Attachment 2 - Revised GSP & Appendices — Manteca City Council, July 19, 2022 (part 3 of 9)

Future undesirable results could result from insufficient groundwater recharge and/or offset or delays in implementation of GSP programs or projects due to increased demand or regulatory, permitting, or funding obstacles.

3.2.1.1.4 Potential Effects of Undesirable Results
If groundwater levels were to cause undesirable results, effects could include de-watering of a subset of the existing groundwater infrastructure, starting with the shallowest wells, which are generally domestic wells, and adverse effects on GDEs, to the extent connected with the production aquifer. Lowering levels to this degree could necessitate changes in irrigation practices and crops grown and could cause adverse effects to property values and the regional economy.

Additionally, undesirable results due to declining groundwater levels could adversely affect current and projected municipal uses translating into increased costs for potable water supplies.

Potential effects of undesirable results related to GDEs is an area that has been identified as a data gap requiring further study, including through future shallow groundwater monitoring efforts discussed in Section 4.7.

3.2.1.2 Minimum Thresholds
The minimum thresholds for chronic lowering of groundwater levels are the shallower at each representative monitoring well site of the following:
• The deeper of 1992 and 2015-2016 historical groundwater levels with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range applied, or
• The 10th percentile domestic well total depth of wells within a 3-mile radius of the monitoring well. 1,2
To develop these thresholds, members of the ESJGWA Board, Advisory Committee, and Workgroup evaluated the potential for undesirable results based on past, present, and future conditions. In addition to anecdotal on-the-ground data, data from DWR and GSAs, as well as information from reports and planning documents, were used to identify how a given area falls into any one of three general conditions: 1) Areas with significant and unreasonable existing issues, 2) Areas that previously had issues, and 3) Areas that have never had issues. Each of the three conditions correspond to a different pathway to setting minimum thresholds. Areas were considered without undesirable results if no significant and unreasonable issues were identified based on input from GSAs and stakeholders and review of prior planning documents.
• Areas with significant and unreasonable existing issues: these areas are considered to have undesirable results, and minimum thresholds are set to 2015 in accordance with SGMA legislation. No areas were identified by the ESJGWA Board or other stakeholders under this condition within the Subbasin. • Areas that previously had significant and unreasonable issues: for areas with historical but not current significant and unreasonable results (as identified by GSAs, stakeholders, and prior planning documents), historical levels were considered in the development of minimum thresholds in addition to existing basin management criteria.
• Areas that have never had significant and unreasonable issues: in areas that have never had issues, discussions on what the ESJGWA would consider to be significant and unreasonable drove identification of 1 A radius of 2 miles was used for well 03N07E21L003 to reflect domestic well depths in close proximity to the Mokelumne River.
2 In municipalities with ordinances requiring the use of City water (water provided by the City’s municipal wells), the 10th percentile municipal well depth is used in place of the 10th percentile domestic well depth criteria.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-5
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019
potential thresholds, and minimum thresholds were developed based on the preservation of future beneficial uses.

The ESJGWA Board and Advisory Committee reviewed previously adopted groundwater-related planning documents including the 2014 ESJ IRWMP, the 2004 Groundwater Management Plan (GMP), Agricultural Water Management Plans (AWMPs), and the Mokelumne Watershed Interregional Sustainability Evaluation (MokeWISE) Water Program.

These documents provided a starting point for setting minimum thresholds. The ESJ IRWMP indicates fall 1992 groundwater elevation levels as a historical low benchmark for the Subbasin, stating “The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin contour measured in 1992 is proposed as the basin management framework baseline.

Groundwater fell to its lowest recorded elevation in 1992 following a significant drought period and it is considered undesirable to drop below this level” (Eastern San Joaquin County GBA, 2014). This language, although not developed within the SGMA framework, has served as a starting point for developing minimum thresholds under SGMA.

Fall 1992 groundwater levels were examined and compared to levels following the recent drought (fall 2015-2016) using groundwater elevation data from officially monitored California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) wells, voluntarily monitored CASGEM wells, clustered and nested wells, and San Joaquin County database wells (see Section 2.1.1.1). This examination showed that groundwater levels in some areas of the Subbasin have recovered since 1992, with much of the central portion of the Subbasin showing an increase of greater than 10 feet.

However, groundwater levels in other portions of the Subbasin have further decreased below 1992 levels without undesirable effects, such as a significant and unreasonable number of wells going dry or impact to GDEs, being observed by GSAs and other stakeholders. In many cases, areas that experienced undesirable effects in 1992 put mitigation measures in place, often deepening wells, meaning that 1992 groundwater levels would no longer trigger undesirable effects.

The deepest conditions between fourth quarter 1992 and 2015-2016 groundwater levels were examined to develop a greater understanding of potential impacts to beneficial uses experienced under historical low groundwater levels.

These years were chosen based on the threshold language in the ESJ IRWMP and also to capture the end of the two most recent droughts. Fourth quarter 2014 data were used in the northwest corner of the Subbasin, where data are limited.

Individual GSAs confirmed understanding of the historical lows based on their experience and data, provided feedback on groundwater conditions for their GSAs, and indicated if undesirable results could occur if the minimum threshold was set deeper than the deeper of 1992 and 2015-2016 based on their understanding. GSAs then identified potential wells to be included in the representative monitoring network for the groundwater level sustainability indicator based on the adequate spatial coverage, availability of historical data, and reliability of the monitoring well. For the majority of the Subbasin, GSA representatives identified no undesirable results, even if groundwater were to reach historical low groundwater levels. As a starting point, a potential minimum threshold was considered for each representative monitoring well based on the lower of 1992 or 2015-2016 values unless otherwise indicated. A buffer was subtracted from the minimum 1992 or 2015 groundwater elevation. The buffer was calculated by finding the difference between the minimum and maximum groundwater level over the historical record for each representative monitoring well. The subtraction of the buffer provides a range in which groundwater levels may continue to decline during implementation of projects and management actions until sustainable yield is reached. The buffer allows for flexibility to account for natural fluctuations in groundwater levels but would avoid significant and unreasonable impacts to groundwater levels.

The ESJGWA Board determined that dewatering of domestic wells may be a potential undesirable result that could potentially be used to confirm the adequacy of the minimum threshold methodology. Domestic wells are generally shallower than agricultural and municipal wells and thus more sensitive to undesirable effects such as wells going dry.

Additionally, the loss of a domestic well usually results in a loss of water for consumption, cooking, and sanitary purposes, which can often have substantial impacts on the users of the water and can be financially difficult for the well owner to replace. The 10th percentile domestic well depth (i.e., the depth of the top 10th percent most shallow well) was examined within a radius around the monitoring well representative of local conditions. A radius of 3 miles around each representative monitoring well was used to identify the 10th percentile domestic well construction depth. For ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-6
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019
representative monitoring well 03N07E21L003, a 2-mile radius was used due to variations in groundwater levels due to its proximity to the Mokelumne River. The 3-mile radius of each representative monitoring well (including the 2-mile radius of monitoring well 03N07E21L003), includes an average of 400 domestic wells each, collectively capturing approximately 76 percent of the domestic wells in the Subbasin. In cases where the 10th percentile domestic well depth was shallower than the historical drought low with the buffer, that value was developed as the minimum threshold to prevent undesirable results associated with dewatering wells in the Subbasin.

Domestic well data were retrieved from the Online System for Well Completion Reports (OSWCR) database, which is sparsely populated with information on total casing depth, screening intervals, and the age of the well. The 10th percentile well depth was chosen due to the uncertainty in the database and to account for the fact that domestic wells may have been drilled to a very shallow depth prior to the current well drilling standards enforced by local jurisdictions and/or have reached the end of their lifecycle. The10th percentile domestic well depth for groundwater levels is protective of approximately 90 percent of the domestic wells in the OSWCR dataset and is used as a criteria for determining if a decline in groundwater levels is significant and unreasonable under SGMA.

In municipalities with ordinances requiring the use of City water (water provided by the City’s municipal wells), the 10th percentile municipal well depth is used in place of the 10th percentile domestic well depth criteria.

Figure 3-2 shows the location of groundwater level representative monitoring wells throughout the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. Table 3-1 lists the corresponding numeric minimum thresholds at each representative monitoring well and the basis.

Additional data on the monitoring wells and minimum thresholds, including hydrographs of historical observed data and domestic well analysis, are provided in Appendix 3-A and 3-B.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-7
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019
Figure 3-2: Location of Representative Monitoring Wells for Groundwater Levels ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-8
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019
Table 3-1: Minimum Thresholds for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels Narrative Description
The minimum threshold is set at the deeper of 1992 and 2015-2016 groundwater levels with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range applied, or the 10th percentile domestic well depth, whichever is shallower. In municipalities with ordinances requiring the use of City water, the 10th percentile municipal well depth is used in place of the 10th percentile domestic well depth criteria.

Numeric Minimum Thresholds
GSA Well is Located
in1 Well ID
Minimum Threshold
(feet mean sea level
[MSL])
Basis for Threshold
CSJWCD 01S09E05H002 -49.8 10ᵗʰ percentile domestic well depth CSJWCD 01N07E14J002 -114.4 1992 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
City of Lodi Lodi City Well #2 -38.5 1992 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
City of Manteca Manteca 18 -16.0 2016 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
City of Stockton Swenson-3 -26.6 2015 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
Eastside GSA 01S10E26J001M 43.7 2015 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
LCWD 02N08E15M002 -124.1 10ᵗʰ percentile domestic well depth LCSD #3 Bear Creek -72.3 2016 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
NSJWCD 04N07E20H003M -81.7 2016 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
NSJWCD 03N07E21L003 -100.0 1992 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
OID Hirschfeld (OID-8) 8.0 2015 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
OID Burnett (OID-4) 60.7 2015 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
SDWA 02S07E31N001 1.5 1992 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
SSJ GSA 02S08E08A001 0.6 2016 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
SEWD 02N07E03D001 -122.8 10ᵗʰ percentile domestic well depth SEWD 01N09E05J001 -86.8 10ᵗʰ percentile domestic well depth SEWD 02N07E29B001 -130.1 10ᵗʰ percentile domestic well depth WID 04N05E36H003 -31.1 2015 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
WID 03N06E05N003 -35.1 2015 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
WID 04N05E24J004 -31.2 2015 groundwater level with a buffer of 100 percent of historical range
1 Acronyms defined: Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District (CSJWCD), Eastside San Joaquin GSA (Eastside GSA), Linden County Water District (LCWD), Lockeford Community Services District (LCSD), North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD), Oakdale Irrigation District (OID), South Delta Water Agency (SDWA), South San Joaquin GSA (SSJ GSA), Stockton East Water District (SEWD), Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID).

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-9
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019

3.2.1.3 Measurable Objectives and Interim Milestones
Measurable objectives are quantitative goals that reflect the desired Subbasin condition and allow the Subbasin to achieve its sustainability goal. The measurable objective is set to allow a reasonable margin of operational flexibility between minimum thresholds to allow for active management of the Subbasin during dry periods without reaching the minimum threshold. The margin of operational flexibility is intended to accommodate droughts, climate change, conjunctive use operations, or other groundwater management activities. The margin of operational flexibility is defined as the difference between the minimum threshold and the measurable objective.

The measurable objective for chronic lowering of groundwater levels is defined as the deeper of 1992 or 2015-2016 groundwater level values.

Table 3-2 lists the measurable objectives for each representative monitoring well. The margin of operational flexibility is defined at each well as the difference between the minimum and maximum groundwater level over the historical record for that well.

Table 3-2: Measurable Objective for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels Narrative Description
The measurable objective is set at the deeper of 1992 and 2015-2016 groundwater levels.

Numeric Measurable Objectives
GSA Well is Located in Well ID Measurable Objective (feet MSL)
CSJWCD 01S09E05H002 -19.6
CSJWCD 01N07E14J002 -70.4
City of Lodi Lodi City Well #2 -3.5
City of Manteca Manteca 18 5.8
City of Stockton Swenson-3 -19.3
Eastside GSA 01S10E26J001M 81.7
LCWD 02N08E15M002 -69.7
LCSD #3 Bear Creek -50.3
NSJWCD 04N07E20H003M -36.7
NSJWCD 03N07E21L003 -57.5
OID Hirschfeld (OID-8) 31.5
OID Burnett (OID-4) 79.7
SDWA 02S07E31N001 13.0
SSJ GSA 02S08E08A001 24.0
SEWD 02N07E03D001 -79.7
SEWD 01N09E05J001 -51.1
SEWD 02N07E29B001 -80.4
WID 04N05E36H003 -5.1
WID 03N06E05N003 -14.1
WID 04N05E24J004 -6.2
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-10
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019
To assist the Subbasin in reaching the measurable objective for groundwater levels, interim milestones for 2025, 2030, and 2035 were developed to keep implementation on track. Interim milestones are based on achieving the sustainability goal within the 20-year time period provided by SGMA. Table 3-3 shows the 5-year milestones, which follow a stepwise trend between the current condition and the measurable objective. Fall 2015 groundwater levels were used to define current conditions where data were available. The average of fall 2013, fall 2014, and fall 2016 were used where fall 2015 data were not available.

Table 3-3: Interim Milestones for Chronic Lowering of Groundwater Levels Narrative Description
5-year milestones are assumed to remain similar to current for the first 10 years and then follow along a linear trend between the current condition and the measurable objective.

Numeric Interim Milestones
GSA Well is
Located in Well ID
Current
Condition
(feet MSL)
Measurable
Objective
(feet MSL)
Interim Milestones
2025 2030 2035
CSJWCD 01S09E05H002 -8.7 -19.6 -8.7 -8.7 -14.2
CSJWCD 01N07E14J002 -49.9 -70.4 -49.9 -49.9 -60.2
City of Lodi Lodi City Well #2 0.6** -3.5 0.6 0.6 -1.5
City of Manteca Manteca 18 9.1 5.8 9.1 9.1 7.5
City of Stockton Swenson-3 -19.3 -19.3 -19.3 -19.3 -19.3 Eastside GSA 01S10E26J001M 81.7 81.7 81.7 81.7 81.7
LCWD 02N08E15M002 -63.2 -69.7 -63.2 -63.2 -66.5
LCSD #3 Bear Creek -49.3 -50.3 -49.3 -49.3 -49.8
NSJWCD 04N07E20H003M -35.5 -36.7 -35.5 -35.5 -36.1
NSJWCD 03N07E21L003 -51.5 -57.5 -51.5 -51.5 -54.5
OID Hirschfeld (OID-8) 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5 31.5
OID Burnett (OID-4) 79.7 79.7 79.7 79.7 79.7
SDWA 02S07E31N001 13.8** 13 13.8 13.8 13.4
SSJ GSA 02S08E08A001 22.2** 24 22.2 22.2 23.1
SEWD 02N07E03D001 -61.7 -79.7 -61.7 -61.7 -70.7
SEWD 01N09E05J001 -20.2 -51.1 -20.2 -20.2 -35.7
SEWD 02N07E29B001 -49.8** -80.4 -49.8 -49.8 -65.1
WID 04N05E36H003 -5.1 -5.1 -5.1 -5.1 -5.1
WID 03N06E05N003 -14.1 -14.1 -14.1 -14.1 -14.1
WID 04N05E24J004 -6.2 -6.2 -6.2 -6.2 -6.2
**Current Condition is the average of fall groundwater levels for 2013-2016 ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-11
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019

3.2.2 Reduction in Groundwater Storage

3.2.2.1 Undesirable Results

3.2.2.1.1 Description of Undesirable Results
The ESJGWA has determined that an undesirable result for the reduction of groundwater storage is experienced if sustained groundwater storage volumes are insufficient to satisfy beneficial uses within the Subbasin over the planning and implementation horizon of this GSP (see Section 1.3.1 for a discussion of beneficial uses and users).

Undesirable results related to groundwater storage in the Subbasin have not occurred historically, are not currently occurring, and are not likely to occur in the future. As discussed in the current and historical groundwater conditions section of this GSP (Section 2.2), there is a large volume (approximately 53 million acre-feet [MAF]) of freshwater in storage. An analysis of groundwater storage using the Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM) was conducted to evaluate groundwater storage conditions between 1996 and 2015. The results of this analysis showed a range of fluctuation from 1996 to 2015 of approximately 0.01 percent per year. See Section 2.2.2 for additional quantification of groundwater storage. A discussion of the geology of the Subbasin can be found in Section 2.1.

3.2.2.1.2 Identification of Undesirable Results
An undesirable result occurs when groundwater storage volumes are insufficient to satisfy beneficial uses within the Subbasin. To identify a volume associated with undesirable results, the ESJWRM was run to estimate the volume of groundwater storage needed to meet beneficial uses. The analysis determined that groundwater demand for beneficial use occurs within the shallowest 23 MAF of the Subbasin, as this is roughly the zone corresponding to the depth at which pumping occurs and is reasonably expected to occur in the future. Based on this analysis, it is estimated that overlying pumpers have limited access equating to approximately the shallowest 23 MAF of groundwater storage in the Subbasin; therefore, an undesirable result would occur if groundwater storage levels were depleted by 23 MAF.

Therefore, undesirable results would occur if groundwater storage were reduced by 23 MAF, to a total volume of 30 MAF.

3.2.2.1.3 Potential Causes of Undesirable Results
While reduction of 23 MAF within the SGMA planning horizon of 2040 is highly unlikely, an event of a catastrophic nature or prolonged and exaggerated increases in the mining of groundwater due to extreme and severe drought or major changes in groundwater management over time could cause a reduction of groundwater storage to a significant and unreasonable level.

Section 7.4.4 references factors that could affect the availability of surface water, including State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) plans to reduce flows available for use by 40-60 percent as part of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan).

3.2.2.1.4 Potential Effects of Undesirable Results
If groundwater levels were to reach levels causing undesirable results, significant and unreasonable effects could include degradation of produced water quality from groundwater sources; insufficient fresh groundwater to access in drought years; increased cost of access; and reduction in beneficial uses, such as domestic supply and changes to agriculture.

3.2.2.2 Minimum Thresholds
This GSP uses groundwater level minimum thresholds as a proxy for the reduction in groundwater storage sustainability indicator.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-12
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019
GSP regulations allow GSAs to use groundwater levels as a proxy metric for any sustainability indicator, provided the GSP demonstrates that there is a significant correlation between groundwater levels and the other metrics. In order to rely on groundwater levels as a proxy, one approach suggested by DWR is to:

Demonstrate that the minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for chronic declines of groundwater levels are sufficiently protective to ensure significant and unreasonable occurrences of other sustainability indicators will be prevented. In other words, demonstrate that setting a groundwater level minimum threshold satisfies the minimum threshold requirements for not only chronic lowering of groundwater levels but other sustainability indicators at a given site (CA DWR, 2017).

Minimum thresholds for groundwater levels will effectively avoid undesirable results for reduction of groundwater storage. As noted above, the amount of groundwater in storage in the Subbasin is approximately 53 MAF and the undesirable results of reducing beneficial uses would not occur until storage is reduced by 23 MAF, to a total of 30 MAF.

The ESJWRM was run to estimate the reduction in groundwater storage that would occur if every representative monitoring well in the Subbasin were to operate at the minimum threshold for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability indicator. The results of this analysis showed that this scenario would result in a reduction of approximately 1.2 MAF of storage.3 Because undesirable results are anticipated to occur following a reduction of 23 MAF, the minimum thresholds for groundwater levels are protective of beneficial uses. Minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for groundwater levels can therefore be used as a proxy for reduction in groundwater storage, as groundwater levels are sufficiently protective against occurrences of significant and unreasonable reduction in groundwater storage.

3.2.2.3 Measurable Objectives and Interim Milestones
As chronic lowering of groundwater levels is used as a proxy for reduction in groundwater storage, the measurable objectives and interim milestones for the reduction in groundwater storage sustainability indicator are the same measurable objectives and interim milestones as for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability indicator as set forth in Section 3.2.1.3.

3.2.3 Degraded Water Quality

3.2.3.1 Undesirable Results: Degraded Water Quality

3.2.3.1.1 Description of Undesirable Results
The undesirable result related to degraded water quality is defined in SGMA as:

Significant and unreasonable degraded water quality, including the migration of contaminant plumes that impair water supplies.

An undesirable result for degraded water quality in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is experienced if SGMA-related groundwater management activities cause significant and unreasonable impacts to the long-term viability of domestic, agricultural, municipal, environmental, or other beneficial uses over the planning and implementation horizon of this GSP.

Salinity is the only water quality constituent for which minimum thresholds are established in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. High salinity in the western portion of the Subbasin has been an area of historical concern, as described in Section 2.2. There is potential for pumping to contribute to the movement of high saline water from the three sources noted by O’Leary et al. (2015): Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) sediments, deep deposits, and irrigation 3 Volumes based on ESJWRM estimates calculated assuming all representative monitoring wells for groundwater levels reached their minimum thresholds across the Subbasin for a conservative estimate of Subbasin storage reduction.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-13
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019
return water (see Section 2.2.4.1). Other constituents, including arsenic and nitrate are evaluated in Section 2.2, with monitoring efforts described in Section 4.3. These constituents are managed through existing management and regulatory programs within the Subbasin, such as the Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) and the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP), which focus on improving water quality by managing septic and agricultural sources of salinity and nutrients. Additionally, point-source contaminants are managed and regulated through a variety of programs by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Through new monitoring efforts, the GSP will document trends in these constituents and identify opportunities for coordination with existing programs.

A description of existing regulations and requirements for these constituents is provided in Section 2.2.4. Through coordination with existing agencies and through additional monitoring, the ESJGWA will know if existing regulations are being met or groundwater pumping activities in the Subbasin are contributing to significant and unreasonable undesirable effects related to degraded water quality (see Section 3.2.3.4 for additional information).

Total dissolved solids (TDS) was selected for the evaluation of sustainable management criteria for salinity under this sustainability indicator, as historical data for TDS are more widely available in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin than other constituents used to measure salinity, such as electrical conductivity (EC) or chloride. This decision was made by the ESJGWA Board based on the greater availability of TDS data in the Subbasin. TDS data are available through existing monitoring programs such as the CV-SALTS program and Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program or through monitoring or regulatory agencies such as United States Geological Survey (USGS), DWR, SWRCB, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) Dairy program. Additionally, GSA members and their affiliates including Cal Water, SJCFCWCD, and the cities of Stockton, Lodi, and Manteca, provided TDS data from existing production wells.

3.2.3.1.2 Identification of Undesirable Results
Undesirable results occur during GSP implementation when more than 25 percent of representative monitoring wells (3 of 10 sites) exceed the minimum thresholds for water quality for two consecutive years and where these concentrations are the result of groundwater management activities.

3.2.3.1.3 Potential Causes of Undesirable Results
Elevated TDS concentrations in the Subbasin are the result of natural processes and overlying land use activities (O’Leary et al., 2015). Pumping in excess of recharge has resulted in declining aquifer water levels and led to an increase of salinity in groundwater wells since the 1950s (O’Leary et al., 2015). Within the Subbasin, there are localized concerns related to salinity along with three primary sources of salinity, as discussed in Section 2.2.4 of this GSP.

3.2.3.1.4 Potential Effects of Undesirable Results
The potential effects of undesirable results related to degraded groundwater quality include: reduction in usable supply of groundwater, increased treatment costs, and required access to alternate supplies, which can be unaffordable for small users. Some water quality issues could potentially cause more impact to agricultural uses than municipal or domestic uses, depending on the impact of the contaminant to these water use sectors. Water quality degradation may cause potential changes in irrigation practices or crops grown, adverse effects to property values, and other economic effects.

3.2.3.2 Minimum Thresholds
The minimum threshold for degraded water quality is 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) TDS at all representative monitoring well locations, shown in Figure 3-3.

Minimum thresholds for this sustainability indicator are focused on addressing the major groundwater quality issue of salinity by monitoring TDS as a representative constituent of salinity and preventing future water quality degradation ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-14
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019
due to pumping. Additional constituents, including nitrate and arsenic, will be monitored for informational purposes through the water quality monitoring network to identify trends and fill data gaps (see Section 3.2.3.4).

The ESJGWA Board selected a minimum threshold of 1,000 mg/L based on stakeholder concerns for drinking water and agricultural beneficial uses. The minimum threshold reflects input from agricultural and municipal stakeholders, including local drinking water purveyors and the local agricultural community. A meeting was held in fall 2018 with GSA representatives in areas impacted by high salinity. Representatives from San Joaquin County, City of Lodi, City of Manteca, City of Stockton, and Cal Water were in attendance. Additionally, members of the Workgroup who represent agribusiness interests provided input on the salinity levels at which crops begin to become impacted by salinity.

In the development of minimum thresholds, beneficial uses of groundwater as a drinking water supply and as an agricultural supply were considered. For drinking water, the TDS secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) was considered. As noted in Section 2.2, the SWRCB Division of Drinking Water (DDW) has established SMCLs for TDS in drinking water supplies. SMCLs are established for aesthetic reasons such as taste, odor, and color and are not based on public health concerns. For TDS, the SMCL is 500 mg/L (recommended) and the upper limit SMCL is 1,000 mg/L (SWRCB, 2017). The SWRCB has set a short-term limit of 1,500 mg/L (SWRCB, 2017). For agricultural uses, salinity tolerances of major Subbasin crops were considered. As previously stated in Section 1.2.1, dominant Subbasin crops are fruit and nut trees (primarily almonds, cherries, and walnuts), grapes, and alfalfa (USDA, 2015). Salinity tolerances for Subbasin crops range from 900 mg/L TDS (for almonds) to 4,000 mg/L TDS (for wheat) (Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, 2003, adapted from Ayers and Westcott, 1976; Hoffman, 2010). Salinity tolerances of major Subbasin crops are shown in Table 3-4. Because fruit and nut trees and vineyards collectively cover more than half of the acreage of the Subbasin, the minimum threshold was centered on the salinity impact of these crop types. These crop types have lower salinity tolerances, in the range of 900 to 1,000 mg/L TDS. Standards in this range are considered protective of these crop types and therefore the majority of Subbasin crops. TDS values are estimated based on applied irrigation water electrical conductivity values for a 90 percent crop yield potential (Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, 2003, adapted from Ayers and Westcott, 1976).

