B. Description of Proposed Boundary Modification

1. Short Description

   Scientific request to subdivide the Kern County Subbasin (5-22.14) based on a hydrogeologic barrier
2. Type of basin boundary revision

   • Scientific Internal
3. Provide a narrative overview of the boundary modification request and how the resulting modification would affect likelihood of sustainable management.

   The boundary modification request being jointly submitted by Tejon-Castac Water District, Wheeler-Ridge Maricopa Water Storage District, and Arvin-Edison Water Storage District (the Districts) to subdivide the Kern County Subbasin into two separate subbasins, the Kern County Subbasin and the White Wolf Subbasin, is founded on a body of scientific evidence that demonstrates that the White Wolf Fault provides a significant impediment to groundwater flow. The Districts have a proven track record of sustainable groundwater management in the Subbasin, and are committed to the sustainable management of groundwater in the future, as evidenced by the Memorandum of Understanding between the Districts expressing the intent to form a joint Groundwater Sustainability Agency and thereafter develop a single Groundwater Sustainability Plan for the new White Wolf Subbasin. Further, the proposed boundary modification will not change conditions in the adjacent Kern County Subbasin or impact the ability of groundwater to be managed sustainably in that basin. A more detailed discussion of these issues is presented in Sections 2, 6, and 7 of the attached White Wolf Subbasin Technical Study.

   Attachment(s):

   Technical Study Appendices A-H.pdf (74.5MB) Uploaded on 03/17/2016 at 09:10AM

   White Wolf Subbasin Technical Study.pdf (28.6MB) Uploaded on 03/29/2016 at 09:33AM
4. List the existing basin(s)/subbasin(s) to be modified by this request

   • 5-022.14 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - KERN COUNTY
5. Provide the proposed name for the new basin(s) or subbasin(s)

   White Wolf Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin

C. Initial Notification and Combination of Requests

1. Was an initial notification submitted to the Department?

   Yes
   List of submitted initial notification for the selected basin(s)/subbasin(s).

   Local Agency	Potential Basin(s)/Subbasin(s)
   Kern-Tulare Water District	5-022.14 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - KERN COUNTY , 5-022.12 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - TULARE LAKE
   Delano-Earlimart Irrigation District	5-022.13 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - TULE , 5-022.14 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - KERN COUNTY
   Kings River Conservation District	5-022.12 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - TULARE LAKE , 5-022.10 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - PLEASANT VALLEY , 5-022.14 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - KERN COUNTY
   Tejon-Castac Water District	5-022.14 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - KERN COUNTY
   Devils Den Water District	5-022.14 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - KERN COUNTY , 5-022.10 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - PLEASANT VALLEY
   Olcese Water District	5-022.14 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - KERN COUNTY
   West Kern Water District	5-022.14 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - KERN COUNTY

2. Does this application include a combination of requests?

   No

D. Required Documents for All Modifications

1. A copy of the statutory or other legal authority under which the requesting agency was created with specific citations to the provisions setting forth the duties and responsibilities of the agency.

Attachment(s):

• TCWD LAFCO Formation Approval.pdf (649.8kB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 04:06PM
• TCWD LAFCO Boundary Approval.pdf (164.2kB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 04:07PM

2. A copy of the signed resolution adopted by the requesting agency formally initiating the boundary modification request process.

Attachment(s):

• AEWSD Executed Resolution to Support Basin Boundary Modification.PDF (853.9kB) Uploaded on 03/18/2016 at 03:33PM
• WRMWSD Executed Resolution to Support Basin Boundary Modification.pdf (1.5MB) Uploaded on 03/18/2016 at 03:33PM
• TCWD Executed Resolution to Support Basin Boundary Modification.pdf (786.9kB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 04:07PM

3. A map of adequate scale (no greater than 1:24,000; e.g., 1:10,000 is not acceptable) showing the proposed modified basin boundary in relation to the existing Bulletin-118 basin boundary and the local agencies that are within or bordering the existing and proposed basin.

