Siskiyou County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Shasta Valley SGMA GSA Technical Advisory Committee November 1, 2019
RE: Release of Draft Chapter 2.1 of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan for Shasta Valley Groundwater Basin The Siskiyou County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, in coordination with our consultant Larry Walker Associates, is in the process of developing a draft of the Groundwater Sustainability Plan (Plan) for the Shasta Valley Groundwater Basin (Plan Area), due to the California Department of Water Resources by January 31, 2022. In order to provide multiple opportunities for review and input from members of the Shasta Valley GSA Technical Advisory Committee, as well as interested members of the public, draft chapter segments will be presented to the Committee, discussed, and open for comments throughout the Plan development process. This will facilitate discussion on the content of chapters as they are developed, allow time for review and feedback, and ideally generate consensus support over time for the Plan’s contents. These draft chapters represent a framework for the final document, and while information has been summarized, public input is needed to identify and fill gaps in data and incorporate local knowledge and viewpoints. The objective of Chapter 2.1 is to provide a summary of the geographic area covered by the Plan, with discussion of current land uses and relevant policies, programs and organizations. Chapter 2.1 is intended to provide an overview of the existing monitoring and management programs in the Plan Area and highlight how they relate to the development and implementation of the Plan. This section includes: . 2.1.1 Summary of Jurisdictional Areas and Other Features . 2.1.2 Water Resources Monitoring and Management Programs . 2.1.3 Land Use Elements or Topic Categories of Applicable General Plans . 2.1.4 Additional GSP Elements . 2.1.5 Notice and Communication Specific topics have been identified in the draft of Chapter 2.1 that require additional input or review have been listed in the Progress Table below. Thank you for taking the time to review the draft documents and provide your input. The responses and feedback gained from this process are appreciated and will be used to guide development of this Plan.
Table for Shasta Valley GSP Section 2.1 Progress & Information Needs Status Subsection Status Details 2.1.1. Final draft Needing external review by Agency Well record statistics need to be reviewed
2.1.2. Nearing Waiting on further programmatic details from outside parties final draft Monitoring and Management Programs list needs Agency & TAC review Are there any programs missing from the list? Is the text valid for programs currently listed? Some listed programs are waiting on correspondence from various external parties for additional program details
2.1.3. Nearing Waiting on further programmatic details from outside parties final draft General Plans: Are revisions to the General Plan anticipated with the development of the GSP? General Plans: Are there revisions to zoning ordinances planned as a result of or in conjunction with the GSP? Community Plan: Does Yreka, Grenada, Montague, or any other city have a general plan? Well Permitting: To be updated with additional information regarding public trust litigation
2.1.4. Placeholder Waiting on further programmatic details from outside parties Control of saline water intrusion: N/A Wellhead protection: State guidelines Migration of contaminated groundwater: To be updated with additional information after discussion with County Environmental Health Department Well abandonment and well destruction program: State guidelines Replenishment of groundwater extractions: To be updated with additional information after discussion with County Environmental Health Department Conjunctive use and underground storage: To be updated with additional information after discussion with Agency Well construction policies: State guidelines Groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, diversions to storage, conservation, water recycling, conveyance, and extraction projects: To be updated with additional information after discussion with County Environmental Health Department Efficient water management practices: No municipal or county-level water efficiency programs in the Valley are currently active. To be updated with additional information after discussion with Agency regarding this issue and role of USBR WaterSMART grant outcome Relationships with State and federal regulatory agencies: In the Valley, the private landowners are the major landowner. Regional Board is actively involved in water quality monitoring through the TMDL program. DWR monitors groundwater though the CASGEM program. Does the County work with other state or local agencies in the Valley? Land use plans and efforts to coordinate with land use planning agencies to assess activities that potentially create risks to groundwater quality or quantity: To be updated with additional information after discussion with County planning agencies. Impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs): GDEs exist in the Valley. To be updated with additional information after discussion with Agency and research with DWR-sanctioned GDE tools
2.1.5. Placeholder Description of beneficial uses and users in the basin: Need a better understanding of this topic through further communication with Agency Communications Section: Waiting on community engagement plan details
1 Shasta Valley GSP Chapter 2: Plan Area and Basin
2 Setting
3 LWA Technical Team for The County of Siskiyou
4 10/31/2019 (PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT) 5 Contents
6 2.1 Description of the Plan Area 3
7 2.1.1 Summary of Jurisdictional Areas and Other Features (Reg. § 354.8 b) ...... 3
8 Jurisdictional Areas and Land Use ...... 3
9 Well Records ...... 7
10 2.1.2 Water Resources Monitoring and Management Programs (Reg. § 354.8 c, d, e) ...... 10
11 Overview of Monitoring and Management Programs ...... 10
12 Detailed Monitoring and Management Programs ...... 11
13 2.1.3 Land Use Elements or Topic Categories of Applicable General Plans (Reg. § 354.8 f) ...... 19
14 General Plans (check with cities) ...... 19
15 Community Plans ...... 19
16 Well Permitting ...... 20
17 2.1.4 Additional GSP Elements (Reg. § 354.8 g) ...... 21
18 Control of saline water intrusion ...... 21
19 Wellhead protection ...... 21
20 Migration of contaminated groundwater ...... 21
21 Well abandonment and well destruction program ...... 21
22 Replenishment of groundwater extractions ...... 21
23 Conjunctive use and underground storage ...... 21
24 Well construction policies ...... 21
25 Groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, diversions to storage, conservation, water recycling,
26 conveyance, and extraction projects ...... 21
27 Efficient water management practices ...... 22
28 Relationships with State and federal regulatory agencies ...... 22
29 Land use plans and efforts to coordinate with land use planning agencies to assess activities that po
30 tentially create risks to groundwater quality or quantity ...... 22
31 Impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs) ...... 22
32 2.1.5 Notice and Communication (Reg. § 354.10) ...... 23
1 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
33 Description of beneficial uses and users in the basin ...... 23
34 Communications Section ...... 23
35 References 25
2 36 2.1 Description of the Plan Area
37 2.1.1 Summary of Jurisdictional Areas and Other Features (Reg. § 354.8 b)
38 The Shasta Valley Groundwater Basin (Basin) is part of the larger Klamath River Basin located in Northern California
39 and Southern Oregon. The Shasta Valley (Valley), shown in Figure (under construction), is located in central Siskiyou
40 County in northcentral California and is bounded by Mount Shasta (a large, active Cascadian volcano) to the south,
41 the Klamath Mountains to the west, and the Cascade Range to the east. The Valley trends northward and is drained by
42 the Shasta River, a tributary to the Klamath River. The Shasta River drainage area (Watershed) covers approximately 2 2 43 800 mi (2,070 km ) ranging in elevation from just over 2,000 ft (610 m) near the confluence with the Klamath to over
44 14,100 ft (4,300 m) near the volcanic peak of Mount Shasta. Mount Shasta’s precipitation primarily originates from
45 counterclockwiserotating storms moving inland from the Pacific Ocean (Mcclain 2008). The combination of the upper
46 latitude and high altitude generally produce colder winters and much of the winter precipitation comes in the form
47 of snow. The Shasta River is also tributary of the Klamath River and supports threatened salmon species (Jeffres
48 et al. 2010). Volcanic deposits from the Cascadian volcanoes cover much of the eastern half of the Valley while
49 metamorphic rocks associated with the Klamath Mountains cover a majority of the western half. More geologically
50 recent volcanic debris flow and surficial glacial and alluvial materials comprise the remainder of the deposits within
51 the Valley. The Valley’s complex geologic history resulted in a complex hydrologic setting for the flow of groundwater
52 in the Valley, especially groundwater flow in the numerous fractured basalt rock deposits and associated lava tubes
53 common throughout the Valley.
