HomeMy WebLinkAboutBC Water & Resource Cons - Technical Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda 1.17.19 Schuman, Amy
From: Menchaca, Clarissa
Sent: Monday, February 4, 2019 11:09 AM
To: Schuman, Amy
Subject: FW: [EXTERNAL] TAC Agenda Packet for January 17, 2019 meeting
Correspondence.
CLcurlis,s(;f/Pal" 1 if
Associate Clerk of the Board
Butte Count Administration
25 County Center Drive, Suite 200, Orovilie, CA 95965
T: 530.552.33081 F: 530.538.7120
Twitter 1 Facebook 1 YouTube 1 Pinterest
From: Butte County Department of Water& Resource Conservation <bcwater@buttecounty.net>
Sent:Thursday,January 10, 2019 12:04 PM
To: Menchaca, Clarissa <cmenchaca@buttecounty.net>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] TAC Agenda Packet for January 17, 2019 meeting
41//,)d")"17//irfilVfild2Y /Ift 4,//711,
ii#fir7s0 effr/,)it?, itr(
),y6i/11,/ 411)10 jf4tif f t))Jif,
1111 /1)1 °ii)(117/11
44 ,
tte ounty
WATER & RESOURCE CONSERVATION
//:/f* ii/if6iitri
/ /r, /,,/
t 00 ,y,,
k /V///i ip '7/71 // /
'1/;(1/1 / //4 / t /(!;/,/f) )1( /,
/4 orri/i/// ,i/ r /1 ,,/7;/
i fr ,pfirri ft 'ft/1)1m ,T j ,/e1,0i)i 4 /41,1 1 f/' I
4
, P//44f
/,/,/ ,(77w
T 6 CC v....l Advis 111 1 II ' 1111 I,
ar3, c 01 1 utter
The Technicalbe
edynieslodasnow
AdvisoryCommittee
meeting wilt
January 17, 2019, 200 pm
202 Mira Loma,,Tahoe Room
Oroville, CA
1 1111 1 . 1 1 1
11, 111111 1111111111 TmmicitnicitioAdviqory orn I, 1 11 1 1 il
Butte County Department of Water& Resourcen_ytne Conservationt
530.552,3595 I ,bcwaterciu(ghutte __ ,_
www.buttecounty.netiwaterresourceconservation
Butte County Department of Water & ResourceConservationI 308 Nelson Avenue, Oroville, CA
59
Lttisubscrihe hacalpbuttecounly.net
Update Prof le I About our service provider
Sent by bcwater@buttecounty.net
2
Water and Resource Conservation Paul Gosselin, Director
;//: ilial of
308 Nelson Avenue T: 530.538.4343 buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservati on
"% bcwater@ buttecou nty.net
ButteCountyOroville, California 95965 F: 530.538.3807
WATER&RESOURCE CONSERVATION
BUTTE COUNTY
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEETING DATE: Thursday, January 17, 2019
TIME: 1:00 p.m. —4:00 p.m.
PLACE: Tahoe Room
202 Mira Loma Oroville, CA
AGENDA ITEMS
1. Introductions and TAC Roll Call
2. * Approval of minutes for the May 3, 2018 meeting. (Chair Connell)
3. Election of Chair and Vice Chair for 2018 (Chair Connell)
4. * Sustainable Groundwater Management Act Updates (Staff, Water and Resource
Conservation)
5. Project Updates (Christina Buck, Water and Resource Conservation)
a. Groundwater Sustainability Plans- Basin Setting Project
b. Airborne Electromagnetic Method(AEM) Survey
6. * Update on the Recommendations of the Water Commission Ad-hoc Subcommittee
regarding the Basin Management Objective (BMO)Program (Kelly Peterson, Water and
Resource Conservation)
7. * Review and comment on the Draft 2018 Annual Groundwater Status Report(Kelly
Peterson, Water and Resource Conservation)
a. * Summer and Fall 2018 Groundwater Level Measurements (see
Appendices C & E for summary spreadsheets and Alert Stage Map)
b. 2018 Water Quality Trend Monitoring (See Appendix D)
c. Review Cover Report
8. Departmental Updates (Staff, Water and Resource Conservation)
9. 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.
10. Future Meeting date and location:
May 2, 2019 at 2:00 PM at 202 Mira Loma Oroville, CA in the Tahoe Room
* Indicates attached items
TAC Agenda
MINUTES OF THE Item #2
BUTTE COUNTY WATER COMMISSION
TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
May 3, 2018
Tahoe Room
202 Mira Loma
Oroville, CA 95965
1. Introductions and Roll Call
TAC members present: Chair Joe Connell, Todd Greene, Matt Meninga, Kyle Morgado,
Richard Price and Debbie Spangler
TAC members absent: Amanda Aguiar
2. Approval of minutes for the January 10, 2018 meeting
Motion by Kyle Morgado, second by Richard Price to approve the minutes for January
10, 2018. Motion carried 6-0-0.
3. Review and comment on Spring 2018 groundwater level measurements and BMOs
Information only, no action
4. Update on the Groundwater Sustainability Grant
Information only, no action
5. Update on RFP for Basin Settings of Groundwater Sustainability Plan
Information only, no action
6. Update on special projects
a. Evaluation of Restoration and Recharge Potential within Groundwater Basins of
Butte County
Information only, no action
b. Airborne Electromagnetic Method
Information only, no action
7. Departmental Updates
Information only, no action
8. Public Comment
None
9. Future Meeting date and location: November 29, 2018 at 2:00 PM at 202 Mira Loma
Oroville, CA
Fall TAC meeting was cancelled due to the Camp Fire emergency.
TAC Agenda
\� rr�4 Proposed Butte County Subbasins ; Item #4
vin.,,
1 40
0,Fcv o& ii9 ...�.F
i,, Vina Subbasin
%U ♦♦♦♦, Butte Subbasin
rr
/ ,.,„,t
Wyandotte Creek
Subbasin
,
r
e
1` ltralgoie Wolin /,
,r
rl0j
/G( «Y.,h Gibpp 11 �.
,,.
VINA
„,,,,
Paradiserlell
,
♦♦.. a0njj Ce �4° , 'MT , lP
O
SjVi ,* Chico°N
a 'A' a
t' f ♦ �g ' `4 j
�
.♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦��ill r,t 0 \2p
♦♦♦♦♦♦ �� 8eri^'Creel,
;•.i♦i♦4t. jl Durham „,t„�r 4,6U �s., °r� Nit R,,, �; 6
la ra.Frtf 7N • /
•
♦♦♦♦♦.♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦��♦♦�♦�♦♦ ♦♦♦0�♦♦�♦�♦��♦��♦��♦��♦��♦��♦���♦♦�♦��♦��♦ ♦ ""e♦ ♦ $ ri ,,♦ ♦ !ID
4�43ir " f�� 0,,,„ r,,,,a.,011A
,,
® � a i ,,,i '�,
11).• •®:®• •®®®®® »»,/
4 OKI'14:,,M l''
OrovilleY1J,IJ.IJJJ,IY
♦ • •♦i♦i♦i ,111
•
♦♦♦• ♦♦.♦®♦♦♦®♦®®♦®♦®®®4♦4+4♦.404♦♦®♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦®♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦ �
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦♦
•
•
•
♦♦♦, ' ii;®i;:i;;�:i;:i;:i;:i;'i;:i;:i;:i;:i;:i;:i;:i;:ii i♦iii1fWANDOTTE
, I,.rp:; , n ,l 4, ®
•
Bangor: KRCE'®;; ®®;; ®® . 111;44:,':'''1(40:'1,1„,;,11!1
\II\
iii• *Gridley ♦
� ii ♦
�♦♦♦ „it
♦1
�� Browns Vm[6ra�'
44 a'
A
C uu Vfs��+tee w4NVll atlp ♦♦♦♦♦� iigacalr ft1,,,Brow.
fifro
d
► 'W"Httl
�� )fl Revision 9/1„9/1018
12018
s ,r II
1 0 3 "r� 12 ;,�tkerSourrce: EsriHERE Garmin USGS Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri
q! W � Ja an, METI, Esri>---® enStree Ma cont China (Hong King) Esri Korea, Esri(Thailand), NGCC,
Mlles ,.e
�U't":" t�„ar,,a y � p p . ° rs"'and flie"GIS User Community
TAO Agenda
#6
Water and Resource Conservation Paul Gosselin, Director Item
a%//
308 Nelson Avenue T: 530.552.3595 buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservation
Butte County
;; Oroville, California 95965 F: 530.538.3807 bcwater@buttecounty.net
WATER&RESOURCE,CONSERVATION'''.....
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 27, 2018
TO: Butte County Water Commission
FROM: Kelly Peterson, Water Resources Scientist
Department of Water and Resource Conservation
RE: Recommendations of the Water Commission Ad-hoc Subcommittee regarding the Basin
Management Objective (BMO) Program
The Butte County BMO program has entered its fourteenth year. The BMO program has become an important
cornerstone of our water resource management efforts to date. It was a required element of a Groundwater
Management Strategy (AB3030 / SB1938) and integrated regional water management plans until recently with
the passage of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) of 2014 and the associated Groundwater
Sustainability Plans (GSPs) which are now intended to fulfill those roles. In order to assure that the intent of the
BMO program continues to be met in the interim while GSPs are being developed, without creating duplicative
work now that the Department is implementing SGMA county-wide, a review of the program is necessary. On
June 6, 2018, the Water Commission appointed Water Commissioners D.C. Jones, Tod Kimmelshue, David
Skinner and Ernie Washington to an ad-hoc Subcommittee charged with reviewing and evaluating the BMO
program. The Subcommittee has met twice since formation, once on June 29, 2018 and again on August 17,
2018.
