Flood Control and Water Conservation District - Regular Meeting

Times for public comment and we'd like to keep those comments related to the preceding topics. And also a reminder that public comment is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on items that are not on the agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the committee. Public comment is limited to three minutes per speaker, subject to the discretion of the chair. Comments should be brief and focused and speakers should be respectful of one another who may have different opinions. Please remember this meeting is being recorded and broadcasted live via Zoom.

The county will not tolerate profanity, hate speech, abusive language, or threats. Also, while public input is appreciated, the Brown Act prohibits the committee from taking any action on matters raised during public comment that are not on the agenda. Now we'd like to move to approval of minutes from our last meeting in April. Oh, now now we have an opportunity for public comment before we move. Do we have anyone online?

We have no callers.

Thank you.

Alright. Now we're ready to approve minutes.

Make a motion to approve. Second.

I would just note that Member Kalmdorf noticed that we did have a mistake in the cover page for the minutes. The April meeting was actually the twenty fourth meeting. So we'll make that correction. And thank you for noting that and reading them. But otherwise, they're ready to go.

Great. Yeah. Thank you.

In favor? Go ahead.

Yeah.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

I was not there at the meeting.

Alright. Moving to Jamison for reports and announcements.

Yeah, this is good afternoon everybody. I'm Jamison Crosby, Natural Resources Conservation Manager. Welcome to the September meeting of the Groundwater Technical Advisory Group. Nice to see everybody. It's been a minute, but we're really happy to be here and happy all of you all could make it.

We made one slight change to the format of the agendas moving forward. Item number four used to be, I think we called it agenda review. We've changed that to reports and announcements. And the purpose of that is to give all of the TAG members an opportunity if they wish. They're not required by any means, but if any of the TAG members would like to make any announcement about work that they're doing which may be even remotely relevant to groundwater sustainability or the Napa Valley Subbasin or water resources generally, you are more than welcome to announce that to the group.

Our Board of Supervisors does this as well. I would note that if you do make an announcement, can't due to Brown Act rules, we can't have any conversation or discussion about that. But if there is interest among other TAG members, we can absolutely put it on our agenda for a future meeting. So I have a few announcements of my own, but I'd like to defer to all of you first. If any of the members have an announcement, please feel free to go ahead.

I have something to share.

Sure.

So a couple well, a month ago, actually, I got an email from Sustainable Conservation. And they are partnering up with the Sustainable One Growing Alliance in a project where they're trying to gather information related to on farm recharge in vineyards. And looks like they're gonna be working here in Napa in adjacent counties to gather information from farmers and the ultimate goal for them is to develop a best management practices guide so that vineyards all over California can use that to enhance on farm water recharge. And they were asking me as part of the NAPA RCD, but also as a representative of the TAG if we were interested in helping him out or partnering up. So I told him that, we would love to, help out as much as we can.

So it looks like at this point they are just in the gathering information stage. So I'll be happy to keep communications with them and then I can keep updating you on it. And if there's anything that I feel would be relevant to have the tag sort of talk about a review, I'm happy to do that as well. So for for now, I'm just gonna keep communications with them and try to see what I can do to assist them. But this looks like a great opportunity for us to look at an opportunity for collaboration since we were also we we had this conversation during the last meeting where we were interested on enhancing on farm water recharge.

So, yep, I'll just keep you all updated. And if there's anything interesting, can bring it up during the next meeting. Or if there's anything more important, I can bring it up to the rest of the team, and then we can decide how we can get the TAG involved.

Thank you, member Garcia. Any reports or announcements from any of our other TAG members? Not this month, maybe future months. Okay. It is a new thing.

Didn't have a lot of time, a lot of warning on that. So I'll just make a couple announcements myself. I have a little bit of good news to pass on, is that Napa County is the recipient of a grant from Department of Water Resources called a CALSIP grant. I can't remember what the acronym stands for anymore but CALSIP is all you need to know. The grant was for about $806,000 to re reestablish five streamgages at five different locations around the sub basin, Redwood Creek, Milliken Creek, Dry Creek, Cotton Creek and the Napa River in Calistoga.

So we're really pleased about that. We're going to work with LSCE and David's engineering to do the instrumentation and collect the data and report them out. We're also going to try to take advantage on four of the sites to tie into the existing OneRain network to be able to use their telemetry to report the data. That was really great news in times of thin funding. It was really appreciated.

Also wanted to mention let's see. Napa County was also invited to make a presentation at the Groundwater Resources Association eighth Annual Western Groundwater Congress. It's being held in San Diego October. And we have a panel that I'll be moderating on October 9 in the morning that consists of myself, Nick Watterson from LSCE, Duncan McEwen from ERA Economics, Christian Broderick from Stillwater Sciences and Craig Alter from DWR. It'll be a sixty minute panel.

I don't know if any of the TAG members happen to be going to the GRA, but we'll report back. We were really pleased to be included on that. Last report or announcement that I have generally is just about our meeting schedule. Our next planned meeting is November 13, and we have a tentative meeting on December 11. I'll keep you posted about that, but we are planning to go forward with November 13.

That's definitely happening, barring something unforeseen. And I will probably well, I will definitely confer with our chair and our vice chair about the calendar for the year 2026, kind of put some draft dates out there and see what you all think of them, and then bring that to the whole TAG at probably the November meeting for your approval so that you have an idea what our schedule is for the following year. That's all my announcements. I think Brendan McGovern might have had one about our fall monitoring.

Yeah, just a quick update that Nick Featherston and I are going to be going out in mid October to go collect static well measurements at the 126 voluntary groundwater wells that exist around the county and in the sub basin. So that's really it happens twice a year in April and October. And it's really a good opportunity to get a snapshot of how water levels are looking going into the rainy season. So the lowest of the low in theory. But we'll see how that goes. But it's a lot of work.

It is a lot of work. That concludes my reports and announcements, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we're ready for a presentation from Vicky with LSE.

Good afternoon, everybody. It's good to see everybody again. It's been a little bit. And, one of the things as we get slides coming up here, one of the things that we're gonna do is, kind of take a look back at where all we've been on the road for GSP implementation, looking at the progress that has occurred and the many activities that have been underway.

Let's see. Do we have a controller?

I guess we'll start with the outline first. Backing up further, we have a of a short looking agenda, but as you probably saw within the agenda package, we have a lot of presentation materials and a fairly lengthy staff report. One of the reasons that we bundled it all together is it really is all integrated. And so as Jameson and Albert had mentioned, we've folded in additional time for comment and discussion by the TAG and also by the public. So we're starting off with looking back at, GSP implementation progress with a road map and then turning to the groundwater pumping reduction programs and the many different programs that are underway in parallel.

And then Nick Newcomb is going to provide a short description of some Napa Valley integrated hydrologic model scenarios. And then we'll turn to the California Environmental Flows Framework goals and the monitoring that's been occurring in 2025. And Tori's going to talk about water conservation and some expanded outreach that's in the development stage and plan to rule out after the exhaustive conversations that have occurred to date. And then we'll open it up for more discussion. So this roadmap, we put it together because it shows that there are a number of things that have been occurring, and and the tag knows, quite intimately that there have been a lot of things that have been happening since the GSP was submitted in January 2022.

So there are those things that are kind of core requirements, for required items by the GSP regulations, annual reports every year. And then along with that is a model update of the hydrology every year. That information feeds into the annual reports. But then there's also a number of things that relate to GSP implementation, the many work plans that have been developed and have been under implementation since early twenty twenty four. There have also been a number of things going on with monitoring and data gaps filling.

So 16 monitoring wells installed starting in the fall twenty twenty three, and then this year, another pair of monitoring wells in the Calistoga area. And as Jamison mentioned, we've just kicked off the California Stream Gauge Improvement Program, also called CalSIP. There are also a number of things going on with the implementation of the interconnected surface water and ground dependent ecosystems work plan. So there are six intensive study sites that were identified as part of that work plan. And that led to the implementation of a lot of aquatic and terrestrial monitoring, so above and beyond the typical GSP kinds of monitoring, but for the purpose of understanding, you know, what does the ecosystem need?

And what do we need to think about with respect to the flows in the river system? And how does that relate to what the GSA can manage with respect to groundwater pumping. And then there's also coordination with the State Water Resources Control Board. The state board last year started working on a Napa River watershed and a modeling process as part of the supply and demand assessment unit's efforts to look at what's occurring with stream diversions across the entire watershed. So one of the things that at least a couple of the TAG members have been particularly involved with, Julie Chambone and Matt Condolff, is looking at the information the state board originally had in its work plan that was highly focused on surface water aspects of the watershed.

Since that time and communications between the state board and the GSA and the technical consultants, the state board amended its work plan add a groundwater part of it, and then NVIHM model platform has been shared with the state board. The state board has integrated that, the parameters and whatnot, from the NVIHM into the watershed modeling it's doing. There was a meeting to discuss some of the early efforts by the state board, and now they're proceeding with some additional work. So we'll be looking ahead to find out what their schedule looks like and updating the tag on that. And then towards, you know, the latter part of this road map, we're looking ahead to, not too far ahead, but to 2027.

In January 2027, there's a periodic evaluation due. That's a document that's required by the GSP regulations at least every five years. It can be triggered, by GSP plan amendments also. But the one that the Napa Valley sub basin would be applicable to would be due in January 2027. That document includes a number of things, including an update of the hydrogeologic conceptualization, a comprehensive discussion of groundwater conditions and interconnected surface water, the progress on the projects and management actions, monitoring, and and modeling updates.

So just briefly on this slide, this was just another way of organizing information on a lot of the activities that have been ongoing. This is information that's also summarized in the water year 2024 annual report. And then in addition, there was a table as an attachment with a staff report that lined out, you know, a lot of the activities that have been going on since 2022 when the GSP was submitted, what's occurred, a lot of things in parallel that were occurring, and then looking ahead through 2025, other things that are are planned to be implemented. So this slide in particular highlights, the projects and management actions. Those are the things labeled the MA one, MA two, P one, and P two, things that are, more familiarly known to you, water conservation, groundwater pumping reduction, org plans, recharge and recycled water, and then also highlighting the interconnected surface water and groundwater dependent ecosystems work plan, and the monitoring and the modeling.

The things that we're gonna focus on today are those things that have the yellow star highlights by them. One of the things that we had developed earlier this year was a chart that we find to be helpful just to lay out the projects actions and all the things that are going on with respect to outreach by the GSA and in coordination with stakeholders in different ways. A lot of the focus on the outreach, as Tori will touch on later on today, has been with the agricultural industry, the agricultural sector, including vineyards and wineries. But everything that's going on has to do with all sectors. It's it's not just about agriculture.

So some of the key focus, that the TAG has heard about and we'll hear more about today are what's going on with the water conservation and grower pumping reduction programs. And so some of the things that fall under that umbrella are best management practices, hearing about and examining newer technologies. How do we integrate what else is publicly available like Open ET, but understanding that Open has its warts and limitations, how do we link that up to, locally derived data? And then also looking at water use tracking, Duncan's gonna talk about some pilot work, going on with the county in an area of the MST to track, water use. And then a lot of things with, expanding conservation initiatives, other things that could go on that encourage additional conservation.