Table 3-4: Salinity Tolerances of Major Subbasin Crops
Crop Type Salinity Tolerance
(mg/L TDS)
Fruit & Nut Trees - Almonds 900
Fruit & Nut Trees - Apples 1,000
Vineyards - Grapes 1,100
Alfalfa 1,400
Grain - Wheat 4,000
Field Crops - Corn 1,100
Truck Crops - Tomatoes 1,500
Rice 1,700
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-15
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019
Figure 3-3: Location of Representative Monitoring Wells for Water Quality ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-16
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019

3.2.3.3 Measurable Objectives and Interim Milestones
The measurable objective for degraded water quality is 600 mg/L TDS at all representative monitoring well locations. 600 mg/L was developed based on the TDS recommended SMCL for drinking water of 500 mg/L and adding a 100 mg/L buffer. 600 mg/L TDS is close to the recommended SMCL of 500 mg/L and significantly below the upper limit SMCL of 1,000 mg/L, and is considered adequate for drinking water and agricultural uses.

Interim milestones for 2025, 2030, and 2035 were developed to keep implementation on track to allow the Subbasin to meet the measurable objective for groundwater quality. Table 3-5 shows the 5-year milestones, which follow along a linear trend between the current condition and the measurable objective. Interim milestones are based on the measurable objective and will be coordinated with projects and management actions. Current conditions were calculated by averaging TDS values collected from 2015-2018 where data were available. In two cases (for Well 16 and Well 17), current conditions were calculated by averaging TDS values collected from 2012-2018.

Table 3-5: Interim Milestones for Degraded Water Quality Narrative Description
5-year milestones follow along a linear trend between the current condition and the measurable objective.

Numeric Interim Milestones
Well ID Current Condition
(mg/L TDS)
Measurable Objective
(mg/L TDS)
Interim Milestones
2025 2030 2035
Well 1 500 600 525 550 575
Well 2 510 600 532.5 555 577.5
Well 3 510 600 532.5 555 577.5
Stockton 10R 322 600 391.5 461 530.5
Stockton 26 350 600 412.5 475 537.5
Stockton SSS8 370 600 427.5 485 542.5
Well 15 300 600 375 450 525
Well 16 280* 600 360 440 520
Well 17 300* 600 375 450 525
119=075-01 300 600 375 450 525
* Current Condition is the average TDS value for 2012-2018

3.2.3.4 Monitoring for Additional Constituents
Increased monitoring is needed to identify water quality trends related to additional constituents including arsenic and nitrate. Arsenic, as well as cations and anions (which include nitrate), will be monitored for informational purposes through the water quality monitoring network (see Section 4.3.2) to identify trends and fill data gaps. Additionally, these constituents are currently regulated in the Subbasin through existing water resources monitoring and management programs, as described in Section 1.2.2. If water quality conditions violate those regulations, or if monitoring efforts indicate concerning trends, the ESJGWA will take steps to coordinate with regulatory agencies and will evaluate establishing minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for these constituents.

Many of the GSAs are drinking water suppliers and are required to provide a consumer confidence report each year.

The ESJGWA will consider requiring GSAs that are drinking water supplies to notify the ESJGWA if constituents of concern exceed their maximum contaminant level (MCL) to assist in identifying potential trends of concern. While these ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-17
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019
reports do not reflect the water quality of private well owners, it would provide a basin-wide screen to inform basin groundwater quality conditions.

3.2.4 Seawater Intrusion

3.2.4.1 Undesirable Results

3.2.4.1.1 Description of Undesirable Results
The undesirable result related to seawater intrusion is defined in SGMA as:

Significant and unreasonable seawater intrusion
An undesirable result for seawater intrusion in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is experienced if sustained groundwater salinity levels caused by seawater intrusion and due to groundwater management practices are too high to satisfy beneficial uses within the basin over the planning and implementation horizon of this GSP.

The Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is not in a coastal area and seawater intrusion is not currently present. Undesirable results related to seawater intrusion are not currently occurring and are not reasonably expected to occur (see Section

2.2.3). However, this GSP establishes monitoring protocols for the early detection of seawater intrusion, were it ever to occur, so that the ESJGWA can take action to address undesirable results.

There is the possibility of future seawater intrusion due to potential future changes in the Delta that could be caused by sea level rise. This GSP develops minimum thresholds and measurable objectives that include monitoring for chloride and an analysis of isotopic ratios to identify the source of high salinity (see Section 2.2.4.1).

3.2.4.1.2 Identification of Undesirable Results
Undesirable results are considered to occur during GSP implementation when 2,000 mg/L chloride reaches an established isocontour line and where these concentrations are caused by intrusion of a seawater source as a result of groundwater management activity.

3.2.4.1.3 Potential Causes of Undesirable Results
If seawater intrusion does become an issue in the future, the cause of undesirable results would be seawater coming from surface waters in the Delta either due to climate change and associated sea level rise or significant changes in Delta management practices.

3.2.4.1.4 Potential Effects of Undesirable Results
Similar to the effects of undesirable results for degraded water quality, increased salinity due to seawater intrusion could potentially cause a reduction in usable supply to groundwater users, with domestic wells being most vulnerable, as treatment costs or access to alternate supplies can be high for small users. Water quality degradation due to seawater intrusion could cause potential changes in irrigation practices or crops grown, adverse impacts to property values, and other economic effects. It could also adversely affect current and projected municipal uses, and users could have to install treatment systems or seek alternate supplies.

3.2.4.2 Minimum Thresholds
The minimum threshold for seawater intrusion is a 2,000 mg/L chloride isocontour line. 2,000 mg/L chloride is approximately 10 percent of seawater chloride concentrations (19,500 mg/L) and was developed as a minimum threshold based on consideration of existing management practices in other areas of the state including Monterey County and Fox Canyon. This threshold incorporates input from stakeholders from multiple meetings and was reviewed by the ESJGWA Board and Advisory Committee.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-18
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019
The 2,000 mg/L chloride isocontour line depicted in Figure 3-4 is a demarcation of where the ESJGWA would consider seawater intrusion has created an undesirable result. As data are collected from wells within the water quality monitoring network (see Section 4.4), an isocontour line can be drawn with the most current data. If the drawn isocontour line representing current data crosses the minimum threshold isocontour line in Figure 3-4 at chloride concentrations 2,000 mg/L or higher, the ESJGWA would consider that an undesirable result had occurred. It is unlikely that the Subbasin will experience an undesirable result due to seawater intrusion during the SGMA planning horizon.

Figure 3-4: Seawater Intrusion Minimum Threshold Chloride Isocontour Line

3.2.4.3 Measurable Objectives and Interim Milestones
The measurable objective for seawater intrusion is 500 mg/L chloride concentrations at the contour line indicated for the minimum threshold.

The 5-year interim milestones follow along a linear trend between the current conditions and the measurable objective.

Interim milestones are based on the measurable objective and will be further developed through water quality monitoring identified in Chapter 4: Monitoring Networks, and coordinated with projects and management actions.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-19
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019

3.2.4.4 Trigger and Actions
An action plan is in place as part of this GSP to trigger additional monitoring and analysis at detections of 1,000 mg/L chloride in the monitoring network to confirm seawater source. Assessing high-chloride water sources to determine origin involves determining water type from major-ions, and evaluating stable isotope concentrations (O’Leary et al., 2015). The ratio of chloride to iodide is also used to differentiate high-chloride water sources besides seawater (O’Leary et al., 2015). These assessment tools would be used to provide the GSAs adequate time to develop groundwater management strategies to address any seawater intrusion before the 2,000 mg/L chloride minimum threshold is reached.

3.2.5 Land Subsidence

3.2.5.1 Undesirable Results

3.2.5.1.1 Description of Undesirable Results
The undesirable result related to land subsidence is defined in SGMA as:

Significant and unreasonable land subsidence that substantially interferes with surface land uses.

An undesirable result for land subsidence in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is experienced if the occurrence of land subsidence substantially interferes with beneficial uses of groundwater and infrastructure within the Subbasin over the planning and implementation horizon of this GSP.

There are no historical records of significant and unreasonable impacts from subsidence in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin (see Figure 2-64). If land subsidence becomes an area of concern, the ESJGWA will take action to consider monitoring protocols and next steps for understanding potential for undesirable results.

3.2.5.1.2 Identification of Undesirable Results
An undesirable result occurs when subsidence substantially interferes with beneficial uses of groundwater and surface land uses. Subsidence occurs as a result of compaction of subsurface materials due to the dewatering of subsurface materials. Undesirable results would occur when substantial interference with land use occurs, including significant damage to canals, pipes, or other water conveyance facilities.

3.2.5.1.3 Potential Causes of Undesirable Results
Potential causes of future undesirable results for land subsidence would include significant increases in groundwater production beyond what is currently projected, resulting in dewatering of compressible clays in the subsurface, which are not known to be common in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, as indicated by historical absence of subsidence.

Corcoran Clay is one type of subsurface material that is potentially predisposed to compression. See Section 2.1.5 for a description of Corcoran Clay extent in the Subbasin.

3.2.5.1.4 Potential Effects of Undesirable Results
If land subsidence conditions were to reach undesirable results, the adverse effects could potentially cause an irrecoverable loss of groundwater storage and damage to infrastructure, including water conveyance facilities and flood control facilities. This could impact the ability to deliver surface water, resulting in increased groundwater use, or could impact the ability to store and convey flood water. These could have adverse effects to property values or public safety.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-20
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019

3.2.5.2 Minimum Thresholds
This GSP uses groundwater level minimum thresholds as a proxy for the land subsidence sustainability indicator. As such, the minimum thresholds for the land subsidence sustainability indicator are the same as the minimum thresholds for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability indicator.

GSP regulations allow GSAs to use groundwater levels as a proxy metric for any sustainability indicator, provided the GSP demonstrates that there is a significant correlation between groundwater levels and the other metrics. DWR requires the GSP (CA DWR, 2017):

There is significant correlation between groundwater levels and land subsidence, with land subsidence being driven by a lowering of groundwater levels in the aquifer. Further, the use of groundwater levels as a proxy is necessary, given the relative lack of direct monitoring for land subsidence in the Subbasin.

Land subsidence can only occur if two conditions are met: 1) Subsurface materials are dewatered and 2) Those dewatered subsurface materials are compressible. Historical declines in groundwater levels in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin have not resulted in subsidence (see Section 2.2.5), suggesting that subsurface materials in the geologic units historically affected by groundwater elevation fluctuations are not compressible. If the Subbasin were to operate within the margin of operational flexibility for groundwater levels, future dewatering would continue to occur in the same geologic units historically affected by groundwater elevation fluctuations. Because the deepest groundwater level minimum threshold is 205 feet depth-to-water (well 02N08E15M002), additional declines in groundwater levels are not anticipated to affect dewatered materials at a depth deeper than 205 feet. Geologic materials at this depth are consistent with historical dewatering (see Section 2.1.7 for the five geologic cross sections of the Subbasin), which resulted in no known subsidence. As a result, projected elevation declines are not expected to result in subsidence, and groundwater level minimum thresholds are protective.

3.2.5.3 Measurable Objectives and Interim Milestones
As chronic lowering of groundwater levels is used as a proxy for land subsidence, the measurable objectives and interim milestones for the land subsidence sustainability indicator are the same measurable objectives and interim milestones as the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability indicator found in Section 3.2.1.3.

3.2.6 Depletions of Interconnected Surface Water
Depletions of interconnected surface water are a reduction in flow or levels of surface water caused by groundwater extraction. This reduction in surface water flow or levels, at certain magnitudes or timing, may have adverse impacts on beneficial uses of surface water and may lead to undesirable results. Quantification of depletions is relatively challenging and requires significant data on both groundwater levels near streams and stage information supported by groundwater modeling.

3.2.6.1 Undesirable Results

3.2.6.1.1 Description of Undesirable Results
The undesirable result related to depletions of interconnected surface water is defined in SGMA as:

Depletions of interconnected surface water that have significant and unreasonable adverse impacts on beneficial uses of the surface water.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-21
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019
Major rivers and streams that potentially have a hydraulic connection to the groundwater system in certain reaches are the Calaveras River, Dry Creek, the Mokelumne River, the San Joaquin River, and the Stanislaus River. Many of the smaller creeks and streams are substantially used for the conveyance of irrigation water and these systems have not been considered in the analysis of depletions.

3.2.6.1.2 Identification of Undesirable Results
The undesirable result for depletions of interconnected surface water in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin is depletions that result in reductions in flow or levels of major rivers and streams that are hydrologically connected to the basin such that the reduced surface water flow or levels have a significant and unreasonable adverse impact on beneficial uses and users of the surface water within the Subbasin over the planning and implementation horizon of this GSP.

Beneficial uses and users were identified previously in Section 1.3.1.

3.2.6.1.3 Potential Causes of Undesirable Results
Potential causes of undesirable results would include increased regional groundwater extractions, reduced recharge due to drought, reduced availability of surface water supplies, and increased groundwater extraction along interconnected stream reaches.

3.2.6.1.4 Potential Effects of Undesirable Results
If depletions of interconnected surface water were to reach levels causing undesirable results, effects could include reduced flow and stage within rivers and streams in the Subbasin to the extent that insufficient surface water would be available to support diversions for agricultural or urban uses or to support regulatory environmental requirements. This could result in increased groundwater production, changes in irrigation practices and crops grown, and could cause adverse effects to property values and the regional economy. Reduced flows and stage, along with potential associated changes in water temperature, could also negatively impact aquatic species in the rivers and streams. Such impacts are tied to the inability to meet minimum flow requirements, which are defined for the Mokelumne, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin Rivers, which, in turn, are managed through operations at Camanche Reservoir, Woodbridge Dam, New Melones Reservoir, and other reservoirs.

3.2.6.2 Minimum Thresholds
This GSP uses groundwater level minimum thresholds as a proxy for the depletions of interconnected surface water sustainability indicator. As such, the minimum thresholds for the interconnected surface water sustainability indicator are the same as the minimum thresholds for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability indicator.

To use the minimum thresholds for chronic lowering of groundwater levels as a proxy for interconnected surface water, the stream depletions which would occur when undesirable results for groundwater levels are reached must not be significant and unreasonable.

In discussions of interconnected surface water, the ESJGWA Board, Advisory Committee, Workgroup members, and GSA staff did not indicate any current or historical significant and unreasonable depletions. Based on this input, this ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 3-22
Sustainable Management Criteria November 2019
Plan assumes that historical conditions are protective of beneficial uses related to interconnected surface water.

Therefore, the historical depletions simulated by ESJWRM’s historical calibration (documentation in Appendix 3-A) are assumed to have no associated undesirable results. However, if groundwater levels were to fall lower than historical levels, there is an associated level of additional depletions that would occur, quantified below.

The ESJWRM was used to estimate the volume of additional depletions associated with groundwater levels that would be classified as undesirable results (non-dry year pairings where 25 percent or more wells fall below their minimum thresholds). The sustainable conditions scenario (see Section 2.3.6) does not result in groundwater level undesirable results, but the projected conditions scenario (see Section 2.3.4.3) does result in groundwater level undesirable results.

The additional stream losses that occurred in the projected conditions scenario compared to the historical calibration are estimates of additional depletions as they can be linked directly to simulated increases in groundwater pumping.

The additional depletions in the projected conditions scenario are 50,000 acre-feet per year (AF/year), which is approximately 1 percent of total stream outflows from the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. As the reduction in total stream flows is small, no impact is expected to the beneficial users of interconnected surface water in the Subbasin.

Depletions greater than an increase of 50,000 AF/year would not occur because at this point the sustainability indicators for groundwater levels would be triggered and would be protective of any further depletions. Therefore, groundwater level thresholds are protective of the depletions of interconnected surface water.

3.2.6.3 Measurable Objectives and Interim Milestones
As chronic lowering of groundwater levels is used as a proxy for depletions of interconnected surface water, the measurable objectives and interim milestones for the depletions of interconnected surface water sustainability indicator are the same as the measurable objectives and interim milestones for the chronic lowering of groundwater levels sustainability indicator.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-1
Monitoring Networks November 2019

4. MONITORING NETWORKS
Monitoring networks in the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin are dedicated to monitoring short-term, seasonal, and long-term trends in sustainability indicators. There are four networks: a broad network for water levels, a representative network for water levels, a broad network for water quality, and a representative network for water quality. These monitoring networks are tools for the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA) and will allow the ESJGWA to compile data on key sustainability indicators and monitor groundwater trends on a variety of temporal and spatial scales. The objective of these monitoring networks is to detect undesirable results in the Subbasin as described in Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria of this Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP). The data and trends will allow the ESJGWA to detect changes in Subbasin conditions, meet sustainability goal, avoid minimum thresholds, and evaluate the effectiveness of projects and management actions implemented. Ultimately, the monitoring network and associated data will guide decisions to prevent undesirable results occurring within the GSP implementation timeframe. Other objectives of the monitoring networks, as defined by the Department of Water Resources (DWR), include:
• Demonstrate progress toward achieving measurable objectives described in the Plan • Monitor impacts to the beneficial uses or users of groundwater • Monitor changes in groundwater conditions relative to measurable objectives and minimum thresholds • Quantify annual changes in water budget components
The monitoring networks are intended to monitor for chronic lowering of groundwater levels, degraded water quality, and seawater intrusion. As discussed in Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria, the following sustainability indicators will be evaluated using groundwater levels as a proxy: reduction in groundwater storage, land subsidence, and depletions of interconnected surface water.

The schedule and costs associated with monitoring and implementation will be discussed in Chapter 7: Plan Implementation of the GSP.

4.1 MONITORING NETWORK FOR CHRONIC LOWERING OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS This section provides information on how the groundwater level monitoring networks were developed, criteria for selecting dedicated monitoring wells, monitoring frequency, spatial density, and summary protocols. The two networks that collect data for groundwater levels include:
• Representative Monitoring Network – These wells will be used to monitor sustainability in the Subbasin.

These wells are used to determine compliance with minimum thresholds and measurable objectives for the groundwater level sustainability indicator.
• Broad Monitoring Network – Additional wells are included as part of the broad monitoring network to collect additional information and to maintain a robust network for evaluation. Wells part of the broad monitoring network are not used to determine compliance with minimum thresholds or measurable objectives.

4.1.1 Representative Monitoring Network for Groundwater Levels Representative monitoring wells represent overall conditions in the production zone in the Subbasin and are reflective of regional groundwater conditions in the vicinity. Table 4-1 identifies and summarizes the 20 representative monitoring wells for groundwater levels. Well locations were shown previously in Figure 3-2 in Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-2
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Table 4-1: Representative Monitoring Wells for Groundwater Levels Local Well ID CASGEM Site Code Monitoring
Agency
Well
Depth (ft.)
Screen
Interval in ft.
bgs
(ft. MSL)
Measurement
Period (years)
Measurement
Count
Swenson-3 380067N1213458W003 San Joaquin
County (SJC)
204 194–204
(-190 to -200)
2014–2018 10
01S09E05H002 378824N1210000W001 SJC 256 148–256
(-41 to -149)
1991–2018 47
Burnett (OID4) 377909N1208675W001 Stanislaus
County
501 168–249
(21 to -60)
2005–2019 26
02N07E03D001 380578N1212017W001 SJC 484 130–484
(-74 to -428)
1990–2018 49
04N07E20H003M 381843N1212261W001 SJC 180 164–180
(-87to -103)
1972–2019 103
02S07E31N001 377136N1212508W001 SJC Unknown Unknown 1991–2018 45 02S08E08A001 377810N1211142W001 SJC 180 50–180
(22 to -108)
1991–2018 47
01N07E14J002 379316N1211665W001 SJC 556 168–556
(-116 to -504)
1991–2018 47
01N09E05J001 379661N1210011W001 SJC 750 100–750
(56 to -594)
2011–2018 12
02N07E29B001 379976N1212308W001 SJC 202 130–202
(-88 to -160)
1989–2018 41
02N08E15M002 380206N1210943W001 SJC Unknown Unknown 2011–2013 5 03N07E21L003 380909N1212153W001 SJC Unknown Unknown 1991–2013 39 03N06E05N003 381317N1213524W001 SJC 292 252–292
(-225 to -265)
1991–2018 44
04N05E36H003 381559N1213727W001 SJC 112 50–112
(-27 to -89)
1971–2018 88
04N05E24J004 381816N1213723W001 SJC 190 150–190
(-128 to -168)
1991–2018 47
#3 Bear Creek Not Part of CASGEM
Program
Lockeford
Community
Services
District (LCSD)
780 0–780
(96 to -684)
2011–2018 23
Lodi City Well #2 Not Part of CASGEM
Program
City of Lodi 315 109–310
(-57 to -258)
1927–2015 89
Hirschfeld (OID8) Not Part of CASGEM
Program
Stanislaus
County
408 88–179
(44 to -47)
2005–2016 23
Well 18 Not Part of CASGEM
Program
City of Manteca 350 109–349
(-65 to -305)
1997–2018 65
01S10E26J001M 378163N1208321W001 California
Statewide
Groundwater
Elevation
Monitoring
(CASGEM)
Unknown Unknown 1950–2019 104
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-3
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Representative groundwater level sites were selected by several different criteria. These include:

1. Adequate Spatial Distribution – Representative monitoring does not require the use of all wells that are spatially “clumped” together within a portion of the Subbasin. Adequately spaced wells will provide sufficient coverage with fewer monitoring sites.

2. Robust and Extensive Historical Data – Representative monitoring sites with a longer period of record and a greater number of historical measurements will provide insight into long-term trends that can provide information about groundwater conditions through varying climatic periods such as droughts and wet periods.

Historical data may also show changes in groundwater conditions through anthropogenic effects as well. While some sites chosen may not have extensive historical data, they may still be selected because there are no wells nearby with longer records.

3. Increased Density in Heavily Pumped Areas – Selection of additional wells in heavily pumped areas such as in the central portion of the Subbasin and other agriculturally intensive areas will provide additional data where the most groundwater change may occur.

4. Increased Density near Areas of Geologic or Hydrologic Uncertainty – Having a greater density of representative wells in areas of uncertainty, such as around faults or large elevation gradients, may provide insight into groundwater dynamics to improve management practices and strategies.

5. Wells with Multiple Depths – The utilization of wells with different screen intervals is important to collect data on the groundwater conditions at different elevations within the aquifer. This can be achieved by using wells with different screen depths that are close to one another, or by using multi-completion wells.

6. Consistency with BMPs – Using published Best Management Practices (BMPs) provided by DWR will promote consistency across subbasins and promote compliance with established regulations.

7. Adequate Well Construction Information – Well information such as perforation depths, construction date, and well depth was considered and encouraged when considering wells to be included.

8. Professional Judgement – Professional judgement is used to make the final decision about each well, particularly when more than one suitable well exists in an area of interest.

9. Maximum Coverage – Monitoring network wells were selected to prioritize spatial and vertical density of monitoring.

4.1.2 Broad Monitoring Network for Groundwater Levels
The broad monitoring network includes 107 wells, distinct from the 20 wells in the representative network, which will monitor groundwater levels (see Figure 4-1). These wells are not used to determine compliance with the measurable objectives and minimum thresholds. Wells that are part of the broad monitoring network will collect groundwater level data for informational purposes and will help maintain a robust groundwater level monitoring network. Data from this network will be available through the Data Management System (see Chapter 5: Data Management System) and will be reported in Annual Reports to DWR.

Of the 107 wells in the broad monitoring network, 76 wells included are wells used in CASGEM, a monitoring program that has tracked seasonal long-term groundwater elevation trends in the Subbasin. CASGEM wells were selected to be included in the broad monitoring network for groundwater level monitoring based on the following key qualifications:

1. The wells were previously determined to be representative of Subbasin groundwater level conditions;

2. Agencies have committed to semiannual monitoring of these wells; ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-4
Monitoring Networks November 2019

3. The wells use an existing data source with a historical data record;

4. The wells provide reliable, consistent data taken with standardized existing monitoring protocols; and

5. The wells are in many cases new, having been constructed within the past 10 years when the CASGEM program was enacted.

The broad monitoring network also includes 16 nested and/or clustered well sites (with more than 45 different screen intervals) monitored as part of the CASGEM program and/or by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). These 16 well sites were selected to be included in the broad monitoring network for groundwater levels for the following reasons:

1. The wells use an existing data source and have a historical data record;

2. Many wells are new, having been constructed within the past 10 years when the CASGEM program was enacted;

3. Construction details, including total depth, hole depth, and screen intervals, for these wells are well documented;

4. Wells are screened at multiple depths and can provide depth-specific data; and

5. Nested and/or clustered wells can be used for the analysis of vertical gradients, which will be valuable in characterizing groundwater conditions
The broad monitoring network also includes 15 identified local water quality wells that are included as part of the groundwater water quality monitoring networks (10 in the representative monitoring network and five in the broad monitoring network). These 15 local water quality wells include San Joaquin County’s Flag City wells and wells located near cities of Lodi, Manteca, and Stockton. These wells will be monitored for groundwater levels as part of the broad monitoring network for groundwater levels. See Appendix 4-A for additional information on the wells in the broad monitoring network for groundwater levels.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-5
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Figure 4-1: Broad Monitoring Network for Groundwater Levels ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-6
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Table 4-2 provides the breakdown on type of wells included in the broad monitoring network for groundwater levels.

Table 4-2: Groundwater Level Monitoring Wells in the Broad Monitoring Well Network Well Type Number of Wells Selected for
Broad Monitoring Network
CASGEM 76
Existing Nested and/or Clustered Well Site 16
Local Water Quality Wells 15
Total 107

4.1.3 Monitoring Protocols for Groundwater Level Data Collection and Monitoring Groundwater monitoring protocols are essential to producing quality data measurements and protecting the water quality of monitoring wells. Existing protocol resources include DWR’s Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines (CA DWR, 2010) and USGS’s National Field Manual for the Collection of Water Quality Data (USGS, var.). Protocols are established to improve consistency in data and ensure comparable methodologies.

