THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS
Glenn County - Tehama County - Colusa County , California.
(c) 2010, Mike Barkley (05/04/2010)

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

SWRCB APPLICATION A028994 - Whitney Case Index
[see also http://swrcb2.waterboards.ca.gov/ewrims/wrims-permits/p020655.pdf ]

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



Cat 1 CORRESPONDENCE VOL. 1 OF 2 RECORD OF FOLDER [" F " - date filed if date originated not evident]

[Inside of file front cover]

Applicant: Leon Whitney
Address: c/o Stephen Miller, P.O. Box 8546, Truckee, CA 95737

Map code EE-12 Quad Name Chrome 7.5'
Application 28994 Permit 20665
Applicant: Leon Whitney
Date Filed 03/25/1987 Maps Filed 03/25/1987 EA County No. 11 Fee $196.00
Forms Sent 07/17/1987 8, 8A, 8B;

Protests:
072787 GCID Ans dism/withdrawn 05/25/1988
090187 OUWUA Ans dism/withdrawn 05/25/1988
091487 CDFG Ans dism/withdrawn 10/12/1988

Remarks
  • 072387 Stmt of Posting Received
  • 081387 Affidavit of Pub Received
  • 042089 WR 89-8 received, "adopted?";
  • 022393 Permit 20655 issued
  • 031497 Order approving a new devel. schedule & amending the permit issued;

    Record of Fees:
    032587 $190.00
    040687 $ 6.00

    Permit
    021193 $100.00; Extension 11/14/1996 $50.00; change 03/05/1992 $100.00

    Record of Folders

    [WR 89-8 or 89-08,
    http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/waterrights/board_decisions/adopted_orders/orders/1989/wro89-08.pdf

    46 Bay-Delta protests of various upstream applications,
    including p. 4 Ap. 28994 Leon Whitney, Glenn County, Unnamed Stream Trib. Grindstone Cr., Use: E,I,R,S, season 11/01 - 04/30 , 1,300 afa
    p. 9 Sacramento River Watershed, Filings Proposing Winter Diversion or without Apparent Hydraulic Continuity, 28994 Whiitney
    ties in with D-1594, 84-2
    p. 45 "protests filed by Delta Water Users Association against...28994 (Whitney)...on the Sacramento River and its tributaries are dismissed and rejected." ]

    [Inside of file back cover]

    [no ] Progress Data

    LOOSE PAPERS IN BACK OF FILE;

    021092 F map, Proposed Dam and Reservoir Map for Leon Whitney, in a portion of the N 1/2 S7 T21N R6W MDB & M, Glenn County, CA; certificate of enginner, Stephen L. Miller, 17400 Northwoods Boulevard #4, Truckee, CA 96161 916/587-8848
  • Area - Capacity curve
  • Location map, placement within 6 sections, 2 across x 3 down, S5, S6, S7, S8, S17, S18, latter 2 with Grindstone Creek, unnamed stream entering in NW 1/4 S17
  • Plan of Dam and Reservoir, dam & dike, crest el 905' base 820-830';
    05??63 copy of Figure 4-1 East Park Dam, Stony Gorge & Black Butte Dam (Santa Clara) Hydroelectric Project location map, locates those 3 on an area watershed map
    052087 F Proposed Dam & Reservoir Map for Leon Whitney; Stephen L. Miller, 3173 Payne Avenue #4, San Jose, CA 408/971-7800
  • Area-Capacity curves
  • Location Map, S5, S6, S7, S8, S17, S18; POU cross-hatched area in W 1/2 S5, # 1/4 S6, NE 1/4 S7, NW 1/4 S8, 298 acres in pieces.
  • Plan of Dam & Reservoir
    Returned envelopes,
  • 071787 OUWUA P.O. Box 766 Orland
    - 071787 Notice of Application to Appropriate
  • 122988 Leon Whitney c/o Stephen Miller, 3173 Payne Avenue #4, San Jose, CA 95117, thence to P.O. Box 3040, Truckee CA 95734-3040 return to sender, fwd time expired
    - Notice of Public Hearing on Declaration of Fully Appropriated Stream Systems, 03/14/1989
  • 071787 Moldenhauer, Bennett & Co., 1340 Covell Street, Suite 108, Davis, CA 95116 - mail delayed due to incorrect zip code/addressee unknown
    - 071787 Notice of Application to Appropriate

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

    1987


    030987 Application to Appropriate Unappropriated Water; work copy, Leon Whitney, 916/968-5129 Star Route Box 61 Orland, CA 95963 , unnamed creek, thence Grindstone Creek, thence Stony Creek thence Sacramento River; N49 57' 10" E , 3474.49' SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 S7 T21N R6W MD; crossed off: N33 40' 05" E , 2728.89' same, but this second one crossed off in black, first crossed off in red, per 1992 E-map, klm, South 2825 feet and West 1,500 feet from NE corner of S7; direct 6 cfs, 700 a-f/yr, 03/01 - 11/01; storage 1300 a/f, 1/1 - 12/31, per 04/13/1987 contact report 05/20/1988 letter 1300 ch to 370 -f per 03/11/1992 contact report kdm; LW 03/19/1987 $190.00; irrigated pasture 300 acres, sprinkler, flood 700 a-f 03/01 - 11/01, no residences, stock: cattle max 200, rangeland; fishing, swimming, boating, & other; by gravity via buried pipeline & open ditch, estimated total cost $350,000; pvc pipe 15" diameter 2000 feet 100 foot fall + or - 15 ft, 6 cfs; dam 115' high, earth, 650' long, 5' freeboard, 32 acre surface, 1300 a-f capacity, 85' max depth, all changed to : per map submitted 02/10/1992 KDM, 80' high, 161 surface acres, 370 a-f capacity, 80' deep; POU 298 acres in S5, S6, S7, S8; start 1987 finish 1990; nearest P.O. Elk Creek; agent, Steven Miller, San Jose; Application Map "main Canal or Pipeline" from S7 to S6 & 5
  • topo photo, S5, S6, S7, S8, S17, S18, showing Grindstone Creek, unnamed creek, dam & reservoir location 1/4 mile north of Watson Grave, proposed canal or pipeline out of canyon curving north past lands in E 1/4 S7 & 6, thence somehow to E 1/2 W 1/2 S5, total 116 acres, both sides of Hull Road; [05/2010 Google shows dam never built, but cultivation on that part of S5 berween Hull Road & Watson Creek; dry farming?]
  • Environmental Information;
    - Project & Site: "The landuse in the vicinity of the area of the proposed dam is rangeland with rolling foothills. The vegetation consists of annual grasses, oaks and digger pines. The irrigation water will be diverted via pipe to flatter land below the damsite;
    - dry? yes, June - Sept
    - changes? "In the pool area and at the damsite all vegetation will be removed. Also earth materials will be taken from the pool area and nearby flat lands.
    - archaeological/historical? "'Watson Grave' is located southwest of the proposed damsite. The site will not be effected [sic]."
    - County contact: G. Pride, APN 025-11-0-009-0-0, County Supervisor [?]
    - F & G: David R. Gardner, 916/865-5417, no resident or migratory game fish; "This project will enhance existing fish & wildlife species" /s/ Mr. Gardner? 03/01/1987; "Warden Dave Gardner, Rt 3 Box 3141, Orland, CA 95963"
    - 02??87 aerial color photo, Damsite looking west, at the scarp?
    - 02??87 aerial color photo, Property looking north
    - 02??87 aerial color photo, Property looking south, homestead is 3rd lake in distance
    - 02??87 aerial color photo, Property looking east, showing home, shop, A20513 & land levelled & irrigated? many vehicles, Rocky Ridge
  • - 032587 Contact Report Edward G. McCarthy/Div WRights called Leon Whitney; "question as to the second diversion listed on the application. I called the applicant, Mr. Whitney, to clarify the issue. Mr. Whitney stated water for irrigation would be diverted from the proposed storage pond at the first point of diversion. The irrigation water will be transported by pipeline/ditch to acreage for irrigation. [para] The existing stream channel will NOT be used to transport water. The applicant agreed that the second diversion listed (N 33 40' 5" E, 2728.89', SW 1/4 NE 1/4 S7 Tn21N R6W, MDB & M) in the application is incorrect and should be deleted."
  • - Supplement to Application; Irrigation, stock water, recreation and fire control; 24" diameter 600' long 40' fall 80' head, 200' dead storage;
  • - Application to Appropriate Water, Environmental Information;
    - descr: "an earthfill embankment dam. The dam will have a vertical height at the face side of approximately 200 feet and a crest length of 600 feet. The construction activity will involve tree removal and soil excavation in the pool area and also soil excavation on the applicants [sic] property nearby. The soil will be excavated and trucked to the dam with earth scrapers and compacted with sheepsfoot rollers. There are no existing buildings or structures in the vicinity of the damsite and pool area. The storage capacity of the reservoir will be approximately 1300 Acre-feet and the water will be used for irrigation, stockwater, recreation and fire control."
    - County: APN 025-11-0-006-0, 025-11-0-009-0, 027-20-0-016-0, zoning FA160, contact Rick Johston [sic], Public work 05/08/1987 916/934-5448 Gloria Feeney, Planning, 916/934-3388; no permits needed
    - archaeological/historical: "'Watson Grave' is located southwest of the proposed damsite. The site will not be affected."
    - land use: "Rangeland - photos submitted"
    - POU: "Rangeland and irrigated pasture (irrigation by pumping)
    - vegetation: "Annual grasses, oaks, and digger pine"
    - changes: "...removal of soil and trees (oak and digger pine - approximately 20 each species and up to 50 years old) in the reservoir pool. The soil will be used to construct the earthfill dam 200 feet high and 600 feet long at the crest. A 1500 feet long spillway will be constructed at the north embankment of the dam. A diversion pipeline will be constructed to provide irrigation for the fields below the dam. The pipeline will direct water to an open trench approximately 200 feet from the dam and the open trench will transverse [sic] the hillside in a northerly direction to various discharge points along the irrigated fields."
    - CDFG contact, Warden David Gardner, 02/23/1987, 916/865-5417, visited area 02/27/1987, Gardner inspected; Streambed Alteration Agreement required; in the stream: pike, suckers & trout, "Not every year. If they do its generally in the spring."
    - species enhanced: "California Blacktail Deer, Morning [sic] Dove, Turkey, Quail, Mallards, Wooducks [sic], Canadian Geese, Black Bass, Catfish, Bluegill, etc.
  • 031987 tag attached to front; Fee Rec'd $190.00, Engr, Appl, total due $196.00, balance due $6.00; stream code Q-230-00-00-8, map code EE-12, Quad Chrome, 7.5'; adjudicated area? No; Calif. Coordinates N 738,450 E 1,837,500; Zone 2

    010487 [probably 01/04/1988] letter Clark/GCID to Chandler/SWRCB; "District's protests of the following applications" Aps 28963, 28994, & 28897; "Following review, the District is willing to change item #6 of its protest to read as follows: 'If the diversion season is limited to the period between November 1 and March 15 of the following year.'" "questions...contact Lou Hoskey, Watermaster, at the District's"; [out of date sequence in file ]
    032587 form letter SWRCB to Whitney; Ap assigned #28994, $196 fee, $6.00 due
    033187 return receipt card
    041587 letter McCarthy/Application Section to Miller/Engineer; returning mylar, show within each 40 the exact area to be irrigated;
    041387 contact report Whitney called McCarthy/Div WRights; "status of application. I told him I reviewed the application and was awaiting comments from the environmental unit before writing him a letter. [para] Since he called, we covered items I had questions on.
    - 1. Questioned the requested direct diversion in light of no water available during summer months. He indicated he wanted to divert from storage. I recommended the application be amended as such and he agreed."
    - 2. Questioned the collection season based on prior Board decisions #1100 & #1558 [Andreotti]. The season would most likely be reduced to 11/01 - 04/30 if water was available at all. He found the reduction acceptable and requested the application be amended."
    - 3. Asked the property to be irrigated be completely identified (Map to be sent back to the Engineer. [no close )"]
    - 4. Requested additional information forms be completed and returned when sent out."
    042187 letter McCarthy/Associate WRC Engineer to Whitney; deficiencies:
    - "1. Item 5. Justification of Amount; Applicant needs to provide a statement for the basis of the 600 afa requested for fire protection, stockwatering, and recreation purposes. The storage seems excessive and may result in a reduction of allowable storage unless you can justify the amount is reasonable for the proposed uses.
    - "2. Item 7. Place of use; Applicant must define place of use for all acreage to be irrigated by forty acre tracts. Please review enclosed map requirements. Maps provided with application must be revised accordingly.
    - "3. Item 9b. General Information; You did not indicate whether or not you contemplate subdivision of the irrigated lands. Please indicate.
    - "4. Supplemental form WR 1-1; Please complete the required sections of enclosed Form 1-1 and return two copies.
    - "5. Supplemental Form WR 1-2; The Division of Water Rights is now using a new Application Form for submittal of environmental information by applicants seeking a water right permit. Three copies of the Application Form for submittal of the required environmental information are enclosed. Please fill out two copies of the new form and return them as soon as possible to the address given at the top of the form. Please answer all questions completely. Failure to answer all questions may result in your application being returned to you for completion, causing a delay in processing your permit request."
    - "Your E-Map was returned to your Engineer for revision of the area of use as required by deficiency #2....phone conversation on" 04/13/1987 "your application was amended to reduce the storage collection...to" 11/01 through 04/30 and "direct diversion as deleted."
    051487 letter Miller/Civil Engineer to McCarthy/Div Wrights; in response
    - 1. Justification of amount; "It is Mr. Whitney's desire to maintain as much storage volume as possible in any one year in order to safeguard against water shortage should a drought occur. If it is decided to reduce the storage volume, Mr. Whitney would still request to maintain a proportional amount of storage for this same reason. It is also estimated that 100 acre-feet per year will be lost to evaporation."
    - 2. Place of Use; "The revised map showing the acrage of each 40 acre tract is being mailed concurrently with this letter."
    - 3. General; "The irrigated lands will not be subdivided."
    - 4. Supplemental form WR-1; Two copies, enclosed
    - 5. Supplemental form WR-1; ditto
    - also enclosed is the SCS geology report for the proposed project

  • 060486 LEON WHITNEY DAM SITE, SCS GEOLOGY REPORT; [apparently by Lyle J. Steffan, State Geologist, USDA-SCS and Michael Rogers, Geologist Trainee, USDA-SCS."