The review of the BMO program has identified many successes of the program over the years as well as areas
that warrant improvement during this transition to sustainable groundwater management under SGMA. The
establishment of BMO criteria and comprehensive monitoring and reporting, and outreach to stakeholders are
among the strengths of the BMO program. However, the subcommittee felt that a clear need to transition this
program into a more efficient, relevant and streamlined program while in place and to propose an expiration date
of Jan. 30, 2022 for Chapter 33A in light of new SGMA requirements. On this date, the BMO program with the
currently proposed revisions would expire and the fundamental components of the monitoring described in
Chapter 33A would transition into a monitoring program more relevant to SGMA as described in the GSPs,
required under SGMA for all subbasins in Butte County. Development of three GSPs relevant to the subbasin in
Butte County are currently underway and have a deadline for submittal to DWR by Jan. 30, 2022. The revised
BMO program will be used foundationally in the development of a new monitoring program more adept at meeting
the legal requirements of SGMA and will phase out when the GSPs are submitted to the Department of Water
Resources (DWR) by January 30, 2022.
1
As the BMO program moves forward temporarily before becoming enveloped into the new monitoring program as
will be described in the GSPs, it should be based on what has worked so far -- scientifically credible BMOs, a
strong monitoring program, clear reporting of data, sound evaluation of data and education and outreach to
stakeholders. However, the subcommittee felt that the BMO program has been hampered by unrealistic
expectations of stakeholder responsibilities and excessive irrelevant reporting requirements. To achieve these
goals, a number of changes to the ordinance will be necessary as recommended by the committee. Addressing
these recommendations will assure that the BMO program serves a strong relevant purpose while transitioning
into the next phase of sustainable groundwater management within Butte County.
The Oriciins of the BMO Prociram
In January 2002, the Water Commission made a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to investigate the
concept of utilizing BMOs as a potential program for managing the groundwater basin. The BMO concept was
based on a DWR, Northern District proposal and built from a similar program enacted in Glenn County. The Board
accepted the recommendation and directed the Department to proceed with the development of BMOs for the
basin area of the county. The Department drafted and publically circulated a draft ordinance for consideration by
the stakeholders and eventually by the Board. After significant public comment and revisions, the Board approved
the ordinance on February 10, 2004 and the BMO ordinance was codified as Chapter 33A of the Butte County
Code. The BMO program became a component of the Butte County Groundwater Management Plan (2005).
The original intent of BMOs was not to mitigate or provide third party impact protection as required through a
Chapter 33 application. The ordinance included specific findings of the Board to articulate its intent:
• Protection of the groundwater resource for beneficial use within the County is of major concern to the
residents of the County for the protection of their health, welfare and safety.
• The beneficial use and maintenance of groundwater and protection of recharge zones is of critical
importance to the economy and environment of the County.
• BMOs are intended to ensure the continued sustainability of groundwater quantity and quality within the
County.
• It intends to protect groundwater quality and prevent land subsidence.
• It does not hereby intend to regulate, outside of Chapter 33, the use of groundwater; unless established
BMOs are exceeded.
• BMOs are essential for information gathering and management purposes that the County maintains a
monitoring program addressing groundwater elevations, groundwater quality standards and subsidence
criteria.
• Through the enactment of BMOs, the County does not intend to limit other means of managing
groundwater within the County as authorized elsewhere in statute or ordinance.
• The County intends to work cooperatively with local entities and the general public to further develop and
implement joint groundwater management plans.
Upon enactment of the ordinance, the department began taking steps to implement the program such as
producing guidelines for developing BMOs for each of the subinventory units (SIU). The SI Us are based on the
Inventory and Subinventory units defined in the Butte County Water Resources Inventory and Analysis report
(2005). The first BMOs were adopted in June of 2006. Since then, the Department in cooperation with the Water
Advisory Committee, Technical Advisory Committee and stakeholders have collectively refined and modified
some aspects of the BMO program.
In 2008, the Department launched the BMO Information Center(BMOIC)which is a publically accessible database
of key BMO wells and other data within the Counties of Butte, Colusa, Glenn and Tehama Counties. The BMOIC
allows stakeholders to access groundwater data and prepare reports.
In 2009, the TAC prepared a report and recommendations to streamline the BMO program. The TAC
recommended updating and streamlining data collection, utilizing a standardized methodology for setting BMOs,
improved communication between the WAC and the TAC and utilizing BMO data as part of the Drought Task
Force evaluation. Limited resources from the County are available for managing the BMO program; therefore,
program efficiency is essential.
In 2011, the Water Commission made recommendations to the Board of Supervisors to further streamline and
clarify roles within the BMO program by consolidating SIUs, removing formal approval of BMOs by the WAC,
incorporating the BMO and Alert Stage criteria into the Ordinance, removing the WAC/stakeholders from
overseeing the monitoring program, clarifying the non-voting roles of SIU representatives and that at-large WAC
members, amending the frequency of WAC meetings and modifying the process to reflect that staff prepares the
BMOs in consultation with the SIU representative as well as other items.
A Review of the BMO Prociram
Water Advisory Committee (WAC) and Public Participation - Public participation is at the heart of the BMO
program and a source of its greatest strength and weakness. The goal of the Ordinance in regards to
stakeholders, especially those appointed to the WAC, is for full public participation as a liaison with the Department
and the respective stakeholders within their respective SIUs with minimal support from the department. This
model for public participation can only function if public volunteers fully participate. However, the level of
participation by stakeholders and the structure of the WAC have not met this goal.
The WAC includes SIU representatives as well as representatives from watershed groups and other at-large
members for a total of 28 representatives. The WAC was intended to be the primary public venue for BMO issues,
however, the WAC has not adequately functioned as the outreach mechanism it was envisioned to be. Since
2006, most WAC meetings failed to have a quorum. And those that did, had a quorum by the slimmest of margins.
Finding candidates to fill WAC positions has been difficult or impossible and some positions have been vacant for
close to two years. A majority of the members typically miss most meetings. In fairness, there are a small number
of WAC members that have consistently participated in the creation of BMOs, outreach to stakeholders and have
attended most WAC meetings. The WAC has played an important role as a forum for stakeholders to receive
data and share anecdotal information however the information is not reported regularly and can at times be non-
relevant to the evaluation of monitoring results.
A significant amount of resources and effort have taken place to make the ordinance function as intended.
However, the program has reverted to a more traditional structure of having the staff administer the program with
minimal input from stakeholders. The repeated attempts to make this process function have been unproductive
for both the Department and stakeholders.
The envisioned new role of the WAC/SIU representatives includes their transition into one of the Stakeholder
Advisory Committees or Technical Working Groups that are being developed as part of the governance structures
in the subbasins in which they reside. These committees / groups will function to develop the monitoring
components as described in the GSP which will be aimed at establishing the monitoring objectives, sustainable
criteria, thresholds and project and actions which will provide the tools to sustainably manage groundwater
throughout the subbasin in Butte County.
Sub-inventory Units - The BMO program established Inventory and Sub-inventory units based on the
units defined in the Water Inventory and Analysis report (2005). The SIUs would no longer be valid
structures given the dissolution of the WAC and also in light of the new structures provided for under
SGMA regarding subbasins and Management Areas. For example, GSPs are now required for each
subbasin under SGMA by January 30, 2022. Management Areas are planning areas within subbasins
that have common land use practices for which a GSP may identify different minimum thresholds,
measurable objectives, monitoring, and projects and actions based on unique local conditions or other
circumstances. GSPs may be organized such that each Management Area functions as a chapter of the
GSP. Removal of terminology regarding SIU's throughout the ordinance will not only reduce the reporting
requirements for each SIU while this Ordinance is in place, but it will also strengthen the program to
support ongoing efforts to meet the legal requirements of SGMA.
BMOs — BMOs are intended to reflect measurements that demonstrate acceptable local groundwater conditions.
When measured groundwater conditions do not meet established BMOs, the program adopted a set of BMO Alert
Stages that reflect unacceptable groundwater conditions. The adoption of the standardization methodology by
Butte County has resulted in two acceptable methods. The concept of setting BMOs and Alert Stages has proven
to be a valuable construct. For clarity and transparency, the BMO criteria should be part of the ordinance while it
is in place during transition to more robust and SGMA-relevant sustainable criteria which will be described in the
GSPs currently being developed. GSPs will include components describing measurable objectives, sustainable
criteria, minimum thresholds, monitoring and projects and actions for each of the undesirable results identified in
SGMA. Once GSPs are implemented they will describe criteria similar to BMOs and Alert Stages, however they
will be more robust, comprehensive and enforceable.
Monitoring - The BMO program utilizes a comprehensive monitoring network that includes domestic, irrigation
and municipal supply wells that began under Chapter 33. The network also includes dedicated monitoring wells,
of which many have continuous recorders. The department, in consultation with the TAC and stakeholders have
continued to evaluate the existing BMO monitoring network to consider adding new wells as resources allow.
