sept 8, 2021

Clear Lake Blue Ribbon Committee

Near-Term Project Abstract: Lake County Storm Water Infrastructure and Program Improvement

Sept 8, 2021

Project Title:

Lake County Storm Water Infrastructure and Program Improvement Project

Project Description:

This project is expected to occur over a 3-5 year period, and will cover both physical storm water structural and source water control (policy and programmatic) for the jurisdictions of County of Lake Community Growth Boundaries, City of Lakeport, City of Clearlake, and the unincorporated areas of Lake County. This project will include approximately 5 tasks (1.0 Project Coordination, 2.0 Infrastructure Assessment and Improvement Planning, 3.0 Storm Water Management Program & Policy Review and Improvement Plan, 4.0 Trash Plan Implementation, 5.0 Outreach and Education. These tasks are estimated by County and City staff to be extremely vital to the proper form and function of a successful storm water management improvement efforts in the entire Lake County.

County and the Clean Water Program can facilitate and coordinate most of the task organization and tracking (Task 1.0). RFPs / RFQs will be required for the majority of work where a consultant is needed (task 2.0, 3.0, some of 4.0) including tasks that will review, audit, and identify improvement strategies to both physical structure upgrades and policy and programmatic updates. Established relationships with CivicSpark Fellowship program can be utilized for task 5.0, outreach and education. Additional products from Task 5.0 Education and Outreach, such as produced materials (i.e. factsheets, curricula, brochures, coloring books, digital educational videos and interactive websites) will be valuable for Blue Ribbon Committee identified Education goals, as identified in 2021 Technical and Socio Economic Sub Committee discussions.

This proposal is very programmatic; no significant storm water capital projects can yet be completed because there have not been the dedicated studied and maintenance to identify where high-impact system improvements can be build that would maximize the nutrient load reduction from the storm water systems, both natural and built. The true effectiveness of a comprehensive and effective storm water management program is consistency and evaluation, especially as systems age, infrastructure degrades or inputs exceed flow accommodations, through pressures and fluctuations caused by natural disasters such as flooding, droughts, wildfire, and other climate change-mediated variations. Lake County has suffered through all types of natural disasters, yet has never been able to update and upgrade storm water infrastructure, programs, or policies.

Task 3.0 Includes the task identified as important by Blue Ribbon Committee members within the 2019 and 2020 list of recommendations for funding in 2021, specifically recommendation #4. Review the implementation of existing Tribal, local, State, and Federal programs, Best Management Practices (BMPs), and other management requirements to limit sedimentation/nutrient loading in the Clear Lake Basin (Page 11, https://resources.ca.gov/-/media/CNRA-Website/Files/Initiatives/Clearlake-BRC/2020-BRC-Annual-Report-_20200106_FINAL.pdf)

The total expected cost for this project is currently estimated to be $1,601,036.50 including a match from County of Lake Cannabis funds of $300,000 during the project year and a committed $200,000 for the 2 years after the project, to demonstrate County commitment and project sustainability. These funds are not yet requested, but they are available and allocated for water protection projects and environmental protection. Blue Ribbon Committee contributions are estimated at $1,901,036.50 for a three year project with five year sustainability plan provided by the County and the Clean Water Program (i.e. County of Lake, Watershed Protection District, City of Lakeport, City of Clearlake).

Project Timeline:

Project is expected to occur over a three year period, with estimated start date of Winter 2022. Continuation tasks into 2025-2026 will be included in match funds from County. Project Timeline is broken down by year, with Seasonal indicators for the time of year Project task is expected to be completed. Seasons indicated by W=Jan-March, SP = April – June, SU= July –Sept, F=Oct-Dec.

