B. Description of Proposed Boundary Modification

1. Short Description

   County Basin Consolidation of four subbasins within Yolo County to existing County boundaries.
2. Type of basin boundary revision

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

   The Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District), on behalf of the Water Resources Association of Yolo County (WRA) and Yolo County Farm Bureau, proposes to modify the Colusa, Yolo, and Solano subbasins to snap to the existing county line and to consolidate the modified boundaries with the existing Capay Valley subbasin. The proposed modifications simplify the boundary and reconcile small pieces of land that could prove to be difficult to manage in accordance with the SGMA; the lands reconciled correspond to the Colusa County Water District, Reclamation Districts 2068 and 2093, and University of California, Davis. The southeastern portion of Yolo County that includes Reclamation Districts 150, 307, and 999 is not included in the Yolo subbasin consolidation. The proposed adjustments do not significantly impact previous and ongoing groundwater management efforts in the region. The proposed boundary modification will promote sustainable groundwater management by building on the existing structure of the WRA and by improving efficiency between land use planning and water resources management in Yolo County.

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

   • 5-021.67 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - YOLO
   • 5-021.52 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - COLUSA
   • 5-021.68 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - CAPAY VALLEY
   • 5-021.66 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SOLANO
5. Provide the proposed name for the new basin(s) or subbasin(s)

   Yolo Subbasin or Yolo 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)
   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
   	5-021.67 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - YOLO , 5-021.66 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SOLANO
   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
   	5-021.52 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - COLUSA
   Northern Delta GSA	5-021.65 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SOUTH AMERICAN , 5-022.01 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - EASTERN SAN JOAQUIN , 5-021.66 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SOLANO
   	5-022.15 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - TRACY , 5-021.66 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SOLANO
   	5-021.66 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SOLANO , 5-021.65 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - SOUTH AMERICAN , 5-022.01 SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY - EASTERN SAN JOAQUIN

2. Does this application include a combination of requests?

   Yes

   If yes, describe:

   The application includes two jurisdictional modifications: a county consolidation and an internal jurisdictional change to agencies that are straddling the County boundary or have requested to not be included in the submitted modification. The proposed modifications simplify the boundary and reconcile small pieces of land that could prove to be difficult to manage in accordance with the SGMA; the lands reconciled correspond to the Colusa County Water District, Reclamation Districts 2068 and 2093, and University of California, Davis. The internal jurisdictional modification keeps the Colusa County Water District, UC Davis, and RDs 2068 and 2093 within one basin boundary. The RDs located in the southeast panhandle of the County have requested to not be included in the Yolo County consolidation and have been carved out of the request; these are RDs 150 , 307, and 999 specifically.

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):

• District Act Sept 07 with Table of Contents.pdf (827.7kB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 03:14PM

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

Attachment(s):

• YCFCWCD_Resolution.pdf (98.6kB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 08:28AM

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):

• B118_Agency_Map_BBM.pdf (1.2MB) Uploaded on 03/29/2016 at 02:25PM
• BBMMap_All.pdf (1.9MB) Uploaded on 03/29/2016 at 02:26PM
• B118_ProposedYoloSubbasin_BBM.pdf (1.2MB) Uploaded on 03/29/2016 at 02:26PM

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

Attachment(s):

• Yolo_BBMR.zip (78.8kB) Uploaded on 04/14/2016 at 02:14PM

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

Attachment(s):

• Local Water Districts.zip (342.9kB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 03:37PM

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.

The subbasin extends from the Yolo County boundary on the north end to the sound end and is bounded on the east by the Sacramento River and on the west by the Coast Range. The definable bottom of the basin remains unchanged from what was defined in the Bulletin-118 process. The boundary clips out jurisdictional boundaries or small pieces of land that could prove to be difficult to manage in accordance with SGMA. The following agencies were clipped out of the proposed Yolo Subbasin and are not considered to be in the Yolo Subbasin: Reclamation Districts 150, 307, 999, 2068, and 2093, and Colusa County Water District. The University of California, Davis is the one agency that is proposed to be within the Yolo Subbasin that extends beyond the Yolo County line into Solano County.