And then also what Duncan and Tory have touched on in the previous TAG meeting was about the potential extended time for vineyard replanting. So this is just a sampling of the many things going on for the projects and management actions. And all of this is really important because this is what DWR assesses to determine, you know, what has been the GSA's ability to manage groundwater in the sub basin. And beginning next year, each annual report submittal, DWR will be reviewing all of the projects and management actions that any GSA has submitted as part of its GSP or added since, and all of those PMA's are to be reporting the status of their implementation. And they may be at varying degrees of implementation depending upon what the need is in the sub basin.

And DWR will use that information that's online in a tracking template to assess what were the benefits intended to be accrued by the GSA, what has actually been accrued in practice locally within the basin or subbasin, And how does that relate to the GSA's ability to achieve the sustainability goal? So at the bottom of this particular slide, we're showing all these things are desired to occur under local control through these voluntary actions, numerous programs, a lot of different things that can come together and achieve this goal. But if there's insufficient, you know, result, from those actions, then it turns to state control and mandatory measures. So all of this is, you know, in the context for Napa Valley Sub Basin. We understand that there's everybody understands.

You, the TAG in particular, the GSA stakeholders that we've had conversations with, there's a clear understanding that even the systems is quite complex, especially because of the interconnected nature of surface and groundwater, the regulatory requirements that have occurred through Sigma, and DWR has approved, the GSP for this subbasin. But we're all dealing with the uncertainty of climate change and drought effects and, you know, the ways that we need to think about integrating all of this information into monitoring and management of the resources. So one thing that I wanted to just bring to the group's attention is something that I I found to be quite relevant from, emeritus senator Bill Dodd's, comments as part of a welcome speech for a roundtable put on by the California Water Data Consortium. And he was highlighting the importance of really high quality water and ecosystem data and how that's so important in improving water management. And he is emphasizing this because it relates to everything going on with the Open and Transparent Data Act that he was a significant author of AB seventeen fifty five.

It also relates to, you know, what occurred at this roundtable was a number of state agencies joining together to recognize the importance of water data overall. And that, understanding is also being folded into recommendations and eligibility requirements for Proposition four grant funding. So it's quite critical in terms of the kinds of data collected and the value they hold in managing water resources. And one last footnote on that. So we were asked by one of the organizers of this roundtable if we could provide a case study, and we provided one on what's going on here locally for Napa Valley and interconnected surface water.

So we're going to turn now to Duncan McEwen. He's going to provide information and update on the groundwater pumping reduction programs and and progress being made.

All right. On we go. Good afternoon, chair Philipelli, members of the TAG. It's been a while, like six months. But don't worry.

We've been busy, and we're gonna update you on on progress and what we're what we're working on here. So a quick recap of things that you've that that we've we've heard extensively at other TAG meetings. So we've got the water conservation and groundwater pumping reduction work plans. Those are kind of the two pieces that we're implementing to get measurable emphasis on that word, measurable reductions in groundwater save or groundwater savings benefits in the sub basin. So we have the guiding framework, which is to focus on voluntary actions, do a good job of assessing costs and benefits, so we're doing things that are cost effective for implementation, work with existing programs, include adaptive management as we're getting better information about the sub basin, and then have more mandatory measures as a backstop is a way to think about it if some of the voluntary incentive driven programs aren't achieving the results that we're looking for.

So graphically, what have we been up to if you go back to 2022, GSP adoption. This was actually before me and Tore and others were working on some of these elements. But that set the stage, as Vicki just explained, for the need for these types of programs. And then in 2023, we started working on the water conservation and GPR work plans. That is where a lot of education and outreach started, which we've continued to work on through today.

And I just note that, like as Vicki mentioned, a lot of the ag organizations and community have been really important in crafting what went into those work plans and then what's gone into some of the subsequent implementation work that we're currently working on. 2024, after getting those plans reviewed and approved through you all, we've shifted to implementation. Good focus on education and outreach still, working on the certification partnership program, benchmarking programs, other conservation programs. I'm going to talk through those, give you an update on where we're at. And I think what we've shifted into in 2025 also is doing some work on the domestic programs, so not just focused on the ag industry, but what are other conservation opportunities for other industries, and then recharge opportunities as well.

So the graphic up here has kind of the nine elements of the GPR work plans, groundwater pumping reduction and water conservation work plans. I think the stuff on the bottom row is what's new and I'll focus on. I think we'll I'll come back and talk through progress on those top programs. But expanding some work on domestic water conservation opportunities, the extended replant concept, which, like, if you follow, like Napa Valley Grape Growers have their news articles, and they talk to this refer to this as like a mothballing concept, basically ways to reduce water use either by extending the period between removal and replanting or doing other things to effectively mothball and keep low productivity on the vineyard but not fully remove it. Some of this is driven by current market conditions in the industry.

And then what we're looking at is how could those align with potential recharge opportunities. We have this recharge feasibility analysis that we're starting work on, and you could see those two potentially working in parallel where you might be able to get more benefits for areas that are near significant streams, let's say, which are going to have the biggest effect on groundwater sustainability indicators for ISW and GDE. So we'll go through some of those things in this presentation. There's a lot in this table. I think we've all seen it a few times, but this was the result of the water conservation and groundwater pumping reduction work plans, analysis of costs and potential water savings, given best estimates at that time of what water saving potential was for these different actions and how much those can be scaled up.

And I think the punch line there, and I'll come back to this later, is that, you know, there are opportunities given the 10%, savings that we're looking to target in the sub basin to do these things through these types of programs. Right? Like, the it's a good thing. The situation here looks different than it does in other parts of the state where there are opportunities to achieve and maintain sustainable groundwater conditions without some of the more drastic programs that are being implemented in other parts of the state. And I think what we would what we can layer on top of these, and we'll talk a bit about it today, is recharge opportunities.

So the supply augmentation side can help here as well. So domestic water conservation is one component. Sorry, I didn't realize these were all animated. We'll go through it slowly. We've I think we've been here talking about mostly agricultural focused programs for for benchmarking and replant and the certification concepts, which we'll talk about.

So we've started some work on domestic water conservation opportunities as well. So looking at ordinances that the county and the cities have in place, what are opportunities to increase requirements for, you know, say, outdoor landscape conservation, indoor appliances. And you've kinda got the gamut when you look around the state. If you look at what's, some of the coastal communities in, like, Monterey County are doing, like anything that you're doing a building permit for, there's, low flow appliance requirements for you you're gonna make a whole bunch of investments in water conservation practices because they've got issues with seawater intrusion and things need to be managed very carefully. And then at the other end of the spectrum, you've got the state's kind of model water efficient landscape ordinance, which sets kind of a bookend for what these ordinances have to look like under state law, but has a little bit fewer lower requirements.

So what we're looking at is like what are opportunities to increase requirements for domestic. And the biggest savings is going to be on outdoor landscape. I mean, that's really what's going to provide the biggest savings for groundwater. The pilot water certification partnership concept. This, we've you've you've heard about a bunch of times.

So where is this? This is in we have drafted a an RFQ. We've continued to talk to the certification programs. The RFQ is with Jameson and the team at the county and kind of going through some final iterations to get language pinned down in that document. But again, this is the concept to work with existing certification programs that are already working with vineyards and wineries to add additional water conservation practices to those programs.

And then an important component of that, which we led with and we've talked about at length, I think we've heard comments in multiple TAG meetings, being able to measure what those what savings is so that you're not you know, if there's incentives behind the program, even if there isn't incentives behind the program, you need to ensure that the program is is doing something and moving the needle. So this has requirements for for being able to measure so that you can track that the program's actually achieving objectives. I think what's changed over the summer is that we've one, it's so it's an RFQ format, right, not like a proposal, so less of a competitive process, more like a partnership to get people in the mix. And the second thing is to make it a pilot. So in talking to the certification programs, folks have mentioned that they have people that are interested maybe in the sub basin or the valley.

There's still concerns about, like, how they would set up systems. So I think the current idea is to get a step forward, get the program, you know, in place starting to work through a pilot approach. So you're not trying to scale it up for, you know, for whatever certification program, rolling it out for all of their members. And a lot of that's in response to feedback that we've received. This, fortunately, I just covered verbally, so I don't need to go through it again.

The other thing that we are starting work on and really just pick this up over the summer is the supply augmentation side, groundwater recharge opportunities. Know, Miguel, I think you mentioned stuff that sustainable conservation is doing. There's probably some overlap here and maybe some of the work that we've already started doing in outreach that we've done would like it seems like it would be good to talk about that so that we understand what CSWA and sustainable conservation are doing and what we can leverage because we've got a ton of questions as we're getting going on on this work. Some of them are good, some of them are dumb, but you know, it's alright. So groundwater recharge.

I think the key thing here is that, you know, like, recharge opportunities don't in the Napa Valley Sub Basin aren't like what they would look like in, you know, Central Valley Sub Basin. The Vicky's still up here, so I can pretend to be a hydrogeologist for minute. Right? It's a small, responsive, alluvial aquifer. Right?

We're really concerned about interconnected surface water and groundwater dependent ecosystems. It looks different than managing for levels in other sub basins. So when we're thinking about like water recharge opportunities, I don't think it's kind of the standard like flood MAR that we hear about at the state level or just like dig a a basin, put water in the ground. System works and the way folks irrigate and manage their vineyards here looks a lot different. So we've boiled this down into three scenarios that we're gonna analyze.

And these will go into a feasibility study, look at technical feasibility, economic, financial, you know, so we'll have the numbers and and for dollars and water savings potential. So the first is more of the traditional. Right? So take surface water diversion for direct recharge. Second is, I think what's more plausible here is surface water diversion to ponds or other storage opportunities for in lieu, right?

So don't pump, use irrigation to the extent that that works with frost protection and other management practices on farm. We have a lot of questions about this that I think we've discussed with some of the stakeholders that you all have put us in touch with, and we're going to continue these conversations. Third is looking at recharge potentially combined with that repurposing or extending replant opportunities. So, like, if you can do recharge, that's great. Where do you really get the best benefit? You get it in areas that are closer to the significant streams. So how do you put those two programs together? One of which we're kind of thinking of is demand management. Right? And the other which is supply augmentation.

And I'll show you some examples that of where that is. I I just did what I did before where I told you what we're doing. So good news, I've covered all this. We're currently working on we're currently working on these programs. We'll be back at the next meeting with more details on this one for sure.

And that's in November? Yeah. And then I I just, like, just general ask, if you're if there's folks that we should talk to that you particularly, like, growers, I mean, like, anybody that will answer the phone, we've been trying to talk to them about these issues. We've got questions on the water rights and permitting that we're still working on. So I think the big question under that scenario too is what is the existing capacity with existing ponds that are out there to divert and store additional water?

And what's the existing capacity with within existing water rights and permits to divert from the system? Right? Some of those permits are being used just for frost protection. What's the opportunity to use some of that for in lieu pumping benefits later in the season? So that that these are the questions that we're working on right now.

And then we'll have to put a dollar sign on all of those things. And and I think another question that that we're interested in is, okay. If if there's current constraints, whether they're cost or otherwise, to getting permits or operating the system in a way that would provide groundwater recharge benefits, what are those? And like, what would we have to change to make that work? Like, to us, it seems like something that could be a good opportunity and work with some of the demand management programs.

So we'd like to understand what those constraints are. Related to the concept for extending vineyard replants. So we've talked about this. Extending replants would is just if you if you're removing a vineyard at the end of its economic life, offering an incentive to keep the vineyard out for an additional year or two or three or whatever it is. Right?