Typical groundwater level measurement equipment used by agencies includes electric sounders, data loggers, steel tapes, and air gauges. Regardless of the instrumentation used in the field, each groundwater level data measurement must include: well identification number, measurement date, reference point and land surface elevation, depth to water, method of measuring water depth, measurement quality codes, any observations on well conditions (i.e., condition of surface seal, accessibility issues, obstructions within the wells, etc.), and measurement to the base of the well (total well depth).

DWR released a BMP for monitoring protocols, in the Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Monitoring Protocols, Standards, and Sites (CA DWR, 2016a). The monitoring protocols described in DWR’s BMP recommend that groundwater level measurements are taken in a manner to ensure data are:
• Taken from the correct location, well ID, and screen interval depth • Accurate and reproducible
• Representative of conditions that inform appropriate basin management data quality objectives • Recorded with all salient information to correct, if necessary, and compare data • Handled in a way that ensures data integrity.
• Taken using a CASGEM-approved water-level measurement method to ensure consistency across measurements. Methods include:
o Establishing a reference point
o Using one of four approved methods (steel tape, electric sounding tape, sonic water-level meter, or pressure transducer) to measure groundwater levels
Existing wells, monitored under the CASGEM program, already use these procedures in the collection of groundwater level data. The protocols used for CASGEM groundwater level monitoring will be used when possible in data monitoring and collection in support of this GSP.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-7
Monitoring Networks November 2019

4.1.4 Frequency and Timing of Groundwater Level Monitoring Representative monitoring network wells and broad monitoring network wells for groundwater levels will be monitored semi-annually in March and October to capture the seasonal high and low groundwater levels and to avoid interference from pumping wells during irrigation season.

Frequency of groundwater level monitoring is cited in the Draft Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps Best Management Practice (CA DWR, 2016b) which presents guidance on monitoring frequency based on the type of monitoring, aquifer type, confinement, recharge rate, hydraulic conductivity, and withdrawal rate. While semi-annual monitoring is required for groundwater levels, DWR guidance recommends monthly sampling of groundwater levels for the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin based on aquifer type, volume of long-term aquifer withdrawals, and recharge potential. Sampling frequencies were developed based on this guidance in combination with a consideration of sampling costs.

A semi-annual monitoring frequency will generate data that is useful for monitoring for the long term, regional trends in groundwater level conditions. These measurements are also valuable for local groundwater management and for investigating local pumping’s effects on nearby wells. This frequency meets the goal of a successful monitoring schedule which provides enough data to adequately interpret changes in groundwater levels and fluctuations over short- and long-term periods, as these fluctuations could be the result of storm events, droughts, or other climatic variations, seasons, and anthropogenic activities.

4.1.5 Spatial Density of Groundwater Level Monitoring Network The goal of the groundwater level monitoring network is to provide adequate spatial coverage within the Subbasin.

This includes the ability to monitor and identify groundwater changes across the Subbasin through time. The spatial location of monitoring wells in the networks was based on proximity to other monitoring wells and ensuring adequate coverage near other prominent features such as faults or production wells. Monitoring wells in close proximity to active pumping wells could be influenced by groundwater withdrawals, thus skewing static level monitoring.

To achieve a suitable monitoring network density, DWR recommends selecting existing, dedicated groundwater monitoring wells with known construction information over production wells to incorporate into the network. When deciding on the number of groundwater wells to be monitored in a basin to adequately represent static water levels (and corresponding elevations), the following factors should be considered:
• Known hydrogeology of the basin
• Slope of the groundwater table or potentiometric surface • Existence of high-volume production wells and the frequency of their use • Availability of easily accessible monitoring wells
In 2010, DWR released Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines, which discusses the selection and requirements for new wells to be incorporated into groundwater level monitoring networks (CA DWR, 2010). The recommended network density ranges from 0.2 to 10 groundwater monitoring wells per 100 square miles depending on local pumping rates. The Subbasin is approximately 1,195 square miles. Based on the recommendations by DWR, the number of monitoring wells for the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin should range from 2.4 to 119.5 wells per 100 square miles, as summarized in Table 4-3.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-8
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Table 4-3: DWR Monitoring Well Density Recommendations
Reference Monitoring Well Density
(wells per 100 sq. miles)
Recommended No. of
Monitoring Wells in the
Subbasin
Heath (1976) 0.2 – 10 2.4 – 119.5
Sophocleous (1983) 6.3 75.9
Hopkins (1994)
Basins pumping more than 10,000 AF/year per
100 miles 4.0 47.8
Spatial density of the groundwater level monitoring network was calculated for both the representative monitoring network and the broad monitoring network, as summarized in Table 4-4. The density of the representative monitoring network is 1.7 wells per 100 square miles, a total of 20 monitoring wells, which falls into the lower to middle range of DWR’s recommendations. However, in combination with the broad monitoring network, a total of 127 wells are monitored for groundwater levels (approximately 11 wells per 100 square miles), which exceeds DWR’s recommendations.

Table 4-4: Groundwater Level Monitoring Network Density Monitoring Network No. of Wells Well Density
(Wells per 100 sq. miles)
Representative Monitoring
Network 20 1.7
Broad Monitoring Network 107 9.0
Combined Representative
Monitoring Network and Broad
Monitoring Network
127 10.6

4.2 MONITORING NETWORK FOR REDUCTION IN GROUNDWATER STORAGE Groundwater levels will be used as a proxy for the reduction in groundwater storage sustainability indicator as described in Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria. Sustainable management criteria for groundwater storage will be monitored through the groundwater levels monitoring networks, described in Section 4.1. Monitoring data collected by the groundwater level monitoring networks will support future characterization of groundwater in storage.

4.3 MONITORING NETWORKS FOR DEGRADED WATER QUALITY
Groundwater quality monitoring is conducted through both representative and broad groundwater well monitoring networks. This section provides information on how the monitoring networks were developed, criteria for selecting dedicated monitoring wells, monitoring frequency, spatial density, and summary protocols.

The representative monitoring network is used to determine compliance with minimum thresholds and measurable objectives developed for the degraded water quality sustainability indicator. The broad monitoring network includes additional wells to maintain a robust network for evaluation and information collection. Wells that are part of the broad monitoring network are not used to determine compliance with minimum thresholds or measurable objectives.

Monitoring networks monitoring for water quality will test for total dissolved solids (TDS), cations and anions (including chloride and nitrate), arsenic, and field parameters including pH, electrical conductivity (EC), and temperature. Arsenic will be monitored for informational purposes and to track trends in arsenic concentrations. The GSP does not include sustainability goals, measurable objectives, or minimum thresholds for arsenic.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-9
Monitoring Networks November 2019

4.3.1 Representative Monitoring Network for Groundwater Quality Ten representative monitoring wells were selected for monitoring groundwater quality. These wells are currently monitored and managed by City of Manteca, Cal Water, City of Stockton, and San Joaquin County. Table 4-5 identifies and summarizes the agencies with the 10 representative monitoring wells selected for the groundwater quality monitoring network, which was shown previously in Figure 3-3 (Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria).

Table 4-5: Representative Monitoring Network Wells for Water Quality Well ID Monitoring Agency
Well
Depth
(ft. bgs)
Screen
Interval
(ft. bgs)
Current
Condition
Average TDS
(2015 – 2018)
(mg/L)
Monitoring
Period
(years)
Monitoring
Count
Well 1 San Joaquin County
(Flag City) 170 120 – 170 500 2008 - 2018 8
Well 2 San Joaquin County
(Flag City) 180 130 – 180 510 2008 – 2016 7
Well 3 San Joaquin County
(Flag City) Unknown Unknown 510 2013 - 2016 3
Stockton 10R City of Stockton Unknown 177 – 277 322 1998 - 2018 6 Stockton 28 City of Stockton Unknown 178 – 278 350 1998 - 2018 6 Stockton
SSS8 City of Stockton Unknown 177 - 277 370 1998 - 2018 4 Well 15 City of Manteca Unknown 81 – 181 300 1998 - 2018 7 Well 16 City of Manteca Unknown 80 – 180 - 1998 - 2018 6 Well 17 City of Manteca Unknown 97 - 197 - 1998 - 2018 6 119-075-01 Cal Water 580 176 – 276 300 1979 - 2018 15
Representative monitoring wells were selected based on their ability to represent conditions in the Subbasin and indicate long-term, regional changes in groundwater quality conditions. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in areas affected by high TDS levels identified wells to be used as representative monitoring wells that met the following criteria:

1. Adequate Spatial Distribution – High TDS concentrations historically have occurred in the western portion of the Subbasin, near the San Joaquin River and urban areas; as such, the majority of representative monitoring wells are located in the western half of the Subbasin. Monitoring wells are located both within areas of high TDS concentrations, to observe and monitor TDS trends, and adjacent to high TDS areas, to observe potential TDS movement.

2. Extensive Historical Data – Wells with longer records of TDS monitoring were preferentially selected over wells with short or sporadic records. Monitoring wells with historical TDS records provide insight on long-term trends and the groundwater condition responses to varying climatic periods such as droughts and wet periods and/or anthropogenic effects.

3. A Range of TDS Concentrations – Wells with historically low TDS concentrations near areas with high salinity were looked at to alert a change in groundwater quality conditions and a possible migration of salinity.

4. Known Well Construction Information – Wells with known construction data, including total depth, screen intervals, and construction date, were preferred. Knowledge of the depth at which water quality measurements are taken would better describe the representative conditions of specific portions of the aquifer.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-10
Monitoring Networks November 2019

5. Current TDS Monitoring Program – Wells currently monitored for TDS were preferred over wells not currently monitored for water quality constituents. These wells are already equipped for monitoring and have existing protocols to ensure accurate and consistent measurements, and they represent a current asset for the Subbasin that can be further utilized.

6. Consistency with BMPs – DWR’s published BMPs were used as guidance documents to ensure consistency across all basins and ensure compliance with established regulations.

7. Professional Judgement – Professional judgement was used to make the final decision about each well, particularly when more than one suitable well exists in an area of interest.

4.3.2 Broad Monitoring Network for Groundwater Quality
In addition to the representative monitoring network wells, 21 additional wells will monitor groundwater quality as part of the broad monitoring network (see Figure 4-2). The purpose of including these wells in the broad monitoring network is to better monitor for potential spread of salinity and to maintain a robust network for evaluation as part of 5-year GSP updates. These wells are not used to determine compliance with the measurable objectives or minimum thresholds.

These 21 wells overlap with the broad monitoring network for groundwater levels. Data from this network will be available through the Data Management System (see Chapter 5: Data Management System) and will be reported in Annual Reports to DWR.

The broad monitoring network for water quality includes 5 identified local water quality wells and 16 nested and/or clustered well sites that are also monitored for groundwater levels in the broad monitoring network for groundwater levels (Section 4.1.2). Table 4-6 identifies the wells included in the broad monitoring network for water quality.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-11
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Figure 4-2: Broad Monitoring Network for Groundwater Quality ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-12
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Table 4-6: Wells in the Broad Monitoring Network for Groundwater Quality Identified Local Water Quality Monitoring Wells Nested and/or Clustered Wells Well ID Monitoring
Entity Well Depth (ft.) Well ID Monitoring Entity
Screen Interval
(ft.)
119-059-01 Cal Water 520 Lodi MW - 21 City of Lodi
(66–76)
(92–102)
(118–128)
119-069-01 Cal Water 530 Lodi MW – 24 City of Lodi
(95.5–105.5)
(60–70)
(114–124)
Lodi Well #5 City of Lodi 230 Lodi MW – 25 City of Lodi (86–96) (148–158)
Lodi Well #7 City of Lodi 422 Lodi SMW – 1 City of Lodi (105–115) (200–210)
Lodi Well #11R City of Lodi 465 Lodi WMW – 1 City of Lodi (195–205)
(140–150)
(232–242)
Lodi WMW – 2 City of Lodi
(179–189)
(204–214)
(231–241)
(283–293)
CCWD 04-06 CCWD Unknown
CCWD 010-012 CCWD Unknown
Sperry Well SJCFCWCD
(114–124)
(262–282)
(440–460)
STK – 1 SJCFCWCD
(58–68)
(220–240)
(360–380)
(520–540)
(860–880)
STK – 2 SJCFCWCD
(200–220)
(280–300)
(520–540)
(615–635)
STK – 4 SJCFCWCD
(200–220)
(340–360)
(540–560)
STK – 5 SJCFCWCD
(210–230)
(410–430)
(560–580)
STK – 6 SJCFCWCD
(240–260)
(450–470)
(540–560)
STK – 7 SJCFCWCD
(145–165)
(270–295)
(415–435)
(545–565)
Swenson Golf
Course SJCFCWCD
(482–502)
(294–314)
(194–204)
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-13
Monitoring Networks November 2019

4.3.3 Monitoring Protocols for Groundwater Quality Data Collection and Monitoring Groundwater quality data sampling protocols are based on DWR’s Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Monitoring Protocols, Standards, and Sites (CA DWR, 2016a), which cites the USGS’s 1995 publication Ground-Water Data-Collection Protocols and Procedures for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: Collection and Documentation of Water-Quality Samples and Related Data (USGS, 1995). The BMP recommends groundwater quality monitoring protocols and also recommends using the USGS National Field Manual for the Collection of Water Quality Data (USGS, var.) for additional protocols. These publications include protocols for equipment selection, setup, use, field evaluation, sample collection techniques, sample handling, and sample testing.

Groundwater quality sampling protocols recommended in the BMP include ensuring that:
• Groundwater quality data are taken from the correct location • Groundwater quality data are accurate and reproducible • Data represents conditions that inform appropriate basin management and are consistent with the data quality objectives
• Data are handled in a way that ensures data integrity • All salient information is recorded to normalize, if necessary, and compare data As a quality assurance measure, an operating standard will be developed to ensure data integrity. See Chapter 7: Plan Implementation for additional information on monitoring plan implementation.

4.3.4 Frequency and Timing of Groundwater Quality Monitoring Groundwater quality measurements will be collected semi-annually for both the representative monitoring network wells and the broad monitoring network wells.

Although DWR does not provide specific recommendations on the frequency of monitoring for TDS, concentrations of groundwater quality, especially salinity, do not typically fluctuate significantly throughout a year to require multiple samples per year. No existing monitoring wells were found to be monitored continuously for groundwater quality (such monitoring is typically performed only for EC and temperature), nor were there agencies that reported ongoing, nonregulatory, regularly scheduled groundwater quality monitoring programs.

Table 4-7 identifies the historical frequency of groundwater quality monitoring conducted for local water quality wells by each monitoring agency. Ten of these wells are the water quality representative network wells, and the remaining five are part of the water quality broad network (two monitored by Cal Water and three monitored by the City of Lodi).

Table 4-7: Historical Groundwater Quality Monitoring Frequency at Identified Local Water Quality Wells
Agency Data Record Historical Monitoring
Frequency (Approx.)
Cal Water 1979 - 2018 Approx. every 3 years
City of Lodi 2008 - 2018 Approx. every 3 years
City of Manteca 1975 - 2017 Monthly
City of Stockton 1989 - 2016 Quarterly
San Joaquin County – Flag City 2009 - 2017 Annually
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-14
Monitoring Networks November 2019

4.3.5 Spatial Density of Groundwater Quality Monitoring Wells DWR’s Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps BMP states “The spatial distribution must be adequate to map or supplement mapping of known contaminants” (CA DWR, 2016b). The goal of the groundwater quality monitoring network is to adequately cover the Subbasin to accurately characterize salinity concentrations and trends.

This includes both spatial coverage and temporal coverage in order to identify changes in groundwater quality over time.

DWR’s Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps BMP identifies different sources and calculations for establishing monitoring network densities on a Subbasin-specific case (CA DWR, 2016b). These density calculations and guidance are summarized in Table 4-3. The spatial density of the groundwater quality monitoring network was calculated for both the representative monitoring network and the broad monitoring network, as summarized in Table 4-8. The representative monitoring network consists of a total of 10 monitoring wells, a density of 0.8 wells per 100 square miles. The density of the broad monitoring network, a total of 21 monitoring wells, is 1.2 wells per 100 square miles.

Table 4-8: Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network Density Monitoring Network No. of Wells Well Density (Wells per 100 sq. miles)
Representative Monitoring Network 10 0.8
Broad Monitoring Network 21 1.2
Combined Representative Monitoring Network
and Broad Monitoring Network 31 2.6

4.4 MONITORING NETWORK FOR SEAWATER INTRUSION
The seawater intrusion monitoring network uses the same monitoring wells and monitoring strategies as the groundwater quality representative monitoring network. Chloride concentrations will be monitored at the degraded water quality representative monitoring networks wells to develop a chloride isocontour line (see Section 3.2.4.2 in Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria).

4.5 MONITORING NETWORK FOR LAND SUBSIDENCE
Groundwater levels will be used as a proxy for the land subsidence sustainability indicator as described in Chapter 3:

Sustainable Management Criteria. Sustainable management criteria for land subsidence will be monitored through the groundwater levels monitoring network, described in Section 4.1. The ESJGWA will continue to review Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (InSAR) subsidence monitoring data made available by DWR, as well as other data sources as available.

4.6 MONITORING NETWORK FOR DEPLETIONS OF INTERCONNECTED SURFACE WATERS Groundwater levels will be used as a proxy for the depletions of interconnected surface water sustainability indicator as described in Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria. As such, sustainable management criteria for interconnected surface water will be monitored through the groundwater levels monitoring network, described in Section 4.1. Available stream gage data (stream flows and levels) will also be reviewed for potential impacts to the beneficial uses and users of the surface water within the Subbasin.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-15
Monitoring Networks November 2019

4.7 DATA GAPS

4.7.1 Groundwater Level Data Gaps
Groundwater level monitoring data gaps exist in areas where data are limited. Specifically, areas of high data needs include monitoring near streams, Subbasin boundaries, and the groundwater depression in the central part of the Subbasin. Additionally, areas without multiple-completion wells present a limitation for depth-specific information collection. Additional sampling taken within these identified areas will provide more information about groundwater levels and trends in the indicated locations.

4.7.2 Groundwater Quality Data Gaps
Groundwater quality monitoring data gaps have four components:

1. Spatial distribution: Monitoring wells are mainly focused in the western portion of the Subbasin, as this area has historically had the highest concentrations of TDS. Additional sampling will provide more information about salinity both to provide more detailed understanding within areas with current monitoring coverage and to expand monitoring to areas without current salinity issues.

2. Well construction data: As described in Section 2.2.4, many wells with salinity measurements lack well depth and construction information. Both deeper and shallower groundwater quality monitoring wells are needed to better understand the spatial and depth distribution of salinity concentrations in the Subbasin.

3. Monitoring frequency: Temporally, groundwater quality monitoring occurs at different frequencies across the Subbasin, dependent on the monitoring agency responsible (summarized in Table 4-7). The groundwater quality monitoring network under the GSP will utilize a standardized, semi-annual monitoring schedule to facilitate the regular sampling of wells.

4. Monitoring for additional constituents: Groundwater quality concerns in the Subbasin are currently focused on salinity. Additional groundwater quality components such as arsenic and cations and anions, including nitrate, are monitored under existing water resources monitoring and management programs. Informational monitoring of these constituents may preempt future groundwater quality issues in the Subbasin.

4.7.3 Interconnected Surface Water System Data Gaps
The ESJGWA recognizes the depletions of interconnected surface water as a data gap area. The ESJGWA has identified a need for future study and refinement of interconnected surface water and will continue coordination efforts to better inform Subbasin conditions. As discussed in Section 7.4.1, future model calibration will be improved by more information on interconnected surface water, including the incorporation of shallow groundwater levels near streams from the proposed wells in Section 4.7.5 and the study of Mokelumne River losses in Section 6.2.7.

4.7.4 Groundwater-Dependent Ecosystem Data Gaps
The Natural Communities Commonly Associated with Groundwater (NCCAG) areas not identified as GroundwaterDependent Ecosystems (GDEs) through the GDE analysis are data gap areas requiring further evaluation and refinement to determine whether they require classification as a GDE. These areas include NCCAGs that either access co-occurring surface water, were identified as located in an area with groundwater levels deeper than 30 feet bgs, or were located adjacent to irrigated agriculture. The purpose of this data gap is to identify potential existing GDEs that may have been incorrectly not identified as GDEs through the GDE screening process discussed in Section 2.2.7. The ESJGWA will evaluate whether to use GDE Pulse Tool and other tools to monitor GDE areas. Potential impacts to fish and wildlife species associated with GDEs that occur as a result of groundwater pumping under and are not captured under the depletions of interconnected surface water sustainability indicator is also considered a data gap area.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-16
Monitoring Networks November 2019

4.7.5 Plan to Fill Data Gaps
Data gaps will be largely filled by leveraging existing wells, constructing new wells, additional water quality monitoring, modeling, and studies of interconnected surface water and GDEs, which are discussed in Chapter 7: Plan Implementation. These efforts will be supported through a combination of funding and financing sources, including through DWR Technical Support Services (TSS) funding, future grant funding, and GSA funding. A description of data collection and analysis efforts to fill data gaps, and information on how these efforts will be funded, is provided in Chapter 7: Plan Implementation.

There are up to 12 proposed new monitoring well sites (shown in Figure 4-3 in orange); these wells will be measured for groundwater levels and groundwater quality. The locations of the proposed monitoring wells are subject to change based on the needs of the Subbasin and well siting feasibility.

Two of these wells will be deep, multi-completion wells, built using support awarded to the Subbasin by DWR’s TSS program. The TSS program provides technical support to GSAs during GSP development. The two new wells drilled using DWR’s TSS program will improve the density and sampling frequency for both groundwater quality and groundwater level monitoring within data gap areas. Additional multi-completion groundwater level information will assist with better understanding of groundwater-surface water interaction and GDEs. One of the TSS wells is located approximately in the middle of the northern Subbasin boundary (near Dry Creek) and the other well is located along Calaveras River near Highway 88 in the approximate middle of the Subbasin.

The remaining wells will be new shallow groundwater level and quality monitoring wells located near streams, Subbasin boundaries, and the groundwater depression area in the center of the Subbasin. Up to 10 of these wells are funded through the DWR Proposition 1 Sustainable Groundwater Planning Grant. The proposed locations of these wells were selected to be co-located with identified and potential GDE areas and near streams to further understanding of groundwater-surface water connectivity and to refine GDE data gaps. Additionally, groundwater level data collected from these wells will improve the understanding of groundwater flows between subbasins and groundwater quality data will assist in tracking quality in different areas of the Subbasin. Two recommended monitoring locations are adjacent to Dry Creek and are intended to provide data relevant to potential surface water depletions and subsurface flows across the Subbasin boundary to the Cosumnes Subbasin to the north. Relevant data from these and other wells will be shared with GSAs in neighboring subbasins, and parallel efforts will be coordinated.

The USGS National Field Manual for the Collection of Water Quality Data (USGS, var.) will be used as a guide for selection of wells, well locations, and collection of reliable data, as recommended by DWR’s Monitoring Protocols, Standards, and Sites BMP (CA DWR, 2016a). Requirements are summarized in Table 4-9. The DWR’s California Well Standards, Bulletin 74-81 and 74-90 will be used as references for guidance for construction of new monitoring well installation, per DWR’s Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Monitoring Protocols, Standards, and Sites (CA DWR, 2016a). Additionally, procedures will follow applicable San Joaquin County, Calaveras County, or Stanislaus County well standards, including proper permitting and inspection from the applicable county for each well.

Aside from new groundwater monitoring wells, data gaps will also be addressed through additional analysis of interconnected surface water, including additional modeling and refinement of GDEs. Additional activities related to filling data gaps are discussed in Chapter 6: Projects and Management Actions and Chapter 7: Plan Implementation.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-17
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Figure 4-3: Proposed New Monitoring Well Locations (Shown in Orange) ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 4-18
Monitoring Networks November 2019
Table 4-9: Considerations for Well Selection and Well Installation Well Location
• Location conforms to the study’s network design for areal and depth distribution. • Land-use/land-cover characteristics, if relevant, are consistent with study objectives. • Site is accessible for equipment needed for well installation and sample collection.

Hydrogeologic Unit(s)
• Hydrogeologic unit(s) that contribute water to the well can be identified. • Depth and thickness of targeted hydrogeologic unit(s) are known or can be determined. • Yield of water is adequate for sampling (typically, a minimum of 1 gallon (3.785 liters) per minute).

Well Records, Description, Design, Materials, and Structure • Available records (for example, logs of well drilling, completion, and development) have sufficient information to meet the criteria established by the study.
• Borehole or casing/screen diameter is adequate for equipment. • Depth to top and bottom of sample-collection (open or screened) interval is known (to determine area contributing water to well).
• Length of well screen is proportional to the vertical and areal scale of investigation. • Well has only one screened or open interval in one aquifer, if possible. (Packers can be used to isolate the interval of interest, but packers might not completely isolate zones in unconsolidated or highly fractured aquifers.

If packers are used, materials of construction must be compatible with analytes to be studied.) • Top of well screen is several feet below mean annual low-water table to reduce chances of well going dry and to avoid sampling from unsaturated intervals.
• Filter pack is of a reasonable length (a long interval compared with length of screened or open interval usually results in uncertainty as to location of the source of water to well). • Well-construction materials do not leach or sorb substances that could alter ambient target-analyte concentrations.
• Well-structure integrity and communication with the aquifer are sound. (Checks include annual depth-to-bottom measurements, borehole caliper and downhole-camera video logs, and aquifer tests.) Pump Type, Materials, Performance, and Location of Sampler Intake • Supply wells have water-lubricated turbine pumps rather than oil-lubricated turbine pumps. (Avoid suction-lift, jet, or gas-contact pumps, especially for analytes affected by pressure changes, exposure to oxygen, or that partition to a gas phase.)
• Pump and riser-pipe materials do not affect target-analyte concentrations. • Effects of pumping rate on measurements and analyses have been or will be evaluated. • Samples intake is ahead of where water enters treatment systems, pressure tanks, or holding tanks.