2022 2023 2024 2025

2026

Task Subtask W SP

SU F W S

P SU F W S

P SU F

1.0 Project

Administration

1.1 Project Coordination (multiple staff) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

1.2 Accounting x x x x x x x x x x x x 1.3 Legal / County Counsel x x x 1.4 Data Collection, Analysis, Summary, Reporting* x x x x x x x x x x x x

1.5 Supplies, Office and Field Materials* x x x x x x x x x x x x

1.6 Monitoring (nine sites, multiple events, multiple staff)* x x x x x x x x

1.7 Purchase Monitoring Supplies* x x x x x x 1.8 Purchase and install Software x x x x x 1.9 Conduct Training x x x x x x x x

2.0 Infrstruct

ure Assessme

nt and Improve

ment Planning

2.1 Consultant RFP Development, Selection, Agreements, Meetings, Facilitation x x x

2.2 Storm Water System Infrastructure Assessment x x x x x x

2.3 Storm Drain Upgrade Prioritization x x x x x x 2.4 Upgrade Designs and Engineering Plans x x x x

2.5 Final Reporting and Presentations x x

https://resources.ca.gov/-/media/CNRA-Website/Files/Initiatives/Clearlake-BRC/2020-BRC-Annual-Report-_20200106_FINAL.pdf

https://resources.ca.gov/-/media/CNRA-Website/Files/Initiatives/Clearlake-BRC/2020-BRC-Annual-Report-_20200106_FINAL.pdf

3.0 Storm Water

Management P & P Review

and Improve

ment

3.1 Consultant RFP Development, Selection, Agreements, Meetings, Facilitation x x x

3.2 Task Coordination (tracking, faciliation, meeting, reporting) x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x

3.3 Policy Review and Improvement Plan (Ordinance, Storm Water Management Plan) x x x x x

3.4 Program Review and Improvement Plan (Execution, Implementation of the policy, multiple jurisdictions & departments ) x x x x x x x

3.5 Storm Water Improved Policy and Program Reporting and Reccomendations (Draft updated ordinance, program needs, O & M funding cost estimation etc.) x x x x x x x x x

4.0 Trash Plan

Implementation

4.1 Task Coordination (Trash Workgroup Facilitation) x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

4.2 Creek Clean up Events x x x x x x x x 4.3 Solid Waste Removal and Enforcement (towing, dumping, vessel pick up)* ~higher estimates x x x x x x x x x x x x

4.4 Adopt a Drain / Street Program x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 4.5 Illicit Dicharge, spill response program audit and tracking x x x x x x x x x x x x

4.6 Purchase Materials and Supplies x x x x x x

5.0 Outreach

and Education

5.1 Task Coordination and Facilitation* x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 5.2 Outreach Coordinator (Interns, Civic Spark Fellows) x x x x x x x x

5.3 Materials (factsheets, brochures, billboards, signs) x x x x

5.4 Digital marketing (social media, ads) x x x x x x

5.5 Stormwater PSA and videos x x x x x x

Projected Budget: Please see attached budget Sheet.

Task Description (brief- 1 sentence)

Suggested Response Party Amount

1. Project Administration County of Lake & Clean Water Program (Co-Permittees City of Clearlake and Lakeport)

Estimated ~$180, 590

2. Infrastructure Assessment and Improvement Planning

County of Lake will coordinate, work completed by a consultant

Estimated ~ $322,425

3. Storm Water Management P & P Review and Improvement

County of Lake will coordinate, work completed by a consultant

Estimated ~$339,200

4. Trash Plan Implementation *

County will coordinate and execute, with assistance from Public Services and other partners

~706,700.00

5. Outreach and Education County will coordinate with Partners from AmeriCorp and consultants.

~$179,300

Subtotal $1,728,215.00 Expected Overhead or

Administrative Fees: (10% Estimated) ~$172, 821.50

BRC Projected Total: ~$1,601,036.50 Expected Match From County ($300,000) Project Cost Over 3 year ~$1,901,036.50 Project Cost Over 5 years ~$2,101,036.50

*This component is estimations, still waiting on information from Public Services on Free Dump Day and solid waste removal costs and tracking. Amounts provided are very rough estimates and based on informal conversations with other counties who already have well-established counties.


Near-Term Project Abstract: Abatement of Dilapidated Lakebed Structures

September 13, 2021

Project Title:

Abatement of Dilapidated Lakebed Structures


Across the shoreline of Clear Lake there is an abundance of dilapidated shoreline structures which plague our lake. These structures pose a safety, water quality, navigation, and visual hazard for boaters, investors, and other community members of Clear Lake. To date Lake County Water Resources have inventoried 42 dilapidated structures only Hwy 20 alone. As a rough estimation there are possibly 100-200 structures along Clear Lake.