54 Jurisdictional Areas and Land Use
55 The County of Siskiyou Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Agency) is the sole Groundwater Sustainabil
56 ity Agency (GSA) for the Basin and is responsible for the Basin areas covered by this Groundwater Sustainability
57 Plan (GSP). Two very small portions of the Basin that are not subject to SGMA requirements (Figure 1) are owned
58 by the Karuk Tribe (Karuk), and because tribal lands are not subject to the Sustainable Groundwater Management
59 Act (SGMA), the Karuk land is exempt; however, a tribal representative sits on the GSA Advisory Council. Under
60 the 2018 Basin Prioritization conducted by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), the Shasta Valley
61 Groundwater Basin (DWR Basin #1004) was designated as medium priority basin (DWR 2019c).
62 The population associated with the Basin was estimated at 13,070 (2010 Census; https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/
63 bpdashboard/p2/), including the populations of the incorporated cities of Yreka (7,765), Weed (2,967), and Montague
64 (1,443). The Valley also is home to the censusdesignated places (CDP) of Grenada (367), Carrick (131), Gazelle
65 (70), and Edgewood (43). Communities in the Valley categorized as either disadvantaged or severely disadvantaged
66 include: Gazelle, Grenada, Montague, Weed, and Yreka. Communities with an annual median household income
67 (MHI) of less than 80% of the average annual MHI in California are classified as Disadvantaged Communities (DACs),
68 while communities with annual MHIs of less than 60% of California’s average annual MHI are considered Severely
69 Disadvantaged Communities (SDACs). Based on the 20122016 DAC Mapping Tool, the statewide average annual
3 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
N 420,000
Yreka Montague
Grenada
I− 5 400,000
Gazelle
Edgewood
Carrick Watershed Bulletin 118 Basin Boundary
380,000 Rivers and Streams Weed
Towns
Interstate 5 Local Roads
Lake Shastina 0 2 4 6 8 10 mi
−220,000 −210,000 −200,000 −190,000 −180,000
Figure 1: Shasta Valley Bulletin 118 Basin Boundary
4 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
70 MHI is $63,783 and Gazelle, Grenada, Weed, and Yreka all qualify as SDACs with annual MHIs of $31,389, $29,773,
71 $29,427, and $30,202, respectively (DWR 2019a). Montague has an annual MHI of $41,923, which qualifies it as a
72 DAC. Carrick and Edgewood are not listed in the government database as either a DAC or SDAC as no MHI data is
73 provided for either CDP (DWR 2019a).
74 The majority of the land within the Valley is under private ownership with the remaining area managed by the California
75 Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and the United States
76 Forest Service (USFS). Much of the Watershed surrounding the Basin is a mixture of private (mostly timber) and
77 USFS land. The dominant land use in the Valley is agriculture with pasture, alfalfa, and grain and hay comprising
78 the primary crops (Figure 3). Two large conservation easements (one being CDFW’s Shasta Springs Ranch; cover
79 a the northern and central portions of the Basin (Figure 2). The original Bulletin 118 Shasta Valley Basin (DWR
80 2004) consisted of 52,589 acres with 26,842 acres irrigated acres and was classified as medium priority. The Agency
81 successfully applied to DWR to modify the Basin boundary during their 2018 Basin Boundary Modification Process.
82 The modified Basin was finalized by DWR in February of 2019. The modified Basin increased to 217,980 total acres
83 with 62,119 irrigated acres. The updated boundary accounts for much more of the groundwater pumping in the Valley
84 allowing for more holistic management moving forward. This modification substantially not only increased the area to
85 be designated under SGMA, but it also expanded the extent of the Basin to include various complex geological and
86 hydrological areas of the Watershed which will require significantly more resources to fully develop an understanding of
87 the various hydrological connections in the Valley. Gaining such understanding will require the filling of numerous data
88 gaps. Portions of the Basin are lacking sufficient well monitoring in its network grid and some regions are completely
89 lacking monitoring wells. Some locations, where sparse datasets show declining groundwater level trends, are in
90 need of improved groundwater monitoring and management activities. Surface watergroundwater interaction is a key
91 sustainability factor to evaluate within the Basin’s GSP. Therefore, continuously measured water levels are necessary
92 to build on the biannual measurements collected under DWR’s California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring
93 (CASGEM) Program.
