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

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

THE STONY CREEK WATER WARS - U.S.A. v. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District CVS-91-1074-DFL-JFM Case Index
United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division

This list is in 2 section;
- Expando file - MISSING - found 07/30/2009
- Sequential files
Four [six] files, total two feet thick
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of California - Live System (Sacramento)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:91-cv-01074-DFL-JFM

USA v. Glenn-Colusa Irrigat
Assigned to: Judge David F. Levi
Referred to: Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds
Demand: $0
Cause: 16:1538 Endangered Species Act
Date Filed: 08/09/1991
Date Terminated: 01/09/1992
Nature of Suit: 893 Environmental Matters
Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Plaintiff
Plaintiff
USA represented by Edmund F. Brennan
United States Attorney's Office
501 I Street, Suite 10-100
Sacramento , CA 94102
(916) 554-2766
Fax: (916) 554-2900
Email: edmund.brennan@usdoj.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Eileen Sobeck
United States Department of Justice
Environment and Natural Resources Divisi
601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 5000
Washington , DC 20530
202-724-1010
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Defendant
Glenn-Colusa Irrigat represented by Paul Ryan Minasian
Minasian Spruance Meith Soares and Sexton
PO Box 1679
1681 Bird Street
Oroville , CA 95965-1679
530-533-2885
Email: pminasian@minasianlaw.com
TERMINATED: 01/26/1994
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stuart Leslie Somach
Somach, Simmons & Dunn
813 Sixth Street, Third Floor
Sacramento , CA 95814
(916) 446-7979 x317
Fax: (916) 446-8199
Email: ssomach@somachlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

Unknown
Melissa Estes represented by Melissa Estes
Lewis and Clark School of Law
Box 219
Portland, OR 97219
PRO SE

ThirdParty Plaintiff
Glenn-Colusa Irrigat represented by Paul Ryan Minasian
(See above for address)
TERMINATED: 01/26/1994
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Stuart Leslie Somach
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.

ThirdParty Defendant
Department of Fish and Game, State of California represented by Denis D Smaage
Attorney General's Office for the State of California
PO Box 944255
1300 I Street
Suite 125
Sacramento , CA 94244-2550
916-445-9555
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Walter Eugene Wunderlich
Attorney General's Office for the State of California
PO Box 944255
1300 I Street
Suite 125
Sacramento , CA 94244-2550
916-445-9555
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William D Cunningham
Attorney General's Office for the State of California
PO Box 944255
1300 I Street
Suite 125
Sacramento , CA 94244-2550
916-445-9555
Email: Bill.Cunningham@doj.ca.gov
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EXPANDO FILES:

[ LARGER EXPANDO FILE ]

Docs 7 - 10 [see in order below]

[ SMALLER EXPANDO FILE ]

03/23/1992 63 TRANSCRIPT of 3/18/92 - 3:50 pm of Settlement Hearing (kh) (Entered: 03/25/1992) ; agreement in principle on modifications of the injunction; in effect through 02/12/1993 & renewable upon agreement, else 01/09/1932 order back in effect; GCID maintain a screen approach velocity at .33 or lower using USACOE definition on curve area of sceens but not abutments; use 07/15 date for calculating river water level; 2) river at 8,000 cfs, flow into oxbow at least 500 cfs; 4-8,000, at least 300 cfs; below 4,000 bypass at least 200 cfs except that may go to 175 cfs if 10/01 or later and pumping rates at 700 cfs or below, some technical points to work out; 3) GCID will attempt certain improvements if it obtains appropriate permits: including training wall & total dredging plan, dredging before & behind screen, before 08/01, GCID to obtain permits & obey & follow regulatory process for them; 4) replacement screens to incorporate best available & proven technology, something on the order of the B-1 screen, construction fund to accumulate $4,000,000 over 3 years ending 12/31/1994, details to be worked out among U.S. agencies & USA still must get final approval in Washington, USA contemplates start-up 09/01/1994 completion 06/01/1997; GCID to prepare incidental take application under Section 10 submitted by 03/27/1992, NMFS to determine if complete or not; 5) GCID to make reasonable effort to supply refuges, agreement anticipated; 6) incidental take permit does not derive from this settlement, but from the "separate process that must go forward under law"; 7) Court agrees to retain jurisdiction; 8) will consider appointment of a Special Master if disagreements in technical details; all for signature by 03/25/1992 and at that time Judge Levi will modify the injunction to incorporate; BRADFISH: uh, settlement not yet binding on USA because he didn't get approval, approval anticipated & will advocate it.; MINASIAN: 08/01 for start of 0.33 velocity, - 11/30; CUNNINGHAM has to get approval but will advocate it;

11/25/1991 free floating Declaration of service for Exhibit H
11/25/1991 63 Exhibit "H" to Declaration of Howard Wilson, Engineer, David Vogel, Fisheries Biologist, Realting to Issues Pertaining to the California Department of Fish and Game Fish Screens at the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District
11/25/1991 Exhibit "H" second copy, not marked "63"; w/proof attached

11/25/1991 Envelope with cover sheet, Deposition of Gary W. Kramer; 34 pp.; stamped "ORIGINAL" no file stamp; also present, Lou Hoskey, Water Master, GCID; Minasian, a new letter limiting scope? put in record? Bradfish: we can; Minasian, points in the stip accepted, else the deposition; Bradfish, not his understanding; Minasian, ask about the points he's interested in & if they go beyond the Judge's intended scope others may object; Bradfish, OK; BS Humboldt State, MS Humboldt State, 12 years USFWS as wildlife biologist & refuge manager; with SNWR complex since 01/1989: complex of 6 refuges: Sacramento, Delevan, Colusa, Sutter; Butte sink; and Sacramento River; GCID serves the first 3, 20,500 acres; duties include organization & scheduling of water deliveries, through staff; determines biological impacts of putting water on or not; annual marsh management plan; irrigation 1) irrigate food plants & 2) fall flood, starting early/mid-August, flooding seqentially through until GCID shuts down in November, puts water on ground to make wetland habitat, M: "a managed wetland habitat", K: "a manmade system that we manage very deliberately"; migratory birds, ducks, geese, swans and coots and water-related birds & raptors & endangered species; peak 1/12 million birds, "considered extremetly high for areas of comparable size in the U,S." M: "one of the largest areas for migratory waterfowl in the North American continent", K. "from a population standpoint"; purpose of flooding is "to create a wetland habitat for water life, migratory birds in particular"; once flooded, will order additional water to keep it flooded; circulate some water through the ponds to control afian botulism in warm weather; Drain water first, then purchase from GCID, start low, peak late September/early October, last just before GCID shuts down, usually right before Thanksgiving; GCID unable to deliver would disrupt to some degree; evasive? no deliveries into September would displace peregrine falcon & bald eagle to other locations following prey species, no mortality impact if they follow the prey; alternat habitat, rice fields & duck clubs; additional depradation on farmlands, and avian botulism possibility at the duck clubs; predators would stay with the prey; no circumstance in past when no water available; no geese August & September, but very traditional; maybe 25% of ducks displaced out of Sacramento Valley; based on banding info, tend to move to the Delta; no opinion on how raptors fare outside of the refuges; regards refuges as very good habitat with its attributes & "enforcement capabilities"; if deliveries curtailed 07/15 vs. 08/15, not much impact, not much flooding that early & most irrigations are finished, & in a drought year don't irrigate that much anyway; after mid Setember, impacts "significant especially to pintails because they're early arrivals"; Aleutian Canada Goose arrives later; public visits 80,000 per year, generally between late September and April, of 80,000 hunting uses are 15,000; wells? one on Sacramento, zero Delevan, 2 Colusa, all 3 limited volume, quality OK; refuges generally upstream from the T-C interties, 1/3 of Sacramento can receive intertie water, northern 2/3 or 6,500 acres rely on GCID pumps exclusively; some lift pumps to move water around, M: generally uses drain water allowed by GCID to reach the refuges; generally use gravity from GCID which is cheaper than the lift pumps; M. drain water allowed to refuges otherwise would be picked up by other GCID pumps; no contingeny planning if loses GCID; [break] if no water to duck clubs, fowl consume rice on the rice fields which would still be watered; farmers can harass fowl off their lands but can't kill them; harassed from field to field & thence to the duck clubs east of Sacramento, south of Delevan; Duck clubs have some wells "in the Willow Creek area and the Maxwell area which is south of Delevan" they can use to substitute for drain water; no impact on the raptors because food supply is ample even if migrating diminish substantially; Sacramento, 11,000 acres, for it from T-C intertie, back water up a lateral called 35-1C [?];M. "water can't be backed up in that fashion fromt the T-C for deliveries unless the farmers in the area have alreacy harvested their crops"..."lateral basically is a high-line ditch that goes through farmers' fields"; Bradfish, could Delevan & Colusa be served from Sacramento if T-C water first delivered there? [apparently yes] HOSKEY": has to go through GCID system first; for northern 2/3 of Sacramento, well with poor volume, some drain water can capture in Logan Creek & divert if available GCID source if they wheel it from Reclamation, wheeling fee by GCID, delivery contract w/GCID ; purpose of refuge complex: 1) migratory bird habitat, 2) public use, 3) prevent crop depredation; 6-10 peregrine falcons, 0-3 bald eagles; raptors arrive & leave with the prey; after injunction, received no water mid-August to late September thence deliveries started plus continued delivery of drain water, 75% of normal supply as determined by Reclamation, 75% drought related, not injunction related; M: "delivery was started down Stony Creek into the main canal for both GCID and the refuges", K, did not take any of that by choice initiall, later took a small amount because flooding was so far behind; impact on early-arrivals, more so if supplies halted 07/15; unsigned

[ Volume 1, Filings 1 - 15]


Date Filed / Doc. # / Docket Text

08/09/1991 Civil Cover Sheet
Deputy Clerk's Checklist for New Civil Actions
08/09/1991 1 COMPLAINT Summons issued; fee status wv; ; Notice re: Consent forms. (old) (Entered: 08/10/1991) ; USA "by and through the Secretary of the Department of Commerce and its agencies, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)"; to enjoin GCID "from taking the threatened winter-run (4 runs: fall, late fall, winter, and spring) population of chinook salmon in violation of the Endangered Species Act, 15 USC 1531 et seq., with its Sacramento River pumping plant 4 miles north of Hamilton City; 1972 new fish screen at pumping plant shared by GCID , California F & G, & other federal & state agencies; GCID must periodically dredge oxbow above plant and dam the oxbow below it during irrigation season, for which it needs a permit from Army Corps of Engineers; screens didn't work and the dam impedes fry; increasing difficulty in getting dredging permits: MOU, studies, mitigations, proposed $26,000,000 new screening complex which GCID doesn't seem to like, dragging its feet, is a "taking", injunction warranted; all sources mentioned follow TRO Memorandum as Exhibits

08/09/1991 2 ORDER setting scheduling conference for 9:15 11/8/91 before Honorable David F. Levi (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/10/1991)
08/12/1991 3 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff USA for preliminary injunction; unnoticed (kh) (Entered: 08/12/1991) ; no hearing date, urgency, migration of winter-run juveniles begins late July and peaks by 08/15
08/12/1991 4 NOTCE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff USA for temporary restraining order; unnoticed (kh) (Entered: 08/12/1991) , for Monday, August 12, 1991, no time
08/12/1991 5 MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA in SUPPORT of motion for temporary restraining order; unnoticed [4-1], of motion for preliminary injunction; unnoticed [3-1] (kh) (Entered: 08/12/1991) , 32 pp.; juveniles in GCID diversion channel bypassing pumps face swarms of larger predatory fish lying in wait; during peak irrigation season April - October GCID diverts as much as 25-30% of Sacramento flow; GCID ordered to install screen by board of fish & game commissioners, 06/26/1920 never accepted or approved by commission, washed away a year later; 1929 Cal F & G did seining below GCID pumps, found 2/3 of food & game fish, including salmon, were dead or damaged, & state sued, injunction granted, affirmed People v. Glenn-Colusa Irrigation Dist., 127 Cal.App. 30 (1932); screens installed 1935 approved by F & G Commission, but undermined by floods 3 years later, no new installed until 1972 $2.6 million to state & federal agencies, 475 foot long concrete stucture in the oxbow channel, 40 bays, each with a rotating drum covered with steel mesh, concrete dividers between bays, vertical slots in every 4th divider into a pipe to a larger pipe into the oxbow below the seasonal earth weir which also allows other water to pass through; above 1100 cfs exceeds state Screen Approach Velocity standard of 0.33 feet per second and fish can't avoid "impingement", and the lower the water level, the smaller the screen cross-section; a 1970 flood changed the river gradient dropping the water level in the diversion channel several feet increasing velocity at screens to as much as 1.37 fps. and the holes in the screen are too large; the vertical slots were improperly designed and don't work right: only 18% of salmon released above make it to the lower portion of the diversion channel when other paths are blocked; not enough flow in the pipes to overcome flow through the screens or through the pipes back down to the river; low flow, warmer water, greater depths below weir foster squawfish, steelhead, striped bass, etc. that preys on juvenile salmon as they exit; Gcid maintained it could solve problem by fixing its existing screens, not adequate to NMFS; GCID could get excess over 1100 cfs from TCCA; GCID never obtained an incidental take statement or permit
[Exhibits to this memorandum are extensive, some 6 or 7 inches thick, and occupy the entirety of the Large Expando File, below, Docs 7 - 10]

TOC page --
08/12/1991 6 DECLARATION of Larry Bradfish in SUPPORT of motion for temporary restraining order; unnoticed [4-1], motion for preliminary injunction; unnoticed [3-1] (kh) (Entered: 08/12/1991) ; DOJ atty, phoned Minasian 08/05/1991 on behalf of NOAA, NMFS re takings, & considering litigation but like to explore other options, discussed several & each agreed to talk with their clients; 08/08/1991 unable to reach him; 08/09/1991 returned call, informed him motion for TRO 08/09/1991 and hearing 08/15/1991, send service copy by overnight and brief by telecopier on day of filing, undated execution


pink form, Docs 7-10 in EXPANDING FILE [MISSING? - found 07/30/2009]

[ LARGER EXPANDO FILE - Docs 7 - 10 ]


08/12/1991 7 EXHIBITS 1-3 by plaintiff USA in SUPPORT of motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (kh) (Entered: 08/12/1991)
  • Exhibit 1 55 Federal Register 46515-23; chinook salmon, Oncorhyncus tshawytscha, an anadromous fish; NMFS final rule listing winter-run chinook salmon as a threatened species under ESA, & established by regulation application of endangered prohibitions to this species

  • Exhibit 2 California Department of Fish and Game, [letter Bontadelli/DFG to Tresnor/Fish & Game Commission 08/06/1991] cooperative Federal & State 1988 "10-Point Restoration Program" ; staffed a Winter-run Chinook Salmon Technical Coordinator position 12/1990, helped precipitate "numerous mitigation and enhancement measure and California Endangered Species Act (CESA) consultations to protect the winter-run salmon. Department staffing insufficient for both Federal & State consultations; [CDFG instrumental in inspiring the litigation over the failure of its screens?]; captured 21, took "to Coleman National Fish Hatchery for artificial propagation; "The drought continues to frustrate recovery efforts in a variety of ways. The problems associated with low rainfall include lethally warm water temperatures, reduced immigration and emigration flows, increased exposure to diversions, a proportionately higher Delta export ratio in relation to Delta inflow, and very limited opportunity to manage reservoirs to benefit winter-run."
    - 1991 Progress Report on Recovery Efforts for Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon, 1. RBDD raised by 12/10/1990 open to 05/03/1991, usually 30% of salmon will fail to locate fish ladders & spawn below RBDD if gates not raised; Reclamation weighing 7 RBDD alternatives, 1) no change, 2) enlarged ladders, 3) screw pumps, 4-7) combination; 2. Temperature control at Shasta dam, forecasting storage down to 130,000 a-f at end of 1991 summer, 100% mortality to winter-run; cold water conservation implemented 1) limited releases of warmer surface in early May, colder releases during "egg incubation and alevin development", 2) reduced Keswick releases in summer; 3) releases through Shasta low-level outlets bypassing power generation; 4) balancing releases of Trinity River water, holding Trinity releases until fall provides maximum cooling benefit; Reclamation released final EIS for "temperature control device on Shasta Dam". Expect Federal Biological Opinion 01/1992; measures: sufficient storage carryover, comply w/ SWRCB water rights orders, comply w/ Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board's Basin Plan criteria, maybe CESA consultation by SWRCB; 3. Squawfish Control at RBDD: "dioxin contamination, the NMFS contract to eradicate squawfish below RBDD was not issued; electrofishing below RBDD? raising gates dispersed the squawfish population? 4. Spring Creek (Iron Mountain Mine); "EPA issued an emergency response order to Imperial Chemicals International, Americas (ICI Americas), the party responsible for controlling the pollution emanating from the mine, requiring a) metal removal plant on the Richmond Mine, b) "Upper Spring Creek Diversion to bypass clean water around the contaminated drainage and directly into Keswick"..."reduces inflow to Spring Creek Debris Reservoir by an estimated 40 percent." c) "proper operation of the copper removal plants and associated water delivery systems"; if Spring Creek should "fill & spill" only limited dilution water in Shasta; completed in "source control and treatment of heavy metal run-off": "carping of Black Flat Pit, rehabilitation of the Richmond Tunnel, diversion of Slickrock Creek, removal of Minnesota Flats Mine tailings, construction and operation of emergency acid mine drainage treatment plants, and diversion of Upper North Fork Spring Creek."; clear no remedy will provide complete source control; 5. restore spawning gravel, Reclamation placed 100,000 yards of gravel along 12 miles Salt Creek to Clear Creek; 6. Anderson-Cottonwood ID refused DFG proposal to install screens unless DFG bought the return flow; 7. closed harvest of salmon on Sacramento for parts of the year; 8. experiments at Coleman, "malachite green" treatments for fungus control, experiments on extending survival, etc.; 9. Reclamation continues releases into Keswick stilling basin without notifying fishery agencies, attracts adults into the basin where they become traped & die; 10. more studies: redd count Lake Redding, document residency of juvenile winter-run in the Delta; 11. GCID - NMFS & DFG "are currently pursuing executing State and Federal permits pursuant to the respective endangered species acts which would subatantially reduce loss of winter-run chinook salmon at the facility through modified operations while the long-term solutions are being implemented." [uh, like litigation?] 13. unscreened diversions, making a survey, and to determine the efficiency of existing screens; 14. SWP & CVP Delta pumps, "interim operation measures...will be developed"; all this by fax
    - - Table 1. Winter-Run Salmon Spawning Runs Past Red Bluff Diversion Dam as of July 1991. "adjusted counts", adjusted for missing counts
    - undated Fax Transmission, to Bradfish, 12 pages above

  • Exhibit 3 Declaration of Paul D. Ward; CDFG 18 years, 13 at GCID exclusively w/ anadromous fish, maintaining & operating the fish screens & trap; reviewed professional studies on predation, impingement, & entrainment with screens in general; 3. 1974 study 2 years after new screens, 66-82% of test fish unaccouted for & presumed lost to these 3 factors; studies estimate 1972-88 losses to all runs of juvenile chinook could have ranged from .4 to 10.0 million fish annually; GCID trapping, mark & recapture, [ & CDFG? ] to prove losses unreliable; 11. compiled all studies, GCID's & his own, into report attached, Appendix A; fry hug the banks & are thus more susceptible to diversion?; personally observed winter-run inside the screen drums; etc.
    - Appendix A/Attachment: A Review and Evaluation of the Losses of Migrant Juvenile Chinook Salmon at the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake [1,6], Exhibit B (Dec. 1989); [complaint Exhibit B, Memorandum Appendix A ??]; Final Report Prepared by Paul D. Ward, revised 12/1989 description of facility; 1906 first diversion at site; 1911 added 4 pumps to over 900 cfs; 1920 to 1700 cfs, thence 2600 cfs to 1985, new plant 3000 cfs, theoretical capacity at a 6 foot lift is 3,124 cfs; 1935 screen w/ 1/2" gaps, lasted until current screen in 1972 [what happened to it being washed out?]; 1972 screens were estimated to save 10-21 million young chinook salmon annually, no source for the prediction; diversion season 03/29 - 12/01 [for which study?]; Richard Hallock model, 1984, "'During the April-June period an estimated 26.2 million juvenile salmon pass Hamilton City, ( [sic, the paren] 11.8 million (100%) of the Fall run from Coleman Hatchery, 11.6 million (25%) of the natural Fall run, 0.4 million (25%) of the T.C.F.F. Fall Run, 1.3 million (20%) of the natural Spring run and 1.1 million (22% of the natural late Fall run' (Hallock, 1984)"; 1983 GCID "pumping was reduced due to a late starting date caused by high water and also due to construction of the new pumping plant. Additional water was received via the Tehama-Colusa Canal to offset the reduced pumping at" GCID; technical description of the fyke trap; description of "mark and recapture": spray dye, wire tagged, "adipose clipped"; trap deficiencies or "selectivity"; "The varying conditions affecting migration and entrainment make it extremely difficult to reconstruct the number of fish lost at the Glenn-Colusa Diversion." [ Is this the report of a professional frustrated by the inattention of GCID & CDFG and wanting something done, or is it the man in charge of maintaining the screens attempting to shift blame?]
    - - Figure 1 - Sacramento River and Vicinity near Glenn-Colusa Fish Screen (crude map)
    - - Figure 2 - Glenn-Colusa Fish Screen and Vicinity (crude map)
    - - Table 1 - Estimated Average Monthly Flows and Screen Velocities at the Glenn-Colusa Fish Screen During 1975
    - - Table 2 - Neutral or Reverse Bypass Flows at the Glenn-Colusa Fish Screen (Number of Days)
    - - Figure 3 - Fish Screen Cross Section with Elevations, desired level 139.2-140.6 elev., 4080-4360 sq. feet of screens; structure 27.5 feet tall, designed w/ 6-inch gap at bottom?;
    - - Table 3 - Glenn/Colusa Fish Screen Fish Trap Evaluation 1985 (CDFG unpublished memo 1985)
    - - Table 4 - Estimated Number of Juvenile Chinook Salmon Present at the Glenn-Colusa Fish Screen from May 29 to June 4, 1985 (per CDFG unpublished memo 1985)
    - - Table 5 - Estimated Potential Number of Migrant Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Sacramento River Above the Mouth of the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake Channel 1953-1987
    - - Table 6 - Estimate of Potential Number of Migrant Juvenile Chinook Salmon Entering the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake Channel During April-June 1954-1987 (millions)
    - - Figure 4 - 4 aerial photos: Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake 1952, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake 1972, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake 1980, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake 1982
    - - Figure 5 - Fish Trap at Glenn-Colusa Fish Screen (diagram of fyke trap)
    - - Table 7 - Estimated Potential Number of Juvenile Chinook Salmon > 40 mm Present Above and in the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake Channel from April 4 to November 15, 1987
    - - Table 8 - Estimated Potential Number of Juvenile Chinook Salmon > 40 mm Present Above and in the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake Channel from March 5 to November 26, 1988
    - - Table 9 - Estimated Potential Number of Juvenile Chinook Salmon > 40 mm Present Above and in the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake Channel from February 8 to July 1, 1989
    - - Table 10 - Comparison of fish Trap Efficiencies Under two Different Bypass Flows
    - - Literature Cited; including CDFG 1931 Glenn-Colusa Decision, Calif. Fish and Game 17(4): 427-428;
    - - - Appendix A - Glenn/Colusa Pumping Plant Average Daily Diversions (1972-1987)
    - - - Appendix B - Table 1 - Glenn/Colusa Pumping Plant Daily Diversions (April - June 1984)
    - - - - Table 2 - Glenn/Colusa Pumping Plant Daily Diversions (April - June 1985)
    - - - - Table 3 - Glenn/Colusa Pumping Plant Daily Diversions (April - June 1986)
    - - - - Table 4 - Glenn/Colusa Pumping Plant Daily Diversions (April - June 1987)
    - - - - Table 5 - Glenn/Colusa Pumping Plant Daily Diversions (April - June 1988)
    - - - - Table 6 - Glenn/Colusa Pumping Plant Daily Diversions (April - June 1989)
    - - - Appendix C - Glenn/Colusa Irrigation District Irrigation Season (1919-1989)
    - - - Appendix D - Fish Species Caught at Glenn/Colusa Fish Screen (1986-1989)
    - - - Appendix E - Fish Screen Velocities (fps) (6 dates 1986-7)
    - - - Appendix F - Table 1 - Fry Chinook Salmon ( greater than or equal to 40 mm) Caught in the Glenn-Colusa Fish Trap From August through October 1986
    - - - - Table 2 - Fry Chinook Salmon ( greater than or equal to 40 mm) Caught in the Glenn-Colusa Fish Trap From August through October 1987
    - - - - Table 3 - Juvenile Chinook Salmon Captured in Fish Trap at Glenn-Colusa Fish Screen March 5 through November 22, 1988
    - - - - Table 4 - Juvenile Chinook Salmon Captured in Fish Trap at Glenn-Colusa Fish Screen February 8 through July 1, 1989
    - - - Appendix G - Figure 1 - Average Size and Range of Juvenile Chinook Salmon Caught in the Glenn-Colusa Fish Trap (1987)
    - - - - Figure 2 - Percentage by Month of Juvenile Chinook Salmon Caught in the Glenn-Colusa Fish Trap (1987)
    - - - - Figure 3 - Average Size and Range of Juvenile Chinook Salmon Caught in the Glenn-Colusa Fish Trap (1988)
    - - - - Figure 4 - Percentage by Month of Juvenile Chinook Salmon Caught in the Glenn-Colusa Fish Trap (1988)
    - - - - Figure 5 - Average Size and Range of Juvenile Chinook Salmon Caught in the Glenn-Colusa Fish Trap (1989)
    - - - - Figure 4 - Percentage by Month of Juvenile Chinook Salmon Caught in the Glenn-Colusa Fish Trap (1989)
    08/09/1991 proof of service of Exhibits 1 through 3
    08/12/1991 8 EXHIBIT 4 part 1 by plaintiff USA in SUPPORT of motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (kh) (Entered: 08/12/1991)

