B. Description of Proposed Boundary Modification

1. Short Description

   Modify basin boundaries edges to match exactly the Sutter County jurisdictional boundary.
2. Type of basin boundary revision

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

   Changing all the subbasin boundaries at the perimeter of the County to match exactly the Sutter County jurisdictional boundary will allow the County to be responsible for all the areas within Sutter County not currently represented by a GSA. The original documentation for the creation of the Sutter County GSA indicated that the intent was for the limits to be to the County line. This modification would amend the map to match the verbal description. This modification would show that there are no un-managed areas within the County, and ultimately allow the County, along with other GSAs, to coordinate sustainability within the subbasins *This section was modified at the request of DWR to provide clarification to the initial basin boundary modification request. The entire text of the original submittal is provided above and has not been altered.* Specific changes include the following: Change the northern boundary of the existing Sutter Subbasin where it is coincident with the East Butte Subbasin to the County boundary between Sutter and Butte counties, except for the portion of the Biggs-West Gridley Water District GSA that is within Sutter County (as requested in adjacent modification requests). Change the eastern boundary of the existing East Butte Subbasin within Sutter County where it is coincident with the North Yuba Subbasin, from the hydrologic boundary to the county boundary between Sutter and Yuba counties. Change the eastern boundary of the existing Sutter Subbasin within Sutter County where it is coincident with the North Yuba Subbasin, from the hydrologic boundary to the county boundary between Sutter and Yuba counties. Change the eastern boundary of the existing Sutter Subbasin within Sutter County where it is coincident with the South Yuba Subbasin, from the hydrologic boundary to the county boundary between Sutter and Yuba counties (as requested in adjacent modification requests). Change the northern boundary of the existing North American Subbasin within Sutter County where it is coincident with the South Yuba Subbasin, from the hydrologic boundary to the county boundary between Sutter and Yuba counties, except for the portion of the Yuba County Water Agency GSA that is within Sutter County (as requested in adjacent modification requests). Change the western boundary of the existing Sutter Subbasin within Sutter County where it is coincident with the Colusa Subbasin, from the hydrologic boundary to the county boundary between Sutter and Colusa counties. Change the western boundary of the existing East Butte Subbasin within Sutter County where it is coincident with the West Butte Subbasin, from the hydrologic boundary to the county boundary between Sutter and Colusa counties, except for the portion of the RD1004 GSA that is within Sutter County (as requested in adjacent modification requests).

   Attachment(s):
4. List the existing basin(s)/subbasin(s) to be modified by this request

   • 5-021.52 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - COLUSA
   • 5-021.58 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - WEST BUTTE
   • 5-021.59 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - EAST BUTTE
   • 5-021.60 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - NORTH YUBA
   • 5-021.61 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SOUTH YUBA
   • 5-021.62 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SUTTER
   • 5-021.64 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - NORTH AMERICAN
5. Provide the proposed name for the new basin(s) or subbasin(s)

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)
   Tehama County Flood Control & Water Conservation District	5-021.52 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - COLUSA , 5-021.51 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - CORNING
   Yolo County Flood Control And Water Conservation District	5-021.52 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - COLUSA , 5-021.67 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - YOLO , 5-021.66 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SOLANO
   Tehama County Flood Control & Water Conservation District	5-006.01 REDDING AREA - BOWMAN , 5-006.06 REDDING AREA - SOUTH BATTLE CREEK , 5-021.53 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - BEND , 5-021.54 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - ANTELOPE , 5-021.56 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - LOS MOLINOS , 5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA , 5-021.51 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - CORNING , 5-021.52 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - COLUSA , 5-021.50 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - RED BLUFF
   	5-021.52 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - COLUSA
   Butte County	5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA , 5-021.60 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - NORTH YUBA
   Reclamation District No. 1004
   	5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA
   	5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA
   Sutter Extension Water Districts	5-021.62 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SUTTER
   Sutter County	5-021.62 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SUTTER , 5-021.64 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - NORTH AMERICAN
   Yuba County Water Agency	5-021.60 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - NORTH YUBA
   Yuba County Water Agency	5-021.61 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SOUTH YUBA , 5-021.60 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - NORTH YUBA , 5-021.69 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - WYANDOTTE CREEK , 5-021.64 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - NORTH AMERICAN , 5-021.62 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SUTTER
   Placer County	5-021.64 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - NORTH AMERICAN , 5-021.61 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SOUTH YUBA