94 Groundwater and surface water are hydraulically connected in Shasta Valley. Beginning in 1992 the SWRCB, in
95 conjunction with the North Coast Regional Water Control Board (NCRWQCB; Regional Water Board) identified water
96 quality objectives within the Shasta River. The Shasta river is in exceedance of the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
97 for temperature and dissolved oxygen. The Shasta River TMDL is explored in greater detail in Section 2.1.2. Under
98 the California Water Action Plan, the Shasta River was named one of five priority stream reaches that the California
99 State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB; State Board), in coordination with CDFW, will “seek to enhance flows
100 to support and improve critical habitat for anadromous fish” (State of California 2014). In September 2018, SWRCB
101 released their “Draft Shasta River Watershed Characterization and Model Study Plan” which outlines a proposed
102 groundwatersurface water modeling plan on the Shasta River. Creation of such a model will be an integral part of this
103 Basin’s GSP development process to enable the decisionmakers to run different scenarios, create the Basin’s water
104 budget, and determine projects that will assist the Valley attaining groundwater sustainability and improving instream
105 flows for anadromous fishery needs in the Shasta River. The County of Siskiyou (County), Shasta Valley stakeholders,
106 and SWRCB staff have been collaborating on combining aspects of both modeling projects including collaborating on
107 data collection. The County and SWRCB entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on October 18, 2019
108 to coordinate future collaborations. Data gaps should be filled for modeling inputs to enable tracking water movement
109 through the Basin and establishing a water budget. Therefore, strategic continuous groundwater observations and
110 measurements will provide valuable information for model development and installation of soil moisture sensors is
111 crucial in Shasta Valley’s efficient water use. Additionally, water users are encourage to pursue projects that aid in
112 the NCRWQCB TMDL requirements including minimizing tailwater from entering the Shasta River and associated
113 tributaries by working with the Regional Board to develop land management plans.
114 Adjudicated areas are not present within the Basin. No other GSA is present within the Basin. An Alternative Plan (to
115 a GSP) was not prepared for the Basin.
5 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
N 420,000
Yreka Montague 410,000
Grenada
I− 5 400,000
Gazelle 390,000
Edgewood
Groundwater Basin
City Boundaries Carrick Waterbodies National Forest California Fish and Wildlife
380,000 Irrigation Districts Weed
Cities
Interstate 5 Local Roads 0 2 4 6 mi
−220,000 −210,000 −200,000 −190,000
Figure 2: Irrigation districts and administrative areas within Shasta Valley
6 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
116 Current Land Use
117 Acreages associated with various land uses surveyed by the County in 2010 and updated based on stakeholder
118 comments are presented in Table 1 (DWR 2010). Land use within the Basin are discussed in further in Section 2.1.3.
Table 1: Acreage and percent of total Basin area covered by all identified land uses in the updated 2010 County of Siskiyou land use survey. Updates provided by stakeholder comments.
Land Use Description Area (Acres) Percent (%) Alfalfa 7,990 1.6 Barren 9 0.0 Commerical 1,556 0.3 Farmsteads 955 0.2 Fruit 36 0.0 Grain and Hay 10,756 2.1 Idle 2,287 0.4 Native 420,905 82.8 Native Water 4,556 0.9 Pasture 41,735 8.2 Riparian 1,955 0.4 SemiAg 6 0.0 Truck, Nursery, and Berry 180 0.0 Unknown 227 0.0 Urban 15,346 3.0
119 Well Records
120 Public data regarding wells is limited in Shasta Valley. Using data from the DWR Online System for Well Completion
121 Reports (OSWCR; DWR, n.d.), it is possible to visualize the approximate distribution (i.e., well density) of domestic,
122 agricultural production, and public drinking water wells in the Basin, aggregated to each Public Land Survey System
123 (PLSS) section (Figure 4). Because OSWCR represents an index of Well Completion Report records dating back
124 many decades, this dataset may include abandoned wells, destroyed wells, or wells with quality control issues such
125 as inaccurate, missing or duplicate records, but is nevertheless a valuable resource for planning efforts.
126 The primary uses of the wells reviewed were:
127 • Domestic Wells: 3,264
128 • Agricultural Production Wells: 388
129 • Public/Municipal Wells: 35
130 The inclusion of specific wells into the Shasta Valley Hydrogeologic Model is ongoing. Currently only CASGEM wells
131 (Section 2.1.2) are included as observation wells.
132 Note: This section will be updated as model development progresses.
133 The density of groundwater wells are highest in the south and northwest sections of the Basin, especially near the
134 cities of Montague, Grenada, Weed and Yreka, following the heavy land use areas, as shown in Figure 4.
7 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
A 0 2 4 6 8 mi B 0 2 4 6 8 mi 420,000 420,000 410,000 410,000 400,000 400,000
Pasture Pasture 390,000 Alfalfa 390,000 Alfalfa Grain and Hay Grain and Hay Idle Idle Nursery and Berry Nursery and Berry Riparian Vegetation Riparian Vegetation Urban Urban 380,000 N 380,000 Semiagricultural Semiagricultural Water Surface Water Surface
−220,000 −210,000 −200,000 −190,000 −220,000 −210,000 −200,000 −190,000
C 0 2 4 6 8 mi D 0 2 4 6 8 mi 420,000 420,000 410,000 410,000 400,000 400,000
Pasture Alfalfa Grain and Hay Grasses Pasture 390,000 Idle 390,000 Alfalfa Nursery and Berry Grain and Hay Managed Wetland Idle Urban Nursery and Berry Semiagricultural Riparian Vegetation Potatoes Urban 380,000 N 380,000 Onions and Garlic Semiagricultural Water Surface Water Surface
−220,000 −210,000 −200,000 −190,000 −220,000 −210,000 −200,000 −190,000
Figure 3: Land uses within the Shasta Valley Groundwater Basin boundary taken from the 2000 DWR Siskiyou Land Use Survey (Panel A), the 2010 DWR Siskiyou Land Use Survey (Panel B), the 2014 DWR LandIQ Land Use Survey (Panel C), and the stakeholder updated 2010 DWR Siskiyou Land Use Survey (Panel D).
8 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
N N A B
Yreka Montague Yreka Montague
Grenada Grenada
Gazelle Gazelle Domestic Wells Edgewood1 to 2 Edgewood 2 to 4 Production Wells Carrick4 to 8 1 Carrickto 2 8 to 10 2 to 4 Weed10 to 20 Weed4 to 8 20 to 40 8 to 10 40 to 80 10 to 20 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 km 80 to 160 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 km 20 to 40
N N C D
Yreka Montague Yreka Montague
Grenada Grenada
Gazelle Gazelle Total Wells Edgewood Edgewood 1 to 5 5 to 10 Carrick Carrick10 to 20 Public Wells 20 to 30 Weed 1 to 2 Weed 30 to 40 2 to 3 40 to 80 3 to 4 80 to 120 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 km 4 to 5 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 km 120 to 160
Figure 4: Well density maps indicating number of domestic (panel A), agricultural production (panel B), and public (panel C) Well Completion Reports present in each Public Land Survey System (PLSS) section, based on data from the DWR Online System for Well Completion Reports (OSWCR). Panel D shows the sum of panels AC.