Source: National Field Manual for the Collection of Water-Quality Data (USGS, var.) ATTACHMENT 2
Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-1
Data Management System July 2019

5. DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
This chapter includes the Data Management System Section that satisfies § 352.6 of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Regulations. This section contains three main subsections:
• Overview of the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Data Management System • Functionality of the Data Management System
• Data Included in the Data Management System

5.1 OVERVIEW OF THE EASTERN SAN JOAQUIN SUBBASIN DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Data
Management System (DMS) is implemented using
the Opti platform. The DMS serves as a data
sharing portal to enable utilization of the same data
and tools for visualization and analysis to support
sustainable groundwater management and
transparent reporting of data and results.

The DMS is web-based and publicly accessible
using common web browsers including Google
Chrome, Firefox, and Microsoft Edge. It is a
flexible and open software platform that utilizes
familiar Google maps and charting tools for
analysis and visualization. The site may be
accessed here: https://opti.woodardcurran.com/esj

5.2 FUNCTIONALITY OF THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
The DMS is a modular system that includes numerous tools to support Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) development and ongoing implementation, including:
• User and Data Access Permissions
• Data Entry and Validation
• Visualization and Analysis
• Query and Reporting
The DMS can be configured for additional tools and functionality as the needs of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA) change over time. The following sections briefly describe the currently configured tools. For more detailed instructions on the usage of the DMS, please refer to the Opti Public User Guide (the Opti Public User Guide can be accessed online at https://opti.woodardcurran.com/esj/upload/OptiPublicDMS_Guide.pdf.

Figure 5-1: Opti DMS Screenshot
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-2
Data Management System November 2019

5.2.1 User and Data Access Permissions
User access permissions are controlled through several user types that have different roles in the DMS as summarized in Table 5-1 below. These user types are broken into three high-level categories:
• System Administrator users manage information at a system-wide level, with access to all user accounts and entity information. System Administrators can set and modify user access permissions when an entity is unable to do so.
• Managing Entity (Administrator, Power User, User) users are responsible for managing their entity’s site/monitoring data and can independently control access to this data. Entity users can view and edit their entity’s data and view (not edit) shared or published data of other entities. An entity’s site information (wells, gages, etc.) and associated data may only be edited by Administrators and Power Users associated with the entity.
• Public users may view data that are published but may not edit any information. These users may access the DMS using the Guest Login feature on the login screen.

Monitoring sites and their associated datasets are added to the DMS by Managing Entity Administrators or Power Users. In addition to the user permissions, access to the monitoring datasets is controlled through three options:
• Private data are monitoring data that are only available for viewing, depending on user type, by the entity’s associated users in the DMS.
• Shared data are monitoring data that are available for viewing by all users in the DMS (excludes Public Users).
• Public data are monitoring data that are available publicly and can be viewed by all user types in the DMS and may be published to other sites or DMSs as needed.

The Managing Entity Administrators have the ability to set and maintain the data access options for each dataset associated with their entity.

Table 5-1: Data Management System User Types
Modules/Submodules System
Administrators
Entity Public
Admin Power User User
Data: Map ● ● ● ● ○
Data: List ● ● ● ● ○
Data: Add/Edit ● ● ●
Data: Import ● ● ●
Query ● ● ● ● ○
Admin ●
Profile ● ● ○ ○ ○
● Indicates access to all functionality, ○ Indicates access to partial functionality (see explanations in following sections) ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-3
Data Management System November 2019

5.2.2 Data Entry and Validation
To encourage agency and user participation in the DMS, data entry and import tools are easy to use, accessible over the web, and help maintain data consistency and standardization. The DMS allows Entity Administrators and Power Users to enter data either manually via easy-to-use interfaces, or through an import tool utilizing Excel templates, ensuring data may be entered into the DMS as soon as possible after collection. The data are validated by Managing Entity’s Administrators or Power Users using a number of quality control checks prior to inclusion in the DMS.

5.2.2.1 Data Collection Sites
Site information is input for groundwater wells, stream gages, and precipitation meters manually either through the Data Entry tool or when prompted in the Import tool. In the Data Entry tool, new sites may be added by clicking on New Site. Existing sites may be updated using the Edit Site tool. During data import, the sites associated with imported data are checked by the system against the existing site list in the DMS. If the site is not in the existing site list, the user is prompted to enter the information via the New Site tool before the data import can proceed.

The information that is collected for sites is shown in Table 5-2. Required fields are indicated with an asterisk.

Table 5-2: Data Collection Site Information
Basic Info Well Info Construction Info
Site Type*
Local Site Name*
Local Site ID
Latitude/Longitude*
Description
County
Managing Entity*
Monitoring Entity*
Type of Monitoring
Type of Measurement
Monitoring Frequency
State Well ID

CASGEM ID
Ground Surface Elevation
Reference Point
Reference Point Elevation
Reference Point Location
Reference Point Description
Well Use
Well Status
Well Type
Aquifers Monitored
Groundwater Subbasin Name/Code
Comments
Upload File
Total Well Depth
Borehole Depth
Casing Perforations
Casing Diameter
Casing Modifications
Well Capacity
Well Completion Report Number
Comments
* Required fields; all other fields are optional
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-4
Data Management System November 2019

5.2.2.2 Monitoring Data Entry
Monitoring data, including but not limited to
groundwater elevation, groundwater quality,
streamflow, and precipitation, may be input
either manually through the Data Entry tool or
using templates in the Import tool. The Data
Entry tool allows users to select a site and add
data for the site using a web-based tool (see
Figure 5-2). The following information is
collected:
• Data Type (e.g., groundwater
elevation, groundwater quality,
streamflow, or precipitation)
• Parameter for selected Data Type, units populate based on selection • Date of Measurement
• Measurement Value
• Quality Flag (e.g., quality assurance description for the measurement such as “Pumping”, “Can’t get tape in casing”, etc., as documented by the Data Collector)
• Data Collector
• Supplemental Information based on Data Type (e.g., Reference Point Elevation, Ground Surface Elevation, etc.)
Data import templates include the same data entry fields and are available for download from the DMS. The Excelbased templates contain drop-down options and field validation similar to the data entry interface.

5.2.2.3 Data Validation
Quality control helps ensure the integrity of the data added to the DMS. The entities that maintain the monitoring data that were loaded into the DMS may have performed previous validation of that data; no effort was made to check or correct that previous validation and it was assumed that all data provided was valid. While it is nearly impossible to determine complete accuracy of the data added to the DMS since the DMS cannot detect incorrect measurements due to human error or mechanical failure, it is possible to verify that the data input into the DMS meets some data quality standards. This helps promote user confidence in the data stored and published for visualization and analysis.

Upon saving the data in the data entry interface or importing the data using the Excel templates, the following data validation checks are performed by the DMS:
• Duplicate measurements: The database checks for duplicate entries based on the unique combination of site, data type, date, and measurement value.
• Inaccurate measurements: The database compares data measurements against historical data for the site and flags entries that are outside the historical minimum and maximum values. • Incorrect data entry: Data field entries are checked for correct data type (e.g., number fields do not include text, date fields contain dates, etc.)
Figure 5-2: DMS Data Entry Tool
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-5
Data Management System November 2019
Users are alerted to any validation issues and may either update the data entries or accept the values and continue with the entry/import. Users may access partially completed import validation through the import logs that are saved for each data import. The partially imported data are identified in the Import Log with an incomplete icon under the Status field. This allows a second person to also access the imported data and review prior to inclusion in the DMS.

5.2.3 Visualization and Analysis
Transparent visualization and analysis tools enable utilization of the same data and methodologies, allowing stakeholders and neighboring Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) to use the same data and methods for tracking and analysis. In the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin DMS, data visualization and analysis are performed in both Map and List views.

5.2.3.1 Map View
The Map view displays all sites
(groundwater wells, stream gages,
precipitation meters, etc.) in a mapbased interface (see Figure 5-3). The sites are color coded based on
associated data type and may be filtered
by different criteria such as number of
records or monitoring entity. Users may
click on a site to view the site detail
information and associated data. The
monitoring data are displayed in both
chart and table formats. In these views,
the user may select to view different
parameters for the data type. The chart and table may be updated to display selected date ranges, and the data may be exported to Excel.

5.2.3.2 List View
The List view displays all sites (groundwater wells, stream gages, precipitation meters, etc.) in a tabular interface. The sites are listed according to site names and associated entities. The list can be sorted and filtered by different criteria such as number of records or monitoring entity. Similar to the Map view, users may click on a site to view the site detail information and associated data. The monitoring data are displayed in both chart and table formats. In these views, the user may select to view different parameters for the data type. The chart and table may be updated to display selected date ranges, and the data may be exported to Excel.

5.2.3.3 Analysis Tools
The Toolbox is available in the Map view and offers Administrative and Entity users access to the Well Tiering tool to support monitoring plan development. The flexibility of the DMS platform allows for future analysis tools, including contouring, total water budget visualization, and management area tracking.

5.2.4 Query and Reporting
The DMS has the ability to format and export data and analysis at different levels of aggregation, and in different formats, to support local decision making and for submission to various statewide and local programs (i.e., the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act [SGMA], California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring [CASGEM], groundwater ambient monitoring and assessment [GAMA], etc.).

Figure 5-3: Typical DMS Data Display
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-6
Data Management System November 2019

5.2.4.1 Ad-hoc Query
The data in the DMS can be queried and reported using the Query Tool. The Query Tool includes the ability to build ad-hoc queries using simple options. The data can be queried by:
• Monitoring or Managing Entity
• Site Name
• Data Type
Once the type of option is selected, the specific criteria may be selected (e.g., groundwater elevation greater than 100 ft.). Users may also include time periods as part of the query. The query options can build upon each other to create reports that meet specific needs. Queries may be saved and will display in the saved query drop-down menu of the user who created the query for future use.

The query results are displayed in a map format and a list format. In both the Map and List views, the user may click on a well to view the associated data. The resulting data of the query may be exported to Excel.

5.2.4.2 Standard Reports
The DMS can be configured to support wide-ranging reporting needs through the Reports tool. Standard report formats may be generated based on a predetermined format and may be created at the click of a button. These report formats may be configured to match state agency requirements for submittals, including annual reporting of monitoring data that must be submitted electronically on forms provided by the Department of Water Resources (DWR).

5.3 DATA INCLUDED IN THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Many monitoring programs exist at both the local and state/federal levels. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted within the Subbasin to document and assess the availability of data within the Subbasin, as well as statewide or federal databases that provide data relevant to the Subbasin.

The DMS is configured to include a wide variety of monitoring data types and associated parameters. Based on the analysis of existing datasets within the Subbasin and the GSP needs, the data types shown in Table 5-3 below were identified and are currently used in the DMS.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-7
Data Management System November 2019
Table 5-3: Data Types and Their Associated Parameters Configured in the DMS Data Type Parameter Units
Currently
Has Data in
DMS
Groundwater Level Depth to Groundwater feet Yes
Groundwater Elevation feet Yes
Groundwater Quality Chloride milligrams per
liter
Yes
Electrical Conductivity umhos/cm Yes
Total Dissolved Solids milligrams per
liter
Yes
Various Parameters (See Appendix 5-A) various
Surface Water Quality Various Parameters (See Appendix 5-A) various Streamflow Streamflow cubic feet per
second
Precipitation Precipitation inches
Reference Evapotranspiration (ETo) inches per
month
Average Air Temperature ºF
Additional data types and parameters can be added and modified as the DMS grows over time.

The data were collected from a variety of sources, as shown in Table 5-4 below. Each dataset was reviewed for overall quality and consistency prior to consolidation and inclusion in the database.

The groundwater wells shown in the DMS are those that are included datasets provided by the monitoring data sources shown below for groundwater elevation and quality. These do not include all wells currently used for production and may include wells historically used for monitoring that do not currently exist. Care was taken to minimize duplicative wells in the DMS. As datasets were consolidated, sites were evaluated based on different criteria (e.g., naming conventions, location, etc.) to determine if the well was included in a different dataset. Datasets for the wells were then associated with the same well, where necessary.

After the data were consolidated and reviewed for consistency, it was loaded into the DMS. Using the DMS data viewing capabilities, the data were reviewed for completeness and consistency to ensure the imports were successful.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5-8
Data Management System November 2019
Table 5-4: Sources of Data Included in the Data Management System Data Source Datasets Collected Date
Collected Activities Performed
Central Valley Salinity
Alternatives for LongTerm Sustainability
(CVSALTS)
Well Location
Well Type (Limited)
Well Depth (Limited)
Groundwater Quality
8/13/2018 • Removed duplicate records
• Matched existing records with
other data sources (GAMA,
DWR)
DWR CASGEM Groundwater Elevation
Well Type (Limited)
Well Depth (Limited)
Well Location
4/18/2018 • Removed duplicate records
EnviroStor Groundwater Quality 7/23/2018 • Removed duplicate records GeoTracker Groundwater Quality 7/23/2018 • Removed duplicate records GAMA Well Type
Well Depth (Limited)
Well Location
Groundwater Quality
8/2/2018 • Removed duplicate records
Local Data Groundwater Elevation (Limited)
Well Type (Limited)
Well Depth
Well Location
Groundwater Quality
2/2017-
10/2018
• Removed duplicate records
San Joaquin County
Flood Control and
Water Conservation
District
Groundwater Elevation
Well Type (Limited)
Well Depth (Limited)
Well Location
9/19/2017 • Removed duplicate records
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-1
Projects and Management Actions November 2019

6. PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
This chapter includes relevant projects and management actions information to satisfy California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 23 § 354.42 and 354.44. The projects and management actions described in this chapter will help achieve the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin’s sustainability goal.

6.1 PROJECTS, MANAGEMENT ACTIONS, AND ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES Achieving sustainability in the Subbasin requires implementation of projects and management actions. The Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin will achieve sustainability by implementing water supply projects that either replace (offset) or supplement (recharge) groundwater to achieve the estimated pumping offset and/or recharge need of 78,000 acre-feet per year (AF/year), identified as the sustainable yield estimate presented in Section 2.3.6. In addition, three projects have been identified that support demand conservation activities, including water use efficiency upgrades. Currently, no pumping restrictions have been proposed for the Subbasin; however, Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) maintain the flexibility to implement such demand-side management actions in the future if need is determined.

6.2 PROJECTS

6.2.1 Project Identification
Projects were identified by the Eastern San Joaquin GSAs through a several-month process involving the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors (ESJGWA Board), Advisory Committee, Workgroup, and the general public. This process included a public polling and feedback solicitation process at the Projects and Management Actions Workshop, held at the October 2018 ESJGWA Board meeting. This activity allowed ESJGWA Board members, GSA staff, and members of the public to participate in a real-time online polling activity through their smart-phone devices. Hard-copy paper surveys were provided for those without online access. Additionally, a template for project feedback and suggestion was created, posted online for the public, and hard copies distributed at Informational Open House events.

Project information was provided by GSAs and compiled into a draft list. This list was discussed and presented during the October and November 2018 ESJGWA Board meetings, the October and November 2018 and January 2019 Advisory Committee meetings, and the November 2018 and January 2019 Workgroup meetings. Priorities identified included:
• Project is implementable with respect to technical complexity, regulatory complexity, institutional consideration, and public acceptance
• Project benefit is located in area of greatest overdraft • Project is affordable and cost-effective (lowest unit cost per volume water savings) • Project provides an environmental benefit (or reduces environmental impact) • Project addresses Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) and/or Severely Disadvantaged Communities (SDACs)
• Project is located in an area where water quality is suitable for use Projects with the potential to contribute to the migration of a potential contaminant plume were eliminated from consideration and removed from the GSP list of projects.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-2
Projects and Management Actions November 2019

6.2.2 Project Implementation
Projects will be administered by the GSA project proponents. GSAs may elect to implement projects individually or jointly with one or more GSAs or with the ESJGWA. As the ESJGWA develops GSA-level water budgets, the GSAs will have a better understanding of how projects will be implemented at the GSA-level and can better evaluate progress toward completion.

6.2.3 List of Projects
Several projects to increase water supply availability in the Subbasin were identified. The initial set of projects was reviewed with the ESJGWA Board, Advisory Committee, and Workgroup. A final list of 23 possible projects is included in the GSP, representing a variety of project types including direct and in-lieu recharge, intra-basin water transfers, demand conservation, water recycling, and stormwater reuse. Projects are classified into three categories based on project status: Planned, Potential, and Longer-term or Conceptual, as defined below. • Planned Projects – Projects in this category are planned to be completed and online prior to 2040 and the projected supply is considered as offsetting the projected 2040 supply imbalance. • Potential Projects – Projects in this category are currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve longterm sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects.
• Longer-term or Conceptual Projects – Projects in this category are in the early conceptual planning stages and would require significant additional work to move forward. Longer-term/Conceptual Projects represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future, but that would need to be further developed.

This subsection of the GSP satisfies the requirements of CCR Title 23 § 354.44. Consistent with SGMA requirements, the project descriptions for projects contain information regarding:
• The benefitted measurable objective
• Permitting and regulatory processes
• Time-table for initiation and completion
• Expected benefits
• How the project will be accomplished
• Legal authority
• Estimated costs and plans to meet costs
• Implementation circumstances
• Public noticing
Table 6-1 provides a summary of the 23 projects. Full descriptions are included below. Figure 6-1 through Figure 6-3 shows the locations of these Planned, Potential, and Longer-term or Conceptual Projects.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-3
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Table 6-1: List of SGMA Projects
Project Name Project Type Project
Proponent
Measurable
Objective
Expected to
Benefit
Current Status
Time-table
(initiation
and
completion)
Estimated Costs Required
Permitting and
Regulatory
Process1
Expected
Groundwater
Demand
Reduction
(AF/year)
Capital Annual
O&M
Planned Projects: Projects in this category are planned to be completed and online prior to 2040. The projected supply of projects in this category will be considered as offsetting the projected 2040 supply imbalance.

Project 1: Lake Grupe
In-lieu Recharge
In-lieu Recharge SEWD Groundwater
levels
Can be
implemented
immediately
2020-2022 $2.3 M $330,000 Installation for new
intake and pipeline
requires permits
from DFW, CVFPB,
RWQCB, and
USACE
10,000
Project 2: SEWD
Surface Water
Implementation
Expansion
In-lieu Recharge SEWD Groundwater
levels
Design phase 2019-2020 $750,000 $100,000 Permit approvals from DFW, RWQCB,
CVFPB, and USACE
by private
landowners
19,000
Project 3: City of
Manteca Advanced
Metering Infrastructure
Conservation City of
Manteca
Groundwater
levels
Currently
underway
2019-2021 $650,000 $300,000 None 272
Project 4: City of Lodi
Surface Water Facility
Expansion & Delivery
Pipeline
In-lieu Recharge City of Lodi Groundwater
levels
Planning phase 2030-2033 $4 M $2,340,000 SWRCB permitting and CEQA required
4,750
Project 5: White
Slough Water
Pollution Control
Facility Expansion
Recycling/
In-lieu Recharge
City of Lodi Groundwater
levels
Construction
complete
2019-2020 $6 M $4,664 None (permitting
complete)
115
Project 6: CSJWCD
Capital Improvement
Program
In-lieu Recharge CSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Can be
implemented
immediately
2020-2027,
on-going
with 7-year
completion
cycles
$50,000 $50,000 Individual
applications need
CSJWCD Board
approval and
possible streambed
alteration permits
5,000
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-4
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Project Name Project Type Project
Proponent
Measurable
Objective
Expected to
Benefit
Current Status
Time-table
(initiation
and
completion)
Estimated Costs Required
Permitting and
Regulatory
Process1
Expected
Groundwater
Demand
Reduction
(AF/year)
Capital Annual
O&M
Project 7: NSJWCD
South System
Modernization
In-lieu Recharge NSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Environmental
review is
complete,
funding has been
sought and a
landowner
improvement
district formed
2018-2023 $9 M $250,000 Permits for pump
station work have
been completed;
minor grading and
road encroachment
permits may be
needed
4,500
Project 8: Long-term
Water Transfer to
SEWD and CSJWCD
Transfers/
In-lieu Recharge
SSJ GSA Groundwater
levels
Infrastructure is
in place.

Environmental
Review may
need to be
implemented
2019-2021 N/A $9 M Project must comply
with CEQA
45,000
Total Planned 88,637
Potential Projects: Projects in this category represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the “planned” projects.

Project 9: BNSF
Railway Company
Intermodal Facility
Recharge Pond
Direct Recharge CSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Planning phase 2020-2023 $150,000 $50,000 Streambed alteration permit
1,000
Project 10: City of
Stockton Advanced
Metering
Infrastructure
Conservation City of
Stockton
Groundwater
levels
Initial study
completed in
2011
2020/25-
2025/28
$11 M $550,000 Not determined 2,000
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-5
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Project Name Project Type Project
Proponent
Measurable
Objective
Expected to
Benefit
Current Status
Time-table
(initiation
and
completion)
Estimated Costs Required
Permitting and
Regulatory
Process1
Expected
Groundwater
Demand
Reduction
(AF/year)
Capital Annual
O&M
Project 11: South
System
Groundwater
Banking with
EBMUD
In-lieu Recharge NSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Agreement is in
place; parties
need to finalize
design.

NSJWCD North
System
Modernization/
Lakso Recharge
In-Lieu Recharge/
Direct Recharge
NSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Planning phase 2021-2026 $7 M $150,000 Regulatory permits as needed
2,600
Project 13:

Manaserro
Recharge Project
Direct Recharge NSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Planning phase 2019-2022* $300,000 $400,000 CEQA review, possible grading
permit, possible
water right change
petition
8,000
Project 14:

Tecklenburg
Recharge Project
Direct Recharge NSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Planning phase 2020-2023** $1 M $400,000 CEQA review and possible grading
permit
8,000
Project 15: City of
Escalon Wastewater
Reuse
Recycling/
In-lieu Recharge/
Transfers
SSJ GSA Groundwater
levels
Planning phase 2020-2028 $18 M $400,000 CEQA review,
RWQCB permits,
and road
encroachment
permits
672
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-6
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Project Name Project Type Project
Proponent
Measurable
Objective
Expected to
Benefit
Current Status
Time-table
(initiation
and
completion)
Estimated Costs Required
Permitting and
Regulatory
Process1
Expected
Groundwater
Demand
Reduction
(AF/year)
Capital Annual
O&M
Project 16: City of
Ripon Surface
Water Supply
In-lieu Recharge SSJ GSA Groundwater
levels
Design
complete;
environmental
permitting
underway
2020-2024 $8.6 M N/A NEPA Categorical
Exclusion, CEQA
Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and
road encroachment
permits
6,000
Project 17: City of
Escalon Connection
to Nick DeGroot
Water Treatment
Plant
In-lieu Recharge SSJ GSA Groundwater
levels
Conceptual
design phase;
environmental
review complete
2020-2023 $8,789,000 $250,000 Road encroachment
permits
2,015
Total Potential 32,287
Longer-term or Conceptual Projects: Projects in this category represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future, but that would need to be further developed.

Project 18:

Farmington Dam
Repurpose Project
Direct Recharge SEWD Groundwater
levels
Preplanning
phase with
reconnaissance
study complete
2030-2050 $175 M $2 M Permits and
approvals form

SWRCB, USBR,

Mobilizing Recharge
Opportunities
Direct Recharge San
Joaquin
County
Groundwater
levels
Early conceptual
planning phase
Not
determined
Not
determined
Not
determined
Not determined Not determined
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-7
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Project Name Project Type Project
Proponent
Measurable
Objective
Expected to
Benefit
Current Status
Time-table
(initiation
and
completion)
Estimated Costs Required
Permitting and
Regulatory
Process1
Expected
Groundwater
Demand
Reduction
(AF/year)
Capital Annual
O&M
Project 21:

NSJWCD Winery
Recycled Water
Recycling/
In-Lieu Recharge/
Direct Recharge
NSJWCD Groundwater
levels
Conceptual
planning and
discussion
2025-2027 $1.5 M $100,000 WDR permitting
through the RWCQB
and minor permits
for pipeline
construction
750
Project 22:

Pressurization of
SSJID Facilities
Conservation SSJ GSA Groundwater
levels
Feasibility study
complete
2019-2030 $328 M $8.5 M CEQA review and
road encroachment
permits
30,000
Project 23: SSJID
Storm Water Reuse
Storm Water/
In-lieu Recharge/
Direct Recharge
SSJ GSA Groundwater
levels
Planning phase 2027-2030 $30 M $30,000 CEQA review and
road encroachment
permits
1,100
Total Longer-term or Conceptual 67,043 1 Acronyms defined: Stockton East Water District (SEWD), Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District (CSJWCD), North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR).
* Project is anticipated to initiate on a pilot basis in 2019 and on a full-scale basis in 2020. ** Project is anticipated to initiate on a pilot basis in 2020 and on a full-scale basis in 2021.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-8
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Figure 6-1: Location of Planned Projects
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-9
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Figure 6-2: Location of Potential Projects
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-10
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Figure 6-3: Location of Longer-Term or Conceptual Projects

6.2.4 Planned Projects
Projects categorized as Planned Projects are expected to be completed and online prior to 2040. The projected supply of projects in this category will be considered as offsetting the projected 2040 supply imbalance. Up to 88,637 AF/year groundwater demand reduction/offset/conservation is expected as a result of the eight Planned Projects included in this GSP. This value exceeds the estimated 78,000 AF/year needed for the Subbasin to reach sustainability.

