THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2009, Mike Barkley (06/11/2009)

Comprehensive, Chronological INDEX of the case ; F=Filed, L=Lodged, S=Signed, R=Received

THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS - SWRCB APPLICATION A018115 - BLACK BUTTE

[see also http://swrcb2.waterboards.ca.gov/ewrims/wrims-permits/p013776.pdf ]

[schedule of allowed Angle Decree usage at http://www.mjbarkl.com/limits2.htm shows that SWRCB did not have jurisdiction to approve this application]

[Maps?]

Correspondence VOL. 1 OF 12 RECORD OF FOLDER [" f " - date filed ]

[Inside of file cover]

041158 Application 18115 see index 19451 permit 13776; basis: DWR bulletin No. 3, May 1957; 01/15/1944 War Department Survey Appendix A "Design and Cost Estimation Interim Flood Control Survey Report on Sacramento River and Tributaries (Collinsville to Shasta Dam)
043058 filed, Applicant State of Calif., Dept of Water Resources [?], no, "U.S. Water & Power Service"
080960 maps filed 080960-E , 062161-E

Protests:
  • 060861 Glenn-Colusa ID answered 071261
  • 071161 Dept. of Fish & Game 072561 withdrawn 121261
  • 072661 Stony Cr. Water Users Association 080761
  • 062661 Sacramento River & Delta Water Association 080461
  • 070595 CSPA 080195
  • 071495 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 08011995


    Remarks:
  • 091959 received notice of assignment to Calif. Water Comm. per chapt. 2101, statutes of 1959

  • 110760 Assign. to U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

  • 061461 amended application received
  • 071061 extension to and including 072661 to file protests
  • 071061 affidavit of publication received
  • 092061 notice of hearing set for 110861
  • 100261 notice of rescheduling of hearing 112861
  • 122061 transcript received
  • 122961 transcript received

  • 092662 decision D-1100 adopted
  • 111962 permit 13776 issued: Amt. & Season under permit-160,000 afa - 11/01-04/30

  • 092869 hearing set for 111576 [?]

  • 02018x name change to U.S. Water & Power Resources Service
  • 022785 notice of petition received for temporary urgency change in diversion
  • 083085 petition for temporary urgency change
  • 090485 notice of petition for temporary urgency change
  • 091885 proof of publication
  • 091985 order allowing temporary urgency change
  • 100785 notice of petition for temporary urgency change
  • 101785 order 85-8 issued
  • 110685 order 85-10 issued [check, none on web site]

  • 111789 order 87-12 issued

  • 102087 order allowing conditional temporary urgency change in P.O.D.

  • 020993 notice of petition received

  • 042294 order extending the effective date of a P.O.D. Fees:
  • 011894 DFG $850.00

    LOOSE PAPERS IN BACK OF FILE;

    General Location Map, Map 654-208-6 07/1960
    Unlabeled map, pencil, protestors locations with acreages R5W & R6W, T20N-T23N?
    Unlabeled map, pencil, protestors locations with acreages R6W, T16N-T23N?
    Map, Proposed Service Areas of Federal Central Valley Project, sheet 1 of 4, Sacramento Valley Map 214-208-3353 [2 copies] 07/19/1960

    043058 Rec'd, Application to Appropriate Unappropriated Water, DWR Amended Application to Appropriate Unappropriated Water, U.S.A. assignee, "for the use of the United States of America through existing and future facilities", etc. Divert at Black Butte Dam, replacing Southside Diversion Dam , Northside unaffected, application to provide for additional points of rediversion when & where required as use & distribution pattern may dictate; "Rediversion from South Main Canal to Stony Canal will be at a point approximately 8,800+/- feet downstream of the existing dam. This point of rediversion is S. 80 degrees 30' E., 2,500 feet from NW corner, Section 4, T22N being within the NE 1/4 of Section 4, T22N R4W"; "existing South Canal of the Orland Project has an initial capacity of 530+/- cfs for the first 2,300 feet, or to the point where the new canal from the outlet works will join it. The 'Highline Canal' section of the existing South Canal (approximately 6,500 feet) will be enlarged to a capacity of 500 cfs, or to the point where Stony Canal will head. Stony Canal will have an initial capacity of 225 cfs for the first 94,800 feet, 68 cfs for the next 5,700 feet, and 50 cfs for the last 13,300 feet. Water depths will vary from 4.25 feet to 1.73 feet; slope will be 0.4 feet per 1,000 feet from the first 94,800 feet and 1.5 feet per 1,000 feet the remaining 19,000 feet.". . ."Additional or alternate conduits will be added as required to convey water to portions of the service area not servable from the above-named facilities.". . .capacities: "Stony Canal (proposed) 225 cfs, South Canal (existing) 530 cfs, North Canal (existing) 140 cfs."..."water will be used within the service areas of the districts, municipalities, water companies, corporations, and other legal entities within the gross place of potential use delineated on Maps 214-208-3353, 214-208-3354, 214-208-3355, and 214-208-3356 provided that the delivery of water is conditioned upon execution of valid contracts for such deliveries. Water may also be used by the State of California under Contract 14-06-200-8209, a copy of which is filed with the State Water Rights Board concurrently with this application."..."water applied for under this application is intended primarily for use either as a full or supplemental irrigation supply for the irrigable acreage within the gross place of use applied for."..."Portions of this area, within the described potential place of use will be furnished either a full or supplemental water supply developed from Stony Creek in accordance with rights acquired by the United States of America, and under contracts with the United States or other authorizations which may be made or given by authority of and pursuant to law. Other portions of the gross area are presently, or will in the future be served in part or in entirety with water developed under lawful rights acquired and used independently of those of the United States."..."it is anticipated that some of the water may be used within the Orland Project as a supplemental supply or on an exchange basis or both."....

    Map, Proposed Service Areas of Federal Central Valley Project, sheet 1 of 4, San Joaquin Valley Map 214-208-3354 07/19/1960

    011763 handwritten notes regarding confusion between submissions under 18115 & 19451, attached to:
    122762 4 p. 1) letter Dugan/Reclamation to SWRB, date on permit date sent, not date granted? 2) true & correct copy of application was altered by somebody, 3) absence of specific points of diversion covered by general language in application to be general CVP needs, 4) No defect in application, the papers filed for 19451 were carried over to 18115, 5) No mention was made by anyone of any defect 6) no authority for Board or staff to deface application or submissions such as the deletions that were made, 7) please restore deleted portions, 8) let him know when that is done
    brown envelope stamped "SUPERSEDED", contains ap 18115 rec'd 04/30/1958
    041158 Application 18115 fourth copy?


    PAPERS "BOUND" IN FILE (re-sorted in date order):

    1958


    040158 memo DWR to SWRB, enclosed an application from Stony Creek, from 01/15/1944 War Department Appendix A & DWR Bulletin 3
    050258 letter SWRB to DWR application assigned #18115
    050258 memo Carah/SWRB to Carr/SWRB re staff consult with Gleason Renoud, Chief, Reclamation Water Rights Section on 18115
    060458 letter Hill/SWRB to Bellport/Reclamation , Reclamation placed on record for 18115 etc.

    1959


    051859 letter Bellport/Reclamation to Banks/DWR proceeding with Black Butte, you filed 18115 for it, please assign 18115 to us [orig/copy]
    060459 letter Banks/DWR to Bellport/Reclamation state given assurances for repayment of conservation features of Black Butte for which legislation is pending making it part of CVP, withholding assignment pending the legislation
    092159 letter CARR/SWRB [?] to Dugan/Reclamation, chapter 21 Calif. Statutes 1959 transferred jurisdiction over state applications to the California Water Commission; please update 18115

    1960


    010860 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to Carr/CWC nothing further on ap at this time
    030260 Contract Reclamation #14-06-200-8209 "Contract for Repayment of Allocation of Costs of Black Butte Dam and Reservoir to the Capacity of the Reservoir to be Utilized for Water Conservation and for the Repayment of Operation and Maintenance Costs Incurred by the United States", 36 pp. Dugan/Reclamation, Banks/DWR; not found on line; state cost 39.9% of total, incl O & M plus interest, USA free to execute other contracts [for same water?] upon notice, costs to state reduced proportionately; but USA pay the state those costs so they state may pay them to USA [425.4 of Budget Act of 1958 & 385 of Budget Act of 1959, $7,300,000], complex, CVP not Black Butte & includes New Hogan....; Article 16, prohibits selling outside of project? prohibits selling to large landowners; p. 22 OK if inadvertent underflow from water furnished....
    040760 letter Dugan/Reclamation to Carr/CWC renewing request for assignment of state filings for Black Butte & New Hogan, have executed contracts that require such action before time expires, and copy of State contracts enclosed
    050960 memo Carah/SWRB to Carr/SWRB re staff consult with Gleason Renoud, Chief, Reclamation Water Rights Section on 18115; Reclamation skittish on state permit requirements under an assignment, may move to make it's own application
    072060 postcard Isabel Moore, Secty Stonyford Soil Conservation District; what does 18115 cover?
    072660 letter Hill/SWRB to Isabel Moore, Secty Stonyford Soil Conservation District, summary of 18115
    091660 "Statement of the Department of Water Resources Concerning the Request of the United States Bureau of Reclamation for Assignment of Application No. 18115"; recommends deferring assignment until 03/02/1960 costs are determined 7 years after project is available for storage & delivery unless Reclamation contracts elsewhere, with no limit on 19451
    092060 letter Carah/SWRB Bunker/CWC 18115 continued to 10/07 for DWR & Reclamation to work out protecting the State's [CVP?] interests
    100560 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to CWC requesting assignment 18115, problems solved?
    100660 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to CWC requesting assignment 18115, pencil note "supersedes 10/05/1960 letter, which looks identical
    100760 letter Banks/DWR to Editor/Orland Register, CWC approved assignment 18115 to Reclamation, press release copy enclosed
    100760 Resolution No. 87, "Assignemnt of Application No. 18115 to the United States of America", Carr & Carah/CWC; Exhibit "A" is the 11/15/1960 Assignment below
    101360 memo Associate Atty Sidney H. Young to F.A. Towner reporting on 10/07/1960 Ventura meeting: reviewing DWR 10/03/1960 and Reclamation 10/06/1960 letters, CWC Resolution #87 approved the assignment. [WHERE ARE THOSE 2 LETTERS?]
    101460 letter Dugan/Reclamation to Hill/SWRB asking for 90 day extension on 10/18/1960 deadline for advertising 19451 pending the windup of the 18115 transfer
    101860 memo Carah/CWC[?] to Silverthorne/SWRB enclosed Res #87, Exhibit "A" attached is not the official one, that will be after the 30 day reconsideration period
    102060 letter Hill/SWRB to Dugan/Reclamation extension OK
    110460 letter Dugan/Reclamation to Banks/DWR seek clarification on place of use, need maps like 19451, can accept those plus Plate 6 of Bulletin 3, California Water Plan if confirmed as adequate
    111560 letter Carr/CWC to Hill/SWRB enclosed assignment of 18115 by authority of Res. #87 CWC 10/07/1960
    111560 letter Carr/CWC to Dugan/Reclamation enclosed assignment of 18115 by authority of Res. #87 CWC 10/07/1960
    111560 Assignment by the California Water Commission to the United States of America of Application No. 18115 [2 copies]
    111760 memo Chester/SWRB to files, per Wittig/Reclamation should receive notice of Assignement of 18115 & then will request cancellation of the storage portion of 19451, etc.
    112260 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to Hill/SWRB assignment enclosed, plus drawings same as 19451, please cancel storage portion of 19451, suggest simultaneous advertising of both:
  • 654-208-4 Black Butte Dam, Plan, Profile, and Sections
  • 654-208-5 Black Butte Dam, Reservoir Area Topography
  • 654-208-6 General Location Map
  • 214-208-3353 Proposed Service Areas of Federal Central Valley Project
  • 214-208-3354 Proposed Service Areas of Federal Central Valley Project
  • 214-208-3355 Proposed Service Areas of Federal Central Valley Project
  • 214-208-3356 Proposed Service Areas of Federal Central Valley Project
    112860 letter Hill/SWRB to Carr/CWC enclosed assignment of 18115
    120560 memo Forsberg to files re CWC meeting 12/02/1960, Reclamation cancellation of storage in 19451 is OK
    121460 letter Hill/SWRB to Dugan/Reclamation , acknowledging assignment of 18115; deleted storage & flood control from 19451 and reduced irrigation Season to 03/15 to 06/30 [why?]
    121960 letter Banks/DWR to Dugan/Reclamation maps omit some Burns-Porter areas DWR intended to serve, unimportant in that they can initiate to amend place of use if needed; & 1) change "service ares" to "place of use" on drawings, and 2) omit the "applications which you intend to utilize on approval of your request for consolidation", etc. on 18115 [?]

    1961


    011961 letter Hill/SWRB to Dugan/Reclamation reviewed 18115, contains flood control as a condition of use; in D-935 on San Joaquin River, denied "flood control as a purpose of use because of lack of jurisdiction", suggest deleting it; under 10504.5(b) of Water Code, submit to CWC for approval before SWRB [2 copies]
    020361 letter Dugan/Reclamation to Hill/SWRB, Board has since D-935 approved 4 others with flood control in them, plus DWR's primary purpose for Black Butte is flood control as long since publicly announced and deleting it from the application would be an unreasonable delay, suggest allowing it to go to advertising with flood control a stated purpose; in 4 pages
    022361 letter Hill/SWRB to Dugan/Reclamation re 02/03/1961, legal staff says OK to leave flood control in; submit to CWC for approval before submitting to SWRB
    030161 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to CWC enclosing 18115 for approval before forwarding to SWRB
    030661 letter Carah/CWC to Hill/SWRB 18115 approved at 03/03/1961 meeting
    031361 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to Hill/SWRB CWC approved 18115, hereby resubmitted to SWRB, suggest simultaneous advertising for 18115 & 19451
    041561 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to Hill/SWRB [date very faint, could be wrong], some urgency before Black Butte is completed, suggest simply modifying previous "notice of application 19451" to include 18115 & amended 19451
    041761 letter Hill/SWRB to Sullivan/Reclamation almost done with the notice, coming soon
    051161 letter Hill/SWRB to Sullivan/Reclamation form, 3 copies of notice of applications, Department of Finance directed one be published in Corning Daily Observer and either Orland Unit or Orland Register before 05/26/1961 with proof by 07/10/1961
    051161 Hill/SWRB NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO APPROPRIATE WATER, 18115 and 19451; attached list of a hundred or so interested persons and certificate holders [?]
    051161 letter Hill/SWRB to Postmaster/Orland please post this notice

    Correspondence VOL. 2 OF 12

    031461 Amended Application Received, 18115; in front of file


    060561 Affidavit Donald H. Keene for Orland Unit
    060861 f Protest Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, "deprive protestant of water it requires for irrigation of land within its boundaries and to which it has vested rights." --
    061561 Affidavit Richard W. Collins publisher of Corning Observer
    062661 form letter Hill/SWRB to Reclamation must answer protests by 07/26/1961
    070561 letter atty McDonough to Hill/SWRB protests due by 07/10, request until 07/26, "LES called 07/07/1961"
    070661 form letter Hill/SWRB to Reclamation affidavit of publication not received
    070761 letter atty Frost to Hill/SWRB please note OUWUA as interested party, some other districts as interested clients as well
    070761 letter Dugan/Reclamation to Hill/SWRB enclosed Affidavit of Publication
    071061 letter Hill/SWRB to atty McDonough extension through 07/26/1961
    071161 f Protest, Department of Fish and Game, destruction of Salmon and steelhead, property of the State of California; F & G Code 5937, Water Code 1243 & 1257
    071161 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to SWRB encl "Answer of the United States to the protest of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District"
    071161 "Answer of the United States to the protest of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District" s/b directed to the Angle Court or Water Master, not SWRB --
    071261 letter Hill/SWRB to atty Frost your name entered
    071361 form letter Hill/SWRB to Reclamation affidavits of publication received
    071361 form letter Hill/SWRB to Department of Fish & Game protest received
    071361 form letter Hill/SWRB to Dugan/Reclamation acknowledge protest answers
    071561 letter atty McDonough to Warne/DWR appreciate a copy of the assignment of 18115
    072061 letter Carah/DWR to atty McDonough copy of assignment enclosed
    072161 letter Dugan/Reclamation to SWRB enclosed "Answer of the United States to the protest of the California Department of Fish and Game"
    072161 "Answer of the United States to the protest of the California Department of Fish and Game", s/b to Angle Court & water master; no steelhead & salmon can get past the Glenn-Colusa dam
    072461 letter atty Geis to SWRB enclosed protest of Edna L. Knight
    072561 letter atty Geis to SWRB enclosed protest of E.A. Wright
    072561 letter atty McDonough protest of "Sacramento River and Delta Water Association" enclosed
    072561 letter atty McDonough protest of "Stony Creek Water Users Association" enclosed
    072661 f Protest, "Stony Creek Water Users Association", with protest forms for each member --
    072661 Exhibit "A""Stony Creek Water Users Association" 3 pp. member list
    072661 f Protest Hattie M. Asdell 07/06/1961 --
    072661 f Protest Fred W. Barnett & Thelma M. Barnett; Squaw Creek (s/e of East Park Res)
    072661 f Protest Earle & Naomi Briggs
    072661 f Protest Jane E. Buckley, U.M. Buckley & L.S. Buckley 07/06/1961
    072661 f Protest Thomas G. Burket 07/05/1961
    072661 f Protest F.M. Burrows et al. 06/29/1961
    072661 f Protest Manual M. Candeias 07/24/1961
    072661 f Protest Clyde E. or Nellie Cushman 06/29/1961
    072661 f Protest F.B. Cushman & Camille Cushman
    072661 f Protest Eugene M. Davilla 06/29/1961
    072661 f Protest Lee Ellis & Harriet E. Ellis [?] 06/28/1961
    072661 f Protest Leo E. Flood, Nelle O. Flood, & L.H. Flood 06/29/1961
    072661 f Protest Claude D. & Velma M. Gillaspy 07/06/1961
    072661 f Protest LaVerne L. Gillaspy 07/06/1961
    072661 f Protest Danial A. Gilman, Kathleen L. Gilman & Alessandra M. Gilman 06/29/1961
    072661 f Protest James D. Grady 07/06/1961
    072661 f Protest Lawrence B. & Clarie L. Groteguth 07/01/1961
    072661 f Protest Ella Aileen Hamilton 06/30/1961
    072661 f Protest Coburn Haskell 07/15/1961
    072661 f Protest Richard E. Holmes & Helen V. Holmes 06/28/1961
    072661 f Protest Robert W. Howard 07/20/1961
    072661 f Protest Alex. Johnson, agent of H.W. & P.M. Jamieson
    072661 f Protest Maynard Johnson
    072661 f Protest Dorothy M. Judy aka Dorothy M. Cauhape 07/05/1961
    072661 f Protest Elaine G. Kerns
    072661 f Protest Lenus Landberg 07/05/1961
    072661 f Protest Orlif Landberg & Phyllis Landberg 07/05/1961
    072661 f Protest Anita Malerbi & Aldo Malerbi 07/14/1961
    072661 f Protest Norman G. Manson & Mabel I. Manson
    072661 f Protest Lewis A. & Frances C. Marbet
    072661 f Protest F.P. Masterson & Florence Masterson 07/06/1961 --
    072661 f Protest Alvin C. & Kitty C. Millsaps
    072661 f Protest Bernie L. & Lou Ann Millsaps 07/06/1961
    072661 f Protest Robert B. Millsaps 07/05/1961
    072661 f Protest Lawrence Moore 07/06/1961
    072661 f Protest Kenneth Niesen 07/05/1961
    072661 f Protest J.L. Nordyke & Mildred W. Nordyke 07/05/1961
    072661 f Protest Sam F. Paletta 07/19/1961
    072661 f Protest Florencio Pozas & Isabel Pozas 07/10/1961
    072661 f Protest Quiet Hills Ranch Co., Charles S. Wheeler Jr., President 07/08/1961
    072661 f Protest Walter Reed 06/29/1961
    072661 f Protest Paul D. & Joan Rogers 07/04/1961
    072661 f Protest Warren & Elsa Sandstrom 07/20/1961
    072661 f Protest Elmer Silver, Jr. 07/19/1961
    072661 f Protest Albert T. & Roberta E. Smith 07/08/1961
    072661 f Protest H.N. Smith & Altha Smith
    072661 f Protest Albert R. & Mary A. Soeth 06/30/1961
    072661 f Protest John B. & Anna May Soeth 06/29/1961
    072661 f Protest John A. Thompson, Jr., & Pauli S. Thompson 07/05/1961
    072661 f Protest Theo J. Weissich & Shirley Weissich 07/06/1961
    072661 f Protest Lucille F. Westcamp 06/29/1961
    072661 f Protest Christine F. Wheeler, Simpson Finnell, Jr., Zeller F. Rosson, Elizabeth F. Harrington 07/06/1961
    072661 f Protest William H. Whyler, Ellsworth H. Whyler, Hazel Whyler, Gladys Whyler 07/05/1961
    072661 f Protest Willis E. Wilson & LaVesta Wilson 07/17/1961

    072661 f Protest Sacramento River and Delta Water Association, 07/26/1961 water needed to flush salinity in the Delta
    072661 f Protest Edna L. Knight 07/24/1961 N. & S. Fork Elk Creek, Bowman Canyon, McGill Creek; application continues the process of stripping water from upstream lands
    072661 f Protest E.A. Wright 07/25/1961 , ditto
    072661 Exhibit "A" "Sacramento River and Delta Water Association" list, 69 names & addresses
    072861 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to SWRB enclosed Answer of United States to the protest of Edna L. Knight, not within protest period, no notice of extension, protest should not be accepted
    072861 Answer of United States to the protest of Edna L. Knight, only 28 acres of land riparian in the Angle schedule, riparian not within SWRB jurisdiction --
    080361 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to SWRB encl "Answer of the United States to the protest of the Sacramento River and Delta Water Association"
    080361 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to SWRB encl "Answer of the United States to the protest of E.A.Wright"
    080361 "Answer of the United States to the protest of E.A.Wright" No Angle riparian rights in Mr. Wright? "dispute involving the riparian status of the protestant's land does not fall within the jurisdiction of the board." --
    080361 "Answer of the United States to the protest of the Sacramento River and Delta Water Association" During season, no Stony Creek water reaches the River, refuting protestant's claim that it is used to flush the Delta; protest filed late --
    080461 letter Hill/SWRB to Dugan/Reclamation acknowledge receipt of your answers to protests of State Fish & Game and Edna L. Knight
    080461 letter Hill/SWRB to atty Geis received Edna L. Knight & E.A. Wright protests
    080461 letter Dugan/Reclamation to SWRB enclosed Answer of United States to the protest of the Stony Creek Water Users Association copy to atty McDonough & 54 members [GET]; protestants claiming reservoirs violated the Angle Decee & state procedures for appropriation and cannot have illegally acquired rights protected; & 1) issues not within SWRB jurisdiction, 2) all upstream can take the water to which they are entitled before it reaches applicant's diversion, 3) protestants claim interference with appropriations that started since 12/19/1914 without compliance with statutory procedure, 4) protests not filed within time states and no showing of diligence; McDonough's mailing list attached
    080861 letter Hill/SWRB to atty McDonough received Sacramento River and Delta Water Association protest --
    080961 letter atty McDonough to Hill/SWRB, Stony Creek Water Users Association not attacking Angle, application is for a separate project; many ponds have permits, the others have applied for them -- [on back of Hill letter]
    080961 letter atty McDonough to Hill/SWRB, assertion River & Delta, & Stony Creek Water Users' Association filed late; were filed within the time granted for extension, Reclamation assertion that time extended is for negotiation is wrong since it's allowed for any good cause shown
    081461 form letter Hill/SWRB to Reclamation received answers
    081761 letter Hill/SWRB to atty Geis, cannot accept Knight & Wright protests, board policy of rejecting protests by upstream users who have the opportunity to divert under any rights before it reaches applicant's diversion point; terms of the assignment preserve county of origin protections. --
    081761 letter Hill/SWRB to atty Mcdonough, cannot accept individual upstream protests 1) opportunity to use water before applicant gets it under any right they may have, 2) storing water without permit, protest based on a claim after 12/19/1914 without compliance cannot be accepted; joint protest still accepted [copied on back of Geis letter] --
    082361 letter Hill/SWRB to atty Mcdonough received 08/09/1961 letter
    082561 letter atty Mcdonough to DUGAN/Reclamation failure to send copy of 08/23/1961 letter an oversight
    091861 Staff Summary for Hearing of Applications 18115 & 19451; 19451 gross area of 17,000 - 50,000 acres, net, within the 9,025,000 acres in 18115; submit on 1) unappropriated water, 2) anticipated injury, 3) special terms & conditions
    092061 Notice of Hearing, Wednesday, 11/08/1961 9:30 a.m. SWRB Hearing Room
    092061 Affidavit of Mailing, William V. Arroyo, Notice of Hearing to attached list by certified mail.
    092261 atty Mcdonough to Hill/SWRB 11/08/1961 date conflict, 11/07/1961 previously confirmed by telephone was OK; note thereon 10/02 stamp 11/28/1961 is OK.
    092561 SWRB Cross Reference Form, file 070.0 08/23/1961 & 09/25/1961 Board Policy re: Dismissal of Protests, letter & acknowledgment
    100261 Notice of Rescheduling of hearing, to Tuesday, 11/28/1961
    100561 Affidavit of Mailing, William V. Arroyo, Notice of Hearing to attached list by certified mail.
    111761 letter GCID to SWRB enclosed 5 copies of GCID hearing exhibits: and also plan to introduce a map of the district and the Angle Decree
    111761 atty Mcdonough to Clark/Assistant Regional Solicitor, appreciate a copy of the operation study for Black Butte Reservoir that shows yield, or "extent or effect of present or future depletion upstream from that reservoir"
    112261 letter Hill/SWRB to GCID recieved the 5 copies of exhibits
    112761 memo DFG to Hill/SWRB withdrawing protest
    113061 atty Mcdonough to Hill/SWRB enclosing original & of Association Exhibit 2C introduced at hearing; 2A & 2B, 4 & 5 forthcoming; District Engineer's report partially printed in H.Doc. No. 649, 78th Congress, USBR Exhibit 1A sent to central warehousing, Kansas? will retrieve if you wish
    120261 letter Stony Creek W.U.A. exh. 2D atty Mcdonough to District Engineer, Army, 2 studies, USBR Exhibit 2A 03/1958 pre-Black Butte conditions with col. 48 flow toward Sacramento River, 2B Black Butte Project R-1 Summary 04/1958 ends col. 64 "Sacramento R.-Chico Ldg. above 130,000 d.f.s", 2C Corps of Engineers Operation Studies, which seem to explain 2B; want any other writing for SWRB explaining the assumptions, figures, columns in these studies
    120461 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to SWRB, enclosing 5 copies Exh, 17 & 21, copies to all others
    120661 letter Hill/SWRB to atty McDonough received 2C; will let you know on the rest
    120661 letter atty McDonough to Hill/SWRB enclosing 4 more copies of maps SCWUA Exh 4 & 5, & sent to others
    120861 letter Hill/SWRB to Dugan/Reclamation received 17 & 21
    121361 letter Hill/SWRB to DFG per your request, your protests dismissed
    121361 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to SWRB, you requested 1) Corps Hydrology report on the project; 2) info pertaining to present use of Stony Creek water; 1) is being updated into a Reservoir Regulation design memorandum which will contain the latest, will send that since feels the Hydrology report won't contain the sought info. 2) Angle: upstream appropriative 13,133 af; riparian 11,764 a-f, total 24,817 a-f; under the reservoir 6,935 a-f; 60 applications on file with Board for 05/1916-07/1961 5,886 a-f; total above Black Butte Reservoir 23,768, usual appropriative diversions upstream 11,500 annually; USBR Exh 23, tabulation of 1959 diversions plaintiff & defendant, per U.S. District court records [WHERE?], OUWUA from Reclamation Records, GCID from DWR Bulletin 23-59
  • 121461 letter Hill/SWRB to atty McDonought receive 4 extra copies of maps SCWUA Exh 4 & 5
  • 121461 letter Stony Creek W.U.A. exh. 2E Kochis/Army Engineers to atty McDonough, enclosing "Routing Criteria Preproject Conditions U-1" 03/28/1958 & "Routing Criteria Preproject Conditions R-1" 04/1958, used for cost-allocation studies for Black Butte, water rights disclaimer
  • Stony Creek W.U.A. exh. 2F Black Butte Project "Routing Criteria Preproject Conditions U-1"
  • Stony Creek W.U.A. exh. 2G Black Butte Project "Routing Criteria Preproject Conditions R-1"
    121561 letter atty McDonough to Hill/SWRB, enclosed 3 copies of SCWUA Exh 2A & 2B , cost him $25 each, let him know if want more, else returning negative to Reclamation
    122061 letter atty McDonough to Hill/SWRB encl 5 copies Exh 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G
    122061 letter Hill/SWRB to atty McDonough acknowledging receipt
    122061 letter Hill/SWRB to Dugan/Reclamation received Sullivan letter 12/13/1961; tabulation marked USBR Exh 23 but that # s/b Stony Creek Water Master reports, will see from transcripts
    122961 letter Hill/SWRB to atty McDonough acknowldging receipt 2D, 2E, 2F, 2G

    1962


    010862 letter atty McDonough to Hill/SWRB Anything from Reclamation on their reserved Exh 23?
    010862 letter Hill/SWRB to Dugan/Reclamation 12/13/1916 letter with Exh 23, "Estimate of Water diverted from Stony Creek and its Tributaries during 1959 Irrigation Season by Plaintiff and Defendants in the case of the United States of America vs. H.C. Angle et al., in Equity No. 30.", p. 98 of tr reserved for Stony Creek Water Master report of which there doesn't seem to be one, can't accept this substitution.
    011262 letter atty McDonough to Hill/SWRB fwd copy of Reclamation 12/13 letter, proposed Exh. 23, SWRB letter 01/08 rejecting it.
    011562 letter atty McDonough to Hill/SWRB Thanks for 01/12 letter
    011562 letter Dugan/Reclamation to Hill/SWRB Exh 23 was presented in response to Board Member Alexander's interest, not going to use it? please return it
    012462 letter Hill/SWRB to Dugan/Reclamation enclosed Exh 23 returned
    021362 letter Moore/Stonyford Soil Conservation District to SWRB, Ebehardt & Renoud of Reclamation asked how much water should be reserved for irrigable lands within district, 49,000 a-f for 10,000 acres of land; penciled note, "no reply necessary 02/14/62 DEK" --
    062162 letter Dugan/Reclamation to Hill/SWRB what's happening, where are our permits?
    062762 letter Hill/SWRB to Dugan/Reclamation we're working on it
    092662 adopted, Decision D 1100 "Decision Approving Application 18115 in part and Denying Application 19451" 18 pp --
    092762 letter Hill/SWRB to Applicant, Protestants, and Interested Parties, enclosed D 1100; "Board concluded that unappropriated water does not occur with sufficient frequency in Stony Creek to merit granting a permit pursuant to Application 19451 and the application was denied." --
    100262 Check for Permit, "Adjudicated area 'No'", "Maps filed 6-21-61 were not first submitted to California Water Commission and approved by that agency. Any changes thereon can not be considered by SWRB. [initialed illegible]"
    101962 [ probably a mistake & s/b 11/19/62 see 04/09/1963 ] letter Hill/SWRB to Dugan/Reclamation permit issued, more limits in this letter: references to points of diversion on Drawing 214-208-3355 revised 06/07/1961 not included in application as advertised have been deleted. --
    102662 Approval for Signature, Water Right Permit, Ap. 18115, Permit 13776, protests dismissed by D-1100 /s/ ?loy D. Johnson
    111962 Permit Terms, 160,000 storage 11/01 - 04/30, "may be reduced in the license if investigation warrantes"
    112062 SWRB return receipt
    122762 letter Dugan/Reclamation to Hill/SWRB [same as copy loose in back of Vol 1 above]

    1963


    011163 letter Hill/SWRB to Dugan/Reclamation Received 12/27/1962 letter
    012563 letter Hill/SWRB to [Pafford?]/Reclamation re 12/27/1962 letter; suggest you return permit to correct entries to 11/19/1962; red-lining conforms to the decision; if you want the deleted diversion points added to the permit, it should have been submitted that way to begin with, so, resubmit.;
    022163 letter Pafford/Reclamation to CWC, can't get SWRB to approve permit with the diversion points sought, so, please examine the enclosed maps & petition so we can try again. 3 pp.
    022863 letter Mrs. Jessie Westcamp, Secty/Elk Creek SCD to DWR (so how did it get to SWRB?); want copy of State Water Code espe. Section 10505, copy of Decision by SWRB on 18115 & 19451
    031263 letter Hill/SWRB to Mrs. Jessie Westcamp, Secty/Elk Creek SCD enclosed pp. 238-240 of water code with Section 10505, & copy of D1100; full code from State Printing Div. for $10 plus tax
    031463 memo Abbott/DWR to ??, re Petition by Reclamation to Include Additional Points of Rediversion Under Application No. 18115--Black Butte Project, on 04/05 Agenda, Department should approve. Black Butte part of CVP Water Code Section 11276; points of diversion contemplated include: "(1) non-project diversions of project water, Sacramento River from Keswick to American River. (2) Yolo-Zamora Conduit Intake, (3) East Side Canal Intake, (4) Figarden Dam, (5) Junction of Friant-Kern and East Side Canals, (6) Porterville-Bakersfield Canal Intake, (7) Vallejo Pumping Plant Intake, (8) Delta-Cross Channel Intake, (9) Contra Costa Canal Intake, (1) [sic] Santa Clara Conduit Intake, (11) Delta-Mendota Canal Intake, (12) San Luis Dam, (13) Pacheco Pass Conduit Intake, (14) San Luis Canal Intake, (15) Mendota Dam, (16) Temple Slough Intake, and (17) Pleasant Valley Canal Intake."
    032663 memo DWR [?] to CWC, DWR agreement 03/02/1960 obligated DWR to guarantee repayment to Feds of conservation benefits attaching to Black Butte Project. So, please approve.
    040163 letter atty McDonough to Hill/SWRB re Reclamation 02/21/1963 letter, please give a copy of your 10/19/1962 letter
    040463 letter atty McDonough to Carah/CWC , following Pafford 02/21/1963 letter, for clients "Sacramento River and Delta Water Association" ask you not approve amendmended diversions, same reasons as 07/05/1960 letter to CWC, precise language suggested in Exhibit P to 07/07/1960 presentation copy attached [protect the watershed & Delta flows]
    040963 letter Hill/SWRB to atty McDonough, 10/19/1962 letter to Dugan was probably 11/19/1962
    041163 memo Carah/CWC to J. Robert Burton, Deputy Atty General re Sacramento River and Delta Water Association v. California Water Commission, Sacto County Superior #126921; McDonough renewing Association protest made in that suit within 18115 request by Reclamation to restore deleted diversions to 18115, urge early resolution of it in the courts?
    110763 letter Kadie/Reclamation to Hill/SWRB project completed, reservoir started filling 11/01/1963; vegetation cleared from reservoir area; invitation to visit
    112763 letter Hill/SWRB to Pafford/Reclamation thanks for Kadie letter

    Correspondence VOL. 3 OF 12

    1965


    [no 1964?]


