B. Description of Proposed Boundary Modification

1. Short Description

   BBM of the Tehama County portion of the Millville Subbasin into the South Battle Creek Subbasin
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.

   The Tehama County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) was recognized as the Exclusive Groundwater Sustainability Agency (GSA) for all portions of the 11 groundwater subbasins located within Tehama County, including the portion of the Millville Subbasin (5-06.05) within Tehama County and the entire South Battle Creek Subbasin (5-06.06) on February 11, 2016. The proposed Jurisdictional Consolidation Basin Boundary Modification (BBM) would consolidate the small portion of the Millville Subbasin located within Tehama County back into the South Battle Creek Subbasin as it existed prior to 2016. This portion of the Millville Subbasin within Tehama County is approximately 1,100 acres and has one landowner. The majority of the approximately 68,900 acre Millville Subbasin is located in Shasta County. Both subbasins are listed as very low priority subbasins under the Draft 2018 Basin Reprioritization, with the Shasta County portion of the Millville Subbasin currently not being covered under the jurisdiction of a GSA. During the 2016 Basin Boundary Modification process DWR adjusted the southwest border of the Millville Subbasin from the Tehama County line (which follows an old side channel of the Sacramento River to the confluence of Battle Creek) to a new boundary alignment that follows Battle Creek to its current confluence with the Sacramento River. The majority of the boundary between the Millville and South Battle Creek Subbasins is defined by the Tehama/Shasta County line (main stem of Battle Creek), with the exception of the small segment detailed above. The proposed BBM will simply realign the South Battle Creek and Millville Subbasin boundaries to as they existed prior to 2016. Additionally, the small portion of the Millville Subbasin within Tehama County is located adjacent to the Sacramento River, and is more likely influenced by the Sacramento River than either the remainder of the Millville Subbasin in Shasta County or the South Battle Creek Subbasin in Tehama County. The one landowner on the small 1,100 acre property has access to surface water allocations from Battle Creek and is unlikely to pull groundwater from too deep due to the property?s proximity to the Sacramento River. The District intends on completing a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) or GSP type document for all the subbasins within its jurisdiction, including the low and very low priority subbasins. The areas covered by the proposed BBM have been managed by the District under the Tehama County AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan since 1996. By consolidating these two areas that are within the jurisdictional boundary of the District, and the development of a single GSP type document it will allow for improved management of the groundwater resources in a sustainable manner while also making the future governance and staffing responsibilities of the subbasin more efficient from both a time and funding perspective.

   Attachment(s):

   B3_TC_GSA_Map.pdf (2.4MB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 12:22PM
4. List of the existing basin(s)/subbasin(s) to be modified by this request

   • 5-006.05 REDDING AREA - MILLVILLE
   • 5-006.06 REDDING AREA - SOUTH BATTLE CREEK
5. Provide the proposed name for the new basin(s) or subbasin(s)

   Not applicable, the proposed modification will incorporate the small portion of the Millville Subbasin (5-6.05) located within Tehama County into the South Battle Creek Subbasin (5-6.06) located within Tehama County. Keep South Battle Creek the subbasin name.

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)
   	5-006.05 REDDING AREA - MILLVILLE , 5-006.06 REDDING AREA - SOUTH BATTLE CREEK
   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

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):

• size: 1
• D1_Tehama_Reso _5-2015 .pdf (11.1MB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 12:26PM

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

Attachment(s):

• size: 1
• D2_BBM_Request_Resolution_1-2018.pdf (99.8kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 12:26PM

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):

• size: 2
• D3_Proposed_BBM_Map.pdf (257.1kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 12:27PM
• D3_Local_Agency_Map.pdf (266.9kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 12:27PM

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

Attachment(s):

• size: 1
• D4_BBM_Shapefile.zip (11.1kB) Uploaded on 10/18/2018 at 11:50AM

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

Attachment(s):

• size: 1
• D5_Agency_Shapefile.zip (50.7kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 12:27PM

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

The BBM is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as it is not a project under CEQA. Even if the basin boundary modification constituted a project, it would be exempt because there it is no possibility that it will have a significant effect on the environment. District staff filed a Notice of Exemption on July 3, 2018. The Notice of Exemption is attached.

