STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD 

Division of Water Quality 

WATER QUALITY PLANNING GRANT PROGRAM - PHASE X 

under Section 205 (j)(2) of the Clean Water Act 


Proposal for

A WATER BUDGET OF THE SCOTT RIVER WATERSHED

Prepared by the

SISKIYOU RESOURCE CONSERVATION DISTRICT 

and the 

SCOTT RIVER WATERSHED COORDINATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 

PLANNING (CRMP) COMMITTEE 

P.O. Box 268 

Etna, California 96027 

(916) 467-3975 

July 7, 1995  
WORK PLAN 

A WATER BUDGET OF THE SCOTT RIVER WATERSHED 
CONTENTS  Statement of Objectives Summary

Background Agency Organization Project Managment and Control Task 1 Task 2 Task 3 Task 4 Task 5 Task 6



A. STATEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of this project are: 1) to develop an improved understanding of the hydrologic water balance for the Scott River system; 2) to identify, as a result, potential locations and methods to achieve adequate flows in the Scott River system to protect the migration, spawning and rearing needs of the salmon and steelhead stocks while also protecting other beneficial uses; and 3) to describe the results to the Scott River Watershed Coordinated Resource Management Planning (CRMP) committee and work with them in developing implementation strategies.

Inadequate streamflow is a commonly identified problem of the Scott River, particularly in Scott Valley, and it directly affects other local water quality problems, such as high temperature and nutrient levels. The Scott River is a targeted watershed for nonpoint source management (see 303(d) list). Low flows in the Scott River and tributaries have caused poor holdover of adult salmon until spawning, blocked access to upstream spawning areas, and reduced availability of spawning sites.

This water budget study is a high priority recommendation of the Scott River Fall Flows Action Plan (1995 Working Plan) approved by the Scott River Watershed CRMP committee. The CRMP represents a local volunteer effort by a diverse cross-section of the local community, including landowners, water users, agencies, and environmental groups.

B. SUMMARY 

C. BACKGROUND 

1. General 

The Scott River watershed is a sub-basin of the Klamath River Basin and is located in central Siskiyou County, California (Figure 1). About 800 square miles in area, the sub-basin's elevation ranges from 8300 feet in the Marble and Salmon Mountains to just under 2000 feet at the river's mouth. The Scott River originates in snow-fed headwaters on primarily U.S. Forest Service lands, slows down (River Mile 56) in the large alluvial Scott Valley (about 70,000 acres) composed of private farmland, and then drops (RM 21) again into a narrow forested canyon of mostly public land. Rainfall at Fort Jones in Scott Valley averages 17.47 inches.

Beneficial uses of the Scott River include agricultural supply, cold freshwater habitat (particularly for chinook and coho salmon, steelhead trout), municipal and domestic supply, groundwater recharge, water contact and non-contact recreation, fish migration, and fish spawning. The use of the river system by salmon and steelhead is impaired because of inadequate streamflows and temperature conditions, according to the California Dept. of Fish and Game. In recent drought years, insufficient streamflow during the fall months has impeded migration and spawning by fall chinook salmon into Scott Valley and upper tributaries (about 35 miles total) where good spawning habitat exists. Chinook spawning escapement estimates for the Scott have declined from an annual average of 10,000 in the 1960s to 3,100 in recent years. Fisheries restoration of the depressed Klamath River Basin stocks is a high priority of Congress, who established a Klamath River Basin Fisheries Program under PL 99-552 in 1986.

Determining the cause and solution of this flow inadequacy is the critical need for the proposed project. In 1975, the SWRCB did a report on the hydrogeologic conditions of Scott Valley as part of the Scott River Adjudication (finalized in 1980). Limited field work in the summer of 1972 by its staff provided a rudimentary stream budget for the months of July and August 1972. The diagrams depict inflow and outflow quantities at major tributaries and diversions. Since that time, changes have occurred in water use and management in the valley, some directly as a result of the adjudication. Ground water was determined to be interconnected with surface water through a large section of the valley and, as a result, many water users changed from direct surface diversion to well use as it is a more reliable source. The effects of this sustained pumping on the water table, ground water recharge rate and the surface flow after irrigation season are not known.