    010765 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1963; $1,109,543 over past 12 months , dam & related facilities
    010765 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to Hill/SWRB enclosed is 1963 Report
    082065 letter Kay A. Booth to DWR, How did OUWUA get 100% of the water rights to the only live stream in the area --
    082465 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1964; $357,973 dam, facilities, land rights, recreation; "Orland Project received a supplemtal supply of 6,237 acre-feet during September and October 1964"
    082465 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to Hill/SWRB enclosed is 1964 Report
    090265 letter Hill/SWRB to Kay A. Booth, see Angle & D1100 --
    102265 letter Kay A. Booth to SWRB, get a copy of Angle & D1100 and appl 18115?
    102865 letter Hill/SWRB to Kay A. Booth, 13776 enclosed, no extra copies of Angle or D1100; can have it sent out for repro, $12

    1966


    092066 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1965; $16,895, land rights, recreation facilities, radio-reporting equipment
    092066 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to Hill/SWRB enclosed is 1965 Report

    1968


    052768 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1966; $32,900 land rights, recreation facilities, radio-reporting equipment
    052768 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to Mulligan/SWRCB enclosed is 1966 Report
    071268 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1967; $19,865 recreation facilities, radio-reporting precipitation & temperature gages
    071268 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to Mulligan/SWRCB enclosed is 1967 Report

    1969


    060669 undated letter Sullivan/Reclamation to Gilbert/SWRCB enclosed is 1968 Report
    060469 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1968; $16,937 additions to water treatment facilities

    1970


    080570 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1969; $9,457 land and construction of additional recreation facilities
    080570 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to Gilbert/SWRCB enclosed is 1969 Report

    1971


    050471 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1970
    050471 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to Gilbert/SWRCB enclosed is 1970 Report

    1972


    040772 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1971
    040772 letter Hammond/Reclamation to Dendy/SWRCB enclosed is 1971 Report

    1974


    061474 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1972, with Supplemental Report "Bureau...requiring the utilization of ground water, in combination with surface water, wherever practical."
    061474 letter Horton/Reclamation to Dendy/SWRCB enclosed is 1972 Report

    1975


    020775 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1973, attached "Summary of Central Valley Project Operations", fn 1 excludes Black Butte, etc.
    020775 letter Martin/Reclamation to Dendy/SWRCB enclosed is 1973 Report

    1976


    021076 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1974, attached "Summary of Central Valley Project Operations", fn 1 excludes Black Butte, etc.
    021076 letter Horton/Reclamation to Rosenberger/SWRCB enclosed is 1974 Report [out of order in file]
    092876 Notice of Hearing 11/15/1976 on Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, towards a "water quality control plan" and a "water rights decision"; 2 phases: 1) Delta hydrology, operation of CVP/SWP, beneficial uses & water quality criteria required to protect each beneficial use, 2) water quality objectives for the Delta
  • Staff Summary for Hearing on the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun Marsh; U.S. v. California affects all Reclamation permits issued by the SWRCB, now on appeal; subject D 893,D 990,D 1020,D 1100, D 1250,D 1275 & D 1291, D 1308,D 1356,D 1422,Permit Order 124 (Trinity), Permit Order 07/28/1960 app 17375 & 17376 (Whiskeytown)
  • Table I. DWR & Bureau permits subject of this hearing, "Permits for Delta Water Supply of Federal Central Valley Project and State Water Project", 7 pp.
  • Table II. tabulation by subject matter of the various reserved jurisdiction conditions imposed on the permits. "Subject Matter of Reserved Jurisdiction Conditions"
  • SWRCB map "Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta"
    110176 Supplemental Notice of Hearing, attached "Phase I Prehearing Report" [where?]; USDC stay on use of record for D 1379 removed
  • Hearing Procedures
  • Attachment A - (list of parties who satisfy appearance requirement for appearance at the hearing) Parties Qualified by Appearance at Preliminary Stage Hering in April 1976
  • Attachment B - Phase I Hearing Agenda

    1977


    091377 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1975
    091377 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1976
    091377 letter Horton/Reclamation to Rosenberger/SWRCB enclosed is 1975 & 76 Report

    1978


    060878 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1977
    060878 letter Horton/Reclamation to Rosenberger/SWRCB enclosed is 1977 Report

    1979


    113079 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1978

    1982


    051982 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1979; $15,258,886 has been spent on Black Butte Dam and related recreational facilities as of September 30/1979

    1983


    080883 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1980;

    1984


    100184 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1981; 143 a-f by exchange to users in watershed above reservoir; 18,093 acres within Orland Project
    100184 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1982; 17,673 acres within Orland Project
    100184 Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1983; 17,909 acres within Orland Project

    1985


    022785 SWRCB: Notice of Petition for Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion and Point of Rediversion, Application 5626 (Permit 12721) and Others (list attached); Reclamation petition 15 permits; divert pumping from Tracy to Banks plant 195,000 a-f
    090585 Mork/SWRCB: Received notice of proposed temporary change, attached - 10 days to respond if you have any interest
  • Transfer from various Reclamation permits to DWR, 12000 af through Banks to Santa Clara County
  • 090485 SWRCB: Notice of Petition for Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion and Point of Rediversion, Application 5626 (Permit 12721) and Others (list attached); Reclamation petition 14 permits; divert pumping from Tracy to Banks plant 12,800 af
    091985 SWRCB: Order Allowing Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion and Point of Rediversion, 12,800 af
    100385 memo from?/to? Reclamation petition to consolidate and expand the place of use of [15 permits] the CVP Service Area; & add Banks plant as point of diversion & rediversion
    100785 SWRCB: Notice of Petition for Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion and Point of Rediversion, Application 5626 (Permit 12721) and Others (list attached); Reclamation petition 14 permits; divert pumping from Tracy to Banks plant 12,800 af because of selenium in subsurface drainage /return flow, need to replace/supplement 110,000 a-f for irrigation & duck club habitat in West Grasslands, compensate by placing equal amount in San Luis Reservoir Federal portion, 28,000 to USF & WS / DFG refuges , balance to private lands Grassland Water District. Fit objections: 1) possible injury to vested rights, 2) not within Board's jurisdiction, 3) not in the public interest, 4) adverse environmental impact, 5) contrary to law
    101785 SWRCB Order Validating Issuance of Temporary Urgency Change Order, 12,800 a-f into San Luis
    102385 letter Johnson/SWRCB to Houston/Reclamation, enclosed is temporary urgency change order issued 10/25/1985 [sic] on your petition 10/02/1985
  • 102585 SWRCB (Darlene E. Ruiz): Order Allowing Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion and Point of Rediversion, 50,000 af to San Luis storage; selenium, boron, molybdenum
    103085 memo Walsh/SWRCB to Van Vleck/Resources Secretary, notice of exemption attached
  • 102585 Notice of Exemption Pursuant to Section 21108 Public Resources Code re 50,000 a-f diverted/rediverted through Banks plant for West Grasslands selenium reduction
    102585 Order Modifying and Reissuing Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion and Rediversion, Ruiz issued; 50,000 a-f, South Grasslands duck clubs have stopped accepting drain water because of "recent knowledge concerning bioaccumulation of selenium," and thus selenium content downstream is higher than in previous years; proposal is to use CVP water from San Luis [?] and wheel water over winter to San Luis from Banks plant to replace [?]; deleting 7, 8, & 9 of temporary order which would have place limits on selenium levels

    1986


    090486 F Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1985; 16,939 acres within Orland Project, 71,193 for use within Orland Project; 341 a-f exchange contracts with upstream users
    090486 F Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1984; 15,481 acres within Orland Project, 66,689 for use within Orland Project; 1207 a-f exchange contracts with upstream users

    1987


    101487 memo Bontadelli/DFG to Maughan/SWWRCB; high water temperature conditions upper Sacramento River from drought, & reduce flows from Keswick now rather than so radically late in the season when it would strand/dewater spawning beds; lower flows will allow higher mixture of cooler Trinity water, 50,000 a-f?
    101487 letter Schild/Reclamation to Walsh/SWRCB enclosed is emergency petition for DFG requests; 1) cooler temperatures in the Sacramento, 2) prevent dewatering of spawning redds, 3) replace the pumping reductions curtailed 10/24-11/03 that will facilitate outmirgration of DFG Merced hatchery smolts; change only in timing of when water is pumped to San Luis
    101587 letter McKevitt/USF & WS to Maughn/SWRCB, we support it!
    102087 State Water Resource Control Board, Division of Water Rights, Order Allowing Conditional Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion and Point of Rediversion, Maughan; Reclamation to have insufficient capacity at Tracy Plant in the winter, thus; need Banks to wheel offset; public trust, waste, etc. --
    102187 SWRCB: Notice of Petition for Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion and Point of Rediversion, 80,000 a-f; 1) DFG asked flow reductions from Keswick be made early to protect salmon spawning in the Sacramento this fall; 2) replacement water for pumping reductions at request of DGG to facilitate outmigration of yearling salmon to be released from DFG Merced River Spawning Channel [3 copies]
    102287 letter Kennedy/DWR to Houston/Reclamation; agree to wheel through SWP Banks plant; signed agreement
    110287 letter Paff/Reclamation to Walsh/SWRCB, accounting procedure for curtailment of pumping, Tracy Plant, plus a columnar description of the sheet
    110587 memo Hitzeman/SWP to Walsh/SWRCB DWR has agreed
    110087 letter atty Nakagawa to Walsh/SWRCB; urgency petition is an end-run effort to escape Contra Costa County Water Agency objections to Reclamation's "trial transfers" of 80,000 a-f, and will increase salinity at CCCWA intakes; received 2 days after objection period ended
    111787 Order Validating Conditional Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion; re CCCWA, this deferral of pumping improves Reclamation capacity to meet Delta salinity standards, & not an end-run
    111787 Item 13 Proposed Order Validating Conditional Temporary Urgency Change in Point of Diversion Under Permits of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation for use of the Banks Pumping Plant to Replace Diversions Deferred at the Request of the Department of Fish and Game; staff recommends Board adopt the proposed order

    1989


    071289 letter Pettit/SWRCB to Emrick/Colusa County Water District, re: Reclamation petition for changes and extension of time to Complete Use of water under Permit 12721 (application 5626) and 18 other permits, 20 day protest period re-opening for CCWD

    1990


    041190 F Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1986; 16,855 acres within Orland Project and 252 acres outside Orland Project, 64,143 a-f to the Orland Project; 865 a-f exchange contracts with upstream users
    041190 F Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1987; 16,751 acres within Orland Project and 309 acres outside Orland Project, 71,825 a-f to the Orland Project; 1605 a-f exchange contracts with upstream
    041190 F Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1988; 16,721 acres within Orland Project and 309 acres outside Orland Project, 63,115 a-f to the Orland Project; 1855 a-f exchange contracts with upstream users
    040990 letter Fults/Reclamation to Pettit/SWRCB enclosed reports for 1986,7,8

    1991


    120991 letter Attaway/SWRCB to Patterson/Reclamation re Los Vaqueros petition, DFG gets a fee on any SWRCB petition, $850 per application, 17 petitions? $14,450 please.

    1992


    010892 letter Johnson/SWRCB to Turner/Reclamation re Los Vaqueros, amended petition to remove 350 cfs limit rejected, a new application would be required to increase the diversion rate
    072192 Reclamation Press Release increasing flow from 30 cfs to 430 cfs to furnish GCID as CVP water
    120892 F Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1986; 16,855 acres within Orland Project and 252 acres under exchange; 87,789 a-f to the Orland Project; 1397 a-f exchange contracts with upstream users [AMENDED?]
    120892 F Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1987; 16,751 acres within Orland Project and 309 acres under exchange; 95,698 a-f to the Orland Project; 2131 a-f exchange contracts with upstream users [AMENDED?]
    120892 F Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1988; 16,721 acres within Orland Project and 309 acres under exchange; 85,854 a-f to the Orland Project; 2505 a-f exchange contracts with upstream users [AMENDED?]
    120892 F Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1989; 16,397 acres within Orland Project and 329 acres under exchange; 79,611 a-f to the Orland Project; 2400 a-f exchange contracts with upstream users
    120892 F Progress Report by Permittee for the Year 1989 [1990?]; 16,457 acres within Orland Project and 290 acres under exchange; 95,826 a-f to the Orland Project; 1760 a-f exchange contracts with upstream users
    122492 letter Hoffman/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB petition for rediversion Black Butte into T-C Canal at times Red Bluff Diversion Dam deliveries curtailed for fish migration concerns;
  • 020293 Petition for Change
  • 020293 Petition for Change, Environmental Information "construct small impoundment dike and channel in Stony Creek out of in-creek materials. Water considered excess to Stony Creek water supply objectives would be diverted int the Tehama Colusa Canal though an existing constant head orifice (CHO). Dike would be established each March and be breached each may. Channel would also be maintained annually. Work to be accomplished using D6 or D7 dozer." Changes: "Impoundment during month of April. Removal of in-channel phreatophytics only. Recharge of groundwater along Stony Creek."

    1993


    010893 Parkinson/SWRCB to Hoffman/Reclamation re 12/24/1992 to add a point of rediversion, DFG fee required, $850 please.
    011193 fax receipt to 99785284
    012293
    021093 DFG "RareFind Report" Bank Swallow, Valley Needlegrass Grassland, Northern Hardpan Vernal Pool (2), Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest (2), Ahart's Paronychia (2)
    012293 letter Hoffman/Reclamation to Parkinson/SWRCB, petition now signed, sorry, plus signed WR 1-4 Environmental Information form; and a $850 check to DFG under protest since they've been trying to get an answer out of DFG for a year, and this petition is to facilitate fish migration in the Sacramento River; attached postit Colon to Bert Parkinson, hand carried....


    Correspondence VOL. 4 OF 12

    1992


    042792 [snotty] letter Ploss/Reclamation to GCID, "Black Butte Reservoir Operations for 1992 and Delivery of water to Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Under Sacramento River Water Right Contract No. 14-06-200-855A - Central Valley Project (Water Delivery Contract); setting forth to GCID terms under which it will release from Black Butte, that Black Butte & T-C releases are either, not both, & all within Reclamation's discretion. --
  • 100592 Order Judge David F. Levi, USDC ED 91-1128 on SJ defendant's granted, plaintiff's denied
  • 022092 letter Patterson/Reclamation to GCID, you want water from T-C Canal in the future? Do a bunch of things and pay for it. --
  • 040664 Contract 04-06-200-855A Contract between the United States and Glenn Colusa Irrigation District, Diverter of Water from Sacramentio River Sources Providing for Project Water Service and Agreement on Diversion of Water 37 pp
  • Exhibit A, Schedule of Monthly Diversions of Water
  • Exhibit C, Unit Duty
  • 121963 Resolution Approving Draft of Contract, Amendments and Letters Pertaining Thereto Between The United States and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, for the Diversion of Water from Sacramento River Sources, and Providing for Project Water Service and Agreement on Water Sources
  • 121963 Secretary's Certificate
  • 073175 Contract 14-06-200-8181A Agreement Between The United States and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Providing for the Conveyance of Water 21 pp
  • 030675 Resolution Approvin Draft of Contract Between the United States of America and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, for the Conveyance of Water
  • 031375 Secretary's Certificate

    1993


    020193 letter Minasian to SWRCB copies of filings by Reclamation to add a point of rediversion?
    020293 Petition for Change, moving from Black Butte to T-C Canal crossing?
    020893 Contact Report Parkinson/SWCRB to Colon/Reclamation correct diversion point?
    020893 January 1993 Notice of Petitions Received , add a rediversion within SW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 13 T22N R3W
    020893 Public Trust Protest and Public Trust Complaint by California Sportfishing Protection Alliance --
    022393 [ 022293 ? -- ] Protest, GCID, Reclamation Rediversion to Stony Creek at T-C Canal intersection, interference with recharge & with GCID Angle rights; Environmental Concerns filing
  • Other Issues (Section 2) Attachment (Re: Environmental Considerations)
    022393 [ 022293 ? -- ] Protest, GCID, Reclamation Rediversion to Stony Creek at T-C Canal intersection; Vested rights filing; interference with GCID vested rights, contradict terms of D 1100 that denied Reclamation this right, 13 pp. Reclamation history of Stony Creek usage attached
  • Attachment 1 - GCID Vested rights narrative; HR429 passed 10/1992 requires "Bureau provide for renegotiation of all terms and conditions of all water supply contracts with its contractors on or before 1996", for which GCID will demand return of all Stony Creek water to which GCID is entitled since Reclamation limited their rights under its interpretation of para. 10(a) of the Diversion contract: 1.2.1 Announce early in the year when GCID's Stony entitlement will be available after 08/01 [?] - in 2002 Reclamation delivered it in April which was useless; 1.2.2 D 1630 Pulse Flow Requirements, Reclamation not mitigating impacts; 1.2.3 Despite D 1100 halting diversions to Storage after 04/30 Reclamation insists on doing just that claiming it is under the District's [?] pre-1914 water rights; 1.2.4 T-C Diversion will divert side flows below Black Butte not provided for diversion by Angle Court; 1.2.5 Dam will be used by Reclamation to violate Angle, D 1100 & Diversion Contract; 1.2.6 Reclamation will maintain the dam later than allowed by D 1100; 1.2.7 Reclamation ignoring ESA aspects of injunction at GCID pumping plant; 1.2.8 Reclamation ignoring recharge uses of current flows, Reclamation appropriating recharge flows without appropriative rights; 1.2.9 Reclamation assertions that diversion is for Wildlife Refuges false; 1.2.10 no underflow/ sideflow measurements provided for? 1.2.11 Reclamation evading obligations to SWRCB, Angle Court, & downstream right holders ; 1.2.12 since D 1100 technology advances would allow improvements in forecasting flood control needs and presentation of alternatives they offer hasn't been made, affecting possible storage [?] 1.2.13 Reclamation has been diverting water to recreation usages that should have been released to GCID 08/01 onward, & this change will make it worse [?]; 1.2.14 Reclamation has been reporting that all Black Butte releases have been used by Orland and GCID, and now asserts otherwise? --
  • Attachment 2 GCID rights & Angle recognition
  • Attachment 3 [? 042062 ? -- ] Memo Reclamation Regional Project Development Engineer (Shukle ?) to Regional Director, Sacramento; Review of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Report on Water Requirements and Water Entitlements from Sacramento River by Clair A. Hill and Associates dated February 1961, complex analysis (mention of a history of the Glenn-Colusa 1883 right & legal failings, Regional Director 02/27/1962 letter to Dwinnel/GCID; mention of 03/01/1962 travel report from Mitchell to Assistant Commissioner, "Review and discussion of studies on water rights settlement along Sacramento River and related diversions - Central Valley Project")
    - Hydrographic discharge Data, Stony Creek Diversions of GCID 1925-60
    - Attachment to Permittee Report for 1987 Water use for Application 18115
  • Attachment 4 , continuation of Paragrpah 6 (dismissal possiblities) 1.0 something binding that yields Stony Creek & Black Butte water to GCID during August 1st ESA constraint; 1.2 Reclamation not be permitted to interfere with GCID wheeling right in T-C Canal; 2.0 weekly forecasts to GCID & T-C of water available from Stony Creek; 3.0 update Black Butte flood control management; 4.0 800 cfs gravel dam pass-through; 5.0 pass-through of side-flow to recharge downstream, measured; 6.0 balance recreation in Black Butte with downstream needs; 7.0 Reclamation pay for enlarging its delivery capacity from T-C to Stony; 7.1 Reclamation guarantee its T-C to Stony performance; 8.0 operating & water measurement agreement in Black Butte & Angle rights; 8.1 a way to ensure Black Butte inflows over 265 cfs into all 3 reservoirs is passed down to GCID after 04/30; 8.2 give Angle watermaster authority to calculate that passthrough daily; 9.0 more to come, petition not served or delivered to GCID
    030393 letter Hoffman/Reclamation to Parkinson/SWRCB, correct diversion to SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Section 13 T22N R3W, map enclosed
    030893 Receipt Reclamation $850.00 application fee, diversion
    030493 [ 030993 ? -- ] letter for Patterson/Reclamation to atty Minasian, re Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District's Request to Add the Constant Head Orifice as a Point of Delivery under Contract 14-06-3200-8181A (your Letter Dated January 7, 1993 [WHERE?]) (Water Service Contract); meeting Willows 02/12/1993 Tim O'Laughlin of Minasian, T-C WUA, TCCA, James Turner Assistant Regional Solicitor, Reclamation Regional Office and Willows Construction Office staff; T-C diversion from Stony to offset raising RBDD boards for salmon, etc.; GCID sent demand to Corps for EIS prior to issuing Section 404 permit to Reclamation, GCID filed protest with SWRCB; Judge Levi's order 10/05/1992 settled any GCID claim that it might have right to storage in Black Butte under Angle, as in "no right", and ESA enforcement not an "emergency" - "Reclamation does not intend to further debate this issue with GCID."; will assure: will modify or breach diversion structure for passthrough, will attempt to forecast, will consider wheeling, will agree to add CHO as an addtional point of delivery provided GCID pays and wheel water if capacity available. [where is Wasteway Cross Channel/intertie?]; let them know if this is sufficient. [no promise to never ever break any more promises, including that one, of course]
    031593 Contact report, Meroney & Tony Colon/Reclamation who called to ask status of protests, responding to the 2 protests & asking for approval by 04/01/1993, not feasible.
    031893 letter Clark/GCID to Patterson/Reclamation , appreciating 06/09/1993 letter, and enclosing:
  • 031893 Letter of Agreement, GCID & Reclamation: 1) Black Butte operation; 2) T-C gravel dam passthrough, 3) Stony to T-C Canal when RBDD gates raised, 4) wheeling deliveries; 2. 25 GCID-75 T-C contractor split on Black Butte CVP [?] releases; 3. at TCCA cost, will provide for 1000 cfs bypass, & when full RBDD flows in T-C, shove dam to side of channel; 4. Make sense? wheeling or proportionate delivery, standard pumping rates on T-C; 5. CHO delivery point; 6. if Black Butte insufficient, substitute wheeling at CHO, wheeling contract and charges, 50-50 on conveyance losses per formula, GCID & TCCA furnish notice if water not needed or short; 7. Reclamation stay processing of SWRCB diversion application & notify Angle Water Master that diversions at T-C Canal are per GCID pre-1914 water rights; 8. no mod of contracts except adding CHO as additional point of delivery; 9. agree to cooperate and communicate; other 9. this does not institute the requirements of the 1982 Reclamation Reform Act or regs thereto because, 1. delivery in existing contracts, 2. Black Butte in water supply contract, 3. to GCID under pre-1914 at CHO an advantage to Reclamation but no additional benefit to GCID;
    032693 letter Welsh/Reclamation to Clark/GCID , no CVP commitment to TCCA but a supply to TCCA contractors [?] [ is the CHO an innie or an outie? ]

    1994


    032694 Receipt, $850, diversion application fee
    UNDATED Closing Form for File Folders, 02/01/19963 - 03/31/1993


    Correspondence VOL. 5 OF 12

    Loose in back of file, map , Petition to Add Point of Rediversion 763500 N 1956500 E

    1993


    040693 letter atty Minasian to Castle/SWRCB , communicating but no focus on a written agreement; here is background: -
    - 10/1992 letter GCID to TCCA suggesting cooperation, outline of issues
    - 1992 (?) atty Minasian (?) to Turner & Patterson/Reclamation re CHO as additional point of delivery -
    - 032693 Reclamation response
    - 032593 [snotty] letter TCCA to GCID -
    - Attachments:
  • Attachment A-1 Preliminary List of the Issues to be Discussed between - GCID and the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority; 1) Flexibility, TCCA wants flexibility on "failure to raise the [RBDD] prior to 05/01 or 06/01? GCID with salmon constraint period 08/01 - 09/07 + or -; 1.1 under D 1100 Reclamation may not store after 05/01, but does anyway; 1.2 Reclamation asserts it may store GCID's pre-1914 right in Black Butte even after 05/01 trading it for Sacramento diversion [no mention of 20,315 a-f GCID limit in Decree]; 1.3 Bureau has no right to divert to T-C other than at the base of Black Butte Dam, & was denied right to build Stony Canal to connect Black Butte diversions with T-C Canal; 2. TCCA wants enough cheap water, delivered efficiently in predictable quantities , not adversely to GCID & OUWUA, & not interfered with by RBDD in such a way as to harm planting; RBDD closure is subject to fisheries interests so dates uncertain? 3.0 GCID wants to be able to plan crop acreage at the beginning of each season, loss factor Black Butte to GCID canal 1992 50%; 3.1 larger deliveries yield smaller loss? 3.3 know Reclamation intentions so as to not waste GCID water or war with neighbors; 3.4 figure out ways to reduce financial burdens of fishery requirements; 3.5 flexible design Creek into T-C Canal to handle extra capacity for salmon constraint period; 3.6 Change Black Butte operations? change GCID diversion method, but a siphon "probably attracts the environmentalists to require a live flow past the GCID diversion", riskier flood control means more risk the gravel dam gets washed out and there's a shortage of gravel there [?]; 3.6 GCID from T-C Canal before Stony Dam is in place, water from Black Butte, or rainfall incretion, or the Thomes Creek pumping [?], or wells? before 04/01 does not count against GCID contract [but does count against annual Angle limit]; 4.0 ground water - OUWUA, GCID & TCCA aren't getting credit for recharge: add high capacity deep wells [where?] to support OUWUA in dry years but get recharge credit in wet?; 4.2 same with Orland Artois? 4.3 wheel to Westside & Orland-Artois in non-salmon months, w/tradeoff with TCCA? 4.4 trading compensated grower pumping for T-C capacity? 4.5 new Black Butte flood procedures? 4.6 Reclamation disorganized in attention to storage vs. recreation in Black Butte; pay to extend boat ramps, etc.?
  • Attachment A-2 letter atty Minasian to Iiziuka/DOJ & Turner/Interior, - Congrats on your 10(a) success in the [91-1128] litigation; now look at adding T-C Canal CHO as place of delivery under Wheeling agreement?
    - 110192 Agreement for Additional Point of Delivery [draft?], add to 07/31/1975 Conveyance Agreement 14-06-200-8181A -
    - 031893 Letter of Agreement, GCID & Reclamation [as above]
    - 032693 letter Welsh/Reclamation to Clark/GCID [as above]
    - 032593 [snotty] letter Williams/TCCA to Clark/GCID, re your suggested - agreement of 03/18/1993, choose not to participate, have no authority to, and "b) the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District apparently has a perceptual problem regarding water rights with the Bureau of Reclamation, the resolution of which should include neither the CVP water supply nor the water users on the Tehama-Colusa and Corning Canals. We trust that this letter will be helpful in providing your Board of Directors with an understanding of the ...conflicting attitudes of the water users that have emerged since GCID has attempted to block the Stony Creek Diversion project."
    - 011992 91-1074 Memorandum Decision and Order Granting Permanent Injunction

    041293 letter Hoffman/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB, re: Protest and - Complaint by California Sportfishing Protection Alliance to the United States Bureau of Reclamation's Petition for Change, Addition of Point of Rediversion, Application 18815 [sic], Stony Creek, Black Butte Reservoir, Central Valley Project (Water Rights); most of the complaint directed at the RBDD; Reclamation asks if SWRCB is accepting the complaint and "advise Reclamation of the nature and scope of the response, if any, that will be required." In the meantime: only Stony, not Sacramento, only warm-water fish, increased flow to the rediversion may help; response to CSPA by numbers: 1. NMFS, not winter-run habitat; Glenn-Colusa Dam blocks it anyway; DFG no adverse effect on warm water fishery; 2,3 irrelevant; 4) diversion will reduce RBDD diversions; 5) no interference with OUWUA or GCID releases; 6) no SWRCB minimum releases to Stony Creek; 7, 8 not responsible for GCID actions; 9) "Reclamation has no commitments for salmon migration in Stony or Thomes Creek", 10) Bay-Delta beyond scope of petition; 11) "The requested action is on a permitted application that has not gone to license. As such, the amounts of water in Permit 13776 have not been fully utilized and are not required to be fully utilized until such time as the project is complete or the permit goes to license. Reclamation is not diverting, nor would the requested action divert more water than it is entitled to under Permit 13776." [PERMIT vs. LICENSE?]; 12, 13, "categorical exclusion checklist for the proposed action." [review?]; 14) minimal effects in exchange for significant aid to winter-run at RBDD; 15) no effect, 16-19) no comment; does not agree to any dismissal conditions; 2,6,7) can't perform because GCID's dam blocks the creek from reaching the river; 3 & 4 irrelevant, 5) DFG says no screen necessary, 8) irrelvant, 9,10 no comment; requests the protest be dismissed
    041393 letter Burke/Reclamation to Castle & Merony/SWRCB, re: Bureau of Reclamation Application 18115 Permit 13776; 1) strong exception to Minasian's TCCA discussion items; 2) 03/18/1993 letter GCID's only; will present their own responses to GCID protest
    041493 letter Hoffman/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB, 18 pp, re: protest - by Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District to the United States Bureau of Reclamation's Petition for Change, Addition of Point of Rediversion, Application 18815, Stony Creek, Black Butte Reservoir, Central Valley Project (Water Rights); answering early to expedite petition, not accepting relevance, etc.;
    - VESTING: - 04/01/1993 Governor Wilson announcement on D 1630 makes D moot [Governor asked board to rescind D 1630]; 1.0, 1.1 don't dispute; 1.0 GCID trades rights for firmer River supply in 855A, 1.2 HR 429 became CVPIA, doesn not require renegotiation, Reclamation interpretation of 10(a) upheld in 91-1125; 1.2.1 Reclamation is free to release water from Black Butte whenever it chooses for whatever reason it chooses regardless of whether or not that release is of any use to GCID, and charge the release against GCID's contract entitlement; 1.2.2 disputed, as a courtesy, coordinates Black Butte operation, but isn't required to do so, & GCID not entitled to CVP water; 1.2.3 disputes that it has stored water outside the period authorized, period is "about", not exactly; 1.2.4 disputes sideflow, will bypass it, Water Master says only tributary is Hambright which is usually dry by March or April, and under 855A Reclamation reserves the right to require GCID where & how much to take its supply, & measures it at GCID Main Canal so combined is measured against the total; 1.2.5 disputes, acknowledges GCID claim & is willing to breach [T-C?] dam to provide any of GCID emergency entitlement - 855A seems to make the Angle Decree right irrelevant since Reclamation can tell GCID where & when it will receive water; 1.2.6 will install a 30 cfs culvert, plus breach dam when necessary; 1.2.7 GCIDs ESA problems are not Reclamation's, GCID has not right to storage of Angle water per Judge Levi 91-1128; 1.2.8 & 1.2.10 installing a 30 cfs culvert, & will breach the dam if necessary, & dam releases recharge[?], disputes sideflow allegations; 1.2.9 GCID does not serve the refuges, it wheels Reclamation water to them & that water is not included under 855A; 1.2.11 culvert will pass more water than is in the channel naturally, redivert only stored water, will breach if necessary; 1.2.12 irrelevant, flood control changes would be for CVP, not GCID; 1.2.13 under 855A Reclamation controls where & when, including if recreation first; 1.2.14 complete by 12/01/90, extension applied for;
    - ATTACHMENT 2: - 855A covers Angle & Sacramento water, & Reclamation reserves the right to control the ratio; "The rights of the United States under the Angle Decree are the water rights for the Orland Project. The Orland Project is not a feature of the CVP, and the Angle Decree does not address Reclamation's storage of water in Black Butte under permitted application 18115. Reclamation objects to GCID's attempt to use this form [forum?] to notify Reclamation of any provisions contained within the Angle Decree. As long as Reclamation is meeting the requirements under Contract 855A, GCID has no call on its Angle Decree rights."
    - ATTACHMENT 4: - 1.0 not acceptable; unwilling to do anything for GCID with Black Butte, & 91-1128 says they don't have to, willing to divert at CHO but won't bear conveyance losses; 1.1 not acceptable, wheeling contract in exchange for delivering water to the refuges? CHO use should have no affect [sic] on GCID's use of T-C Canal to wheel under 855A, but not a point of delivery under wheeling agreement 8181A; 2.0 not willing to accept, does not anticipate deliveries to GCID down Stony Creek unless an emergency so no reason for a coordinated operating agreement, & no obligation to provide projections; 3.0 flood control reservoir, with secondary conservation and recreation, for CVP not GCID; 4.0 30 cfs culvert & prepared to breach dam; 5.0 ditto, more than any possible sideflow; 6.0 irrelevant, authorized to include recreation but if modified, for CVP not GCID; 7.0 relevance? 2 proposals to GCID to add CHO, GCID 03/18/1993 counter totally unacceptable: contend GCID can satisfy demands during ESA constraint: combined deliveries under 855A & 8181A, through Hamilton City pumping plant, Wasteway Cross Channel & Williams Outlet, and maybe from CVP from Black Butte Storage in July & August when GCID entitled to CVP under 855A, not willing to bear conveyance losses; 7.1 not willing to accept, unclear? 8.0 disputes, does not store for GCID, & tells GCID where to draw its water & when, so what kind of agreement is relevant; 8.1 about April 30, not midnight; 8.2 & 9.0 no comment;
    - ENVIRONMENTAL: 1.0 disputes, not allocated a portion of Black Butte storage to T-C C service area, furnished some Black Butte CVP water to GCID in 1992 to satisfy 855A needs [?] but nothing to do with ESA constraint period [?] and clearly stated not to be precedent, adding CHO is to help with RBDD salmon problems - T-C usually gravity fed, when by pump yield is too small; 2.0 dispute, 1992 joint stipulation modified 91-1074 injunction to allow 1100 cfs /8/01 - 11/30, wildlife refuges supplied by water wheeled by GCID not served by GCID; 3.0 disputes, dam will bypass the natural flow & enhance, not decrease, & dam ponding will recharge; 4.0, disputes, no impact on Stony natural flows or GCID Angle rights, 855A 5-day provision natural flow only, no storage outside time which is about 11/01 to about 04/30 and unaware of anything in D 1100 which GCID alleges have been violated, 855A expiration is 03/31/02004 not 1996 or 1997; on 10/01/1997 or after the EIS required by PL 102-575 section 3409 mitigation & restoration payment will be added to all CVP water delivery contracts, encourages contractors to renew early, not lapse, just renew early or pay the fee, Reclamation does not delay Angle water, Reclamation controls source & time of delivery, etc.; 5.0 disputes environment concerns being GCID's motive - GCID's dam is in place 03/01 - 11/01 most years, diverting entire Stony flow, water released into Stony for flood control during that period gets diverted by GCID but GCID is not entitled to it, "GCID's Angle Decree rights are for direct diversion of natural flow, Reclamation qauestions GCID's right to divert Black Butte Water and GCID's right to dam up Stony Creek, preventing stored water released from Black Butte into Stony Creek to flow down its natural course into the Sacramento River."
    041693 Contact Report Meroney, Ben Pennock GCID called re location of GCID POD, faxed Division of Water Rights Data Base report, p., 35725 & 35726 03/13/1993, [image & meaning of copies unclear]
    041693 fax Pennock/GCID to Merony/SWRCB legal description POD
    041693 memo to files from GCID Engineering listing GCID POD, if baffled by other fax
    041693 contact report Meroney called by John Renning & Tony Colon/ Reclamation, how long to get approval?
    042093 memo J.Mensch?/DFG to Falkenstein/DivWaterRights, not object to Reclamation Stony Creek, 1) 1 year only, 2) mitigation for fish flows, wetlands, fish screens, T & E species, for all future obtain 1601 [?] from DFG
    042093 contact report Meroney called atty Minasian, term protecting GCID prior rights suffice? not in; 4/21 only Angle, not all concerns; concerned over D 1100 & county of origin, plan on utilizing water, Black Butte coverage of water unable to divert from River, feels environmental concerns valid
    042093 contact report Meroney called atty Minasian, term protecting GCID prior rights suffice? not in; 2 contact reports, same thing?
    042193 fax confirmation 19 pages presumably to Minasian
  • 022463 [date?] letter Pafford/Reclamation to CWC same as letter in vol 2
  • 111560 Assignment, By the California Water Commission To the United States of America Of Application No. 18115
    042293 faxed memo atty Meith/Minasian to Meroney/SWRCB cover page,
    042293 faxed atty Minasian to Meroney/SWRCB received fax'd & also Reclamation answer by mail, ready to chat; Board was adamant, no diversions to T-C, local concerns paramount, change should be subjected to hearing; attach copy of 1960 CWC Order, changes submit to CWC for approval, don't know if CWC took action on the 1963 letter; get through, GCID "...utilizing its Angle Decree diversion rights and the right under Section 706 of the Water Code to move its point of diversion in part to the T-C Canal. This has been arranged with the Angle Decree Federal Court Watermaster." need Reclamation "spirit", to stop refusing to enter into agreements proportioning or assuring. [eh?]
    042293 fax cover sheet Meith to Meroney atty Minasian 2 pp. letter [?]
    031393 Agreement Regarding Proposed Stream or Lake Alteration, Reclamation & CDFG - dike at T-C Canal Crossing, using stream gravel, culverts at any live channels; gated culvert allowing 30 cfs at channel
    042393 memo to files from Johnson/SWRCB per call w/Reclamation limit point of rediversion to one year, more changes to follow, agrees to "subject to the prior rights of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District." Add 3rd term: to compensate for RBDD not diversions for winter-run salmon, remove this? further application necessary including showing compliance with CEQA
    042393 memo to files from Anton/SWRCB attached Notice of Exemption
    042393 letter Anton/SWRCB to Baiocchi/Calif. Sportfishing, no specific factual evidence in your protest that public trust resources of Stony Creek are being harmed or that Reclamation is impacting the public trust resources of this creek system and thus complaint is incomplete and not accepted; CDFG says no harm to warm-water fishery, & thus no significant adverse effects; will continue to process the petition change & determined a Class I CEQA Exemption is appropriate --
    042393 SWRCB Notice of Exemption
    042693 4 fax transmission confirmations, 5, 4, 7, & 7 pp.
    042393 SWRCB Division of Water Rights, Order Approving the Addition of a Point of Rediversion, and Amending the Permit
    042393 letter Johns/SWRCB to atty Minasian, believe GCID environmental protest a vested rights issue rather than environmental, and Reclamation recognizes GCID Angle rights, plus SWRCB added provision regarding them to the permit change [passes off Minasian's comments about SWC adamantly opposing T-C Canal diversions]
    042393 contact report Meroney called Minasian, reviewed his protest, added terms to satisfy GCID concerns, secty said he was out
    042393 contact report Johns called Baiocchi to discuss protest, not in
    042293 faxed atty Minasian to Meroney/SWRCB another copy
    042893 contact report Meroney called by Wilson/Watermaster, letter to GCID covered all the issues very well; one exception: Minasian in 04/22/1993 letter said "Watermaster has arranged with GCID to move its point of diversion in part to the T-C Canal utilizing their Angle Decree diversion rights," Wilson says has not agreed to any such
    050793 memo Anton to Pettit & State Board Members, summary, supply to T-C from Black Butte when RBDD diversions reduced for salmon, recites 2 protests, CSPA protest ignored, GCID taken care of with addtional permit language
    051393 letter Dimick/Reclamation to Clark/GCID 1) response to draft letter of agreement; 2) acknowledges meeting in Willows 04/20/1993 w/Reclamation, Wilson, GCID, TCCA to discuss GCID Stony Creek water proposals; on 1), too bad, you gave up your Angle rights by contract and even if you didn't, Judge Levi said too bad; still "willing" to discuss T-C Canal Stony Creek CHO under 8181A if you wish....
    102293 contact report Meroney called by Colon/Reclamation, what needed to make permit permanent? Complete a petition change & submit ASAP
    110493 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Johnson/SWRCB status of CSPA public trust complaint? if dismissed, why? CEQA? if exempt, why? minimum daily streamflows? why not? evidence enclosed in response to Mr. Johns' request, per 01/05/1967 Reclamation letter why didn't SWRCB require rehabilitation of Stony Creek? promised salmon production on Stony Creek has not happened. Why not? means for fish to pass T-C Canal & GCID barriers? concerned SWRCB avoiding CEQA --
  • article, "San Francisco Chronicle Outdoors, Monday April 12, 1993, Glen Martin, "In the Field, Salmon Still Suffering in Stoney Creek"; resurrection of Stony Creek salmon was promised as a RBDD mitigation, never happened --
  • 010567 letter Garrick?/Reclamation to Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, summary of effects of T-C Canal unit on F & W resources --
    - Table 1 Summary of Estimated Commercial Harvest and Sport Angling Benefits Related to Fall Chinook Salmon to be Propagated in the Tehama-Colusa Canal Fish Facilities
    - Table 2 Summary of Estimated Sport Angling for Resident Fish Without and With the Tehama-Colusa Canal
    - Table 3 Evaluation of wildlife that would be affected by the Tehama-Colusa Canal
    - Map September 1966 USFWS T-C Canal Plan of Development Plate I, showing Service Areas for T-C Canal
    121393 letter Johnson/SWRCB to Baiocchi/CSPA your protest rejected 04/23/1993 as incomplete copy enclosed, petition approved & permit issued
    121693 contact report Johnson/SWRCB by Colon/Reclamation, adding PORD on Stony Creek for Black Butte into T-C Canal, CDFG $850 required? yes.
    121793 contact report Johnson/SWRCB to? Colon/Reclamation, if they want the diversion beyond 04/23/1994 they need to file a petition for it, Tony said OK

    1994


    010694 SWRCB Petition for Change, point of rediversion, move from Black Butte to T-C crossing;
  • 010694 SWRCB Petition for Change, Environmental Information - build a dike from gravel, etc., install 2 box culverts, water excess to creek to be diverted into T-C Canal through CHO, by D6 & 7 Dozers; in channel: catfish, crappie, carp, bass
  • 010694 SWRCB Petition for Change, Set of 5 photos, showing work already completed, & tons of tamarisk not specifically listed on Environmental Info sheet
    010694 letter Dimmick/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB enclosed is a petition for change, CDFG wants data that won't be available until after the expiration, so please make this a temporary extension to 05/31/1995, CEQA categorical exemption,
  • Stony Creek "CHO" Operation for 1993, 04/25/1993 - 05/04/1993, & 10/17/1993 - 11/16/1993 [only for dates CHO operated?]
    010694 Special Notice of Petition Received (big mailing list) to extend rediversion permit, protest by 02/14/1994
    020494 fax confirmation to ?
    012794 letter Mark Radabaugh (Chico) to Parkinson/SWRCB wants info & protest forms
    013194 protest, Baiocchi/CSPA ; NEPA documents required prior to proposed action, not after it is implemented; Reclamation violating California F & G Code 5937 in that permit "13776 does not contain mandatory daily flow requirements to protect the public trust resources of Stony Creek from Black Butte Dam to the Sacramento River", many days of zero flows 1970 - 1992; Black Butte adding to stored water outside of permitted storage season -
  • 012594 Copy of Special Notice of Petition Received
    020194 contact report Faherstein?/SWRCB & Willis/USFWS , USFWS wants to use this project "as an experiment to gather data on effects of such projects on fish entrainment and to evaluate impacts on other species."
  • 020494 letter Parkinson/SWRCB to Radabaugh, enclosed a table related to Reclamation operation during 1993, talk to Tony Colon, forms & regs enclosed
    UNDATED Proposal to Conduct Bald Eagle Surveys of East Park, Stony Gorge, and Black Butte Reservoir and the Stoney Creek Drainage, USFWS,
  • November 1993 Fishery Impacts from Reverse Operations of the Constant Head Orifice at stony Creek, USFWS Investigation Plan, Draft
    021494 letter atty Somach to Anton/SWRCB , counsel for GCID, rethought & withdrawn its protests, 2 copies
  • 020994 letter Sackett/Reclamation to atty Somach , Reclamation agreeable to inclusion of "protect GCID rights" term in permit, 2 copies
  • 022894 closing form for file


