HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Advisory and Technical Advisory Committee Agenda Packet for May 3, 2018 Menchaca, Clarissa
From: Butte County Department of Water& Resource Conservation
<bcwater@buttecounty.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2.018 4:33 PM
To: Menchaca, Clarissa
Subject: WAC/TAC Agenda Packet for May 3, 2018 meeting
............
-----------------------------------
E CONSERVATION
Water Advisory/Technical Ad-visory Committee
The joint Water Advisory Committee and Technical Advisory Committee
meeting will be held as follows:
10ay 3, 2018, 2:00 pm
202 Mira LoiRoorn
. .......Tahoe- --------------------
QEl;1YJ-U.e-1 CA
.......................
Butte County Department of Water& Resource Conservation
630.562. 5'95 1 bcwater�buttecount
wvwwv,bLittecounty,net/wvaterresou rceconservation
Butte County Department of Water& Resource Conservation 1308 Nelson Avenue, Oroville, CA
95965
1 n, ub,scribe_cwme_ncwl�a,c". _�autteeour� y.r et
lP.pcla.te Profile I Abgjt.our service pEg ider
Sent by bcwater@a buttecounty.net
2
Water and Resource Conservation Paul Gosselin, Director
308 Nelson Avenue T: 530.538.4343 buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservation
Butte County Oroville,California 95965 ( F:530.538.3807 bcwater@buttecounty.net
WATER 8 RESOURCE CONSERVATION
BUTTE COUNTY
WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING DATE: Thursday, May 3, 2018
TIME: 2:00 p.m.
PLACE: Tahoe Room
202 Mira Loma Oroville, CA 95965
Water Advisory Committee Agenda Items
1. Introductions and WAC Roll Call
2. Election of WAC Chair and Vice-Chair(Vice-chair Cottle)
3. *Approval of minutes for the April 27, 2017 meeting (Vice-chair Cottle)
4. Update on activities related to the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (Staff, Water and
Resource Conservation)
a. General Status
b. Groundwater Pumpers Advisory Committee
c. Governance and future advisory committees
5. Water Year Conditions (Kelly Peterson, Water and Resource Conservation)
a. Hydrologic Conditions
b. Surface water allocations
6. *Sub-inventory unit reports from WAC members on 2018 and current conditions (Vice-chair
Cottle)
7. WAC Updates (Kelly Peterson, Water and Resource Conservation)
a. New appointments, reappointments, &vacancies
b. Review of Important dates in 2018
8. WAC members wishing to address items not listed on the agenda. (The Water Advisory
Committee is prohibited by state law from taking action on any item presented if it is not listed on
the agenda).
9. Public Comment: Any person wanting to address the Water Advisory Committee on any item
NOT ON TODAY'S AGENDA may do so at this time. The Water Advisory Committee will not
be making decisions or determinations on items brought up during Public Comment.
* Indicates attached items
10. Future Meeting date and location: November 29, 2018 at 2:00 PM at 202 Mira Loma 4roville,
CA
11. Adjournment
WAC
Agenda Item
#2
MINUTES OF THE
BUTTE COUNTY WATER COMMISSION
WATER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
April 27, 2017
Feather River Tribal Health
2145 5th Avenue
Oroville, CA 95965
l. Introductions and WAC Roll Call.
WAC members present:
Sub-unit representatives present. Catherine Cottle, Angel Slough; Eugene Massa, Biggs-
West Gridley;JP Stover, Butte Sink; Gary Cole, Cherokee; Fred Montgomery, Durham-
Dayton; Rick Ponciano, Esquon; Charlie Edgar, Llano Seco; Lee Heringer, M&T; Toni
Ruggle,North Yuba; Chris Heindell, Thermalito; Anjanette ShadIey, Western Canal;
James `Bo" Sheppard, Municipal at-large-Biggs; Linda Draper, Municipal at-large-
Oroville; John Scott, Watershed at-large-Cherokee; Sharon Wallace, Watershed at-large-
Big Chico Creek; Loretta Torres, Watershed at-large-Little Chico Creek; Samantha
Lewis, Agriculture at-large.
Sub-unit representatives absent:
Mark Orme, Butte; Gene Harris, Richvale; J Knight, Vina; Karl Ory, Municipal at-large-
Chico; Mike Zuccolillo, Municipal at-large-Paradise; Chuck Kutz, Watershed at-large-
Butte Creek; Larry Lloyd, Foothill/Mountain-at-large.
Sub-units vacant: Chico Urban Area, Pentz, Municipal at-large-Gridley, Environmental
at-large.
We had a quorum.
2. Election of Chair and Vice Chair.
Motion by Charlie Edgar to elect Lee Heringer as Chair and Catherine Cottle as Vice
Chair. Second by Rick Ponciano. Motion carried 17-0-0.
3. Approval. of minutes for the April 28 2016 meeting.
Motion by Anjanette Shadley, second by Rick Ponciano to approve the minutes for April
28, 2016 as presented. Motion carried 17-0-0.
4. Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Update.
Paul Gosselin provided an overview of the status of the Groundwater Sustainability
Agencies in each groundwater subbasin and the status of efforts to remove the overlap.
He also described the formation of the Groundwater Pumpers Advisory Committee. This
new Brown Act committee meets regularly the 3 r Monday of the month at the CSU Farm
at 8:30 am. Vickie Newlin provided an update on the status of GSAs submitting letters
of support to the County indicating their intent to work together on Groundwater
Sustainability Planning efforts and to support a future grant application to help fund those
efforts.
5. Water Year Conditions
a. Hydrologic Conditions
Christina Buck provided an overview of water year conditions with regards to the
Sacramento Valley 8-station index, runoff, snowpack, statewide and Lake
Oroville reservoir storage, and statewide conditions as of April 1.
b. Surface water allocations
Vickie Newlin stated that State Water Project Contractors currently have an
allocation of 85%and the North of Delta CVP allocation is 100%
6. Sub-inventory unit reports from WAC members on current conditions
Each member had an opportunity to comment. Eugene Massa described how much water
remains in their drains because of the wet winter. Chris Heindell indicated that
Thermalito ID has increased their groundwater level monitoring because of the increased
use of their wells for water supply due to impacts of the Oroville Spillway incident.
Anjanette Shadley reported that Western Canal has been monitoring groundwater levels
in wells since 1994 and they remain relatively stable with some exceptions in wells on
the perimeter of the district. Toni Ruggle indicated that Cal Water Oroville operations
were also impacted by the OrovilIe Spillway incident but well levels remain healthy in
their production wells. Catherine Cottle described the flooding that occurred in Angel
Slough due to the wet winter. Fred Montgomery indicated that irrigation has not yet been
needed but may be coming soon with the forecasted warm weather to come. Charlie
Edgar reported that they lost 100 feet of bank on the Sacramento River this winter. Lee
Heringer echoed the occurrence of significant bank erosion in their area and requested
that 2016 spring measurements for wells 21NOI W 11 A002 and 21NOI W I I A003 be
considered questionable measurements because of their unusually high value. Christina
Buck indicated that a number of shallow wells in the monitoring network had unusually
high levels in Spring 2016 which is likely related to the timing of that measurement and
conditions in the Sacramento River and local streams at that time. Sharon Wallace
commented on the potential benefits to salmon of Big Chico Creek of this wet winter.
7. WAC Updates
Christina went over new appointments, reappointments& current vacancies
8. WAC members wishing to address items not listed on the agenda.
None.
9. Public Comment:
None.
10. Future meeting date and location: November 30, 2017 Location TBD.
11. Adjournment.
WAC
Sub Inventory Unit Report on BMO Alert Stages Agenda Item 6
Please complete the form and return to:
Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation
308 Nelson Avenue Oroville, CA 95965
(530) 538-4343
BCWater@buttecounty.net
Reported by: (Print Name)
Sub Inventory Unit (SIU):
1. Do you wish to revisit your chosen methodology for defining BMO alert stages in your SIU? If
so, why?
. ......... ...... . . ................. . ......... .............. ...
....... ......... ......... ...... ..
2. Are wells in your SIU currently at an Alert Stage? If so, how many wells and at what stage?
3. Describe any mayor land use changes you are aware of that may impact groundwater levels.
4. Describe any notable conservation efforts or water management changes that could affect
groundwater levels andlor describe any efforts to address issues that may have contributed to
reaching an Alert Stage.
......... .....................................
5. Describe the extent of interactions with stakeholders in your or the surrounding SIUs
... ... .... ... ........ ......... .........
6. Have any abnormal well functions been reported in your or the surrounding SIUs?
........
7. Final comments or concerns.
Submitted for review by the Butte County Water Commission Technical Advisory Committee. Please sign form
below for inclusion in your BMO report.
Reported by: (Signature) Date:
3 Water and Resource Conservation Paul Gosselin, Director
?'yam
sx
308 Nelson Avenue T: 530.538.4343 buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservation
Butte County Oroville,California 95965 F: 530.538.3807 I bcwater@buttecounty.net
WATER&RESOURCE CQNSERVATION
BUTTE COUNTY
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING DATE: Thursday, May 3, 2018
TIME: Immediately following the WAC Meeting
PLACE: Tahoe Room
202 Mira Loma Oroville, CA
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Introductions and TAC Roll Call
2. * Approval of minutes for the January 10, 2018 meeting. (Chair Connell)
3. *Review and comment on Spring 2018 groundwater level measurements and BMOs (Chair Connell)
4. *Update on the Groundwater Sustainability Grant (Christina Buck, Water and Resource Conservation)
5. *Update on RFP for Basin Settings of Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Christina Buck, Water and
Resource Conservation)
6. Update on special projects (Staff, Water and Resource Conservation)
a. *Evaluation of Restoration and Recharge Potential within the Groundwater Basins of Butte
County
b. Airborne Electromagnetic Method
7. Departmental Updates (Paul Gosselin, Water and Resource Conservation)
8. Public Comment: Any person wanting to address the Technical Advisory Committee on any item NOT
ON TODAY'S AGENDA may do so at this time. The Technical Advisory Committee will not be
making decisions or determinations on items brought up during Public Comment.
9. Future Meeting date and location: November 29, 2018 at 2:00 PM at 202 Mira Loma Oroville, CA
* Indicates attached items
TAC
Agenda Item
#2
MINUTES OF THE
BUTTE COUNTY WATER COMMISSION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
January 10, 2018
Klamath Room
202 Mira Loma
Oroville, CA 95965
1. Introductions and Roll Call
TAC members present: Chair Joe Connell, Pete Bonacich, Todd Greene (arrived during
item 4), Kyle Morgado, Richard Price
TAC members absent: Amanda Aguiar, Debbie Spangler
Pete Bonacich introduced Matt Meninga as a potential future TAC member following his
own upcoming retirement.
2. Approval of minutes for the November 30, 2017 meeting
Motion by Richard Price, second by Kyle Morgado to approve the minutes for November
30, 2017. Motion carried 4-0-0.
3. Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2018
Motion by Richard Price, second by Kyle Morgado to elect Joe Connell as Chair and
Richard Price as Vice Chair.
4. Review and comments on the Draft 2017 Groundwater Status Report and 2018 BMO
Reports
Discussion regarding the Water Year Type Index and rearranging placement of figures to
clarify content. Discussion of Groundwater Elevation Change tables and reordering the
content to clarify discussion of year-to-year changes versus seasonal change. Other
minor edits also suggested.
5. Overview of the Groundwater Sustainability Grant Application
Presentation by Christina Buck on the GSP work plan content. TAC discussed data
needs and issues related to model development, data management systems, quantifying
interconnected surface and groundwater, and groundwater dependent ecosystems.
6. California Climate Assessment Stakeholder Advisory Committee for the Sacramento
Valley region
Christina Buck informed the TAC of the opportunity to potentially participate in a
Stakeholder Advisory group for the upcoming Climate Change Assessment report. John
Scott suggested Ernie Washington may be interested.
7. Update on special projects
a. Evaluation of Restoration and Recharge Potential within Groundwater Basins of
Butte Countv
Christina Buck provided an update on the progress of the project. A public
workshop presenting project results will occur in Chico on January 16`h, 2018.
The final report is due to be complete by the end of the month.
b. Airborne Electromagnetic Method
Christina Buck, Paul Gosselin, and Todd Greene gave an update on the project
with Stanford. There is regional interest in the project and potential for additional
partners for funding and data.
c. Butte Basin Groundwater Model
Christina Buck described that after the updates made as part of the Water
Inventory and Analysis project, the model has had some minor updates but mostly
been in a holding pattern. However, it will be a central tool for water budget
development and other aspects of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan as
described previously in the Work plan.
8. Departmental Updates
Paul Gosselin gave an update on staffing transitions.
9. Public Comment
John Scott commented on precipitation south of Paradise and effects on Dry Creek and as
a source of recharge in the region.
10. Future Meeting date and location: Spring 2018, TBD
The date has been set to May Yd, 2018 2-4 pm. A save the date email was recently sent
out.