F. Notice and Consultation

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

Dunnigan Water District Cal Am - Dunnigan Colusa Basin Drainage District Knights Landing Ridge Drainage District Yolo County Flood Control & WCD Cacheville CSD Esparto CSD Knights Landing CSD Madison CSD Colusa Drain MWC Solano County Water Agency North Delta Water Agency Colusa County Water District Yolo County Yolo County CSAs (Dunnigan, El Macero, Garcia Benda, Madison-Esparto Regional, North Davis Meadows, Snowball, Wildwings, and Willowbank CSA) Colusa County Solano County City of Davis City of West Sacramento City of Winters City of Woodland UC Davis RD 108 RD 150 (Merritt Island) RD 307 (Lisbon Island) RD 537 (Lovdal District) RD 730 (Knights Landing) RD 765 (Glide District) RD 785 (Driver District) RD 787 (Fair Ranch) RD 827 (Elkhorn) RD 900 (West Sacramento) RD 999 (Netherlands) RD 1600 (Mull District) RD 2035 (Conaway Ranch) RD 2068 (Yolano) RD 2093 (Liberty Island)

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

The WRA maintains close coordination with agencies involved in ongoing regional groundwater planning within Yolo County and the existing relationships were leveraged to discuss the proposed basin boundary modification. GIS files of counties, cities, and water districts were overlaid on a map of the existing Bulletin 118 basin boundaries to identify interested local agencies and public water systems in the affected basins. The District contacted affected agencies to educate them on the potential basin boundary modification and to solicit their thoughts on the proposal.

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 District identified and contacted all affected agencies to educate them on the District's/WRA's intent to modify existing basin boundaries within Yolo County. The WRA solicited input and considered the priorities and perspectives of adjacent basin managers. The Yolo WRA leadership circulated a draft letter to the WRA member agencies and adjacent County boards describing the potential revisions of the groundwater basins within Yolo County and the desire to consolidate basins to the County extents. The WRA indicated that it would not submit for a basin boundary modification if there were concerns over the basin boundary adjustment. Reclamation Districts 150, 307, and 999 had concerns with being included in the County consolidation and decided to work with the Northern Delta GSA efforts and requested to stay in the existing Solano Subbasin. A webpage was developed, which contained detailed information on the modification proposal including a draft map. The WRA/District also coordinated face-to-face meetings with local overlying and adjacent interests to work through questions and concerns related to the boundary modification. The WRA leadership distributed an informal draft letter to the WRA member agencies and to the Counties of Solano and Colusa to notify them of the WRA's intent to modify the existing Solano, Colusa, and Yolo subbasins at the Yolo County line. The informal draft letter is attached for reference. The WRA, Yolo County, and District participated in multiple meetings with Solano and Sacramento Counties to discuss the potential basin boundary modifications from November 2015 through March 2016. The WRA and District also contacted the two existing exclusive GSAs within Yolo County, Dunnigan Water District and RD 787, and informed them of the proposed basin boundary modification.

Attachment(s):

• AdjoiningCountiesLetter_2015_12_draft.docx (23.6kB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 04:40PM

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.

Two public hearings were held on March 1 and March 14, at the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Board Meeting and Yolo WRA Board Meeting, respectively. At the Board Meetings the proposed basin boundary modification was discussed and considered by each Board. The proposed Yolo Basin Boundary modifications were also discussed at the Solano SGMA Public Meeting in Davis on March 7, and at a groundwater meeting in Rumsey on March 10. The meeting on March 10 was primarily convened to discuss the Capay Valley subbasin joining the Yolo WRA efforts since they are technically within a low priority basin. After the meeting, there was consensus among stakeholders to join the effort and to become proactive in ensuring sustainable groundwater into the future. There were also three Yolo SGMA Public Meetings in which the basin boundary modification proposal was discussed on March 29, 30, and 31. Attached are the agendas from the meetings.