Irrigation of about 34,000 acres of alfalfa, pasture, and grain in Scott Valley uses about 98,100 acre-feet per year (applied water) or about 78,000 af/y of net water use, according to the Calif. Dept. of Water Resources. About 155 diversion ditches provide surface water for irrigation and stockwatering throughout the valley in addition to the irrigation wells. While ditch water loss returns to the ground water and may eventually return as surface flow, concern is raised by fishery biologists over the timing and location of this return flow and the impact on spawning conditions. More information is needed on the return rate, quantity, and location of ditch seepage to streams during the fall months. (Urban water use is estimated at 1,800 af/y for a population of about 8,000.)

Since proposed solutions to the streamflow inadequacy problem could possibly affect the agricultural community economically, the CRMP decided to pursue this water budget to better identify the locations and solutions which will be most cost-effective. In addition, the CRMP and the RCD have pursued other watershed restoration solutions: livestock exclusion fencing, riparian planting, fish screening, erosion control on roads, for example.

A coordinated Scott River temperature monitoring program began in 1995 through the RCD and will complement this water budget project as one of the budget matches. This monitoring effort has a Quality Assurance Plan prepared by the California Dept. of Fish and Game.

2. Expected Implementation 

The Scott River Watershed CRMP committee is the best "implementing agency" for the recommendations from this study, while the Siskiyou RCD can continue to serve as the sponsoring fiscal agency. The CRMP process is a popular process involving natural resource owners, managers, and users working together as a team to develop solutions for selected resource problems. Consensus is a fundamental element of CRMO since concurrence by all participants is needed for win/win rather than win/lose solutions. Through communication, compromise, and cooperation, recommendations are made which will have a higher likelihood of support and success than those made in isolation.

The Scott CRMP was formed as a need for the community to become pro-active in resource management issues in Scott Valley. Since its first meeting in September 1992, the group has had monthly meetings which serve as a forum for all viewpoints to be shared and a springboard for cooperative actions to take place. In 1995, the committee approved a Fall Flows Action Plan and a Fish Habitat and Population Plan. This continued process is essential to achieving community agreement on solutions and should be used by the SWRCB as a logical, voluntary approach for solving watershed problems.

D. AGENCY ORGANIZATION 

The proposed project will be administered by the Siskiyou Resource Conservation District (RCD) as the lead agency. This special district is overseen by an elected 5 member Board of Directors and its daily operations are managed by the District Manager and projects carried out by a Project Coordinator. The District Manager will be responsible for the overall project administration, but the project management and technical coordination of the project will be handled by the District's consultant, who is on contract to the Board.

The RCD is also the sponsoring agency of the Scott River Watershed CRMP group and will provide coordination with the CRMP on this project.

E. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL 

The Siskiyou RCD is the lead agency that is responsible for project management and control. The Project Manager will be the district's consultant, Dr. Sari Sommarstrom, who has considerable experience in the watershed both as a researcher and as the Program Coordinator to the Scott Watershed CRMP. She will be responsible for providing guidance and monitoring of workplan and contract compliance, preparing quarterly progress reports, and conferring regularly with the State Board Project Officer. The District Manager, responsible for bookkeeping and other administrative matters, is Gena Evans.

It is anticipated that the RCD will be subcontracting with the Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of California at Davis to analyze the field data and develop the final water balance, while the RCD will provide the staff for the field data collection. The Project Manager will coordinate at least monthly with the subcontractor to ensure that the project's tasks are being met properly and on schedule. She will directly oversee the RCD staff in field data collection to ensure that these tasks are accomplished correctly and efficiently.