TAC
Agenda Item
#3
Groundwater Level Elevation Change-Spring 2017 to Spring 2018
9 1
117 Average GWL Change -3.0
Median GWL Change -2.6
19 Average Increase 2.4
Median Increase 1.8
Max Increase 12.1 Wyandotte Creek
95 Average Decrease -4.1
Median Decrease -3.3
Max Decrease -13.1 Wyandotte Creek
Table 1.Groundwater level elevation changes between Spring 2017 and Spring 2018 based on water surface elevations
for all wells measured (with the exception of questionable measurements) in all subinventory units for the Butte
County Basin Management Objective Program.
Note.Three wells measured did not change in GWL between Spring of 2017 and Spring of 2018.
Spring Alert Stage Count 2008-2018
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Alert 1 26 28 25 22 23 19, 22 20 15 14 16.
Total
Measured 104 115 112 119 128 127 119 126 1 123 123 124
Table 2.Spring alert stage counts and total wells measured from 2008 to 2018 for all wells measured (with the exception
of questionable measurements) in all subinventory units for the Butte County Basin Management Objective
Program.
1
Spring BMO Alert Frequencies 2008-2018
Spring BMO Alert Frequencies 2008-2018
50 140
45
120
40 f
�
IW 5 c
4 SD
c a%
3
25
m `c
S
60
0 20
r Z
z 10 0
10
10
5
I
r
0 0
Critical Dry Befuw Wet Below Dry Cdtical Criticdf Below Wet Beluw
Norrrral NO[Md€ Normal Normal
2UD8 LW9 ZUIU 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1016 2011 2U18
O Alert 1&2 mmm Alert 2 -Total wells measured
Figure 1.Spring alert stage counts and total number of wells measured from 2008 to 2018 in all subinventory units for
the Butte County Basin Management Objective Program with water year index depicted (with the exception of
questionable measurements). *The 2018 Water Year index is forecasted to be a "below normal"year according
to the April 1 DWR Bulletin 120 publication.
Note: In this newest graph,wells in Alert level 1 and in Alert level 2 are both depicted in yellow. This differs from the
data in Table 2.which assigns a well as only in Alert level 1 or in Alert level 2, but not both at the same time.
Wells in Alert Level 1 are perhaps depicted more representatively in this graph if you consider that once a well
reaches the threshold of being considered in an Alert Level 1 (usually a historic low)it does not cease being in
Alert Level 1,as the water surface elevation decreases and eventually reach into the Alert Level 2 depths.These
wells in Alert Level 2 could be viewed as wells in both Alert Stage 1 and Alert Stage 2 simultaneously.
2
Spring 2018 Depth to Water Conditions
Spring 2018 Depth to Water Conditions
v QJ a v
c v U c
V �c l7 0 D a' nm.
L c a o
cu
fu
m t +�
` u y UStio C co `m c Q ? c o
20 m m m ¢ F � w U 0 a- u
t 0 I
d
I
t]
2
i
z0 4
6 15
3 I
4
i
19
Ground
o
17'''
E
surfaceI 44
60 33
67
80
Im Min Depth to Water(DTW) 50
100 E Median DTW(values labeled) j
120 N Max DTW 231
I
34
3
1181
140
Note:Median DTW labeled,other bars show range slu primarily served by surface water
Figure 2.Spring 2018 Minimum, Median and Maximum Depth to Water(DTW) rounded to the nearest foot in each
subinventory unit forthe Butte County Basin Management Objective Program with median DTW labeled.
*Note: In this newest representation of the data,the scale has been inverted with positive values extending towards the
lower portion of the graph and negative values extending towards the upper portion of the graph.This depicts
depth to water representatively of how measurements are recorded in the field relative to the ground surface.
In this graph,as depths to water increase,the bars extend further towards the lower portion of the graph.
3
Groundwater Level Change Spring of 2017 to Spring of 2018
Groundwater Leel Change Spring of 2017 to Spring of 2018
15
a 10
w
bb5 2.0 1.2
c
ro
U
-5 -0.5 -U J
0.7 -1.1
-1.2-2.7
f° -7.0
-10 -0.9 -1.0 -2.8 -4.0 -8.7
o -3.5
c�
-15 -4.0
II Lowerbound of Range
-20 ■Median Change(values labeled)
Upperbound of Range
-25
dcu Yia
U a ro c a) o o (Vin c o - o v)to U oo
M { OJ
0
u) O L MQ
m U
*SIU primarily served by surface water
Note:Positive values=increased water surface elevations(WSEs)and negative values=decreased WSEs
Figure 3. Minimum, Median and Maximum change in Water Surface Elevations(WSEs)from Spring 2017 to Spring 2018
in each subinventory unit for the Butte County Basin Management Objective Program with median change
labeled.
4
Groundwater Level Change Spring of 2011 to Spring of 2018
Groundwater Leel Change Spring of 2011 to Spring of 2018
15
7
0 Lowerbound of Range
q� 10
■Median Change(values labeled)
5 0 Upperbound of Range
lU
U 0
7V 0min
�+ -1
-1 -2
� -5
� -1 _3 �
-7
(U -10 - _6 -&
m -8 U-8
-15 - _5 -8
-7
o s
l7
-20
* 0 -'c Y H m 0 N
V3 v' --tea *+' C,6Q cn ° o r
L v � -Q m i
4� [6 '
Q i
4] W m O
5 a
V
m
*SIU primarily served by surface water f
Note: Positive values=Increased water surface elevations(WSEs)and negative values=decreased WSEs
f
Figure 4. Minimum, Median and Maximum change in Water Surface Elevation (WSE)from Spring 2011 to Spring 2018 in
each subinventory unit for the Butte County Basin Management Objective Program with median change labeled.
5
BUTTE COUNTY
BMO Program
Spring 201811�rt Stage 1 or 2
VINA
DURHAM
DAY
EROKE
LLA 0
WE TERN(CAVL
Legend
kRMALITO
Spring 2018 Alert Stage
0 Alert not reached
CREEK
Alert 2
BIGGS-
0 Quest. Meas-
WEST GRIDLEY
No Meas,
Highway
Primary Streams E SINK
Sub-inventory Units
i Miles
Figure 5. Map ofBasin Management Objective(BKXO) Program,wells measured in spring uf%018 in each xubinven1ury
unit depicting wells without established BMOs those measured that are not inonAlert Level,those measured\n
Alert Level 1 or Alert Level 2,those with questionable measurements and those which were not measured.
N dMN�N�A Oe a,m NdwyN ANA Mme Mm'NMO�W O OiW ��yyNOMm
q m M V 0 N m Z M LV Z
wfi
m u
0
qqx
a
q I/l W A A Q A O n A m 49 Qt d M m O A h c,N M d m n m
V L a I
U N
4 O 4
,a�omN , N w mt+�QQm z6 rvgZon0o
r� �M
mw� N meo�n ee^mN'e!4a aaamnnnna� esvxi� m'a-b m�avN'�'�-�N,
1
m Q p LA M A m YI O M Qr N O W W N N „W h N d � 1.10
N
q"14im 6Ov 0 h Qi.v v�O A a a a a m NN o Q N•'V N V e ry r?E1,ro;if'm L]N Oi i� CG
a'Y I+hN �NNrM n w 99i'Amr m
w C
N
n m 0F-
.p
Zp YI LL m O Q!m W 1� A GO O c+N N A M m O dw Oim mz�U�OivQvoot� MN dM S��vM fCMO
op W M N m W O�m r
n �w tK r
W
M N O N M l�Vp
q t o n N m ul N)m m Z umi N N ti N m Z N A+ N ti A Nm N ONO O
b acC` u�IyS2y2ll LL q N 0 A m d W W Of f�O!f��m O P! N A m W m M�0 N N N m
. 3gw ,W �nnn$r°'-
n�m�-7! 07bbMo mn m Nti �n r Qmma,c u'W.N ge �48=
qAt'
IR o moomaae�:ov<m�a -3 mnvao
c3 ayuy2+LL NArmA r�.�uibbn mmmm N r Anm wmm� �y�G��d
n5t�^ QW ammdro 'd vi vi r� �Faid Z o Nron m ,� 8 m'w�w mnn W n o�nnNb�nnm W mmW �?��
N �
m
dNA g Nm
cs'd 'd'i giA m NeM-tia �6
}� O ,W r mW nm r ebm W m NNOVNZ� Nn mmgm�
N w
e O WF n mO! MW mm O�V 4O!N W A,a.W m mnQ m W g04MN m W enrnm
gst5 � tr<<LNz W AYi�f0Y W
L6-6,6 bww N NNNNN uiOOOX���
N W
N
S ��WF Nmdd n N0'�!n�-qn dd�-N NmroNOl n1'inN nNb PQ Y. My o V Q<NN
N W I�:
m cc
Q W vl C?yy n e
mN m m 0O W q O m$M N M Q m m M 1q��myy t0 n m r r�n d W
n m mui.5
W }p qy pq S pq G
!e a W O 1 9a
VV N
` L
3' gflW mhN W W W- -O - -W W �W W W�jj,vl W V1 - fl N 0-SAO-7
r
Q�N�Nppe"�wPww�w....
dw"NwmSwOSSSwry
dun�QcpN�w�Su ao
z P i M`��SaSnSnSnOnMS`e`aWmS`aC."nR.
.AOS'SWN�SWNNamNS(a'l
MN m A A A e 1 " QM N a N=9 J0.m
www,w"wwNwtwwww wumwww
$wa
o zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
n W W W W A n n n n n n A n n n O:m O O.o a O O O r m W g q Qt m m
N.N:N N'N'N N fV N N N N N N N YY
�•• m f/1 m
gg C
� > 8
Em e
N
ME
y g a.u.ne Asda
W O•„ usrmv Jnr MMooq 14 W o�-•�"?'�?hr q o7��o nY NPPa Paa,f,mM�v m N�vr rm rr Penn mm
M 4 M V N Z Z N V 3 Q'P 6 Iw9 N N r4 Ali elf 6 O 6
0.
m
❑
W O
10 N y0. Q ilf.p N '?4n M O 1p O m O 4 O r�O 4
mmEc �iadi Qao vino gw,�'R.rof4'� °'°?€;no `?'.'qV")YrvR vi y gq�iN �i 4h
a`
C r N,G S
U N
O Ol 19Z
m O V m M W rG N O;O O N - w R Iq W 6,1,`m
..m Q of v]Nv nvz wamvi<42ZMYvAo�cLL�Ir p;._ --a nvv1
a p L
m� m`+w r;�vri nmPPP - EdNW eeS;�4Pe.eoNm men warm m
,-s w m m m a m E m r P P 'n m c�e4i e4i L t s
c.
�r�m cow. maw
n 3 o jt
m
w3
2t ✓ F
m Q l7 Fmp Q m m M ,d m M m d v O�p Op 4 N W W ep 1�m 0 0 0 0 6 0 0�Np M Y N vim O M
W
c 5•
mint �•
H p aW O V<m V
a aKj tl'nWw �mm Q0 Q nn�N'i m%�-r�OO ON��Nti meOOAOP4W Q6 'i�P Nm O N �mqy 0<+ ��lMm
.'6 moim.' pM 2zzv
r m Mvmimw
cZ
N
r
V r Y1m Ma n m mm O.o�yy o M W W mhO PO O�P1yy p,C t�eO W W Wm W m�+gNq w w ms r1pp
nt a SmmP Zdm S+r^• w SoSZw n wWw[mei v<f wm ASN�OEU NN_ONM W hQ ON•f NIV O OwT����� Z���pZ
it .3 tJ
tM M O P O 0 P /'�iV 4 0 0 0 0 0 q W
WR Aw m.m mzOOO«1 frA�(V�zMNmO WN �^ O'M �yWm EI �N rON �w
1°t a o Z �^N 2 O P O P P Z N F N N A A O ,fV••F tt,,,F•N Y Z O� F Z w m ill
-
n w ^l4. mM a N V N AW �h h P40 QQ eld000FS'ppq b Om mmON m�-r
p O O N r N ^ �y m Oi p F 46
Y �9 lV O
O Z V O1 a eli 9 z v y Q
O O O iV N F Z P p d 2 O O
0. W
m 7,
W
PMyP� F�ntltlp FgWm N1.0 00 OHO rY/O ltiN+-Om V v
Z O m m{m S O O Z Z Z b N A A F M m O 1p F m q pi N C
9 O F N F N N N p�Z S d tl Z O O M
y N N 77
w W
C v
O C - E a I t
O Sy` S tl1 m N M pp ^O N M W N rr ep N m m W O n PPP ti y Q tF ep 0 0 0 g 0 0 0 `V'N d'm r r N r co -4 a e
�EAUwS ZOSS{'� O OS�N E0�NQb A tl 0 WtiN6riF ml!FbM �P Fw QNO'•i � d
ON t9�Nn wN W HN Z Z w .6 inF 4NI -
7 7T
U f7
t3 L -- ❑b y
N 17
B�12W12nn W' Om'nq m"Ema ^Q<� V h men�P�yyPEOerr�1N mEo1O�� P 4 mOq OaeO�yOO AT�Af0m EmU e0nm V N�Op NQttpp: yry V W OA
-HTOZ�M HN N�1p^QOM X517 gNw
G Ey^Nn QgNNd orNwmd wOOM Nvf
N y W
U� �MN�y W Qq�nNO tv7 Mrr mNr n�OmO OObm wel]OGO qO OOOmN�mpWh hF0 mA V�Ntipmq
Soo S O O Oi N N y F d N�^"O t~Y a n-N N b A V O f]M[m
+l N!F N(OY eD 10V
47i fnW CCCt F = y ty
w Cp �l
n w C o � A m1E�p m i�r�NInOQN VNv m OyOy Ol��� MW Y0000t` PPGN Ir OfI�'!�emn
W,�?t ry W Pm NI'!nomm QY m oo SSNt+1 Zm m Vr 1eO�AON�OeplN:¢lNN00 Fbivt'!nN O OwEew� w$$
•L S G v by
y m w 1
S Yj U W r A wr mIq M^ v Q 1p1m 11 IR O.O�}}O_h_:q 9q ON�OEyy EOmp000OO
r S o N M cNi m
-.4 q O N v O i0 aV;N A W bYf M t N N 0 A F F d w
•C� n G w
b mg W m� r,r{�
m r
u U W G A D E AEpp N`i `2vi m O M�p Nl VNV Q<<N n m Fl N Mm O W�n N N f�mP�i W t OE��W 4I C!