    Correspondence VOL. 6 OF 12

    030194 contact report Meroney to nobody? flow records 1941-1973 Stony 2 miles upstream from GCID Canal;
  • Charts, flow in cfs, 1940-41 to 1970-71, winter off the 0-100 cfs chart
  • Logs, flow in cfs, each day, entire year, seasons 1956-7 - 1972-73
  • Charts, flow in cfs, 1971-72 to 1972-73
  • Logs, flow in cfs, each day, entire year, seasons 1940-41 - 1955-56 [looks like flow is 1/4 to 1/2 what it is at Black Butte]
    030494 letter Meroney/SWRCB to Colon/Reclamation Somach's GCID term agreed to by you so it will be in the order
    030994 letter Broddrick/CDFG to Colon/Reclamation Stony Creek "once -- supported a run of chinook salmon. In recent years that run has been very sporadic, probably largely due to nonexistent flows and the impacts of gravel extraction in the streambed below Black Butte Dam." CDFG to restore in 5 years, til then, annual permits preferred., 2 copies -
    031194 letter Sackett/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB re: Baiocchi protest 1) disagrees that Stony Creek is winter-run chinook salmon habitat, GCID dam in the way; 2 & 3 agree, but covered by a "categorical exclusion checklist (CEC)" and a Section 404 nationwide Permit 23 to 02/18/1995 [?], EA later if data supports; 4. Corps controls Black Butte outflow, not Reclamation, p. 3-6 zeros were for tunnel inspections, 1976-78 for drought; 5. CEC for NEPA; 6. met required CDFG releases to extent possible, actions consistent with Stony Creek ecosystem management; 7. DFG sez no need for CHO screen; 8. releases in coordination with CDFG; 9. consistent with ecosystem; 10. about to about, SWRCB says about means to May 15; Dismissal terms, not agree with any: 1) unreasonable amounts of water, 2) GCID dam in the way; 3) CDFG says no screen needed; 4) operationally cannot ramp, but will attempt; 5) as #10; --
    032994 letter Broddrick/CDFG to Parkinson/SWRCB = 03/09/1994 letter
    040694 fax Colon/Reclamation to Falkenstein/SWRCB copy of F & WS study plan; "Reclamation is complying with the recommended mitigation requirements mentioned." [which are?], 3 pp, 1 missing
  • 040594 fax from Willows Construction Office, SOW - Scope of Work, list of data & report items & time line; include prevent spread of giant reed in the area
    UNDATED , graph, Contents at Black Butte Dam: 1986 04/30 - 09/27 in acre-feet
    040694 fax Colon/Reclamation to Falkenstein/SWRCB another copy, with p. 3
    040794 contact report Meroney by Fasgard/Reclamation, CSPA/Reclamation/ Water Rights conference call scheduled 04/13/1994 to resolve, Fasgard not optimistic, asked for extension to 05/01 because farmers have planted and RBDD gates go down 05/01 making water available, write to Anton
    041494 letter Davis/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB please extend to 05/02 - been diverting 300 cfs from Black Butte releases 04/01/1994 for lower T-C Canal users, most RBDD capacity going to Corning Canal, this year critically dry, TCC users at 35%; takes a day to fill Lake Red Bluff with releases from Keswick, & a day for diversions to reach Stony Creek in the canal; don't want to ask to drop gates early, winter-run are running late, & 1) regrading East Sand Slough to fill holes so salmon don't get stranded in them, 2) awarding a contract "to provide a submerged entrance orifice in downstream face of right bank fish ladder" "to improve fish ladder attraction" in last 2 weeks of April, else much later in the year, 3) awarded a contract to build a research pumping facility just downstream of Red Bluff to be completed by 05/01, lowering gates early will interfere; 2 copies
    041494 fax Heffler-Scott/Reclamation to Meroney/SWRCB enclosing advance copy of emergency extension letter
    041994 fax Colon/Reclamation to Meroney/SWRCB transmitting CSPA dismissal
  • 041994 letter Colon/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB enclosed document dismissing CSPA protest, 2 copies
  • 041994 Dismissal Terms and Conditions [heading fax-garbled]; EA by 12/31/1994: fish screen, ramping, fish & wildlife technical Group (FWT), participation request to following: Reclamation, CSPA, USFWS, CDFG, USCE, USNMFS, SWRCB, TCCA, GDCID, OUWUA, Santa Clara, Sacramento River Preservation Trust, Watermaster and a biologist selected by most of those; public meetings 4-8 weeks by 06/15/1994 maybe, FWT prepare a long-term management plan for SWRCB, minutes; additional participants by a majority vote, Reclamation's involvement contingent on availability of Federal funds; based thereon CSPA protest to be dismissed, 2 copies
  • 041994 fax sheet Baiocchi to Colon, CSPA signed copies to public
    042094 fax confirmation
  • 042094 fax cover sheet Meroney/SWRCB to Baiocchi/CSPA please confirm in agreement with permit term [where?]
    042094 fax confirmation
  • 042094 fax cover sheet Meroney/SWRCB to Colon/Reclamation please confirm in agreement with permit term [where?]
    042094 letter Anton/SWRCB to Sackett/Reclamation from conference call 04/13/1994 Reclamation/CDFG/CSPA/SWRCB; SWRCB outlined CSPA issues that were acceptable, and others that would be addressed through compliance and complaint process; 1. SWRCB asked for start & stop date on entrainment protections, CSPA said all dates relevant; 2. SWRCB asked Reclamation for a ramping rate schedule; on-site inspection 04/15/1994 Reclamation/CSPA/CDFG yielded provision of EA by 12/31/1994 reduced to permit term resolving CSPA protest; CSPA alleges gaging station records violate Cal. F & G Code, referred to Compliance unit for review, as with general public trust allegations which CSPA asks be kept inactive for 2 years pending completion of EA, etc.
    042094 Fax Cover Sheet Meroney/SWRCB to Colon/Reclamation re modified terms on A18115, in agreement?
  • 042094 Fax transmission report "2nd fax"
  • 042094 Fax transmission report
    042094 Fax Cover Sheet Meroney/SWRCB to Baiocchi/CSPA re modified terms on A18115, in agreement?
  • 042094 Fax transmission report "2nd fax"
  • 042094 Fax transmission report
    042094 letter Anton/SWRCB to Sackett/Reclamation & Baiocchi/CSPA follow up on phone call with Colon & Baiocchi, term mod: submit a work plan by 12/31/1994 for development of a long-term fish, wildlife and water use management plan for Stony Creek from Black Butte Dam to Sacramento River
    042094 memo Meroney/SWRCB to Whitney/Lininger/Files, 04/13/1994 call with Reclamation/TCCA/USFWS/CDFG/CSPA/SWRCB to cover CSPA issues, 2 acceptable ( prevent entrainment at T-C/Stony , & ramping) & 2 for the Compliance and Complaint Units; SWRCB asked Reclamation to submit quarterly reports showing progress of the studies, got OK; after field investigation, Reclamation & CSPA came to agreement, asked for faxes with deadline coming, Baiocchi asked complaint kept in abeyance until studies completed, OK;
    042294 Order Extending the Effective Date of a Point of Rediversion; to 05/31/1995, term changes included
    042294 fax Attaway/SWRCB to Colon/Reclamation, approved per the enclosed order
    042294 Staff Recommendation, Petition for Change, recitals, recommend approval
    042294 Notice of Exemption, to OPR from SWRCB, on extension, 2 copies, -- one signed, one stamped
    050594 letter Sackett/Reclamation & Baiocchi/CSPA to Anton/SWRCB, follow up to faxes
  • 041994 copy, Dismissal Terms and Conditions -
    051394 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Patterson/Reclamation, recommended agenda items for task force meetings, Felix Smith to be CSPA rep: key, consensus or each make own recommendations? 2-f Federal Decree --
    101994 meeting flyer, Red Bluff Diversion Dam Fish Passage Program, re: Connor Bypass
    061794 fax cover sheet Faggard/Reclamation to Meroney/SWRCB draft letter & agenda for 07/11/1994 initial meeting
  • Initial Meeting, comments on Task Force and Technical Group, goal is unanimous agreement, meet, Willows 10:00 a.m 07/11/1994, agenda attached
  • 071194 Task Force Agenda; purpose, introductions, lunch, Stony Creek operations, objectives, technical group & next meeting
    071894 Order Amending Permit to Conform with Decision No. 1629 (Los Vaqueros Project), water diverted under 18115
    072794 letter Attaway/SWRCB

    120694 Agenda, Stony Creek Task Force Meeting
  • 111694 Stony Creek Task Force Meeting, Draft Minutes (including Susan Steuben, citizen); Steve Hertzel / Hirtzel, define CVP excess water? Les Gerton suggestion that Task Force focus be expanded above Black Butte rejected by the "group"? Group not sufficiently representative of landowners & other agencies, Del Reimers "Glenn County Resource Conservation District to be added, George Wilson: "Expressed that if the proper, knowledgeable members were selected for the Task Force that many of the questions currently being posed could be easily and definitively answered. He suggested contacting Walt Petit of the State Board and Gayle Heffler of Reclamation. George mentioned the unusual nature of the CHO rediversion petition. He reminded the group that this rarely happens in an open forum such as ours and that we should be aware that we're 'breaking new ground'." Jack Campbell (TCCA), RBDD with gates up supplies 120 cfs, Funks Reservoir stores 1700-2000 a-f, 65 cfs can be pulled out of it until 05/15 when RBDD gates go down, Red Bluff pumping provides another 275 cfs; WITHOUT THE CHO: 120 + 65 + 275 = 460 cfs; WITH CHO: 460 + 300 (CHO) = 760 cfs; demand at 1000 - 1500, so even with CHO he is short;
  • 111494 Stony Creek Task Force Work Plan
  • 111694 Bureau of Reclamation Report, Stony Creek Task Force / CHO Issue - reminding that Task Force is part of CSPA agreement to drop SWRCB protest
    - handwritten on Angenda "Who is working on this for us?" "Note to files: Spoke with MF on 11-30-94. Mike is not planning to attend meeting scheduled on 12-6-94. Pat M, 11-30-94"
    121594 Contact Report L.L. Attaway/D Water Rights by Trost/Reclamation , need to mid to late January 1995 to submit final EA due 12/31/1994, told him to write the Division & explain
    121994 Fax Reclamation to Whitney & Meroney/Water R Div; does the Draft Stony Creek Task Force Work Plan & Schedule meet the intent of the 04/22/1994 order?
  • 121594 Stony Creek Task Force Work Plan and Schedule
    122294 letter Sackett/Reclamation to Anton/D Water Rights , enclosed work plan to comply with 04/22/1994 Order
  • 121594 Stony Creek Task Force Work Plan and Schedule, duplicate
    122294 letter Sackett/Reclamation to Anton/D Water Rights , please extend time from 12/31/1994 to 01/31/1995 for completion of EA, delays in receiving final "Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report and official comments on the draft EA."

    1995


    011395 letter Anton/D Water Rights to Sackett/Reclamation, extension granted
    020295 letter Sackett/Reclamation to Anton/D Water Rights , thank you for the extension, EA copy enclosed
    020995 letter Sackett/Reclamation to Anton/D Water Rights , FONSI enclosed
  • 020395 Finding of No Significant Impact, Rediversion of Water to the Tehama-Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon
  • Finding of No Significant Impact, Rediversion of Water to the Tehama-Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon [narrative] [excludes massive cumulative impacts to each of the areas discussed]
    031495 Contact report Meroney/Div Water Rights called Trost/Reclamation, when is the permanent Petition Change for Rediversion coming? asked for extension of temporary because 1) task force money no longer available but may be forthcoming, 2) remaining info for EA not available until 04/15/1995, 3) believes SWRCB unable to complete Change by 09/15/1995; encouraged him to file for permanent, checking, Reclamation should file both; again call 03/17/1995 , Trost indicated funding is the problem, SWRCB says no money is no excuse, send him a letter saying so.
    041595 letter Sackett/Reclamation to Anton/Div Water Rights, funding solved, task force moving ahead
    042195 letter Hanson/Reclamation to Task Force, meet 05/18 ?
    042795 Contact report Meroney/Div Water Rights called Baiocchi/CSPA his 04/03/1995 letter asking if Reclamation has a point of rediversion at GCID Main Canal, nope.
    050395 fax report
    050395 fax cover sheet, Meroney/SWRCB to Hirtzel/USFWS, sending Reclamation letter 04/15/1995 & SWRCB letter 03/31/1995
    050395 contact report Meroney/SWRCB from Hirtzel/USFWS re EA & when is Reclamation submitting petition for permanent change? cited Reclamation letter within 45 days from 04/14/1995, Hirtzel awaiting funding from Reclamation for supplementary EA; suggested Hirtzel submit permit terms he believed would protect the fishery resource; faxed him 2 letters noted above, 05/04/1995 no call back assume no further
    051095 memo Meroney to Whitney re: petition for permanent change, events so far (Reclamation dragging its feet), next task force meeting 05/18/1995 recommend sending an Environmental Specialist, understand further temporary extension not preferred, please advise
    051895 Agenda Stony Creek Task Force Meeting
  • Stony Creek Task Force and Technical Team, with phone numbers
  • 121594 Stony Creek Task Force Work Plan and Schedule, another copy
  • 050595 letter Hanson/Reclamation to Task Force, funding issues resolved, limit to task force members, provide public comment period
  • untitled report on Black Butte? storage in excess of 66,488 as of -- 05/01 could be diverted
    
    
      20,000 af = minimum fishery pool in Black Butte Reservoir 6,388 volume required for the 30 cfs releases during the 'summer' (May 1 - October 31) 3,914 volume required for water contractors [who?] 20,315 volume required for GCID under the Angle Decree 8,100 * estimated volume for evaporation losses 6,283 * volume required for 30 cfs BB releases during the 'winter' (November 1 - April 30) 1,488 * volume to compensate for seepage so 30 cfs is released at CHO (30%, 100 days) ------- 66,488 * total required to meet objectives other than TCC and GCID ======= diversions of CVP water 160,000 potential volume of CVP water in Black Butte Reservoir 66,488 * total required for purposes other than rediversion ------- 93,572 * upper limit of water available for rediversion * - subject to discussion , notes on "report"
  • Proposed Directives to the Technical Team
  • 051195 memo Hirtzel/FWS to anybody, Stony Creek Rediversion Permit - Conditions, FWS recommends denial of rediversion unless: [tough!] reevaluate 2002, or with RBDD passage solution, or GCID siphon installation, whichever first; no modification without NEPA review/compliance, or fishery agencies consensus; water for diversion being BB over 65,000 a-f; max 30,125 to be released for CHO in any one year; record BB surface temperatures mid March - end of April when BB being stabilized for warmwater fisheries protections; annual report to monitor EA compliance; halt rediversion at written request of any [all?] fishery agency; if Reclamation sets a fall reservoir level that allows release of more than 30,125 a-f, get fisheries' approval; terms need to be in the permit itself; 6 months beteen transfer funding from Reclamation to completion of Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act report plus public review;

    040395 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Johnson/Div Water Rights re -- 03/31/1995 letter to Heffler/Reclamation on rediverion; asking about nature of USBR/GCID understanding re GCID diversion point, need supply below GCID diversion, passage, screens, etc.
  • 033195 letter Johnson/Div Water Rights to Heffler/Reclamation [not previously appearing in 18115?] no funding no excuse, file the petitions, else, if insufficient time to process petitions no diversions in the fall and maybe enforcement action
    050595 letter Hanson/Reclamation to Task Force, another opy
    051195 fax Hirtzel/USFWS to Meroney/SWRCB, permit conditions
  • 051195 Permit conditions, another copy
  • Table 3, Stony Creek Operational Objectives in Order of Importance (from USBR Project Proposal received by FWS 03/24/1993, #11 mod by USBR memo 11/15/1994 for RBDD gates-up ops)
    060195 photos received; 1-5 various aspects of CHO, diversion structure, stream leading to; 6 irrigated wheat HWY 162, #7 irrigated squash HWY 162, 8, SNWR; photo #3 shows a headgate above and a cantelevered corrugated pipe through the diversion embankment with a "waterfall" into the downstream pool, a barrier to fish heading upstream -
    061295 SWRCB May 1995 Notice of Petitions Received, including for 18115; SWRCB staff finds significant effect on environment from these petitions for rediversion, send environmental into to Div Water Rights;
    052695 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Holt/Reclamation re developing -- Fish, Wildlife & water management plan for Stony, & Stony Diversions, seeks info: lotsa questions on each of the following, 1) North canal, diverts all fish-flow releases from Black Butte, leaving Stony dry below it; 2) South Canal - where is measuring device, & how can anyone be sure the fishery releases from BB are not diverted? 3) T-C Canal CHO, daily minimum stream flow is only when CHO diversions, else no minimum required; 05/18/1995 task force meeting, one day the mandatory stream flow was not met and double the allowed cfs diverted , already diverted 26,000 a-f, limit to 4,000 a-f for rest of year? measuring device on Stony below CHO?; 4) GCID diversion, how does fish release pass GCID point? 5) other; 40% flow loss below Black Butte, pumping from underflow? needs SWRCB permit if so? Cachuma Project, Reclamation actively & annually determines quantity from underflow and from groundwater below Bradbury Dam, how about for Stony? should be making studies of Stony underflow pumping; 6) map of all diversions below Black Butte?
  • copy of untitled report on Black Butte handed out at meeting
    053095 contact report Meroney/Div Water Rights called Trost/Reclamation when will the petition change forms be complete? next week.
    060195 letter Patterson/Reclamation to Anton/Div Water Rights rediversion change petition enclosed; supplemental EA following the fall 1994 entrainment studies expected mid-summer, working with FWS to try and get FWCA report by mid-June; working on an agreement with fishery agencies for CHO ops, draft to Task Force 05/18/1995; fish & wildlife tasks progressing; maps submitted to Parkinson 03/1993 correctly describe point of rediversion; no 3rd $850 CDFG check, they've done enough analysis, but if wrong, let him know ASAP;
  • 060195 Petition for Change
  • 060195 Petition for Change Environmental Information
    060695 Contact Report Meroney/Div Water Rights called Hirtzel/USFWS supplemental EA, anticipated 07/15/1995 or 07/31/1995
    061295 SWRCB May 1995 Notice of Petitions Received, another copy
    061295 CDFG Natural Diversity Data Base Printouts: Dwarf Pusilla, Valley Needlegrass Grassland,
    061395 letter Medlin/USFWS to Heffler/Reclamation: review, 1) EA dates? 2) absence of permit conditions? 3) refuge water supply?; 1) EA more likely 07/31, funding transfer not until 06/02, fall fisheries study completed, FWCA being rushed overlooking potential fish & wildlife impacts? 2) need terms; existing 05/1971 agreement is in "Black Butte Dam and Lake, Stony Creek, Calfornia, Water Control Manual", not much confidence in that minimum pool dropped below 20,000 a-f 6 years since 1971? 3) specifically identify the wildlife refuges;
    061695 memo Meroney/Div Water Rights to files; EA may not be - circulated & approved until after the protest period passes? extend the protest period? no, let people protest & ask for extensions. [Tsk.]
    061595 contact report MF w/Showers/CDFG, need for formal endangered species consultation (CESA) , ran Rare find, no occurrences, no CESA required, CDFG would review EA/ND when circulated
    061695 letter atty Minasian to Somach, change address with SWRCB to yours for GCID, cc SWRCB

    061695 memo Hirtzel/USFWS to NMFS; transmits final FWCA report, cc Meroney/SWRCB
  • 07??95 [Draft] Supplemental Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, Tehama-Colusa Canal Change in Permanent Point of Rediversion on Stony Creek, Glenn County, California, by USFWS; gates up at RBDD yearly 09/15 - 05/14 per Biological Opinion, NMFS 1993, to eliminate obstruction for up- and down-stream migration of winter-run chinook; p. 2 "original intent of the CHO was to rehabilitate salmon production in the lower eleven miles of Stony Creek as mitigation for impacts resulting from the construction of the RBDD and the TCC"; pp. 4-5 "Portions of lower Stony Creek often go dry during the summer due to low flows and the permiability [sic] of the alluvial fan under Stony Creek. On an average annual basis there is approximately 40,000 acre-feet (AF) of CVP yield from Black Butte Reservoir (HDR 1994 - HDR Engineering Inc. 1994, GCID Fish Screen Modification Feasibility Report. Sacramento, CA). "Giant reed, a non-native grass predominates in much of lower Stony Creek and quickly spreads and reestablishes when uprooted and displaced." "Extensive gravel mining has occurred in lower Stony Creek resulting in streambed incision. Black Butte Dam stops bedload movement to lower Stony Creek. Gravel recharge downstream of the dam occurs as a result of bank erosion and bedload movement from flood control releases." "The white crappie fishery in Black Butte Reservoir is considered one of the best in California". GCID siphon at Stony Creek likely, included in several CVPIA actions, & identified in original mitigation recommendations for RBDD/TCC, & under the "CVPIA Anadromous Fish Restoration Program (Sec. 3406(b)(1) [?]; siphon needed per CH2M HILL 1994 to facilitate rice field flooding in the winter; "Fall rediversions in conjunction with spring 1994 CHO rediversions contributed to the reduction of Black Butte Reservoir below the 20,000 AF conservation pool, a violation of senior operational objective 9. Spring 1994 CHO rediversions also violated senior operational objective 10 by lowering water levels in Black Butte Reservoir more than 2 feet during the critical spawning period for white crappie. CHO rediversions occurred outside the designated time periods in the spring of 1993 and 1995." TCCA says CHO capable of 600 cfs, not 300, and Reclamation/TCCA releasing for that, which meant recharge calculations, fish impacts, and erosion protections were wrong; Reclamation's "past failures to comply with the operational objectives", warrants specific conditions in the permit; Reclamation tables on predicting basinwide supply inaccurate; Reclamation's "no impact" depends on GCID barrier being in place, else needs to be reassessed; recommends no permanent permit, extensions of temporary with substantial continuing environmental review; ap filed differs from one for which 01/1995 Final EA was issued; numerous reports cited;
    - memo, Sacramento Ecological Services, to Chief, Planning & Technical, Mid-Pacific; transmits FWCA report "DRAFT"
    - Table 1 Stony Creek Operational Objectives in Order of Importance [same as above]
    - Appendix A, Mitigation Recommendations for Spring CHO Rediversions - from the 1994 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report [no trust of Reclamation by NMFS]; "Inspect the CHO trash rack for Northwestern pond turtles (NWPT)..."; "storage basin on Reclamation property adjacent to the TCC crossing at Stony Creek" [?]
    - Appendix B Listed and Proposed Endangered amd [sic] Threatened Species - and Candidate Species that May Occur in or be Affected by Projects in the Area of the Tehama-Colusa Canal/CHO Rediversions, Stony Creek, Glenn County, California 06/09/1995
    - Appendix C Federal Agencies Responsibilities under Sections 7(a) and (c) of the Endangered Species Act
    - Appendix D Concurrence letters from the National Marine Fisheries Service and California Department of Fish and Game [none]
    - Appendix E Supplementary Study of Fall 1994 Fishery Impacts from Reverse Operation of the Constant Head Orifice at Stony Creek and the Tehama-Colusa Canal, California
    - - Abstract; entrainment: fall: green sunfish, mosquitofish, bullfrog tadpoles; spring: Sacramento suckers, common carp; "Fall and spring operations of the CHO violated the first principle of CHO operation to 'utilize only water that is excess to meeting' Stony Creek operational objectives."
    - - Table of Contents
    - - Introduction; etc. "Operation of the CHO diverts most of the water from Stony Creek into the TCC"; "few published records of fish abundance and distribution in Stony Creek. Pucket (1969 [Puckett, L.K. 1969. Fisheries surveys on Thomes and Stony creeks, Glenn and Tehama Counties, with special emphasis on their potentials for king salmon spawning. CDFG. Water Projects Branch Administrative Report No. 69-3. 24 pp.] listed eleven species of fish reported by other observers or seen by the author, in all reaches of Stony Creek. Anglers and landowners report that the creek supports a small catfish (Ictaluridae species) and bass (Micropterus species) fishery, especially in the reach between Black Butte Dam and the North Diversion Dam..."; North Diversion Dam 15 feet high, no fish passage facilities, boards removed during non-irrigation season; TCC siphon at river mile 12.2; electrofishing [!] & seining, monofilament gill nets; larval lamprey....; highest level of entrainment first 24 hours of flow [caught all the stupid ones? cleaned out the population? what?] p. 16 "This study established that operation of the CHO during the fall can negatively impact the resident fish community of Stony Creek by entraining large numbers of juvenile fish into the TCC. While the magnitude of these losses may be great,..."; flows into CHO very low during the study so fyke nets didn't work [deliberately skewed?]; suggest a pre-release pulse to flush fish out of the CHO pool through the culvert in the TCC diversion dam; "Common carp and Sacramento Suckers have a similar life history trait in which they move upstream in the winter and sprint to spawn. Age 0 Sacramento suckers that were spawned in tributaries, move downstream to the main stem Sacramento River where they live for the next few yers before they move back up into tributaries to spawn. After spawning in January through March, they move back downstream to the Sacramento River."
    - - - Figure 1. Map of Stony Creek showing site of CHO rediversion into the Tehama-Colusa Canal.
    - - - Figure 2. Map of study area. Numbers indicate sampling sites as listed in Table 1
    - - - Table 1. - Number of fish collected by fyke net, gill net, electrofisher and seining, September 9 - 22, 1994, lower Stony Creek, California. The number of fish entrained was calculated for each fyke net set and summed. (by species)
    - - - Table 2. - Distribution of fishes sampled from lower Stony Creek, California, 1994. Collections January 28 to May 4 = S. Collections September 9 to 22 = F. RM = rivermile from confluence with Sacramento River [ Nature Conservancy 1.0, GCID canal 3.0, Road P 11.3,Orland S & G, 14.7, Northern DD 22.5];
    - - - Table 3. Fish entrainment rate into Tehama-Colusa Canal and fyke net catch at the constant head orifice at Stony Creek, California, Fall 1994.
    - - - Figure 3. Fish entrainment rate into Tehama-Colusa Canal from Stony Creek, California, September 1994.
    - - - Figure 4. Bulllfrog tadpole entrainment rate into Tehama-Colusa Canal from Stony Creek, California, September 1994
    - - - Figure 5. Black Butte Reservoir elevation and discharge into the constant head orifice at Stony Creek and the Tehama Colusa Canal, California, March 31 to May 24, 1994.
    - - - Figure 5. Length-frequency distribution of green sunfish collected from lower Stony Creek, California, September 1994.
    - - - Table 4. spawning period in California for fishes collected from lower Stony Creek, California, 1994 (compiled from Moyle 1976 and McGinnis 1984). Birth period is given for livebearing tule perch and mosquitofish.
    - - - Recommendations
    - - - Acknowledgements
    - - - References
    - - - Appendix A - Abstract from Brown 1994. Fishery Impacts from Reverse Operations of the Constant Head Orifice at Stony Creek and the Tehama-Colusa Canal, California, Spring 1994, Matthew R. Brown, USFWS Red Bluff
    - - - Table 3 Stony Creek Operational Objectives in Order of Importance

    05??88 Map, 22-208-96 Orland Project, Reclamation; East Part [sic] completed 1910 height of 138 feet crest length 266 feet concrete arch-gravity structure, Rainbow Diversion Dam completed 1914 height 44 feet crest length 271 feet concrete arch structure, Stony Gorge completed 1928 height 139 feet crest length 868 feet concrete slab and buttress structure, Northside Diversion Dam completed 1913 and partially replaced in 1954 height 15 feet crest length 375 feet concrete gravity dam; "Water requirements for general irrigated agriculture in the project area is approximately 3.8 ft/acre...each year." [narrative on back] --
    063095 letter Hanson/Reclamation to Task Force next meeting 07/19/1995 Willows Public Library 10 - 1


    Correspondence VOL. 7 OF 12

    070595 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/D Water Rights, Quarterly Report Required by State Water Resources Control Board Order Approving Petition of Addition of a Point of Rediversion, Permit No. 13776 (Application no. 18115), Stony Creek, Black Butte Reservoir - Central Valley Project [ puffery?]

    062995 Baiocchi Protest for CSPA re Reclamation petition for permanent - point of rediversion; CHO built to compensate for TCC & RBDD by releasing 300 cfs into Stony to improve habitat for 15000 salmon but releases never happened, now wants to operate CHO in reverse and not for salmon, petition would make that permanent; bypass flow of 30 cfs was allowed for fishery protection, but only during CHO ops; [effect on salmon spawning is that reverse-CHO will prevent it from being reestablished]; no real evaluation or mitigation in EA; "cumulative impacts to salmon, steelhead and other fish resourses, including the entire ecosystem of Stony Creek have occurred from the integrated operations of Black Butte Reservoir, Stony Gorge Reservoir, and East Park Reservoir. The cumulative impacts to public trust salmon, steelhead, aquatic resources, and the entire ecosystem of the Stony Creek watershed above and below Black Butte Dam was not evaluated or mitigated in the recent EA prepared by the USBR for the CHO operations. NEPA requires that cumulative impacts from this project (CHO Project), existing projects (Black Butte Reservoir, Stony Gorge Reservoir and East Park Reservoir) and future projects are evaluated." CHO not screened; CHO ops violated the CHO ops principles #9 & #10; Reclamation not managing ecosystem when they took & rediverted fishery water, adverse impacts to Black Butte minimum pool; requests to Reclamation for info for this protest resulted in inadequate responses against the protest deadline; flows at CHO need to be clearly stated & limited; using all Stony water for irrigation and none for fish is "unreasonable use and unreasonable method of diversion of the state's water and is a violation of Article X, Section 2 of the California Constitution." [wouldn't Stony water be too warm for salmon spawning under all circumstances? and wouldn't the creek need to be chanellized/]; no statement in petition that Stony Creek sustains or did sustain salmon; "Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Core Group" findings 05/09/1995 [GET] barriers for Stony salmon & steelhead: GCID, TCC, North Diversion Dam, Black Butte Dam, Stony Gorge, East Park impaired flow, limited redds, limited riparian vegetation, inadequate releases; GCID dam erected 02/1994 stranded 5,000 - 10,000 juvenile salmon (Maslin & McKinney 1994); TCC dam entrained resident & outmigrating fish (Brown 1994); redds downstream of North Diversion Dam suggests Dam a barrier (Reavis 1983), (& Nick Villa, pers. comm.) - 30 cfs for fish being rediverted at North Dam; prior to Stony Gorge (RM 45) Stony Creek supported 'very good' populations of chinook Salmon (Clark 1929), native runs now extinct, "Most of Stony Creek's historical salmon spawning most likely occurred upstream of RM 45."; gravel replenishment on Little Stony severed by East Park; Stony could double Sacramento System Salmon without removing dams; Black Butte severed gravel replenishment, and what remains is being mined; historically braided, but channelization & cooler water from Black Butte would help; riparian canopy & streamside vegetation would lower water temperature & sedimentation & add food insects; continuous releases from Black Butte should be 150 cfs, not 30, some spikes would help as "migration cues"; "Working Paper on Restoration Needs; Habitat Restoration Actions to Double Natural Production of Anadromous Fish in the Central Valley of California; Volume 3; Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the direction of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Core Group; May 9, 1995; Stony Creek; at pages 3-Xb-56 to 3-Xb-68"; a number of amendments sought, including 300 cfs limit 04/01 - 05/15 & 09/15 - 11/01 when RBDD non-op, max annual rediversion of 13,500 a-f annually when salmon observed in Stony Creek, or when not 27,000 a-f (600 a/f per day x 45 days); reserve 13,500 a-f in Black Butte above the 20,000 minimum pool for when USFWS, CDFG, USNMFS believe such needed for salmon & their habitat in Stony Creek; screens at CHO & all other diversions between Black Butte & TCC; terminate CHO ops when RDBB diversions allowed; reevaluate at first of 1) 2002, 2) RBDD solution, 3) GCID siphon; reserve 64,000 minimum in Black Butte not including Orland Project water, for "senior operational objectives"; and a whole lot of reports & studies & monitoring programs;

    071295 USFWS fax transmission cover sheet, Steve Hertzel to Meroney
  • 071195 Medlin/USFWS to Meroney/SWRCB, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Protest Regarding the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Petition for a Permanent Point of Rediversion on Stony Creek, Glenn County (Application 18115, Permit 13776); FWCA report was appendix to Reclamation's final EA; 1) petition as filed does not reflect USFWS NEPA & FWCA results; 2) would interfere with long-term fish & wildlife habitat restoration
  • UNDATED Protest USFWS, adverse impacts, not addressed in USBR EA, FONSI is wrong, project different, impacts in attachment, mitigation conditions in attachment
  • Attachment; EA & FONSI based on 1) rediversion of "excess" CVP water to TCC 04/01 - 05/15 & 09/15 - 10/31 temporarily while RBDD gates were up, 2) adherence to operational objectives, 3) all, including impacts, subject to change; Reclamation seeks to boost from a limit of 30,150 a-f/year to 160,000, may preclude habitat restoration contrary to intent of CVPIA; petition failed to include chinook salmon as a species occurring in Stony Creek; CDFG surveys 1980,81,82 found chinook juveniles both up and downstream of TCC; Operational objectives intended to mitigate have not been adhered to, flows recorded at CHO less than 30 cfs; drawdowns of Black Butte below 20,000 a-f recorded, temperature monitoring inaccurate and resulting drawdowns non-responsive in Black Butte; asked for terms similar to CSPA; document groundwater pumping along Stony Creek downstream of Black Butte to determine recharge; -
    - Table 1, Stony Creek Operational Objectives in Order of Importance
    - Appendix A, Mitigation Recommendations for Spring CHO Rediversions, 1994 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report [what is the TCC Research Pumping Facility?] -

    080795 Preliminary Temperature Considerations for Stony Creek Technical Team; for the SCTT, not intended for general distribution to the Stony Creek Task Force; 56 degrees F upper limit acceptable for spawning in the Fall & 70 degrees upper limit for Fall upstream migration , a bit higher for winter & spring "rearing", "upper lethal temperature has been estimated at 78.5 degrees F where 50% of fish die after 48 hours exposure
  • Table, average monthly temperature and date when average daily temperature remained below 13.4 degrees (Celsius) or above 17.8 degrees for the season, gage below Black Butte Dam, Stony Creek.
  • Graph: Average monthly temperatures below Black Butte Dam, 1975-88, graphed with assumed upper limit for optimal survival for Fall chinook

    070595 letter Matt Brown/USFWS to Stony Creek Technical Team, re Stony Creek Hydrology; gages indicate "Stony Creek can supply more water per annum than most streams currently supporting Fall run chinook."; managed for Fall-run, spawning flows Oct - Dec, rearing Dec - May; lists 3914 a-f downstream for bureau contracts [?] [WHAT ARE THESE, ANGLE violation] -
  • 070395 graph, Stony Creek Below Black Butte Dam, does not include water delivered to South Canal of Orland Project, month-by-month, 2 plots 1967-91 and unimpaired flow 1921-83 [?], average cfs
  • 070695 graph, Hypothetical Stony Creek fish flows deliverable in more than half of years examined, While allowing for water delivered to Orland Project, GCID and other contracts; 1500 cfs attraction flows for 2 weeks, then 500 cfs spawning, then 270 cfs rearing/transport flows

    081195 received, untitled, undated, info "gethered by the Stony Creek - Technical Team", "trying to get a general idea of the feasibility of restoring Fall run chinook salmon to Stony Creek", temperatures too high for winter-run & late-fall run; "Stony Creek has more water than most of the fall chinook streams." "Two of these 'westside' streams produce more fall chinook than all the other streams, except for Battle Creek which has the largest chinook fish hatchery in the world." "Stony Creek differs from the fall chinook streams because flows do not increase during November... Increased flows in the fall are essential for fall chinook restoration. This may require changes in Army Corps of Engineers operations." attraction flows Oct-Dec, spawning flows Oct-Dec, rearing flows Dec-May
  • Table: Upper Sacramento River tributaries- average annual stream flow - from USGS gage data. *indicates creeks supporting consistent runs of Fall-run chinook salmon. Mean natural spawning escapement is the average number of fish spawning each year from 1967 to 91.
  • Graph: Hydrographs of primary eastside Fall-run chinook tributaries to the upper Sacramento R. and Stony Creek, 1967-91
  • Graph: Hydrographs of major westside tributaries to the upper Sacramento River, 1967-91

    UNDATED Red Bluff Fish Passage ad hoc Committee Comprised of the Central - Valley Fisheries Coalition and the Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority; A Proposal to Address Short-Term and Long-Term Solutions for Improved Fish Passage and Irrigation Water Supply at Red Bluff Diversion Dam; proposals for intermittent gate closures at RBDD? References: Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, Red Bluff Diversion Dam Pilot Pumping Plant Program, by Reclamation 08/1993; Final Environmental Assessment, Rediversion of water to the Tehama-Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon, Reclamation, Shasta Lake Ofc, 01/1995

    06/1995 USFWS, Northern Central Valley Fishery Resource Office, P.O. - Box 667, Red Bluff, California 96080, Supplementary Study of Fall 1994 Fishery Impacts from Reverse Operation of the Constant Head Orifice at Stony Creek and the Tehama-Colusa Canal, California, Final Report, prepared by Matthew R. Brown; flows too low to assess impacts, [low-flows deliberate?] sunfish, mosquitofish, bullfrog tadpoles entrained into TCC, fewer, or zero?, Sacramento suckers & common carp; violations of Black Butte Reservoir operational objectives: pool fell 4,766 a-f below 20,000 a-f minimum, & dropped more than 2 feet during white crappie spawning period in the Spring; CHO grate trapped & killed approx. 100 Sacramento Suckers & common carp; p. 2 "There are few published records of fish abundance and distribution in Stony Creek."; "Northern Diversion Dam...15-foot high dam has no fish passage facilities"; beavers active in the evenings at the CHO; p. 15, "27 species found in Stony Creek during 1994", discussions of species; "Fyke nets are size selective. Fish smaller than 20 mm pass through our 1/8 in mesh, and larger fish may swim out of the net more easily...exaggerated by low flow into the fyke net."; a pre-release pulse may flush fish from the CHO impound pool before diversion starts; one ref, "Puckett, L.K. 1969. Fisheries surveys on Thomes and Stony creeks, Glenn and Tehama Counties, with special emphasis on their potentials for king salmon spawning. CDFG. Water Projects Branch Administrative Report No. 69-3. 24 pp."
  • Figure 1. Map of Stony Creek showing site of CHO rediversion into the Tehama-Colusa Canal.
  • Figure 2. Map of study area. Numbers indicate sampling sites as listed in Table 1 (Modified from Willis 1993) Tehama-Colusa Canal.
  • Table 1 - Number of fish [by species] collected by fyke net, gill net, - electrofisher and seining, September 9-22, 1994, lower Stony Creek, California. The number of fish entrained was calculated for each fyke net set and summed.
  • Table 2 - Distribution [as in which species where] of fishes sampled from lower Stony Creek, California, 1994.
  • Table 3 - Fish entrainment rate into Tehama-Colusa Canal and fyke net catch at the constant head orifice at Stony Crek, California, Fall 1994.
  • Figure 3 - [graph] Fish entrainment rate into Tehama-Colusa Canal from Stony Creek, California, September 1994.
  • Figure 4 - [graph] Bullfrog tadpole entrainment rate into Tehama-Colusa Canal from Stony Creek, California September, 1994
  • Figure 5 - [graph] Black Butte Reservoir elevation and discharge into the constant head orifice at Stony Creek and the Tehama-Colusa Canal, California, March 31 to May 24, 1994.
  • Figure 6 - [graph] Length-frequency distribution of green sunfish collected from lower Stony Creek, California, September 1994
  • Table 4 - Spawning period in California for [each species of] fishes collected from lower Stony Creek, California, 1994 (compiled from Moyle 1976 and McGinnis 1984). Birth period is given for livebearing tule perch and mosquitofish.
    - Appendix A - Abstract from Brown 1994. Fishery Impacts from Reverse Operations of the Constant head Orifice at Stony Creek and the Tehama-Colusa Canal, California, Spring 1994, Matthew R. Brown
    - Appendix B - Stony Creek Operational Objectives in Order of Importance

    FAX cover sheet, Hanson/Reclamation Willows to Bratovich; here is our complete Stony Creek mailing list.
  • Stony Creek Task Force List -

