re-perforates such a well, needs to file with the department a report of completion of that well within 60 days from the date its construction, alteration, abandonment, or destruction is completed. These reports must contain information regarding: 1) A description of the well site sufficiently exact to permit location and identification of the well. 2) A detailed log of the well. 3) A description of the type of construction. 4) The details of perforation. 5) The methods used for sealing off surface or contaminated waters. 6) The methods used for preventing contaminated waters of one aquifer from mixing with the waters of another aquifer. 7) The signature of the well driller. All of the information on these reports will be made available for the public and for governmental agencies.

Merced, Fresno, Madera, and Stanislaus Counties all follow the requirements put in place by Article 3 of Division 7 of the California Water Code. Certain counties have more specific permitting details such as minimum requirements for well depth as well as timetables for that County, however all counties 138
41 require action within 180 days of receiving a permit. For a full description refer to State and County Standards.

Well Construction: Chapter 2 of California Well Standards Bulletin 74-81/90 define that any well that is to be constructed must follow guidelines with respect to; 1) well location around pollutants and contaminants, 2) sealing the upper annular space, 3) surface construction features, and 4) well casing. 1) Well location: All water wells shall be located an adequate horizontal distance from known or potential sources of pollution and contamination. Such sources include; sewers, septic tanks, waste ponds, barnyard and stable areas, feedlots, solid waste disposal sites, above and below ground petroleum tanks, and storage of pesticides and fertilizers. For required distances from potential sources of contaminants for Merced, Fresno, Stanislaus, and Madera counties refer to Table 5. Where possible a well shall be located up the groundwater gradient from potential sources of pollution or contamination. Locating wells up gradient from pollutant and contaminant sources can provide an extra measure of protection for a well. If possible, a well should be located outside areas of flooding. The top of the well casing shall terminate above grade and above known levels of flooding caused by drainage or runoff from surrounding land.

All wells shall be located an adequate distance from buildings and other structures to allow access for well modification, maintenance, repair, and destruction, unless otherwise approved by the enforcing agency.

Table 5 - Well Setback Requirements from Potential Contamination Sources 2) Sealing upper Annular Space: The space between the well casing and the wall of the drilled hole, often referred to as the annular space, shall be effectively sealed to prevent it from being a preferential pathway for movement of poor-quality water, pollutants, or contaminants. The most common sealing material is cement, which consists of several types; neat cement, sand cement, concrete, or mixing cement. To see adequate annular seal depths and corresponding well types for Merced, Fresno, Stanislaus, and Madera counties refer to Table 6.

Merced County Madera County
Fresno
County
Stanislaus
County
Potential Pollution Source
Water
Well
Public
Well
Ag
Well
Domestic
Well
Public
Well
General
Wells
General
Wells
Agricultural 300 300 - 300 300 - -
Areas of intense animal
confinement 100 150 100 100 100 100 100
Leach line or disposal field 100 150 150 100 150 100 100 Seepage pit or cesspool 150 200 150 150 150 150 150
Septic tank 50 100 150 100 150 100 100
Sewer line - - 50 50 50 50 50
Unlined canals, drainage
water pond 100 100 - - - - -
Swimming pool 10 10 - - - - -
139
42 Table 6 - Well Annular Seal Depths
3) Surface Construction Features: Openings into the top of the well which are designed to provide access to the well, i.e., for measuring, chlorinating, adding gravel, etc., shall be protected against entrance of surface waters or foreign matter by installation of watertight caps or plugs. Access openings designed to permit the entrance or egress of air or gas (air or casing vents) shall terminate above the ground and above known flood levels and shall be protected against the entrance of foreign material by installation of down-turned and screened "U" bends.

All other openings (holes, crevices, cracks, etc.) shall be sealed. A "sounding tube", tap hole with plug, or similar access for the introduction of water level measuring devices shall be affixed to the casing of all wells.

A concrete base or pad will be constructed at ground surface around the top of the well casing and contact the annular seal, unless the top of the casing is below the ground surface; see Table 7 for concrete surface seal standards. The use of well pits, vaults, or equivalent features to house the top of a well casing below ground surface shall be avoided, if possible, because of their susceptibility to the entrance of poor-quality water, contaminants and pollutants. Well pits or vaults can only be used if approval is obtained from the enforcing agency. Pump blow offs, air vents, and backflow prevention devices will be constructed on wells to help minimalize the possibility of contamination from flooding events or changes in atmospheric pressure within well piping.

Merced
County
Fresno
County
Madera
County
Stanislaus
County
Minimum thickness 6 in. 4 in. 4 in. 4 in.

Minimum depth below surface 2 in. - 1 in. -
Radial distance (all directions) 2 ft. 2 ft. 2 ft. 2 ft.

Seal gradient distance 1 ft. - 1 ft. -
Table 7 - Surface Seal Standards
4) Well Casing: Well casing shall be strong and tough enough to resist the force imposed on it during installation and those forces which can normally be expected after installation. Several types of well casing include; steel, plastic, and concrete. Steel is the material most frequently used for well casing, especially in drilled wells. Two basic types of plastic are commonly used for Minimum Depth of Annular Seal Below Ground Surface (in feet) Type of Well
Fresno
County
Merced
County
Madera
County
Stanislaus
County
Community Water Supply 50 50 50 50
Industrial 50 50 50 50
Individual Domestic 20 50 20 20
Agricultural 20 50 20 20
Air-Conditioning 20 - 20 20
Dairy 20 50 100 20
Drainage 20 - 20 20
Cathodic Projection 20 20 20 20
Observation/ monitoring 20 20 20 20
140
43 plastic well casing: thermoplastics and thermosets. The most common thermoplastic used for well casing is PVC within the state of California. Thermoset plastics are commonly used for well casing fiberglass, due to it holding its shape after being heated.

Well Destruction: In accordance with California Well Standards Bulletins 74-81 and 74-90, a well may be destroyed if it is considered ‘abandoned’. A well is considered 'abandoned' or permanently inactive if it has not been used for one year, unless the owner demonstrates intention to use the well again. In accordance with Section 24400 of the California Health and Safety Code, the well owner shall properly maintain an inactive well as evidence of intention for future use in such a way that the following requirements are met: 1) The well shall not allow impairment of the quality of water within the well and ground water encountered by the well. 2) The top of the well or well casing shall be provided with a cover, that is secured by a lock or by other means to prevent its removal without the use of equipment or tools, to prevent unauthorized access, to prevent a safety hazard to humans and animals, and to prevent illegal disposal of wastes in the well. The cover shall be watertight if the well is inactive for more than five consecutive years. 3) The well shall be marked so as to be easily visible and located, and labeled so as to be easily identified as a well. 4) The area surrounding the well shall be kept clear of brush, debris, and waste materials. A monitoring well shall be investigated before it is destroyed to determine its condition and details of its construction. The well shall be sounded immediately before it is destroyed to make sure no obstructions exist that will interfere with filling and sealing. The well shall be cleaned before destruction as needed so that all undesirable materials, including obstructions to filling and sealing, debris, oil from oil-lubricated pumps, or pollutants and contaminants that could interfere with well destruction, are removed for disposal. The enforcing agency shall be notified as soon as possible if pollutants or contaminants are known or suspected to be present in a well to be destroyed. A monitoring well shall be destroyed by removing all material within the original borehole, including the well casing, filter pack, and annular seal; and the created hole completely filled with appropriate sealing material. For a full description of well destruction practices refer to State and County Standards.

Saline Water Intrusion: The Counties of Stanislaus, Merced, Madera and Fresno recognize the significance of saline groundwater intrusion. However, the proximal distance from the Pacific Ocean is great enough to negate the possibility of seawater intrusion to the underlying aquifers. In the event that saline water intrusion becomes a problem, an amendment to the General Plan will be prepared to address the concern. Although the counties have not adopted protocols in their respective General Plans to control saline water intrusion, the SJRECWA has been engaged in mitigating the migration of shallow saline water from upslope areas (south and west of the SJREC GSA boundary) primarily in Fresno County. The migration of poor quality water is further detailed in Section 3 in the discussion about drainage from upslope lands.

Migration of Contaminated Groundwater: The SJREC GSA has historically been engaged with analyzing the potential migration of contaminated groundwater. A more detailed description establishing SMC to control the migration of contaminated groundwater can be found in Section 3 addressing the Degraded Water Quality Undesirable Result.

The SJREC GSA manages a sustainable interaction of surface water supplies and groundwater extraction.

While surface water is the primary source of water supply, groundwater is conjunctively used to meet peak demand, provide operational flexibility and provide additional supply during dry years. The 141
44 underground storage has been sustainably managed primarily though replenishment of groundwater extractions. Groundwater recharge is generally recharged through seepage from earthen lined canals and deep percolation from irrigation. In addition, the SJRECWA has an active Water Resource Management Plan to construct recharge ponds and directly recharge the groundwater and recover the water at a later date consistent with implementation of management actions in the SJREC GSP.

Recharge of the aquifer is further analyzed in the Water Budget Section of this Plan.

Wellhead protection: The California Well Standards Bulletin 74, published by DWR, addresses several vulnerabilities for potential groundwater contamination due to improper design of the wellhead. The four primary concerns are: 1) the well is located too close to a known source of pollution, 2) the annular space is not sealed adequately, 3) intrusion through the pump head into the well and 4) direct connection to the well casing. The Counties of Stanislaus, Merced, Madera and Fresno have adopted the standards set forth in Bulletin 74 or provided more restrictive guidelines for well head protection.

These standards provide a required setback distance from a specific potential contaminated source. The standards also provide what type of seal and what depth of seal is required for adequate sealing of the well annular space. To prevent intrusion into the pump, a watertight seal is placed between the pump head and the wellhead support. A concrete slab should be constructed around the top of the well casing to provide a weatherproof and watertight seal between the pump head and the top of the well casing to prevent contaminants entering the well. Table 8 summarizes setback distances regarding the state and County standards for wellhead protection.
142
45 Potential
Contamination
DWR
Bulletin
74 Stanislaus
County
Fresno
County
Merced
County Madera County
Subsurface
sewage
leaching field 100 feet 100 feet
100
feet
100 feet (Ag)
150 feet
(public)
100 feet (domestic)
150 feet (Ag &
public)
Cesspool or
seepage pit 150 feet 150 feet
150
feet
150 feet (Ag)
200 feet
(public) 150 feet
Animal or fowl
enclosure 100 feet 100 feet
100
feet
100 feet (Ag)
150 feet
(public) 100 feet
Septic tank 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet
50 feet (Ag)
100 feet
(public)
100 feet (domestic)
150 feet (Ag &
public)
Sewer line 50 feet 50 feet 50 feet
50 feet (Ag)
100 feet
(public) 50 feet
Unlined canals,
surface body or
course or
drainage - - - 100 feet -
Swimming pool - - - 10 feet -
Agricultural
wells - - - 300 feet 300 feet
Table 8 – Summary of setback distances for wellhead protection The member agencies of the SJREC GSA invests in local conservation projects for district facilities and also on farm projects. Some types of districtwide conservation projects include automated water control structures, spill reduction, recapture pumps and canal lining. On farm conservation projects include district funded grants and also a low interest loan program to increase water use efficiency through installing highly efficient irrigation systems and lining irrigation channels. While lining irrigation channels increases the instantaneous water use efficiency, the SJREC GSA is actively analyzing the need to keep some channels earth lined to maintain a sustainable aquifer through channel seepage. Since this area is primarily conjunctive use, the best way to conserve water is to reduce spills leaving the area.

The SJREC GSA members have primarily accomplished this through construction of in-line regulating reservoirs and canal automation using Supervisory Control And Data Acquisition (SCADA) to better manage flows in the canals.

The SJREC GSA members have worked with state and federal regulating agencies through compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for implementation of Projects. Oftentimes, construction of Projects requires compliance with certain permitting requirements. Following is a list of agencies and the associated permits necessary for certain construction projects: CVRWQCB Section 401 Permit, CDFW Section 1600 Permit, California State Lands Commission Lease, Central Valley Flood Protection Board Encroachment Permit, and USACE Section 404 143
46 Permit. The SJREC GSA has also worked directly with CDFW and USFWS for ESA compliance. The SJREC GSA has a strong working relationship with the USBR for administration of CVP water supply.

A description of the beneficial users of groundwater can be found in Section 2.1.5. One such type of user of groundwater are Groundwater Dependent Ecosystems (GDE’s). The SGMA requires each GSP to identify and consider impacts to GDE’s as the SMC is being developed. The Nature Conservancy reviewed and compiled historical datasets to be used by GSA’s to aid in identifying potential GDE’s.

Figures 8 and 9 show some potential GDE’s. The potential GDE’s on the map have not been field surveyed to ensure that the GDE exists and actual vegetation matches with the type of vegetation described. The SJREC GSA has been sustainably managing groundwater for decades and is highly unlikely to have any impacts to GDE’s through implementation of the SJREC GSP. In the event the SJREC GSA notices impacts to GDE’s, an in-depth review to mitigate those impacts will be initiated. The Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) Dataset Viewer was reviewed for the potential of GDE’s in the SJREC GSP Group area. The SJREC GSP Group has several vegetation types that have the potential to have dependency on groundwater none of which are listed under CESA as threatened or Endangered: Allenrolfea Occidentalis (Iodine Bush), Artemisia Douglasiana (Douglas’ Wormwood), Arundo Donax (Giant Reed), Atriplex Lentiformis (Quailbush), Elymus (leymus) Triticoides (Creeping Wildrye), Juglans Hindsii and Hybrids (Northern California Black Walnut), Populus Fremontii (Fremont Cottonwood), Quercus Lobata (Valley Oak), Rubus Armeniacus (Himalayan Blackberry), Salix Exigua (Narrowleaf Willow), Salix Gooddingii (Gooding’s Willow), Salix Laevigata (Red Willow), Salix Lasiolepis (Arroyo Willow), Schoenoplectus (acutus, californicus) (Hardstem Bulrush), Suaeda Monquinii (Shrubby Seepweed), and Typha (Angustifolia, domengensis, Latifolia) (Narrowleaf Cattail). The state and federally listed endangered, threatened and rare plants of California updated from the State of California DFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) as updated on August 6, 2018. 144
33 34
35 36
31 6
5 4 3 2 1 6
5 4
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
22 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28
27 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
2 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10
11 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
19 20 21 22 23
24 19 20 21 22 23
24 30
29 28
27 26
29 30 25
28 27 26
25 32 33 34 35
36 31
32 33 34 35 36
5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
6 8
9 10 11 12
8 7
9 10 11 12 7
17 16 15 14 13 18 17
16 15 14 13 18
17 16
20 21 22 23
24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20
22 21
28 27 26 25 30
29 28
27 26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 29
33 34 35 36 31 32
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32
33 34
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4
3 2 9
10 11 12 8 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7
15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17
22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
27 26
25 30 29 28 27
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 2
1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 12
7 8 9
10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 16 17 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 20
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 23 21 24 19 20 28
27 26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30
29 28
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32
33 3
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6
5 4
3 2 1 6 5 4
3 11
12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 11 7 12 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 13
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
18 14 13 17 15 18 16 17 16 15
14 19
20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 24 20 23 21 19 22 20 21 22 23
24 29
28 27 26 25
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 25 27 30 26 29 28 30 27 26
25 33
34 35 36 31 32 33
12 7 8 12 7 9 8 9 10 7 11 12 10
11 8 9 10 11
14 13 18
16 15 14 13
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36
31 32 33 34 35
31 32 33 36 31 34 35 36
3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 2 1 3 6 4 5 11 12 7 8 9 7 8 10 9 11 12 10 9 10 7 11 11 8 12 12 7
8 7
16 11 12 9 10
13 18 18 17 16
17 15 15 14 16 13 18 17 16 14 14 13 15 18 13 17 18
17 15 14 13
24 19 20 21 22
30 29 28 27
32 33 34
5 4
3 9
10 15
23 24 20 21 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 19 20 19 21 24 23 20 21 24 22 23
25 30 26 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 5 2 1 6 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
2 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
17 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 14 15 14 17 16 14 13
13 15 18
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 20 21 24 19 22 23 22
24 23 23 24 19 22 20 21
27 26 25 30 25 30 29 27 26
26 28 27
28 29
8 Stanislaus
Merced
Stanislaus
Sa n t a Cla r a
Merced
Fresno
Merced
Santa C la ra
M e rc ed
Sa n B enito
MercedMadera
Stanislaus
Merced
R.8E
R.9E
R.7 E
R.8 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.9 E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12 E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8 E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10 E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14 E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12 E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.11 E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15 E
R.16 E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
T.4 S
T.5 S
T.5 S
T.6 S
T.5 S
T.6 S
T.5 S
T.6 S
T.6 S
T.7 S
T.6 S
T.7 S
T.6 S
T.7 S
T.6 S
T.7 S
T.6 S
T.7 S
T.7 S
T.8 S
T.7 S
T.8 S
T.7 S
T.8 S
T.7 S
T.8 S
T.7 S
T.8 S
T.7 S
T.8 S
T.8 S
T.9 S
T.8 S
T.9 S
T.8 S
T.9 S T.8 S
T.9 S T.8 S
T.9 S
T.8 S
T.9 S
T.8 S
T.9 S
T.9 S
T.10 S T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.10 S
T.11 S T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.13 S
T.14 S
T.13 S
T.14 S T.13 S
T.14 S
T.13 S
T.14 S
T.13 S
T.14 S
T.14 S
T.15 S