6.2.4.1 Project 1: Lake Grupe In-Lieu Recharge
The Lake Grupe In-Lieu Recharge Project, proposed by SEWD, is to construct a surface water diversion turn-out on the Calaveras River, upstream of Bellota, and to supply surface water to multiple farms/growers currently using groundwater. The proposed project is to allow 2,500 acres of orchard crops to irrigate with surface water from Lake Grupe instead of using groundwater. Lake Grupe is at the end of rolling hills fed by two or more natural episodic streams. The proposed project would pump water from the Calaveras River, transport the water in a 24-inch PVC pipeline for about 5,000 feet, with an elevation gain of 170 feet through private properties, discharge the water into one of the ravines feeding Lake Grupe, and then the surrounding growers would pump the water from the Lake for irrigation.

The diverted water would flow through a ravine, currently on private lands, and recharge the groundwater basin ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-11
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
underneath. The benefit of this project is the in-lieu banking of 7,000 AF of groundwater from irrigation conversion plus additional 13,000 AF of percolation in the ravine.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: Stockton East Water District
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 10,000 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.

Project Status: This project can be implemented immediately.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project requires the installation of a new intake in the Calaveras River and construction of a pipeline through private properties. The installation of a new intake in the Calaveras River would require permits from California Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project is expected to initiate in 2020 and be completed by 2022.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: The surface water source of this proposed project is from SEWD’s existing contract with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) for the New Hogan Reservoir. Surface water is diverted from the Calaveras River. This is an existing surface water right.

Legal Authority: SEWD is a local agency with its own enabling legislation established to serve water for agricultural and municipal demands. SEWD is also a GSA with authority on groundwater pumping.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $2.3 million in capital costs and $330,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met through SEWD District staffing and District rates to establish new accounts.

Implementation of this project is being considered by SEWD’s Board of Directors. Upon approval, this project will begin.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: This project is planned and SEWD is seeking grant funding and approval by the Board of Directors. This project would terminate at the requests of the landowners and approval of the Board of Directors.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Not applicable; this is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward.

6.2.4.2 Project 2: SEWD Surface Water Implementation Expansion As part of the SEWD Surface Water Implementation Expansion Project, SEWD would require landowners adjacent to surface water conveyance systems (rivers or pipelines) to utilize surface water as part of the SGMA implementation.

This would increase surface water usage by about 18,000 to 20,000 AF/year with in-lieu groundwater recharge benefits.

Currently, there are about 6,000 acres irrigated with groundwater that could be converted to surface water. There are ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-12
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
also an additional 1,500 acres with inactive surface water accounts. SEWD would be the lead agency in environmental/CEQA review and would assist landowners/growers in establishing a turnout for agricultural irrigation and acquiring necessary permits through federal and state regulatory agencies.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: Stockton East Water District
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 18,000 – 20,000 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.

Project Status: This project is in the design phase. The District has identified the parcels with possible connections.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: The required permitting for this project would include acquiring permits/approvals from California DFW, RWQCB, CVFPB, and USACE by private landowners/diverters. SEWD would be the lead agency for CEQA review and would assist landowners/diverters in obtaining the permits.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project is expected to begin in 2019 and be on-going, with benefits accrued by 2020.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project relies on water from New Hogan Reservoir (Calaveras River water) and New Melones Reservoir (Stanislaus River water). This is an existing surface water right.

SEWD has long-term water supply contracts with USBR for both New Hogan Reservoir and New Melones Reservoir.

Legal Authority: SEWD is a local agency with its own enabling legislation established to serve water for agricultural and municipal demands. SEWD is also a GSA with authority on groundwater pumping.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $750,000 in capital costs and $100,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met through staffing and rates for new accounts.

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. SEWD’s Board of Directors is considering implementation of this project. Upon approval, this project would begin.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: This project is planned and SEWD is seeking grant funding and approval by their Board of Directors. This project would terminate at the requests of the landowners and approval of the Board of Directors.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Not applicable, this is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward.

6.2.4.3 Project 3: City of Manteca Advanced Metering Infrastructure The City of Manteca provides treated drinking water through approximately 20,696 service connections. In order to improve efficiency and reliability of water meters, the City has been replacing existing meters and upgrading the Encoder Receiver Transmitters (ERTs) on meters when required. The ERTs and new meters allow for remote reading ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-13
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
of the flow via a radio signal to a radio receiver inside a city vehicle or at a fixed location. The City also plans to construct the infrastructure for an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) network to further increase efficiency. AMI also provides several other benefits beyond simple cost savings including improved customer service, leak detection, and real-time consumption information to the customer. Documented customer water savings and improved demand-side water conservation has occurred when real-time consumption information is available.

This project would apply advanced metering infrastructure to water meters in the City of Manteca Service Area.

Improved technology would increase efficiency and decrease costs associated with manual reading. Additional benefits beyond cost savings include improved leak detection and demand-side water conservation.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: City of Manteca
Project Type: Conservation
Estimated Groundwater Demand Reduction: 272 AF/year
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing demand-side water conservation opportunities.

Project Status: The City of Manteca is in the process of updating meters throughout the City and is planning to construct a network which will include a combination of fiber optic cables and series of radio tower antennas.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: There are no permitting or regulatory requirements for this project at this time.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project is currently underway and is expected to be completed by July 2021.

Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to reduce groundwater demand by 272 AF/year in the City of Manteca through leak detection and real-time consumption information to the customer. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated by quantifying resulting demand reduction.

How Project Will be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project is a demand-side conservation project. No additional water source will be utilized for this project.

Legal Authority: This project is under the authority of the City of Manteca and implemented within the City’s service area.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $650,000 in capital costs and $300,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. The AMI Project is a Capital Improvement Project with available funding.

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. The City of Manteca has started to implement the AMI infrastructure in phases by purchasing meters that have the capability to be read remotely. Installation of other components like fiber optic cable and radio tower antennas is in the planning stage.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Not applicable; this is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-14
Projects and Management Actions November 2019

6.2.4.4 Project 4: City of Lodi Surface Water Facility Expansion & Delivery Pipeline This project would extend the filter room at the City of Lodi Surface Water Facility and add an additional 10 million gallons per day (MGD) capacity of surface water treatment. In addition to the filter addition, the City will construct a second sedimentation basin and add pumps throughout the facility to handle the additional volume of water being moved. This project also includes an extension of the 36-inch transmission pipeline leaving the water plant approximately 5,000 feet to facilitate water deliveries to locations further from the water treatment facility.

There is potential to reduce dependency on groundwater during summer months when the City of Lodi is still pumping as much as 10 MGD from the ground to support the water plant. Groundwater savings could be as high as 6,000 AF/year; however, 4,500 to 5,000 AF/year is expected. The delivery of additional raw surface water will need to be secured for this project to proceed.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: City of Lodi
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 4,750 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.

Project Status: This project is in the planning/initial study phase. The required plumbing and infrastructure exist; however, pumps and corresponding equipment would need to be purchased. The City has not completed a study or performed engineering modelling related to feasibility. Increasing capacity would allow for more surface water diversion during summer months, but it is unlikely that during the winter months demand would exceed the current plant capacity.

The City anticipates meeting peak summer demand with more surface water, which currently exceeds the 4,000 AF that is supplied by wells.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project requires SWRCB permitting and re-classification for plant upsizing. CEQA review will also need to be completed.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: The timeline for this project has not yet been developed, but it is estimated that this project could begin in 2030 and be completed by 2033. Benefits would be realized beginning the first summer following the plant expansion and remain in perpetuity.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: The City of Lodi relies on Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID) for surface water deliveries and does not currently have a contract allowing for higher volumes to be supplied.

This project relies entirely on the availability of additional surface water deliveries from WID (Mokelumne River water), which will need to be negotiated at the onset of this project.

Legal Authority: The City of Lodi has legal authority to administer this project through California Water Code (CWC) § 71000-73000. Additional legal and contract negotiations will be needed with WID for additional surface water deliveries.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $4 million in capital costs, $240,000 in fixed annual operations and maintenance costs, and $2.1 million in annual variable costs (amount is variable depending on water purchase, power, and chemical needs). This project is a Capital Improvement Project Budgeted item, to be paid for from the water enterprise fund.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-15
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Expansion of the Surface Water Treatment Facility (SWTF) will be initiated when the City of Lodi is unable to meet its growing water demand with the current infrastructure. There is no expectation that this project would be terminated based on a decision made by the City of Lodi. The potential for reduced availability of surface water supply from WID would be the only potential cause for a reduction in SWFT production.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: In reviewing current water demands, as well as future projections of use, City of Lodi staff will determine whether an expansion of the SWTF is appropriate or not and make a recommendation to City Council. This is a Planned project that is anticipated to move forward and be online by 2040.

6.2.4.5 Project 5: White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion This project would include the construction of a 70-acre pond expansion with a storage capacity of 388 AF. The purpose of this project is to provide tertiary-treated Title-22 effluent for use as irrigation water on approximately 890 acres of agricultural land surrounding the White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) to offset groundwater pumping.

This project is estimated to reduce the annual volume discharged to Dredger Cut (a dead-end slough of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta) by approximately 160 to 210 million gallons. Flow will be diverted from Dredger Cut at a rate up to 1,700 gallons per minute over an approximate 75- to 90-day period between October 1 and May 31 of each year. Project studies have demonstrated that the storage provided by this project will significantly offset groundwater pumping through in-lieu use.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: City of Lodi
Project Type: Recycling/In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 85-150 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing water recycling and in-lieu recharge opportunities.

Project Status: Construction of this project has been completed. Roughly 85-150 AF/year of percolation recharge is expected. Additionally, the tertiary treated wastewater will be used to irrigate the on-site agricultural fields, thereby reducing groundwater pumping for irrigation.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: The permitting and regulatory processes required for this project have been completed.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: Construction of this project has been completed, with accrual of benefits expected by 2020.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project will rely on the use of recycled water, in the form of tertiary-treated Title-22 effluent form the White Slough WPCF Expansion. No additional water source will be utilized for this project.

Legal Authority: The City of Lodi has legal authority to administer this project through Water Code § 71000-73000.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-16
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $6 million in capital costs and $4,664 in annual operations and maintenance costs. This project will be financed through the DWR Proposition 84 Grant Funding Program.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: There is no plan to terminate this project, as it has been completed and the operations and maintenance cost is minimal.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Not applicable, this is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward.

6.2.4.6 Project 6: CSJWCD Capital Improvement Program
CSJWCD assists users to convert groundwater fields to surface water use. The user applies for water credits based upon new surface water acres. The user is responsible for constructing a diversion facility. As water is diverted the District reduces the water charge until credit is used or seven years since implementation have elapsed. The Capital Improvement Program has been on-going since 1996.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: Central San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 5,000 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.

Project Status: This project is planned and on-going.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: CSJWCD is not required to comply with permits or regulatory processes to implement and oversee the Capital Improvement Program. However, individual applicants are required to have approval of the CSJWCD Board of Directors and may be required to obtain streambed alteration permits.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: The Capital Improvement Program has been on-going since 1996. New individual projects are anticipated to begin each year. Individual applicants are expected to complete their projects 7 years after initiation.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project relies on this use of surface water from the New Melones Unit Central Valley Project. The surface water source is based upon a contract with the United ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-17
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
States for delivery of surface water from the New Melones Unit of the Central Valley Project. The contract is longterm; however, water availability is subject to drought conditions. This is an existing water right.

Legal Authority: The Water Code, Division 21 § 74000 et seq. authorizes CSJWCD to acquire, sell, and distribute water and fix rates for service throughout the District.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $50,000 in capital costs and $50,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. This project provides for the payment of delivered surface water at a reduced rate. Any deficit in cost of water is recovered by full cost of surface water to other users, groundwater extraction fees, and acre assessments.

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is an on-going Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management.

Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Not applicable; this is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward.

6.2.4.7 Project 7: NSJWCD South System Modernization
This project will modernize the South System Pump and Distribution System to facilitate delivery of 9,000 AF/year of additional surface water to farmers in-lieu of groundwater pumping. Water would come from NSJWCD Permit 10477 supplies, which are available in about 55 percent of years.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: North San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 4,500 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.

Project Status: Design for this project is 60 percent complete, and environmental review is complete. Funding has been sought, with some state and federal grants awarded, and a landowner improvement district has been formed for assessments. Project design may be modified based on available funding or staging of project. This project has already started implementation with the rebuilding of the pump station in 2018 and 2019 at a cost of approximately $3 million.

Approximately $2 million of this cost has been funded with grants and other outside funding, including contributions from a settlement with EBMUD. $1 million of the cost has been funded through a voluntary acreage assessment by landowners along the South System who want to use surface water. Work on the distribution system will start in 2019 and continue for several years. NSJWCD has secured a $3 million grant to cover a portion of the cost of the work needed for the pipeline. NSJWCD is continuing to work on other revenue raising efforts to raise additional funds to cover the cost of a complete rehabilitation of the distribution system.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: All permits for the pump station work have been obtained. Minor grading and road encroachment permits may be needed for on-going work to the distribution system.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project began in 2018 and is expected to be completed by 2023.

Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-18
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
project is anticipated to offset 4,500 AF/year in groundwater pumping in NSJWCD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project relies on surface water from NSJWCD Permit 10477 (Mokelumne River water). This is an existing surface water right.

Legal Authority: The legal authority for this project is covered under Water Code § 74000 et seq.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $9 million in capital costs and $250,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met through grant funding, landowner assessments, and water charges.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Not applicable, this is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward.

6.2.4.8 Project 8: Long-Term Water Transfer to SEWD and CSJWCD Oakdale Irrigation District (OID) and South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID) have historically participated in longterm water transfers of surplus, pre-1914, surface water rights to other entities within the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin. These transfers have included one-year transfers to CSJWCD, as well as a nearly 10-year transfer to SEWD for both agricultural and urban purposes. The most recent transfer with SEWD occurred in 2019. These areas of the Subbasin have surface water available from the USBR’s Central Valley Project; however, project water allocations become significantly reduced in below normal and dry water years. When surface water is not available, many of the agricultural customers in these areas have typically turned to groundwater in order to meet their annual and permanent crop water demands. Providing long-term water transfers from OID/SSJID to other agencies within the Subbasin would allow for increased average annual surface water deliveries to the Subbasin area, reducing groundwater reliance and overdraft within the Subbasin, especially during drought years. SEWD and CSJWCD overlie a significant portion of the Subbasin dependent on groundwater and subject to historical overdraft conditions.

No new facilities would need to be constructed to convey water from OID/SSJID to SEWD, and CSJWCD receives water through diversions from a tunnel just upstream of the OID/SSJID owned Goodwin Dam on the Stanislaus River.

Historical transfers have been accomplished through the use of these existing facilities. Additional infrastructure may be necessary to increase distribution of surface water supplies to irrigated agriculture and to achieve adequate improvement toward sustainability goals.

Project funding could be provided directly from the districts participating in the water transfers. Additional infrastructure to promote additional surface water use and capital payments for surface water transfers could be provided indirectly by groundwater reliant entities, thereby providing a means of continuing to utilize groundwater while investing in a Subbasin-wide project that assures continued sustainability within the Subbasin.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-19
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: South San Joaquin GSA
Project Type: Intrabasin Transfer/In-lieu
Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: Up to 45,000 AF/year Other Participating Entities: Oakdale Irrigation District, Stockton East Water District,
Central San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.

Project Status: No design is needed for this project, as the infrastructure is in place. Environmental review may need to be completed.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project must comply with CEQA. Temporary transfers may have less rigorous permitting requirements.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: Expected project time-table is 2019-2021. A new long-term transfer could begin immediately upon agreement among the parties. Transfers from OID/SSJID to SEWD/CSJWCD have historically been agreed to, with historical transfer amounts varying from 0 to 40,000 AF/year.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: OID and SSJID hold pre-1914 water rights on the Stanislaus River. USBR is junior in right to OID and SSJID. This is an existing surface water right.

Legal Authority: OID and SSJID are irrigation districts formed in accordance with State law and hold pre-1914 water rights on the Stanislaus River. SEWD and CSJWCD are water conservation districts also formed in accordance with State law. Historically, water transfers occurring between OID/SSJID and SEWD/CSJWCD are approved by mutual agreement.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: Costs for this project are estimated at up to $9 million annually ($200 per acre-foot). Costs for this project will be met by recipients of water or groundwater pumping benefit.

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. Short-term transfers are expected to occur on an as-needed basis. A longer-term transfer must be mutually agreed to prior to implementation.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Transfers may take place upon mutual agreement. Termination would be subject to the terms of the agreement if applicable.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Not applicable; this is a Planned Project that is anticipated to move forward.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-20
Projects and Management Actions November 2019

6.2.5 Potential Projects
Projects categorized as Potential Projects are currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. Together these projects total 32,287 AF/year in groundwater offset/recharge/conservation that could potentially be made available to the Subbasin if funding is secured.

6.2.5.1 Project 9: BNSF Railway Company Intermodal Facility Recharge Pond Under this proposed project, CSJWCD would form an agreement with the BNSF railroad owner to access an existing drainage pond near the CSJWCD delivery channel to be used as a recharge area. This project would contribute an estimated 1,000 AF/year of groundwater offset through direct recharge to the groundwater aquifer.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: Central San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: Direct Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 1,000 AF/year Other Participating Entities: BNSF Railway
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing direct recharge opportunities.

Project Status: This project is in the planning stages.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: A streambed alteration permit would be required to construct a diversion structure from the District delivery channel to feed the recharge pond.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2021 and be completed by 2023.

Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to directly recharge 1,000 AF/year to the groundwater basin in CSJWCD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project will rely on water from the New Melones Unit Central Valley Project. The surface water source is based upon a contract for delivery of surface water from the New Melones Unit of the Central Valley Project. The contract project is long-term; however, water availability is subject to drought conditions. This is an existing water right.

Legal Authority: The Water Code, Division 21, § 74000 et seq. authorizes CSJWCD to acquire, sell, and distribute water and fix rates for service throughout the District.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $150,000 in capital costs and $50,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project would be met by groundwater extraction fee revenue, private loans, and/or possible grant funding.

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. In this case, the project parties plan to implement this project as soon as a finalized agreement with the landowner is reached and permitting and funding are established.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-21
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.

6.2.5.2 Project 10: City of Stockton Advanced Metering Infrastructure The City of Stockton Municipal Utilities Department (MUD) provides treated drinking water through approximately 48,000 water meters, of which a portion are read via a touch-read system and the remainder are read manually by staff every month. Manual meter reading is the least efficient method of meter reading and the most costly. AMI using improved technology is far more efficient and generally very cost effective when compared to manual reading. AMI also provides several other benefits beyond simple cost savings including improved customer service, leak detection, and real-time consumption information to the customer. Documented customer water savings and improved demandside water conservation has occurred when real-time consumption information is available.

This project would apply AMI to water meters in the City of Stockton Service Area. Improved technology would increase efficiency and decrease costs associated with manual reading. Additional benefits beyond cost savings include improved leak detection and demand-side water conservation.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: City of Stockton
Project Type: Conservation
Estimated Groundwater Demand Reduction: 2,000 AF/year
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing demand-side water conservation opportunities.

Project Status: An initial study for this project was completed in 2011.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: The required permitting and regulatory process for this project has not yet been determined.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2020-2025 and be completed by 2025-2028.

Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to reduce groundwater demand by 2,000 AF/year in the City of Stockton through leak detection and real-time consumption information to the customer. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated by quantifying resulting demand reduction.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project is a demand-side conservation project. No additional water source will be utilized for this project.

Legal Authority: This project would be under the authority of the City of Stockton and implemented within the service area.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $11 million in capital costs and $550,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project would be met by ratepayers and through grants or other funding sources.

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Circumstances for implementation include inclusion in Department planning, development, and Capital Improvement Program.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-22
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Triggers for project implementation and termination include availability of project funding.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.

6.2.5.3 Project 11: South System Groundwater Banking with EBMUD NSJWCD, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), and other entities in San Joaquin County entered into a Protest Dismissal Agreement in 2014 (the “PDA”) to resolve various water right protests. The PDA Agreement includes a commitment to undertake a pilot-level groundwater banking project and a longer-term groundwater banking project.

The pilot level banking project is called the “DREAM” project and is already underway. The DREAM project involves the delivery of 1,000 AF of EBMUD water into the NSJWCD service area along the South System to use for irrigation, effectuating 1,000 AF of in-lieu groundwater recharge. EBMUD will receive a banked water credit of 50 percent of the amount of water recharge, not to exceed 500 AF. EBMUD can withdraw the banked water in the future. NSJWCD will control the withdrawal of the banked water by pumping groundwater from a well that is centrally located in the area of recharge and then conveying the pumped groundwater to the EBMUD Mokelumne Aqueduct. The extraction and return of the banked water are subject to a San Joaquin County groundwater export permit. The permit places additional conditions and restrictions on the extraction of the banked water, including a 5 percent per year annual loss factor and pumping restrictions to prevent impacts to other groundwater users.

EBMUD and NSJWCD have started the preliminary planning for the longer-term banking project. The longer-term banking project may use the same concept as the pilot project but will involve larger quantities of water and potential additional facilities to deliver and use the water for in-lieu recharge within NSJWCD, and to extract and return banked water credits to EBMUD. The longer-term project contemplates EBMUD providing surface water supplies of 3,000 AF/year to 6,000 AF/year in dry years and 8,000 AF/year in wet years to NSJWCD. These surface water supplies would come from EBMUD’s water rights on the Mokelumne River and would be in addition to surface water available under NSJWCD’s water right. EBMUD would receive a banked water credit for 50 percent of the additional supplies provided, leaving a net surface/groundwater increase to the NSJWCD area of 50 percent of all additional supplies provided. The net water gain to NSJWCD may increase if EBMUD does not extract its banked supplies regularly because of the 5 percent annual loss factor in the San Joaquin County export ordinance.

The PDA also provides that the wet year water supplies could be used by SEWD for groundwater banking if they cannot be used in NSJWCD.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: North San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 4,000 AF/year Other Participating Entities: East Bay Municipal Utility District, Eastern Water Alliance,
San Joaquin County and
Stockton East Water District
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.

Project Status: The agreement for this project is in place. Parties need to finalize design, perform environmental review, and obtain necessary permits to operate.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project requires a SWRCB Change Petition for Permit 10478, a San Joaquin County Groundwater Export Permit, and regulatory permits as needed for facilities such as pipelines.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-23
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2020 and be completed by 2025.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project would use water supplies from EBMUD Permit 10478 (Mokelumne River water). This is an existing surface water right. EBMUD has a right tied to hydrology, with amounts are set by contract.

Legal Authority: The legal authority for this project is covered under Water Code § 74000 et seq.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $5 million in capital costs and $400,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by grant funding, banking fees, and water charges.

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. The project parties plan to implement this project as soon as design, permitting, and funding are established, by 2025.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.

6.2.5.4 Project 12: NSJWCD North System Modernization/Lakso Recharge Project This project will repair, upgrade, and modernize the North System Pump and Distribution System to facilitate delivery of 4,000 to 6,000 AF/year of surface water to farmers in-lieu of groundwater pumping. Water would come from NSJWCD Permit 10477 supplies, which are available in about 55 percent of years. Average deliveries would be 5,000 AF/year in about half of the years. In addition, there is a small, sandy recharge pond location on the Lakso property located along the upper portion of the North System pipeline along Tretheway Road. The pond is about 2 acres in size and can recharge about 2 AF/day. NSJWCD could convey water through the NSJWCD North System, to the Lakso recharge pond, to directly recharge surface water during times that water is available but there is not irrigation demand, such as during the December through May time period or during the interim period of years before the remainder of the North System pipeline is repaired or replaced.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: North San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge/Direct
Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 2,600 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu and direct recharge opportunities.

Project Status: This project is in the planning/initial study phase. NSJWCD is soliciting landowner input on design and financing options.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-24
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project would require regulatory permitting as needed for minor construction related to rehabilitation of existing water delivery infrastructure.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2021 and be completed by 2026.

Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset 2,600 AF/year in groundwater pumping in NSJWCD. In addition, there is opportunity to directly recharge surface water to the groundwater basin at specified times. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.

Legal Authority: The legal authority for this project is covered under Water Code § 74000 et seq.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $7 million in capital costs and $150,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by grant funding, landowner assessments (pending approval), and water charges.

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. NSJWCD plans to implement this project as soon as funding is secured.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.

6.2.5.5 Project 13: Manaserro Recharge Project
NSJWCD is investigating constructing and operating a 10-acre recharge pond on the North side of the Mokelumne River on property owned by the Manaserro family through a long-term lease. NSJWCD would use Permit 10477 water available during December 1 through June 30 that is not needed for irrigation, for recharge. This project could recharge 10,000 AF/year or more in years when water is available. Because this project can use water available during the direct diversion flood season, water is expected to be available more frequently under the NSJWCD water right for this project, or 80 percent of years. Capital costs assume that NSJWCD would lease the 10-acre property for this project.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: North San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: Direct Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 8,000 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing direct recharge opportunities.

Project Status: This project is in the planning phase.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project would require CEQA review, a possible grading permit, and a possible water right change petition.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-25
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2019 on a pilot basis and in 2020 on a full-scale basis. This project would be completed by 2022.

Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to directly recharge 8,000 AF/year to the groundwater basin in NSJWCD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project would use water supplies available through NSJWCD Permit 10477 (Mokelumne River water). This is an existing surface water right. Once Permit 10477 supplies are fully committed to in-lieu recharge projects, NSJWCD could apply to appropriate Mokelumne River flood flows for this direct recharge project.

Legal Authority: The legal authority for this project is covered under Water Code § 74000 et seq.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $300,000 in capital costs and $400,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by grant funding and landowner assessments (pending approval).

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Circumstances for implementation include securing funding. Project may be implemented on a smaller scale depending on use of water by other projects in the District.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.