    071195 letter Medlin/USFWS to Meroney/SWRCB protesting "based on adverse environmental impacts that may occur"
  • PROTEST, USFWS , petition does not reflect the project as analyzed - by USFWS or the EA
  • Attachment - FWCA reports analyzed maximum of 30,150 a-f diverted - 04/01-05/15 & 09/15-10/31 time periods; petition seeks permission to divert 160,000 a-f 09/15-05/14; preclude future habitat restoration or enhancement on Stony Creek; CVPIA restoration actions "include 1) develop a water management release strategy for Black Butte Dam to improve instream flows/habitat; 2) develop a water management strategy for TCC/CHO releases into Stony Creek; and 3) the discontinuance of CHO rediversions in the TCC." Task Force may produce similar goals; "Petition for Change-Environmental Information failed to include chinook salmon as a separate species occurring in Stony Creek. Fishery surveys conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game in 1980, 1981, and 1982 collected chinook salmon juveniles both upstream and downstream of the TCC/CHO site on Stony Creek."; failure to comply with operational objectives could adversely affect bald eagles; Dismissal terms/permit conditions:
    - 1. NEPA reevaluation 2002 or as part of long-term RBDD fish passage problems, whichever first
    - 2. Adhere to operational objectives, no modification without fishery agencies' approval
    - 3. 64,000 a-f Black Butte reserve
    - 4. Revise objective #11 to identify refugre deliveries as a portion of CHO diversion
    - 5. daily surface water temperature monitoring in Black Butte 03/15-04/30 when "being stabilized for warmwater fisheries protection."
    - 6. Reclamation complete an annual report on CHO rediversions each year they occur, sufficient to prove compliance
    - 7. Fishery agencies to be able to modify or terminate rediversions to assure compliance
    - 8. Add above to temporary permit if no permanent permit
    - 9. Reclamation to identify by 09/01 Black Butte reserve before fall rediversions
    - 10. Document groundwater pumping along Stony Creek downstream of Black Butte "to determine the actual benefits to groundwater recharge from water releases for CHO rediversions."
    - 11. "Begin monitoring and data collection of economic and recreational impacts of CHO rediversions for" NEPA analysis.
    - 12. Aerial photos 05/15-31 in rediversion years to document site impacts
    - Table 1 - Stony Creek Operational Objectives in Order of Importance
    - - Appendix A, Mitigation Recommendations for Spring CHO Rediversions, 1994 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report

    071895 Contact Report Nick Villa/DFG called Meroney/SWRCB, will back USFWS protest, plus favors only a temporary permit
    071895 Contact Report Andy Hitchings/DeCuir & Somach to Meroney/SWRCB Order 04/1994 protect GCID prior water rights? Nope, forgot it. Asked that it be included in any Order for the petition change, told him to put it in writing & a late protest OK

    01/1995 & 07/1995 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment, Rediversion of Water to the Tehama-Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon, Reclamation, Shasta Lake Office; FONSI; Research Pumping Facility (RPF) at RBDD 270 cfs capacity but have pump seal problems; "after the FEA was released, Reclamation received a proposal for a long term solution to the fish passage and water diversion problems at the RBDD from an ad hoc group of diverse interests that included permanent use of rediversions throught the CHO. Reclamation has promised to explore such....as part of the search for a long term solution at the RBDD."; Stony water temperatures nonlethal for chinook salmon eggs 3-4.5 months per year, roughly mid-November through mid-late March.; flows questionable 10-25% of Novembers, "much of the gravel in the creek is too thoroughly mixed with excessive fines to provide satisfactory spawning habitat...."; current capacity of Black Butte approximately 143,500 a-f; exceptionally high flows in Stony Creek in the [this?] Spring, peak flows into TCC this spring 650 cfs, prolonged 500 cfs ; floods January & March 1995; RBDD centrifugal pump performing well, problems with seals on Archimedes screw pumps; permission granted for a one-time closing of RBDD gates 04/01-05/15 but floods interfered; lots of mitigation proposals including some already violated; "changes in rice straw removal methods" a conservation device?; estimate 3,040 entrained tadpoles; juvenile lamprey entrained is a potential concern in NEPA analysis for removing GCID berm; inventory & discussion of endangered species; "the potential use of Stony Creek by salmonids is limited relative to that of other streams in the Sacramento Valley"; bib incl "COE, 1987, Black Butte Dam and Lake: Stony Creek, California, Mater [?] Water Control Manual,..." USACE, Sacramento;
  • Table 1 Stony Creek Operational Objectives in Order of Importance
    - Appendix A Mitigation measures recommended by the FWS and adopted by Reclamation
    - letter Medlin/USFWS to Holt/Reclamation, Species list for Rediversion of Water to Tehema-Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon, Tehama County, California; candidate species should be considered in case they become listed before project approval
    - - Appendix B; Enclosure A, species list, Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species and Candidate Species that May Occur in or Be Affected by Projects in the Area of the Following Selected Quads, USFWS required to furnish under 7(c) of ESA [good for 90 days, after which informally verify]
    - - Enclosure B , Federal Agencies' Responsibilities under Sections 7(a) and (c) of the Endangered Species Act; conditions under which a biological assessment must be prepared by the lead Federal agency or its designated non-Federal representative
    - - 061695 memo Hirtzel/USFWS to Mobley/NMFS & Chadwick/CDFG transmitting FWCA report final draft

    080895 note, Julie Brown/DFG to Pat & Heidi pointing out pp. 37 & 8, Hwy 45 Bridge 500 yards below GCID gravel dam
  • 081195 rec'd Tributary Rearing by Sacramento River Salmon and - Steelhead, interim report 10/30/1994 Paul E. Maslin and William R. McKinney, Dept. of Biol, CSU; measuring & releasing juvenile salmon on many creeks including Stony; & water temperatures measured; p. 2, young fish confused, moving up tributaries? later, possibly pursuing food in an alternative environment as their natal streams became inadequate; "characteristic fin clubbing of hatchery fish"; "clipped adipose fins, confirming their hatchery origin"; not much specific to Stony;
    - Table 1. Juvenile salmon and steelhead caputured in Sacramento River tributaries in 1993
    - Table 2. Juvenile salmon and steelhead caputured in Sacramento River tributaries in 1994 [listing where captured]
    - Table 3. Temporal changes in observation of marked chinook juveniles in Spring, 1993
    - Table 4. Growth estimates for juvenile chinook salmon at selected tributary sites
    - Table 5. Percent of tributary juvenile chinooks which ate particular foods [listing the prey eaten]
    - Table 6. The number of food items eaten per juvenile chinook by fish which selected any of a particular food category [Macro Aquatic, Micro Aquatic, terrestrial]
    - Table 7. Relative conditions of alternative rearing habitats for different races of chinook salmon [Winter-Run, Spring-Run, Fall-Run, Late-fall-Run]
    - Figure 1. [graph] Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Mud Creek in spring, 1984
    - Figure 2. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Mud and Rock Creeks in spring, 1988
    - Figure 3. Juvenile chinook salmon observed at the mouth of Big Chico Creek and in Kusal Slough and Mud Creek on March 19, 1990 spring, 1988
    - Figure 4. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Mud Creek in Spring, 1990
    - Figure 5. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Mud Creek in Spring, 1991
    - Figure 6. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Mud Creek in Spring, 1993
    - Figure 7. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Kusal Slough (Rock Creek) in Spring, 1993
    - Figure 8. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Toomes and Pine Creek in Spring, 1993
    - Figure 9. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Big Chico Creek in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 9b. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Big Chico Creek in Spring, 1994 (cont.)
    - Figure 9c. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Big Chico Creek in Spring, 1994 (cont.)
    - Figure 9d. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Big Chico Creek in Spring, 1994 (cont.)
    - Figure 10. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Mud Creek in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 10b. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Mud Creek in Spring, 1994 (cont.)
    - Figure 10c. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Mud Creek in Spring, 1994 (cont.)
    - Figure 10d. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Mud Creek in Spring, 1994 (cont.)
    - Figure 10e. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Mud Creek in Spring, 1994 (cont.)
    - Figure 11. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Kusal Slough (Rock Creek) in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 11b. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Kusal Slough (Rock Creek) in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 12. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Pine Creek in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 12b. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Pine Creek in Spring, 1994 (cont.)
    - Figure 13. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Toomes Creek in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 14. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Dye Creek in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 15. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Elder Creek in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 15b. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Elder Creek in Spring, 1994 (cont).
    - Figure 16. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Thomes Creek in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 17. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Stony Creek in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 17b. Juvenile chinook salmon observed in Stony Creek in Spring, 1994 (cont).
    - Figure 18 Steelhead observed in Big Chico Creek and Lindo Channel in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 19. Steelhead observed in Mud Creek in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 19b. Steelhead observed in Mud Creek in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 20. Steelhead observed in Kusal Slough (Rock Creek) in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 21. Steelhead observed in Pine Creek in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 22. Steelhead observed in Elder Creek in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 23. Steelhead observed in Stony Creek in Spring, 1994
    - Figure 24. Distribuion of chinook races in the seine catch from different tributaries (Number caught shown in parentheses)
    - Figure 25. Monthly screw-trap captures at Adam's Dam in Butte Creek; Spring, 1994.

    071295 letter Campbell/TCCA to Kjelson/CVP F & W Restoration Program; re working paper on restoration needs, vol 1, 2, & 3; type on RBDD gates open to 06/30 instead of 05/15?, else explain?; First Annual Squawfish Derby by Red Bluff Chamber of Commerce 06/10/1995 only 66 squawfish caught, smaller population of squawfish below the dam this year; May 30 in error, s/b May 15? else explain?; Vogel report "horribly outdated" w/ "gates in" 12 months of the year, current 8 months "gates out" should be studied & basis for any recommendations; TCCA & fishery interests have met and developed a proposed long-term solution to RBDD problem including flexibility in the gates, plus Stony diversions; fish passage structure over Corning Canal siphon on Elder Creek a waste of money? CDFG rates Elder Creek low priority for restoration (Restoring Central Valley Streams: A Plan for Action, November 1993); erosion control ordinance to reduce siltation into Elder Creek? Are you sure?; Corning Canal siphon exposed, problem for fish? replaced fall 1994, old to be remove 08/1995; Thomes not a good candidate without some other flow source; Stony: task force studying, researching diversion into TCC; "Kondolf and Swanson 1993 report that notes Stony Creek, below Black Butte, '...probably did not support salmon spawning consistently.'"; RBDD water will yield temperatures at Stony too high for salmon; question developing a distinct Stony channel, CDFG considers Stony a low priority stream for restoration; protest any proposal to discontinue diversions from Stony into TCC; etc.,

    071895 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB forwarding 12 copies of final EA & 2 copies of draft Supplemental EA, will provide any additional required, & furnish to task force;
    071895 memo Broddrick/CDFG to Meroney/SWRCB 3rd petition for rediversion of Stony into TCC, support USFWS position, include their conditions, oppose permanent, extend temporary
    071895 Baiocchi/CSPA to SWRCB; Public Trust Protest; response to - Reclamation response of 07/05/1995; copy of 07/05/1995 letter to SWRBC by Reclamation not received in Quincy until 07/14/1995, intentionally delayed? due process violation? Reclamation in that letter planning to work out an agreement for CHO operation with fishery agencies, & may include others after the protest period closes; no response from Reclamation regarding CSPA protest, planning on an end-run with this agreement? unless Reclamation can meet the protest conditions, it should be scheduled for a hearing; Reclamation repeatedly delaying the Stony Creek fish, wildlife & water management plan, and "CSPA seriously doubts that the plan will be forwarded to the State Water Board within the next century or two." Reclamation needs to get serious about the CSPA protest. Last year CSPA withdrew its protest based on Reclamation promises that have not been met; requested information from Buford Holt of Reclamation 05/26/1995, no response; CSPA has not received scoping letter for SEA as required by NEPA; SEA should be submitted for public review & comment before Reclamation approval; asking Reclamation to meet in Chico or Oroville, else hearing should be scheduled with enough noticed to allow sufficient time to prepare testimony & exhibits;

    072695 letter Hitchings/DeCuir & Somach to Meroney/Div WR, letter to confirm GCID rights inadvertently omitted from previous Order be included in future orders, if included GCID agrees not to protest
    072895 letter Holt/Reclamation to Baiocchi/CSPA complete response to - 05/26/1995 letter; "our permit application involves only [CVP] water, our responses to questions relating to the Orland Project refer you to the [OUWUA]" [uh, wasn't that their project?]; 1 & 9) diversion to project canals pursuant to project rights, not this permit; p. 2 "No CVP water released from Black Butte Dam is diverted into the North Canal." [uh, not true?]; 7. 30 cfs fishery releases "is an operational goal, not a mandatory action." "Reclamation has agreed to release 30 cfs below the [CHO]...when the CHO is in operation, and that agreement has been made a part of the Department of Fish and Game's 1601 permits." "storage rights in Black Butte Reservoir, pursuant to Water Right Permit No. 13776, end 'about April 30' of each year. After that date, all natural inflow is bypassed, pursuant to Angle Degree [sic] rights, through Black Butte Reservoir, exclusive of water previously stored and released through Black Butte Reservoir to the OUWUA by exchange from OUWUA's upstream East Park and Stony Gorge Reservoirs." 8. "There is a stream-flow gage below both the North Canal and the CHO at St. John's orchard, about 1.5 miles above the [GCID] Canal, that will be put back into service and upgraded to include temperature monitoring equipment. It has been nonfunctional for all practical purposes since about 1986, when the stream channel moved away from the gaging stqation. The channel shifted back this year, and operation of the gage is once again feasible." 14. "The [USGS] gaging station is below the South Canal and above the North Canal. It has been out of service for some years because of stream channel changes but will be put back in service soon." 16. Petition was for no stated diversion amount, depends on relative heights of creek & canal, when canal is drawn down or has low inflow, diversion can be high; 17. EA: higher diversion rates, dilution of fish population, lower entrainment;
    - "21. Underflow of Stony Creek
    - "Reclamation does not monitor groundwater pumping in the vicinity of Stony Creek, nor is it easy to ascertain what the underflow may be. Although we have verbally passed on comments from Department of Water Resources (DWR) personnel indicating a significant role of the Stony Creek fan in recharge of aquifers in the Colusa Basin, this is probably something quite different than losses from the stream itself. The Stony Creek fan is an extensive structure that apparently extends well outside the surface water basin downstream of Black Butte Dam, and the substantial role attributed to that fan probably was made with reference to this geologic structure as a whole, not just the current streambed.
    - "With respect to underflow, a review of the readily available data led our geologists to conclude that little factual information exists concerning stream losses from Stony Creek to underlying aquifers, which in turn, would imply ignorance of the size of the underflow. Indeed, the DWR encountered considerable difficulty in their attempts to interpret the Stony Creek data and eventually gave up the effort. Reclamation and DWR estimates of losses from Stony Creek, over the past fifty years, range from 12,000 acre-feet to 63,000 acre-feet per year. For the purposes of fishery questions, perhaps the most useful data are the recollections of a DWR contact who recalled that deliberate releases of 25 and 50 cfs failed to reach the GCID canal, although releases of 75 cfs did. We are trying to relocate those old reports.
    - "The DWR is responsible for groundwater usage and should be contacted for further details on groundwater volumes and usage."

    080195 letter Meroney/SWRCB to Baiocchi/CSPA & Medlin/USFWS & Scammell-Tinling/USFWS, EA delayed so accepting protests from CSPA & USFWS, Reclamation to reply
    080195 letter Meroney/SWRCB to CDFG your protest not timely, won't accept unless tardiness justified
    080495 letter Meroney/SWRCB to Trost/Reclamation re DeCuir & Somach letter on behalf of GCID regarding inclusion of term recognizing GCID rights, assume you accept unless hear otherwise
    080895 memo Meroney/SWRCB to files, field trip on 18115 w/ - Trost, Hanson, Holt, Birk /Reclamation, Brown/DFG, Brown/USFWS, Jennings/TCCA, Lohse/OAWD, Bratovich, Mahoney/SWRCB; "Stony Creek's streambed is primarily composed of sand and gravel and appears to be a wide alluvial fan"; visited CHO, GCID crossing, estimate for GCID Stony siphon $16 million, hoping for federal funds; "[CSPA] protest was raised and the USBR asked if the SWRCB would participate in a meeting to help resolve CSPA's concerns. Since CSPA and the USBR are at an impasse and time is critical, this appeared worthwhile...8/8/95 - Jeff Trost and Gail Heffler came by and requested a meeting with CSPA the week of August 14, 1995. In addition, Jeff requested an additional week to answer the protests filed by USFWS and CSPA, which Pat M. granted."
    081195 Fax t/l Hirtzel/USFWS to Brown/Ward/Forrest/Baiocchi/Mobley/Villa FWS & USBR met 08/10 to draft MOU, to dismiss protest, if MOU not completed by deadline for permanent permit, Reclamation will seek extension of temporary; Draft MOU pages 2 & 3 "need for this MOU is based on the past non-compliance with senior operational objectives and environmental commitments and the uncertainty that this change in point of rediversion will be used to expand Reclamation's use of water after resolution of fish passage and water delivery constraints at [RBDD]." divert only excess over 64,000 a-f at 04/01, FWS may revise, but, limited to 38,293 a-f in turn reduced by RBDD "Research Pumping Facility" deliveries; reduce further to support upstream warm water fisheries, and for low-flow seasons.. [portions cut off in transmission?]
    081495 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Meroney/SWRCB confirm 1 week extension to answer 2 protests
    081595 letter Jennings/TCCA to Meroney/SWRCB, 1) thanks for your visit, 2) TCCA contractors looking to replace supply lost with RBDD restrictions, but Black Butte water is not "new water", just a rediversion; 3) CDFG gave Stony fishery restoration "low priority", 4) CVPIA Working Paper on restoring Stony Creek, just a starting point with no evaluation yet of feasibility, 5) 01/1995 floods channel cut into right bank at bottom end of siphon, added riprap ("shot rock") to protect, which eroded into the stream with the 03/1995 and the "flow cut back to the center of the channel", photo 03/30/1995 enclosed [where?] as requested by Meroney; every year the dikes need to be moved because "Stony Creek is a moving channel".
    UNDATED contact? Bratovich/SWRCB to Davis/Reclamation, Hirtzell proposes wording: tricky, if water available within its limits Black Butte to supply refuges if GCID "cannot provide historical level 2 water supplies plus the incremental increases stipulated in...Section 3406(d) of the [CVPIA]"
    082195 memo Hanson/Reclamation to Task Force, meeting moved to 06/20/1995
  • - 071995 Minutes; Tech Team 1) agreed to gather "relevant Stony Creek literature to date" [sooo, where is that?]; 2) field trip, BBD, North & South diversions; 3) presentation of Team data gathered to date; papers produced: 1) Hydrology, 2) fishery; Wengell Gilgert of Willows Natural Resource Conservation Service spoke of 1989 effort to produce a resource management plan for Stony Creek, 3 meetings, no funding, disbanded; Kathy Crossert, CalTrans, "Stony Creek has (5) CalTrans bridges below Black Butte Dam, all of which are in various stages of jeopardy."; Diane Hanson, Reclamation, Willows has established an archive for all papers and studies pertaining to Stony Creek; "Anyone interested may have access."; task force moving away from CHO to RMP?
    082295 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB , re USFWS protest Reclamation disagrees with 1) USFWS assertion that EA did not address a permanent diversion, not a temporary one - Reclamation agrees to limit diversions to the 2 6-week periods and has no plans for diversion outside those times; 2) permanent rediversion could block restoration attempts; rediversion not intended to be permanent, but staff ordered 1) environmental review based on permanent change, and 2) task force for long-term management plan; - both of which Reclamation has done; 3) dismissal terms more appropriately in an MOU than in the permit.
    082395 letter Medlin/USFWS to Meroney/SWRCB USFWS-Reclamation MOU, agreed MOU terms incorporated by reference in permit would be enough, negotiating terms

    082895 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Meroney/SWRCB 13 pp.; won't withdraw - the protest until Reclamation addresses all issues under CEQA & NEPA; new issues,
    - 1) SEA failure to allow for public comments;
    - 2) cover of SEA shows 01/1995, which is untrue, it was prepared mid-1995;
    - 3) no mention of CEQA in EA/SEA;
    - 4) cumulative impacts (under CEQA) not disclosed & evaluated; "burden is not shifted at the administrative level to those [CSPA and USFWS] challenging a project to present evidence of adverse impacts before the agency [SWRCB] can be required to assess whether such impacts exists."
    - 5) relegating Stony Creek fish to "trash fish" status improper; "'trash fish' approach by the USBR conflicts with state law such as [Ca F & G Code] 5937" & Federal ESA; & 23 Calif. Admin. Code 782;
    - 6) Holt says that when CHO not diverting, 30 cfs will not be maintained; fluctuating flows like this has a potential adverse effect on fisheries; Holt "did not amount to a hill of beans" - Baiocchi "a significant 'mountain of environmental beans'", must be evaluated & mitigated;
    - 7) water rights, diversion of "side water" and "underflow"? should allow flow from Hambright and all unnamed tributaries entering below Black Butte and any spilling flow from Black Butte to flow past the CHO;
    - 8) silting has reduced Black Butte storage rights by 13,500 a-f which should not come out of the 20,000 a-f minimum pool [especially since it's grown to 25,000 a-f of siltation by 2009];
    - 9) maximum rate of CHO diversion - USFWS evaluated CHO rediversion at maximum of 38,230 a-f, spring 1995 diversions were 26,000, and thus any fall 1995 temporary permit should be limited to 12,230 a-f; SEA said CHO would be limited to 180 cfs, during the call Dr. Holt had a different explanation [which was?]; or at the most, 16,200 a-f (180*2*45 days), plus [? or including?] 30 cfs + gaining stream flows for CHO bypass;
    - X) time for permit should be limited as RBDD work is continuing;
    - Y) Stony Creek Management Plan not progressing well, and until submitted to & reviewed by SWRCB no permanent permit should issue
  • 080295 note to Bob from Trost/Reclamation, "includes USFWS supplemental [FWCA] Report", photo of cover of Draft SEA, January 1995

    082995 Falkenstein note on environmental review sheet, "as per phone call from" Heffler/Reclamation", checked Exempt
    083195 letter Diaz-Soltero/NMFS to Anton/SWRCB supports using CHO to supplement TCC but "should not preclude eventual restoration of Stony Creek or delay development and implementation of a long-term solution to fish passage at Red Bluff." EIS should reflect the long term solution; support USFWS 07/11/95 protest; Board decision should 1) ensure compliance with op objectives, 2) not preclude future restoration efforts, 3) mitigate to insignificant, 4) "promote the long-term resolution of fish and wildlife impacts on both Stony Creek and the Sacramento River related to RBDD and" TCC;

    Correspondence VOL. 8 OF 12

    090195 fax t/l Trost/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB, petition for urgency change; original by regular mail
    090195 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB, petition for urgency changes for 9/15/1995-10/31/1995; pending CHO application not progressing fast enough & problems w/RBDD RPF: design problems, sesl failures, & a necessary retrofit, leaving only 125 cfs through temporary pumps & fish screens;
  • 090795 Petition for Temporary Urgency Change
  • 090795 Attachment to Petition for Temporary Urgency Change - Statement of Urgent Need; need for refuges fall flooding, & finish crop year for TCCA contractors; 96,000 a-f in Black Butte, allow 30% conveyance, 48,000 a-f needed to meet 37,000 a-f demand (20% or 7,500 to refuges, 29,500 to ag); "will offset the need for Reclamation to make a special request to the [NMFS] for a 10-day exemption to RBDD gate closure after 09/14 for the purpose of recharging the TCC to help meet the Refuge Complex and agricultural water supply demand this fall." which could have a negative impact on winter-run, NMFS supports this temporary ap & said so in a letter to the board [?]; no negative impact: "Evacuatgion of Black Butte to meet COE flood control parameters begins on September 1. Any water released from storage in Black Butte into Stony Creek for flood control purposes during the September 15-October 31 period, if not rediverted at the CHO, would simply flow down Stony Creek into GCID's main canal at the point where GCID's dam blocks Stony creek, and would be used for irrigation supply, water to which GCID has no legal entitlement, within the GCID service are instead of within the TCC service area. In this respect the environmetnal impact, with or without approval of the Petition, would be the same. Also, because GCID's dam precludes any of the water released from Black Butte from reaching the Sacramento River, there would be no environmental consequences to the Sacramento River...."; FONSI continues; COE target of 80,000 a-f of flood control by 10/10/1995 with 32,500 a-f released by then; 48,000 a-f release for this, plus 5,000 a-f for bypass flow will leave 43,000 a-f in the reservoir vs. 20,000 minimum pool; ag uses for 69,404 acres, $58,481,825 crop values of which 85% is at risk;

    090695 letter Jennings/TCCA to Parkinson/SWRCB mailing separately to you $850 for urgency request, but will request a waiver from CDFG since "this is the third payment for this same petition."
    090695 letter Jennings/TCCA to Parkinson/SWRCB duplicate
  • 090695 $850 check copy
    090795 Fax cover sheet Holt/Reclamation to SWRCB copy 08/31/1995 NMFS letter to SWRCB [don't see endorsement of urgency in this]

    090895 letter Jennings/TCCA to Parkinson/SWRCB challenging CSPA - 08/28/1995 letter
    - 1) no zero-flow because storms will supply spring flows?
    - 2) CHO diversions counted against CVP in Black Butte, so if it includes gaining runoff it's still counted, and besides it takes 3-4 "days of a good storm before water will start flowing (Roger Hunt, Orland Water Unit, pers comm)."
    - 3) siltation does not reduce the minimum Black Butte pool
    - 4) Baiocchi says 26,000 a-f diverted Spring 1995; no, that was releases; diversion was 21,427 a-f of which 8,013 wheeled to GCID through Williams & Wasteway, if not wheeled, it would have been picked up by GCID along with the 1240 bypass
    - 5) shortfall is 305 cfs, not 180 which was an error
    - Mr. Holt does not discriminate against "trash fish" even if he calls them that [uh,..?]
    - maps enclosed of TC & GCID service area; GCID delivers to Delevan & Colusa above the "Dual Purpose Wasteway" & Williams Turnout, "but takes exchange water from the TC at those two locations. (The Williams turnout is a pipeline into a ditch that goes from the TC to GCID)"
  • Map "A" Kirkwood ID to Glide WD --
  • Map "B" Stone Corral Creek to Funks Res --
  • Map "C" Funks Res to Cortina W.D. --

    090895 Fax cover sheet Heffler-Scott/Reclamation to Parkinson/SWRCB , draft letter
  • UNDATED draft letter Patterson/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB ; design problems with RBDD RPF & unresolved protest by CSPA, but Reclamation advised by SWRCB staff 09/06/1995 urgency petition filed 09/01/1995 "will probably not be processed in sufficient time for validation by the board for issuance of an order allowing use of the CHO through October 31, 1995." had asked in 06/01 petition that if Board could not act on it by 09/15 that under its continuing authority & reserved jurisdiction the Board extend its 04/22/1994 to cover 09/15/1995-10/31/1995, damage to crops & refuges [red pen thereon from staff, "most crops may not need irrigation this late - harvest underway or completed" "need to say bulk of water will be used for wildlife enhancement (1) refuge (2) post season field flooding"; flood control releases starting, if not by CHO, then GCID will pick it up; "Although GCID has no legal entitlement to this water, Reclamation, under its contract with GCID, requires that any water entering GCID's system through Stony Creek be charged against GCID's Sacramento River contract." [this was a surprise to GCID, see 91-1074 & 91-1128 at E.D. Calif.]
    091195 letter Patterson/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB , much changed - from draft; wet spring led to later plantings, leading to later harvest and larger fall demand; 38,000 a-f in EA not meant to be a cap, and even if the excess went past the CHO it would be picked up by GCID meaning no question of whether entrained but where entrained; alternative is to seek from NMFS relief from opening the RBDD gates risking the large downstream migrating winter-run and upstream late-fall run.
    091295 fax t/l Holt/Reclamation to Meroney/SWRCB, "these are based on conversations with Mike Hughes, who is the best source of #'s if clarification is needed"
  • 091295 B. Holt, Water in Black Butte and Demands Upon it - Fall 1995;
    - 1. 74,000 a.f. available 9/12/95 in Black Butte Reservoir
    - 2. 2,800 a.f. Estimated evaporative losses through 12/31/95
    - 3. 20,000 a.f Required for minimum pool
    - 4. 3,549 a.f. Required for 30 cfs releases at Black Butte in Nov and Dec
    - 5. A total of [26,350] is required to meet obligations after CHO use plus evaporative losses for the whole period
    - 6. 5801 water for a 50 cfs by-pass of CHO assuming 30% loss for 1.5 months
    - 7. 41,850 estimated water available for use
    - 8. 34,810 amount needed for delivery of an average of 300 cfs with a 30% loss
    - 9. 7,000 a.f. approximate balance
    - Conclusions and Notes; "Even though the numbers don't include the 30 cfs release prior to 9/15 and have small amounts rounded off, it is clear that there is ample water for an average of 300 cfs rediversion. (Peaks may be as much as 650 cfs)
    - "The loss rates are conservative because the creek has remained wet all summer and the loss to the fully charged water table under the stream are more likely to be in the vicinity of 15% than the assumed 30%
    - "Mike Hughes, the BOR staffer responsible for scheduling releases, and Steve Hirtzel, FWS have discussed flushing flows and ramping of releases and decided that ramping at 75 cfs/2 hrs is practical for this fall and flushing flows are not because Cal Trans is repairing the Highway 32 bridge and cannot tolerate increased flows for the next three weeks.
    - "BOR intends to leave as much water in the reservoirs as possible this year, We expect retention to be above the minimums."
    091395 contact report Baiocchi to Falkenstein/D WRights; no problem with terms for extension of time, thus CSPA protest "considered suspended with respect to the extension of time."
    091395 Bratovich/SWRCB to all interested [by fax?] sending terms for rediversion of water released from Black Butte Reservoir....
    091495 fax Jennings/TCCA to Bratovich/SWRCB construction letter
  • 091495 McGee/Cimmeron Construction to Jennings/TCCA installing riprap around SR 32 bridge piers, using 2 6" pumps, barely able to handle with current flow, if flow increased could be costly to the state.
    UNDATED who authored? Suggested Terms for Adding Temporary Point of Rediversion for Water Released from Black Butte Reservoir, in addition to terms specifying the point of rediversion, rate and amount of water rediverted, and purpose and place of use;
    - 1. 09/15-10/31/1995
    - 2. Account for water (rate, total quantity) from RBDD, CHO, & passed by the CHO, report to Div WRights by 01/15/1996
    - 3. 7,500 a-f to SNWRefuges, account for it
    - 4. bypass flow of 50 cfs when diverting & 30 cfs other times
    - 5. steps to reduce entrainment; flushing flow 50-100 cfs before diversion, but coordinated with CalTrans
    - 6. subject to GCID rights
    - 7. Ramping: no more than 75 cfs up in 2 hour period, 50 cfs down in 4 hour period
    - 8. Any fish studies at RBDD, TCC, CHO by USFWS or CGFG, to Dir WRights by 01/15/1996
    - 9. Work with fishing interests to minimize impacts
    - 10. Support Stony Creek Task Force, quarterly reports, develop long-term management plan
    - 11. Significant changes, inform SWRCB ASAP, order may be modified

    091595 Meroney/SWRCB to Davis/USBR
    - 1. Terms of 13776 remain unless changed here
    - 2. 3-9 of this 09/15/1995-10/31/1995
    - 3. Condition 2 of 13776 amended, rediversion at [CHO]
    - 4. Condition 4 of 13776 amended to include fish & wildlife as purpose of use [helping? destroying?]
    - 5. 40 cfs downstream of CHO when diverting, 30 cfs other times
    - 6. minimize entrainment; flushing flow 50-100 cfs before diverting; coordinate with CalTrans
    - 7. ramping up 75 cfs in 2 hours, down 50 cfs in 4 hours
    - 8. 7,500 cfs diverted for SNWR, accounting by 12/15/1995
    - 9. Subject to GCID prior rights
    - 10. Studies by CDFG or USFWS at RBDD, TCC or CHO to SWRCB by 12/15
    - 11. Work with interested parties to reduce impacts & develop mitigations in the watershed
    - 12. Account for RBDD, Black Butte, TCC water by 12/15/1995
    - 13. Continue to participate in Stony Creek Task Force & develop long-range management plan, report quarterly starting 01/01/1996
    - 14. Report big changes, order may be modified by SWRCB
    - 15. Meroney [?] reserves jurisdiction to supervise, coordinate, modify, etc.

    091595 memo Meroney/SWRCB to files, 13-way conference call re: - CSPA concerns: entrainment, flushing & bypass & ramping flows, Reclamation accountability for diversion & use, future of Stony for fish; 50 cfs for bypass per Mr. Hold & acceptable to all; proposed terms faxed to CSPA, Reclamation & TCCA asking for calls with opinions, CSPA said terms OK, no call from Reclamation until 09/13 when they said the terms were not acceptable, a surprise; 09/14 TCCA via Reclamation heard from Cimarron Construction working on SR 32 bridge foundation, present flow was all they could handle, 50 cfs releases from BB, 39 cfs past TCC, about a 20% loss for 7-8 miles; conference call 09/15/1995: Heffler/Trost/Davis/Holt/Kaetner/Max --- - USBR; Rectenwald - DFG; Jennings - TCCA; Baiocchi - CSPA, Bratovich/Meroney - SWRCB, call because of impact on Cimarron, SWRCB proposed new terms & faxed to USBR but not Baiocchi whose fax was at his office, temporary modification: [not sure how terms differed from ones Reclamation rejected]
    091595 letter Max J. Stodolski, Program Manager, Fish Passage Program / Reclamation[?] to McGee/Cimarron, 40 cfs, maybe 45, sorry if more
    091595 fax confirmation SWRCB to Heffler/Reclamation - Order, Stony Creek
    091595 fax confirmation SWRCB to Baiocchi/CSPA - Order, Stony Creek
    091595 fax confirmation SWRCB to Jennings/TCCA - Order, Stony Creek
    091595 mailing list for special notice
    091595 Order Anton/SWRCB approving Temporary Additional Point of - Rediversion
    091895 Notice of Exemption, SWRCB to Office of Planning & Research, re add Rediversion , Ap. 18115
    - 092095 CSPA Conditions for Withdrawal of CSPA Protest against - Permanent Rediversion of the USBR at the CHO on Stony Creek

    092295 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/Div WR , advised that - Baiocchi would be filing revised conditions ; "Reclamation takes strong exception to any acceptance by the SWRCB of any revised protest dismissal conditions which may be filed by CSPA for the following reaons:
    - "1. The SWRCB's June 12, 1995, notice of our petition specifically provided that the period for protest closed on July 12, 1995, 30 days from the date of the notice;
    - "2. Title 23, Section 747 of the California Code of Regulations specifically provides that protests may be filed outside the period stated in the notice of petition only with prior approval by the SWRCB and a showing of good cause;
    - "3. CSPA, on June 29, 1995, filed a protest prior to the July 12 closing date of the protest period set forth in the SWRCB's notice. In that protest, CSPA identified 32 conditions under which its public trust protest could be disregarded and dismissed;
    - "4. Reclamation has answered that protest responding to all 32 of CSPA's conditions for dismissal; and
    - "5. The document which CSPA presented at the luncheon meeting following the September 20, 1995, Task Force Meeting, presents conditions for withdrawal of CSPA's protest which are different from those set forth by CSPA in its June 29, 1995 protest."
  • - 092095 CSPA Conditions for Withdrawal of CSPA Protest against Permanent Rediversion of the USBR at the CHO on Stony Creek
    - Legal and Administrative Authoritiy
    - - 1. Common Law Public Trust Doctrine
    - - 2. State Water Resources Control Board's authority under the California Water Code; Sections 100 and 275 and Common Law Public Trust Doctrine
    - - 3. California Fish and Game 5937 - Keeping Fish Below Dam In Good Condition at All Times
    - - 4. Section 782; California Code of Regulations; Title 23 - Passage of Water for Fish
    - - 5. Section 784; California Code of Regulations; Title 23 - Release of Stored Water - Public Trust Uses of Water
    - - 6. California Environmental Quality Act and its Guidelines
    - - 7. [Mono Lake Decision] National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 189 Cal.Rptr. 346, 658 P.2d 709, Cert. Denied 464 U.S. 977 - Common Law Public Trust Doctrine
    - - 8. PUD No. 1 v. Washington Department of Ecology (1994) 114 S.Ct. 1900 - Water Quality
    - - 9. Section 8 of the U.S. Reclamation Act - Compliance with State Law
    - - 10. Other applicable statues [sic] and regulations (nunerous) [sic].
    - Reference
    - - 1. Working Paper on Restoration Needs; Habitat Restoration Actions to Double Natural Production of Anadromous Fish in the Central Valley; Volume 3; Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the Direction of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Core Group; May 9, 1995; Stockton, CA; at Stony Creek from page 3-Xb-56 to page 3-Xb-68.

    111595 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights, Task Force quarterly report, Management Plan outline drafted & circulated. . . .

    092195 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights, response - to CSPA protest, [they don't like it]; 2. Working Paper for the Anadromous Fish Doubling Plan is not a plan, just a start; 3. "...Stony Creek, which did not support any significant fisheries." "...concluded by the Bureau in 1968 to drop Stony Creek [for fishery restoration]"; 4. 1994 interruption in 30 cfs was to allow for repair of North Diversion Dam washed out by 04/1994 flood control releases; 6. GCID dam is salmon barrier, not CHO dam; 7. screens too expensive for warm water fish; 8. draw down below 20,000, sorry, can't be helped; 9. Reclamation will be installing a temperature gauge at Black Butte & gauges at downstream stations - some gauges left out by channel changes; 11. working on a long-term plan for Black Butte & Stony fisheries, after the GCID dam is replaced by a siphon they'll figure out something else; Condition 3: Orland Project & Angle, not 18115/13776; Condition 18, ground water below Black Butte not a concern or responsibility of Reclamation;
    102695 memo Roe/Caltrans to Anton/Div WRights, Condition 6 of Order Approving Temporary...Rediversion no longer necessary, bridge work is finished
    112495 fax cover sheet, Hirtzel/USFWS to multiple, Stony Creek draft memo of agreement;
  • 112294 Draft Memorandum of Agreement between U.S. Bureau of Reclamation - and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 6 pp; p. 5, 6. "...protect public trust uses...."; "...identify potential impacts to elderberry shrubs. Elderberry shrubs that could be disturbed or removed during construction activities will be flagged. Heavy equipment operators will avoid flagged shrubs."