And so you can kind of and if you do that at the end of the economic life of the vineyards, you can kind of pretty quickly expand the reduce the the average annual water use and get a few percent water savings on each parcel. And so we've got a memo that we're working on that looks at, one, what would this cost and how much land are we actually talking about. It's similar to this this mothballing concept where you're, you know, just kinda keeping a vineyard out longer instead of keeping it in the ground, but reducing inputs into it to reduce its productivity, but is a potential for for water conservation. So we're we'll be back with, you know, some additional details on that. I think what's interesting is lining this up with the third scenario for recharge.

So what's the opportunity to target this program in areas where you're also doing some recharge? And again, that's to us initially, as we're looking at it, the question of what existing permits and rights are to divert and ponds and ability to store water for for in lieu benefits later. So, you know, kind of visually, how's how's that looking? I mean, you know, this is just an example, and you've got, you know, a stretch of the river. There's our existing points of diversion that the state board has.

You can see this being you know, look at all the significant streams and then just as an initial mapping, like, you know, what's what areas are close to the river? How does that affect the groundwater system? Vicky and her team at LSC are working on some groundwater modeling of these and other scenarios. And it's not, like, designed to be a program that, like, picks, you know, an area or a parcel. It's just, like, this is helping our understanding of what's the scalability and potential of this program.

Like, how much water are we actually talking about? What would it cost? Is it even is it even feasible? And I just note that, like, I'm I'm kinda given the, like, quick overview of this, but there's still a lot of work on the on the state board data and then some of the questions that I raised about how how this program would actually work for a representative vineyard. So again, I'll just emphasize, you know, if there's growers or others in the ag industry that we should be talking to about this work, like now's the time.

We'd like to make those connections and we're we've got a lot of questions that we'd we'd like some support on. And then we'll be working on the feasibility study and continue to bring that back to you all as we're going through the end of summer and the fall. And definitely, there'll be more on this at the next meeting in November. So, actually, we're I think we were we'll come back to questions later. Excuse me.

So so taking a half a step back. You know, when we put the GPR work plan together and the water conservation work plan together, we had some estimates of water savings and potential, you know, over kind of a range. So if we take like a midpoint of range, we just went back to look at those programs and say, like, are the things that we're trying to do if we now layer in recharge and this extending replant concept, like, going to get us where we're trying to go? Like, yes, we still have to get those programs stood up and you gotta measure and you gotta ensure that they're achieving the objectives, but it was just kind of a reality check-in the form of a bar chart. So you can see the different elements of the estimated annual water savings for certification partnership, domestic conservation opportunities, water availability analysis, benchmarking programs, and I kind of put a whole bunch of things under the education and outreach opportunities.

And then water conservation opportunities on the ag side, so extending the vineyard replant or on farm recharge programs that we just went through. And so the target that we're after is about 1,500 acre feet. Right? If we take a sustainable yield of about 15,000 and look at 10% of that, and you take kind of a midpoint, and there are opportunities to get to the goal that we're trying to achieve. I think I'll go back to my, like, opening point is that I think it's good and and something that we at least I get excited about having done some of this work in other areas where there aren't opportunities to do this, and you have to look at costly programs that involve pretty substantial contractions in the irrigated footprint.

Vicki mentioned this. So we have a pilot water measurement program in the MST area, and this really came out of of two needs. So the MST area has to report to the county. And when we were working with Jamison and Brandon, it was clear that, like, data was coming in and not being organized well. So there was a need to, like, just kind of develop a basic dashboard so that you could see information.

We thought this would be a good case study because some of the other programs that are being stood up that we just went through, you need some type of measurement and reporting. Right? So, like, this is a good example of, a program or a requirement where there is data coming in that needs to be standardized and and shown in, a dashboard format. And then the second thing was working with the folks in the MST to help with the reporting process. Like, there's gaps in reporting or it's late or sometimes it's not done or it's not done right.

So, again, it was like a test case for the, the some of the concepts in the water certification, program partnership where, you know, we could see how this would actually work in practice. So we set up a pilot program. One of our team members, Harry and Brendan, went out, met with a number of of a handful of landowners, about half dozen or so, in the MST and got them set up to use just a simple water tracking software called TAP h two o to be able to track, report, use, and then have a dashboard that they can view. And then we worked with Brendan and Jamison and Nick and others to set up a dashboard on their end so that they could actually view all of the historical data, and also view new data as it's coming in. And so, again, not from the grower side, it's it's, just a simple app that sticks a QR code on a well and uses that to take a basically take a picture, report it into this system, comes back in the form to a dashboard to them, and then allows them to standardize reporting to the county.

This is a quick example of how that dashboard looks. It's not great because there's no data. Like, we didn't wanna show yeah. But, I mean, the key thing is if you look in the bottom left, this is what most users are looking at, is, like, where am I at relative to my allocation? And again, this is all hypothetical, so we're not actually showing anybody's real data.

And it's really got one measurement in there, but you could see that you're tracking your use on a monthly basis. Right? And you're seeing how that is in the MST area relative to what, you know, what what your limit is for the year. And then from the county's perspective, this is a little bit hard to see, so you got to really kind of squint and look at your screen. But from the county's perspective, we put together a GIS based dashboard so that they can see in a standardized format the information that's coming in for parcels in the MST.

So the top left shows just a screenshot of what the parcels that are in the MST would look like, so kind of quick color coding, green to red, you know, who where where are people at relative to what what their reported use is. And then the bottom is showing that historical data going back in time, which again was kind of messy, but, you know, we've got it standardized and put in there. And then in the top right, we could click and just see information on any given parcel. You know, so this is, I think, has been received pretty well. The feedback with the with the landowners that we've worked with has been it saves a bunch of time and headache.

It makes reporting easier. And on the county side, we've taken we've been we'll work to put information into, like, a standard, easy to digest, format. And again, it's kind of a pilot. It's not prime it's not really, like, sub basin focused, but I think it's a good case study of how we might think about this measurement issue that's come up in earlier conversations for the programs that the that we're trying to do to get, groundwater pumping, reductions in the, for GSP implementation. Alright.

So what are we doing for next steps? So we're working on this RFQ that's pretty much done, coming soon. And then I would emphasize the importance of continued outreach education. Tore is going to talk a little bit more about this where we've put together some additional notes on how we think that could look. All the programs so far have benefited from that, and we'll continue to benefit that as we're working on implementation.

And then we'll work on this recharge feasibility study. I've really enjoyed finally getting to work on it. I know we I think we had it as part of, like, GPR work almost two years ago, eighteen months ago, and it's been nice to finally get to that. And we'll continue to report back on the pilot program and, yeah, and some of the benchmarking and other education programs. So that's all I have. I'll hand it back over to Vicki.

I think we have time for tag discussion and questions followed by public comment.

Thank you. That's really interesting. Thinking about these efforts to promote leaving the fields follow as long as possible, I think that I would personally be curious to learn more about what happens in the soil as the field is follow because replanting can be quite aggressive in the soil. So there could be opportunities to not only conserve water by not pumping, but to maybe have some case studies where we can investigate the positive impacts. And I don't know.

I'm I'm just curious to learn more about that. So we could have a field that is more that the soil health is better by waiting. And therefore, that soil will use water more efficiently. I don't know. I'm speculating.

I would like to learn more. So I think if we could, as we're developing those efforts, also figure out a way to incorporate some sort of case study, we could potentially learn a lot of information there. And then with regards to reaching out to farmers, I don't have per se anybody in mind that I can send to you, but I do have a network of farmers. And I do collaborate with our local partners as well when we were trying to disseminate information. So I'm happy to help if maybe we can touch base at another time.

If you can just pass some information about what is it that you're looking for, I can do sort of like a wide outreach effort to see who's interested. One: And then hopefully we can find some people in

there that you can get some information that you're looking for.

Awesome. And we can deal with some of those the soil and farm management issues. I mean, that's not, like, my in my main wheelhouse, but I know it's a thing. Like, but there was a up in the Vinaya Sub Basin up in Butte County, they had a similar program, and there was a lot of work on that. Like, what okay. If you let land rest for orchard removal, like, what and the growers had a lot of input on different practices that then we were putting a dollar sign on.

Yeah. That's what I was thinking about. Best best management practices on fallow land to encourage infiltration down to the water table.

So Miguel and Albert, are you thinking about things like composting, soil ripping, things like that, amendments?

Yeah, potentially amendments and ripping and just use of the land during that fallow period. Is it just walk away from it? Or are there management practices that would be beneficial toward encouraging infiltration?

Cover cropping.

Definitely. That's It just roots

there, but then also what that does to the soil microbial community and how that changes water retention on the land and infiltration.

Yeah. It seems to me that this would be a missed opportunity. We have follow land that is not being actively managed. So we can develop or help develop some base management practices would be helpful.

And a comment on the domestic water conservation slide and whether we might also look at stormwater capture and in lieu use for irrigation and some of these domestic situations as well? And whether that's on the list of

I mean, I think the short answer is yes. It's on it's on the list of things that we should be thinking about. Yeah.

Okay. And just as a comment on that. So I don't remember how many years ago, but the county did have some, like, rainwater capture workshops. But they were kind of geared towards the homeowner doing that. And I think that's kind of a heavy lift on the part of each individual homeowner.

So I wonder if we might think about strategies more around, Okay, who's installing outdoor irrigation systems? And how might we interface with them, train them in order to install these and maintain these systems that might be using some rainwater capture technology and then using that for irrigation. I mean, it would be you know, if a landscaping company or an irrigation installation company learned that that, you know, that's something that they can offer then, and so it kinda elevates their the their business.

Mhmm.

You know? That's sort the competitiveness of their business. So I think it would be beneficial from, you know, them as stakeholders as well in addition to the potential, you know, water pumpings reductions that we might see.

Yep. Yeah. I think everything definitely on the domestic side. And I thought you were I was also thinking on, like, storm water and recycled water and other stuff on on the ag side too. So

Exactly. And what we could do with that is, yeah, as far as in in commercial places as well. So not just for residential, but yeah. Mhmm. Any place where there is potentially landscaping that could be irrigated that way, at least for a portion of the year. Mhmm.

Back to storage.

I mean, we've all seen the graphs of all the water. You know?

Yeah. It's there. You gotta store it. I just had a quick question about the TAP H2O platform that you showed.

Uh-huh.

I it looks cool. What does the hardware and infrastructure look like that that gets you to that platform?

It's not much. Mean, that's kinda it was set up to just do what it does to be not a bunch of hardware and expensive kind of other things. It's just it's a sticker. And and then then you're using your your technology that's already in your phone. It's just taking a picture. So whoever's out, you know, whether it's somebody who's doing your irrigation or the landowner or whoever, you know, has an account, snap a picture, it gets uploaded, and then automatically put into the system and then track. Right? So if you're required to do it on a monthly basis, it's as simple as being by your well once a month or having somebody that's buy it and it's just a sticker that goes on the well.

But the there's like a I'm assuming there's a flow meter that captures the data.

Oh, yeah. I mean, that you have to have a meter. Yeah. Yes. Sorry. It's magic.

Is just self reporting. Right? They're using you're not installing any instruments there. They're just self reporting what they're using.

Correct. There's no, like, telemetry or other stuff. It's just Okay. But you do need yeah. The meter a meter, any meter is a fundamental Sorry. I was

So it's a platform that the user enters their information into and then it it okay.