6.2.5.6 Project 14: Tecklenburg Recharge Project
NSJWCD is investigating constructing and operating a 10-acre recharge pond on the South side of the Mokelumne River on property owned by the Tecklenburg family through a purchase. NSJWCD would use Permit 10477 water available during December 1 through June 30, and not needed for irrigation, for recharge. This project could recharge 10,000 AF/year or more in years when water is available. Because this project can use water available during the direct diversion flood season, water is expected to be available more frequently under the NSJWCD water right for this project, or 80 percent of years. Capital costs assume that NSJWCD would purchase the 10-acre property for this project.

Project Status: This project is in the planning phase.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project would require CEQA review and a possible grading permit.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2020 on a pilot basis and in 2021 on a full-scale basis. This project would be completed by 2023.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-26
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to directly recharge 8,000 AF/year to the groundwater basin in NSJWCD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project would use water supplies available through NSJWCD Permit 10477 (Mokelumne River water). Once Permit 10477 supplies are fully committed to in-lieu recharge projects, NSJWCD could apply to appropriate Mokelumne River flood flows for this direct recharge project. This is an existing surface water right.

Legal Authority: The legal authority for this project is covered under Water Code § 74000 et seq.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $1 million in capital costs and $400,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by grant funding and landowner assessments (pending approval).

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Circumstances for implementation include securing funding. This project may be implemented on a smaller scale depending on use of water by other projects in the District.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.

6.2.5.7 Project 15: City of Escalon Wastewater Reuse
This project entails the reuse of wastewater that would include tertiary treatment of the City of Escalon’s effluent and blending in SSJID’s irrigation distribution system. This additional source of supply could then be used for groundwater recharge or transfer within the Subbasin to offset groundwater demands using SSJID facilities and/or water right entitlements to facilitate the transfer. The treated water will meet Title-22 Water Standards.

The City of Escalon’s Wastewater Treatment Plant treats approximately 600,000 gallons per day (1.84 AF per day) with peak flows up to 1 MGD. The plant is located near SSJID’s Main Distribution Canal, and the effluent would need to be pumped and a pipeline of approximately 4,000 linear feet would need installed in addition to improvements at the plant to meet Title-22 Water Standards.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: South San Joaquin GSA
Project Type: Recycling/Direct Recharge/
Intrabasin Transfer
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 672 AF/year Other Participating Entities: City of Escalon
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing water recycling and direct recharge opportunities.

Project Status: This project is in the planning/initial study phase.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project would require CEQA review, Regional Water Quality Control Board permitting, and road encroachment permits.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2020 and would be completed by 2028.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-27
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to offset 672 AF/year in groundwater pumping for use in direct recharge in the City of Escalon or in interbasin transfers to other areas of the Subbasin. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project will rely on the use of recycled water, in the form of tertiary-treated Title-22 effluent form the City of Escalon’s Wastewater Treatment Plant. No additional water source will be utilized for this project.

Legal Authority: The City of Escalon is an incorporated city and provides municipal services including wastewater treatment. SSJID is an irrigation district formed in accordance with State law.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $18 million in capital costs and $400,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by developer impact fees, connection fees, and sewer rate fees.

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Provided this project is feasible as determined in the initial planning phase, the Escalon City Council would need to approve this project as well as the SSJID Board of Directors.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: This project would need to be determined to be feasible with adequate funding likely from multiple sources such as development impact fees, connection fees, and sewer rate fees.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. The Escalon City Council would need to make the requisite findings and approve a financing package for this project.

6.2.5.8 Project 16: City of Ripon Surface Water Supply
The City of Ripon serves water to 15,000 residents along with businesses and industries located within its limits. This project would supplement the City of Ripon’s municipal water supply with treated surface water from SSJID. A5-mile pipeline from the existing treated water transmission pipeline to Ripon’s water distribution system and a booster pump station would need to be constructed.

The City of Ripon is currently under contract with SSJID for a maximum of 6,000 AF/year of Stanislaus River water, which is the expected water supply for this project.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: South San Joaquin GSA
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 6,000 AF/year Other Participating Entities: City of Ripon
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.

Project Status: The design for this project is complete. The City is pursuing a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Categorical Exclusion and CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration. Construction of this project will begin once this project is fully funded. Construction is expected to take one year.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project will require a NEPA Categorical Exclusion and CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration. Road encroachment permits will also be required.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-28
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2020 and would be completed by 2024.

Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and will be critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project is anticipated to offset 6,00 AF/year in groundwater pumping in the City of Ripon. Benefits are expected to accrue for 50 years, through 2074. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations. This proposed conjunctive use project would provide the community of Ripon, along with the region that relies on the groundwater Subbasin, with numerous benefits, including:
• Conservation of groundwater through in-lieu recharge
• Use of renewable energy and energy conservation
• Safer and cleaner drinking water
How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: SSJID holds pre-1914 water rights on the Stanislaus River. This is an existing surface water right. The City of Ripon has an agreement in place to divert a maximum of 6,000 AF/year from SSJID facilitates under SSJID’s existing pre-1914 water right, which is the expected water supply for this project.

Legal Authority: The City of Ripon is an incorporated city and provides municipal water service. SSJID is an irrigation district formed in accordance with State law. SSJID holds pre-1914 water rights on the Stanislaus River.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $8.6 million in capital costs.

Costs for this project will be met by grants, water rates, and development impact fees.

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. The City of Ripon is in the process of completing the environmental process and securing the necessary finances to move forward.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Project implementation will initiate once this project is approved by the City of Ripon and the financing is in place. Termination would be subject to the terms of the agreement if applicable.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. The Ripon City Council would need to make the requisite findings under NEPA, CEQA, and approve a financing package for this project.

6.2.5.9 Project 17: City of Escalon Connection to Nick DeGroot Water Treatment Plant The City of Escalon partnered in the construction of the Nick DeGroot Water Treatment Plant and continues to provide financial partnership in its operation. However, Escalon has not constructed the turnout and distribution system improvements necessary to receive their surface water allotments. Finance and construction of these improvements would make it possible for Escalon to receive their contract entitlements under Phase 1 (2,015 AF) further reducing Escalon’s groundwater demand. Escalon, as a partner city in the plant, could readily begin receiving water once turnout improvements and distribution pipelines are constructed. SSJID operates the Nick DeGroot Water Treatment Plant and serves treated Stanislaus River water under its pre-1914 water right to the cities of Manteca, Lathrop, and Tracy.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: South San Joaquin GSA
Project Type: In-lieu Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 2,015 AF/year Other Participating Entities: City of Escalon and SSJID ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-29
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing in-lieu recharge opportunities.

Project Status: This project is in the conceptual design phase. Environmental review has been completed.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project will require road encroachment permits.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2020 (pending funding) and be completed by 2023.

Expected Benefits and Evaluation: Groundwater Subbasin recharge through the in-lieu use of alternate water supply will be an important component of the GSP and critical to establishing long-term Subbasin sustainability. This project anticipated to offset 2,015 AF/year in groundwater pumping in the City of Escalon. Benefits are expected to accrue for 50 years, through 2073. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: SSJID holds pre-1914 water rights on the Stanislaus River. This is an existing surface water right.

Legal Authority: The City of Escalon is an incorporated city and provides municipal water service. SSJID is an irrigation district formed in accordance with State law. SSJID holds pre-1914 water rights on the Stanislaus River. The City of Escalon is project partner in the Nick DeGroot Water Treatment Plant and has an existing agreement with SSJID which entitles Escalon to receive 2,015 AF/year of treated surface water.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $8,789,000 in capital costs and $250,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by grants, water rates, and development impact fees.

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Potential Project, meaning it is currently in the planning stages and may move forward if funding becomes available. Potential Projects represent a “menu of options” for the Subbasin to achieve long-term sustainability and offset the remaining imbalance above and beyond implementation of the Planned Projects. As scenarios change, the Potential Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. The City of Escalon is in the process of securing the necessary finances to move forward.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Project implementation will initiate once this project is approved by the City of Escalon and the financing is in place. Termination would be subject to the terms of the agreement if applicable Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Potential Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. The Escalon City Council would need to make the requisite findings and approve a financing package for this project.

6.2.6 Longer-term or Conceptual Projects
Projects categorized as Longer-term or Conceptual Projects are in the early conceptual planning stages and would require significant additional work to move forward. Longer-term/Conceptual Projects represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future, but that would need to be further developed.

Together these projects total an approximated 67,043 AF/year in groundwater offset/recharge/conservation that could potentially be made available to the Subbasin if funding is secured.

6.2.6.1 Project 18: Farmington Dam Repurpose Project
This proposed project would convert the Farmington Dam, currently a flood control structure, into a water supply reservoir. This existing Farmington Dam has a flood control capacity of 52,000 AF. The proposed project would increase the total reservoir capacity to 112,000 AF which includes 60,000 AF for water supply and 52,000 AF for flood control. The water supply could be stored and used even in drought conditions. The increased water supply would also encourage growers to switch to surface water irrigation instead of reliance on groundwater.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-30
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
USACE completed a reconnaissance report in 1997 with an estimated cost of $91.4 million based on an effective pricing date of October 1996. Including environmental and cultural resources mitigation costs, which were not included in 1997, the cost today would be approximately $175 million.

Other entities that would benefit from this project includes CSJWCD and potentially OID.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: Stockton East Water District
Project Type: Direct Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 30,000 AF/year Other Participating Entities: USACE
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing direct recharge opportunities.

Project Status: This project is in the pre-planning stage. A reconnaissance study has been completed.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: The required permitting for this project would include acquiring permits/approvals from SWRCB, USBR, California DFW, RWQCB, CVFPB, and USACE.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2030 and be completed by 2050.

Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to directly recharge 30,000 AF/year to the groundwater basin in SEWD. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through model simulations.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: SEWD and CSJWCD have a water supply contract with USBR to use water from the New Melones Reservoir (Stanislaus River water). This is an existing surface water right.

Legal Authority: SEWD is a local agency with its own enabling legislation established to serve water for agricultural and municipal demands. SEWD is also a GSA with authority on groundwater pumping. Farmington Dam is owned and operated by USACE and upon agreement, and USACE would be the agency with authority to modify the dam structure.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $175 million in capital costs and $2 million in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met through the pursual of grant funding.

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Longer-term/Conceptual Project, meaning it is in the early conceptual planning stages and would require significant additional work to move forward. Longer-term/Conceptual Projects represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future. As scenarios change, Longer-term/Conceptual Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. This project could be implemented when agreements are reached with all federal and state regulatory agencies and when funding is available.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: The trigger for implementation and termination would be the water supply from New Melones Reservoir and groundwater levels in the Subbasin.

6.2.6.2 Project 19: Recycled Water Transfer to Agriculture Under the Recycled Water Transfer to Agriculture project, the City of Manteca would sell recycled water to agricultural users northeast of the City, located within the CSJWCD service area, or provide the water to the local GSAs for use in ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-31
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
groundwater basin recharge to overcome existing overdraft conditions and help sustain the Subbasin. The City would target customers located northeast of the City so that recycled water use for irrigation would offset groundwater pumping in an area with a significant cone of depression. No specific customers have been identified this alternative; rather, this alternative was developed primarily to support a cost estimate for designing and constructing a recycled water pipeline to this area of the county. Under this alternative, it is assumed that agricultural users would receive water during the 6-month irrigation season, resulting in a demand of 1,990 AF/year under current conditions and 5,190 AF/year at buildout.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: City of Manteca
Project Type: Recycling/Transfer/In-lieu
Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 5,193 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing recycling, transfer, and in-lieu recharge opportunities.

Project Status: This project is in the planning/initial study phase. This project has been evaluated by the City in their Draft Reclaimed Water Facilities Master Plan planning efforts.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project would require an NPDES Permit amendment, CEQA review, and approval from the State Water Resources Control Board to deliver water from the current discharge location to the potential project.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: The initiation and completion dates for this project are unknown at this time.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project will rely on the use of recycled water, in the form of tertiary-treated Title-22 effluent form the City of Manteca’s Wastewater Quality Control Facility. No additional water source will be utilized for this project.

Legal Authority: This project would be under the authority of the City of Manteca for portions located within its service area. Legal authority outside of city limits would be identified if this project moves forward to implementation.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $37,645,000 in capital costs and $679,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Funding sources would be identified if a project moves forward to implementation.

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Longer-term/Conceptual Project, meaning it is in the early conceptual planning stages and would require significant additional work to move forward. Longer-term/Conceptual Projects represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future. As scenarios change, Longer-term/Conceptual Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Implementation of this recycled water project is dependent on the identification of recycled water users and the installation of facilities to transmit recycled water to the location where it is needed. Agreement(s) between recycled water users and the City would also be required.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: The trigger for project implementation would be the identification of recycled water users and agreements between recycled water users and the City.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-32
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Longer-term/Conceptual Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin.

6.2.6.3 Project 20: Mobilizing Recharge Opportunities
This project would put in place a framework to quickly mobilize and take advantage of recharge opportunities (e.g., existing storm ponds, lake features, temporary flood easements, agricultural field ponding, etc.) This project would provide access to funding to expedite recharge projects as opportunities arise. Additional governance and budgetary controls would need to be developed. Flood-Managed Aquifer Recharge (Flood-MAR) opportunities will be considered through ongoing coordination with existing agencies.1
Project Summary
Submitting GSA: San Joaquin County
Project Type: Direct Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: To be determined Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing direct recharge opportunities.

Project Status: This project is still in the early conceptual planning stages.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: The required permitting and regulatory process for this project has not been determined.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: The initiation and completion dates for this project are unknown at this time.

Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to directly recharge the groundwater basin in areas that are geographically dispersed throughout the Subbasin. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: The identification of water source will occur as project develops.

Legal Authority: [Information pending]
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project and approach for meeting costs are unknown at this time.

Circumstances for Implementation: The circumstances for implementation of this project are unknown at this time.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: The triggers for implementation and termination of this project are unknown at this time.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Longer-term/Conceptual Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. 1 Flood-MAR is an integrated and voluntary resource management strategy that uses flood water resulting from, or in anticipation of, rainfall or snow melt for managed aquifer recharge (MAR) on agricultural lands and working landscapes, including but not limited to refuges, floodplains, and flood bypasses. Flood-MAR can be implemented at multiple scales, from individual landowners diverting flood water with existing infrastructure, to using extensive detention/recharge areas and modernizing flood management infrastructure/operations (CA DWR, 2019).

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-33
Projects and Management Actions November 2019

6.2.6.4 Project 21: Winery Recycled Water
This project will blend NSJWCD Permit 10477 water with wastewater from winery(ies) and deliver blended water for irrigation to accomplish in-lieu recharge or put in recharge ponds and accomplish direct groundwater recharge.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: North San Joaquin Water
Conservation District
Project Type: Recycling/In-lieu Recharge/
Direct Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 750 AF/year Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing recycling, in-lieu recharge, and direct recharge opportunities.

Project Status: This project is in the early stages of discussing concepts with a local winery.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project would require WDR permitting through the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). Minor permits would be required for pipeline construction.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2025 and be completed by 2027.

Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to offset 750 AF/year in groundwater pumping in NSJWCD for use in in-lieu or direct recharge.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project will blend NSJWCD Permit 10477 (Mokelumne River water) with wastewater from wineries.

Legal Authority: The legal authority for this project is covered under Water Code § 74000 et seq.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $1.5 million in capital costs and $100,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by grant funding, landowner assessments (pending approval), and charges paid by the winery (pending contract).

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Longer-term/Conceptual Project, meaning it is in the early conceptual planning stages and would require significant additional work to move forward. Longer-term/Conceptual Projects represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future. As scenarios change, Longer-term/Conceptual Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. Circumstances for implementation of this project include securing funding and winery cooperation contract.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Not applicable.

6.2.6.5 Project 22: Pressurization of SSJID Facilities
SSJID currently operates a 3,800-acre pilot pressurized irrigation project within its service area. This project provides irrigation water at pressure to a grower’s turnout with nearly on-demand service. The service has promoted and influenced the adoption of high-efficiency irrigation systems and also promoted the use of SSJID surface water over private groundwater facilities in the area. SSJID is currently considering expansion of this type of irrigation service to the rest of its service territory. Further analysis needs to be done to understand the project benefits and impacts related to groundwater.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-34
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
The remaining service area considered is 56,300 acres. In 2014, the District completed a feasibility study on delivering a full pressurization system. The study included projections on on-farm savings and benefits (pumping/electrical costs, water quality) and included converting current groundwater farmers. The study observed four alternatives and concluded that a decentralized system comprising of six pump stations and reservoirs at strategic locations throughout the District would be the most feasible alternative. The study found that pressurization is estimated to reduce groundwater pumping from 40,000 AF annually to 10,000 AF annually within the District’s jurisdiction.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: South San Joaquin GSA
Project Type: Conservation
Estimated Groundwater Demand Reduction: 30,000 AF/year
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing demand-side water conservation opportunities.

Project Status: A feasibility study for this project has been completed. Inclusion in a Strategic Water Master Plan is in progress.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project would require CEQA review and road encroachment permits.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project has been implemented on a pilot scale (3,800 acres, Division 9), and can be phased based on customer needs and system compatibility. This project is expected to be completed by 2030.

Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to reduce groundwater demand by 30,000 AF/year in the SSJID service area. Benefits are expected to accrue for 30 years. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated by quantifying resulting demand reduction.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project is a demand-side conservation project. No additional water source will be utilized for this project.

Legal Authority: SSJID is an irrigation district formed in accordance with State law.

Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $328 million in capital costs and $8.5 million in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by existing sources (i.e., hydropower generation, user fees, and water transfers) and enhanced revenue sources (i.e., grants, additional user fees, additional water transfers).

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Longer-term/Conceptual Project, meaning it is in the early conceptual planning stages and would require significant additional work to move forward. Longer-term/Conceptual Projects represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future. As scenarios change, Longer-term/Conceptual Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. The SSJID Strategic Water Master Plan is currently underway and is intended to prioritize system capital improvements based on customer and system needs. This project can be phased based on customer demand and available funding.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: The trigger for implementation for this project is sufficient customer demand and a financial plan for necessary enhanced revenues. The trigger for termination is subject to irrigation service agreement terms if applicable.

Process for Determining Conditions Requiring the Project have Occurred: Implementation of Longer-term/Conceptual Projects will be based on long-term management or changing needs of the GSA or Subbasin. The SSJID Board of Directors would need to make the requisite findings and approve a financing package for this project.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-35
Projects and Management Actions November 2019

6.2.6.6 Project 23: SSJID Storm Water Reuse
SSJID and the Cities of Ripon and Escalon have previously proposed storm water capture for storage and irrigation reuse, or for groundwater recharge to benefit the groundwater Subbasin. Currently, the City of Escalon, and to a limited extent the City of Ripon, discharge storm water into SSJID facilities during the winter months. This storm water is conveyed through SSJID’s main canal or lateral irrigation distribution system and eventually is conveyed into the Stanislaus River or the San Joaquin River via French Camp Slough. Capturing and storing excess storm water would allow for quantities of water that could be used to offset or enhance groundwater in multiple ways. SSJID is in the process of quantifying the amount of storm water it discharges during the winter months that could be made available to be repurposed for sustainable groundwater management practices. Additional infrastructure may be needed to provide adequate storage for groundwater recharge.

The City of Escalon currently has a drainage area of approximately 1,200 acres with 10 drainage systems which accumulate to a maximum discharge capacity of approximately 50 cubic feet per second (cfs) that drains into two District Laterals. It is estimated on average that 700 AF/year of run-off comes from the City of Escalon.

The City of Ripon currently has a drainage area of approximately 2,200 acres with four drainage systems. The majority of the storm run-off discharges to the Stanislaus River. A portion of storm water discharges into the District’s laterals and canals. It is estimated approximately 400 AF/year of run-off discharges to District facilities.

Additional monitoring will need to be implemented to obtain more accurate discharge flows from both cities.

Preliminary cost estimate includes two 20-acre storm drain retention basins in each city strategically located near District facilities.

Project Summary
Submitting GSA: South San Joaquin GSA
Project Type: Storm Water/In-lieu Recharge/
Direct Recharge
Estimated Groundwater Offset and/or Recharge: 1,100 AF/year Other Participating Entities: City of Escalon, City of Ripon, SSJID
Measurable Objective Expected to Benefit: This project addresses chronic lowering of groundwater levels in the Subbasin by enhancing storm water capture, in-lieu recharge, and direct recharge opportunities.

Project Status: This project is in the planning/initial study phase.

Required Permitting and Regulatory Process: This project will require CEQA review and road encroachment permits.

Time-table for Initiation and Completion: This project would begin in 2027 and be completed by 2030.

Expected Benefits and Evaluation: This project is anticipated to offset 1,100 AF/year in groundwater pumping in SSJ GSA for use in in-lieu or direct recharge. Benefits are expected to accrue for 50 years, through 2080. Benefits to groundwater levels will be evaluated through ESJWRM model simulations.

How Project Will Be Accomplished/Evaluation of Water Source: This project would rely on the use of captured storm water. No additional water source will be utilized for this project.

Legal Authority: The Cities of Escalon and Ripon are incorporated cities and provide municipal stormwater/drainage services. SSJID is an irrigation district formed in accordance with State law and also provides limited drainage service.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-36
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
Estimated Costs and Plans to Meet Costs: The estimated costs for this project include $30 million in capital costs and $30,000 in annual operations and maintenance costs. Costs for this project will be met by developer impact fees, connection fees, and sewer rate fees.

Circumstances for Implementation: This project is a Longer-term/Conceptual Project, meaning it is in the early conceptual planning stages and would require significant additional work to move forward. Longer-term/Conceptual Projects represent potential future projects that could conceptually provide a benefit to the Subbasin in the future. As scenarios change, Longer-term/Conceptual Projects can come online to bring additional resources for adaptive management. The project proponents are in the process of determining the feasibility of this project including the possibility of securing the necessary finances to move forward.

Trigger for Implementation and Termination: Project implementation would begin once this project is approved by the cities of Escalon and Ripon, and the SSJID Board of Directors, and a financing plan is in place. Termination would be subject to the terms of the agreement if applicable.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-37
Projects and Management Actions November 2019

6.2.7 Mokelumne River Loss Study
The Mokelumne River Loss Study, proposed by NSJWCD, will study reaches of the Mokelumne River downstream of Camanche Reservoir to better understand and account for losses due to percolation, evaporation, riparian evapotranspiration, and more to inform management actions and SGMA basin accounting. Results of the study will be used to support model refinement and validation (described in Section 7.4.1) in this region and will help to fill the interconnected surface water data gap discussed in Section 4.7.3. The project is expected to cost about $100,000 and will take two years to complete.

6.2.8 Notification Process
Notification and public outreach around projects will be conducted at the GSA level. GSAs will post project updates to their websites to notify the public that the implementation of projects is being considered or has been implemented.

This will include a description of the actions to be taken. These updates will also be provided to the other GSAs and will be published on the ESJGWA website and other appropriate locations. Additional noticing for the public will be conducted consistent with permitting requirements in the case of the enactment of fees or assessments. Outreach may include public notices, meetings, website or social media presence, and email announcements.

6.3 MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
Management actions are generally administrative, locally implemented actions that the GSAs could take that affect groundwater sustainability. Management actions typically do not require outside approvals, nor do they involve capital projects. No management actions currently related to pumping activities or groundwater allocations have been proposed for the Subbasin; however, GSAs maintain the flexibility to implement such demand-side management actions in the future if need is determined.

If consideration of a demand reduction program were to take place in the future, public outreach and education on the potential structure of the program, as well and feasible monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, would be necessary to enable a successful program. Outreach could include public notices, meetings, website or social media presence, and email announcements.

There are a number of conservation and demand management actions currently in place in the Subbasin, including those outlined in Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs) and Agricultural Water Management Plans (AWMPs), as identified below.
• CCWD Urban Water Management Plan (Demand management measures include water waste prevention ordinance, metering, conservation pricing, public education and outreach, programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss, water conservation program coordination and staffing support, rebates and giveaways) (CCWD, 2016).
• City of Lodi Urban Water Management Plan (Demand management measures include water waste prevention ordinance, metering, conservation pricing, public education and outreach, programs to assess and manage distribution system loss, water conservation program coordination and staffing support, rebate program) (City of Lodi, 2016)
• Cal Water Urban Water Management Plan (Demand management measures include water waste prevention ordinance, metering, conservation pricing, public education and outreach, programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss, water conservation program coordination and staffing support, and other demand management measures) (Cal Water, 2015).
• City of Ripon Urban Water Management Plan (Demand management measures include water waste prevention ordinance, metering, conservation pricing, public education and outreach, programs to assess and ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-38
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
manage distribution system real loss, water conservation program coordination and staffing support, and other demand management measures) (City of Ripon, 2017).
• SEWD Urban Water Management Plan (Demand management measures include metering, public education and outreach, water conservation program coordination and staffing support, asset management, and wholesale supplier assistance programs) (SEWD, 2015).
• SSJID Urban Water Management Plan (Demand management measures include water waste prevention ordinance, metering, conservation pricing, public education and outreach, programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss, water conservation program coordination and staffing support, asset management, wholesale supplier assistance programs, and other demand management measures) (SSJID, 2015).
• City of Stockton Urban Water Management Plan (Demand management measures include water waste prevention ordinance, metering, conservation pricing, public education and outreach, programs to assess and manage distribution system real loss, water conservation program coordination and staffing support, water survey programs for residential customers, residential plumbing retrofit, conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts; and landscape conservation programs and incentives) (City of Stockton, 2015).
• OID Agricultural Water Management Plan (Efficient water management practices include delivery measurement accuracy, volumetric pricing, alternative land use, recycled water use, capital improvements for on-farm irrigation systems, incentive pricing structures, increasing water ordering and delivery flexibility, supplier spill and tailwater recovery systems, increase planned conjunctive use, automate canal control, facilitate customer pump testing, designate water conservation coordinator, provide for availability of water management services, evaluate supplier policies to allow more flexible deliveries and storage, and evaluate and improve efficiencies of supplier’s pumps) (OID, 2016). • SEWD Agricultural Water Management Plan (Efficient water management practices include water measurements, volume-based pricing, alternate land use, recycled water use, on-farm irrigation capital improvements, incentive pricing structure, infrastructure improvement, order/delivery flexibility, supplier spill and tailwater systems, conjunctive use, automated canal controls, customer pump test/evaluation, water conservation coordinator, water management services to customers, identify institutional changes, and supplier pump improved efficiency) (SEWD, 2015).
• SSJID Agricultural Water Management Plan (Efficient water management practices include delivery measurement accuracy, volumetric pricing, alternative land use, recycled water use, capital improvements for on-farm irrigation systems, incentive pricing structures, lining or piping of distribution system and construction of regulating reservoirs, increasing water ordering and delivery flexibility, supplier spill and tailwater recovery systems, increase planned conjunctive use, automate canal control, facilitate pump testing, designate water conservation coordinator, provide for availability of water management services, evaluate supplier policies to allow more flexible deliveries and storage, and evaluate and improve efficiencies of supplier’s pumps) (SSJID, 2015).

