B. Description of Proposed Boundary Modification

1. Short Description

   Internal jurisdictional consolidation to create the Butte Subbasin and modify surrounding subbasins.
2. Type of basin boundary revision

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

   See attached PDF.

   Attachment(s):

   B3.Narrative Overview_revised.pdf (184.9kB) Uploaded on 10/30/2018 at 12:04PM
4. List the existing basin(s)/subbasin(s) to be modified by this request

   • 5-021.51 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - CORNING
   • 5-021.52 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - COLUSA
   • 5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA
   • 5-021.58 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - WEST BUTTE
   • 5-021.59 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - EAST BUTTE
   • 5-021.62 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SUTTER
   • 5-021.69 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - WYANDOTTE CREEK
5. Provide the proposed name for the new basin(s) or subbasin(s)

   Butte Subbasin

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
   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
   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
   	5-021.52 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - COLUSA
   Butte County	5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA , 5-021.60 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - NORTH YUBA
   	5-021.56 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - LOS MOLINOS , 5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA
   	5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA
   	5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA
   	5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA
   Reclamation District No. 1004
   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	5-021.61 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
   	5-021.69 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - WYANDOTTE CREEK

2. Does this application include a combination of requests?

   Yes

   If yes, describe:

   Yes. This application includes requests for modification of the Vina and West Butte Subbasins along the Sacramento River and formation of the Butte Subbasin, including modification of the Vina and Sutter Subbasins.

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):

• D1. County of Butte GSA_East Butte (17-085).pdf (1.6MB) Uploaded on 09/19/2018 at 11:08AM
• D1. County of Butte GSA_Vina (17-084).pdf (1.4MB) Uploaded on 09/19/2018 at 11:08AM
• D1. County of Butte GSA_West Butte (Res 17-083).pdf (1.4MB) Uploaded on 09/19/2018 at 11:08AM

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

Attachment(s):

• D2. Resolution Butte_18-109.pdf (1.4MB) Uploaded on 09/19/2018 at 11:10AM

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):

• D3. SGMA_Butte_Vina_Subbasin_Map_Package_9192018.pdf (6.7MB) Uploaded on 09/19/2018 at 11:24AM

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

Attachment(s):

• D4. Proposed_Subbasin_Boundaries_REV12262018.zip (342.2kB) Uploaded on 12/26/2018 at 12:32PM

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

Attachment(s):

• WD_WCWD_181107.zip (19.6kB) Uploaded on 11/13/2018 at 09:18AM

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

The basin boundary modification does not qualify as a project under 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.

See attached.

Attachment(s):

• E. General Information_revised2.pdf (465.7kB) Uploaded on 12/26/2018 at 12:29PM

F. Notice and Consultation

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

See attached.

Attachment(s):

• F1. Local Agencies and Public Water Systems_revised.pdf (33.5kB) Uploaded on 10/30/2018 at 12:06PM

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

Butte County Water and Resource Conservation has developed an Interested Parties email list whose recipients receive meeting notices, SGMA related updates, and monthly newsletters describing basin boundary modification and SGMA implementation activities. The Department also maintains a website, has held multiple public meetings where basin boundary modifications have been presented and discussed (see F-4 below), and mailed over 6,000 postcards to owners of parcels not located within water purveyor boundaries in portions of the Vina, West Butte and East Butte subbasins. Outreach and publicity by other GSAs in the affected subbasins regarding this basin boundary proposal has also occurred through public meetings of their governing bodies, newsletters, emails, and information posted on their websites.

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.