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):

• Sutter County GSA Formation_RESO 17-015_Certified.pdf (451.7kB) Uploaded on 06/19/2018 at 10:41AM

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

Attachment(s):

• Sutter County BBM Reso.pdf (538.5kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 06:34AM

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):

• SGMA Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSA)s.pdf (3.2MB) Uploaded on 09/26/2018 at 02:41PM

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

Attachment(s):

• SutterBBMRS_20181023_fixed.zip (66.5kB) Uploaded on 10/23/2018 at 04:16PM

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

Attachment(s):

• Sutter_GSA_2018.06.20.zip (272.7kB) Uploaded on 06/20/2018 at 04:37PM

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

https://www.suttercounty.org/doc/government/depts/ds/pw/wr/sgma/sgmahome *This section was modified at the request of DWR to provide clarification to the initial basin boundary modification request. The entire text of the original submittal is provided above and has not been altered.* The modifications noted above are jurisdictional in nature only and are not an implementation project, and therefore not subject to CEQA.

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.

Please see attachment.

Attachment(s):

• Government Code Section 23151.pdf (133.7kB) Uploaded on 06/19/2018 at 03:15PM
• Basin Boundary Description Sutter Sub.pdf (1.4MB) Uploaded on 10/23/2018 at 11:14AM
• Basin Boundary Description North American Sub.pdf (264.4kB) Uploaded on 10/23/2018 at 11:14AM

F. Notice and Consultation

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

Biggs-West Gridley Water District, Butte Water District, City of Live Oak, Reclamation District 883/1004, Sutter Community Services District, Sutter Extension Water District , City of Yuba City, Reclamation District 1001, Reclamation District 1500, Reclamation District 1660, Reclamation District 70, South Sutter Water District, Feather Water District, Oswald Water District, Reclamation District 1000, Reclamation District 2056, Reclamation District 2103, Reclamation District 777, Reclamation District 783, Reclamation District 817, Sutter County Waterworks District No. 1, Butte Slough Irrigation Company, Dry Creek Mutual Water Company, East Nicolaus Mutual Water Company, Garden Highway Mutual Water Company, M. Chaplin, B. Lewis, D. Lewis, Meridian Farms Water Company, Mitzue Oji Family Partnership, Natomas Central Mutual Water Company, Newhall Land & Farming Company Inc., Oji Brothers Farm Inc., Pelger Mutual Water Company, Pleasant Grove-Verona Mutual Water Company, Sutter Bypass Butte Slough Water Users Association, Sutter Mutual Water Company, Tisdale Irrigation and Drainage Company, Tudor Mutual Water Company, Butte County, Colusa County, Placer County, Sacramento County, Yolo County, Yuba County

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

The Water Agency dataset provided by DWR was used to identify local agencies and public water systems. The Sutter County Development Services Department maintains an email list to provide notices and SGMA related updates. The Department also maintains a website containing SGMA related information, including information regarding a potential basin boundary modification.

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.

Sutter County has established a monthly meeting with affected agencies, and has discussed the topic of a basin boundary modification either in person, or via e-mail, with the affected agencies. The proposed basin boundary modifications have also been presented under the SGMA implementation update provided by each county representative during NSV IRWM Technical Advisory Committee meetings and a Board meeting. GSAs throughout the region are aware of the proposed BBMs and stakeholders have had opportunities to learn the details of the proposal and to provide comment.

Attachment(s):

• Sutter Subbasin BBM E-mail 05-25-18.pdf (140.7kB) Uploaded on 10/23/2018 at 01:48PM
• Sutter Subbasin BBM E-mail 09-12-18.pdf (2.1MB) Uploaded on 10/23/2018 at 01:48PM
• Sutter Subbasin BBM Letter 06-25-18.pdf (1.2MB) Uploaded on 10/23/2018 at 01:50PM
• Sutter Subbasin Basin Boundary Modification.msg (95kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:28PM
• Sutter SGMA Update - Alternative GSP and Basin Boundary.msg (2MB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:28PM

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 basin boundary modifications have also been presented under the SGMA implementation update provided by each county representative during NSV IRWM Technical Advisory Committee meetings and a Board meeting. GSAs throughout the region are aware of the proposed BBMs and stakeholders have had opportunities to learn the details of the proposal and to provide comment.

Attachment(s):

• Sutter County Agenda_06_26_2018.pdf (803.7kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:46PM

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.