Z Z Z
w Fw.w F
°u '�A8 m$'$`G8o$$ S o o:„' m S.: rom w.K 1°. VV Emmmp EbE mm ��--E•� �ym�yp�pp a ee m� r �m W
%Ul 19 N--NM-O a -N NN N 7 777'1711�jf d1 Iq Ny�57 �'^7 k aywfW VI m -O-- Lo- 1* 13-nl yf
..7��.
wl p�pNp `2`Z`2 N p�_�E_N `2 �1 N Z' N '; - '�^ c.!fi Z'�. S'pN`Z N`2 M V��MC`2`i`2 N 2 m
8.O S[1 SiJSSS S S S d O DOSS P S S f S:S$S O ; 114 Z4 G 0'd S O S S S w O x j o j
�Z nnn d 8OPPPUYx aZ � �-. Y'm w. Yd ✓'� '' WGUS UOWPPPx�.eGp UUU Up
ED pe m Op Ep M m ip m m 3 e'n N Ey la? en g a
S e�. .-P000 N� tl P neh o d.- e.�❑� n
,D w111 lel ql W W W W W 11lw wwww W 111 I!!w NMm LLfW$ Yxx;x2 SZ�W,1[lWtow W wwluwSuwut iu Will W W
M M M M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'O 5.�Q O P []d;d C d C G o 0 o p o d O P 0 0 0
p z T Z Z T T z z z z z z z z z 2�Z 2 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z-Z z z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 2 2 2 Z Z Z Z Z
m m m N N N N N N n O r r r m N N'N N O 0 o---r
f N N N N"IN
t
L }
ol
7•1A3iine im �i33i10 311ns 1Sam
ma 3U.OQN1/AM
TAG
Agenda Item
Final Awards #4
2017 Groundwater Sustainability Plans and Projects Solicitation
a3lrilzot5
Gran'tq' Project Tl 16 inint Grant
IArroyo5anta flofa Bafln Gl.undwd[ar$vstalnabllityAgency Arra.Santa Rata BadnGr.undwatcr$uStalndbllE Plan
e 20 Asian Buslnesslnstllulr Resource Center Southeast Aslan Glaundwamr and Sus[ainadlll Advocacyantl Outreach Nt ram :S 400,000 5 S 400,0011
Atmcadero Mulual Water Co. 2017Atmcadero Basin Suslalnable Groundwater Proposal 'I$ S 809.250 5 809,250
-_ _,.. ... . --l..___....-.._.. .-_._._.____m..-...-_-..-__._.______�....�_ �__.. ........_ ..................
'Bear Valley Basin Groundwater Sus[afnabill Bcar V411c 8afin Groundwater Sus[a[nabtli Plan j$ $ 177,000 S 177,000
18edfprd.C.Idwater Subbasln Groundwxter5ustainablllly Agency Bedford{ofdwater5ub-basin Gmundwater5ustainabNity Plan Proposal ''i 5 1.0moW W
$ I.WD'O
S3 Big Bear Lake Depanmenl.f Wale,and Pc- Basin Resillanty Sawmill Well Pumping Plant Project �S 782.296 $ S 782.298
9 181.!4 C.mmunl Services District Bell,Groundwater Rechar ePro en $ 705,000 $ $ 70$,000
Groundwater Suslalnability Plan Dewlaprrlent for the Vlna,East Butte,West Butte and
Butte County Department al Water and ResourceConservation $ - S 1,498.800 S 1,498,800
Wyandotte Creek Subbssins
Caztalc Lake Water Santa Cladla Valley Groundwater Sustainability Agency 2017 Sustainable Groundwater
Agency Plannln Grant pro""'
Cele ory2 Proposal S 5 416,106 5 416,106
I[IlyofEt-t-od _ Tracy Subbasfn Groundwater 5ustalnabllf[y Pian Development Prop I Proposal S $ 1,0..,000 S l,lxxl,o0o
._........ ,.,..,.. __._. __ - _- __��� ��._.__-�_.._�- - - _ - -- - --_ -__--_- _ _ -_-_ o
Cltvof C.,ona Sustainable Groundwalcr Planning Grant For the CEry of Corona Tom-1 Subbasfn IS S 132,338 S 732,338
ICltyaf Modesto Sustainable Groundwater Phi-129Grant for the Madeira Groundwater Subbasin 1$ $ I.M0.000 S 1,000,000
C IClty of Paso Robles Paso Robles Sail.Mciundwaler S.stdEmbAty Plan Development I$ $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,0W
IClry os Redding __ __ EAG50.En[erprlse and Anderson 5u_66a_sln Groundwater iuslalnability Plan ____ ____ S 3 983,230 3 983,230
... _. ....................."...._.............. .......
IClty of San Olego-Public Utilities Department Groundwbter 5vSlalnabNity Plan for the San Pafqual Valley GratlndWaler Bail- S - 5 989,550 $ 989.550
Colusa Groundwater Authority Calusa Subbasln Groundwalcr Suslalnablllry Plan Orvelopmenl _ ',$ S 1,000,000 S 1.000.000
Facilitate Parilcipatfon o!Sevrrety Disadvantaged Community Stakeholders In The Tulare
101[ammunlry Water[color IS 614.353 S - 5 614.353
Lake Basin And Develop AOrinkln Water Vulnerability Teel '
iCaunty of Glenn Groundwater Svslalnablfity Pian Development in the Corning Subbmin S 999,580 S 999,980
C61Caunty of5an Diego _ San Dl ego County OF Development !S 1,000,000 S 2,000,000 S 3,000,000
.......... .. _....._.. _.
'County of San Lu[s Obispo 2017 Court of Sart Luis Obis Sustainable Groundwater Proposal 5 - 5 1,397.125 5 1.397.125
C 3icuydma.Bail,Goundwale,suslain.bilityAgemcy Cuyama Basin GroundwaterSuslalnabllhy ',$ 6411,124 $ 1.500,900 $ 2,146,114
''.Del Norte County Smith River Plain Groundwatergailn OF I5 $ 250,000 $ 250,000
(East Bay Munldpaf Ullllly Olstrin East Bay Plain 5ubbasin Groundwater Sustafnabihty Plan Development $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
C IEastern San joaquln Groundwater Authority Eastern Sanloaqufn Suobasin Groundwater SuftainaDlllly Plan Grant ',S $ 1,SD0,000 $ 1,SC0,000
IOsinore Valley Municipal Water District Elsinore Vadcy Groundwater SustalnabllEry Agency Groundwater Suslalnablllry Planning Grant proposal S - $ 00
1,000,000 $ 1,0 .000
!Fihmore Piru GSA _ Fillmore and Piru Batlns Groundwater5uslalnablllty Plans- _ li - $ 1,500,000 $ 1,500,000
7'.Freshwa[er Trus[ Engaging5everely Disadvantaged[.mmvnities lnihc Oeveiopment of the5aleno5ubbasin.$ 490,000 $ - $ 490,000
Grcundwater Svslalnability Nan
C 13'lndldn WeBS Valle Groundwater Au[hant mdlan Wells Valley Grountlwater Basin-Groundwater Sustalnalllty Plan Development and
Y y SDAa.Wdli alley C.nrd-ten Piiln-6 ri '',$ G4G.� $ 1,500,000 $ 2,146,000
- - ...__.... .. ....................... ..... .... .. ......... ............._............................................................ ........
Inyc-Wa[er Depdrimcn!,Ceuntyef Grcundwater Suslalnabally kanningfor the Covens Vail"Groundwater Basin '',$ 5 713,155 S 713,155
C (Kern fliver Groundwater sustalnabillty Agency Kcrn County Subbasln Groundwater Sunalnablllty Plan Support-2017 Grant Application $ 1500,000 S 1,50.000
Wssen County BIg W]ley Graundwaler Sustalnabillly Plan
14;'leadership CaumNforlusllce and Ac,ounidbliil Pat-,,i,g for Equitable Groundwater S 7511.000 S - 5 758.900
15:Linda County Water District Unda County Water Dlslrin-We1117 Project Funding Application Groundwater I,S 999,500 S - S 999.500
__,_______ Sustainaolllly Planning.Grant Program Proposal __,_____,__ _________ _
._........._ _........ ..._._ _..._._ _....._9,5
-Los mgeles County waterworks District No.37.Acton Fringe Area Antelope Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan 5 - 5 300,000 S 300,000
C •Lawn Tule Alver fnlgation piyvin Groundwalvr5ustalnable Lower Tule River lrngatfon Dhanct GSA,SGWPPianning Grant IS 3 1,500,000 5 r,So.000
:Agwcy __ ___________ _
{ 16Subba Ina[eradonll.ring well IniWllallon and GSP Devel.pmen[For The ChowcMlia
.MaderaCounty Water andly.Sal Resources I$ A.OW.OW $ 1,$00.090 $ U00.000
C 11.Madera County Water and Natural Resources Groundw4ilrMdnllOnn well lnstalla11on and GSP Oevelopment tar the Madera subbasfn $ 1,.000.000 S 1,500,000 S 2,500,DW
--_-.-
M. __._.,,.,_..._._....._....._..........................................................................__......................._.._._....__..........__..____........_____...._.......___-____-:__._._..........__....___--.._____
ha rine Coast Water DlsSrlc[ Mnnter"Subbasln Groundwater Sustalnabi4ty Plan Development ',5 $ 1,000,ow $ 1.OW.000
:Mendoclne County Water Agency Phase 2 ofthe Ukiah Valley Basin Groundwater5vnaln1b1lfty Plan Development 5 5 764.255 5 754.255
C 1 Mercedgooey Kaweah Su?Basin Groundwater Suslalna
A lnlgatlon District bi2017 Merced Groundwalcr Subbasln Sustarab[liRty Plans Oarvcfopmently $ 901.261 S 1.500.OW S 2401.261
C Mid-Kaweah Groundwater SuSlalnablllty - ---
C Mld-Kings River Greuntlwater5uminability Agency - 7lare Lake Subbasln CSP,O elopmrm_and iGMAC_omplf_a ceproject -- S $ 1,500,000 $ -._1,500,000
;Mound B.iun Grountlwater Sustalnabluty Agency Mound Basin GSA and GSP5 5 756,100 S 756,100
;North Cal-Nana
..................... _...,.,_..._.-u -__._-._.__.__.._._....._....___.__.....______.._._____........___________..._____.._...___._..._.._............__.._.........-____._____..___-_._____.._,........._.__....__......_.................._..__......_..__._..........._.._.
2 urcr C.nlervallan and Devrl.pmenl gig Valley GSP Monitoring and Data Development 5 782,344 S S 762,344
:Council,Inc.
-[ -__North Frk_King,G d_wa_te_r5 lainabl111 e4y., _ _ ,. ... ................. ................__,_,.......S ___ 5 1.50,._0....00 S .....1....5 0000
........
;Padre Dam Municipal Wale,District San Diego River Valley Groundwater SustainatiXty Plan ION Development Proposal .S $ 600.000 S 600.000
C,0' PajdlO Valley Wdl!Mdnbgemenl Agency_... Pafaro Val fay Groundwater$ustalna bll[ly Wan $ - S 1500.000 S 1,500,000
�Pelaluma Valley GSA Petaluma Valley Graundwater5uslainabllhy Plan .S 5 1,000,000 S 1,000,00[3
......... ....._ .._._ ........ .......... .......
Development of the South Ameriran 5ubbasin Groundwater Suflalnabflpy Plan(Bulletin
0 Sacramenlo Central Groundwater Authority 1135ubbasln NO.5-21,651
S - S 970,693 S 970,693
Sacramcmq Groundwater Authority North American Subbasin Groundwater Sustalnabllf[y Plan Development ;S S 994,276 S 99.376
..._,........a nos.__.' __ _.._....___....................._.._......__.................._....__._.___-_._-_-- _..__.-----_-.-_____..._.__..._..........................._..................1..............._......_..................................._......