9 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
135 2.1.2 Water Resources Monitoring and Management Programs (Reg. § 354.8
136 c, d, e)
137 There is historical and ongoing work in the Basin and Watershed related to monitoring and management of surface
138 water and groundwater resources. The following section describes each monitoring and/or management program, and
139 outlines the current understanding of a) how those programs will be incorporated into GSP implementation and b) how
140 they may limit operational flexibility in GSP implementation.
141 Overview of Monitoring and Management Programs
142 Statewide Monitoring Programs:
143 • California Department of Water Resources(DWR):
144 – California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring Groundwater Information Center Interactive Map
145 ping Application (CASGEM GICIMA)
146 – Water Data Library (WDL)
147 • California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
148 – Big Springs Ranch
149 – Shasta Valley Wildlife Area
150 • California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR)
151 • California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB; State Board):
152 – Division of Drinking Water (DDW)
153 – Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program (GAMA)
154 • University NAVSTAR Consortium (UNAVCO)
155 • United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)
156 • United States Geological Survey (USGS)
157 Regional Monitoring Programs:
158 • California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB; Regional Board)
159 – Groundwater Quality Trend Monitoring Program through the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP)
160 – Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
161 – Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan)
162 • Klamath Basin Monitoring Program (KBMP)
163 • Klamath National Forest (USFS)
164 • Shasta National Forest (USFS)
10 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
165 Local Monitoring Agencies:
166 • Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources (KTDNR; Karuk DNR)
167 • Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District (SVRCD)
168 • Siskiyou County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SCFCWCD; Agency)
169 • The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
170 • Shasta Valley Watermaster District
171 • Irrigation Districts
172 – Big Springs Irrigation District (BSID)
173 – Grenada Irrigation District (GID)
174 – Montague Water Conservation District (MWCD)
175 – Shasta Water Association
176 • Cities
177 – City of Yreka
178 – Others
179 • NGOs?
180 Feedback needed: Is this list missing any key monitoring or management programs?
181 Note: For each program, the answers to questions a) and b) above reflect the current understanding of the authors
182 and are subject to revision after additional review and GSP development.
183 Detailed Monitoring and Management Programs
184 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)
185 Big Springs Ranch Wildlife Area (BSRWA)
186 Big Spring Ranch contains the largest magnitude and distribution of groundwater springs in the Valley. The Big Springs
187 Complex (including Big and Little Springs) is a very critical water source to the Shasta River, often contributing more
188 water flux than flows in the Shasta River upstream of the confluence of Big Springs Creek with the Shasta River.
189 The Big Springs Complex is one of the most important groundwaterdependent ecosystems (GDEs) in the Valley
190 due to its critical aquatic habitat for anadromous fish. CDFW recently acquired the Big Springs Ranch from The
191 Nature Conservancy (TNC) in midyear 2019. BSRWA was purchased for the protection and preservation of water
192 rights and for anadromous fish habitat. The location of BSRWA and its access to nutrientrich cold spring water
193 provides critical habitat for Fall Chinook and the endangered and threatened coho salmon, making protection and
194 restoration of the ranch’s waterways essential for these populations. TNC and its partners restored 10 miles of river,
195 planted 6,000 native riparian trees, invested in over 60 scientific research projects and implemented new practices
196 developed to improve salmon habitat by decreasing water temperatures and increasing stream flows, all while running
197 an active cattle ranch. The numerous scientific studies focusing on the surface water and groundwater features of this
198 property were conducted by University of California, Davis (Center for Watershed Sciences, UC Davis), the SVRCD,
199 and numerous environmental consultants. Many of those affiliated with a number of those projects are currently either
200 directly or indirectly involved with the development of this GSP. Future operations will be run by the CDFW Fisheries
201 Branch rather than the CDFW Wildlife Area Lands Department. All monitoring and management operations past,
202 present, and future in BSRWA will incorporated in the development of this GSP.
203 Placeholder: To be updated with additional information after discussion with CDFW. Pat Graham says BSRWA will
204 be supervised by Jody Rightmeier who is the supervisor of the Yreka fish habitat shop
11 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
205 Shasta Valley Wildlife Area (SVWA)
206 The Shasta Valley Wildlife Area was designated as a wildlife area by the Fish and Game Commission in 1991. It
207 contains approximately 4,700 acres of Great Basin juniper woodland, riparian forest, seasonal wetlands, and crop
208 lands, with Mt. Shasta as a backdrop. Sandhill cranes, waterfowl, raptors, and shorebirds are commonly seen at
209 Shasta Valley. Deer, porcupines, and coyotes are among the mammals that can be seen. There are three deep water
210 reservoirs and numerous seasonal wetlands on the wildlife area. There are three domestic wells and no irrigation wells
211 that CDFW operates on this property. CDFW does not utilize groundwater for managing habit in SVWA, only surface
212 water management. Operations of surface water management at SVWA will be incorporated in the development of
213 this GSP.
214 Placeholder: To be updated after Pat Graham (CDFW) gets back to us with additional information .
215 Feedback needed: Is this section missing any key monitoring activities or details?
216 California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR)
217 The CDPR maintains a current well inventory database containing data from wells sampled for pesticides by a variety of
218 agencies, including the California Department of Public Health (prior to CDPR reporting being taken over by SWRCB),
219 CDPR, DWR, USGS, and SWRCB DDW. These agencies monitor a variety of wells, including monitoring, domestic,
220 large and small water systems, irrigation, and community wells for 35 different pesticides and report measurements to
221 the CDPR. Exact locations are not known, but based on an estimation of coordinates using county, township, range,
222 and section data, there are 33 wells monitored within the Basin with groundwater quality measurements for pesticides,
223 such as Atrazine, Aldrin, and Simazine.
224 Feedback needed: Is this section missing any key monitoring activities or details?
225 California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
226 The California Statewide Groundwater Elevation Monitoring (CASGEM) Program collects and centralizes groundwater
227 elevation data across the state, and makes them available to the public. The CASGEM Program has tracked seasonal
228 and longterm groundwater elevation trends in groundwater basins statewide. The CASGEM Program was established
229 in response to the passage of California State Senate Bill X76 in 2009. Currently, all CASGEM data are made available
230 to the public through the interactive mapping tool on the CASGEM Public Portal website (DWR 2019b). Additionally,
231 the full dataset can be retrieved from the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) Open Data website (CNRA
232 2019).