Yeah. They basically set up an account, a sticker that goes on the well Yeah. Top of the meter. And then the that's telling us where it is and what it is. Oh. And it that could set up. And then there's just a picture that's taken from a phone that has the account set up on it. Yeah. So it's basically an app, and that's it. Yeah.

Cool.

Just not fully automated. But Unfortunately. No.

You need you need you need a human time. But

the nice thing is it doesn't the MST owners right now who are required to report have to install a meter no matter what. And so whatever meter is installed, it doesn't matter what the company is as long as you can clearly have the QR code on there. Whatever they're currently using can just get uploaded right into system.

Yeah. Eliminates paper and administrative work. So

Yeah. That's what we heard. Yeah. Sorry. I was operating under the assumption that, yeah, we were in the MST and they had to be metered.

Yeah. So they they all had a meter already. So that was the addition was the

Mhmm.

The sticker.

Correct. And an app and some software in the background and a couple of dashboards. Yes.

I had a clarification question on the slide showing the bar chart with all of the different elements for the conservation. What is the water availability analysis? What does that refer to?

It's like

43.

I told you it's all animated. You gotta go through one by one. No. No. For the record, I didn't I didn't do that.

The CERT I

didn't do it out here.

You want me to I mean, it

I

So, I mean, I think it's there's like, basically, we've got kind of programs bucketed in. So, like, the water water availability analysis, of Wello domestic or ag things would be, like, anything that's falling under some type of ordinance that's requiring, like, the stuff we're going through for MST could kinda fit into that bucket, I think is what is what I've got in in there. So it's like, you know, things where you're you're requiring changes at, you know, at when a like, Wello, when a permit's pulled or whatever. So you're making investments in landscaping and indoor water use.

Yeah. I was just wondering what exactly was this water what are referring to here?

The WAA is a guidance document that was originally written in 2015 that we're updating now. And it basically kind of documents a process that people will go through if they're applying for a new use permit to document how much water

The 0.3 acre feet

Yes. Yeah.

Like this.

Yeah. Although now it's 0.5. Yeah. That was the interim number. So the TAG had had a briefing about it, I think, back in January 23. Just to provide some overview of what the history was related to the water availability analysis and that it's been in progress since to bring it forward and to transition it from interim to actual.

So I kinda think about that as, like, the domestic, and then that's kind of the stuff that was more focused on the ag side, but there are things that you would have to do, like, when you pull a permit or do you know, take some action for water conservation. Some of those are you know, and then there's some overlap with what's going on for, like, the certification partnership. Right? So, like, we've got in a you know, there's there's an ability to scale that program separate from the ability to scale some of those other programs. And then we're applying the estimated water savings that we had from that table way back in the the water conservation work plan to come up with a that's kind of a midpoint range, then we've got, like, a plus or minus on what the what those targets would be. Again, that's if we you know, you gotta get people to do it and you gotta measure it still. So yeah.

And then going into the measurement, I think you mentioned it, but last time you were also talking about where you were in the benchmarking exercise to kind of help with tracking and and measuring, and I was curious if there were any updates on on on that.

Yeah. So we we the the the honest answer is we got we got busy with the following or the I'm sorry. The the recharge program work, the extended replant work, and this updating on the education outreach stuff that Tory's gonna talk about. It's like we haven't done much on it towards the tail end of the summer, but we did spend some time at the beginning of the summer since last time we met getting it set up. So it's still got OpenET data.

We've done some work on that dashboard, and it's still kind of at the point where we need to get out and talk to more folks and see if it's gonna be helpful. I think some of the benchmarking concepts can apply in some of these other programs as well. Like, at the end of the day, it's a behavioral nudge. It's just an idea to get information in front of people that helps them make better decision, you know, make make decisions and make investments in water conservation. Yeah.

Duncan, can I ask, the benchmarking I keep looking at is something, well, it's a great idea, but we need data? We need data. So that's why we haven't really made, you know, as much progress we would like on that. Is that I mean, but you said it's populated with OpenET data.

Yeah.

So, I mean, I guess that's as good as anything. It's a good starting place.

Yeah. I mean, it's got like anything, it has its issues, but it's you know, it has coverage of the whole valley. And, I think we've spent enough time talking at at these committee meetings and then the individuals that have provided feedback on it. Like, it's got you know, there there's concerns sometimes about how the data's put together and and what it shows. But it's not a bad place to start because it gives us the coverage for the whole valley. And like I said, the next step is like, how useful is this for decision making? And does it serve the purpose as a behavioral nudge, which is what it's designed to do?

I guess what I'm hearing, I find that encouraging because I've been kind of under the assumption that we really need that actual pumping data. I mean, would be better if we did. But it seems to me, even to the extent that Open ET is not perfect data, it's imperfect the same for everyone. So it's still providing relativistically, which I think what this whole point of this is just to give people an idea what their relative use is compared to people or growers or pumpers similar to them. So it's still really valuable even if it's not perfectly accurate.

Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it's an incredibly even as a place to just start with measurement. Like, that's like, all of these programs, they work if you can ensure that you've I mean, you're gonna see the effect on the groundwater system at some point. But you wanna before you do that, you wanna ensure that the investments are actually getting you somewhere. So, like, OpenET or meters or, like, you we've you know, we need a way to to to understand that you're getting an effect. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. I think one point, in addition to a nudge or behavioral, it's also to understand the effect on effect on all of those initiatives that are being implemented. And it looks like now that things are actually getting starting to get implemented on those different items, that's where the tracking should also start with whatever imperfect data it's it's it's done.

Yep.

So it's but it's in it's in progress.

Yeah. I mean, we've pulled yeah. We have the we have the OpenET data in there. We've got the dashboard set up. We just like, I think that, like, it's done from that form. It's just we haven't, like, gone out and talked to people and seen if this is useful for affecting decisions. And to me, that needs to be coupled with, like, like, what are you asking me? Like, what are you asking me to to do? What decisions would I be making with this information? So that's the next step. The other thing that well, yeah. So that's so, yes, the short answer to your question is it's largely done as as a concept. It just hasn't been kinda pushed further to go out and talk to people about it and roll it out a little bit.

I just like to emphasize the importance of that question because as as I mentioned earlier, you know, that's the exact thing that DWR will be looking for when it looks annually now starting next year at the PMA template, and it will be looking for quantifiable results in some way so that it can assess, you know, how well is the basin doing and and how well is the GSA doing to manage groundwater in the basin. So one of the things that was in the water year 2024 annual report to try and look ahead to that question, there are tables related to the PMA's that also try to line out the metrics, you know, to assess, you know, related to the implementation of the PMA. So it's how many people were connected with, how many people did such and such. So we are trying to figure out a way to attach actions to the quantification that DWR is gonna be looking for.

Thank you.

And we'd appreciate any other ideas because it is a challenging one, as you all know, in trying to look at what is easily adoptable and something that all of the people in the community, you know, can get on board with, and how can we take that interest in stewardship and translate that to quantifiable actions.

At this stage, because there is no perfect data, it needs to be different lines of evidence that are looked at at the same time and see if they all point in the same direction or if they actually are showing different things, whether one is open ET, one is probably some type of pilot with having actual data and looking at trends over time and another one on some of those other metrics that are like number of adoptions or things like that and then if they concur or if they don't figuring out why and which one may be the best one.

One more thing that it it's not exactly on topics that you covered, but I'm still interested in this all of this land that we have in the county that is not human touch. It's natural open space land. And NAPA Firewise has been doing a lot to steward these lands in a way that reduces tree densities, which, as we know from studies, like in the Sierras and stuff, that a lot of our forests in California are are overly dense, right? And that when you do that, water that otherwise might be lost to evapotranspiration is then returned to the aquifer. And so I realized that within the sub basin, the proportion of land that falls into that category at Napa is not really directly within the sub basin.

But there is some. And so I'm wondering where we are on sort of some I mean, for a while, were talking about putting some kind of stations. But with Open ET, we should be able to get measurements of ET from places. And from Never Firewise, we should be able to know where these projects are occurring. So we should be able to potentially look and see if there are differences in water use by the vegetation within those areas that are either sort of not fallen within these stewardship zones versus those that have fallen within these stewardship zones.

Overall, it may not be a large contributor, but when we're looking at just adding acre feet and really and then also talking about incentivizing people. So not only is it you are stewarding the forest for wildfire, but then you're also stewarding it for sustainable water use. So I'm not sure really whose jurisdiction that falls under. Yeah. So, well, Duncan, you're like, I'm out of here.

Well, those are excellent comments that prompt a whole lot of different things that could be integrated. So one of the things that just last Friday, we submitted step one of a proposal to NASA about higher utility of NASA data sets to try and ground truth some additional information with hyperspectral data having 400 plus bands versus nine bands for Landsat. And two, in addition to how some of that information has been used for looking at diseases in vines, that there might be or not that there might be other utility in trying to make the Open ET local data more locally applicable. So looking at the algorithms that are currently out there and whether or not there are any ways to tweak that to make them additionally relevant to the sub basin. So part of that was to look at Open ET and how that might have a higher utility through the additional evaluation of other data sets, but also the idea of trying to connect it to native vegetation and baseline characterization that would complement what Christian and his team are doing for Stillwater Sciences and the interconnected surface water work plan.

And then also considering the effect of fires and other things going on in the watershed, so we're also trying to look at what kind of utility might there be with what the state board is now doing with the development of modeling for their purposes that links other kinds of approaches to the entire watershed. So some of these things, looking at changes in land uses, changes in runoff, changes in infiltration. So

it's a

great idea about trying to look at these other sources of data that might not be top of mind for all the things that have been done historically, but pulling them together so they create a greater utility in what we're trying to look at. Good suggestions.

And potentially looking outside the basin upstream of the tributaries because a lot of your comments apply there and would affect the basin.

Anything else?

I was just going to say, is that work kind of starts or goes on or whatever, if we can get updates on that, too? I feel like we hear a lot about urban use, or agricultural use, urban use. But I still think that this is an interesting piece of the question as well.

Yeah. Have had, as you know, an interest in the open aspects for a while and tried to look at, you know, recruiting volunteers. And there were half a dozen or so growers that were interested in participating, but that's another thing that we need to circle back on and increase, you know, the looking at, you know, what kinds of data sets that we can look at together to make that other OpenET data set, you know, more useful, including across the entire watershed because the the NVIHM too pulls from information outside the the sub basin proper. And the on the NASA grant, we're hoping that there'll be some feedback on that soon in time because this is just a step one part of that proposal. And if it goes forward, step two would be due in November.

So that would happen on a pretty fast pace if it happens.

Okay, Chair Filipelli, shall we I think if we're going to stay on track, we if there's no other comments from the TAG, we'll go to public comment?

Yeah, I think we're ready for that. Any public comment in the room pertaining to the current topics online?

We have one caller.

Great.

David, you will have three minutes.

Hi. This is David Graves. Unfortunately, I can't be there in person, but Zoom is a miraculous thing, I'll just say. I hope you can follow along with my list of suggestions. First, regarding managed aquifer recharge and opportunities as they are spread around the valley or the the sub basin.

I'm wondering if there's a a transmissivity map so that the reader or the user could see which areas of the sub basin are particularly promising for recharge. Same thing would apply to some of what we're now calling the domestic use, the self supplied poppers. It would be very informative to have them shown in a easy to create GIS layer that shows where the concentration of of that use is. It would also be useful to identify how many of those parcels have second homes on them. We also could continue to test open ET as it relates to those parcels.