Attachment(s):

• Boundary Map with Local Agencies.pdf (2.4MB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 04:08PM

4. A GIS shapefile of the proposed modified groundwater basin boundaries. Download Existing B118 basin shape file | DWR Spatial Data Standards

Attachment(s):

• White_Wolf_Subbasin_Boundary.zip (64.4kB) Uploaded on 03/17/2016 at 09:04AM

5. A GIS shapefile of the political boundaries of any affected or adjacent local agency. Download water agency shape file

Attachment(s):

• Water_Districts.zip (43.3kB) Uploaded on 03/17/2016 at 09:04AM

6. Any information, if necessary, to enable DWR to satisfy the requirements of a responsible agency pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

Tejon-Castac Water District has determined that CEQA does not apply to this request due to statutory exemptions included under 14 CCR Section 15378(b)(5) and 15061(b)(3). More information is included in the attached Notice of Exemption, filed with Kern County on 9 March 2016.

Attachment(s):

• White Wolf Subbasin CEQA NOE.pdf (772.2kB) Uploaded on 03/17/2016 at 09:04AM

E. General Information

1. Describe the lateral boundaries of the alluvial aquifer or aquifers that form the groundwater basin and the definable bottom of the basin. The description must be in terms that are clear, definite, and sufficiently detailed to allow an authoritative map of the proposed basin boundaries to be plotted using the given description.

See Section 2.1 of the attached White Wolf Subbasin Technical Study.

Attachment(s):

• Technical Study Appendices A-H.pdf (74.5MB) Uploaded on 03/17/2016 at 09:06AM
• White Wolf Subbasin Technical Study.pdf (28.6MB) Uploaded on 03/29/2016 at 09:33AM

F. Notice and Consultation

1. List all local agencies and public water systems affected by the basin(s) modification request.

The following local agencies and public water systems are affected by the basin modification request: Tejon-Castac Water District, Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District, Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District, and Kern County.

2. Explain the methods used to identify interested local agencies and public water systems in the affected basin(s):

Local agencies and public water systems in the affected basin were identified using GIS shapefiles of district boundaries (Source: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation MPGIS Service Center in coordination with the California Department of Water Resources). The criteria used for identifying affected agencies or public water systems was identifying those agencies and systems "whose jurisdictional area would, as a result of a boundary modification, include more, fewer, or different basins or subbasins than without the modification" (CWC Section 341(c) and (d)).

3. Provide information regarding the nature of consultations with affected or interested agencies. Attach and cite any copies of correspondences with local agencies and public water systems and/or any other persons or entities consulted.

The other affected water districts, Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District and Arvin-Edison Water Storage District, have adopted resolutions of support for filing this request (attached), and the request is being jointly submitted by the three water districts. These districts were consulted early in the process and provided valuable data, reports, and local expertise that contributed to the development of the White Wolf Subbasin Technical Study (attached as part of this request). Additionally, Kern County was consulted regarding the proposed boundary modification. Representatives from Tejon-Castac Water District met with Kern County representatives on 22 January 2016 to discuss the request and received strong verbal support from the County. A letter of support from Kern County, dated 7 April 2016, is attached. The proposed boundary modification request was also discussed at the Kern Groundwater Authority Board Meeting on 27 January 2016, where it was presented to representatives of 19 water agencies in the Kern County Subbasin, as well as the public and others in attendance. No comments opposing this request were made. Meeting minutes are attached. The portion of the White Wolf Subbasin that Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District overlies is very small (i.e., less than 0.1% of the total land area) and is believed by both parties to be a product of imperfect shapefiles. Tejon-Castac Water District notified Tehachapi Cummings County Water District of the overlap on 30 March 2016 (attached). Tejon-Castac Water District received a response Tehachapi Cummings County Water District on 4 April 2016 expressing no interest in groundwater management in the Kern County Subbasin or the proposed White Wolf Subbasin. On 30 March 2016, within five days after this basin boundary modification request was deemed 'Complete' by the California Department of Water Resources, a notice letter was distributed to all identified local agencies and public water systems within the Kern County Subbasin (attached). This letter provided details regarding the procedural requirements to provide public input to the submitted boundary modification request.