  • Exhibit 4 - Final Feasibility Report, GCID/CDFG Fish Protection and Gradient Restoration Facilities, Volume I Report Nov. 1989, RDD3013.S-O; [orphan cite, where from? ; 52 Fed. Reg. 6041k;] p. 8 of complaint: GCID 3000 cfs makes it the largest capacity diversion facility on the Sacramento River;
    "The floods of 1969-1970 caused changes in the alignment of the Sacramento River upstream from the head of the Corps of Engineers project levees beginning at about River Mile 184.5 on the right bank and about River Mile 176 on the left bank. The flood control levees extend downstream to Suisun Bay in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. A cutoff occurred in 1970 at River Mile 205, approximately 4 miles north of Hamilton City. This cutoff reduced the length of the flows in the river from 2 miles to approximately 1,400 feet...resulted in the subsequent scouring and erosion of the river channel. Flood flows since that time have caused the continued periodic degradation of the river gradient. [para] The elevation of the main river channel at the mouth of the diversion channel...to the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District's...pumps has been reduced about 3 feet, causing increasing lift at the pump station. Of much greater concern, however, is that the lower water surface on the fish screens installed by the ...(DF & G) has resulted in high approach velocities, causing losses to the anadromous juveniles migrating downstream from natural spawning and, to a lesser degree, from those at the ...(USFWS) Coleman Fish Hatchery. In addition, the lesser flows and lower velocities in the return channel below the pump station, resulting from the dramatic reduction in the river gradient, provide a habitat for predatory fish where they can prey on juvenile salmon that bypass the fish screens and are returned to the main river. The GCID has always dredged the intake channel to maintain an adequate supply of water....In granting a permit for the dredging, the Sacramento District of the Corps of Engineers imposed several conditions including
    that GCID conduct studies to define a long-term solution to ensure provision of a water supply and to provide state-of-the-art fishery resource protection measures....",
    plus 2A. dredge spoils in previously used sites & protect riparian vegetation,
    2B. install recording stream gage in lower channel, maintain 90 cfs bypass flows,
    2C. cooperate in Coleman fish flush ops,
    2D. provide means to bypass 500 cfs by gravity flow into downstream bypass channel during fish flush,
    3. GCID/DFG MOU,
    4. letter by 11/15/1989 on progress of compliance,
    5. annual reevaluation of dredging permit,
    6. time will be allowed for EIS if approved; & perform baseline studies but fishery agencies say no.;
    deadlines shorter than work required; Alternatives examined:
    A. Modify existing fish screens or construct new fish screen near the existing facilities.
    B1. Relocate fish screen near mouth of existing west channel RM 206.
    B2. as B1 only "at mouth".
    C. Relocate diversion and fish screen to bend at RM 207.
    D. Divert main channel flow through west channel.
    E. Restore oxbow below west channel bifurcation.
    F1. Eliminate night pumping at GCID.
    F2. Reduce night pumping at GCID.
    G. Alternative water supplies.
    H. No action.
    1988 Congress provided funds but not authorization to USACE to initiate preconstruction engineering & design to determine best method for restoring river gradient (HR 100-274), "riffle restoration", but no fish screen funds, Assistant Secty of the Corps & OMB refused to allow USACE to proceed absent authority.. H.R. 2696 09/1989 directs USACE to "restore the river hydraulics" & grants $500,000 for engineering & design, signed 10/1989. USACE established Technical Advisory Group, MOU established Technical Advisory Committee, GCID program to advise & inform all others interested in the river, esp. fishery & environmental; sheet-pile weir sections across the river channel to restore hydraulics [?]; A & B1 "will provide state-of-the-art fish protection", A $31,506,000, B1 $32,451,000, both including $6,164,000 gradient restoration; recommend analyzing B1 further & include gradient restoration & financing possibilities; GCID history, is the oxbow artificial?; one of the largest fish screens in the world; 1984 reverse flow following floods, relieved by dredging & enlarging the intake channel; with 4 runs, salmon are in the river in one form or another throughout the year; by winter 1987-88 diversion channel was 60% blocked; 02/88 USACE hearing, 700+ attended; [ch 1, excl figures --]; 2-2 for flushing Shasta releases when Coleman releases fish into River near Balls Ferry; A, B1, B2, C,D, & E included a new or modified screening facility, some drum, others multiple-vee, along-the-river flat plate screens; DFG developed "conservative fish screening technology" for the Delta Fish Facilities, near Hood, for the Peripheral Canal; gradient control structure in the river immediately downstream from existing diversion channel needed for most alternatives;
    Gradient restoration methods considered: "single barrier such as an inflatable dam or bascule gate structure, use of groins or palisades, depositing dredge tailings below the mouth of the diversion, or installing a sheet pile weir section...recomended...several (four to five) steplike weirs...constructed using metal sheet piling, gabions, or reinforced concrete."; p. 3-16 & -23 "wedge wire"? 3-18 single barrier on the river ruled out because of navigation & upstream migration; groins & palisades might cause significant erosion; dumping dredger tailings to raise the river out because of "environmental sensitivity" and USACE won't allow it and they aren't stable & would need to be replaced frequently; B-1, bank not stable, widen & reroute west channel at river & for several hundred yards, small dams to isolate water through new structure subject to periodic & multiple washouts by spring floods, more frequent dredging required with a bigger & better dredge, need to buy land; p. 3-42 1979 California Energy Commission study "to determine how GCID might change its operation to reduce the use of peak load power during the day"; GCID users cooperating in 1988 fish flush operations from Coleman; 3-46 WET report suggests gradient may continue to decline another foot, for a total of more than 4 feet - without dredging intake channel may eventually be cut off; p. 4-5 Alternative A not clean up existing, but modify to 4 bays with 220 feet of fixed screen panels, each 11 to 15 feet long, one H-beam each side & base for support, etc. similar to TC Canal, improved bypass, use existing components where possible, modify intake structure to improve entrance hydraulics, add guide vanes; p. 4-20, pump damage if gradient drops another foot? 4-20 GCID annually dredging 40,000 cy of additional sediment in intake channel since last major loss of river gradient 1983, increment is $100,000 per year; p. 4-22 2-food gradient difference $77,400 in pump power costs; p. 5-4 portion of the River slated for Alternative B1 "is not stable and would require significant bank and slope protection to maintain river morphology and protect the integrity of the proposed facilities. Annual dredging would be required...."; major concern with B1, "uncertainty as to how well the new facility would function. Hydraulic characteristics at the mouth of the bypass channel are less well known than at the existing facility. Sediment deposition has, and will probably continue to be, a problem at the channel mouth. In addition, the fixed vee-type screen proposed under Alternative B1 has not been applied previously on a diversion of 3,000 cfs and would be considered as experimental."; hot spots along the screen; uneven velocities along the screens; more studies needed: fishery baseline, hydrology, financing....; list of possible funding sources.
    - 02/16/1990 letter Jensen & Bontadelli/CDFG to Clark/GCID, rather harsh, either include the letter or remove CDFG from title page: 1. Alternative A previously rejected remains rejected; 2. gradient restoration by itself previously rejected remains rejected; 3. impacts to salmon fry are NOT minimal; 4. more studies are unnecessary & NMFS & USFWS agree;
    - 02/20/1990 memo Wilson/CH2M Hill to holders of Feasibility Report Volume II, final report issued, substitute for CDFG draft Appendix D, & note 02/16/1990 disagreement letter from CDFG attached.
    - Figure ES-1 Vicinity Map
    - Figure 1-1 Site Plan of Existing Facilities, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (lettering on aerial photo)
    - Figure 1-2 Effect of River Changes & Intake Channel Dredging on Fish Screen Operation (Same River & Diversion Flow)
    - Figure 1-3 Changes in River Profile Between North and South island Gages
    - Figure 1-4 Changes in Profile of Intake and Return Channels
    - Figure 1-5 Life History Stages of Salmon in the Sacramento River, from USFWS 1983 (month-by-month over the year)
    - Figure 1-6 Fall-Run Salmon Spawning in Sacramento River above Feather River (1956-1985)
    - Figure 1-7 Typical G.C.I.D. Diversion Flows versus Salmon Rearing & Migration (Apr-Oct)
    - Figure 1-8 GCID Fishery / Hydraulics, Study Area Map
    - Table 2-1 Fish Screen Types
    - Table 3-1 Preferred Fish Screen Type by Location
    - Figure 3-1 - Site Plan, Proposed Gradient [sheet pile] Weirs for Water Surface Restoration
    - Table 3-2 Evaluation of Alternative Fish Screen Locations
    - Table 3-3 Average PreProject and PostProject Sacramento River Velocities, fps (at different channel locations)
    - Table 3-4 Summary of Hydraulic Conditions with Restoration (3-2 locations)
    - Table 3-5 Combined Probability of Sacramento River Flow and GCID Flow Conditions, Semimonthly (in percent), River 8, 10, & 12,000 cfs, GCID 2 to 3,000 cfs
    - Figure 3-2 - Approach Velocity Histogram - Probability Curve (Mouth Site) [graphical display of Table 3-5]
    - Table 3-6 Flood Impacts Evaluation, Channel Elevations, msl (at 70 & 90,000 cfs )
    - Figure 3-3 - Overall Site Plan Existing Location Alternative A [aerial photo with component descriptions added, poor copy]
    - Figure 3-4 - Overall Site Plan Near Mouth of Intake Channel Location Alternative B1 [aerial photo with largely unreadable component descriptions added, poor copy]
    - Figure 3-5 - Overall Site Plan Alternative B2 Mouth of Intake Channel Location [aerial photo with largely unreadable component descriptions added, poor copy]
    - Figure 3-6 - Overall Site Plan Up-Stream Bend Location Alternative C [aerial photo with largely unreadable component descriptions added, poor copy]
    - Figure 3-7 - Divert Main River through West Channel Alternative D [diagram]
    - Figure 3-8 - Old Oxbow Restoration Alternative E
    - Figure 3-9 - Pump Storage Schematic for Reduced Night Pumping Alternative F
    - Table 4-1 Qualitative Analysis Descriptors (Engineering or Fishery)
    - Table 4-2 Qualitative Technical Merit Matrix
    - Table 4-3 Summary of Alternatives Merit [mumbo-jumbo?]
    - Figure 4-1 Site Plan, Fish Screen Structure at Existing Location Alternative A; bulkheads to screen off drum bays not used, 4 large bays supplanting 5 bays each, flat screens at angle back from them to 110 feet where bypass takes off (zigzag structure), 4 of them to new bypass control structure, sheet pile training wall, bulkhead in channel , bypass back to river rather than downstream, West Channel largely cut off? [Is this what they installed per stip? Did they get to adopt A anyway after all that fuss about B1? no, they spent $76,000,000 on new screens, see Note at p. 10 Doc #29 F 05/13/2002 CIV S-01-1816-GEB USDC ED-Cal]
    - Figure 4-2 Section of Fixed Vertical Screen Alt. A and B1
    - Figure 4-3 Detail of Outlet Structure Alt. A and B1
    - Figure 4-4 Site Plan, Fish Screen Structure Near Mouth of Existing Intake Channel Alternative B1
    - Figure 4-5 Site Plan, Proposed Fish Screen Facility at Inlet to New Intake Canal at Rm 207 [Alternative C]
    - Figure 4-6 Section of Fixed Vertical Screen Alt C
    - Table 4-4 Total Construction and Project Costs
    - Table 4-5 Project Capital Cost Estimate Totals
    - Table 4-6 Cost/Technical Metits Selection Index
    - Table 4-7 Project Benefit Categories
    - Table 4-8 - A Stepwise Prodecure for Evaluation of Sacramento Salmon and Steelhead
    - Table 4-9 - Project Fishery Benefit Estimate
    - Table 4-10 - Economic Evaluation, Total Project / Economic Evaluation, Riffle Restoration Structure Only
    - Table 4-11 - Active Participants: Agencies, Fisheries and Environmental Groups, Elected Officials
    - Table 5-1 - Subject Areas in Which Issues and Concerns Have Been Identified
    - Figure 6-1 GCID/DF & G Fish Screen Implementation Schedule [bar graph schedule]

    08/12/1991 9 EXHIBIT 4 Part 2 by plaintiff USA in SUPPORT of motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (kh) (Entered: 08/12/1991) ; Final Feasibility Report, GCID/CDF & G Fish Protection and Gradient Restoration Facilities, Volume II, Appendixes, January 1990

    - - Appendix A - GCID/DF & G Agreements; Memorandum of Understanding between CDF & G and GCID Regarding Studies Intended to Define a Solution to Fish Passage and Water Supply Problems at the District's Hamilton City Pump Diversion 09/03/1987, runs impacted by diversion exceed 100,000 fish annually, "develop a study plan which would identify a mutual and long-term solution to the problems of fish loss and water supply", costs not to exceed $180,000 each, else amend if agreed; Advisory committee: USFWS, NMFS, USACE, Reclamation, 2 ag people, 1 commercial fishing person, 1 sport fishing person;
    - - - Graph, Study Plan for GCID-CDFG Fish Screens, timelines for study components

    - - - Parnell Packet: letter Clark/GCID to Parnell CDFG 03/03/1986, packet "compiled for use by you and your staff summarizing key steps which have occurred in the past years regarding the relationship between our two agencies in the construction and operation of the fish screen located at our Main Pump Station."
    - - - - GCID Chronological Sequence of Key Events, Main Pump Station Fish Screen, * = documents reproduced in packet
    - - - - - 1935 First fish screen constructed.
    - - - - - 1968* Agreement negotiated for construction of new screen: May 16.
    - - - - - 1968* Outline specifications prepared by OAC, Nov. 7.
    - - - - - 1969 OAC proposed 75 cfs bypass inplace of 50 cfs, Feb. 14.
    - - - - - 1969* May 16, 1968 Agreement amended to provide for 90 cfs bypass: April .
    - - - - - 1969 OAC delivers plan and specs to District, Nov. and Dec.
    - - - - - 1970* OAC proposes relocation of river dam and District concurs, January
    - - - - - 1970* GCID Directors give conditional approval to plans and specs, Jan. 22.
    - - - - - 1970 Construction starts, May 26 and continues to May of 1972.
    - - - - - 1970 Major flood event reduces river profile.
    - - - - - 1970 Trapping facility rejected
    - - - - - 1971 Dept. requests use of slab on east side of screen for maintenance building site.
    - - - - - 1972* Agreement for use of slab for maintenance building and for District to provide water and electricity, Nov. 1
    - - - - - 1972* Bypass flows measured by GCID and USBR, April and May.
    - - - - - 1976* Agreement between Department and District on 1601 Permit, Jan. 22
    - - - - - 1976 Section 404 Corps of Engineers permit approved: April 76-Dec. 86.
    - - - - - 1981-1984 New GCID Main Pump Station constructed. Reduced pumping during this period.
    - - - - - 1981-1982 River flood reduces profile
    - - - - - 1984 Reverse flows in by pass channel become significant and cause is identified as due to river profile changes.
    - - - - - 1984-1985 Several meetings between GCID and Region II staff clarify and identify problems with diversion and screen.
    - - - - - 1986 March meeting with Director.
    - - - - Agreement by and between the State of California, Department of Fish and Game and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District for the Construction, Operation and Maintenance of a Fish Screen Diversion, Sacramento River, Glenn County, at Easterly Terminous of Cutler Avenue, 05/16/1968; para. 5 "this period of operation of the fish screen may be shortened in any year to coincide with the period of actual migrations of the salmon and steelhead fishes as determined by the state." [!]; "6. District shall operate...includes keeping the fish screen reasonably free from debris"; 7. split operating costs 50-50; 8. GCID not responsible for costs or expenses from flood, etc., 9. CDFG to maintain; [para 10-13 missing, 04/01/69 in its place]
    - - - - - [title cut off] 04/01/1969 Amendment to 05/16/1968 Agreement replace para. 4, add easements & right of way for access, piping, storage, etc., & replace para. 14, 90 cfs bypass
    - - - - - 11/07/1968, rev, 11/15/1968 Department of General Services, Office of Architecture and Construction, Sacramento, Specifications for fish screens "Install 44 rotating drum fish screens, 17' in diameter by 8' wide, in a reinforced concrete housing structure to be constructed in the slough which conveys water from the Sacramento River to the Irrigation District's pumping forebay; construct precast concrete trestle, with steel pile bents, to be used for the construction of the project by the contractor and to remain for use for the operation and maintenance of the facility by the State; install fish bypass pipeline; sheet piling structure closure walls; place earth fill and rock riprap; dredge the bottom of the slough and widen the slough adjacent to the fish screen structure and construct service roads and paved service areas." etc. [dredging? so why was GCID on the hook for dredging?] specifies average 139' surface elevation against screen;
    - - - - letter Crestetto/OA to Dwinell/GCID 01/12/1970, attached are prints of a drawing showing work to be done to enable GCID to construct the earth dam across the slough at the downstream end of the screens; proposed location for the dam allows State to shorten the bypass pipe 1,000 feet saving $100,000
    - - - - letter Clark/GCID to Crestetto/OA 01/27/1970 GCID board approved the specs with objections: nothing relieves CDFG of existing obligations or relieves for damages to GCID; protect the pumping plant, etc., and carry adequate insurance; place adequate guys to support the next power pole north of the poles to be relocated at northwest end of screen;
    - - - - letter Clark/GCID to Crestetto/OA 02/10/1970 to clarify 01/27/1970 letter, notes from the Board quoted
    - - - - handwritten chart, 05/18/1972 GCID Fish Screen, Current Meter Measurements of flow thorugh bypass orfices [sic] by J. Hastain, U.S. Bureau of Recla [sic]; vertical 2.5 to 10.5 feet above elev. 126.5, horizontal Orifice 1 - 10; in feet per second, bottom line in cfs measuring from 12.6 to 4.5 cfs #1 - #10, total 85.4 cfs.
    - - - - Supplemental Agreement by and Between the State of California, Department of Fish and Game and the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District for the Construction, Operation and Maintenance of a Fish Screen Diversion, Sacramento River, Glenn County, at Easterly Terminous of Cutler Avenue 11/01/1972, to allow State to construct & use a maintenance building per 06/24/1972 work order No. CJ01008P-13
    - - - - 051872 untitled diagram apparently a vertical cross section of a drum screen with supports & dimensions?
    - - - - 051475 letter Lassen/CDFG to Clark/GCID your planned dredging in front of the screens is a CDFG maintenance operation & you are not required to obtain any CDFG permits for it
    - - - - 061275 letter Fullerton/CDFG to GCID, your counsel believes you have notified CDFG of the District's activities under F & G Code Section 1601; formal submission of plans not necessary this year because CDFG has actual knowledge from an on-site inspection; CDFG finds Stony Creek Dam & River dredging "in accordance with the same methods used in 1974 has not substantially adversely affected existing fish and game resources." If agree to same methods, sign & return.
    - - - - 121275 letter Clark/GCID to Fullerton/CDFG , GCID attorneys accepted 061275 letter on 062475, stated then, "the right to install and maintain the Stony Creek embankment is an adjudicated right [bottom of p. 169 of Decree, "has the right"] and such work has been performed each year since 1906. Likewise, dredging of the man made Intake channel has taken place each year for more than fifty years. [para] At times of low water flow, the District in the past has also placed an earth dam in its Intake Channel near the point it returns to the river." Late winter 1976 & all future years GCID "must dredge its Intake Channel & repair or re-install its gravel embankment constituting the easterly bank of its Main Canal across Stony Creek" as in 1974 & 5, & install the earth dam in its intake channel in same manner as the past;
    - - - - 012276 letter Fullerton/CDFG to Clark/GCID, concurs with 121275 letter but may ask that the dam be moved downstream 1000 feet for a more effective screen evaluation
    - - - - 122085 letter Clark/GCID to Parnell/CDFG , Board concerned about screen problems, having to increase dredging, head loss up to 10.75 times specifications, increased pumping costs, we need to get together & chat
    - - - - Index to Displays and Memo
    - - - - - Plate I Sacramento River at Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Pump Station - 1984, aerial view: North island gage, South island gage, Old Channel....
    - - - - - Plate II Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Pump Station and Fish Screen, North island gage, South island gage
    - - - - - Plate III Sacramento River at Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Pump Station - 1958, dredge access, Fish & Game Building, Check Dam, Bypass outlet
    - - - - - Plate IV, graph, Stage Discharge - North Island Station - Sacramento River; River Stage v. River Flow, 1970, 1971-81, 1982-85
    - - - - - Plate V, graph, River and Intake Channel Profiles - Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Pump Station; River stage v. channel at 1000 foot intervals (6000 feet long) showing deterioration in elevation
    - - - - - Plate VI, graph, River and Intake Channel Profiles - Along River North gage to below South gage at 1000 foot intervals, 1984 8320 cfs v. 1980 4350 cfs
    - - - - - 022586 Memo Clark to Patten Suggested Approach to a Study Design for GCID Pump Stations/Fish Screen Problems; need a technical team, pump station can continue to work "barring any further river degradation, but the fish screens are essentially inoperative as originally designed."
    - - - - - - Study Design Team proposed org chart
    - - - - - 122085 letter Clark/GCIG to Parnell/CDFG , same as letter above
    - - - - - Draft, GCID/CDFG, Request for Proposal for Characterization of Sacramento River Dynamics in the Vicinity of GCID Pump Station and CDF & G Fish Screens (River Mile 206); collect old data, collect new data, analyze data, describe effects of geologic features, develop computer simulations, develop a list of cures to maintain or raise river elevations and evaluate long-term prospects for these cures;

    - - Appendix B - Bureau of Reclamation Water Supply Position; 09/1988 letter Ploss/Reclamation to Clark/GCID ; request for up to 1000 cfs through TCC denied, chart of available attached & Yolo & Solano contractors will take up all that excess
    - - - Excess Capacity in The Tehama Colusa Canal month by month