Under these recommendations, the monitoring of groundwater conditions will continue status quo until the
ordinance expires at which point monitoring will continue under the provisions of Chapter 33 and through
applicable GSPs.
BMO Report - The BMO annual report has increased in volume and complexity while becoming less useful to
stakeholders over the years. Typically the development of the Annual Groundwater Status Report which includes
16 individual BMO reports ranging from two to 23 pages in length, is completed by the Department with input from
some SIU representatives, if available. This report is presented to the Board each February pursuant to Chapter
33. Unfortunately, a considerable amount of time and effort is expended by staff to develop this report including
the individual SIU reports. This document can be streamlined while the Ordinance is in place by focusing on the
specific BMOs and BMO monitoring data per subbasin as related to DWR's Bulletin 118 and SGMA instead of the
individual SIUs. After the expiration of the ordinance, the GSP will fulfill the goals and objectives of an annual
report on groundwater conditions as required by Chapter 33. Such an approach will allow for a more efficient and
relevant display of data.
Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) - The TAC, established by Chapter 33, plays an important role in the
BMO program. The role of the TAC should be to evaluate BMO monitoring data and information provided by the
Department and provide recommendations to the Department and Water Commission as appropriate.
Outreach - One of more important successes of the BMO program is the factual, scientific information provided
to stakeholders. The BMO program established a foundation for dialogue between the Department, SIU
representatives and stakeholders. A number of SIU representatives have not actively participated in the BMO
program. This includes not providing feedback to the Department on the preparation of their BMO, not conducting
any outreach to local stakeholders or providing input to the Department regarding the groundwater conditions in
their respective SIUs. Beginning in 2009, the TAC has requested a single page survey to be completed bi-
annually by SIU representatives on conditions in their SIUs. This reporting mechanism has been underutilized in
most years since 2009 (i.e. 1 of 23 returned in 2018)which means that the TAC does not receive a comprehensive
picture on conditions that they would desire to evaluate BMO data.
Outreach will continue to be provided while the Ordinance is effective through a variety of methods already
occurring including numerous public meetings where data is presented and discussed. These venues include but
are not limited to TAC meetings, Water Commission meetings and Board of Supervisors meetings. Monitoring
data, associated evaluations and reports are also provided on the Department's website and addressed in monthly
newsletter articles when available. Once the governance structures are in place for the subbasins within Butte
County, many other opportunities for public participation, outreach and input as required by SGMA will also be
available at venues including but not limited to GSA Board meetings, Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meetings,
and Technical Working Group Meetings.
Response to BMOs - The response to BMO noncompliance currently includes increased outreach to
stakeholders and potential investigations that could include additional data collection and monitoring. As was
learned during the drought, providing stakeholders with factual information and analysis on groundwater
conditions is a powerful tool in groundwater management.
Summary of Recommendations from the Subcommittee:
• Incorporate an expiration date for the ordinance of January 30, 2022 to align with the final deadline for
submittal of GSPs to DWR under SGMA for subbasins in Butte County.
• Continue monitoring status quo until expiration of the Ordinance (Chapter 33-A) on January 30, 2022.
• Clarify the definition of"Aquifer"
• Clarify the definition of"Commission"
• Dissolve the WAC by removal of references to it's structure, membership, operations, internal roles, and
external interactions with TAC and the Department and rescinds WAC bylaws.
• Clarify that the TAC no longer consults with the WAC on local conditions affecting monitoring results
• Removes references to WAC members serving as subinventory unit representatives as the structure for
public participation in the program
• Removes references to subinventory units as land under which monitoring results are grouped for
reporting purposes and which serve as a method to determine WAC membership
• Clarifies units for water quality measurements
Summary
The BMO program has been a critical component of the County's water management effort. Over the past
fourteen years the BMO program has made enormous progress in developing, analyzing, and disseminating
factual information on local groundwater conditions. These actions have been essential to making sound,
informed, and locally driven water resource management decisions. Without such data, analysis and outreach
and water management decisions would not have contributed to the current level of understanding of groundwater
conditions that we currently have which has provided for a mostly-seamless transition to the next phase of
sustainable groundwater management under SGMA. The future success of the BMO program can be enhanced
through the above recommendations that will help to improve public participation, program clarity, and efficiency
until the ordinance expires and transitions into the foundation for the next phase of sustainable groundwater
management under SGMA.
Recommendation
The Water Commission Subcommittee recommends that the Water Commission:
1. Support the recommendations of the Subcommittee.
2. Recommend to the Board of Supervisors that they adopt amendments to Chapter 33A and Water Advisory
Committee By-laws consistent with the recommendations and upon completion and consideration of a 30
day public comment period on the draft amendments.
TAC Agenda
Item #7
Butte County Department of Water and Resource Conservation
Groundwater Status Report
2018 Water Year
Submitted to TAC January 2019
Executive Summary - 2018 WY
The 2018 water year (WY) started out with a wet November, but dry conditions returned
continued through the rest of the winter months. Spring rains in March and April made a marked
improvement to the water year overall which ended with statewide precipitation amounts of
about 75% of average. The state's water supply conditions continued to benefit from the
abundant runoff of the previous wet 2017 WY which propped up reservoir storage throughout
2018 even with below average rainfall, snow pack and runoff conditions. Surface water supplies
from 2017 helped buffer the impacts of the warm and dry 2018 WY.
The 2018 WY began October 1, 2017 and was classified as a below normal water year type for
the Sacramento Valley. It followed a wet year, below normal year, two critical years, and a dry
year. According to the Northern Sierra Precipitation 8 Station Index, the 2018 WY ended on
September 30, 2018 with 41.0 cumulative inches of precipitation, 79%of the long-term average.
Another measure of hydrologic conditions is the amount of runoff to streams and rivers. The
Sacramento River Region unimpaired runoff during the 2018 WY was 12.7 million acre-feet
(MAF), which is about 71%of average and only about one third of the runoff that occurred in the
historically wet 2017 WY. April 1 snowpack statewide was 58%of the April 1 average. Although
there was below average rainfall and runoff, carryover storage in the reservoirs from 2017
resulted in statewide reservoir storage of 105% of the April 1 average.
A return of drier conditions in 2018 from the record wet year of 2017 once again brought modest
declines to groundwater levels, specifically in groundwater dependent areas of the county. The
Department, in cooperation with the Department of Water Resources Northern Region Office,
conducts four (spring, July, August, fall) groundwater level measurements annually. Spring
groundwater levels in 2018 were about 3 feet lower on average compared to the spring of 2017
(see Table ). Fall groundwater levels in October 2018 were about 1.3 feet lower on average
compared to October 2017. Almost half of the monitored wells with assigned alert stages remain
at a spring and/or fall alert stage 1 or 2 indicating levels remain near historical lows (Table 4 and
Table 5).
The Department conducted its seventeenth year of groundwater quality trend monitoring for
evidence of saline intrusion during July 23 through July 26, 2018. All samples were within the
acceptable range for electrical conductivity and pH, and temperatures remained relatively
consistent. The 2018 Water Quality Trend Monitoring Report can be found in Appendix D and
highlights are included later in this report.
Subsidence is monitored by periodic land surveys and by use of extensometers. No inelastic land
subsidence was detected in Butte County from an evaluation of the extensometer records in the
proposed Butte subbasin. A Sacramento Valley-wide GPS survey was conducted during 2017.
Results of the survey will be available in 2018 and will provide additional land subsidence data to
better measure and detect possible subsidence throughout the county.
i I lP E
Table of Contents
Executive Summary- 2017 Water Year
Foreword 1
Hydrologic Conditions 4
Precipitation 7
Feather River Surface Water Diversions 8
Groundwater Conditions 9
Monitoring Frequency 9
Groundwater Quality Trend Monitoring 9
Land Subsidence 11
Well Permits 13
Groundwater Level Monitoring 14
Change in Groundwater Levels: 2016 to 2017 16
Seasonal Groundwater Level Change 18
Basin Management Objectives (BMOs) 18
Well Numbering System Appendix A
Butte County Monitoring and CASGEM Network Maps Appendix B
Groundwater Level Alert Stage Maps Appendix C
2018 Water Quality Trend Monitoring Report Appendix D
Spring, Summer, &Fall BMO Summary Tables Appendix E
DWR Groundwater Level Contour&Change Maps Appendix F
ii I IPS
Foreword
This report presents the status of groundwater conditions and ground surface elevation
monitoring based on data collected by Butte County and the California Department of Water
Resources (DWR) during the 2018 Water Year (WY), October 1, 2017 - September 30, 2018. The
fall measurements taken in mid-October 2018 are also included since they reflect conditions and
activities of the 2018 WY. The report gives general information regarding locations of wells and
extensometers, statistics related to groundwater level trends and historical precipitation
information. This report was prepared by the Butte County Department of Water and Resource
Conservation (Department) with assistance from DWR, Northern Region and the Technical
Advisory Committee. This report complies with reporting requirements established in Chapter
33, Chapter 33A of the Butte County Code, and the California Statewide Groundwater Elevation
Monitoring program (CASGEM).
In November 1996, the voters in Butte County approved "AN ORDINANCE TO PROTECT THE
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES IN BUTTE COUNTY." One of the stated purposes of the ordinance
was that "the groundwater underlying Butte County is a significant water resource which must
be reasonably and beneficially used and conserved for the benefit of the overlying land by
avoiding extractions which harm the Butte Basin aquifer, causing exceedance of the safe yield or
a condition of overdraft."The ordinance is now codified as Chapter 33 of the Butte County Code
relating to groundwater conservation. Section 3.01 — "Groundwater Planning Process" requires
the preparation of a groundwater status report based upon the data gathered and analyzed
pursuant to Section 3.02—"Groundwater Monitoring". Until 2010, this reporting was completed
by the Butte Basin Water Users Association (BBWUA).