Additional management activities are discussed in Chapter 7: Plan Implementation, including:
• Monitoring and recording of groundwater levels and groundwater quality data • Maintaining and updating the Subbasin Data Management System (DMS) with newly collected data • Annual monitoring of progress toward sustainability
• Annual reporting of Subbasin conditions to DWR as required by SGMA ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-39
Projects and Management Actions November 2019

6.4 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Although the ESJGWA does not provide direct authority to require GSAs to implement projects, the GWA will be working on GSA-level water budgets and will be requesting annual or biannual reports to evaluate progress. If the projects do not progress, or if monitoring efforts demonstrate that the projects are not effective in achieving stated recharge and/or offset targets, the GWA will convene a working group to evaluate supply-side and demand-side management actions such as the implementation of groundwater pumping curtailments, land fallowing, etc.

6.5 POTENTIAL AVAILABLE FUNDING MECHANISMS
The SWRCB has identified potential funding mechanisms that can be used toward the planning, construction, and implementation of GSP projects. Several funding types may be applicable to the current list of Planned Projects and potential future projects for the Eastern San Joaquin GSP including: projects included in an Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IRWMP), projects addressing drinking water, stormwater recharge, water recycling projects, wastewater and system improvement projects, and projects that focus on DAC or SDAC areas.

The range of applicable projects, per SWRCB Funding Opportunities fact sheet and per Water Code § 10727.4(h), include recharge projects, groundwater contamination remediation, water recycling projects, in-lieu use, diversions to storage, conservation, conveyance, and extraction projects. Additional projects or management actions outside of this list may also be applicable if a GSA determines it will help achieve the sustainability goal for the Subbasin (see GSP Regulations § 354.44). Many of the available funding mechanisms accept applications on a continuing basis. Table 6-2 provides an overview of the project types and available funding and programs as well as important dates to consider for implementation. Funding options are explained in greater detail in the Chapter 7: Plan Implementation.

Table 6-2: Overview of Project Types and Available Funding Mechanisms Project Type and
Purpose Funding Type Program Important Dates
Water recycling projects Planning and
construction grants
and financing
Water Recycling
Funding Program
(Prop 1 and 13)
Planning applications accepted on
continuous basis. Construction
applications received by December
31st of each year will be used to
develop a priority score. Projects
which receive a priority score equal
to or greater than the yearly
fundable list cutoff score will be
placed on the fundable list for the
upcoming fiscal year.

Wastewater treatment for
DAC & SDAC projects
Planning and
construction grants
and financing
Small Community
Grant Fund (Prop 1
and CWSRF)
Applications accepted on
continuous basis.

Drinking Water Planning and
implementation grants
Groundwater Grant
Program (Prop 1)
Round 2 awards late 2019. Round
3 solicitation to be released 2020.

Public water system
improvements
Planning and
construction grants
and financing
Drinking Water
Grants (Prop 1 and
68, and DWSRF)
Applications accepted on
continuous basis.

Stormwater recharge
projects
Implementation grants Storm Water Grant
Program (Prop 1)
Round 2 solicitation estimated in
spring 2020.

IRWM projects (included
and implemented in an
adopted IRWMP)
Implementation Grant IRWM
Implementation
Grant Program
(Prop 1)
Solicitation released spring 2019.

Round 1 applications due Fall
2019. Round 2 solicitation
estimated in 2020.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 6-40
Projects and Management Actions November 2019
This page is intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-1
Plan Implementation November 2019

7. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
The Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSAs) will work together in mutual cooperation to implement the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) in compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Implementing the GSP includes implementation of the projects and management actions included in Chapter 6: Projects and Management Actions, as well as the following items:
• Eastern San Joaquin GSP implementation program management • Eastern San Joaquin GSAs administration and management • Implementation of the monitoring program and reporting • Data collection and analysis
• Public outreach
• Development of 5-year update and reports
• Grant writing
This chapter provides a description of the above items, including contents of the annual and 5-year reports that will be provided to the Department of Water Resources (DWR) as required under SGMA regulations.

7.1 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Development and adoption of a GSP by the January 31, 2020 deadline was a large task. During GSP development, the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority Board of Directors (ESJGWA Board) identified key areas that would need to be further developed as part of 5-year updates.

The ESJGWA Board has formed an Ad-Hoc Committee and tasked it with making recommendations on a range on implementations and funding topics, including applying for grant funding under DWR’s Proposition 68 Sustainable Groundwater Management (SGM) Planning Grant – Round 3. The Ad-Hoc Committee has convened on a weekly to bi-weekly basis beginning in early July 2019.

Table 7-1 illustrates the Eastern San Joaquin GSP’s schedule for implementation from 2020 to 2040, highlighting the high-level activities anticipated for each 5-year period. A more detailed schedule is provided in Figure 7-1. These activities are necessary for ongoing GSP monitoring and updates, as well as tentative schedules for projects and management actions. Additional details on the activities included in the timeline are provided in these activities’ respective sections of this GSP.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-2
Plan Implementation November 2019
Table 7-1: GSP Schedule for Implementation 2020 to 2040 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040
Monitoring and
Reporting Project Implementation Prepare for Sustainability Implement Sustainable
Operations
• Establish monitoring
networks
• Install new wells
• Model refinement
and verification
studies
• Initial project
implementation
• Ongoing outreach
regarding GSP and
projects
• GSAs conduct
5-year
evaluation/update
• Project
implementation
continues
• Potential Project
Evaluation and
initiation
• Monitoring and
reporting continue
• Outreach regarding
GSP and projects
continues
• GSAs conduct
5-year
evaluation/update
• Longer-term/
Conceptual Project
evaluation
• Monitoring and
reporting continue
• Outreach continues
• GSAs conduct 5-year
evaluation/update
• Project
implementation
completed
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-3
Plan Implementation November 2019
Figure 7-1: GSP Implementation Schedule
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-4
Plan Implementation November 2019
This page is intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-5
Plan Implementation November 2019

7.2 IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
In implementing the GSP, the GSAs will incur costs which will require funding. Table 7-2 summarizes these activities and their estimated costs. The areas associated with ESJGWA-wide management and GSP implementation will be borne by the ESJGWA through contributions from the member GSAs, under a cost-sharing arrangement to be developed following GSP adoption. Projects will be administered by the GSA project proponents. GSAs may elect to implement projects individually or jointly with one or more GSAs or with the ESJGWA.

Table 7-2: Costs to GSAs and GSP Implementation Costs
Activity Estimated Cost1
GSP Implementation and Management for GSAs
Monitoring and Reporting
Monitoring Approximately $175,000 annually
Annual Reporting $50,000 - $75,000 annually
Data Management System Updates $30,000 - $50,000 (first year only) $20,000 (following years, annually)
Data Collection and Analysis
Model Refinements $275,000 (one time)
Additional Wells if needed $200,000 per well (multi-level) Review of water quality data in broad network $20,000 - $40,000 (annually) Administrative Actions $140,000 - $230,000 (annually)
Developing 5-Year Evaluation Reports $800,000 - $2,000,000 every 5 years Public Outreach and Website Maintenance $35,000 - $60,000 (annually) Grant Writing By application type:
$45,000 - $60,000 (State)
$50,000+ (Federal)
Implementing GSP: Projects and Management Actions (Planned Projects Only) Project 1: Lake Grupe In-Lieu Recharge $2.3 million (one time) $330,000 (annually)
Project 2: SEWD Surface Water Implementation Expansion $750,000 (one time) $100,000 (annually)
Project 3: City of Manteca Advanced Metering Infrastructure $650,000 (one time) $300,000 (annually)
Project 4: City of Lodi Surface Water Facility Expansion and Delivery Pipeline
$4 million (one time)
$2,340,000 (annually)
Project 5: White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility Expansion $6 million (one time) – complete $4664 (annually)
Project 6: CSJWCD Capital Improvement Program $50,000 (annually) Project 7: NSJWCD South System Modernization $9 million (one time) $250,000 (annually)
Project 8: Long-term Water Transfer to SEWD and CSJWCD Up to $9 million (annually), $200 per AF
1 Estimates are rounded and based on full implementation years (FY2021 through FY2040). Different costs may be incurred in FY 2020 as GSP implementation begins.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-6
Plan Implementation November 2019

7.3 MONITORING AND REPORTING

7.3.1 Monitoring
The GSAs will follow direction for the monitoring programs described in Chapter 4: Monitoring Networks to track conditions for the applicable sustainability indicators discussed in Chapter 3: Sustainable Management Criteria.

Monitoring network data will be collected and used to determine whether undesirable results are occurring and whether minimum thresholds are being reached or exceeded, and to determine if adaptive management is necessary. This data will be managed using the Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin Data Management System (DMS) (see Chapter 5: Data Management System). The GSP monitoring networks make use of existing monitoring programs and develop further monitoring to continue characterization of the system and support development of water budgets. Key components involved in the implementation of the monitoring network activities for the GSP include:
• Semi-annual groundwater level monitoring at 139 wells • Coordinating between new GSP monitoring program and existing California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program
• Semi-annual groundwater quality monitoring at 43 wells • Documentation of groundwater quality monitoring protocols Components of the annual monitoring program costs include:
• Field crew ($50,000 - $60,000)
• Equipment rental with truck, level meter, and pumps ($7,000 - $10,000) • Laboratory costs ($24,000 - $30,000)
• Existing monitoring and reporting costs for CASGEM ($50,000 - $75,000)

7.3.2 Developing Annual Reports
Annual reports must be submitted by April 1 of each year following GSP adoption. Annual reports must include 3 key sections: 1) General Information, 2) Basin Conditions, and 3) Plan Implementation Progress. An outline of what information will be provided in each of these sections in the annual report is included below. Annual reporting will be completed in a manner and format consistent with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Tile 23 § 356.2. As annual reporting continues, it is possible that this outline will change to reflect basin conditions, the priorities of GSAs, and applicable requirements from DWR. Annual reporting is estimated to cost approximately $50,000 to $75,000 annually.

7.3.2.1 General Information
General information will include an executive summary that highlights the key contents of the annual report. As part of the executive summary, this section will include a description of the sustainability goals, provide a description of GSP projects and their progress, and annually updated implementation schedule and map of the Subbasin. Key components as required by SGMA regulations include:
• Executive Summary
• Map of the Subbasin

7.3.2.2 Basin Conditions
Basin conditions will describe the current groundwater conditions and monitoring results. This section will include an evaluation of how conditions have changed in the Subbasin over the previous year and compare groundwater data for the year to historical groundwater data. Pumping data, effects of project implementation (e.g., recharge data, ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-7
Plan Implementation November 2019
conservation, if applicable), surface water flows, total water use, and groundwater storage will be included. Key components as required by SGMA regulations include:
• Groundwater elevation data from the monitoring network • Hydrographs and contour maps of elevation data
• Groundwater extraction data
• Surface water supply data
• Total water use data
• Change in groundwater storage, including maps

7.3.2.3 Plan Implementation Progress
Progress towards successful plan implementation would be included in the annual report. This section of the annual report would describe the progress made toward achieving interim milestones as well as implementation of projects and management actions. Key components as required by SGMA regulations include:
• Plan implementation progress
• Sustainability progress

7.3.3 DMS Updates
Updates and maintenance to the DMS will be made annually, including import of monitoring data and export of summarized data for annual reporting.

The first year will include refinements and is expected to cost $30,000 to $50,000, with following years expected to cost $20,000 annually.

7.4 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

7.4.1 Model Refinements
The ESJWRM will be updated based on newly available information or additional information provided by GSAs. This will include extending the historical model time series through at least 2020 and refining the model grid to align with the most recently updated GSA boundaries. Areas of higher uncertainty, such as the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (Delta), Sierra Nevada foothills, and stream-aquifer interaction, will be refined using additional information made available through GSP monitoring and projects to achieve better calibration. Once the model has been updated and calibrated, new SGMA scenarios will be developed, including the current, projected, and sustainable scenarios as well as associated water budgets and the evaluation of sustainability indicators based on project implementation. The historical model is expected to be updated and calibrated by 2023 so that updated scenarios can be developed before the first GSP update in 2025. Total model refinement costs are expected to be $275,000.

7.4.2 Installation of Additional Wells
Additional groundwater level monitoring wells may be installed throughout the Subbasin if needed to fill remaining data gaps or for other management purposes after separate currently planned monitoring well installations have been completed. Well installation costs can vary widely based on well depth and soil conditions. An estimate average cost for installing a groundwater level monitoring well is $200,000 per well.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-8
Plan Implementation November 2019

7.4.3 Review of Water Quality Data in Broad Network
The GSAs will be reviewing water quality data in an exploratory fashion on an annual basis. This will include an evaluation of TDS, anions/cations, and arsenic on a Subbasin-wide scale to better inform basin conditions and management. This level of effort is expected to cost between $20,000 - $40,000 annually. Efforts include:
• Coordination with existing monitoring programs:
o Review of data submitted to the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), Division of Drinking Water (DDW), Department of Toxic Substances Control (EnviroStor), and GeoTracker as part of the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) database. o Regular check-ins with existing monitoring programs, such as Central Valley Salinity Alternatives for Long-Term Sustainability (CV-SALTS) and the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP). o Annual review of annual monitoring reports prepared by other programs, such as CV-SALTS and ILRP.
o GSAs will invite representative(s) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Joaquin County Division of Environmental Health, and ILRP to attend an annual meeting of the GSAs to discuss constituent trends and concerns in the Subbasin in relation to groundwater pumping.

7.4.4 Data Gaps and Uncertainties
The ESJGWA acknowledges that there are many factors that could affect the availability of surface water, including the SWRCB plans to reduce flows available for use by 40-60 percent as part of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan). Such regulations will need to be evaluated by GSAs in the implementation of projects. The process of providing annual reports to DWR and of GSAs self-reporting to the ESJGWA will allow the ESJGWA to update the Plan and adjust the implementation course as needed based on changing conditions. The GSP allows project implementation to be updated as needed, and it is currently too speculative to say what the impact will be from the proposed Bay-Delta Plan Update regulation, as the SWRCB has not yet determined how the regulation will be been implemented.

7.5 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
Each of the 16 GSAs are administered independently and involve meetings and oversight of individual GSA projects and programs. GSAs can be made up of one or multiple agencies, cities, and counties, as described in Chapter 1:

Agency Information, Plan Area, and Communication. GSA administration will include: coordination meetings; coordination meetings of the GSP Implementation Ad-hoc Committee, regular email communications to update GSA members on on-going basin activities; coordination activities with the other GSAs, such as on projects or studies; administration of projects implemented by the GSA; and general oversight and coordination. Coordination meetings between the 16 GSAs are assumed to occur bi-monthly, with other oversight and administration activities occurring as needed and on an on-going basis. GSA administration is also expected to require additional effort during GSP updates, and around the time of annual report and 5-year evaluation report development. Other administrative actions may involve tracking and evaluating GSP implementation and sustainability conditions as well as assessing the benefit to the Subbasin. Annual costs for GSA administrative actions are estimated to range from $140,000 to $230,000. This estimate assumes $50,000 per year for annual audit and insurance expenses.

7.6 DEVELOPING 5-YEAR EVALUATION REPORTS
SGMA requires that GSPs be evaluated regarding their progress towards meeting the approved sustainability goals at least every 5 years and to provide a written assessment to DWR. An evaluation must also be made whenever the GSP is amended. A description of the information that will be included in the 5-year report is provided below and would be ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-9
Plan Implementation November 2019
prepared in a manner consistent with CCR Title 23 § 356.4. Annual costs for 5-year GSP updates are estimated to range from $800,000 to $2,000,000.

7.6.1 Sustainability Evaluation
This section will contain a description of current groundwater conditions for each sustainability indicator and will include a discussion of overall Subbasin sustainability. Progress towards achieving interim milestones and measurable objectives will be included, along with an evaluation of groundwater quality and groundwater elevations (being used as direct or proxy measures for several sustainability indicators) in relation to minimum thresholds.

A chloride isocontour map will be developed to evaluate the seawater intrusion sustainability indicator. As data are collected from wells within the water quality monitoring network (see Section 4.3), an isocontour line can be drawn with the most current data. If the drawn isocontour line crosses the minimum threshold isocontour line at chloride concentrations 2,000 mg/L or higher, the ESJGWA would consider that an undesirable result had occurred. It is unlikely that the Subbasin will experience an undesirable result due to seawater intrusion during the SGMA planning horizon.

7.6.2 Plan Implementation Progress
This section will describe the current status of project and management action implementation since the previous 5-year report. An updated project implementation schedule will be included, along with any new projects that were developed to support the goals of the GSP and a description of any projects that are no longer included in the GSP.

The benefits of projects that have been implemented will be included, and updates on projects and management actions that are underway at the time of the 5-year report will be reported.

7.6.3 Reconsideration of GSP Elements
Part of the 5-year report will include a reconsideration of GSP Elements. As additional monitoring data are collected during GSP implementation, land uses and community characteristics change over time, and GSP projects and management actions are implemented, it may become necessary to revise the GSP. This section of the 5-year report will reconsider the basin setting, management areas (if applicable), undesirable results, minimum thresholds, and measurable objectives. If appropriate, the 5-year report will recommend revisions to the GSP. Revisions would be informed by the outcomes of the monitoring networks, and changes in the Subbasin, including but not limited to, changes to groundwater uses or supplies and outcomes of project implementation.

The water year types from the San Joaquin Valley Water Year Hydrologic Classification used in this Plan are based on stream inflows from a variety of streams in the San Joaquin Valley. In the future, a more locally-relevant index may be developed that would be more representative of conditions specific to the Subbasin.

7.6.4 Monitoring Network Description
A description of the monitoring network will be provided in the 5-year report. Data gaps, or areas of the Subbasin that are not monitored in a manner consistent with the requirements of the regulations, will be identified or re-assessed if previously identified. An assessment of the monitoring networks’ function will be provided, along with an analysis of data collected to-date. If data gaps are identified, the GSP will be revised to include a program for addressing these data gaps, along with an implemented schedule for addressing data gaps and how the GSAs will incorporate updated data into the GSP.

7.6.5 New Information
New information that has become available since the last 5-year evaluation or GSP amendment would be described and the GSP evaluated in light of this new information. If the new information would warrant a change to the GSP, this would also be included.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-10
Plan Implementation November 2019

7.6.6 Regulations or Ordinances
The 5-year report will include a summary of the regulations or ordinances related to the GSP that have been implemented by DWR since the previous report and address how these may require updates to the GSP.

7.6.7 Legal or Enforcement Actions
Enforcement or legal actions taken by the GSAs or their member agencies in relation to the GSP will be summarized in this section along with how such actions support sustainability in the Subbasin.

7.6.8 Plan Amendments
A description of amendments to the GSP will be provided in the 5-year report, including adopted amendments, recommended amendments for future updates, and amendments that are underway during development of the 5-year report.

7.6.9 Coordination
The Eastern San Joaquin GSP will be implemented by the GSAs identified in Chapter 1: Agency Information, Plan Area, and Communication. These GSAs will work in collaboration with neighboring subbasins, namely: the Modesto, Cosumnes, South American, Solano, East Contra Costa, and Tracy Subbasins.

This section of the 5-year report will describe coordination activities between these entities, such as meetings, joint projects, or data collection efforts. If additional neighboring GSAs have been formed since the previous report, or changes in neighboring subbasins have occurred, resulting in a need for new or additional coordination within or outside the Subbasin, such coordination activities would be included as well.

7.7 PUBLIC OUTREACH
During GSP development, GSAs and the ESJGWA used multiple forms of outreach to communicate SGMA-related information and solicit input. The GSAs intend to continue public outreach and provide opportunities for engagement during GSP implementation. This will include providing opportunities for public participation, at public meetings, providing access to GSP information online, and continued coordination with entities conducting outreach to diverse communities in the Subbasin. Announcements will continue to be distributed via email prior to public meetings. Emails will also be distributed as specific deliverables are finalized, when opportunities are available for stakeholder input and when this input is requested, or when items of interest to the stakeholder group arise, such as relevant funding opportunities. The Eastern San Joaquin SGMA website, managed as part of GSP administration, will be updated a minimum of monthly, and will house meeting agendas and materials, reports, and other program information. The website may be updated to add new pages as the program continues and additional activities are implemented.

Additional public workshops will be held semi-annually to provide an opportunity for stakeholders and members of the public to learn about, discuss, and provide input on GSP activities, progress toward meeting the sustainability goal of this GSP, and the SGMA program. Costs to support outreach are estimated to range from $35,000 to $60,000 annually.

7.8 IMPLEMENTING GSP-RELATED PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS Costs for the projects and management actions are described in Chapter 6: Projects and Management Actions of this GSP. Financing of the projects and management actions would vary depending on the activity. Potential financing for projects and management actions are provided in Table 7-3, although other financing may be pursued as opportunities arise or as appropriate. The GSAs may adopt adaptive management actions as needed to evaluate potential for unimplemented projects and revisiting projects not included within the 23 projects listed in this GSP. This includes Longer-term/Conceptual Projects provided in Chapter 6: Projects and Management Actions.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-11
Plan Implementation November 2019
Table 7-3: Funding Mechanisms for Proposed Projects and Management Actions Project/Management Action Title and Type Responsible
Agency1
Potential Funding
Mechanisms
Planned Projects
Project 1: Lake Grupe In-Lieu
Recharge
In-lieu Recharge SEWD District staffing and District
rates to establish new
accounts
Project 2: SEWD Surface Water
Implementation Expansion
In-lieu Recharge SEWD District staffing and District
rates to establish new
accounts
Project 3: City of Manteca Advanced
Metering Infrastructure
Conservation City of
Manteca
Capital Improvement
Project budgeted item with
available funding
Project 4: City of Lodi Surface Water
Facility Expansion & Delivery Pipeline
In-lieu Recharge City of Lodi Capital Improvement
Project budgeted item with
available funding
Project 5: White Slough Water
Pollution Control Facility Expansion
Recycling/In-lieu
Recharge
City of Lodi DWR Proposition 84 Grant
Funding Program
Project 6: CSJWCD Capital
Improvement Program
In-lieu Recharge CSJWCD Surface water sales,
groundwater extraction
fees, and acre
assessments
Project 7: NSJWCD South System
Modernization
In-lieu Recharge NSJWCD Grant funding, landowner
assessments, and water
charges
Project 8: Long-term Water Transfer to
SWED and CSJWCD
Intra-basin Transfer/
In-lieu Recharge
SSJ GSA Costs met by recipients of
water or groundwater
pumping benefit
Potential Projects
Project 9: BNSF Railway Company
Intermodal Facility Recharge Pond
Direct Recharge CSJWCD Groundwater extraction fee
revenue, private loans,
and/or possible grant
funding
Project 10: City of Stockton Advanced
Metering Infrastructure
Conservation City of
Stockton
Met by ratepayers and
through grants or other
funding sources
Project 11: South System
Groundwater Banking with EBMUD
In-lieu Recharge NSJWCD Grant funding, banking
fees, and water charges
Project 12: NSJWCD North System
Modernization/ Lakso Recharge
In-lieu Recharge NSJWCD Grant funding, landowner
assessments, and water
charges
Project 13: Manaserro Recharge
Project
NSJWCD Grant funding and
landowner assessments
Project 14: Tecklenberg Recharge
Project
NSJWCD Grant funding and
landowner assessments
Project 15: City of Escalon
Wastewater Reuse
Recycling/In-lieu
Recharge
SSJ GSA Developer impact fees,
connection fees, and sewer
rate fees
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-12
Plan Implementation November 2019
Project/Management Action Title and Type Responsible
Agency1
Potential Funding
Mechanisms
Project 16: City of Ripon Surface
Water Supply
In-lieu Recharge SSJ GSA Grants, water rates, and
development impact fees
Project 17: City of Escalon Connection
to Nick DeGroot Water Treatment
Plant
In-lieu Recharge SSJ GSA Grants, water rates, and
development impact fees
Longer-term or Conceptual Projects
Project 18: Farmington Dam
Repurpose Project
Direct Recharge SEWD Grant funding
Project 19: Recycled Water Transfer
to Agriculture
Recycling/Transfer/
In-lieu Recharge
City of
Manteca
To be identified
Project 20: Mobilizing Recharge
Opportunities
Direct Recharge San Joaquin
County
To be identified
Project 21: NSJWCD Winery Recycled
Water
Recycling/In-Lieu
Recharge/Direct
Recharge
NSJWCD Grant funding, landowner
assessments, and charges
paid by the winery
Project 22: Pressurization of SSJID
Facilities
Conservation SSJ GSA Existing sources
(hydropower generation,
user fees, water transfers)
and enhanced sources
(grants, additional user
fees, additional water
transfers)
Project 23: SSJID Storm Water Reuse Storm Water/
Direct Recharge
SSJ GSA Developer impact fees,
connection fees, and
property related fees
Other
Mokelumne River Loss Study Model Refinement and
Verification
NSJWCD Not determined
1 Acronyms defined: Stockton East Water District (SEWD), Central San Joaquin Water Conservation District (CSJWCD, North San Joaquin Water Conservation District (NSJWCD), and South San Joaquin Groundwater Sustainability Agency (SSJ GSA).

