B. Description of Proposed Boundary Modification

1. Short Description

   Jurisdictional Consolidation of the Tehama County portion of the Vina Subbasin (5-21.57) into the Los Molinos Subbasin (5-21.56) and Dye Creek Subbasin (5-21-55).
2. Type of basin boundary revision

   • Jurisdiction Consolidation
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 the jurisdictional boundaries of Tehama County, including the Dye Creek (5-21.55), Los Molinos (5-21.56), and Vina (5-21.57) Subbasins on February 11, 2016. Currently the Vina Subbasin is split between Tehama and Butte counties. The portion of the Vina Subbasin within Tehama County has a population of less than 1,000 and includes approximately 9,000 acres of agriculture irrigated by both surface water and groundwater. The Butte County portion of the Vina Subbasin has a population of greater than 60,000, including the City of Chico, and approximately 50,000+ acres of agriculture mostly irrigated with groundwater. This BBM is being pursued because the District believes the number of constituents and the type of groundwater related activities that occur within the Tehama County portion of the Vina Subbasin are more similar to those of the Dye Creek and Los Molinos Subbasins than the portion of the Vina Subbasin that lies within Butte County. Additionally, these three subbasins are currently separated by Mill (separating Dye Creek and Los Molinos) and Deer (separating Los Molinos and Vina) creeks, which are vital sources of surface water for several agricultural water districts within these subbasins. By consolidating the areas which are within the jurisdictional boundary of the District, and the development of a single Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) 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 02:37PM
4. List of the existing basin(s)/subbasin(s) to be modified by this request

   • 5-021.55 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - DYE CREEK
   • 5-021.56 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - LOS MOLINOS
   • 5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA
5. Provide the proposed name for the new basin(s) or subbasin(s)

   The Los Molinos 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	5-006.01 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
   	5-021.56 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - LOS MOLINOS , 5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA
   Butte County	5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA , 5-021.60 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - NORTH YUBA
   	5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA
   	5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA
   	5-021.57 SACRAMENTO VALLEY - VINA

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 02:38PM

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 3-2018.pdf (18.1MB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:38PM

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 (1.1MB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:39PM
• D3_Local Agency Map.pdf (283.8kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:39PM

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 (11.3kB) Uploaded on 10/18/2018 at 11:53AM

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_GIS_Shapefile_Agency_Boundary.zip (113.9kB) Uploaded on 09/28/2018 at 12:26PM

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 BBM 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 provided in the attached sheets.

Attachment(s):

• size: 1
• D6_NOE.pdf (2MB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:39PM

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 Dye Creek (5-21.55) Subbasin, Los Molinos (5-21.56) Subbasin and the portion of the Vina Subbasin (5-21.57) within Tehama County. See attached description and map.

Attachment(s):

• size: 1
• E1_Description_and_Map.pdf (428.4kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:54PM

F. Notice and Consultation

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

Local Agencies within the proposed BBM include: Los Molinos Community Services District, Lassen View Elementary School, Vina Elementary School, Antelope Creek Mobile Home Park, New Orchard Mobile Home Park & RV, Mill Stream Mobile Home Park, Hidden Harbor Marina & RV Park, Driftwood RV Park, River Lodge RV Park, River Point Mobile Home Park, Woodson Bridge RV Park, Woodson Bridge State Recreation Area, Woodson Bridge Estates, Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge, and Abbey of New Clairvaux.

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. 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 basin boundary modifications have 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. District staff initially presented the BBM topic at a Tehama County Groundwater Commission meeting on April 25, 2018 and at a District Board of Directors meeting on May 21, 2018. Prior to these meetings an email letter was sent to interested stakeholders on April 11, 2018 informing them of the BBM process and detailing the dates of the two meetings mentioned above. The District had developed an email distribution list of interested stakeholders through previous AB 3030 efforts, and additionally collected contact information from persons interested in the Tehama County GSA at various public meetings and through the District’s website since February 2016. Additionally, the April 11, 2018 letter was distributed to the Vina GSA Interested Parties list developed by Butte County. Between these two lists, the letter was distributed to over 300 agencies and interested stakeholders. The final proposed BBM was presented to the Groundwater Commission on June 14, 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 June 19, 2018 and unanimously adopted Resolution 3-2018 authorizing staff to submit the proposed BBM to DWR. An informational letter detailing these meeting dates and the BBM process was sent out to the Tehama and Vina GSA Interested Parties email distribution lists on June 7, 2018. District staff also participated in the Vina Subbasin GSA development meetings with the other three GSAs (County of Butte, City of Chico, and Rock Creek Reclamation District) in the Vina Subbasin. These three GSAs were included in initial conversations concerning the proposed BBM, and were sent email correspondence requesting letters of support for the BBM.