Both the RCD's District Manager and consultant have experience with the State's 319(h) grant process from a FY 1994 project (granted to the RCD through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). We have worked closely and well with that project's manager from the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board and feel confident that the RCD can successfully administer another state grant from the SWRCB. In addition, the RCD has many years of experience in successfully completing projects funded by other state and federal agencies, such as the California Dept. of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

F. WORK DESCRIPTION 

TASK 1. PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION 

Subtask 1.1 Project Management 

Subtask 1.2 Quarterly Progress Report 

Subtask 1.3 Data Management 

Product:

Subtask 1.4 Subcontract 

Product: 

TASK 2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 

Subtask 2.1 Confer with Scott River Watershed CRMP prior to data collection. 

The CRMP shall be conferred with prior to initiation of Task 3.1.

Product: Responsiveness Survey

Subtask 2.2 Confer periodically with CRMP Water Subcommittee during study 

Product: Responsiveness Surveys (40 CFR part 25 - Public Participation)

Subtask 2.3 Submit and discuss draft report and recommendations to CRMP Water Subcommittee and Committee 

Product: Responsiveness Survey

TASK . DEVELOP QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN (QA PLAN)

[NOTE: This task is required if water quality data are to be generated by the project. The current Scott River Temperature Monitoring Program data could qualify if it is used as part of the match for this project.]

Product: QA Plan

TASK 3. ASSESS AND MEASURE SCOTT RIVER HYDROLOGY 

Subtask 3.1 Collect and Compile Existing Hydrologic Data 

Scott River USGS Gage Station data 1941-present

CDWR Well Monitoring data (5 wells in valley)

Previous gage station data for tributaries

Evapotranspiration data (UCCE or CDWR?)

Scott River Temperature Monitoring database (includes meteorology: rainfall, snowpack, air temperature, cloud cover)

Product:

Subtask 3.2 Determine Locations of new Data Collection 

Major tributaries

Major diversions

Mainstem Scott River

Well locations with and without interconnecting surface water

Agricultural returns

Product:

Subtask 3.3 Collect stream discharge and ground water level data 

How / Methods:

Parshall Measuring Flumes for tribs

Current meters for mainstem Scott

Staff gages for diversions with headgates

Stevens Contact Meters for well measurement

CDWR gage station on French Creek

When / Frequency:

Who: RCD Staff

Watermaster

Americorps staff

High school students

Product: 

TASK 4. ANALYZE HYDROLOGY FIELD DATA 

Subtask 4.1 Combine Water Quantity Data with Compiled Meteorological Data 

Scott River Temperature Monitoring Program database

Product:

Subtask 4.2 Evaluate

Product:

Subtask 4.3

Product:

The effects of this sustained pumping on the water table and the recharge rate after irrigation season are not known. 

TASK 5. IMPLEMENTATION, INSTITUTIONAL, AND FINANCIAL PLANNING 

Subtask 5.1 Prepare Implementation Plan 

Product: Draft Implementation Plan

Subtask 5.2 Prepare Implementation Evaluation Checklist 

Product: Implementation Evaluation Checklist 

TASK 6. PREPARE PROJECT FINAL REPORT 

Subtask 6.1 Prepare and Circulate Project Draft Final Report 

Product: Project Draft Final Report

Subtask 6.2 Revise, Complete, and Distribute Final Report 

Product: Project Final Report

G. SCHEDULE 

H. BUDGET SUMMARY 

MONTH TOTAL CONTRACT 25% 

TASK PRODUCT DUE AMOUNT AMOUNT MATCH 

1.1 Project Mgt.

1.2 Quarterly Reporting

1.3 Data Management

1.4 Subcontract

2.1 CRMP Initial Mtg.

2.2 CRMP Water Subcomm.

2.3 CRMP Review

3.1 Collect Existing Data

3.2

3.3

4.1

4.2

4.3

5.1 Implementation Plan

5.2 Implementation Checklist

6.1 Draft Final

6.2 Final Report

Total