    - "Purpose of Investigation
    - - The purpose of this site investigation was to determine the feasibility of constructing a large earth dam on Leon Whitney's ranch in Glenn County, California (Figure 1). The dam would provide storage for irrigation water. The rock structure in the foundation and emergency spillway, the amount of suitable earth material for construction and the amount of runoff from storm events and annual precipitation were all investigated.
    - Conclusions
    - - 1. Foundation materials at the proposed centerline of the dam and emergency spillway are adequate.
    - - 2. Adequate borrow material is not readily available within a 1/4 mile of the site. Only 20,000 cubic yards of material suitable for core fill were located in this investigation. An additional 40,000 cubic yards of core material and 169,000 cubic yards of shell material need to be located.
    - - 3. Average annual runoff to the site ranges from 573 to 986 acre-feet depending on the method of calculation. A 2-year, 24-hour rainfall event generates from 355 to 430 acre-feet of runoff. It appears that about 500 acre-feet of runoff per year may be expected to occur at the site as a minimum (less in dry years and more in wet years). With about 100 acre-feet of evaporation each year, only about 400 acre-feet of water would be available for irrigation each year.
    - - 4. Peak flow from a 50-year, 24-hour storm is estimated to be about 947 to 1260 cfs.
    - - 5. A major Coast Range thrust fault is mapped by CDMG just upstream of the dam centerline.
    - - 6. About one acre feet [sic] of sediment per year is expected to accumulate in the reservoir.
    - - 7. Seepage losses from the pool area should not be significant.
    - Recommendations
    - - 1. The proposed dam should not be built until adequate fill materials for the core and shell are located and are available for use.
    - - 2. The dam could be reduced in size since the runoff each year will only be about 500 acre-feet.
    - - 3. Although no recent movement has been detected on the fault at the site, its nearness to the embankment fill indicates special features should be designed into the dam to prevent failure if movement occurs. The design and constuction of the special features will significantly increase the costs of this dams [sic]. [to p. 2]
    - - 4. Extra fill should be placed over the channel area to counteract differential settlement between the bedrock area in the abutments.
    - - 5. Landowner should be aware that some erosion in the emergency spillway may occur after it functions and the erosion should be repaired to prevent spillway failure."
    - Site Description
    - - The site is located on Leon Whitney's ranch in Glenn County, California at the eastern edge of the Coast Range mountains, in the" SE 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 S7 T22N R6W. "The watershed for the dam is in the" NE corner of T22N R7W. "Leon Whitney had the dam area surveyed and staked along the proposed dam centerline, spillway and pool areas. [para] The drainage area for the site is about 2240 acres of moderate to steeply rolling hills. The slopes range from 20 to 60 percent. Elevation ranges between 3377 feet at the watershed divide to 880 feet in the channel at the dam site. Average annual rainfall is 21.18 inches [where?]. This value is based on 56 years of data obtained from the Stonyford Ranger Station [which is sheltered by Snow Mountain & St. John Mountain?] and published in the Climatological Data Summary of California - 1984; v.88, No. 13. [para] Vegetation in the lower half of the watershed consists of rangeland (predominantly annual grasses with some perennials), and woodland-grass with oaks and digger pines. The upper reaches consist mainly of woodland and native brush. The ground cover was assumed to be in fair condition in the lower reaches and fair to poor in the upper reaches. Vegetation is sparse at the top of hills where bedrock is often exposed. [from historic overgrazing? para] The soils are generally poorly developed. The parent material is the underlying bedrock of shales, sandstones, and conglomerates. Soil textures consist largely of silty clays, clayey silts, and gravelly clays and silts. Depths to bedrock typically range from 6 to 20 inches in the dam area, although some may be up to 60 inches in depth in very localized colluvial areas. Most soils are of low plasticity to non-plastic.
    - Site Geology
    - - Bedrock is exposed primarily along streambanks and at the tops of hills. The rocks in this area consist of interbedded, slowly to nonpermeable sandstones and conglomerates of the Mesozoic Knoxville and Franciscan formations (Figure 2). A large north-south trending thrust fault divides the Knoxville to the east and Franciscan to the west. The fault is marked by ultrabasic intrusive igneous rock [!] also of Mesozoic age that consist largely of serpentine and peridotite. California Division of Mines and Geology maps show the igneous intrusion to be very nearly pinched out in the dam site area. Field investigation along tributaries leading to the dam area and beyond failed to produce evidence of the intrusion or the fault [uh, the entire scarp?]. According to California Division of Mines and Geology map 1975, the fault is condidered [sic] to be pre-Quaternary (older than 2 million years), with no historic record of displacement. However, the fault cannot be considered 'dead'. some displacement may still occur along the original fault plane. [to p. 3] The bedding of the Knoxville formation at the center line of the dam dips very nearly verically to the east. The dip of the bedding is perpendicular to the direction of flow in the creek at the site. Some widely spaced jointing (5 feet) occurs in the massive conglomerates and sandstones. The joints trend in an east-north easterly direction and dip 47 degrees to the west. The joints are not open however, so seepage should be minimal. [para] The stream channels and tributaries around the site appear to be neither aggrading nor degrading. The channel bottom sediment consists of cobbles and boulder-sized metasedimentary fragments of schists and phyllites that have been eroded from older alluvium forming the banks of the channels. [para] Based on the Stoney [sic] Creek Preauthorization Report (SCS, 1984), sediment yeild to the site will be about 1 acre-foot per year. Without any major fires in the watershed, sedimentation in the pool should not be a serious problem [but major fires are a serious & too-frequent problem?]. About 60 acre-feet of storage should be assigned to sediment storage. Thsi volume will be unavailable for water storage after about 50 years of operations of the pool.
    - Site Hydrology
    - - Annual runoff to the dam site was estimated by three different methods in order to determine whether enough water would be provided to the site. [para] The first estimate is based on the average annual precipitation, effective precipitation and water lost to deep percolation. The Stonyford Range Station has recorded an average annual rainfall of 21.18 inches, based on 56 years of rainfall data. A calculated estimate of the effective rainfall (water that is used by vegetation) is 8 inches per year. Assuming another 8 inches is lost to deep percolation of ground water, this leaves 5.28 inches or 986 acre-feet of annual runoff to the reservoir. [para] The second estimate is taken from the SCS Engineering Field Manual, Chapter 2, Exhibit 2 through 8 (estimation of annual water yields from ungaged watersheds of 10 to 2000 acres). This graph uses the average annual temperature and precipitation, the type of vegetation, and the size of the watershed to determine the annual runoff. This method results in 2.0 inches or 573 acre-feet of annual ronoff [sic]. [para] The third method is a hydrologists 'rough estimate' or 'rule of thumb' calculation of runoff using only the annual precipitation data (annual precipitation squared and divided by 100). This estimate yields 4.48 inches or 837 acre-feet per year of runoff. [para] Surface evaporation of the pond area must also be considered. Assuming there is 17.5 acres of pond surface area when there is 600 acre-feet of water (survey estimate), about 128 acre-feet of water could be lost annually due to pond evaporation. this estimate is based on annual evaporation data taken from the Solano lake weather station, Solano County (88 inches per year). [4 miles west of Winters? a bit less hot than Whitney's] [para] Actual runoff volumes from storm events were also calculated using the procedure provided in Chapter 2, SCS Engineering Field Manual. The average of the high (50-year storm) and low (2 and 10-year storms) volume estimates is about [to p. 4] 230 acre-feet per year. Although this method is not an accurate estimate of average annual runoff in the watershed, it indicates that dry years will have significant impact on the amount of water being supplied to the site. [para] The following peak flow rates and volumes were determined:
    
    
      ------------Storm Frequency------------ 2-year 10-year 50-year Peak Q (cfs): Fair Condition* 412 605 947 Poor Condition 485 874 1,260 Volume (acre-feet): Fair Condition 355 504 766 Poor Condition 430 598 840 * Condition refers to the degree of vegetative ground cover and canopy cover intercepting rainfall

    - Proposed Structure
    - - Proposed dam would be a zoned, earth fill structure with a maximum height of 115 feet. Most of the fill would not exceed 65 feet in height because the centerline is at a deep, narrow canyon cut by the creek in hard, sandstone and conglomerate beds [sic, punctuation]. The dam crest would be about 600 feet long and the total fill would average 300 feet from toe to toe (maximum width of base is about 550 feet. Estimated total fill required would be about 229,000 cubic yards. Out of this, about 61,000 cubic years of plastic fines are required for the core and the remaining 168,000 cubic yards of shell material could be less plastic and contain more coarse material. [para] Spillway crest would be at 990 feet elevation in the north abutment (left abutment when looking downstream). Spillway would be cut into shale and sandstone bedrock. The cut could be about 800 feet long and the alignment would be along the contours of a ridge trending north-south. The outlet would be into a north-south trending tributary which empties into the main drainage just below the site. [para] Principal spillway would be a pipe that would outlet about 1200 feet down-stream. This pipe would be the source of irrigation water to gravity-irrigate pasture land between the steep slopes of the Coast Range and the Whitney Ranch shop. [para] Capacity at the emergency spillway crest would be 1309 acre-feet. This would represent a surface area of 32 acres." [to p. 5]
    - Site investigation
    - - On Tuesday morning June 3, Leon Whitney, ranch owner and Bill Pellersells from the Willows SCS office accompanied the geologist to the site. Mr. Whitney pointed out the dam and emergency spillway centerlines and the approximate water line in the pool at 990 feet elevation. The owner felt he could find suitable fill material for the dam in the emergency spillway cut and along the small drainages entering the pool area. He saw no problems with constructing the fill in the confines of the narrow canyon. He also felt that runoff at this site was above normal due to the poor vegetative cover, steep slopes, and the impermeable nature of the bedrock. Mr. Whitney has been a contractor for almost 30 years and has built dams on his property east of the Coast Ranges and on other ranches in the area. [para] Tuesday afternoon was spent walking the site and drilling exploratory hand auger holes to check for suitable fill material. Sandstone and conglomerate rock at the foundation area is competent, nonpermeable to slowly permeable and high strength. Soil thicknesses were 20 inches over small areas. In many areas weathered bedrock is at the surface. The emergency spillway centerline, the tributary to be used as an outlet for the emergency spillway, and the pool area were all examined for suitable fill material. Soil thicknesses were 20 inches over small areas but in most areas, weathered bedrock is at the surface. [para] Salt precipitates were seen on shale outcrops in the creek banks where ground water seeps and springs were encountered. It appears the ground water in the vicinity may be high in salt content so the surface runoff could also have higher than normal salt content. [para] The owner had a D-7 caterpillar tractor on the site Wednesday morning. Ten test pits were dug along the emergency spillway centerline, both abutments and the pool area (Figure 1). These pits were supplemented with some additional hand auger test holes. Logs of the test pits and pertinent auger holes are attached. [para] Based on the site reconnaisance [sic], test pits and auger holes, potential borrow areas were outlined on the soils map (Figure 3). The areas and depths of suitable material for the core of the dam are shown in the following table. Total cubic yards of suitable fill are 20,960. About 61,000 cubic yards are needed to construct the core of the proposed dam.
    