233 As of October 2019, records from the CASGEM well network in Shasta Valley spatially cover much of the Basin with
234 37 wells of varying temporal coverage spanning the 1950’s to present (27 stations were active in 2018/2019, 24 are
235 currently active in 2019, and 10 are no longer active). The majority of these wells within the Basin boundary are
236 designated as “Voluntary” status (DWR 2019b). “Voluntary” status indicates that the well owner has contributed water
237 level measurements to the CASGEM database but the well is not enrolled in the CASGEM monitoring program. Well
238 monitoring under the CASGEM Program is ongoing. CASGEM water level data are used in the GSP to characterize
239 historical Basin conditions and water resources (see Section 2.2.2). No limitations to operational flexibility in GSP
240 implementation are expected in the Basin due to implementation of the CASGEM Program.
241 In addition to the CASGEM Program, DWR operates two stream gages within the Basin. The stations are located at
242 the Parks Creek diversion near Edgewood (Station ID: MPD; records from 2005 to present) and the Shasta River at the
243 Grenada pumping plant (Station ID: SPU; records from 2013 to present). These and other stream gages are critical
244 for calibration of numerical integrated hydrologic models as well as developing conceptual knowledge models of the
245 hydrologic system in the Valley.
12 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
246 Feedback needed: Is this section missing any key monitoring activities or details?
247 California North Coast Regional Water Control Board (Regional Board)
248 The Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region encompasses groundwater within the Valley and is regulated
249 via the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) Basin Plan (NCRWQCB 2018):
250 Groundwater is defined as subsurface water in soils and geologic formations that are fully saturated all or part of the
251 year. Groundwater is any subsurface body of water which is beneficially used or usable; and includes perched water
252 if such water is used or usable or is hydraulically continuous with used or usable water.
253 Water quality objectives in the Basin Plan are based on the designated beneficial use of the water body (NCRWQCB
254 2018). Table 21 in the Basin Plan designates all groundwater with the beneficial uses: Municipal and Domestic
255 Supply(MUN), Agricultural Supply (AGR), Industrial Service Supply (IND), and Native American Culture (CUL) with
256 potential beneficial of Industrial Process Supply (PRO) and Aquaculture (AQUA) (NCRWQCB 2018). The beneficial
257 use MUN, a designation used for sources of human drinking water, has the most stringent water quality objectives.
258 Section 3.4 and Table 31 of the Basin Plan outlines the water quality objectives for all groundwater in the North Coast
259 Region and those specific to Butte Valley Hydrologic Area (NCRWQCB 2018). The Basin Plan refers to the California
260 Code of Regulations for Domestic Water Quality and Monitoring Regulations (Title 22) for nearly all numeric limits.
261 Feedback needed: Is this section missing any key monitoring activities or details?
262 Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP)
263 The Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP) was established in 2003 to regulate discharges from irrigated agri
264 culture to surface water and groundwater and establish Waste Discharge Orders for selected regions. The Regional
265 Board ILRP focuses on priority water quality issues, such as pesticides and toxicity, nutrients, and sediments. Wells
266 are sampled biannually, once between March and June, and once between September and December.
267 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
268 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) regulating temperature and dissolved oxygen in the Shasta River Watershed
269 were first promulgated in 2006 (NCRWQCB 2006). The Shasta River TMDLs for dissolved oxygen and temperature
270 were established in accordance with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The USEPA added the Shasta River
271 to the impaired water list in 1992 due to low dissolved oxygen. The listing was modified in 1994 to include elevated
272 temperature. In 2006 the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB) incorporated these TMDLs
273 into the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region (Basin Plan) (NCRWQCB (California North Coast
274 Regional Water Quality Control Board) 2006). The plan has undergone multiple updates with the current iteration
275 released in 2018 (NCRWQCB (California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board) 2018).
276 Since 2006 the NCRWQCB has waived the requirement for Dischargers (entities or individuals which may discharge
277 waste to the Shasta River, or which are responsible for controlling such discharge), if they were not already covered
278 by an existing permit, to file a Report of Waste Discharge (ROWD) and obtain Waste Discharge Requirement permits
279 (WDRs) (NCRWQCB (California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board) 2018).
280 California State Water Resources Control Board (State Board)
281 • Division of Drinking Water (DDW): The State Water Resources Control Board’s Division of Drinking Water, (for
282 merly the Department of Health Services) monitors public water system wells per the requirements of Title 22
13 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
283 of the California Code of Regulations relative to levels of organic and inorganic compounds such as metals, mi
284 crobial compounds and radiological analytes. Data are available for active and inactive drinking water sources,
285 for water systems that serve the public, and wells defined as serving 15 or more connections, or more than 25
286 people per day. In the Basin, Division of Drinking Water wells were monitored for Title 22 requirements, including
287 pH, alkalinity, bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, potassium, sulfate, barium, copper, iron, zinc, and nitrate.
288 • Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program (GAMA): Established in 2000, the Groundwater
289 Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) Program monitors groundwater quality throughout the state of
290 California. The GAMA Program will create a comprehensive groundwater monitoring program throughout Cal
291 ifornia and increase public availability and access to groundwater quality and contamination information. The
292 GAMA Program receives data from a variety of monitoring entities including DWR, USGS, and the State Water
293 Resources Control Board. GeoTracker, operated by the State Board,is a subset program of the GAMA program.
294 GeoTracker GAMA does not regularly monitor for general groundwater quality constituents. GeoTracker contains
295 records for sites that require cleanup, such as leaking underground storage tank sites, Department of Defense
296 sites, and cleanup program sites. GeoTracker also contains records for various unregulated projects as well as
297 permitted facilities including: Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program, oil and gas production, operating permitted
298 underground storage tanks, and land disposal sites. GeoTracker receives records and data from State Board
299 programs and other monitoring agencies.
300 Feedback needed: Is this section missing any key monitoring activities or details?
301 University NAVSTAR Consortium (UNAVCO)
302 In the Watershed, subsidence monitoring is partially performed using continuous global positioning system (GPS)
303 stations monitored by UNAVCO’s Plate Boundary Observatory (PBO) program. The UNAVCO PBO network consists
304 of a network of about 1,100 continuous global positioning system (CGPS) and meteorology stations in the western
305 United States to measure deformation resulting from the constant motion of the Pacific and North American tectonic
306 plates in the western United States. Information from this monitoring can support the monitoring of land subsidence
307 resulting from the extraction of groundwater.
308 There are four CGPS stations (P657, P658, P661, and P663) within the Watershed but not within the Basin (all are on
309 the north slope of Mt. Shasta) with records spanning 2007 to the present. There is one borehole strainmeter operated
310 by UNAVCO within the Basin near Gazelle (B039) with data records from 2007 to present.