Attachment(s):

• size: 1
• D6_NOE.pdf (1.9MB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 12:27PM

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.

This BBM would combine the Bulletin 118 defined South Battle Creek Subbasin (5-06.06) and the portion of the Millville Subbasin (5-06.05) within Tehama County. See attached description and map.

Attachment(s):

• size: 1
• E1_Description_and_Map.pdf (527.7kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 12:29PM

F. Notice and Consultation

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

There are no local agencies or public water systems affected by the proposed BBM. This rural area has only one property owner who is supportive of the proposed BBM.

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 confirm that no local agencies or public water systems were present. In addition, the District has developed an Interested Parties email distribution list whose recipients receive SGMA related updates. The District also maintains a SGMA page on its website and has held multiple public meetings where the proposed BBM has been presented and discussed. Lastly, the District used data collected during the development of the Tehama County Groundwater Management Plan in 1996 and again during the subsequent plan update in 2012.

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 proposed BBM will not change the management responsibilities of the District which has been recognized as the Exclusive GSA for the areas proposed for consolidation. Both the GSA development and Basin Boundary Modification processes were presented during publicly noticed District Board of Directors and Groundwater Commission meetings which permitted public comment. The Millville Subbasin is currently prioritized as a very low priority subbasin and no agency within Shasta County has filed a Notice of Intent to become a GSA over the subbasin. District staff has informed Shasta County staff of the proposed BBM, they have been supportive of the BBM. The proposed BBM was presented to the Tehama County Groundwater Commission on February 28, 2018, where the Commission voted unanimously to bring forward a recommendation to the District Board of Directors to submit the proposed BBM. The District Board of Directors met on March 19, 2018 and unanimously adopted Resolution 1-2018 authorizing staff to submit the proposed BBM to DWR.

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 BBM was presented at District Board of Directors meetings, Groundwater Commission meetings, Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Board meetings, and IRWM Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings. Each of these meetings were publicly noticed and allowed public comment. The BBM was voted on by the District Board of Directors during the March 19, 2018 Flood Control and Water Conservation District Board meeting.

Attachment(s):

• size: 2
• F4_Summary_Table_of_Public_Meetings.pdf (176.1kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 12:33PM
• F4_Public_Meeting_Agendas.pdf (1.6MB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 12:33PM

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.

No formal comments concerning the proposed BBM were received during either the February 28, 2018 Groundwater Commission meeting or the March 19, 2018 District Board of Directors meeting.

G. General Existing Groundwater Management

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

The District has been managing groundwater within these two subbasins under its AB 3030 Coordinated Groundwater Management Plan since 1996. The District intends to build upon these efforts when developing the GSP type document to facilitate sustainable groundwater management for the area within the proposed BBM. The development of a GSP type document may help define management actions and projects that will encourage the continued sustainable groundwater management of the subbasins.

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

The proposed BBM would not negatively affect the ability of any surrounding groundwater subbasins to sustainably manage groundwater. The District has been managing the groundwater subbasins within Tehama County through its AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan since 1996, including the South Battle Creek Subbasin and portion of the Millville Subbasin within Tehama County. Likewise, Shasta County has been similarly managing their groundwater subbasins under an AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan since 1998, including the Millville Subbasin. The District plans to continue coordinating with Shasta County and any future GSAs that form in the neighboring Millville Subbasin. The District is the GSA for the remaining subbasins surrounding the proposed BBM within Tehama County.

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

The history of the sustainable management of the groundwater levels within the District and specifically the South Battle Creek Subbasin and the portion of the Millville Subbasin is documented in the District?s 2012 update of the Coordinated AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan, which can be found on the District?s website and is attached in Section L1 of this document. These subbasins are still relatively rural and have had limited population growth and agricultural expansion over the last 40 years; this trend is likely to continue into the future. The South Battle Creek area is lacking in monitoring wells, it is anticipated that the District will be conducting outreach throughout its jurisdiction as GSPs are developed, with one of the main goals being identifying landowners willing to allow monitoring to occur in their wells, thereby increasing the monitoring grid within Tehama County.