    
      -------------------------Areas of Potential Borrow--------------------- Depth of Cubic Yards Number On Area in Suitable Soils of Potential Figure 3 Square Feet in Feet Borrow Material 1 74,050 1.33 3,660 2 43,560 2.13 3,440 3 30,490 2.40 2,710 4 46,170 2.40 4,100 5 2,610 2.13 210 6 10,450 2.13 820 7 43,560 2.13 3,440 8 8,710 4.00 1,290 9 8,710 4.00 1,290 ------- 20,960 =======
    The HgxB soil (Hillgate Loam, gullied) 0.05 [sic] miles south of the site may have up to 54 inches of CL, ML or CH material at the surface. This soil was not tested in the field due to its distance from the site and because it is outside Mr. Whitney's property line. If half this soil was actually suitable for fill, about 63 acres of open rangeland would need to be stripped to get 229,000 cubic yards of fill. /s/ Lyle G. Steffen, State Geologist, USDA-SCS /s/ Michael Rogers, Geologist Trainee, USDA-SCS
  • 060486 Figure 1 Test pit & hole locations, Leon Whitney Dam Site, crude hand drawn map, 10 test pits, 10 auger sites
  • 060486 Figure 2 Geology Map, Leon Whitney Dam Site, crude hand drawn map, "contact between different rock units, based on field and air photo," SH Shale, SS sandstone, C Conglomerate; Stony Creek Fault runs west of damsite Franciscan formation upstream, Knoxville formation downstream, fault location based on CDMG 1:250,000 Map - Ukiah Sheet, 1960; upstream SH & thin SS; downstream layers of SH, C & SS, SH, etc.; "Beds strike North-South and dip 80 to the East, Joints strike N70 E and dip 47 to the west." [where are the joints?] "Photo base" 07/31/1958 "(#2-M Willows FO)"
  • 060486 Figure 3 Soils & Borrow Matl., Leon Whitney Dam Site, crude hand drawn map, soils map with 9 borrow areas inked in; soils upstream to downstream HcE, SeE, LmE, MkE, LmD, MvE, HgxB, HmB, SdE, TpF, EsE, PeC
  • 060386 9 pages of Log of Test Holes forms, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service; zones described within each boring

    051487 letter Miller/Civil Engineer to McCarthy/Div Wrights; [another copy]
  • 060486 LEON WHITNEY DAM SITE, SCS GEOLOGY REPORT; [another copy, marked up]

    060587 Environmental Review Checklist; streamflow effects: "reduced to nonexistent flow below dam" "DWR Div. of Dam Safety has not received app."
  • Categorical Exemption Checklist, Explanation for Findings;
    - "(9) The Adobe Lily (Fritillaria pluriflora), a Fed cand. 2 specie [species?], is found just east of the place of use. The current known location exposes the plants to a grazing threat. If the plant is on the Whitney POU, increased grazing could impact it."
    - "(15) According to a SCS geology report on the dam site, there is not enough runoff to fill the proposed reservoir in any one year. In order to reach capacity, downstream flows may be halted for several years."

    060587 Review of Form WR-1-2
  • [choice of category] X in "Nonexempt"
    061187 Completion Checklist
    061287 letter Doody/DWR Division of Safety of Dams to Whitney; SWRCB Div WRights "has notified this office of your water right application No. 28994 filed" 03/09/1987 "which describes a proposed new dam and reservoir in Modoc County." margin "Modoc? Call" 09/14/1987; 115 feet high & 1300 a-f means you need a permit from us, plans & specs must "be prepared by a civil engineer registered to practice in California."

    UNDATED mailing list; whole bunch of people
    071887 return receipt cards
    032387 Route Sheet - Application Unit
    071787 form letter Walsh/Div WRights to CDFG, Regional WQCB, Glenn County Planning, Sacramento Boating & Waterways; BLM & USBR; any comments? "Does the project require approval from your agency? If so, will you act as lead agency under CEQA/NEPA?"
    071787 Instructions to Applicant; publish in Willows Journal once a week for 3 weeks starting not later than 08/06/1987; affidavit by 09/15/1987
    071787 Notice to Postmaster [where?], please publish
    072087 Statement of Posting Notice; Leon Whitney, bulletin board of the shopping mall [what mall?] in Willows; on bulletin board of Elk Creek Store & P.O. entrance
    071787 Notice of Application to Appropriate Water;
    073087 memo CDFG to Div WRights; CDFG concerns: wetlands or marshes, riparian or streamside vegetation, rare or endangered plants, rare or endangered wildlife;
    072787 contact report McCarthy/Div WRights & Whitney; "Mr. Whitney sent in a statement of posting notice. Since the project is a large project, he should be having the notice published instead. [para] He stated he was doing both. The notice should be published starting" 07/31/1987" "He will submit the proof of publication before" 09/15/1987 as requested.

    072487 Protest; Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District; "Deprive protestant of water it requires for irrigation of land within its boundaries and to which it has vested righs." disregard/dismiss "If diversion season is limited to the period between December 2 and March 14 of the following year." [in red changed to November 1, See 03/08/1988 letter], /s/ Louis R. Hoskey, Jr.
    UNDATED unmarked attachment:
  • "The Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District supplies water to approximately - 148,000 acres of land within its boundaries. In recent years it has irrigated approximately 80,000 acres of rice, and 30,000 acres of general crops each year and to supply these crops its water rights in Stony Creek are fully used.
  • Water was first diverted and used by the Central Irrigation District (predecessor of protestant) in 1906. Use was expanded under its successor, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, to the extent that during the irrigation season of each year all waters of Stony Creek are diverted into its canal by means of a dam across the creek approximately one-fourth mile west of Stony Creek bridge.
  • The district's rights and use of water from the source from which applicant proposes to divert is based upon the following Notices of Appropriation, duly posted and recorded as was required by the Civil Code of this State, and which rights are now owned and held by the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District.
    1. Appropriation by Stony Creek Canal Co. of 500,000 miners inches; notice posted January 21, 1884, Recorded February 9, 1884, Book A, page 84, Miscellaneous Records, Colusa County.

    2. Appropriation by M.H. Sheldon of 5,000 sec. ft. of water from Stony Creek; notice posted April 15, 1903, Recorded April 16, 1903, Book 2 of Miscellaneous Records, page 66, Glenn County Records;

    3. Appropriation by Central Canal and Irrigation Co. of 5,000 sec. ft. of water from Stony Creek; Notice posted November 23, 1904, Recorded November 25th, 1904, Book 2 of Miscellaneous Records, page 105, Glenn County Records; and

    4. Appropriation by Central Irrigation District of 5,000 sec. ft. of water from Stony Creek, posted April 26, 1905, Recorded May 5th, 1905 in Book 2 of Miscellaneous Records, page 124, Glenn County Records.
  • All the foregoing Notices posted and recorded and appropriations were made with the intent of using the waters of Stony Creek, to be carried through the main canal. The headgates on both sides of Stony Creek were constructed by the original Central Irrigation District (predecessor of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District) in about the year 1889. Since about the year 1906 all waters of Stony Creek reaching the District's point of diversion during the irrigation season have been diverted into the district's canal by means of a dam across the creek and all waters have been used for irrigation purposes.
  • The rights to the water of Stony Creek, including that of protestant, were adjudicated in the case of U.S. v. Angle, et al, No. 30 U.S. District Court. (Northern Div. Northern Dist. of Calif.)
  • No water is available in Stony Creek or its tributaries for appropriation by applicant or others between March 14 and December 1 of each year.

    072987 letter David Whitridge/Wilson, Hoslett & Whitridge to SWRCB; enclosed protest from Delta Water Users Association;
  • 072887 boilerplate Protest of Delta Water Users Association; /s/ Alex Hildebrand & David Whitridge
    080787 Affidavit of Publishing; Orland Press-Register

    082587 form letter Minasian/OUWUA atty to SWRCB; w/OUWUA protest
  • 082587 Protest; OUWUA, their diversions:
    - 1) NW 1/4 of SE 1/4 S35 T18N R7W MDB & M [Rainbow]
    - 2) NW 1/4 of NE 1/4 S3 T17N R6W MDB & M [East Park]
    - 3) NE 1/4 of SE 1/4 S16 T20N R6W MDB & M [Stony Gorge]
    - 4) SW 1/4 of SW 1/4 S29 T23N R4W MDB & M [SDD]
    - 5) NE 1/4 of NW 1/4 S1 T22N R4W MDB & M [NDD]
    - Settleement, "If the diversion only occur [sic] for the period November 1 through March 15"
    - Exhibit "A" [oft photocopied boilerplate, with some changes?]
    - Note 1 "The entire flow of Stony Creek and all tributary streams in the Stony Creek water shed including all streams flowing into and out of East Park Reservoir and Stony Gorge Reservoir during each annual season at and near the point of proposed diversion is necessary and required and is fully utilized by this Association and its members as the holders of water rights within the boundaries of the Orland Project of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, except for certain riparian and appropriative rights which have already been established and fixed by judicial decree."
    - Note 2 "Priority Rights dated"
    - - 10/10/1906
    - - 10/11/1906
    - - 03/23/1910
    - - 03/25/1913
    - - 04/15/1864
    - - 01/27/1888
    - - 05/04/1897
    - - "and decree of U.S. Dist. Ct. dated" 01/13/1930.
    - Note 3 "The water rights of the U.S. of America with reference to the Orland Project and other landowners within the watershed of Stony Creek (including the predecessors in interest of the applicants) were adjudicated by Judicial Decree dated January 13, 1930, in the Northern Division of the U.S.District Court for the Northern District of California, Second Division, in the case of 'UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff vs. H.C. ANGLE, et al., Defendants, - in Equity No. 30', to which decree reference is hereby made for further particulars with reference to such water rights. The protestants [ phrase omitted: "ORLAND UNIT WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION, is the successor in interest to the" ] beneficial water rights of the U.S. of America as defined in said decree pursuant to a contract entered into between the U.S. of America and the ORLAND UNIT WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION, dated" 08/26/1954. "There are no other or additional waters in Stony Creek and its tributaries subject to appropriation during the irrigation season, or reservoir storage season at East Park Reservoir, at Stony Gorge Reservoir, at diversion dams and at tributary diversion dams, reservoirs and structures." [contrast Reclamation answer to Brownell in Ap. #2212; which story is to be believed ?]
    - Note 4 "(A) This protest may be disregarded and dismissed if the diversion season is limited to the period between December 1st [changed in pencil to November 1st] of each year and March 15th of the following year. [or?]
    - - (B) This protest may be disregarded and dismissed if the State Water Rights board imposes the following conditions upon any license or permit to be granted:
    - - - 'Permittee shall install and maintain an outlet pipe of adequate capacity in his dam as near as practicable to the bottom of the natural stream channel [omitted: , or provide other means satisfactory to the State Water Rights Board,] in order that water entering the reservoir or collected in the reservoir during and after the current storage season may be released into the downstream channel to the extent necessary to satisfy downstream prior rights and/or to the extent that appropriation of said water is not authorized under this permit. ["term 43"]
    - - - 'This permit does not authorize collection of water to storage during the period from about March 15 to about December 1 [changed in pencil to November 1st, SE or JE, 08/17/1988] of each season to effect [?] evaporation and seepage losses. [? sic] ["term 5i"]
    - - - 'Permittee shall allow representatives of the State Water Rights Board and other parties as may be authorized from time to time by said Board reasonable access to project works to determine compliance with the terms of this permit." [new stuff? : ]
    - - (C) 'Permittee shall install and maintain in his reservoir a staff guage [sic] meeting the approval of the State Water Resources Control Board for the purpose of determining water levels in the reservoir. Permittee shall supply the staff guage [sic] reading on or about October 1st of each year, verified by protestant or his designated representative, to the State Water Resources Control Board. ["term 47"] [para] 'Permittee shall alow protestant or his designated representative reasonable access to the reservoir for the purpose of determining whether or not water should be released in accordance with this condition. In no event shall permittee be obligated to release water below the previous October staff guage [sic] reading.'
    - - (D) In the event that East Park and Stony Gorge Reservoirs do not fill the water will be released from the applicants Stock Pond before the end of the rainy season, while the ground is still wet. It will be drawn down to the elevation recording on the staff guage [sic] to the October 1st reading. [margin, "Applicant is downstr. of Stony Gorge Res.]
    - - (E) Applicant shall submit to and pay its proportionate share of the cost of the water master service provided for under the Angle decree, Equity No. 30, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California and shall abide by and conform to all orders of that water master. ["see term 92"]
    - 2 -"

    090787 form letter Kowta/Northeast Information Center Coordinator to Sheeders & Soule/Div WRights; no survey recommended
    090987 Protest, Environmental, etc.; California Department of Fish and Game; "The Grindstone Creek and its unnamed tributary provides valuable habitat for warmwater fish, numerous species of wildlife and support riparian wetland habitat. It is necessary to maintain adequate flows for flushing and timing of flows to protect the fish, wildlife and riparian wetland. In addition, high spring flows are necessary for flushing and maintaining the characteristics of the stream channel. [para] This protest is based on the provisions of Sections 1243 and 1257 of the water Code and Sections 1603 and 5937 of the Fish and Game Code." [para] dismissal: "The diversion project will utilize a 115 foot high dam to store water. As such, the Department of Fish and Game is unable to submit dismissal terms until following information and/or study results are provided: a survey of fish populations in the impacted reach of Grindstone Creek, a survey of threatened and endangered species and 20 years of hydrological data (measured or synthesized). Therefore, the Department requests an extension of time until the applicant can provide the requested information."
    111087 contact report Chandler/Div WRights contacted? Mike Mainz; "I asked Mike why he is concerned about the fish in Grindstone Creek in view of the statement made by the applicant that there's no hydraulic continuity between its point of diversion and Grindstone Creek from June through September. Mike said (1) he is concerned about maintaining pools in the stream downstream from the point of diversion, (2) he has not been to the project and is uncertain whether the dam will affect the pools; and (3) he is concerned about the height of the dam."
    111287 contact report Chandler/Div WRights called Haskey/GCID; "to inquire why the diversion season of" 12/02 and 03/14 "on his protest against" Ap "28994 is different from the seasons of" 11/01 thru 03/15 requested by OUWUA "when they both are basing their protests on the Angle decree. Mr. Haskey replied that" GCID "doesn't care about November diversions, and that he will make the ending date" 03/15 from now on.
    122387 contact report Chandler/Div Wrights called George Wilson; re 28897, 28963, 28994; "to see if he could identify for me the rights" GCID "has under the Angle Decree. I explained that page 157 of the decree states the irrigation season under Chapter VIII re the Orland Project is" 03/15 - 10/15 "and asked if he knows why GCID requests applicants to start diverting on" 12/01, "while Orland requests a" 11/01 "starting date. George said the Bureau (Orland) has year around rights & others must cease diverting" 09/15. "He doesn't know about GCID rights [!] but suggested I call Bob Clark & tell him George believes a beginning diversion season of" 11/01 " is appropriate and to ask him to change GCID's protests. I told George that" Aps 18838 [Mel's, to Squaw Creek] & 20251 [ now Century Ranch, to East Park] had protests by Orland requesting a diversion season of" 12/01 - 03/15. "George doesn't know why the date was changed to" 11/01 - 03/15 "by Orland, but when he worked for the Bureau the starting date was" 11/01. "He further said East Park has a year-around diversion season & it seldom fills on its own. If the smaller reservoirs have a diversion season which cuts into East Park Reservoir, you would have to hire an army to see if and when they are interfering with East Park, and the owners would scream at the cost of monitoring them.
  • 122487 08:30 "Bob Clark returned my call of yeaterday. He said GCID's requested diversion of" 12/01 - 03/15 " is based on historical usage rather than on the Angle Decree. I told him the thing that bothers me is that their protests state their rights are based on the angle Decree and that George Wilson said a beginning season of" 11/01 "is appropriate. I asked him to amend the diversion season on" Ap." 28897 of MNC & K Farming, 28963 of Holder, and 28994 of Whitney. "He said he will check with Minasian and let me know after the holiday season."

