B. Description of Proposed Boundary Modification

1. Short Description

   Four proposed modifications: three jurisdictional internal and one scientific external.
2. Type of basin boundary revision

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

   This modification seeks to align the boundaries of the Mound basin, Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (FCGMA), and the Santa Paula basin adjudication. In places, portions of the Santa Paula basin as defined by DWR fall outside of the boundaries of all of the adjacent entities (white areas or unmanaged areas) and the Mound basin and Santa Paula basin adjudication areas overlap. Addressing these white areas and overlaps will lead to better management of all three basins. The northern boundary of the Mound basin is also being modified to ensure it correctly follows the aquifer outcrop. This will facilitate groundwater management by ensuring that all recharge areas of the Mound Subbasin are included in the GSA.

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

   • 4-004.02 SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY - OXNARD
   • 4-004.03 SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY - MOUND
   • 4-004.04 SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY - SANTA PAULA
5. Provide the proposed name for the new basin(s) or subbasin(s)

   Not applicable. No new basin(s) or subbasin(s) are proposed.

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)
   Fox Canyon (GMA)	4-006 PLEASANT VALLEY , 4-008 LAS POSAS VALLEY , 4-004.02 SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY - OXNARD
   Fox Canyon (GMA)	4-004.02 SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY - OXNARD , 4-008 LAS POSAS VALLEY , 4-006 PLEASANT VALLEY
   	4-004.03 SANTA CLARA RIVER VALLEY - MOUND

2. Does this application include a combination of requests?

   Yes

   If yes, describe:

   This application combines: 1) a Jurisdiction Internal modification of the Santa Paula (4-04)/Mound (4-03) subbasin boundary; with (2) a Jurisdiction Internal modification of the Oxnard Plain (4-02)/Mound (4-03) subbasin boundary; with (3) a Jurisdiction Internal modification of the Oxnard Plain (4-02)/Santa Paula(4-04) subbasin boundary; and with (4) a Scientific external modification of the northern boundary of the Mound (4-03) subbasin boundary.

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
• JPA Mound Basin.5.26.17_executed.pdf (413.4kB) Uploaded on 09/10/2018 at 10:50AM

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

Attachment(s):

• size: 1
• BasinBoundResol_signed.pdf (118kB) Uploaded on 09/10/2018 at 10:32AM

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: 4
• Mound Basin_Dibblee Quads -Geotiff_transform NAD_1983_2011_California_Te....pdf (1.5MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 02:15PM
• Proposed Basin Change- Overview Map of Primary Agencies.pdf (992.4kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 11:12AM
• Proposed Basin Change- Overview Map of Affected Basins.pdf (1.1MB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 11:12AM
• Proposed Basin Change- Agencies in Affected Basins.pdf (945.6kB) Uploaded on 09/27/2018 at 11:12AM

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
• DWR Bulletin 118 GW Basins_Santa Paula_Mound_Oxnard subbasins with edits v2.zip (36.5kB) Uploaded on 09/17/2018 at 06:46PM

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

Attachment(s):

• size: 1
• All_Agencies.zip (407.1kB) Uploaded on 10/16/2018 at 10:24AM

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 is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a "Project" under CEQA. Given that the Basin Boundary adjustments do not meet the "Project" definition, there is no requirement to seek or make a finding for a Statutory or Categorical Exemption, nor provide any other CEQA treatment at all. Even if the basin boundary modification constitutes a project, it would be exempt because there it is no possibility that it will have a significant effect on the environment.

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 bottom of the basin is defined by the effective base of fresh water defined by Turner and Makae (1975), which they mapped as the base of the San Pedro Formation. The base of the San Pedro Formation was later mapped as the Quaternary Las Posas Sand by Dibblee (1988 and 1992), which is adopted and utilized for the scientific boundary modification request. The lateral extent of the aquifers are constrained as follows: North: outcrop of the Las Posas Sand as mapped by Dibblee (1988 and 1992); West: Pacific Ocean (aquifers daylight offshore); East: Country Club fault system and jurisdictional boundary with Santa Paula Basin adjudication area; and South: Montalvo anticline and jurisdictional boundary with Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency. Alluvium in canyons north of the proposed northern boundary is not considered an aquifer and has, therefore, been excluded from the basin boundary. Further details concerning alluvium in the canyons north of the proposed boundary are provided in the memo by Bondy dated 10-17-18, attached below. For further details, please see attached reports: 1. Turner and Makae (1975) 2."Hydrogeologic Assessment of the Mound Basin." 3. "Preliminary Hydrogeologic Study City of San Buenaventura Mound Well No. 2" - Section "Hydrogeologic Suitability" on pages 5-6 and Plates 11 through 15 4. Note: Dibblee Maps not uploaded due to copyright.