The purpose of this project is to remove dilapidated shoreline structures across Clear Lake. As mentioned previously, these structures pose a safety, water quality, navigation, and visual hazard to Clear Lake. As visitors and residents drive the highly trafficked Hwy 20 corridor, they are distracted from our beautiful lake by an abundance of these improperly maintained shoreline structures.

Lake County Code Chapter 23 Shoreline Ordinance states “If Lakebed Management finds that improvements constructed pursuant to an administrative encroachment permit or in operation or use under an encroachment lease are not being maintained or operated in a safe condition or are not being maintained or operated in accordance with the provisions and purposes of this chapter Lakebed Management shall notify the Community Development Department who may declare the structure, improvement or operation to be a nuisance and may proceed to abate the nuisance pursuant to the procedure set forth in Chapter 13 of this Code”. Lake County Water Resources have spoken to CDD officers who have stated they do not have enough monies in their revolving fund to abate shoreline structures.

These structures will be addressed strategically one-by-one, the end goal is to have a standard of upkeep that landowners are required to abide by when they place lakebed structures within the public trust of Clear Lake.

Project Timeline:

Part 1: Lake County Water Resources starts an inventory of dilapidated lakebed structures. This inventory shall include: GPS location, pictures, date/time, APN, site address, owner info, and mailing address. Completed/Ongoing: February 2021

Part 2: Reach out to property owners with an informal letter notifying the dilapidated structure owner of current conditions, corrective actions, and a request to notify Lakebed Management within (12) days of receiving the letter. Completed/Ongoing: May 2021

Part 3: Prepare RFQ (Request for Quotes) and contracts for abatement of dilapidated lakebed structures. Release RFQ and award contractors. Anticipated RFQ Release September 2021

Part 4: Work with landowners, marine contractors, and outside funding sources to initiate the demolition projects and abate these structures. Water Resources currently has funding available to address ~5 structures during this current fiscal year. Anticipated Start October 2021 and Ongoing with Revolving Fund

Part 5: The cost of abatement will be assessed on the owner (per Lake County Code Ch 13 Abatement of Nuisances) and any funds recouped will go back to the revolving fund to continue abatement of lakebed structures. Anticipated Start October 2021 and Ongoing with Revolving Fund

Projected Budget:

The budget for this project varies for each structure. Previous project’s demolition cost and marine contractor quotes estimated that the dilapidated structures will cost $5,000 – $10,000 to remove per structure ($400-$500 per piling). The $250,000 will be the seed money to create a revolving fund to continuously abate dilapidated lakebed structures.

Additional Information:

Lake County Code Chapter 23 Shoreline Ordinance.

Lakebed Management is tasked with identifying if “improvements constructed pursuant to an encroachment lease are not being maintained or operated in a safe condition. Lakebed Management shall notify the Community Development Department who may declare the structure a nuisance and may proceed to abate the nuisance pursuant to Chapter 13 of this Code”

Lake County Code Chapter 13 Nuisances

2.1 Findings. The Board of Supervisors finds it is necessary to the public interest to promote the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the County of Lake by providing procedures for the abatement of nuisances, which abatement procedures shall be in addition to all other proceedings authorized by this Code or otherwise by law.

2.2 Purpose. This Code is intended to provide a uniform and comprehensive method for the identification and abatement of public nuisances within the unincorporated areas of the County of Lake and to impose any costs of such abatement against the owners of the offending properties. Any nuisance, as defined herein, existing on any parcel of land in the unincorporated area in the County of Lake, may be abated as herein provided.

Sec. 13-6. - Notice of Nuisance and Order to Abate. If upon making a reasonable determination that a nuisance exists as defined by Section 13-3 e. of this Chapter, the Enforcement Official shall cause a Notice of Nuisance and Order to Abate to be prepared, and shall serve such notice and order as provided in Section 13-6.2 herein.