Attachment(s):

• size: 5
• F3_BBM_Outreach_Letter_04_11_18.pdf (374.1kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:48PM
• F3_BBM_Outreach_Letter_06_07_18.pdf (570.5kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:48PM
• F3_LOS_Request_Butte_County.pdf (99.5kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:49PM
• F3_LOS_Request_Chico.pdf (99.7kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:49PM
• F3_LOS_Request_Rock_Creek.pdf (99.7kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:49PM

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 proposed and discussed at numerous public meetings (see attached agendas). Information on the proposed BBM was presented at District Board of Directors meetings, Groundwater Commission meetings, Vina Subbasin public 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 Flood Control and Water Conservation District Board meeting on June 19, 2018.

Attachment(s):

• size: 2
• F4_Summary_Table_of_Public_Meetings.pdf (176.7kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:49PM
• F4_Public_Meeting_Agendas.pdf (1.3MB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:49PM

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.

A letter was sent to interested stakeholders in both Tehama and Butte Counties on April 11, 2018 informing them of the proposed BBM and inviting comments on the proposed BBM. Additionally, the proposed BBM was discussed at Groundwater Commission meetings on April 25, 2018 and June 14, 2018 along with District Board of Directors meetings on May 21, 2018 and June 19, 2018. No formal comments concerning the proposed BBM were received.

Attachment(s):

• size: 1
• F5_Letter_Inviting_Comments_04_11_18 - Copy.pdf (374.1kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:54PM

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 under its AB 3030 Coordinated Groundwater Management Plan since 1996. The District intends to build upon these efforts when developing a GSP to facilitate sustainable groundwater management for the portions of the Dye Creek, Los Molinos, and Vina Subbasins located within Tehama County. These subbasins already have fairly sustainable groundwater levels. The development of a GSP will help to define management actions and projects that will encourage sustainable groundwater management of the subbasins. Additionally, the District will continue coordinating SGMA activities with the Vina Subbasin Joint Powers Authority (JPA) in Butte County.

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 Tehama County portion of the Vina Subbasin. Likewise, Butte County has been similarly managing their groundwater subbasins under an AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan since 2005, including the Butte County portion of the Vina Subbasin. The District has been involved in the Vina Subbasin GSA development processes which included the four GSAs within the Vina Subbasin. The three GSAs within the Butte County portion of the Vina Subbasin are in the process of signing a JPA agreement that will form a single GSA for the purposes of developing and implementing a GSP for the Butte County portion of the Vina Subbasin. The District plans to continue coordinating with the newly formed GSA that covers the Butte County portion of the Vina Subbasin along with other GSA entities throughout the Sacramento Valley. The District is the GSA for the remaining subbasins surrounding the proposed BBM.

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 groundwater levels within the District and specifically the Dye Creek Subbasin, Los Molinos Subbasin, and the portion of the Vina Subbasin within Tehama County are 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. The groundwater levels in these subbasins have been fairly sustainable, this can be confirmed by reviewing the numerous CASGEM wells located within the subbasins, some dating back to the 1940’s.

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 this 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 Butte Counties manage groundwater under their individual Groundwater Management Plans that each 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 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: The proposed modification would consolidate these similar subbasins into a single subbasin allowing them to be managed under a single GSP, thereby allowing for efficient and sustainable management of the groundwater resources within the proposed BBM subbasins.

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 numerous public meetings (agendas attached in Section F4 above) in both Tehama and Butte counties, during which proper meeting notice was required and the public was given the opportunity to comment. In addition, outreach letters (attached in Section F3 above) were distributed to both the District and Vina GSA Interested Parties lists, GSAs within the Vina Subbasin were directly contacted with a request for a letter of support, and information could be found on the District’s SGMA webpage under the BBM tab. 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 June 14, 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 3-2018 approving the proposed BBM on June 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.

Letters of support were provided by the following agencies: Butte County, City of Chico, and Rock Creek Reclamation District. No other comments or documents in support or opposition were received.

Attachment(s):

• size: 3
• H2_Butte_LOS_06_14_18.pdf (430.4kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:57PM
• H2_Chico_LOS_06_05_18.pdf (197.5kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:57PM
• H2_Rock Creek LOS.pdf (372kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 02:57PM

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 all portions of the Dye Creek, Los Molinos and Vina Subbasins within Tehama County. The District has been actively managing the groundwater subbasins within its jurisdiction under an AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan since 1996, and intends on continuing to do so with the development and implementation of a GSP. Additionally, Butte County has been managing the Butte County portion of the Vina Subbasin under an AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plan since 2005. The Vina JPA, which includes Butte County, will continue to manage the Butte County portion of the Vina Subbasin with the development and implementation of a GSP. The District and Butte County have a long history of coordination on groundwater management activities, and this continued coordination on SGMA related activities is likely to continue through the GSP development and implementation process.

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. The District intends on continuing coordination on SGMA related activities, including GSP coordination, with Vina Joint Powers Authority which will be the exclusive GSA in the Butte County portion of the Vina Subbasin. Although not required, the District plans to work with the Vina JPA to develop an MOU type of coordination agreement once the proposed BBM has been finalized by DWR. 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 02:59PM