In 2000, the Butte County Board of Supervisors amended Chapter 33, the Groundwater
Conservation Ordinance, to require the Groundwater Status Report be delivered by February
21st of each year. In 2010, the Water Commission designated the Department of Water and
Resource Conservation as the entity responsible for creating and submitting the annual report.
Over the years, as responsibilities and water resource programs including advisory committees
have shifted more and more to the County,the Butte Basin Water Users Association participation
has declined. In 2012, its members voted to dissolve the organization, after twenty years of
serving the region.
In February 2004,the Butte County Board of Supervisors adopted the Groundwater Management
Ordinance which was codified as Chapter 33A of the Butte County Code. Chapter 33A calls for
the establishment of a monitoring network and Basin Management Objectives (BMOs) for
groundwater elevation, groundwater quality related to saline intrusion, and land subsidence.
The BMO concept was incorporated into California Water Code §10750 et. seq., as a component
of AB 3030 Groundwater Management Plans (GMPs). On September 28, 2004, the Butte County
Board of Supervisors formally approved Resolution 04-181 adopting the countywide AB 3030
GMP that includes the components of the BMO program. In 2011, Chapter 33A was amended
and retitled to "Basin Management Objectives (BMO)" and now requires the BMO report be
submitted in February of each year. The foregoing actions by the Board allow the reporting of
1I1PE
groundwater conditions from Chapter 33 and 33A to be consolidated into a single report to be
submitted by the Department on an annual basis in February.
The Groundwater Status Report is in the process of undergoing revisions over the next few years
in order to meet requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). On
September 16, 2014, Governor Brown signed into law a package of bills collectively called SGMA.
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires local management of groundwater
basins, and provides the state with broad oversight authority and the ability to intervene. Local
management of basins is the responsibility of a local public agency or combination of local
agencies that designate themselves as the "Groundwater Sustainability Agency" for all or a
portion of their basin or subbasin. Local public agencies eligible to be a Groundwater
Sustainability Agency (GSA) must have water supply, water management or land use
responsibilities. GSA formation was required byJune 30, 2017,with the consequence of the State
Water Board assuming management of any basins unable to meet these requirements. All four
of the original groundwater subbasins within Butte County have established GSAs covering the
entirety of the subbasins. Discussions among GSAs to establish governance structures for how
groundwater will be managed and Plans developed in these subbasins began in earnest in 2018
and will continue in 2019. Proposed basin boundary modifications are currently pending
approval by DWR and will reduce the number of subbasins from four to three: Vina, Butte, and
Wyandotte Creek subbasins. Groundwater Sustainability Agencies must prepare and implement
Groundwater Sustainability Plans ("Plan") for their basin/subbasin or their portion of their basin
or face the prospect of state intervention. Plans must be adopted by January 31, 2020 for basins
that are in critical overdraft condition or by January 31, 2022, for all other basins. Since the
subbasins in Butte County are not in critical overdraft, Plans will have to be submitted by January
31, 2022. Plans must contain the same elements as those in Groundwater Management Plans.
Additionally, Plans must include a water budget covering a 50 year planning horizon, measurable
objectives and interim milestones (every five years) that will lead to sustainability in 20 years.
Plans must address"undesirable results"that include chronic lowering of groundwater levels and
significant and unreasonable reduction in groundwater storage, degradation of water quality,
land subsidence and surface water depletions. Plans are exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act but projects or actions to implement the plan are not exempt.
Groundwater Sustainability Agencies must submit an annual report to DWR by April 1st. The
report must include the following information:
• Groundwater elevation data
• Annual aggregated data identifying groundwater extraction for the preceding WY
• Surface water supply used for, or available for use for groundwater recharge or in-lieu
use
• Total water use
• Change in groundwater storage.
The first annual report will not be required until 2023. The approach will be to modify this County
annual Groundwater Status Report to meet the requirements of the report that must be
submitted by GSAs for each subbasin.
2IPdge
In addition, in light of new requirements of SGMA, revisions to Chapter 33A are underway to
continue the transition from the BMO program to implementation of SGMA in each of the
subbasins in Butte County. The BMO program has been a critical component of the County's
water management effort. Over the past fourteen years the BMO program has made enormous
progress in developing, analyzing, and disseminating factual information on local groundwater
conditions. The strengths and benefits of the BMO program will be incorporated into the
governance, Plans, and outreach established under SGMA. As a result, revisions to Chapter 33A
will incorporate an expiration date for the ordinance of January 30, 2022 to align with the final
deadline for submittal of Plans to DWR under SGMA for subbasins in Butte County. In the
meantime, monitoring and reporting of groundwater conditions (levels, water quality, and land
subsidence) will continue, but will become consistent with the extents of the three subbasins
managed under SGMA and defined management areas will replace sub-inventory units for
reporting purposes. This annual report begins to make this transition in the tables and maps
included in the appendices.
The CASGEM program was amended to the Water Code in 2009 through the enactment of SBx7-
6, Groundwater Monitoring, as part of the Comprehensive Water Package. CASGEM mandates
statewide groundwater elevation monitoring to track seasonal and long-term trends in basins
throughout the state. The legislation created a statewide program to collect groundwater
elevation data, facilitate collaboration among monitoring entities, and develop a means of
reporting groundwater data to the public. The Department has this responsibility as the
monitoring and reporting entity for Butte County. As described in the Butte County CASGEM
Monitoring Plan, the Butte County CASGEM program will utilize approximately 72 wells from the
network for the CASGEM program. A map of these locations can be located in Appendix B. The
72 wells comprise primarily dedicated monitoring wells and some key wells identified in the
Annual Groundwater Status Report.
Data from published reports prepared for the Butte County Department of Water and Resource
Conservation are included throughout this document where relevant, and the referenced
documents are listed in Appendices or as references, as well as being available on the
Department's website at www.buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservation. All past years'
Groundwater Status Reports and BMO documents are also available on the Butte County
Department of Water and Resource Conservation website.
3IPdge
Hydrologic Conditions
There are a number of data sources and indices available to characterize hydrologic conditions.
The data sources typically report hydrologic data on a Water Year (WY) basis, or the 12-month
period from October through September.The 2018 WY began on October 1, 2017 and ended on
September 30, 2018. The 2018 WY was classified as below normal for the Sacramento Valley. At
the end of the 2018 WY on September 30, 2018,statewide hydrologic conditions were as follows:
precipitation was 75% of average; runoff was 70% of average; and reservoir storage, 100% of
average. Sacramento River Region unimpaired runoff observed through September 30, 2018 was
about 12.7 MAF, which is about 71%of average. For comparison,Table 1 shows the volume and
percent of average runoff for the previous WYs since the wet year in 2011.
Table 1. Sacramento River Region Unimpaired Runoff(Million Acre Feet)
WATER YEAR 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
UNIMPAIRED RUNOFF (MAF) 12.7 37.9 17.4 9.2 7.5 11.9 11.8 25.2
OF AVERAGE 71% 212% 98% 51% 41% 65% 65% 138%
The Northern Sierra 8-Station Precipitation Index(Figure 1) serves as a precipitation index for the
Sacramento River hydrologic region by averaging measurements taken at the following
precipitation stations: Blue Canyon, Brush Creek Ranger Station, Mineral, Mount Shasta City,
Pacific House, Quincy Ranger Station, Shasta Dam, and Sierraville Ranger Station.' This index
provides a representative sample of the region's major watersheds: the upper Sacramento,
Feather, Yuba, and American Rivers, which produce inflow to some of California's largest
reservoirs - the source of much of the state's water supply. The 2018 WY ended with 41.0
cumulative inches of precipitation which is 79% of the long term average. The 2018 WY curve is
labeled "2017-2018 (current)" on Figure 1.
' http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/products/PLOT_ESI.pdf
Wage
Northern Sierra Precipitation: 8-Station Index
100.............................. ................ ................. ...................................................................................... .................................................................................
95
(201 6 211 wettest)
90
85.
80
75
70
6
.770
-+ 60. a+
��
(2015-2016)
a
50.. ....k V ttir� ff"6t)4u �fli¶ rr - 0-
1-
M
-
mM 45 �•
m
7:1 40x i
35.
E 3� f'If.f H
(2013-2014 drought)
25
)
20
19 0
1923-1924 (driest) ra" •
17.
15
10 1976-1977
1977
5 (second driest)
Oct 1 Nov 1 Dec 1 Jan 1 Feb 1 Mar 1 Api 1 May 1 Jun 1 Jul 1 Aug 1 Sep 1 Oct 1
Water Year(October 1 - September 30)
Average a966-2015) —1923-1924(driest) —1976-1977(2nd Driest' 2013-2014 2015-2016
2016-2017(Wettest) ----2017-2018
Figure 1. Northern Sierra Precipitation: 8 Station Index
Figure 2 shows the WY type classifications based on the Sacramento Valley 40-30-30 Index going
back to 1960. The Sacramento Valley was classified as below normal for the 2018 WY with an
index value of 7.2 (Figure 2). WY classification systems provide a means to assess the amount of
water originating in a basin.