C. ,511 Valley Basin Ground Water Suslalnabllity Agency Salinas Valley Basin Groundwater SuftalnalIllty Plan :S S 1.500.000 5 I.S00.000
!San Antonio Basin Groundwater 5ustafnablilty Agency San Amon{.Basin Groundwater 5ustaEnabillty Plan ;S S 300,000 S 300,000
:San Bank,County Water District Grovndwaler Planning Grant for GSP Preparation:Bolsa,Hollister,and San IS _ 5 830,336 $ 830,336
_ _ Juan Bautista Groundwater 5ubbasfns _ __
.........- _ __-__ --__-- ___ _-__ ________ _________-
SanBernardinoValleyMunicipalWaterDistrict Yucalpa Groundwater Susisinabillry Pian S - $ 815,100 $ 815,100
_415an Gorgonio Pass Water Agency _ _____ _2017 Sustafnable Glaundwaler Planning Gldnlfarlhe San Gargania Pass Subbasfn $ 1,000,000 S 1,000,000 A. 2,000,000
C: :Santa Cru[Mid•Ccunty Groundwater Agency Sa.t,Crux Mld-CountyGroundwater Sustainabllltygan Development S S 1,5W.000 S 1,500,000
Santa Margadta Groundwater Agency Santa Margarita Groundwater Sustainability Plan Development !S 5 1,000,000 S 1,000,Ou0
iStmia Rosa Plain GSA Santa Awa Plain Groundwater Suslalnablllry Plap _ _ 5 _ 5 1,000,000 3 1,000,0..
..L...... ..____ ....... ....... -_-__
Santa Ynci River water Conservation Oishict _ Santa Ynex River Valley Basin GSP Planning and Preparallpn _ 5 - S 1,000,000 S 1,0wwo
R Self-Help Enterprises Slir-Help Eme,911111•SOACs Project .S 1,0011,000 $ $ 1,000,1100
'l9!Shasta Valley Resource Conservation OisVict Groundwater Meniloling implementation Program for theShafta Valley6SA $ 976.884 $ $ 976,884
ISlsklyau[ouniy Flood[.meal and Water CanservaiVon DUtrin Development $ 1,367,000 $ 1.367,000
Solano Subbasln Groundwater SuflainaRlly Aaancy Solano5ubbasln Groundwater Suslalnablllry Plan Development S S 1,000,000 S %C66,066
Sonoma Valley GSA Sonoma ValleirGrovndwaler Sustainability Plan 5 $ 1.000.000 S 1.OMODD
Sou[hrasl Sacramento County7�gdcullural Water Avlhonry Establishing a Groundwalcr Sustalnablllty Pion4n
nd Lima--Sinuu,efor the Casumnes $ $ 1.000.00a S 1.000,1100
Grovndwaler Sub Basin
......:.......:............_...._..._._...._......._._._......_............._...___...._._..___.__._...._..___....___.__..________.___.___._______.._._._._._...-_.__..__._...__............................................................, .,.....
0i !Suite,County Development 6aw[ces Sutter Subbasln Graundwaler SUstdlnabllJLV plan Development :$ S 956,8141S 956,814
Tehama County Flood Control&Water C.nservalien Clstrin.,. TehamaCounty Graundwaler Susta inability Plan Oevclopment Grant Appllulien �$ S 1,498.960 S 1,498,960
, ..._.....__._�,...._.._.................._-. _.__.- .......,........11E.. .. ........ ...._..... ........__..____._
12!Themature C.nteryanty Demonstrating Mulll-Benefit On Farm Managed ulfcr Rechar In the Central Valle ;$ 300,000 S $ mal ODO
'Tutooke bd tion District protcut mg4urGmundwaler pesoume:Securing aSua[alnablr FuWrc for the Tula Laic5 $ 7211120 S 721,320
Subbasfn
Uppa,Ventura River Groundwalcr Agency Upper Ventura River Bain GSA and GSP 5 S 630,061 5 _ __630,061
-Walnut Valley Water Dhtnn SWo Groundwalcr Basin Groundwate,5uslainablllty Plan Omicipmen[ 5 5 338,500 S __ _ 338,$00
.. ...__.. ..._..... ....._.__ ...._..._ .......__ .... . ..-_, .-.. _
[ 17 West Slanfsfaus 1p 2017 Sustainable Groundwater Planning Grant for the Delta-Mendota 5ubbasin� i 1,178,500 S 1.500,000 S 7,678,500
!West Turlork SuEbasln GSA Sustalnable Groundwater Planning Grant For the Turlock Groundwater Subbasln ;i S 1,000,000 S 2'"'K10
IWeste,n Municipal Wa[eroisirfcl RivmsfdrAnfhst.n 5ubbasin Gravndwa[er5uslalnabElf[y Plan S S 130,000 S 13.000
C 5 Westlands Water Olstrin Groundwater Monitcring Well lnslallat'on Project and Greundwmer5uslafnabglty,plan
Development forth.wmtsfde5ubbasin 7,500,000
!While WOlFGraundwaler SvstalnabRlly Agency Wh[[e WalFSubbafin Groundwa[er5uslalnahlllly Plan Development ',$ $ 557,948 $ 557,996
IYolis Count Flood Com,.l and water Conservation District Yala SVbbdsin•GSP Planning and Preparation S S wrau,OW S 1,000,000
;Yuba County Water Agency Graundwaler Suualnabllity Plans ter the North Yuba Subbasln and south Yuba Subbasln '.i 5 893,948 $ 893,943
$ 16,152,164 $ 69.569,961 $ 85,752,225
A 4IQv .vINgnla'.Gvnue ahallobuin xnrtim P.e..lettnl aAAr.w1WP�oPatd r[Wra}raYloamGS/yP1,e.Pnb�eNWKSPwNnePrPlen Hbutedin,PHar to rrMrmalGrant a4reament,
A a,<ommmdedrPM•n4lnrtNarrdvnted due to recakdatlm of O,eel Rgaas Admrd.naupn lPPAI Cm1F
C [•uWNPm-PaA g..ini,Ktueta:n.pperaripn
0 poor..wbmtlyd a�Agrrrylrvr 94•[o OWRtaa rrvrw.
TAC
Agenda Item
#5
Butte
s C A L I F O R N I A
- Mr
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
RFP 66-18
Development of the Basin Setting for Groundwater Sustainability Plans
RFP 66-18 Publication Date: April 5, 2018
RFP 66-18 Submission Deadline Date: May 11, 2018 at 4:00 PM
Issued by:
Christina Buck
Assistant Director
Butte County Water and Resource Conservation
308 Nelson Avenue
Oroville, California 95965
530-552-3595
bcwater@buttecounty.net
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County General Services Page 1 of 29
Table of Contents
1) RESPONDENT ADMONISHMENT............................................................................3
2) INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................
3) BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................3
4) SCOPE OF SERVICES .............................................................................................4
5) FORMAT FOR PROPOSALS .................................................................................. 11
6) SELECTION PROCESS.......................................................................................... 12
7) SUBMITTAL EVALUATION ........................................................................ .... 13
8) RULES OF PROCUREMENT.................................................................................. 13
9) COUNTY RESERVED RIGHTS............................................................................... 14
10)MODEL CONTRACT............................................................................................... 16
11)DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.......................................................................... 16
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County General Services Page 2 of 29
1) RESPONDENT ADMONISHMENT
Respondents are reminded that it is their responsibility to:
✓ Read carefully all of the content of this entire document and address all requirements and follow all
procedures of this Request for Proposal (RFP).
✓ Ask for clarification before final due date of questions.
✓ Immediately inform the County of any problems with this Solicitation.
✓ Be complete in response.
✓ Submit all responses by the required dates and times.
2) INTRODUCTION
The County of Butte is seeking a firm to complete technical work needed to support the development and
completion of the Basin Settings chapters for each of the four subbasins for which Butte County submitted
a Prop 1 Planning Grant for completion of Groundwater Sustainability Plans (GSPs) for compliance with
the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). These four subbasins include Vina, West Butte,
East Butte, and Wyandotte Creek (Four Subbasins). This technical work will build off of previous efforts
such as development and updates made to the Butte Basin Groundwater Model, local Agricultural Water
Management Plans and Groundwater Management Pians, past studies by the Counties and the California
Department of Water Resources (DWR) and work supported by Prop 1 Counties with Stressed Basins
grants in Butte, Glenn, and Colusa counties. Modeling work and data analysis will support the
Development of the Basin Setting for Groundwater Sustainability Plans for the County of Butte and
respective Groundwater Sustainability Agencies (GSAs) in each of the l=our Subbasins.
Butte County intends to award one or more contracts to a firm(s) that will meet our qualification criteria
and has successfully performed services on similar projects in the past. The successful firm will be
required to enter into a contract with the County for the services requested in this Request for Proposals
(RFP) within a reasonable time after award. A firm submitting a proposal must be prepared to use the
County's standard contract form rather than its own contract form. The contract will include terms
appropriate for this project. Generally, the terms of the contract will include, but are not limited to: (1)
completion of the project within the timeframe provided; (2) no additional work authorized without prior
written approval; (3) no payment without prior written approval; (4) funding availability; (5) termination of
contract under certain conditions; (6) indemnification of the County; (7) approval by the County of any
subcontractors; and (8) minimum appropriate insurance requirements. A Model Contract is attached as
Exhibit A to this RFP. The County intends to award a contract substantially in the form of the Model
Contract to the selected respondent. Respondents should list any exception(s) to the Model Contract in
a separate section of their proposal.
3) BACKGROUND
Butte County submitted a Prop 1 grant proposal in November 2017 on behalf of all GSAs in the Four
Subbasins. The proposal includes four projects which are the development of GSPs for the entire portion
of Four Subbasins. This RFP seeks a contractor to complete a portion of the work described in the grant
proposal. The scope of this RFP is to conduct analysis to enhance the comprehensive understanding
and characterization of the subbasins, monitoring networks, available data, modeling and water budgets.
This will become the scientific basis for future development of sustainability goals and thresholds and
management strategies to meet those goals. Generally, this RFP includes portions of Tasks 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 12, 14.1, and 14.3 described in the Work Plans of the Prop 1 GSP grant proposal. The cost for
Development of the Basin Setting for Groundwater Sustainability Plans should not exceed
$475,000. The project is to be completed by June 30, 2020.
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County General Services Page 3 of 29
Portions of the Prop 1 Grant Application for each of the Four Subbasins are available online.
Vina: https://www.buttecounty.net/wrcdocs/planning_/SGWMA/Subbasins/Vina/GSPGrantApp-Vina.pdf
West Butte:
https://www.buttecounty.net/wrcdocs/planning/SGW MA/Subbasins/WestButte/GSPGrantApp-
WestButte.pdf
East Butte:
https://www.buttecounty.net/wrcdocs/planning/SGWMA/Subbasins/EastButte/GSPGrantApp-
EastButte. df
Wyandotte Creek:
https://www.buttecounty.net/wrcdocs/plan ning/SGW MA/SubbasinsfWyandotteCreek/GS PGrantApp-
W andotteCreek. df
4) SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Development of the Basin Setting for Groundwater Sustainability Plans is designed to conduct
technical work required to support the development and completion of the Basin Settings portion of the
GSP in each of the Four Subbasins. This work will contribute to a Final GSP suitable for submittal to DWR
as mandated by the SGMA legislation, in each of the Four Subbasins.
The County anticipates that the firm selected for this work shall complete the tasks described below. Many
of the tasks are tied directly to GSP content and organized by Subarticle of Article 5 of the GSP
Regulations, with subtasks based on individual sections of Subarticle 5. However, the County will give due
consideration to alternative approaches for conducting the requested Development of the Basin Setting
for Groundwater Sustainability Plans in the Four Subbasins. The deliverables are expected to meet the
requirements stated in the GSP regulations and follow Best Management Practices and other guiding
documents, as applicable. The contractor is expected to present its approach to each of the following
tasks.
Task 1. Integrated Hydrologic Modeling
This task will provide the technical basis for selection of an Integrated Hydrologic Model (IHM). The
selected IHM will then be used to develop and run model scenarios for development of water budgets
and other components of the Basin Setting. This task will build upon existing information, including the
report, "Assessment of Interconnected Subbasins" completed through the NSVIRWM in 2017 with
funding from the California Water Foundation; the Groundwater Model Assessment being conducted as
part of the Glenn County Prop 1 Stressed Basin grant; the Water Inventory and Analysis updated by
Butte County in 2016, and recent and ongoing updates to the Butte Basin Groundwater Model (BBGM).
For purposes of the RFP, it may be assumed that either the BBGM or SVSim (if available) will be
selected as a starting point to develop a model application to support GSP development. Another
appropriate IHM may be considered. It is anticipated that the selected application will be refined based
on local water budget information. Sources of local data may include agricultural water management
plans (AWMPs), urban water management plans (UWMPs), municipal service reviews (MSRs), the
NSVIRWMP, and data held by the Counties and GSAs.
This task to be completed by September 30, 2019 and will include the following subtasks:
Task 1.1 Evaluate Existing Tools and Data
Working with a technical advisory committee, the outcome of this subtask will be a recommendation
for the IHM to be used for GSP development in the Four Subbasins. The activities of this subtask
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County General Services Page 4 of 29
may include compilation, evaluation, and comparison of the BBGM, SVSim and local information,
potentially considering:
a. Comparison of water budgets.
b. Input data (e.g. diversions, land use, surface water inflows and outflows, precipitation).
c. Model structure (relationship to HCM; spatial and temporal discretization; layering;
representation of hydrologic features, including streams, springs and groundwater dependent
ecosystems; and delineation of subregions).
d. Calibration: Groundwater levels and streamflows.
e. Evaluate suitability of modeling tool for GSP development and identify needed changes.