    112294 Fax t/l Hirtzel/USFWS to Bratovich/SWRCB, markup copy of pp. 4 & t of Draft Memorandum of Agreement between U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and U.S. Fish and Wildlife ; items 3 & 10, "New & Improved Conditions?"
    120595 Agenda, Stony Creek Task Force Meeting; Leadership panel, Hovekamp/USBR, Baicchi (Merz)/CSPA, Campbell/TCCA, Denn/GCID
  • 110995 Working Draft, Stony Creek Management Plan, C. Legal Context - 1. Public Trust Doctrine; 2. Water Rights, a) Angle Decree [summary inadequate & erroneous], "Orland-Artois Water District and Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority divert water under the USBR's Black Butte Permit #13776. The Army Corp [sic] of Engineers does not have a water right for Black Butte Reservoir."; p. 12, Arbuckle Project [?], [Mono Lake Decision] National Audubon Society v. Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles, (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 189 Cal.Rptr. 346, 658 P.2d 709, Cert. Denied 464 U.S. 977 modified at 22 Cal.3d 426
    120895 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights, quarterly report? enclosed table ; 10. aware of no fishery or wildlife studies conducted by the F & WS or CDFG
  • 091695 - 103195 1995 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report, everthing in cfs [sic] including reservoir elevations, etc.
    122095 letter Hansen/Reclamation to everybody, meeting schedule, Reclamation contracting with CH2M Hill to finish the "Fish, Wildlife and Water Use Plan"
    120595 Cash Receipt, $850.00 Application Fee Water Diversion

    1996



    010596 letter Anton/SWRCB to Stackhouse/Reclamation, Baiocchi/CSPA, & - Hirtzel/USFWS; proposed protest dismissal conditions, 30 days to answer or deemed accepted
    012496 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/SWRCB , quarterly report, hired a contractor to finish the Management Plan

    012996 fax t/l Hirtzel/USFWS to Meroney, Bratovich/SWRCB, draft letter on conditions
  • 012996 letter Medlin/USFWS to Anton/Div WRights, concerned about - dismissing the protest until environmental reviews are completed, proposes changes to proposed terms
  • 013096 memo Hirtzel/USFWS to Meroney/SWRCB please consider the faxed copy of the letter to be the USFWS formal response if the signed response does not arrive by the deadline
  • 013196 letter Jennings/TCCA to Anton/SWRCB: 1. 38,293 a-f for CVP too small; - 2. dates from 04/01 - 05/15 & 09/17 - 10/31 change to 09/15 - 10/29 [abandon spring?], & urge 30 cfs bypass flow not 40; 3. question flushing flows; 4. ramping useless.
  • 020196 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Meroney/Div WRights, agree with - conditions if total 90-day rediversion limited to 38,293 a-f, else don't agree; will file complaint if Reclamation diverts flood releases; CHO was to mitigate RBDD, but never used for that; if USFWS not agree then CSPA doesn't agree either?
  • 020296 memo Broddrick/DFG to Anton/Div WRights: 1) wording on 38,295 a-f - too vague; 2) change "mean daily bypass flow" to "not less than"; 4) ramping 30 % per hour may strand fish, use 09/1995 terms; 7c, change RBDD to CHO; 9. include 2002 to implement a long-term solution;
  • 020596 letter Medlin/USFWS & Dimick/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights; - remain in effect means 11/19/1962 terms and not the already expired temporary terms? 09/15 for 09/17 & 10/29 for 10/31; 1. match the 38,293 CVP releases with the two periods per year for CHO; 2. change 40 cfs to 40 plus or minus 5? install a flow meter; 3. flushing flow to "fish redistribution flow"; 4. down ramping 30 % per hour or 100 cfs whichever is greater; 5. delete; else recommend a generic statement rather than one that specifically mentions GCID [especially after what they did to GCID] 6. change fish studies to those Reclamation did or funded; 7. s/b CHO; 8. shoving the Plan off on the Task Force?; 9. add earlier of 2002 or event, adds "that would alter the conclusions from the NEPA/CEA [CEQA?] documents used to develop the terms and conditions"
    022396 fax cover sheet, from Meroney & Bratovich to Hovecamp/Reclamation 5 page letter
    022396 fax cover sheet, from Meroney & Bratovich to Crenshaw/CSPA 5 page letter
    022396 fax cover sheet, from Meroney & Bratovich to Baiocchi/CSPA 5 page letter
    022396 fax cover sheet, from Meroney & Bratovich to Hirtzel/USFWS 5 page letter
    022396 fax cover sheet, from Meroney & Bratovich to Trost & Heffler/Reclamation 5 page letter
    022396 letter Anton/SWRCB to Stackhouse/Reclamation, Baiocchi/CSPA, - Hirtzel/USFWS, 5 pp, revised dismissal terms, water rights & not environmental protests? environmental to come? answer by 02/27/1996 or deemed accepted 5 pp
    022396 contact report Baiocchi/CSPA called Meroney/SWRCB terms OK by him, no letter, call suffices
    022396 memo Holt/Reclamation to Bradovich/SWRCB don't have a current mailing list for Stony, sending you 2 old ones with annotations
  • 021696 Mail Distribution List, February 16, 1996 Working Draft No. 3, Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife and Water Use Management Plan
  • UNDATED older mailing list
    022796 Fax t/l Trost/Reclamation to Meroney & Bratovich/SWRCB, response to revised dismissal conditions;
  • 022796 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights; 8. want clarificationa, same or different report to be submitted by 03/29/1996 & 12/15/1998 ?; 9. should only have to report signficant changes
  • 022796 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights; 2nd copy
    022996 contact report Attaway to Trost/Reclamation , re 02/27/1996 letter, called Trost 02/28/1996 and discussed terms; 02/29/1996 Trost reluctantly agrees & will send a letter
    022996 fax cover sheet, from Meroney/SWRCB to Crenshaw/CSPA 2 page letter dismissing protests
    022996 fax cover sheet, from Meroney/SWRCB to Hovencamp/Reclamation 2 page letter dismissing protests
    022996 fax cover sheet, from Meroney/SWRCB to Baiocchi/CSPA 2 page letter dismissing protests
    022996 fax cover sheet, from Meroney/SWRCB to Hirtzel/USFWS 2 page letter dismissing protests
    022996 fax cover sheet, from Meroney/SWRCB to Trost & Heffler/Reclamation 2 page letter dismissing protests

    022996 letter from Beringer/SWRCB to Stackhouse/Reclamation, - Baiocchi/CSPA, Hirtzel/USFWS, telephone from CSPA & Reclamation, no USFWS response, deem accepted and protests dismissed
    030196 letter Falkenstein/SWRCB to all, enclosed for review, draft negative dec, 30 days to respond - 4 copies
  • UNDATED Stony Creek Task Force Members - Application 18115, 3 copies
  • UNDATED Negative Declaration Pursuant to Section 21080(c) Public Resources Code, 2 copies
    030196 Notice of Completion, to State Clearinghouse, 2 copies
    030696 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights, CDFG & USFWS asked to extend the Management Plan deadline to 03/29/1996
    030696 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights, will accept the revised dismissal conditions per SWRCB letter of 02/23/1996, concerns remain about terms 8 & 9 but need to move on
    031396 Agenda, Stony Creek Task Force & Technical Team Meeting
    030696 letter Anton/Div to Heffler/Reclamation , enclosed revisions to neg dec terms, changes will stall approval
    032196 contact report Bratovich/SWRCB phone with Heffler-Scott/Reclamation & Hirtzel/USFWS Gail: 1. no more money for the Task Force? Reclamation agreed, so they'd have to go through the Change Petition process; 2. USFWS needs no bald eagle terms & 3) ESA Section 7 vs. CEQA? Then CEQA doc would need to be recirculated, etc. Hirtzel: 1) finalize Supplemental EA before end of CEQA review, 2) proposed changes to CEQA terms leave Reclamation loopholes, e.g. "to the extent that there is not a conflict with prior water rights." Reclamation assures Supplemental will be done before CEQA finishes, told Steve all terms applied to the Bureau's permit 13776 and not to prior water rights.
    032296 letter Hanson/Reclamation to Task Force meeting 03/26/1996 postponed; people want more time to review the Plan

    032596 letter Meith/Minasian to Falkenstein/SWRCB, comments of OUWUA - on neg dec, Condition 11 (stabilization & temperatures of Black Butte & Stony Gorge) not per any stip between applicant & protestants., could reduce irrigation flows to a trickle
  • 032196 letter Wilson/WaterMaster to Meith/Minasian, Term 11 would -- seriously constrict supply from Stony Gorge:
    - Office of Water Master, Stony Creek and Tributaries, 828 Eighth Street, Orland, CA 95963, Office (916) 865-4126 * Fax (916) 865-7631, G.G. Wilson, Water master, By Authority of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
    - Jeffery A. Meith, Minasian Law Firm, P.O. Box 1679, Oroville, CA 95965
    - Dear Jeff:
    - This is my response to your letter dated March 18 requesting my explanation of how the potential impact of Term 11 in the Draft Negative Declaration for Permit 13776 could reduce flows in Stony Creek at the Orland Project to a "trickle"
    - I will not comment on item (c) of Term 11 since it pertains to water (279 cfs natural flow) granted to the Orland Project under the Angle Decree.
    - Item (d) seeks to limit fluctuation of the surface elevation of Stony Creek Reservoir, or draw down to plus or minus two feet. This restriction would, in most years, severly reduce required flows to the Orland Project and, at times, would cause no water to be available for diversion.
    - 1. In a normal year (1994) diversions to the Orland Project were approximately 20,000 acre feet from April 1 to May 15, requiring diversion flows in excess of 300 cfs.
    - 2. Since 1921, the record (attached) indicates 26 years that the unimpaired flows in Stony Creek at Orland's diversion point were less than the 300 cfs diversion requirement during April and May.
    - 3. The record for 1977 shows zero flow for April and only 32 cfs for May.
    - 4. On April 1, 1976, the combined storage in East Park and Stony Gorge Reservoirs was 46,000 acre feet (Draft Permit Term 11 specifies 46,000 acre feet or less).
    - 5. From April 1, to May 15, 1976 a release from Stony Gorge to provide approximately 300 cfs and 20,000 acre feet (20% loss) at the Orland Project diversion points would have caused a drop in Stony Gorge lake surface elevation of 38 feet. (Draft Permit 11.-(d) allows a change of plus or minus 2 feet).
    - Jeffrey Meith, March 21, 1996, Page 2
    - When the total storage in East Park and Stony Gorge in April and May is 46,000 acre feet or less, there is little or no natural flow in Stony Creek at Black Butte Reservoir and any attempt to stabilize Stony Gorge would severly restrict irrigation of the Orland Project.
    - Sincerely,
    - /s/ George G. Wilson
    - George G. Wilson, Water Master, Stony Creek & Tributaries

    - 031896 Final Draft, Source DWR, Table 3-2 Stony Creek at Black Butte, -- Estimated Unimpaired Flows in 1,000 Acre-Feet, by month, annual totals "From U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Lower Stony Creek, Fish, Wildlife, and Water Use Mangement plan, (Final Draft March 18, 1996)
    - 031896 Final Draft, Source DWR, Table 3-3 Historical Monthly Stony ?- Creek Flows Modified by Storage in East park and Stony Gorge Reservoirs in 1,000 Acre-Feet
    032796 letter Jennings/TCCA to Anton/SWRCB, re neg dec, 2. continuous - recording device immediately downstream of CHO when safe to do so, releases from Black Butte can make it hazardous to people & equipment; 11. confusing? 11-C, no nesting sites now, how to comply?
  • 082294 letter Medlis/USFWS to Faggard/Reclamation, Bald Eagle Survey 03/25/1994 East Park, Stony Gorge, Black Butte and the creek between, by helicopter at hovering to 50 mph & 500 feet altitude [above ground?]; usually 2 or 3 surveys needed; 2 nests: 1. West shore of Stony Gorge, 1 eagle in incubating position, 2. 1/3 mile east of East Park 1/4 way north of s/e tip 1 incubating; saw immature in flight East Shore Stony Gorge & mature in flight near southern edge Black Butte, no associated nests; boating or off-roading may interfere
    - Figure 1. Survey area [map inaccurate]
    - Figure 2. Stony Gorge Reservoir, Bald Eagle Nest Location (X) [no X]
    - Figure 3. East Park Reservoir, Bald Eagle Nest Location (X)
    - Figure 4. Stony Gorge Reservoir nest
    - Figure 5. East Park Reservoir Nest
    032896 Fax Jennings/TCCA to Anton/SWRCB , hard copy to follow, same as 03/27/1996 letter
    032896 Fax Jennings/TCCA to Parkinson/SWRCB , hard copy to follow, same
  • 032896 letter Jennings/TCCA to Parkinson/SWRCB check coming $1,200 for 18115 fee, will ask waiver from CDFG as is 4th payment on this right
  • 032896 copy of the $1,250 check [yup, $50 difference]
    032896 letter Jennings/TCCA to Parkinson/SWRCB same letter
    040196 Order Approving Addition of Point of Rediversion and Purpose -- of Use, and Amending the Permit, Ap 18115 Permit 136776; 5. minimize entrainment of fish into the Tehama-Colusa Canal through [wishful thinking?];

    040196 Notice of Determination Pursuant to Section 21108 Public -- Resources Code
    [Term 11 was:
    - 11. Black Butte Reservoir (even years) and Stony Gorge Reservoir (odd years) shall be stabilized for warmwater fishery enhancement through the following methods:
    - A) Measure and record surface water temperatures on the main body of water on a daily basis from March 15 through at least May 31 on the reservoir being stabilized for fisheries enhancement.
    - B) When springtime water temperature reaches 60 degrees Fahrenheit, limit draw down to plus or minus two feet for four to five weeks.
    - C) In years when Black Butte Reservoir is being stabilized, and low in-basin storage conditions exist in combination with the occurrence of 60 degrees Fahrenheit water temperature before May 15 and natural inflow into Black Butte Reservoir is less than 150-180 cfs, limit releases for spring CHO rediversions to 17,000 acre-feet maximum when nesting bald eagles occur at Stony Gorge Reservoir.
    - 1) Conduct two surveys annually to determine bald eagle presence, nest site location, nest activity, and nest success at Black Butte, Stony Gorge, and East Park Reservoirs. Surveys, one pre-CHO and one post-CHO rediversion, should be conducted during the breeding season (January 15-July 31).
    - 2) Suvey information should be recorded according to established California Department of Fish and Game protocols and reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game in the annual reports.
    - D) When Black Butte Reservoir mean daily inflow during April 1-May 15 is less than 150 cfs in combination with low in-basin storage conditions and 60 degrees Fahrenheit water temperatures occur before May 15 in Black Butte Reservoir and nesting bald eagles are present at Stony Gorge Reservoir, stabilize Stony Gorge Reservoir in consecutive years. Low in-basin storage equals: less than 60,000 acre-feet in Black Butte Reservoir and less than or equal to 46,000 acre-feet in both East park and Stony Gorge Reservoirs.

    [Term 11 on the signed Notice of Determination:
    - 11. In alternate years, Black Butte Reservoir shall be stabilized for warmwater fishery protection, unless water deliveries must be made to satisfy prior water rights [OUWUA gift?], through the following methods:
    - A. Measure and record surface water temperatures on the main body of water, on a daily basis from March 15 through at least May 31, on Black Butte Reservoir in years when it is stabilized for fisheries protection, and
    - B. When springtime water temperatures reach 60 degrees Fahrenheit, in Black Butte Reservoir, changes in water elevation shall be limited to plus or minus two feet for four to five weeks, in accordance with the mitigation measures in the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Final Environmental Assessment, Rediversion of Water to the Tehama-Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon, dated January 1995.
    - C. In years when Black Butte Reservoir is being stabilized, and low in-basis storage conditions exist in combination with the occurrence of 60 degrees Fahrenheit water temperature before May 15 and natural inflow into Black Butte Reservoir is less than 150 cubic feet per second, Permittee shall limit releases for spring Constant Head Orifice rediversions to 17,000 acre-feet maximum when nesting bald eagles occur at Stony Gorge Reservoir. Low in-basin storage shall be considered to exist when storage in Black Butte Reservoir is less than 60,000 acre-feet. In addition, Permittee shall:
    - 1) Conduct two surveys annually to determine bald eagle presence, nest site location, nest activity, and nest success at Black Butte Reservoir. Surveys, one pre-Constant Head Orifice and one post-Constant Head Orifice rediversion, should be conducted during the breeding season (January 15-July 31)
    - 2) Survey information should be recorded according to established California Department of Fish and Game protocols and reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game in the annual reports.

    Correspondence VOL. 9 OF 12

    040196 Petition for Change on Water Right Permit or License
    - Existing Development:
    - - 3) On January 6, 1994, the Bureau filed a second petition for the point of rediversion. On April 22, 1994 the SWRCB granted rediversion rights until May 31, 1995. On September 15, 1995 the SWRCB granted a qualified extension of time to October 31, 1995
    - Petitioned Change:
    - - 1. Add a point of rediversion on Stony Creek, within the SW 1/4 of NW 1/4 of Section 13, T22N, R3W, MDB & M; and
    - - 2. Add Fish and Wildlife Protection and Enhancement.
    - Findings Relative to Proposed Change
    - - 1. The petitioned change will not constitute the initiation of a new right nor operate to the injury of any other lawful user of water
    - - 2. Permit condition 10 pertaining to SWRCB's continuing authority is to be replaced by Title 23, CCR Section 780(a).
    - - 3) Notice, in compliance with Title 23, CCR Section 795, resulted in no unresolved protest(s).
    - Public Trust Considerations (Effect on Public Trust Uses of a Waterway):
    - - The SWRCB considered public interest and public trust uses before the permit was issued. The SWRCB has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed project. The mitigation measures contained therein should be made a part of the approved order.
    - - The current version of the SWRCB's continuing authority term will be amended.
    - Recomendation Prepared by: Bert Parkinson, Application and Petition Unit #1, Approved

    040196 Notice of Determination Pursuant to Section 21108 Public Resources Code [another copy]
  • 040196 Negative Declaration Pursuant to Section 21080(c) Public Resources Code, a third copy? this one signed
    040196 letter Rivasplata/Clearinghouse to Falkenstein/SWRCB, submitted environmental doc to selected state agencies, no comment within the time, you have complied. SCH# 96032005
  • 040196 Notice of Completion
    040196 Order Approving Addition of Point of Rediversion and Purpose of Use and Amending the Permit, another copy
    040196 letter Stretars/Div WRights to Stackhouse/Reclamation, petition approved, see attached order, adds "current common law public trust doctrine as contained in Title 23, [CCR] Section 780(a)"; 2 page mailing list
    040196 Negative Declaration , fourth copy
    040196 Notice of Determination , third copy?
    040596 letter Medlin/USFWS to Howard/Reclamation; "During the 30-day CEQA public review period it was disclosed that water rights legalities did not allow the SWRCB to impose water management permit conditions on Reclamation at East park and Stony Gorge reservoirs since Reclamation's permit 13776 is only for the storage and use of water in Black Butte Reservoir.... recommend that Reclamation initiate consultation to provide better protective management of bald eagles in the Stony Creek watershed. Pursuant to the Act [ESA], Reclamation may include the water rights holders of East Park and Stony Gorge reservoirs as applicants in this process." [Cumulative impacts under CEQA? piecemealing?]
    041596 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights, quarterly report; this is the last report since the permit terms supersede; Plan is proceeding.
    041696 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights, date slipping on the Plan;
    040196 Notice of Determination , fourth copy?
  • - charts: Comparison of Releases and Rediversions at the CHO in the Spring and Fall, 1993-1995
    - - chart, Releases from Black Butte Dam, Spring and Fall
    - - chart, Rediversions at CHO, Spring and Fall
    - - chart, Comparison of Spring Releases and CHO Rediversions
    - - chart, Comparison of fall Releases and CHO Rediversions
  • - charts: Spring Operations on Stony Creek, 1993-1995 one chart each
  • - charts: Fall Operations on Stony Creek, 1993-1995 one chart each
    042696 letter Hansen/Reclamation to Task Force, next meeting
    042696 letter Hansen/Reclamation to Task Force, next meeting

    May 1996 statement/letter Baiocchi/CSPA to ???; "California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Chinook paper - May 1996; Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife, and Water Use Management Plan; Before the Stony Creek Task Force, Stony Creek Technical Team, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and the State Water Resources Control Board"; response to TCCA "white paper" on Plan draft; TCCA "white paper" unsigned so bona fides cannot be checked; white paper alleges Plan would lure chinook to their death; comment by USFWS in 1975 led to termination of Salmon plan?; 21 years after the 1975 comments USFWS is leading an effort once again to restore Chinook on Stony, "Working Paper" described below. . .
  • May 1996 "Chinook Paper" CSPA, before the Task Force
  • 050995 "Working Paper on Restoration Needs; Habitat Restoration Actions - to Double Natural Production of Anadromous Fish in the Central Valley of California; Volume 3," for USFWS "under the direction of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Core Group; May 9, 1995; Under Stony Creek, from page 3-xb-56 to 3-xb-68."; assessment of Stony as a salmon stream, assumes Black Butte & Stony Gorge cannot be bypassed;
    050695 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Patterson/Reclamation re TCCA-provoked - private public meeting 03/25/1996 excluding CSPA; TCCA hostile to restoring fisheries, threatens consensus in the task force; TCCA was not a party to the negotiation of settlement terms, is interfering, and attempting to induce violation of environmental laws [?]; TCCA attempting to sideline biological experts on the Planning Team substituting its own "white paper" and asserting that salmon should be excluded from Stony Creek;
    061196 contact report Heffler/Reclamation called Parkinson/Div WRights, seeks clarification on conditions 3,4, & 6 of Order; Roger Johnson concurs 38,293 excludes releases for losses & by-pass requirements.
  • 061196 fax note Heffler/Reclamation to Parkinson/Div WRights, copy of page 2 of permit, see contact report
    062496 Receipt, $1,250 CDFG for NegDec from SWRCB
    082396 memo Bratovich & Meroney/Div WRights to Attawey & Files; TCCA flap meeting 08/20/1996, no CSPA present; Heffler Agenda; problem: 29,060 released Spring 1996, 25,393 diverted & 3,697 lost, balance for rediversion 9,203 a-f; RBDD pumps had failed in the spring requiring substitution of Stony Creek Water, and 1996 was a wet year so Reclamation made a full commitment to deliver & farmers planted accordingly; pumps still inoperable; may need a "Temporary Urgency Change Petition"; can't screen rented pumps? present RBDD pumps experimental in that they don't damage entrained fish, then screened out & returned to river; pump problems should be resolved by year 2000 [!]; asked if USACE flooding releases could be diverted at CHO without a "water right", Roger Johnson said no; & The Plan;
  • 082096 Agenda, Stony Creek/Black Butte CHO Operations
  • UNDATED table Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, Fall Daily Water Orders in Acre Feet, 1993, 1994, 1995
  • UNDATED table Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, Available Water Supplies for Fall, 1996; Water Source now/Water Demands past 3 years
  • UNDATED Spring 1996 CHO Deliveries: Black Butte Reservoir; Stony Creek Diversion/Bypasses/Losses; TCCA Total Water Supply; 04/01/96 - 04/30/96
    072596 letter Anton/Div WRights to Stackhouse/Reclamation, Baiocchi/CSPA, Hirtzel/USFWS, clarifying terms 3 & 4: 38,293 is Dam releases and includes conveyance; maximum number of days is 45 spring & 45 fall; bypass flow at CHO is 40 cfs & is in addition to 38,293; SWRCB will review reports for compliance, and for impacts on public trust resources; paragraph Term 17 of the order is "current standard permit term language regarding the SWRCB's continuing authority."
  • UNDATED Term 17
    UNDATED fax post-it Pencovic/Caltrans to Hansen/Reclamation
  • 060496 letter Haraughty/CalTrans to Hanson/Reclamation re: the Plan; need cfs at each bridge; effects of discontinuing aggregate mining should be discussed; 100-year floodplains should be shown; CalTrans would support "vegetated banks as a buffer to mining operations near State highway crossings."
    061396 fax post-it Heffler/Reclamation to Parkinson
  • 061296 letter Hirtzel to Hanson/Reclamation, 40 cfs bypass flow is part of 38,293; [Hmm. 3 different interpretations]
    070896 letter 24 pp 71 para. Baiocchi/CSPA to Hanson/Reclamation, review - of the PLAN; explain public trust for the readers; describe the promises made by Reclamation by which CSPA withdrew its protest; other studies proposed for later should be done now; p. 9 "...Caltrans issued a cease & desist order against a gravel mining operation prior to..." 06/13/1996; much on chinook; p. 13, evaluate ladders for Stony Gorge & Black Butte, and if not feasible, "truck and hauling"; p. 18 mention of 175 other rights on Stony Creek and question as to how it was found they do not infringe on other rights; p. 19 dredge Black Butte Reservoir to restore storage? 16,300 a-f loss at 1996 rates is $800,000 - $2,000,000 worth of water?; p. 20, Watermaster Wilson concerned with hydrology used in final draft;
    UNDATED Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, Objectives for Stony Creek Management Plan
  • UNDATED Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, Report on Chapters 1,2, & 3 of - the Plan; p. 2, "Is the FWS protest still outstanding?"; p. 2-1, 2-30, delete everything in the plan related to the "Upper Stony Creek Watershed"?; pp. 7-12 & other pages, salmon won't happen, it's too hard; p. 13, Plan 3-7, "Lateral 40 Intertie"? Where was that approved?
    071596 faxed letter Arbuckle/Arbuckle's Surplus to Hanson/Reclamation; Plan comments
    UNDATED Del Reimers; what the Plan should be?
    071496 letter Flynne/Community of Compassion for Animals to Hansen/Reclamation; oppose opening Stony to public access; wants to protect all the animals
    071496 fax t/l Kaufman to Hansen/Reclamation, support Conservancy idea; asking Holt for copy of EA and appendices;
  • 071496 letter Kaufman to Hansen/Reclamation; Plan "hopelessly mired in rhetoric and special interests, beyond the scope of the permit requirements and the legal authority of the permittee."; singles out attempts to take Stony for recreational access
    072596 letter Anton/Div WRights to Stackhouse/Reclamation, Baiocchi/CSPA, Hirtzel/USFWS, same as 07/25/1996 above
    082396 letter Bratovich & Meroney to Attaway & Files, same as 08/23/1996 above
    UNDATED letter Hanson/Reclamation to Task Force, all may review Plan comments on Chapters 1-3, 8 responses, attached [I count CalTrans, TCCA, Baiocchi, Arbucle, Reimers, Flynne, Kaufman - where is #8?]; next meeting 08/14/1996
    100396 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Stackhouse/Reclamation & Yaworsky/USACE 09/13/1996 Reclamation submitted "draft petition for temporary urgency change" for CHO & 12,000 a-f, but since then RBDD supply now available? suggest instead releasing 150 cfs to replenish lower Stony, assume ramping;
    100396 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Stackhouse/Reclamation & Yaworsky/USACE; duplicate
  • UNDATED email to HRB from Hirtzel/USFWS 09/1996, if Reclamation asks for temp urgency permit, these are his suggested terms, including that Sacramento Refuge portion be diverted at GCID "to provide instream flow benefits in this reach and also greater water delivery flexibility to the Sacramento NWR"; Reclamation to provide a "plumbing" schematic to USFWS "showing the water conveyance facilities, capacities, and options to deliver water to the" 3 NWRs.; gave these to Reiter/Reclamation
  • 082096 Agenda
    111196 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Stackhouse/Reclamation; disappointed - by tardy response, meant that the fall stream replenishment flow didn't happen; asks a bunch of questions, sent your answers to him & Meroney; "'dumping' of 'surplus water' from Black Butte Dam is the unreasonable use, and unreasonable diversion and storage of the state's water, including the waste of the state's water."
  • 110596 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Baiocchi/CSPA ; didn't need the temporary urgency change petition after all

    110596 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights, annual report; still working on the Plan; "Reclamation hydrologist set up a hydrology screening model of the Stony Creek Watershed from Black Butte Dam downstream."
  • UNDATED Table, 1996 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report April
  • UNDATED Table, 1996 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report May
  • UNDATED Table, 1996 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report Sept.
  • UNDATED Table, 1996 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report Oct.
  • 052096 DeStaso (Fishery Biologist) to Hanson (Natural Resources - Specialist, fish & Northwest Pond Turtle survey; no turtles found [guess they killed the only one]
    - Figure 6, Lower Stony Creek Fish and Northwest Pond Turtle Survey Area -

    1997

    012897 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Baiocchi/CSPA; "wish to correct - some misimpressions...."; flood control releases are up to USACE [so you can't ask them?]; with no petition, no changes were being considered; Baicchi requests were similar to SOP for GCID rediversion to the refuges making the use "beneficial"; "Black Butte is simply too small to have an effect on overall Central Valley Project (CVP)/State Water Project operations and is not part of the integrated operations of the CVP."; GCID diversions reduce GCID pumping on the Sacramento which benefits the Sacramento; still working on the Plan.
    032097 contact report Hirzell called Bratovich; concerned about rumor that SWRCB approved rediversion through CHO 2 weeks earlier than the permit term of 04/01: no consultation with other agencies, no "on or about" in this permit, if one opened up like that then the other as well, precedent; "Buford Holt will write an Environmental Assessment on this USBR action."; 032197 Meroney spoke with Baiocchi who spoke with Hanson/Reclamation and learned Reclamation "did not begin diverting from Stony Creek after all on the weekend of the 15-16 March. It rained 1.5 inches that weekend which temporarily alleviated their need for water. [para] It takes 3-5 days to put the berm in to divert Stony Creek flow into the CHO. [Reclamation] is planning to begin rediverting on April 1." Hirtzell was called to inform him.
    032597 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Hanson/Reclamation re Reclamation draft - Stony Creek Screening Model; after the GCID siphon is installed chinook (and maybe steelhead) will migrate into lower Stony and Reclamation has the duty to protect them; Plan, $500,000 so far?; "COE has divorced itself from the Task Force and claims it would take an act of Congress to change the flood requirements at Black Butte Reservoir."; how much cold water is available?; p. 6 haul spring-run salmon upstream & juveniles downstream? & maybe steelhead also? CDFG recommended a hauling program for Los Padres Dam on the Carmel River; use pulse flows to aid migration?; p. 7 what are "trickle flows"?; Reclamation shut down the "Stony Creek Technical Team Committee" - some task force members didn't want to hear the recommendations and comments from that committee [TCCA?]; FISHERIES AGENCIES ABSENT FROM TASK FORCE MEETINGS?; p. 8 intense resistence to "public trust" among some Task Force members; p. 9 "...some member so fthe Task Force simply do [not] want to change existing water use practices which rendered the Lower Stony creek Watershed as a[n] environmental nightmare."; funds available for salmon fisheries restoration?
    031497 contact report Rupp/Reclamation called Johnson/Div WRights, one pump at RBDD failed, asked if it was OK to start diverting from Stony 03/17; "I told her that under the circumstances the Division would not object. I told her also that this is not to be considered precedential."
    031497 contact report Rupp/Reclamation called Johnson/Div WRights, another copy, 032097 contact from Hirtzell attached
    031897 letter Hansen/Reclamation to Task Force, 03/25/1997 meeting cancelled; wanted comments to fine-tune the hydrology model, received 2 comments, neither specific to the model; one comment "received included several pages of observations and comments on Chapter 1 and 2 of the CH2M Hill Plan", working on incorporating them;
    031997 letter Ryan/Reclamation to everybody; FONSI on 03/1997 Emergency Rediversion of Black Butte Water to T-C Canal, attached [where?]; low rainfall previous month, breakage of the shaft of the experimental helical screw pump at RBDD
    032597 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Hanson/Reclamation, 2nd copy
    111097 letter Ryan/CSPA to all, Plan, Hanson left, Ms. Basia Trout of Red Bluff Office replaces; p. 2 "Public review and comment on the April 4, 1997, 'Draft Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS) for the Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply, West Sacramento Study Area,' occurred in June 1997. The final EA/IS is scheduled for release in November 1997 with the signing of the " FONSI & NegDec scheduled 12/07; recommended alternative for conveying water to SNWR is GCID with 1) Construct GCID Siphon, Milepost 7.15; 2) construct Crossing at Bondurant Slough, mp 17.68; 3) construct new turnout at N/E corner Sacramento refuge from GCID Lateral 25-1;
  • mailing list
  • Time Schedule, Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife and Water Use Management Plan 1997-1998
  • Revised Chapter 1 of management Plan
    UNDATED 3 aerial photos of CHO; looking East, looking SW, looking South

    112597 letter Biocchi/CSPA to Trout/Reclamation, comments on Reclamation submittal of 11/10/1997; comments submitted by CSPA on 04/05/1997 have not been responded to in this 11/10 revision, ask that response be included; Reclamation made private wholesale changes to the draft, CSPA does not agree; please change "considerations" back to "management options"; [much watered down language in the Chapter]; Technical Advisory Team was not consulted on an "as needed basis", it was killed because Reclamation didn't like their findings and thus did away with all the biologists; draft now waltzes around obligations to restore anadromous fish to lower Stony; restore the CHO as a salmon mitigation concept; stop avioiding & address the gravel mining issues; examine & include possible improvements upstream of Black Butte that might improve conditions for fish & wildlife; no task force meetings for the past year, instead Reclamation is preparing the Plan on its own; include habitat management plan for lower Stony for listed species; place CSPA on mailing list for SNWR water-supply project documents

    120197 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights, 1997 Annual Report; no technical group meetings this year; enclosed are CHO rediversion & bypass listings, and photos of the CHO
  • 040197 - 051597 1997 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report, daily: BB Elevation & storage; no water temperatures; South Diversions; North Diversions, Other [?]; Stony Creek; total releases; CHO rediversions; Bypass flows; Red Bluff pumped; Corning Canal; Total Diversions into T-C Canal (all cfs)
  • UNDATED photos, other side of CSPA letter
    122397 letter Ryan/Reclamation to Flynne/Community of Compassion, your concern with public access and recreation, your points are irrelevant
    120197 memo Lois Flynne to Basia Trout, attached comments; neighbors Graves, Reimers, Johnson & Farm Sanctuary also adamantly opposed to public access/recreation, altogether own the stretch between South and North Diversions; semi-retired professor of Social Science at San Francisco State, animal rights activist;
  • 112897 Flynne, PhD to Trout/Reclamation; agree with Jennings/TCCA to not make Stony a recreational stream; 501(c)3 animal sanctuary; delete reference to public access corridors

    122397 letter Ryan/Reclamation to Jennings/TCCA re comments on the Plan; similar to Flynne & Orland-Artois comments; no intention to impair private land, in 3 pages;
  • 112597 letter Jennings/TCCA to Trout/Reclamation, comments on the Plan water it down?
  • 112697 Lohse/Orland-Artois to Trout/Reclamation enclosed comments prepared by Jennings/TCCA
  • 041994 ? Dismissal Terms and Conditions, WR Permit 13776 (Application 18115) U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Petition for New Point of Rediversion, Public Trust Protest and Public Trust Complaint by California Sportfishing Protection Alliance of January 31, 1994; Reclamation and CSPA "have agreed to the following to resolve CSPA's protest..."
  • 050594 letter Sackett/Reclamation & Baiocchi/CSPA to Anton/Div WRights, dismissal terms and conditions, agreed upon, attached

    122397 letter Ryan/Reclamation to Baiocchi/CSPA ; usual stuff; Upstream "not within the scope of this project"; included most everything Baiocchi said, just not in language recognizeable to anyone outside of Reclamation...?
  • 112597 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Trout/Reclamation, 2nd copy

    Correspondence VOL. 10 OF 12

    1998


    011598 letter Ryan/Reclamation to all, Plan Chapter 2 attached, comments by 01/23/1998; Reclamation "will develop the final document, which is envisioned as describing an adaptive water management process with clear and achievable programs which will attempt to address and give full consideration to all issues presented."
  • Chapter 2 Existing Conditions (Final Draft, December 1997)
    - Comments to the Final Draft - Chapter 2 [these comments are mentioned in the final Plan but not reproduced there
    - - 1. California Sportfishing Protection Alliance - 04/05/1996 [MISSING]
    - - 2. Felix Smith - 04/12/1996 [MISSING]
    - - 3. Steve Hirtzel, USFWS, Ecological Services - 04/16/1996; -- "historic operations on Stony Creek haven't managed water releases for the benefit of salmon and therefore should not be the determining factor to evaluate the feasibility of the management option."; Task Force originally was to be the Plan drafter, "but in reality, Reclamation drafted the Plan through CH2M Hill."; Southern Pacific Railroad lands in the vicinity of CHO has "a bearing on where the gravel impoundment/training dikes for CHO rediversions can be constructed on Stony Creek."; seasonal wetland in 1-1 for the seasonal wetland suggested in Reclamation's Supplemental EA?; p. 3-12, have flow patterns become more abrupt or less abrupt since Black Butte? $3.3 million for Stony Creek fisheries enhancement facilities mostly went to the CHO & regulating pond which do not enhance fisheries; ends abruptly at p. 3?
    - - 4. Lois Flynne - 04/21/1996 [MISSING]
    - - 5. GCID, Sandy Denn - 04/19/1996; 03/18/1966 "Plan eliminated the -- evaluation criteria, thereby completely undermining the selection process previously established to enable the Task Force to recommend reasonable management options." hoped to lead to consensus, had the opposite effect; "By using averages, the analysis does not correctly demonstrate the highly unpredictable nature of flows in Stony Creek or the great fluctuations that occur." "without the evaluation criteria, the Plan became a wish list without regard to what is achievable." process degenerated into uselessness
    - - 6. TCCA, Jan Jennings - 04/19/1996 ( TCCA White Paper, 03/25/1996? - after CH2M Hill got involved, focus shifted to restoring anadromous fish on Stony Creek regardless of cost, etc.; most likely Stony Creek run is fall; 8 page argument against salmon restoration, ends incomplete
    - - 6.5 TCCA, comments on Ch 1-3 (2 pp, ends incomplete) -
    - - 7. USFWS, Matt Brown - 04/18/1996, 8 pp.; "water budget model -- presented...is implausible"; minimum instream flow requirements likely to be much higher than presented; access to North Diversion Dam through locked gate, OUWUA has key but doesn't own the land beyond the gate?; 1994 Santa Clara power "water passed through the South Canal and the Santa Clara South Canal Power Plant...was then dumped from the South Canal and not used by the Orland Project."; credible, thorough analysis
    - - 8. COE, R. Yaworsky - 04/19/1996 [MISSING]
    - - 9. Del Reimers - 02/26/1996, shoddy data collection; agenda-driven - conclusions; junk studies; impugning Matt Brown's work; quarrels with the Public Trust Doctrine; qarrels with Clark 1929? letter truncated
    - - 10. GCID, Sandy Denn - 07/15/1996, cover plus 12 pages of comments;
    - - 11. Spencer Hovekamp - 04/25/1996 [MISSING]


    011598 letter Ryan/Reclamation to all, reconvene Task Force 02/12/1998
    012198 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Trout/Reclamation; unreasonably short - deadline for comments (8 days), management plan needs to be drafted in accordance with federal and state law -- get a lawyer & consult
  • 012198 fax cover sheet, this letter to SWRCB
    012398 contact report Meroney/Hearing Unit called Trout/Reclamation, Trout said 01/23/1998 deadline was in error, s/b 02/20/1998 with meeting scheduled 02/24/1998, suggested she send a letter to all correcting the error
    012798 letter Ryan/Reclamation to all, date set for 01/23/1998 is extended to 02/20/1998 [so much for admitting an error]; meeting set 02/26/1998
    021998 contact report , Trout/Reclamation & Raymond Jay/SWRCB, chapter 2 received & reviewed, no comments
    022798 letter Baoicchi/CSPA to Trout/Reclamation; saluting new team, -- pointing out CCR 782 (& F & G Code 5937 underlying it) that requires sufficient flow below the dam to sustain fish

    Correspondence VOL. 11 OF 12

    022197 [date stamp, out of order] Progress Report by Permittee for 1992; 16,835 acre-feed of reservoir evaporation and 205,071 a-f released for downstream including Orland Project & GCID; 764 a-f for 330 acres made available from Black Butte under exchange contracts with users in the Stony Creek watershed above Black Butte Reservoir
    022197 [date stamp, out of order] Progress Report by Permittee for 1991; 14,166 a-f of reservoir evaporation, 106,962 a-f released for downstream including Orland Project & GCID, 855 a-f for 270 upstream
    022197 [date stamp, out of order] Progress Report by Permittee for 1993; 18,073 a-f evaporation, 660,352 a-f for downstream, etc., 755 a-f for 330 acres upstream