311 This work complements the remote sensing subsidence monitoring efforts funded by DWR and led by TRE Altamira.
312 Feedback needed: Is this section missing any key monitoring activities or details?
313 United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR)
314 USBR is granting funds to the Agency to install 10 colocated, continuous groundwater level and soil moisture sensors
315 that will be incorporated into the Basin’s GSP development and implementation.
316 Feedback needed: Is this section missing any key monitoring activities or details?
317 United States Geological Survey (USGS)
318 USGS operates two stream gages within the Watershed (one within the Basin boundary). The stations are located on
319 the Shasta River near Montague (DWR Station ID: SRM [USGS Station ID: 11517000]; records from 1999 to present)
320 and on the Shasta River near Yreka (Station ID: SRY [USGS Station ID: 11517500]; records from 2000 to present).
14 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
321 Although neither of these stream gages provide a comprehensive picture of surface water flows in the Basin, they
322 provide some information about the inflow and outflow of surface water through the Basin.
323 Feedback needed: Is this section missing any key monitoring activities or details?
324 United States Forest Service (USFS)
325 • Description of water resources monitoring and management programs
326 • Description of how monitoring networks of those programs will be incorporated into the GSP
327 • Descriptions of how those programs may limit operation flexibility in the basin
328 Klamath National Forest
329 Feedback needed: Does the USFS conduct any surface water or groundwater monitoring activities in the Watershed,
330 Valley, or Basin on its land?
331 Shasta National Forest
332 Feedback needed: Does the USFS conduct any surface water or groundwater monitoring activities in the Watershed,
333 Valley, or Basin on its land?
334 Feedback needed: Is this section missing any key monitoring activities or details?
335 Karuk Tribe Department of Natural Resources (Karuk DNR)
336 The Karuk DNR operate a field monitoring program in the Valley and posts information to the interactive web portal
337 waterquality.karuk.us. We look forward to working with the Karuk Tribe to share information about monitoring programs.
th 338 Contacted Matt Parker (Agency) on Oct. 9 to see if Susan (member, Agency Technical Advisory Board; Karuk
339 representative) might have more information.
340 Feedback needed: Is this section missing any key monitoring activities or details?
341 Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District (SVRCD)
342 The Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District (SVRCD) is a special district serving central Siskiyou County, Cali
343 fornia. The SVRCD service area includes the Klamath watershed and all its minor tributaries from the California State
344 line near Keno to below Happy Camp, the entire portion of the Applegate River in California, the lower end of the
345 Scott River, the entire Shasta River Watershed, and the Siskiyou County portions of the Sacramento River watershed,
346 McCloud watershed and Fall River watersheds.
347 The SVRCD conducts a variety of surface water and groundwater monitoring efforts through the Watershed for public
348 and private land owners needing assistance with environmental monitoring efforts. The SVRCD is currently installing a
349 DWRfunded monitoring network in the Basin (11 out of a total of 12 continuous monitoring groundwater level stations
350 have been installed). All well owners (public and private) have access to their specific groundwater level data through
351 a secure, private web portal.
352 The SVRCD operates one stream gage within the Watershed (outside of Basin) that is located on Yreka Creek at
353 Anderson Grade Road (Station ID: YCK; records from 2014 to present).
354 Feedback needed: Is this section missing any key monitoring activities or details?
15 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
355 County of Siskiyou Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Agency)
356 The Agency is currently installing a DWR and USBRfunded monitoring network in the Basin for use with GSP devel
357 opment and implementation. USBR funding has provided 10 colocated groundwater level and soil moisture monitoring
358 stations, two of which are already installed. Soil moisture sensors are expected to help well owners to improve irri
359 gation efficiency. All well owners (public and private) have access to their specific groundwater level data through a
360 secure, private web portal, as well as, realtime soil moisture data from their irrigated land. DWR and the Agency are
361 working towards the installation of new groundwater monitoring wells within the Basin.
362 Feedback needed: Is this section missing any key monitoring activities or details?
363 The Nature Conservancy (TNC)
364 • Big Springs Ranch (CDFW): TNC formerly owned an managed the Shasta Big Spring Ranch property until mid
365 2019 when CDFW agreed to purchase the land from TNC. TNC conducted a variety of surface water and ground
366 water monitoring activities on the property in conjunction with UC Davis researchers. See above CDFW section
367 on Big Springs Ranch
368 • Stream gage: TNC operates one stream gage within the Basin. The station is located on the Little Shasta River
369 near Montague (Station ID: LSR; records from 2010 to present), which was previously operated by DWR.
370 Feedback needed: Is this section missing any key monitoring activities or details?
371 Shasta Valley Watermaster District
372 Surface water diversion rights for the Shasta River and tributaries were set forth in adjudication decrees which span
373 from 1932 to the present. The diversions are located within the Shasta River Watermaster Service Area (Service Area)
374 and controlled by the Scott Valley and Shasta Valley Watermaster (Watermaster). The Service Area was created in
375 1932 to administer water rights within the Valley. Multiple amendments to the Service Area have occurred, the largest
376 occurring in 1962 for the creation of the Montague Water District (Decree 3647, 1962) and the exclusion of Cold Creek
377 (Superior Court of Siskiyou County, 2018). Currently the Watermaster oversees approximately 460 cfs of water rights
378 during the irrigation season and 89 cfs of water rights during the winter season.
379 Feedback needed: What monitoring is being conducted by the Watermaster? In progress: A map of diversion
380 locations and a table of diversions during wet, average, and dry years.
381 • Description of water resources monitoring and management programs
382 • Description of how monitoring networks of those programs will be incorporated into the GSP
383 • Descriptions of how those programs may limit operation flexibility in the basin
384 Irrigation Districts
385 The irrigation season in Shasta Valley generally extends from March 1 or April 1 to October 1. During this time there
386 are four large users of surface water and groundwater:
387 Big Springs Irrigation District Grenada Irrigation District Montague Water Conservation District Shasta Water Associ
388 ation
389 Taken together these four districts maintain water diversions totaling 227 cfs during the irrigation season (Shasta Valley
390 Resource Conservation District 2013). The four major irrigation districts are shown below (Figure 5).
16 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
391 Big Springs Irrigation District (BSID)
392 Big Springs Irrigation District (BSID) has rights to 30 cfs from Big Springs. BSID no longer relies on surface water
393 rights to meet district demands (Deas 2006) instead relying on groundwater resources.