WY classification systems are useful in water planning and management and have been
developed for several hydrologic basins in California. The Sacramento Valley 40-30-30 Index was
developed by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for the Sacramento hydrologic
basins based on Sacramento River runoff. This system defines one "wet" classification, two
"normal"classifications(above and below normal), and two "dry"classifications(dry and critical),
for a total of five WY types.
51Pdgo
The Sacramento Valley 40-30-30 Index is computed as a weighted average of the current WY's
April-July runoff forecast (40 percent), the current WY's October-March runoff(30 percent), and
the previous WY's index (30 percent). A cap of ten MAF is put on the previous year's index to
account for required flood control reservoir releases during wet years. Sacramento River runoff
is the sum of the Sacramento River flow at Bend Bridge, Feather River inflow to Lake Oroville,
Yuba River at Smartville, and American River inflow to Folsom Lake'.
Sacramento Valley WY Hydrologic Classification is:
Year Type WY Index
Wet Equal to or greater than 9.2
Above Normal Greater than 7.8, and less than 9.2
Below Normal Greater than 6.5 and equal to or less than 7.8
Dry Greater than 5.4, and equal to or less than 6.5
Critical Equal to or less than 5.4
20
• Wet
Above Normal
Below Normal
- Dry
15 – _ • Critical
—Average 1960-2018
III
I I
0'
_s N N N N N N N N N N
CSDCC) (C) CC) COCC) COCOCI) CgCO (1) CC) (ID CO (.C) CC) COCC) CC) C) OC7C) C C? pC7C C7
C5) 0) C5) (3) C5) v C3OCOCCmGO (.C) COCOCC) COC OdC) C
N C3) 00 C N 0) CO C N C5) CO d N o) co ca N U7 co Q N (5) CX5
Figure 2. Sacramento Valley WY Type Index 40-30-30
2 http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/iodir/WSIH 1ST
6IPdge
Precipitation
Figure 3 shows the total annual precipitation at the Western Canal Station for the 58-year
period, WYs 1960 through 2018. Precipitation for the 2018 WY measured at Western Canal
Water District's Climatological Observation Station totaled 13.29 inches (63% of average). This
is 7.86 inches below the 50-year(1960-2010) average of 21.15 inches.
45 –
Annual Precipitation
40
—1960-2010 Average
35 (21.15 in.)
U)
.c 30
25
, , o , q
Y 20
15 I --
m
10 –
5 No
Data
0 IIIIIIIIlIkIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111 IIIIIIII1111114--
8 (-0` 1 S > . N N Ni N
R
CS) CL7 CO 0) CO CO CJ C0 O O
O U1 Q CFU O 01 0 CJt O C.n O CJi
Water Year
Figure 3. Annual Precipitation 1960-2018 WYs -Western Canal Climate Station
The timing of rainfall in the valley influences irrigation water use. The daily precipitation in the
2018 WY reported from the California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS)station
in Durham provides an indication of when and how much rainfall occurred and how that may
affect the irrigation season (Error! Reference source not found.).
2.5
In
t• 2 '..
C
.5
C
• .A. ........
0.5
I III II I
a
�f)' �`. U�` yb y4r yb b b yb yb yb ➢>
c;\,� ��� � y\� A`� �`�� \1 �v ��� \ \� \
�A 2 of 4 co\ \ \
Figure 4. Daily Precipitation (inches) - Durham CIMIS station
7IPdge
The graph of daily precipitation shows storm activity throughout the fall, winter, and spring with
only two separate storm events measuring over one inch of precipitation in a single day. During
the wet spring from April rains, the irrigation season began later than usual, likely near the
beginning of May. According to discussions with growers in the Durham / Chico area a
significantly increased amount of water use was required for frost protection this WY than in
years past. While the requirements varied by specific site, approximately 10-14 nights were
irrigated for frost protection throughout the spring from mid- to late-February, a few days
throughout March and into late-April.
Feather River Surface Water Diversions
Surface water is an important component of the water supply and has benefits to aquifer
recharge in the Butte Basin. During the 2018 WY, 937,004 acre-feet (AF) of surface water was
diverted by Western Canal Water District (WCWD) and the Joint Water Districts Board. The 2018
WY diversions increased by 56,371 AF from the 2017 WY amount and by approximately 295,000
AF more than in 2015. Rice growers participated in fallowing water transfers in 2018 and late
spring rains led to lower April water deliveries than in years with dry springs. In the 2015 WY,
WCWD and the Joint Water Districts Board had a 50% curtailment of their surface water
deliveries due to the drought. It was the first curtailment in 23 years. Reliable surface water
supplies reduce or eliminate the need for groundwater pumping, except when curtailments
occur, and provide some recharge to the basin. This results in generally shallow and stable
groundwater conditions in these district areas. Error! Reference source not found. summarizes
diversions in acre-feet to Western Canal Water District and the Joint Water Districts Board for
WYs 2000 to 2018.
Table 2. Surface Water Diversions (acre-feet)
Water Western Canal Joint Water
Year Water District Districts TOTAL
Board*
2000 314,737 707,018 1,032,392
2001 302,784 718,489 1,021,562
2002 305,460 597,529 902,989
2003 271,867 682,403 954,270
2004 329,700 790,663 1,120,363
2005 284,188 750,128 1,034,316
2006 294,898 743,345 1,038,243
2007 318,159 824,286 1,142,445
2008 332,500 740,748 1,073,248
2009 327,184 711,693 1,038,877
2010 313,196 689,518 1,002,714
2011 288,912 718,771 1,007,683
2012 309,213 706,671 1,015,884
8IPdge
2013 324,128 731,560 1,055,688
2014 319,073 654,696 973,769
2015** 249,965 392,091 642,056
2016 283,071 546,999 830,070
2017 263,179 617,454 880,633
2018 284,192 652,812 937,004
* Joint Water Districts Board includes Biggs-West Gridley Water District, Butte Water
District, Richvale Irrigation District, and Sutter Extension Water District.
** 50% Curtailment of surface water deliveries occurred this year due to drought
Groundwater Conditions
Monitoring Frequency
Butte County Code, Chapter 33 and 33A, calls for the establishment of a monitoring network for
groundwater quality related to saline intrusion, land subsidence, and groundwater levels. The
Groundwater Quality Trend Monitoring Program is designed to track single monitoring events
throughout the county during the peak irrigation season on an annual basis. The data is collected
each July or August at the peak of irrigation season to establish baseline levels across the county
to detect changes, which may require further investigation.
Monitoring frequency for land subsidence is conducted on a continuous basis by extensometers.
Groundwater level monitoring occurs four times per year. Sections 33-4 of the Butte County
Code enacted in 1996 and 33A-8 of the Butte County Code enacted in 2004 state that
groundwater level measurements shall be taken from all designated monitoring wells at least
four (4) times per year, during the months of March, July, August, and October. The California
Department of Water Resources(DWR)and the Butte County Department of Water and Resource
Conservation (Department) share the monitoring duties. DWR conducts the majority of the
spring, summer and fall measurements while the Department collects the July measurements.
Groundwater Quality Trend Monitoring
Temperature, pH, and electrical conductivity(EC) are recorded for water samples from a network
of thirteen wells throughout the county. These parameters provide the basis to evaluate for
evidence of saline intrusion.
9IPdge
Summary Highlights from 2018
• 12 of the 13 wells were sampled July 23, 2018 through July 26, 2018
• 1 well was temporarily inaccessible
• Temperatures remained relatively consistent in all water samples
• All measurements were within the acceptable range for pH
• All samples were within the acceptable range for electrical conductivity
• No evidence of saline intrusion was detected
Water quality parameters have naturally occurring variability, so year-to-year changes are
expected and nothing in this year's measurements give cause for further investigation or analysis.
Further investigation would be advisable if values were to fall outside of the acceptable range.
The 2018 Water Quality Trend Monitoring Report (Interdepartmental Memorandum) can be
found in Appendix D.
Program Background
The Butte County Groundwater Quality Trend Monitoring Program is required by the
Groundwater Conservation Ordinance (Chapter 33 of the Butte County Code) and administered
through the Basin Management Objective (BMO) Ordinance (Chapter 33A of the Butte County
Code). Degraded water quality is a common effect of over-utilizing groundwater resources and
can occur by saline intrusion from, among other sources, marine formations underlying
freshwater aquifers. In Butte County, the primary freshwater bearing formations include the
Tuscan Formations, and overlying alluvium deposits, basin deposits, and the Riverbank and
Modesto Formations. A number of marine formations beneath the Tuscan Formation make up
the underlying saline aquifer system.3 Increasing salinity in groundwater wells could indicate over
utilization of groundwater resources. To ensure sustainable management of local groundwater
resources, monitoring efforts need to provide baseline trends related to salinity. This program is
not designed to characterize specific groundwater contamination due to pollutants.
Results are evaluated against established water quality standards and BMOs. Data that fall
outside of a BMO for a specific parameter can trigger a BMO Alert Stage. For example, if the
temperature is more than five degrees outside of the historical range of measurements a BMO
Alert Stage is reached. If the pH is below 6.5 or above 8.5, a BMO Alert Stage is reached. A BMO
Alert Stage for electrical conductivity (EC) is reached if the measurements are greater than 900
microsiemens per centimeter (µS/cm) for drinking water or greater than 700 p.S/cm for
agricultural water use. These ranges are based on secondary water quality standards established
by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Secondary standards relate to the taste,
odor, color, corrosivity,foaming, and staining properties of water whereas primary standards are
based on health considerations.