    1988


    030888 form letter Erickson/Div WRights to OUWUA; your protest received
    030888 letter Erickson to CDFG; "Your protest against the above application is accepted. In regard to your protest dismissal conditions, the Board may or may not require the surveys you request depending on whether or not the information is needed for preparation of the CEQA document. You are granted an extension of time until 30 days after the appropriate CEQA document is distributed to submit dismissal terms...."
    030888 letter Erickson/Hearing Unit to GCID; protest accepted, dismissal termchanged to 11/01 - 03/15
    030888 letter Erickson/Hearing Unit to Whitney; enclosed are copies of our letters accepting CDFG, GCID & OUWUA protests; Delta Water Users Association protest is awaiting Board action; submit answers to GCID & OUWUA - not required to answer the CDFG "protest until specific dismissal conditions are received from the Department."
    031888 letter Whitney to Maughan/Div WRights; "I recently called Walt Bourez and asked him why we were being delayed so long. Walt informed me that my application along with others was being delayed by the Delta Water users Association and that he could not at this time give an answer as to when my application would be approved. [para] The water that we are asking for under this application is very much needed to make our ranch a productive operation. Also, almost every average rain-fall year this water is let go to waste and we do not feel that we would be taking away from any others needs by using the water here. [para] Time is naturally very important to us and we would like to start to work on this project as soon as possible. [para] Could you possibly look into this problem and give us an aswer soon as to when our application with be granted."
    042788 letter Lininger/Ap & Hearing Section to Whitney; "...resolution of the Delta Water Users Association protests have been noted. We expect a decision regarding these protests within the next several weeks." & you need to answer the other protests ASAP

    UNDATED Mooring/Secretary; Declaration of Service by Mail, on 05/26/1988 of attached Hearing Notice on the parties on the attached name list, "In the Matter of Protests by Delta Water Users Association and South Delta Water Agency against Petitions and Applications to Appropriate Water from the Watersheds of the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin River"
  • UNDATED mailing list, 5 pp.
  • 052588 Notice of Public Hearing; "Protests by Delta Water Users Association and South Delta Water Agency against Petitions and Applications to Appropriate Water from the Watersheds of the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin River; listed in Attachment A. Monday," 05/27/1988 9:00 a.m.; "In its protests and related documents, the Association asserts that no further permits should be issued in the watersheds of the Sacramento, San Joaquin, Calaveras and Mokelumne Rivers until after the Board has concluded the ongoing Bay-Delta Estuary proceeding, which is expected to establish among other things the conditions for approval of appropriations in the watersheds of the Estuary. Alternatively to placing a moratorium on new permits, the Association suggests that permits could be conditioned to protect the water rights asserted by its members; i.e., 500 ppm TDS quality or better at Mossdale on the San Joaquin River, strict enforcement of diversion season limitations such as are included in Standard Permit Term 93, minimum flow requirements at Vernalis, and reservations of jurisdiction to protect water levels in the southern Delta. However, the Association has not provided any specific permit terms or conditions which it would accept for purposes of dismissing its protests and issuing permits on the pending applications. Nor is the Association apparently willing to accept inclusion of Standard Permit Terms 80, 90, 91 and 93, as appropriate as sufficient to protect its rights.
    - PROCEDURES
    - During this hearing the Board will do the following: (1) allow the Association's representative to tell the Board what evidence the Association would present in an evidentiary hearing to establish that the Association has prior rights at the quality, flow, and elevation levels asserted and that no more water is available for appropriation in the watersheds in question. (2) Give the Association's representative an opportunity to give the Board specific terms and conditions, if any, which the Association would accept for purposes of dismissing the protests, and (3) give the applicants and interested parties an opportunity to tell the Board their positions on the key issue and on any means to resolve the protests. All presentations should be in the context of an opening statement, and any discussion of evidence should specifically describe and name the evidence relied upon and explain how it would support the party's position. Evidence that has become available since the hearing that led to Water Rights Decision 1594 (the water availability decision) should be highlighted.
    - Questions that should be addressed during this hearing include the following:
    - 1. What evidence exists that water is or is not available for appropriation for the protested applications?
    - 2. What permit terms and conditions would protect senior water right holders in the southern Delta?
    - 3. Would the water rights in the southern Delta be adequately protected by including Standard permit Terms 80, 90, 91, and 93, as appropriate, in any permits issued on the protested applications?
    - 4. What bases exist for delaying action on the protested applications until the ongoing Bay-Delta Proceeding is concluded?.
    - No evidence will be accepted during this hearing; rather, this hearing is being held for the purpose of deterining whether the Board needs to receive evidence relative to the subject protests, delay processing of the applications and petitions until completion of the Bay-Delta Proceeding, or whether, alternatively, the Board can dismiss or reject the protests. Parties may submit briefs to the Board in advance of this hearing or at the hearing. Copies of any brief submitted to the Board must be provided to each of the parties listed in the attached mailing list, and a proof of service....
    - - diagram of hearing location and nearby parking
    - - Attachment 1 - list of applications
    - - - Sacramento River Watershed
    - - - San Joaquin River Watershed
    - - - Uses Key

    052088 letter Miller/Civil Engineer to Erickson/SWRCB; will accept GCID & OUWUA date terms, and the long list of OUWUA Exhibit "A" terms; still considering the CDFG terms; awaiting the resolution of the Delta Water Users protest
    052588 letter Erickson/Hearing Unit to GCID & OUWUA; applicant agrees to dismissal terms so protests dismissed
    072788 memo Bontadelli/CDFG to Pettit/Div WRights; CDFG Warden Dave Gardner & Mike Meinz visited site with Steve Miller on 06/16/1988; request following terms:
    - "1) To mitigate and/or compensate for the seasonal wetlands lost beneath the reservoir, 1/4" cfs "shall be released year-round immediately downstream of the dam site.
    - 2) To assure that bypass flows are maintained, permittee shall purchase, install, and maintain a water flow measuring device that is approved by the Division of Water Rights."
    082488 letter Erickson/Hearing Unit to Whitney; relaying CDFG terms
    091088 letter Miller/Civil Engineer to Erickson/Div Wrights; CDFG terms accepted
    101288 letter Erickson/Hearing Unit to CDFG; Whitney's agent accepts your terms, your protest dismissed
    101288 letter Erickson/Hearing Unit to Whitney; only protest remaining Delta Water Users Association, presently considering the info received at the 06/27/1988 hearing & "will be issuing a decision within a few months."
    042089 Order Dismissing, Rejecting, and Accepting Protests; Order WR 89- 8; [regarding the Delta protests; see comments above following front cover notes, order is online]
    103188 Closing form for file folders



    Cat 1 CORRESPONDENCE VOL. 2 OF 2 RECORD OF FOLDER [" F " - date filed if date originated not evident]

    1989


    UNDATED Card, David R. Borger, Area Engineer, DWR Division of Safety of Dams, attached to:
  • 053189 Memorandum of Geologic Inspection, Leon Whitney Dam, (proposed) 05/31/1989 by William R. Fraser; "On May 31, 1989 Sam Linn and Dave Gutierrez (DEB), Dave Borger (FEB) and I visited the proposed damsite on the Leon Whitney Ranch, 3 miles southwest of Chrome, California. We were met at the site by Leon Whitney (owner) and Steve Miller (Consulting Design Engineer). No subsurface exploratory work was being performed during our visit, however I walked the damsite and reservoir observing surficial geological features. [para] The proposed dam will be about 110 feet high and about 600 feet long. The damsite is across a steep to precipitious inner canyon approximately 50 feet deep, with gentle to moderately steep slopes above. While exposures of the bedrock within the inner canyon are excellent, soil obscures the bedrock on the upper slopes. [para] Bedrock at the damsite is massively bedded conglomerate and interbedded sandstone and shale of the Jurassic Knoxville formation. Bedding strikes roughly parallel to the axis of the dam (N20W) and dips steeply upstream (east) to vertical. Conglomerate is the predominate rock at the site and its resistance to erosion is responsible for the development of the steep topography of the inner canyon. The conglomerate is moderately to slightly weathered, hard and strong. The sandstone is moderately weathered, moderately hard and strong. The shale is severely weathered and often obscured by soil. [para] A report on site geology (and other topics) was prepared by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (Reference 1). My observations and conclusions differ substantially from some of the findings of that report, specifically in regards to damsite geology and seismic hazard. [para] A thrust fault trends diagonally across the dam axis (N30E), and dips 55(NW) upstream (Photo 1) [photos not in this file?]. On the left abutment, the conglomerate has been thrust over interbedded sandstone and shale, and the fault plane contains an 18-inch thick seam of sandy decomposed rock (Photo 2). On the right abutment, this fault plane is obscured by weathering and poor exposure. The fault lies within the proposed core foundation on the left abutment and will require cleanout and concrete backfilling. The fault projects upstream and may underlie the upstream shell on the right abutment. I recommend that the owners engineer have a detailed damsite geology map prepared, accurately plotting the thrust fault on project topo, so the relationship of the fault with the dam and reservoir can be evaluated. The site map prepared by the SCS is not suitable for this evaluation. [to p. 2] A second fault trends essentialy parallel to the channel (N85W) through the proposed dam site. Although the fault plane is not well exposed in the channel, interbedded sandstone and shale units are offset at least several tens of feet across the fault. This fault is part of a series of parallel east-west trending faults occurring upstream of the proposed dam, which are planes of weakness controlling the development of the prominent S-shaped bend in the stream immediately upstream of the axis. The faults upstream in this series are better exposed, and typically are thin features which appear to be well-healed with calcite. [para] The brittle conglomerate and other rocks at the site are moderately fractured. Although some of the fractures have been healed with calcite, the very close geologic similarity between this site and DWR's Los Banos Grandes dam site (where high water takes were experienced in the abutments during water pressure testing) suggest the abutments could have significant fracture permeability at depth. The fractures do not appear to be open at the surface and assuming the fill will be protected from erosion into the foundation, water loss through the abutments will be an economic rather than a safety concern. Because the conglomerate unit strikes subparallel to the dam axis and dips steeply, water which enters the fractures in this unit may travel laterally into the abutment rather than downstream. The thrust fault may also influence seepage paths. [para] The reservoir area consists of steeply dipping, thinly bedded shale; covered by a thin veneer of terrace deposits. The gravelly clay and silt terrace deposits vary in thickness from nil to about 5 feet. The owner plans to completely strip the terrace deposits from within the reservoir area for use as core material and then develop other borrow sources if necessary. Estimates made by SCS indicated that additional impervious borrow from outside the reservoir area will be needed. [para] The Stoney [sic] Creek fault, which is part of the Coast Range Thrust, separates the Great Valley Sequence from ultramafics, immediately upstream of the reservoir. This regional fault system is considered to be inactive. The thrust fault exposed on the left abutment and the fault in the channel are probably also inactive. [para] References - 1. U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Leon Whitney Dam Site, SCS Geology Report, dated" 06/04/1986
  • 053189 Memorandum of Site Inspection, Leon Whitney Dam, (Proposed), Glenn County, 05/31/1989, by D.A. Gutierrez; "S. Linn, D. Borger, W. Frazier and I met with Leon Whitney, owner of the proposed dam, and Stephen Miller, engineer, at the proposed site. The site is located in" T21N R6W MDM. "The location of the site according to the" SCS "report (Reference 1) apparently is incorrect, which states" T22N. "The site is located on an unnamed stream, tributary to Grindstone Creek. The drainage area is approximately three square miles. [para] The proposed earthfill dam will be approximately 110 feet high consisting of three zones. The upstream zone will be semi impervious and clayey in nature. The core will be impervious clay and the downstream shell will consist of random fill. The dam axis will be located where the stream channel makes an S curve in plan. The abutments are approximately 2:1 near the top of the proposed dam, but the canyon drops steeply to the stream bed. This geometry will make construction difficult near the bottom of the canyon because of the confined area. Also the rock near the stream bed is nearly vertical, which will make compaction of the core material in the lower portion of the dam difficult. The site has numerous rock outcrops and apparently suitable bedrock foundation should be at or very near the ground surface. [para] The spillway will be located in the left abutment and will probably be excavated into rock. I informed Mr. Miller the outlet will not be able to span across fill as he intended, therefore it may have to be located along the right abutment. [para] The borrow is not readily available and further investigation is needed to locate enough suitable material, especially for the core. Approximatly 20,000 yds will be borrowed from the reservoir. I informed Mr. Miller that a chimney drain and blanket drain, probably sandwich type, will probably be required for this dam. [para] Mr. Whitney applied for a water rights permit in 1986 and intends to receive approval of this permit in July, 1989. Mr. Whitney wants to begin construction in September of 1989. I informed him this time frame is possible, but may be difficult. If the application is approved to [sic] close to the rainy season, construction will be delayed until spring 1990. [to p.2] Conclusions - A safe dam can be constructed at the proposed site. Further investigation of the borrow is needed to determine the quantity and nature of the fill for the embankment. Special consideration must be given to the steep rock in the stream bed. Mr. Miller will inform us when the soil investigation begins." same references