GSA managers in the Vina subbasin have met regularly with the support of facilitation services to develop governance for the subbasin. Agencies represented at these meetings include Butte County, Durham Irrigation District, Rock Creek Reclamation District, and the City of Chico. These monthly meetings, beginning in January 2018, include updates from each of the GSAs. In addition, GSA managers in the East and West Butte subbasins met several times over this same time period, also supported by facilitation services. Butte County staff regularly described the status of the proposed basin boundary modification (BBM) and received input and feedback from the GSA managers. The early versions of the proposal originated from the City of Chico because of its desire to be in a single subbasin. The current proposal originated from the Feather River Water Districts (letter attached) because of Western Canal?s desire to be in a single subbasin and other proposed advantages. From the earliest stages, all affected GSAs coordinated to develop a BBM proposal that would be supported by the GSAs in the affected subbasins and be consistent with other BBM proposals in the region. The proposal has also taken stakeholder concerns into consideration. All GSAs in the existing Vina, Colusa, West Butte, East Butte, and Wyandotte Creek Subbasins were contacted via email with a request for letters of support for this BBM proposal. On July 18, 2018 an outreach letter was emailed to the Interested Parties list for the four subbasins in Butte County (Vina, West Butte, East Butte, and Wyandotte Creek) describing the proposed BBM and the process for providing comments. In an effort to reach all domestic groundwater users in the proposed Vina subbasin, including small water systems, over 6000 postcards were mailed out prior to a public meeting to addresses of all parcels outside of public water purveyors (i.e. Cal Water-Chico, Durham Irrigation District etc). A public meeting was held in Durham on August 15, 2018 to inform the public and receive feedback on the proposed BBM and draft governance structure taking shape for the subbasin. Similar postcards (over 3000) were sent to parcels in the Wyandotte Creek subbasin. In addition to providing details on the location and time of the public meeting, the postcard explained how stakeholders could sign up to receive emails regarding BBM and SGMA implementation.

Attachment(s):

• F3.a BBM Outreach Email 7182018.pdf (586.4kB) Uploaded on 09/19/2018 at 02:36PM
• F3.b BBM Outreach Letter_7112018 v2.pdf (778.8kB) Uploaded on 09/19/2018 at 02:36PM
• F3.c Update on BBM in Butte County.pdf (549.8kB) Uploaded on 09/19/2018 at 02:36PM
• F3.e VinaPostcard180815.pdf (281.8kB) Uploaded on 09/24/2018 at 02:34PM
• F3.d Districts Basin Boundary Mod Proposal.PDF (2.7MB) Uploaded on 09/19/2018 at 03:34PM

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.

This basin boundary modification has been presented and discussed at numerous public meetings including those held by Butte County, Colusa Groundwater Authority, Butte Water District, Biggs West Gridley Water District, Glenn County, RD 2106, Richvale Irrigation District, Rock Creek Reclamation District, and Western Canal Water District. BBMs requests have also been described under the SGMA implementation update provided by each county representative during NSV IRWM Technical Advisory Committee meetings each month. In addition it has been discussed at meetings of the Butte County Water Commission and Groundwater Pumpers Advisory Committee over the part several months. GSAs throughout the region are well aware of the proposed BBMs in the Northern Sacramento Valley area and stakeholders have had many opportunities to learn the details of the proposal and to provide comment. Meeting Agendas are attached.

Attachment(s):

• F4. Meeting Agendas.zip (3.5MB) Uploaded on 09/24/2018 at 02:12PM

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.

See attached.

Attachment(s):

• F5. Public comment_King.pdf (942.9kB) Uploaded on 09/19/2018 at 03:15PM
• F5. Public comment_Strachan.pdf (499.4kB) Uploaded on 09/19/2018 at 03:15PM
• F5. Response to Comments.pdf (184kB) Uploaded on 09/24/2018 at 02:16PM

G. General Existing Groundwater Management

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

The proposed merged subbasin will promote sustainable groundwater management by simplifying Butte County?s compliance with the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act, particularly by 1) expanding the Vina Subbasin southward, and 2) modifying and consolidating the East Butte and West Butte subbasins to create the Butte Subbasin, an action that would reduce the number of subbasins in the county from four to three. These proposed modifications provide the following advantages: 1. Currently the City of Chico GSA spans the Vina and West Butte subbasins. Placing the City into a single subbasin (Vina) will allow the City?s resources to be fully allocated to the development of sustainability indicators and monitoring networks and formulation of projects and actions needed to achieve and maintain sustainability within the Vina Subbasin. 2. Similarly, placing the Western Canal GSA and the Biggs-West Gridley GSA into a single subbasin (the proposed Butte Subbasin) will allow the resources of these GSAs to be fully allocated to the development of sustainability indicators and monitoring networks and formulation of projects and actions needed to achieve and maintain sustainability within the Butte Subbasin. 3. The proposed basin boundary modifications enable definition of undesirable results and minimum thresholds, development of management objectives and monitoring networks, and formulation of projects and management actions to be implemented within subbasin boundaries that conform with established jurisdictional authorities. This alignment will facilitate coordination within the subbasins and between the subbasins and the County. 4. Aligns SGMA compliance at the subbasin level with other urban and rural land use and water management activities performed by local agencies and by the County.