Attachment(s):

• 2016 03 01 Minutes.doc (275kB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 03:11PM
• AGENDA_WRA_MARCH2016(full).pdf (1.3MB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 03:11PM
• Yolo SGMA Public Meetings_Agenda.docx (16kB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 03:11PM

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.

The WRA has not received any written comments regarding the proposed modification, but has received numerous letters of support discussed in Section H - Local Support.

G. General Existing Groundwater Management

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

The proposed subbasin modifications will promote sustainable groundwater management by building on the existing structure of the WRA and by improving efficiency between land use planning and water resources management in Yolo County. The Yolo subbasin provides the following advantages 1) utilizes the existing WRA-based water resource planning governance structure, and builds on the existing local agency technical and programmatic relationships in Yolo County; 2) preserves the existing rights and authorities of the WRA?s member agencies, including land use authorities of the County and Cities; 3) ensures the interests of private well owners are considered; 4) serves as the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Monitoring Entity; 5) incorporates the Yolo County Water Resources Information Database (WRID) monitoring network; 6) utilizes the Integrated Groundwater and Surface water Model (IGSM), Integrated Water Flow Model (IWFM), and Water Evaluation And Planning system (WEAP) surface and groundwater models; and 7) advances the subsidence monitoring network that has served Yolo County for the past 15 years.

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

The majority of the agencies within the adjacent groundwater basins have verbally approved of the proposed basin boundary modification and do not feel that it would affect their ability to sustainably manage groundwater in the adjacent groundwater basins. Colusa County has provided a letter of support indicating their concurrence with the proposed basin boundary modification. The WRA will continue to collaborate with the Solano and Colusa County constituents within the existing Solano and Colusa subbasins to sustainably manage groundwater within the region. The WRA/District has ensured that special districts that may have been in two different basins from the County line modification are solely in one groundwater subbasin. The Colusa County Water District is not in the proposed Yolo subbasin, and is solely in the Colusa subbasin. Similarly, RDs 150, 307, 999, 2068, and 2093 are not in the proposed Yolo subbasin, and are solely in the Solano subbasin. UC Davis will continue to be located in the proposed Yolo subbasin as that portion (the UCD footprint) of the existing Yolo subbasin is not being modified to the County line.

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

Groundwater is one of Yolo County's most important natural resources, and it is the source of water for municipal and domestic uses in the County, except for the City of West Sacramento. County water managers understand that active conjunctive water management reduces potential overdraft and ensures the availability of groundwater and reliability of groundwater supplies during droughts for agricultural and urban water users. Collectively, the District, municipalities, RDs, County, agricultural community, and the public are stewards for the water resources of Yolo County. The Yolo County community actively supports and invests in water to sustain agricultural productivity and assure future urban water supplies. In 1975, a report was completed by Scott and Scalmanini on Investigations of Groundwater Resources in Yolo County, and groundwater storage capacity for the entire county was estimated as 14 million acre-feet. In 1992, an investigation of conjunctive use management opportunities was conducted to improve the overall yield and sustainability of Yolo County's water supply system (Jenkins, 1992). In 2002, the hydrologic modeling goals and objectives for Yolo County were assessed. In 2004, existing information and current basin conditions in Yolo County were investigated in the Groundwater Monitoring Program Report. Also, groundwater management in Yolo County is locally controlled through County Ordinance: Title 10, Chapter 7. The District operates and maintains an extensive conveyance and distribution system comprised of earthen canals. Losses from this system result in seepage and percolation that are primarily recoverable from the groundwater basin. The District's groundwater monitoring program includes a mapping database of 160 monitoring well locations, annual and monthly measurement of water levels, and an annual report of water levels. The District's SCADA system is used to monitor and report groundwater levels as part of the District's ongoing program. The District also coordinates groundwater data with other regional agencies within Yolo County and collects and inputs the cooperating entities' data into the WRA's Water Resources Information Database (WRID). The WRID is continually expanding and groundwater information is becoming more readily available. Supporting Documentation: 1992: Conjunctive Use without Management in Yolo County (Mimi Jenkins): http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/dcn/projects/conjunctiveuse/ 2002: Hydrologic Modeling Goals and Objectives for Yolo County: http://www.ycfcwcd.org/pdffiles/reports/yolo%20modeling%20goals%20and%20objectives.pdf 2004: Groundwater Monitoring Program, Data Management System, and update of Groundwater Conditions in the Yolo County Area: http://www.ycfcwcd.org/pdffiles/reports/ab%20303%20gw%20final%20report%20pdf%20reduced.pdf Yolo County Groundwater Ordinances: http://www.yolocounty.org/home/showdocument?id=1899