V A L E R IA
A V E

S FAITH HOM E R D

W B E LM O N T
AV E
M ST
W
H ST

L O CUST
AVE
L ST W
5 P O M EL O
A V E

E L A S P A L M A S A V E

M C CLINTOCK R D

BYS TRUM
RD

VOLTA RD
S
N S T
W

A LM O N D
A V E

EUCA LYPT US RD W
HWY 33

PL AR AVE

MERRILL AVE

BRANNON AVE
EL
V E

N D O S P A L O S R D
I
ST

SYCAM OR E AVE

S DERRICK AVE
E LG
A
IN
V E

W N EES AVE

PALM AVE S

W M ERRILL AVE

N FAIRFAX AV E

CE NTER AV E
S

PIONEER RD W
HWY 16 5 S

MERCEY SPRIN GS RD S
HWY 33

SANT A NELL A BLVD S

S N Y D E R R D
W

OLL ER ST
P ST W
4 TH
ST
N ST

INGOM A R RD S

O R E S T IM B A
R D

F R O NT IE R S T
W

HENRY MILL ER AVE W

HUNT RD S

N SAN DIEG O AVE

N DOUGLAS
AV E

W ASHL AN AVE

SUNSET AVE W

B A R T C H
AV E

N DO S PA LO S

HUNT RD S
RD

COTT ON GIN RD W

SHAIN AVE

V LI LA

FOL SOM AVE
L
ST
BASS
AVE

CENT ER AVE S

S PRAIRIE FLOWE R RD

EL M AVE

FIALHO AVE W

SANT A FE GRD

ORANG E AVE

SHIELL S RD

W SHAIN AVE

N D O S PALO S R D

ARMST RONG RD

BADGER FL AT RD S

C A P R I A V E
W

W H ERN DON AVE

MO FF ET T RD

N CAM BRIA AVE

F A HE Y R D W

W B ULL ARD AVE

N FAIRFAX
AVE

S M IT CHELL RD

H O Y E R
R D

W M INT AVE
HWY 15 2 W

S CENTRA L AVE

GRAND AVE W

J OH NSON R D
S
I-5 I-5
I-5

DRAPER RD

N LYON AVE

LINDEN AVE W

SAN TA L UC IA
AV E S

W M CKINLEY AVE

HO LST EIN RD W
HWY 14 0 W

BEL L RD

ING OM AR G RD W

KNIEBES R
S
D

REYNO LDS AVE S

ANDERSO N RD

COPA DE O RA AVE W

N O RLEANS AVE

UPPER RD

W SI L A X O AV E

M ID D L E R D
W

CO ZZI R
S
D

N WASHO E AVE

W L I N W O O D

A V E H IC K OR Y
AVE

JEN SEN RD S

W H ARDING R D
E
ST

S M ORG AN RD

LEX INGTON AV E
S

N DO UGL AS
AVE
FIG
LN

N O XF ORD AVE

N O B L E R D
W

H O BA R T
AV E

EASTI N
R D

W ALT HEA AVE

N FAIRFAX AVE

ASH AVE

W BE H Y M E R
AV E
CANAL
HWY 15 2 S

SAN M AT EO AVE

M I N T RD W

J ULIP R
S
D

H O LL Y
A V E

PACHECO BLVD W

N NEWC OM B AVE

H E N R Y M I L L E R
AV E W

N LYON AVE
I-5 W
H ST W

TERCEIRA RD S

AUGUST RD

W S A N

J O S E AV E

PIONEER RD W
SHY ST
S

EL FERS R D

EST HE R AVE
S
ELG IN
AVE

E M O R Y A V E
W
HWY 33 S

E M A R S H A L L R D

W G E T T Y S B U R G
A V E

KIL B U RN R D

CANAL SCHOO L RD S

W SHIELDS AVE

S BLA KER RD

W M ARSHAL L RD

LOD I RD
S

W L IN WOO D AVE

S OH IO
AV E

M O R R IS
RD

L U N D Y
R D

S I M M O N S
R D

W VA L E R IA AV E

B R A D B UR Y
R D

P U M P
RD

C H E R R Y
A V E

N CUS TER
AV E
CUSTER
AV E

TUL IP AV
HWY 14 0 W

PRI NCE R
S
D

E H R L I C H R D

S U L L IV A N
R D
WARD R
S
D

H U T C H IN S R D W

PARADISE AVE

W C ARMEL LIA AVE

DENT ON & LEAK RD W

W M ILL ER AVE

ROXBURY RD W

D IE H L
R D

S H A IN
AV E

SIM MO NS RD

CARM EL LIA AVE W

AU BRE Y AVE
S

C Y P R E S S R D
W

W H A R D I N G R D

A C A C IA
AV E

EL AIN E RD

WEST M AIN ST

E U C A LY P T US R D
W

W SIM MO NS RD

C H E R R Y
A V E

G U N CL U B R D W

TAGL IO RD W

ARROYA AVE S

RUBLE RD
E
N SAN

BE R NARD INO AVE

ORTIG ALITA RD
S
L U X
AV E

N EL G IN AV E

N DAVIDSO N AVE

H O Y E R
R D

M ILLS RD
S

N EV ANS
AVE

ALM OND DR W

N BRAN NON RD

MO FF ET T RD

PHILL IPS RD W

MO FFATT R D S

CHINA CAM P RD W

FENTEM R D W

G AY S T
W

DIANA RD S

W E S T
R D

N NEWC OM B AVE
N SAN

DIE GO AV E

INDIANA AVE S

N JERRO LD AVE

N HUDSON
AVE

LEWIS RD
BRYANT
AV E

C LA U S E N
R D

N M IL LU X RD

M AS O N RD W

P U M P R D W

WIL LIS RD S

E S T U H R
R D

N HUDSO N AVE

CARLUCCI RD
S

PF IT ZER RD W

N J ER ROL D AV
I
E

SL AN D
A VE

S DERRICK AVE
DODDS

EHRL ICH RD

JEN NING S RD

WA NGENHEIM
R D

TA G L IO R D
W

RAMO S RD W

W K EY AVE

P R E S T O N RD W

A P R IC O T AV E
HWY 15 2 S

HALE RD

B AT T E N R D W

VO LTA R
S
D

N FAIRFAX AVE

A Z EVE DO
RD

W B R A D B U R Y
R D

LEOTA S T
S

BRAZO RD W

DENT ON & LEAK RD W

W C O P P E R
A V E

W O XALIS AVE

W C A L IF O R N IA
AV E

S A N T A R ITA G R D W

R O M E R O R D W

PF IT ZER RD W
S S AN

BERNAR DINO AV E

W S A N J O S E A V E

PALM AVE S

DO S PA L O S
R D

S C ARPE N TE R RD

N RUSSELL AVE

AZEVED O RD S

ORCHARD RD S

H U S M AN R D
W

M ILLUX
AV E

MERVEL AVE W

C A C TU S D R
W

L A G U N A R D
W

JER SEY RD S

NANTES AVE S

N M IL LU X RD

N JERRO L
A
D
VE

A P P L E
AV E

HIL MAR RD

HARVEY RD

VEN ICE
RD

J O R G E N S E N R D
W

CANYON RD S

N O HIO AVE

RAMO S RD S

N HUDSO N AVE

W W HIT ESBRIDG E AVE
N S AN

B ER NARDIN O AVE

W O R T H IN G T O N R D
W

GUN CLUB RD W

WIL SON RD S

B O R B A R D
W

W O LIVE AVE

R O S E G A R D E N
R D W

NE W SOM RD
S

H A L E Y R D W

LOCK E AVE

CLEM ENT AVE S

ALM OND DR W

CREEK RD S

JOHNSON RD S
I-5 S

M AD ER A
R D

N BR ANNON
RD

F I N K R D

ORCHARD RD S

W IKE C ROW RD

W H A R D IN G R D
HO GIN

HE AR ST R D W

HEL M CANA L R D

PO LE L IN E RD S

W O RM SB Y AVE

RIVER R D

SANT A FE GRD W

S SAN B ENITO AVE

WARD RD
S

C AT R IN A S T W
HWY 15 2

WOO RD S

CHE RO KEE R D

W PANOC HE RD

M OR AGA AV E S

ING OM AR G RD W

WASH ING TON RD W

WARD AVE

SANT A FE GRD W MEDL IN RD

AUGUST RD

JORG ENSEN RD

SW IF T AVE S

W IL D DU C K RD S

W W H IT E S B R ID G E A V E

HUSM AN RD W

SA NT A F E G R D

SANT A CRUZ G UN CLUB RD S
CA MP 1 3 RD W

PO LE L INE RD W
I-5 S

SA NT A F E G RD W

CROW S LANDING RD

PO MEG RANATE AVE

PEAR AVE
F IG
A V E
HWY 15 2 W
HWY 33 S

DAVIS RD

W HE R N D O N
AV E

MO RAN RD

W ST UHR RD

PET E M ILL E R RD

HIL LS F ERRY RD

NI D IAN A RD S

ALFALFA
RD

O L D L AS

PA LM A S AVE

N DOU GLAS
AVE

P R U N E
A V E

FREITA S RD

J T C RO W R D
H W Y 1 4 0 W HWY 14 0 W

B L U E H IL L

H EL M D IT C H R D

F IN K R D

W SHAW AVE

SCHM IDT RD S

P E T E M I L L E R R D

COTT ON RD W

B U N K E R R D
W

O R EST MI B A R D

C O T T O N W O O D R D
W

CHARLESTO N RD W
D

WHITWO RTH RD S

HALL OWEL L RD

NET HERTO N RD W

N RUSSELL AVE

N G ALVEZ AVE

MANU CHA RD

DODDS R D
Firebaugh
Mendota
Newman
Dos
Palos
Gustine
Hilmar-Irwin
Los
Banos
FIGURE 8 - VEGETATION GROUNDWATER DEPENDENT ECOSYSTEMS
EXPLANATION:

VEGETATION GDE

AG (REMOVED)

CANAL/DITCH (REMOVED)

DEEP WATER LEVEL (REMOVED)

POSSIBLE

RECHARGE PROJECT (REMOVED)

SJREC GSA BOUNDARY
0 1 2
.
4 6 8
Miles
47 145
33 34
35 36
31 6
5 4 3 2 1 6
5 4
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
22 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28
27 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
2 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10
11 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
19 20 21 22 23
24 19 20 21 22 23
24 30
29 28
27 26
29 30 25
28 27 26
25 32 33 34 35
36 31
32 33 34 35 36
5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
6 8
9 10 11 12
8 7
9 10 11 12 7
17 16 15 14 13 18 17
16 15 14 13 18
17 16
20 21 22 23
24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20
22 21
28 27 26 25 30
29 28
27 26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 29
33 34 35 36 31 32
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32
33 34
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4
3 2 9
10 11 12 8 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7
15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17
22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
27 26
25 30 29 28 27
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 2
1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 12
7 8 9
10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 16 17 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 20
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 23 21 24 19 20 28
27 26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30
29 28
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32
33 3
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6
5 4
3 2 1 6 5 4
3 11
12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 11 7 12 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 13
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
18 14 13 17 15 18 16 17 16 15
14 19
20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 24 20 23 21 19 22 20 21 22 23
24 29
28 27 26 25
30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 25 27 30 26 29 28 30 27 26
25 33
34 35 36 31 32 33
12 7 8 12 7 9 8 9 10 7 11 12 10
11 8 9 10 11
14 13 18
16 15 14 13
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36
31 32 33 34 35
31 32 33 36 31 34 35 36
3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 2 1 3 6 4 5 11 12 7 8 9 7 8 10 9 11 12 10 9 10 7 11 11 8 12 12 7
8 7
16 11 12 9 10
13 18 18 17 16
17 15 15 14 16 13 18 17 16 14 14 13 15 18 13 17 18
17 15 14 13
24 19 20 21 22
30 29 28 27
32 33 34
5 4
3 9
10 15
23 24 20 21 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 19 20 19 21 24 23 20 21 24 22 23
25 30 26 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 5 2 1 6 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
2 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
17 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 14 15 14 17 16 14 13
13 15 18
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 20 21 24 19 22 23 22
24 23 23 24 19 22 20 21
27 26 25 30 25 30 29 27 26
26 28 27
28 29
8 Stanislaus
Merced
Stanislaus
Sa n t a Cla r a
Merced
Fresno
Merced
Santa C la ra
M e rc ed
Sa n B enito
MercedMadera
Stanislaus
Merced
R.8E
R.9E
R.7 E
R.8 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.9 E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12 E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8 E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10 E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14 E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12 E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.11 E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15 E
R.16 E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
T.4 S
T.5 S
T.5 S
T.6 S
T.5 S
T.6 S
T.5 S
T.6 S
T.6 S
T.7 S
T.6 S
T.7 S
T.6 S
T.7 S
T.6 S
T.7 S
T.6 S
T.7 S
T.7 S
T.8 S
T.7 S
T.8 S
T.7 S
T.8 S
T.7 S
T.8 S
T.7 S
T.8 S
T.7 S
T.8 S
T.8 S
T.9 S
T.8 S
T.9 S
T.8 S
T.9 S T.8 S
T.9 S T.8 S
T.9 S
T.8 S
T.9 S
T.8 S
T.9 S
T.9 S
T.10 S T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.10 S
T.11 S T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.13 S
T.14 S
T.13 S
T.14 S T.13 S
T.14 S
T.13 S
T.14 S
T.13 S
T.14 S
T.14 S
T.15 S

V A L E R IA
A V E

S FAITH HOM E R D

W B E LM O N T
AV E
M ST
W
H ST

L O CUST
AVE
L ST W
5 P O M EL O
A V E

E L A S P A L M A S A V E

M C CLINTOCK R D

BYS TRUM
RD

VOLTA RD
S
N S T
W

A LM O N D
A V E

EUCA LYPT US RD W
HWY 33

PL AR AVE

MERRILL AVE

BRANNON AVE
EL
V E

N D O S P A L O S R D
I
ST

SYCAM OR E AVE

S DERRICK AVE
E LG
A
IN
V E

W N EES AVE

PALM AVE S

W M ERRILL AVE

N FAIRFAX AV E

CE NTER AV E
S

PIONEER RD W
HWY 16 5 S

MERCEY SPRIN GS RD S
HWY 33

SANT A NELL A BLVD S

S N Y D E R R D
W

OLL ER ST
P ST W
4 TH
ST
N ST

INGOM A R RD S

O R E S T IM B A
R D

F R O NT IE R S T
W

HENRY MILL ER AVE W

HUNT RD S

N SAN DIEG O AVE

N DOUGLAS
AV E

W ASHL AN AVE

SUNSET AVE W

B A R T C H
AV E

N DO S PA LO S

HUNT RD S
RD

COTT ON GIN RD W

SHAIN AVE

V LI LA

FOL SOM AVE
L
ST
BASS
AVE

CENT ER AVE S

S PRAIRIE FLOWE R RD

EL M AVE

FIALHO AVE W

SANT A FE GRD

ORANG E AVE

SHIELL S RD

W SHAIN AVE

N D O S PALO S R D

ARMST RONG RD

BADGER FL AT RD S

C A P R I A V E
W

W H ERN DON AVE

MO FF ET T RD

N CAM BRIA AVE

F A HE Y R D W

W B ULL ARD AVE

N FAIRFAX
AVE

S M IT CHELL RD

H O Y E R
R D

W M INT AVE
HWY 15 2 W

S CENTRA L AVE

GRAND AVE W

J OH NSON R D
S
I-5 I-5
I-5

DRAPER RD

N LYON AVE

LINDEN AVE W

SAN TA L UC IA
AV E S

W M CKINLEY AVE

HO LST EIN RD W
HWY 14 0 W

BEL L RD

ING OM AR G RD W

KNIEBES R
S
D

REYNO LDS AVE S

ANDERSO N RD

COPA DE O RA AVE W

N O RLEANS AVE

UPPER RD

W SI L A X O AV E

M ID D L E R D
W

CO ZZI R
S
D

N WASHO E AVE

W L I N W O O D

A V E H IC K OR Y
AVE

JEN SEN RD S

W H ARDING R D
E
ST

S M ORG AN RD

LEX INGTON AV E
S

N DO UGL AS
AVE
FIG
LN

N O XF ORD AVE

N O B L E R D
W

H O BA R T
AV E

EASTI N
R D

W ALT HEA AVE

N FAIRFAX AVE

ASH AVE

W BE H Y M E R
AV E
CANAL
HWY 15 2 S

SAN M AT EO AVE

M I N T RD W

J ULIP R
S
D

H O LL Y
A V E

PACHECO BLVD W

N NEWC OM B AVE

H E N R Y M I L L E R
AV E W

N LYON AVE
I-5 W
H ST W

TERCEIRA RD S

AUGUST RD

W S A N

J O S E AV E

PIONEER RD W
SHY ST
S

EL FERS R D

EST HE R AVE
S
ELG IN
AVE

E M O R Y A V E
W
HWY 33 S

E M A R S H A L L R D

W G E T T Y S B U R G
A V E

KIL B U RN R D

CANAL SCHOO L RD S

W SHIELDS AVE

S BLA KER RD

W M ARSHAL L RD

LOD I RD
S

W L IN WOO D AVE

S OH IO
AV E

M O R R IS
RD

L U N D Y
R D

S I M M O N S
R D

W VA L E R IA AV E

B R A D B UR Y
R D

P U M P
RD

C H E R R Y
A V E

N CUS TER
AV E
CUSTER
AV E

TUL IP AV
HWY 14 0 W

PRI NCE R
S
D

E H R L I C H R D

S U L L IV A N
R D
WARD R
S
D

H U T C H IN S R D W

PARADISE AVE

W C ARMEL LIA AVE

DENT ON & LEAK RD W

W M ILL ER AVE

ROXBURY RD W

D IE H L
R D

S H A IN
AV E

SIM MO NS RD

CARM EL LIA AVE W

AU BRE Y AVE
S

C Y P R E S S R D
W

W H A R D I N G R D

A C A C IA
AV E

EL AIN E RD

WEST M AIN ST

E U C A LY P T US R D
W

W SIM MO NS RD

C H E R R Y
A V E

G U N CL U B R D W

TAGL IO RD W

ARROYA AVE S

RUBLE RD
E
N SAN

BE R NARD INO AVE

ORTIG ALITA RD
S
L U X
AV E

N EL G IN AV E

N DAVIDSO N AVE

H O Y E R
R D

M ILLS RD
S

N EV ANS
AVE

ALM OND DR W

N BRAN NON RD

MO FF ET T RD

PHILL IPS RD W

MO FFATT R D S

CHINA CAM P RD W

FENTEM R D W

G AY S T
W

DIANA RD S

W E S T
R D

N NEWC OM B AVE
N SAN

DIE GO AV E

INDIANA AVE S

N JERRO LD AVE

N HUDSON
AVE

LEWIS RD
BRYANT
AV E

C LA U S E N
R D

N M IL LU X RD

M AS O N RD W

P U M P R D W

WIL LIS RD S

E S T U H R
R D

N HUDSO N AVE

CARLUCCI RD
S

PF IT ZER RD W

N J ER ROL D AV
I
E

SL AN D
A VE

S DERRICK AVE
DODDS

EHRL ICH RD

JEN NING S RD

WA NGENHEIM
R D

TA G L IO R D
W

RAMO S RD W

W K EY AVE

P R E S T O N RD W

A P R IC O T AV E
HWY 15 2 S

HALE RD

B AT T E N R D W

VO LTA R
S
D

N FAIRFAX AVE

A Z EVE DO
RD

W B R A D B U R Y
R D

LEOTA S T
S

BRAZO RD W

DENT ON & LEAK RD W

W C O P P E R
A V E

W O XALIS AVE

W C A L IF O R N IA
AV E

S A N T A R ITA G R D W

R O M E R O R D W

PF IT ZER RD W
S S AN

BERNAR DINO AV E

W S A N J O S E A V E

PALM AVE S

DO S PA L O S
R D

S C ARPE N TE R RD

N RUSSELL AVE

AZEVED O RD S

ORCHARD RD S

H U S M AN R D
W

M ILLUX
AV E

MERVEL AVE W

C A C TU S D R
W

L A G U N A R D
W

JER SEY RD S

NANTES AVE S

N M IL LU X RD

N JERRO L
A
D
VE

A P P L E
AV E

HIL MAR RD

HARVEY RD

VEN ICE
RD

J O R G E N S E N R D
W

CANYON RD S

N O HIO AVE

RAMO S RD S

N HUDSO N AVE

W W HIT ESBRIDG E AVE
N S AN

B ER NARDIN O AVE

W O R T H IN G T O N R D
W

GUN CLUB RD W

WIL SON RD S

B O R B A R D
W

W O LIVE AVE

R O S E G A R D E N
R D W

NE W SOM RD
S

H A L E Y R D W

LOCK E AVE

CLEM ENT AVE S

ALM OND DR W

CREEK RD S

JOHNSON RD S
I-5 S

M AD ER A
R D

N BR ANNON
RD

F I N K R D

ORCHARD RD S

W IKE C ROW RD

W H A R D IN G R D
HO GIN

HE AR ST R D W

HEL M CANA L R D

PO LE L IN E RD S

W O RM SB Y AVE

RIVER R D

SANT A FE GRD W

S SAN B ENITO AVE

WARD RD
S

C AT R IN A S T W
HWY 15 2

WOO RD S

CHE RO KEE R D

W PANOC HE RD

M OR AGA AV E S

ING OM AR G RD W

WASH ING TON RD W

WARD AVE

SANT A FE GRD W MEDL IN RD

AUGUST RD

JORG ENSEN RD

SW IF T AVE S

W IL D DU C K RD S

W W H IT E S B R ID G E A V E

HUSM AN RD W

SA NT A F E G R D

SANT A CRUZ G UN CLUB RD S
CA MP 1 3 RD W

PO LE L INE RD W
I-5 S

SA NT A F E G RD W

CROW S LANDING RD

PO MEG RANATE AVE

PEAR AVE
F IG
A V E
HWY 15 2 W
HWY 33 S

DAVIS RD

W HE R N D O N
AV E

MO RAN RD

W ST UHR RD

PET E M ILL E R RD

HIL LS F ERRY RD

NI D IAN A RD S

ALFALFA
RD

O L D L AS

PA LM A S AVE

N DOU GLAS
AVE

P R U N E
A V E

FREITA S RD

J T C RO W R D
H W Y 1 4 0 W HWY 14 0 W

B L U E H IL L

H EL M D IT C H R D

F IN K R D

W SHAW AVE

SCHM IDT RD S

P E T E M I L L E R R D

COTT ON RD W

B U N K E R R D
W

O R EST MI B A R D

C O T T O N W O O D R D
W

CHARLESTO N RD W
D

WHITWO RTH RD S

HALL OWEL L RD

NET HERTO N RD W

N RUSSELL AVE

N G ALVEZ AVE

MANU CHA RD

DODDS R D
Firebaugh
Mendota
Newman
Dos
Palos
Gustine
Hilmar-Irwin
Los
Banos
EXPLANATION:

WETLAND GDE

SJREC GSA BOUNDARY

AG (REMOVED)

CANAL/DITCH (REMOVED)

DEEP WATER LEVEL (REMOVED)

MANAGED (IRRIGATED) (REMOVED)
POSSIBLE GDE .

RECHARGE PROJECT (REMOVED) 0 1 2 4 6 8
Miles
FIGURE 9 - WETLAND GROUNDWATER DEPENDENT ECOSYSTEMS
48 146
49 2.1.5 Notice and Communication
There are several types of beneficial uses and users of groundwater including: agriculture, domestic wells, municipal wells, public water systems, environment, surface water users where there is a connection to groundwater, federal interests, DAC and Industrial wells. Of these various types of uses, over 95% (88% is in the SJREC GSA) of the SJREC GSP area is designated as holders of overlying groundwater rights for agriculture and domestic groundwater use. There are six GSA’s in the SJREC GSP that cover municipal water supply. Currently the City of Dos Palos relies on treated surface water for municipal supply. The other five City GSA’s in this plan rely solely on groundwater for municipal supply.

Newman, Gustine and Los Banos are primarily DAC’s, whereas Firebaugh and Mendota are Severely DAC’s. These communities, including the City of Dos Palos GSA comprise about 4% of the plan area.

These communities are actively involved in development and implementation of this GSP. The remaining less than 1% consists mostly of Industrial and Environmental uses. The following processing plants are a majority of the Industrial uses of groundwater: Leprino Foods Company, Saputo Cheese USA, Hill View Packing Company, Ingomar Packing Company, Liberty Packing, Morning Star Packing, Kagome USA, and Tomatek. The Environmental uses are primarily through managed duck clubs or GDE’s.

The Board of Directors for the SJREC GSA are the decision-making body for the GSA. Each Director was appointed from the home Board of Directors from their respective member agencies (CCID, SLCC, FCWD and CCC). Each Board member is elected by the landowners to a four-year term. While the Board of Directors were elected to be the decision makers, the organizational hierarchy is as follows starting at the top of the chart: Landowners, Board of Directors, General Manager, staff and consultants. The Board of Directors acts as the voice for the people they represent and strive to serve those interests to the best of their ability. All decisions are weighed based on supporting data from staff, consultants and the public. Ultimately these decisions require a majority (3/4) vote to approve. The SJREC have a long standing partnership with the other GSA’s in the SJREC GSP. Most of the basin setting and groundwater management of this plan were in place prior to the SGMA. Numerous reports on groundwater conditions in and around the cities and the SJREC service area were completed in the 1990’s.

Additionally, most of the management actions and projects described in Sections 3 and 4 of this GSP were in place or under development prior to the SGMA. These reports, projects and management actions were adopted through public involvement to ensure a broad range of ideas and strategies to successfully manage groundwater. Much of this plan is merely an extension of historical practices that have been in place with public involvement and groundwater management has been successfully operating under these conditions. Each City and County has been involved in the development of this plan and has relied heavily on the trust developed over years of a great partnership with the SJREC to lead the effort developing this GSP.

The best decisions are made through public engagement as groundwater management strategies are under development and during implementation. All of the SJREC GSA meetings are posted consistent with the Brown Act. Interested parties may participate in the planning and development of the GSP by attending the SJREC GSA monthly board meetings held on the first Friday of the month beginning at 8:30 am. The meetings are held at the SJRECWA office located at 541 H Street, Los Banos, CA 93635. In addition, any interested party may refer to the contact information in Section 1.3.1 of this Plan. 147
50 The majority of beneficial users of groundwater in the area covered by the SJREC GSP lie within the SJREC GSA. Each member of the SJREC GSA holds annual shareholder meetings and discuss the SGMA and the development of the GSP. At these meetings, the shareholders (beneficial users) are encouraged to participate in the development of the GSP and are also given an opportunity to ask questions. This process is vital to ensure that the shareholders’ interests are included in the development of the plan.

These same shareholders, in addition to other interested parties, are encouraged to attend Subbasin meetings where coordination of methodologies for the various plans in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin is discussed. There are three primary committees that meet monthly and post notification of the meetings consistent with Brown Act requirements. These committees are the Coordination, Technical and Communication committees and respectively meet the 2nd Monday, 3rd Tuesday and 4th Tuesday of the month; located at 842 6th Street, Los Banos, California. More information on regional coordination in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin can be found at www.deltamendota.org. Each month, the Communications Committee prepares a newsletter that is shared on the SJRECWA website. One of the first committee tasks was to prepare a Communications Plan for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin; refer to Appendix G for this report. Consistent with the public outreach requirements in SGMA, the Communication Committee for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin has hosted several public workshops geared toward outreaching to DAC’s. These meetings are included in the list of public meetings in Appendix E. Anyone who has reached out to the SJREC GSA as an interested party is added to the public outreach contact list in Appendix F. In addition, the SJREC GSA submitted a formal letter to DWR, Appendix D, regarding the Notice of Intent to Develop a GSP and how interested parties may participate in the planning and development of the GSP.

In addition to holding public committee meetings for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin development of GSP’s, the Communications Subcommittee hosted a series of public workshops. Each set of workshops were held in various locations across the subbasin to reduce travel time for interested parties. Flyers for the workshops were prepared in English and Spanish and also in a standard letter size and a 1/3 sheet mailer for ease of transmittal. There was a total of four sets of workshops to introduce the public to the SGMA requirements and GSP development in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. All of the public meetings encouraged public engagement in the planning and development process. The presentations were presented in English with a Spanish translation through headsets. There is a large population of Spanish speakers and having a translator at the public workshops offered SGMA updates to a greater number of beneficial users.

The Delta-Mendota Subbasin worked with CDFW, The Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society at a public workshop on August 24, 2018 to discuss managing GDE’s as a beneficial user of groundwater. The SJREC also gave a presentation at the 57th Annual California Irrigation Institute Conference, the 2018 Merced County Farm Bureau Water Symposium and the 2019 Merced County Farm Bureau Water Symposium respectfully on: February 5, 2019, March 1, 2018 and February 21, 2019. The SJREC also participated in the Fresno County School Outreach hosted by Self-Help Enterprises on September 29, 2018. Furthermore, the SJREC participated in an interview with a student from the University of Massachusetts who is studying SGMA and the effects of plan development with a particular interest in public involvement.