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

As discussed previously, the proposed subbasin boundary modification will simplify groundwater management activities in the East Butte, West Butte, and Vina subbasins by better aligning the subbasin boundaries with current land use and jurisdictional authorities. These modifications will also improve the ability of neighboring subbasins to manage groundwater sustainably. For example, inclusion of the entire Biggs-West Gridley Water District GSA into the Butte Subbasin will simplify SGMA compliance in the Sutter Subbasin. More broadly, the modifications described in this document are being carried out in close coordination with modifications being proposed by several neighboring jurisdictions; this will promote local control and management of groundwater resources. The objective is to arrive at a package of boundary modifications that will improve groundwater management over a region that includes Butte County and neighboring portions of Sutter, Glenn, Colusa and Tehama counties.

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

As described in Bulletin 118, the Vina Subbasin covers 125,640 acres in Tehama and Butte counties. The existing East Butte Subbasin covers about 265,390 acres and extends over portions of Butte and Sutter counties and the West Butte Subbasin covers 181,560 acres extending over portions of Butte, Glenn and Colusa counties. The primary land use within the proposed Butte and Vina subbasins is irrigated agriculture. In the Butte Subbasin agriculture is largely supported by surface water delivered from the Thermalito Afterbay to the Richvale Irrigation District and the Biggs-West Gridley, Butte and Western Canal water districts. Groundwater is also used as a source of agricultural water supply in the proposed Butte Subbasin, and it is the primary source of water supply for residential and municipal users. The aquifer system includes recent valley sedimentary deposits, floodplain and alluvium deposits, and deposits of the Victor, Laguna, and Mehrten formations. Agricultural, residential and municipal water uses in the Vina Subbasin are all supported by groundwater with limited access to surface water. Although neither the Vina Subbasin nor the proposed Butte Subbasin are designated as being critically overdrafted, indications of declining groundwater levels and reduced groundwater storage have been observed in some areas, particularly during dry and critical years. Both subbasins have connected groundwater-surface water systems whereby pumping can induce surface water depletion. The network of monitoring wells shows that water levels, while stable in most places, are affected by Feather River flows near the River and have experienced declines during dry and critical years in some areas. The Butte County Board of Supervisors has been responding to conditions observed in the Vina, East Butte and West Butte subbasins in several ways. Recent efforts have included the Water Resource Management and Protection Project. Begun in 2013, the Project strengthens Butte County?s water resource management capabilities by developing comprehensive water resource analyses and analytical tools. The 2016 Water Inventory and Analysis Report and the update of the Butte Basin Groundwater Model (BBGM) were the first phase of the Project. The BBGM is a physically based, hydrologic model that covers the extent of the existing Vina, West Butte, East Butte and Wyandotte Creek Subasins. It accounts for various sources and uses of water continuously over time and can produce outputs that describe impacts from different scenarios (e.g., increased demands, climate change, and droughts) compared to current (up to 2014) water supply and demand conditions. This effort not only updated the analysis of Butte County?s water supply and demand, but also introduced a paradigm shift in the County?s analytical approach to help sustain water resources for future generations.

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 basin boundary modification would not have any significant impacts to state programs. Specifically: 1. California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM): There would be no impact to the CASGEM program in the Vina Subbasin, the proposed Butte Subbasin or in neighboring subbasins as Butte County would remain the designated monitoring entity for wells in both subbasins. Other existing designated monitoring entities would also remain in that role. 2. Groundwater plans developed pursuant to AB 3030: No effect. 3. Any applicable state or regional board plans, and other water management and land use programs: This basin boundary modification would not move any land outside of the jurisdictional areas of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board or the Basin Plan area and will not affect implementation of the regional board?s Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program. By placing the City of Chico entirely within the Vina Subbasin and the Western Canal Water District and Biggs-West Gridley Water District entirely within the Butte Subbasin, the proposed modification will improve the alignment between local water management and land use planning and SGMA implementation. 4. Groundwater Sustainability Plans developed pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: The proposed subbasin boundary modification would improve the alignments between land and water uses and jurisdictional authorities and subbasin boundaries for both the Vina Subbasin and the proposed Butte Subbasin.