2018 Results
To date, temperature has been relatively consistent in all wells. Temperature is a standard
parameter measured when assessing water quality and is important because it affects chemical
3 Fulton,Allan."Seeking an Understanding of the Groundwater Aquifer systems in the Northern Sacramento Valley:An Update".Article No.1—
September 2005
101 Page
reactions that may occur in groundwater. Also, considerable changes in temperature could be
an indication of other source waters migrating into the aquifer system such as stream seepage
or flow from a different aquifer system. All but one of the 2018 measurements were within 1.0°
Celcius (C) of the average temperature for each well. The Chico Urban well was 3.3 °C higher
than the well's recorded 11-year average. The 17-year temperature range for all wells was less
than 5°C. The lowest temperature reading was in the Thermalito well (17.8°C) and the highest
was in the Chico Urban well (22.6° C). At the Chico Urban well, temperature was recorded from
the first sample pulled after purging the well as it was deemed most representative of the
temperatures recorded.
Measurements for pH remained relatively stable compared to previous years. The lowest pH was
found in the Durham/Dayton area well (6.7) and the highest pH was found in the Llano Seco well
(7.8). All measurements for pH were well within the secondary water quality thresholds of 6.5 -
8.5.
Electrical conductivity(EC) measures the ability of a solution to conduct an electrical current due
to the presence of ions. Observed readings for electrical conductivity can have a large range, up
to 447 p.S/cm at a particular well (Western Canal-west), yet 2018 measurements were all well
within the secondary water quality thresholds established by State and Federal regulatory
agencies. The highest EC measurement was from the Esquon well (529 µS/cm) and the lowest
was from the Llano Seco well (186 µS/cm). The greatest change compared to 2017 EC levels
occurred in the M&T well which decreased in value by 161 µS/cm; however, his well has one of
the largest ranges of observed EC levels over its period of record, possibly due to previous varying
lengths of time the pump had been run from year to year before sampling prior to establishing
an effective purge time for EC stabilization.Appendix D contains a monitoring network map,data
tables and graphs.
Land Subsidence
Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth's surface owing to subsurface
movement of earth materials often caused by groundwater or oil extraction. To date, no inelastic
land subsidence has been recorded in Butte County. The potential effects of land subsidence
include differential changes in elevation and gradients of stream channels, drains, and water
transport structures, failure of water well casings due to compressive stresses generated by
compaction of aquifer systems, and compressional strain in engineering structures and houses.
Land subsidence in the Sacramento River, San Joaquin River, and Tulare Lake Basins would most
likely occur as a result of aquitard consolidation. An aquitard is a saturated geologic unit that is
incapable of transmitting significant quantities of water. As the pressure created by the height
of water (i.e. head) declines in response to groundwater withdrawals, aquitards between
production zones are exposed to increased vertical loads. These loads can cause materials in
aquitards to rearrange and consolidate leading to land subsidence. Factors that influence the rate
and magnitude of consolidation in aquitards include mineral composition, the amount of prior
consolidation, cementation, the degree of aquifer confinement, and aquitard thickness.
Subsidence has elastic and iineII,a ...0 deformation components. As the head lowers in the aquifer,
the load that was supported by the hydrostatic p„ress„u„re is transferred to the granular skeletal
11 I Page
framework of the formation. As long as the increased load on the formation does not exceed the
pre-Consollidation pressurE,, the formation will remain elastic. Under elastic conditions, the
formation will rebound to its original volume as hydrostatic pressure is restored. However, when
the head of the formation is lowered to a point where the load exceeds pre-consolidation
pressure, inelastic deformation may occur. Under inelastic consolidation, the formation will
undergo a permanent volumetric reduction as water is expelled from aquitards4.
Butte County will prevent or limit inelastic subsidence as required through Chapter 33. To
determine whether subsidence is occurring, three extensometers measure land surface
displacement in Butte County(Figure 5). These extensometers have a period of record beginning
in 2005 and continuously monitor for subsidence. Records are available by contacting DWR
Northern Region or from the DWR Water Data Library5. To date, no inelastic land subsidence has
been recorded in Butte County.
"1 ill 1,114101/;Iiiiikly II 11 II
II 1 111 ill', ',fis,,,,,illoiell11101110111,111111
1, 1,Piiio\„1011.11,111 110
f irtv, 11f
loil1ui /%% Fr
� U�� o � p!//'v'fe p�li
, 1 1 II III°11150 fl1,2#01E181.00/'11/441,04,1,
� r
d ]rj,,
k @
i 0111 11100,0000000,,,A,Ilio III
m t, 1 11010 000, / / 00011 19gr
'N4111'1111 10 1
�fl „ ,i0to 01111,1111), � �, ! 14Jt4 rw
is w ���
�t0 .1111k
ill i1
y,i'l 1,101M,P,,, r 1101,1. , 10 00.1i ,, ,,t1 0..1;0
! ”' ON k
110 „olio, ,, 1,1111,1111111111 11.
,,I 41,11111 1„„...*„ ,,,11 1 1111 1,11'10\lilillIlf/1,1111f,1'11'11‘,11,11111‘,11111,1111'11:111,1111 111
Figure 5. Extensometer Locations (daily data available online)
Extensometer data is shown in
ONOlE1LOO1II
o
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
U.:➢.
aii ...0.2
0 0.3
C7
0.4
0.5
4 http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/pubs/fs00165/
5 http://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/docs/Hydstra/index.cfm
12 1 P a g E
Figure 6 for each monitoring station. For practical purposes, the error in measurements is about
+/- 0.01 feet so the graphs include only changes in negative displacement greater than this
amount within a 24 hour period indicating subsidence (rather than uplift). Data is available
through August 8, 2018. In addition, a Sacramento Valley-wide GPS survey was conducted during
2017. Results of the survey are expected to be available in 2019 and will provide additional land
subsidence data to better measure and detect possible subsidence throughout the county.
1 NC)1E35LOO1II
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
..• .0.2
cu
O ...0.
C7
0.4
0.�
19N01E35 00 II
111111111112004 200. 2008 2010 2012 2014 016 2018
0.:➢.
aI ...0.2
O 0.3
C7
0.4
0.�
20N01E18L001M
0
2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018
0.:➢.
ai ...0.2
O 0.3
C7
0.4
0.�
Figure 6. Ground Surface Displacement (GSD) in Feet
Well Permits
131 Page
Well permits are issued by the Butte County Department of Environmental Health for all water
wells drilled throughout the county. Although the number of well permit applications does not
necessarily reflect the number of wells actually drilled, the numbers provide a general indication
of the development of the groundwater resource and potential drilling activities. According to
the 2016 Water Inventory and Analysis Report, Butte County has over 12,000 domestic wells and
2,500 irrigation wells. When combined with municipal, monitoring and other well types (stock
water, test wells, abandoned, or unidentified wells) the total well count in the county is about
17,5546. Table shows the number of well permit applications received by the Department of
Environmental Health for the following categories from 2006 - 2018: Small Diameter, Large
Diameter, and Well Repairs and Deepening. Each of the categories is described below Table .
Table 3. Number of Well Permit Applications Per Water nnunn Year
7111111411111
1111111, VV mmun 1111111 �Il niniI®i num��i�i `�'i W l ennnnnn ]111110
V�u VV n:00o Ili uN�Uu 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Ann= noV VIum pllmomm
i®il
Small 260 228 176 188 140 77 1102 221 259 175 129 95 129
Diameter
Large
Diameter 17 24 36 29 16 16 21 J 28 71 68 37 17 30
Well
Repair& 4 9 15 20 10 9 7 10 17 19 10 1 **
Deepening
*2006, 2011 and 2017 were wet years, all others are below normal, dry, or critical WYs
**The number of well repair and/or deepening in 2018 were not available at the time of reporting and are
included in the total number of small and large diameter wells listed
Small Diameter-wells with a casing diameter of eight inches or less.
Large Diameter-wells with a casing diameter greater than eight inches, generally for irrigation.
Well Repairs& Deepening-an existing well is deepened to access groundwater in a deeper zone of the
aquifer likely because the water level in the well has fallen below the bottom of the well.
Well deepening permits are an indication that the existing well infrastructure is not sufficient
given the current groundwater levels. During dry periods and drought as water levels fall in areas
with heavy groundwater use (i.e. Durham / Dayton, Vina, Chico Urban Area, etc.), shallower
domestic wells become especially vulnerable and may "go dry." This means the groundwater
level in the well falls below the elevation of the pump in the well or below the bottom of the well
itself. In this case, the pump can be lowered if the well is deep enough and allows for that. This
does not require a permit from the County. If the well is not deep enough, it may be possible to
deepen it. Well permits are issued for this activity and homeowners should enlist a licensed well
driller to conduct the work.
Groundwater Level Monitoring
Groundwater levels typically fluctuate seasonally and from year to year. Seasonal fluctuation of
groundwater levels occur in response to groundwater pumping and recovery, land and water use
activities, recharge, and natural discharge. Precipitation, applied irrigation water, local creeks
and rivers, and the Thermalito Forebay and Afterbay all recharge groundwater in Butte County.