Attachment(s):

• Kern County Letter of Support.pdf (452.9kB) Uploaded on 04/11/2016 at 08:58AM
• TCWD_Letter_to_TCCWD.pdf (1.1MB) Uploaded on 04/04/2016 at 02:03PM
• TCCWD_Response_to_TCWD_Letter.pdf (174.5kB) Uploaded on 04/04/2016 at 02:03PM
• KGA_Minutes_27-Jan-2016.pdf (324.6kB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 05:38PM
• WRMWSD Executed Resolution to Support Basin Boundary Modification.pdf (1.5MB) Uploaded on 03/18/2016 at 03:35PM
• AEWSD Executed Resolution to Support Basin Boundary Modification.PDF (853.9kB) Uploaded on 03/18/2016 at 03:35PM

4. Provide a summary of all public meetings at which the proposed boundary modification was discussed or considered by the requesting agency. Attach and cite any copies of agendas and notices published.

The proposed boundary modification was discussed at the Tejon-Castac Water District Board of Directors meeting and the Arvin-Edison Water Storage District Board of Directors Meeting on 9 February 2016 and the Wheeler Ride-Maricopa Water Storage District Board of Directors Meeting on 10 February 2016. Additionally, the request was discussed at the Board of Directors meeting of the 19-member Kern Groundwater Authority on 27 January 2016. Agendas and minutes are attached for all public meetings where the proposed boundary modification was discussed.

Attachment(s):

• TCWD_Minutes_9-Feb-2016.pdf (10.2kB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 05:12PM
• TCWD_Agenda_9-Feb-2016.pdf (8.5kB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 05:12PM
• WRMWSD_Agenda_10-Feb-2016.pdf (86.2kB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 05:12PM
• WRMWSD_Minutes_10-Feb-2016.pdf (779.4kB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 05:12PM
• AEWSD_Agenda_9-Feb-2016.pdf (184.8kB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 05:12PM
• AEWSD_Minutes_9-Feb-2016.pdf (3.7MB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 05:12PM
• KGA_Minutes_27-Jan-2016.pdf (324.6kB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 05:12PM

5. Attach a copy of all comments regarding the proposed boundary modification received by the requesting agency and a summary of any responses made by the requesting agency.

Tejon-Castac Water District did not receive any comments regarding the proposed boundary modification.

H. Local Support

1. Provide any evidence that sufficient information was provided to affected agencies and systems regarding the proposed boundary modification.

Evidence that sufficient information was provided to Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District and Arvin-Edison Water Storage District is provided in the form of the attached resolutions adopted by the respective Boards of Directors for each district in support of the filing of this request. Evidence that sufficient information was provided to Kern County is provided in the form of the attached letter of support from the County, dated 7 April 2016. Evidence that sufficient information was provided to Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District is provided in the form of the attached letter from Tejon-Castac Water District regarding the proposed boundary modification, as well as the attached response from Tehachapi-Cummings County Water District expressing no interest in groundwater management in the Kern County Subbasin or the proposed White Wolf Subbasin.

Attachment(s):

• Kern County Letter of Support.pdf (452.9kB) Uploaded on 04/11/2016 at 08:59AM
• AEWSD Executed Resolution to Support Basin Boundary Modification.PDF (853.9kB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 05:40PM
• WRMWSD Executed Resolution to Support Basin Boundary Modification.pdf (1.5MB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 05:40PM
• TCWD_Letter_to_TCCWD.pdf (1.1MB) Uploaded on 04/04/2016 at 01:58PM
• TCCWD_Response_to_TCWD_Letter.pdf (174.5kB) Uploaded on 04/04/2016 at 01:58PM

2. Provide a list of all affected agencies and affected systems that submitted comments and/or documents in support or opposition to the proposed boundary. The agency submitting their support or opposition for a boundary modification must provide a copy of a resolution formally adopted by the decision-making body of the affected agency or system or a letter signed by an executive officer or other official with appropriate delegated authority who represents the agency or system. Attach copies of the resolution and/or signed letter detailing the support or opposition submitted.