H. Local Support

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

This BBM proposal was presented and discussed at twelve or more public meetings by the submitting and affected agencies during which proper meeting notice is required and public is given the opportunity to comment. In addition, GSA managers discussed the proposal regularly at their facilitated meetings. In addition, an outreach letter was distributed to the interested parties list, GSAs were directly contacted with a request for a letter of support, and information could be found on our Department's SGMA webpage. In addition, the Agricultural Groundwater Users of Butte County, a nonprofit association of landowners, has been engaged in the process and has provided information to their membership. Announcements have also been made and the BBM discussed at meetings of the Butte County Farm Bureau.

Attachment(s):

• F4. Meeting Agendas.zip (3.5MB) Uploaded on 09/24/2018 at 02:29PM
• F3.b BBM Outreach Letter_7112018 v2.pdf (778.8kB) Uploaded on 09/19/2018 at 03:28PM

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.

Letters of support were provided by the following agencies: Butte Water District, Biggs West Gridley Water District, Glenn County Board of Supervisors, City of Live Oak, City of Chico, Tehama County Flood and Water Conservation District, RD 2106, RD1004, Richvale Irrigation District, South Feather Water and Power, Western Canal Water District. In addition, the following entities submitted letters of support: Agricultural Groundwater Users of Butte County and the M&T Ranch.

Attachment(s):

• H2. LOS.zip (3.4MB) Uploaded on 09/19/2018 at 03:38PM

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

No opposition was received from other local agencies. See F5. for response to stakeholder comments.

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.

Butte County's Groundwater Management Plan, adopted in 2004, describes the hydrogeology and physical setting of the East Butte, West Butte, and Vina subbasins. In this document, the proposed Vina subbasin corresponds to areas referred in the GWMP as the Vina Inventory Unit, the Durham/Dayton Inventory Sub-Unit in the West Butte subbasin, and the Esquon, Pentz, and portions of the Cherokee Inventory Sub-Unit in the East Butte subbasin. The proposed Butte subbasin corresponds to the remaining Inventory Units and Inventory Sub-Units in the West Butte subbasin and East Butte subbasin described in the Groundwater Management Plan. Aspects of the HCM identified above are mostly contained within Section 2 of the Plan.

Attachment(s):

• ButteCounty_GWMP_2004.pdf (9.9MB) Uploaded on 08/09/2018 at 03:13PM

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.

Attachment(s):

• ButteCounty_GWMP_2004.pdf (9.9MB) Uploaded on 08/09/2018 at 03:06PM
• DWR 2014_Geology of the North Sac Valley.pdf (43.3MB) Uploaded on 09/19/2018 at 03:41PM

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

Existing coordination of sustainable groundwater management activities within each affected subbasin and between subbasins will continue as part of GSP development and implementation. The following GSAs have filed notice with DWR to become GSAs in the affected subbasins: 1. Vina: Butte County, City of Chico, Rock Creek Reclamation District, Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. These GSAs are working together to form a JPA to serve as the GSA for the subbasin. 2. West Butte: Butte County, City of Chico, Colusa Groundwater Authority, Durham Irrigation District, Glenn County, Reclamation District No. 1004, Reclamation District No. 2106, Western Canal Water District. These GSAs are discussing governance options in light of the new Butte subbasin proposal. 3. East Butte: Biggs-West Gridley Water District, Butte County ? East Butte, Butte Water District, City of Biggs, City of Gridley, City of Live Oak, City of Oroville, Reclamation District No. 1004 - East Butte, Richvale Irrigation District, Sutter County, Sutter Extension Water District, Thermalito Water and Sewer District, Western Canal Water District. These GSAs are discussing governance options in light of the new Butte subbasin proposal. The GSAs in each of the affected subbasins are closely coordinating SGMA implementation and GSP development efforts. In the Vina Subbasin the GSAs intend to form a Joint Powers Authority to serve as a single GSA for the subbasin. Additionally, coordination is actively underway among all affected subbasins through activities of the Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation, the Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Technical Advisory Committee, and all involved GSAs with the support of facilitation services. Coordinated efforts are underway with development of the Basin Setting portions of the GSP for each of the four existing subbasins (Vina, West Butte, East Butte, and Wyandotte Creek) in Butte County under a single project, with consultant support, that will use consistent data, monitoring, and modeling tools to establish the scientific foundation for managing groundwater in these subbasins. With this coordinated foundation, each subbasin will later develop sustainability goals and thresholds for their GSP. This approach supports coordination and consistency for estimating and accounting for interbasin groundwater flow, among other important aspects of GSP development. Addressing scientific aspects of basin conditions under one project will set the stage for effective interbasin coordination as GSPs are implemented throughout the region.