6 Butte County Water Inventory and Analysis, 2016
141 IP °
Groundwater pumping for irrigation typically occurs April - September although depending on
the timing of rainfall, it may shift earlier and later. Consequently, groundwater levels are usually
highest in the spring and lowest during the irrigation season in the summer months.
Long-term fluctuations occur when there is an imbalance between the volume of water
recharged into the aquifer and the volume of water removed from the aquifer, either by
extraction or natural discharge to surface water bodies. If, over a period of years, the amount of
water recharged to the aquifer exceeds the amount of water removed from the aquifer, then
groundwater levels will increase. Conversely, if, over time, the amount of water removed from
the aquifer exceeds the amount of water recharged then groundwater levels decline.These long-
term changes can be linked to various factors including increased or decreased groundwater
extraction or variations in recharge associated with wet or dry hydrologic cycles.
Currently 130 wells are monitored for groundwater levels in Butte County as part of the BMO
program (79 of them are assigned BMO spring alert levels). These wells consist of a mixture of
domestic and irrigation wells, along with dedicated observation wells and ten Cal Water
municipal supply wells in Chico and Oroville. Approximately 59 of the wells measured by DWR
and the Department are equipped with data loggers (i.e. transducers) which continuously
monitor and record hourly changes in groundwater levels. These and the remaining wells are
measured by hand four times per-year, in March,July, August, and October. From 2014 to 2016,
groundwater levels were measured monthly from April through October due to severe drought
conditions. The approximate locations of groundwater level wells monitored in Butte County are
shown in Appendix B. The groundwater level monitoring methods are consistent with the
procedures described in the Department of Water Resources'Groundwater Elevation Monitoring
Guidelines (December 2010).
Groundwater elevations are measured using a steel tape,electric sounder, or by transducers.The
accuracy of the groundwater level measurement ranges from 0.01 feet to 0.1 feet is
approximately one-tenth of a foot. In addition to the groundwater level monitoring conducted
by Butte County and the DWR, California Water Service Company currently measures monthly
groundwater levels in approximately sixty municipal groundwater supply wells in the Chico Urban
and Oroville areas. Ten of these wells are included in the BMO program and assigned alert stages.
Data from groundwater level monitoring can be obtained through DWR and the Department's
websites. The primary access to the data is through the California Statewide Groundwater
Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) program (https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-
Management/Groundwater-Elevation-Monitoring--CASGEM). The CASGEM program was part of
legislation passed in 2009, SBx7-6, which mandates statewide groundwater elevation monitoring
to track seasonal and long-term trends in basins throughout the state. As a result of this
legislation, DWR migrated the groundwater level data from the Water Data Library (WDL) to the
CASGEM database. DWR has reintroduced access to groundwater monitoring data through an
updated WDL (http://wdl.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/). Groundwater level data is also
7 https://water.ca.gov/-/media/DWR-Website/Web-Pages/Programs/Groundwater-
Management/CASGEM/Files/CASGEM-DWR-GW-Guidelines-Final-121510.pdf
151 Page
available through DWR's online SGMA Data Viewer tool
(https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer). Summary data tables of
groundwater surface elevations from spring, summer, and fall measurements are included in
Appendix E and are available from the Department's website.
Change in Groundwater Levels: 2017 to 2018
The 2018 WY was classified as a below normal year with relatively dry conditions as measured by
the Northern Sierra 8 Station Index. Groundwater conditions responded as expected to the dry
winter as compared to the previous WY which was recorded as the wettest year on record with
generally lower groundwater levels in 2018 compared to 2017. The overall average change in
observed groundwater levels from spring 2017 to spring 2018 was a decrease of three feet. Of
the 117 comparable wells, 19 of them had a higher spring level compared to 2017. The average
increase was 2.4 feet and of the 95 wells that had lower measurements in 2018 compared to
2017, the average decrease was about 4.1 feet (Table ). The below normal winter conditions of
WY 2018 which followed the wettest WY on record yet, led to lower groundwater levels,
particularly in the areas to the east of Chico, CA and Durham, CA areas which also experienced
some of the greatest declines during the 2012-2015 drought period. In general, decreases in
groundwater levels throughout the basin in 2018 were in line with the declines observed in dry
and critical WYs (from spring 2013 to spring 2015 depending on the site), and although this WY
followed the wettest year on record, the 2017 WY conditions were not enough to compensate
for the cumulative effect of multiple dry years of the drought.
Table 4. Groundwater Elevation Change - Spring 2017 to Spring 2018
Number of Wells Change (ft) SIU
117 Average GWL Change -3.0
Median GWL Change -2.6
19 Average Increase 2.4
Median Increase 1.4
Max Increase 12.1 Wyandotte Creek
95 Average Decrease -4.1
Median Decrease -3.3
Max Decrease -13.1 Wyandotte Creek
Note: Groundwater level measurements characterized as "Questionable measurements" i.e.
measurements taken during pumping, when nearby pumps were operating or taken from wells
pumped recently were not included and five wells measured had no groundwater level change
between Spring of 2017 and Spring of 2018
Summer measurements, as required by Chapter 33A, are conducted in July and August each year
during peak pumping for irrigation. This results in more questionable measurements because
measured or nearby wells are more likely to be pumping during the irrigation season than in the
spring or fall. However, a number of wells in certain areas have a qualitative BMO related to
maintaining summer groundwater levels at a level that will assure an adequate and affordable
irrigation groundwater supply. Therefore, even though the data is less consistent because of
161 IP °
direct pumping effects on water elevations, it provides a baseline for summer groundwater
conditions on a regional scale. The summer groundwater levels in 2018 were 3.7 feet higher on
average compared to groundwater levels in 2017
Table ). Even with questionable measurements included, these measurements and comparisons
primarily reflect static groundwater conditions (non-pumping).
Table 5. Groundwater Elevation Change - Summer 2017 to Summer 2018
Number of wells Change(fit.) Area
113 Average GWL Change -3.7
Median GWL Change -3.7
18 Average Increase 1.2
Median Increase 0.5
Max Increase 7.5 Vina South
94 Average Decrease -4.7
Median Decrease -44
Max Decrease -18.2 Vina South
Note: Groundwater level measurements characterized as "Questionable measurements" i.e.
measurements taken during pumping,when nearby pumps were operating or taken from wells pumped
recently are included in the data due to the frequency of these observed field conditions and one well
measured had no groundwater level change between Summer of 2017 and Summer of 2018.
Like spring levels, fall water levels in 2018 decreased in most areas compared to 2017 fall levels
by an overall average change of 1.3 feet (Table 3). Of the 121 comparable well measurements,
19 of them had a higher 2017 fall level (average increase of 1.9 feet)than the corresponding 2017
fall measurement. Of the 99 measurements that were lower in 2018 compared to 2017, the
average decrease was 2.6 feet. Hydrographs of individual groundwater level conditions in
specific wells provide greater historical context for groundwater level trends
(https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer) and the groundwater level
change maps (Appendix F) show where the greatest changes occurred.
171 IPE
Table 3. Groundwater Elevation Change - Fall 2017 to Fall 2018
Number of wells Change(ft.) Area
121 Average GWL Change -1.3
Median GWL Change -1.8
19 Average Increase 1.9
Median Increase 1.5
Max Increase 5.0 Wyandotte Crk. Oroville
99 Average Decrease -2.6
i
,,. ..Medan Decrease
crease -2.4
Max Decrease -10.2 Butte
Note: Groundwater level measurements characterized as "Questionable measurements" i.e.
measurements taken during pumping, when nearby pumps were operating or taken from wells
pumped recently are not included in the data and three wells measured had no groundwater
level change between Fall of 2017 and Fall of 2018.
Seasonal Groundwater Level Change
In areas dependent on groundwater supplies for irrigation, groundwater levels decline as pumps
turn on and the irrigation season progresses. To capture the effect of irrigation season pumping
on groundwater conditions, summer levels are compared to spring levels of the same year. Table
compares groundwater levels in spring 2018 to summer 2018. Overall, the average decrease
from spring of 2018 to summer of 2018 was 11.1 feet.
Table 7. Groundwater Elevation Change - Spring 2018 to Average Summer 2018
Number of wells Change(ft) Area.
122 Average GWL Change -10.4
Median GWL Change -10.1
6 Average Increase 1.1
Median Increase 0.4
Max Increase 3.5 Butte
115 Average Decrease -11.1
Median Decrease -10.6
Max Decrease -38.3 Vina South
Note: Groundwater level measurements characterized as "Questionable measurements" i.e.
measurements taken during pumping, when nearby pumps were operating or taken from wells pumped
recently are included in the data due to the frequency of these observed field conditions and one well
measured had no groundwater level change between Fall of 2017 and Fall of 2018.
Basin Management Objectives (BMOs)
BMOs are established for most of the wells in the monitoring network (79 of 130 wells for spring
measurements and 66 of 129 for fall). BMOs are determined from historical data collected for
the specific well. When a measurement fails to achieve the BMO for the well, a BMO Alert Stage
18 I IP g r
is reached. When a BMO Alert Stage is reached, the Department increases outreach to
stakeholders, seeks an evaluation by the Technical Advisory Committee and may conduct
additional monitoring. Under the BMO program, stakeholders participate in the evaluation and
outreach of BMO data,and this will continue throughout the BMO program transition into a more
relevant and enforceable the next year.The BMOs provide a standardized way to evaluate spring
and fall changes in groundwater levels. Two methods are used to determine BMOs, as described
in Chapter 33A.