Sec. 13-8. - Failure of Property Owner to Abate. If the property owner or other responsible party fails to abate the nuisance within the time specified by the Enforcement Official, or the Board of Supervisors after a hearing, and is not granted a time extension, the Enforcement Official is authorized to secure, remove, demolish, raze or otherwise abate the nuisance at the expense of the owner(s).

Sec. 13-39. - Accounting. 39.1 The Board may create a revolving fund or funds from which may be paid the costs of enforcing the provisions of this chapter, and into which shall be paid the receipts from the collection of costs as hereinafter set forth.

On 6/09/2021 The Board authorized $100,000 from the Internal Cannabis Tax for the abatement of lakebed structures and vessels. $30,000 is to be allocated specifically for sunken and abandoned vessels, $70,000 is to be allocated for dilapidated lakebed structures.

Contracting Information:

Multiple contractors may be contracted for the abatement of lakebed structures and used on a rotational basis. Awarding of an abatement project for any specific contractor will be based on the lowest priced quote for that specific abatement project.

Figures:

Contact Information:

William Fox

Position: Water Resources Program Coordinator

Office: 255 N Forbes St. Lakeport, CA

Phone: (707) 263-2344 ext: 36111 Cell: (707) 530-5014

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Near-Term Project Abstract: Mercury Modeling in Clear Lake

Sept. 13, 2021

Project Title:

Mercury Modeling in Clear Lake


Given the hydrodynamic complexity of Clear Lake and the likely coupling of mercury (Hg) cycling to nutrient cycling, anoxic conditions, and eutrophication, it is advantageous to simulate Hg cycling using a model that includes 3-dimensional hydrodynamics, nutrient cycling, and dissolved oxygen conditions in the water column and shallow pore water of lake sediments. The UC Davis TERC group has developed such a model using the code Si3D. Equations to simulate the formation of methylmercury (MeHg) and its biomagnification in the food web have been developed previously and coupled with hydrodynamic models in other complex aquatic systems such as the Florida Everglades, Hells Canyon Reservoir (Idaho), and the Sacramento River – San Joaquin River Delta.

A model of Hg cycling in Clear Lake is needed for multiple reasons: 1) prediction of expected changes in MeHg bioaccumulation in sport fish associated with changes in nutrients and the lower part of the food web (for example, to address the complex question whether reducing algae in Clear Lake through nutrient management would result in increased Hg in fish tissue); 2) prediction of expected changes in MeHg bioaccumulation in sport fish associated with planned remediation of Hg-contaminated mine waste and contaminated sediment in Clear Lake associated with Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine; 3) the Hg model would provide an important management tool in support of the Clear Lake Mercury TMDL.

There are several additional benefits of a quantitative Hg model for Clear Lake: 4) help confirm and test conceptual models for Hg cycling in the system; h) help integrate various multidisciplinary studies into a single framework to see if the pieces fit together; 6) help rank and optimize remedial options, (7) help identify data and knowledge gaps, and (8) help evaluate the results of post-remediation monitoring programs, to answer questions such as: “Do the monitoring results fit prior expectations?”

Detailed data on Hg and MeHg in water, sediment, and biota that are necessary for calibration of a 3-D hydrodynamic Clear Lake Hg model are being collected in two parallel efforts: 1) the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to monitor Hg and MeHg in water, sediment, mine waste, and biota at Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine and in all three arms of Clear Lake, as part of a Hg source study using Hg stable isotopes, and 2) the USGS, UC Davis, and other entities are soon to be funded by California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) for BRC-recommended monitoring and modeling in Clear Lake tributaries during 2021-24, which includes Hg monitoring and load estimates for selected tributaries to Clear Lake. Existing data and planned data from funded activities would be adequate for initial model calibration.

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/tmdl/central_valley_projects/clear_lake_hg/

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/tmdl/central_valley_projects/clear_lake_hg/

The modeling would best be carried out by UC Davis, with assistance from USGS and a private consultant with experience in similar efforts. An RFP/RFQ would not be expected. Expected total cost is $1,068,050. USEPA would be able to cover $75,200 of the cost through its ongoing agreement with USGS. The remaining cost ($992,850) is needed to support UC Davis staff, including a post-doc dedicated to the project for 2 years ($250K net / $375K gross), USGS for parameter estimation (PEST) and food web modeling ($129K net / $213K gross), and an external consultant ($270K net / $405K gross). (Please note that assumed Overhead/Admin costs are estimates that are subject to change.)