In addition to the meetings directly with each GSA in this GSP, the SJREC GSP participated in several other outreach events. The SJREC participated in several Central Valley Basin meetings hosted by the 148
51 Delta-Mendota Subbasin on the dates as follows: October 20, 2017, January 29, 2018, April 2, 2018 and June 8, 2018. The primary function of these Central Valley Basin meetings was to establish a contact for each GSP within each subbasin so further coordination discussions could materialize. The SJREC participated in a meeting with Westland Water District (WWD) representing the Westside Subbasin on April 4, 2019 to discuss plan development. The SJREC also participated in a meeting with the Turlock Subbasin on June 19, 2019 to discuss plan development. The Turlock Subbasin is particularly interested in the development of the GSP’s in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin since the Turlock Subbasin is not in critical overdraft and has until 2022 to submit their plan. The SJREC and the Delta-Mendota Subbasin have been reached out to the Chowchilla and Madera Subbasin in an attempt to setup a meeting to discuss plan development.

The development of the SJREC GSP was a collaborative process where discussions of the GSP planning process encouraged an iterative procedure to determine appropriate groundwater management. Most of the groundwater monitoring and management in the SJREC area was in place prior to the signing of the SGMA in 2014. Additional coordination meetings with neighboring subbasins is anticipated after the public hearing to adopt this plan and the SJREC are hopeful these meetings will continue through the planning and implementation horizon.

2.1.5.1 Adoption of Plan Following a Public Hearing
The California Water Code, Section § 10728.4 states: A groundwater sustainability agency may adopt or amend a groundwater sustainability plan after a public hearing, held at least 90 days after providing notice to a City or County within the area of the proposed plan or amendment. The groundwater sustainability agency shall review and consider comments from any City or County that receives notice pursuant to this section and shall consult with a City or County that requests consultation within 30 days of receipt of the notice.

The SJREC GSP Group will notify the following cities and counties of the proposed public hearing to adopt the SJREC GSP at least 90 days prior to the public hearing: City of Newman, City of Gustine, City of Los Banos, City of Dos Palos, City of Firebaugh, City of Mendota, County of Stanislaus, County of Merced, County of Fresno and County of Madera. Any comments received will be included as in Appendix H of this plan.
149
52 2.2 Basin Setting
Refer to the Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model and Groundwater Conditions Report for an in-depth description of the Basin in and around the SJREC GSP Group. The DWR has provided a more general description of the basin settings in the state through periodic updates to Bulletin 118. Bulletin 118 is California’s official publication on the occurrence and nature of groundwater statewide. Bulletin 118 defines the boundaries and describes the hydrologic characteristics of California’s groundwater basins and provides information on groundwater management and recommendations for the future. Bulletin 118 provides the following information for the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin – Delta-Mendota Subbasin 5-22.07:

Basin Boundaries and Hydrology:

The San Joaquin Valley is surrounded on the west by the Coast Ranges, on the south by the San Emigdio and Tehachapi Mountains, on the east by the Sierra Nevada and on the north by the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Sacramento Valley. The northern portion of the San Joaquin Valley drains toward the Delta by the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, the Fresno, Merced, Tuolumne, and Stanislaus Rivers.

The southern portion of the valley is internally drained by the Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern Rivers that flow into the Tulare drainage basin including the beds of the former Tulare, Buena Vista, and Kern Lakes.

The Delta-Mendota Subbasin is in the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, located along the western edge of the San Joaquin Valley, and includes portions of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Fresno, and Madera Counties. The Delta-Mendota subbasin is bounded on the west by the Tertiary and older marine sediments of the Coast Ranges. The northern boundary begins just south of Tracy in San Joaquin County. The eastern boundary generally follows the San Joaquin River and Fresno Slough; except it follows the Columbia Canal Company and Aliso Water District Boundaries on the east side of the San Joaquin River. The southern boundary is near the small town of San Joaquin. Average annual precipitation is nine to 11 inches, increasing northwards.

Hydrogeologic Information:

The San Joaquin Valley represents the southern portion of the Great Central Valley of California. The San Joaquin Valley is a structural trough up to 200 miles long and 70 miles wide filled with up to 32,000 feet of marine and continental sediments deposited during periodic inundation by the Pacific Ocean and by erosion of the surrounding mountains, respectively. Continental deposits shed from the surrounding mountains form an alluvial wedge that thickens from the valley margins toward the axis of the structural trough. This depositional axis is below to slightly west of the series of rivers, lakes, sloughs, and marshes, which mark the current and historic axis of surface drainage in the San Joaquin Valley.

Water Bearing Formations:

The geologic units that comprise the ground water reservoir in the Delta-Mendota subbasin consist of the Tulare Formation, terrace deposits, alluvium, and flood-basin deposits. The Tulare Formation is composed of beds, lenses, and tongues of clay, sand, and gravel that have been alternately deposited in oxidizing and reducing environments (Hotchkiss 1971). The Corcoran Clay Member of the formation underlies the basin at depths ranging about 100 to 500 feet and acts as a confining bed (DWR 1981).

Terrace deposits of Pleistocene age lie up to several feet higher than present streambeds. They are composed of yellow, tan, and light-to-dark brown silt, sand, and gravel with a matrix that varies from sand to clay (Hotchkiss 1971). The water table generally lies below the bottom of the terrace deposits.

However, the relatively large grain size of the terrace deposits suggests their value as possible recharge sites.
150
53 Alluvium is composed of interbedded, poorly to well-sorted clay, silt, sand, and gravel and is divided based on its degree of dissection and soil formation. The flood-basin deposits are generally composed of light-to-dark brown and gray clay, silt, sand, and organic materials with locally high concentrations of salts and alkali. Stream channel deposits of coarse sand and gravel are also included.

Groundwater in the Delta-Mendota subbasin occurs in three water-bearing zones. These include the lower zone, which contains confined fresh water in the lower section of the Tulare Formation, an upper zone which contains confined, semi-confined, and unconfined water in the upper section of the Tulare Formation and younger deposits, and a shallow zone which contains unconfined water within about 25 feet of the land surface (Davis 1959).

The estimated specific yield of this subbasin is 11.8 percent (based on DWR San Joaquin District internal data and Davis 1959). Land subsidence up to about 16 feet has occurred in the southern portion of the basin due to artesian head decline (Ireland 1964).

2.2.1 Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model
The Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model (HCM) is a description of the SJREC GSP Group Area based on technical studies and qualified maps that characterizes the physical components and interaction of the surface water and groundwater systems. The SJREC GSP Group used the HCM BMP provided by DWR and updated to meet the needs of the GSA’s in this plan. Refer to Appendix J for the BMP on the HCM.

The HCM, Groundwater Conditions and Water Budget Report was prepared by KDSA in coordination with the SJREC GSP Group; refer to Appendix I for this report.

2.2.2 Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions
A description of the historical and current groundwater conditions is included in Appendix I. In general, this report will discuss groundwater conditions related to Undesirable Results.

2.2.3 Water Budget Information
The SJREC GSA’s member agencies hold senior water rights on the San Joaquin River. Through an Agreement with the Federal Government, the predecessors of the SJRECWA exchanged the point of diversion to receive their water. In non-critical Shasta years, the SJRECWA receives up to 840,000 acrefeet. In critical Shasta years, the SJRECWA receives a 77% allocation or 650,000 acre-feet. This water is delivered through the DMC when available and down the San Joaquin River during those times when conveyance down the DMC cannot meet the obligations set forth in the “Exchange and Purchase Contracts”. Another major surface water supply for the region is precipitation that can be used to meet evapotranspiration or can be captured and diverted into conveyance channels to be used to meet demand. In addition, there are ephemeral streams and the San Joaquin River that carry flood flows to and through the area. These flood flows provide recharge to the aquifer and can also be captured in the conveyance channels and diverted to beneficial use in the area. All of these surface water supplies are collectively used to maintain a healthy and sustainable aquifer through direct, in-direct and in-lieu recharge.

The member agencies of the SJREC are conjunctive use districts and rely on groundwater to provide operational flexibility and to meet peak demand. CCC has lined a majority of their canals to reduce seepage on sandy soils and have subsequently reduced groundwater extractions by keeping a majority of their water in the system. FCWD, due to the upslope drainage problem, overlies groundwater classified as a salt sink. FCWD has lined a majority of their canals to prevent the loss of surface water to 151
54 the salt sink, thereby increasing how much water is put to beneficial use. Both CCID and SLCC primarily have unlined major canals. The major canals in CCID and SLCC contribute to about 100 TAF of recharge per year to the upper aquifer. This canal seepage has help maintain a healthy aquifer in and around the SJREC service area.

The Historical, Current and Projected Water Budgets were prepared primarily by the SJREC GSA Staff and KDSA in close coordination with the other GSP groups in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin to ensure that each GSP uses the same data and methodologies. Coordinating GSP elements across the subbasin was the primary task of the Delta-Mendota Technical Subcommittee. The Technical Subcommittee recommended the Historic Water Budget be from 2003-2012 and the Current Water Budget for 2013.

Refer to Appendix I for groundwater conditions pertaining to Water Budgets. The SJREC GSP Group used the Water Budget BMP and Modeling BMP provided by DWR and updated to meet the needs of the GSA’s in this plan. Refer to Appendices K and L for the BMP on the Water Budget and Modelling, respectively.

DWR has provided a monthly climate summary for the San Joaquin Region. The table below shows the mean temperature data for each month for water years 2007-2017. All values below are reported as average temperature for the month in degrees Fahrenheit.

MONTH 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 October 54.1 54.1 58.3 53.6 53.6 53.4 55 51.1 57.1 56.8 51.7 November 46.6 48.7 49.8 46.9 40.3 40.2 44.7 44.6 45.7 38.5 44.4 December 46.6 37.2 38.6 38 37.4 37.2 35.5 38.2 39.3 32.9 37.3 January 36.7 37.4 42.8 26.4 38.1 40.9 36.9 36.9 43.1 36.9 33.9 February 42.1 41.6 42.6 29.3 35.3 37.9 37.6 41.2 45.8 45.4 37.7 March 49.9 47 46.6 45.1 38.8 40.1 45.2 44.5 49 43.4 44.5 April 52.6 51.2 50.5 46.4 43.7 46.4 49.6 49.1 48.3 49.3 45.6 May 59.6 58.3 63.5 52.8 47.2 55.5 55.7 55.9 51.8 53.9 54.8 June 66.5 67.2 63.9 65.7 57.3 61.2 64.5 65 67.6 65.9 64.5 July 71.9 72.8 74.3 72.7 65.9 67.7 71.5 71.8 68.2 70.4 72 August 71.2 72.9 70.6 68.8 67.2 71.9 67.2 67.8 69.7 69.7 71.3 September 62 68.2 69.1 66.3 64.7 68.1 61.1 64.4 65.5 63 61.1 DWR Water
Year Avg. 55.0 54.7 55.9 51.0 49.1 51.7 52.0 52.5 54.3 52.2 51.6 Table 9 - WY 2007-2017 Mean Monthly Temperatures (°F)

2.2.3.1 Historic Water Budget for SJREC GSA
The following data was used to analyze the Historic Water Budget for the SJREC GSA:

Water Year Type:

The local water year type was based on the DWR San Joaquin Valley Index; 1) Wet, 2) Above Normal, 3) Below Normal, 4) Dry, 5) Critically Dry. The surface water allocation for the SJREC is dependent on the Full Natural Flow (FNF) on the Sacramento River at Shasta, as defined in the Exchange Contract. The Water Year Type listed in the water budget is based on the San Joaquin Valley Index with the exception of a critical year under the Exchange Contract (Shasta Critical). A Shasta Critical year typically coincides with a critically dry year type in the San Joaquin Valley but has added surface water delivery restrictions 152
55 to the SJRECWA and also to other CVP contractors in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. As a result, an additional Water Year Type is needed to reflect changes in the water budget parameters during Shasta Critical years under the Exchange Contract; 6) Shasta Critical.

A Shasta Critical Year under the Exchange Contract is defined as 1) if the forecasted full natural inflow to Shasta Lake for the current water year is less than 3.2 MAF or 2) the total accumulated actual deficiencies (full natural inflow to Shasta) below 4.0 MAF in the immediately prior water year or series of successive prior water years, each of which had inflows of less than 4.0 MAF, together with the forecasted deficiency for the current water year exceeds 0.8 MAF. 153
56 YEAR WATER YEAR TYPE (SJV) YEAR WATER YEAR TYPE (SJV) YEAR WATER YEAR TYPE (SJV) 1901 Wet 1940 Above Normal 1979 Above Normal
1902 Above Normal 1941 Wet 1980 Wet
1903 Above Normal 1942 Wet 1981 Dry
1904 Wet 1943 Wet 1982 Wet
1905 Above Normal 1944 Below Normal 1983 Wet
1906 Wet 1945 Above Normal 1984 Above Normal
1907 Wet 1946 Above Normal 1985 Dry
1908 Dry 1947 Dry 1986 Wet
1909 Wet 1948 Below Normal 1987 Critically Dry
1910 Above Normal 1949 Below Normal 1988 Critically Dry 1911 Wet 1950 Below Normal 1989 Critically Dry
1912 Below Normal 1951 Above Normal 1990 Critically Dry 1913 Critically Dry 1952 Wet 1991
Critically Dry (Shasta
Critical)
1914 Wet 1953 Below Normal 1992
Critically Dry (Shasta
Critical)
1915 Wet 1954 Below Normal 1993 Wet
1916 Wet 1955 Dry 1994
Critically Dry (Shasta
Critical)
1917 Wet 1956 Wet 1995 Wet
1918 Below Normal 1957 Below Normal 1996 Wet
1919 Below Normal 1958 Wet 1997 Wet
1920 Below Normal 1959 Dry 1998 Wet
1921 Above Normal 1960 Critically Dry 1999 Above Normal 1922 Wet 1961 Critically Dry 2000 Above Normal
1923 Above Normal 1962 Below Normal 2001 Dry
1924 Critically Dry 1963 Above Normal 2002 Dry
1925 Below Normal 1964 Dry 2003 Below Normal
1926 Dry 1965 Wet 2004 Dry
1927 Above Normal 1966 Below Normal 2005 Wet
1928 Below Normal 1967 Wet 2006 Wet
1929 Critically Dry 1968 Dry 2007 Critically Dry
1930 Critically Dry 1969 Wet 2008 Critically Dry
1931 Critically Dry 1970 Above Normal 2009 Below Normal 1932 Above Normal 1971 Below Normal 2010 Above Normal
1933 Dry 1972 Dry 2011 Wet
1934 Critically Dry 1973 Above Normal 2012 Dry
1935 Above Normal 1974 Wet 2013 Critically Dry
1936 Above Normal 1975 Wet 2014
Critically Dry (Shasta
Critical)
1937 Wet 1976 Critically Dry 2015
Critically Dry (Shasta
Critical)
1938 Wet 1977
Critically Dry (Shasta
Critical) 2016 Dry
1939 Dry 1978 Wet 2017 Wet
Table 10 - San Joaquin Valley Water Year Type Index
154
57 Surface Water Allocation and Surface Water Delivery:

The Surface water allocation is determined based on the FNF at Shasta per the Exchange Contract. All historic water years from 1939 – 2018 were non-critical (100% allocation) with the exception of 1977, 1991, 1992, 1994, 2014, and 2015. Actual surface water deliveries are measured consistent with industry standards and requirements. Surface Water Deliveries are reported in total acre-feet.

WATER
YEAR

SHASTA WATER YEAR

DESIGNATION

SURFACE WATER

ALLOCATION

SURFACE WATER DELIVERY
(AF)
2003 Non-Critical 100% 788,000
2004 Non-Critical 100% 776,000
2005 Non-Critical 100% 731,000
2006 Non-Critical 100% 761,000
2007 Non-Critical 100% 804,000
2008 Non-Critical 100% 753,000
2009 Non-Critical 100% 756,000
2010 Non-Critical 100% 743,000
2011 Non-Critical 100% 753,000
2012 Non-Critical 100% 795,000
Avg. 100% 766,000
Table 11 – Historic Surface Water Allocation and Delivery Groundwater Extractions:

Each year the Exchange Contractors prepare a report on well pumping inside the entities and includes pumping from the surrounding area. The total groundwater pumping came from those reports.

Groundwater extractions from the Lower Aquifer are estimated at 10% of the total pumping. The cost to drill and pump a well in the upper aquifer is significantly cheaper when compared to a well pumping from the lower aquifer. In most areas of the SJREC GSA, the upper aquifer provides good quality and quantity of groundwater which has limited the number of wells drilled to extract from the lower aquifer.

This assumption is consistent with the known data from the SJREC member entity owned wells. The change in groundwater storage was calculated as the physical loss in groundwater storage in the lower aquifer caused by inelastic land subsidence. Based on these results, the following table summarizes groundwater extractions from the upper aquifer and the lower aquifer. Groundwater pumping is reported in total acre-feet.
155
58 WATER YEAR

UPPER AQUIFER

GROUNDWATER

EXTRACTION
(AF)

LOWER AQUIFER

GROUNDWATER

EXTRACTION (AF)
TOTAL

GROUNDWATER

EXTRACTION (AF)
2003 104,000 12,000 116,000
2004 127,000 14,000 141,000
2005 61,000 7,000 68,000
2006 50,000 6,000 56,000
2007 164,000 18,000 182,000
2008 146,000 16,000 162,000
2009 148,000 16,000 164,000
2010 68,000 8,000 76,000
2011 73,000 8,000 81,000
2012 129,000 14,000 143,000
Avg. 107,000 12,000 119,000
Table 12 – Historic Groundwater Extractions
Precipitation:

The National Weather Service Station in Los Banos, located at the CCID office, was used to represent average precipitation for the area. The total precipitation that infiltrates was calculated using the DWR method for the relationships for calculation of effective rainfall on a monthly basis in San Joaquin Valley.

The equation described in Table 3-6 of the following report was used: MacGillivray, N.A. and M.D. Jones, 1989, “Effective Precipitation”, California Department of Water Resources to determine the gross rainfall that infiltrates. This value contributes to meet evapotranspiration of precipitation water (ETPrecip). Precipitation was collected from the Los Banos NWS station in inches/day and was converted to total acre-feet for the water budget.

WATER
YEAR

PRECIPITATION
(inches)
TOTAL

PRECIPITATION
(AF)

EFFECTIVE

PRECIPITATION
(ETprecip)

NON-EFFECTIVE

PRECIPITATION
2003 8.5 182,000 81,000 101,000
2004 8.5 182,000 109,000 73,000
2005 15 319,000 163,000 156,000
2006 10.8 230,000 106,000 124,000
2007 4.5 96,000 15,000 81,000
2008 6.2 131,000 76,000 55,000
2009 6 129,000 72,000 57,000
2010 11.2 238,000 129,000 109,000
2011 12.6 269,000 151,000 118,000
2012 5.1 108,000 20,000 88,000
Avg. 8.9 188,000 92,000 96,000
Table 13 – Historic Precipitation
156
59 Streamflow Recharge:

San Joaquin River Losses: The Mendota Pool has been historically wet year-round. The total seepage in Mendota Pool equates to about 80 acre-feet per day. The SJREC GSA has about a 3-mile boundary around the Mendota Pool which has a total boundary of about 17-miles. Accordingly, the SJREC has 3/17 of the total recharge per day or about 5 TAF per year. The CDEC Stations in the San Joaquin River at Mendota Dam (MEN) and South Dos Palos (SDP) were used to determine river losses through this stretch of the river after accounting for diversions to SLCC at Sack Dam. There is about 25 cfs loss per day in Reach 3 (MEN to SDP) under normal conditions which equates to about 18 TAF per year of recharge that leaves the SJREC area towards the east side of the river. In wet years, there are additional flows in the river that contribute to additional recharge in this stretch at approximately 100 cfs (75 cfs additional) loss per day for a total of 100 days or about 15 TAF in wet years. The recharge benefit to the SJREC from the San Joaquin River is limited by the direction of groundwater flow and only water recharging in the Mendota Pool is recharging the SJREC area. Recharge from the San Joaquin River is reported in acre-feet.

Ephemeral Streams: The following ephemeral streams flow through the SJREC GSA area: Orestimba Creek, Garzas Creek, Quinto Creek, Romero Creek, Los Banos Creek and Panoche Creek. The Los Banos Creek provides the greatest contribution of aquifer recharge. During a flood release from the Los Banos Detention Reservoir, CCID measured the flow rate in the creek at various locations. This study indicated that there are 25 CFS losses in the Los Banos Creek within the SJREC GSA. This recharge rate was used and compared to actual releases from the Los Banos Creek Detention Reservoir to determine the total volume of recharge in Los Banos Creek. The USACE Water Control Data System was used to determine Los Banos Creek Detention Reservoir releases. The Orestimba Creek also provides aquifer recharge at an assumed rate of about 5 CFS during creek flows. The CDEC station Orestimba Creek near Newman (ORE) was used to determine when there was runoff from the watershed resulting in creek flows. The recharge rate from the other creeks is assumed to be comparably low and was neglected in this water budget resulting in a more conservative estimate of net recharge from local streams. Recharge from ephemeral streams is reported in acre-feet.

WATER
YEAR

WATER YEAR
TYPE

SAN JOAQUIN

RIVER RECHARGE
(AF)

LOS BANOS AND

ORESTIMBA CREEKS

RECHARGE (AF)

TOTAL STREAM

RECHARGE (AF)
2003 Below Normal 5,000 1,000 6,000
2004 Dry 5,000 0 5,000
2005 Wet 5,000 2,000 7,000
2006 Wet 5,000 1,000 6,000
2007 Critically Dry 5,000 0 5,000
2008 Critically Dry 5,000 1,000 6,000
2009 Below Normal 5,000 0 5,000
2010 Above Normal 5,000 1,000 6,000
2011 Wet 5,000 2,000 7,000
2012 Dry 5,000 0 5,000
Avg. Drier than avg. 5,000 1,000 6,000
Table 14 – Historic Stream Recharge
157
60 Recharge Projects:

The SJREC GSA is working on several recharge projects that are further described in Section 4.0 of this plan. None of the projects mentioned in Section 4.0 were operational during the Historic and Current Water Budget timeframes. These projects will be included in the Projected Water Budget and reported in acre-feet.

Surface Water and Groundwater Outflow:

The SJREC GSA has measured and estimated how much surface water spills from the area. These spills include outflow from tile drained fields, canal spills, field runoff and precipitation runoff. The amount of surface water outflow is reported in acre-feet.

WATER
YEAR

PRECIPITATION

OUTFLOW (AF)

TILE DRAIN

OUTFLOW (AF)

OUTFLOW AND SPILLS
(AF)

TOTAL OUTFLOW
(AF)
2003 101,000 3,000 138,000 242,000
2004 73,000 3,000 133,000 209,000
2005 156,000 3,000 121,000 280,000
2006 124,000 2,000 117,000 243,000
2007 81,000 3,000 123,000 207,000
2008 55,000 2,000 108,000 165,000
2009 57,000 2,000 104,000 163,000
2010 109,000 2,000 117,000 228,000
2011 118,000 2,000 127,000 247,000
2012 88,000 2,000 103,000 193,000
Avg. 96,000 2,000 119,000 217,000
Table 15 – Historic Total Surface Water Outflow
Evapotranspiration:

The largest outflow for the water budget is the evapotranspiration (consumptive use) of crops. The SJRECWA worked with ITRC to conduct a study to determine the crop coefficients within their service area in 2008. The method followed the revised FAO-24 procedure outlined in Crop Evapotranspiration; Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements – FAO-56. This approach is based on the dual crop coefficient procedure detailed in the FAO-56 publications with some modifications made by the ITRC that are outlined in the Evaporation from Irrigated Agricultural Land in California Study (Burt et. al., 2002). The revised FAO-24 procedure calculated the crop coefficient (Kc) on a daily basis. The basal crop coefficient (Kcb) is adjusted depending on climatic conditions (wind speed, relative humidity, etc.) and crop stress (Ks). The procedure also adjusts for evaporation from the upper soil profile after irrigation and rainfall events (Ke). The calculations for Kc, Ke, Ks, Kcb, and ETc were done using the Modified ITRC/FAO-56 Model. The program automatically calculated each crop coefficient component on a daily basis. These established crop coefficients were used to determine ET during the historic water budget timeframe of 2003-2008, based on the 2008 study.