Attachment(s):

• size: 4
• Mound_Basin_Assessment_Report_-_FINA_5-16-12.pdf (13.6MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 01:06PM
• Mound Well No 2 - Well Site Feasibility Study_reduced.pdf (10.7MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 02:28PM
• VC Water Res Man Study, Turner and Mukae, 1975.pdf (10MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 08:48PM
• Memo Bondy to DWR re BBMR - Alluvial Canyons - 10-17-18.pdf (1.2MB) Uploaded on 10/17/2018 at 07:24PM

F. Notice and Consultation

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

City of Ventura Ventura County United Water Conservation District Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency Casitas Municipal Water District

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

Interested local agencies and public water systems were previously identified during the MBGSA formation process. City of Ventura, Ventura County, and United Water Conservation District are parties to the JPA have directors on the MBGSA Board. Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency self-identified by bringing the proposed Mound (4-004.03) / Oxnard (4-004.02) jurisdictional modification to MBGSA.

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.

City of Ventura, Ventura County, and United Water Conservation District are parties to the JPA have directors on the MBGSA Board and were, therefore, consulted by default via through the MBGSA Board meetings. The MBGSA also established an ad hoc committee for the Basin Boundary Modification process composed of 2 board members including the Board member representing the County of Ventura. The ad hoc committee met with representatives from the Fox Canyon GMA, Ventura County Board of Supervisors, and the Santa Paula Basin TAC.

4. Provide a summary of all public meetings at which the proposed boundary modification was discussed or considered by the requesting agency. Attach and cite any copies of agendas and notices published.

The proposed basin boundary modifications were discussed at the following public meetings and workshops: Mound Basin GSA Board Meetings: February 15, 2018; March 13, 2018; March 15, 2018; April 19, 2018; June 21, 2018; July 26, 2018; August 23, 2018. Fox Canyon GMA Board Meeting - June 20, 2018 Fox Canyon GMA Technical Advisory Group: April 5, 2018 County of Ventura Board of Supervisors Meeting: June 19, 2018

Attachment(s):

• size: 1
• MBGSA BBMR Agency meeting notices and agendas.pdf (1.4MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 08:52PM

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.

None received.

G. General Existing Groundwater Management

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

Although no groundwater management plan currently exists, the Mound Subbasin has historically been indirectly managed by United Water Conservation District through its efforts to study and recharge the basins within its jurisdiction. Going forward, sustainable groundwater management will be confirmed or achieved through the development and implementation of a groundwater sustainability plan by the MBGSA.

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

The jurisdiction internal proposed modifications for Mound (4-03)/Santa Paula (4-04) subbasins boundary will improve groundwater management by eliminating white area between the Santa Paula Basin adjudication boundary and the Santa Paula subbasin Bulletin 118 boundary. The Jurisdiction Internal proposed modifications for Mound (4-03)/Oxnard (4-02) subbasins boundary and and Santa Paula (4-04)/Oxnard (4-02) subbasins boundary will improve groundwater management by aligning the subbasin boundaries with the statutory boundary of the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency. The scientific external proposed modification to Mound (4-03) subbasin does not affect any other basins.

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

1. Please see Figures 4-1 through 4-10 in the attached "Hydrogeologic Assessment of the Mound Basin" 2. Please see Figure 5.3-16 in the attached "Groundwater and Surface Water Conditions Report - 2015"

Attachment(s):

• size: 2
• UWCD_OFR 2017-01 2015 GW and SW Conds Report (reduced).pdf (15.6MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 01:56PM
• Mound_Basin_Assessment_Report_-_FINA_5-16-12.pdf (13.6MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 01:56PM

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.

No impacts to state programs are anticipated to result from the proposed boundary modification. Reporting for CASGEM is not expected to be impacted by the proposed basin boundary modification. Ventura County reports data for CASGEM from a number of wells within the three subbasins, and is the CASGEM reporting agency for all basins in the County and will continue to serve in this capacity after basin modification.

H. Local Support

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

City of Ventura, Ventura County, and United Water Conservation District are parties to the JPA have directors on the MBGSA Board and were, therefore, provided all of the information concerning the proposed boundary modifications via MBGSA Board meetings. The MBGSA also established an ad hoc committee for the Basin Boundary Modification process composed of 2 board members including the Board member representing the County of Ventura. The ad hoc committee met with representatives from the Fox Canyon GMA, Ventura County Board of Supervisors, and the Santa Paula Basin TAC. In addition, mailers, newspaper notices, e-mails, telephone calls, online postings (MBGSA's website and Facebook page), and public meeting presentations were used to engage the largest group practicable of stakeholders, including the affected agencies. Please see attached agendas.

Attachment(s):

• size: 1
• MBGSA BBMR Agency meeting notices and agendas.pdf (1.4MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 08:54PM

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.

Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency County of Ventura

Attachment(s):

• size: 2
• DOC091018-2.pdf (50.7kB) Uploaded on 09/10/2018 at 11:13PM
• DOC091018.pdf (69kB) Uploaded on 09/10/2018 at 11:13PM

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

No opposition has been vocalized and no comment letters have been received.

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 see the following attachments, which contain description of the components of a hydrogeologic conceptual model of the subbasin: 1. Hydrogeologic Assessment of the Mound Basin" 2. "Hydrogeologic Suitability" on pages 5-6 and Plates 11 through 15 of the attached "Preliminary Hydrogeologic Study City of San Buenaventura Mound Well No. 2" 3. Please see attached USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4136, sections titled "Geologic Framework" and "Aquifer Systems" 4. Alluvium in canyons north of the proposed northern boundary is not considered an aquifer and has, therefore, been excluded from the basin boundary. Further details concerning alluvium in the canyons north of the proposed boundary are provided in the memo by Bondy dated 10-17-18, attached below.

Attachment(s):

• size: 5
• Mound_Basin_Assessment_Report_-_FINA_5-16-12.pdf (13.6MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 02:07PM
• Mound Well No 2 - Well Site Feasibility Study_reduced.pdf (10.7MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 02:27PM
• Hanson et al 2003 - text only.pdf (13.8MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 04:47PM
• Hanson et al 2003 - appendices.pdf (1.9MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 04:47PM
• Memo Bondy to DWR re BBMR - Alluvial Canyons - 10-17-18.pdf (1.2MB) Uploaded on 10/17/2018 at 07:27PM

J. Technical Studies for External Scientific Modifications

1. A qualified map that depicts the lateral boundaries of the aquifers that define the basin or subbasin.

Please see the attached map. Native Dibblee maps were not uploaded due to copyright.

Attachment(s):

• size: 1
• Mound Basin_Dibblee Quads -Geotiff_transform NAD_1983_2011_California_Te....pdf (1.5MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 02:16PM

2. A technical study that provides subsurface data that demonstrates the vertical thickness and relevant physical properties of the alluvial aquifer or stacked series of alluvial aquifers.

1. Please see the attached "Hydrogeologic Assessment of the Mound Basin," Section 3 "Hydrostratigraphy." 2. Please see section "Hydrogeologic Suitability" on pages 5-6 and Plates 11 through 15 of the attached "Preliminary Hydrogeologic Study City of San Buenaventura Mound Well No. 2" 3. Please see attached USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 02-4136, sections titled "Geologic Framework" and "Aquifer Systems" 4. Alluvium in canyons north of the proposed northern boundary is not considered an aquifer and has, therefore, been excluded from the basin boundary. Further details concerning alluvium in the canyons north of the proposed boundary are provided in the memo by Bondy dated 10-17-18, attached below.

Attachment(s):

• size: 5
• Mound_Basin_Assessment_Report_-_FINA_5-16-12.pdf (13.6MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 02:18PM
• Mound Well No 2 - Well Site Feasibility Study_reduced.pdf (10.7MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 02:25PM
• Hanson et al 2003 - text only.pdf (13.8MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 02:56PM
• Hanson et al 2003 - appendices.pdf (1.9MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 02:57PM
• Memo Bondy to DWR re BBMR - Alluvial Canyons - 10-17-18.pdf (1.2MB) Uploaded on 10/17/2018 at 07:28PM

L. Technical Studies for All Jurisdictional Modifications

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

URL: https://wcvc.ventura.org/IRWMP/2014IRWMP.htm

Attachment(s):

• size: 2
• Santa Paula Basin Settlement Document 1996.pdf (5.6MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 02:32PM
• Fox Canyon GMA Groundwater Management Plan 2007.pdf (6MB) Uploaded on 09/18/2018 at 02:36PM

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

The Santa Paula subbasin was adjudicated in the 1990s and the proposed boundary modification will align the court defined Settlement Boundary with the Mound subbasin boundary. The judgment established a Technical Advisory Committee that includes the City of Ventura and United Water Conservation District who are also members of the MBGSA JPA and each have a director on the MBGSA Board. Thus, coordination between MBGSA and the Santa Paula Basin TAC will be facilitated by City of Ventura and United Water Conservation District. The Oxnard subbasin is managed by the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency, which was formed by special legislation in 1983. The proposed boundary modification will align the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency's statutory boundary with the Mound subbasin boundary. The Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency is governed by a five member board that includes a representative from the County of Ventura and United Water Conservation District who are also members of the MBGSA JPA and each have a director on the MBGSA Board. Thus, coordination between MBGSA and the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency will be facilitated by the County of Ventura and United Water Conservation District. Interbasin coordination agreements will be pursued, as needed, to ensure coordination of sustainable groundwater management activities and responsibilities.