394 Grenada Irrigation District
395 The Grenada Irrigation District (GID) was formed in 1916 and currently services approximately 1,600 acres of irrigable
396 land. During the 2018 irrigation season only 445 acres were irrigated. The GID maintains 5 miles of open ditch canals,
397 continuous improvements are being made to line the canals with concrete (Personal Communication, 2019).
398 Montague Water Conservation District
399 The Montague Water Conservation District (MWCD) was formed in 1925 and provides both agricultural and municipal
400 customers. MWCD services the town of Montague and provides water to approximately 11,000 irrigable acres. The
401 water rights of approximately 70 cfs are met through releases of Dwinnell Reservoir and transported through over 60
402 miles of canals in the area (Center for Watershed Sciences and Watercourse Engineering Inc. 2013).
403 Shasta Water Association
404 The Shasta Water Association (SWA) services an area located in the north end of Shasta Valley west of Montague.
405 Current water rights include 42 cfs during the irrigation season (SVRCD and Trush 2013).
406 Do any irrigation districts monitoring surface water or groundwater?
407 Community Plans
408 Feedback needed: are there any cities or towns missing that perform any key monitoring activities in the Valley?
409 NGOs?
410 • Description of water resources monitoring and management programs
411 • Description of how monitoring networks of those programs will be incorporated into the GSP
412 • Descriptions of how those programs may limit operation flexibility in the basin
413 Feedback needed: are there any other NGOs missing in the above list that perform any key monitoring activities in
414 the Valley?
17 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
N 420,000
Yreka Montague 410,000
Grenada
I− 5 400,000
Gazelle 390,000
Edgewood Irrigation Districts Big Springs Irrigation District Carrick Grenada Irrigation District Montague Water Conservation District Shasta Water Association
380,000 Groundwater Basin Weed
Towns
Interstate 5 Local Roads 0 2 4 6 mi
−220,000 −210,000 −200,000 −190,000
Figure 5: Irrigation Districts of Shasta Valley
18 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
415 2.1.3 Land Use Elements or Topic Categories of Applicable General Plans
416 (Reg. § 354.8 f)
417 General Plans (check with cities)
418 The County of Siskiyou General Plan (General Plan) serves as a guide for land use decisions within Siskiyou County
419 (the County), ensuring alignment with community objectives and policies. While the General Plan does not prescribe
420 land uses to parcels of land, it does identify areas that are not suitable for specific uses. The components of the
421 General Plan with the most relevance to the GSP include the Conservation Element and Open Space Element. Many
422 of the objectives and policies within the General Plan align with the aims of the GSP and significant changes to water
423 supply assumptions within these plans are not anticipated.
424 The Conservation Element of the General Plan (County of Siskiyou 1973) recognizes the importance of water resources
425 in the County and outlines objectives for the conservation and protection of these resources to ensure continued ben
426 eficial uses for people and wildlife. Methods for achieving these objectives include local legislation such as flood plain
427 zoning and mandatory setbacks, subdivision regulations, grading ordinances and publicly managed lands to ensure
428 preservation of open spaces for recreational use. The importance of water resources is clearly noted: “Groundwater
429 resources, water quality and flood control remain the most important land use determinants within the county” (County
430 of Siskiyou 1973). Specific topics addressed include: preventing pollution from industrial and agricultural waste, main
431 taining water supply and planning for future expansion, reclaiming and recycling wastewater and protecting watershed
432 or recharge lands from development. These objectives in the Conservation Element mirror the objectives of the GSP,
433 namely ensuring a sustainable water supply, the protection and preservation of watershed and water recharge lands
434 and prevention of degradation of water quality.
435 The Open Space Element of the General Plan includes, in its definition of open space, watershed and groundwater
436 recharge land (County of Siskiyou 1972). The importance of protecting these lands is recognized for maintaining
437 water quality and quantity. Mechanisms to preserve these spaces include maintaining or creating scenic easement
438 agreements, preserves, open space agreements and designation of lands for recreational or open space purposes. A
439 policy for open space requirements is included with minimum thresholds of 15% of proposed developments as open
440 space. Protection of open space for habitat, water quality and water quantity align with the objectives of the GSP.
441 Feedback needed: Are revisions to the General Plan anticipated with the development of the GSP? Are there revisions
442 to zoning ordinances planned as a result of or in conjunction with the GSP?
443 Siskiyou County Zoning Plan
444 The Siskiyou County Zoning Plan (Zoning Plan) is codified in Title 10 (DWR, n.d.). Chapter 6 of the County Code.
445 The Siskiyou County Zoning Ordinance outlines the permitted types of land use within each zoning district. Zoning
446 categories include residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, forestry, open space and flood plains. Many of the
447 purposes and policies of the Zoning Plan align with the objectives of the GSP. In particular, the “wise use, conservation,
448 development and protection” of the County’s natural resources, protection of wildlife and prevention of pollution support
449 the objectives of the GSP. Mechanisms to achieve these goals include permitted and restricted uses for land parcels,
450 requirements and stipulations for land use and development.
451 Community Plans
452 Yreka General Plan
19 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
453 The City of Yreka General Plan (YGP; Yreka (2003)) was developed to guide community decisions related to land
454 use and development. The 2003 version of the YGP incorporates a longterm view of planning decisions, extending
455 to the year 2022 and includes the required elements of land use, open space, noise, safety, circulation, housing and
456 conservation.
457 Surface water impacts from the City of Yreka includes the release of treated water into percolation ponds near Yreka
458 Creek. The City of Yreka operates under the authority of NCRWQCB Water Quality Control Plan.
459 There are no other community plans in place for the cities in Shasta Valley.
460 Feedback needed: Does Grenada, Montague, or any other city have a general plan?
461 Well Permitting
462 Groundwater extraction is regulated in Siskiyou County under Title 3, Chapter 13 of the Siskiyou County Code of
463 Ordinances. This ordinance regulates extraction of groundwater from basins within the County for use outside of the
464 County. Exceptions under this chapter include groundwater extractions where extracted quantities are comparable
465 to historical values and bottled water operations. Groundwater extractions for use outside the County that do not
466 fall within the exceptions are required to obtain a permit for groundwater extraction. Permit application processes,
467 timelines and specifications are outlined in this ordinance. An initiative to amend this regulation, ending exemptions
468 for bottled water operations, was defeated in 2016.
469 The Siskiyou County Environmental Health Department (SCEHD) is the local enforcing agency with the authority
470 to issue well permits in Siskiyou County. Well permit applications require information from the applicant, from an
471 authorized well contractor and a fee. Well permit applications require information from the applicant, from an authorized
472 well contractor and a fee. Permits require a setback from the nearest well. SCEHD issues new permits for new wells,
473 well deepening, and well destruction.