Project Timeline:

Task 1 – Model Design (3 months) (July – Sept. 2022) Task 2 – Model Development (Water, Plankton & Sediment) (9 months) (Oct. 2022 – June 2023) Task 3 – Model Application (Water, Plankton & Sediment (9 months) (July 2023 – March 2024) Task 4 – Food Web Hg Modeling (Development & Application) (18 months) (Oct. 2022 – March 2024) Task 5 – Reporting (throughout, 2 years) (July 2022 – June 2024)

Calendar YearState Fiscal Year

Federal FYQ1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

Task 1 Model design XTask 2 Model development (water, plankton & sediment) X X XTask 3 Model application (water, plankton & sediment) X X XTask 4 Food web Hg modeling (development & application) X X X X X XTask 5 Reporting X X X X X X D F

X ActivityD Draft reportF Final report

FY2022 FY2023 FY20242022/2023 2023/2024

2022 2023 2024

Projected Budget:

Task Description Suggested Responsible Party

Amount

1. Model Design - Designing how to represent mercury in the model in water, sediments, and biota

UC Davis, USGS & consultant

UCD - $ 10,000 USGS - $ 4,000 Consultant - $ 10,000 Subtotal - $ 24,000

2. Model Development (water, plankton & sediment) - Writing code for water, sediments, and the food web; adding Hg routines to existing Si3D hydrodynamic model; testing code; developing and testing post-processing software (including animations) to visualize results


UCD - $ 90,000 USGS - $ 5,000 Consultant - $ 40,000 Subtotal - $135,000

3. Model Application (water, plankton & sediment) – Calibration of model using monitoring data for Hg, MeHg and ancillary parameters in water, sediment and biota; using Parameter Estimation (PEST) software to assess model sensitivity and uncertainty; scenario testing applied to possible future management actions, fire effects, and climate change


UCD - $ 90,000 USGS - $40,000 Consultant - $120,000 Subtotal - $250,000

4. Food web Hg modeling (development & application) – Predictions of Hg bioaccumulation in fish and other biota will be integrated with other model results



5. Reporting – Quarterly oral updates to Technical Subcommittee; annual written reports and presentations to BRC; final written report



Subtotals: UCD - $ 250,000 USGS - $ 129,000 Consultant - $ 270,000 Subtotal - $ 649,000

Expected Overhead or Administrative Fees:


Projected Totals: UCD - $ 375,000 USGS - $ 212,850 Consultant - $ 405,000 Grand total - $ 992,850

Please note: The amounts listed in the Projected Budget are the amounts being requested from the State of California through the BRC.

Funding requested in the Projected Budget for the USGS is for parameter estimation and food web modeling. Parameter estimation using PEST software would be done by Randy Hunt at the USGS Upper Midwest Science Center – using PEST has proved to be an essential tool in effective modeling of Hg in complex aquatic systems, such as CA-DWR-funded efforts related to the Methylmercury TMDL in the Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta using the DSM2 model and modeling of Hg in the Yolo Bypass.

Food web modeling by USGS would be done by Dr. Collin Eagles-Smith (Forest and Rangeland Ecological Science Center using bioenergetic models that could be coupled with the 3-D hydrodynamic model of Clear Lake. The specific approach to be taken to food web Hg modeling would be decided in Task 1 of the project (Model Design) during the first three months of the project.

Other funding sources:

The USGS California Water Science Center has requested $75,000 in funding from USEPA for work related to Hg modeling, beyond what is requested in the Projected Budget. This is part of funding that USGS has requested from USEPA for its study of Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine and Hg in water, sediment, and biota of Clear Lake during 2020–24; a total $1,009,500 of USEPA funding is currently in place with USGS for this project, and an additional $790,000 is requested during 2022-24. If the additional requested funding is provided by USEPA to USGS, that would bring the total funding for the project to about $1.8M during 2020-24, and would allow data to be collected that is essential to calibration of the Clear Lake Hg model.