The SJREC GSA worked with the Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC) at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo to determine the actual ET of the crops for the years 2009-2016. For ET data from 2009-2016, ITRC used a modified Mapping of Evapotranspiration with Internal Calibration (METRIC) procedure to compute actual ET using LandSAT Thematic Mapper data. For more details on 158
61 the ITRC-METRIC process refer to: http://www.itrc.org/papers/pdf/METRICgroundwater.pdf. The ITRCMETRIC data included evaporation form canal surfaces and also ET from phreatophytes. These values have been included in the water budget under ETmisc. It should be noted that some agriculture fields were included in the ITRC-METRIC as non-agriculture fields. For this reason, the miscellaneous ET from 2009-2016 was higher since it also included some agriculture fields but doesn’t have an impact on the water budget since both ETc, ETiw, and ETmisc are net outflows. All ET values are reported in acre-feet.

WATER YEAR ETC (AF) ETiw (AF) ETmisc (AF)
Total ET
(AF)
2003 719,000 638,000 20,000 740,000
2004 740,000 631,000 20,000 761,000
2005 707,000 544,000 20,000 726,000
2006 704,000 598,000 20,000 723,000
2007 709,000 694,000 20,000 731,000
2008 713,000 637,000 21,000 735,000
2009 665,000 593,000 67,000 732,000
2010 575,000 446,000 56,000 631,000
2011 628,000 477,000 66,000 694,000
2012 618,000 598,000 62,000 680,000
Avg. 678,000 586,000 37,000 715,000
Table 16 – Historic Evapotranspiration (Consumptive Use) Lateral Inflow and Outflow of Groundwater:

The lateral inflow and outflow of groundwater in the SJREC area was determined using measured aquifer characteristics. Transmissivity values were determined from aquifer tests and localized deep well pumping tests. Water level maps for wet, normal and dry water year types were prepared to determine the elevation and direction of groundwater flow for both the Upper and Lower Aquifers.

KDSA reviewed the water elevation maps and determined the transects and gradient of groundwater flow. Darcy’s Law was used to determine groundwater flows where the total flow equals the product of the transmissivity, gradient and transect. These maps were used to determine the volume of groundwater inflow and outflow from the SJREC under those respective water year types. The data generated for normal conditions was used as a surrogate for Water Year Types designated as Above Normal and Below Normal. The data generated for dry conditions was used as a surrogate for Water Year Types designated as Dry and Critically Dry. This is a common method to determine actual groundwater flows and is a consistent method used in the various GSP’s in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin.

All values are reported in acre-feet.
159
62 WATER
YEAR

GROUNDWATER
INFLOW
(Upper Aquifer)

GROUNDWATER

OUTFLOW
(Upper Aquifer)

GROUNDWATER
INFLOW
(Lower Aquifer)

GROUNDWATER

OUTFLOW
(Lower Aquifer)

GROUNDWATER

SEEPAGE

THROUGH

CORCORAN CLAY
2003 71,000 53,000 18,000 47,000 45,000
2004 44,000 69,000 14,000 73,000 45,000
2005 73,000 40,000 18,000 24,000 45,000
2006 73,000 40,000 18,000 24,000 45,000
2007 44,000 69,000 14,000 73,000 45,000
2008 44,000 69,000 14,000 73,000 45,000
2009 71,000 53,000 18,000 47,000 45,000
2010 71,000 53,000 18,000 47,000 45,000
2011 73,000 40,000 18,000 24,000 45,000
2012 44,000 69,000 14,000 73,000 45,000
Avg. 61,000 56,000 16,000 51,000 45,000
Table 17 – Historic Lateral Groundwater Flows
Historic Water Budget Change in Groundwater Storage:

The Historic Water Budget defined from 2003-2012 was drier than the historical average and is likely to result with a change in groundwater storage that reflects the drier condition. The HCM defines two distinct aquifers, upper and lower, as separated by the Corcoran Clay. It should be noted that groundwater extraction from outside the SJREC area has an impact on lateral groundwater flow and stream recharge. For this reason, the SJREC have prepared a Free-Body Diagram to determine if our groundwater management efforts have a net positive impact on the aquifer (more surface water delivery than demand) which is indicative of sustainable groundwater management for aquifer storage.

Figure 10 – Historic Free-Body Diagram for Surface Water Interaction The result of the net deep percolation shows an average annual recharge from direct, in-direct and inlieu recharge of 147 TAF/year. The recharge includes but is not limited to; deep percolation from irrigation, deep percolation of precipitation, stream seepage and canal seepage. 160
63 Figure 11 – Historic Free-Body Diagram for Groundwater Interaction The results of the groundwater interaction show no change in the overall annual average change in storage in the upper aquifer. For the purpose of this analysis the upper aquifer is assumed to be in balance even through this slightly drier than average timeframe. The lower aquifer shows an average annual loss of 10 TAF in groundwater storage. The SJREC are extracting an average annual volume of 12 TAF from the lower aquifer which equates to an annual extraction of 0.05 AF/acre. It is reasonable to assert that any reduction in groundwater storage, is not principally caused by the extraction occurring with the SJREC GSA area. The primary cause of the reduction in groundwater storage in the lower aquifer is large lateral groundwater outflow particularly in dry and critically dry water years. The large groundwater outflow is indicative of over-drafting occurring outside the GSA boundary which has caused inelastic land subsidence.

The actual change in groundwater storage in the lower aquifer isin primarily due to compaction caused by inelastic land subsidence resulting from groundwater extractions and subsurface groundwater flow.

The negative effects of over extraction from the lower aquifer can have residual effects of land subsidence. In other words, land subsidence can continue to occur even after groundwater pumping has stopped. It is for this reason, that the following table and charts are using the approximate change in groundwater storage from the lower aquifer caused in that year and it is further assumed, for illustration purposes, that there was not any land subsidence in wet years. 161
64 YEAR
UPPER

AQUIFER

CHANGE IN

STORAGE (AF)
LOWER

AQUIFER

CHANGE IN

STORAGE (AF)
2003 -20,000 -2,000
2004 -62,000 -24,000
2005 45,000 0
2006 23,000 0
2007 -83,000 -24,000
2008 -63,000 -24,000
2009 -15,000 -2,000
2010 109,000 -2,000
2011 84,000 0
2012 -20,000 -24,000
Avg. 0 -10,000
Table 18 – Change in Groundwater Storage for the Historical Water Budget Figure 12 – Annual Historic Change in Groundwater Storage Graph 162
65 Figure 13 - Cumulative Historic Change in Groundwater Storage Graph

2.2.3.2 Current Water Budget for SJREC GSA
The same data and methodologies from the Historic Water Budget was used to develop the Current Water Budget.

Surface Water Allocation and Surface Water Delivery:

WATER
YEAR

SHASTA WATER YEAR

DESIGNATION

SURFACE WATER

ALLOCATION

SURFACE WATER DELIVERY
(AF)
2013 Non-Critical 100% 748,000
Table 19 - Current Surface Water Allocation and Delivery Groundwater Extractions:

WATER YEAR

UPPER AQUIFER

GROUNDWATER

EXTRACTION
(AF)

LOWER AQUIFER

GROUNDWATER

EXTRACTION (AF)
TOTAL

GROUNDWATER

EXTRACTION (AF)
2013 161,000 18,000 179,000
Table 20 - Current Groundwater Extractions
163
66 Precipitation:

WATER
YEAR

PRECIPITATION
(inches)
TOTAL

PRECIPITATION
(AF)

EFFECTIVE

PRECIPITATION
(ETprecip)

NON-EFFECTIVE

PRECIPITATION
2013 5.4 115,000 52,000 63,000
Table 21 - Current Precipitation
Streamflow Recharge:

WATER
YEAR

WATER YEAR
TYPE

SAN JOAQUIN

RIVER RECHARGE
(AF)

LOS BANOS AND

ORESTIMBA CREEKS

RECHARGE (AF)

TOTAL STREAM

RECHARGE (AF)
2013 Critically Dry 5,000 1,000 6,000
Table 22 - Current Stream Recharge
Surface Water and Groundwater Outflow:

WATER
YEAR

PRECIPITATION

OUTFLOW (AF)

TILE DRAIN

OUTFLOW (AF)

OUTFLOW AND SPILLS
(AF)

TOTAL SWATER

OUTFLOW (AF)
2013 63,000 2,000 108,000 173,000
Table 23 - Current Total Surface Water Outflow
Evapotranspiration:

WATER YEAR ETC (AF) ETiw (AF) ETmisc (AF)
Total ET
(AF)
2013 608,000 556,000 57,000 665,000
Table 24 - Current Evapotranspiration (Consumptive Use) Lateral Inflow and Outflow of Groundwater:

WATER
YEAR

GROUNDWATER
INFLOW
(Upper Aquifer)

GROUNDWATER

OUTFLOW
(Upper Aquifer)

GROUNDWATER
INFLOW
(Lower Aquifer)

GROUNDWATER

OUTFLOW
(Lower Aquifer)

GROUNDWATER

SEEPAGE

THROUGH

CORCORAN CLAY
2013 44,000 69,000 14,000 73,000 45,000
Table 25 - Current Lateral Groundwater Flows
Current Water Budget Change in Groundwater Storage:

The change in groundwater storage for the upper aquifer is representative of a snapshot in time during a critically dry year. The upper aquifer fully recovered after the back-to-back critically dry years during the Historic Water Budget. While this shows a one-year reduction in groundwater storage, it is not indicative of average conditions and serves as a one-year representative of recent conditions. In fact, we have seen the upper aquifer recover even after going through the extended drought of 2013-2016.

The change in groundwater storage in the Upper Aquifer, represents an average water level decline of less than 1 foot across the SJREC GSA area. The SJREC extracted 18 TAF from the lower aquifer which 164
67 equates to an extraction of 0.07 AF/acre. The change in groundwater storage from the lower aquifer can be described similarly to the Historic Water Budget analysis.

YEAR
UPPER

AQUIFER

CHANGE IN

STORAGE (AF)
LOWER

AQUIFER

CHANGE IN

STORAGE (AF)
2013 -23,000 -24,000
Table 26 - Change in Groundwater Storage for the Current Water Budget

2.2.3.3 Projected Water Budget for SJREC GSA
Climate Change:

The SJREC GSP Group used the climate change data provided by DWR and based on the California Water Commission’s Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP) climate change analysis results. Climate Change impacts need to be evaluated to determine the effects on precipitation, ET and streamflow. The gridded data provided monthly Climate Change factors on an approximately fifteen square mile grid for 2030 (representing years 2016-2045) and 2070 (representing years 2046-2085) for precipitation and ET.

That data was gathered for each management areamonitoring zone in the SJREC GSA. A weighted average based on acreage was then applied to provide an overall representative climate change factor across the SJREC GSA area for each month. The representative climate change factor for each month was used to determine the annual climate change factor. The 2030 annual climate change factors were used in the projected water budgets from 2018-2045 for precipitation and ET. The 2070 annual climate change factors were used in the projected water budgets from 2046-2070 for precipitation and ET. The Climate Change model also determined the effects on streamflow with factors for 2030 and 2070.

Similarly to the Climate Change factors for precipitation and ET, the projected water budget used the 2030 streamflow factors for years 2018-2045 and the 2070 streamflow factor for years 2046-2070. The three main rivers that were reviewed for potential impacts to the Delta-Mendota Subbasin were the Sacramento, San Joaquin and Kings rivers. The Sacramento River Full Natural Flow was reviewed to determine which years would be classified as Shasta Critical under the Exchange Contract. The San Joaquin and Kings rivers were reviewed to determine the impacts to stream recharge and flood flows.

The impacts of climate change are reported as dimensionless factors in the projected water budget.

For more details on the climate change modeling refer to the WSIP and the guidance document provided by DWR: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/Sustainable-Groundwater-Management/Best-Management-Practices-and-GuidanceDocuments/Files/Climate-Change-Guidance_Final.pdf Projected Water Year Type:

The GSA’s in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, through the Technical Subcommittee and approved by the Coordination Committee, agreed on the following approach for Projected Water Budgets and received confirmation from DWR on this approach. The Projected Water Budget has been determined to represent water years 2014-2070. It was decided at the Subbasin level to use actual data from water years 2014-2017. Furthermore, it was decided to replay the hydrology of 1965-2017 with the caveat that 1979 would represent the fifth year of the projection and following sequentially the historic water year 1965 would represent the forty-fourth year of the projection. Essentially, the subbasin is using a sequential fifty-three year hydrologic cycle but started in the middle of the cycle to more nearly mimic 165
68 the most recent drought. The actual projected values would begin starting in 2018. A replay of historic hydrology was used where the hydrology from 1979 is representative of the water budget year 2018, or the fifth year in the projected water budget. The following year, 2019 or the sixth year, of the Projected Water Budget is a replay of the 1980 water year and so on for all subsequent years and having the water year 2057 represented by the historic hydrology from the year 1965. The historic and current water budgets are used as a baseline condition for the water budget entries based on the Water Year type.

For example; Water Year 2010 was classified as Above Normal and the water budget values from 2010 will be used as a baseline for all Above Normal years in the projected water budget. This process has now established a baseline condition.
166
69 Actual
Water Year
Historical Reference
Used for Hydrology
Historical Reference for Water
Delivery/Demand (surrogate year)
Shasta Water Year
Designation
Water Year Type (SJ
Valley)
2014 2014 2014 Critical Shasta Critical
2015 2015 2015 Critical Shasta Critical
2016 2016 2016 Non-Critical Dry
2017 2017 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2018 1979 2010 Non-Critical Above Normal
2019 1980 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2020 1981 2012 Non-Critical Dry
2021 1982 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2022 1983 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2023 1984 2010 Non-Critical Above Normal
2024 1985 2012 Non-Critical Dry
2025 1986 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2026 1987 2008 Non-Critical Critically Dry
2027 1988 2008 Non-Critical Critically Dry
2028 1989 2008 Non-Critical Critically Dry
2029 1990 2008 Non-Critical Critically Dry
2030 1991 Avg. 2014 & 2015 Critical Shasta Critical
2031 1992 Avg. 2014 & 2015 Critical Shasta Critical
2032 1993 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2033 1994 2008 Non-Critical Critically Dry
2034 1995 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2035 1996 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2036 1997 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2037 1998 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2038 1999 2010 Non-Critical Above Normal
2039 2000 2010 Non-Critical Above Normal
2040 2001 2012 Non-Critical Dry
2041 2002 2012 Non-Critical Dry
2042 2003 2003 Non-Critical Below Normal
2043 2004 2004 Non-Critical Dry
2044 2005 2005 Non-Critical Wet
2045 2006 2006 Non-Critical Wet
2046 2007 2007 Non-Critical Critically Dry
2047 2008 2008 Non-Critical Critically Dry
2048 2009 2009 Non-Critical Below Normal
2049 2010 2010 Non-Critical Above Normal
2050 2011 2011 Non-Critical Wet
2051 2012 2012 Non-Critical Dry
2052 2013 2013 Non-Critical Critically Dry
2053 2014 2014 Critical Shasta Critical
2054 2015 2015 Critical Shasta Critical
2055 2016 2016 Non-Critical Dry
2056 2017 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2057 1965 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2058 1966 2009 Non-Critical Below Normal
2059 1967 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2060 1968 2012 Non-Critical Dry
2061 1969 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2062 1970 2010 Non-Critical Above Normal
2063 1971 2009 Non-Critical Below Normal
2064 1972 2012 Non-Critical Dry
2065 1973 2010 Non-Critical Above Normal
2066 1974 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2067 1975 2017 Non-Critical Wet
2068 1976 Avg. 2014 & 2015 Critical Shasta Critical
2069 1977 Avg. 2014 & 2015 Critical Shasta Critical
2070 1978 2017 Non-Critical Wet
Table 27 - Surrogate Water Years
167
70 Surface Water Allocation and Surface Water Delivery:

The surface water allocation to the SJREC is determined based on the FNF at Shasta per the Exchange Contract. The result of the WSIP program was used to determine what the projected FNF into Shasta would be after accounting for climate change. As shown above, historic water deliveries based on water year type were used as surrogates to project future water supply allocations and deliveries. As an example, the historic watery year ‘1984’ was classified as an above normal water year for the San Joaquin Valley. Similarly 2010, in our historic water budget, was an above normal water year, and surface water deliveries in the projected water budget will mimic what was delivered in 2010 in all water years designated as above normal. This process was used to determine surface water deliveries for all water year types. The climate change model provided projected inflows using 2030 and 2070 factors for Water Years 1922-2003. In order to simulate climate change impacts to stream flow from 2004-2017, the following years were respectively used as surrogates: 2002, 2002, 1998, 1992, 1992, 2002, 2003, 1997, 1992, 1992, 1976, 1977, 2002, 1998. This method was discussed and approved by both the Delta-Mendota Coordination Committee and DWR. Table 27 describes which historic years are used when determining projected deliveries, with the exception of the streamflow from 2004-2017 as listed above. Projected surface water deliveries are assumed to follow historic patterns resulting in projecting surface water deliveries based on established data from 2003-2017. Projected surface water deliveries are reported in total acre-feet.
168
71 WATER
YEAR

SHASTA WATER

YEAR DESIGNATION

WATER YEAR TYPE
(SJ VALLEY)

SURFACE WATER

ALLOCATION

SURFACE WATER

DELIVERY (AF)
2014 Critical Shasta Critical 77% 501,000
2015 Critical Shasta Critical 77% 447,000
2016 Non-Critical Dry 100% 646,000
2017 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2018 Non-Critical Above Normal 100% 743,000
2019 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2020 Non-Critical Dry 100% 795,000
2021 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2022 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2023 Non-Critical Above Normal 100% 743,000
2024 Non-Critical Dry 100% 795,000
2025 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2026 Non-Critical Critically Dry 100% 753,000
2027 Non-Critical Critically Dry 100% 753,000
2028 Non-Critical Critically Dry 100% 753,000
2029 Non-Critical Critically Dry 100% 753,000
2030 Critical Shasta Critical 77% 590,000
2031 Critical Shasta Critical 77% 590,000
2032 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2033 Non-Critical Critically Dry 100% 753,000
2034 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2035 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2036 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2037 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2038 Non-Critical Above Normal 100% 743,000
2039 Non-Critical Above Normal 100% 743,000
2040 Non-Critical Dry 100% 795,000
2041 Non-Critical Dry 100% 795,000
2042 Non-Critical Below Normal 100% 788,000
2043 Non-Critical Dry 100% 776,000
2044 Non-Critical Wet 100% 731,000
2045 Non-Critical Wet 100% 761,000
2046 Non-Critical Critically Dry 100% 804,000
2047 Non-Critical Critically Dry 100% 753,000
2048 Non-Critical Below Normal 100% 756,000
2049 Non-Critical Above Normal 100% 743,000
2050 Non-Critical Wet 100% 753,000
2051 Non-Critical Dry 100% 795,000
2052 Non-Critical Critically Dry 100% 748,000
2053 Critical Shasta Critical 77% 590,000
2054 Critical Shasta Critical 77% 590,000
2055 Non-Critical Dry 100% 646,000
2056 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2057 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2058 Non-Critical Below Normal 100% 756,000
2059 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2060 Non-Critical Dry 100% 795,000
2061 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2062 Non-Critical Above Normal 100% 743,000
2063 Non-Critical Below Normal 100% 756,000
2064 Non-Critical Dry 100% 795,000
2065 Non-Critical Above Normal 100% 743,000
2066 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2067 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
2068 Critical Shasta Critical 77% 590,000
2069 Critical Shasta Critical 77% 590,000
2070 Non-Critical Wet 100% 756,000
Avg: 729,000
Table 28 - Projected Surface Water Delivery
169
72 Projected Groundwater Extractions:

The SJREC GSA has been sustainably managing groundwater extractions and plans to continue the groundwater extractions, based on water year type, in the same quantities to meet demand. Projected groundwater extractions are assumed to follow historic patterns resulting in projecting groundwater extractions based on established data from 2003-2017. Projecting the amount of groundwater extractions uses the same method as projecting surface water deliveries as described above; use historic surrogate years based on water year type to project how much groundwater will be pumped. All groundwater extractions are reported in acre-feet.
170
73 WATER
YEAR

UPPER AQUIFER GROUNDWATER

EXTRACTIONS (AF)

LOWER AQUIFER GROUNDWATER

EXTRACTIONS (AF)

TOTAL GROUNDWATER

EXTRACTION (AF)
2014 169,000 19,000 188,000
2015 228,000 25,000 253,000
2016 59,000 6,000 65,000
2017 22,000 2,000 24,000
2018 68,000 8,000 76,000
2019 22,000 2,000 24,000
2020 59,000 6,000 65,000
2021 22,000 2,000 24,000
2022 22,000 2,000 24,000
2023 68,000 8,000 76,000
2024 59,000 6,000 65,000
2025 22,000 2,000 24,000
2026 146,000 16,000 162,000
2027 146,000 16,000 162,000
2028 146,000 16,000 162,000
2029 146,000 16,000 162,000
2030 166,000 18,000 184,000
2031 163,000 18,000 181,000
2032 22,000 2,000 24,000
2033 146,000 16,000 162,000
2034 22,000 2,000 24,000
2035 22,000 2,000 24,000
2036 22,000 2,000 24,000
2037 22,000 2,000 24,000
2038 68,000 8,000 76,000
2039 68,000 8,000 76,000
2040 59,000 6,000 65,000
2041 59,000 6,000 65,000
2042 104,000 12,000 116,000
2043 59,000 6,000 65,000
2044 22,000 2,000 24,000
2045 22,000 2,000 24,000
2046 161,000 18,000 179,000
2047 161,000 18,000 179,000
2048 148,000 16,000 164,000
2049 68,000 8,000 76,000
2050 22,000 2,000 24,000
2051 59,000 6,000 65,000
2052 161,000 18,000 179,000
2053 166,000 18,000 184,000
2054 163,000 18,000 181,000
2055 59,000 6,000 65,000
2056 22,000 2,000 24,000
2057 22,000 2,000 24,000
2058 148,000 16,000 164,000
2059 22,000 2,000 24,000
2060 59,000 6,000 65,000
2061 22,000 2,000 24,000
2062 68,000 8,000 76,000
2063 148,000 16,000 164,000
2064 59,000 6,000 65,000
2065 68,000 8,000 76,000
2066 22,000 2,000 24,000
2067 22,000 2,000 24,000
2068 166,000 18,000 184,000
2069 163,000 18,000 181,000
2070 22,000 2,000 24,000
Average: 81,000 9,000 90,000
Table 29- Projected Groundwater Extractions
171
74 Projected Precipitation:

Historical data from the National Weather Service Station in Los Banos, located at the CCID office, was used to establish a baseline for projecting future annual precipitation. Data was collected from this station from 1961-2017 as a baseline for over 50 years of historical precipitation. Refer to Table 27 for a historical reference for water year based on hydrology. Data from this historical record was used as a baseline prior to adding climate change factors (CCF). The CCF’s for precipitation were provided in a gridded format, by DWR, for approximately each 15 square miles. The value of each grid cell that overlaid the SJREC GSP Group was averaged to determine the overall factor for this area. The CCF for precipitation for each year was applied to baseline condition for each year to estimate the projected precipitation to be expected at the Los Banos weather station. As described previously, actual data was used for water years 2014-2017 in the projected water budget. The 2030 CCF’s were used for water years 2018-2045 and the 2070 CCF’s were used for water years 2046-2070. The climate change model provided projected precipitation using 2030 and 2070 factors for Water Years 1915-2011. In order to simulate climate change impacts to precipitation from 2011-2017, the following years were respectively used as surrogates: 2001, 1992, 1976, 1977, 2002, and 2011. This method was discussed and approved by both the Delta-Mendota Coordination Committee and DWR. The results of the climate change modeling shows minor fluctuations above and below historic average conditions. The long-term average change shows a reduction in precipitation of less than one percent for this area. 172
75 WATER
YEAR

PRECIPITATION
(inches)

TOTAL PRECIPITATION
(AF)

CLIMATE CHANGE
FACTOR

EFFECTIVE
PRECIPITATION (ETprecip)

NON-EFFECTIVE

PRECIPITATION
2014 6.86 93,000 1.000 23,000 70,000
2015 10.18 142,000 1.000 81,000 61,000
2016 10.39 281,000 1.000 140,000 141,000
2017 5.04 286,000 1.000 166,000 120,000
2018 10.75 200,000 0.996 108,000 92,000
2019 8.75 209,000 0.992 108,000 101,000
2020 11.31 130,000 0.965 57,000 73,000
2021 5.90 277,000 1.007 135,000 142,000
2022 15.53 332,000 1.037 169,000 163,000
2023 7.71 141,000 1.003 83,000 58,000
2024 7.82 148,000 0.989 67,000 81,000
2025 3.54 259,000 0.997 147,000 112,000
2026 14.47 166,000 1.022 88,000 78,000
2027 9.25 191,000 0.992 86,000 105,000
2028 9.41 139,000 1.026 31,000 108,000
2029 6.77 143,000 1.032 43,000 100,000
2030 5.11 151,000 1.008 55,000 96,000
2031 16.66 188,000 1.024 93,000 95,000
2032 9.40 281,000 0.992 181,000 100,000
2033 9.89 155,000 1.027 68,000 87,000
2034 6.34 289,000 0.976 163,000 126,000
2035 12.92 229,000 0.981 123,000 106,000
2036 15.05 263,000 1.027 187,000 76,000
2037 6.61 494,000 0.963 287,000 207,000
2038 7.00 147,000 0.983 49,000 98,000
2039 12.22 174,000 0.961 84,000 90,000
2040 7.65 192,000 1.016 86,000 106,000
2041 9.04 124,000 1.000 51,000 73,000
2042 6.36 189,000 1.055 86,000 103,000
2043 6.54 178,000 1.056 107,000 71,000
2044 7.07 336,000 1.011 179,000 157,000
2045 8.63 223,000 0.991 101,000 122,000
2046 13.31 90,000 0.955 16,000 74,000
2047 7.11 134,000 1.017 78,000 56,000
2048 13.89 118,000 0.931 55,000 63,000
2049 10.94 240,000 0.985 131,000 109,000
2050 12.06 256,000 0.957 144,000 112,000
2051 24.08 103,000 1.009 18,000 85,000
2052 7.03 114,000 0.988 52,000 62,000
2053 8.51 91,000 0.973 23,000 68,000
2054 8.88 137,000 0.970 78,000 59,000
2055 5.83 266,000 0.951 133,000 133,000
2056 8.44 273,000 0.957 159,000 114,000
2057 7.91 226,000 0.987 105,000 121,000
2058 15.59 180,000 0.969 108,000 72,000
2059 10.55 232,000 0.961 125,000 107,000
2060 4.42 116,000 0.925 39,000 77,000
2061 6.22 334,000 1.011 209,000 125,000
2062 5.96 156,000 0.948 69,000 87,000
2063 11.43 164,000 0.981 65,000 99,000
2064 12.60 70,000 0.929 23,000 47,000
2065 4.80 314,000 1.021 215,000 99,000
2066 5.38 195,000 0.989 87,000 108,000
2067 4.39 209,000 1.045 98,000 111,000
2068 6.65 140,000 0.973 22,000 118,000
2069 13.15 105,000 0.970 19,000 86,000
2070 13.40 354,000 0.998 225,000 129,000
Average: 9.35 199,000 0.992 100,000 99,000
Table 30 - Projected Precipitation
173
76 Projected Streamflow Recharge:

San Joaquin River Losses: The climate change model was used to project the FNF into Millerton Reservoir on the San Joaquin River. The average change during the projected water budget has a reduction of FNF into Millerton of about four percent. Under most year types, there was not any water in the SJREC area in the San Joaquin River that was released from Millerton during the Historic and Current Water Budget timeframes. Rather, the water that is in the San Joaquin River adjacent to the Exchange Contractors has typically been delivered via the DMC. There are a few exceptions when water is released from Millerton and is in the river adjacent to the Exchange Contractors. The first such year type is when the USBR is unable to meet the delivery obligations to the SJREC via the DMC. The operation does not result in an increase in recharge from the San Joaquin River for the stretch of river adjacent to the Exchange Contractors. The second type is during flood releases from Millerton which typically occurs during a Wet water year type. These releases increase recharge in the river and have been included in our Historic and Current Water Budget. The climate change model shows a reduction of FNF into Millerton during wet years by about seven percent. The climate change model provided projected inflows using 2030 and 2070 factors for Water Years 1922-2003. In order to simulate climate change impacts to stream flow from 2004-2017, the following years were respectively used as surrogates: 2002, 2002, 1998, 1992, 1992, 2002, 2003, 1997, 1992, 1992, 1976, 1977, 2002, 1998. This method was discussed and approved by both the Delta-Mendota Coordination Committee and DWR.

Another component that may increase the overall seepage occurring in the San Joaquin River is a resultant of the San Joaquin River Restoration Program (SJRRP) implemented by the USBR. The SJRRP is the direct result of the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement. Under historic conditions, the San Joaquin River was dry downstream of Gravelly Ford except during flood releases. The San Joaquin River was wet, from deliveries to the Exchange Contractors via the DMC, from San Mateo Avenue down to Sack Dam. For more information about the SJRRP refer to: http://www.restoresjr.net/ There are two main factors mentioned that will have an impact on the potential recharge in the San Joaquin River; 1) Climate Change and 2) SJRRP. The results of the climate change model shows a slight reduction in the FNF of the river. The SJRRP, when implemented, will no doubt show an increase in seepage in the river primarily in the historically dry reaches of the river but may also increase the seepage in historically wet reaches of the river due to increased flow through those areas. With this and other potential uncertainties in mind, the SJREC GSP Group has elected to use a conservative approach by assuming the recharge in the San Joaquin River will mimic historical conditions and did not include additional recharge that may occur due to the SJRRP.

Ephemeral Streams: The flood water from ephemeral streams in the SJREC area is due to local precipitation. The CCF’s for precipitation indicates a reduction of less than one percent. Additionally, the climate change modeling shows that there is a reduction of less than one percent precipitation in wet years which is typically when the flood flows on the streams occurs. The projected recharge from Ephemeral Streams is assumed to mimic historical conditions.

Recharge Projects:

The SJREC are developing several recharge projects that are further described in Section 4.0 of this plan.

Actual data is used for water years 2014-2017. For water years 2018-2070, the average annual benefit of the projects is assumed. No water is recharged during Shasta Critical water years. 174
77 The SJREC has several projects that are discussed in Section 4.0 that will contribute additional recharge.

The operations of these recharge projects will be different for GSA’s in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. For many of the other GSA’s, intentional recharge projects will be used to offset groundwater extractions as a means to achieve sustainability. The SJREC GSA is already sustainable and these recharge projects are intended to help meet peak demand and provide an additional water supply during Shasta Critical years. 175
78 WATER
YEAR

WATER YEAR

TYPE (SJ VALLEY)

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

RECHARGE (AF)

LOS BANOS AND

ORESTIMBA CREEKS

RECHARGE (AF)

RECHARGE

PROJECTS
(AF)

TOTAL STREAM

RECHARGE (AF)
2014 Shasta Critical 5,000 0 - 5,000
2015 Shasta Critical 5,000 1,000 - 6,000
2016 Dry 5,000 2,000 - 7,000
2017 Wet 5,000 3,000 6,000 14,000
2018 Above Normal 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2019 Wet 6,000 2,000 6,000 14,000
2020 Dry 5,000 0 6,000 11,000
2021 Wet 6,000 2,000 6,000 14,000
2022 Wet 6,000 2,000 6,000 14,000
2023 Above Normal 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2024 Dry 5,000 0 6,000 11,000
2025 Wet 6,000 2,000 6,000 14,000
2026 Critically Dry 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2027 Critically Dry 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2028 Critically Dry 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2029 Critically Dry 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2030 Shasta Critical 5,000 1,000 - 6,000
2031 Shasta Critical 5,000 1,000 - 6,000
2032 Wet 6,000 2,000 6,000 14,000
2033 Critically Dry 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2034 Wet 6,000 2,000 6,000 14,000
2035 Wet 6,000 2,000 6,000 14,000
2036 Wet 6,000 2,000 6,000 14,000
2037 Wet 6,000 2,000 6,000 14,000
2038 Above Normal 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2039 Above Normal 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2040 Dry 5,000 0 6,000 11,000
2041 Dry 5,000 0 6,000 11,000
2042 Below Normal 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2043 Dry 5,000 0 6,000 11,000
2044 Wet 5,000 2,000 6,000 13,000
2045 Wet 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2046 Critically Dry 5,000 0 6,000 11,000
2047 Critically Dry 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2048 Below Normal 5,000 0 6,000 11,000
2049 Above Normal 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2050 Wet 5,000 2,000 6,000 13,000
2051 Dry 5,000 0 6,000 11,000
2052 Critically Dry 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2053 Shasta Critical 5,000 0 - 5,000
2054 Shasta Critical 5,000 1,000 - 6,000
2055 Dry 5,000 2,000 6,000 13,000
2056 Wet 5,000 3,000 6,000 14,000
2057 Wet 6,000 2,000 6,000 14,000
2058 Below Normal 4,000 1,000 6,000 11,000
2059 Wet 6,000 2,000 6,000 14,000
2060 Dry 5,000 0 6,000 11,000
2061 Wet 6,000 2,000 6,000 14,000
2062 Above Normal 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2063 Below Normal 4,000 1,000 6,000 11,000
2064 Dry 5,000 0 6,000 11,000
2065 Above Normal 5,000 1,000 6,000 12,000
2066 Wet 6,000 2,000 6,000 14,000
2067 Wet 6,000 2,000 6,000 14,000
2068 Shasta Critical 5,000 1,000 - 6,000
2069 Shasta Critical 5,000 1,000 - 6,000
2070 Wet 6,000 2,000 6,000 14,000
Average: 5,000 1,000 5,000 11,000
Table 31 - Projected Stream and Intentional Recharge
176
79 Surface Water and Groundwater Outflow:

The SJREC member entities have each worked on conservation projects to reduce losses and maintain great service to the growers. One way to reduce losses from the system is to construct regulating reservoirs to capture potential spills. Regulating reservoirs provide the operators flexibility to meet the fluctuations of demand. The entities have and continue to construct regulating reservoirs primarily to reduce spills while maintaining operational flexibility for our growers. Another type of conservation project the SJREC have implemented is a recapture facility to capture runoff and recirculate the water back into the system. These systems have also been effective in reducing losses for the districts. A reduction factor for surface outflow has been applied to the projected water budget. The districts have seen a drastic decrease in surface outflows leaving the area. It is unclear at the moment when the next conservation project will be constructed and the factors indicated are assumed to be a conservative estimate on the reductions.

Another source of surface water outflow is through the tile drainage systems. These tile drains are operated to mitigate shallow saline groundwater and are expected to mimic historic conditions. 177
80 WATER
YEAR

TILE DRAIN OUTFLOW
(AF)

SURFACE SPILL

REDUCTION FACTOR

SURFACE WATER

OUTFLOW AND SPILLS
(AF)

TOTAL SURFACE WATER

OUTFLOW (AF)
2014 2,000 1.00 48,000 50,000
2015 1,000 1.00 41,000 42,000
2016 2,000 1.00 60,000 62,000
2017 2,000 1.00 93,000 95,000
2018 2,000 1.00 112,000 114,000
2019 2,000 1.00 93,000 95,000
2020 3,000 1.00 94,000 96,000
2021 2,000 1.00 93,000 95,000
2022 2,000 1.00 93,000 95,000
2023 2,000 1.00 112,000 114,000
2024 3,000 1.00 94,000 96,000
2025 2,000 1.00 93,000 95,000
2026 3,000 0.85 81,000 83,000
2027 3,000 0.85 81,000 83,000
2028 3,000 0.85 81,000 83,000
2029 3,000 0.85 81,000 83,000
2030 2,000 0.85 38,000 40,000
2031 2,000 0.85 38,000 40,000
2032 2,000 0.85 79,000 81,000
2033 3,000 0.85 81,000 83,000
2034 2,000 0.85 79,000 81,000
2035 2,000 0.85 79,000 81,000
2036 2,000 0.85 79,000 81,000
2037 2,000 0.85 79,000 81,000
2038 2,000 0.85 95,000 97,000
2039 2,000 0.85 95,000 97,000
2040 3,000 0.85 80,000 82,000
2041 3,000 0.75 71,000 73,000
2042 3,000 0.75 95,000 98,000
2043 3,000 0.75 92,000 95,000
2044 3,000 0.75 84,000 87,000
2045 2,000 0.75 79,000 81,000
2046 3,000 0.75 82,000 85,000
2047 2,000 0.75 71,000 73,000
2048 2,000 0.75 71,000 73,000
2049 2,000 0.75 84,000 86,000
2050 2,000 0.75 92,000 94,000
2051 2,000 0.75 71,000 73,000
2052 2,000 0.75 74,000 76,000
2053 2,000 0.75 36,000 38,000
2054 1,000 0.75 31,000 32,000
2055 2,000 0.75 45,000 47,000
2056 2,000 0.60 56,000 58,000
2057 2,000 0.60 56,000 58,000
2058 3,000 0.60 56,000 58,000
2059 2,000 0.60 56,000 58,000
2060 3,000 0.60 56,000 58,000
2061 2,000 0.60 56,000 58,000
2062 2,000 0.60 67,000 69,000
2063 3,000 0.60 56,000 58,000
2064 3,000 0.60 56,000 58,000
2065 2,000 0.60 67,000 69,000
2066 2,000 0.60 56,000 58,000
2067 2,000 0.60 56,000 58,000
2068 2,000 0.60 27,000 29,000
2069 2,000 0.60 27,000 29,000
2070 2,000 0.60 56,000 58,000
Average: 2,000 0.8 71,000 73,000
Table 32 - Projected Total Surface Outflow
178
81 Projected Evapotranspiration:

The SJREC GSA area is sustainable and does not anticipate any significant deviation from historical conditions. The area of the SJREC GSA is highly unlikely to expand and may even reduce the footprint as cities around CCID annex land into the City limits. Refer to Table 27 for a historical reference for water year based on hydrology. Data from this historical record was used as a baseline prior to adding climate change factors (CCF). The CCF’s for ET were provided in a gridded format, by DWR, for approximately each 15 square miles. The value of each grid cell that overlaid the SJREC GSP Group was averaged to determine the overall factor for this area. The CCF for ET for each year was applied to baseline condition for each year to estimate the projected ET to be expected at the Los Banos weather station.

As described previously, actual data was used for water years 2014-2017 in the projected water budget.

The 2030 CCF’s were used for water years 2018-2045 and the 2070 CCF’s were used for water years 2046-2070. The climate change model provided projected ET using 2030 and 2070 factors for Water Years 1915-2011. In order to simulate climate change impacts to ET from 2011-2017, the following years were respectively used as surrogates: 2001, 1992, 1976, 1977, 2002, and 2011. This method was discussed and approved by both the Delta-Mendota Coordination Committee and DWR. The result of the climate change modeling shows an increase in crop consumptive use. The 2030 CCF indicates an increase of three percent and the 2070 CCF indicates an increase of eight percent with an overall average increase of about five percent. These factors were applied and the results are shown below. 179
82 WATER
YEAR

PROJECTED
ETC

PROJECTED
ETIW

PROJECTED

ETMISC CCF

PROJECTED ETC

W/ CLIMATE
CHANGE

PROJECTED ETIW

W/ CLIMATE
CHANGE

PROJECTED ETMISC

W/ CLIMATE
CHANGE

TOTAL ET W/

CLIMATE
CHANGE
2014 560,000 537,000 56,000 1.000 560,000 537,000 56,000 616,000 2015 562,000 481,000 56,000 1.000 562,000 481,000 56,000 618,000 2016 584,000 444,000 59,000 1.000 584,000 444,000 59,000 643,000 2017 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.000 628,000 462,000 66,000 694,000 2018 575,000 446,000 56,000 1.035 595,000 487,000 58,000 653,000 2019 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.035 650,000 542,000 68,000 719,000 2020 618,000 598,000 62,000 1.035 640,000 583,000 64,000 704,000 2021 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.033 649,000 514,000 68,000 717,000 2022 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.038 652,000 483,000 68,000 720,000 2023 575,000 446,000 56,000 1.030 592,000 509,000 58,000 650,000 2024 618,000 598,000 62,000 1.036 640,000 573,000 64,000 705,000 2025 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.040 653,000 506,000 69,000 722,000 2026 713,000 637,000 21,000 1.033 737,000 649,000 22,000 759,000 2027 713,000 637,000 21,000 1.034 737,000 651,000 22,000 759,000 2028 713,000 637,000 21,000 1.034 737,000 706,000 22,000 759,000 2029 713,000 637,000 21,000 1.028 733,000 690,000 22,000 754,000 2030 561,000 509,000 56,000 1.030 578,000 523,000 58,000 636,000 2031 561,000 509,000 56,000 1.033 579,000 486,000 58,000 637,000 2032 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.033 649,000 468,000 68,000 717,000 2033 713,000 637,000 21,000 1.033 737,000 669,000 22,000 758,000 2034 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.038 652,000 489,000 69,000 721,000 2035 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.031 648,000 525,000 68,000 716,000 2036 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.031 647,000 460,000 68,000 715,000 2037 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.035 650,000 363,000 68,000 718,000 2038 575,000 446,000 56,000 1.035 595,000 546,000 58,000 653,000 2039 575,000 446,000 56,000 1.035 595,000 511,000 58,000 653,000 2040 618,000 598,000 62,000 1.030 637,000 551,000 64,000 701,000 2041 618,000 598,000 62,000 1.032 638,000 587,000 64,000 702,000 2042 719,000 638,000 20,000 1.032 742,000 656,000 21,000 763,000 2043 740,000 631,000 20,000 1.030 762,000 655,000 21,000 783,000 2044 707,000 544,000 20,000 1.036 732,000 553,000 21,000 753,000 2045 704,000 598,000 20,000 1.035 728,000 627,000 21,000 749,000 2046 709,000 694,000 20,000 1.079 765,000 749,000 22,000 787,000 2047 713,000 637,000 21,000 1.080 770,000 692,000 23,000 792,000 2048 665,000 593,000 67,000 1.085 721,000 666,000 73,000 794,000 2049 575,000 446,000 56,000 1.086 625,000 494,000 61,000 685,000 2050 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.086 682,000 538,000 72,000 754,000 2051 618,000 598,000 62,000 1.075 664,000 646,000 67,000 731,000 2052 608,000 556,000 57,000 1.088 661,000 609,000 62,000 723,000 2053 560,000 537,000 56,000 1.086 608,000 585,000 61,000 669,000 2054 562,000 481,000 56,000 1.083 609,000 531,000 61,000 669,000 2055 584,000 444,000 59,000 1.082 632,000 499,000 64,000 696,000 2056 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.086 682,000 523,000 72,000 754,000 2057 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.086 682,000 577,000 72,000 753,000 2058 665,000 593,000 67,000 1.088 723,000 615,000 73,000 796,000 2059 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.087 682,000 557,000 72,000 754,000 2060 618,000 598,000 62,000 1.085 671,000 632,000 67,000 738,000 2061 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.087 683,000 474,000 72,000 754,000 2062 575,000 446,000 56,000 1.080 621,000 552,000 60,000 682,000 2063 665,000 593,000 67,000 1.091 726,000 661,000 73,000 799,000 2064 618,000 598,000 62,000 1.085 671,000 648,000 67,000 738,000 2065 575,000 446,000 56,000 1.083 622,000 407,000 61,000 683,000 2066 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.088 683,000 596,000 72,000 755,000 2067 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.088 683,000 585,000 72,000 755,000 2068 561,000 509,000 56,000 1.086 609,000 587,000 61,000 670,000 2069 561,000 509,000 56,000 1.083 608,000 589,000 61,000 668,000 2070 628,000 477,000 66,000 1.074 674,000 449,000 71,000 745,000 Average: 628,000 528,000 54,000 1.053 661,000 560,000 57,000 718,000 Table 33 - Projected Evapotranspiration
180
83 Projected Lateral Inflow and Outflow of Groundwater:

The SJREC have a net positive change in groundwater storage in the upper aquifer in the historic water budget. The SJREC GSA has worked with the GSA’s in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin to determine projected lateral groundwater flows. Ken Schmidt prepared a report in 2015 (KDSA, 2015) analyzing the Groundwater Overdraft in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin and concluded that the subbasin was in balance for the Upper Aquifer for most of the subbasin with a few minor localized declining water levels.

Additionally, the historic water budget for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin indicates an average annual overdraft of about 50 TAF which is equivalent to less than 0.07 AF/acre/year. The overdraft represents a drier than average cycle during our Historic Water Budget from 2003-2012. Given the minimal overdraft in the upper aquifer, the SJREC GSA has assumed that projected lateral groundwater flows in the upper aquifer will mimic historic conditions.