Deliverables:
1. Technical documentation of model evaluation, comparisons and selection documentation.
Task 1.2 Refine and Update the IHM
The outcome of this subtask will be a refined and recalibrated IHM to support development of the
GSP. The subtask will produce a list of refinements to be made to the IHM prioritized into phase 1
and phase 2 lists. Phase 1 items will be completed and the model recalibrated. This subtask may
include the following activities:
1. Identify potential refinements and additional data to be developed for the IHM. Work with
technical advisory committee to prioritize refinements into phase 1 and phase 2 tasks.
2. Conduct phase 1 refinements and update the IHM. Possible refinements to be considered:
a. Refinement or other modifications to spatial and temporal discretization and delineation of
subregions to accommodate Management Areas.
b. Refinements or other modifications to surface layer inputs, including static and time series
data and parameters used to simulate streams and root zone processes, and the
representation and spatial distribution of groundwater pumping and recharge.
c. Refinements to subsurface inputs, including hydrogeology and subsurface representation,
boundary conditions, vertical distribution of pumping, and aquifer hydraulic parameters.
3. Recalibrate the IHM as needed.
Deliverables:
1. Technical documentation of refinements and other modifications made to selected IHM application.
2. Electronic files for refined and calibrated model and relevant supporting data developed for model
update.
Task 1.3 Develop model scenarios, conduct model runs and evaluate results
Model runs and scenarios will produce results used for water budgets included in the Basin Settings
chapter of the GSP. All model runs and scenarios shall meet SGMA GSP requirements. They may
include:
1. Historical, current, and projected water budgets for the subbasin and for management areas within
the subbasins.
2. Scenarios for future conditions, considering climate change, land use, population, surface water
availability, and other relevant factors.
Deliverables:
1. Technical documentation of model scenarios and results.
2. Electronic files for refined model and relevant supporting data developed for model update.
Task 2. Data Inventory and Needs Assessment
In coordination with Task 1.1 and 1.2, this task will further identify and determine additional information and
data needed to inform the hydrogeologic conceptual model (HCM), refinements and updates to the IHM,
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County General Services Page 5 of 29
and eventual development of Measurable Objectives and Sustainability Thresholds. This covers portions
of Task 6 (Data Collection and Analysis to Support GSP Development) from the County's Prop 1 Grant
proposal. The identification of data needs will be conducted through consultation with a workgroup of local
experts designated by the County in coordination with GSAs in the Four Subbasins.
This task to be completed by the end of 2018 and will include the following activities:
1. Identification of data collection and analysis needs.
2. Prioritization of potential data collection activities.
Deliverables:
1. Technical memorandum that identifies data and analytical needs for GSP development.
Task 3. Monitoring Protocols (§352.2)
This task is related to Article 3 of the GSP Regulations: Technical and Reporting Standards. The task will
build upon existing documentation developed by Butte, Colusa, Glenn and Sutter Counties for the
California Statewide Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program and from other available sources. Existing
protocols will be evaluated Using the DWR's BMP for Monitoring Protocols, Standards, and Sites and GSP
Regulations and updated as needed to ensure compliance with SGMA. This task to be completed by the
end of 2018 and will include the following activities:
1. Identification and compilation of existing monitoring protocols.
2. Review and updating of monitoring protocols as needed for consistency with best management
practices (BMPs) and GSP regulations.
Deliverables:
1. Documented monitoring protocols for inclusion in the GSP.
Task 4. Data and Reporting Standards (§352.4)
This task is related to Article 3 of the GSP Regulations: Technical and Reporting Standards. The task will
focus on evaluating whether existing data standards meet the GSP Data and Reporting Standards (§362.4)
and identifying the actions needed to modify the existing standards. A protocol will be developed to assure
that newly developed data will meet the GSP Data and Reporting Standard. Priority will be placed on data
required for the development of the hydrogeologic conceptual model (HCM), the water budget, maps,
hydrographs, Butte Basin Groundwater Model and other groundwater models and the monitoring network.
This task will be ongoing throughout the project to be completed by September 30, 2019 and will include
the following activities:
1. Inventory and review of current data and reporting standards and potential reformatting as needed
for consistency with GSP standards.
2. Modification of existing data and reporting standards to meet GSP requirements.
3. Incorporation of GSP data and reporting standards into protocols to be used for new data.
Deliverables:
1. A technical memorandum, which includes an inventory of required data and reports that support
GSP development, the data and reporting standards that comply with GSP regulations, and
documentation of actions to comply with data and reporting standards.
Task 5. Monitoring Networks (Subarticle 4)
This task consists of all activities required to prepare GSP Monitoring Network information as described in
Article 5, Subarticle 4 of the GSP Regulations. The monitoring networks developed in this task will result in
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County General Services Page 6 of 29
the collection of sufficient data to characterize groundwater and related surface water conditions in the
subbasin and evaluate changing conditions during the course of GSP implementation. The scope of this
RFP does not include development of Representative Monitoring as described in Task 14.2 in the Prop 1
GSP grant proposal. This task to be completed by March 30, 2020. Associated subtasks are described
below.
Task 5.1. Monitoring Network (4354.34)
This task will build on the existing monitoring network in the Four Subbasins developed through the
CASGEM and other programs to evaluate historical groundwater conditions as they relate to the Six
Undesirable Results defined in SGMA. The monitoring network discussion will provide the basis for future
selection of representative monitoring and an assessment to suggest improvements to the monitoring
network. This subtask may include the following activities:
1. Description of existing monitoring networks and how they are capable of collecting sufficient data to
demonstrate short-term, seasonal, and long-term trends in groundwater and related surface
conditions, and yield representative information about groundwater conditions as necessary to
evaluate GSP implementation.
2. Description of how the monitoring network could be utilized to:
a. Demonstrate progress toward achieving Measurable Objectives.
b. Monitor impacts to beneficial uses and users of groundwater.
c. Monitor changes in groundwater conditions relative to Minimum Thresholds, Measurable
Objectives, and Interim Milestones.
d. Quantify changes in annual water budget components.
e. Evaluate sustainability indicators, including site density and monitoring frequency.
3. Preparation of map(s) and table(s) describing the location, type, monitoring frequency, and purpose
of each site.
Deliverables:
1. Description of the monitoring network capable of yielding representative information about
groundwater and related surface conditions within the subbasin, including monitoring objectives,
rationale for the selection of monitoring locations, parameters and frequencies for each sustainability
indicator.
2. Maps and tabular summary of the existing monitoring networks.
Task 5.2. Assessment and Improvement of Monitoring Network (4354.38)
This task is related to Article 5 of the GSP Regulations: Plan Contents, Subarticle 4: Monitoring
Networks, and will build off of work conducted under Task 1 Integrated Hydrologic Modeling and Task 2
Data Inventory and Needs Assessment. This task will build on existing monitoring conducted within the
subbasin through CASGEM and other programs that evaluate historical groundwater conditions and
assess existing monitoring well networks. In conjunction with the work conducted under Task 4 (Data and
Reporting Standards), this task will provide an evaluation of the data gaps in the existing monitoring
network and the uncertainty within the network. The assessment will address the number and locations of
monitoring sites, monitoring frequencies and the quality of the data collected. Recommendations will be
made to address the data gaps and incorporate them into the five-year review process.
Deliverables:
1. Assessment of the number and locations of monitoring sites, monitoring frequencies and the quality
of the data collected, as required by the Regulations for inclusion in the GSP.
2. Recommendations for improvements to the monitoring network.
3. Description of the process for evaluating the monitoring network during five-year reviews.
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County General Services Page 7 of 29
Task 6. Basin Setting
This task consists of all activities required to prepare the GSP Basin Setting chapter as described in Article
5, Subarticle 2 of the GSP Regulations. Associated subtasks are described below.
Task 6.1. H dro Bolo is Conceptual Model 354.14
This subtask is related to Article 5 of the GSP Regulations: Plan Contents, Subarticle 2: Basin Setting.
This task will refine information from current and existing plans and studies. This subtask to be completed
by June 30, 2019 and will include the following activities:
1. In cooperation with County Staff, preparation of written description of the basin including:
a. Regional geologic and structural setting.
b. Lateral basin boundaries and major geologic features.
c. Definable bottom of basin.
d. Principal aquifers and aquitards, including formation names, physical properties (aquifer
parameters), structural properties, general water quality, primary groundwater uses and
users.
e. Primary data gaps and uncertainty.
2. Preparation of at least two scaled cross-sections.
3. Preparation of map(s) depicting the following:
a. Surface topography.
b. Surficial geology.
c. Surface soil characteristics.
d. Existing and potential recharge areas and discharge areas.
e. Significant surface water bodies.
f. Sources and points of delivery for imported supplies.
Deliverables:
1. Written description of the subbasin.
2. Two or more geologic cross sections for each of the Four Subbasins.
3. Maps as required by the GSP Regulations (§354.14(d))for inclusion in the GSP.
Task 6.2. Current and Historical Groundwater Conditions (4354.16)
This subtask is related to Article 5 of the GSP Regulations: Plan Contents, Subarticle 2: Basin Setting.
This subtask to be completed by June 30, 2019 and may be conducted in cooperation with GSA Staff and
a workgroup of local experts. It will include the following activities:
1. Development of groundwater elevation maps and hydrographs demonstrating flow directions, lateral
and vertical gradients, and regional pumping patterns.
2. Development of graphs estimating annual and cumulative change in groundwater storage, including
annual use and water year type.
3. Description of and map groundwater quality issues, including known contamination sites and
plumes.
4. Description and mapping of potential and active land subsidence.
5. Identification of interconnected surface water and groundwater and estimate of the quantity and
timing of depletions.
6. Identification of groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs).
Deliverables:
1. Groundwater elevation data.
2. Graphic depicting change in annual groundwater storage.
3. Description of groundwater quality issues that may affect the supply and beneficial uses of
groundwater.
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County Genera[Services Page 8 of 29
4. Summary and analysis of land subsidence from local, regional and statewide monitoring.
5. Identification and evaluation of interconnected surface water systems.
6. Identification and description (map, narrative) of groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDE).
Task 6.3. Water Budget Information (§354.18)
This subtask is related to Article 5 of the GSP Regulations: Plan Contents, Subarticle 2: Basin Setting.
This task will consist primarily of organizing, summarizing, and reporting water budget information
developed using the integrated hydrologic model selected and refined under Task 1. Primary analysis
conducted as part of this subtask will include an initial evaluation of sustainable yield. In addition, an
evaluation of the availability and reliability of surface water supplies, suitability of the historical water
budget to project future water budget information, and impacts of historical conditions on operational
sustainably will be conducted (in conjunction with Task 1.3 activities). Water budget information will be
developed for identified management areas, if applicable. This subtask to be completed by the end of
2019 and will include the following activities:
1. Quantification of historical and current water budget components, including:
a. Surface water entering and leaving basin by water source type.
b. Inflow to groundwater system by water source type.
c. Outflows from groundwater system by water use sector.
d. Change in annual groundwater storage.
e. Average overdraft, if applicable.
f. Estimated supplies, demands, and storage change by water year type.
g. Initial estimate of sustainable yield.
2. Evaluation of historical water budget as follows:
a. Availability and reliability of surface water supplies.
b. Assessment of historical budget suitability to project future water budget information.
c. Review of impacts of historical conditions on ability to operate basin within sustainable yield.
3. Development of projected water budgets as follows:
a. Compilation of 50 years of historical precipitation, evapotranspiration, and streamflow for
development of baseline conditions.
b. Compilation of water demand based on most recent land use, evapotranspiration, and crop
coefficient information for development of baseline conditions.
c. Compilation of recent surface water supplies and use.
d. Development of projected water budget.
Deliverables:
1. Water budget including required content and documentation for inclusion in the GSP.
Task 6.4. _Management Areas (§354.20)
This subtask is related to Article 5 of the GSP Regulations: Plan Contents, Subarticle 2: Basin Setting.
Consultant to support preparation of maps with description of conditions in each management area. This
task to be completed by the end of 2019.
Deliverables:
1. Descriptions and maps of management areas as required by the Regulations for inclusion in the
GSP.
Task 7. Data Management System (§352.6)
This task will evaluate, select, and deploy the data management system for the four GSPs consistent with
Article 3 of the GSP Regulations: Technical and Reporting Standards. The task will involve an evaluation
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County General Services Page 9 of 29
of Data Management System (DMS) options. The DMS evaluation will consider DWR reporting
requirements, once established, as well as guidance that DWR may provide in the form of a BMP or other
documents that may be available. An evaluation of DMS options will consider a range of available options,
including: proprietary systems, open-source systems developed by DWR or an independent custom
application. Based on the results of the DMS evaluation, the DMS will be selected for implementation.
Consultants may be required to work with IT staff to implement the DMS. The intent is for this task to be
tackled toward the end of the project, thereby making the most of efforts by DWR and others who may
provide experience and technical assistance with selecting and implementing a DMS. Task 7 to be
completed by .lune 2020.