    122997 letter Felix Smith to Ryan/Reclamation; on the technical team -- in early days of the task force, "Apparently not much has changed. At that time Bureau and Canal Authority representatives did not want any mention of, reference to, or discussion of the public trust doctrine. This was especially so relative to the Bureau's responsibilities for managing Stony Creek, its water, aquatic resources, bed and shorelands under public trust management principles as developed by California courts. [para] There is little dispute that over the years, the majority of the water of Stony Creek was managed for and devoted to out-of-stream private uses and benefits." Following Audubon, is U.S. v. SWRCB, 227 Cal.Rpt. 161 (1986) aka "Racanelli"; F & G Code 5937, puts public trust interest values first, "fish in good condition", California Trout
    - [p. 2] v. SWRCB, 207 CalApp.3d. 585, 1989; a "the fish 'in good condition' includes 1) the health of the aquatic community, 2) the diversity and abundance of all aquatic populations, and 3) the health and overall condition of individuals as well as the aquatic ecosystem" (95-4, Bear Creek Order, pp. 18-22, 1994) & Putah Creek v. Solano Irrigation District , Sacramento Superior #CV515766, 04/08/1996 Audubon means in part: "(1) the State has an affirmative duty to take the public trust uses into account in allocationg water and insofar as feasible, avoid harm or degradation to public trust resources, uses, and values, (2) the State has continuous jurisdiction over previously issued water rights and therefore can reconsider previous water allocations at any time, (3) the public trust is an affirmation of the duty of the state to protect the people's common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering that right of protection only in rare cases when abandonment of that right is consistent with the purposes of the trust...[some of added emphasis retained], (4) the public trust, under which the State holds title to navigable waterways and the lands lying beneath, protects navigable waters from harm caused by diversion of non-navigable tributaries, (5) the public trust includes the protection of ecological and biological values, and (6) any member of the general public has standing to raise a claim of harm to the public trust. [para] The Audubon Court ruled that water rights are subject to limitations in order to protect public trust interest. The Court's decision as an expression for the State to treat common heritage resources wherever they are found, under its public trust authority. It is reasonable to conclude that the Audubon Court recognized that stream flow, the stream channel, its invertebrates and algae, riparian vegetation and associated fauna all interact as a ecosystem having similar uses and ecological values as the tidelands discussed in Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal.3d 251" (1971), similar to People v. Truckee Lumber Co. 116 Cal. 397 (1897) [para] "The Audubon Court also tied protection of public trust interests to the perpetuation of Mono Lake, its inflow, natural resources and ecological aspects for their innate value and not to private out-of-stream beneficial uses of water (Koehler, Cynthia, L., 1995, Water Rights and the Public Trust Doctrine: Resolution of the Mono Lake Controversy. Ecology Law Qurterly, Vol. 22, No. 3 at 541-589 at 552).
    - [p. 3] "The California Appellate Court, in Racanelli ruled or reaffirmed among other things: (1) Water rights are limtied and uncertain; (2) the rule of reasonable use is the cardinal principal of California water law; (3) the State Board has authority to modify permit terms and conditions to prevent waste or unreasonable use of water or methods of water diversion; (4) no party has a vested right to appropriate or use water in a manner harmful to the interests protected by the public trust, and (5) curtailment or modification of water rights or water storage to protect downstream users and water quality is a proper use of the State Board's authority. [para] Racanelli reasoned that it is most reasonable that all streams, reservoir projects and diverters of water have a responsibility to contribute their 'fair ecological share' to the stream flows and ecological conditions necessary to protect, conserve and restore downstream resources and values protected by the public trust. This 'fair ecological share' of stream flow would pass from the headwaters, commingle with others [sic] waters passing downstream through the tributaries to the main Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers to the Delta. In this way these commingled flows would contribute to the protection of environmental amenities, beneficial uses, water quality of the Delta pool, public trust concerns and to Delta outflow." [so what about Owens River itself?]; The Plan as meeting the public interest, is not the same as the Plan meeting public trust, under F & G 5937 or Audubon or Cal Trout. Plan should also set an "implementation schedule for the proposed actions".
    - [p. 4] "There are public property rights in and to Stony Creek, its waters, bed, shorelands and associated resources that have been ignored or brutalized for years. This to [sic] should be corrected. There should be a study of the public and private rights and interests to Stony Creek, its waters, bed, shorelands and resources." "What are the public rights and trust easements to the Stony Creek water, bed and shorelands? What are the rights of the public to float down Stony Creek when water is there? Is it trespass if one must portage over some shallow water reaches? What private rights allow the construction of fences across the water way, to dredge or bulldoze bed material from the stream channel? To what extent is there a public trust easement to the stream flows, bed and shorelands of Stony Creek?" SWRCB has "obligation to protect and promote public trust interests of its waters (the beds of such waters and adjacent lands) as ecosystems consistent with, but not limited to fisheries, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, water quality and aquatic ecosystem maintenance and renewability." and the obligation to abate any nuisance having a harmful effect on the trust; the canal authorities "has created another layer of private government" & another layer of opposition to "over come in order to institute public trust management principles"

    010598 letter Ryan/Reclamation to all, final, Chapter 1, attached
  • Final Chapter One
    Revised Chapter One (showing changes)
    021998 contact report Raymond Jay/Div WRights to files? Chapter 2 looks OK between him & Meroney
    031098 letter Trout/Reclamation to Schwartz/City of Santa Clara, your attendance needed at Task Force meetings to put on a good front for SWRCB? won't accept comments on the Plan if you don't show up?
    031098 letter Trout/Reclamation to Gardner/Cal DF & G your attendance needed at Task Force meetings to put on a good front for SWRCB? won't accept comments on the Plan if you don't show up?
    031098 letter Trout/Reclamation to Hirtzel/USFWS your attendance needed at Task Force meetings to put on a good front for SWRCB? won't accept comments on the Plan if you don't show up?
    031098 letter Trout/Reclamation to Pencovic/CalTrans your attendance needed at Task Force meetings to put on a good front for SWRCB? won't accept comments on the Plan if you don't show up?
  • 022698 Task Force meeting agenda

    040198 Public Notice: Notice of Feasibility Study Initiation, Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement & Report and Announcement of Initial Public Meeting, Bolinas Lagoon Ecosystem Restoration Study, Marin County, California, USACE Planning Branch San Francisco EIS/EIR/FS (feasibility study) [why here?]
    040698 letter Ryan/Reclamation to Kjelson/USFWS , Hirtzel unable to attend Task Force meetings because of lack of agency funds; ask you to assign John Icanberry in his stead
    040698 [ MISSING? request from Trout/Reclamation to SWRCB "to provide guidelines on the Stony Creek Management Plan since there appears to be confusion among the Stony Creek task Force members regarding what the SWRCB anticipates in the final plan." [quote from Anton letter]
    040698 letter Anton/Div WRights to Trout/Reclamation; SWRCB "is discouraged by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) readiness not to accept any further comments from Task Force members who do not participate in the next scheduled meeting." Urge flexibility.
  • 031098 letter Trout/Reclamation to Pencovic/CalTrans, another copy
    - 022698 Task Force meeting agenda, another copy
    042498 letter Jennings/TCCA to Trout/Reclamation, in response to Anton letter, "use CALFED Bay-Delta Program's Ecosystem Restoration Program Plan (ERPP), March 1998, as a guide to developing that Plan." "Using the ERPP as a guide, perhaps we, as the Task Froce, can get away from the stale mate [sic] we have been in for the past few meetings...."

    042498 letter Trout/Reclamation to all; minutes from 03/19/1998 meeting attached, next 04/28/1998; "define the parameters under which any objective of the Plan will be based..." [ 1) write the plan? 2) define its objectives? ]; "main goal of the Plan is to 'evaluate Reclamation's current management and water operations below Black Butte Dam to determine if changes can be made for beneficial, efficient and reasonable use of water to enhance fish and wildlife resources...' The other goal is to 'compile information from the Task Force regarding comments and concerns about conditions along lower Stony Creek.' This information will be used to determine what measures can be taken by non-Reclamation entities to address those concerns outside of Reclamation's authority, for the enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other...." Issues list, consider whether should be part of the plan or outside the plan:
    - "1. Restore/enhance riparian habitat
    - 2. Improve substrate conditions
    - 3. Modify water releases and develop flow schedules to benefit fish and wildlife without modifying current legal water rights.
    - 4. Control noxious weeds
    - 5. Prevent/minimize bank erosion
    - 6. Maximize water quality
    - 7. Discourage trespass
    - 8. Minimize impacts of gravel mining to the stream channel
    - 9. Protect existing wetlands
    - 10. Evaluate conservation measures to increase available water
    - 11. Recognize and consider the Public Trust Doctrine in managing stream resources (which may include determining the need for public access corridors).
    - 12. Recognize and consider the California Department of Fish and Game Code 5937 which requires dam owners to keep fish below dams in good condition."
  • 042898 Agenda
  • 031998 Stony Creek Task Force Meeting Minutes, ...discussion of ousting no-shows. Send hand-outs to no-shows? Dave Vogel Stony Creek Substrate study, "Preliminary Assessment of Streambed Substrate for Salmon Spawning in Stony Creek, California" "a discussion on the Stony Creek channel; causes of braiding. natural systems braid when gravel is being deposited by river action, or mechanical disturbance. Some stretches of Stony Creek, however, are braided without having ever been disturbed." Tom Morstein-Marx, Temperatures: "analysis determined that any Stony Creek water reaching the Sacramento, which was previously blocked by the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District siphon, will have little effect on the overall temperature of the Sacramento River" (1 degree F).
    - 042898 tentative next agenda
    - 041398 Chapter 1, Draft Plan
    - 040196 Appendix A 18115/13776 SWRCB Order
    - 032398 Fax T/L from Trout/Reclamation to Massa/OWU attached is the permit you didn't get
    - - p. 1 of CSPA first protest against the petition?
    - - 050594 letter Baiocchi/CSPA & Sackett/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights; agreement on dismissal terms
    - - - 041994 Terms for dismissal of protest
    - - 022966 Anton (Beringer)/Div WRights to Stackhouse/Reclamation, Baiocchi/CSPA, Hirtzel, USFWS; notice of dismissal terms accord, CSPA & USFWS protests dismissed; anticipate "terms may be developed to mitigate for any significant adverse effects of this project on the upstream reservoir fisheries and the endangered bald eagles that depend on those reservoir fisheries."
    - Exhibit E - "for each group of stakeholders, a tentative list of - items to be addressed by this plan was assembled": 1) Stakeholders Needs and Expectations; 2) Key Questions Stakeholders expect to be answered by the plan; 3) Actions by Stakeholders as participants of the Plan;

    051998 letter Jennings/TCCA to USACE; during 02/1998 storms, USACE released large volumes from Black Butte, eroding a part of the right bank at Stony Creek near T-C Siphon outlet side, immediate threat, prompt action, 1300 tons of not less than 30 inch in diameter rock pushed over the edge of the eroding bank to stabilize, no time for vegetation erosion control measures; attached is notice & request for "General Permit 60" for this work
  • Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority, Request for GP 60; owner of land, Reclamation & Orland-Artois Water District; "if the water would have been allowed to continue to erode the stream bank, it could have conceivably entered into the canal and eventually blow the canal apart, flooding the near by community of Orland." [unlikely since 1) Orland was upstream, and 2) only levees were on the canal, not the bank]
    - Attachment A, copy of Glenn County Assessor's Map Book 46, p. 11, parcels 4,5,6 in S13 T22N R3W [why not parcel 2?]
    - Attachment B, legal description in which this project lies; described in Final Judgment, Civ #9568, 06/12/1970 USA v. Southern Pacific Railroad
    - Attachment C, copy from [DeLorme?] showing junction of Stony Creek & T-C Canal
    - Attachment D, 04/1993 topo APN 47-11-17 "for Orland-Artois Water District which shows the top of the south bank of Stony Creek in relation to the Tehama-Colusa Canal. The Corps jurisdiction of Stony Creek would be within the banks of Stony Creek." [what jurisdiction?]; "no known threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat affected by the erosion stabilization measures." [wrong] "Flood Zone A thereon"
    - Attachment E, Notice of Interest (NOI) in Applying for Federal Disaster Assistance, Emergency Funds, Category "B", Protective measures, FEMA 1203, project ap #000-91032, Governor's OES 03/05/1998, property, irrigation works, roads, bridges
    - - 040698 Amended "Exhibit B" "List of Project Sites", to the NOI; 7 of them, total $287,425

    03??83 State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Thomes-Newville Unit, Fish and Wildlife Evaluation, A Status Report Chinook capture in the Stony Creek Channel; spawning 1981-82 fall run mostly between I-5 & North Diversion Dam
    060498 letter Trout/Reclamation to all; 04/28/1998 Task Force meeting minutes attached;
  • 042898 minutes Stony Creek Task Force Meeting; Basia phoned everyone missing asking them to come; "John Merz would like more model runs"
    - Responsibility matrix
    073098 letter Ryan/Reclamation to all, Plan enclosed for your review
    082798 letter Trout/Reclamation to all, meeting 09/03/1998 to discuss Plan
  • 090398 Agenda Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife and Water Use Management Plan
    081498 letter Ryan/Reclamation to all, Plan as a whole the focus of attention, but, some issues, please comment
  • 080498 Stony Creek Management Plan, Responses to Comments; comments received responded to in draft, but some require further discussion
    - Present and Historical Conditions
    - Endangered Species - VELB Mitigation Plan
    - Citation of personal opinions/observations
    - Public Trust Doctrine - since SWRCB complies with this and other legal doctrines, no need to discuss it in the plan?
    - Contested references - comments viewed by some as inflamatory, by others as fact
    - Other information

    UNDATED Jay/SWRCB to files? review following 09/03/1998 Task Force meeting; Jay had reiterated condition 10 of the order; "Once the Plan was submitted to the Board, a review would determine if it sufficiently protected all of the Fish, Wildlife and water use management needs of the area and if additional items were neccessary to protect these beneficial uses."
    082798 letter Trout/Reclamation to all, another copy
  • 090398 agenda, Task Force Meeting #4

    090198 memo John Benoit/Glenn County RPD Director to Trout/Reclamation, -- concerned that the directive of the Task Force was not followed, 'to produce a draft plan based upon the information of the ERPP', he moved, Del Reimers 2nd, vote unanimous; Plan is an agenda: "a) To thwart existing private property rights through an elaborate discussion of public access. b) To elevate the public trust doctrine to a position above existing state law and apply it to Stony Creek.... [uh, it actually is existing state law] c) To set a stage to claim existing water rights along the creek and throughout Glenn County through the use of words like 'losses' rather than seepage. d) To justify that an anadromous fishery could be restored." p. 3 "The Earl D. Nelson report is a draft uncertified Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Arbuckle Project."; Aggregate Resources Management Plan (ARMP) incorporated into the County's General Plan.; Kondolf report? where? No mention of State Geologist DMG Open File Report 97-02 "Mineral Land Classification of Concrete-Grade Aggregate Resources in Glenn County, California 1997 p. 4: "The real problem may be the continued summer irrigation of the invasive species (which is regulated by the Bureau) in what would otherwise be a dry stream"; gravel miner allowed to skim gravel down to the thalweg & then must stop; USCOE "Section 404 has been invalidated by the courts as it pertains to gravel mining." p. 5 "I agree with the fact that tamarisk are likely to expand to new areas faster than mine operators can control this weed species; however I don't believe the current levels of in-channel mining are the cause. It is more likely a function of the bureau irrigating those plants throughout the dry summer months than mining methods which require removal of the weeds."

    091898 letter Trout/Reclamation to all; minutes from 09/03/1998 attached; written comments until 11/01/1998, meeting scheduled 10/22/1998 to discuss revisions/comments
  • 090398 Minutes, 13 extra attendees; presentation by Ernett Altheimer - of Alex-Alt Biomass Co. on arundo eradication, offer in exchange for material harvested; Santa Clara objects to being blamed for wasted water; Del Reimers says he's never seen salmon in Stony Creek; as much controversy at the end of the process as in the beginning?

    092398 memo Trout/Reclamation to Jay/SWRCB enclosing attachments ommitted from transmittal with minutes
  • 090398 Agenda, Task Force
  • 090298 letter Massa/OUWUA to Trout/Reclamation, takes issue with.... -
  • 090178 letter Flynne/CCA to Trout/Reclamation; Flynne & Massa & Jenning all urge scrapping the plan and producing a new one "based on the CalFed EERP for the Colusa Basin Ecological zone."
    - Community of Compassion for Animals, Comments on the Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife, and Water Use Management Plan, USBR Draft Version of July 24, 1998; takes on "protested by various groups" as not being descriptive of CSPA (and NMFS)(and delta groups?); hostility, CSPA et al. as outsiders
    - Guidelines for comments: one at a time, 10 minutes, etc., include solutions

    100298 letter Ryan/Reclamation to all 09/15/1998 Revised Draft of - Plan attached for your review; adopted objectives, of which only #4 is within Reclamation's authority; no agreement on what range of in-stream flows would be required to improve these resources, so "Reclamation's actions for enhanced flows are deferred pending the completion of the riparian enhancement efforts." [like, Never?]
  • 1) Eradicate/control giant reed and tamarix in the lower Stony Creek corridor
  • 2) Identify methods for bank and channel stabilization
  • 3) Enhance riparian habitat by selective plantings of willows, cottonwoods and other desirable vegetation
  • 4) Manage flow for riparian habitat, fish, and wildlife enhancement

    100598 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Smith/Reclamation ; latest draft changes, - made without fishery agencies or advocates present, defer flows for anadromous fish; sending the draft to the printer without coordinating with the fishery agencies violates the "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act; wrong to stall fish flows until after weeds eradicated, bank & channel stabilized, and riparian habitat established [as in, never] - this violates state law, SWRCB should order flows now; NMFS is considering listing fall-run; CHO not used for the purpose for which it was approved; CHO as now being operated is a new diversion, fish screening required; CHO should be used for pulse flows to flush juveniles out of the watershed; gravel recruitment plan for Stony necessary? CSPA asks to be a party to any anadromous fishery monitoring plan; line all canals; early in the process, Reclamation prevented the Plan from including upstream factors, including mitigating cold-water flows from East Park & Stony Gorge and including ignoring CSPA urging salmon be trucked upstream - watershed-wide program needed; rafting on lower Stony?

    102798 fax t/l Baocchi/CSPA to Morone/Div WRights
  • 102398 letter Baiocchi to Smith/Reclamation, Trout/Reclamation, -?- Jay/SWRCB; "2. The USBR comments of [10/02/1998] claims that an agreement could not be reached on what range of instream flows would be required to improve the fish and wildlife resources of lower Stony Creek, and consequently the USBR's actions for enhanced flows are deferred pending completion of the riparian enhancement efforts...[para] The riparian habitat work and the controlling of giant reed and tamarix on private lands along lower Stony Creek is solely dependent upon whether the land owners want to participate in having their lands enhanced. The habitat work on private lands will probably take years to complete, and also the work may take years of delays. To defer streamflow requirements to protect the anadromous and resident fisheries [p. 3] of lower Stony Creek based upon whether the private land owners will participate in the habitat work process is unreasonable and a delaying tactic by the USBR to put off protecting the fish resources in lower Stony Creek." 3. Steelhead trout, NMFS, recently listed as threatened; Spring-run chinook proposed for listing by State of California under CESA; 4. "USBR discontinued the technical committee of fisheries [p. 5] because the water users were not happy with the opinions of the professional fisheries biologists."; resulting Plan streamflow unsupported by professional opinion; p. 6 "Absent an interim flow schedule, the CSPA recommends that the USBR release 100 cfs at all times, at a minimum, from Black Butte Dam into lower Stony Creek and have it flow to the Sacramento River to protect the anadromous fishery and their habitat, and also protect the resident fishery and their habitat, subject to flow recommendations by [the fishery agencies] and the Sacramento River Preservation Trust." "6. Jan Jennings of the Tehama Colusa Canal Authority has consistently stated that the Stony Creek watershed has never sustained chinook salmon. She is wrong. [para] Jim Crenshaw and Willy Callen observed adult chinook salmon in lower Stony Creek above the GCID diversion about ten years ago. Jim Crenshaw is a former resident of Orland, and is the President of the CSPA. Willy Callen is a retired DFG employee from Hamilton City,... This information is not heresay [sic]" p. 7 USBR must prepare an NEPA document for the Plan, and since "the management plan with the USBR's deferred unlawful streamflow conditions will have the potential to have direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to salmon fisheries and their habitat, and protected chinook salmon and their habitat, in lower stony Creek. Consequently, the USBR should prepare an Environmental Impact Statement with full public disclosure and with full public participation." Fish ladder required for Northside Canal diversion, not recommended in the Plan; p. 8 Northside diversion should be screened. CHO should be screened; p. 9 North & Southside canals should be lined; Plan should have provisions to rescure & transport salmon up & downstream; gravels to substitute for those captured by Black Butte should be recruited and installed;

    102398 letter Baiocchi to Smith/Reclamation, Trout/Reclamation, Jay/SWRCB; another copy
  • 102798 fax t/l, as above
    102398 letter Baiocchi to Smith/Reclamation, Trout/Reclamation, - Jay/SWRCB; third copy, mailed
    110598 Walter Cook/Atty [ret] to Trout/Reclamation, failure to meet -- public trust; exclusion of public interest groups inappropriate; use of the term "stakeholder" seems exclusionary an inappropriate; Public Trust must have the highest priority; Plan needs to consider long-term CVP changes; need to line canals needs to be included; delay of water-flow studies & erosion control for riparian restoration inappropriate; public trust requires public access
    120298 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Schueller/Chief Div WRights annual report, no diversions fall 1998, no photos spring 1998

    120398 memo Pierce/USFWS to Manager/Reclamation Shasta, Notice to the -- Board required: 1) demand for Stony rediversion reduced, SNWR more from GCID, less from T-C C.; 2) GCID siphon reopens Stony for fish migration; 3) re-consult since 2 new anadromous fish species listed: 03/1998 NMFS listed Central Valley Steelhead as threatened; CDFG approved listing spring-run chinook as threatened under CESA; juvenile spring, fall, and winter-run "during surveys in the early 1980's in Stony Creek."; "Juvenile steelhead and spring and fall-run sized juvenile salmon were collected in seining efforts conducted by CDFG on April 22, 1996 downstream of GCID's dam...." "NMFS has also proposed for listing spring and fall/late fall-run chinook salmon. Designated critical habitat for these chinook salmon runs has also been proposed and includes lower Stony Creek." 4) screen the T-C Canal Crossing now that the GCID siphon is in place; "The Service's intent is for the Board to revisit the Order to assess whether the storage and release of Central Valley Project water in Black Butte Reservoir as currently permitted is the best way to conserve fish and wildlife resources. The appropriate environmental compliance to make that determination should be completed prior to Stony Creek rediversions in April-May 1999."
    121498 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Schueller/Chief Div WRights, per permit term #10, enclosed is the Plan; Plan objective #4 is to reassess releases; Reclamation also proposes, subject to funding, a 3-year monitoring study "to collect resources data and document changes in physical and biological processes to compare pre- and post-Plan success to meet the goals of Plan objective 4."

    Correspondence VOL. 12 OF 12

    1999


    021199 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Schueller/Div WRights, #11 of - permit requires us to notify you; GCID siphon to be installed this year, installation to facilitate year-round deliveries to SNWR refuges to maintain "optimal Level 4 wildlife management for each refuge area, as specified in Section 3406(d)(5) of the" CVPIA; opens Stony to fish migration; don't think it will change any conclusions in the environmental documents, propose to monitor fish for 3 years to confirm; intend to continue diverting, please contact "Ms. Louise Lindgard or Mr. Robert Reiter of our water rights staff" to assent. Handwr: "contacted Louise Lindgard - SWRCB response will be complete by 3-15-99 pjm [?] 2/23/99"

    021999 [out of order] memo Ryan/Reclamation to Task Force, we're going - to study the fish, and if we find any, will consult, & make pilot study available to the public, details listed, asking for comment

    022699 letter Massa/OUWUA to Trout/Reclamation re 02/19 memo, "At what - actual number of anadromous fish will warrant Reclamation's support? [para] As you may know, salmon have been known to be found in some of the warmest, muddiest drains in the valley--waterways not suitable as habitat as we know it. These have been termed 'opportunistic' salmon, or as others may term as suicidal salmon. Will the sighting of one 'opportunistic' salmon justify thousands, if not millions, of dollars spent in 'habitat restoration?' [para] Possibly, the above-listed statement should be changed to read, 'If significant numbers of listed or other anadromous species are found, Reclamation will support the Anadromous Restoration Program....'" [read the ESA, Rick.]

    030499 letter Smith/USFWS Red Bluff to Ryan/Reclamation, re Lower Stony - Creek Monitoring Study - Draft Study Plan 02/19/1999; suggest first year 1) better define study objectives, 2) obtain legal access to more of the creek, 3) work out logistics of field work; study this year premature since anadromous fish will not have Stony Creek access until after the GCID siphon is completed; concerned about relationship between flows and attracting fish into Stony, stranding juveniles, take by T-C Canal at CHO; weekly carcass and redd surveys warranted; arrange access, in 1994 only 2 landowners denied access; "Adipose fins can not be used for mark recapture studies because the adipose fin is reserved in the Central Valley only for coded-wire-tagged fish or hatchery origin steelhead. Exceptions require fishery resource agency approval. Other fins are available for marking studies. We recommend using an easily applied dye such as bismark brown or alcian blue for fish marking. In addition we strongly suggest coordination with the multi-agency Upper Sacramento River Salmonid Project Work Team, which I chair. The team helps coordinate the sampling, marking and monitoring of anadromous fish."
  • 011199 Form letter Griffin/Chief, Protected Species Branch to Investigator, re Backpack Electrofishing Guidelines, goal, carry out tasks with minimum impact on fish (Section 7 consultation, section 10 research permit, "or in the context of the protective regulations published in a section 4(d) rule."
    - 12??98 Backpack Electrofishing Guidelines, snorkeling or other - fishery information collection techniques are preferred, electrofishing can kill or severely injure fish; not to be done near "redds containing developing eggs" or near "adults in spawning condition"; "minimize stress by working within favorable temperature regimes, using anesthetics when necessary, and minimizing the time fish are held before release."; training program components; usually more than 40 Hz will injure more fish, avoid close anode contact, don't fish the same spot for too long, dark banding on the body or longer recovery times signs of injury or handling stress, water to water transfers, shaded dark containers, supplemental oxygen, block net to capture drifting stunned fish,
  • 011199 letter Brown/Chair, Central Valley Salmonid Team to list, recent listing of Central Valley steelhead as threatened, need to gather info; all hatchery steelhead have adipose fin clip; parr maturation
    - 12??98 Steelhead Life-Stage Asssessment Protocol, only "on live fish as pigmentation patterns deteriorate quickly on dead fish."
    - - Table 1. Life-stage rating protocol for juvenile steelhead.
    - - - 2 - Fry - recently emerged with yolk sac absorbed ("button-up fry"), pigmentation undeveloped
    - - - 3 - Parr - darkly pignmented with distinct parr marks, no silvery coloration, scales firmly set
    - - - 4 - Silvery parr - parr marks visible but faded, intermediate degree of silvering
    - - - 5 - Smolt - parr marks highly faded or absent, bright silver or nearly white coloration, scales easily shed (deciduous), black trailing edge of the caudal fin, more slender body (i.e. lower condition)
    - "Weigh only live, anaesthetized fish as dead fish take on water, thus inflating their weight."
    - "Maturation status/sex of the fish can be determined by gently applying pressure to the lower sides of the fish and rubbing toward the anal vent; if the fish's gonads are ripe, eggs or milt are easily extruded."
    - - Table 2. Maturation status and sex determination
    - - - 1 - immature fish - gametes not extruded, sex not determinable
    - - - 2 - ripe male - milt extruded
    - - - 3 - ripe female - eggs extruded
    - References

    030499 letter Smith/USFWS Red Bluff to Ryan/Reclamation, 2nd copy

    030499 letter Merz/Sacramento River Preservation Trust to Trout/Reclamation, comments on Lower Stony Creek Monitoring Study draft plan; "hard to understand exactly what is being proposed in terms of the pilot study", need a proposed workplan; day & night sampling vs. Black Butte release schedule?; private consulting firm? RFP, add Merz to mailing list: budget?; copy of Para 3 BiOp?
    030499 [out of order] letter Merz/Sacramento River Preservation Trust to Trout/Reclamation, another copy
    041699 fax t/l Kenneth M. Hopkins/Meckfessel & Hopkins/attys Willows to Chief/Div Water Resources; ? asking for copies of underlying documents in re 11/98 Fully Appropriated Stream Systems, Stony Creek Stream System, Glenn 0000, Tehama 0000 & Tehama 1100
    042299 letter Johns/Div WRights to Ryan/Reclamation , we support your proposed monitoring plan
    050399 letter Meroney/Hearing Unit to Hopkins/atty , enclosed is D 1100, Report of Referee No. 14932 w/Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Angle Decree? see the Court

    050799 letter Ryan/Reclamation to Task Force , modified the monitoring - Plan; Maslin, Chico, unavailable; will issue RFQ, NMFS BiOp being revised & before then no Section 10 permits will be authorized; unpredictable nature of Stony flows means they'll keep methods open; monitoring plan getting more complicated;
    050799 letter Ryan/Reclamation to Task Force , another copy
    051899 letter Ryan/Reclamation to Lecky/NMFS, consult; "enclosed Scope of Work. Because of Black Butte Dam's historically fluctuating releases and Stony Creek's ever changing stream channel, there is no known successful protocol for fish monitoring on this creek." p. 2 "We have determined that the action is not likely to adversely affect any spawning Central Valley steelhead or winter-run chinook salmon despite the improvements at the GCID main canal. This determination is based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control operations of Black Butte Reservoir, moderate to high water temperatures at critical times of the year, and the absence of salmonids in Stony Creek documented by monitoring studies conducted since 1994 upstream of the siphon at the Tehama Colusa Canal prior to spring rediversions...."
    UNDATED Scope of work, Lower Stony Creek Fish Monitoring Study -

    060766 press release Reclamation to Test Spillway Gates at Stony Gorge Reservoir Causing Higher than Normal Flows in Stony Creek, Anglers should use caution
    110899 Ryan/Reclamation to McInnis/NMFS re 09/07/1999 letter responding to informal Section 7 consult; previous data inconsistent, studies short-term, thus need more info, thence better decisions including for screens and water ops; your 09/07 letter "advised Reclamation to submit an application for research to your agency, if non-natal rearing juvenile anadromous fish are the focus of the study." Reclamation submitted 2 ESA 10(a)(1)(A) research permits (requests?), for Central Valley steelhead and Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon in the event either is encountered. Dealy until NMFS BiOp is finalized, ask process applications ASAP; ask that winter-run permit ap be amended to include the newly listed spring-run salmon.
  • Study Plan, Lower Stony Creek Fish Monitoring Study; water-releases - will be coordinated with USACE "to provide the most consistent nonfluctuating flows possible during the course of the flood control diagram operations, and to address safety concerns."
  • 090799 letter McInnis/NMFS to Ryan/Reclamation , uncertain if Section 7 consult or ESA Section 10(a)(1)(A) research permit; 3 alternatives: 1) if resident/non-anadromous fish? no take 09/15 - 05/31, if juvenile salmon or steelhead encountered upstream of CHO suspend sampling immediately & notify NMFS within 24 hours. if conclude a take then reinitiate per Section 7; 2) fall-run? other runs might be adversely affected & formal consult leading to a BiOp required; 3) non-natal rearing juvenile anadromous, ap for research under 10(a)(1)(A); staff is ready to discuss; encourages focus on fall-run & non-natal rearing
    - NMFS Comments on Scope of Work for Lower Stony Creek Fish Monitoring - Study; should include: 1) gather additional information regarding the presence and distribution of anadromous salmonid spawning, production, and rearing in Lower Stony Creek; 2) gather additional information regarding the presence and distribution of non-natal rearing anadromous salmonids in Lower Stony Creek; 3) evaluate current and potential water management operations below Black Butte Dam; 4) Evaluate the need for fish screens at water intakes in Stony Creek. recommend weekly sampling, bi-monthly is not adequate to detect low numbers; continuous rotary screw trap sampling could eliminate need for night sampling by seine & electrofishing; "Non-natal rearing of juvenile salmonids will make it difficult to determine the amount of anadromous fish spawning activity in Stony Creek." "existing fluctuating flow regime, unscreened water diversions, barriers to fish passage, and other water management activities in Stony Creek significantly influence the distribution and survival of fish in Stony Creek. Studies designed to estimate relative abundance will have limited utility without information regarding the impacts of water operations/facilities on fish survival in Stony [p. 2] Creek. Entrainment monitoring behind existing unscreened diversions could provide useful information. [para] ...Reclamation should not wait three years to pursue changes in the water release schedule which benefit fisheries. The existing widely fluctuating flows from Black Butte Reservoir are known to adversely affect downstream aquatic resources...." recommend pulse flows "to attract adult spawners...and assist juvenile emigrants...."

    121499 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Schueller/Div WRights, info to SWRCB by 12/15 each year, conditions 8,9,10,11,14; 10: Management Plan submitted 12/14/1998, pursuing a 3-year monitoring study; 11 GCID siphon completed 05/1999; 14 aerial photos 05/06/1999 available for review upon request
  • 040199 - 043099 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report
  • 050199 - 051499 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report
  • 091599 - 093099 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report
  • 100199 - 103199 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report

    2000


    030600 fax'd undated DRAFT letter McInnis/[NMFS?] to Ryan/Reclamation, responds to 11/08/99 letter on ESA 10(a)(1)(A) permits & Max Stodolski/[Reclamation?] letter 02/07/2000 on informal consult; Salmon encountered, phone NMFS immediately & follow up with written notification within 5 days; fall-run is a candidate for listing under the ESA, state Fish & Game code may require a fish screen on T-C C diversion;'

    030900 fax t/l Meroney to Trout, Stony Creek rediversion letter & permit CDFG to TCCA
  • 030700 letter Bullock/TCCA & Taylor/CDFG to Bullock; renewal letter, re streambed alteration agreement; at least 40 cfs downstream of CHO; not to impede fish; in-channel work limited to 03/20 - 05/17 & 09/10 - 10/31/2000; "shall obtain trespass authority for" fishery agencies to monitor at points noted in #8; TCCA shall fund CDFG monitoring; 1 collector upstream & 2 downstream, salmonids found, CDFG will notify TCCA & TCCA will terminate diversions, thence ESA compliance needed;
    - 031999 Agreement Regarding Proposed Stream Alteration - may adversely affect black bass, crappie, catfish, sunfish, various nongame fish, reptiles, invertebrates; stream zone: "that portion of the stream channel that restricts lateral movement of water...delineated at the top of the bank or the outer edge of any riparian vegetation, whichever is more landward."; culvert with 40 cfs minimum acceptable [how much of a fish jump was theirs?] may remove gravel bar, at low flow, preferably when dry but if entering water equipment clean & no oil leaks; silt curtain below if silting , same turbidity or less below as above; petroleum products kept vandal proof; riprap OK to stabilize banks and can draw from bed for it; renewal or extension $109, amendment 50% of original fee
    032200 fax t/l Luna/Div WRights to Trout/Reclamation nothing attached
    032200 letter Whitney/Div WRights to Trout/Reclamation re 12/14/1999 letter, GCID siphon, monitoring plan, please inform SWRCB if juvenile salmonids are found through the monitoring program

    032700 fax t/l Stodolski/Reclamation Red Bluff to Stern/NMFS & Meinz/SWRCB attached results of first week of monitoring
  • Stony Creek - Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority Year 2000 Diversion - Evaluation Summary
    - 032100 5 Chinook Road P, 13 degrees C
    - - 4 Chinook SR 32 bridge
    - - 4 Chinook Road N TCC site
    - 032200 0 Chinook Road P
    - - 1 Chinook SR 99 bridge [how did it get past CHO?]
    - - 1 Channel cat SR 99 bridge
    - - 0 Chinook Road N TCC site
    - - 6 Chinook SR 32 bridge
    - 032300
    - - SR 99 bridge, 40 fish: Sacramento squawfish, Golden shiner, California Roach, Sacramento Sucker, Bluegill, Prickle sculpin, Speckled dace, Black crappie, Pacific lamprey
    - - Road N TCC site 62 fish, Sacramento squawfish, California roach, Sacramento sucker, Green sunfish, Tule perch, Speckled dace, White catfish
    - - SR 32 bridge 33 fish: Hardhead, Sacramento squawfish, California roach, Tule perch, Speckled dace
    - 032400 1 Chinook Road P
    - - SR 32 bridge none 17 degrees C
    - - Road N TCC site none
    040500 faxogram, Jennings/TCCA to fisheries & Meroney/SWRCB, conference call number & participant code
    040600 contact report Meroney & Meinz; conference call, Drake/DFG seining , found salmon above SR 32 bridge; fish near I-5 , USACE planning to lower releases which may strand the fish;
  • 040300 returned Trout/Reclamation call, fishery agencies asked that flushing flows be used to get the fish out of Stony before placing berm, then later Villa/CDFG asked for NO flushing flows since releases cut from 1000 to 800 to 500 cfs over past week, hoping those flushed; Trout said putting in berm today
  • 040400 Trout/Reclamation called, no fish 04/03 - 04/04, may change to no flushing flows, asked about SWRCB position because of order requiring flushing flow, informed her change required Board approval
  • 040600 Meinz called Ward/CDFG, they collected 3 chinook near CHO 04/04 & 04/05, one 82 mm and may be spring-run
  • 040600 conference call Trout & Stodolski/Reclamation, Jennings & Bullock/TCCA, Stearns/NMFS, Villa/CDFG, Vogel/USFWSa, Stretars & Meinz & Meroney/Div WRights; Agreement:
    - "1. The USBR will start the 200 redistribution flows on Friday, April 7, 2000 and will commence diversion on Saturday, April 8, 2000
    - "2. The redistribution flows will be routed through two in-channel culverts just downstream of the Constant Head Orifice (CHO). The culverts will act as barrier to upstream movements of young Salmonids during the release of the redistribution flows [isn't that a TAKE?]
    - "3. All monitoring will continue.
    - "4. DFG will contact NMFS and other cooperating parties for further consultation if more than six (6) young Salmonids are collected at the CHO during any 24-hour period."
  • 040700 color Div WRights map Black Butte to Sacramento River, with selected landmarks, including A18115 diversion at T-C Canal & GCID diversion

    041200 letter Ryan/Reclamation to McInnis/NMFS re 03/14/2000 letter on - Reclamation request for consultation, summarizing sampling including 5 chinook below and 12 above the diversion mouth [mouth?], and 23 juvenile chinook at the other sites, Reclamation notified NMFS by fax 03/29/2000 of chinook presence; after consulting, reduced releases to increase stream temperatures in the hope that would encourage fish to move downstream; began rediversion.
  • 031400 4 pp. letter McInnis/NMFS to Ryan/Reclamation on aps for - 10(a)(1)(A) research permits for 3-year fisheries monitoring program; recommended traps; "In the event one or more salmon (all races) or steelhead are captured in the site-specific monitoring program, Reclamation must immediately provide notice by telephone or fax...." plus written notification within five days: "date, time, and location of the capture, a color photograph, condition upon release or cause of injury or death, and name and affiliation of the person who found the specimen." Upon receipt, together review "to determine the potential for advers effects to listed species and evaluate the need to reinitiate section 7 consultation for year 2000 activities." With the GCID siphon , "opportuniies for steelhead spawning and rearing in Lower Stony Creek are significantly improved." Informal consult no longer appropriate, and after 2000 comprehensive formal consultation is warranted. "...this concludes section 7 consultation in accordance with" 50 cfr 402.14(b)(1), new info? further consult may be required.