Sutter County did not receive comments regarding the proposed BBM to adjust the GSA boundaries to the jurisdictional boundaries of the County at the

G. General Existing Groundwater Management

1. Explain how sustainable groundwater management exists or could likely be achieved in the basin:

Continuing to measure groundwater elevation data to the CASGEM website will allow for the community to identify potential issues. Those potential issues can be further evaluated and mitigated by the affected GSAs. As a function of the SGMA program regular evaluations will be conducted because of the reporting requirements.

2. Explain how the proposed boundary modification would affect the ability of adjacent groundwater basins to sustainably manage groundwater in those groundwater basins.

Changing all the subbasin boundaries to match exactly the Sutter County jurisdictional boundary will allow Sutter County to be responsible for all the areas within Sutter County not currently represented by a GSA. This will streamline coordination by limiting the number of managed Subbasins in Sutter County and ultimately limiting the number of GSAs needed to coordinate sustainability. Incorporating all of the East Butte Subbasin within Sutter County jurisdictional boundary into the Sutter Subbasin will allow for Sutter County to work with only one State Regional Office to coordinate sustainability.

3. Provide a historical summary of the sustainable management of groundwater levels in the proposed basin(s) or subbasin(s).

There is little to no change in the groundwater elevation data. A visual representation of historical groundwater elevation data is available in the SGMA Data Viewer at: https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer *This section was modified at the request of DWR to provide clarification to the initial basin boundary modification request. The entire text of the original submittal is provided above and has not been altered.* As noted in the Alternative submitted: Water use in the Sutter Subbasin is stable due to the long history of agriculture in the area which has essentially been fully developed for over 100 years. Crop type is also very stable primarily due to the soils which limit the types of crops that can be grown. Limited urban growth is occurring near Yuba City and Live Oak. Agriculture and urban areas rely upon both surface water and groundwater. Because of the variability in surface water supplies, groundwater is used to buffer an augment surface water supplies. Again, because of the stable agriculture practices, groundwater has reached an equilibrium state and ranges from about 0 to 50 feet below ground surface, including seasonal changes and through droughts. Additional information and support can be found in the Alternative submitted and the Groundwater Management Plan in Section L1.

4. Discuss potential impacts to state programs resulting from the proposed boundary modification, including, but not limited to, the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM), Groundwater Management Plans developed pursuant to AB 3030, Groundwater Sustainability Plans developed pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, any applicable state or regional board plans, and other water management and land use programs.

The proposed boundary modifications will reduce the state regional boards from two to one for Sutter County. The proposed boundary modifications will match all of the previous programs as they are currently based on the Sutter County jurisdictional boundary.

H. Local Support

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

Sutter County has established a monthly meeting with affected agencies, and has discussed the topic of a basin boundary modification either in person, or via e-mail, with the affected agencies. The proposed basin boundary modifications have also been presented under the SGMA implementation update provided by each county representative during NSV IRWM Technical Advisory Committee meetings.

Attachment(s):

• Basin Boundary Modification Meeting Agendas.pdf (4.7MB) Uploaded on 10/23/2018 at 02:25PM

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.

As the proposed GSA and BBM modification is to "clean up" the areas around the perimeter of the County line, there were no comments received by affected agencies.

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

N/A

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.

This is an internal boundary modification and is unlikely to affect sustainable groundwater management. *This section was modified at the request of DWR to provide clarification to the initial basin boundary modification request. The entire text of the original submittal is provided above and has not been altered.* An HCM is presented in the Sutter County GWMP, part 4, which is provided in Section L1 below.

L. Technical Studies for All Jurisdictional Modifications

1. A water management plan that covers or is in the immediate vicinity of the proposed basin or portion of the proposed basin and satisfies the requirement of Water Code sections 10753.7(a) or 10727 by attaching one of the following:
   1. An adopted groundwater management plan, a basin wide management plan, or other integrated regional water management program or plan.
   2. Management pursuant to an adjudication action.
   3. One or more technical studies that cover the relevant portion of a basin or subbasin and adjacent areas.

URL: https://www.suttercounty.org/assets/pdf/pw/wr/gmp/Sutter_County_Final_GMP_20120319.pdf

2. A statement of the existing and planned coordination of sustainable groundwater management activities and responsibilities where required.

See Section 7 Plan Implementation of the above listed Groundwater Management Plan.