One Undesirable Result that is occurring in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin and is primarily caused from neighboring subbasins is Land Subsidence. The SJREC GSA is reducing lateral outflow from the lower aquifer as a means to mitigate subsidence originating from outside the SJREC GSP area. The lateral outflow in the Lower Aquifer in dry, critically dry and Shasta critical years needs to be reduced to near normal levels to mitigate land subsidence. A step-down reduction was assumed so as to not have a significant or unreasonable impact on the SJREC GSA area while allowing enough time for the neighboring GSP’s to solve any subsidence problems occurring within their GSP area and account for subsidence lag time. Lateral groundwater inflow in the lower aquifer is significantly lower than the lateral outflow and is therefore assumed to mimic historic conditions. The lateral downward flow through the Corcoran Clay is assumed to reduce slightly over time as less pumping from the lower aquifer occurs and reduces the hydraulic gradient between the upper and lower aquifers. 181
84 WATER
YEAR

GROUNDWATER
INFLOW
(Upper Aquifer)

GROUNDWATER

OUTFLOW
(Upper Aquifer)

GROUNDWATER
INFLOW
(Lower Aquifer)

ASSUMED REDUCTION

IN LOWER AQUIFER

OUTFLOW

GROUNDWATER

OUTFLOW
(Lower Aquifer)

SEEPAGE

THROUGH

CORCORAN CLAY
2014 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.00 115,000 45,000
2015 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.00 115,000 45,000
2016 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.00 73,000 45,000
2017 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 45,000
2018 71,000 53,000 18,000 0.00 47,000 45,000
2019 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 45,000
2020 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.00 73,000 45,000
2021 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 45,000
2022 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 45,000
2023 71,000 53,000 18,000 0.00 47,000 45,000
2024 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.20 73,000 45,000
2025 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 45,000
2026 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.25 73,000 45,000
2027 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.25 73,000 45,000
2028 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.25 73,000 45,000
2029 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.25 73,000 45,000
2030 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.38 72,000 40,000
2031 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.45 63,000 40,000
2032 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 40,000
2033 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.30 73,000 40,000
2034 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 40,000
2035 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 40,000
2036 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 40,000
2037 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 40,000
2038 71,000 53,000 18,000 0.05 45,000 40,000
2039 71,000 53,000 18,000 0.05 45,000 40,000
2040 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.33 73,000 40,000
2041 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.33 73,000 40,000
2042 71,000 53,000 18,000 0.05 45,000 40,000
2043 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.33 49,000 40,000
2044 67,000 48,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 40,000
2045 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 40,000
2046 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.33 49,000 40,000
2047 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.33 49,000 40,000
2048 71,000 53,000 18,000 0.05 45,000 40,000
2049 71,000 53,000 18,000 0.05 45,000 40,000
2050 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 40,000
2051 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.33 73,000 40,000
2052 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.33 49,000 40,000
2053 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.58 49,000 40,000
2054 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.58 49,000 40,000
2055 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.33 49,000 40,000
2056 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 40,000
2057 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 40,000
2058 71,000 53,000 18,000 0.05 47,000 40,000
2059 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 40,000
2060 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.33 73,000 40,000
2061 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 40,000
2062 71,000 53,000 18,000 0.05 45,000 40,000
2063 71,000 53,000 18,000 0.05 47,000 40,000
2064 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.33 73,000 40,000
2065 71,000 53,000 18,000 0.05 45,000 40,000
2066 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 40,000
2067 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 40,000
2068 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.58 49,000 40,000
2069 44,000 69,000 14,000 0.58 49,000 40,000
2070 73,000 40,000 18,000 0.00 24,000 40,000
Avg: 59,000 56,000 16,000 - 48,000 41,000
Table 34 - Projected Later Groundwater Flows
182
85 Projected Water Budget Change in Groundwater Storage:

The SJREC have prepared a Free-Body Diagram for surface water interaction. This data is primarily used to see if surface water supply is greater than demand.

Figure 14 - Projected Free-Body Diagram for Surface Water Interaction The results of the net surface water recharge shows an average annual recharge from direct, in-direct and in-lieu recharge of 134 TAF/year. The recharge includes but is not limited to; deep percolation from irrigation, deep percolation from precipitation, stream seepage, canal seepage and recharge projects.

Figure 15 - Projected Free-Body Diagram for Groundwater Interaction The results of the groundwater interaction show an overall annual average change in storage in the upper aquifer of +15 TAF/year. This indicates that the SJREC GSA will have a sustainable quantity of water in the upper aquifer through the year 2070. This positive change in groundwater storage is for the SJREC GSA only and does not account for groundwater extractions from the other GSA’s in the SJREC GSP Group. Section 2.2.5 will describe the changes in groundwater storage for the entire SJREC GSP Group and will show a smaller increase in groundwater storage that is indicative of a reliable projection.

The lower aquifer shows an average annual loss of 5 TAF in groundwater storage. The SJREC are extracting an average annual volume of 9 TAF from the lower aquifer which equates to an annual extraction of 0.04 AF/acre. It is reasonable to assert that any reduction in groundwater storage was caused by extractions occurring outside of the SJREC GSA area. The SJREC GSA has used a reduction in lateral groundwater outflow to indicate solving observed subsidence in the area. This equates to a total 183
86 average subsidence across the SJREC GSP area of about 1.0’, most of which has been observed in the first four years of the projected water budget during dry period of 2014-2016. The assumptions made indicate minimal reductions in groundwater storage in the lower aquifer after 2025 and zero reductions after 2035 to account for some lag time of inelastic subsidence. The method of reviewing the change in storage for the lower aquifer is similar to the historic water budget. 184
87 WATER
YEAR

UPPER AQUIFER CHANGE

IN STORAGE (AF)

LOWER AQUIFER CHANGE

IN STORAGE (AF)
2014 -199,000 -89,000
2015 -186,000 -89,000
2016 21,000 -24,000
2017 136,000 0
2018 72,000 -2,000
2019 53,000 0
2020 -4,000 -24,000
2021 82,000 0
2022 113,000 0
2023 50,000 -2,000
2024 5,000 -9,000
2025 89,000 0
2026 -53,000 -6,000
2027 -55,000 -6,000
2028 -110,000 -6,000
2029 -93,000 -6,000
2030 -83,000 -23,000
2031 -46,000 -14,000
2032 147,000 0
2033 -67,000 -2,000
2034 125,000 0
2035 90,000 0
2036 155,000 0
2037 252,000 0
2038 35,000 0
2039 70,000 0
2040 47,000 0
2041 20,000 0
2042 8,000 0
2043 -46,000 0
2044 63,000 0
2045 38,000 0
2046 -99,000 0
2047 -80,000 0
2048 -60,000 0
2049 96,000 0
2050 56,000 0
2051 -42,000 0
2052 -45,000 0
2053 -147,000 0
2054 -85,000 0
2055 -13,000 0
2056 111,000 0
2057 58,000 0
2058 6,000 0
2059 77,000 0
2060 -13,000 0
2061 161,000 0
2062 54,000 0
2063 -40,000 0
2064 -29,000 0
2065 199,000 0
2066 38,000 0
2067 49,000 0
2068 -139,000 0
2069 -140,000 0
2070 186,000 0
Average: 15,000 -5,000
Table 35 - Change in Groundwater Storage for the Projected Water Budget 185
88 Figure 16 - Annual Projected Change in Groundwater Storage Figure 17 - Cumulative Projected Change in Groundwater Storage 186
89 2.2.4 Management AreasMonitoring Zones
In 1997 Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates (KDSA) prepared a report for CCID titled “Groundwater Conditions In and Near the Central California Irrigation District”. Subsequent to the 1997 CCID report, the SJRECWA worked with KDSA to develop a study titled “Groundwater Flows in the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Service Area”. Additionally in 1997, KDSA prepared the AB 3030 GWMP for the SJRECWA. These reports, collectively referred to as the 1997 reports herein, coupled together formed a discrete understanding of the groundwater conditions in and around the SJREC service area. From these analyses, KDSA recommended the formation of management areas defined by water supply, aquifer and drainage characteristics.

SGMA defines a management area as an area within a basin for which the Plan may identify different minimum thresholds, measurable objectives, monitoring, or projects and management actions based on differences in water use sector, water source type, geology, aquifer characteristics, or other factors.

Furthermore, water code section § 354.20. Management Areas allows for the creation of management areas to facilitate implementation of the plan. For the purposes of this plan, the historic reference to management areas originally established in 1997, will now be renamed and in the future referred to as “monitoring zone(s)”.

2.2.4.1 Management AreaMonitoring Zone A
This is the northernmost area in CCID comprising the communities of Crows Landing (DAC) and Newman (DAC). This area fully encompasses the Stanislaus County portion of CCID. The major geologic formation for this area is the Orestimba Creek. Management areaMonitoring Zone A is both based on the jurisdictional County boundary as well as similar aquifer response and well construction. CCID wholly encompasses the SJRECWA service area in Stanislaus County.

2.2.4.2 Management AreaMonitoring Zone B
This area comprises the Gustine (DAC) area of CCID in Merced County. This area has the Stanislaus/Merced County boundary to the north and Henry Miller Road to the south. The Gustine Drainage District (GDD) operates a number of drainage wells and tile systems to lower shallow water levels in the region to below the effective root zone. The aquifer in this area must be actively pumped to maintain healthy soil, which is the primary reason for the creation of this management areaMonitoring Zone. Some of the major geologic formations are the Garzas Creek, Quinto Creek, Romero Creek and San Luis Creek.

2.2.4.3 Management AreaMonitoring Zone C
This area includes the communities of Volta (DAC) and Los Banos (DAC) area of CCID in Merced County.

This area is generally bound by Henry Miller Road to the north and the contiguous southern boundary of Class 1 ground to the southeast of Los Banos adjacent to management areaMonitoring Zone K. The primary geologic formation in this area is the Los Banos Creek. Additionally, Ortigalita Creek also runs through the area.

2.2.4.4 Management AreaMonitoring Zone D
This area includes the community of Dos Palos (SDAC) area of CCID in Merced County. This relatively small area encompasses the area surrounding Dos Palos in Merced County. The Dos Palos Drainage District (DPDD) operates several drainage facilities to lower shallow water levels in the region. In order to maintain healthy soils, this area must be actively managed. The area has been impacted by upslope 187
90 drainage of poor quality groundwater. As a result, the City of Dos Palos worked with CCID to receive surface water for municipal use.

2.2.4.5 Management AreaMonitoring Zone E
This area includes the southern portion of CCID east of Dos Palos, north of the CCID Main Canal and bordering the City of Firebaugh. This area is generally the Fresno/Merced County line eastward to the City of Firebaugh. Groundwater below the Corcoran Clay in this area is believed to be of poor quality and is generally not used for water supply. This management areaMonitoring Zone was developed due to similar aquifer characteristics for both the upper and lower aquifers consistent with well construction in the area.

2.2.4.6 Management AreaMonitoring Zone F
This area includes the Camp 13 Drainage District portion of CCID in Fresno County. This area has been significantly impacted from upslope drainage of poor quality groundwater. Tile drainage and groundwater extractions are a vital tool to improve the overall health of the soil in this area. The principal reason for the formation of this management areaMonitoring Zone is related to drainage.

Camp 13 is actively managing groundwater to help mitigate the migration of poor quality groundwater from outside the area. Point source control and tile drainage have proven effective to mitigate the problems associated with drainage.

2.2.4.7 Management AreaMonitoring Zone G
This area comprises the communities of Firebaugh (SDAC) and Mendota (SDAC) area of CCID in Fresno County. This area is more generally described as the CCID land between Firebaugh and Mendota.

Groundwater below the Corcoran Clay in this area is believed to be of poor quality. This area has the potential to be impacted directly by the groundwater extractions resulting from the Mendota Pool Group pumping program. This area was established based on hydrogeologic conditions in the area between the two communities.

2.2.4.8 Management AreaMonitoring Zone H
This area fully encompasses the SLCC in Merced County and very small portion in Fresno County. SLCC is bound by CCID to the south and east, the San Joaquin River to the north and the greater Grasslands area to the west. The formation of management areaMonitoring Zone H is both jurisdictional and also based on the hydrogeologic characteristics of the aquifer. This area has a very shallow water table and must actively manage the aquifer to maintain healthy soils and keep the water level below effective root zones. The characteristics of the aquifer in this area is similar to management areaMonitoring Zone E.

2.2.4.9 Management AreaMonitoring Zone I
This area fully encompasses the FCWD in Fresno County. Similar to management areaMonitoring Zone F, this area has been significantly impacted from upslope drainage of poor quality groundwater. Tile drainage and groundwater extractions are a vital tool to improve the overall health of the soil in this area. The principal reason for the formation of this management areaMonitoring Zone is related to drainage. FCWD is actively managing groundwater to help mitigate the migration of poor quality groundwater from outside the area. Point source control and tile drainage have proven effective to mitigate the problems associated with drainage.
188
91 2.2.4.10 Management AreaMonitoring Zone J
This area fully encompasses the CCC in Madera and Fresno Counties. CCC wholly encompasses all of the SJRECWA service area in Madera County. CCC is separated from CCID by the San Joaquin River and is the only district in the SJRECWA service area east of the river. The formation of management areaMonitoring Zone J is both jurisdictional and also based on the hydrogeologic characteristics of the aquifers.

2.2.4.11 Management AreaMonitoring Zone K
Prior to the development of this plan, all other management areasMonitoring Zones had already been established. Management AreaMonitoring Zone K is the only new additional management areaMonitoring Zone and was formed to include the CCID Class 2 lands between Management AreasMonitoring Zones C and F. CCID Class 2 land receives water from CCID on a “if and when available” basis. These lands were historically served by the water rights developed by Henry Miller. The groundwater conditions in this area are similar to management areaMonitoring Zone D.

2.2.5 Combined Water Budgets for the SJREC GSP Group
This section will describe the cumulative water budgets for the SJREC GSP Group. Sections 7 through 16 of this plan describe each respective GSA’s water budget. In order to sustainably manageing groundwater at the local level it is vitally important to understand the impact each GSA has on groundwater management. This section is provided to represent the GSP Group as a whole. The data from each GSA was used and combined into one water budget.

2.2.5.1 Combined Historic Water Budget for the SJREC GSP Group Water
Year
Shasta
Water Year
Designation
Water
Year Type
(SJ
Valley)
Surface
Water
Delivery
Groundwater
Extraction
Total
Consumptive
Use (ETiw)
Change in
Groundwater
Storage
(Upper
Aquifer)
Change in
Groundwater
Storage
(Lower
Aquifer)
2003 Non-Critical
Below
Normal 788,000 142,000 760,000 -33,000 -2,000
2004 Non-Critical Dry 776,000 170,000 782,000 -74,000 -24,000 2005 Non-Critical Wet 731,000 94,000 746,000 34,000 0
2006 Non-Critical Wet 761,000 83,000 743,000 12,000 0
2007 Non-Critical Critical 804,000 215,000 752,000 -96,000 -24,000 2008 Non-Critical Critical 753,000 193,000 756,000 -75,000 -24,000 2009 Non-Critical
Below
Normal 756,000 194,000 755,000 -28,000 -2,000
2010 Non-Critical
Above
Normal 743,000 104,000 652,000 96,000 -2,000
2011 Non-Critical Wet 753,000 109,000 714,000 72,000 0
2012 Non-Critical Dry 795,000 174,000 702,000 -34,000 -24,000 Table 36 - Combined SJREC GSP Group Historic Water Budget 189
92 Figure 18 - Annual Historic Change in Groundwater Storage for SJREC GSP Group Figure 19 - Cumulative Historic Change in Groundwater Storage for SJREC GSP Group (150,000)
(100,000)
(50,000)
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
Change in Storage (Acre-feet)
Annual Change In Groundwater Storage from 2003-2012 for SJREC GSP Group
Upper Aquifer Storage Change Lower Aquifer Storage Change (300,000)
(250,000)
(200,000)
(150,000)
(100,000)
(50,000)
-
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Cumulative Change in Groundwater Storage from 2003-2012 for SJREC GSP Group
Upper Aquifer Change in Storge Lower Aquifer Change in Storage 190
93 2.2.5.2 Combined Current Water Budget for the SJREC GSP Group Water
Year
Shasta
Water Year
Designation
Water
Year Type
(SJ
Valley)
Surface
Water
Delivery
Groundwater
Extraction
Total
Consumptive
Use (ETiw)
Change in
Groundwater
Storage
(Upper
Aquifer)
Change in
Groundwater
Storage
(Lower
Aquifer)
2013 Non-Critical Critical 748,000

210,000 687,000 -37,000 -24,000
Table 37 - Combined SJREC GSP Group Current Water Budget 191
94 2.2.5.3 Combined Projected Water Budget for the SJREC GSP Group Water
Year
Shasta
Water Year
Designation
Water Year
Type (SJ Valley)
Surface
Water
Delivery
Groundwater
Extraction
Total
Consumptive
Use (ETiw)
Change in
Groundwater Storage
(Upper Aquifer)
Change in Groundwater
Storage (Lower
Aquifer)
2014 Critical Shasta Critical 501,000 219,000 638,000 -211,000 -89,000 2015 Critical Shasta Critical 447,000 281,000 638,000 -199,000 -89,000 2016 Non-Critical Dry 646,000 93,000 664,000 7,000 -24,000 2017 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 52,000 713,000 121,000 0
2018 Non-Critical Above Normal 743,000 105,000 673,000 59,000 -2,000 2019 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 53,000 739,000 38,000 0
2020 Non-Critical Dry 795,000 96,000 727,000 -17,000 -24,000 2021 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 54,000 738,000 67,000 0
2022 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 54,000 741,000 98,000 0
2023 Non-Critical Above Normal 743,000 107,000 671,000 37,000 -2,000 2024 Non-Critical Dry 795,000 98,000 729,000 -8,000 -9,000 2025 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 55,000 743,000 74,000 0
2026 Non-Critical Critically Dry 753,000 196,000 783,000 -65,000 -6,000 2027 Non-Critical Critically Dry 753,000 196,000 783,000 -67,000 -6,000 2028 Non-Critical Critically Dry 753,000 196,000 782,000 -122,000 -6,000 2029 Non-Critical Critically Dry 753,000 197,000 778,000 -105,000 -6,000 2030 Critical Shasta Critical 590,000 221,000 662,000 -95,000 -23,000 2031 Critical Shasta Critical 590,000 217,000 661,000 -58,000 -14,000 2032 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 58,000 739,000 132,000 0
2033 Non-Critical Critically Dry 753,000 199,000 783,000 -79,000 -2,000 2034 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 59,000 744,000 110,000 0
2035 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 60,000 740,000 75,000 0
2036 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 60,000 738,000 140,000 0
2037 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 61,000 742,000 237,000 0
2038 Non-Critical Above Normal 743,000 114,000 678,000 22,000 0 2039 Non-Critical Above Normal 743,000 114,000 677,000 57,000 0 2040 Non-Critical Dry 795,000 105,000 728,000 34,000 0
2041 Non-Critical Dry 795,000 105,000 729,000 7,000 0
2042 Non-Critical Below Normal 788,000 156,000 788,000 -5,000 0 2043 Non-Critical Dry 776,000 107,000 810,000 -58,000 0 2044 Non-Critical Wet 731,000 63,000 776,000 52,000 0
2045 Non-Critical Wet 761,000 64,000 773,000 27,000 0
2046 Non-Critical Critically Dry 804,000 224,000 816,000 -112,000 0 2047 Non-Critical Critically Dry 753,000 224,000 820,000 -92,000 0 2048 Non-Critical Below Normal 756,000 209,000 823,000 -73,000 0 2049 Non-Critical Above Normal 743,000 121,000 713,000 83,000 0 2050 Non-Critical Wet 753,000 69,000 782,000 44,000 0
2051 Non-Critical Dry 795,000 113,000 763,000 -56,000 0 2052 Non-Critical Critically Dry 748,000 228,000 755,000 -59,000 0 2053 Critical Shasta Critical 590,000 235,000 702,000 -159,000 0 2054 Critical Shasta Critical 590,000 231,000 700,000 -98,000 0 2055 Non-Critical Dry 646,000 117,000 730,000 -27,000 0 2056 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 74,000 785,000 96,000 0
2057 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 75,000 785,000 43,000 0
2058 Non-Critical Below Normal 756,000 217,000 829,000 -7,000 0 2059 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 77,000 787,000 62,000 0
2060 Non-Critical Dry 795,000 120,000 773,000 -26,000 0 2061 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 78,000 787,000 146,000 0
2062 Non-Critical Above Normal 743,000 132,000 716,000 41,000 0 2063 Non-Critical Below Normal 756,000 222,000 835,000 -53,000 0 2064 Non-Critical Dry 795,000 124,000 775,000 -42,000 0 2065 Non-Critical Above Normal 743,000 135,000 718,000 186,000 0 2066 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 84,000 791,000 23,000 0
2067 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 85,000 792,000 34,000 0
2068 Critical Shasta Critical 590,000 249,000 710,000 -151,000 0 2069 Critical Shasta Critical 590,000 245,000 706,000 -152,000 0 2070 Non-Critical Wet 756,000 88,000 783,000 171,000 0
192
95 Table 38 - Combined SJREC GSP Group Projected Water Budget Figure 20 - Annual Projected Change in Groundwater Storage for SJREC GSP Group Figure 21 - Cumulative Projected Change in Groundwater Storage for SJREC GSP Group -250,000
-200,000
-150,000
-100,000
-50,000
0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
Change in Storage (Acre-feet)
Annual Change In Groundwater Storage from 2014-2070 for SJREC GSP Group
Upper Aquifer Storage Change Lower Aquifer Storage Change -600,000
-500,000
-400,000
-300,000
-200,000
-100,000
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
Change in GW Storage (AF)
Cumulative Change in Groundwater Storage from 2014-2070 for SJREC GSP Group
Upper Aquifer Change in Storge Lower Aquifer Change in Storage 193
96 3.0 SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
This Section describes Sustainable Management Criteria (SMC). A monitoring network is used to establish a Sustainability Goal to avoid triggering Undesirable Results. Groundwater is managed with Measurable Objectives and Minimum Thresholds to ensure this plan operates within its sustainable yield. Appendix M provides the BMP for Sustainable Management Criteria. In response to the DWR deficiency letter, the Delta-Mendota Subbasin GSA’s worked cooperatively and diligently to provide clarifications of actions to achieve and maintain sustainability. The coordinated SMC’s are defined at the Subbasin level and can be appropriately found in Appendix B of the Common Chapter. Included in this GSP Section 3 is reference to the Appendix B with callouts to Tables CC 16-23 which can be found specifically in Appendix B.

3.1 Sustainability Goal
Sustainability Goal is defined as the existence and implementation of one or more GSP’s that achieve sustainable groundwater management by identifying and causing the implementation of measures targeted to ensure that the applicable basin (or plan) is operated within its sustainable yield.

Sustainable Yield is defined as managing groundwater that culminates in the absence of undesirable results by 2040. Additionally, the goal of the SJREC GSP is to work with neighboring GSA’s and neighboring subbasin, where by 2040 there is an absence of undesirable results impacting the DeltaMendota Subbasin based on groundwater management within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin and in an adjacent Subbasin. The sustainability goal for each sustainability indicator is defined at the subbasin level and can be found in Tables CC-16 through CC-23 in Appendix B Delta-Mendota Subbasin Common Chapter.

Sustainability goal for each indicator is defined as follows:
• Chronic lowering of groundwater Levels: Maintain groundwater levels that are comparable to existing conditions (historic low conditions as of Water Year 2016) in order to continue meeting the demand of beneficial uses and users of groundwater and prevent a trend of decreasing groundwater levels. The Delta-Mendota Subbasin will continue successful and ongoing coordination with neighboring Subbasins to address chronic lowering of groundwater levels caused by pumping from outside of the Subbasin.
• Reduction in groundwater storage: Maintain historic groundwater storage volumes in order to continue meeting the demand of beneficial uses and users of groundwater and to provide a 3- year drought buffer. Minimize reductions in groundwater storage during extended dry periods.

Work with neighboring Subbasins to address reduction in groundwater storage caused by pumping from outside of the Subbasin.
• Degraded water quality: Minimize further impairment of water supplies resulting from groundwater management activities that cause the migration or concentration of contaminant plumes or the increased rate of movement or concentrations of constituents of concern.