    1990


    051490 Botanical Survey; Project Description : Mr. Whitney proposes to construct a reservoir on approximately 30 acres. The property is located at the above address [Star Route 61, Orland], just off Road 313 about six miles north of Elk Creek in Glenn County. A Sketched map of the reservoir area is attached." [para] Legal Description : T21N R6W SE 1/4 of NW 1/4 S7 [para] Setting : The reservoir site is located at the base of steep slopes of the Inner Coast Ranges. Three small intermittent drainages come together, with low ridges in between. Lodo Shale outcrops occur along drainages and on some of the ridges in between. A serpentine area occurs above the reservoir proper to the west, and is outside the study area. A large rock outcrop area is locate where the dam would be. [para] The property is in an area of transition between Oak Woodland and Foothill Woodland plant communities. Much of the site consists of scattered blue oaks (Quercus douglasii) in Annual Grassland. Lodo Shale outcrops support little grass and a few herbaceous plants such as Allium falcifolium, Crespis sp., and Epilobium paniculatum. Pockets of digger pine (Pinus sabiniana) are common on slopes abover 25%. Scattered riparian vegetation is found along the intermittent streams, degraded by livestock grazing. Cottonwood (Populus fremontii), willow (Salix ssp.) tamarisk (Tamarisk aphylla) and buckeye (Aesculus californica) are typical of the riparian area. [para] The large rock outcrop in the dam area supports some interesting plants on the steep, eroding Lodo shale. These include native bunchgrass (Stipa pulcra), rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus nauseosus), nude buckwheat (Eriogonum nudum) and chia (Salvia columbare), out of reach of livestock grazing. [para] Several small saline seeps are located along the intermittent streams, concentrating salt on the soil surface. Salt grass (Distichlis stricta) and sandwort (Spergularia marina and S. bocconii) occur here. [para] Survey Methodology : The field survey was conducted" 03/25 & 05/04/1990. "A majority of the plants found were identifiable at this time. [para] The site was systematically examined on foot, with all species encountered identified to determine whether they were rare or endangered. [para] Potential Rare Plants : Several rare plants could potentially occur in the study area, including Antirrhinum subcordatum, Atriplex cordulata and A. parishii, Brodiaea coronaria var. rosea, Calyptridium quadripetalum, Chamaescyce ocellata var. rattanii [to p. 2] Eriastrum brandegeae, Hibiscus californica, Fritillaria pluriflora and F. purdyi, Hesperolinum drymaroides, Malachothamnus helleri, and Navarretia jepsonii. [para] Survey Results : No rare, threatened or endangered plants were located in the study area. Both Eriastrum brandegeae and Chamaesyce ocalleta var. rattanii had excellent potential to occur on the Lodo shale and along the intermittent gravelly streams, but were not found. The site was poor habitat for Fritellaria pluriflora, being too well drained and lacking extensive adobe clay flats. Several of the potential species are restricted to serpentine, which is not present onsite. Chaparral vegetation which can support several other species, is not well developed onsite. Species restricted to alkali (Atriplexes) were also not found, probably because the alkali seeps were very small and not well developed. [para] A small amount of riparian vegetation classified as Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest occurs in the upper reaches of the main (central) streambed, which constitutes a Significant Natural Community under the Holland classification system. Loss of this vegetation could be mitigated by planting cottonwood, willow, and elderberry from dormant cuttings, and protecting them from grazing animals." "Submitted by: /s/ Mary E. Meyer, Mary E. Meyer, Botanical Consultant, 4052 Ishi Trail, Oroville, CA 95965-9740, (916)534-9930"
  • Plant List [presumably those she found on site] 7 trees, 7 shrubs, 96 herbs

    082289 letter Meinz/Environmental Review Unit to Miller; "may cause significant adverse effects to the Adobe Lily (Fritillaria pluriflora) a Federal candidate 2 rare plant." Survey by a qualified botanist acceptable to CDFG needed before further processing. [out of date sequence in file]
    070990 Whitney called Ron Swenerton; "in response to JV's phone message of" 07/02/1990 "and told me he thought he had already sent a copy of the rare plant survey report to us. I told him there was no copy in our files. He said he would send another copy to JV right away."
    102290 Jane Vorpagel & Christy Leighton, County Planning Dept.; "What is current zoning for parcel 025-11-0-009-0-0? FA 160, Foothill Agriculture Forestry Zone - minimum parcel 160 acres; Water reservoir is allowed as permitted use; grading permit from public Works & environmental review will be Required for a fee of 57.50 for an already prepared document."
    112990 letter Soule/Enviornmental Unit to Kowta/Northeast Info Center; "Enclosed are the site record forms for five archaeological sites located in the Survey of Application #28994. Would you please assign triromials [sic] to these sites and inform me of the assigned numbers by reference to the field designations Whitney #1 to #5...."
    121090 contact report Vorpagel & Whitney; "I explained that the Initial Study was going through the second draft revisions. I asked if he had been contacted by Bill Soulee [sic] the archaeologist. He hadn't. I told him I wanted him to talk to Bill about what was found at the Survey. Since Bill has been out sick I read Mr. Whitney excerpts from Bill's report. I read him the Findings and Mitigation sections. But qualified that I couldn't make any guess at cost or what it involved because it is out of my area of expertise. [para] Mr. Whitney doesn't want to move the dam site. He will check out what to do when he gets the report. I told him I would have Bill call him when he comes back."
    121290 letter Soule to Whitney; "Enclosed is the cultural resource survey report....documents the presence of five previously unrecorded archaeological sites in the project vicinity."

    101790 5 photos
  • Dam site, deep pool [in October?!?]
  • Indian Midden, Reservoir area
  • Salt Source, near dam site
  • Dam site, no pool
  • POU [probably not, too steep]

    1991


    011191 Whitney returned Soule call; "...asked him if he had read the Cultural resource report that I sent him in Dec. of 1990 & if he had decided what course of action he was going to pursue. He said that he had read the report & that he knew about the archaelogical sites described therein. I told him that he had basically three options (1) To continue the project as proposed & have the sites mitigated (i.e. excavated & analyzed) by a professional archaeologist to the satisfaction of the State Board Staff & State Laws (CEQA), (2) redesign the project to avoid impacting the archaeological sites, and (3) abandon the project & cancel the application. He said that redesign was not feasible & that he would pursue option #1 by contacting an archaeologist(s) to get an estimate as to what it would cost to do the mitigation. He said that he knew an archaeologist with the Mendocino National Forest that he would ask to look at his project & possibly recommend someone to do the archaeological study that had previously worked for them (the N.F.S.). I told Mr. Whitney that I would also send him a list of the Regional Offices of the California Archaeological Survey, several of which (Sac. St., Sonoma St., & Chico St.) have previously worked in the area."

    012991 Notice of Completion; to State Clearinghouse; NegDec; Public Review Period, start 01/30/1991 end 03/02/1991
    012991 letter Vorpagel/Environmental Unit to Whitney; "Notice of a Proposed Negative Declaration for Application 28944 of Leon Whitney to Appropriate Water from Unnamed Stream Tributary to Grindstone Creek Thence Stony Creek Thence Sacramento River in Glenn County"; enclosed two copies of the notice, publish once a week for 2 consectutive weeks in Willows Journal completed by 02/19/1991 proof of publication submitted by 03/05/1991
  • [notice not attached]

    013191 return receipt card
    012991 Initial Study - Application 28994 of Leon Whitney to Appropriate Water from Unnamed Stream in Glenn County; Introduction....Project Description....
  • map placing location within the State
  • Environmental Setting - "...Four small willow trees and one buckeye were observed in the entire reservoir area. Wildlife in the area are deer and other mammals and birds which utilize the Oak Woodland habitat. The year-round water supply in a seasonally water-short area will provide benefits to these animals."
  • Environmental Checklist Form, find mitigated negative declaration;
  • Explanations to the Environmental Checklist...."Loss of vegetation...term...: Two trees shall be planted for each tree removed with a diameter at breast height of four inches or larger [foliage, not trunk?]. The applicant shall submit photo documentation to the Chief, Division of Water Quality and Water Rights four years after the completion of the reservoir to insure compliance with this term. A 75% survival rate must be reached at that time." "Mandatory Findings of Significance....[to p. 13] As discussed in the Cultural Resources report (11), five significant cultural resources were identified during the field inspection." CEQA "requires the lead agency (SWRCB) to attempt to preserve undisturbed, if possible, any significant archaeological resources that would otherwise be impacted by this project. If these archaeological resources cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, mitigation measures shall be required to recover sufficient scientific information from the resources to offset the project impacts (CEQA, Appendix K). The five cultural resources identified in this report are all considered to be significant although no mitigation will be recommended for the salt source (Whitney #5). It contains no directly recoverable data and its importance would be elucidated by investigation of the four midden sites and related ethnographic research. Mitigation recommendations for the four midden sites are summarized below. These are proposed with the assumption that the applicant will wish to continue with the project as proposed, thus precluding the option of avoiding adverse impacts. A permit term will be added which will be substantially as follows. [para] Whitney #1, #2, and #3: All three sites must be assessed by an archaeological testing program designed and conducted by a qualified professional archaeologist. This testing program would consist of the collection of surface and subsurface data through systematic excavation, surface collection, catographic mapping [is there some other kind?], and augering. The data collected will be used to document site significance and to formulate a research design to recover sufficient data to mitigate the destruction (excavation for dam fill) or inundation of these sites. The information generated by the testing program must be documented in a formal report to the Board that will include a research design for the mitigation level investigations. If the mitigation level research design and data collection program is approved by the Board, the field investigation phase must be completed prior to the commencement of any construction activities in the vicinity of the archaeological sites. The findings of the mitigation level investigations must be finalized in a professional quality archaeological report that will provide comprehensive documentation of the research. [para] Whitney #4: As this site appears to be above the maximum pool of the proposed reservoir, Whitney #4 should not be impacted. However, to insure preservation of this site, the applicant must insure that it is clearly [to p. 14] flagged, or otherwise marked, prior to project construction and that construction crews are instructed to avoid it during project activities. If it is found that Whitney #4 cannot be avoided, then it must be included in the mitigation program proposed for Whitney #1, #2, and #3. [para] Costs for the archaeological investigation outlined above would be borne by the applicant. A term requiring the completion of the archaeological mitigation can be written so that a permit can be issued for this project. This would enable the applicant to begin work on project aspects that would not impact the archaeological sites, concurrent with the archaeological mitigation studies."
  • Persons Consulted, References "...11. Cultural Resource Survey Report, SWRCB, Division of Water Quality and Water Rights, Application 28994...William Soule, Archaeologist, Environmental Unit," 11/30/1990 [understood to be part of separate archaeological files, locked up in a vault at the SWRCB, but wait, it's below]
  • UNDATED Draft Negative Declaration; "Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project...
    - 1. To mitigate and/or compensate for the seasonal wetlands lost beneath the reservoir, 1/4 cubic foot per second shall be released year-round immediately downstream of the dam site.
    - 2. To assure that bypass flows are maintained, permittee shall purchase, install, and maintain a water flow measuring device that is approved by the Division of Water Quality and Water Rights.
    - 3. To protect against unstable earth conditions, permittee must construct the dam under the direction of the Division of Safety of Dams. [to p. 2]
    - 4. Loss of vegetation will be mitigated by planting cottonwood, willow, oak, elderberry or other trees native to Glenn County and protecting them from grazing animals until they are large enough to sustain grazing pressures. A permit term will be added to implement a tree planting and monitoring program. The term will be substantially as follows:
    Two trees shall be planted for each tree removed with a diameter at breast height of four inches or larger [foliage, not trunk?]. The applicant shall submit photo documentation to the Chief, Division of Water Quality and Water Rights four years after the completion of the reservoir to insure compliance with this term. A 75% survival rate must be reached at that time."
    - 5. As discussed in the Cultural Resources report, five significant cultural resources were identified during the field inspection. If these archaeological resources cannot be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state, mitigation measures shall be required to recover sufficient scientific information from the resources to offset the project impacts (CEQA, Appendix K). The five cultural resources identified in this report are all considered to be significant although no mitigation will be recommended for the salt source (Whitney #5). It contains no directly recoverable data and its importance would be elucidated by investigation of the four midden sites and related ethnographic research. Mitigation recommendations for the four midden sites are summarized below. These are proposed with the assumption that the applicant will wish to continue with the project as proposed, thus precluding the option of avoiding adverse impacts. These terms will be substantially as follows: [para] Whitney #1, #2, and #3: All three sites must be assessed by an archaeological testing program designed and conducted by a qualified professional archaeologist. This testing program would consist of the collection of surface and subsurface data through systematic excavation, surface collection, catographic mapping [is there some other kind?], and augering. The data collected will be used to document site significance and to formulate a research design to recover sufficient data to mitigate the destruction (excavation for dam fill) or inundation of these sites. The information generated by the testing program must be documented in a formal report to the Board that will include a research design for the mitigation level investigations. If the mitigation level research design and data collection program is approved by the Board, the field investigation phase must be completed prior to the commencement of any construction activities in the vicinity of the archaeological sites. The findings of the mitigation level investigations must be finalized in a professional quality archaeological report that will provide comprehensive documentation of the research. [to p. 3] [para] Whitney #4: As this site appears to be above the maximum pool of the proposed reservoir, Whitney #4 should not be impacted. However, to insure preservation of this site, the applicant must insure that it is clearly flagged, or otherwise marked, prior to project construction and that construction crews are instructed to avoid it during project activities. If it is found that Whitney #4 cannot be avoided, then it must be included in the mitigation program proposed for Whitney #1, #2, and #3.