    - - Appendix C - 1988 COE Dredging Permit
    - - - 012187 [88?] letter Scholl/USACE to Clark/GCID 4 pages, developing "conditions of Permit Number 5880A" together to allow dredging of the west channel, much outside input, outlines tough terms
    - - - Department of the Army Permit, #5880A, 03/02/1988 maintenance dredging in west channel upstream of diversion, and construct a low level dam downstream, per drawings, by 12/31/1989, includes 02/24/1988 letter, 2 pages of special conditions
    - - - - 031386 Proposed Low Level Dam, GCID Location map, sheet 1 or 3
    - - - - 031386 Proposed Low Level Dam, GCID sheet 2, earth fill dam 18' high, 69' thick at bottom, 15' at top, & channel cross sections
    - - - - 031386 Proposed Maintenance Dredging, GCID sheet 3, dredge area, deposit area
    - - - Corps of Engineers Involvement, Comments
    - - - - 031689 letter Page/USACE to Azevedo/GCID, received & reviewed CH2M Hill Report, summary of review enclosed, "The review results do not provide a basis for the Corps proceeding to preconstruction, engineering and design studies." [?]
    - - - - - Summary of the Army Corps of Engineers Review of the GCID Report; USACE "placed rock revetment at intermittent locations along the Sacramento River, in the vicinity of the pumping plant, during the 1961-1984 time frame under the Chico Landing to Red Bluff project; a project which has been stopped for environmental reasons. The revetment in place provides only a portion of the work required to fully stabilize this reach of the river. There is no guarantee that subsequent streambed gradient and river alignment changes will not take place. Many changes in the streambed are uncontrolled now and will remain so in the future." Find no cause for USACE to participate in the project [but nothing to prohibit? Does this mean they can issue the permit, or not?]
    - - - - 022889 memo George C. Weddell, Professional Engineer, to Clark/GCID & Patten/CH2M Hill, re: discussion with Col. LeCuyer re his meeting with Bory Steinberg, Policy Review & Initiatives Division, USACE Washington D.C., recites internal USACE turmoil over environmental pressures v. navigable stream pressures, extension of previous permit might be feasible with Col. LeCuyer directly (not his staff, which seems hostile to it) on basis similar to delay in Sacramento Flood Plain Insurance extension because they're working on solutions as is GCID.
    - - - Letter Dated October 14, 1986, From Robert D. Clark, Manager/Secretary of Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, to Robert W. Junell, Corps of Engineers
    - - - - [as above] comments on public responses to USACE Public Notice on 5880A, 17 pp., cc Minasian et al., calls for hearing & EIR based on misconceptions; GCID oldest & largest ID in Sacramento Valley, first priority (1883) on the river; 1983 & 1986 events deposited very large quantities of sand and gravel at the entrance of the GCID channel, result of channel changes that put the intake on the inside of a curve rather than on the outside as it was, requiring much more dredging; Parnell packet [Appendix A above] prepared for 12/1985 meeting with Parnell/CDFG; during reduced pumping because of a near failure of the plant in 1981, and replacement by 1984, during which time GCID took large deliveries through TCC, silting continued while the District reduced its dredging, leaving "an extremely difficult task of opening the channel to the river" for the new pumping plant; CDFG tried to design a temporary trap to see if they could be installed in a number of bays and then truck the fish back to the river, problems & not a long term solution; GCID believes it had cooperated well with the Coleman smolt flushes but isn't getting credit for its efforts; dredging program not new, it continues maintenance that's gone on for 50 years and "should not warrant the agency and public responses you received." Without the dredging permit "the District cannot furnish the desired bypass flows for the fish."; non-agency comments seem coordinated & from a common source; project is not a new project: extensive dredging 1920 & 1985, other times no dredging at all, downstream check used sometimes & not others, dam installed at different times of the year and sometimes not used at all; assertions GCID diverts 30% of the river not valid, never pumped 3000 cfs and would only do so under a peak demand, could divert 30% during very dry brief spring periods, in terms of acre-feet never diverted more than 10% annual total; all fry lost not valid, only for brief periods when lower channel reverse flow occurred; 3200 cfs assertion not valid, comes from a permit application term that was never an actuality; Sacramento supports 90% of Central Valley Salmon & Steelhead? argument contains a typo? Says only true if American, Feather & all other tributaries are included. s/b excluded?; no sensitivity for fish losses - yet GCID was begging CDFG to fix their screens and begging USACE for permit to dredge & fix gradient to improve screen function & reduce take; etc.; GCID has done everything CDFG has asked it to over the past 15 years;

    - - Appendix D - Fishery Agencies reports, Criteria, and Memos
    - - - 1988 Flush Comments
    - - - - Kaczynski/PDX to Wilson/RDD, Clark/GCID, Ward/CDFG; 11 pp. 1) "brief inspection report on GCID intake and river observations on May 10 and 11, 1988; "2) review of CDFG draft report: A Review and Evaluation of the Losses of Migrant Juvenile Chinook Salmon at the" GCID intake; morning of 05/11 1200 juveniles in the trap, 20 w/adipose fin clips, see Paul Ward; good bypass flows, good sweeping velocity; flotsam along the trash racks at 2-3 fps, channel bypass flow appeared similar; 05/10 & 11, inspected 39 drums & CDFG traps at least 12 times, no impingements, water turbid 05/10, clearer 05/11; with Pennock/GCID on high-frequency sonar surveys above the split, gravel bar constricting GCID channel, GCID 9 feet deep, main 15 feet deep to left shore edge with greater faster flow; GCID channel being dredged 05/10-11, hose transported to large depressions on the island, island took the flow, no surface flow to either channel & no increased turbidity; below the screens, channel is complex, full of snags, 2 bars, splits at an island before emptying into 2 deep (-22 feet) holes in the main; there are variables in the report that are expressed as absolutes: conditions one day in one year will be different from a different day in a different year - for instance, Spring 1987 results showed 99% of juvenile migrants bypassing the intakes
    - - - - - Table 7 estimate of intake entrianment losses and right channel bypass numbers (and proportions) in Fall 1987 at the relative flows extant at the time, for chinook smaller than 40 mm in length [table missing?];
    - - - Meeting Notes--GCID Fish Screen Meeting in Red Bluff, California, on September 7, 1988
    - - - - 092688 memo Vic Kaczynski/PDX to Ken/?, here are my & Steve Rainey notes from 090788 meeting; shad? sturgeon? only protect salmon fry down to 30 mm; general brain dump, thorough, looked productive?
    - - - 091688 letter from Steve Rainey, National Marine Fisheries Service, to Technical Work Group Members
    - - - - [as described] re 082688 meeting, Paul Ward, Ted Vande Sande & Pat O'Brian (CFG) Dave Vogel & Mike Long (USFWS), Vic Kaczyinski, (CH2M-Hill), Roger Wolcott & Steve Rainey, need agreement on 1) adopted design diversion flow quantity, 2) closer look at existing screen facility & [its ?] allowable screen area; 1) if 2750 were the 95% value, 8250 sf of screen would be required - 3000 sf would yield 0.36 fps which would be close to the target; 2) drum limitations: overtopping at high flow, inadequate coverage at low flow, but Paul pointed out pumping rare at over 18,000 cfs; this is only location Steve knows of where drum screens are not on a canal downstream of a headgate, resulting "that each drum must be raised and lowered while watered-up and that uncertainty about sediment or coarse debris at the base of the screen contributes to a concern about excessive entrainment levels." Paul says only 6.3' longitudinal length per bay can be considered open, not 8', leaving screen depth critical to determine total area, which would yield a facility 1530' long and 139 bays to meet 0.33 fps; but if "the radial wetted upstream area is used" with vertical submergence is 10.3', then 3836 sf is derived yielding total screen length 598' with a structure length of 1040', still twice as long as any known drum facility; drums do not look as promising as other alternatives, except possibly in hybrid configurations; "From the purely biological standpoint, the most preferred screen at this site is the long straight fixed vertical screen" but, risks of non-uniform velocities at screen face, no other screen this long ever been constructed in a single straight line, bypass pipeline over 2 miles long offsetting "hydraulic gradient benefits derived from multiple sills below the existing north island intake" [?]; alternatives presented
    - - - - - 091488 NMFS, GCID Juvenile Passage Alternatives diagram, Vs & drums
    - - - - - 091488 NMFS, GCID Juvenile Passage Alternatives diagram, ditto
    - - - - - mailing list of TWG
    - - - Extract from Technical Report 6, December 1982, Delta Fish Facilities Program Report through June 30, 1987
    - - - - Appendix 2, pp. 10-17 "extracted from Technical Report 6, December 1982, Delta Fish Facilities Program Through June 30, 1987...to help define the 'state-of-the-art' fish screening technology." [for the Peripheral Canal?]; specs: Trashrack - "During times of high river flows, large mats of tangled debris and logs have been observed floating down river"; Approach Channel - minimize deadwater areas, turbulence, and eddies, 3 f-s max to avoid scouring the "unlined 'off-river' channel"; Screen Structure; Screen Material; Bypass; Fish Bypass Exit; Pumps (used to counteract reverse flow); Miscellaneous; voters rejected SB 200 06/1982 after which studies were wrapped up & work phased out;
    - - - - - Figure 30, Corrosion Rate of Potential Fish Screen Materials (from Smith, 1982)
    - - - - - Table 5. Corrosion of possible fish screen materials (from Smith, 1982)
    - - - - Appendix F, pp. 17-18 "extracted from [CDFG] Environmental Services Branch Administrative Report No. 82-4, Small Hydroelectric Development in California: The Role of the Department of Fish and Game, prepared by Gary E. Smith", General Fish Screening Criteria: 1. Structure Placement, 2. Approach Velocity, including "F. Screens which are not continually cleaned shall be designed with an approach velocity of 0.0825 feet/second and shall be cleaned when the approach velocity becomes 0.33 feet/second", 3. Velocities Past Screens. 4. Screen Openings, 5. Screen Construction
    - - - - Appendix 3, pp. 19-20 "received from [Reclamation] and were entitled Fish Screen Criteria to Protect Juvenile Salmonids at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam." A. Trashrack, B. Approach Channel, C. Screen Structure, D. Screen Material, E. Bypass, F. Fish Bypass Exit, G. Miscellaneous
    - - - Letter dated July 6, 1988, from Einar Wold, National Marine Fisheries Service, to Harold (sic) Wilson/CH2M Hill
    - - - - ditto; NMFS agreed at 06/23/1988 GCID TWG meeting to provide comments & drawings for 2 of the preferred alternatives; more drums not a feasible alternative: too costly, & at low flows need more screens, & if screens lowered concern about overtopping at high flows
    - - - - - Drawing #1, 06/30/1988 NMFS, GCID Diversion Intake, River Screen Location
    - - - - - Drawing #2, 06/30/1988 NMFS, Preferred Fish Agencies Screening Alternative: gated check structure in West channel, debris deflection device across diversion channel, stainless steel Vertical Vees, 100' across face, 140' or so to rear of Vee, 60 cfs bypass from center of vee to conduit, depends on series of weirs to restore gradient in main channel
    - - - - - Drawing #3, 07/01/1988 NMFS, Proposed Interim Bypass Modification; shrinking drums from 8'6" to 7'6" [?] & doubling width of bypass slots? reduce from 8 smaller to 4 larger bypasses?
    - - - Briefing paper on evaluation of fishery projects using presently available economic data, prepared by Philip A. Meyer, Meyer Resources, Inc.
    - - - - ditto; III. Stepwise Evaluation Options for Fishery Projects on the Sacramento River; Step 1. Market Economic Values, using "California Advisory Committee on Salmon and Steelhead Trout's Report #129-J"; Step 2. Business Plus Non-Market Values Where Fishery Stocks May be Stable, or are Being Enhanced; Step 3. Business Benefits Plus Non-market Values where Fishery Stocks are at Moderate Risk; Step 4. Business Benefits Plus Non-market Values Where Fishery Stocks are Seriously Risked; 5. Omissions from this Analysis: excludes values to Indian peoples or with species preservation
    - - - - - Table 1, Step 1 - Contingent Estimate of Business Net Income per Spawner - Sacramento System
    - - - - - Table 2, Step 2 - Contingent Estimate of Business Net Income Plus Non-Market Value if Sacramento Stocks Were Enhanced
    - - - - - Table 3, Step 3 - Contingent Estimate of Business Net Income Plus Non-Market Value if Sacramento Stocks Were at Moderate Risk
    - - - - - Table 4, Step 4 - Contingent Estimate of Business Net Income Plus Non-Market Value if Sacramento Stocks Were Seriously Risked
    - - - - - Table 4, Step 4 - A Stepwise Procedure for Evaluation of Sacramento Salmon and Steelhead
    - - - A Review and Evaluation of the Losses of Migrant Juvenile Chinook Salmon at the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake, Draft Report Prepared by Paul D. Ward, April 25, 1988
    - - - - ditto; earlier draft of Appendix A to Exhibit 3 Doc #7, above?
    - - - A Review and Evaluation of the Losses of Migrant Juvenile Chinook Salmon at the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake, Final Report Prepared by Paul D. Ward, October 1989, revised December 1989 same as Appendix A to Exhibit 3 Doc #7 above [this final is stamped "preliminary data"]
    - - - GCID/CH2M Hill Comments on "Review and Evaluation of the Losses of Migrant Juvenile Chinook Salmon at the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Intake", Paul Ward, CDF & G
    - - - - 112989 Wilson/CH2M Hill to O'Brien/CDFG; seems primary purpose of the report is not as stated in the title, but to justify the 1972 Sheehan comment "that 10 to 12 million fish could have been lost at the intake." Don't believe the losses are as stated. Report seems biased, deleting these conclusionary statements at the 3 places they appear would make it less unbiased [sic]. Using the 1974 numbers for 1989 results is not valid. Assumptions not presented. Application of those assumptions not presented. Apples & oranges comparisons. "...the message you are sending GCID is that no matter what the quantity of the pumping flow or bypass flow, all fish are lost." Report labels maximum potential impacts as actuals.
    - - - Staff Meetings and Notes with Fishery Agency(s) on Screen Criteria
    - - - - 040689 letter Kaczynski to Iceman/CH2M Hill, summary of 032889 meeting with Pennock/GCID, Rainey/NMFS, Iceman & Kaczynski; Elevation/Gradient Control Structure, Intake Channel Hydraulics, General Screening Facility, Alternative B-1, Alternative A, Fish Bypass System, many thoughtful comments
    - - - - 061389 memo Iceman/CH2M Hill & Pennock/GCID to Files, summary of 051389 Technical/Staff Meeting: Pennock, Iceman, O'Brian, Van De Sande, & Ward/CDFG, Smith & Vogel/USFWS; Intake Channel Criteria, log-boom for debris rather than piers better for dredging & controlling predators; Bypass Criteria; Gradient Weirs, bank swallows in the way?; Alternative B-1, rejects wire mesh?; Alternative A; Fishery agencies want B-1

    - - Appendix E - Water Engineering and Technology, Inc. (W.E.T.) Geomorphology report, Geomorphic and Hydraulic Engineering Study of Sacramento River from Hamilton City (RM 199.3 to Woodson Bridge (RM 218.3), May, 1988, 205 + xviii pages (in file with cover-xviii, & 1-14 duplicated; bend upstream at RM 207 may cutoff in the future, "cutoff index...3.9", one at RM 204 cutoff when the index was at 2.2, restoring the RM 204 been would not likely be successful; bed elevation now looks stable; hydrology, dynamics, bars & chutes, snags, history, bend migrations, bend comparisons, underlying formations, vegetation, sediment, floods, revetments, formulae, etc.; p. 13-20, Chico Monocline, Willows Fault, Corning Fault, p. 14 Battle Creek Fault, Inks Creek fold system, Red Bluff Fault, p. 19-22 Los Molinos & Glenn synclines, Corning domes, p. 20 Red Bluff pediment; p. 119 average precip in the valley 22 inches, 70 inches in Thomes headwaters, 90 in Mill Creek headwaters; drainage above Ord Ferry 12480 square miles, Hamilton City 11060, Vina Bridge 10930, Bend Bridge 8900; p. 122 Trinity "diversion has increased the mean annual flow of the Sacramento River by 16%"; "Major floods prior to 1943 had peak flows of approximately 350,000 cfs at Hamilton City."; p. 123 graph 1940 peak discharge Bend Bridge 285,000 cfs; p. 127 graph 1940 Ord Ferry 370,000 cfs; p. 128 "an instantaneous peak flow of 238,000 cfs was reported in 1974 (USACE, 1983) at the latitude of Hamilton City. The river at this latitude can include left bank bypass flow and flow from tributary streams, which do not directly contribute to the Sacramento River until Chico Landing or below"; p. 128 Shasta Dam has cut the Bend Bridge 100-year flow in half?; p. 147 "highest mean annual discharge year on record (1983)"; these numbers are incident to the purpose of the report, which was to forecast expected river changes and discuss mitigations;

    - - - WATER ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, INC.
    - - - TABLE OF CONTENTS
    - - - Title
    - - - LIST OF FIGURES
    - - - LIST OF TABLES
    - - - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    - - - 1. INTRODUCTION
    - - - 1.1. Study Objectives.
    - - - 1.2. Study Authorization
    - - - 1.3. Methods of Investigation
    - - - 2. GEOLOGY
    - - - 2.1. Tectonics and the Sacramento River.
    - - - 2.1.1. General Structural Geofogy.
    - - - 2.1.2. Major Structures.
    - - - 2.1.3. Minor Structures.
    - - - 2.2. Geologic Units in Study Reach.
    - - - 3. SEDIMENTOLOGY
    - - - 3.1. Wolman Counts
    - - - 3.2. Laboratory Analyses
    - - - 3.3. Grain Size Analysis
    - - - 4. MORPHOLOGY OF SACRAMENTO RIVER
    - - - 4.1. Planform Characteristics
    - - - 4.2. Valley and Channel Profiles.
    - - - 4.3. Channel Width and Depth
    - - - 4.4. Bank protection in Study Reach.
    - - - 5. BEND DYNAMICS
    - - - 5.1. Literature Review.
    - - - 5.2. Bend Evolution Model
    - - - 5.3. Channel Migration and Bank Erosion, Sacramento River.
    - - - 5.4. Channel Migration and Bank Erosion, Butte Basin Reach.
    - - - 5.4.1. Short-and-Long-Term Migration and Erosion Rates
    - - - - Short Term Rates
    - - - - Long Term Rates.
    - - - 5.5. Radius of Curvature and Cutoffs
    - - - 5.6. Bend Dynamics in GCID Diversion Reach (RM 202 to RM 208).
    - - - - Bend Dynamics of Reach from RM 1~9.3 to RM 218.3.
    - - - 5.7. Prediction of Future Behavior of GCID Reach
    - - - 6. HYDROLOGY
    - - - 6.1. Precipitation
    - - - 6.2. Dams and Diversions
    - - - 6.3. Hydrologic Record
    - - - 6.4. Specific Gage Analysis
    - - - 7. HYDRAULICS AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT
    - - - 7.1. Introduction
    - - - 7.2. Hydraulic Analyses
    - - - 7.2.1. General Approach
    - - - 7.2.2. Calibration of [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'] HEC-2 [water surface profile computer model.]
    - - - 7.2.3. Verification of HEC-2 Model
    - - - 7.2.4. Comparison of 1923 and 1987 Hydraulic Conditions
    - - - 7.2.5. Application of HEC-2.
    - - - 7.3. Sediment Transport
    - - - 7.3.1. General Approach
    - - - 7.3.2. HEC-2SR Input Data
    - - - 7.3.3. Evaluation of Sediment Supply
    - - - 7.3.4. Application of HEC-2SR Model
    - - - 8. POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES.
    - - - 8.1. Background
    - - - 8.1.1. Alternative 1.
    - - - 8.1.2. Alternative 2.
    - - - 8.1.3. Alternative 3.
    - - - 8.2. Hydraulic Evaluation of Potential Mitigating Measures.
    - - - 8.2.1. General
    - - - 8.2.2. Alternative 1.
    - - - 8.2.3. Alternative 2.
    - - - 8.3. Impact of Proposeded Mitigatlon Measures on Sediment Transport.
    - - - 8.4. Discussion of Results.
    - - - 9. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.
    - - - 9.1. Conclusions
    - - - 9.1.1. Geomorphic Conclusions.
    - - - 9.1.2. Hydraulic Conclusions.
    - - - 10. RECOMMENDATIONS
    - - - REFERENCES.
    - - - APPENDIX. Physical Model Investigations of GCID Diversion Reach of Sacramento River; proposal to construct actual physical models of the channels in 2 phases, $120,000 or so, using dye, confetti & sediment to test....
    - - -
    - - - LIST OF FIGURES
    - - - Figure 1.1 Aerial photograph of the river from RM 204 to RM 206
    - - - Figure 1.2 Aerial photograph of the river from about RM 207.5 to RM 206 that shows the GCID diversion channel
    - - - Figure 1.3 Location map for study reach of Sacramento River from RM 199.3 to RM 218.3
    - - - Figure 2.1 Structural domains in Sacramento Valley
    - - - Figure 2.2 Structural map of Sacramento Valley from Red Bluff to Colusa (Harwood and Helley, 1982)
    - - - Figure 2.3 Epicenters (X) of seismic events in area of Oroville, CA, from June 1975 to August 1976 (modified from Marks and Lindh, 1978)
    - - - Figure 2.4 Abandoned channel fill in the Modesto Formation
    - - - Figure 2.5 Fanglomerates of the Modesto Formation
    - - - Figure 2.6 Point bar lateral accretion surfaces grading into abandoned channel fill facies of Modesto Formation
    - - - Figure 2.7 Horizontally bedded gravels in point bar platform sediments
    - - - Figure 2.8 Sand and gravel deposits in an active point bar
    - - - Figure 2.9 Fining upwards sequence in an active point bar
    - - - Figure 2.10 Interbedded sand and silt dominated lenses in an upper point bar deposit
    - - - Figure 2.11 Coarse clasts overlying upper point bar fines
    - - - Figure 2.12 Abandoned channel fill
    - - - Figure 2.13 Abandoned channel fill underlying fine-grained vertical accretion deposits
    - - - Figure 2.14 Fine grained vertical accretion sediments overlying a gravel platform
    - - - Figure 2.15 Alternating sand and silt dominated lenses in fine-grained vertical accretion deposit
    - - - Figure 3.1 Schematic diagram showing in planform the geomorphic surfaces and features associated with a meander bend, and the location of sediment sampling sites (A)
    - - - Figure 3.2 Template (gravelometer) used to measure grain sizes in the field
    - - - Figure 3.3 Wolman count line on dry bed at head of point bar.
    - - - Figure 3.4 Grid placed at midpoint of Wolman count line on dry bed surface
    - - - Figure 3.5 Wolman count line on mid bar surface
    - - - Figure 3.6 Grid placed at mid point of Wolman count line on mid bar surface
    - - - Figure 3.7 Armored (surface) and sub-armor sediments on mid bar surface
    - - - Figure 3.8 D16 [D sub 16] from Wolman counts plotted against river mile for the dry bed sites
    - - - Figure 3.9 D50 [D sub 50] from Wolman counts plotted against river mile for the dry bed sites
    - - - Figure 3.10 D95 [D sub 95] from Wolman counts plotted against river mile for the dry bed sites
    - - - Figure 3.11 Dg [D sub g] from Wolman counts plotted against river mile for the dry bed sites
    - - - Figure 3.12 Sorting (ds [d sub s]) values plotted against median grain size (d50 [d sub 50]) for dry bed sites (Fig. 3.1) along Sacramento River
    - - - Figure 3.13 Sorting (Ds [D sub s]) values plotted against median grain size (d50 [d sub 50]) for mid bar sites (Fig. 3.1) along Sacramento River
    - - - Figure 4.1 Projected valley and thalweg profiles for the study reach
    - - - Figure 4.2 Projected water-surface profiles for discharges of 12,700 cfs and 30,000 cfs for 1923 and 1987 surveys.
    - - - Figure 4.3 Channel top width from the 1923 and 1987 surveys plotted against valley mile stationing
    - - - Figure 4.4 Channel depths from the 1923 and 1987 surveys plotted against valley mile stationing
    - - - Figure 5.1 Types of movement of meander bends (Knighton, 1984).
    - - - Figure 5.2 A seven-stage model of bend evolution for the Sacramento River
    - - - Figure 5.3 Migration distance plotted against radius of curvature (Eq. 5.1)
    - - - Figure 5.4 Migration rate plotted against radius of curvature (Eq. 5.2)
    - - - Figure 5.5 Migration rate-channel width ratio plotted against radius of curvature-width ratio
    - - - Figure 5.6 Mean log migration rates plotted against log radius of curvature for the seven class intervals between 1250 ft. and 2750 ft. (Eq. 5.3).
    - - - Figure 5.7 Cumulative frequency distribution of radii of curvature in Butte Basin reach
    - - - Figure 5.8 Channel centerlines from RM 202.5 to RH 206.2 from 1896 to 1986
    - - - Figure 5.9 Channel centerlines from RH 208.5 to RH 206 from 1896 to 1986
    - - - Figure 5.10 Channel centerlines from RH 208.5 to RM 206 from 1969 to 1986
    - - - Figure 6.1 Bend Bridge gage near Red Bluff, California annual peak flows show a reduced flow following Shasta Dam construction in 1943 (Data from USGS, WATSTORE)
    - - - Figure 6.2 The gage on Mill Creek at Los Molinos, California shows that flows after 1943 were generally representative of precipitation patterns similar to those prior to 1943 (Data from USGS, WATSTORE)
    - - - Figure 6.3 The Vina Bridge gage on the Sacramento River is located at RM 218.3 (Data from USGS, WATSTORE)
    - - - Figure 6.4 The Hamilton City gage (RM 199.3) shows the effects of Shasta flow regulation on the Sacramento River following 1943 (Data from USGS, WATSTORE)
    - - - Figure 6.5 The Ord Ferry gage data has not been published since 1978 by the USGS. Major floods up to 294,000 cfs were recorded even after Shasta Dam closure (Data from USGS, WATSTORE)
    - - - Figure 6.8 The average 7-day high and low flows on the Sacramento River at Bend Bridge (Data from USGS, WATSTORE)
    - - - Figure 6.9 Specific gage analyses for the gages at RH 206.2 and RH 205 (Fig. 6.13) (Data from Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District)
    - - - Figure 6.10 Location map showing the positions of the gages at Hamilton City and near the GCID pump station
    - - - Figure 7.1 Daily flows and step hydrograph representation for water year 1983 at Bend Bridge
    - - - Figure 7.2 Predicted bed elevation change on the Sacramento River using 1978 cross-sections
    - - - Figure 7.3 Predicted bed elevation change on the Sacramento River comparing the detailed run with Figure 1
    - - - Figure 7.4 Comparison of bed and water surface profiles (Q = 70,000 cfs)
    - - - Figure 7.5 Predicted main and side channel bed elevation change without structures
    - - - Figure 7.6 Effective discharge plot for Gianella Bridge for fine sediment
    - - - Figure 7.7 Effective discharge plot for Glanella Bridge for medium sediment
    - - - Figure 7.8 Effective discharge plot for Gianella Bridge for course [sic] sediment
    - - - Figure 8.1 Main channel control element represented in the HEC-2 model to create desired backwater conditions at intake channel
    - - - Figure 8.2 Comparison of water surface profiles in GCID intake/bypass channel for existing conditions with water surface elevations for Alternatives 1 and 2
    - - - Figure 8.3 Predicted main channel bed elevation change with and without structures
    - - - Figure 8.4 Predicted side channel bed elevation change with and without structures (Alternative 1)
    - - - Figure 8.5 Predicted channel bed elevation change with and without structures (Alternative 2)
    - - - The drawings, Sheets 1-6, will be included in the final draft to the CoE.
    - - -
    - - - LIST OF TABLES
    - - - Table 3.1. Mean grain size characteristics of bank materials from RM 200 to RH 218
    - - - Table 3.2. Reach-mean values of channel bed and bar grain size characteristics (RH 200 - 218)
    - - - Table 4.1. Sinuosity data from RH 194 to RM 218
    - - - Table 4.2. Equivalence of river (RM) and valley (VM) miles for study reach (VM 0 is at Colusa)
    - - - Table 5.1. Radius of curvature and migration rates used to determine long term channel behavior from 1896 to 1986
    - - - Table 5.2. Comparison of Estimated Short and Long Term Migration Rates
    - - - Table 5.3. Summary of data for cutoffs observed on the floodplain in Butte Basin, and cutoffs that occurred in the reach after 1908
    - - - Table 5.4. Statistical Analyses of Cutoff data
    - - - Table 5.5. Characteristics of bends in Butte Basin reach, Sacramento River
    - - - Table.5.6. Morphometric and dynamic characteristics of bends on Sacramento River between Gianella Bridge (RM 199.3) and Woodson Bridge (RH 218.3)
    - - - Table 6.1. Sacramento River Gages
    - - - Table 6.2. Major Impacts on the Hydrology of the Sacramento River
    - - - Table 7.1. Comparison of measured and calibrated water-surface elevations from HEC-2 (GCID pumping rate = 715 cfs)
    - - - Table 7.2. Verification of HEC-2 modeling for 12,700 cfs discharge (no diversion of flow at GCID)
    - - - Table 7.3. Comparison of hydraulic conditions at North and South Island gage locations In 1923 and 1987
    - - - Table 7.4. Percentage of flow conveyed in Intake channel for a range of flow conditions
    - - - Table 7.5. Cross-section information from COE Study
    - - - Table 8.1. Comparison of flow velocities for existing and improved conditions in the OCID intake/bypass channel