Historic Range Method
This method has two procedures depending upon the period of record for the well. The first
procedure is for wells that have a period of record dating back to at least 1970. Measurements
up through 2006 are used to set the BMO. The BMO is set by taking the historical low reading
and adding 20% of the range of measurements, calculated from the first year on record through
2006. Measurements below the BMO and above the historical low would indicate an Alert Stage
1. Measurements at or below the historical low would indicate an Alert Stage 2. The
measurements plotted after 2006 are for reference purposes only, and are not included in the
calculation of the range.
The second procedure is for wells that have a period of record beginning after 1970. For these
wells, the historical low measurement prior to 2006 indicates an Alert Stage 1. The historical low
measurement minus the range of measurements indicates an Alert Stage 2. The measurements
plotted after 2006 again are for reference purposes only, and are not included in the calculation
of the range.
Specific Depth Method
For this method, the BMO is set at five feet below the average spring groundwater level
calculated for the well. An Alert Stage 1 is reached if the spring measurement falls five feet below
the average groundwater level (calculated from the first year on record through 2006). An Alert
Stage 2 is reached if spring groundwater levels, for a second consecutive year, remain five feet
below the average groundwater level established for the well. An Alert Stage 3 is reached if the
spring groundwater level falls ten feet below the average spring groundwater level established
for the well. All of the SlUs previously established for this program utilize the historical range
method, except for Richvale and Western Canal which use the specific depth method. The
specific depth method does not have corresponding fall BMOs.
Summary of Alert Stages Reached
A number of wells reached Alert Stages for both spring and fall BMOs in 2018. No wells reached
an Alert Stage 3 (specific depth method only). The number of wells at an Alert Stage for 2008-
2018 spring and fall BMOs are shown in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively.
Table 4. Spring BMO Alert Stages
om L,11
1'1111 . '' TED loom ,�' � �� �I1I M °�IV r 1 IIJ
iol � 1 11041‘ °�IV I1I *oull �IV IV
Alert 1 26 31 25 24 25 20 24 21 17 13 17
Alert 2 0 6 3 0 4 15 21 25 25 11 19
191 IPE
Alert 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 26 37 28 24 29 35 45 46 42 24 36
Table 5. Fall BMO Alert Stages
00 ur union 00000100000
000001 0000110000
oolor 001r
p error op op ou II, p pruo p or pruo Imo p pruo
00 or000000 rum ou ou ou um ou Ho ou um uou noun
Alert 1 27 29 24 7 26 23 21 16 21 22 23
Alert 2 2 1 2 2 6 16 19 25 18 8 13
Total 29 30 26 9 32 39 40 41 39 30 36
*Alert 3 only applies to spring measurements
Additional details on groundwater conditions for specific wells can be found in the DWR SGMA
Data viewer tool (https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer). Previous
annual reports included individual BMO reports prepared for the sixteen SlUs in Butte County
located in one of four groundwater sub-basins: Wyandotte Creek, East Butte, West Butte, and
Vina. As the Department continues to adaptively manage SGMA responsibilities and transition
this annual report to meet GSP requirements some changes are underway including the removal
of individual SIU BMO reports from the annual report. Future annual reports/GSPs will provide
information regarding groundwater conditions and the sustainability of current and future
groundwater management will be not only be more relevant, but also more enforceable.
The BMO reports from previous annual reports can be accessed from the Department's website
under 'REPORTS' then 'GROUNDWATER STATUS REPORT' and 'View Previous Reports' at:
http://www.buttecounty.net/waterresourceconservation.
20 I II d go
Groundwater Status Report
AI 1001 000I 0000" """ ' un° 0000 000 1 x A
Well Numbering System
Butte 0 nunty \/Vat lr an Illinsura 1 0 unnIrvalin un
APPENDIX A
WELL NUMBERING SYSTEMS
To develop the groundwater level BMOs, all existing monitoring wells were
identified for each BMO sub-inventory unit. These wells are currently monitored
either by public or private entities within a given sub-inventory unit, or they are
monitored as part of the DWR, Northern District groundwater levels monitoring
program. To distinguish and locate these monitored wells an alphanumeric
name, or ID, is used. All BMO Key Wells identified for each sub-inventory unit are
referenced by these unique ID's. Wells that are not part of the DWR monitoring
network are typically assigned a local ID. Wells that are part of the DWR
monitoring network are identified by the State Well Numbering System. This
system is very useful in locating points on the ground, such as groundwater wells
in areas with few identifying landmarks. Under this system, each well is assigned
a unique number referred to as the State Well Number. This system is described
further below.
State Well Numbering System
(Reference: Water Facts:Numbering Water Wells in California, No. 7, June 2000)
The State's well-numbering system is based on a rectangular system called the
"United States System of Surveying in the Public Lands," commonly referred to
as the "Public Lands Survey," established by the Continental Congress in 1784.
The Public Lands Survey system has been employed by DWR, USGS, and other
agencies for over 50 years. This system allows for a unique ID to be assigned to
each well. These unique ID's are made up of several components, each of which
is described below.
Initial Point and Corresponding Base & Meridian Pair. Under this system all
tracts of land are referenced to an Initial Point. This Initial Point is defined by the
intersection of a north-south line called the Meridian and an east-west line called
the Base. In California there are three Initial Points each with a corresponding
Base and Meridian Pair, and all of the BMO Key Wells are referenced to the Mt.
Diablo Base and Meridian.
Range and Township Lines. Longitudinal lines are established at six-mile
increments from the Initial Point and are east or west of the Meridian. These
longitudinal lines are called Range Lines. Latitudinal lines also set at six-mile
increments from the Initial Point are parallel to, and north or south of the Base.
These latitudinal lines are known as Township Lines. This pattern of longitudinal
and latitudinal lines defines a grid pattern consisting of 36-square-mile parcels of
land. These 36-square-mile parcels are referred to as Townships. Each
Township is referenced to an Initial Point by the number of 36-square-mile
parcels and direction from that Initial Point.
Sections. Every Township is further divided in to 36 parts called Sections. A
Section is a square parcel of land one-mile on a side, containing 640 acres.
Tract. Each Section is further divided into sixteen 40-acre parcels called Tracts.
Each Tract is labeled with a letter. Once the well's location is established in the
40-acre Tract it is assigned a Sequence Number. These Sequence Numbers are
assigned in chronological order (see Figure G).
State Well Number. The State Well Number is composed of the various
components described above, including Township, Range, Section, Tract,
Sequence Number, and Base & Meridian Pair.
RIW RIE R2E R3E R4E
;iiiu';iiu•
TAN
vmTSN
111 11110h1
muR un vauimv a pl r l
kYl l / 1
T2N /1000.11111 1
1 iii ill,
.,,,,,,,,
TIN 1 „ 1 „II Hy.
/ 111 l!
Groundwater Status Report
AI 1001 0001 101010" """ 0 0 0 um'0 101010 000000 1 X 0 :
Butte County Monitoring & CASGEM Network
Butt 1 Cuunty \/Vat lr an Illinsura 1 CunnIraatin
( I fir)
BUTTE COUNTY i i ...0
Legend
Monitoring Wells 0 Groundwater Level Well- Measured Mar, Jul, Aug, and Oct
o Groundwater Level Recorded Hourly
BMO Water Quality Trend Monitoring Well
n....,'iun'in'i 1 4 /M►
y 3H02 ■■■ Extensometer, Measures Land Subsidence
9E01 w 11—i 106 S0118A01 Primary Streams
14R02 �
��
o
2SC08M03 28M05 25G01 �29L03
028M� 29P' �-'� 33A01
31M0331M04 „
•: 1M02 / 36Pa�
O5M01
� � °ati 09801
11
s F f
�� 9P
i
18J14" 1/1
•
15E02
11A0 11A03 10803 0
011A01 08K02
12D01
0 'W7218«1'
13 1213J03 15E02 018 '141W �, - 0 13 21Co 1,502
23 WL0313L04 20P01 f
:;) yC 1 26K01 26 , 26E06 29J1 29J0 26 +1 p
DO• 3e 01 •r.E04 �B„ :�1, V, Lr,w np,�
5K02 �2Q01'32E01 26E03
p-00!)
A 04J01 02H03 09Gs
10000
�,. , UN; 0 E309L0192 �
Ti ® 149
15D01 ; SR01
-°'/• 24C13
18LJ 8L03 • • .'Q01 70
■•� 2,T
� �•r8L01
-n- / 35C01 Jr;128N01
31M01 33L01
/ •' 0 6E02 '
/"
05NO2 -
09Q01 /07K0307K04 001 iVlllr. "
07K�17A0115N' 3Q0 16Q01 o mero�u ,4,0,0000"1/4,,,,..
--Pc l r Ir!"13Q01
'3C4e2mi'mmn
7Q01 B3.+5B03 i' 31 F01
--- �r ---- -®•�.,..� a------ --�--- ,,
08B 3
6$M01 16C01
5D02 13A02/
16F01 I S ,018F01
M
2 x.11
■
2S 01 / lo/ 25N01
/ 5L01 32H01 0
NaiNair 405 0t03D��
10A01 "�
M 14A01CII° 08K02 13802 09NO2
1F0g \124A0524A061611 22B0
24A03224AR19J01
0 1 2 4 6 8
Miles