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 BBM 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 subbasins included in the proposed BBM as the District would remain the designated monitoring entity for wells in the subbasins; 2. Groundwater Management Plans developed pursuant to AB 3030: Currently both Tehama and Shasta counties manage groundwater under their individual Groundwater Management Plans that cover their respective jurisdictions. The Tehama County AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan will be used as a foundation document to facilitate the development of a GSP type document for the proposed BBM subbasins; 3. Any applicable state or regional board plans, and other water management and land use programs: This BBM 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; 4. Groundwater Sustainability Plans developed pursuant to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act: These subbasins are prioritized as very low priority, therefore they do not require a GSP under current regulation. The District is planning to develop a GSP type document that would cover the lands within the proposed BBM.

H. Local Support

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

There are no affected agencies or systems within the proposed BBM. The proposed BBM was presented and discussed at numerous public meetings (agendas attached in Section F4 above), during which proper meeting notice was required and the public was given the opportunity to comment. In addition, information concerning the proposed BBM could be found on the District?s SGMA webpage under the BBM tab. Lastly, the 11 member Tehama County Groundwater Commission is comprised of representatives from the three incorporated cities within Tehama County, groundwater agencies and districts, surface water agencies or districts, private pumpers, and the general public. The Commissioners represent a broad range of stakeholder agencies throughout the District and are tasked with making recommendations to the District Board of Directors on most GSA related matters. The Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the proposed BBM to the District Board of Directors on February 28, 2018. Additionally, the Board of Directors is composed of the County Board of Supervisors, and therefore represent all the constituents within Tehama County. The Board of Directors voted unanimously to adopt Resolution 1-2018 approving the proposed BBM on March 19, 2018.

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.

There are no affected agencies or affected systems with the proposed BBM, therefore no comments and/or documents in support or opposition to the proposed BBM were received. Additionally, no comments were made during either the February 28, 2018 Groundwater Commission meeting or the March 19, 2018 District Board of Directors meeting on the proposed BBM.

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

No opposition has been expressed.

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.

Please refer to the HCM included in the Tehama County Groundwater Management Plan attached in section L1. The District has been recognized as the Exclusive GSA for the South Battle Creek Subbasin and portion of the Millville Subbasin within Tehama County. The District has been actively managing the groundwater subbasins within its jurisdiction since 1996, and intends to continue to do so with the development of a GSP type document for the subbasins within the proposed BBM. The proposed BBM will simply return the small 1,100 acre portion of the Millville Subbasin in Tehama County back into the South Battle Creek Subbasin, similar to what existed prior to the adjustment made by DWR in 2016. The lands within the proposed BBM are within the jurisdiction of the District. The proposed BBM will allow for more efficient and cost effective management by allowing the District to create a single GSP type document for the proposed BBM area, which is not required to be covered by a GSA or GSP under current regulations.

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.tehamacountypublicworks.ca.gov/Flood/groundwater/gwmp.pdf

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

The District will continue to coordinate the groundwater managements activities within the lands covered under the proposed BBM. The District submitted a Notice of Intent (NOI) to become the Exclusive GSA for all portions of the 11 groundwater subbasins located within Tehama County on November 4, 2015. The attached NOI details the District?s plan for the coordination of sustainable groundwater management activities and responsibilities. These management activities and responsibilities will be further refined during the development of a GSP type document. The District intends on continuing coordination on SGMA related activities with Shasta County and any GSAs that form in the Millville Subbasin. Additionally the District will continue coordinating with other GSA entities throughout the Sacramento Valley through the Northern Sacramento Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Planning (NSV IRWMP) Group and the Northern California Water Associations (NCWA) Groundwater Management Task Force.

Attachment(s):

• size: 1
• L2_NOI.pdf (3.6MB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 12:38PM