Wheeler Ridge-Maricopa Water Storage District and Arvin-Edison Water Storage District have adopted resolutions in support of the filing of this request (see attached). Kern County has provided a letter of support (also attached). No other comments in support or opposition were received by Tejon-Castac Water District.

Attachment(s):

• Kern County Letter of Support.pdf (452.9kB) Uploaded on 04/11/2016 at 09:00AM
• WRMWSD Executed Resolution to Support Basin Boundary Modification.pdf (1.5MB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 05:41PM
• AEWSD Executed Resolution to Support Basin Boundary Modification.PDF (853.9kB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 05:41PM

3. Provide any evidence that rebuts any opposition to the proposed boundary modification.

No opposition has been expressed with respect to the proposed boundary modification.

I. Hydrogeologic Conceptual Model

1. Principal aquifer units within requested basin.
2. Lateral boundaries of the proposed basin, including:
   1. Geologic features that significantly impede or impact groundwater flow.
   2. Aquifer characteristics that significantly impede or impact groundwater flow.
   3. Significant geologic and hydrologic features and conditions of the principle aquifer units, as appropriate, including information regarding the confined or unconfined nature of the aquifer, facies changes, truncation of units, the presence of faults or folds that impede groundwater flow, or other groundwater flow restricting features.
   4. Key surface water bodies, groundwater divides and significant recharge sources.
3. Recharge and discharge areas within the basin.
4. Definable bottom of the basin or subbasin.

The department may waive this requirement for an internal boundary modification if the requesting agency is able to demonstrate that the proposed boundary modification is unlikely to affect sustainable groundwater management.

The White Wolf Subbasin is comprised of alluvial aquifers bounded on the west, south, and east by bedrock, and on the north by the hydrogeologic barrier formed by the White Wolf Fault. The primary sources of recharge to the groundwater are surface water runoff from adjacent uplands and applied water for irrigation, whereas the predominant discharge from the basin occurs through groundwater pumping for agricultural use. A detailed hydrogeologic conceptual model is presented in Sections 3 through 5 of the attached White Wolf Subbasin Technical Study, and the associated tables, figures, and appendices.

Attachment(s):

• Technical Study Appendices A-H.pdf (74.5MB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 05:47PM
• White Wolf Subbasin Technical Study.pdf (28.6MB) Uploaded on 03/29/2016 at 09:35AM

K. Technical Studies for Internal Scientific Modifications

1. A qualified map depicting structural geologic features that could significant impact or impede lateral groundwater flow.

See attached figure.

Attachment(s):

• Qualified Geologic Map.pdf (5.6MB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 05:51PM

2. Geologic and hydrologic evidence of groundwater conditions by attaching or providing a URL to any of the following:
   1. Historical and current potentiometric surface maps, groundwater levels, groundwater recharge and discharge areas of the aquifer system within the vicinity of the proposed boundary modification.
   2. Aquifer performance testing results demonstrating basin boundary condition response.
   3. Water quality information of the aquifer system including but not limited to general water quality parameters and isotopic analysis.
   4. Supporting certified geophysical studies.
   5. Any other pertinent information.

Since the 1970s, water levels in the White Wolf Subbasin (Subbasin) have experienced a steady recovery. Groundwater contours consistently "stack up" behind the White Wolf Fault, providing a steep gradient across the fault and demonstrating the White Wolf Fault's role as a significant impediment to groundwater flow. The results of a pumping test conducted in support of this modification request provide additional evidence of a barrier to flow associated with the White Wolf Fault. Water quality in the Subbasin is generally suitable for agricultural purposes. A detailed presentation of groundwater conditions in the Subbasin is presented Sections 3 through 5 of the attached White Wolf Subbasin Technical Study, and the associated tables, figures, and appendices.

Attachment(s):

• Technical Study Appendices A-H.pdf (74.5MB) Uploaded on 03/16/2016 at 05:58PM
• White Wolf Subbasin Technical Study.pdf (28.6MB) Uploaded on 03/29/2016 at 09:35AM