    041300 letter Stodolski/Reclamation to Stern/NMFS photos of captured salmonids enclosed
    042800 letter Ryan/Reclamation to McInnis/NMFS Formal Section 7 consult; asks for a meeting mid-May with NMFS, Reclamation, OUWUA, USACE, TCCA, "with NMFS defining the administrative aproach to this more complex consultation."
    120700 letter Davis/Reclamation to Schueller/Div WRights annual report: 58 juvenile chinook found in 3 sampling areas near CHO, but none after 04/07 & rediversion continued; no fall diversions; aerial photos 04/01/2000 available on request;
  • 040100 - 043000 2000 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report
  • 050100 - 051500 2000 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report

    2001


    011601 letter Davis/Reclamation to Schueller/Div WRights, annual report by letter 12/07/2000 typo, berm s/b siphon para 2 l. 9
    121101 letter Davis/Reclamation to Schueller/Div WRights, annual report no fall diversions; aerial photos 05/01/2001 available upon request
  • 040101 - 043001 2001 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report
  • 050101 - 051501 2001 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report

    2002


    121002 letter Tegelman/Reclamation to Schueller/Div WRights, annual - report; no fall diversions; BiOp from NMFS received 03/11/2002, "not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon, Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon, and Central Valley steelhead. NMFS issued a take statement with the belief that there is a likelihood of take, or harm to the fish as a result of the water operations. The take statement includes reasonable and prudent measures that NMFS believes are necessary to minimize imjpacts. The measures are effective for a period of three years, or through March 11, 2005, although several conditions expire on March 11, 2003. In 2005, Reclamation and the COE will be required to reinitiate formal consultation on the effects of lower Stony Creek water management operations on any species which may be listed at that time." "...Members of the Task Force have formed a Stony Creek Landowners Group that has been pursuing the suggestions of the Mangement plan for private lands enhancements through local sources."; pilot study with CDFG in jeopardy because of funding; but with BiOp & take statement CDFG collection permit is not be needed. Still focusing on lower Stony as salmon breeding ground. No aerial photos [oops] but took ground photos from "mouth" to North Diversion Dam during rediversion and available upon request.
  • 040102 - 043002 2002 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report
  • 050102 - 051502 2002 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report

    2003


    121003 letter Tegelman/Reclamation to Schueller/Div WRights, annual report; no spring or fall diversions; 03/11/2004 some BiOp terms "due to NOAAF by Reclamation": "a barrier analysis of the Northside Diversion Dam (NDD) to determine the ability of adult salmonids to pass the dam under varying flow conditions when flash boards have been removed; and a comparison of potential water diversion periods to upstream salmonid migration periods to determine the level of overlap and potential impacts to upstream migrants. An analysis of the most suitable design, placement and operation of a temporary ladder at NDD is also due on that date and will be conducted by the" OUWUA; some rehash of previous year's letter; no obvious Landowners Group activity; DWR looking this year to see if Black Butte releases could recharge ground water; barrier analysis on NDD re: upstream salmon migration; temperature data, gravel samples to see if OK for spawning; Reclamation is preparing a Stony Creek Water Resources Model, for availability to NMFS (NOAA F) b 03/2003 now 2004; Reclamation planning on a fourth (helical) pump at RBResearch Pumping Plant - this year ends reporting requirement on RBDD activities for Stony permit(?);

    2004


    090804 letter Tegelman/Reclamation to Whitney/Div WRights ; request urgency change for diversion from 09/15 - 10/29 to 09/09 - 10/29: this year the 09/15 lifting of RBDD gates will be 09/09, ask to replace RBDD water with Black Butte water for those 6 days, just to be prepared because don't actually anticipate using it
    092304 contact report Fecko/Div WRights contacted Lindgard/Reclamation, anything further on temporary urgency change?, had asked on 09/10/2004 [where?] for a consent letter from NMFS to support a CEQA exemption; Lindgard said Reclamation wants to drop the request formally, didn't use the additional 6 days
    121504 letter Tegelman/Reclamation to Whitney/Div WRights annual report; Lower Stony Creek Fish Monitoring Study Glenn County, California 2001-2004 w/CDFG?; 2001 NMFS BiOp; no fall CHO diversions; spring encountered possible berm failure on Stony Creek for which Reclamation ceased the 40 cfs in bypass flow, then received permission from NMFS to lower RBDD gates early on 05/07/2004 relieving the berm problem; early fall raising of the gates was to compensate for the early spring lowering prompting the emergency request to SWRCB; 4th (helical) pump installation at RBDD due for completion 01/2006; 05/03 photos available on request
  • 040104 - 043004 2004 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report
  • 050104 - 051504 2004 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report

    2005


    022405 (date supplied to NMFS by Reclamation) R.R. Corwin & D.J. Grant, Lower Stony Creek Fish Monitoring Study, Glenn County, - California 2001-2004 [MISSING]
    030905 letter Whitney/Div WRights to Lindgard/Reclamation; part of annual reports showing no bypasses, logs 04/01 - 04/02 & 05/09 - 05/15, & less than 40 cfs on 11 more days; short-term & long-term plan is needed "to ensure appropriate actions are taken to minimize harm to public trust resources."; Div WRights asks if Reclamation diverted any additional water because of the failure of bypass flows and intends to require additional compensatory releases to make up for it if there were, and asks Reclamation to confer with CDFG on appropriate time to make those additional flows; in the future, Reclamation to notify SWRCB within 15 days of any failure to meet bypass flows and be prepared to make compensatory releases
    040505 letter , 051905 email, 052405 meeting, NMFS to Reclamation, wants more info regarding Fish Monitoring Study [MISSING]
    051005 letter Tegelman/Reclamation to Whitney/Div WRights ; no additional water diverted "as a result of the 2004 spring operations." During 2004 spring operations, TCCA diverted less water than it would have under normal operations; "threat of a possible berm failure because the substrate used around the bypass structure showed signs of washing out" 05/04 bypass structure failed, yielding 75 cfs of bypass flow, during emergency repairs dropped to 22 cfs before structure was stabilized and thence back to 40 cfs.; while "berm was in a stressed condition during the rediversion period, TCCA diverted less water than they would have under normal operations. Had the berm failed, releases from Black Butte Reservoir would have been adjusted resulting in no CHO rediversions and reinstatement of minimum in-stream flows of 30 cfs. This year TCCA made plans to redesign their bypass structure to insure continuous in-stream flows of 40 cfs"; thus Reclamation does not anticipate future emergencies but will let SWRCB know within 15 days if it happens.
  • 050404 photo Bypass fails
  • 050404 photo Bypass fails
  • 050404 photo Bypass
  • 051004 photo Bypass
  • ????02 photo Bypass Construction/Exit 1
  • ????02 photo Bypass Construction/Exit 2
  • ????02 photo Bypass Construction/Exit 3
  • ????02 photo Bypass Construction/Exit 4
  • ????02 photo Bypass Construction/Exit 5
  • ????02 photo Bypass Construction/Exit 6 (fish nets in foreground?)

    071405 letter Whitney/Div WRights to Lindgard/Reclamation; re info you supplied, Reclamation still failed to release required bypass flow 30% of the time; "State Water Board position with regard to bypass/release flows and the associated impacts on public trust resources has always been 'a minimum is a minimum.' Diverters are expected to bypass/release sufficient water, have sufficiently sensitive monitoring equipment,and guarantee the bypass/release flows first before either beginning any diversions, or encroaching on the bypass/release quantity. From the information you provided, it appears that your instrumentation was not sufficient and diversions continued while required bypass/releases did not." "You also indicate that [TCCA] has redesigned the bypass structure to ensure that the 40 cubic feet per second (cfs) bypass flow can be maintained throughout the CHO rediversion period. Please identify the changes, including structural, monitoring, and recording procedures, implemented for the 2005 CHO rediversion period to guarantee the 40 cfs...."; sig page missing?
    091205 letter Tegelman/Reclamation to Whitney/Div WRights; TCCA changes: "risers for the bypass were placed at a higher elevation, thereby being placed even with the top of the dike." No monitoring changes.
    091205 letter Whitney/Div WRights to Lindgard/Reclamation thanks for the info.

    040196 Order Approving Addition of Point of Rediversion and Purpose of Use, and Amending the Permit, a 3rd copy

    121505 Fax t/l Lindgard/Reclamation to Whitney/SWRCB copy of annual logs
  • 040105 - 043005 2005 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report
  • 050105 - 051505 2005 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report

    122005 stamp, August 5, R.R. Corwin, Lower Stony Creek Fish Monitoring - Study, Glenn County, California 2001-2004 Supplemental Report; in response to NMFS requests for further info: temperature data, findings, substrate; data loggers at sampling sites were stolen, others impaired by bedload movement; Arundo & Tamarisk "have limited capabilities in moderating temperatures along the water's edge and providing shade, and which remove large volumes of water from the creek."; "lower Stony Creek has been used by off-road vehicle drivers during low flows. The weight of a vehicle could cause compaction of the gravel within the redd by either crushing embryos or making emergence impossible. As the vehicle drives through the stream the wakes caused by the tires could possibly wash gravel from the redd, thus exposing the embryos." USACE 1987 "Black Butte Dam and Lake Stony Creek, California. "Although the spawning gravels within lower Stony Creek are marginal at best, Chinook salmon apparently will use the gravels for spawning." Appendix III to Master Water Control Manual Sacramento River Basin, California, Sacramento District, May." [May what?]
    121505 letter Tegelman/Reclamation to Whitney/Div WRights, annual report, spring diversion for 52 hours terminated in preparation for flood releases from Black Butte, no diversions after that, no fall diversions; photos on 05/11/2002 available upon request

    2006


    020206 letter Whitney/Div WRights to Tegelman/Reclamation acknowledging annual report
    020695 out of order; Supplemental Mailing List
    062496 out of order; Record of fees received $1,250 Neg Dec1

    121906 letter Mrowka/Div WRights to Stevenson/Reclamation , reviewed 2006 annual report, looks OK
  • 120406 letter Stevenson/Reclamation to Whitney/Div WRights annual report; no spring or fall rediversions at CHO
    - 120505 Untitled reports; Abstract; monitoring of the North Canal from - 05/03 - 06/16/2006, no juvenile salmon, 1015 fish captured, 83% introduced to California, predominate was white crappie, predominant native prickly sculpin; "A small unknown number of adult spring-run Chinook salmon were observed numerous times downstream of the NDD from May 3 through May 26, 2006"; North Canal Fish Study? 12 pp. "TCCA, under a Streambed Alteration Agreement II-93-99 with DFG"
    - - Table 1 Operational data for the North Canal in 2006...
    - - Table 2 Fish species caught by the fyke net located within the North Canal during 2006. The monitoring period [no, the species], number of fish caught; mean total length, and percent of total catch.
    - - Figure 1 Weekly catch per unit effort, x=date, y=# of fish caught per a-f, other y=a-f diverted
    - - Figure 2 The weekly total number of fish caught by the fyke net in the NC.... x=date, w=weekly numbers of fish, other y=a-f diverted
    - - Figure 3 Daily mean discharge entering the North Canal (NC), x=date, y=water temp in celcius, other y=discharge, cfs
    - - Figure 4 Daily mean water temperatures measured at the NDD.... x=date, y=degrees celsius, other y=discharge cfs
    - - Figure 5 Daily mean, maximum and minimum water temperatures measured at the NDD
    - - Figure 6 Turbidity and the daily mean discharge of water entering the North canal during the 2006 monitoring x=date, y=Turbidity, NTU; other y=discharge cfs
    - - Figure 7 Dissolved oxygen concentration and the daily mean discharge of water entering the NC during the 2006 monitoring period, x=date, y= dissolved oxygen, other y=discharge cfs

    2007


    010507 routing sheet
    040107 - 043007 2007 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report
    050107 - 051507 2007 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report
    UNDATED untitled, Abstract, fish monitoring at CHO; 04/11/2007 "the - two fyke nets failed due to the large volume of filamentous green algae and debris along with the increase in flows." [isn't that too early in the season for that much algae?] "May 10, the large volume of filamentous green algae [Exhibit 3, p. 17] and debris resulted once agian in the nets failing. Also the high flows made conditions within the channel unsafe for cleaning and checking the liveboxes,...." no salmonids, total of 1,459 fish captured, 8 species from 5 families and 8 genera; salmonids captured upstream placed in 5-liter buckets, measured, released downstream; log boom above fyke nets in channel to capture debris before it floated into the fyke nets; 03/20/2007 5 juvenile Chinook salmon captured upstream "while conducting seven seine sets within two channels of the creek", 2 sets in main & 5 sets in North bank channel; concluded that fish in main channel would move downstream unobstructed past the CHO berm, not so for "North bank channel , so seining was concentrated within this channel." "...nets ripping and becoming inoperable on April 11" "Discharge into the CHO on April 11 increased from 98 cfs to approximately 195 cfs, resulting in both nets failing. Failure of the fyke nets was mostly due to the increase in the volume of filamentous green algae and giant reed...dislodged from the stream channel with the increase in discharge." Second spring rediversion 05/09 for 6 days, new nets, "Once again the increase in discharge, this time from approximately 30 cfs to 203 cfs within lower Stony Creek, dislodged high volumes of filamentous green algae and Arundo from the stram channel, resulting in net failure with only approximately 19 hours of sampling being conducted during this second re-diversion period." "No juvenile Central Valley steelhead or Chinook salmon were caught in the fyke nets during the 2007 sampling period." "torn nets were replaced with new nets that had the corners reinforced with nylon thread prior to the second re-diversion period on" 05/09/2007; "no salmonids were captured within the fyke nets, which could be due to the flushing flow being successful in moving juvenile salmonids downstream and out of the system." "once the filamentous green algae was scoured and washed off the substrates, the algae would then be moved downatream into the fyke nets and become attached to the mesh of the nets, causing higher water velocities through areas of the mesh that was not filled with the algae forcing and trapping any small fish into the mesh of the nets. As the surface area of the filamentous green algae increased over the area of the nets, the increase in the force of the water and weight of the algae resulted in failure of the net seams...." Problem came from need to measure 100 percent of the water 100 percent of the time; found that under 200 cfs the design could handle it, but over 200 cfs iffy.
  • Figure 1 Daily discharge into the [T-C Canal] via the [CHO], x=date, y=cfs
  • Table, CHO Operational Data, 2007
  • Table2 , Fish species caught by the fyke nets located within the CHO....
  • Figure 2 Daily catch per unit effort.... x=date, y=# of fish caught per acre-foot, other y = total volume of water diverted
  • Figure 3 Daily mean, maximum and minimum water temperature measured within the [CHO] channel during the 2007 diversion season
  • Figure 4 Daily mean water temperature measured within the [CHO] channel during the 2007 diversion season and the daily mean discharge into the [T-C] Canal, x = date, y = degree, other y=discharge in cfs
  • Exhibit 1 photo Fyke nets with wing nets and log boom located within the [CHO] channel, Stony Creek, 2007
  • Exhibit 2 photo Torn fyke net located within the [CHO] channel, Stony Creek 2007
  • Exhibit 3 photo Filamentous green algae clogging fyke nets' mesh, Stony Creek, 2007

    120307 letter Woodley/Reclamation to Whitney/Div WRights annual report no fall rediversion; aerial photos 05/05/2007 available upon request
    123107 letter Mrowka/Div WRights to Woodley/Reclamation report looks OK to me

    031461 [out of order] Amended Application to Appropriate Unappropriated Water, Ap 18115 f 043058 11:10 a.m., another copy
  • Supplement to Application No. 18115 -
    102662 Approval for Signature, Water Right Permit, Ap. 18115 Permit 13776, protests dismissed by D-1100
    101062 Check for Permit
    100262 Permit Terms Ap 18115
  • 111062 certified mail card, both sides
    101962 letter Hill/XO to Dugan/Reclamation, permit issued, another copy

    2008


    120808 letter Woodley/Reclamation to Whitney/Div WRights annual report Final BiOp, "Lower Stony Creek Water Management" 06/20/2008, action not likely to jeopardize continued existence of endangered winter-run or threatened spring-run Chinook, Central valley steelhead, or designated critical habitats for spring-run or steelhead;
  • 040108 - 043008 2008 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report
  • 050108 - 051508 2008 Constant Head Orifice (CHO) Operations Report
  • 01??08 Reclamation: Results of 2008 Fishery Monitoring for the - Constant Head Orifice - Stony Creek, Central Valley Project, California, Mid-Pacific Region; abstract; beach seining 1/4 mile upstream of CHO, 2 salmonids 03/25, 1 on 03/26, all relocated downstream; 27 seine sets over 3 days, 125 other fish, 6 species from 4 families and 5 genera; 04/19 the 2 fyke nets started to fail due to the large volume of filamentous green algae and debris, and high flows made cleaning and checking unsafe so discontinued;
    - Figure 1 Discharges for Stony Creek below the Northside Diversion Dam....x = date, y = cfs
    - Figure 2 daily mean, maximum, and minimum water temperature.... x = date, y = water temperature
    - Figure 3 daily mean water temperature measured within the [CHO]....

    2009


    032709 letter KDM ??/Div WRights to Sahlberg/Reclamation re Reclamation 02/17/2009 request for "a status update regarding its pending time extension petitions for the " CVP permits; "Reclamation originally requested extensions of time for the CVP permits as part of its September 19, 1985 petition letter requesting consolidation and expansion of the place of use of the CVP water right permits. The 1985 petitions for extension of time were publicly noticed with the CVP consolidation petitions. Protests were filed at that time, but it appears that the protests primarily address the consolidation petitions." [para] On 06/26/1996 "Reclamation filed a letter requesting time extensions on the [32] water rights listed above. The 1996 letter was intended to follow-up on a time extension request incorporated in the [09/19/1985] Reclamation petition letter. Once a time extension petition is noticed, it cannot be expanded." procedure is to file new petitions; Div would like to close out the 1985 petitions, 1) cancel in favor of the newly submitted petitions, or 2) indicate the 1985 petitions superseded by 2009 petitions, or 3) Div cancels the 1985 petitions because of no CEQA document; 30 days to respond, sig page missing?
    042909 letter Woodley/Reclamation to Whitney/Div WRights ; re Kathy Mrowka 03/27/2009 letter: 16 CVP permits consolidated place- and purpose-of-use (CPOU) petition aproved in D 1641; 9 CVP related power ; one for Black Butte Reservoir, 6 for New Melones; Reclamation intends to submit a superseding petition within 30 days

    062309 Petition for Extension of Time Ap 018115 Permit 13776 --
  • Supplement to Petition [swrcb/18115ext.pdf] -- "Reclamation has further determined that it is not possible at this time to accurately predict future operations and diversion levels at specific times during the extension period. Major uncertainties that include possible future State Water Board actions involving additional conditions to CVP permits, outcome of the Bay Delta Conservation Program...process, as well as any other future actions necessary for compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act, frustrate any attempt to make such predictions at this time." "extension of time until the year 2030" [what happened to 40 years?]; refers to Bay Delta Conservation Plan EIR/EIS as covering Reclamation?
    071409 letter KDM/Div WRights to Woodley/Reclamation sig page missing received 32 petitions 06/29/2009 which supersede Reclamation's 09/19/1985 petitions for extension of time, no fees submitted? no agreement on file to reimburse the board (they expired 06/30/2009)? thus ap is incomplete & won't be processed, per Water Code 1560 subd (b)(4); Reclamation asserts that as superseding, no CDFG fee required, agree.
    090109 Progress Report by Permittee for 1994; date stamp 09/03/2009 976 a-f for 290 acres under exchange contracts with upstream users
    090109 Progress Report by Permittee for 1995; date stamp 09/03/2009 717 a-f for 327 acres under exchange contracts with upstream users
    090109 Progress Report by Permittee for 1996; date stamp 09/03/2009 974 a-f for 327 acres under exchange contracts with upstream users
    090109 Progress Report by Permittee for 1997; date stamp 09/03/2009 923 a-f for 335 acres under exchange contracts with upstream users
    090109 Progress Report by Permittee for 1998; date stamp 09/03/2009 440 a-f for 214 acres under exchange contracts with upstream users
    090109 Progress Report by Permittee for 1999; date stamp 09/03/2009 966 a-f for 280 acres under exchange contracts with upstream users
    090109 Progress Report by Permittee for 2000; date stamp 09/03/2009 1190 a-f for 380 acres under exchange contracts with upstream users
    090109 Progress Report by Permittee for 2001; date stamp 09/03/2009 1133 a-f for 380 acres under exchange contracts with upstream users
    090109 Progress Report by Permittee for 2002; date stamp 09/03/2009 986 a-f for 386 acres under exchange contracts with upstream users
    090109 Progress Report by Permittee for 2003; date stamp 09/03/2009 699 a-f for 446 acres under exchange contracts with upstream users
    090109 Progress Report by Permittee for 2004; date stamp 09/03/2009 691 a-f for 355 acres under exchange contracts with upstream users
    090109 Progress Report by Permittee for 2005; date stamp 09/03/2009 385 a-f for 355 acres under exchange contracts with upstream users
    090109 Progress Report by Permittee for 2006; date stamp 09/03/2009 537 a-f for 355 acres under exchange contracts with upstream users
    090109 Progress Report by Permittee for 2007; date stamp 09/03/2009 790 a-f for 474 acres under exchange contracts with upstream users


    [OTHER CATEGORIES , another 18" of files, became known to me 10/08/2009]
    Correspondence re Hearings, Folder 3 [where are 1 & 2?]

    030559 letter Banks/DWR to Bellport/Reclamation, familiar with U.S. Atty General Opinion 12/15/1958 that reclamation law applies to projects under the Flood Control act of 1944 constructed by USACE; "generally familiar" with MOU between Army & Interior but don't know the final form of it, will cooperate locally; letter 12/02/1958 we concurred in USACE draft of "Report on Preliminary Cost Allocation Studies, Black Butte Project, Stony Creek, California," dated 10/10/1958; assures: 1) can use the water, 2) cost acceptable, 3) will contract for them, 4) Water Code Section 11500 allows it; want to proceed

    030260 Contract for Repayment of Allocation of Costs of Black Butte Dam and Reservoir to the Capacity of the Reservoir to be Utilized for Water Conservation and for the Repayment of Operation and Maintenance Costs incurred by the United States, #14-06-200-8209 between Reclamation and DWR, another copy; USBR Ex. 5; 10,000 a-f for sediment and operational - purposes; [how did the Black Butte Integration Act affect this contract? following the Act did Reclamation refund to State under paragraph 8?]
    062760 Notice of Public Hearing, 18115, 09/16/1960
  • mailing list, Notice of Public Hearing

    091362 letter Dugan/Reclamation to California Water Commission 3 issues: 1) development "in conflict with a general and overall plan of development"; 2) deprive counties of water necessary for development; 3) whether or not the assignment should be made;
  • 1) included in plans: "California Water Plan, Bulletin 3", "A Comprehensive Report on the Development of Water and Related Resources of the Central Valley Basin" Senate Document 113, Eighty-First Congress, First Session (prepared by Reclamation)", "Comprehensive Flood Control Survey Report on Sacramento-San Joaquin Basin Streams, California" (prepared by USACE); State of California comments as House Document #367, Eighty-First Congress, 1st Session, "Sacramento-San Joaquin Basin Streams, California."; & DWR said it was;
  • 2) not deprive the counties: "The Stony Creek watershed includes land in Tehama, Glenn, Colusa and Lake Counties. Water Resources developments in the watershed consist of the Orland Project's two major storage reservoirs, East Park and Stony Gorge and many small private reservoirs used primarily for stockwatering purposes. [para] The lands receiving water from the Orland Project and the various project works are shown on the attached map entitled 'Orland Project, California', and marked Exhibit 3. [para] The rights to the use of Stony Creek water have been adjudicated in an action before the United States District court for the Northern District of California. The decision in this case was made on January 13, 1930. this action commonly known as The United States vs. H.C. Angle et al., In Equity No. 30 established by decree the rights to the diversion of water from the natural flow of Stony Creek and its tributaries and provided that a Water Master be appointed to carry out and enforce the provisions of the decree. All diversions from Stony Creek and its tributaries from 1930 to date have been made under the provisions of this decree and by instructions of the Court. [para] These diversions have substantially utilized the entire flow of Stony Creek during the irrigation season which has been defined in the decree as the period beginning on April 15 and ending on September 15 of each year. The only Stony Creek waters available for appropriation under Application 18115 would be those waters not covered by the decree and other vested rights or more specifically flows occurring at Black Butte Damsite only during the period of September 15 of one year through April 15 of the next year. The storage of these waters in Black Butte Reservoir would provide a means by which they could be placed to beneficial use. It is intended that the stored water would be used to:
    - 1. Supplement the irrigation supply for the Orland Project, in Glenn County.
    - 2. Provide additional water for the Glenn Service Area by means of the proposed Stony Canal in Glenn and Colusa counties as shown on the attached drawing entitled Tehama-Colusa Service Area marked Exhibit 4 [WHERE?]
    - 3. Provide additional water for domestic, irrigation, and recreational purposes in the area immediately adjacent to the Black Butte Reservoir, in Glenn and Tehama Counties.
    - 4. Provide an opportunity for the development of additional lands in Tehama, Glenn, Colusa and Lake Counties, upstream from Black Butte Reservoir by exchanges [sic] agreements.
    - 5. Supplement requirements of the Central Valley Project.
    - 6. Implement Contract 14-06-200-8209 between United States and State of California for repayment of allocation of costs of Black Butte Dam and Reservoir.
    - The Black Butte Project, therefore, will not deprive the counties in which water covered by Application 18115 originates of any such water necessary for the development of the counties."..."In view of (1) Section 8 of the 1902 Reclamation Act which requires the United States to comply with State law in the acquisition of water rights, (2) California Water Commission Resolution No. 84 which requests the Bureau of Reclamation to recognize State law, (3) and the portion of provision 2(d) of Contract No. 14-06-200-8209 between the United States and the State of California 'for repayment of allocation of costs of Black Butte Dam and Reservoir to the capacity of the Reservoir to be utilized for water conservation and for the repayment of operation and maintenance costs incurred by the United States' a copy of which is attached and marked as Exhibit 5 which provides in part that all storage and releases of water form Black Butte Reservoir shall be made in conformity with water rights that have been acquired or assured for such purposes to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Interior, it is mandatory that water rights permits be issued prior to the storage of any water in Black Butte Reservoir."

    100360 letter Banks/DWR to CWC, better choice is to make the water - rights available to both DWR & Reclamation jointly rather than wait for Reclamation's assignment of Ap 18115; suggest following reservations and conditions: 1) USA cancel part of Ap 19451 for storage of water; 2) USA reassign to DWR "a portion of 18115" 3) DWR assign it back if storage is made available to DWR from CVP
    100660 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to CWC , question came up at hearing on rights available to both USA and DWR, that's covered by 03/02/1960 contract with Reclamation

    111560 Assignment, By the California Water Commission to the United - States of America of Application No. 18115; a) assignment not in conflict with overall plan, b) not deprive any county of origin, c) in the best interests of the people of the State of California; Reservations: 1) prior rights of any county for development, 2) USA will cancel storage part of 19451, 3) USA will reassign 18115 [?] 4) assign it back if CVP water made available, 5) any changes, will submit them to CWC for approval
    011961 letter Hill/SWRB to Dugan/Reclamation, on flood control, another copy
    030691 letter Carah/CWC to Hill/SWRB , CWC approved the application
    UNDATED Petition for Adding Points of Re-Diversion, Ap. 18115 Permit 13776; Reclamation to SWRB, per attached drawings 214-208-3353 and 214-208-3354 of 07/19/1960 rev'd 02/21/1962, list of 18 locations , "to make possible the complete utilization of black Butte water. This is the same purpose as required by the constitutional mandate that 'because of the conditions prevailing in this State the general welfare requires that the water resources of the State be put to beneficial use to the fullest extent to which they are capable,'" Proposed additional, point 54 Black Butte Dam, 55 Stony Canal Intake, 56 Junction Stony and T-C Canal
    101962 Permit 13776 on Ap. 18115
  • Supplement to Application No. 18115 -
    101962 letter Hill/XO to Dugan/Reclamation, permit issued, third copy
    122762 letter Dugan/Reclamation to SWRB re 10/19/1962 letter from XO, delivered by certified mail 11/20/1962, date variance unexplained, certification on the permit erroneous because of obvious alterations made on the Ap by SWRB personnel; points of diversion deleted from application, Ap intended for entire CVP service area, no authority to change that, ask that deletions be restored; same as loose copy in vol. 1 corres.
    012563 letter Hill/SWRB to Pafford/Reclamation , another copy
    022163 letter Pafford/Reclamation to CWC, another copy
    032663 memo DWR? to Carah/CWC , another copy
    040463 letter McDonough/atty to Carah/CWC, another copy
  • Suggestions for Terms and Conditions of Consent, SRDWA Ex P, Sacramento River and Delta Water Association


    Certified Cards
    051261 and later dates many certified receipt cards


    Cat 2, vols 1-4, Reports


    Category 2 Vol. 1, Reports

    030496 Working Draft No. 4, Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife, and Water Use Management Plan, folder 7, item 3
  • 030496 Rude/CH2M Hill to Hanson & Hovekamp/Reclamation, w/sub team of Jones & Stokes and Montgomery Watson, hired to "provide technical services and assistance necessary for the development and publication of the" Plan. "consensus-building effort"

    032796 Finding of No Significant Impact, Rediversion of Water to the - Tehama-Colusa Canal at the Stony creek Siphon, folder 7 item 1

    03??96 Supplemental Environmental Assessment -
    - Table 1 Stony Creek Operational Objectives in Order of Importance
  • Appendix A Environmental Commitments
  • Appendix B 02??96 Supplemental Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, Tehama-Colusa Canal Change in Permanent Point of Rediversion on Stony Creek, Glenn County, California, USFWS for Reclamation
    - 022996 memo Medlin/USFWS to Reclamation, transmits Supplemental FWCA report, p. 2?; thence p. i, and 1-18, with 19 after Appendix A;
    - - Figure 1a Map of Stony Creek showing site of CHO rediversion into the Tehama-Colusa Canal
    - - Figure 1b Stony Creek from Black Butte Dam to the Sacramento River
    - - Table 1 Stony Creek Operational Objectives in Order of Importance
    - - Table 2 Evaluation Species, Resource Categories, and Mitigation Goals for the Habitat Cover and Land-Use Types Found Within the Stony Creek Planning Area
    [from here on, appendices are in reverse order?]

    - Appendix F 06??95 Supplementary Study of Fall 1994 Fishery Impacts from Reverse Operation of the Constant Head Orifice at Stony Creek and the Tehama-Colusa Canal, California, by Matthew R. Brown [just title page, relates to pages after Appendix A?]
    - Appendix E Historical Constant head Orifice Reverse Operations 1993-1995 pp. 45-53
    - Appendix D Concurrence Letters, California Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service p. 42
    - - 071895 letter Broddrick/CDFG to Medlin/USFWS Reviewed supplement FWCA report re supplemental EA, another copy
    - - 070395 letter Bybee/NMFS to Medlin/USFWS, opportunity to comment on draft Supplement FWCA report, concurs with the report
    - Appendix C Endangered Species Act, Section 7, Informal Consultations 1993, p. 24
    - - 040793 letter Edwards/Reclamation to Chief/UFSWS; Reclamation "believed that the proposed operations would not adversely affect the bald eagle. Reclamation agreed to provide the reationale for supporting a determination of no adverse effect, and to request the Service's concurrence with our determination." Black Butte stabilization for fish spawning, temperature, effects on Stony Gorge bald eagles; agree to modify reservoir stabilization to make sure no adverse effect on bald eagles;
    - - 041593 memo white/USFWS to Reclamation, agree no effects on bald eagles
    - - 121994 letter Holt/Reclamation to Medlin/USFWS, request for concurrence on determination of no adverse impact to federally-listed species
    - - - Basis for Determination of No Adverse Impact, Rediversion of Water at the Stony Creek Siphon, Tehama-Colusa Canal; vernal pool tadpole shrimp; vernal pool fairy shrimp; winter-run Chinook; Delta smelt; bald eagle (2 active nests on East Park) plus flights observed at Black Butte & Stony Gorge in 03/25/1994 survey, wintering bald eagles regularly at Stony [Gorge?] reservoir & along Stony Creek below Black Butte; American peregrine falcon, usually cliff faces rarely in tall trees or cavities, usually near water with waterfowl prey; valley elderberry longhorn beetle; proposed Sacramento splittail (minnow) & California red-legged frog kept out of areas with non-native bass, pan fish, or bull frogs [?]; 8 Category 2 species and 3 proposed for Category 2 status: green sturgeon, California roach (candidate subspecies is that which occurs in San Joaquin River drainage), longfin smelt (saline), western spadefoot toad (in small, isolated, fishless ponds), foothill yellow-legged frog (in absence of introduced bass, pan fish & bullfrogs, like red-legged frogs); Northwestern pond turtle could be there, will adopt FWCA mitigations, will survey the area near CHO before use, monitor racks daily, remove NWPT & moved to more distant location;; ferruginous hawk, tricolored blackbird, loggerhead shrike, Pacific western big-eared bat, Ahart's Whitlow-wort
    - - 010595 letter Medlin/USFWS to Holt/Reclamation, proposal to downlist bald eagle from endangered to threatened 07/12/1994 Federal Register, western spadefoot toad mistakenly listed for not-listed western toad in Holt letter,
    - - 071895 letter Holt/Reclamation to Medlin/USFWS, request agreement with our determination of no adverse impact to species in the 06/13/1995 that weren't in the original list; CHO berm floods 2-3 acres
    - - - Basis for Determination of No Adverse Impact, Rediversion of Water at the Stony Creek Siphon, Tehama-Colusa Canal; Aleutian Canada goose; Giant garter snake; San Joaquin pocket mouse; bats: Yuma myotis, fringed myotis, small-footed myotis, long-legged myotis, long-eared myotis; Little willow flycatcher; Western burrowing owl; White-faced ibis; River lamprey; Adobe lily
    - - 08229? letter Medlin/USFWS to Holt/Reclamation answering 07/18/1995 letter, recommend survey for giant garter snake prior to construction activity; "'Harm' has been further defined to include habitat destruction when it kills or injures a listed species by interfering with essential behavioral patterns such as breeding, foraging or resting."; consult if giant garter snake found or new species or critical habitat designated, else, all is OK.
    - Appendix B 021496 Listed and Proposed Endangered and Threatened Species and Candidate Species that May Occur in or Be Affected by Projects in the Area of the Following Selected Quad, 595D Black Butte Dam, pp. 22-23
    - Appendix A Mitigation Recommendations for Spring Constant Head Orifice Rediversions 1994 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, pp. 20-21
    - floating orphan p. 19, references list,

    [relating to orphaned title page,] Appendix F, balance of Report, i-iii, pp. 1-23
    - - Figure 1 Map of Stony Creek showing site of CHO rediversion into the Tehama-Colusa Canal
    - - Figure 2 Map of study area. Numbers indicate sampling sites as listed in Table 1
    - - Table 1 Number of fish collected by fyke net, gill net, electrofisher and seining, September 9-22, 1994, lower Stony Creek, California (by species)
    - - Table 2 Distribution of fishes sampled from lower Stony Creek, source for each species
    - - Table 3 Fish entrainment rate into Tehama-Colusa Canal and fyke net catch at the constant head orifice at Stony Creek, California, Fall 1994
    - - Figure 3 Fish entrainment rate into Tehama-Colusa Canal from Stony Creek, California, September 1994
    - - Figure 4 Bullfrog tadpole entrainment rate into Tehama-Colusa Canal from Stony Creek, California, September 1994
    - - Figure 5 Black Butte Reservoir elevation and discharge into to constant head orifice at Stony Creek and the Tehama-Colusa Canal, California, March 31 to May 24, 1994
    - - Figure 6 Length-frequency distribution of green sunfish collected from lower Stony Creek, California, September 1994
    - - Table 4 spawning period in California for fishes collected from lower Stony Creek, California, 1994 [by species]
    - - Appendix A , Abstract from Brown 1994
    - - Appendix B , Table 3 Stony Creek Operational Objectives in Order of Importance

    02??96 Supplemental Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report, Tehama-Colusa Canal Change in Permanent Point of Rediversion on Stony Creek, Glenn County, California, USFWS for Reclamation, folder 7, item 2; as Appendix B above1


    Category 2 Vol. 2, Reports

    021696 Working Draft No. 1, Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife, and Water Use Management Plan, folder 8, item 1
    010596 memo Rude/CH2M Hill to Hanson/Reclamation, etc.

    021696 Working Draft No. 2, Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife, and Water Use Management Plan, folder 8, item 2
    013196 memo Rude/CH2M Hill to Hanson/Reclamation, etc.

    021696 Working Draft No. 3, Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife, and Water Use Management Plan, folder 8, item 3
    021696 memo Rude/CH2M Hill to Hanson/Reclamation, etc.

    031896 Final Draft, Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife, and Water Use Management Plan, folder 8, item 4 [contrast with 1998 Final?]
  • 031896 memo Rude/CH2M Hill to Hanson/Reclamation, etc.
  • 031896 Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife and Water Use Mangement Plan, Project Schedule
  • 031896 Mail Distribution List, 03/18/1996 Final Draft, Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife and Water Use Mangement Plan, TOC differs from 1998:
    - Chapter 5 Management Options Evaluation
    - Chapter 6 Implementation Plans (Future Actions)
    - Chapter 7 Comments


    Category 2 Vol. 3, Reports

    032796 Finding of No Significant Impact, Rediversion of Water to the - Tehama-Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon, folder 9 item 1 [this one seems to be in the right order]

    031896 Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife, and Water Use Management Plan, - Comments on March 18, 1996 Final Draft, folder 9, item 2
  • 032796 L. Ryan Broddrick, CDFG ; cannot endorse this plan: 1) short timeline for comment, 2) only scoping, not remedial, doesn't meet promised plan objectives; biological info supplied by technical team has been ignored
  • 040196 C. DeJournette, Red Bluff Fisheries Forum; a part of the board and a technical team of Tehama Fly Fishers; suggests diverting Cottonwood flow separately to T-C C to improve Sacramento River temperatures;
  • 040596 Robert J. Baiocchi, CSPA; no mention of required 30 cfs bypass; trickle flow improper; expand hydrology to consider availability under all conditions; differentiate between options for wet & dry years ; should be point of flow requirements for multiple locations on the stream; analyses excluded CHO [resume HERE]
  • 041296 Felix E. Smith, CSPA
  • 041596 John Benoit, Glenn County
  • 041796 Steve Hirtzel, USFWS
  • 042296 Lois Flynne and Delbert Reimers, Land Owners [Lois only?]
  • 042296 Sandy Willard Denn, GCID
  • 042296 Janice Jennings, TCCA
    - 032596 Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority's White Paper
    - - Table 1 Number of days for which releases from Black Butte Dam exceeded certain flow values in cfs) for the period Nomber through March, Water Years 1965-1988
    - - Table 2 The average number of days, median number of days, and the percent of years in which certain daily flow values were exceeded during November through March, water years 1965 - 1988
  • 042296 Matt Brown, USFWS
  • 042296 Russell P. Yaworsky, USACE
  • 042396 Buford Holt, Reclamation

    042496 memo Rude/CH2M Hill to Hanson/Reclamation, etc.