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 modification will have an insignificant impact on various state programs and various Sacramento Valley modeling and monitoring programs. These modifications will not considerably change historical regional calculations of water storage conditions. The proposed boundary modification will maintain the existing data collection systems in Yolo County: CASGEM, WRID, IGSM, IWFM, and WEAP.

H. Local Support

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

In addition to the face-to-face meetings, emails, and phone calls, the Yolo WRA created and updated the Yolo Groundwater website (http://yologroundwater.org/index.php/yolo-county-groundwater-basin-boundaries/) with the proposed basin boundary modification. As mentioned in Section F-Notice and Consultations, the WRA leadership circulated a draft letter to the WRA member agencies and adjacent County boards describing the potential revisions of the groundwater basins within Yolo County.

Attachment(s):

• AdjoiningCountiesLetter_2015_12_draft.docx (23.6kB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 04:40PM

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.

The Cities of Davis, West Sacramento, and Woodland; the Counties of Yolo and Colusa; the Yolo WRA; and the University of California, Davis are all in support of the proposed boundary. The Northern Delta GSA has also provided a letter of support for the proposed modification. Their resolutions and letters of support are attached. At this time, the WRA is under the impression that the following agencies are not in opposition of the proposed basin boundary modification: the City of Winters, Solano County, RD 108, RD 787, and Dunnigan Water District. The District anticipates letters of support also coming in from RD 108 and 787, the Solano County Water Agency, and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation.

Attachment(s):

• CityofDavis_LOS.pdf (574.9kB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 08:40AM
• CityofWoodland_Reso_6608_BBMRequest.pdf (124kB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 08:40AM
• WestSac_LOS.pdf (788.2kB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 08:40AM
• UCD_LOS.pdf (79.1kB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 08:40AM
• ColusaCounty_LOS.pdf (371.9kB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 08:40AM
• Letter of Support NDGSA.pdf (207.3kB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 03:24PM
• YoloCounty_Reso.pdf (411.8kB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 08:38AM
• WRA_Reso_BBMRequest.pdf (95.7kB) Uploaded on 03/31/2016 at 08:38AM

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

No opposition is known to exist at this time.

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 attached 2004 Groundwater Monitoring Program, Data Management System, and Update of Groundwater Conditions in the Yolo County Area Report discusses the geology and water resources of Yolo County; the groundwater bearing units; the vertical zone characteristics; and the groundwater subbasins on pages 19-30.

Attachment(s):

• LSCE_YoloGWReport_2004.pdf (23.9MB) Uploaded on 04/14/2016 at 02:49PM

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: http://www.ycfcwcd.org/documents/gwmp2006final.pdf, http://www.yolowra.org/irwmp.html, http://www.ycfcwcd.org/pdffiles/reports/ab%20303%20gw%20final%20report%20pdf%20reduced.pdf, http://

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

The WRA has received facilitation support services from DWR to assist in developing and implementing SGMA within Yolo County. Since the development of the Yolo IRWMP in 2007, the WRA has focused most of their efforts on water supply, groundwater, and surface water and water quality projects as well as related issues such as subsidence, flood, and conjunctive use water management. The WRA, in partnership with the Yolo County Farm Bureau, seeks to form a GSA and conduct initial planning steps leading to creating a GSP, consistent with SGMA requirements. The WRA will enter into coordination agreements with agencies within the basin to collaborate on activities and responsibilities of sustainable groundwater management within the proposed Yolo subbasin.