This task will include the following activities:
1. Inventory of existing DMS and review of DWR reporting requirements, BMP and other materials.
2. Development of specifications for initial design of a DMS.
3. Development, testing, and implementation of Quality Control (QC) procedures.
4. Compilation of high priority data and importation to a preliminary, non-proprietary DMS capable of
future reporting to other platforms.
5. Development of a data management system technical memorandum.
6. Implementation and testing of QC procedures.
7. Development of data management workshop materials.
Deliverables:
1. DMS evaluation and selection technical memorandum.
2. DMS user guide.
3. DMS software, including data used in the development and implementation of the elements to
support GSP annual reporting.
Task 8. Workgroups and Public Outreach
Task 8.1 Local Expert Groups (LEG)
As part of the project and in cooperation with GSAs in the Four Subbasins, Butte County will form and
coordinate meetings with a group or groups of local experts who will provide input and recommendations on
various components of the project. The LEG(s) will meet on an as needed basis throughout the duration of
the project and will act solely in an advisory capacity to Butte County, the GSAs in the Four Subbasins, and
the consultant retained for the project. For activities of all tasks, the contractor will be expected to attend up
to 10 two-hour meetings. The County will be responsible for coordinating and setting up these workgroup
meetings.
Task 8.2 Public Presentations
The contractor will be expected to participate in making two public presentations to present results of the
project. The County will be responsible for organizing the meetings, securing the facility and making
appropriate arrangements. The contractor's participation will be limited to presenting technical information
related to its scope of work.
Deliverables:
1. Prepare for and attend up to 10 workgroup meetings of local experts over the course of the project.
2. Public Presentations
a. The contractor will develop and prepare presentation materials.
b. The contractor will make two presentations on project results.
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County General Services Page 10 of 29
Task 9. Project Management/Administration
The contractor will be expected to present its approach to managing this project including key personnel,
quarterly reporting, project management controls, budgeting, invoicing and associated costs consistent
with completing projects funded by State grants.
5) FORMAT FOR PROPOSALS
Responses to the Request for Proposals must be made according to the requirements set forth in this
section, both for content and for sequence. Failure to adhere to these requirements, or inclusion of
conditions, limitations or misrepresentations in a response may be cause for rejection of the submittal.
Use 8-1/2" x 11" sheets (fold outs are acceptable for charts, etc.). Type size must be large enough to be
easily legible, but shall not be smaller than 10 point. The County shall receive all Submissions no later
than May 11, 2018, at 4:00 PM.
a) The response shall include a cover letter, a table of contents and all items listed below and shall be
in the following format:
Submissions shall contain 1 (1) signed, unbound original and three (3) hard copies, printed material
on 8-1/2" X 11" paper.
One (1) electronic copy shall also be provided in CD or thumb drive format.
Submissions shall be in the order noted below.
Submissions may also include color and fold out charts and graphs.
Mandatory Content and Sequence of Submittal:
i) Cover Letter shall be a maximum two-page Cover Letter and introduction, and shall include the
name and address of the respondent submitting the proposal, together with the name, address
and telephone number of the contact person who will be authorized to make representations for
the respondent, the respondent's federal tax ID number and a list of subcontractors, if any. The
cover letter shall include a statement that the proposal is valid for 60 days after receipt.
ii) Table of Contents shall be a detailed Table of Contents and shall include an outline of submittal,
identified by sequential page number and by section reference number and section title as
described therein.
iii) Respondent's Experience Summa shall be a maximum of five pages (not including resumes) in
length and shall describe the respondent's experience in development of GSP components.
Experience and focus in the public sector is of vital importance. Describe related past projects
(please limit to 3 projects) completed along with a discussion comparing similarities with this
proposed project.
This section shall also contain a list of references for each sample project wherein similar services
were performed. At a minimum, the following information must be included for each client
reference:
• Client name, address, contact person name, telephone number, fax number and email
address.
• Detailed description of services provided similar to the services outlined in the Draft Scope of
Work.
iv) Firm Capabilities shall be a maximum of six pages entitled "Firm Capabilities", and shall include a
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County General Services Page 11 of 29
description of the proposing Respondent's resources for successfully developing and completing
this project.
a. Background and Experience. In this section, describe your firm's background, its
organizational structure, identify decision-making roles, and why this is advantageous to the
project. Describe the roles and background of the design team leader and key team members.
Please provide a narrative history of the firm and its experience in providing support to GSAs in
developing components of GSPs and other SGMA related activities.
b. Key Personnel. Provide resumes describing the background and statement of qualifications
for key personnel your firm would use on this project, including any subcontractors that are
considered as key personnel on this project.
c. Statement of Qualifications for any subcontractors. If subcontractors/subconsultants are to be
used, the prospective contractor must include in the proposal a description of the work to be
done by each subcontractor/subconsultant. All subcontracts must be approved by the County
and no work shall be subcontracted without prior written approval of the County. It is expected
that the discussion of subconsultants will also include experience and references to similar types
of work.
d. Scheduling. Delineate the project scheduling process your firm uses. Use some or all of the
projects in the Experience Summary section, as well as other projects (if necessary), as specific
examples, which demonstrate your ability to deliver your work on time.
v) Cost shall detail the cost portion of the proposal. Respondent shall provide pricing based on a firm
price that identifies a breakout of the pricing for each Task, Subtask and Deliverable of the
proposed project. Prices quoted shall be valid for at least ninety (90) days following the proposal
submission deadline and if a contract is entered into as a result of this RFP, shall become fixed
for the term of the contract.
If an hourly rate is quoted, the anticipated total number of hours should be included along with a
not-to-exceed price for the project. Ideally, a fee schedule listing each member or classification
and their normal billing rates should be included with hourly rate quotes.
vi) Draft Scope of Work and Schedule shall be identified as "Attachment III — Scope of Work" for
incorporation in the Model Contract as the final contract to be awarded to the successful
respondent. This is the document in which the proposing respondents are requested to describe
the work they will perform and their approach to completing this project. Should there be any tasks
that are expected to be performed by the County, these should also be clearly described as County
tasks in the Draft Scope of Work. If the proposing respondent included a not-to-exceed price in
the proposal, proposed billing rate for all reimbursable expenses should be included in the Draft
Scope of Work. The proposal shall also include a schedule with the timeline for completing all
required tasks.
6) SELECTION PROCESS
The selection committee may include representatives from the County and other GSAs in the Four Subbasins
The criteria for selecting the firm is provided below:
a. Experience and References. Does the Respondent have sufficient similar experience in the kind of
work required? Does their experience include working with a variety of stakeholders (domestic,
agricultural, tribal, environmental, etc.)? Does the Respondent have a reputation of being reliable,
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County General Services Page 12 of 29
delivering on schedule and performing tasks to the satisfaction of its clients?
b. Capabilities. Does the Respondent have the resources and capability to meet the needs of the County
and GSAs in preparation of the Basin Settings? Does the Respondent have the ability to provide
more advanced technology solutions? Does the Respondent have sufficient stability and ability to
meet the needs of the County both now and in the future?
c. Work Plan (scope). Does the work plan demonstrate the firm's understanding and approach to
complete each task? Does it show familiarity with current and ongoing work related to SGMA locally
and the ability to leverage that for the current project?
d. Cost. Are the costs reasonable for the proposed tasks?
e. Schedule. Is the schedule reasonable for the proposed tasks?
The County may discuss the proposals and negotiate modifications of the proposal, draft scope of work,
terms and conditions and pricing with the prospective firm as a part of the selection process.
7) SUBMITTAL EVALUATION
Overall criteria used to evaluate responses to include:
Criteria Weight
Experience and References 30%
Capabilities of contractor, subcontractor,staff 30%
Work Plan (Scope) 20%
Cast 10%
Schedule 10%
Total.
100%
Selection may consist of two levels of review. Level I will consist of evaluating the proposals for the purpose
of establishing the most qualified respondents. Level Il will be used to select the finalist. This level may
include a request for a presentation/demonstration from the finalist(s), proposal fact finding and negotiation
of contract terms and conditions at no cost to the County. The presentation/demonstration may be web-
based.
The County may discuss the proposals and negotiate modifications of the proposal, draft scope of work,
terms and conditions and pricing with the prospective firms as a part of the selection process. The County
reserves the right to select more than one contractor.
8) RULES OF PROCUREMENT
Anticipated Time Line Summary
Event Anticipated Date/Time(Subject to Change)
Solicitation Publication April 4,2018
Final Date to Summit Questions and Requests for Clarification April 18,2018
Questions Answered via Addendum(s) April 25, 2018
RFP Submittals Due May 11, 2018
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County General Services Page 13 of 29
Preliminary Evaluation Completed May 14-May 25,2018
Presentation/Demonstration (if desired) May 28-31,2018
Evaluation Completion June 4,2018
Award of Contract June 2018
County Contact Information
Any and all communication regarding this Solicitation shall be in writing and directed to:
Christina Buck
Assistant Director
Water and Resource Conservation
County of Butte, California
308 Nelson Avenue
Oroville, CA 95965-3413
bcwater@buttecounty.net
This person will serve as the County's contact person for this project who will also respond directly for
questions and inquiries during the solicitation. Do not contact other County personnel or selection committee
members regarding this project or the selection procedures. Failure to adhere to these instructions may
result in disqualification.
Firms interested in participating in this solicitation are encouraged to register at the Public Purchase website:
www.publicpurchase.com.
Questions:
Questions and requests for clarification may only be submitted by e-mail or through the Public Purchase
website. Verbal and phone inquiries will not be answered. All questions and requests for clarification shall
be submitted no later than April 18, 2018 at 4:00 PM. The County will provide answers and clarifications by
posting an addendum(s) through the Public Purchase website by April 28, 2018 by 4:00 PM so all
Responders receive consistent information. It is the responsibility of all interested firms to access the website
for this information. Questions received after April 18, 2018 will not be answered.
9) COUNTY NOTICES
All proposing firms responding to this RFP should note the following:
a) All work performed for Butte County, including all documents associated with the project, shall become
the exclusive property of Butte County.
b) The selected firm is expected to perform and complete the project in its entirety.
c) Any and all costs including travel, arising from development and delivery of a response to this RFP
incurred by any proposing firm shall be borne by the firm without reimbursement by Butte County.
d) The selected Respondent shall remain an independent Contractor, working under his/her own
supervision and direction and is not a representative or employee of Butte County. The Respondent
agrees to file tax returns and pay all applicable taxes on amounts paid pursuant to this Contract.
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County General Services Page 14 of 29
e) The opening of proposals in response to this Solicitation is not subject to attendance by the general
public. This restriction is necessitated by the fact that the contract award is subject to negotiations,
and it would be unfair for competing companies to know the prices quoted by one another.
f) The successful Respondent must be prepared to begin work promptly following execution of the
contract and is expected to complete the project in its entirety.
g) Issuance of this Solicitation in no way constitutes a commitment by the County to award a contract. If
the County determines it is in its best interest to do so, no Respondent may be selected and no
contract may be executed.
h) Upon acceptable negotiations and contract award, the Respondent shall be required to execute the
standard County Contract as provided in Exhibit A and comply with County insurance requirements.
The County may modify the contractual requirements of the contract prior to execution of a contract
for services.
i) The County reserves the right to request additional information from Respondents that have submitted
a response to this Solicitation and to enter into negotiations with more than one Respondent should
a contract be awarded or to award a purchase order or contract to the Respondent(s) with the most
favorable quotation without conducting negotiations. The County reserves the right to award more
than one contract if it is in the best interest of the County.
j) The County reserves the right to reject any or all submittals received if the County determines that it
is in its best interest to do so. Further, the County may cancel or amend this Solicitation at any time
and may submit similar solicitations in the future.
k) The County may reject any submittal that does not meet all of the mandatory requirements of this
Solicitation, is conditional or is incomplete.
1) The County may request clarification of any submitted information and may request additional
information on any or all responses provided and may waive minor inconsistencies deemed to be
irrelevant.
m) Firms that submitted a proposal in response to an RFP but were unsuccessful in their attempt to obtain
a contract or recommendation for contract award may request a debriefing to learn the general
reasons for selection of a competitor for contract award. Requests for debriefings shall be directed to
the General Services Department, 2081 2nd Street, Oroville, CA 95965-3413, telephone
530.538.7261. Debriefings may be conducted via telephone, Email or during a face-to-face meeting
at the County offices in Oroville, California after the contract has been awarded.
n) Firms that have received a debriefing, but continue to feel aggrieved in connection with the solicitation
or award of a contract may submit a protest to the Director, General Services, 2081 2nd Street, Oroville,
CA 95965-3413. All protests must be made in writing, signed by an individual authorized to sign the
submitted proposal, and must contain a statement of the reason(s)for the protest: citing the law, rule,
regulation or procedure on which the protest is based. Respondent's capabilities, project
characteristics and/or pricing features that were not included in the firm's proposal shall not be
introduced during the protest process. The protest shall be submitted within seven (7) working days
after such aggrieved firm knows or should have known of the facts giving rise thereto or within seven
working days following the debriefing.