    Category 2 Vol. 4, Reports

    091598 Revised Draft, Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife, and Water Use Management Plan, folder Cat 2 v. 4 item 1 [contrast with 1998 Final?] [missing big map]



    Cat 3, vols 1 Environmental Documents

    01??95 Final Environmental Assessment, Rediversion of Water to the - Tehama-Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon, stamped 02/06/1995, Folder 6 Item 1

    01??95 & 07/1995 Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment, - Rediversion of water to the Tehama Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon, Folder 6 Item 2

    01??95 Final Environmental Assessment, Rediversion of water to the Tehama-Colusa Canal at the Stony Creek Siphon, Folder 6 item 3, working copy
  • 020395 Finding of No Significant Impact SONSI No. 95-07-MP, /s/ Reclamation
  • Appendix B Reverse Operation of the Constant Head Orifice
    - Table 1, Average First of Month Storage (Thousand AF) in Stony Creek Reservoirs by Month
    - Table 2, Stony Creek Water Supply, Storage Thresholds for Classification (Acre-Feet) (high over 192,000 a-f total, medium, low under 152,000 a-f, a guide for evaluation)
    - Table 3, Tehama-Colusa Canal Service Area, Rainfall Thresholds for Classification (Wet over 3.6 inches 03/1-03/31, Med, Dry under 2.5" March, "Based on records for gage maintained by Westside Water District at Williams, California.")
    - Table 4, Anticipated Stony Creek Diversions (CFS) to Tehama-Colusa Canal Via CHO, Supply vs precip conditions
    - Table 4A, Anticipated Stony Creek Diversions (CFS) to Tehama-Colusa Canal Via CHO plus 30 CFS Stream Flows
    - Table 4B, Anticipated Stony Creek Diversions (CFS) to Tehama-Colusa Canal Via CHO + 30 CFS Stream Flows + 30% Loss
    - Table 5, Anticipated Stony Creek Diversions (AF) to Tehama-Colusa Canal
    - Table 6, Black Butte Release (AF) Required to Meet CHO Diversions Assuming 30 Percent Losses in Stony creek for 30 Days
    - Table 7, First of Month Storage in Black Butte Reservoir During Periods of CHO Diversions into the Tehama-Colusa Canal (first dates of each month, 03/01/1993 - 11/01/1994, from USA COE)
    - Table 8, Black Butte Release (AF) Required to Meet CHO Diversions Assuming 30 Percent Losses in Stony Creek for 45 Days (supply vs. precip conditions)
    - letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights, another copy
    - - 090795 Petition for Temporary Urgency Change, another copy
    - - 090795 Attachment to Petition for Temporary Urgency Change - Statement of Urgent Need, another copy
    - fax 090895 from Parkinson/SWRCB to Heffler/Reclamation, final EA does not discuss 20,000 a-f pool vs accumulated sediment (a copy of 08/28/1995 CSPA filing)
    - 091195 letter Stackhouse/Reclamation to Anton/Div WRights (same as undated draft from Patterson/Reclamation in vol. 8? re: why temporary urgency change is needed but with this copy being dated and a different signer this is apparently the missing actual letter
    - 020196 letter Baiocchi/CSPA to Meroney/Div WRights, another copy
    - UNDATED graphs Spring Operations on Stony Creek, 1993-1995, 1 table per year, cfs, selected dates
    - UNDATED graphs Comparison of Releases and Rediversions at the CHO in the Spring and Fall, 1996-1995, 1) Releases from Black Butte Dam, Spring and Fall, a-f by year; 2) Rediversions at CHO, Spring and Fall, a-f by year; 3) Comparison of Spring Releases and CHO Rediversions, a-f by year; 4) Comparison of fall Releases and CHO Rediversions, a-f by year
    - UNDATED graphs Fall Operations on Stony Creek, 1993-1995, cfs for selected dates for each year
    - 041694 fax t/l Faggard/Reclamation to Meroney/Hearing Unit, attached advance unsigned letter requesting time extension (like 04/14/1994 Davis letter?)
    - 020296 memo Broddrick/DFG to Anton/Div WRights, another copy

    - UNDATED outline Stony Creek Screening Model, presented by: Tom Morstein-Marx
    - - UNDATED table: Maximum Annual Allocations to (Requirements - Not Actual Demands) on Stony Creek (at each diversion)
    - - UNDATED table: % Annual Demands on Stony Creek Supplied Each Month (previous table, for each of 12 months) (handwritten note thereon re: Angle Decree, Orland amount is 325 cfs 1st priority, which of course is wrong)
    - - UNDATED table: % Annual Demands on Stony Creek Supplied Each
    - - UNDATED table: Maximum Annual Other Demand (with illegible handwritten note)
    - - UNDATED table: Year by year 1964-1994 % of max, OUWUA, CVP & Other Flows
    - - UNDATED table: month by month 10/63 - 10/66 Stony Creek Simulation, showing each diversiion, various stats
    - - UNDATED graph: Stony Creek Water Deliveries by Month, OUWUA, CVP, Other 10/64-10/68
    - - UNDATED graph: Stony Creek Water Deliveries by Month, OUWUA, CVP, Other 10/68-10/73
    - - UNDATED graph: Stony Creek Water Deliveries by Month, OUWUA, CVP, Other 10/73-10/78
    - - UNDATED graph: Stony Creek Water Deliveries by Month, OUWUA, CVP, Other 10/78-10/83
    - - UNDATED graph: Stony Creek Water Deliveries by Month, OUWUA, CVP, Other 10/83-10/88
    - - UNDATED graph: Stony Creek Water Deliveries by Month, OUWUA, CVP, Other 10/88-10/93
    - - UNDATED graph: Stony Creek Percent of Target Deliveries by Water Year, 1964-1994
    - - UNDATED graph: Stony Creek Model, Computed Spills, in TAF, 10/63-10/79
    - - UNDATED graph: Stony Creek Model, Computed Spills, in TAF, 10/79-10/93
    - - UNDATED graph: Stony Creek Model, Computed vs. Historic Storage, 10/79-10/93
    - - UNDATED graph: Stony Creek Model, Computed vs. Historic Releases 10/79-10/93
    - - UNDATED The Stony Creek Screening Model, Lotus 123 Rel 4 or later, "to be used as an initial screening tool to help assess the possibility of providing water for 'other' purposes, after legal and contractual system constraines have been met....not intended to be used to determine or schedule actual deliveries for any purpose, modify existing contracts, or determine the yield of the watershed." First priority OUWUA, 2nd CVP [wrong, co-equal with first is Public Trust]
    - - UNDATED Data Needs: 1) max contract/other amounts; 2) Monthly patterns for each demand

    - 110496 Notice of Completion (fwd by Buford 01/24/1997), Project title: GCID In-Basin water transfer to various contiguous agricultural parcels along District Boundaries", waterways: Salt Crk., Spring Crk., Funks Crk., Lurline Crk.
    - - UNDATED Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Environmental Checklist Form, "Project Location: Various land parcels predominately west of GCID's Main Canal throughout Glenn and Colusa Counties", "Transfer surplus base supply to various parcels of agricultural land outside, but contiguous to, the District's boundary during years that those waters are available within the basin. The program will last until the year 2004 (see attached description)" [no attachments]

    111398 [THE PLAN] Lower Stony Creek Fish, Wildlife and Water Use Management Plan November 13, 1998 ( scanned for me by Capitol Digital Document Solutions, Sacramento - broken up into 6 consecutive segments for ease of downloading), [SWRCB copy in Cat. 3 vol. 1 no label on the report saying so]
    one,
    two,
    three [add rest of CSPA public trust protest? Is this the 062995 CSPA filing?],
    four,
    five,
    six,
  • Tables
  • Figures
  • List of Acronyms
  • Executive Summary
  • 1. Introduction
    - 1.1 Background
    - 1.2 Purpose of Plan
    - 1.3 Project History
    - 1.4 History of Rediversion Operations and Permit Process
    - 1.5 Red Bluff Diversion Dam Operations
    - 1.6 List of Cooperators / Public Involvement
    - 1.7 Issues / Concerns
    - 1.8 Development Process
  • 2. Existing Conditions
    - 2.1 Introduction of Study Area
    - 2.2 Lower Stony Creek Watershed
    - - Climate
    - - Flows
    - - Vegetation
    - - Land Uses
    - - Morphology
    - - Native Species
  • 3. Existing Operations
    - 3.1 The Black Butte Project
    - 3.2 Diversions and Operations
    - 3.3 Descriptions of Diverters and Facilities
    - - Orland Unit Water Users Association
    - - Tehama-Colusa Canal Authority
    - - Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
    - 3.4 Descriptions of Operators and Facilities . .
    - - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
    - - U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    - - City of Santa Clara
    - 3.5 Historical and Current Hydrology on Stony Creek
    - - Representative Hydrologic Conditions
    - - Operating Conditions
    - - - Post-Black Butte Dam/Post-CHO Rediversions
    - - Available Water
  • 4. Constraints and Evaluation Criteria
    - 4.1 Constraints
    - 4.2 Evaluation Criteria
  • 5. Management Plan
    - 5.1 Introduction
    - 5.2 Other Restoration Programs
    - 5.3 Cooperative Efforts
    - 5.4 Issues
    - 5.5 Conclusions
    - - 5.5.1 Actions by Responsible and Cooperative Parties
    - - 5.5.2 Actions by Reclamation
  • 6. Bibliography
  • Appendix A. State Water Resource Control Board Order
  • Appendix B. Public Trust Protest
  • Appendix C. Petition Dismissal Terms and Conditions
  • Appendix D. Outstanding Protest Resolution
  • Appendix E. Stakeholder Needs and Expectations
  • Appendix F. Upper Stony Creek Watershed
  • Appendix G. Interactions of Current Trends
    - G.1 Channel Geomorphology
    - - Impacts of Channel Geomorphology on Land Use
    - - Impacts of Channel Geomorphology on Vegetation.
    - - Impacts of Channel Geomorphology on Fisheries
    - G.2 Flood Control Releases
    - G.3 Mining Operations
    - - Long-Term Effects of In-Channel Gravel Mining
    - - Future Expansion of Mining Operations
    - - Impacts of Gravel Mining to Vegetation
    - - Future Affects of Gravel Mining on Channel Morphology
    - - Future Affects of Gravel Mining on Hydrology
  • Appendix H. Impact of Changing Geomorphology
  • Appendix I. Stony Creek Streambed Substrate
  • Appendix J. Special-Status Wildlife Species
  • Appendix K. Flood Control Diagram
  • Appendix L Water Availability and Demand
    - A. The Stony Creek Screening Model - introduction .
    - - Computational Procedure
    - - Flow Management Options
    - - Results
    - - Conclusions
    - B. Water Storage
    - - Conclusions
  • Appendix to Ch.2
    - A. Geology of Stony Creek Fan
    - B. Groundwater
    - - Historical Groundwater Levels
    - - Groundwater Elevation Contours
    - - Aquifer Recharge
    - - Rainfall Infiltration
    - - - Deep Percolation of Applied Water
    - - - Stony Creek Seepage
    - - - Relative Importance of Stony Creek Seepage
    - C. Land Uses
    - - Private Land Uses Within the Study Area
    - - - Agriculture
    - - - Grazing
    - - - Gravel Mining
    - - - Rural Residential
    - - - Environmental Management
    - - - Private Stewards
    - - Public Land Uses Within the Study Area
    - D. Aggregate Resources
    - - Existing Aggregate Resources
    - - Description of Gravel Mining Operations
    - - - CalTrans Bridge Repairs
    - E. Channel Geomorphology
    - - Geomorphic Setting
    - - Pre- and Post-Black Butte Dam Conditions
    - - - Hydraulic Conditions
    - - - Fluvial Geomorphic Conditions
    - - - Current Longitudinal Changes in Fluvial Geomorphology
    - - - Channel Incision on Lower Stony Creek
    - - - Site-Specific Comparison of Aerial Photographs
    - - - Reach 1
    - - - Summary of Reach 1
    - - - Reach 2
    - - - Summary of Reach 2
    - - - Reach 3
    - - - Summary of Reach 3
    - - Reach 4
    - F. Riparian Habitat / Vegetation
    - - Mapping Methods
    - - Stony Creek Vegetation Map Unit Descriptions
    - - - Active Zone Units
    - - - Border Zone Units
    - - - Outer Zone Units
    - - Pre-Black Butte Conditions
    - - Post-Black Butte Dam Conditions
    - - - Current Extent and Quality of Riparian Habitats
    - - - Aerial Photograph Interpretation of Current Vegetation
    - - - Trends in Quality and Extent of Riparian Vegetation
    - - - General Observation of Changes to Riparian Vegetation
    - G. Fisheries Resources and Habitat
    - - - Existing Fisheries Resources
    - - - - Adult Non-Salmonid Migratory Species
    - - - - Smaller Non-Migratory Native Species
    - - - - Salmonids-History
    - - - - Salmonids-Recent Status
    - - - - Salmonid Spawning
    - - - - Non-Natal Juveniles
    - - - - Stony Creek Fish Species Collected in 1997
    - - - Life History Characteristics of Stony Creek Fish
    - - - Fishery Habitat Requirements and Existing Habitat Conditions
    - - - - Streamflows
    - - - - Daily Streamflow Variation Data
    - - - - Temperature
    - - - - - Salmonid Thresholds-Stony Creek
    - - - - - Salmonid Thresholds-Cottonwood Creek
    - - - - - Influences on Stream Temperatures
    - - - - - Stream Gage Data
    - - - - - Current Temperature Data and Suitability
    - - - - - Estimated Dates of Salmon Spawning/Fry Emergence
    - - - Substrate Conditions and Suitability
    - - - Riparian Habitat/In-stream Structural Diversity
    - - - Passage and Entrainment
    - - - Envisioned Salmonid Enhancement Concept on Stony Creek
    - H. Wildlife Resources
    - - Wildlife Values of Past Riparian Habitats
    - - Current Wildlife Habitat Values
    - - Special Status Species
    - - Threatened and Endangered Species
    - - Candidate and Special Concern Species
    - I. Climate
    - J. Applicable Statutes/Permit
    - - Federal Statutes
    - - State Statutes
    - - Private Property Rights
    - - Applicable Water Rights
    - - Public Trust Doctrine
  • Appendix to Ch. 3
    - A. Changes to Original Dam Design
    - B. City of Santa Clara
    - C. South Canal
    - D. North Canal
    - E. Lateral 40
    - F. GCID Interties
    - G. GCID
    - H. Other Diverters
    - I. Pre-Black Butte Dam
    - - Post Black Butte Dam-Pre CHO
  • Tables
    - 2-1 Estimated Stony Creek Seepage (acre-feet/yr)
    - 2-2 Cropping Distribution within Stony Creek Corridor
    - 2-3 Gravel Extraction Operations in the Study Area
    - 2-4 Interaction of Significant Channel Migration and Land Use
    - 2-5 Plant Community Series in Lower Stony Creek
    - 2-6 1992 Stony Creek Vegetation By Reach
    - 2-7 Fish Species Reported in the Stony Creek Watershed
    - 2-8 Spawning Period in California for Fish Collected from Lower Stony Creek, 1994
    - 2-9 Habitat Requirements for Representative Native Fish of Stony Creek
    - 2-10 Habitat Requirements for Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout . .
    - 2-11a Stony Creek Flows Downstream of Black Butte Dam (Dry Water Year 1991)
    - 2-1lb Stony Creek Flows Downstream of Black Butte Dam (Average Water Year 1996)
    - 2-11c Stony Creek Flows Downstream of Black Butte Dam (Wet Water Year 1993)
    - 2-l1d Stony Creek Flows Downstream of Black Butte Dam (Average Water Year 1997-Alternate)
    - 2-12 Flows and 20 Highest Rates of Change By Water Year
    - 2-13 Number of Days For Which Black Butte Releases Exceeded Flow Values
    - 2-14 Dates Daily Mean Stream Temperatures Reached Critical Water Temperatures in Lower Stony Creek and Cottonwood Creek
    - 2-15 Dates Daily Mean Stream Temperatures Reached Earliest Critical Water Temperatures for Salmon Lifestages
    - 2-16 Historic Dates For Which Stony Creek Stream Temperatures Reached Specific Thresholds
    - 2-17a Estimated Date of Emergence of Chinook Salmon Fry From Redds
    - 2-17b Estimated Dates of Spawning and Emergence of Chinook Salmon Fry Based on Daily Mean Stony Creek Water Temperature
    - 2-18 Estimated Dates of Spawning and Emergence of Chinook Salmon Fry Based on Daily Mean Cottonwood Creek Water Temperature .
    - 3-1 Average Monthly Precipitation within Lower Stony Creek Watershed for Representative Hydrologic Conditions
    - 3-2 CHO Rediversion Flows (acre-feet)
    - 3-3 Comparison of Inflows to Black Butte Reservoir, 1964-1985 Water Years (1,000 acre-feet)
    - 3-4 Historical Monthly Stony Creek Flows Modified by Storage in East Park and Stony Gorge Reservoirs in 1,000 acre-feet
    - G-l Interaction of Significant Channel Migration and Land Use
    - H-1 Pre- and Post Black Butte Dam Conditions
    - H-2 Changes in Current Conditions and Their Impacts
    - J-1 Special-Status Wildlife Species With Actual or Potential Occurrence
    - L-1 Potential Lower Stony Creek Flow Options and Water Temperatures
    - L-2 Storage in Black Butte With and Without GCID Diversions
  • Figures
    - 1-1 Constant Head Orifice Rediversion at Tehama-Colusa Canal
    - 1-2 Stony Creek Water Use Management Plan Development Process
    - 2-1 Stony Creek Watershed Map
    - 2-2 Geologic Map of the Stony Creek Fan Area
    - 2-3 Location of Wells
    - 2-4 Hydrographs for Wells Near Stony Creek
    - 2-5 FaIl 1977 Groundwater Elevation Data and Contours
    - 2-6 Fall 1980 Groundwater Elevation Data and Contours
    - 2-7 Fall 1993 Groundwater Elevation Data and Contours
    - 2-8 Stony Creek Seepage Estimated from Gage Data and Curves Used to Estimate Seepage for Alternatives Evaluation
    - 2-9 Stony Creek Study Area West, Land Use
    - 2-10 Stony Creek Study Area Central, Land Use
    - 2-11 Stony Creek Study Area East, Land Use
    - 2-12 Reach Names Compared
    - 2-13 Change in Particle Size with Downstream Distance
    - 2-14 Stony Creek Study Area West, Geomorphology .
    - 2-15 Stony Creek Study Area Central, Geomorphology
    - 2-16 Stony Creek Study Area East, Geomorphology . .
    - 2-17 Longitudinal Profile Changes Between 1968 and 1990
    - 2-18 Stony Creek Study Area West, Vegetation
    - 2-19 Stony Creek Study Area Central, Vegetation
    - 2-20 Stony Creek Study Area East, Vegetation
    - 2-21 Approximate Life History for Sacramento River Salmon and Steelhead
    - 2-22 Estimated Annual Stony Creek Unimpaired Flow at Black Butte Dam
    - 2-23A Unimpaired Average Monthly inflow to Black Butte Dam by Annual Flow Percentile (1921-1994)
    - 2-23B Estimated Unimpaired Flow in Thousand acre-feet (1921-1994)
    - 2-24a Stony Creek Temperatures at Black Butte Dam USGS Gage (Water Years 1970 through 1994)
    - 2-24b Cottonwood Creek Temperatures at Cottonwood USGS Gage (Water Years 1977-1985)
    - 2-25 Stony Creek Temperatures Below Black Butte Gage
    - 2-26 Stony Creek Temperatures at Road 99 Gage
    - 2-27 Stony Creek Temperatures at St. Johnís Gage
    - 2-28 Stony Creek Temperatures Near the Nature Conservancy
    - 2-29 Stony Creek Annual Temperatures
    - 2-30 Number of Days Temperature Suitable for Fall Chinook Salmon in Stony Creek (1970 - 1994)
    - 2-31 Stony Creek Study Area West, Fisheries
    - 2-32 Stony Creek Study Area Central, Fisheries
    - 2-33 Stony Creek Study Area East, Fisheries
    - 2-34 Historic Number of Days/Year in Which GCIDís Gates Were Closed
    - 3-1 Flow Diagram of Stony Creek
    - 3-2a Tehama-Colusa Canal Operations Constant Head Orifice and Lateral 40 Intertie Flows
    - 3-2b CHO Historical Spills
    - 3-3 Historical Black Butte Reservoir Operations for the Central Valley Project and Flood Control 1963-1995
    - 3-4 Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Monthly Diversions from Stony Creek for Calendar Years 1991, 1993, 1996
    - F-1 Geologic Map of Upper Stony Creek Watershed
    - L-l Stony Creek Screening Model Connectivity Diagram

    - SWRCB working copy:
    - - p. 2-1 "Since 1921 estimated unimpaired flows have been virtually zero from approximately June through October in most years" (note: "in what part of watershed")
    - - various phrases highlighted, especially under Fisheries in Appendix to Ch. 2 A-2-49 - A-2-84
    - - various post-it notes attached to sleeve with large map
    - - - [3rd page of them]: 3 or 5) optimal (suitable) temps for spawning in Stony Creek range from Nov-Late April. 4) Spawning conditions for salmon are apparently only suitable during high flow years.


    Cat 3, vols 2 Environmental Documents

    06??83 State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish - and Game, Thomes-Newville Unit, Fish and Wildlife Evaluation, A Status Report, 207 pp., poor copy




    Cat 20, vols 1-3, Transcripts and Exhibits


    Category 20 Volume 1, Transcripts and Exhibits

    folder, Index to Exhibits, A18115 and 19451, Folder #4, Date Index
  • Item 1 - 2 transcripts dated 11/28/61 & 11/29/61
  • Item 2 - State Water Rights Board
    - Exh. 1 Files of Appls. 18115 and 19451 (by reference)
    - Exh. 2 USGS Surface Water Supplyu papers Part 11, "Pacific Slope Basins in Calif.,"
    - Exh. 3 Sact.-San Joaquin Water Supervision Rpts., 1924 thru 1959 incl. (by ref.)
    - Exh. 4 Reserve for Topographic Maps published by USGS for area under consideration (by reference)
  • Item 3 - Sacto. River & Delta Water Users Assoc.
    - Exh. 1 SWRB Decision D 990 (by reference)
  • Item 4 - Stony Cr. Water Users Assoc.
    - Exh. 1 Table "Irr., yield & benefits
    - Exh. 2A Reservoir Operation Study Rainbow Diversion Dam East Park Reservoir & Stoney [sic] Gorge Reservoir
    - Exh. 2B Reservoir Operation Study, Rainbow Diversion Dam East Park Reservoir & Stoney [sic] Gorge Reservoir and Black Butte Reservoir
    - Exh. 2C Explanation of Reservoir Operation Study
    - Exh. 3 "List of Protestants Comprising Stoney Cr Water Users Assoc." Consisting of 3 pages
    - Exh. 4 Map, "Elk Cr Soil Cons. Dist., Glenn Co., Calif.
    - Exh. 5 "Ownership Map Portion of Glenn Co.," dated May 1961
    - Exh. 6 Resolution No. 61-65, Co. of Glenn, dated 11/20/61
    - Exh. 7 Letter to Miss Lexandra Gilman from J. Edgar Dick, dated 9/25/61
    - Exh. 8 Table 1 "Runoff Data"
    - Exh. 9 Bulletin #58 "Northeast Counties Inves." dated Dec., 1957 (by reference)
    - Exh. 10 Table 48 from Bulletin #58, 2 pages
    - Exh. 11 Table 50 from Bulletin #58, 1 page
  • Item 5 - Glenn-Colusa Irr. Dist.
    - Exh. 1 Map "Glenn-Colusa Irr. dist." dated 1956
    - Exh. 2 Table "Total Acres in Crops Irrigated in Jacinto & Glenn-Colusa Irr. Dist. for years 1920-1961"
    - Exh. 3 Table "Stoney Cr.--dates Water Started & Stopped--1920--1960"
    - Exh. 4 Table, "Acre-Feet Diverted from Stoney Cr by Month & Year," 1929-1958
    - Exh. 5 Deed dated 7/11/21 consisting of 5 pages
    - Exh. 6 Notice of Water Location dated 4/11/03 - 2 pages
    - Exh. 7 Notice of Appropriation dated 11/14/04 - 2 pages
    - Exh. 8 Notice of Water Location Posted 4/26/05 - 1 sheet
    - Exh. 9 Protest of USBR against Appl. 19354, dated 11/8/60
    - Exh. 10 Protest of USBR against Appls. 19901 thru 19905, dated 4/20/61
    - Exh. 11 Protest of USBR against Appls. 19940, 19941, 19942, 19989, 19926, 19838, 19555, 19733, 19437, 19355, 19298, 19297, 18896 (By reference)
    - Exh. 12 SWRB Decision D 1042 (By reference)
  • Item 6 - USBR
    - Exh. 1 House Document No. 649, 78th Congress, 2nd Session, "Sacto. Riv. & tribs., Calif., from Collinsville to Shasta," dated 6/5/44 (by ref.)
    - Exh. 1A Excerpt from page 17, House Doc. #649, 78th Congress, 2nd Session
    - Exh. 1B Excerpt from page 17, House Doc. #649, 78th Congress, 2nd Session
    - Exh. 2 General map Black Butte Proj. Stoney Cr., Calif., dated April, 1957
    - Exh. 3 Map, "Orland Proj., Calif." No. 22-208-96, dated July, 1961
    - Exh. 4 Table, "Actual Storage at end of Month East Park Reservoir," for the period 1910-1911 thru 1956-1957
    - Exh. 5 Table, "Actual Storage at end of Month Stoney Gorge Reservoir" for the period 1928-1929 thru 1956-1957
    - Exh. 6 East Park Dam--plan in sections dated Aug., 1961, Darwing #22-208-98
    - Exh. 7 Stoney Gorge Dam general plan, elevation & Sections date 3/4/27, Drawing No. 22-D-52
    - Exh. 8 Black Butte Dam plan & profile & Sections dated July, 1960, Drawing No,. 654-208-4, including dikes, including dike #1 between Stony & Hambright where road to Simpson Bridge used to pass through
    - Exh. 9 Letter to B.P. Bellport & Harvey Banks dated 3/5/59-4 pages
    - Exh. 10 Map, "Tehama-Colusa Service Area" dated May, 1960, Drawing #602-208-790
    - Exh. 11 Contract No. 14-0+-200-8209 dated 5/2/60, "Contract for Repayment of Allocation of Costs in Black Butte Dam & Reservoir--to the capacity of the reservoir to be utilized for water conservation & for the repayment of operation & maintenance costs incurred by the U.S."-36 pages
    - Exh. 12 Decree in case of U.S. vs H.C. Angle et al- 179 pages
    - Exh. 13 Table, "Historical Diversions from Stoney Cr."--dated April, 1957
    - Exh. 14 Table, "Stoney Cr.-- Diversions of Glenn-Colusa Irr.Dist." for period 1925-1956
    - Exh. 15 "Location map for Photos of Stoney Cr. near St. John
    - Exh. 15A2 Aerial photo of Glenn-Colusa Diversion Dam on Stoney Cr., 6/27/61
    - Exh. 15B1 Photos of Glenn-Colusa Diversion Dam on Stoney Cr., 4/28/61
    - Exh. 15B2 Photos of Glenn-Colusa Diversion Dam on Stoney Cr., 4/28/61
    - Exh. 16 Table 30, "Estimated Historical Runoff of Stoney Cr. to Sacto. Riv." for period 1921-1922 thru 1958-1959
    - Exh. 17 Agreement dated 9/24/07-Central Canal & Irr. Co. with U.S., -- 5 pages with attachments
    - Exh. 18 Letter to Harvey Banks from E.F. Sullivan dated 9/2/60
    - Exh. 19 Letter to E.F. Sullivan from Harvey Banks dated 10/27/60
    - Exh. 20 Letter to Harvey Banks from E.F. Sullivan dated 12/8/60
    - Exh. 21 "Stream Gaging Stations & Snow Courses, Black Butte Proj., Stoney Cr., Calif.," dated April, 1957
    - Exh. 22 "Flood Control Storage Reservation Diagram, Black Butte Proj., Stoney Cr., Calif.," Dated April, 1959

    CVP Proposed Service Areas of Federal Central Valley Project, Sheet 1 of 4, 214-208-3355 Folder #2 Item #7 "Points of Diversion and Other Features of Central Valley Project", Features 1 - 53
    CVP Proposed Service Areas of Federal Central Valley Project, Sheet 2 of 4, 214-208-3354 Folder #2 Item #8 (with numbered diversion points?)
    CVP Proposed Service Areas of Federal Central Valley Project, Sheet 3 of 4, 214-208-3355 Folder #2 Item #5 "Points of Diversion and Other Features of Central Valley Project", Features 1 - 53
    CVP Proposed Service Areas of Federal Central Valley Project, Sheet 4 of 4, 214-208-3356 Folder #2 Item #6 "Points of Diversion and Other Features of Central Valley Project", 54 Black Butte Dam, 55 Stony Canal, 56 Junction of Stony and Tehama-Colusa Canals (only items on the sheet)

    091560 Transcript Public Hearing of the Department of Water Resources- [MISSING]

    091660 Transcript Public Hearing of the Department of Water Resources - California Water Commission held in Agriculture Building Sacramento, California Friday, September 16, 1960 10:00 O'Clock, A.M. Re: Bureau Request on Black Butte Dam.; [some factual errors in Mr. Renoud's testimony] p. 5 Glenn Canal? p. 6, hearing is set on "Sacramento Valley Canals at which time we will hear the Bureau and the local people as to whether we build the canal as you have indicated with the pumping plant on the Glenn Canal or whether it would be better to go back to the gravity canal", p. 7 Stony Canal to connect Black Butte with the Glenn Canal; Renoud read Dugan letter into the record; p. 19 Tehama Intake Canal pumping plant, supply water to T-C Canal;

    Water Commission Hearing for Assignment, Folder #2, Item Index, Exhibit Maps
  • Index to Maps, Request for Assignment of Application 18115 to the United States of America
    - Item 1 - Map No. 22-208-96 entitled "Orland Project".
    - Item 2 - Map No. 602-208-784 entitled "Tehama Colusa Service Area, Canal Location and Major Features".
    - Item 3 - Map No. 654-208-4 entitled "Black Butte Dam, Plan, Profile and Sections".
    - Item 4 - Map No. 654-208-5 entitled "Black Butte Dam, Reservoir Area Topography".
    - Item 6 Map No. 214-208-3355 Proposed Service Areas of Federal Central Valley Project
    - Item 7 Map No. 214-208-3356 Proposed Service Areas of Federal Central Valley Project
    - Item 8 Map No. 214-208-3353 Proposed Service Areas of Federal Central Valley Project
    - Item 9 Map No. 214-208-3354 Proposed Service Areas of Federal Central Valley Project

    - Map No. 602-208-784 entitled "Tehama Colusa Service Area, Canal Location and Major Features".; shows 3 different Sacramento River lift stations: 1) Tehama Intake Channel opposite Deer Creek, 2) Glenn Intake Channel just north of GCID intake, 3) Colusa Intake Channel at Grimes, plus Canals radiating north & south from each lift station, plus 4) Stony Canal to Glenn Canal [different from -790]

    Folder #2, Item 1 through 8
  • Item 1 - Map No. 22-208-96 entitled "Orland Project", back, 3.8 a-f
  • Item 3 - Map No. 654-208-4 entitled "Black Butte Dam, Plan, Profile and Sections".
  • Item 4 - 654-208-5 Black Butte Dam, Reservoir Area Topography (shows dikes)



    Category 20 Volume 2, Transcripts and Exhibits

    Folder 4A Item 6 Exhibit 12 Decree in case of U.S. vs H.C. Angle et al - 179 pages [not the "Corrected Decree"
    Folder 4 Item 1 volume 1 Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings held at - Sacramento, California on Tuesday November 28, 1961
    Folder 4 Item 1 volume 2 Reporter's Transcript of Hearing, Wed. - November 29, 1961, 10:30 o'clock a.m. Hearing Room, State Water Rights Board, 1401 21st Street, Sacramento, California
    Folder 4 Item 4, Exhibit 5 "Ownership Map, Portion of Glenn Co., - Division of Soil Conservation" dated May 1961
    Exh. 1 Map "Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District" 1956
    Folder #4 Item #4, Exh. 4 Map, "Elk Creek Soil Conservation District, Glenn Co., Calif.

    Folder 4 Item 4, Exhibits 1,2C,3,6,7,8,10 and 11 -
  • Exh 1 Table VII.--Irrigation Yield and Annual Benefits
  • Exh. 2C Corps of Engineers Operation Studies (Explanation of Reservoir); Corps of Engineers Study U-1 ? Study R-1?
  • Exh. 3 "List of Protestants Comprising Stoney Creek Water Users Association.", alpha, showing existing & proposed storage
  • Exh. 6 Resolution No. 61-65, Co. of Glenn, dated 11/20/61, does not oppose Black Butte provided "proper conditions are imposed protecting the rights of upstream landowners...should contain provisions reserving adequate water upstream from the Black Butte Dam for the future needs and beneficial use of water by upstream owners preserving in said applications the right of the 'County of Origin' law."
  • Exh. ?; recitation of the California Cattlemen's Asssociation resolution supporting the Stony Creek Landowners Association in their effort and effort by anyone else in the state to store water (for livestock?)
  • Exh. 8 Table 1 "Runoff Data" ; Sacramento River & Tributaries
  • Exh. 10 Table 48 from Bulletin #58, 2 pages, Estimated Mean Seasonal Consumptive Use of Applied Water on Present Service Areas (1954 to 1956) within Hydrographic Units, Northeastern Counties
  • Exh. 11 Table 50 from Bulletin #58, 1 page, Probable Ultimate Mean Seasonal Consumptive use of Applied Water Within Hydrographic Units Northeastern Counties

    [Binder:] -
  • Exh. 1A thru 11 and 13 thru 16, Exhibits in Connection with Hearing Before the State Water Rights Board on United States Applications 18115 and 19451 to Appropriate Unappropriated Water from Stony Creek in Connection with the Black Butte Project.
    - 1A 060544 Not actually a letter, but mentioning two letters to 78th Congress 2d Session, House Doc #649, "submitting an interim report, together with accompanying papers and illustrations, on a preliminary examination and survey of Sacrmaento River and Tributaries, California, from Collinsville to Shasta Dam...under the povisions of the Flood Control act approved on June 22, 1936, and requested by a resolution of the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, adopted on May 19, 1936."
    - Exh. 1 House Document No. 649, 78th Congress, 2nd Session, "Sacto. Riv. & tribs., Calif., from Collinsville to Shasta," dated 06/05/1944 (by ref.)
    - - Taken from p. 17 Sect. 2, House Doc. #649, 78th Congress, "most urgent...the construction of Black Butte Dam and Resrvoir..."
    - - p. 900-901 taken from Public Laws--Ch. 665--12/22/1944, provisions by reference, request knowledge of the underlying "recommendations of the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 649, 78th Congress, second session" to know what is being approved
    - Exh. 2 04??57 General map Black Butte Project. Stony Creek, California (outline map of the watershed)
    - Exh. 3 Map, "Orland Project., Calif." No. 22-208-96, July, 1961 - 3.8 a-f per acre per year on back
    - Exh. 4 04??57 Table Black Butte Project, Stony Creek, California, - Actual Storage at End of Month, East Park Reservoir, in a-f; 1910-1957
    - Exh. 5 04??57 Table Black Butte Project, Stony Creek, California, - Actual Storage at End of Month, Stony Gorge Reservoir, in a-f; 1928-1957
    - Exh. 6 08??61 Graphic, East Park Dam - Plan and Sections: Maximum - Section A-A; Plan; Outlet Section B-B; Spillway Plan; Outlet Sectin C-C; Spillway Section X-X
    - Exh. 7 030427 Graphic, Stony Gorge Dam - Plan, Elevation and Sections; - Location Map; Plan; Upstream Elevation; Capacity and Discharge Curves; Section A-A, Section B-B, Section C-C
    - Exh. 8 030427 Graphic, Black Butte Dam - Plan, Profile, and Sections; - Vicinity Map; [project components on topo map]; Area-Capacity, Outlet & Spillway Discharge; Profile at Axis of Main Dam; profile along Axis of Spillway; Maximum Section - main Dam; Profile on [CL ?] of Outlet Works; Typical Dike Section
    - Exh. 9 030559 letter Banks/DWR to Bellport/Reclamation, another copy -
    - Exh. 10 05??60 map Tehama-Colusa Service Area 602-208-790 - [different from -784]; diversion from RBDD instead of from 3 pump stations on the river
    - Exh. 11 030260 Contract for Repayment of Allocation of Costs of Black - Butte Dam and Reservoir to the Capacity of the Reservoir to be Utilized for Water Conservation and for the Repayment of Operation and Maintenance Costs incurred by the United States, #14-06-200-8209 between Reclamation and DWR, third copy
    - Exh. 12 single sheet "In reference, Decree in the Case of The United States of America, Plaintiff vs. H.C. Angle, et al., Defendants, In Equity No. 30 , In the Northern Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Second Division"
    - Exh. 13 04??57 Black Butte Project, Historical Diversions from Stony - Creek 1909-1956: Diversions to Orland Project Irrigation Area in thousand acre-feet; Diverions to East Park Reservoir for Storage in thousand acre-feet
    - Exh. 14 Stony Creek - Diversions of Glenn-colusa I.D. (Source: - Reports of Sacramento-San Joaquin Water Supervision), 1925-1956
    - Exh. 15 Location Map of Photographs for Stony Creek near St. John - [essentially, GCID diverisions]
    - Exh. 15A & B Photos referenced on Exh. 15 -
    - Exh. 30 (a - Table 30 of 1957 Joint Hydrology Study, extended through - September 1959) Estimated Historical Runoff of Stony Creek to Sacramento River* (* A USBR estimate made by subtracting historical Glenn-Colusa I.D. Canal diversion from the historical flow of Stony creek near Hamilton City (partly an estimated record, and allowing certain channel losses).) 1921-1959



    Category 20 Volume [3?], Transcripts and Exhibits

    - 04??58 Stony Creek Water Users Association Exh. 2A, Black Butte Project, Summary; actual photo copies, columns 1-48, 1904-1956, behind it 18 sheets of month-by-month for years, column explanations on last sheet,

    - 04??58 Stony Creek Water Users Association Exh. 2B, Black Butte Project, R-1 Summary; actual photo copies, columns 1-64, 1904-1956, behind it 18 sheets of month-by-month for years, column explanations on last sheet, [how are 2A & 2B different?]

    Folder 4a, Items 5 & 6 -
    - Item 5 - Exh. 2 - 10
    - GCID Exh 2 Total Acres and Crops Irrigated in Jacinto and Glenn Colusa - Irrigation Districts for the Years 1920 to 1961
    - GCID Exh 3 Stony Creek - Dates water started & stopped 1920-1960 - (actually, diversion installation & removal dates)
    - GCID Exh 4 Ac/Ft. Diverted from Stony Creek by Month and Year - - 1929 - 1958
    - GCID Exh 5 071121 Indenture 1) Thomas J. Franklin, Special Master by - Decree, 2) The Equitable Trust Company of New York and Joseph N. Babcock as trustees under that certain mortgage made to The Trust Company of America and Joseph D. O'Neill (as predecessors in interest of Equitable & Babcock) by Sacramento Valley Irrigation Company 06/01/1909, 3) Merle B. Moon, 4) GCID & Jacinto ID; (1) 02/07/1921 sold at auction to (3), (3) 07/07/1921 assigned to (4), (1) conveys to (4) water rights
    - - GCID Exh 6 041103 Sheldon Notice of Water Location 5000 cfs -
    - - GCID Exh 7 111404 CCIC Notice of Appropriation 5000 cfs -
    - - GCID Exh 8 042605 CID Notice of Water Location 5000 cfs -
    - GCID Exh 8 110860 Reclamation protest of Ap 19534 , Theo & Shirley - Weissich on trib. of Pigeon Creek, on behalf of Orland Project, project use "max 128,236 a.f 1953, average 111,035 a.f. 1913-1958;"
    - GCID Exh 10 042061 Reclamation protest of Ap 19901, 19902, 19903, - 19904 and 19905 Francis P. and Florence Masterson; project 111,200 a.f. average 1913-1960

    Item 6 - Exh. 17 - 22
    - Reclamation Exh 17 092407 Agreement CCIC & Reclamation -
    - Reclamation Exh 18 090260 letter Sullivan/Reclamation to Banks/DWR 59,000 available for sale from Black Butte of which 9,300 to be delivered above Black Butte
    - Reclamation Exh 19 102760 letter Banks/DWR to Sullivan/Reclamation - figure 10,600 vs your 9,300 a-f
    - Reclamation Exh 20 120860 letter ???/Reclamation to Banks/DWR, - agreed
    - [no 21]
    - Reclamation Exh 20 04??59 Black Butte Project, Stony Creek, California - Flood-Control Storage Reservation Diagram SC-26-19

    - Reclamation Exh 21 04??57 Black Butte Project, Stony Creek, California - Stream Gaging Stations and Snow Courses SC-1-26-61

    [in progress]


    100109 filed, Protest against 40-year extension Forms, Supplement, Exhibits
    Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

    --Mike Barkley, 161 N. Sheridan Ave. #1, Manteca, CA 95336 (H) 209/823-4817
    mjbarkl@inreach.com