    012991 letter Vorpagel SWRCB to Agencies and Interested Parties; "Notice of a Proposed Negative Declaration for Application 28944 [pencil 28994] of Leon Whitney to appropriate water from unnamed stream tributary to Grindstone Creek thence Stony Creek thence Sacramento River in Glenn County." enclosed Initial Study/Proposed NegDec, comments to her within 30 days of this notice
    012991 letter Vorpagel/Environmental Review to Postmaster/Elk Creek; "Please retain the enclosed Initial Study/Proposed Negative Declaration in your post office for 30 days for review by the public." comments on it to her within 30 days of this notice
    012991 letter Vorpagel/SWRCB to Agencies & interested parties; another copy
    013191 contact report Vorpagel & George Wilson/Water Master; "He wondered if he needed to formally respond or comment on the IS/NegDec. I told him only if he had questions or problems. He said he thought it was a good project and a good Neg Dec and had no further comments."

    113090 William E. Soule, Archaeologist, Environmental Unit, "Cultural - Resource Survey Report,...Application 28994, Leon Whitney....";
  • References Cited [3 pp.]
  • Survey Boundaries, drawn in on photocopy of Chrome 7.5' USGS map showing Whitney Sites 1 - 5
  • photos, 1) 3-forks confluence looking SE; 2) north fork facing NW with bee hives on knoll at high water location
  • photos, 1) upstream on middle fork; 2) downstream on south fork
  • photos, 1) facing upstream from north bank of dam site; 2) facing downstream
  • photos, POU 1) S8 facing NW; 2) S5 & S6 facing NE
  • Archaeological Site Record , Whitney #1, 8 pp [BY STAFF, AFTER I ASKED ABOUT IT, ENTIRE REPORT PULLED FROM FILE AND SENT TO SECURE ARCHAEOLOGICAL FILES 05/18/2010]
    - Whitney #1 pointed on photocopy of Chrome 7.5' USGS map
    - Whitney #1 site map of midden [location deleted]
    - Whitney #1 photos; 1) facing west; 2) facing south
    - Whitney #1 photos; 1) facing north; 2) facing east
    - Whitney #1 photos; 1) facing southeast, midden by dotted line; 2) facing southwest, midden by dotted line
  • Archaeological Site Record , Whitney #2, 7 pp
    - Whitney #2 site map of midden [location deleted]
    - Whitney #2 pointed on photocopy of Chrome 7.5' USGS map
    - Whitney #2 photos; 1) facing north; 2) facing west
    - Whitney #2 photos; 1, 2, & 3, ground squirrel diggings & backdirt piles in #2, they dig here because soils are so shallow in vicinity
  • Archaeological Site Record , Whitney #3, 7 pp
    - Whitney #3 site map of midden [location deleted]
    - Whitney #3 pointed on photocopy of Chrome 7.5' USGS map
    - Whitney #3 photos; 1) facing northwest; 2) facing north
    - Whitney #3 photos; 1) facing west; 2) showing squirrel burrows/backdirt piles which "expose numerous artifacts (largely lithics and fire-fractured rock)
  • Archaeological Site Record , Whitney #4, 8 pp
    - Whitney #4 site map of midden [location deleted]
    - Whitney #4 pointed on photocopy of Chrome 7.5' USGS map
    - Whitney #4 photos; both facing north;
    - Whitney #4 photos; 1) facing southeast; 2) facing south;
    - Whitney #4 photos; 1, 2 & 3) showing squirrel burrows/backdirt piles ; artifacts in other 2 photos
  • Archaeological Site Record , Whitney #5, 7 pp
    - Whitney #5 pointed on hand-drawn map of Whitney ranch
    - Whitney #5 pointed on photocopy of Chrome 7.5' USGS map
    - Whitney #5 photos; 1 facing upstream; 2) showing salt precipitate in a dry pool
    - Whitney #5 photo; 1) facing upstream "shows one of the brackish pools in the streambed" - waterfall when running?
    - Whitney #5 photos; 1, 2 & 3) showing squirrel burrows/backdirt

    012991 Notice of Preparation of a Negative Declaration Pursuant to Section 21092 - Public Resources Code; as in above UNDATED Draft, "A copy of the Negative Declaration and supporting Initial Study or information concerning the proposed action may be obtained by writing to:" Vorpagel; "Persons who disagree with the conclusions set forth in the Negative Declaration, or who disagree with the information contained therein are invited to furnish written comments to the foregoing address. The comments should summarize the specific substantive and factual basis for disagreement. Final date for submitting such comments is 30 days from the date of this notice."
    UNDATED Mailing List for Proposed Negative Declaration of Application 28994 of Leon Whitney

    UNDATED DRAFT Negative Declaration, another copy
    012991 Initial Study; (another copy)

    020591 contact report Vorpagel/Div WRights & Baiocchi; "concerned over cumulative downstream impacts. I told him Mike Minez [?] had been out there and had no problems with the fishery aspects. [para] Bob wondered about the small bipass [sic] flow. [para] I said we felt we were winning something because the dam would leak at least .5 cfs year round and create a wetland habitat below the dam. [sic] Also the year round water supply would benefit the wildlife in the area. [sic] Bob says if I am comfortable with it he won't protest it."
    021191 contact report Vorpagel/Div Wrights & Whitney; "Will be published this week once and Feb 19th. The dead line I had given him said Feb 19th and he wanted to make sure it was OK to have it published on the deadline day. I told him that was no problem. I also told him about the typo on the cover letter which shows his application as 28944 instead of the correct #28994"
    022791 F postcard Acknowledgement OPR SCH #91013089
    021991 contact report Vorpagel/Div WRights & Borger/Safety of Dams; "They normally comment on Clearinghouse items But with Budget cuts procedures may be changing. They will require a Dam Safety Permit. He hasn't filed yet. Those are Dam Safety's Comments on the NegDec. [para] Tulleys [tules?] are to be removed along Dam face. They encourage muskrats to burrow into dam. Also Spillway approach shouldn't have tulleys [tules?] or debris because it can create problems. (This was related to Whitney's other Dam on his property)."

    022091 letter William Anthony Johnson/Native American Heritage Commission to Vorpagel/SWRCB; suggest contacting Grindstone Rancheria, contact info, mention of Grindstone Rancheria involvement with other site investigations, mention CEQA Appendix K language, etc.
  • 07??91 Brochure, "A Professional Guide for the Preservation and Protection of Native American Remains and Associated Grave Goods"; state code sections quoted, list of what to do when materials are found

    022591 Proof of Publication; Willows Journal/Orland Press-Register; of "Notice of Preparation of a Negative Declaration"
    030191 Nunenkamp/OPR to Vorpagel/SWRCB; SCH 91013089; comment period closed, comments attached
  • 022091 letter William Anthony Johnson/Native American Heritage Commission to Vorpagel/SWRCB; another copy
    030491 F Notice of Completion Appendix F; State Clearinghouse form filled out by SWRCB, APN 025-11-0-009-0-0

    030191 contact report Virginia Cahill [Somach?]/[Reimers?] atty & Vorpagel/SWRCB ; "30 days [a page missing?]. Her client is in Orland Unit; resolved protest by shortening season among other ways. [para] Send copies of Orland Unit Protest & Resolutions and copy of Application , copy GCID protest; "Denise Wilcox may have asked Kathy in files for copies last week haven't yet received. [para] Will call when done. she will send someone over for it with a check. [para] I told her that since the last publishing date was" 02/15/1991 "she would have 30 days from that time" Action items "get copies'
  • 0361191 "She finally got them" 03/08/1991 "no one had called her"

    031191 contact report Bernie Millsaps--downstream from Damsite and Vorpagel/Div WRights; "Spring of water under dam site, Skidmore hole, supplys [sic] water to downstream users in November. [para] Watson Creek used to flow to his property. Now it doesn't. because of dams. [Whitney dams?] [para] They are 1/4 mile down from spring. if the dam covers the spring it won't flow it usually flows to his field in September or October or November latest. [para] He is concerned that the dam will stop flow from the spring [para] I suggested an outflow pipe at the bottom to bypass the flow from the Spring. [para] He wonders if a drainage could be put in to tap the spring when it flows under the dam. The Bypass of 1/4 cfs won't reach his property." Decision "He should write his comments down and send them in."
    031491 letter Bernie L. Millsaps to Vorpagel/SWRCB; "Although Leon Whitney is one of my best friends and a super neighbor, I'll have to protest his plans for building a big reservoir up salt creek above my ranch. [Salt Creek? not "unnamed stream", 6th Salt Creek in the watershed?] [para] Directly beneath the proposed fill is a spring of water that, even on dry years, raises up and flows down through my ranch for livestock water every fall. We have always been dependent on this. [para] If the dam is built as planned, this spring will be sealed off and lost forever. [para] The plans for building the dam call for a small amount of water to be released at all times, but if there is no water impounded, there will be nothing to release. [para] If there was some way that the spring underneath the fill could be tapped and all allowed to flow freely, plus a small release at all times, I would have no objections to constructing the reservoir."
    031390 [sic] contact report Vorpagel/SWRCB and Marleen/Office Manager; "Steve Miller no longer works there. She is looking to see if the project is still with their firm. (office) [later?] Steve calls in weekly - they will give him my name & #"
    031591 letter Soule/SWRCB to Burrows/Grindstone Rancheria; enclosed 1) archaeological survey report & 2) letter from NAHC which identified you as Native American organization that would be most concerned
  • 022091 letter William Anthony Johnson/Native American Heritage Commission to Vorpagel/SWRCB; third copy
    032390 contact report Vorpagel & Leon Whitney; Inquiring about status of rare plant survey for Adobe lily (Fritillaria pluriflora)
  • 032990 They are doing the second part in 3 weeks. They did one part last week
  • 070290 called, left message that I need copy of results.

    041691 letter Diaz/Div WQuality & WRights to Bernie Millsaps; letter 333:KDM:28994 ; On 01/29/1991, "The Division of Water Quality and Water Rights (Division) circulated a Notice of a Proposed Negative Declaration for Application 28994 of Leon Whitney. On" 03/20/1991 "we received your comments regarding Mr. Whitney's proposed dam. You have indicated that there is a spring located beneath the proposed fill for the dam. If the dam is built, this spring will be sealed off, and you will no longer have access to the spring. You have asked whether the spring underneath the fill could be tapped and allowed to flow freely downstream to survey the needs of downstream property owners. Your property is located about 1/4 mile downstream from the spring. The spring usually adds to the winter streamflow beginning in September or October of each year. [para] First, as you already know, any permit which is issued will require a continual release of 0.25 cubic feet per second (cfs) immediately downstream of the dam site. This release was requested by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to resolve their concerns. Second, we intend to include a condition in any permit issued to require the installation of an outlet pipe through the dam at or near the elevation of the natural streambed to ensure that the required release can be made. [para] I can understand your concern about the effect which existing dams in the watershed and Mr. Whitney's proposed reservoir have upon the streamflow reaching your property. However, the protest period for the application expired on" 09/15/1987. "Unfortunately, we did not know that you use water from this stream until your recent letter. We do not have anything in our files to document your water use (either a Statement of Water Diversion and use or an application to appropriate water from this source). [para] The proposed reservoir is in the area covered by the Angle Decree, which adjudicated the rights for the flow of Stony Creek and its tributaries. Apparently, you water your cattle from the stream during the winter months. Division staff contacted Watermaster George Wilson on" 04/11/1991 "to determine whether you might be a valid riparian water user. Mr. Wilson informs us that the riparian rights were settled in the decree, and you do not have a decreed right for this source. It appears that Mr. Whitney's [to p. 2] proposed storage project will not infringe upon any vested right of yours. We cannot accept the protest because it was not received in a timely manner, and it does not appear to be a valid protest based upon prior rights. [what does this have to do with a CEQA impact comment?] [para] The proposed reservoir is 1,300 acre-feet in size. Reservoirs of this size are within the jurisdiction of the Department of Water Resources (Department), Division of Safety of Dams, as to safety and construction. Any permit which we issue will state that the storage of water under this permit shall not be commenced until the Department has approved the plans and specifications for the dam. You have asked whether we could require Mr. Whitney to tap the spring within the dam fill area and channel that water to downstream water users. If we required this, the conveyance pipe would be located within the dam structure and might affect the integrity of the dam. The Division relies upon the Department's expertise in dam safety to ensure that safe dams are constructed. We do not intend to assert any jurisdiction with respect to construction of the dam itself. Therefore, we will forward a copy of your letter to the Department without any recommendations for change which might affect the integrity of the dam. [para] If we can be of further assistance, please telephone me at (916) 445-9552. Katherine Mrowka is the engineering staff person assigned to this matter...."
    041691 contact report Katherine Mrowka contacted George Wilson, Federal watermaster for the Stoney [sic] Creek adjudicated area; "I contacted Mr. Wilson due to the recent protest of A28994 filed by Bernie Millsaps. Mr. Millsaps has asked for additional water to be released from Mr. Whitney's proposed reservoir to provide winter water for his livestock. I asked the watermaster whether riparian rights [crossed out: still exist] are valid in the [crossed out: watershe] adjudicated area. He said that the decree recognized all of the riparian rights and settled them. Mr. Millsaps does not have a decreed right for livestock watering. Mr. Wilson's address is 828 Eighth St., Orland, CA 95963." [was Mr. Millsaps letter a "protest" or a "notice of an unconsidered environmental impact" letter?] [ she gets to choose what it is called, not the person sending the letter? ]
    051591 letter Soule/Environmental Unit to Whitney; "response to your phone call in February during which you indicated that you were reluctant to initiate the archaeological mitigation program as outlined in the survey report on your proposed application. You suggested that instead of having the endangered sites investigated archaeologically, you would bury them with soil and/or rocks prior to project constructions. [para] This would not meet the requirements of" CEQA, Appendix K "and would thus not be acceptable to the" SWRCB "staff. The stabilization of archaeological deposits subject to inundation is a technique that only has been used experimentally during the last 15-20 years, and then only by large agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. In these situations, the stabilization methods were developed by a team of specialists comprised of hydrologists, geologists, engineers, and pedologists working in conjunction with archaeologists. [para] Even in such situations where stabilization has been employed, it was not used as a substitute for the initial test excavation/evaluation phase of the archaeological mitigation program. Testing by professional archaeologists for preliminary site evaluation was still a required step in the process. [para] A mitigation program featuring site stabilization would also have to provide for periodic monitoring to evaluate the condition of the cultural resources involved and to insure that the stabilization works are still intact. This can often only be accomplished during extended dry periods, but can sometimes be done as [sic] an annual basis when a site is in the draw-down zone of a reservoir. [to p. 2] In conclusion, the archaeological mitigation program outlined in the survey report on Application 28994, which included an initial (Phase II) test excavation followed by a data recovery state (Phase III) excavation is still the required course of action. If an alternative mitigation program involving site stabilization is to be proposed, it must still include the test excavation phase. In addition, it must also be designed and implemented by a professional archaeologist in consultation with soil scientists and engineers with previous experience in the stabilization of archaeological deposits subject to inundation. [para] If State Board staff is not informed within 60 days following the date of this letter that you have agreed to initiate and complete the archaeological program as outlined in the survey report (dated" 11/30/1990 "), Application 28994 will be subject to cancellation as per Section 65956(c) of the California Government Code...."