Coordinate and support compliance with existing regulatory groundwater quality orders and objectives for drinking water, agricultural irrigation and managed wetlands water, which are described in the Groundwater Sustainability Plan Common Chapter. Work with neighboring Subbasins to address existing or potential impairments of groundwater quality in the Subbasin caused by groundwater management activities from outside the Subbasin. 194
97 • Land Subsidence: Minimize inelastic land subsidence by ramping down allowable subsidence caused by groundwater extraction in the Subbasin, with no additional subsidence after 2040.

Work with neighboring Subbasins to address inelastic land subsidence caused by groundwater extraction from outside of the Subbasin.
• Interconnected surface water: Maintain interconnected surface waters comparable to existing conditions (historic low conditions as of Water Year 2016) in order to prevent a trend of increasing interconnected surface water losses from the San Joaquin River. Work with neighboring Subbasins to address increased interconnected surface water losses caused by pumping from outside of the Subbasin.

3.1.1 Upper Aquifer Sustainable Yield
The Delta-Mendota Subbasin has defined the Sustainable Yield for the Upper Aquifer as the maximum quantity of water, calculated over a base period representative of long-term conditions in the basin and including any temporary surplus that can be withdrawn annually from a groundwater supply without causing Undesirable Results. It is important to note that the overall groundwater management strategy for the Delta-Mendota Subbasin is to not have water levels decline below historic low water levels. This management strategy is fairly progressive and protective of the beneficial user and users of groundwater. More details on the Sustainable Yield for the Subbasin can be found in Section 4.3.4 in Appendix B. The calculation to determine the Sustainable Yield for the Subbasin is defined as:

Upper Aquifer SY = Pumping + Change in Storage + Subsurface Outflow – Subsurface Inflow The SJREC GSP Group has established a methodology to determine how much water can be extracted from the upper aquifer as a tool to help manage groundwater within the GSP area. sustainable yield in a manner consistent with the subbasin. During the historic water budget timeframe from 2003-2012, the average annual groundwater extractions from the upper aquifer was 122 TAF/year. The SJREC GSP Group had 40 TAF/year surface water delivery in excess of direct demand, which contributed to additional recharge in the area. The SJREC GSP Group has been managing a sustainable aquifer through each agency’s various conservation and management efforts. Additionally, 27 TAF/year of the lateral outflow of groundwater from the SJREC GSP Group area could be conserved by capturing some canal seepage. Thus, the sustainable yieldallowable extraction of the upper aquifer for the SJREC GSP Group is 189 TAF/year. Sustainable management criteria described in Sections 3.2 – 3.5 will be used to achieve sustainability. The sustainable yield is determined independent of sustainability criteria and is provided as a guide for water budget planning purposes. In 2015, the SJREC GSP group extracted 268 TAF without any lasting impacts to the aquifer. Moreover, the average groundwater extractions from the upper aquifer in 2014 & 2015 averaged 236 TAF. These values are important when managing groundwater impacts through the planning and implementation horizon. Based on current data the average annual sustainable yieldallowable extractions from the upper aquifer has been determined at 189 TAF with a one year sustainable yieldextraction of at least 268 TAF. Any future projects and management actions will respectively increase the sustainable yield for the subbasin. The Sustainable Yield for the Subbasin is 403,000 acre-feet.

3.1.2 Lower Aquifer Sustainable Yield
The SJREC GSP Group has established a methodology consistent with the entire Subbasin as outlined in the Technical Memorandum #3 as part of the Delta-Mendota Subbasin Coordination Agreement 195
98 (Appendix B) to determine the lower aquifer sustainable yield. The lower aquifer sustainable yield is primarily driven by avoiding an Undesirable Result for land subsidence. As discussed, the SJREC GSP Group is not principally causing subsidence and have been working with landowners in impacted areas outside the SJREC service area, to mitigate/solve subsidence. The key to stopping subsidence is to reduce or eliminate groundwater extractions from the lower aquifer. The SJREC GSP Group has decided to take a more conservative approach than what has been discussed in some other subbasins and collectively decided in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, by further limited the lower aquifer sustainable yield within the SJREC GSP area.

The SJREC GSP approach is to limit groundwater extractions to 0.25 AF/acre (which is less than the 0.33 AF/acre proposed by the Subbasin). The SJREC GSP Group is about 292,000 acres which results in a potential yield of 73 TAF/year. Practically speaking, rThe Delta-Mendota Subbasin, in responding to comments from DWR on the initial submittal of the GSP’s, has elected to redefine the Sustainable Yield for the Lower Aquifer to be more restrictive than originally proposed. The overall subbasin sustainable yield has been reduced from 250,000 AF down to 101,000 AF. This sustainable yield calculation is coordinated with the sustainability indicators to not cause significant overdraft or inelastic land subsidence. Further details on the updated Sustainable Yield Calculation can be found in Section 4.3.4 of the Appendix B. Review of the historic, current and projected water budget indicates the SJREC GSP had a one year maximum extraction from the lower aquifer of 29 TAF which equates to only 0.10 AF/acre.

The lower aquifer sustainable yield is used as a guide to achieve sustainability for all six sustainability indicators and primarily stopping land subsidence.

The lower aquifer responds drastically different than the upper aquifer. Due to the elastic nature of the upper aquifer subsidence characteristicscharacteristics, it can operate with successive years contributing to the overall average conditions without causing undesirable results. In other words, in the unconfined upper aquifer extractions for one year above the sustainable yield can be offset by a subsequent year with extractions less than the sustainable yield. The lower aquifer, however, cannot rely on averaging extractions above the sustainable yield to meet an average condition. Overdraft in the lower aquifer has the potential to instantly trigger inelastic land subsidence. The lower aquifer sustainable yield must be managed annually and more importantly site specifically to ensure significant and/or unreasonable land subsidence does not result from the overdraft.

3.2 Measurable Objectives
Measurable objectives refer to specific, quantifiable goals for the maintenance or improvement of specified groundwater conditions that have been included in an adopted Plan to achieve the sustainability goal for the basin (or plan). Measurable objectives shall provide a reasonable margin of operational flexibility.

3.2.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels
The SJREC GSA has been sustainably managing groundwater levels for decades. As discussed in this GSP, the SJREC have prepared annual groundwater studies since the 1990’s. Each year the district staff collects information on groundwater conditions for the previous year and consolidates the information into an annual report. This annual report is subsequently reviewed by KDSA who provides an analysis of the effects of the previous year’s pumping. Management areasMonitoring Zones are established and groundwater triggers implemented in impacted regions within and adjacent to the SJREC service area. 196
99 The management strategymeasurable objective for the SJREC GSP Group is to manage to avoid shallow groundwater while maintaining groundwater levels above the minimum threshold,. Sincesince the SJREC is already sustainably managing groundwater levels., there is no need to develop and implement Interim Milestones. Interim milestones were established across the subbasin to help fill data gaps while using the best available data to adaptively manage groundwater; see Table CC-16 in Appendix B.

The Measurable Objective has been defined at the subbasin level, see Table CC-16 in the Appendix B, and is defined as follows. Maintain seasonal high groundwater levels at an elevation that is at or above the Water Year 2015 seasonal high at more than 50% of representative monitoring sites in a GSP area.

The Water Year 2015 seasonal high is a fixed elevation at each site, based on available groundwater level data. If data are unavailable for Water Year 2015 at a representative monitoring site, either a Water Year 2014 or Water Year 2016 Seasonal High will be used. To account for future year-to-year variations in hydrology, compliance with the fixed seasonal high threshold will be compared with a 4- year rolling average of annual groundwater level measurements. Groundwater levels are measured as water surface elevation (“WSE”). Each GSP area includes multiple representative monitoring sites (“RMS”) to which the measurable objective applies. See Table CC-17 for numeric MOs.

3.2.2 Reduction of Groundwater Storage
Similar to the discussion in Section 3.2.1, the SJREC are sustainably managed groundwater storage through management of regional water levels to maintain adequate storage. The measurable objectivemanagement strategy for the SJREC GSP Group is to manage to avoid shallow groundwater while maintaining groundwater levels above the minimum threshold for each management areamonitoring zones which will preserve groundwater storage,. Since since the SJREC are already sustainably managing groundwater levels., there is no need to develop and implement Interim Milestones. Interim milestones were established across the subbasin to help fill data gaps while using the best available data to adaptively manage groundwater; see Table CC-18 in Appendix B.

The Measurable Objective has been defined at the subbasin level, see Table CC-18 in the Appendix B, and is defined as follows. For the Upper Aquifer, maintain groundwater levels in accordance with the measurable objectives set for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels. For the Lower Aquifer, minimize loss of groundwater storage caused by inelastic land subsidence.

3.2.3 Seawater Intrusion
The Delta-Mendota Subbasin does not currently experience seawater intrusion and does not anticipate this occurring. Similar to § 354.28.e for minimum thresholds, the presence of an undesirable result for seawater intrusion is not likely to occur and therefore no measurable objectives have been established for this sustainability indicator.

3.2.4 Degraded Water Quality
The measurable objectivemanagement strategy for the SJREC GSP Group is to mitigate the impacts of the migration of high salinity groundwater from lands upslope of the SJREC GSA. Intercepting moderate to high salinity groundwater that is moving to the northeast in the area above the Corcoran Clay has proven feasible as further described in 4.2.4. Groundwater quality monitoring has been conducted for both the pumped wells and a number of wells in the SJREC GSA to the northeast. These results are reviewed and evaluated about every three years. The measurable objectivestrategy is to maintain soil 197
100
health from poor quality groundwater migrating into the SJREC GSP area from upslope lands. Water quality concerns are from the migration of saline water from outside the SJREC GSA. and therefore no interim milestones have been developed. Interim milestones were established across the subbasin to provide consistency between SGMA and other water quality management requirements outside of SGMA; see Table CC-19 in Appendix B.

The Measurable Objective has been defined at the subbasin level, see Table CC-19 in the Appendix B, and is defined as follows. The measurable objective for salinity will be concentrations less than 1,000 mg/L TDS.

3.2.5 Land Subsidence
The SJREC GSP Group has extracted very minimal amounts of groundwater from the lower aquifer and are pumping significantly below the extractions limits set across the subbasin. The measurable objectivemanagement strategy of the SJREC GSP Group is to continue working with landowners in areas known to cause subsidence to reduce the compaction of the soils. The measurable objective for land subsidence is to significantly reduce inelastic land subsidence to less than 0.005 ft/year. Since the SJREC are already sustainably managing land subsidence, there is no need to develop and implement Interim Milestones. Interim milestones were established across the subbasin to ramp down the observed subsidence; see Table CC-21 in Appendix B.

The Measurable Objective has been defined at the subbasin level, see Table CC-21 in the Appendix B, and is defined as minimizing inelastic land subsidence attributable to groundwater extraction within the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, with no additional subsidence after 2040.

3.2.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water
The goal of the SJREC GSP Group is to mitigate observed reductions of interconnected surface and groundwater in the San Joaquin River due to pumping in the SJREC GSP Group Area. The measurable objective for the SJREC GSP Group is the same as the minimum threshold described in more detail in Section 3.3.6. The Interim milestones for each five year increment is to collect and analyze additional data to ensure an Undesirable Result for depleted surface water does not occur and is further defined in Table CC-23 in Appendix B.

The Measurable Objective for Interconnected Surface Water is as of present not finalized due to an identified data gap at the Subbasin level. As an interim measurable objective, the Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Level Measurable Objective will be used as a proxy for interconnected surface waters (see Section 3.2.1). The subbasin will be utilizing grant funds to fill this data gap and refine the Measurable Objective for this criteria.

3.3 Minimum Thresholds
This Section will describe minimum thresholds for each sustainability indicator. Minimum Threshold refers to a numeric value for each sustainability indicator used to define undesirable results.

3.3.1 Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels
The minimum threshold for chronic lowering of groundwater levels shall be the groundwater elevation, for a given area, that indicates a depletion of supply that may lead to undesirable results. The minimum threshold must be supported by historical trends of groundwater elevation without causing potential negative effects on the other sustainability indicators. The SJREC have established management 198
101
areasMonitoring Zones, as described in Section 2.2.4, to sustainably manage our aquifers. Each management areamonitoring zone has a representative well whose groundwater levels are reviewed annually to determine if a given area is experiencing chronic lowering of groundwater levels. Long-term hydrographs (Refer to Appendix I for more details) are used to establish water level trend over time and trigger levels. Historically, the SJREC have developed detailed hydrogeologic analyses in areas impacted by overdraft in and adjacent to the SJREC member entities. Management areasMonitoring Zones A and C have been impacted during extended dry periods and trigger water levels at representative sites were established to maintain a healthy aquifer. The established trigger level curtailed groundwater extractions from leaving the defined management areamonitoring zone. This management action stopped the transfer of groundwater out of the sub-area. Extraction limits were not established for groundwater use on over-lying land.

Management AreaMonitoring Zone G has historically been impacted by regional pumping. The response of a three-day aquifer test from a few wells in management areamonitoring zone G indicated that the aquifer responded as a confined aquifer. Due to this, setting triggers based solely on winter/spring water level measurements is not advisable. Pumping for transfer from this area is annually analyzed and based on anticipated pumpage, drawdown and timing of extractions to determine the potential effects.

Most recently in the drought of 2013-2016, water elevations at the representative sites were below the established trigger. Subsequently, groundwater was prohibited from leaving the sub-area. As a result of the management action alone, the aquifers have recovered by 2018 and no long-term significant or unreasonable impacts were experienced. This highlights the engagement and experience of the SJREC successfully managing groundwater levels for the beneficial users in the area. In the remaining management areasMonitoring zones (B, C outside of the Los Banos Creek Sub-area, D, E, F, H, I, J, K), in order to comply with SGMA, a water level threshold was established using the historical low water level trend extended to represent an additional year of critical water supply for the SJREC. The surrogate water level is used since the SJREC have not historically observed the need to establish management actions to limit groundwater extractions due to lack of long-term overdraft. Many of these management areasmonitoring zones are impacted by shallow groundwater and some pumping is encouraged to keep from inundating the root zone. The established trigger water level is intended to curtail transfer pumping before an undesirable result would ever occur by limiting the transfer of groundwater from outside the management areamonitoring zone.

As highlighted in the SJREC Water budget in Section 2.2.3, the SJREC have and continue to manage a sustainable aquifer specifically addressing the potential of chronic lowering of water levels. Figure 22 shows the locations of the Representative monitor sites established for the undesirable result of chronic lowering of groundwater levels. Water elevation triggers have been established at each site. The water level trigger limits groundwater extractions leaving the management area. As mentioned previously, this management action has proven effective through historical droughts. It is further anticipated that areas outside of the SJREC will resolve overdraft within their respective areas leading to an even more stable water level elevations in the SJREC service area. Table 39 shows the water level trigger for each representative well. The established trigger levels are designed to not impact a neighboring GSP’s ability to achieve sustainability. The SJREC have historically managed groundwater levels sustainably and are proposing additional extraction limitations, as necessary, to avoid any impacts to an adjacent GSP. Groundwater levels will be monitored and managed consistent with the other sustainability 199
102
indicators and the more restrictive management will be implemented to ensure this plan area is absent of any undesirable results. Due to the active management by the SJREC, groundwater levels have maintained higher than what would constitute a minimum threshold. Therefore, there is no historical reference of an experienced water level indicative of a minimum threshold and an assumption of decreased water levels of 25% below the trigger levels (see note 2in Table 39 below) in each management area A-K is used as a potential indicator of a minimum threshold. The minimum threshold for chronic lowering of groundwater levels will be periodically reviewed and updated by a Professional Engineer/Geologist as needed or to propose additional triggers and thresholds. If the SJREC notice a negative impact on the aquifer, an interim plan update will be initiated to update trigger water levels to maintain a healthy aquifer.

Minimum threshold has been defined at the subbasin level, see Table CC-16 in the Appendix B; the groundwater elevation indicating a chronic lowering of groundwater levels that may lead to undesirable results is an elevation that is lower than the historical seasonal low. The historic seasonal low is a fixed elevation at each site, based on available groundwater level data prior to the end of Water Year 2016. To account for future year-to-year variations in hydrology, compliance with the fixed historic seasonal low threshold will be compared with a 4-year rolling average of annual groundwater level measurements.

Shorter-term (“acute”) groundwater elevation thresholds will also be established at each representative monitoring site by 2025 using a coordinated methodology across the subbasin. Acute thresholds will be established at levels that are intended to avoid short-term undesirable results, particularly for domestic water wells, groundwater dependent ecosystems, and interconnected surface waters where present in the Upper Aquifer, and for subsidence in the Lower Aquifer. Each year, both the historic seasonal low and the acute groundwater elevation thresholds will apply, whichever is more protective. Groundwater levels are measured as water surface elevation (“WSE”). Each GSP area includes multiple representative monitoring sites (“RMS”) to which the minimum threshold applies.

See Table CC-17 for numeric MTs at the subbasin level. See Table 39 below for SMC’s for the SJREC GSP Group.

Section 4.0 discusses additional Projects and Management Actions that will promote a healthy aquifer and increase groundwater levels.

WELL NUMBER AQUIFER

MANAGEMENT
AREAMonitoring
Zone

REFERENCE
POINT

ELEVATION

MEASURABLE

OBJECTIVE
(WSE)

MINIMUM

THRESHOLD
(WSE)2
1002 (CCID Well #2) Upper A 107.5 48.47 1.2223.99
1014 (CCID Well #14) Upper B 114.5 98.23 59.8376.72
1008 (CCID Well #8) Upper C 146.5 92.64 48.0878.71
1006 (CCID Well #6) Upper D 103.4 92.22 70.4481.31
1011 (CCID Well #11) Upper E 123.7 106.17 74.5292.24
1043 (CCID Well #43) Upper F, I, K 128.5 98.50 37.8973.50 1005 (CCID Well #5) Upper G 153.1 125.67 69.1096.45
2410 (SLCC Well T-02) Upper H 112.447 98.45 49.3270.45
3199 (Well 1199) Upper J 147.8 120.20 81.61102.30
1050 (CCID Well #50) Lower 112.20 35.02 -48.80
200
103
1027 (CCID Well #27) Lower 140.40 57.37 38.07
1056 (CCID Well #56) Lower 122.05 14.81 -33.00
Table 39 - Water Level Triggers for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels Notes:
1 The trigger water surface elevation is based on a three year water level trend. The trend is used to extrapolate an additional drought year beyond the observed historic low. The trigger is imposed as a management tool to mitigate the potential of experiencing an minimum threshold. 2 The minimum threshold represents a 25% increase in the depth to water (25% deeper than “measurement depth from reference”) than the trigger water surface elevation. 3 The Sub-area represents a smaller specific area along the Los Banos Creek that has been actively managed with triggers for years prior to SGMA.
201
R.7 E
R.8 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.9 E
R.10 E
R.10 E
R.11 E
R.7 E
R.8 E
R.7 E
R.8 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.9 E
R.10 E
R.1 0 E
R.11 E
R.11 E
R.12 E
R.11 E
R.1 2 E
R.7 E
R.8 E
R.7 E
R.8 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.9 E
R.10 E
R.9 E
R.10 E
R .10 E
R.11 E
R.11 E
R.12 E
R.1 2 E
R.13 E R.12 E
R.1 3 E
R.7 E
R.8 E
R.7 E
R.8 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.9 E
R.10 E
R.10 E
R.11 E
R.10 E
R.11 E
R.11 E
R.12 E
R.11 E
R.12 E
R.12 E
R.1 3 E
R.13 E
R.14 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R 9. E
R.10 E
R.9 E
R.1 0 E
R.1 0 E
R.11 E
R.10 E
R.11 E
R.11 E
R.12 E
R.11 E
R.12 E
R.12 E
R.13 E
R.13 E
R.14 E
R.14 E
R.15 E
R.14 E
R.15 E
R.8 E
R.9 E
R.9 E
R.1 0 E
R.10 E
R.11 E
R.11 E
R.12 E
R.12 E
R.13 E
R.1 2 E
R.13 E
R.13 E
R.14 E
R.1 4 E
R.15 E
R.1 5 E
R.16 E
R.10 E
R.11 E
R.11 E
R.12 E
R.11 E
R.12 E
R.1 2 E
R.1 3 E
R.13 E
R.14 E
R.14 E
R.15 E
R.15 E
R.16 E
R.1 5 E
R.16 E
R.1 2 E R.13 E
R.13 E
R.14 E
R.1 4 E
R.15 E
R.15 E
R.16 E
T.5 S
T.6 S
T.5 S
T.6 S
T.6 S
T.7 S
T.6 S
T.7 S
T.6 S
T.7 S
T.6 S
T.7 S
T.6 S
T.7 S
T.7 S
T.8 S
T.7 S
T.8 S
T.7 S
T.8 S
T.7 S
T.8 S T.7 S
T.8 S T.7 S
T.8 S
T.7 S
T.8 S T.7 S
T.8 S
T.8 S
T.9 S
T.8 S
T.9 S
T.8 S
T.9 S T.8 S
T.9 S T.8 S
T.9 S
T.8 S
T.9 S
T.8 S
T.9 S
T.8 S
T.9 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.1 0 S
T.10 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S T.10 S
T.11 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.12 S
T.13 S T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.1 3 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.1 3 S
T.1 3 S
T.14 S
T.13 S
T.14 S T.13 S
T.14 S T.13 S
T.14 S T.13 S
T.14 S T.13 S
T.14 S
T.1 3 S
T.14 S
K
J
I
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A
I
J
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
1056
1027
1050
1043
1002
1008
1005
1014
1011
1006
3199
2410
FIGURE 22 - MONITOR LOCATIONS FOR CHRONIC LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND WATER QUALITY .
0 1 2 4 6 8
Miles
103
EXPLANATION:

Monitoring Zone A
Monitoring Zone B
Monitoring Zone C
Monitoring Zone D
Monitoring Zone E
Monitoring Zone F
Monitoring Zone G
Monitoring Zone H
Monitoring Zone I
Monitoring Zone J
Monitoring Zone K
Delta-Mendota Subbasin
City of Dos Palos GSA
City of Newman GSA
City of Firebaugh GSA
City of Mendota GSA
City of Gustine GSA
City of Los Banos GSA
Portion of Merced County-Delta-Mendota GSA
MaderaCountyDM_new_edit
Turner Island Water District-2 GSA
Portion of Fresno County GSA

SJREC GSA
Upper Aquifer SMC Wells
Lower Aquifer SMC Wells
!(
!(
202
105

3.3.2 Reduction of Groundwater Storage
The minimum threshold for reduction of groundwater storage shall be a total volume of groundwater that can be withdrawn from this GSP area without causing conditions that may lead to undesirable results. Minimum thresholds for reduction of groundwater storage shall be supported by the sustainable yield of this plan, calculated based on historical trends, water year type and projected water use in the plan area.