    - - Appendix F - Hydraulic Analysis Data
    - - - Technical Memorandum Dated Novermber 1988 on Hydraulic Analysis of Sacramento River/GCID West Channel Prepared by CH2M Hill
    - - - - Introduction
    - - - - Data Resources
    - - - - - Cross Sections
    - - - - - Rating Curves
    - - - - Hydraulic Approach
    - - - - Calibration/Verification
    - - - - Alternatives Analysis
    - - - - Comments
    - - - - Tables
    - - - - - 1. Flow Balances for Hydraulic Calibration and Verification Periods
    - - - - - 2. Flow Split Percentages at North island Gage
    - - - - - 3. Water Service Elevation Comparisons for Calibration/Verification (NGVD)
    - - - - - 4. Comparisons of Water Velocity at Q = 12,700 cfs
    - - - - - 5. Hydraulic Design Criteria
    - - - - - 6. Gradient Restoration--Alternatives Results
    - - - - - 7. Existing Hydraulic Conditions for a Representative Low-Flow Condition
    - - - - - 8. Future Hydraulic Conditions for a Representative Low-Flow Condition
    - - - - Figures
    - - - - - 1. GCID Fishery/Hydraulics Study Area Map [Vina shown on wrong side of River?]
    - - - - - 2. Reach Distribution of Roughness Factors (Mannings n) [if Vina is wrong, what else?]
    - - - Memorandum Dated October 5, 1988, from Ken Iceman/CH2M Hill to Pat O'Brian/CDFG on Flow Variations [handwritten]
    - - - - Graph, daily, GCID 1987 against Sac River 1984
    - - - - Table 1, 092688 Combined Probability of River Flow & GCID Flow, Bi-Monthly Basis
    - - - Memorandum Dated September 29, 1988, from Ken Iceman/CH2M Hill to Pat O'Brian/CDFG on Hydraulic Criteria Frequency Analysis [many handwritten pages; in file, p. 2 seems to be before p. 1, pages not numbered]; "increase the number of weirs and likely increase the upstream flood risk."
    - - - - Comparison of Existing Conditions vs. Post-Project Conditions
    - - - - Table 4 Fisheries Hydraulic Data (u/s Bend Site)
    - - - - Table 5 Pre- and Post- project Average Sac. River Velociies, fps
    - - - - Table 2 Fisheries Hydraulic Data (Existing Site)
    - - - - Table 3 Fisheries Hydraulic Data (Mouth of West Channel)
    - - - - Table 6 Gradient Restoration--Alternative Results (Flows cfs, Velocities, Water Surface Elevations - at various stream locations)
    - - - - Table 7 Comparison of Existing and Post-Project Velocities fps
    - - - - Table 8 Comparison of Existing and Post-Project Depths, ft.
    - - - Bi-Monthly Frequency Curves - x - % probability, y - Sacramento River cfs, period April 1-15, descending curve for GCID, ascending for River; charts for each half month to 10/31, concave for GCID in first becomes convex in second, curves flatten starting July 16, curve again September 1-15, flatten again September 16-Oct. 31
    - - - Monthly Fequency Curves, x - return interval (year), y - Sacramento River cfs in 1000s; Apr - June concave ascencing curve, July-Oct flat;
    - - - Monthly Fequency Curves for GCID, x - return interval (years), y = GCID Pump Station, cfs, April, May, June, convex descending curve
    - - - Monthly Fequency Curves for Sacramento River, x - return interval (years), y = GCID Pump Station, cfs [yup. error? Not Sacramento River?], July-October, July & September convex descending curve, August flat, October concave descending
    - - - Monthly Fequency Curves for Combined Probabilities, x - % probability, y - Sacramento River, cfs (1000's); River against GCID, Sac concave ascending GCID convex descending April May June, both flattened July August October, September shows convex descending curve for GCID vs. flat for River (note on each month, such as April: Combined Probability (CP) = P(River) * P(GCID), Example: What is CP of GCID greater than/equal to 2,750 cfs. when River is greater than/equal to 8,000 cfs in April? P(River greater than/equal to 8,000) = 40%, P(GCID greater than/equal to 2,750) = 10%, then, CP = 40% * 10% = 4%
    - - - Memorandum Dated September 2, 1988, from Ken Iceman/CH-2M Hill to Pat O'Brian/CDF & G on Fish Screen Site Water Depths; handwritten
    - - - - Table of Elevations at Screen Sites
    - - - - Table of Proposed Screen Bottom Elevations
    - - - - Table of Screens (resulting lengths, approach velocities, water depths)
    - - - - Table of Resulting Water Depths at Screens for various flows
    - - - - Chart, Flow Duration Curve, GCID Demand Flow-Duration Curve using Weekly Avg. Values, 1968-1985; x=duration %, y=flow in cfs, a descending convex curve
    - - - - Charts of existing channel cross sections, vs. where to cut & fill
    - - - - Figure 2, Modify Existing Fish Screens or Construct New Fish Screens Near Existing, showing gradient weirs in main channel, training wall in GCID Channel, bank stabalization & redirecting bypass channel
    - - - - Figure 3, Relocation of fish screen to Mouth of West Channel with main channel weirs, GCID channel bank stabilization, control structure in channel below pump station intake
    - - - - Figure 4, Relocation of Intake Channel and Fish Screen Facility second weir upstream from existing GCID channel, new GCID canal cut at upstream river bend with canal link to old canal, 2 seasonal diversion dams in old channel, removal blocks in existing screening structure

    - - Appendix G - Cost Analysis Data
    - - - Table G-1, Construction Cost Estimate, River Gradient Restoration Weirs, $6,174,000
    - - - Table G-2, Construction Cost Estimate, Existing Site--Alternative A $31,506,000
    - - - Table G-3, Construction Cost Estimate, Mouth of Existing Intake Channel--Alternative B1 $32,451,0001

    - - Appendix H - Congressional Record and Bill
    - - - Senate Appropriations, June 14, 1988
    - - - - 061488 memo Fulton/Heron-Burchette to Clark/GCID, $360,000 for GCID Screen & fish in both bills, expect resistance from USACE
    - - - Congressional Record June 30, 1988 [nearly unreadable] v. 134, No. 99, page ??
    - - - COE Appropriations Record, p. 22, $364,000 towards engineering & design of the work with locals to match with $120,000
    - - - Letter to Honorable Tom Bevill, Chairman of Submcommittee [sic] on Energy and Water Development, draft, a thankyou from Bosco/Herger/Fazio ?

    - - Appendix I - Preliminary Draft Report Review Comments
    - - - 120788 to CDFG from O'Brien/FMS draft review of CH2M Hill Draft Feasibility Report, handwritten "Not Official and for Distribution per Pat O'Brien", "...my initial review of the Preliminary Draft Feasibibility Report prepared by CH2M-Hill....focus solely on content."; minor factual & major philosophical concerns, questions "quantitative assessment of [economic] fish value." Nervous they're making a case for Alternative A.
    - - - 121988 letter Carson/USFWS to Wilson/CH2M Hill, (preliminary) review of Preliminary Draft Feasibility Report; not necessarily proven that raising the river gradient is required; weirs may have adverse impacts by increasing predation and damaging riparian vegetation; weirs & new screens must be evaluated together; increasing resistance to Alternative A; cranky about "cost-effective" or "cost/benefit" with regard to fish preservation, will only accept cost/benefit to compare 2 equally effective protections; weirs to be linked, not separate;
    - - - 120588 letter Wold/NMFS to Wilson/CH2M Hill, (preliminary) ; disagree that welded wedge-wire required; believe sediment will be the same on either alternative; believe more bank stabilization with A than B; bend flow with A not a problem for B; multiple screen types yields inconsistent flow; contrary to study feel technical merit points better for B than A; believe cost assigned to B excessive; prefer bypass pipe to channel; B best for the fish and technically;
    - - - 022489 memo GCID/CH2M Hill to CDFG/USFWS/NMFS "Review Comments Legend and Record of Status to the 'Preliminary Draft Feasibility Report-- GCID/CDFG Fish Protection and Gradient Control Facilities"
    - - - - Table 4-2 Qualitative Merit Matrix
    - - - - Table 3 Summary of Alternatives Merit
    - - - - Table 4-4 Total Construction and Project Costs (A 21,200,000, B1 $30,050,000 )
    - - - - Table 4-5 Project Capital Cost Estimate Totals
    - - - - Table 4-6 Cost/Technical Merits Selection Index
    - - - - Table 4-10 Economic Evaluation - Total Project / Economic Evaluation, Riffle Restoration Structure Only

    - - Appendix J - Final Draft Feasibility Report Comments and Responses
    - - - Comments from California Department of Fish and Game by Ted Van De Sande (Retired)
    - - - Comments from California Department of Fish and Game by Paul Ward; cost of A increased from $21,300,000 to $31,506,000, no showing of why; no record found supporting assertion 1930s screens were jointly funded with DGG; no evidence found DFG approved 1930s screen design; winter run both federal & state listed;
    - - - Comments from Corps of Engineers by George Weddell (Retired)
    - - - Comments from Corps of Engineers by Bob Junnell
    - - - Comments from U.S. Fish and Wildlife by James McKevitt

    08/12/1991 10 EXHIBITS 5 through 24 by plaintiff USA in SUPPORT of motion for temporarty restraining order and preliminary injunction (kh) (Entered: 08/12/1991)
  • Exhibit 5 52 Fed. Reg. 6041-2, vol. 52, No. 39 "Endangered and Threatened Species; Winter Run Chinook Salmon pp. 6041-6048
  • Exhibit 6 letter Fox/NMFS to Sadoff/USACE, enclosed is BiOp re potential impacts to winter-run from the dredging, USACE permit ap #198900254; approval "is likely to jeopardize the continuing existence of the Sacramento River winter-run chinook salmon" which can be avoided by restoring the gradient & installing new screens (B1), may be some incidental take under this plan, included terms to limit that take.
    - Biological Opinion of the National Marine Fisheries Service to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on Public Notice No. 8900254 (Glenn Colusa Irrigation District 01/10/90) (05/28/1991); EIS on gradient & screens scheduled for 03/1992, weirs to be completed 07/1993 and screens 12/1993;
    - - Incidental Take Statement
  • Exhibit 7 052688 letter Hancock/Reclamation to Fullerton/NMFS, Wallenstrom/USFWS, Bontadelli/CDFG, enclosed is 'Cooperative Agreement Among California Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, United States Bureau of Reclamation, and United States Fish and Wildlife Service to Implement Actions to Benefit Winter-Run Chinook Salmon in the Sacramento River Basin."
    - 052088 Cooperative Agreement Among California Department of Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, United States Bureau of Reclamation and United States Fish and Wildlife Service to Implement Actions to Benefit Winter-run Chinook Salmon in the Sacramento River Basin ; raise gates of Red Bluff Dam 12/01 - 04/01, maintain optimal water temperatures below dam during spawning season, etc.; [where is this quote: study, alternative B1, 1,150 foot long vertical fish screen with multiple-vee screen configuration rather than rotary drum as now with a whole lot of site prep. $26 million;]
    - - Exhibit A, Estimates of Adult Winter-Run Chinook Salmon Migrating Upstream Past Red Bluff Diversion Dam [CDFG data]
  • Exhibit 8 54 Fed, Reg. 32085 08/04/1989 NMFS 240-day emergency rule 54 No. 149 32085-32088, Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat; Winter-run Chinook Salmon
  • Exhibit 9 55 Fed, Reg. 12191 04/02/1990 NMFS 240-day emergency rule republished 55 No. 63 12191-12193, Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat; Winter-run Chinook Salmon
  • Exhibit 10 080591 Declaration of James H. Lecky; "administer the [ESA] for the region"; "prepared the documentation for the emergency listing of the [winter?] run after it underwent a large additional and unexpected decline in 1989, and the final listing document to formalize the designation of the species as threatened."; chronicle of some of the salmon protection activities in the Sacramento Watershed clear to the Golden Gate, and how GCID has been less than cooperative;
  • Exhibit 11 041191 Letter Lawrence F. Hancock/Reclamation to E.C. Fullerton/NMFS, requesting formal consultation per ESA Section 7, CVP Sacramento River from Trinity to Delta
  • Exhibit 12 080991 Declaration of Lowell E. Ploss; 720,000 a-f base supl, 75,000 a-f project water, 30,000 a-f option for more project water which was exercised, total 825,000, plus up to 105,000 a-f for the 3 national wildlife refruges; this year a critical year so both base supply and project water reduced by 25%; GCID largest Sacramento River diverter; let GCID & others know 1100 to 1400 cfs available via T-C Canal in Aug & Sept. 1991;
  • Exhibit 13 072991 Letter Robert D. Clark/GCID to E. Charles Fullerton/NMFS, 9 pp., cited above as saying: disagree with NMFS analysis but agrees to accept from TCCA "this year" - sort of, but not exactly as citing text phrases it; p. 7 "we believe that the district has been the only party that has taken positive action in protecting juvenile salmon at the CDF & G fish screening facility. Against the advice of the agencies, in particular CDF & G, we conducted fishery studies and underwater observation of the screens during the past 2 years."
    - Table 1, Flow conditions (cfs) at GCID from August 15 to October 1, 1990 (various dates; river, pumping, & bypass flows, screen velocity)
  • Exhibit 14 080191 Declaration of Marcin Whitman, hydraulic engineer w/NMFS Santa Rosa, focusing on fish passage issues; BS naval architecture & marine engineering, BA in marine biology, MS in engineering, emphasizing aquatic engineering; p. 5 "Only complete replacement of the existing screens will result in adequate SAV"s and bypass flows. 7. Until replacement of the existing screen system, the most effective way to minimize large losses of winter run is to reduce the amount of water diverted by the facility....In order to achieve a state standard SAV of .33 fps, GCID operations this year must be reduced to approximately 1100 cfs."
    - Whitman Attachment #1, Figure ES-1, Vicinity Map, Shasta to Colusa
    - Whitman Attachment #2, Figure 2, Glenn-Colusa Fish Screen and Vicinity, RM 205 to 206, oxbow, screen, canal, current plant, previous plant location
    - Whitman Attachment #3, Figure 1-1, Site Plan of Existing Facilities, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, CH2M Hill, aerial photo with descriptions added
    - Whitman Attachment #4 (Prepared by Marcin Whitman), Crude diagram of existing screens
  • 090387 Exhibit 15 Memorandum of Understanding Between the California Department of Fish and Game and the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Regarding Studies Intended to Define a Solution to Fish Passage and Water Supply Problems at the District's Hamilton City Pump Diversion; prepared a study plan, costs shared equally,
    - 081787 Study Plan for GCID-CDFG Fish Screens, time line for components
    - 082087 Resolution #87-7 GCID, execute the agreement
  • Exhibit 16 030288 Department of Army Permit No. 5880A, perform maintenance dredging of the West Channel, construct low level dam downstream of the pumping plan, permit time limit ends 12/31/1989, interim measure, based on GCID-CDFG MOU, "issued with the understanding that any subsequent permit will include measures that will provide state-of-the-art protection of fishery resources"; annual letter report of progress; form & meet with a TAG; etc.
    - 031386 Proposed Low Level Dam, Glenn Colusa Irrigation District Location Map, oxbow to Hamilton City
    - 031386 Proposed Low Level Dam, Glenn Colusa Irrigation District, Dam Section, Channel Cross Section Dam Site & Typical Channel
    - 031386 Proposed Maintenance Dredging, Glenn Colusa Irrigation District, map oxbow & main channel, where to dredge, where to dump
  • Exhibit 17 112289 Joint Statement of Agreement Between the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and the California Department of Fish and Game Regarding Protection of Fish at the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District Facilities ; project is the USACE permit; "Mortality under Existing conditions is judged to be severe." Since mortality without the diversion is negligible, the diversion gets measured against that. Winter-run chinook endangered under California Endangered Species Act, 08/1989; threatened 08/03/1989 under emergency procedures in the Federal Endangered Species Act - Section 7 consultation required under Federal, & comply with Section 2050-2098 of California Fish and Game Code; "It should be recognized that compensation for unavoidable impacts to winter-run chinook salmon may be unacceptable."
    - Appendix A, Design Criteria for Fish Screens, Fish Bypass System, and Approach Channel; "bypass pipe should be completely dark inside" [why?]
  • Exhibit 18 011090 Public Notice of Permit Application No. 8900254, USACE; dredged material 10,000 - 120,000 cubic yards depending on the winter "...evaluation of the probable impact including cumulative impacts of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and the utilization of important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably forseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered including the cumulative effects thereof; among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, flood plain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production, mineral needs, consideration of property ownership, and in general, the needs and welfare of the people."
    - Glenn Colusa Irrigation District Location Map 12/1989 oxbow to Hamilton City
    - Proposed Maintenance Dredging, Glenn Colusa Irrigation District 2 of 3 12/1989 ox bow area, where to dredge, where to put it
    - Proposed Measuring Weir, Glenn Colusa Irrigation District 3 of 3 12/1989 , Weir Section, Channel Cross Sections
    - Site Plan, Fish Screen Structure near Mouth of Existing Intake Channel Alternative B1, Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, map near entrance of oxbow, seasonal floating log-boom debris deflector, gradient weirs, remove sand bar at channel entrance, seasonal earth dam, new GCID intake channel parallel to old one which remains, not to scale?
  • Exhibit 19 060391 Letter E.C. Fullerton/NMFS to Robert Clark/GCID exempt on take only after constructing B1, else, injunction; "if GCID does not reach a written agreement with NMFS by July 1, 1991, on these measures, NMFS will request the Department of Justice move to enjoin the operation of the GCID pumping plant...."
  • Exhibit 20 010791 Letter E.C. Fullerton/NMFS to Robert Clark/GCID again offering assistance to solve this, "Without authorization, this take is a violation of the ESA." Minasian called them asking where authority comes from, "ESA gives us broad authority (Section 4 (d) ) to issue such regulations as we deem necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened species. We determined during the listing of the run that the winter-run should be afforded all of the protections that are afforded endangered species under Section 9 of the ESA, including the broad prohibitions on taking. We also recognized that these restrictions would create problems for certain activities including diverters that take winter-run. Therefore, we incorporated provisions for authorizing a level of take incidental to certain activities provided that the take would not preclude the recovery of the run and efforts were carried out to mitigate the effect of the take."
  • Exhibit 21 080891 Declaration of Gary R. Stern, BA Environmental Services UC Santa Cruz; MS in Fisheries Biology Humboldt State, coordinates winter-run chinook salmon Section 7 consultations for Northern California; traps proposed by GCID will not be effective to determine the start of the run because there are so few fish left and the traps are insufficiently sensitive
  • Exhibit 22 072691 Letter E.C. Fullerton/NMFS to Robert Clark/GCID requesting GCID implement interim measures: cut flow to 1100 cfs, maximize bypass flows through lower portion of oxbow diversion channel, remove predatory fish from oxbow diversion channel, install fyke or rotary traps behind the pumps; report weekly; response deadline 07/31/1991
  • Exhibit 23 080291 Letter E.C. Fullerton to Robert Clark understands GCID won't limit to 1100 cfs, must limit, last warning?
  • Exhibit 24 080791 Declaration of Roger S.C. Wolcott, Jr., BS & MS in Fishery biology, U. of Washington, College of Fisheries; concentrated on fishery population dynamics, statistics, computer modeling; since 1980 NMFS "specialist concerning California water policy, as it relates to the protection of anadromous fish"; lack of or inadequate screens on diversions is a big part of the problem; winter-run reproduce at only one age, 3 years, 1991 almost exclusevely the progeny of the run that reproduced in 1988 [85, 82, 79, 76 - did this seaward migration run into the '77 drought?]; recent GCID focus on 'interim fixes' will not adequately reduce the take; winter-run salmon population in great danger, 99.9% drop over past 22 years
    - chart, Wolcott Attachment #1, prepared by Roger Wolcott, Adult Winter-Run Chinook Salmon, Migrating Past Red Bluff Diversion Dam, thousands, by year
    - table, Wolcott Attachment #2, prepared by Roger Wolcott, Adult Winter-Run chinook Salmon Migrating Past Red Bluff Diversion Dam, count per year

    [end of LARGER EXPANDO FILE - Docs 7 - 10 ]


    [ Vol. 1 resumed ]