    TITLE 7. PLANNING AND LAND USE
    DIVISION 1. PLANNING AND ZONING
    CHAPTER 4.5. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
    Article 1. General Provisions ........................... 65920-65924
    Article 2. Definitions .................................. 65925-65934
    Article 3. Applications for Development Projects ........ 65940-65945.7
    Article 5. Approval of Development Permits .............. 65950-65957.5
    Article 5.6. Environmental Permits ...................... 65959-65959.3
    Article 6. Development Permits for Classes of Projects .. 65960-65964

    65956.
    (c) Failure of an applicant to submit complete or adequate information pursuant to Sections 65943 to 65944, inclusive, may constitute grounds for disapproving a development project. [text in 1991?]
    070291 contact report Whitney called Soule/Div WRights ; "to tell me that he has asked Chico State's Archaeological Research Program (Blossom Hamusek & Frank E Bayham) to prepare a proposal & cost estimate for the archaelogical testing of the sites that I recorded for the report on #28994. He told me that he would call again when he has more information on the proposal & whether or not he will proceed with the archaeological mitigation program."
    070291 contact report Bill Dryer/Chico State University Regional Office called Soule/Div Wrights; "...representing Blossom Hamusek & Frank E. Bayham at Chico State University's Archaeological Program. He stated that they were currently preparing a proposal to do the test excavation & other archaeological field studies for the sites in the proposed Whitney dam area in Glenn County. They have not come up with a cost figure yet but hope to do so next week."
    070391 form letter Swillinger/California Archaelogical Inventory Records to Soule/Div WRights; assignment of trinomial numbers to Whitney sites;
  • UNDATED Continuation sheet; Whitney #1 - 5 assigned CA-GLE-465 - 469; corrections listed; Note, "Only one copy of each site record was received. We will not process future records unless two copies of each site record are submitted. Also, no survey report was received for this project. A copy of the survey report should be submitted to us when it has been completed. The formula for figuring meters squared is: [pi](LxW) / 4 = meters squared, where [pi] = 3.14, and L & W = ??

    071791 letter Blossom Hamusek/Cal State Chico Dept of Anthropology to Whitney; Sites 1,2, & 3 archaeological investigations; "...based these estimates on a testing program which recover data from approximately 2% of the total cultural deposit for each site. ...include fieldwork, data analysis and report preparation. [para] ...bulk of the budget...in field work time,...estimated...5-1/2 weeks with 6 to 8 people. ...per diem and mileage costs...testing program would consist of the collection of surface and subsurface data and would include surface collection of all diagnostic artifacts, cartographic mapping of the sites, an auguring program in order to determine actual site boundaries, in addition to the systematic excavation of 2% of the site deposit. [para] ...data recovered...then be utilized to determine site significance and as an aid in the formation of a research design which would assist in the development of a mitigation plan for each site. ...estimates....only for the Phase II testing of each site. Recommendations to mitigate the impact of project activities on sites of this diversity and magnitude must consider the nature of the sites in relation to their potential significance. We concur with the recommendations presented in Mr. Soule's" 12/12/1990 report & 05/15/1991 letter, "...in that a Phase III data recovery excavation will most likely be necessary in order to mitigate Whitney Sites 1,2, and 3. The cost of a data recovery program for these sites would, in all likelihood, be in the neighborhood of $250,000 to 400,000...[to p. 2] contingent upon the results obtained during the Phase II testing....acceptable, we will require a letter of authorization....to proceed...."
  • Attachment A, Whitney Application #28994 Archaeological Testing, Site 1; detail totals to $19,826
  • Attachment A, Whitney Application #28994 Archaeological Testing, Site 2; $22,721
  • Attachment A, Whitney Application #28994 Archaeological Testing, Site 3 $21,274 [total all 3 $63,821]

    080191 contact report Whitney called Soule/Div WRights; "Leon Whitney called to tell me that he had received the cost proposal from CSU Chico to test excavate the three site [sic] in his reservoir basin. The cost proposed, approximately $60,000, and the high likelihood of additional mitigation work being needed, has led Mr. Whitney to conclude that this reserrvoir site is not feasible. He told me that he plans to relocate the dam & reservoir to a location approximately 1500' - 1600' further downstream (on the same unnamed stream). This will also require a corresponding reduction in the estimated capacity to approximately 1/2 of that proposed for the current site (1300 AF). Mr. Whitney then asked me how he could ammend [sic] this application to abandon the proposed site & add the new one at the downstream location. I told him that I would talk to Jane Vorpagel (EC on this application) & the engineer responsible in permits to find out how best this situation could be handled & that I would have someone call him this week (today or friday" 08/02/1991" ) to discuss it."
    080291 letter Mrowka/Div WRights to Whitney; "...understanding that you would like to revise Application 28994 by moving the proposed point of diversion 1,500 to 1,600 feet downstream and reducing the reservoir size from 1,300 acre-feet (af) to about 650 af. Since this application has been publicly noticed and protest resolution has been completed, the appropriate procedure to initiate the change is to file a Petition for Change (forms enclosed). A revised engineered map of the project site is required to be submitted along with the petition. [para] If the proposed change will not injure any legal user of water lcoated between the former point of diversion and the new proposed point of diversion, public notice of the Change Petition may not be required." 23 CCR 795 "states that the" SWRCB "will not ordinarily require that notice be given or published in cases where the proposed change could not impair the supply. To assist Division of Water Rights staff in determining whether the Change Petition should be noticed, please provide information on whether the new site is upstream or downstream from Bernie Millsaps [sic, no "'"] property. Also state whether any other users of water could be affected by the change...." [don't tell Bernie?]

    112191 contact report Vorpagel/Div WRights called Whitney; "...call me. I told her I wanted to look at the new dam site so I could make any necessary changes to the Environmental Document prior to my leaving the Board. [para] I told her I would like to come Tuesday" 11/26/1991.
    112691 Environmental Field Report, Division of Water Rights, Jane Vorpagel; "...not yet been built. Due to the major expense which would be incurred to mitigate for the cultural resources potentially impacted by the project, Mr. Whitney has proposed moving the dam downstream about 1,600 feet and reducing the reservoir size from 1,300 acre-feet to 650 acre-feet. By doing this the impacts to the cultural sites will be reduced and mitigation may be feasible....currently used for cattle grazing and light industrial use...Scrub oak and digger pines, non-native annual grassland. Riparian vegetation is virtually non-existent through out the entire project site....streams have not been flowing on any of my site inspections. The channels are scoured indicating high flow periods during the rainy season. Some of the channels have seeps of salt water...Loose shale, exposed areas of bed rock, typical foothill, rollign hills and small gullies due to drainages. The lower portion of the property is almost flat with small slopes. [to p. 2] ...conversion to irrigated pasture should not have any significant impacts to the area... Since the type of habitat which is being impacted is very common to the area, the displacement caused by the project should not have a significant impact on animal species utilizing this resource....After the replacement trees can withstand grazing pressure, wildlife will be allowed access to the vegetation. The applicant will allow wildlife access to the reservoir, this is seen as a benefit since this area is water scarce during much of the year. Water fowl will benefit due to the permanent reservoir developed. There are no fisheries which will be negatively impacted. A warm water fishery will probably be established when the reservoir is completed....dam will probably leak in sufficient quantities to provide flow below the dam for most of the year, however, to mitigate and/or compensate for the seasonal wetlands lost beneath the reservoir, 1/4 cubic foot per second shall be released year-round immediately downstream of the dam site. [credit for leakage?]...no cumulative impacts identified from this project [ignoring Bernie Millsaps]...Most of the impacts identified in the original draft environmental impact report [environmental assessment?]...are the same with the new location of the dam site...exception...cultural resources...draft negative declaration may need to be modivied to reflect the changes. Mitigation measures proposed [other than cultural]...will remain the same for both dam sites....
  • photo - New proposed dam site
  • photo - Pasture near new POD
  • photo - Upstream from new POD
  • photo - area of new reservoir
  • photo - Downstream from new POD
  • photo - Downstream from Damsite Spill Way location
  • photo - Damsite looking upstream

    1992


    011692 contact report Kathryn Tobias/Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer called Soule/Div WRights; "...called to say that she had been retained by Leon Whitney to represent him on his water right application. She asked me to explain about the archaeological sites at the original principal reservoir location. I explained about the CEQA requirements for cultural resource mitigation & that 3 of the 4 midden sites at the proposed reservoir were going to be inundated by the reservoir as originally proposed (1300 AF). I explained to her that Mr. Whitney needed to complete the archaeological testing & mitigation program if he was to continue with the 1300 AF project. I told her that it would be more feasible, especially financially for the applicant, to consider either a relocation of the project, a down-sizing of it, or a resdesign (several smaller reservoirs). I stated that I believed that it would be prohibitively expensive to complete the archaeological mitigation in light of the proposed use of the water. I also noted that 1300 AF was excessive when the 298 acre place of use (irrigated pasture) was considered. Ms. Tobias asked if I would send her a copy of the arch. report. I told her that I would mail it that day."
    UNDATED contact report Whitney call Mrowka/Div WRights; "...called and left a message that his new engineered map should be ready in about 2 weeks."
    021992 contact report Sandy Kitchen/DFG & Mrowka/Div Wrights; "...discussed the DFG petition fee with Sandy Kitchen. The following situation has occurred. Application 28994 was publicly noticed, protested, and the protests were resolved. However, the proposed reservoir was located near an archaeological site. The reservoir location must be moved. It will also be reduced in size from 1,300 af to 370 af. I simply told her that the reservoir would be reduced in size, and not the magnitude of the reduction. The reservoir will still be located upstream from all of the protestants. Thus, Division staff does not intend to notice the change petition because the revised project has less impact upon the protestants. The change petition will amend the application. She said that if there is no additional notice as a result of the petition and the petition will only serve to amend the application, a DFG fee will not be due. This is largely because the application has not actually been approved yet."