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County General Services Page 15 of 29
10)DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION
All information and materials submitted to the County in response to this RFP may be reproduced by the
County for the purpose of providing copies to authorized County personnel and selection committee
members involved in the evaluation of the proposals, but shall be exempt from public inspection under the
California Public Records Act until such time as a Contract is executed. Bid awards are a matter of public
record. Once a Contract is executed, proposals submitted in response to this RFP are subject to public
disclosure as required by law. Your submission of a proposal is considered your consent to the County's
disclosure of the proposal. The County shall not be liable for disclosure of any information or records related
to this procurement.
11)MODEL CONTRACT
The firm selected shall be expected to execute a contract substantially as the one shown as Exhibit A.
However, County reserves the right to substitute Exhibit A, Model Contract with a different template if deemed
necessary.
Professional Services Contract-GT$25K Rev.03/20/18 Butte County General Services Page 16 of 29
1
a
Butte County
r r 1 •
r,x'
t I
45
EVALUATION OF RESTORATION AND RECHARGE WITHIN BUTTE:COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASINS JANUARY 2018
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the contributions of our Local Experts Group for their insights and thoughtful
input to the groundwater restoration and recharge evaluation process—the results of this study
are made more relevant and grounded from their efforts.
Local Experts Group
• Pete Bonacich, CalWater, Chico
• Erik Gustafson, City of Chico
• Kyle Morgado, South Feather Water and Power
• Rath Mosley, South Feather Water and Power
• Mark Orme, Butte Water District
• Sarah Reynolds,Butte County Resource Conservation District
• Danny Robinson, Gorrill Ranch/WCWD
• Debbie Spangler, DWR Northern Region
• Ron Stilwell, North State Pump
• Les Heringer, M&T Ranch
• Rich McGowan, Farmer
• Ed McLaughlin, Farmer
Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation
• Paul Gosselin, Director
• Vickie Newlin,Assistant Director(retired)
• Christina Buck, Assistant Director
Consultant Team
• Mark S. Williamson, David Miller, Sarah Troedson,Ryan Alward—GEI Consultants
• Byron Clark—Davids.Engineering
• Duncan MacEwan—ERA Economics
• Joel Kimmelshue, Stephanie Tillman—Land IQ
EVALUATION OF RESTORA'T'ION AND RECHARGE WITHIN BUTTE COUN'rY GROUNDWATI-R BASINS JANUARY 2018
Evaluation of Restoration and Recharge
Within the Butte County Groundwater Basins
Contents
Acknowledgements..................................................................................................................... 1
Tables ........................................................................................................4
Figures............. .......................................................................................................................4
Listof Acronyms........................................................................................................................ 6
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1-1
2. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................2-1
2.1. Background..................................................................................................................2-1
2.2. Geographic Scope........................................................................................................2-2
2.3. Goals and Objectives...................................................................................................2-5
3, RECHARGE CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS.......................................................................3-1
3.1. Overview......................................................................................................................3-1
3.2. Land Use......................................................................................................................3-2
3.2.1. Existing use and land value....................................................................................3-3
3.2.2. Existing water use..................................................................................................3-6
3.2.3. Crop type and consumptive use.............................................................................3-8
3.2.4. Parcel size............................................................................................................3-10
3.3. Aquifer Properties......................................................................................................3-12
3.3.1. Geology and soil properties.................................................................................3-12
3.3.2. Depth to water and available aquifer volume......................................................3-14
3.3.3. Well Log Review.................................................................................................3-15
3.3.4. Geology................................................................................................................3-15
3.3.5. Hydrogeology ......................................................................................................3-17
3.3.6. Groundwater Levels.............................................................................................3-23
3.3.7. Groundwater Quality ...........................................................................................3-30
3.4. Proximity to Conveyances.........................................................................................3-33
3.5. Sensitive Species........................................................................................................3-33
4. RECHARGE CONSTRAINTS MODELS..........................................................................4-1
4.1. Recharge Methods and their Advantages and Disadvantages .....................................4-1
4.1.1. Direct Recharge—Spreading Basins......................................................................4-1
4.1.2. Direct Recharge—Aquifer Storage and Recovery.................................................4-2
4.1.3. Indirect Recharge (In-Lieu Recharge) ..................................................................4-3
4.2. Weighting Criteria .......................................................................................................4-4
4.2.1. Agricultural Water Supply.....................................................................................4-4
4.2.2. Land Use Type.......................................................................................................4-4
4.2.3. Crop ET..................................................................................................................4-5
4.2.4. SAGBI Mod Soil Data...........................................................................................4-5
1 FINAL
EVALUATION OF RESTORATION AND MCHARGE WITHIN BUTT'!.COUN'T'Y GROUNDWATER BASINS JANUARY 2018
4.2.5. Soils and Geology..................................................................................................4-5
4.2.6. Groundwater Gradient ...........................................................................................4-5
4.2.7. Proximity to Existing Conveyance........................................................................4-5
4.2.8. Minimum Parcel Size.............................................................................................4-5
4.2.9. Endangered Species...............................................................................................4-6
4.3. Constraints Mapping....................................................................................................4-6
4.3.1. Recharge Factor Weighting...................................................................................4-7
4.3.2. Rankings of Recharge Type...................................................................................4-7
4.4. Creating Constraints Maps...........................................................................................4-7
5. IDENTIFIED RECHARGE PROJECTS.............................................................................5-1
5.1. Approach......................................................................................................................5-1
5.2. Water Sources for Recharge........................................................................................5-1
5.2.1. Contracted Water...................................................................................................5-1
5.2.2. Natural Flow in Local Waterways.........................................................................5•-2
5.2.3. Water Distributed through Irrigation Facilities......................................................5-3
5.2.4. Pumping from the Sacramento River.....................................................................5-4
5.3. Project Alternatives......................................................................................................5-4
5.3.1. Alternative 1: Bi-directional Conveyance from Oroville......................................5-4
5.3.2. Alternative 2: South to North Conveyance from Oroville....................................5-6
5.3.3. Alternative 3: Construction of Recharge Basins....................................................5-7
5.3.4, Alternative 4: Sacramento River Diversions.........................................................5-7
5.3.5. Alternative 5: Cherokee Canal Alternatives..........................................................5-8
5.3.6. Alternative 6: Other Project and Program Options................................................5-9
5.3.7, DeSabla-Centerville Project.................................................................................5•-11
5.4. Recommendations......................................................................................................5-11
5.4.1. Oro-Chico Conduit Alternatives..........................................................................5-11
5.4.2. Oro-Chico Pipeline Alternative...........................................................................5-12
5.4.3. Construction of Recharge Basins.........................................................................5-12
5.4.4. Diversions from the Sacramento River................................................................5-12
5.4.5. Opportunistic Projects...................................................... ..............................5-13
5.4.6. Recharge Programs..............................................................................................5-13
6. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF IN-LIEU GROUNDWATER RECHARGE.................6-1
6.1. Background..................................................................................................................6-1
6.2. Characterization of Dual Source Irrigation Systems ...................................................6-2
6.2.1. Overview................................................................................................................6-2
6.2.2. Selected Systems....................................................................................................6-3
6.2.3. Development of General Cost Estimates and Cost Estimation Tool.....................6-8
6.3. Agronomic Assessment .............................................................................................6-28
6.3.1. Overview..............................................................................................................6-28
6.3.2. Flexibility.............................................................................................................6-28
6.3.3. Disease Risk.........................................................................................................6-29
6.3.4. Water Quality.......................................................................................................6-29
6.3.5. Grower Familiarity, Perceptions, and the Need for Training..............................6-31
6.4. Economic Analysis ....................................................................................................6-31
2 FINAL
EVALUATION OF RESTORATION AND RECHARGE WITHIN BUTTE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASINS JANUARY 2018
6.4.1. Overview..............................................................................................................6-31
6.4.2. Summary of In-Lieu Program Benefits and Costs...............................................6-32
6.4.3. Methodology........................................................................................................6-33
6.4.4. In-Lieu Program Benefit-Cost Analysis..............................................................6-34
6.5. In-Lieu Program Economic Feasibility......................................................................6-43
6.5.1. Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................................6-43
6.6. Summary....................................................................... ................6-46
.............................
6.6.1. Key Assumptions.................................................................................................6-46
7. ATTACHMENT A: ASSESSMENT OF AGRONOMIC FACTORS RELATED TO
WATER SOURCE, IRRIGATION SYSTEM TYPE,AND DUAL SOURCE SYSTEMS.......7-1
7.1. Overview......................................................................................................................7-1
7.2. Agronomic Factors and Economic Considerations......................................................7-1
7.3. Factors in Choosing Groundwater or Surface Water...................................................7-2
7.3.1. Cost........................................................................................................................7-2
7.3.2. Disease...................................................................................................................7-2
7.3.3. Fertilizer Management...........................................................................................7-3
7.3.4. Groundwater Regulation and Benefit to Groundwater Levels ..............................7-3
7.3.5. Irrigation District Infrastructure, Water Accessibility and Fees............................7-4
7.3.6. Irrigation Scheduling, Flexibility and Convenience..............................................7-5
7.3.7. Water Quality.........................................................................................................7-5
7.3.8. Summary................................................................................................................7-7
7.4. Factors in Choosing Pressurized Irrigation Systems or Non-Pressurized Irrigation
Systems....................................................................................................................................7-8
7.4.1. Cost of Installation, Maintenance and Operation ................................................7-10
7.4.2. Fertilization Practices...........................................................................................7-10
7.4.3. Irrigation Efficiency, Application Efficiency, and Distribution Uniformity.......7-11
7.4.4. Labor Requirements.............................................................................................7-12
7.4.5. Agronomic Considerations..................................................................................7-13
7.4.6. Summary..............................................................................................................7-13
7.5. Factors Influencing Grower Decisions to Consider Dual-Source Irrigation Systems7-14
7.5.1. Grower Familiarity, Perceptions and the Need for Training...............................7-14
7.5.2. Management Practices.........................................................................................7-15
7.5.3. Longevity of Orchards.........................................................................................7-16
7.5.4. Summary of Findings Relative to Agronomic Potential for Dual-source Irrigation
Systems 7-16
7.6. References..................................................................................................................7-17
3 FINAL
EVALUATION or RESTORATION AND RECHARGI WITI{IN Burn-COUN'rY GROUNDWATER BASINS JANUARY 2018
Tables
Table 3-1 Summary of Considerations for Each Recharge Type...............................................3-2
Table 3-2 Average Crop ET Values for 2000- 2015................................................................3-10
Table 3-3. Mapped Species from California Natural Diversity Database................................3-36
Table 4-1. Summary of Weighting Criteria................................................................................4-6
Table 6-1 Summary of Components at Each Pump and Filter Station.......................................6-5
Table 6-2 Summary of 250-Acre Orchard Irrigation System.....................................................6-6
Table 6-3 Estimated Annual Costs and Cost Differences for Components of Single and Dual
Source Systems: Example 250-Acre Walnut Orchard................................................................6-8
Table 6-4 Dual Source System Component Unit Costs............................................................6-17
Table 6-5 Dual Source System Component Useful Lives and Annual Maintenance...............6-18
Table 6-6 Dual Source System Cost Estimation Tool Parameters ...........................................6-19
Table 6-7 Cost Estimation Tool Results for Default 100-Acre Walnut Orchard .....................6-22
Table 6-8 Cost Estimation Tool Results for Example 320-Acre Rice Farm............................6-25
Table 6-9 Dual System and In-Lieu Program Cost Components .............................................6-35
Table 6-10 Potential In-Lieu Program Costs............................................................................6-37
Table 6-11 Potential In-Lieu Program Avoided Fallowing Costs............................................6-38
Table 6-12 In-Lieu Program Stabilization Benefits..................................................................6-40
Table 6-13 Potential In-Lieu Program Benefit-Cost Summary................................................6-43
Table 6-14 Potential In-Lieu Program Sensitivity Analysis Summary ....................................6-44
Table 6-15 Potential In-Lieu Program Benefit-Cost Sensitivity Analysis................................6-44
Table 6-16 Potential In-Lieu Program Water Purchase Cost Sensitivity Analysis ..................6-45
Figures
Figure 2-1 Butte County and Alluvial Groundwater Basins.......................................................2-3
Figure2-2 Project Area...............................................................................................................2-4
Figure3-1 Land Use ...................................................................................................................3-4
Figure3-2 Land Cover................................................................................................................3-5
Figure 3-3 Water Source for Agricultural Land .........................................................................3-7
Figure 3-4 ET Zones for California............................................................................................3-9
Figure3-5 Parcel Size...............................................................................................................3-11
Figure 3-6 Soils by SAGBI rating group..................................................................................3-13
Figure3-7 Geology...................................................................................................................3-16
Figure 3-8. Cross-Section Location Map..................................................................................3-18
Figure 3-9. Cross-Section A-A' ................................................................................................3-20
Figure 3-10. Cross-Section B-B`...............................................................................................3-22
Figure 3-11. Cross-Section C-C................................................................................................3-23
Figure 3-12 Monitoring Wells with Hydrographs and Infiltration Sites ..................................3-24
Figure 3.13 Water Level Hydrographs in Nested Well near Thermalito Afterbay..................3-25
Figure 3-14 Water Level Hydrographs in Nested Well 21NlW-13J .......................................3-25
Figure 3-15 Water Level Hydrographs in Nested Well 21NIE-13L........................................3-26
Figure 3-16 Water Level Hydrographs in Nested Well 23N I W-3H........................................3-26
Figure 3-17. Shallow Well Groundwater Elevation Contours, Fail 2015.................................3-28
Figure 3-18. Shallow Well Groundwater Elevation Contours, Spring 2016............................3-29
4 FINAL
EVALUATION OF Rr-STORNHON AND Rr-CHARGE WITHIN BU"m:COUNTY GROUNDWATIiit BASINS .JANUARY 2018
Figure 3-19. Deep Well Groundwater Elevation Contours, Fall 2015 .....................................3-31
Figure 3-20. Deep Well Groundwater Elevation Contours, Spring 2016.................................3-32
Figure 3-21 Proximity to Existing Conveyances................ 3-34
......................................................