Doctor. Cooper's discussion about the vegetation and its effect on behavior of the watershed is very well taken. I think it would be useful there was a chart of the differences of one year to the next on temperature and think it would be very useful to have a not only a year to year, but a spread geographically again mapped out to the sub basin of the vapor pressure deficit month by month so that we could see how years differ in their the in effect, this the thirst of the atmosphere. So those are the comments I had as a shotgun and I look forward to hearing the rest of the presentations. Thank you.

Thank you. And do we have any other?

Brian, you will have three minutes.

Hello, Brian Ron up in Anglin. And I was listening in about the open ET. I think, Jameson, you're absolutely correct. It's you're able when people use ET, at least growers do, it it's it's a a kind of a mathematical dance. You look at, you know, percent cover, percent shade, what your rootstock is, and you go through these calculations.

You get a k c, and I'm not going going to all those details. And then you get to management allowed deficit, and this is where the magic comes in. And this is where a big swing in how much water go you apply goes. You can you could apply 20% of that number. You can apply 60% or 70% of that number.

So as long as you if you're using something like open ET or whatever you're using, that just keys you to a benchmark that you're looking at what that ET number was for that block for that year or that period of timing that month or that period of time. And then you figured you were gonna put on say 35% of that. And then you do some in, observations measurements in the vineyard itself, and you see how that worked. So as long as that calculation or that benchmark says relatively, solid or equal, whether it's an absolute or not, you can use it to benchmark your irrigation's on. That's the extent of my comments.

Don, you will have three minutes.

Hello. Don Monk here, Napa County Farm Bureau. Duncan discussed diversions to ponds or reservoirs in lieu of future or pumping for irrigation. A lot of diversion for future use of surface water requires a water rate. Does the GSA override the state water resources board if you come up a plan for diverting water for storage for future use in high flow situations?

Or is the state water board considering modifying their, water rights permitting process to allow the GSA to better manage its water? Because as we all know, there's many growers that have added applications into the state water board for over twenty years and don't have a permit yet to divert and store water for future use. Those are my questions.

I think there would

be a lot of interest in growers being able to build a reservoir and store water if they could get the permit to do so. And parcels once removed from a waterway don't have access to it. So if those parcels that are one parcel removed from a waterway could have access to it and store, I think it would be beneficial to the basin.

Thank you.

We have no other callers.

Alright. So

Nick Newcomb is our next presenter. Yep. He's online. Great.

Yeah. Can you guys hear me?

Loud and clear.

Perfect. Can you pull up this should I pull up the slides, or, can you guys pull them up in house there?

I think we're working on it.

Okay. I

guess you'll have to just give us a heads up for moving on to the next slide.

Yeah. No problem.

What slide would you like to start on?

It's way down, maybe probably around 20 or 30.

Yeah, I think it's more for, yeah, 50, something like that. Keep going. Well, yeah, we can't. Is everybody catching all this? Getting a recap. There it is. There.

Perfect. Thank you.

Perfect. So I'm gonna do a just a brief presentation on some modeling we did with the Napa Valley integrated hydrologic model. Kind of the goal goal of this modeling was to, evaluate, the impact of some of these water conservation or or pumping demand projects and management actions, and we're particularly focused on, the significant streams in the sub basin. So what we looked at was near the significant streams. We we applied a 500 foot buffer to that and a a 1,500 foot buffer.

And the 500 foot buffer is shown in the purple, and the 1,500 foot buffer is shown in the green. And so we evaluated what the impact of a 10% decrease in irrigation, along with a 10% decrease in groundwater pumping along those areas. So that the the kind of modeling approach we took for the irrigation reduction, was to scale, the crop coefficients, in these irrigated lands only so that we scale the crop coefficient so that that that total irrigation at the end is 10% less than what we started, so we're 90% of the initial irrigation. So this is kinda commensurate with with kinda some of these water, conservation policies and, management actions that are being contemplated. For the pumping reduction, so we wanna do a a a 10% decrease in pumping within that same buffer area.

So the way that the the pumping is calculated or or simulated, I guess, in the modeling software is is you got a a pumping that's calculated internally based on land use, so that's pumping for irrigation. And then there's pumping that we specify, so that might be, pumping for indoor domestic use, pumping for municipalities, city of Saint Helena, and then these public water supply systems that also pump groundwater. So for the calculated pumping, we just in the wells within, these different buffers near the significant streams, we just reduced the maximum capacity that they could pump and then just kinda iteratively iteratively adjusted that. So we ended up with a 10% reduction in those wells. And for the specified pumping, for municipalities, public water supply systems, and the indoor domestic pumping, we just just did a straight 10% cut on, on the that pumping.

So move to the next slide. Can you guys see the slide? Yeah. Okay. Perfect. There are

there any technical difficulties on, Zoom?

No. I'm doing good. It just kinda flashed to someone else. But

Okay.

If if it's going well on your end, I would keep keep rolling.

Okay. Sounds good.

So some of the results from these, just just looking at the kind of the raw numbers, on the right side graph there, the the blue lines, are the simulated pumping, total pumping in a sub basin, in this baseline kinda calibrated scenario. The orange bars are the pumping with that 500 foot pumping reduction applied, 10% pumping reduction applied, and 1,500 foot buffer is in the green. So as far as irrigation, on average, we see about an 800 acre foot or or three and a half percent decrease in total irrigation. And then for the 1,500 foot buffer, we see about a seventy hundred and fifty, acre foot reduction in total irrigation in the sub basin. The pumping is not not the same as that because there's areas within the sub basin that are are solely or partially supplied by by surface water, so that the pumping is only reduced by 750 acre feet per year on average in the 500 foot buffer, and 1,500 feet 1,500 acre feet in the 1,500 foot buffer.

So just giving you a a sense of of kind of the relative pumping reductions relative to to the baseline. You can go to the next slide. So here, we're we're just looking at the impacts, on low flows. So we define low flows as as when the base in the baseline simulation, we see the discharge at Pope Street is less than 10 cubic feet per second. And the reason we do that is, one, I kind of exclude high flows.

So if there's a lot of flow, things can get a little bit out of balance, and it's more challenging to kind of evaluate these things. And that that that 10 CFS isn't linked to any sort of, like, biological criteria or anything like that. It's just kind of a benchmark that we can use to compare these different scenarios equally. So on the right hand side, there's a handful of figures. The the top one is looking at on the top top left, we're looking at the average low flows from June through October. And so in terms of raw low flow, you can see the relative increases in those Nick, low

yeah. I'm so sorry to interrupt you. Yeah, we're figuring out that apparently people can see you, but we can't. They can't see the slides. So we're working on that. And I just since what you're talking about is so critical to be able to see these graphs, I think we better just hold for a second and see if we can work through the technical issues.

Do you want me to just share my screen or would that Sure.

Yeah.

Could we also please lower the volume a little bit? Thank you. Sorry,

Nick. You're coming in way hot.

Yeah. Not your fault. Okay. Can you guys see my screen? I'll try and talk lower.

I don't know that it switched it.

Alright. Now we're seeing your presenter view. There you go.

Okay.

Sorry, everyone on Zoom. It's probably very confusing.

Let's see here.

Okay. Oh, we're doing good there?

Yes. Yep.

Okay. Perfect. So, yeah, kinda getting back to this. These these smaller charts on the left here, upper left is showing the relative increases or just that that the raw low flows during those periods. And then the the graphs on the right are showing the increase mean increase in flows, during those months.

That's across, from 2005 to 2024. So these top graphs are are the increase in flow at Pope Street. These graphs are the we're just looking at the mean increase in flow over that whole June through October period in kind of a downstream direction. So we see, you know, how those differences accumulate in the downstream direction. And then just kinda some numbers.

You know, we see about point two CFS increase, at Pope Street in this 500 foot buffer scenario and about a point four, CFS increase at Pope Street, in the 1,500 foot. And then at Oak Knoll, we see about a half half a CFS increase in flow, maybe more a point point four CFS increase in the 500 foot, and nearly a one CFS increase in the 1,500 foot scenario. And yeah. So we also yeah. And, again, see that increase going downstream.

And then on the bottom bottom left here, we just show the flow duration curves of seeing, you know, the kind of the general flow characteristic, in terms of percent time a certain flow is equaled or exceeded, and the relative differences in those, compared to the scenarios. So you see, like, you know, one CFS in the baseline works maybe 75%, where we get maybe more around, like, 78% in that 1,500 foot scenario. So getting kinda to, how this impacts and and relates to the sustainable management criterias. So both both the buffers at at Pope Street, and Oak Knoll, we don't don't see exceedances of the MTs anymore in this baseline period. So we go in the baseline, there was one, exceedance of the MT, during the 02/2014 period.

And that when we added the buffer, we go to no exceedances of the MT in the future or the the more recent period from 2015 to 2024. As you increase that buffer, so in our our baseline during this period, we have four years where we exceed, the SMC for stream depletion. And under the the 10% reduction within 500 feet of streams, it it drops to two CFS or two exceedances. And then in a fifteen fifteen hundred foot scenario, it's just one year where that MT is exceeded. And kinda similar pattern at Oak Knoll, during this recent period from 2015, 2024.

I mean, the baseline, there's there's five years that exceeded MT and then three years, with the 500 foot buffer and and two years with the 1,500 foot buffer. As far as the MO, so we're just seeing what years and and the graphs on the right here kinda help, illustrate. You know, we have the MO at Pope Street in the upper upper right in MT and how things compare over years. It's kinda graphically showing that. But at Oak Oak Knoll, we see a kind of a a increase in the number of years that the MO was met between 2005 and 2014, but relatively constant.

No no real change in in the years that MO was was met at Oak Knoll.

What is that? Is that a ring?

A ring. Yep.

So this last slide is just is kind of considering some considerations for how the SMCs are actually defined. And so I'm mostly relating to this graph in the upper right to kind of help, kind of guide what we're looking at here. But in terms of minimum threshold exceedances, we tend to see more of these occurring in wet years where there's less pumping, which is kind of maybe counterintuitive to what you would you would think. And in these drier years, we actually see us meeting meeting the MO, when there's more pumping occurring. So there isn't, you know, kind of a linkage between pumping and stream depletion with the way that the SMC is currently defined.

And the reason we see that is, in in dry years, you know, our our kind of pristine scenario where we don't have any groundwater pumping, which we use to calculate the stream depletion, that pristine scenario, is driven by climate, and the climate kinda produces a condition where regardless of if you're pumping or not, there's just not that much flow in in the Napa River and its tributaries, so there's not much to deplete. Where in the wetter years, you have, you know, like, a connected connected stream system, a lot of flow, and so any pumping you get is gonna produce depletion. So it's kinda why you see, you know, these empty exceedances at Pope Street, for example, in these wetter years. That's all kinda summarized there on the left, but, I I think kind of the key takeaway is that the the, the way we approach, the definition of the SMC should maybe, you know, be augmented to to account for these climate variations and how how they might affect the actual flow regime. Because, you know, the the the only thing that the GSA can really manage is recharge, and pumping for the most part.

And if if pumping isn't relating to that SMC, for interconnected surface water, then we need to be, yeah, you know, kinda incorporate climate into all that so that we can, you know, kinda better manage and and evaluate how implementation is going. So that's that's kind of a summary for my my slides. I apologize for the the technical difficulties, but, yeah, kinda open it up, for questions if there are any.