    08/12/1991 LODGED Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause NOT TO BE SIGNED (kh) Modified on 03/10/1992 (Entered: 08/12/1991)
    08/12/1991 LODGED Preliminary Injunction NOT TO BE SIGNED (kh) Modified on 03/10/1992 (Entered: 08/12/1991)
    08/14/1991 11 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrig in OPPOSITION to motion for temporary restraining order [4-1], motion for preliminary injunction [3-1]; motion hearing 8/15/91 at 2:00pm (kh) (Entered: 08/15/1991) ; been served with declarations & exhibits on 08/13 without Ploss or Stern declarations, but not with complaint, declarations and supporting exhibits at time of filing this; no need for TRO, NMFS just direct Reclamation to release waters from Black Butte to make up the difference; 2) GCID not taking, it is CDFG--designer/owner/operators of the fish screen--which is taking but NMFS left them out of the suit; no declarations blame GCID pumps; 3) missing procedural prerequisites under ESA, APA, NEPA; 4) Declaration of Robert Clark: 85 years of pumping but no winter-run problem until latest 15 years, $20.000,000 damages to landowners/water users in District will result, suggest 4.1 substitute Black Butte/Stony water, 4.2 alters water rights, GCID had proposed monitoring salmon traps and shifting to Black Butte water when more than 10 are captured in a week; I.b. TRO seeks GCID install a "predator electro shock program"; Clark Declaration shows 70,000 a-f in Black Butte available to allow GCID to reduce pumping, & GCID does not own an electro-shock unit which units are owned by USA and State of California "who alone have the legal authority to use them", ability to maximize bypass flow solely with the USA with their releases into the River, TRO not needed, "what is needed is a telephone to link these federal agencies." II. per 1968 Contract, "State shall be fully and solely responsible for the design and construction of all works and facilities to be constructed under this agreement"--the fish screens, & immunizes GCID from failures of whatever cause, and if they don't work properly, CDFG has to fix at CDFG's cost; "Take" should not be determined at a TRO hearing, since it is complicated, but if Court does so, it should be prepared to enjoin every diversion from the River & Delta through TROs; better to hear the prelimary injunction and hear who it is that is "taking", CDFG's screens; III. TRO ordering reduced pumping would circumvent rulemaking at both Federal and State levels, no conservation plan adopted, & compliance with NEPA not alleged in complaint. Federal regulations & recovery plan under 16 USC 1533 not issued; no overall consideration of alternatives, impacts, no site specific plan, no one has considered: a. 25,000 acres of federal wildlife refuges will be first to dry up; b. assumption that salmon fare better at T-C Canal intake than GCID intake unsupported; c. option of cleaning, operating, modfiying CDFG screens discarded; No administrative record here, just a letter ordering certain actions; biological opinion did not touch on limiting diversion; no showing for Section 1533 of State cooperation, of salmon being resident fish; no NEPA EIS, no consideration of effects & alternatives; "destroying literally thousands of farming families' life work"; IV. jurisdictional issues, alteration of state water rights by a federal administrative agency; contrasting with FERC preemption, no preemption shown (by 1991), "no exclusion from duty of MNFS [sic] to petition" SWRCB or "courts having jurisdiction over GCID water rights if they wish pumping limitations" [uh, the same court where 1074 was filed?]; "The order to reduce pumping is not referred to or the subject of either a regulation process, a conservation program, or a NEPA analysis. It springs forth in whole cloth from the pen of Mr. Fullerton and Mr. Lecky with no evidentiary or procedural backing. This Court is asked to politely send NMFS to the Bureau of Reclamation to request that Black Butte water be delivered as the cotract of the Buresu and GCID requires and denying the" TRO.
  • Exhibit "A" 14-06-200-855A R.O. Draft 11/22-1963 [is this the final? Contract between the United States and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Diverter of Water from Sacramento River Sources Providing for Project Water Service and Agreement on Diversion of Water, 25 pp., 04/06/1964; Exhibit A, Schedule of Monthly Diversions of Water, Exhibit B [missing] map showing intersection of Stony & GCID Main Canal, Exhibit C Unit Duty [July & August per types of crops]
  • Exhibit "B" Agreement by and between the State of California, Department of Fish and Game and the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District for the Contruction, Operation and Maintenance of a Fish Screen Diversion, Sacramento River, Glenn County, at Easterly Terminous of Cutler Avenue, 05/16/1968, & Amendment 04/01/1969, & Agreement 11/01/1972
    08/14/1991 12 DECLARATION of Dave Vogel (kh) (Entered: 08/15/1991) , fish biologist, was in charge of fish studies at Tehama-Colusa Canal headworks Red Bluff Diversion Dam, know of nothing that would make salmon mortality less at T-C intake than at GCID intake; reducing pumping will not necessarily reduce fish kills if Reclamation reduces releases into the River; CDFG screens at fault; NMFS, CDFG, USFWS not interested in anything other than forcing GCID to spend $25,000,000 on new screens; video to follow showing how fish are passing through screen flaws; no showing diverting GCID flows through T-C will reduce kills;
  • Exhibit A, curriculum vitae (resume); USFWS, CH2M Hill, SCUBA diver, "At one time he held the world record for collection and biological dissection of dolphin specimens killed in tuna nets (nearly 400)."
    08/14/1991 13 DECLARATION of Howard Wilson (kh) (Entered: 08/15/1991) registered civil engineer; worked with GCID 11 years and the CDFG screen 5 years; 1) pumping is only part of the problem. 2) GCID working on a riffle-restoration plan, which will increase depths at the screens by 3-4 feet; screens originally designed for twice the approach velocity that CDFG currently advises; piles of sediment & debris making it worse; screens not maintained properly by CDFG which is making it worse--bypass channels therein blocked with sand, sediment, gravel & organic material; 3) taking is because of screen design flaws: poor maintenance has produced gaps, mesh size too large, designed with entrapment zones, misplaced sheet-pile wall causes reverse flow, 5) [no 4] dredging is the only way to improve bypass flows given current conditions, 6) uh, 1100 cfs doesn't solve the problem
  • Exhibit A, curriculum vitae (resume); Chico State 1963; Army; Alaska highway design engineer; various water resource projects--pumps, pipelines, waste water reclamation, diversions
    08/14/1991 14 DECLARATION of Keith Marine (kh) (Entered: 08/15/1991) ; fish biologist, worked with Dave Vogel on the CDFG screens; both SCUBA dove to the screens, video of screen functioning, being readied but in Mr. Vogel's private office until 08/19; tapes show: 1) bays blocked by debris, 2) screen gaps, 3) pier-nose wall structures separating screens force fish to swim against the current to get around them and if they're not vigorous, sucks them through the gaps or grinds them up, 4) vigorous fish fare little better 5) "installing self-cleaning perforated plates on the bottom portion of the concrete peir noses" would help,; if they get past the screens, predators eat them. Releasing fish where the bypass screen is clean and has enough flow shows fish passing into it immediately and doing OK. GCID doesn't have equipment or authority to do predator shocking.
  • Exhibit A, curriculum vitae (resume), CH2M Hill, Davis BS (Wildlife/ Fisheries), Utah State Graduate Study in Aquatic Ecology: USFWS Red Bluff,
  • Exhibit B Figure 1 High Water Elevation Approximating Original Conditions, Calif. F & G, Fish Screens at GCID
  • Exhibit B Figure 2 Low Water Elevation Approximating Present Conditions, Calif. F & G, Fish Screens at GCID
  • Exhibit B Figure 4 Hypothetical Fish Screen Design, Calif. F & G, Fish Screens at GCID
  • Exhibit C Figure 5 Proposed Modifications, Calif. F & G, Fish Screens at GCID
  • Exhibit C Figure 6 Proposed Modifications, Calif. F & G, Fish Screens at GCID (adding "Air Purge Cleaning Device"
  • Exhibit C p. 3; Plan View of drum screens [first mention of a preceding trash rack?]
  • Exhibit C p. 4; Figure 2 GCID Hydraulics Sampling Screen #1 at Q= 1150 cfs [showing?] trash rack?]

    08/14/1991 15 DECLARATION of Robert Clark; exhibits A-F (kh) (Entered: 08/15/1991) , Manager/Chief Engineer GCID since 1970, with GCID since 1967, licensed agricultural engineer; 1990-1 deficiency, 75% of normal water supply, 1991 dry year demand 2000/2200 cfs declines to 1000 cfs over 08/01 - 09/15 depending on crop progress, extensive recycling of water in drought year; 08/12 1811 cfs at Main Pump plus 200 cfs T-C Canal and zero Stony Creek/Black Butte; cutting to 1100 cfs may damage 45000 acres of crops in upper 2/3 of district, crop loans, financial calamity; increasing demand on T-C to 500 cfs will take care of most of lower 1/3 of district; Reclamation services 20,000 acres below GCID from the Colusa Basin Drain which is supplied by GCID [waste? runoff?], can be supplied by Reclamation through GCID with a wheeling agreement; limit on pumping produces a 400 cfs, 20% shortfall in the upper 2/3, tapering into September; would be required to cut off 3 Wildlife Refuges [Colusa, Sacramento, Delevan] 25,000 acres; economic loses in upper 2/3 of GCID $20,000,000; Angle rights, unforeseen? GCID may demand, 70,000 in reservoir, must be drawn down anyway for flood control, advancing draw-down would mitigate [reason this is not happening is unclear, NMFS did not ask them? NMFS did not name them in complaint?]; Design, construction, O & M of screens is all CDFG, designed by California Department of General Services; mesh size was specified to protect fall-run but some winter-run is small enough to pass through--GCID has asked CDFG to retrofit; design did not allow for change in stream elevation, 1970 storm dropped gradiant 4 feet which reduced coverage of screens 4 feet and increased water speed over the remaining; since design, CDFG has cut specified velocities in half; proper flow & screen surface area coverage can only be maintained by restoring river's elevation by installing a weir at the entrance of the District's channel, GCID spent over $1,000,000 trying to convince regulatory agencies that this is essential, Congress appropriated money for it [?], District with Reclamation Board [not bureau?] & California are funding environmental work for Army Corps, & GCID "committed to the local cost share for the $6,000,000 gradient restoration project." CDFG not maintaining properly; "bypass of flows of water across the screens" primarily a function of flow in the river, determined by Reclamation releases, not by GCID pumping, and reducing the pumping will not proportionately change those flows if Reclamation reduces releases; GCID offered to move its dredge into the channel to clean debris from the front of the screens; designed-in traps at bottoms of screens should be screened off, but CDFG, NMFS, & USFWS have rejected fixes in favor of GCID spending $25,000,000 on new screens; bypasses clogged with silt, rock, gravel; dents in the screen allow juveniles through to be ground up by brushes & seals; sediment mounds & debris in front of screens reduce screen surface area; GCID has hired Steve Cramer & Associates, & 2 fish biologists from CH2M HILL for professional help; GCID has been trying for 5 years to remedy the problem: 1) dredging to increase bypass flow, 2) studying screen defects, 3) seeking federal appropriations for Sacramento River Gradient, riffle restoration, cleaning screen installation at the base of each bay; 4?) work with these various agencies who have been uncooperative except in requiring GCID to pay for new screens which GCID cannot afford and for which it has no authority to design & construct; CDFG is required to perform; NMFS has not held administrative hearings or considered alternatives; all 4 agencies want the new screens at GCID's cost; letters pointed to as authority for action did not point to the remedies sought in the litigation; NMFS takes the Matrix that showed action needed by each of the 5 agencies and turns it around as justifying an injunction against GCID [recital of 17 points therein]; litigation unnecessary: NMFS may accomplish the goals of the litigation merely by ordering Reclamation to deliver water (& pay for) to GCID's Stony Creek diversion, electro-shocking of fish not under GCID's authority, GCID already agreed to monitoring presence of winter-run juveniles, GCID ready to maximize bypass flows, NMFS can order Reclamation to increase releases
  • Exhibit "A" Diagram [map] of District and Water Sources --
  • Exhibit "A-1" 14-06-200-855A R.O. Draft 11/22-1963 Contract between the United States and Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District, Diverter of Water from Sacramento River Sources Providing for Project Water Service and Agreement on Diversion of Water", 04/06/1964, all as in Doc 11 above
  • Exhibit "B" Agreement by and between the State of California, Department of Fish and Game and the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District for the Contruction, Operation and Maintenance of a Fish Screen Diversion, Sacramento River, Glenn County, at Easterly Terminous of Cutler Avenue, 05/16/1968, & Amendment 04/01/1969, & Agreement 11/01/1972
  • Exhibit "C" Matrix of Fish Enhancement Measures Proposed by GCID and Responded to by Federal and State Agencies 07/15/1991 - 21 tables showing who has responsibility for what issues, problems, proposals, etc. [skillful shifting of blame]
  • Exhibit "D" "a diagram of the sediment and debris which has built up in front of the screen which prevents attaining low approach velocities."
  • Exhibit "E" design of screens traps fish at the base of the screens; same as Doc 14 Exhibit B Figure 2
  • Exhibit "F" letter Fullerton/NMFS to Clark/GCID 06/03/1991
  • Exhibit "G" letter McKeen (Fox)/NMFS to Sadoff/USACOE 05/28/1991
    08/14/1991 LODGED ORDER setting hearing of motion for temporary restraining order by dfts (not to be signed) (kh) Modified on 08/20/1991 (Entered: 08/15/1991)

    [ Volume 2, Filings 16 - 37]


    08/15/1991 16 CIVIL MINUTES of Motion for TRO ORDERING: the motion for temporary restraining order [4-1] is SUBMITTED, Order to be prepared by court, brief to be filed by Pla 8/16/91 at noon (kh) (Entered: 08/15/1991) Hon. David F. Levi (USA: Ed Brennan, Larry Bradfish, Lisa Kaplan, Martin Hochman; GCID: Paul Minasian)
    08/16/1991 17 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Roger S.C. Wolcott Jr (old) (Entered: 08/16/1991) ; fishery management biologist for NMFS; GCID statistical sampling methods grossly flawed, if set for peak appearance of an already diminished population it ignores the half that doesn't appear at the peak, no real peak--more like dribbles, population & samples too small, trap sampling itself could make the "take" worse--could provide haven for predators, "index" sampling must be developed & submitted to CDFG & NMFS for review
    08/16/1991 18 SUPPLEMENTARY MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA to memorandum [5-1] re TRO (old) (Entered: 08/16/1991) ; endangered vs. threatened, plus means for predator control, plus Wolcott on indexing; "A 'threatened species' means any species which is likely to become an endangered species within the forseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." ESA 16 USC 1532(20); p. 8 "Defendant contends that a recovery plan must be in place before the plaintiff may seek injunctive relief that would require the defendant to implement certain measures to protect the winter-run salmon. The defendant is confusing two separate aspects of the ESA, the recovery plan, and preventing a taking in violation of Section 9 of the ESA...." "...no public notice requirements are imposed on the Secretary as a prerequisite to seeking to envorce Section 9...."; predator control boat available, $500 per day; declaration of James N. Moore on what water is available to the end of the season.
    08/16/1991 19 APPENDIX by plaintiff USA to Supplementary Memorandum [18-1] (old) (Entered: 08/16/1991) ;
  • Federal Register vol 54 No. 149 08/04/1989 32085: Docket #90778-9178 Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat; Winter-run Chinook Salmon;
  • vol 55 No 54 03/20/1990 10260: Docket No. 90778-0061 Endangered and Threatened Species; Winter-Run Chinook Salmon;
  • vol. 55 No. 63 04/02/1990 12191: Docket No. 90778-0079 Endangered and Threatened Species; Critical Habitat; Winter-run Chinook Salmon;
  • vol 55 No. 214 11/05/1990 46515: Docket 90778-0275 Endangered and Threatened Species; Sacramento River Winter-run Chinook Salmon; primary culprits seems to be 1) Red Bluff Diversion Dam & Tehama-Colusa Canal, 2) Anderson-Cottonwood Irrigation District Diversion Dam, 3) Spring Creek mining runoff pollution, [4) forthcoming FERC projects], 5) Bank stabilization/rip-rapp; lesser seems to be predation near GCID diversion, numerous small unscreened diversions up & down the river, Delta pumps, and GCID pumps, all unquantified? [with all this, plus CDFG failures, GCID could rightly feel unfairly singled out, especially with Reclamation being the biggest culprit]
  • Vol 49 No.142 07/23/1984 29844: Revised NOAA Directive Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
    08/16/1991 20 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF by defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation on issue of difference between treatment of endangered species and threatened species and requirement of regulatory application of conservation or recovery plan (old) (Entered: 08/16/1991) [threatened protections less than for endangered; Section 1540 civil & criminal penalties apply to endangered, not threatened, for threatened requires adoption of regulation first, requiring hearings, and then enforcement by injunction? cites Exhibit "1" (Doc #7?) as Secretary making by regulation the provisions of Section 1538(a)(1) applicable to threatened, but no other regulatory plan adopted for the requirements being imposed on GCID; ? ]
  • pp. 9453, 9457, 9469 relating to Endangered Species Act P.L. 95-632, Congressional Record Vo. 124, 1978, House Report No. 95-1625, 9469 underlined new requirement to develop & implement recovery plans for listed psecies, 9457 differentiates between threatened & endangered....
    08/16/1991 21 SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation of Keith Marine to declaration [14-1] in regard to establishing index for presence of Winter run salmon near dept of fish and game screen (old) (Entered: 08/16/1991) ; more detailed explanation of index trapping, trap better than CDFG's, 10 or more juvenile winter-run found in any week or portion, would reduce or curtail pumping until trap results declined below that level
    08/16/1991 22 DECLARATION of James N Moore (kh) (Entered: 08/20/1991) Regional Supervisor, Reclamation, describes wheeling through T-C Canal, when capacity available, $4.25 per a-f, could deliver 1130 cfs thereby to "Wasteway Cross Channel, the Williams Outlet and/or other point(s) that could be agreed upon...." including 350 cfs into Stony; also [?], sources available via Stony are Sacramento flow and Black Butte Reservoir recites 5-day clause; Water Master says no water available during rest of this season from Stony, so new contract required, but couldn't deliver anyway because a) conveyance losses 30-35 % during 5th drought year, 2) interfere with gravel mining, 3) interfere with state highway bridge repairs, 4) damage & injury to livestock & equipment using the channel. So, 350 cfs from Sacramento River water is it. --
    08/16/1991 23 F S TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER and ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING: Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District is hereby RESTRAINED from operating its Hamilton City water diversion facility on the Sacramento River for the duration of this TRO or until such time as all of the following interim measures are in place (see order for details) This order shall be in place from 8/19/91 to 8/29/91, ORDERED 8/16/91 at 5:40pm (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 08/20/1991) ; finds sufficient alternative sources of water are available; restrained from operating facility until ALL: 1) limit to 100 cfs or less, 2) w/CDFG institute predator removal iaw recommendations of NMFS, 3) monitor loss of 1991 year class of winter-run by fish trap in diversion channel BEHIND pumps [?] per NMFS specs/procedures, 4) weekly reports to Santa Rosa 7 Terminal Island offices of NMFS w/: a) average & maximum pump rates, b) minumum & average daily bypass flows through lower portion of diversion channel, c) river flows above diversion channel & at Hamilton City gauge, d) fishery investigation results - description of predator control program activities carried out, loss of winter-run chinook salmon in defendant's diversion channel; No bond. In effect 08/19/1991 through 08/29/1991, no pumping over 1975 cfs before 08/19/1991; by phone 08/19/1991 for further dates of hearing.

    08/14/1991 Order Setting Hearing of Motion for Temporary Restraining 08/15/1991 2:00 p.m.
    08/20/1991 24 RETURN OF SERVICE executed upon defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigat on 8/14/91 (kh) (Entered: 08/22/1991) [summons/complaint/order/ notice consent per marshal form USM-285 attached]
    08/23/1991 25 RELATED CASE ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: case is RELATED to CIV 91-1128 (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 08/23/1991) 91-1128 reassigned to Judge David F. Levi & Magistrate John F. Moulds, dates in 91-1128 vacated, caption changed to show "DFL JFM"
    08/23/1991 26 NOTICE by plaintiff USA of related case(s) 91-1128 LKK GGH (kh) (Entered: 08/26/1991) ; since TRO issued, Reclamation refused to provide GCID with water per the "Diversion Contract" impairing deliveries to some 20,000 acres
    08/23/1991 L LODGED Stipulation and Order re compliance of defendants with TRO (kh) (Entered: 08/26/1991) , became Doc. 27, counsel informed plaintiff counsel unable to comply with TRO provisions, asked if agree to graduated decrease , plaintiff agreed if continued TRO terms & conditions beyond the 10 days; stipulate, 1) at noon 08/21/1991 now at or below 1100 cfs, 2) 1400 cfs 9:00 a.m. 08/20/1991, 1200 cfs 10:00 p.m. 08/20/1991, 1150 cfs 8:00 a.m. 08/21/1991, pump rating curve 6 years old so actual output "certainly at or below 1,100" cfs., 3) amend TRO to become effective noon 08/21/1991, 4) defendant consented to extension of TRO until hearing on plaintiff's motion for prelim., no less than 20 days, and before 12/31/1991, 5) plaintiff not seek a contempt citation for out of compliance 08/19-21 but reserves right to seek if fails after 08/21/1991, 6) stip November or early December, plaintiff may seek to consolidate with motion for summary judgment it intends to make, suggest 40 days prior to date all mostions, 20 days any responsive briefs, 10 days any reply briefs, & service by overnight courier, 7) without prejudice to remedies of GCID under FRCivP 65 to dissolve or modify TRO
  • 08/28/1991 Order: Stip approved
    08/29/1991 27 STIPULATION and ORDER by Honorable David F Levi re: Compliance of defendants with Temporary Restraining Order (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 08/29/1991) [as lodged]
    09/03/1991 28 ANSWER [to complaint] by defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation (kh) (Entered: 09/04/1991) ; deny a separate species, sampling & counting improper and plaintiff has acknowledged, channel leading to plant is not a natural channel. natural flow allegations mostly incorrect, screen defects are CDFG's as in Cross-Complaint, NMFS requires a year to process a "take permit", Secretary hasn't done required rule-making for the threatened class and may not bring this action, ditto with ESA; etc.; ask, Court Declare not taking, such other, & fees & costs.
    09/04/1991 29 THIRD-PARTY CROSS-COMPLAINT: by defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation AGAINST State of California Department of Fish and Game (kh) (Entered: 09/05/1991) ; under ESA 16 USC 1531 et seq; 7.0 design not iaw "reasonable standard of care": didn't anticipate flood changing the river elevation, elevation changes combined with screen design divert juvenile fish towards bottom of screens, bypass design produces insufficient flow and silting, CDFG participating in changing standards but not changing screens to fit its own standards [GCID owns the ox-bow island?], screen approach standards used were not based on studies and exceed current standards, velocities vary among screens, concrete bays entrap requiring fish to escape upstream when they want to migrate downstream, bypass trapping and trucking never implemented, bypass inlets not in a place where juvenile fish would tend to use them, velocities mix fish & debris which can harm the fish and the debris tends to damage the screens, mesh size too large for winter-run & CDFG has replaced one with smaller but not the other 39; CDFG maintenance in an unreasonable and negligent fashion and manner: bypass ducts need to be removed & periodically cleaned of sand, gravel & debris & CDFG personnel say they don't know how, CDFG employees don't replace all the trash racks allowing debris to capture against the screens and wedge between a bar and the screens denting the screens which CDFG doesn't repair; mesh & seals need to be replaced as part of maintenance; as GCID reduces pumping in the falls, CDFG orders bays closed and screens removed, which increases velocity through the remaining; gaps in seals, and fitting of screen panels not correctly done; CDFG has opposed the dredging needed to make its screen work correctly; CDFG not keeping bypass pipe clear; CDFG leaves trash racks open; CDFG "refuses to experiment with providing for the installation of boards on the pump side of the screen to make the approach velocities more uniform."; predator fish problem exacerbated by maintenance failures; CDFG refused to allow testing of blocking the entrapment zones; CDFG ignores requests to trap juveniles at screen Bay #1 for delivery downstream; CDFG, NMFS, USFWS refused to establish criteria for indexing; new screens would take 5-10 years, but CDFG & other fish agencies refuse to allow interim mitigation; CDFG has interfered with efforts to implement a "riffle restoration project" on the Sacramento to mitigate; "CDFG is the sole and exclusive source of taking winter run salmon and other juvenile salmon at this location upon the Sacramento River", but if not, under the contracts CDFG is required to remedy the taking; emergency exists requiring immediate suit, "Notice of Commencement" filed on CDFG & Secretary of Commerce & NMFS; ask for declaration as to who is the taker for each source of mortality, that CDFG & others not to prevent directly or indirectly diversion, attorney's fees & costs, enjoin CDFG, CDFG to seek permits for whatever takings there are, etc.
    Contracts:
  • Exhibit "A" 05/16/1968 Agreement by and Between the State of California, Department of Fish and Game and the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District for the Construction, Operation and Maintenance of a Fish Screen Diversion, Sacramento River, Glenn County, at Easterly Terminous of Cutler Avenue; [grants rights of way to the State, District to operate costs 50-50, state to maintain]
  • Exhibit "A-1" Amendment , 04/01/1969, changed to easements; p. 2 seems to be from the 11/05/1972 agreement with p. 2 of this Amendment missing
  • Exhibit "A-2" Supplemental Agreement, 11/05/1972 State adding a maintenance building
    09/06/1991 30 PROOF OF SERVICE by defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigat of third-party complaint [29-1] (kh) (Entered: 09/06/1991) ; mailed to plaintiff
    09/26/1991 31 PROOF OF SERVICE of summons and complaint on State of California Department of Fish and Game. (old) (Entered: 09/30/1991); ADS
    10/01/1991 32 ANSWER TO THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT [29-1] by third-party defendant Department of Fish (kh) (Entered: 10/02/1991) ; not consented to jurisdiction; in 1984-85 GCID installed a larger capacity & more efficient pumping facility increasing capacity from 2600 to 3000 cfs; elevation changes in river were unforseeable; dam purpose to decrease lift of pumps & pre-dated the screens; modifications to existing inscreen bypasses would have little benefit; GCID lowered the dam to allow 500 cfs per Army Corps permit, no order from CDFG; no modification would lower velocities to these screens sufficiently; didn't trap & transport "partially because of the potential for high handling mortalities"; replacing the mesh would yield little benefit; once migration patterns were established left enough screens open throughout the migration season; fixed everything identified when identified; had proposed "games" with siltation to get around permit problems; reinstalled racks but saw no debris decrease, removed them again for boat access; blocking of entrapment zones of little benefit; electroshocking "not well developed and continues to pose human safety problems."; decreasing pumping increases survival; GCID could have experimented with the blocking plates before the migration season but didn't; "bay # one" is farthest downstream, not closest upstream; no screen modifications would bring the facility up to the needed levels; proposed indexing "might result in significant losses" because of the small population; etc., deny deny; California Fish & Game Code 5980 et seq authorizing screening of water diversions is a legislative recognition that diversions are an adverse taking of fish, and CDFG actions to implement the fish screen law does not release GCID from its liability for adverse taking;
    10/21/1991 33 PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff USA of 08/09 Pretrial Scheduling Conference order [2-1] (old) (Entered: 10/22/1991)
    10/30/1991 34 NOTICE by defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigat of taking deposition of Charles Fullerton on 12/13/91 at 10:00am in Sacramento, CA (kh) (Entered: 10/31/1991), Regional Director, NOAA Southwest, Terminal Island, CA in Sacramento 12/13/1991; produce documents, records, etc described in Deposition Subpoena (not attached) [same day as motion:?]
    10/31/1991 35 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION by plaintiff USA for summary judgment set for 12/13/91 at 9:00 am (old) (Entered: 11/01/1991) "Defendant has not shown any genuine issues of material fact"