474 Placeholder: To be updated with additional information regarding public trust litigation.
475 • Summary of general plans and other land use plans
476 • Information could include crop types and acreages, urban land designation, and identification of open spaces.
477 • Summary of the process for permitting new or replacement wells in the basin
20 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
478 2.1.4 Additional GSP Elements (Reg. § 354.8 g)
479 Control of saline water intrusion
480 Not applicable to the Basin as this is an inland basin far from the Pacific Ocean.
481 Wellhead protection
482 In the Basin, wellhead protection and well construction, destruction and abandonment are conducted according to
483 relevant state guidelines.
484 Migration of contaminated groundwater
485 Placeholder: To be updated with additional information after discussion with County Environmental Health Department
486 Well abandonment and well destruction program
487 In the Basin, wellhead protection and well construction, destruction and abandonment are conducted according to
488 relevant state guidelines.
489 Replenishment of groundwater extractions
490 Placeholder: To be updated with additional information after discussion with County Environmental Health Department
491 Conjunctive use and underground storage
492 No artificial groundwater replenishment or conjunctive use projects in the Valley are currently operational. However,
493 the Valley stakeholders are actively exploring feasibility of a Managed Aquifer Recharge pilot project.
494 Placeholder: To be updated with additional information after discussion with County
495 Well construction policies
496 In the Basin, wellhead protection and well construction, destruction and abandonment are conducted according to
497 relevant state guidelines.
498 Groundwater contamination cleanup, recharge, diversions to storage, conservation, water
499 recycling, conveyance, and extraction projects
500 Placeholder: To be updated with additional information after discussion with County Environmental Health Department
21 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
501 Efficient water management practices
502 No municipal or countylevel water efficiency programs in the Valley are currently active.
503 Placeholder: To be updated with additional information after discussion with County regarding this issue and role of
504 USBR WaterSMART grant outcome
505 Relationships with State and federal regulatory agencies
506 In the Valley, the private landowners are the major landowner. The NCRWQCB is actively involved in water quality
507 monitoring through the TMDL program. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) monitors groundwater
508 though the CASGEM program.
509 Feedback needed: Does the County work with other state or local agencies in the Valley?
510 Land use plans and efforts to coordinate with land use planning agencies to assess activi
511 ties that potentially create risks to groundwater quality or quantity
512 Placeholder: To be updated with additional information after discussion with Siskiyou County planning agencies.
513 Impacts on groundwater dependent ecosystems (GDEs)
514 GDEs exist in the Valley.
515 Placeholder: To be updated with additional information after discussion with County and research with DWR
516 sanctioned GDE tools
22 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
517 2.1.5 Notice and Communication (Reg. § 354.10)
518 Description of beneficial uses and users in the basin
519 Communications Section
520 • A Communications Section that describes:
521 • Decisionmaking processes
522 • Public engagement opportunities
523 • Encouraging active involvement
524 • Informing the public on GSP implementation progress
23 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
525 Placeholder: This section will summarize and reference, or include the full text of, Communication and Engagement
526 Plan.
24 527 References
528 Center for Watershed Sciences, and Watercourse Engineering Inc. 2013. “Water Resources Management Planning:
529 Conceptual Framework and Case Study of the Shasta Basin.”
530 CNRA. 2019. “DWR Periodic Groundwater Level Measurements Dataset.” https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/
531 periodicgroundwaterlevelmeasurements.
532 County of Siskiyou. 1972. “General Plan, Open Space Element.” https://www.co.siskiyou.ca.us/sites/default/files/pln{\_}gp{\_}openspaceelement.pdf.
533 ———. 1973. “The Conservation Element of the General Plan, Siskiyou County, California.”
534 Deas, Mike. 2006. “Big Springs Creek and Spring Complex Estimated Quantification.”
535 DWR. 2004. “Basin Boundaries and Hydrology.” DWR.
536 ———. 2010. “2010 Land Use Survey.”
537 ———. 2019a. “DAC Mapping Tool.” https://gis.water.ca.gov/app/dacs/.
538 ———. 2019b. “Groundwater Monitoring (CASGEM) Website.” https://water.ca.gov/Programs/GroundwaterManagement/
539 GroundwaterElevationMonitoringCASGEM.
540 ———. 2019c. “Sustainable Groundwater Management Act 2019 Basin Prioritization,” no. April: 64. https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/13ebd2d3
541 4e624fee9342d7c3ef3e0079/resource/ffafd27b5e7e4db3b846e7b3cb5c614c/download/sgma{\_}bp{\_}process{\_}document.pdf.
542 ———. n.d. “County of Siskiyou Zoning Ordinance.” https://library.municode.com/ca/siskiyou{\_}county/codes/code{\_}of{\_}ordinances?nodeId=TIT10PLZO.
543 ———. n.d. “DWR Online System for Well Completion Reports (OSWCR).” https://civicnet.resources.ca.gov/DWR{\_}WELLS/.
544 Jeffres, Carson A, Andrew L Nichols, Ann D Willis, Nicholas J Corline, Aaron M King, Robert A Lusardi, and Randy A
545 Dahlgren. 2010. “Longitudinal Baseline Assessment of Salmonid Habitat Characteristics of the Shasta River, March
546 through September , 2008.”
547 Mcclain, Cynthia N. 2008. “Provenance and Pathways : A geochemical and isotope analysis of Mt . Shasta ground
548 water.” PhD thesis, University of California, Davis.
549 NCRWQCB. 2018. “WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE NORTH COAST REGION NORTH COAST RE
550 GIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD.”
551 NCRWQCB (California North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board). 2006. “Report for the Action Plan for the
552 Shasta River Watershed Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Total Maximum Daily Loads,” 1123.
553 ———. 2018. “Shasta River TMDL Conditional Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements.”
554 Shasta Valley Resource Conservation District. 2013. “STUDY PLAN TO ASSESS SHASTA RIVER SALMON AND
555 STEELHEAD RECOVERY NEEDS.”
556 State of California. 2014. “California Water Action Plan.”
557 SVRCD, and McBain & Trush. 2013. “Study Plan to Assess Shasta River Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Needs.”
25 PUBLIC COMMENT DRAFT
558 September. U.S. Fish; Wildlife Service.
559 Yreka, City of. 2003. “City of Yreka General Plan Update 2002 2022.”
26