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-13
Plan Implementation November 2019

7.9 GSP IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING
Implementation of the GSP is projected to cost between $600,000 and $1 million per year excluding projects and management actions costs. Additional one-time costs are estimated to be on the order of $315,000. Development of this GSP was funded through a Proposition 1 Sustainable Groundwater Planning Grant. To the degree they become available, outside grants will be sought to assist in reducing cost of implementation to participating agencies, residents, and landowners of the Subbasin. However, there will be a need to establish funding mechanisms to support the implementation of the GSP and future SGMA compliance. At the April 10, 2019 ESJGWA Board Meeting, the Board approved an action to conduct monitoring, measuring, and modeling at the basin-scale subject to a financing plan that will be developed after the GSP is approved. Costs for GSP project implementation will be met by project proponents.

Also at the April 10, 2019 ESJGWA Board Meeting, the Board took an action to approve development and implementation of projects in the GSP Implementation Plan at the GSA level, with the option for GSAs with projects in the GSP to work with additional parties in the development of their projects.

Costs of overall GSP administration are expected to be shared by the GSAs. Financing options under consideration could include pumping fees, assessments, loans, and grants. Individual GSAs will create their own financing plans to address their portion of the cost share according to the ESJGWA. Table 7-4 lists examples of potential financing options.

Prior to implementing any fee or assessment program, the GSAs would complete a rate assessment study or other analysis if required by the regulatory requirements.

Table 7-4: Potential Funding Sources for GSP Implementation Funding Source Certainty
Ratepayers (within Project Proponent
service area or area of project benefit)
High – User rates pay for operation and maintenance (O&M) of a utility’s system. Depends upon rate structure adopted by the project proponent and, if applicable, the Proposition 218 rate approval process. Can be used for project implementation as well as project O&M.

General Funds or Capital Improvement
Funds (of Project Proponents)
High – General or capital improvement funds are set aside by agencies to fund general operations and construction of facility improvements. Depends upon agency approval.

Special taxes, assessments, and user
fees (within Project Proponent service area
or area of project benefit)
High - Monthly user fees, special taxes, and assessments can be assessed by some agencies should new facilities directly benefit existing customers. Depends upon the rate structure adopted by the project proponent and, if applicable, the Proposition 218 rate approval process.

Clean Water State Revolving Fund
(CWSRF) Loan Program administered by
the California State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB)
Medium – Historically, the SWRCB has had $200 to $300 million available annually for low-interest loans (typically ½ of the General Obligation Bond Rate) for water recycling, wastewater treatment, and sewer collection projects. During recent years, available funding has become limited due to high demand. Success in securing a lowinterest loan depends on demand of the CWSRF Program and available funding. Applications are accepted on a continuous basis.

SWRCB prepares a fundable list for each fiscal year. In order to receive funding, a project must be on the fundable list. Full applications must be submitted by the end of the calendar year to be considered for inclusion on the following year’s fundable list.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-14
Plan Implementation November 2019
Funding Source Certainty
Water Recycling Funding Program
(WRFP) – Planning and Construction
Grants from SWRCB
High (planning) / Low (construction) – WRFP grants are funded by Proposition 1, as well as the general CWSRF Program. Planning grants (for facilities planning) are available and can fund 50% of eligible costs, up to $75,000. Construction grants have been exhausted. Low-interest loans through the CWSRF program are available and while limited, recycled water projects receive priority over wastewater projects (which are also eligible under CWSRF, the umbrella program for the WRFP).

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
Loan Program administered by the
SWRCB Division of Drinking Water
High – Approximately $100 to $200 million is available on an annual basis for drinking water projects. Low-interest loans are available for project proponents should they decide to seek financing. Funding has become more limited; however, applicants are encouraged to apply.

Infrastructure State Revolving Fund
Loan Program administered by the
California Infrastructure and Economic
Development Bank (I-Bank)
High – Low-interest loans are available from I-Bank for infrastructure projects (such as water distribution). Maximum loan amount is $25 million per applicant. Applications are accepted on a continuous basis.

Title XVI Water Recycling and
Reclamation / Water Infrastructure
Improvements for the Nation (WIIN)
Program – Construction Grants
administered by the United States Bureau
of Reclamation (USBR)
Medium – Grants up to 25% of project costs or $20 million, whichever is less, are available from USBR for water recycling projects. A Title XVI Feasibility Study must be submitted to and approved by USBR to be eligible. USBR solicits grants annually.

WaterSMART Title XVI Water Recycling
and Reclamation Program – Feasibility
Study Grants administered by USBR
Low – Grants up to $150,000 have been available in the past for preparation of Title XVI Feasibility Studies. It is possible future rounds may be administered.

Bonds Medium – Revenue bonds can be issued to pay for capital costs of projects allowing for repayment of debt service over 20- to 30- year timeframe. Depends on the bond market and the existing debt of project proponents.

Integrated Regional Water Management
(IRWM) implementation grants
administered by the California Department
of Water Resources (DWR)
Medium – The Westside-San Joaquin IRWM Region, the primary IRWM region overlapping the Delta-Mendota Subbasin, will pursue grant funding through the Proposition 1, Round 1 IRWM
Implementation Grants. The Westside-San Joaquin IRWM Region bridges two funding areas: The San Joaquin River Funding Area and the Tulare-Kern Funding Area. Application due dates vary by Funding Area; the application for the San Joaquin River Funding Area is due in November 2019 and the application for the TulareKern Funding Area was due in September 2019. Approximately $28 million will be available in the San Joaquin River Funding Area and approximately $30 million will be available in the Tulare-Kern Funding Area over two rounds (where Round 2 solicitation will begin in 2020).

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-15
Plan Implementation November 2019
Funding Source Certainty
Proposition 68 grant programs
administered by various state agencies
Medium – Grant programs funded through Proposition 68, which was passed by California voters in June 2018, administered by various state agencies are expected to be applicable to fund GSP implementation activities. These grant programs are expected to be competitive, where $74 million has been set aside for Groundwater Sustainability statewide. The ESJGWA will pursue funding under DRW’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Planning Grant – Round 3 in November 2019.

Disadvantaged Community (DAC)
Involvement Program
Medium – The Westside-San Joaquin IRWM Region will receive funding through DWR’s DAC Involvement Program through the San Joaquin River Funding Area (which was awarded a total of $3.1 million for the Funding Area as a whole) and the Tulare/Kern Funding Area (which was awarded a total of $3.4 million for the Funding Area). This funding has been secured by the respective Funding Areas. Funding may be used to help develop a project within the Westside-San Joaquin IRWM Region in order to advance it toward implementation. This program is not guaranteed to be funded in the future.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 7-16
Plan Implementation November 2019
This page is intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 2
Draft Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-1
References July 2019

8. REFERENCES
Chapter 1
CA Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). (2019a). White Slough Wildlife Area. Retrieved from:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/White-Slough-WA CDFW. (2019b). Woodbridge Ecological Reserve. Retrieved from: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-toVisit/Woodbridge-ER CDFW. (2019c). CDFW Public Access Lands, Web Tool v5.77.14. Retrieved from: https://apps.wildlife.ca.gov/lands/ CA Department of Parks and Recreation (California State Parks). (2019). Caswell Memorial State Park. Retrieved from: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=557.

CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR. (2019). SGMA Data Viewer.

CA DWR. (2018). SGMA Groundwater Management. Retrieved from: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/SGMA-Groundwater-Management CA DWR. (2016a). Groundwater Sustainability Agency Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from:
https://www.water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SustainableGroundwater-Management/Groundwater-Sustainability-Agencies/Files/GSA-Frequently-Asked-Questions.pdf CA DWR. (2016b). Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) Annotated Outline.

CA DWR. (2016d). Preparation Checklist for GSP Submittal. Cal Water Library.

CA DWR. (2006). Bulletin 118: San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin.

CA DWR. (1991). Bulletin 74-90: California Well Standards. Retrieved from:
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/pubs/groundwater/water_well_standards__bulletin_74- 90_/ca_well_standards_bulletin74-90_1991.pdf
CA DWR. (n.d.). Mapping Tools. Retrieved from: https://water.ca.gov/Work-With-Us/Grants-And-Loans/MapptingTools CA DWR. (n.d.). Water Data Library. Retrieved from http://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/ Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). (2016). The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) - Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin.

Calaveras County. (1996). Calaveras County General Plan.

Calaveras County Board of Supervisors. (2008). Calaveras County, California – Code of Ordinances/Chapter 8.20 Well Construction and Destruction. Municode Library.

Calaveras County Water District (CCWD). (2015). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for Calaveras County Water District.

CCWD. (2012). Calaveras County Monitoring Plan Portions of the Eastern San Joaquin Ground Water Subbasin.

City of Elk Grove. (2018). Elk Grove General Plan (Draft).

City of Escalon. (2010). Escalon General Plan.

City of Galt. (2009). 2030 Galt General Plan.

City of Lodi. (2015). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of Lodi.

City of Lodi. (2010). Lodi General Plan.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-2
References November 2019
City of Manteca. (2017). Manteca General Plan Update.

City of Manteca. (2015). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of Manteca.

City of Modesto. (2008). City of Modesto Urban Area General Plan.

City of Ripon. (2015). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Update for City of Ripon.

City of Ripon. (2006). City of Ripon General Plan.

City of Stockton. (2016). Envision Stockton 2040 General Plan Update.

City of Stockton. (2015). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for City of Stockton.

City of Tracy. (2011). City of Tracy General Plan.

Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin Authority (Eastern San Joaquin County GBA). (2014). Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update.

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority (ESJGWA). (2017a). Bylaws of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority.

ESJGWA. (2017b). Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Establishing the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Authority.

North Delta Water Agency (NDWA). (2015). Comments of North Delta Water Agency on the Partially Recirculated Bay-Delta Conservation Plan EIR/ElS with New CA WaterFix Sub-Alternatives.

Northeastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking Authority. (2004). Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Management Plan.

Oakdale Irrigation District (OID). (2015). 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan.

Sacramento County. (2019). Sacramento County Code, Chapter 6.28 Wells and Pumps. Retrieved from:
http://qcode.us/codes/sacramentocounty/
San Joaquin County (SJC). (2016a). Lockeford Community Services District Municipal Service Review.

SJC. (2016b). San Joaquin County General Plan Policy Document.

SJC. (1992). Linden Planning Area.

SJC Environmental Health Department. (1993). San Joaquin County Well Standards. Retrieved from:
https://www.sjgov.org/uploadedfiles/sjc/departments/ehd/forms/well%20standards.pdf San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SJCFCWCD). (2006). San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District CASGEM Monitoring Plan.

San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Authority (San Joaquin GBA). (2015). Mokelumne Interregional Sustainability Evaluation (MokeWISE) Program.

Sneed, Michelle., Brandt, Justin., & Solt, Mike. (2013). Land subsidence along the Delta-Mendota Canal in the northern part of the San Joaquin Valley, California. 2003–10: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2013–5142. Retrieved from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5142/ South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID). (2015a). Agricultural Water Management Plan.

SSJID. (2015b). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for South San Joaquin Irrigation District.

Stanislaus County. (2019a). Stanislaus County Code, Chapter 9.36 Water Wells. Retrieved from:
https://qcode.us/codes/stanislauscounty/
Stanislaus County. (2019b). Stanislaus County Code, Chapter 9.37 Groundwater. Retrieved from:
https://qcode.us/codes/stanislauscounty/
ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-3
References November 2019
Stanislaus County. (2019c). County Groundwater Ordinance, Well Permit Application Review Process. Retrieved from: http://www.stancounty.com/er/pdf/application-packet.pdf Stanislaus County. (2016). Stanislaus County General Plan.

Stanislaus County Department of Environmental Resources. (2016). CASGEM Monitoring Plan for the Stanislaus County Portion of Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin.

Stanislaus Local Agency Formation Commission (Stanislaus LAFCO). (2018). Municipal Service Review and Sphere of Influence Update for the Rock Creek Water District. Retrieved from:
http://www.stanislauslafco.org/info/PDF/MSR/Districts/RockCreekWD.pdf Stockton East Water District (SEWD). (2015). 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2015). CropScape - Cropland Data Layer.

United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS). (2012). San Joaquin River National Wildlife Refuge. Retrieved from:
https://www.fws.gov/Refuge/San_Joaquin_River/about.html Woodbridge Irrigation District (WID). (2016). Agricultural Water Management Plan.

Chapter 2
HCM
Bartow, J. (1992). Contact Relations of the Ione and Valley Springs Formation in the East-Central Great Valley, California. USGS.

Bartow, J. (1985). Maps showing Tertiary stratigraphy and structure of the Northern San Joaquin Valley, California.

United States Geological Survey (USGS).

Bennett, G., Belitz, K., & Milby Dawson, B. (2006). California GAMA Program - Ground-Water Quality Data in the Northern San Joaquin Basin Study Unit. USGS.

Bertoldi, G., Johnston, R., & Evenson, K. (1991). Groundwater in the Central Valley, California - A Summary Report.

USGS.

Bookman-Edmonston (2005) Integrated Reginal Groundwater Management Plan for the Modesto Subbasin.

Stanislaus and Tuolumne River Groundwater Basin Association.

Burow, K. R., Shelton, J. L., Hevesi, J. A., & Wissman, G. S. (2004). Hydrogeologic Characterization of the Modesto Area, San Joaquin Valley, California. USGS.

CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2019). Station OBB August 1994 through April 2019. California Data Exchange Center (CDEC).

CA DWR. (2006). Bulletin 118: San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin.

CA DWR. (2000). Water Facts, Numbering Water Wells in California, Issue No. 7.

CA DWR. (1967). Bulletin 146, San Joaquin County Investigation.

Chapman, R., & Bishop, C. (1975). Geophysical Investigation in the Ione Area, Amador, Sacramento, and Calaveras Counties, California. Sacramento: California Division of Mines and Geology.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-4
References November 2019
Clark et al. (2012). Groundwater Data for Selected Wells within the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin, California, 2003-8. USGS. Retrieved from: https://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/696/pdf/ds696.pdf Creely, S., & Force, E. (2007). Type Region of the Ione Formation (Eocene), Central California: Stratigraphy, Paleogeography and Relation to Auriferous Gravels. USGS.

Davis, G., Green, J., Olmsted, F., & Brown, D. (1959). Ground-Water Conditions and Storage Capacity in the San Joaquin Valley California. USGS.

Davis, S., & Hall, F. (1959). Water quality of eastern Stanislaus and northern Merced Counties, California. Stanford University Publications, Geological Science 6(1).

Dunn Environmental (DE). (2012). Production Well Installation Report. Farmington Water Company Wells A and B DE. (2007). Source Sufficiency Study for the General Plan Update. City of Riverbank.

Faunt, C. (2009). Groundwater Availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California. USGS.

Ferriz, H. (2001). Groundwater Resources of Northern California: An Overview.

Freeze, R., & Cherry, J. (1979). Groundwater.

Hoffman, R. (1964). Geology of the northern San Joaquin Valley: Selected Papers Presented to San Joaquin Geological Society, v. 2. 30-45.

Holloway, J. M., R. A. Dahlgren, B. Hansen, & W. H. Casey. (1998). Contribution of Bedrock Nitrogen to High Nitrate Concentrations in Stream Water. Nature.

Huber, King N. (1981). Amount and Timing of Late Cenozoic Uplift and Tilt of the Central Sierra Nevada, California - Evidence from the Upper San Joaquin River Basin. United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 1197.

Izbicki, J., Stamus, C., Metzger, L., Halford, K., Kulp, T., & Benner, G. (2008). Source, Distribution, and Management of Arsenic in Water from Wells, East San Joaquin Ground-Water Subbasin, California. USGS.

Loyd, R. (1983). Mineral Land Classification of the Sutter Creek 15-Minute Quadrangle, El Dorado and Amador Counties, California.

Marchand, D., & Allwardt, A. (1981). Late Cenozoic Stratigraphic Units, Northeastern San Joaquin Valley. USGS.

Metzger, L., Izbicki, J., & Nawikas, J. (2012). Test Drilling and Data Collection in the Calaveras County Portion of the Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Subbasin, California. USGS.

Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH). (2001). Farmington Groundwater Recharge/Seasonal Habitat Study- Final Report. United States Army Corps of Engineers. Retrieved from: http://sewd.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/1aFarmington-GW-Recharge-Feasibility-2001-Chap-1-to-5.pdf NV5. (2017). City of Manteca Internal Memo on Well 28 and 29 Completion.

Page, R. (1974). Base and thickness of the Post-Eocene continental deposits in the Sacramento Valley, California.

USGS.

Pask, J., & Turner, M. (1952). Geology and Ceramic Properties of the Ione Formation, Buena Vista area, Amador County, California. California Division of Mines and Geology.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-5
References November 2019
Tonkin, M., & Larson, S. (2002). Kriging Water Levels with a Regional-Linear and Point-Logarithmic Drift.

Groundwater.

University of California, Davis. (2018). Soil Agricultural Groundwater Banking Index. Retrieved from:
https://casoilresource.law.ucdavis.edu/sagbi/
Wagner, D., Bortugno, E., & McJunkin, R. (1991). Geologic Map of the San Francisco - San Jose Quadrangle, California 1:250,000. California Division of Mines and Geology.

Wagner, D., Jennings, C., Bedrossian, T., & Bortugno, E. (1981). Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle, California 1:250,000. California Geological Survey.

Williamson, A. (1989). Ground-Water Flow in the Central Valley, California, Regional Aquifer System Analysis.

USGS.

Woodard & Curran. (2018). Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM) Final Report.

Water Resources and Information Management Engineering, Inc. (WRIME). (2003). Camanche/Valley Springs Area Hydrogeologic Assessment.

Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2018). Chronological Reconstructed Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley Water Year Hydrologic Classifications Indices.

CA DWR. (1967). Bulletin 146, San Joaquin County Investigation.

Canadell, J., Jackson, R. B., Ehleringer, J. R., Mooney, H. A., Sala, O. E., Schulze, E.-D. (1996). Maximum rooting depth of vegetation types at the global scale.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). (2012). Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R5-2012-01016. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/board_decisions/adopted_orders/san_joaquin/r5-2012-0106.pdf CVRWQCB. (2016). Central Valley Region Salt and Nitrate Management Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.cvsalinity.org/index.php/docs/central-valley-snmp/final-snmp.html CVRWQCB. (2012). Waste Discharge Requirements Order No. R5-2012-01016.

EKI Environment & Water. (2015). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan for the City of Lathrop. Retrieved from:
https://www.ci.lathrop.ca.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/1681/city_of_lathrop_uwmp_20

15.pdf
Lewis, D.C., Burgy, R.H. (1964). The relationship between oak tree roots and groundwater in fractured rock as determined by tritium tracing. J. Geophys. Res. 69(12):2579-2588.

O'Leary, D. R., Izbicki, J. A., & Metzger, L. F. (2015). Sources of high-chloride water and managed aquifer recharge in an alluvial aquifer in California USA. USGS. Retrieved from: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70155190 % Piper, A., Gale, H., Thomas, H., Robinson, T. (1939). Geology and Ground-Water Hydrology of the Mokelumne Area, California, Water-Supply Paper 780. USGS.

Schenk, H.J., Jackson, R.B. (2002). The Global Biogeography of Roots. Ecological Monographs 72(3): 311-328.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-6
References November 2019
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2019) 1,2,3, -Trichloropropane (1,2,3-TCP). Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/123TCP.html SWRCB. (2018). Maximum Contaminant Levels and Regulatory Dates for Drinking Water U.S. EPA vs California.

The Nature Conservancy. (2019). Plant Rooting Depth Database. Retrieved from:
https://groundwaterresourcehub.org/sgma-tools/gde-rooting-depths-database-for-gdes/ TRE Altamira. (2019). InSAR land surveying and mapping services in support of the DWR SGMA program.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2019). EPA’s PFAS Action Plan: A Summary of Key Actions.

Retrieved from: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019- 2/documents/pfas_action_factsheet_021319_final_508compliant.pdf Williamson, A. (1989). Ground-Water Flow in the Central Valley, California, Regional Aquifer System Analysis.

USGS.

Water Education Foundation. (2019). Aquapedia: Seawater Intrusion. Retrieved from:
https://www.watereducation.org/aquapedia
Water Budget
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2018a). Chronological Reconstructed Sacramento and San Joaquin Valley Water Year Hydrologic Classifications Indices.

CA DWR. (2018b). Guidance for Climate Change Data Use During Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development.

CA DWR. (2018c). SGMA Data Viewer.

CA DWR. (2016). Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Water Budget.

CA DWR. (2014). Statewide Crop Mapping. Retrieved from: https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/CADWRLandUseViewer/ CA DWR. (2003). California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 Update 2003. Retrieved from: https://water.ca.gov/- /media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Bulletin-118/Files/StatewideReports/Bulletin_118_Update_2003.pdf Dogrul, E., Kadir, T., Brush, C. (2017). Integrated Water Flow Model Theoretical Documentation (IWFM-2015), Revision 630. Retrieved from: http://baydeltaoffice.water.ca.gov/modeling/hydrology/IWFM/IWFM2015/v2015_0_630/downloadables/IWFM-2015.0.630_TheoreticalDocumentation.pdf Northeastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking Authority (NSJCGBA). (2004). 2014 Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan.

Oregon State University (OSU). (2019). PRISM Climate Group. Retrieved from: http://prism.oregonstate.edu./ San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SJCFCWCD). (2001). San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Water Management Plan.

Woodard & Curran. (2018). Eastern San Joaquin Water Resources Model (ESJWRM) Final Report.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-7
References November 2019
Chapter 3
Ayers, R.S. and Westcot, D.W. (1976). Water Quality for Agriculture, Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 29. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2017). Sustainable Management Criteria BMP. Retrieved from:
https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/groundwater/sgm/pdfs/BMP_Sustainable_Management_Criteria_2017-11-

06.pdf
CA DWR. (1980). Ground Water Basins in California. Bulletin 118-80.

CA State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). (2017). Division of Water Quality - GAMA Program:

Groundwater Information Sheet, Salinity. Retrieved from: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/docs/coc_ Eastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Basin Authority (Eastern San Joaquin County GBA). (2014). Eastern San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Update.

Hoffman, G.J. (2010). Salt Tolerance of Crops in the Southern Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Retrieved from:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/waterrights/water_issues/programs/bay_delta/bay_delta_plan/water_quality_co ntrol_planning/docs/final_study_report.pdf
O'Leary, D. R., Izbicki, J. A., & Metzger, L. F. (2015). Sources of high-chloride water and managed aquifer recharge in an alluvial aquifer in California USA. USGS. Retrieved from: https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70155190 % salinity.pdf
Texas A&M AgriLife Extension. (2003). Irrigation Water Quality Standards and Salinity Management Strategies.

Retrieved from: https://aglifesciences.tamu.edu/baen/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2017/01/B-1667.-IrrigationWater-Quality-Standards-and-Salinity-Management-Strategies.pdf United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). (2015). CropScape - Cropland Data Layer.

Chapter 4
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2016a). Best Management Practices for the Sustainable Management of Groundwater Monitoring Protocols, Standards, and Sites.

CA DWR. (2016b). Draft Monitoring Networks and Identification of Data Gaps Best Management Practice.

CA DWR. (2010). Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Guidelines. Retrieved from: https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWRWebsite/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-Management/CASGEM/Files/CASGEM-DWR-GW-GuidelinesFinal-121510.pdf U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (1995). Ground-Water Data-Collection Protocols and Procedures for the National Water-Quality Assessment Program: Collection and Documentation of Water-Quality Samples and Related Data.

USGS. (var.). National Field Manual for the Collection of Water Quality Data: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques of Water Resources Investigations.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan 8-8
References November 2019
Chapter 6
CA Department of Water Resources (CA DWR). (2019). Flood-Managed Aquifer Recharge (Flood-MAR). Retrieved from: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/All-Programs/Flood-MAR Calaveras County Water District (CCWD). (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan Update.

California Water Service District, Stockton District (Cal Water). (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.

City of Lodi. (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.

City of Ripon. (2017). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.

City of Stockton. (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.

Oakdale Irrigation District (OID). (2016). Agricultural Water Management Plan.

South San Joaquin Irrigation District (SSJID). (2016). Urban Water Management Plan 2015 Update.

SSJID. (2015). 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan.

Stockton East Water District (SEWD). (2017). 2015 Agricultural Water Management Plan.

SEWD. (2016). 2015 Urban Water Management Plan.

ATTACHMENT 2
This page is intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 2
www.esjgroundwater.org MOBILE-ALT tablet-alt Desktop
ATTACHMENT 2

Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater
Subbasin
Groundwater
Sustainability Plan:

Projects and Management Actions
Prepared by:

November 2019; Revised June 2022

ATTACHMENT 2
This page is intentionally left blank.

ATTACHMENT 2
Groundwater Sustainability Plan i
Projects and Management Actions November 2019; Revised June 2022

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE NO.

6. PROJECTS AND MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Projects, Management Actions, and Adaptive Management Strategies ................................................ 6-1

6.2 Projects .................................................................................................................................................. 6-1

6.2.1 Project Identification ............................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2.2 Project Implementation ........................................................................................................ 6-2

6.2.3 List of Projects ..................................................................................................................... 6-2

6.2.4 Planned Projects ................................................................................................................ 6-10

6.2.5 Potential Projects ............................................................................................................... 6-20

6.2.6 Longer-term or Conceptual Projects .................................................................................. 6-29

6.2.7 Mokelumne River Loss Study ............................................................................................ 6-37

6.2.8 Notification Process ........................................................................................................... 6-37

6.3 Management Actions ........................................................................................................................... 6-37

6.4 Adaptive Management Strategies ........................................................................................................ 6-39

6.5 Simulation of Projects and Management Actions ................................................................................ 6-40

6.6 Potential Available Funding Mechanisms ............................................................................................ 6-47