    10/31/1991 36 MEMORANDUM of Points and Authorities by plaintiff USA in support of motion for summary judgment [35-1] (old) (Entered: 11/01/1991); thick, 13 exhibits; some reference to exhibits previously filed [but MISSING? - expando found 07/30/2009] CDFG didn't start counting winter-run until 1966 when RBDD started operation, & over the next 2 decades population declined 97%; 10 point restoration plan 05/20/1988 Reclamation/CDFG/FWS/NMFS/others? regulation provided that "prohibitions of ESA that apply to an endangered species also apply to the threatened winter-run salmon."; considering petition received to reclassify to endangered; [why are the drums "rotating"?] [TAC - Technical Advisory Committee/TAG - Technical Advisory Group, representatives from various agencies & environmental, agricultural, & fishery organizations; formed by GCID per the MOU] with the "Biological Opinion was an incidental take statement which stated that incidental taking of winter-run salmon would be acceptable if the new facility contemplated by Alternative B1 were constructed, and if the screens at the new facility were 95 percent effective...." [and if they weren't? $26 million for nothing?] "no genuine issues of material facts": fn 9, "the material facts in this case focus on the issue whether the District has and will continue to violate Section 9 of the ESA by incidentally taking winter-run chinook salmon...."; defendant's recovery plan argument is spurious; pumping will need to be reduced to zero to halt the taking, 1100 cfs only minimizes it; asks the court to require GCID inform the Court within 60 days whether & how GCID will comply with ESA; if GCID applies for a Section 10 permit or COE for permit to dredge, suggest allowing GCID to "pump a limited amount of water from the Sacramento River from July 15 through November 30, 1992, provided" GCID "implements certain interim measures to reduce the risk of incidental takes of winter-run salmon at its Hamilton City facility", time to work out details; impose reporting requirements because of GCID misbehavior; flows represented 08/19/1990 actually included T-CC diversions; 3 interties T-CC to GCID: 2 southernmost "Intertie Outlet", southernmost diversion point Williams Outlet, northernmost Stony Creek aka T.C. Constant Head Orifice (CHO Valve), garbled?; GCID called plaintiff 08/19/1990 explaining that reducing flow too quickly would cause earthen canals to collapse, now appear "contrived and exaggerated.", left at 1713 cfs 08/17 & 18, & compliance thereafter questionable; contacted Reclamation for T-CC water, already receiving 300 cfs at lower interties 08/16-19, 200 cfs more 8/20 [?], to 700 cfs 08/21 [?]; still complained it needed 500 cfs at Stony Creek, Reclamation willing to provide 350 cfs provided payment of wheeling charges so GCID sued, contract plus Angle Decree; USA says little in common with 91-1074; GCID failed TRO reporting requirements, first report late & data incomplete or non-existent, didn't install the fish trap for a month, reports sporadic & insufficient detail; latest report admitted exceeded 1100 cfs 09/01,2,3; all this requires a permanent injunction shutting down the pumps 07/15-10/31, plus reporting of where it will get or has obtained water, plus provisions for monetary contempt sanctions since past behavior shows no compliance without incentive;
  • Exhibit 1 [as in Doc. 19] vol 55 No 54 03/20/1990 10260: Docket No. 90778-0061 Endangered and Threatened Species; Winter-Run Chinook Salmon;
  • Exhibit 2 Letter Clark/GCID to Fullerton/NMFS in response to 55 Fed.Reg. 46515 11/05/1990 re: proposed listing notice as threatened [?];
    - Letter Steven P. Cramer to Clark/GCID review of winter-run; data on fry indicates run underestimated at GCID & RBDD, run is recovering
    - Status of Winter Run Chinook Salmon in the Sacramento River,
    - Table 1 Estimated number of winter chinook passing Red Bluff Diversion Dam weekly, 1970-89
    - Figure 1 Timing of Winter Chinook Passage at Red Bluff Dam, after 1 April
    - Figure 2 Timing of Winter Chinook Passage at Red Bluff Dam, after 15 April
    - Figure 3 Average Proportion of Winter Chinook Run Past Red Bluff, weekly
  • Exhibit 3 letter Erman/American Fisheries Society to Fullerton/NMFS; petition to upgrade to endangered
  • Exhibit 4 Letter M. Iizuka to Hon. David F. Levi, 08/28/1991, reciting Reclamation deliveries by T-CC to GCID 08/16-27, letter re 91-1128, water taken 08/16-19 200 cfs, 08/20 400 cfs, 08/21-23 600 cfs, 08/24-26 530 cfs, 08/27 500 cfs all at the Intertie Outlet, plus 100 cfs each day at Williams Outlet
  • Exhibit 5 Letter Ben Pennock/GCID to Gary Stern/NMFS 09/04/1991; flow data inclosed; river flow per DWR; fishery investigation data being worked up by S.P. Cramer & Associates w/final report late October, daily from Paul Ward at CDFG if you like; GCID removed its screw trap from lower oxbow so no data - let know what you would like; predator control study by Dennis Lee & Paul Ward CDFG and they must release it to us before we can release to you; more to come as it is available.
    - GCID Oxbow Channel/Sacramento River: Flows, Elevations and Temperatures for month of August 1991, table to 08/26
  • Exhibit 6 Lowell F. Ploss Declaration II, 09/23/1991, Project Construction Engineer, Willows Construction Office, mid-Pacific Region, Reclamation, administers water right settlement contracts Sacramento Canals Unit; was asked on 08/18 for water from T-C Canal, responded that it would take 2 days to clean the channel plus a new agreement would be needed, hence 91-1128 filed for a TRO to gain access to T-C Canal water, TRO issued 08/30, daily listing of cfs releases to GCID at each of 3 points
  • Exhibit 7 Declaration of Larry Bradfish, 10/29/1991 DOJ Atty, Wildlife and Marine Resources Section/Environment and Natural Resources Division, narration of negotiations during early days of TRO coverage, suggesting ??
  • Exhibit 8 Letter Ben Pennock/GCID to Jim Lecky 09/13/1991, forwarding updated flow data 08/26-09/12, 95% plus or minus accuracy, differing measuring technology at different sites, and 1) awaiting CDFG data on electro-shock & traps, 2) installed screw trap in channel w/CDFG this week & CDFG will supply capture data on a semi-weekly basis, 3) trap technique behind pump station will be established today on NMFS acceptance, with monitoring by CDFG & GCID -
    - GCID Oxbow Channel Saacramento River Flows, Elevations and Temperatures, for Month of August and September 1991 (through 09/12)
  • Exhibit 9 09/09/1991 letter Bradfish/DOJ to atty Minasian, no reports yet to NMFS, suggest comply immediately [but were NMFS & CDFG dragging their feet? Bradfish says "so what".]
  • Exhibit 10 Letter Ben Pennock/GCID to Gary Stern/NMFS 09/30/1991, w/updated flow data 09/13-09/27, & CDFG predation eradication data
    - Memo Fleming/GCID to Pennock/GCID 09/24/1991 re trapping efforts, 3 traps under CDFG jurisdiction, daily graphs, downstream GCID screwtrap, GCID fyke trap behind the pumps, CDFG fyke trap in Bay 24; daily graph showing results of each:
    - Summation of Trapping Effort [graph]
    - Memo Fleming/GCID to Pennock/GCID 09/24/1991 re: predation control: electrofishing & gill net; listing quantities harvested
    - Memo Fleming/GCID to Pennock/GCID 09/05/1991 re: predation control: electrofishing seems to be killing a higher percentage of juvenile salmon than predators
    - Preliminary Data, Glenn-Colusa Electrofishing Summary, chart 09/09/1991
    - Preliminary Data, Glenn-Colusa Electrofishing Summary, chart 09/11/1991
    - GCID Oxbow Channel Sacramento River Flows, Elevations and Temperatures for Month of September 1991, to 09/27
  • Exhibit 11 Letter E.C. Fullerton/NMFS to Ben Pennock/GCID 10/22/1991 reporting failures 1) reports not submitted weekly, 2) fisheries investigation results not in the 09/04 & 09/13 letter reports, 3) Fisheries investigation results in 09/30/1991 letter incomplete; sets forth [for the first time?] standards to be used in compiling & submitting reports [contrast with requirements in TRO which seemed much more vague; are these standards meetable?] measuring fork-length for each fish in mm & releasing them live down-stream, time cards & activities, 2 additional complex nets, all predators captured by species for "all sampling locations and times" & their lengths & "level of fishing effort in a standardized unit of effort" [calories?] & sampling location and time and rationale for the sampling program; NMFS is happy to develop specifications but execution is GCID's responsibility including compliance with "expeditious modification of trap operations and mitigation measures as needed."
    - Attachment A, graphs for Fall-run, Late Fall-run, Winter-run & Spring-Run Chinook, showing average lengths by month for each run, source CDFG 1991
    - Winter-Run chinook Salmon Estimated Fork Lengths (mm), from Frank Fisher, unpublished data, 1991 CFF & G
    - Attachment B illustrations of Hoop Net, Small Trap Net, & Fyke Net
  • Exhibit 12 Letter Ben Pennock/GCID to Gary Stern/NMFS 10/16/1991 Enclosed flow data 10/01 - 10/16 plus predation eradication summary
    - GCID Oxbow Channel/Sacramento River Flows, Elevations and Temperatures for Month of September 1991
    - GCID Oxbow Channel/Sacramento River Flows, Elevations and Temperatures for Month of October 1991
    - Summary of the Predation Control Program at the Glenn-colusa Irrigation District's Headwater: Glenn-Colusa Electrofishing Summary: Total Specie Statistics, Squawfish Breakdown - Space & Time, Upper Oxbow, Fishing effort .301 fish/min, Lower Oxbow, Fishing Effort .36 fish/min
  • Exhibit 13 Second Declaration of James H. Lecky 10/02/1991, Bachelors in Biology Cal State Fullerton, plus 2 years of graduate work at CSUF emphasising population biology, thence NMFS in 1976, now NMFS Chief of Protected Species Management Division, administers ESA for the region, after 1989 plunge in winter-run populations prepared documentation for emergency listing 55 Fed Reg 46515; current 5-year drought raising stream temperatures & killing eggs & juveniles; Reclamation has tried to mitigate with releases but not enough storage for that; run-size critically low, insufficient quantities to retain genetic diversity, GCID's fault.

    10/31/1991 L LODGED proposed order in support of plaintiffs motion for summary judgment NOT TO BE SIGNED (old) Modified on 03/10/1992 (Entered: 11/01/1991) [Where? not in this Volume]
    11/06/1991 37 COURT NOTICE of hearing ORDERING: Scheduling conf CONTINUED to 1/30/92 at 2:00pm ( cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 11/07/1991)

    [ Volume 3, Filings 38 - 49]


    11/19/1991 38 MEMORANDUM by defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigat in opposition to motion for summary judgment [35-1] (old) (Entered: 11/20/1991) [and related cross-motion?]; disputed facts: 1) GCID or CDFG the taker? and it cannot be both under these facts; 2) refer to state law on allocation of responsibility and control? 3) meaning of "take"? in light of state law? ESA not aimed at "indirect background conditions such as agricultural water use" 4) California law points at CDFG, even under ESA? ESA a sort of strict liability trumping California law? 5) no Recovery Plan, no EA, no NEPA compliance, missing "protection regulations", (later, no critical habitat designation) 6) NMFS assertions of lack of TRO compliance points to the dangers of issuing it and issuing a SJ [a moving target of standards?], 7) injunction sought by NMFS requires an illegal act under California law, & impracticable too.; "The injunction sought by omitting an index as to the presence of winter run is unnecessarily burdensome." [?]; NMFS driven by hate; credibility resides in the affidavits and declarations submitted by the SJ target; no NMFS list of undisputed facts [uh, "all"?] - a recitation of disputed facts; is it the screen or the pumping that is "taking"?; substantial discovery requests to CDFG are outstanding at this time; "In this case, NMFS contends that the source of taking is the pumping, not the screen, and on the other hand suggests that the construction of a new screen is the sole solution cognizable under the law." It is CDFG that controls the situation, not GCID, CDFG under contract and statute and sole physical access and sole power over design & maintenance and power to allow increasing the head to the screens by allowing dredging. F & G Code Section 5989 places full duty on CDFG for the screen; "'one-eyed dog in a meat market' type approach to enforcement by NMFS"; "...attack the true efficient sources of the take, not 'evil' background conditions such as pumping of water." p. 25 missing line, l. 27?; Section 5989, if screen not operating correctly, owner not required to install a new screen, but CDFG may at CDFG cost, 5992, not to impede or prevent letally entitled diversion; if Court uses ESA to free CDFG "from its obligations under California statute or contract, not one of the contracts that CDFG has ever entered into with any diverter in California will be valid, enforceable or reliable." "...remedy sought by NMFS. It first seeks to hold GCID as the taker, but then to deprive GCID of any authority over the existing source of the taking and does not suggest to the Court how GCID can in any way remedy the taking, other than to pay these incompetents to build a new screen or cease diversions totally." "NMFS now wishes to know daily what amounts of water are being used within the District and where. This is a request for power, not to conserve fish." "GCID promptly complied with the NMFS requests, and now in some way this becomes evidence that GCID is not properly trapping fish." p. 46, NMFS wanting records of where water is used changes to prediction? NMFS rejection of indexing accompanied by demand to curtail pumping 07/15-11/30 because of lack of data on take? NMFS Walcott complaining about where the trap is to be placed, which GCID says will place it whereever he wants it? Winter-run was exploding in the 1950s & 1960s when there were no screens? NMFS wants a remedy for ESA that has not been through the EIR/EIS process

    11/19/1991 39 DECLARATION of Robert Clark re motion for summary judgment [35-1] (old) (Entered: 11/20/1991); GCID had no input on screens design or specifications; River changed channel alignments in 1969-70 winter, find nothing in the (pre-1970?) plans to compensate, construction 70-71, operation 1972, meander change dropped River elevation 1.5 [feet?]; CDFG never turned over operation of the screens to GCID, retained sole authority for O & M, design, reconstruction; 1980 Paul Jensen told Clark mesh was too large, & if GCID would return the River elevation to its original, CDFG would take care of screen deficiencies; DeCoto study in 1974 withheld from them, counsel had to file a FOIA request & received in 1986; GCID has repeatedly requested modifications and proper maintenance or allow GCID to maintain its portion, CDFG refused, often with insults; every effort related to existing screens met with they want new screens at GCID cost; loss of the pumping will lose 70% of the district irrigation; costs do not pencil out for the District, not per acre, not overall; $5,000,000 debt for rebuilding the pumps will now allow assumption of new debt without permission, and in his opinion the debt would be called; allegations that GCID exceeded the 1100 cfs in the TRO are misplaced, measurement is "through a complicated computer program which measures elevation of water at the intake, elevation of water at the pump exist, and which is based upn a rating which was done physically measuring the output of a small model constructed in a laboratory based upon the design specifications for the pumps", upon installation never came up to that design level, and pumps wear out so they continue to decrease output over the 8 years; 1177 probably means 1050 - 1075 cfs, computer overstates them 7 - 10%; T-C Canal 200 cfs was already being received, NMFS argument to the court that it was additional is wrong; Reclamation delivered water only because the court ordered it, and in the 13 days it took to get there GCID "had to curtail delvieries to a substantial acreage and had to delay irrigation of crops that take water on a rotation basis. Fortunately, it was not particularly hot in this period. The District also stopped water deliveries to the 25,000 acres of National Wildlife Refuges." Stony Creek water arriving still not enough. Crop maturation in lower end allowed use of water in upper end and then Wildlife Refuges. 7/15 or 08/01 curtailment will require reducing planting to 30% of acreage, which can be raised unless Black Butte water is withheld, & Refuges will not be served and well water at them is of poor quality and quantity. Dredging helps everything, especially the fish, and the agencies' restriction of dredging is hurting the fish; agencies are using denial of dredging permits to force GCID to pay for new screens; NMFS proposed injunction requires GCID to take over O & M of CDFG screens, GCID has no authority to do so; NMFS seeks order that GCID dredge afer having blocked it, NMFS should obtain permits & GCID offers to dredge; NMFS is welcome to any data GCID has, but requiring GCID to forecast temperatures, T-C Canal availability, crop maturation dates, waterfowl migration dates all requires mindless guessing and is aimed only at controlling and limiting diversion.
  • Exhibit "A" 05/16/1968 Agreement by and Between the State of California, Department of Fish and Game and the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District for the Construction, Operation and Maintenance of a Fish Screen Diversion, Sacramento River, Glenn County, at Easterly Terminous of Cutler Avenue;
  • Exhibit "A-1" Amendment , 04/01/1969, changed to easements; again, p. 2 seems to be from the 11/05/1972 agreement with p. 2 of this Amendment missing
  • Exhibit "A-2" Supplemental Agreement, 11/05/1972 State adding a maintenance building
  • 2 identical proofs of service

    11/19/1991 40 DECLARATION of Steven P. Cramer re motion for summary judgment [35-1] (old) (Entered: 11/20/1991) ; fisheries consultant 4 years after 13 years with Oregon DFW, focus population dynamics salmon and steelhead in Columbia, Rogue, Klamath, Sacramento; Clark asked him, reviewed all info, found many mods of screen & bypass channels recommended in the reports had been implemented but without subsequent evaluation, that CDFG refused to do detailed screen performance studies and consider screen modifications, proposed a study to "determine the abundance and mortality rate of juvenile salmonids migrating through the GCID intake channel on the Sacramento River and to assess the potential for using flow and predator control to reduce mortality", & GCID approved funding, began field work in 04/1990 & since, GCID allowed him free rein in experimentation and publication "without regard to whether the findings harmed the District." Irresponsible to invest in new screen when so little known about the old one; dramatic increase in winter run on Sacramento 1943-1968 before their rapid decline, GCID diversions constant through those years; CDFG trap ineffective below 800 cfs; longer than 65 mm, lower proportion turned into GCID Oxbow; some fish thought lost in the oxbow were actually swimming upstream back to the main channel (using tagged samples); even recaptured some that had been released behind the fish screens and migrated upstream through screen gaps; p. 20 concludes "survival of the winter run juvenile population is not affected in a statistically measurable way by the CDFG screens."; predation monitoring: squawfish "no more abundant in the GCID oxbow than we would expect elsewhere in the river" and are taking juveniles in the oxbow in the same proportion as they are in the River; ocean harvesting is 100 times the worst case GCID taking; SWP Delta pumps went on line in 1968 correlating with the start of the precipitous decline in winter-run; without indexing, curtailing pumping at any particular date is only guessing; outmigration is not evenly dispersed, "but occurs in pulses, often triggered by freshets" as with any race of chinook; CDFG traps less reliable than GCID in detecting start of run [?]; "screen improperly designed, is improperly maintained to this day, and if substantial effort was made by CDFG to modify, repair, or alterthe screen before the 1992 winter run salmon outmigration, that the reduction in the pumping by GCID would not be necessary and that the 'taking' of winter run salmon which may occur because of the screen deficiencies could be almost entirely eliminated." "if GCID is permitted access and authority to implement these modnfications, have a high probablility of providing the 95% protection to winter run chinook fry as stipulated by NMFS in their biological opinion."
    - graph p. 5 GCID volume of water pumped annually, Aug, Sept. Oct, 1943-1988
    - graph p. 6 GCID Abundance of Winter Chinook Salmon, Annual Total Counts at Red Bluff Dam, compared with GCID pumping in September
    - graph p. 9 Timing of winter chook migration through the GCID oxbow during 1989-90, compares CDFG & GCID trap results
    - graph p. 10 Juvenile Winter Chinook Emigration, 1990-1991 Catches in the GCID Trap, weekly catch vs. length in mm
    - graph p. 12 Effect of Size on Survival, based on coded wire tag returns
    - graph p. 13 Juvenile Winter Chinook Migration, Catches in the GCID Oxbow 1990-91, weighted to show survivability as fish size increase/unweighted
    - figure p. 16 map/layout of oxbow, trashracks, fish screeens, bypass, weir, pumps, canal, rotary screw trap, not exactly to scale
    - graph p. 17 Diversion Rate into GCID Oxbow, Fish vs. Flow, 1991 tests
    - graph p. 18 Passage vs. Pumping, Passage from he Upper to Lower Oxbow, percentage passing vs. pump flow in cfs 95% at 800 cfs, 30% at 2500 cfs)
    - Table 1 p. 24 Outcomes that would have resulted from using a trap catch index to identify the beginning of the winter chinook salmon migration....
  • Exhibit A Steven P. Cramer, Principal, S.P. Cramer & Associates, Oregon State University, B.S. in Fisheries Science gpa 3.4 of 4.0, M.S. in Fisheries Science, minor in Statistics, list of clients & projects including for DWR & USFWS
    11/19/1991 41 EX-PARTE MOTION by defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation for order permitting filing of declaration of Gary Kramer out of time, or alternatively, to order noticing of deposition upon short Notice for purpose of submission as part of opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and permit filing of video tape as exhibit H to declaration of Dave Vogel out of time (old) (Entered: 11/20/1991) ; Kramer manager of 25,000 acres of Sacramento Wildlife Refuges - DOJ may be editing the declaration & may refuse authority to sign it, causing GCID to ask to take deposition to substitute for declaration;
    11/19/1991 42 DECLARATION of Paul R. Minasian re motion for order to permit filing of declaration (of Gary Kramer) out of time, or alternatively, to order noticing of deposition upon short notice for purpose of submission as part of opposition to (plaintiff's) motion for summary judgment (and permit filing of video tape as exhibit H to declaration of Dave Vogel out of time) [41-1] (old) (Entered: 11/20/1991) ; Kramer, manager of Sacramento National Wildlife Refuges served soley by GCID, pumping limits will require curtailment of water service 07/15 - 3rd week of September; USFWS has to approve the declaration before it can be filed, DOJ, & USFWS dragging their feet? 11/18 DOJ called, no declaration, don't talk to Mr. Kramer, all contact to be through Mr. Bradfish, need to depose instead; Vogel Exhibit H video tape still pending, completed 11/22 or so;
    11/19/1991 LODGED ex-parte order [not to be signed-parties negotiated a stipulation replacing this order] (old) Modified on 01/21/1992 (Entered: 11/20/1991) [WHERE IS IT? What stip? Doc. #46?]
    11/20/1991 LODGED Ex Parte Motion for leave to file unsigned declarations to be repalced in a timely manner by signed declarations, and order thereon by defendants Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (kh) (Entered: 11/21/1991) [ See Doc #46 ]
    11/20/1991 43 DECLARATION of Michael V Sexton in SUPPORT of ex parte motion for leave to file unsigned declaration to be replaced in a timely manner by signed declaration (kh) (Entered: 11/21/1991) ; a Minasian partner; in the past Court has accepted declarations with facsimile signatures supported by property attorney's declaration, good faith belief on 11/19/1991 this Declaration would be similarly accepted; see Doc. # __ for what happened in this case....
    11/20/1991 44 DECLARATION of Don Boehner re attempted filing of declarations with court (kh) (Entered: 11/21/1991) , to hand deliver to USCA ED CA Defendant's memo of P & A opposing SJ; Declaration of Howard Wilson, David Vogel, Keith Marine; Declaration of Richard Clark; of Ben Pennock; of Steven P. Cramer; ex parte motion to permit filing of declaration of Gary Cramer out of time, for order noticing deposition on short notice; permit filing of Vogel video tape to Exhibit H of Dave Vogel out of time; declaration of Paul Minasian in support of motion to permit filing Declaration out of time, or alternatively to order noticing deposition upon short notice opposing SJ; 11:20 a.m. 11/19/1991 Clerk would not accept for filing declarations of Howard Wilson, Dave Vogel, Keith Marine, of Ben Pennock, of Richard Clark because signatures were not "original" but instead were faxed
    11/20/1991 45 DECLARATION of Ben Pennock in SUPPORT of memorandum of points and authorities [38-1] in OPPOSITION to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment; motion hearing 12/13/91 at 9:00am in ctrm 3 (kh) (Entered: 11/21/1991) ; graduate in Water, Soils and Engineering, UC Davis, trained as an engineer, w/GCID more than 12 years; assigned duty of providing for reports to NMFS per court order, following court order to provide Hamilton City Sacramento River flow & bypass channel flows, researched best method, DWR informed computer link required else weeks by mail, established link 08/29; at same time as working on trap relocation & installation, did bypass channel measurements to establish a "low flow stage-discharge relationship to obtain a current and valid regression equation to be incorporated into the computer programs utilized to estimate bypass flows on a daily basis." as expeditiously as possible, sent first report to NMFS 09/04/1991; apologize for any delay, "Court cannot imagine the chaos caused in our water operations department by the ordered reduction of pumping, the need to defer demand throughout GCID, and then the attempt to deliver the water from Stony Creek, to maximize the use of the T-C Canal water which can be delivered in the lower end of GCID only during a period in which crop demand was falling off in that area and the attempts to balance deferred demand for water which had been created by shut-offs in the northern part of GCID in the first week." NMFS finds fault with and wishes daily reports, and faults records as evidencing pumping over 1100 cfs; I've explained it repeatedly to them: No meters on the pumps, they are too large, instead created a model when they were built and calculated output from that, see declaration of Robert Clark; program takes water surface at intake, at outlet, & using the model calculates the output; model does not reduce for wear & tear; monitor actual flow at the "penvane" [where?], which was the flow reported prior to arrival of T-C water down Stony; we know that production at all times has been below 1100 cfs, but are unsure whether or not NMFS will accept the computer program results; no fax at pumping plant, could phone in to NMFS daily if desired; One delay was he had hoped all data could be included, but GCID does not control many of the items so daily information is impracticable: CDFG insists on performing predator control and won't issue GCID a license, CDFG makes fish counts, analyzes stomach content, and waits for Paul Ward to approve & pass it over; no license to trap even though applied for and without such a license only Ward of CDFG can remove fish from traps and make counts when he gets around to it - could NMFS get the info directly from Ward? Flows were delayed pending computer connection which was obtained, can furnish the flow information timely, followed by all other which other agencies have if NMFS will accept; after Court order, asked Ward if he wanted to move GCID trap closer to pumps, Ward said he thought NMFS wanted to use its own fyke trap and would get back to them, then nothing; called Lecky of NMFS asking for an NMFS trap or agree to using GCID's, Bradfish responded with 09/06/1991 letter, location of trap in Bradfish letter is erroneous; Stern of NMFS brought a frame & seine net to the pumping plant 09/136/1991 which "would immediately have been destroyed by the turbulence and volume of water." GCID relocated its trap to the area indicated by Mr. Stern & since operated it 24 hours per day; NMFS complaints on trapping detail should go to Mr. Ward since GCID cannot touch the fish except as directed by Mr. Ward; "Court may wish to determine whether it wishes us to be required to declare salmon of a certain size as winter-run. The only difference between winter-run and other runs of salmon is the time of out migration. Measurements of the length are recorded, but conclusions about whether length means it is a winter-run salmon appear to be beyond what the Court has ordered."
    11/22/1991 46 ORDER by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING: the defendants Glenn-Colusa may file the unsigned declaration of Ben Pennock in support of defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the declaration of Howard Wilson, David Vogel and Keith Marine relating to issues pertaining to the fish screens at the Glenn-Colusa irrigation district, the declaration of Richard Clark in support of defendant's memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment each to be timely replaced by signed original (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 11/22/1991) ; Order on p. 2 of Lodged 11/20/1991 Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Unsigned Declarations to be Replaced in a Timely Manner by Signed Declarations, and Order Thereon", Ben Pennock Declaration crossed off the Motion; Motion granted, Clerk is directed to file the unsigned Declarations. 11/21/1991 Honorable David F. Levi