    082191 Petition for Change; From section corner 7,8,17 and 18, T21N R6W bearing N28-56' W, Distance 3,513' to proposed dam site, located in the SW 1/4 of NE 1/4 S7, T21N R6W MDBM; reason "Discovered Arc sites in other storage area." old POD not abandoned; same use purpose as before; owned site; no diverters in between; "This site is still upstream from Bernie Millsaps property. It will have a much lesser affect [sic] on his property than before because we would be storing much less waer. It had little affect [sic] be...[fore?]...." [2 copies]
    020392 letter Miller/Engineer to Mrowka/Div WRights; enclosing proposed project map & petition for change of storage area

    UNDATED page of photos, not attached to anything, assume all for upstream dam site - Dam site & Reservoir looking west
    UNDATED page of photos, not attached to anything - Middle Fork (3), South Fork (2), North Fork (1)
    UNDATED page of photos, not attached to anything - Salt Area of Streambed, pool, area of pools [deep pool in the rock at the former dam site, cloudy water, waterfalls in winter?]
    UNDATED page of photos, not attached to anything - panoramic view of one of the sites?
    UNDATED page of photos, not attached to anything - panoramic Beehives north fork
    UNDATED page of photos, not attached to anything - "Confluence Dam (or 3 forks)"

    021992 letter Mrowka/Hearings Unit to Whitney; petition reduces storage from 1,300 a-f capacity to 370 a-f capacity, but want "a written response stating the quantity of water which you now intend to apply for. Please provide written confirmation within the next 30 days." & a mylar of the drawing & $100 petition fee
    022492 contact report Whitney called Mrowka/Div WRights; "to confirm that he would like to reduce A28994 to 650 af of storage. He hopes to raise the dam later and encroach on the archaeological sites or store additional water offstream. He understands that will need a permit condition requiring archaeological consultation prior to any project modifications and a second permit term requiring submittal of an engineered drawing prior to any enlargement of the dam or construction of any additional reservoirs. [para] He asked that the telephone conversation be considered as formal notification of reduction of the application."
    022592 letter Miller/Engineer to Mrowka/Div Wrights; mylar enclosed
    031192 contact report Mrowka/Div Wrights called Whitney; "discussed the application with my supervisor and the engineered drawing and the applied for amount of water must agree with one another. He could reduce the applied for amount to 370 af to match the map or he could submit a new engineered drawing for 650 af. He chose to reduce the amount to 370 af. He doesn't want to increase the size to 650 now, because he would have to obtain a new archaelogical clearance."
    063092 Page 2 [of?]; "Disposition by Environmental Assessment Unit", Findings from Field Survey, checked Negative; "No sites in new reservoir area sites identified in previous survey should not be impacted."
    080392 letter Roddy/Environmental Review Unit to Whitney; "...change in the project involves a reduction in the amount of water applied for and no substantial comments were received during public review of the environmental documents, it does not appear necessary to recirculate the documents reflecting the change. However, a new Negative Declaration must be prepared describing the actual project being approved by the State Water Board. [para] Enclosed you will fine a new draft Negative Declaration...terms...2 and 3 have been replaced with the standard permit terms dealing with a measuring device and dam safety; No. 4 has been modified to be more explicit in terms of what is required for the replacement of trees removed for reservoir constructionl..." review, no response within 15 days, will asume terms acceptable
    081092 contact report Whitney called Roddy/Div Wrights; "...this morning about the Negative Declaration I sent him. He said that everything is fine except for the bypass term set by DFG. He wonders whether the bypass term is needed since he has reduced his project to 1/4th the original size when the dismissal terms were established. I told him we would have to talk with DFG and since the term was a basis for dismissal and also to see if they are agreeable to a change in the dismissal term."
    081792 contact report Roddy/Div WRights and Roger Guinee [garbled]/DFG; "I talked to Roger about the release terms for this app. I explained that the projct is now 370 AF and a release of 1/4 cfs would be 180 AF for the year. I told him I had talked to Mike Mainz about modifying the term and Kathy Mrowka and I came up with a term requiring visible flow for 300 feet below the dam. [para] Roger is concerned about enforcing this, mainly about defining what 'visible flow' is. He says he has run into problems in the past with this type of term. [para] He was wondering about a release of 40-50 gpm and whether it is measureable. I told him I would talk with Mike and Kathy and get back to him."
    081992 contact report Roddy/Div WRights & Guinee/DFG; "...new term for downsized project. I told him Mike Meinz has no problem with 'visible flow' term, but if he wants to set an actual release amount that can be arranged. He said the term written by Kathy Mrowka would be acceptable. I told him that I would prepare a letter to him and the applicant proposing the new term and requesting comment if it is unacceptable. He said that is fine."
    082092 contact report Whitney called Roddy/Div Wrights; "...explained the new permit term we are proposing. He said he was happy with it and I told him I was drafting a letter to him & DFG confirming acceptance of the term."
    082792 letter Roddy/Environmental Review Unit to Guinee/CDFG & Whitney; new term, "'For mitigation and/or compensation of the seasonal wetlands lost beneath the reservoir, permittee shall release sufficient water from the reservoir into the Unnamed Stream to maintain a continuous visible surface flow at least 300 feet downstream of the dam. Permittee shall establish a control marker (wooden stake, fence post, etc.) satisfactory to the State water Resources Control Board, 300 feet downstream of the dam.'"; no comment in 15 days, assume acceptable
    091092 mini memo Mrowka to ??; "I have reviewed the file and the proposed change in bypass flow due to a reduction in the proposed size of the reservoir only affects one protestant, Dept. of Fish and Game. The other 2 protests were resolved by limiting the Diversion season. If DFG accepts the new permit term, then I recommend its inclusion. By Contact Report date" 08/19/1992 "DFG accepted the term. Therefore, I recommend that we use it."
    012991 Initial Study; (third copy, this one with [presumably] SCH #91013089 stamped on the front of it)

    1993


    011393 contact report Katherine Mrowka/Div WRights contacted Whitney; "...because Bill Van Dyck noticed a discrepancy between the proposed irrigated a reage shown on the E-maps and the acreage listed in the application. I asked Mr. Whitney which acreage he wanted listed. He said to use the E-map because it is a slightly larger area. He also said to use the E-map because it is a slightly larger area. He also said that he won't actually be able to irrigate all 300 acres, because there won't be enough water to do it. We concluded that the acreage in each section should be left unchanged, but the section description modified to match the E-map."
    020293 Kassel/Div Wrights, Ap approved, $100 please, within 10 days
    012893 Notice of Determination Pursuant to Sectin 21108 Public Resources Code; SCH 91013089 Neg Dec & mitigations
  • 091592 Negative Declaration; irrigate 298 acres & 200 head of cattle, recreation, fire protection, 80-foot earth dam w/370 a-f capacity; 16 acres surface; down from 1300 a-f, reduced to avoid cultural impacts; POD S 2,825 feet West 1,500 feet from NE corner S7 T21N R6W MDB & M, within SW 1/4 NE 1/4 S7; 370 a-f/a from 11/01 - 03/15; 298 acre POU as previously described; terms:
    - "1. For mitigation and/or compensation for the seasonal wetlands lost beneath the reservoir, permittee shall release sufficient water from the reservoir into the Unnamed Stream to maintain a continuous visible surface flow at least 300 feet downstream of the dam. Permittee shall establish a control marker (wooden stake, fence post, etc.), satisfactory to the State Water Resources Control Board, 300 feet downstream of the dam.
    - 2. If the dam will be of such size as to be within the jurisdiction of the Department of Water Resources as to safety, constuction under this permit shall not be commenced until the Department has approved the plans and specifications for the dam.
    - 3. Revegetation: Within one year after construction of the reservoir, permtitee shall establish tree species native to Glenn County in the vicinity of the reservoir. For establishment to be considered successful, each tree must be self-sustaining for at least four years. If mortality causes the number of replacement trees to decline below the target survival rate of 75 percent, new trees will be planted until the minimum 75 percent survival is obtained. Monitoring results stating the progress and success of the revegetation will be submitted annually to the State Water Resources Control Board as part of the annual Progress Report by Permittee.
    - - a. Two trees shall be planted for each tree removed with a diameter at breast height of four inches or more. Tree species to be planted shall be cottonwood, willow, oak, elderberry, or other trees native to Glenn County.
    - - b. Oak species may be rooted acorns, seedlings, or saplings. Willow and cottonwood may be cuttings or saplings. Elderberry should be seedlings. Other species should be planted at sizes that have the greatest chance of survival.
    - - c. Trees will be planted in irregular spacings. Willow and cottonwood can be planted close to the mean water line of the reservoir. Elderberry [to p. 3] should be planted above the high water line, but close enough to have damp soil into summer. Oaks should also be planted above the high water line.
    - - d. All tree plantings site will be augered as needed to promote deep root growth. Slow-release fertilizers will be added, if needed, and the holes will be back-filled and planted.
    - - e. Irrigation will be applied, where necessary, during the growing season. Irrigation will apply at a minimum, the amount and frequency of water needed to promote adequate root growth, thus allowing the trees to survive and grow tihout supplemental water after four years.
    - - f. Herbicides, weed mats, browse repellants, and herbivore protection kits will be used, if necessary to control competitive weeds, animal browse, or maintain plant vigor. [grasshoppers?]
    - 4. The archaeological sites identified as" CA-GLE-465, 6, 7, and 8 "shall not be impacted by any developments related to or resulting from the proposed water diversion, storage or use. Such developments would include all surface and subsurface disturbances related to construction of the dams, reservoir basins, pipelines, and project activities in the place of use.
    - The archaeological sites shall be clearly delineated by staking and flagging the areas as identified on the archaelogical site maps in order to prevent inadvertent impacts during the above stated activities. The stakes marking the sites shall be at least 3-feet in height and placed at no more than 15-foot intervals.
    - Future developments at these sites may be allowed following the completion of an appropriate mitigation program approved by a State Water Resources Control Board....archaeologist. If any previously undiscovered cultural resources are found during the course of project activities authorized by this permit, all work shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist evaluates the sit [sic], notifies a" SWRCB "archaeologist of the find, and appropriate mitigation measures are implemented...."
    050489 revised 09/10/1992 Check for Permit; kdm; mailing list on back
    062689 Analysis of Water Use and Selection of Water Conservation Permit Term; K. Mrowka;
    012893 Issuance of Water Right Permit; includes terms from NegDec; K. Mrowka
    020193 memo Anton/Div WRights to State Clearinghouse; attached Notice of Deterination
    030987 Application to Appropriate Water; work copy;
  • map on section quads showing old but not new POD
  • map on topo photocopy showing old but not new POD plus proposed canal or pipeline
  • Environmental Information, supplement
    022393 Permit for Diversion and Use of Water; complete by 12/31/1996, complete application by 12/31/1997;
    023293 letter Lininger/Div WRights to Whitney; permit enclosed, annual reports, etc.

    1994


    012094 Progress Report by Permittee for 1993; "The soils engineers are still taking samples of the soil for our Civil engineer to use in our work plan before starting construction. Aproximate cost to date is 10000.00" "We expect to start construction on" 04/15/1997 & complete by 12/01/1996 [yup.]; 100% remains to be done

    1995


    030995 Progress Report by Permittee for 1994; "Soil samples tests not yet complete $6000.00 spent" estimate completion 11/30/1996; "No construction will be started until design is complete & approved."
  • Information Sheet, list owner authorized to receive all corres, etc. Leon Whitney addr phone number

    1996


    080596 Progress Report by Permittee for 1995; spent, $10000.00; estimate completion date 10/1998; "Only the soils engineering & design of reservoir has been done"; "Our project was delayed mostly because our soils engineers have not done their part of the work in a timely manner. We are now employing another soils engineeer & hope to be starting work soon."
    103196 Petition for Extension of Time if construction work is proceeding."; what has been done "Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation and Workplan."; begin Fall 1997; "Inability of Owner to work with the Geotechnical Engineer. Another Geotechnical Engineer has been retained to complete the project." 2 copies
    121196 Notice of Petitions Requesting Changes in Water Right Permits, including Whitney; Procedures for filing Protests;
  • Mailing list
    120596 Declaration of Exemption; declared exempt in accordance with Section 15062 of" CEQA Guidelines; reason why project exempt:
    - "1. The project involves minor alternations [sic] in the condition of land, water and/or vegetation which do not result in significant loss of mature natural vegetation (e.g. unique habitat, mature scenic trees, riparian vegetation or marshland. [no close ")"]
    - 2. This proejct will not cause significant adverse impacts on any sensitive environment and will not result in significant cumulative impacts.
    - 3. There are no protests.
    - 4. No unresolved written objection by the Department of Fish and Game has been received stating that the project may impair instream beneficial uses."

    1997


    031497 Order approving a new development schedule and amending the permit"; construction completed on or before 12/31/2005, complete application of the water 12/31/2007
    031497 letter Stretars/Div WRights to Whitney; extension approved
    110896 contact report Snyder/Div WRights called Whitney; didn't receive the $50 and can't process petition without it.
    082997 Progress Report by Permittee for 1996; done, site work & testing soils, 95 % remains to be done; "This report was misplaced is why it was not sent in. We plan to start construction within the next 8 months."

    1998


    072098 Progress Report by Permittee for 1997; "Site plan & soil tests made for fill material. Approximate cost of 15,000.00 to this date. Because of wet weather conditions we could not work in early spring of 1998. Would like to start in spring of 1999." "Because of weather conditions and our other work being behind schedule we could not work in spring of 1998 and would like to start in early spring of 1999 or late fall of 1998."
    050198 Progress Report by Permittee for 1998; "We still plan to build the reservoir."

    1999


    050199 Progress Report by Permittee for 1999; "Still planning to do the reservoir but waiting for financing."

    2000


    050100 Progress Report by Permittee for 2000; "Still planning to do the job but waiting for financing."

    2003


    050103 Progress Report by Permittee for 2001; "All earth work still remains to be started & completed which I still plan to do when finances are available."

    2008


    052908 Progress Report by Permittee for 2007; "The excavation work still needs to be done. We are trying to get financing that will enable us to finish the project." "This is a project that we still want to do but at the present we are financially unable."

    2009


    040209 Progress Report by Permittee for 2008; "All construction work is to be done & I am hoping to get a loan or a Grant that will enable me to start construction." extimated completion date 2012; 2 feet below spillway at max, 9 feet below spillway at min - how can this be if there is no spillway or reservoir?; conservation "Maintained strict control of all water uses & did not waste any." conserved 20 acre feet; report still shows use by 12/31/2007



    Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

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