Near-Term Project Abstract: Airborne Electromagnetic (AEM) Survey of Scotts Valley Groundwater Basin

September 13, 2021

Project Title: Airborne Electromagnetic (AEM) Survey of Scotts Valley Groundwater Basin

Project Description: The Department of Water Resources is conducting airborne electromagnetic (AEM) surveys in California’s high- and medium-priority groundwater basins, where data collection is feasible, to assist local water managers as they implement the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) to manage groundwater for long term sustainability.

The AEM project provides state and federal agencies, groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs), stakeholders, and the public with basin-specific and cross-basin geophysical data, tools, and analyses.

During an AEM survey, a helicopter tows electronic equipment that sends signals into the ground which bounce back. The process has been compared to taking an MRI of the ground’s subsurface. The data collected is used to create continuous images that are interpreted for underground geology.

The resulting information will provide a standardized, statewide dataset that improves the understanding of aquifer structures. It can also help with the development or refinement of hydrogeologic conceptual models and can help identify areas for recharging groundwater.

(Source: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Data-and-Tools/AEM)

Although AEM will be flown over Big Valley Groundwater Basin because of the CA DWR designation as medium-priority, Scotts Valley Groundwater Basin was designated as a low-priority basin by CA DWR and thus was not offered AEM surveys courtesy of CA DWR.

Because the AEM technology will already be in the air in the adjacent basin, Scotts Valley Groundwater Protection Subcommittee reached out to AEM contractors Ramboll about the possibility of over flying Scotts Valley Basin too.

Project Timeline:

Part 1: AEM flown over Big Valley Groundwater Basin in late October 2021. Scotts Valley would be added for the same day. Flight over the Scotts Valley Basin would only take 2-4 hours.

Part 2: Data packaged for modeling and calculation purposes by Ramboll Late 2021

Part 3: Data from AEM will be integrated into the Hydrogeologic conceptual model being developed by Luhdorff and Scalmanani Engineering and Consultant Services as part of the Big Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP).

https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/bp-dashboard/final/

https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Data-and-Tools/AEM

Part 4: Management objectives / approaches developed by the Scotts Valley Groundwater Protection Subcommittee as a result of modeling and AEM data acquisition for the sustainability of the Scotts Valley Groundwater Basin.

Projected Budget:

$50,000 (estimated budget courtesy of Ramboll)

Additional Information:

AEM measures the electromagnetic response of the subsurface.

• AEM data are collected using geophysical instruments on a hoop that is towed beneath a

helicopter.

• A current is generated in the hoop, which sends an electromagnetic signal into the subsurface.

The response of the subsurface materials is measured in a receiver mounted on the helicopter.

• The measured response is related to the electromagnetic properties of the subsurface materials.

Typically, materials that are electrically conductive are interpreted for fine-grained materials,

like silts and clays, or can be interpreted for water with high salinity. Materials that are

electrically resistive are interpreted for coarse-grained materials, like sands and gravels.

• The interpretation of AEM data is supported by information that describes the physical

characteristics of the rocks. Existing information from well completion reports, electromagnetic

geophysical (resistivity) logs, water quality reports and water level reports are used to do obtain

this information.

• The AEM method can image the subsurface to depths of up to about 1,000 feet, depending on

the electrical properties of the subsurface materials.

• Contracting Information: Ramboll

“Our 16,000 experts create sustainable solutions across Buildings; Transport; Water; Environment & Health; Architecture, Landscape & Urbanism; Energy and Management Consulting. Across the world, Ramboll combines local experience with a global knowledgebase to create sustainable cities and societies. We combine insights with the power to drive positive change to our clients, in the form of ideas that can be realised and implemented. We call it: Bright ideas. Sustainable change.”

Figures:

Contact Information:

Terre Logsdon, Environmental Director, Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians (707) 349-9376, [email protected]

William Fox, Water Resources Program Coordinator, (707) 530-5014, [email protected]



sept 8, 2021

Documents