    11/22/1991 47 OPPOSITION by plaintiff USA [Bradfish] to Ex Parte Motion for order permitting filing of declaration of Gary Kramer out of time, or alternatively, to order noticing of deposition upon short Notice for purpose of submission as part of opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and permit filing video tape as exhibit H to declaration of Dave Vogel out of time [41-1] (kh) (Entered: 11/25/1991) ; actually, Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District's Ex Parte Motion; no opposition to filing of video tape by 11/25 provided Bradfish receives it at Washington D.C. by same date; GCID attempts to obfuscate issues by CDFG cross complaint and discovery requests against USA; Bradfish told GCID to run discovery requests through him [so who is delaying?]; thereafter GCID sought declaration from Gary Kramer, refuge manager, who said he'd have to talk with his superiors, Minasian telecopied him a proposed declaration; GCID's submitted declaration is not Mr. Kramer's, a "specious document"; No compliance with LR 251, must first confer, then stip as to differences, and then file discovery motions; no indication to Bradfish of motion until it was filed; no emergency, GCID did it to themselves - USA believes it may be able to work this out [ho ho] but GCID never tried; Kramer discovery irrelevant to SJ motion; GCID can use discovery delays to delay ESA compliance; 2 different mail Bradfish Certificate of Service to Minasian & Smage/AG [why?]
  • [proposed] ORDER, Ex parte motion re: Kramer DENIED, video tape granted;
  • Exhibit 1 10/28/1991 letter Bradfish/DOJ to atty Minasian - re your efforts to contact Steve Rainey NMFS place your calls to USA personnel through Bradfish and he may let you know [um, submit GCID TRO reports through him also?]
  • Exhibit 2 10/29/1991 Notice of depositions for 12/10 & 12/13/1991; of Steve Rainey in Portland, OR,; mentions deposition subpoena, anything relating to GCID pumps, CDFG screens at GCID pumps, ESA related to CDFG screens at GCID pumps, design & function of CDFG screen at GCID pumps on all juvenile salmon; USDC ED Cal Deposition Subpoena, to Steve Rainey; of Charles Fullerton in Sacramento 12/13/1991, same documents, similar Deposition Subpoena
  • Exhibit 3 Declaration of Gary Kramer; BS/MS, wildlife management Humboldt State; 4 USFWS wildlife refuges in California, wildlife biologist & refuge manager of them; now Refuge Manager (project leader) of the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex since January 1989, including Sacramento NWR, Colusa NWR, Delvan NWR, Sutter NWR, Butte Sink NWR, Sacramento River NWR; Minasian called him 11/13/1991 for info on effect of GCID injunction on the refuges & obtaining a declaration; told him needed to check with his superiors, called Robert C. Fields, his supervisor who said permision would have to come from Regional; phone Mr. Minasian, could answer factual questions, but no declaration without prior permissions, Minasian posed hypotheticals; later 11/13/1991 Minasian sent telefax of a declaration with several incorrect statements, called him 11/14/1991 and told him fax received, no further contact, no declaration or agreement from Kramer;
  • Exhibit 4 11/21/1991 Declaration of Larry Bradfish; Minasian called him 11/19/1991 saying he was attempting to obtain a declaration from Kramer, told him to go through Bradfish, cited to him the specific regs regarding Interior & commerce employee testimony; discussed dates for Fullerton deposition, reminded him of the regs; cordial, no disagreement? did not contact him again. [regs trump court?]
  • Exhibit 5 11/20/1991 letter Bradfish/DOJ to atty Minasian, fax & mail; must receive authorization from General Coujsel of Commerce before they may testify, 15 cfr 15a.4, 15a.7, requires affidavit/declaration from subpoenaing party: title of proceeding, forum, party's interest, reasons for subpoena, showing it's "not reasonably available from any other source, general summary of testimony desired, and a showing that no document could be provided and used in lieu of the testimony." [regs trump court?] Asks for 10 days' notice prior to date of each deposition to 2 different addresses. Fullerton date conflicts with court date, rescheduled to 12/04, please send revised notice. Kramer request should go to Regional Director in Portland, copies of any of these things to Bradfish;
    11/25/1991 LODGED Ex Parte Motion for leave to file signed declarations to replace unsigned declarations previously filed and order thereon (kh) (Entered: 11/25/1991)
    11/25/1991 48 EXHIBIT H by defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation to declaration of Howard Wilson, Engineer, David Vogel, Fisheries Biologist, and Keith Marine, Fisheries Biologist; Relating to issues pertaining to the California department of fish and game fish screens at the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District; video casette (kh) (Entered: 11/25/1991) ; DOCUMENT LOCATOR SHEET, Tape in Expando File [MISSING - found, smaller expando, with Minasian/Atteberry 11/25/1991 Proof of service; 2 copies of video, "Redding Video" label; Stamp CH2M HILL, P.O. Box 49-2478, 2525 Airpark Drive, Redding, CA 96001]

    12/06/1991 49 F [Received 11/20/1991] DECLARATION of Richard Clark in SUPPORT of defendant's/ memorandum of points and authorities [38-1] in OPPOSITION to plaintiff's/ motion for summary judgment (kh) (Entered: 12/06/1991) ; Public Finance Division financial advisor & underwriter, Security Pacific National Bank, in issuance of tax-free & taxable, both governmental & private; $5.5 billion, 80 transactions; examines ability of issuer to repay long- or short-term borrowing & appropriate levels of debt service; 1988 Certificates of Participation for the pumping plant, $5,810,000.00; informed crop pattern same as 1988, 1991 plant only 48 % of acreage because of lack of water which affects ability to repay, raised water rates 25% since 1988, costs, expenses, income production potential about the same as 1988, unaudited statements FY 10/01/1991 shows $300,000 loss; S & P rating BB-, one step above junk; drought impacting agricultural tax-exempt indebtedness; estimated only $5-10 million possible additional debt; [these issues? or above that?]
    "(i) These issues would likely be non-rated and expensive to consummate;
    "(ii) The DISTRICT coverage is simply not adequate for more than this level of debt;
    "(iii) The reduction of agricultural subsidies upon the principal crop grown in the DISTRICT (rice) would likely render the issue almost unmarketable at any level; and
    "(iv) The DISTRICT's ability to raise water rates is limited by crop values. A history of massive defaults among irrigation districts together with the limited ability to pass on water rate increases to purchasers of the crops grown within the DISTRICT, will deter all but the most advantageous buyers who would demand high interest rates, thus further reducing the size and marketability of any financing undertaken by the DISTRICT."
    River restoration project will cost $7-8 million depending on scheduling permitted; GCID cannot pay for the river restoration and the new screens.
  • Exhibit A 080188 86 pp. New Issue, $5,810,000 Certificates of Participation (Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District 1988 Refinancing of Reclamation Project) Evidencing Fractional Undivided Interests of the Owners Thereof in Installment Payments to be Made by the Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (Glenn County and Colusa County, California) As the Payment for Certain Property Pursuant to an Installment Sale Agreement with Security Pacific National Bank
    - pp. (i) GCID Board, Management, Counsel, Trustee, Underwriter
    - pp. (x) TOC
    - pp. (ii) - (iii) Summary Statement
    - p. 1, Official Statement, $5,810,000 Certificates of Participation; purpose of refunding of the $5,045,488.47 PL 984 loan originally entered into in 1980 between GCID & Reclamation, payment schedule 02/01/1989 - 08/01/2001; secured by payments required to be made to SPNB as seller? required to net annually 110% of sum of installment payments, required reserve fund deposits, all other net revenue lien payments; no right to issue obligations senior to this; Reclamation loan balance $15.264,000? had been used to rehab canal system, fund new pumping plant, etc., originally $17,000,000 plus $3,000,000 in GCID funds; Reclamation (Interior) selling portfolio, discounted, discount $10,218,511.53 ? [!] serves 175,000 acres farmland and wildlife refuges, wheels to the refuges; traced to 1883 Will S. Green River appropriation, 1887 CID formed by Green under the Wright Act; Shasta Dam threatened GCID rights, settled 1964, allowing for a master plan to upgrade facilities; 1964 "CVP agreement" reaffirmed 720,000 a-f, reserved rights to purchase an additional 75,000 a-f from CVP, 10-year option to purchase additional 30,000 a-f (75,000 + 30,000 "Project Water"), exercised 1974, total 825,000 under CVP agreement; pays zero for 720,000 & $2 per a-f for Project Water; also, non-firm surplus water, "Article 6 Water" from CVP at $3.97 per a-f currently receiving on behalf of 3 landowners; Angle Decree up to 50,000 a-f from Stony Creek at 500 cfs [Where is 50,000 from? s/b 20,315 ?], releases from Black Butte & T-C Canal?; CVP agreement expires 03/31/2004, can be extended upon mutual agreement; CVP Agreement recognized reclaimed water rights, GCID constructed drainage recapture systesm w/ 39 pumps, 18 stations 867 cfs & 18 gravity rediversion facilities 360 cfs; Reclamation can cut Base & Project up to 25% in creitical years, some other districts 100%; facing problems on dredging & fish, confident unlikely any long term detrimental effects "without the opportunity to undertake suitable mitigation methods." Can levy property taxes; S & P BBB-; Underwriter Security Pacific Merchant Bank; [part --]
    - chart, Monthly River Diversions (acre-feet)/Annual Rainfall (inches)
    - chart, Irrigated Crops (Acres), Crop & Refuges, 1978 - 1987 by year
    - chart, Eleven Largest Ratepayers, $$ & total acres (761 a to 5826 a)
    - chart, Rates/Charges by crop
    - chart, Rate Comparison by Crop, GCID, Provident, Princeton-Cordora
    - chart, Summary of Operating Revenues, Expenses and Transfers and Changes in Fund Equity Fiscal Years Ended 09/30/1983-1987
    - chart, Balance Sheet, FY ended 09/30/1986 & 7
    - chart, Schedule of Debt Service Coverage
    - chart, Estimated Direct and Overlapping Bonded Debt
    - Appendix A Summary of Principal Legal Documents
    - - Installment Sale Agreement
    - - Trust Indenture
    - Appendix B General and Economic Information of the District, Counties of Glenn and Colusa
    - - Chart, County of Glenn, Agricultural Production, $$, Crops/Year
    - - Chart, County of Colusa, Agricultural Production, $$, Crops/Year
    - Appendix C Audited Financial Statements for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1987, CPAs Matthews, Crippen, Tenney and Company, Marysville, "not maintained detailed records of all property, plant and equipment and" unable to satisfy through alternatives as to the accuracy of those accounts; Note F describes situations that could yield significant liabilities; starting 09/30/1984 detailed records maintained for fixed asset additions; Note F, Contingent liabilities - Reclamation Reform Act limits, dredging permit problem including some comments challenging District ownership to the lands upon which dredging & spoil material activities are conducted - pose a severe contingent liability;
    - Appendix D 08/16/1988 Form of Opinion of Special Counsel, no counsel name thereon

    [ Volume 4, Filings 50 - 72]


    12/06/1991 50 [received 11/28? ] DECLARATION of Howard Wilson, David Vogel and Keith Marine RELATING to issues pertaining to the California Department of fish and game screens at the Glenn-Colusa irrigation district (kh) (Entered: 12/06/1991) ; Howard Wilson, licensed Civil Engineer, CH2M Hill over 25 years, w/GCID on pumping plant issues 12 years; David Vogel fisheries biologist, was with USFWS for 14 years, 10 of those in charge of investigating factors limiting Sacramento basin Salmon, w/CDFG co-developer of Winter Run Chinook Salmon Ten-Point Restoration Program, past 1-1/2 year CH2M Hill as Senior Fisheries Biologist, underwater examinations of CDFG fish screens to develop recommendations on fish losses; Keith Marine fisheries biologist 7 years with USFWS & state environmental organizations, CH2M Hill underwater observations; it is the fault of the screens including: "prior to 1990 as GCID reduced its pumping, Paul Ward of CDFG has removed screens and has replaced them with solid steel gates, thus increasing approach velocities at the other screen bays."; [fix screens and dredge at least as an interim measure?]; add self-cleaning air purges to the proposed flat-plate screens in entrapment zones?; not necessarily true that less damage to fish would result from using RBDD instead of GCID diversion site; multi-sided fyke traps in place of bays would improve approach velocity; 7.2 specifications for current screens; [referral to "Exhibit 4.2 (or 4-2), Appendix A, Design Memorandum Department of Architecture State of California" 11/07/1968 MISSING? - found 07/30/2009]; 7.3 modifications to design upon installation; rotary screens extremely susceptible to river level fluctuations, with change occurring during construction and no effort of CDFG to compensate; comparison with the Reclamation rotary screens near Red Bluff, called Tehama-Colusa Fish Facilities (TCFF), with bypasses all the way to the bottom of the flow, designed at the same time, GCID bypasses not designed properly, avoidable defect using knowledge available at the time; 2 tests performed after installation of CDFG screens; variance of bypass flow among the bypasses a design defect in pipe sizing, bypass never worked correctly; CDFG 1974 tests showed screens not working correctly, no followup to find out where or why fish were disappearing; new pumps had same flow contemplated in CDFG design; river bed elevation continued to drop, "A head loss in the channel of over 2.5 feet occurred between the entrance to the intake channel and the fish screens."; flows from the river moving towards the screens from both ends of the oxbow? fish could only escape by swimming upstream in either direction, and flows were over 1.0 fps; seems to be fishery staff's hope that if GCID cannot dredge, the channel will silt up thus saving the fish regardless of the effect on GCID lands and wildlife refuges; 1985 CDFG installed for first time trap, in Bay 24, to calculate number of fish, but not losses; GCID retained Alternative A in the Final Feasibility Report because of engineering and environmental problems in B1: siltation, lack of foundation, trenching the island for bypass pipeline; CDFG refusal to allow fishery studies meant that if B1 eventually found inveasible, more delays would occur before implementing A; GCID hired studies, interfered with by CDFG, to get around CDFG intransigence; Vogel found opening under large slide gate for the dredge at upstream "portion" of screen structure [who controls the dredge gate?]; "Normally, rotary-drum screens of this design should have 70 to 80 percent submerged for debris cleaning purposes...when the drum screens are 70 to 80 percent submerged, riverine debris can impinge on the screen face, roll over the top of the drum as the screen rotates, then be 'back-flushed' off the back side of the screen."; low water levels meant riverine debris churns in front of the screens, which causes dents in the screens when it becomes wedged against a horizontal metal support bar at mid-depth in front of the screens; much of this because CDFG removed and did not replace trash racks; very little flow, or slack, entering bypasses; 12/12/1990 meeting: Ward: defensive of CDFG, fisheries people unreceptive to GCID efforts or proposals, instead adamant on replacing screens [where is the warranty that Alternative B1 would work?]; delays to B1: 3-5 year timeframe impractical, HR3613 funding package died, California fishery-related bills introduced in Congress, EIR/EIS required for new screens & riffle restoration project, "winter-run chinook salmon was listed as a threatened and endangered [?] species" reducing the annual window for construction; thus GCID committed funds for studies to mitigate by 1992 season; 8 SCUBA dives more instructive than surface & trap measuring, see video Exhibit H; Exhibit I logs silt & debris, screen by screen; CDFG divers accompanied on 07/17/1991 - tried to reseat selected screens: considerable "irregularity and erosion of the concrete foundation was determined as causative of a majority of the bottom seating gaps. Inadequate seal design and irregular seating of the screens was attributable to gaps formed within the keyway channels."; Juvenile salmon-sized debris in these gaps; 10/23/1991 found very large openings at the concrete keyway slots where the drum screens are dropped in place by CDFG, went looking for them because GCID found 2 small salmon in their canal downstream of the screens, gaps reported to CDFG which attempted corrective measures, status not yet known; brush seals at the bottom of the screen? debris dents mean there is a gap there & juveniles pass through those gaps; nylon brush seals can "macerate" the fish "into mush" if pulled back through them & never to be seen at the surface; predators: riffle sculpin, Sacramento squawfish; CDFG closed the dredge gate gap; CDFG has decided to put back all the trash racks except the upstream-most one, GCID urges it be the dowstream-most one since that would reduce the debris damage to all the screens; CDFG has sealed the gaps under the 20 screen bays where GCID found them; silting in front of the screens to within 4 feet of the surface for some of them, divers stood on them with chests out of the water demonstrating for CDFG employees, should be at least 9-feet; eliminating half the bypasses would double the intake speed of the remainder and make them more effective; suggests ways to clean the bypasses (air or hydro-jet) and make them uniform (restrictors or training devices) - replacing the bypass system would be expensive but is possible; move the cross-brace further away from the screens to reduce debris dents?; normal bay walls are contoured to allow fish to move parallel, GCID screens are straight abutments which interrupt their natural movement and entrap them, as well as create hydraulic eddies where predators tend to hide; [would the fyke traps have to be manually emptied & fish trucked downstream?]; a training wall tapering the channel from full width down to 15-35 percent would reduce silting and make for more uniform flows; a sheet-pile abutment protrudes 9' into the channel at the lower end of the screen facility, pull it and replace with tapered, reducing silting & eliminate reverse flows; allow GCID to do the studies it asks to do; Vogel does not believe mesh size is a problem? signed as counter-parts [correct terminology?]
  • Diagram 1 CDFG Fish Screens at GCID, CH2M Hill, Design water vs. actual water elevation
  • Diagram 2 CDFG Fish Screens at GCID, CH2M Hill, Failure of design bypass to reach all the way to the bottom of the flow
  • Diagram 3 Diagram of Fyke Trap in place of rotary screen
  • Table 1 Flow and Average Inlet Velocity at Each Fish Bypass, from Reclamation test, 1972
  • Diagram 4 note that fish are directed to bottom of screen due to lowering of water surface
  • Diagram 5 note pier noses which form barrier to passage
  • Diagram 6 Alternative Modification [across the bottom] of CDFG screens, flat plate screens with air-purge cleaning device
  • Diagram 6A Alternative Modification to CDFG screens, steel plates
  • Diagram 7 Modification of Pier Noses to avoid barrier
  • Diagram 8 Correction of Barrier to Passage at Lower End of CDFG Screen
  • Exhibit A-1 Howard Wilson education, work, qualifications
  • Exhibit A-2 David Vogel education, work, qualifications
  • Exhibit A-3 Keith Marine education, work, qualifications
  • Exhibit gap
  • Exhibit H to be filed later per stip, underwater video of conditions at the front of the screens, with narrative [MISSING? - found, smaller Expando, with Declaration of Service]
  • Exhibit I Results of Underwater Inspection of the CDFG Fish Screens at GCID's Main Pumping Station Near Hamilton City - 17 July 1991; Tabulation of gaps, spaces, silt accumulations by bay, 17 July 1991