The SJREC have implemented management strategies to maintain groundwater storage by using groundwater levels as a proxy in the upper aquifer. While there is a difference between managing chronic lowering of groundwater levels and managing a reduction in groundwater storage, the SJREC plan to implement SMC consistent for both of these criteria. Refer to Section 3.3.1 for details on establishing trigger levels and management actions to ensure any reduction in groundwater storage will not result in undesirable results. As discussed in Appendix I, each management areamonitoring zone has a specific yield provided in the USGS Water Supply Paper 1469. The most accurate method to estimate changes in groundwater storage is to evaluate water level trends and specific yields for the upper aquifer, and can be used as a cross-check to water budget calculations. The change in groundwater storage will be monitored and managed consistent with the other sustainability indicators and the more restrictive management will be implemented to ensure this plan area is absent of any undesirable results. The minimum threshold for reduction in groundwater storage will be periodically reviewed and updated by a Professional Engineer/Geologist as needed or to propose additional triggers and thresholds. Any reduction in groundwater storage in the lower aquifer is caused by inelastic land subsidence. Refer to Section 3.3.5 for an explanation on Minimum Thresholds for Land Subsidence and the criteria will be the same for changes in groundwater storage for the lower aquifer.

Minimum threshold has been defined at the subbasin level, see Table CC-18 in the Appendix B; for the Upper Aquifer, as a reasonable proxy for an individual groundwater storage threshold, maintain groundwater levels in accordance with the minimum threshold set for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels. For the Lower Aquifer, correlating the SMCs for inelastic land subsidence with the reduction in groundwater storage that would cause undesirable results, provides an estimated 1.1 million acre-feet of storage loss by 2040 attributable to groundwater extraction in the Subbasin, with no loss of storage after 2040.

Section 4.0 discusses additional Projects and Management Actions that will promote a healthy aquifer and increase groundwater storage.

3.3.3 Seawater Intrusion
The minimum threshold for seawater intrusion shall be defined by a chloride concentration isocontour for each principal aquifer where seawater intrusion may lead to undesirable results. The Delta-Mendota Subbasin does not currently experience seawater intrusion and does not anticipate this occurring. As defined in § 354.28. Minimum Thresholds: part (e) An Agency has demonstrated that undesirable results related to one or more sustainability indicators are not present and are not likely to occur in a basin, as described in Section 354.26, shall not be required to establish minimum thresholds related to those sustainability indicators. For these reasons, the SJREC GSP Group has not established any triggers for this sustainability indicator.
203
106

3.3.4 Degraded Water Quality
There are generally four types of groundwater quality problems that are important to the SJREC GSP Group. Refer to Appendix I for more details on managing groundwater quality and a map of known contamination sites. See Figure 22 for locations of monitoring locations for water quality.

1. Naturally occurring chemical constituents: Most of these constituents are important when developing public and domestic supply wells. Typically, a test well is drilled and vertical water quality trends are determined. The well is ultimately constructed to mitigate naturally occurring groundwater quality concerns. No Minimum Threshold is recommended for this type.

2. Point source contamination: These contaminated sites are typically defined as long and narrow and fall under the jurisdiction of the CVRWQCB. It is recommended that this plan does not implement its own independent cleanup requirements that may contradict existing orders.

Rather, the SJREC GSP Group will continue to work with the CVRWQCB through the normal public process. No Minimum Threshold is recommended for this type.

3. Non-point source contamination: This type of contamination is typical of surface application of constituents including soil amendments and fertilizers. The CVRWQCB has implemented the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) to address water quality concerns. This type of contamination is not directly related to the groundwater management described in the SGMA and in this plan. The SJREC GSA will continue to work with landowners to comply with ILRP. No Minimum Threshold is recommended for this type.

4. Hydrogeologic modification: The SJREC GSP Group can develop independent groundwater management to mitigate the migration of poor quality groundwater (saline) in the upper aquifer. The poor quality groundwater is migrating northeasterly. A minimum threshold is recommended for this type. The SJREC GSP Group cannot stop the migration of poor quality water from moving into the SJREC GSA and must implement management strategies to mitigate the potential damage. The minimum threshold described here is not intended to define an undesirable result for the SJREC GSP Group since the saline groundwater has originated from upslope lands and has migrated due to irrigation of the upslope lands. This minimum threshold is intended to signify when an adjacent GSP is having a negative impact on this GSP’s ability to maintain healthy soils and a sustainable aquifer. It is not advisable to have a representative monitoring location for this type of water quality concern. Rather, the SJREC will continue to monitor wells in and around the area to monitor the migration and degradation of water quality. Additionally, tile drainage systems will be maintained to reduce the impacts of the migration of saline water into the SJREC service area. The minimum threshold is defined as the amount of poor quality groundwater that is greater than what can be successfully managed through the management action described in Section 4.2.4 of this plan.

Minimum threshold has been defined at the subbasin level, see Table CC-19 in the Appendix B; the minimum threshold for salinity is 1,000 mg/L total dissolved solids (TDS). For representative monitoring sites that currently exceed the minimum threshold, existing regulatory water quality compliance and remediation programs will apply, including but not limited to, the CV-SALTS Salt Control Program, the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, the County Drought Plan requirements for State Small Water Systems and Domestic Wells (SB 552), and the Safe and Affordable Funding for Equity and Resilience (SAFER) program. For any RMS without data prior to the end of Water Year 2016, current (ambient) groundwater quality will be established using data collected during the first five years of monitoring following Water Year 2016 or following construction of the well. 204
107
For representative monitoring sites that do not currently exceed the minimum threshold, but are found to exceed minimum thresholds in the future, the applicable GSP group will conduct and publish an assessment of the effect of groundwater management activities on the documented exceedance, and propose timely actions to manage groundwater differently, if needed, to avoid exacerbating the exceedance. The applicable GSP group will also coordinate with the appropriate regulatory program to address the impact. Table 40 below defines the SMC’s for the SJREC GSP Group.

WELL NUMBER AQUIFER
Monitoring
Zone

MEASURABLE

OBJECTIVE
(TDS)

MINIMUM

THRESHOLD
(TDS)
1002 (CCID Well #2) Upper A <1,000 1,000
1014 (CCID Well #14) Upper B <1,000 1,000
1008 (CCID Well #8) Upper C <1,000 1,000
1006 (CCID Well #6) Upper D N/A N/A
1011 (CCID Well #11) Upper E N/A N/A
1043 (CCID Well #43) Upper F, I, K N/A N/A
1005 (CCID Well #5) Upper G <1,000 1,000
2410 (SLCC Well T-02) Upper H <1,000 1,000
3199 (Well 1199) Upper J <1,000 1,000
1050 (CCID Well #50) Lower <1,000 1,000
1027 (CCID Well #27) Lower <1,000 1,000
1056 (CCID Well #56) Lower N/A N/A
Table 40 – SMC’s for Groundwater Quality

3.3.5 Land Subsidence
The minimum threshold for land subsidence shall be the rate and extent of subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses and may lead to undesirable results. Minimum thresholds shall be supported by maps and graphs showing the extent and rate of subsidence and the potential impact to land use and property interests. There are two types of subsidence observed in this area; elastic and inelastic. Elastic subsidence is typically on a significantly smaller magnitude than its inelastic counterpart. Elastic subsidence also doesn’t typically have major impacts to infrastructure. For the purposes of this plan and addressing SMC for significant and unreasonable land subsidence, the focus will be on inelastic land subsidence.

Land subsidence is described as a gradual or instantaneous sinking of the earth’s surface. The DeltaMendota Subbasin has two major principal aquifers defined as the Upper and Lower aquifers.

Separating the two aquifers is a thick bluish colored clay termed the Corcoran Clay. The Corcoran Clay is mapped and further defined in Appendix I. Land subsidence in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin is typically caused from groundwater extractions from the lower aquifer. The Corcoran Clay confines the lower aquifer creating a pressurized zone. As groundwater pumping is initiated, the water level in the well and surrounding area declines creating a decrease in pressure. This decrease may lead to inelastic land subsidence.
205
108
As mentioned previously in Section 2.2.3, the SJREC have very limited groundwater extractions which are well below the Delta-Mendota Subbasin sustainable yield. Additionally, maps depicting the extent and magnitude of land subsidence indicate that most, if not all, of the land subsidence observed is a result of groundwater extractions from outside the SJREC GSA boundary.

While the SJREC may not be causing subsidence, arresting observed subsidence in and around the DeltaMendota Subbasin has proven an important task. CCID and SLCC are working with the Triangle T Water District (Chowchilla Subbasin 5-022.05) to establish a shallow recharge and recovery aquifer to reduce their dependence on groundwater pumping from the lower aquifer. This project is further detailed in Section 4.1.8 of this plan. As a result of completing about 50% of the project, the observed subsidence at the Sack Dam has reduced by about 66%. The SJREC will continue to reach out and help the neighboring areas mitigate subsidence.

Setting minimum thresholds requires a certain amount of data that needs to be analyzed by a certified Engineer/Geologist. There is lack of data in the SJREC area regarding water levels in the lower aquifer.

The lack of data is not resultant of lack of monitoring on existing sites. The lack of data truly stems from very few wells perforated below the Corcoran Clay which is another indicator of sustainably managing groundwater in the area. The current goal for the SJREC is to limit groundwater extractions from the lower aquifer to less than 0.25 acre-feet/acre, which is conservative compared to the subbasin, and coupled with the worst case of 0.10 AF/acre in this plan, our management will limit extractions rather than setting water level thresholds. These thresholds may be modified over time as more is learned about the subbasin and the response to pumping from the lower aquifer.

The SJREC will continue to work with the counties to ensure that new wells will be constructed consistent with SMC for our area.

The SJREC have already been majorly impacted by subsidence originating outside of its boundaries.

SLCC had lost 30% of its capacity to deliver surface water to its growers by 2017. The groundwater will be impacted if surface water deliveries are impacted. CCID has also lost significant conveyance capacity in its canals and has gone through a efforts to restore capacity. Millions of dollars have been spent internally to mitigate the damage caused from subsidence due to groundwater extractions outside of this GSA. The SJREC has zero tolerance from impacts caused by subsidence to its infrastructure, without appropriate mitigation. The minimum threshold management strategy for land subsidence for the SJREC GSP Group is that which doesn’t reduce our conveyance capacity without appropriate mitigation and/or damage to other critical infrastructure without appropriate mitigation. The minimum threshold is intended to signify when an adjacent GSP is having a negative impact on this GSP’s ability to maintain sustainability.

Minimum threshold has been defined at the subbasin level, see Table CC-21 in the Appendix B; at representative monitoring sites, the change in ground surface elevation that would cause undesirable results is up to 2 feet of additional inelastic land subsidence through 2040 attributable to groundwater extraction in the Subbasin. Prevent subsidence caused by groundwater extractions in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin that exceeds corrective design standards or established triggers for critical infrastructure including the Delta-Mendota Canal, California Aqueduct, and roads and bridges.

The member entities of the SJRECWA will continue to perform surveys to determine conveyance capacity through the canals. Additionally, the publicly accessible data sets will be used to monitor 206
109
subsidence so appropriate measures can be taken to mitigate potential damages. Land subsidence will be monitored and managed consistent with the other sustainability indicators and the more restrictive management will be implemented to ensure this plan area is absent of any undesirable results. 207
Stanislaus
Merced
Stanislaus
M
Merced
Fresno
Merced
Madera
Stanislaus
Merced
33 34
35 36
31 6
5 4 3 2 1 6
5 4
7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16
19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21
22 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28
27 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
2 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10
11 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14
19 20 21 22 23
24 19 20 21 22 23
24 30
29 28
27 26
29 30 25 28 27 26
25 32 33 34 35
36 31
32 33 34 35 36
5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1
6 8
9 10 11 12
8 7
9 10 11 12
7 17
16 15 14 13 18 17
16 15 14 13 18
17 16
20 21 22 23
24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20
22 21
28 27 26 25 30
29 28
27 26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 29
33 34 35 36 31 32
33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32
33 34
4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4
3 2 9
10 11 12 8 7 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7
15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17
22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 27
26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26
35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 2
1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 12
7 8 9
10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 18
17 16 15 14 13 18 16 17 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 20
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 23 21 24 19 20 28
27 26 25 30 29 28 27
26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30
29 28
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32
33 3
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6
5 4
3 2 1 6 5 4
3 11
12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 11 7 12 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 13
18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
18 14 13 17 15 18 16 17 16 15
14 19
20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 24 20 23 21 19 22 20 21 22 23
24 29
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 25 27 30 26 29 28 30 27 26
25 33
34 35 36 31 32 33
12 7 8 12 7 9 8 9 10 7 11 12 10
11 8 9 10 11
14 13 18
16 15 14 13
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36
31 32 33 34 35
31 32 33 36 31 34 35 36
3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 2 1 3 6 4 5 11 12 7 8 9 7 8 10
9 11 12 10 9 10 7 11 11 8 12 12 7
8 7
16 11 12 9 10
13 18 18 17 16
17 15 15 14 16 13 18 17 16 14 14 13 15 18 13 17 18
17 15 14 13
24 19 20 21 22
30 29 28 27
32 33 34
5 4
3 9
10 15
23 24 20 21 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 19 20 19 21 24 23 20 21 24 22 23
25 30 26 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 5 2 1 6 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
2 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
17 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 14 15 14 17 16 14 13
13 15 18
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 20 21 24 19 22 23 22
24 23
23 24 19 22 20 21
27 26 25 30 25 30 29 27 26
26 28 27
28 29
8 Firebaugh
Mendota
Newman
Turlock
Atwater
Delhi
Dos
Palos
Gustine
Hilmar-Irwin
Livingston
Los
Banos
Winton Chowchilla

AN JOAQUIN
RIVER
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

BRAVEL SLOUGH
SALT
SLOUGH
OWENS
CREEK

OWENS CREEK
OWENS
CREEK

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER

EAST SIDE
BYPASS

EAST SIDE BYPASS

EAST SIDE
BYPASS

EAST SIDE BYPASS
EAST
SIDE
BYPASS

JOAQUIN
SAN
RIVER
LAKE
HONDA
ASH
SLOUGH
DUCK
POND

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER

ASH SLOUGH
LAKE
RAMONA
ASH
SLOUGH

OLSON POND

EL NIDO

RESERVOIR
FLAT
POND
ASH
SLOUGH

MUD SLOUGH
MUD
SLOUGH

LITTLE PANOCHE CREEK
LOWER

RUTH LAKE
UPPER
RUTH
LAKE

DELTA MENDOTA
CANAL

DELTA MENDOTA
CANAL
WELL
POND
PEAR
SLOUGH
SLOUGH
MUD

DEEP SLOUGH
CREEK
BEAR
LONE
WILLOW
SLOUGH
SALT
SLOUGH
SALT
SLOUGH
DUCK
POND
LAS
GARZAS
CREEK

LAS GARZAS
CREEK

LOS BANOS
CREEK

LOS BANOS CREEK
FRESNO
RIVER
BEAR
CREEK
QUINTO
CREEK
LOS
BANOS
CREEK
MUD
SLOUGH
FRESNO
RIVER

MUD SLOUGH
LITTLE

BUTTONWILLOW
LAKE

BUTTONWILLOW SLOUGH

FRESNO RIVER

BIG WATER
LAKE

DEEP SLOUGH

FRESNO RIVER

DUCK POND

SAN LUIS

RESERVOIR

BEAR CREEK
BEAR
CREEK
LONE
WILLOW
SLOUGH

BEAR CREEK

BERENDA
SLOUGH

CHOWCHILLA RIVER

CHOWCHILLA
RIVER

FRESNO RIVER

EAST SIDE
BYPASS
CREEK

COTTONWOOD
CREEK

CHOWCHILLA
RIVER
MERCED
RIVER
MERCED
RIVER

MERCED RIVER

MERCED RIVER
LITTLE

PANOCHE

RESERVOIR
MUD
SLOUGH

BERENDA
SLOUGH
DUCK
POND

BERENDA
SLOUGH
ASH
SLOUGH

BERENDA
SLOUGH
LOS

BERENDA
SLOUGH

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
BEAR
CREEK

NORTH FORK LOS

BANOS CREEK
DRY
CREEK

DRY CREEK

PANOCHE
CREEK

PANOCHE CREEK PANOCHE
CREEK
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER
SOUTH
FORK

LOS BANOS CREEK

LONE WILLOW
SLOUGH
LITTLE

PANOCHE
CREEK
LITTLE

PANOCHE
CREEK
LOS
BANOS

RESERVOIR

ORESTIMBA
O`NEILL

FOREBAY

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT

CALIFORNIA

AQUEDUCT
CREEK
BANOS
CREEK

ORESTIMBA
CREEK
R.8E
R.9E
R.7 E
R.8 E
R.8E
R.9 E
R.9 E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9 E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.7E
R.8E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.8E
R.9E
R.9E
R.10E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
R.10E
R.11E
R.11E
R.12E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15 E
R.16 E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
T.5S
T.6S
T.5S
T.6S
T.5S
T.6S
T.6 S
T.7S T.6S
T.7S
T.6S
T.7S
T.6S
T.7S
T.6S
T.7S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.7S
T.8S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8 S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.8S
T.9S
T.9S
T.10S T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10S
T.9S
T.10 S
T.9S
T.10S
T.10S
T.11S T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.10S
T.11S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.11S
T.12S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.12S
T.13S
T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S
T.13S
T.14S
T.14S
T.15S
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
0 1 2 4 6 8
Miles
.

DELTA-MENDOTA

SUBBASIN
FIGURE 23 - MONITORING SITES FOR LAND SUBSIDENCE
108
EXPLANATION:
!( Subsidence Monitoring Points
SJREC GSP Group
Delta-Mendota Subbasin
208
111

3.3.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water
The minimum threshold for depletions of interconnected surface water shall be the rate or volume of surface water depletions caused by groundwater use that has adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water and may lead to undesirable results. The minimum threshold established shall support the location, quantity and timing of potential depletions of interconnected surface water.

The SJRRP and the SJREC have established a series of shallow monitor wells near the San Joaquin River as part of the Seepage Management Plan for the Program. Data from these wells were used to determine the location of potentially connected surface water and groundwater. Figure 52 in Appendix I has a map that shows the potential locations of the interconnected portions of the San Joaquin River.

The SJREC will continue to monitor water levels near the San Joaquin River and expand the understanding of the shallow groundwater in the area.

The San Joaquin River has historically been referred to as the trough of the valley. At this location some fined grained materials have been deposited creating a separation of groundwater adjacent to the river and the zone that is actively pumped. This separation of the two zones provides disconnection from the interconnected surface water and the zone of the aquifer where extractions occur. The SJREC intends to work with the various counties to establish criteria consistent with the County well construction procedures, that requires the wells drilled within a certain distance of the San Joaquin River, as recommended by KDSA, to have the first encountered perforations be deep enough limit the connection with surface waters.

This management technique will not only ensure that significant and unreasonable depletions of interconnected surface water are avoided but also mitigates the potential to have any direct depletion of surface water. This is consistent with maintaining the viability of those beneficial users, primarily GDE’s, along the riparian corridor of the San Joaquin River. This management is also consistent with the long standing Herminghaus Agreement in Reach 2 (Gravelly Ford to Mendota Dam) of the San Joaquin River which put a prohibition on perforating any wells above the constricting clay layer in the area referred to as the A-Clay. Monitoring and management of this sustainability indicator over the next five years will provide essential information to maintain historical water levels. Depletions of interconnected surface water will be monitored and managed consistent with the other sustainability indicators and the more restrictive management will be implemented to ensure this plan area is absent of any undesirable results.

Minimum threshold has been defined at the subbasin level, see Table CC-23 in the Appendix B; interconnected Surface Water is an identified data gap in the Delta-Mendota Subbasin. As an interim minimum threshold, use the Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Level Minimum Threshold as a proxy for impacts to interconnected surface waters (see section 3.3.1). 209
2 10 11
12 7
16 15 14 13
18 17
20 21 22 23 24 19
20 21
29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28
27 26
31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34
35 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2
1 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11
12 7
14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
18 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 20 22 23 21 24 19
20 27 26 25 30 29
28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30
29 28
34 35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32 33 34
35 36 31 32
33 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6
5 4
3 2 1 6 5 4
3 10 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 11 7 12 8 9 7 8 9 10
11 15 14 13 18 17 16 15 14 13
18 14 13 17 15 18 16 17 16 15
14 22 23 24 19 20 21 22 23 24 19 24
20 23 21 19 22 20 21 22 23
24 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 25 27 30 26 29 28 30 27 26
25 12 7 8 12 7 9 8 9 10 7 11 12 10
11 8 9 10 11
16 15 14 13
34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36
31 32 33 34 35
31 32 33 36 31 34 35 36
3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 2 1 3 6 4 5
7 8 10 9 11 12 10 9 10 7 11 11 8 12 12 7
8 7
16 11 12 9 10
18 17 16 15 15 14 13 18 17 16 14 14 13 15 18 13 17 18
17 15 14 13
22 27
23 24 20 21 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 19 20 19 21 24 23 20 21 24 22 23
25 30 26 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 1 6 5 4 3 2 6 1 5 2 1 6 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 4 3
2 7 8 9 10 11
17 18 17 16 15 13 18 17 16 14 15 14 17 16 14 13
13 15 18
21 22 23 24 19 20 21 20 21 24 19 22 23 22
24 23 23 24 19 22 20 21
27 26 25 30 25 30 29 27 26
26 28 27 28 29
8 FRESNO
SLOUGH

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER

EAST SIDE
BYPASS

EAST SIDE BYPASS

EAST SIDE
BYPASS

EAST SIDE BYPASS
EAST
SIDE
BYPASS

JOAQUIN
SAN
RIVER

QUIN RIVER
ASH
SLOUGH

DELTA MENDOTA
CANAL

DELTA MENDOTA
CANAL
ELL
OND
LONE
WILLOW
SLOUGH
FRESNO
RIVER
MUD
SLOUGH
FRESNO
RIVER

BUTTONWILLOW SLOUGH

FRESNO RIVER

BIG WATER
LAKE

DUCK POND
LONE
WILLOW
SLOUGH

BERENDA
SLOUGH

FRESNO RIVER

COTTONWOOD
CREEK

CHOWCHILLA
RIVER
SLOUGH

BERENDA

BERENDA
SLOUGH
ASH
SLOUGH

JAMES BYPASS
E
SAN

JOAQUIN
RIVER

LONE WILLOW
SLOUGH

SAN JOAQUIN RIVER
LITTLE

PANOCHE
CREEK
Merced
Fresno
MercedMadera
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14 E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13 E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15 E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
R.11E
R.12E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15 E
R.15 E
R.16 E
R.12E
R.13E
R.13E
R.14E
R.14E
R.15E
R.15E
R.16E
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.9 S
T.10 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11
S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.10 S
T.11 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11 S
T.12 S
T.11
S
T.12 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.12 S
T.13 S
T.13 S
T.14 S
T.13 S
T.14 S
T.13 S
T.14 S
T.13 S
T.14 S
T.14 S
T.15 S

VA L ER IA
AV E

W B EL M O N T
AV E
M ST
W

L ST W N ST
W

EUCALYPTUS RD W

MERRILL AVE

BRANNON AVE

N D O S PAL O S RD

S DERRICK AVE
ELG
A
IN
VE

W NEES AVE

PALM AVE S

W MERRILL AVE

N FAIRFAX AVE

CENTER AVE
S HWY 33

OLLER ST
P ST W
N ST

N SAN DIEGO AVE

N DOUGLAS
AVE

W ASHLAN AVE

N DOS PALOS RD

SHAIN AVE

FOLSOM AVE
BASS
AVE

SANTA FE GRD

W SHAIN AVE

N D OS PALOS RD

W HERNDON AVE

N CAMBRIA AVE

W BULLARD AVE

Los Banos City CouncilJuly 6, 2022

Los Banos City Council
July 6, 2022