Nick, thanks for the presentation. On the reduction of pumping within the five hundred and fifteen hundred feet, like what is based on this analysis that you presented, would be the meaning or recommendation of what we are seeing here? Do we see went a bit fast. Do we I mean in your opinion, did we see more I mean more effect and more efficiency on reducing the pumping within those buffers and having there was no comparison with having a 10% overall or with having the same amount of pumping reduced in the entire area instead. Do we have Yeah.

Yeah.

I I think that'd be really, really helpful to add some context there to see, you know, what what type of impact we might see when we do it over the entire sub basin. Kinda looking at the raw numbers, like, you you there's there seems to be a greater relative impact on on stream flows compared to the acreages that are fallowed in the 500 foot. So you get kinda more more bang for your buck in in applying those irrigation, increasing the irrigation efficiency and reducing the irrigation in the 500 foot buffer, compared to doing that in the 1,500 foot. So you're you're you're obviously getting more net benefit to the streamflow, but, you know, the kind of the efficiency of that is reduced when you increase that buffer. So you're not for every acre, say, you fallow in the 1,500 foot, outside of that 500 foot, you're not getting as much impact on stream depletion, not fallow, but reduced irrigation.

Yes. I think it'd be useful to get a number of I'm just thinking, okay, if we reduce within 500 feet, we would need to reduce pumping the amount of pumping by 20% more if we spread this reduction over the entire basin, for example, or having some kind of metrics like that to get? And then what does that mean in terms of actual implementation? How is this going to be useful for how this can be used and to make some decisions on when where to target area for pumping reduction?

Yes. So getting a better kind of better linkage in terms of you reduce here and you get this kind of impact, you can maybe better inform kind of where and how much of a pumping reduction you'd be targeting, right?

Yes. And then I had just another question on it's modeling and it's I mean those we can see effect, but we are looking at a flow increase of like 0.2 CFS. Like how does that compare to the uncertainty? And how meaningful do we think do you think this number is increasing as compared to your understanding of the uncertainty that is associated with those simulations?

Yes, it's a good question. And obviously, when you get down to those flows, I think the uncertainty in the actual flow in terms of how how well the model is able to reproduce that, might not be great. But I think in looking at at kind of the deltas or the differences, between one model scenario and another one, you know, there might be some benefit benefit there to looking at really small flows as well. And that's, you know, that's that's of interest, I think, is, you know, between that, like, ten and one CFS discharge amounts. But I think it's always important to kinda keep in mind what the uncertainty of the model is.

I think in terms of, you know, accuracy and precision, you know, I I it's able to account for for the water budget very accurately. It's just, you know, how well it's actually representing the the the physical, you know, sub basin is is and and the flow the actual flows in the sub basin is is kind of the bigger question. Got it. Thanks.

Similar kind of question about the model. The examples in the slide showed Pope Street and Oak Knoll, which are on the north end of the basin. And I'm curious how far out geographically from those the model takes into account on that reduced pumping. Like obviously on the south end of the basin, if you're reducing pumping close to the waterways, it wouldn't affect flows at Pope Street Bridge, right?

Yeah. And that's there is that slide kind of showing that the downstream direction, how much, things are changing. And you see, you know, as as you go downstream, you get more of an increase in those low flows, given these two two scenarios. But, yeah, it's a good point. Like, you you reduce pumping, you know, down in Carneros.

It's probably not gonna affect Pope Street all that much. And I think that kinda gets back to, you know, Julie's comment of of looking at, you know, kinda maybe more localized areas and and looking at different amounts, you know, reducing pumping in this area and how it might impact, the conditions at one gauge versus another, just to maybe be able to kind of target where these pumping reductions might occur in terms of net benefits to the stream system.

Yeah. I think those are topics that we've explored previously and expressed interest in subregions of the basin. Already defined AVAs have been thrown out as a starting point versus all blue lines within the basin?

The challenge is, I think, sometimes is like if you're looking at a whole suite of scenarios, you know, to be able to kinda synthesize those, and that kinda gets back to, you know, can we come to some sort of metric that's that's easy to identify, you know, kinda action and impact without, you know, kind of looking at too much information and being able to synthesize that.

Just in terms of how to convey these results to the public or others, I think it could be confusing when you have this kind of result, counterintuitive. And maybe we need a way to kind of explain that. And it's one of these things when you have a fraction and a numerator and a denominator. And when the denominator is really big or really small, that can give you a different impression of what the results are. So anyway, I don't have an answer, but let's think about ways to express this so it doesn't have some confusing effect.

And could you speak a little bit more about why we have this lack of effect in the second period 2015 to 2024 compared to the earlier period.

And can you maybe pull the slide back up? Sorry, it would be helpful to see it while you talk. Sorry. We're making you do all the things today, Nick.

Oh, no problem. Happy to do it. Right. So, you know, kinda looking at at at just say Pope Street, you know, with the empty We can't

see it. Sorry.

Oh. Oh, really? Okay.

And if if it's giving you trouble, don't worry about it. Can I can pull it up separately? Oh, there we come.

Perfect. Great. Yeah. Sorry about that. So with respect to the MT, we do see a reduction in the number of years in this recent period where the MT was exceeded.

So we go, you know, from kind of the existing conditions, four years where that that MT was exceeded. And then with this 1,500 foot buffer, we we dropped down to one year. I think with respect to meeting the MO, it just I think it just that's the way that panned out in this recent period. Just happens to you know, you see increases in flow, but it doesn't cross that threshold. So it's just, I think, a function of where that threshold is relative to where things landed in the model.

But you I mean, you do see an increase in flow, you know, looking at 2021 At Pope Street. If everything went up by, like, 20 CFS, we would see, you know, one more year. No. That's that's a bad example. Anyway, so it's I think it's just a function for the MO of where that MO is, compared to to where the the results landed for this particular time period in these particular locations.

I'd just like to add, just so everybody's thinking about it, over this time period, the measurable objective and the minimum thresholds were established based on that 02/2014 period. So that 10% reduction is related to that period, and that 10 reduction was done for the whole sub basin at the time that those definitions were created. So when we look ahead, the 2015 to present, pumping went up quite a lot. So that 10% is something different than what it was at the time that the sustainable management criteria were defined. So that's part of the reason that we're not achieving the MO with the 10% reduction.

Pumping, yeah.

Well, if there's a way we can try to capture that. Otherwise, think it would be confusing.

So Nick is working on a different story line for GSA information, kind of compared to a more technical deep dive for this group.

All right. We don't have any other questions or comments from the TAG. We stay on track by seeing if there's any public comment in the room.

Regarding the 10% reduction as a goal, it was my understanding when we completed work on the advisory committee that the goal was to reduce pumping 10% from the base period. I see a nod so that's correct. And I do understand why the more recent period is challenging since the natural consequence of drought for irrigated farming is increased demand. So if we look at 10% reduction from the pumping as measured or calculated for that period, we're not going to see the same result and I don't know that it's feasible then under the conditions of increased demand to achieve what can be achieved in terms of absolute values for pumping during wetter periods but the challenge of setting achievable targets under drought conditions is going to be there no matter where we set the parameters so it does seem to me to be an essential and challenging aspect of all this to work on and I'm genuinely grateful it's not my job. Thank you.

Do we have any other comment in the room? How about online?

No public comment.

Alright. I we've come to our break time. We will readjourn at 03:32. Test. Here we are.

Welcome back, everybody. We are going to move to Christian with Stillwater for his presentation on California Environmental Flows Framework Goals and Ecological Monitoring.

Now I have to press the button. Thank you. We have to go. We could see the animation again. Well, say that it's good to repeat things over and over again, and then you learn them better.

Of course, I'm gonna go sailing right by mine. Alright. Alright. Thanks, everybody. It's nice to see you. It's been a long time. I think last time everyone was dirtier the last time we saw each other. It was or or at least maybe at the end of the day, I was dirtier. I'm gonna talk to you today about what we some of the monitoring we've done this year to date and what we found. But first, we'll start with sort of some a little bit of background and then some explanation of CEF and how we're where we're going.

This slide points out that there are a lot of different state actions on trying to improve stream flows for ecology going on right now. There's the California salmon strategy, which spawned the state board modeling that Vicki talked about earlier. There's California Water Commission white paper that's interesting. Part of that is analyzing ecosystem needs, which is one of the things we'll be doing through CEF. There's a drought resiliency interagency program, which someone must have gotten paid a lot of money to come up with the DRIP acronym, which I appreciate greatly, which is also looking to reduce drought impacts on ecosystems.

And then CDFW is doing a lot of different watershed studies where they're using the part a section a of CEF coupled with some sort of statewide or in some cases nationwide ecological models for for linking flow and ecosystems. So there's a lot of things going on right now. And our approach, I think, complements all of these to some degree. And just to remind you, Napa Sub Basin is smallish and it's very susceptible to uncertain precipitation patterns. We'll talk a little bit about how you can get to a spatial variation like we did last year.

It can have drought and with less natural resurges and slight differences in groundwater levels can affect the flow in the stream a lot, which is the struggle that Nick Newcomb is going through every day. There's a lot of ecosystems, vineyards, and other users rely on groundwater during the southern month summer months. And climate change means we're gonna need new strategies and innovation to use less groundwater and increase groundwater replenishment, which is what we've been talking about so far in this meeting today. So what are we doing and where are we going? I think this is an adaptation of a timeline you saw the last time I was in this room.

So over the two the implementation of the work plan is is happening now, the ISW and GDE's work plan. That includes the modeling, some of the modeling that Nick's doing, sort of update some of our analysis. And then the monitoring is a major component that we've been doing the last two years, including the biological monitoring that we'll be talking about a lot, the hydrological monitoring that I'm not gonna talk about at all, at least not today, and the updates to the model and modeling scenarios that Nick is taking taking over. And all that is is gonna be used in the CEF analysis where we're gonna develop ecological goals, and I'll I'll talk about that a little bit, and and functional flow criteria at our different sites of interest. And once we complete the CEF analysis, at least the two scientific parts, parts a and b, we can then use that as input to sustainable management criteria.

One of the questions that comes up when you're trying to identify sustainable management criteria is how much water does the ecosystem need and when? And so that's the question we're trying to answer. And all this is working towards having something for the periodic evaluation, which is due to DWR at the January 2027, which seemed like a really long time from when we started, but now is creeping up quickly, sadly. So there's a strong as I said, there's a strong linkage between water surface and flow in the Napa River. And along with that linkage between water surface or the groundwater surface, the groundwater elevation and flow, and part of that linkage is that linkage between flow and ecosystem response.

The more water there is, the more room there is for fish, the better temperature conditions tend to be, the more food that is available. And as the groundwater level drops, the you can transition from a flowing condition to isolated pools where you have fewer fish. And if then it continues to drop and the channel goes dry, one of the things we know about fish that I'm absolutely certain about is that they need water. I've tried that in my fish tank at home and it didn't work. And we can use when we develop the functional flow criteria, which is a relationship between flow and ecosystem response, we can use that to inform the interconnected surface water monitoring and modeling and sustainable management criteria, as I just discussed.

So to remind you, the work plan was implemented at six intensive survey sites, four main stem sites and two tributaries. We all did, I think, three different fields visits in which we visited each one visited four sites and we saw five sites total. I think we saw every site except Oak Knoll last May. And we will apply CEF to aquatic and terrestrial GDEs and collect data at each of these sites. So it's four main stem sites and two tributaries, Sulphur Creek and Beale Slough.