Figure 3-22 Sensitive Species.....................................................
Figure 4-1 Recharge Pond Constraints Mapping.........................................................................4-8
Figure 4-2 Field Flooding Constraints Mapping .........................................................................4-9
Figure 4-3 Groundwater Injection Constraints Mapping...........................................................4-10
Figure 4-4 In-Lieu Recharge Constraints Mapping...................................................................4-11
Figure 5-1 Potential Projects.....................................................................................................5-15
Figure 6-1 Young Walnut Trees at 250-Acre Orchard...............................................................6-4
Figure 6-2 Station I Groundwater Well for 250-Acre Orchard..................................................6-4
Figure 6-3 Layout of 250-Acre Walnut Orchard with Dual Source System..............................6-5
Figure 6-4 Canal Turnout Gate without Trash Rack or Screen................................................6-10
Figure 6-5 Canal Turnout Gate with Trash Rack......................................................................6-10
Figure 6-6 Dual Source System with Self-Cleaning Rotating Screen Filter to Pump Directly
fromCanal .................................................................................................................................6-11
Figure 6-7 Rotating, Self-Cleaning Screen Filter Followed by Centrifugal Pressure Pump and
Horizontal Screen Filter for Almond Irrigation.........................................................................6-12
Figure 6-8 "Can"Type Sump and Vertical Turbine Pressure Pump Used to Pressurize Surface
Water..........................................................................................................................................6-13
Figure 6-9 Rotating, Self-Cleaning Screen Filter Followed by Vertical Turbine Pressure Pump
and Horizontal Screen Filter for Almond Irrigation. Screen Filter Installed Downstream of
Combined Discharges of Pressure Pump and Groundwater Well.............................................6-14
Figure 6-10 Self-Cleaning Mechanical Screen(Downstream of Turnout with Trash Rack),
Centrifugal Pressure Pump, and Media Filters for Almond Irrigation with Microspray...........6-15
Figure 6-11 Vertical Rectangular Screen Protecting Vertical Turbine Pressure Pump,Followed
by Disc Filters for Prune Irrigation with Microspray................................................................6-15
Figure 6-12 Estimated Difference in Operating Costs for Example 100-Acre Walnut Orchard
with Surface Water Costs of$5/af to $75/af and Static Depth to Groundwater of 10 ft to 100 ft 6-
23
Figure 6-13 Estimated Net Annual Cost of Dual Source System for Example 100-Acre Walnut
Orchard with Surface Water Costs of$5/af to $75/af and Static Depth to Groundwater of 10 ft to
I00ft...........................................................................................................................................6-24
Figure 6-14 Estimated Difference in Operating Costs for Example 320-Acre Rice Farm with
Surface Water Costs of$5/af to $75/af and Static Depth to Groundwater of 10 ft to 100 ft.....6-27
Figure 6-15 Estimated Net Annual Cost of Dual Source System for Example 320-Acre Rice
Field with Surface Water Costs of$5/af to $75/af and Static Depth to Groundwater of 10 ft to
100 ft..........................................................................................................................................6-27
Figure 6-16 Dual System Marginal Cost by Butte County Subbasin.......................................6-36
Figure 6-17 Normalized Sacramento River Water Supply Index(Department of Water
Resources)..................................................................................................................................6-41
Figure 6-18 Water Risk Offset Value Revenue Function.........................................................6-42
5 FINAL
EVALUATION OI.,RESTORATION AND RECI[ARGE WITHIN BUTTE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASINS JANUARY 2018
List of Acronyms
of acre-feet (volume)
of/d acre-feet per day (flow rate)
of/y acre-feet per year(flow rate)
ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery(injection) recharge
bgs below ground surface
CASGEM California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
efs cubic feet per second(flow rate)
DBCP Dibromo-chloropropane, a soil fumigant
ET,ETo evapotranspiration,reference evapotranspiration
gpm gallons per minute (flow rate)
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
ITRC Irrigation Training and Research Center at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo
mgd million gallons per day(flow rate)
SAGBI Soil Agricultural Groundwater Banking Index
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SWP State Water Project
6 FINAL
EVALUATION OF RrSTORATiON AND RECHARGE WITHIN BUTTE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BAsINs JANUARY 2018
1 . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The California Department of Water Resources awarded Butte County with a Counties with
Stressed Basins Grant under the Sustainable Groundwater Planning Grant Program pursuant to
the Water Quality, Supply, and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014 (Proposition 1').
The primary goal of this project is to identify and create tools to help the County of Butte
achieve groundwater sustainability as required by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
(SGMA). This project focuses on the identification and feasibility of both direct and in-lieu
recharge of the groundwater basins within Butte County(Vina, West Butte, East Butte and
Wyandotte Creek'), The Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation is the
lead agency responsible for this project and serves as contract administrator.
SGMA requires groundwater sustainability agencies (GSAs)to develop groundwater
sustainability plans (GSPs). For the County to be successful under SGMA, a complete
assessment of the basins is needed to determine optimal places for groundwater recharge and to
evaluate the availability of surface water supplies that could be used to provide recharge.
The project is focused on lands within Butte County, but is also regional in nature because all
four subbasins within Butte County extend into neighboring counties. This assessment will
assist land use planners and water resource managers in decision-making under SGMA. It will
further the planning process by providing options for the design and implementation of future
direct and in-lieu recharge projects that may become part of Groundwater Sustainability Plans.
A recharge constraints analysis was conducted to identify superior recharge areas by weighting
an array of relevant physical characteristics (e.g., soil type, depth to water, geology) and
anthropogenic(human-influenced) conditions that affect where recharge could be conducted.
From the analysis conducted on factors affecting site suitability, four main considerations were
identified: Land Use; Aquifer Properties; Location; and Environmental Constraints. Factors
related to these were used to evaluate various methods of groundwater recharge. There are two
general approaches to artificial groundwater recharge: direct recharge and indirect recharge.
Direct recharge involves physically delivering water to the aquifer system, whereas indirect(or
in-lieu)recharge increases groundwater storage by offsetting the use of groundwater with
I Water Code Section 79700 et seq.
2 The Wyandotte Creek Groundwater Subbasin was subdivided from the North Yuba Groundwater Subbasin in 2016
1-1 FINAL
EVALUATION OF RESTORATION ANI)RECHARGE WITHIN BUTTE COUNTY GROUNDWA"fER BASINS JANUARY 2018
another water supply source (e.g., surface water). There are advantages to each approach, and
local conditions may suggest which methods are more appropriate for a particular location.
A series of constraints maps were developed using a Geographic Information Systems analysis
of the various factors that favor or constrain the various method. In general,the best
opportunities would provide surface water to lands currently using groundwater in lieu of their
present groundwater pumping. Groundwater recharge by creating dedicated recharge ponds
would allow capture of available storrnflows and may be viable in many areas. Flooding fields is
a variant of the recharge ponding method that would be restricted to the non-irrigation season.
Injection wells are restricted by regulation to recharge only highly treated potable water, and are
not a near-term solution due to the lack of water treatment plants.
Potential sources of water for direct and in-lieu recharge projects in Butte County fall into the
following categories:
• Contracted water—primarily State Water Project Table A water contracted to Butte
County and stored in Oroville Reservoir
• Natural flow in local waterways
• Surface water diversions distributed through irrigation facilities
• Sacramento River water(use of this source would likely require an exchange of Table A
water for water extracted from the river)
The clearest opportunities for promoting groundwater recharge in Butte County lie with planning
and support of recharge programs designed to improve the use of water supplies now available
within the County. Although, major projects designed to make use of Table A water are
attractive long-term options, implementation of any of these alternatives will require a heavy
commitment of resources, negotiation of contracts with in-County water purveyors and, in the
case of projects that would draw water from the Sacramento River,negotiations with the Bureau
of Reclamation.
Given the high cost and long horizon for implementation of any of these alternatives,the best
short- and medium-term options make use of water now available within the County. These
alternatives tend to be programs to encourage agricultural water users to install dual-source
irrigation systems,policies to incentivize urban developers and property owners to install
semipermeable pavements, and efforts to identify and advance local in-lieu recharge projects that
would provide areas, such as Rancho Esquon, now partially reliant on groundwater access to
surface water supplies from willing local partners.
1-2 FINAL,
EVALUATION oP RESTORATION AND RECHARGE WITHINBUTTE COUNTY GROUNDWATER BASINS JANUARY 2018
To further evaluate the potential to utilize dual-source irrigation systems to make additional use
of surface water currently available in the County, an economic and agronomic evaluation of
dual-source systems was conducted. Typical components of these systems, which allow growers
to make use of either groundwater or surface water for irrigation, were characterized, along with
upfront(capital)and ongoing(operations and maintenance)costs relative to systems utilizing
groundwater only. Additionally, agronomic factors affecting whether growers choose to utilize
groundwater, surface water, or both sources when available were evaluated. Finally, a
preliminary economic analysis of local and regional benefits and costs of utilizing dual source
systems to address potential groundwater overdraft conditions in Butte County was prepared.
Typical system components required for a dual source system are a surface water irrigation
"turnout"or point of delivery to the field, a pipeline or ditch to convey water from the turnout to
a pump station, a pump or pumps for pressurization, and filtration. Although the layout and
specific components for dual source systems will vary From field to field, these four components
generally account for the additional equipment needed for dual source systems as compared to
groundwater only or"single source" systems. Accordingly,the additional capital and
maintenance costs associated with these components represent an additional upfront investment
required to utilize dual source systems, as compared to systems relying solely on groundwater
for irrigation; the use of surface water results in a reduction in lift requirements and associated
energy requirements compared to the use of groundwater. In some cases,the reduced energy
requirements and cost savings may be greater than the capital and maintenance costs of the dual
system components,resulting in a net cost savings over time to growers using dual source
systems.
Several factors may be considered by growers when deciding to utilize available surface water
supplies for irrigation. A primary consideration is cost, and the use of a dual source system may
or may not result in a net cost savings over time depending on several factors. Another primary
reason growers prefer groundwater is the reliability of an on-demand water source. This
advantage of groundwater diminishes if surface water is available on-demand during the growing
season. Reliability of water supply is important not just seasonally or annually, but also within a
given year when water might be needed on specific days (e.g. for frost protection), or to supply
water during particularly dry winter and early spring months. Another primary factor for fruit
and nut trees is disease risk. Root and crown rot(Phytophthora) is transmitted through surface
water in Butte County and can result in permanent crop damage and yield reduction. Thus, a
benefit of using groundwater for orchard irrigation as compared to surface water is reduced risk
of root and crown rot; however,there are several management options to prevent contact
between wood and water, reducing this risk. Other factors that may result in advantages or
disadvantages of using surface water include chemical constituents, such as mineral content and
1-3 FINAL
EVALUA'r]ON or R1aSTORATION AND RECHARGE WITHIN BUTTE COUNTY GROUNDWA'rER BASINS JANUARY 2018
nitrates in groundwater and total dissolved solids and related considerations such as infiltration
and salinity.
In areas where surface water is currently available or could be made available in the future, lack
of grower familiarity with dual source systems is a potentially significant barrier to the use of
surface water, particularly for pressurized irrigation systems. Growers should consider the added
complexity and initial costs of dual source systems, as well as factors related to flexibility,
disease risk, and water quality. The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act introduces the
long-term sustainability of the groundwater basin as another consideration.
Preliminary evaluation of local and regional benefits and costs associated with dual source
systems, although reliant on several key assumptions at the initial stage of investigation, suggest
that benefits may significantly exceed the costs and additional investigation of potential projects
could be warranted. Economic benefits quantified in the analysis include the value of stable
groundwater levels reflected in the avoided cost of groundwater pumping by all groundwater
users within the County; the benefit of increased future water supply reliability, reflected in
reduced water supply risk to growers; and avoided costs of fallowing (or other programs)to
manage groundwater overdraft. Costs quantified in the analysis include the net cost of
constructing, operating, and maintaining dual source systems, considering potential cost savings
to participating growers through reduced lift requirements. In subsequent stages of analysis, cost
estimates would be refined, along with other key assumptions, to include additional costs for
planning, design, permitting, legal costs, etc.
The results of this project provide useful information to guide further evaluation to maintain or
achieve sustainable groundwater management in Butte County during GSP development for the
subbasins subject to SGMA in Butte County. Proactive efforts to identify solutions to potential
sustainability challenges offer the opportunity to minimize the risk of actions that could
adversely impact the local and regional economy.
l-4 FINAL