    12/06/1991 51 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES by third-party defendant California Department of Fish and Game in RESPONSE to Glenn-Colusa irrigation district's points and authorities in re motion for summary judgment [35-1] (kh) (Entered: 12/09/1991) ; GCID argument that CDFG screens and not GCID pumps cause the loss of salmon is illogical; Paul Ward in charge of fish screen activities at GCID diversion works for 13 years; GCID Duty, CF & G Code Section 5981; 5980, pumps destroy fish more than non-pumps; 5991, CDFG may install the screen itself if it chooses to do so, duty is not mandatory; fn, 6100 since 1971 all new diversions from salmon & steelhead waters must be screened; functioning of present screen irrelevant to GCID's duty not to take; GCID diverts 29/30's of the oxbow water, remaining 1/30 is a feeding opportunity for predacious fish; if GCID's illogical argument prevailed it would remove all protection for endangered species.
  • Exhibit 1 12/03/1991 Declaration of Paul Ward - predation "believed to be the major cause of the loss of juvenile salmon within the area of influence of the GCID's pumps."; GCID statement of supply to wildlife refuges seems to be overstated based on table 21 of the GCID-prepared "Report on Water Measurement Program for 1988": 1979 - 88 July 98 cfs, August 113 cfs; September 282 cfs; October 274 cfs averages, these last 2 months GCID pumping at or near the 1100 cfs limit;
    12/06/1991 52 REPLY MEMORANDUM by plaintiff USA to defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [35-1] (kh) (Entered: 12/09/1991) ; GCID continues to deny any responsibility for violating ESA or acting to halt taking; GCID facts irrelevant, GCID is taking [endangered or threatened? USA now saying endangered]; using GCID Doc 50 declaration to show taking; fyke-net downstream of pump 7 [Ward Declaration] proves taking during TRO; negligence law causation not determinative, ESA, regs & case law determinative; screens mitigate but do not halt take; ESA protection starts with Section 9 listing, not Section 4 recovery plan & critical habitat; USA has 2 years to designate critical habitat after listing, & no deadline on recovery plan, & 4(d) gives discretion to implement protective regulations; NMFS "law enforcement activities are categorically excluded from NEPA", see doc 18? p. 9; "no major federal action significantly affecting the human environment that would trigger the NEPA analysis." [uh, fallowing 125,000 acres?]; GCID argument suggests NEPA action required to NOT deciding to enforce the law against a particular violator; no water-resource conflict with state law, just stop the taking; no ESA exemption for persons holding state water rights; ESA preempts less-restrictive state endangered species statutes; GCID's incidental take argument refuted both by no support within ESA and by case law for even less direct takings; "The decision as to what measures should be implemented to prevent the illegal taking of winter-run salmon rests solely with the NMFS, not with the District." and the District must apply for an incidental take permit and comply with whatever requirements are attached to its issuance [even if the new screens may take more than the old ones with proper repairs, modification, & maintenance? - no showing anywhere that the new screens would reduce the take, but of course, that's irrelevant since the standard is compliance with NMFS, not the number of fish killed]
    12/06/1991 53 EXHIBITS 1-7 by plaintiff USA in SUPPORT of plaintiff's reply memorandum [52-1] to defendant's memorandum in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (kh) (Entered: 12/09/1991)
  • Exhibit 1 Second Declaration of Gary R. Stern, 09/13/1991 helped assemble fyke trap behind Pump #7 sampling 60% of that pump, one of 10 pumps in the plant; 09/16/1991 called Mr. Ward, 1 dead winter-run in the trap, trap net failed thereafter; letter report from Mr. Pennock, call to Mr. Ward, 2 36 mm fry 09/14 & 09/18; discussing "winter-run" race, identified by measuring length (mm Fork Length?); reports under TRO: incomplete, unprofessional, fail to meet requirements of TRO: wrote GCID a letter saying so and demanding compliance;
  • - Attachment A 4 graphs showing length by month of each run, 3 lines each [minimum/average/maximum? early/peak/late?].
  • - Attachment B 12/02/1991 memo Stern to files, listing the 9 GCID TRO reports and the components of each
  • - Attachment C 10/22/1991 letter Stern/NMFS to Pennock/GCID , failures in reporting; what is required, 3 pp. [can't tell which "race" it is without "fork length" in mm for each], urging more nets, etc.
  • Exhibit 2 Declaration of Paul D. Ward in Support of Cross-Defendant State of California, Department of Fish & Game's Memorandum of Points and Authorities [duplicate original to that attached to Doc. 51]
  • Exhibit 3 Federal Register 07/23/1984 vol. 49 No. 142 "Notice of final revisions to NOAA Directives Manual 02-10"
  • Exhibit 4 Calipatria Land Company, et al., v. Manuel Lujan, et al., USDC So.District Calif. 90-1185-GT(M) 11/02/1990 denies plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction; Order: [doc 35 in that case] over baiting to attract migratory birds prohibited by regs under Migratory Bird Treaty Act vs. California Reg to attract birds away from crops, Cal. Admin. Cod. 14, R. 54 Sec 336(c), "the regulations are in conflict, and the Federal Regulation must be supreme"; "finds that the agency action here does not constitute 'major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment', such that the completion of an environmental impact statement is required."; FWS had spent some years studying the situation and decided it would cease the agreement not to enforce, hence this suit;
  • Exhibit 5 reported case National Wildlife Federation v. Hodel, U.S.D.C. E.D. Cal, S-/8-0837 EJG 08/26/1985 23 ERC 1089; steel v. lead shot, lead poisoning bald eagles
  • Exhibit 6 04/22/1991 letter Bontadlli/CDFG to Clark/GCID review of your proposed 'Interim Fish Protection Measures' attached, B1 is CDFG choice, only interim measure of significant benefit is Action Item 8.
  • - CDFG Region 2 review of GCID interim measures; "Alternative B1...is absolutely necessary to reduce fish losses at GCID's pumping facility to less than significant levels, that the interim measures can not result in an accepteble screen,...."; carry out hydraulic studies; absence of trash racks are not the source of debris in the system [?] but they will install them when they get around to it; test the bottom plates; no objection to visual monitoring; fishery studies of no benefit; lights, electricity, sound, poor results elsewhere, no benefit; no benefit to trashrack flat plate screen; T-C Canal exchange, tailwater recycling, conservation may help, dredging subject to same conditions & scrutiny as in the past including under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; flow training structure to equalize flows might help; T-C Canal fish screen monitoring is planned;
  • Exhibit 7 08/28/1991 memo CDFG to Barsch/Reclamation Board (p. 1 only) Re: costs for studies for moving GCID diversion intake structures;
  • - letter Bersch/Reclamation Board [?] to Bontadelli/CDFG, please pay $135,000 per Agreement No. 164573 between Reclamation Board, CDFG, & GCID
  • - Standard Agreement, DWR Reclamation Board, CDFG, GCID see attached cost sharing agreement for River Gradient Restoration & Fish Screen Replacement
  • - Sacramento River Gradient Restoration and Fish Screen Replacement at Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District's Intake, Cost-Sharing Agreement for Environmental Documentation and Supporting Preliminary Engineering; 11/01/1990 riffle restoration & screen docs; GCID half $270,000, 1/4 CDFG, 1/4 The Reclamation Board
  • - - Table A - Payment Schedule
    12/10/1991 54 LETTER to court [to Judge Levi] from defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation attorney Paul R Minasian RE declaration in support of defendant's memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (kh) (Entered: 12/11/1991) ; late filing from Kramer or deposition & leave to file excerpts; USA proposed stip is less than the Kramer info; submitted the proposed Kramer declaration and the stip; alternatively, sought a declaration from Mr. Ed Collins retired SNWR manager for 13+ years, promised several times but it hasn't arrived, asking for ruling on motion to allow deposition, etc.; ask if deposition granted depost 12/10, file excerpts by 12/11 5:00 p.m. for U.S. responding by oral 12/13; letter sent to Mr. Brennan, who asks that attachments be included so Minasian also includes proposed Kramer declaration to show scope of evidence sought;
  • 13/13/91 [sic] Declaration of Gary Kramer in Support of Defendant's Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [Exhibit A shows experience & education, MISSING]; wells few, poor quality & quantity; 20,457 acres in the 3 refuges, 1.5 million birds, bulk through fall & winter, estimated to be the highest population in North America, but only if water, primary flooding mid-August through mid-November, ban on GCID pumping will be catastrophic, dramatic effecton the some endangered peregrine falcon & bald eagle, refuges provided from GCID excess capacity so crop lands come first, without flook birds may still come but go to private wetlands or croplands, largest tourist attraction in Glenn & Tehama counties with 80,000+ visits 07/15 - 11/15
  • Joint Stipulation of GCID & U.S for Extension of Time and Joint Stipulation of Facts: Time: video tape to Bradfish 11/26/1991; Facts: [how are these different from Kramer, other than being less hysterical]
    08/12/1991 L Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause
    10/31/1991 L Proposed Order; no pumping 07/15 - 11/130 until GCID can establish to the court no taking; if dredging permit obtained, lifted to extent of terms of permit provided comply "with incidental take statement accompanying any Biological Opinion issued in consultation pursuant" etc.; or, if NMFS section 10 permit, ditto; if GCID applies for either within 60 days, & no action by 07/15/1992, then allowed 1100 cfs 07/15/1992 - 11/30/1992 provided fix problems in existing screens [! how can they do this if CDFG must do it?]; no permit, no pumping; lotsa reports; tell the court within 60 days or fine of $10,000 per day; $1,000 per day of each individual provision except $100,000 per day each day it exceeds 1,100 cfs, plus $10,000 per day of each reporting requirement not met [regardless of how fluid, undefined, or bizarre such requirement might be]; but first notice of noncompliance required [note at top, "not used, DFL wrote his own order. MKF"]
    12/13/1991 55 CIVIL MINUTES of plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgment STATING the motion for summary judgment [35-1] is SUBMITTED; ORDER to be prepared by the court (kh) (Entered: 12/16/1991) ; Bradfish/Brennan/Kaplan for USA, Minasian GCID, Smaage CDFG

    1992

    01/09/1992 56 S MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [35-1] is GRANTED, AND the court hereby ENJOINS the District from pumping water from the Sacramento River at its Hamilton City facility during the winter-run chinook salmon's peak downstream migration season of July 15 through November 30 of each year, DISMISSING action (cc: all counsel) (kh) Modified on 01/09/1992 (Entered: 01/09/1992) ; "on the motion for injunction, the case is straightforward with few relevant disputes of fact"; "no disupute that the Endangered Species Act, and the actions of the Secretary of Commerce in designating the winter run salmon as threatened, prohibit the taking or harming of any winter-run salmon. There is no dispute that the winter-run salmon is threatened, and in fact close to extinction--from a population in the tens of thousands only some twenty years ago to fewer than 200 adult winter-run salmon returning to the Sacramento river to spawn in 1991. There is no disupute that the District's Hamilton City Pumping station and the associated fish screen kill and harm the winter-run salmon." "The matters which are most vigorously disputed are not now properly before the court.": GCID would require an incidental take statement to keep pumping; screen is not before the court - only question is whether GCID may pump with the current screen in place; protected? yes; pumping irreparably harms? yes.; problems asserted in regulatory actions, premature and irrelevant; the pumps are the culprit, not the screens, so GCID's effort to shift the blame to CDFG is brash & absurd; remedies GCID may have against CDFG do not absolve it for the "take"; state water rights do not trump the ESA, enforcement of ESA does not set aside state water rights but only affect the manner in which they may be exercised; ESA does not condition enforcement on regulatory preliminary matters, court will not imply such a requirement; NEPA requirement for an EA before enforcement would "lead to a highly impractical result in which any decision of a law enforcement agency...whether to go forward with an action or forbear from action--would require a NEPA analysis." injunction, no pumping 07/15-11/30, no unfairness: failed to contest screen problems, not applied for take permit, GCID to inform court by 02/21/1992 if it will comply or "challenge the incidental take statement issued pursuant to its application for a dredging permit from the Army Corps of Engineers or has completed a written application for an incidental take permit under 16 USC 1539." Thereafter court will consider modifications to its order, including government's request for a reporting requirement and a contempt schedule as well as GCID's indexing request. See Doc #60 which replaces & got published? both /s/ 01/09/1992 --

    08/12/1991 L Order
    11/19/1991 L Ex Parte Order (Kramer declaration & deposition), note at top: "parties negotiated a stipulation replacing this order DFL/KDA 1/3/92"
    11/25/1991 L Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Signed Declarations to Replace Unsigned Declarations Previously Filed and Order Thereon - Wilson/Vogel/Marine declaration, Richard Clark Declaration

    02/19/1992 57 NOTICE by defendant of application for incidental take permit; application to NMFS for modification of jeopardy opinion to reflect conditions of incidental take permit; request for authority to modify department of fish and game screen and its operations; request for order of court modifying injunction on condition of compliance with incidental take permit application plan; request for appointment of commission to resolve technical issues regarding compliance (old) (Entered: 02/20/1992) [MISSING]
    02/25/1992 58 LETTER to court from plaintiff USA regarding position for the current injunction to be lifted or modified is substantially deficient (old) (Entered: 02/26/1992) 1) Premature, only taken an initial step of applying for incidental take permit, still in violation until permit issued, 2) 1 year to process application, GCID dragged its feet, nevertheless USA had offered expedited procedure, 3) NMFS letter lists deficiencies in permit ap, including proposed 0.5 fps approach velocity instead of required 0.33, 4) GCID continued fussing with existing screens implies no commitment to long-term solution, 5) opposes a committee or special master to mediate between GCID & NMFS; no modification until GCID commits to entire ESA Section 10 (16 USC 1539) process.
  • 02/24/1992 letter Fullerton/NMFS to atty Minasian, re Section 10 ap.; ap incomplete, particularly the conservation plan. Need: 1) info that details GCID understands the winter-run salmon's requirements; 2) info that details proposed daily water needs from the river & other sources; 3) info describing anticipated impacts of GCID proposed diversions on winter-run chinook, info supporting GCID's assertion that impacts will be undetectable, 4) revised conservation plan, including impact monitoring plans and to how proposed measures will minimize or mitigate impacts. Other concerns & info needs: 1) whether proposed actions are short-term or long-term, time period, what GCID will do if they don't work, what other long-term actions are proposed including funding source. 2) NMFS feels dredging will make it worse, not better, prove otherwise. 3) prove indexing will not cause take, justify 0.5 fps approach velocity. 4) provide evidence that predator control will not "take". Begin NEPA EIS work immediately, perhaps including new screens and riffle restoration.
    03/03/1992 59 STATUS ORDER by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING a Settlement Conference is SET FOR 3/16/92 at 9:00am , counsel are DIRECTED to either have a principal present with authority to settle the case or be fully authorized to do so, and a joint status statement is due 3/13/92 (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 03/03/1992) ; pre-trial scheduling conference held 02/28/1992 in Chambers; Brennan for USA, Minasian for GCID
    03/10/1992 60 S MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Honorable David F Levi - see order for details (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 03/10/1992) ; same number of pp. but not identical to Doc #56, differences difficult to pinpoint. Signed 01/09/1992 This one is at 768 F.Supp. 1126 --
    03/18/1992 61 TRANSCRIPT REQUEST for Settlement Hearing of 3/18/92 to Superior Reporting (kh) (Entered: 03/19/1992)
    03/18/1992 62 CIVIL MINUTES of Settlement Conference STATING Settlement Conference HELD 3/18/92 9:00am-4:00pm, Case has SETTLED (Tenative) (kh) (Entered: 03/20/1992) ; USA Brannan/Bfradfish/Cunningham, GCID Minasian
    03/23/1992 63 TRANSCRIPT of 3/18/92 - 3:50pm of Settlement Hearing (kh) (Entered: 03/25/1992) ; Document Locator [but nothing checked off, MISSING - found, smaller Expando]
    03/30/1992 LODGED Joint Stipulation of parties and order thereon (kh) (Entered: 03/31/1992) became Doc #64
    03/31/1992 64 S JOINT STIPULATION and ORDER by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING the joint stipulation of the parties RE the permanent injunction issued is hereby APPROVED (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 03/31/1992) 1) to 02/12/1993 subject to renewal, or back to injunction if not renewed;` 2) sets minimum bypass flows 08/01 - 11/30, 500 cfs when river 8000 cfs or more, 300 if 4-8000, 200 below 4000; after 10/01 if under 4000 & if pumping 700 cfs or less 175 cfs, no definition of "bypass flows"; GCID agrees to acquire, install & calibrate by 07/15/1992 an NMFS-approved bypass flow measuring device, but if over $30,000, court will consider alternatives; River flow at North Island, adding pumped flow to USGS Hamilton City gauging station flow; 3) operate pumps so that average approach velocity not over 0.33 fps 08/01 - 11/30; pumping rate to be 0.33 fps times wetted screen area, to be from bottom of arc facing river up to water surface, divided by 360 degrees, multiplied by 13,520 s-f, surface elevation per NMFS calculation, improvements to be evaluated by NMFS to decide if modification of formula warranted, parties may approach the court to modify?; tapering of flows to reach 0.33 must be done by 08/01 each year. 4) training wall/berm & dredge in front of screens & lower & upper oxbow channel by 07/15/1992, but must get USACOE approval & NMFS concurs it will benefit winter-run, following all federal procedures, submit ap timely, USA to approach the court on the injunction if not done, & GCID agrees: a) proposed dredging plan showing effect on juvenile winter-run under all permutations; b) submit plan to ACE, not bound to dredge; c) if permit issues & GCID decides to proceed, do it as ACE tells them to, GCID recognizes NMFS will approach the court if not completed by 07/15, dredge lower oxbow before upper or in front of screens; d) fund & provide a post-dredging sounding map with NMFS or ACE personnel present if they choose to verify mods in compliance with plan; e) if not compliant, ACE may seek mod of injunction; 5) GCID to provide refuge water; 6) GCID agrees to seek long term solution to protect winter-run, which NMFS will seek to include the new screens as early as 09/30/1994 by which time GCID must fund and begin construction; a) GCID to start with pre-construction EA for B-1, complete by 06/01/1994 - by 09/01/1993 submit to court status on all studies & show good cause if not on deadline; b) GCID to start an account to show comitment, $500,000 by 12/31/1992, $2,000,000 by 12/31/1993, $4,000,000 by 12/31/1994, only towards construction of long-term solution, GCID & USA to withdraw jointly for those construction costs, GCID provide NMFS with quarterly account reports; 7) reports to NMFS, 08/01-11/30 by fax: A) river flow daily at USGS Hamilton, B) daily pumping rate at 7:30 a.m., C) daily cfs of bypass flow, D) in writing weekly staff gauge readings of water surface elevations at North & South Island gauges, E) fax daily water surface elevation at diversion facility, F) fax daily results of monitoring fish found in fyke nets or traps in screen bays, bypass or intake channels, and behind pumps, by species, individual fork lengths in mm, condition & disposition of salmonids, "number of hours each trap was fished", G) release captured fish ASAP into Sacramento River, H) in writing biweekly water diverted from T-C Canal, drain water recovered, & normal data showing patterns of water use within the GCID, I) weekly report to refuge manager how much water delivered to each refuge, J) total acreage of GCID irrigated, by 12/31; 8) All info to Fullerton & Stern; 9) Stip not an entitlement to permits, permits issued shall supersede stip, but conflicts to the court to modify, also may seek modification following final agency action on permit aps.; 10) no waiver of claims; 11) continuing jurisdiction; 12) injunction mod is dependent on GCID filing a complete ap with NMFS, complete is up to NMFS; 14) agree to act reasonably; /s/ Judge Levi 03/31/1992 --

    03/31/1992 65 S ORDER MODIFYING PERMANENT INJUNCTION by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING the permanent injunction is MODIFIED to the extent permitted by the terms and conditions of the court approved stipulation of parties and order thereon [64-1], should the parties fail to renew the joint stipulation on its expiration date of 2/12/93 or enter into a similar stipulation defendant shall comply with the original injunction of 1/9/92 (cc: all counsel) (kh) (Entered: 03/31/1992) --
    04/20/1992 LODGED Stipulation RE filing of Amended Joint Stipulation of parties and order thereon and order (kh) (Entered: 04/22/1992) ; became Doc #66
    04/20/1992 LODGED Amended Joint Stipulation of parties and order theron (kh) (Entered: 04/22/1992) became Doc #67
    04/24/1992 66 S STIPULATION and ORDER RE filing of amended joint stipulation of parties by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING the amended stipulation of the parties is hereby accepted in place of the joint stipulation of the parties and order theron filed 3/31/92 and is APPROVED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/24/1992) ; error on p. 7 of stip as filed, strike the sequence limitation on GCID dredging upper & lower oxbow
    04/24/1992 67 S AMENDED JOINT STIPULATION OF PARTIES and ORDER thereon approved by Honorable David F Levi superceding stipulation and order [64-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 04/24/1992) /s/ Judge Levi 04/23/1992`
    09/23/1992 68 NON-RELATED CASE ORDER by Honorable Lawrence K Karlton ORDERING: court has determined that it is inappropriate to relate or reassign cases and therefore declines to do so; order is issued for informational purposes only and has no effect on the status of the cases concerned (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 09/24/1992) re: S-88-1658-LKK NRDC v. Patterson re notice of related cases f 09/10/1992

    1993

    06/30/1993 LODGED 1993 JOINT STIPULATION OF PARTIES AND ORDER THEREON (old) (Entered: 07/06/1993) became Doc. #69
    07/13/1993 69 STIPULATION and ORDER by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING: lodged 1993 joint stipulation of parties and order thereon [0-0] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 07/13/1993) ; 2 p. 10's; GCID submited Section 10 aps on 01/31/1992, 02/24/1992 NMFS rejected as incomplete, 03/27/1992 resubmitted, 04/21/1992 NMFS again rejected, 07/14/1992 resubmitted, 11/25/1992 NMFS published in Federal Register notice accepting "as complete for the sole purpose of soliciting comments on the application", 02/04/1993 NMFS notified GCID ap "did not satisfy numerous requirements of ESA section" 10(a)(2)(B) and NMFS's implementing regulations (50 CFR 222.22); 10/30/1992 CVPIA adopted, mitigate fishery impacts on GCID plant USA split 75-25 with state, but no state funds available; GCID commits to long-term solution; 1) supersedes 04/24/1992 Amended stip, & to continue until a biological opinon & incidental take statement per an ESA Section 7 consultation with NMFS (& Reclamation?) or a section 10 permit; 2) GCID fully fund EA, etc., but may deduct such funds from federal or state funding, GCID currently proposes a flat plate screen; 3) if NMFS determines insufficient funding, it may pull funds from the special account, GCID to reimburse fund within 12 months; 4) stip cease & injunction return if a) no ESA Section 7 consult by 12/01/1993, b) per NMFS no reasonable schedule for studies, pre-construction prep, & construction by 12/01/1994, c) GCID fails to fund & cooperate on long-term solution, d) 4b schedule not met & NMFS not agreed to modification, e) NMFS decides GCID violates any term of stip or biological assessment incidental take statement or reasonable and prudent alternative [?], f) NMFS give 48 hours notice of intention to rescind stip, GCID may move to suspend injunction, 5) GCID may still pursue an ESA Section 10 incidental take permit to forestall the injunction; 6) as #2 in previous stip, modified for dredging alternatives, c) acoustic velocity meter - meter installed per paragraph 2 of 04/24/1992 amended stip inadequate & must be replaced; 7 as 3; 8) rotary screw trap in canal immediately behind largest pump each day 08.01-11/30, 24/7, examined daily & chinook salmon removed, measured & counted, live returned to the river ASAP, dead in a separate bag & promptly frozen for eventual delivery to NMFS, labeled date, time, fork length in mm; 9) 3 or more in any 7 days, SCUBA inspection of entire screening area within 48 hours of finding the 3rd winter-run (8 all, 9 winter-run ?), gaps? seal within 72 hours of finding or else cease all pumping; 10) a) similar to 4) a), b) prior to 07/01 any year, conduct a post-dredge survey in NMFS-approved manner w/5 days notice to NMFS so they may observe, c) if dredging plan not implemented by 07/15/1993 or dredging not conform to the plans, NMFS may seek modification of the injunction, GCID not forfeiting any remedies regarding the dredgeing; 11 as 6), 12) as 6b); 13) fund to supplement CDFG annual monitoring of winter-run in the oxbow 08/01-03/15 not to exceed $25,000; 14-16 as 7-9); 17) no cause of action against Reclamation; 18-19 as 10-11); 12) gone; 20 mod: no term or condition, "including the use of the phrase 'in the sole discretion of NMFS,'" "...excuse any substantive or procedural obligation imposed upon either party by federal or state law." --
  • Exhibit A 04/14/1992 Amended Joint Stip [MISSING]
  • Exhibit B 02/04/1993 NMFS letter [MISSING]
  • Exhibit C Fork Length Criteria [MISSING]

    1994

    01/24/1994 LODGED substitution of attys (old) (Entered: 01/25/1994) became doc #70
    01/26/1994 70 S ORDER by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING: lodged substitution of attys is GRANTED; withdrawing attorney Paul Ryan Minasian for Glenn-Colusa Irrigation and substituting attorney Stuart Leslie Somach (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 01/26/1994)
    08/09/1994 LODGED Amendment to 1993 Joint Stipulation and order thereof by defendant Glenn-Colusa Irrigation District (old) (Entered: 08/10/1994) became Doc #71
    08/12/1994 71 ORDER by Honorable David F Levi ORDERING: the stipulation amending the 1993 Stipulation between the United States, the District and CDFG is hereby APPROVED (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 08/12/1994) replaced rotary-drum screens with interim flat-plat screens, GCID agrees to operate so that any panel limit is 0.33 fps, allowable pumping rate 0.33 x total effective wetted screen area in square feet, wetted screen area formula: WS = WD x 1.004 x effective screen length; WS = wetted screen area; WD=water depth in feet at face of screens; 1.004 = screen angle of 5%; length is 426.3 if "dredge bay door is closed, or up to 450.3 as specified by NMFS undeer an approved alternative operational mode." WD on mondays, average of upstream & downstream gauges; keep the dredge bay door fully closed unless NMFS approves otherwise; if interim flat plate screens removed, revert to rotary per the previous stip; tapering or ramping by 08/01 each season --

    1997

    05/19/1997 72 AMENDMENT by Honorable David F. Levi to 1993 joint stipulation and order [69-1] (cc: all counsel) (old) (Entered: 05/22/1997) cheaper flow measurements: new 6d) once a week 04/01 - 07/15 & twice per 1) week to 11/30, using current metering, "develop a stage discharge relationship for flow throughout the channel", & current measurements to "provide data to develop a regression equation that will be used to compute discharge flow on days that actual measurements are not performed." 2) most daily reporting changed to weekly; all else continuing. --

    [Note at p. 10 Doc #29 F 05/13/2002 CIV S-01-1816-GEB USDC ED-Cal, "...recent completion of a $76 million fish screeen facility at its pumping plant on the Sacramento River...."; referencing Doc #30 declaration]

    Oral Argument in 01-1816 05/28/2002, Hitchings, "...For a period of almost ten years, from 1992 [?] to 2002, they have been unable to divert the full quantities of water that are specified in their contracts as available for diversion because they have had to comply with these provisions of the Endangered Species Act."

    Let me see if I have this straight: Despite the "take" by GCID, winter-run salmon were increasing year-after year until RBDD & SWP came on line, and thereafter Reclamation & DWR killed 97% of the winter-run population at the Red Bluff Diversion Dam and Banks Plant in the Delta. USA looked around and found GCID's "take", CDFG had breached their responsibilities leaving GCID vulnerable, USA sued GCID, and Reclamation used that as an opportunity to welsh on their contracts and also reduce GCID's Angle rights, see 91-1128?

    Winter-run salmon are alternately called a species or a race by various experts. Are they genetically different from any other run? is there a genetic test now?

    And, of course this is yet another example of the USA's reprehensible practice of cutting off irrigation in mid-season as a litigation tactic, see Wackerman & Reimers cases on wars.htm page]

    Judge Levi's decision reported at:
    U.S. v. Glenn-Colusa Irr. Dist, 788 F.Supp. 1126 E.D.Cal. 1992, Doc #60

    Return to Stony Creek Water Wars.

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