So the steps to break out the CEF part a little bit. The first thing we need to do is figure out what species are present. We do that in the work plan using publicly available data, but we're doing biological monitoring to update and supplement that. Based on those, the biological monitoring, we can then identify water requirements for the different species and their life stages, including the timing and magnitude of flows. And using that in combination with water conditions in the sub basin, which we can figure out using physical monitoring of the flows and flow connectivity and modeling, we can then assess the groundwater levels and surface flows required to meet goals, NAPA specific ecological goals and ecological goals that we'll set at each site.

And using that incorporated, we'll use that to inform the sustainable management criteria where we're also going to be taking into account other beneficial uses and users as required by Sigma. So this is taken directly from the work plan, and I like to read it to myself every once in a while to remind myself what we started off, where we started. And I'll just read it really quickly. The interconnected surface water and GDEs work plan goal is to use physical and biological data coupled with integrated hydrologic modeling to better understand the conditions required to protect and enhance healthy terrestrial and aquatic GDEs. The work plan describes the steps needed to understand the conditions necessary to protect and enhance steelhead spawning, rearing, and migration in the watershed, support special status aquatic species, and protect and enhance terrestrial GDEs and special status species.

So that's what we're working towards overall. So that's our overall goal within CEF. And then we're going to take that goal and adapt it at each of the different sites. So our ecological goals will vary by site, and they're a function of things like hydrology, the habitats that that's there, including physical habitat, things like whether there's bars and pools in the channel and how much cover there are for aquatic organisms. And also water quality, things like stream temperature and dissolved oxygen.

And then the biological use at each site, what species are present. And we'll take all that together to come up with ecological goals for each site. So there are some goals that are at I feel like I'm too far away from this. There are some goals that occur that are at all the sites. One of them is to support groundwater dependent riparian vegetation.

And what that requires is maintaining summer groundwater levels within the rooting zone of riparian trees. Support upstream and downstream fish passage. All of our sites have fish habitat upstream that we want the fish to be able to get to and get away from when they need to go back to the ocean. And to maintain ecosystem diversity, that's sort of a proxy for whatever special status species are there or whatever it's most easily quantified by the number of special status species and maintaining those. But it also means if there's a variety of frog species, native frog species occurring at a spot, we'd like to keep those healthy.

We then developed some site specific goals. In Calistoga, at the upstream in the basin, we want to make sure that isolated pools are maintained for the California freshwater shrimp, which are a tiny little shrimp that only occur in three places or three different counties in California. Napa is one of them. At Sulphur Creek, Napa at St. Helena, and Dry Creek, which I'll explain why Dry Creek in a second, we want to maintain foothill yellow legged frog habitat to support so that the frogs can so there's favorable hydraulic conditions so that they can metamorphose into from tadpoles into things with legs that can move around on the on rocks.

And then finally, where present, we want to support steelhead or Chinook rearing, where there's present and sufficient temperatures. And all these goals are going to focus on the timing of the flows and whether or not there's sufficient water quality to support the migration of juveniles. So data analysis, we can compare existing conditions to versus no pumping or natural scenarios. We can do that using the NVIHM, as Nick was talking about a little bit earlier. We use that for the dry season base flows and the spring recession flows.

When that model, which operates at a monthly time scale, is going to be most helpful. And we'll use the natural flows database to get a handle on fall pulse flows and peaks. We'll also use other sources to try and understand that as well. For what biology is present, we'll use the monitoring that we've done for the last two years, plus what's in the literature, which mostly revolves around what those species requirements are. So we want to know what species use at site, what the ecological goals are, what their biological needs and constraints are, how much habitat do they need, what stream temperatures do they require to not die or be impaired?

And then we'll develop flow ecology relationships following CEF, which will include the magnitude, timing, and duration of flows. And then finally, we'll ask how these goals depend on groundwater management, if they do at all. So a quick summary of monitoring in 2024 and 2025. What did we do? We surveyed for amphibians and reptiles at all the sites using both visual encounter surveys and environmental DNA surveys, which you where you take a sample of water.

Were the EA DNA surveys were specifically for Foothill yellow legged frog and Northwestern Pond turtle, which were the listed species. California freshwater shrimp surveys in Calistoga. We did it last year at the August. And this year, our surveys got delayed by the fire. And so they'll be in the October.

We did riparian bird surveys using birds call we deployed bird call recorders out at each of the sites. And so we made recordings of bird calls, which ended up being really cool. And vegetation health and special status plant surveys. The vegetation health surveys for 2025 are going to happen next week. As far as habitat, most of these surveys were done by the RCD or Napa County.

So fish habitat at each site was mapped at 2024 and then in 2025 for two of the sites. Stream temperature was monitored in 2024 and 2025 along with dissolved oxygen. The RCDs done wet dry mapping and flow connectivity in both years and they do that monthly. And we've also been monitoring, LCE has been monitoring shallow groundwater and streamflow. And I think Brendan downloads much of that data.

So that's sort of the plan of what data has been collected and what it's being used for. And I'm going to switch to just sort of talk about 2025 pretty briefly. So the plot on the right is just a cumulative precipitation plot from the NAPO State Hospital. And 2025 I keep wanting to point the laser pointer, which isn't going to do anyone any good. 2025 is the line in red.

So the gray lines are 2,000 to 2021, showing sort of the variability that happens from year to year. 2025, you can see, is slightly below where 2024 was, which was below average. So we're the three of the last four years we've had flows that are slightly below average or rainfall slightly below average as measured at Knapp State Hospital. So not much rain, but was 2025 was very different from 2024 in that there was a lot less the temperatures were a lot more gentle. It was not as warm.

There were not as many hot days. And you can see that here, the 2025 is the red squares. And in June and July 2025 was, you know, something like up to five or so degrees cooler than 2022 or 2024. In August, it was about the same temperature, at least as the time that this graph was made, think, which was around August 20. So average rain at state hospital, cooler.

But I think Albert always kept reminding, has said many times in the field that it rains more up north. And that was especially true this year. This shows the rainfall measured at the state hospital that I just that was the plot I just showed you on the left. And on the right is petrified forest, which is on the northern part of the watershed. And you can see that in contrast to the near the town of Napa, in the northern part of the watershed, it was very wet.

It was the it was the second wettest of the year since or third wettest year since twenty twenty two thousand and seven when this chart here was plotted. And that's mostly because of a giant rainstorm that happened in November. So it was early in the year. And just comparing these two plots, you can see that it was about three or four inches over that storm at the state hospital and something like 18 inches up at the Petrified Forest in that November storm. So it was a very weird year hydrologically.

The cooler air temperatures led to cooler stream temperatures. This is a plot put together by Nick Feathersson from the county. And the colors indicate whether it's suitable for they indicate the suitability for steelhead rearing, with the green being suitable and so they can grow and get bigger, and the red being bad, and the darkest red being lethal. And you can see the light blue lines are for 2025 and it's generally lower temperature in the stream the 2024. So last year, it's much cooler than last year, given which you would expect given the differences in air temperature.

That difference was a little smaller if you move down to St. Helena, But still it was cooler, particularly in July, when we had the big heat wave last year. So we had cooler temperatures this year, more suitable conditions for rearing, which is good if you're a fish. So did we find in the biological surveys? We were our frog biologists were just over the moon, to that they were able at Sulphur Creek, they were able to observe one of the big questions we had there was how much time do the frogs need to go from being eggs, as you see in that plot or that picture on the upper right, to being adults and being able to hop, to being able to hop away.

And they were able to observe each of those, they were able to observe eggs, tadpoles and adults so that there was sufficient time at Sulphur Creek for those frogs to get out of the water before it dried up, which they were just super excited about. The RCD had to count a lot of fish this year. There were steelhead and Chinook juveniles were much more widespread and abundant in 2025 and then 2024. And I'll show you that data in a minute. We'll know more about the GDE vegetation remapped and how that compares to last year in a week.

We don't know too much yet. And the bird surveys, they identified 62 species on our preliminary analysis of the data. 62 different birds. Most of them are relatively common. But we're still processing the data.

First process, we were pretty restrictive on how free flowing the model could be on whether or not there was seeing a weird bird. And so we're going to relax that a little bit and see if we get different results. This table shows the results of the surveys for steelhead, which is Omicus, and Chinook juveniles in 2024 and 2025. And at the seven sites or at the six sites plus two surveys at Sulphur Creek. And the first thing that jumps out is that juveniles were much more common in 2025 than 2024.

You can see that there were something like almost 800 juvenile steelhead were observed in Suffer Creek in May. There were still two forty of them in June. They just had moved further upstream as the flow decreased downstream. And maybe the most shocking thing was the number Chinook juveniles that were observed. Paul Blank from the RCD told me that he was getting calls all spring about people seeing all winter and spring about people seeing Chinook reds and Chinook spawning happening in the basin, particularly up near Calistoga.

So as a result, we saw a lot more Chinook juveniles than we did previously. And we don't really know if these fish were able to get out of the system. This just shows the same thing kind of graphically, so you can see where we've seen frogs and where we've seen turtles and fish. But of note was the observation of the frog at Oak Knoll in the southern part, the furthest south monitoring station we have. We were really surprised.

We didn't see any, in our initial surveys, didn't see any, the habitat looks terrible and we didn't see anything that looks like we didn't see any frogs within the stream. But then we went and did this environmental DNA sample and we got a positive result for Oak Knoll, which was really surprising. And so we went back out And based on some suggestions from the RCD, we spent some time walking up Dry Creek and that's where we found them. So it turns out that at Dry Creek, we didn't see any bale slough which didn't have as great a habitat for the frogs. But Dry Creek and Sulphur Creek both were supporting foothill yellow legged frogs, which are very cute.

So what are the implications for the ecological goals? So if we had just done our study last year and said that that was the truth for all time, and you just do a one year study and you know everything about a basin, people would have been scoffed at us. But also, we would have been wrong. It turns out that stream temperatures and dissolved oxygen conditions can be suitable for longer in the Napa main stem in years like 2025, when it's a little bit wetter and it's cooler. We saw a lot of variation in fish observations from year to year.

And we need to sort of link those observations where we're seeing fish with the habitat mapping that the RCD did. And Chinook juveniles were at nearly all the sites in 2025, where we didn't see any last year. And one of the questions that will be outstanding for us is, do rearing juvenile survive sites that go dry or become isolated pools? We don't really know that yet. And tributaries and the main stem channels near tributary junctions seem like they're the places where we have the good foothill, yellow, and frog habitat.

At where the tributaries come in, there's more sediment and there's more bars and pools, and so there's a little more habitat diversity than there is once you get away from the tributaries. And so our next steps, we're going to continue monitoring in 2026. The RCD is going to continue to do wet dry mapping, do snorkeling for fish, measuring temperature, and dissolved oxygen. Those will continue next year. The hydrological monitoring, which has been ongoing for a long time, is going to continue.

And we're going to be working on completing CEF over the next six months or so in preparation for our five year periodic evaluation in January 2027. And I think that's my last slide. Thank you.

Thank

you. Any questions or comments from the TAG?

Could you please remind me what section C is?

Yeah, sections yeah, I should have done that. Section C is the so the first part is sort of the three sections are. Section a is what you know, using statewide assessments to sort of figure out what the flow should be. Section b is like, well, how does our actual river work? And section c is you take that data and you put it all together with all the other users in the basin and you come up with a flow plan.

So it's not all that different really from what you would do to create a to to under Sigma to do, to develop sustainable management criteria. That's the one, section c is the one that hasn't, to my knowledge, I think it still hasn't been completed in any in any basin. My company's, we're currently working on one for the Los Angeles River for section C, and it's becoming clear that it's a heavy lift. But we're getting there.

You haven't yet tried to link fluctuations of groundwater with any of the observations that you're making, right? That's to come.

That is to come, yes. We've been we're doing a lot of work to try and get more surface water and groundwater data. I think the most useful at these sites is probably going to be the wet dry mapping for our needs. And so we haven't processed this year's wet dry mapping, so we don't know how that compared with last year. And we've had a couple of the one

of

the sites had some bad groundwater data this year, I think. Or maybe it was a surf No, that was the surface water measurement that wasn't working out, but had some problems, I think. Yeah. And we're installing you know, we installed a new we've got a well that just went in this year at Calistoga. So there's still some work to do on that.

And so that's to come. The CalSIP program is going to help out a lot. One of the sites that we're going to put in a surface flow gauge is in Calistoga. So we'll have this new shallow groundwater or the paired groundwater well. And we'll also have we'll have water stage elevation and then the flows at the Cal SIP site, which will be really nice.

Interesting that you could get some difference in the hydrology from these two years, so that's probably helped start understanding.

It was, at first I was like, oh, it's the same water year as last year. And then once we dug into it more and as the flows were persisting longer, it was much, we got lucky in that regard, yeah.

Yeah, yeah, it's strange here. We can talk about that offline. But very interesting, the Calistoga results. You've got steelhead last year, none this year, but in this deluge of Shinuppar.

Yeah, I found that really interesting too. Last year we did observe a steelhead red right near the Calistoga site. And so I think that we may have been seeing juveniles that were from that red or other similar reds nearby. And a simple, untested, and maybe shouldn't be said out loud hypothesis might be that the widespread Chinook spawning may have taken up the Chinook may have taken up out competed the steelhead for spawning there. But we haven't that is very yeah, I probably shouldn't say that in public.

Good thing. I

can just imagine the biologists in my office shaking their heads.

Yeah.

Well, is the problem you have of we always start with a simple conceptual model and then get these field data and they mess it all up. They

do. I we saw I think we saw a lot more, you know, a lot more rearing occurring at least early in the season than we expected, especially this year.

No other comments, questions from Tag? Any public comment from the room? Online?

We have one caller.

Great.

David, you will have three minutes.

Thank you. David Graves once again. Christian, I I think I know the answer to this, but we did have a a twenty plus years ago, we did have a benthic macroinverbate survey done with ECO Trust and Charles Dubeberry. I understand that the taxonomy is a giant root canal, but it would seem to me that replicating that work at some point would be very useful. So I'll just put in a plug for that.

Second plug is whenever you're doing the integrated hydrologic model, in my mind, it's always useful to also have the term of what is the surface flow and subsurface flow out of the basin as one of the terms of, you know, coming to the entire budget for the hydrology. Third, I'll put in a plug for bats. There are a lot of pretty cool bat devices that will record the calls of bats and provide sonograms that could be used to identify which species might be present. Those are deployable remotely, and you just collect them when you're when you're done. You leave them out overnight.

And, yeah, hats off to you guys for all that hard work. And I there there are the the interesting questions that doctor Condonov mentioned are still out there, of course. So we look forward to more results and further interpretation. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other callers?

We have no other callers.

All right. Thank you, Christian. That brings up our final presenter of the day. Tori, welcome.

Thanks for having us again. Long time no see. But today, I'd like to take a chance to first get to the right slide. Awesome. So today, I want to take a few minutes out of your day to talk about some expanded outreach we've been looking at.

So over the last couple of years, we've been doing education and outreach surrounding the GSP and the work plans and all of the things that you've been hearing about today. And we've been reaching a wide range of stakeholders through things like presentations, workshops, and a lot of one on one meetings. This past year, a lot of it was very much focused on the water certification partnership, especially since those folks are going to be impacted by any potential program that comes out of this pilot. And so we really focus heavily on reaching out to the wine industry directly, both on the ag side and the winery side, and then reached out to sustainability programs and other organizations who might end up partnering with us on this type of program. So on the right hand side, you'll see a lovely chart that's been updated for our current outreach from September 2023 to July 2025.

This doesn't cover everything, but it does cover quite a bit of what we've had going on. So you'll see a lot of work on talking with certification programs along with stakeholders and organizations in the wine industry, but we have some other areas that we've been also seeing some progress in. But based upon those conversations, it's become very clear that there is a lot of opportunity out there to expand our education and outreach. There's a lot of water users who are affected by the GSP here in Napa, and having them be involved with the development of these work plans, their implementation, and therefore the programs and opportunities that come out of it is really important for seeing both the success of the implementation of the GSP, but also having an openness and awareness of these efforts that are going on and encouraging folks to be a part of the solution. So one thing that's come out of this is the expansion of not only just education and outreach that just comes up with regular opportunities, but actually being really intentional about that.

Part of that's come through development of the Water Conservation Community Engagement and Education Plan. We are still workshopping that acronym, don't worry. There's a lot of Cs and a lot of Es. But the idea behind this program is to this plan is to develop an effective implementation of the GSP by creating actionable, intentional strategic plan for meaningful engagement with water users and stakeholders throughout the valley. This plan is intended to meet the following goals that are listed in front of you.

I'm going to read off some of those. The first one is increasing understanding of water issues in the Napa Valley Subbasin. So understanding what does our water environment look like right now. Just laying that base understanding and having that engagement and communication. Next comes talking to connecting stakeholders with work plan information, programs, and resources.

There's a lot of information out there, but sometimes that's hard to access. And so creating a strategic opportunity and action steps for making that easily available is really important as part of this. Third, we're going to help create more forums for the exchange of feedback and input, which is really important as we develop these programs and action steps and implement. Fourth, we'll be using that feedback to then refine programs for effectiveness and acceptance, finally with the grand intention of promoting expanded water stewardship and water conservation throughout the Napa Valley Sub Basin. This looks like a lot of different ways we can approach this, but one aspect is utilizing the existing framework of water conservation, a Napa way of life, to help spread this message and create opportunities for all users to be involved with water stewardship throughout the valley.

So Mind the DRIP is one aspect of that framework that already exists, but the idea is that we're all in the same boat with just a different paddle trying to create abundance and conserve water throughout the sub basin. And these actions that are being developed is asking what is going to increase water conservation in the valley. Another view of looking at that is everyone has an interest in seeing forth the future in Napa Valley, especially when it comes to watershed resiliency. Everyone relies on water in some way, shape, or form, whether it's your line of business or just the faucet that turns on at the tap at home. This looks like a lot of different actions, but it can also include things like workshops, partnering with other organizations throughout the valley, and offering simple delivered messages that is a cohesive and understandable way of understanding what's going on with the GSP and its implementation.

With that, I do want to call out some of the great organizations and people we have been working with so far and those we are looking to seek to partner in looking forward to implementing this plan. We're hoping to have that available in the next couple of months. We're still refining some things, but at this time, NAPA RCD is on there, The WIC is on there, but we're also looking at some of the local wine industry organizations, sustainability partnership programs, business, civic, and community organizations, along with other entities identified in conservation and environmental organizations. This is not a comprehensive list by any means. There's a lot of people out there who are worried about water and also have an impact upon it.

So we're looking forward to partnering with those folks going into the future. With that, I think I'll stop for any questions.

Did you guys come up with those graphics? I I really like them.

And that was our publication specialist.

Well done.

Thank you, Tori. Go ahead.

No, I just I mean, on your last slide, is it a call for people to reach out to you if they want to participate and be involved in this outreach? Is that kind of what

I think there's a couple different avenues for making that outreach. Those can go directly to the county. But our technical partners are all more than happy to be a part of that conversation as well.

One thing those graphics are aggravating. One thing and it goes back to what Matt was saying a bit about some of the communication of some of the results and how to do that. Think that could be an avenue where the TAC could provide some feedback as things are developed on how to convey some of the technical results.

I'll make sure those are included.

Are we oh, I'm sorry. You had something to say. Are we planning some sort of yearly event get together? We did something in February year.

The

yeah. The WIC conference?

No. Not the WIC conference.

No. December. The watershed? Yeah. That was December. Okay. I don't

know. We're going

to With the Napa Valley Great Growers, we got together. Great growers. Then we so I talked about irrigation distribution informative. And then Duncan was there. And then we had some members of the public talking to Jamieson as well.

So it seemed like it was one opportunity where we could give, other than these meetings, give an update to the public and give an opportunity for others to give feedback. So I would be supportive if we want to do the NavVarsity. One of our objectives is to have at least one workshop a year related to water conservation. So we are happy to partner up on that if or I can just invite you if you don't want to worry about organizing. I don't think that we got there was not a lot of people there. So we could have You

mean at the grape growers?

No, no, no. Oh. Well, the event with the Napa grape growers that did the Napa RC did. We did it at the auditorium at Napa Valley College. Well,

SPEAKER It's all relative. SPEAKER It's all relative,

yeah, of course. So anyways, the Napa RC would be very happy to help facilitate some of those conversations if we want to go that route.

We will keep participating as long as they keep inviting us.

Yeah. I will follow-up and say that shout out to Caleb and Emily out at Napa Valley Grape Growers. That was an opportunity that they offered to us after having discussions about their current education and outreach. And it worked out really well that that was something they wanted to talk more about was water and irrigation in vineyards. And that became a great opportunity and led to an opportunity to expand upon the GSP and some of the work that we've been doing. So shout out that we're always looking for those opportunities, but it also came out of a great partnership that we're looking to continue into the future as part of this plan.

Okay. Thank you, Tori. Do we have any, public comment in the room or online?

We have one caller. David, you will have three minutes.

Thank you. David again. I'll be begging your indulgence. This is going back to slide 48 in the talking about the ceph process. And I I'm just curious where where might we come up with water for a fall pulse to be released into the system as a way of of signaling the salmonids that it's time to move up from the estuary into the system.

The only place I could think of would be the municipal reservoirs. Perhaps there's a I don't know how much volume there is in the in the other, you know, vineyard reservoirs, but it seems like if we're gonna do that, we have to start thinking about where that water might come from because it may actually induce a lot of migration that otherwise would be delayed. That's all. Thank you very much for today.

Thank you. Any other online comment?

No other callers.

All right. Thank you, Tori. That wraps up our speakers for today. We'll move to you, Jamison, for

a

wrap up.

A wrap up. Okay. Let's put a bow on it. Yeah. We're going to next meeting, November 13, December 11 is tentative. Something. I just missed a hand signal from Monica. I didn't get that. Okay. Nothing.

Okay. You all are, of course, always just a reminder, you're welcome to email or call anytime with suggestions for topics, any questions you have. As I think I've kind of talked to everybody, we really want to also, in addition to tag meetings, utilize each of your expertise individually with kind of individual calls and meetings, of course, never exceeding two people so we don't create a quorum of the body. But we'll be doing more of that. So yeah, that's all I have for the wrap up, unless somebody else has something or if you have a topic right now that you'd like to see on agenda, come forward. If not, we'll wrap it up. It's a wrap.

Alright. It's a wrap. Thanks, everybody.

Thank you all.