Gualala Sea Ranch Application 29466; SWRCB Apr94

Mr. James W. Kassel, WRC Engineer April 6, 1994

Division of Water Rights

State Water Resources Control Board

P.O. Box 2000

Sacramento, CA 95812-2000

Re: Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company; South Fork Gualala River; CSPA Protest; Comments by the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance to allegations in letter of March 30, 1994 from James Kassel of the Division of Water Rights.

Dear Mr. Kassel:

We have reviewed your letter of March 30, 1994 regarding the protest filed by the CSPA on Application 29466. You have rejected the CSPA protest based on its present form. We disagree with your rejection of the CSPA protest on its present form.

You crafted your letter to only respond to a few of the CSPA allegations in the CSPA protest. You claim that the Division's review of the CSPA protest allegations either are not relevant to the application or are not supported by facts. The following are those facts which you overlooked:

CSPA Allegation No. 1

This statement is supported by fact and is part of the SWRCB's record for Permit 15358. [See page 2 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

The CSPA allegation that all water right permit must contain mandatory daily fish bypass flow requirements is supported by state law.

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 1, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations and state law. [See Section 745 (c) (Protests and Answers) and Section 749 (Rejection of Protest), Article 9 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations; March, 1987]

We refer you to the CSPA clarification in the CSPA Protest concerning California Fish and Game 5937 and the Public Trust Doctrine. [See pages 15 to 19 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

CSPA Allegation No. 2

This statement is supported by fact. The CSPA allegation that the State Water Board failed to follow state law and require mandatory flow requirements in effect at all times for Permit 15358 is supported by the SWRCB's records. [See page 3 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 2, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 3

This statement is part of the SWRCB's record for Permit 15358. The CSPA allegation that the complaints were reasonable and in accordance with state law is supported by state law. [See page 3 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 3, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 4

This statement is part of the SWRCB's records. [See page 3 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 4, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 5

This statement is part of the SWRCB's records. [See page 3 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 5, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 6

This statement is part of the SWRCB's records. The CSPA allegation that Term No. 1 of Board Order WR 77-12 was a violation of state law is supported by state law. [See pages 3 and 4 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 6, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 7

This statement is part of the SWRCB's records. The CSPA allegation that Sea Ranch Water Company's delays deferred implementation of fishery protection measures is reasonable and is part of the records. [See pages 4 and 5 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 7, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 8

This statement is part of the SWRCB's records. [See page 5 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 8, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 9

This statement is part of the SWRCB's records. The CSPA allegation that the State Water Board failed to order mandatory flows to protect the fishery resources is supported by state law. [See page 5 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 9, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 10

This statement is part of the SWRCB's records. [See pages 5 to 8 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 10, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 11

This statement is part of the SWRCB's records. [See page 8 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 11, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 12

You did not disclose comments on CSPA Allegation No. 12 (a). We believe that Application 29466 should have been noticed before the Draft EIR was issued so that protestants had the opportunity to review the Draft EIR. [See page 9 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose comments on CSPA Allegation No. 12 (b). The CSPA was an interested party at the hearing for WR 90-15. Sea Ranch Water Company did not act in good faith in forwarding a copy of said Draft EIR to the CSPA so that the CSPA had the opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR during the public comment period. [See page 9 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did disclose comments on CSPA Allegation No. 12 (c). We still believe the State Water Board as lead agency should have responded to comments to the Draft EIR. [See page 9 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose comments on CSPA Allegation No. 12 (d). The CSPA allegation may very well be true depending upon the circumstances. [See page 9 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 13

This statement is part of the SWRCB's records. [See pages 9 and 10 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 13, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 14

This statement is part of the SWRCB's records and part of the State Lands Commission Public Trust Report. [See page 10 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 14, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 15

This statement is part of the SWRCB's records. [See pages 10 and 11 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 15, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 16

This statement is part of the SWRCB's records. We agreed with Division's staff recommendations concerning mandatory flow requirements. [See page 11 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 16, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 17

This statement is part of the SWRCB's records. The State Water Board has a duty to prevent the unauthorized use of the state's water at the Sea Ranch Association's summer dam. This issue is relevant in discussing and evaluating "cumulative impacts" under Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines and is supported by Part 7.0 of Board Order WR 90-15. [See pages 11 and 12 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 17, yet you claim the CSPA Protest is not supported by fact. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

CSPA Allegation No. 18

This statement is part of the SWRCB's records and is also part of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and its Guidelines. The State Water Board has not adopted procedures for implementing the California Environmental Quality Act and its Guidelines. [See pages 12 to 15 of CSPA Protest of February 15, 1994 against Application 29466; Sea Ranch Water Company]

You did not disclose any comment concerning CSPA Allegation No. 18, which we will discuss later. The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

The Public Trust Doctrine

The CSPA Protest contains a clarification of the Public Trust Doctrine and we based the protest on that state law. You did not disclose any comments concerning whether the State Water Board has the authority, duty, and legal obligation to enforce the Public Trust Doctrine to protect the public trust fishery resources of the South Fork Gualala River.

The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, and is also in compliance with the Public Trust Doctrine.

California Fish and Game Code 5937 - Water for Fish

The CSPA Protest contains a clarification of the Fish and Game Code 5937 and we based the protest on that state law. You did not disclose any comments concerning whether the State Water Board has the authority, duty, and legal obligation to enforce the Fish and Game Code 5937 to protect the public trust fishery resources of the South Fork Gualala River.

The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, and is also in compliance with the Fish and game Code 5937.

Water Quality - The Fish

The CSPA Protest contains a clarification of water quality for fish and we based the protest on those court decisions. You did not disclose any comments concerning whether the State Water Board has the authority, duty, and legal obligation to enforce water quality laws to protect the public trust fishery resources of the South Fork Gualala River.

The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, and is also in compliance with state water quality laws.

The Right to Fish - Abundance of Public Trust Resources

The CSPA Protest contains a clarification of the public right to fish the Gualala River Watershed and that there should be an abundance of public trust fishery resources in the Gualala River. This allegation is based on the California Constitution, Article 1, Section 25. You did not disclose comments concerning California Constitution, Article 1, Section 25.

The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, and is also in compliance with California Constitution, Article 1, Section 25.

Water Rights - State Water Board - Authority to Act

The CSPA Protest is based on the California Water Code as clarified in the CSPA protest.

The CSPA Protest is in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, and is also in compliance with the California Water Code.

Summary of CSPA Allegations in CSPA Protest

As we have shown you the CSPA Protest allegations were based on facts, the State Water Board's records and state law relevant to Application 29466 and Permit 15358 and are within the jurisdiction of the State Water Board. We believe your rejection of the CSPA Protest is not in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, not in compliance with state law, violates the due process rights of the CSPA, and is an attempt by the Division to avoid environmental protests on Application 29466 and Permit 15358.

The following are comments of the CSPA regarding the five points you summarized in your letter of March 30, 1994:

o No. 1 " The project has the potential to have significant direct and cumulative impacts to the public trust steelhead trout and Coho salmon resources of the South Fork Gualala River " [See page 1 of letter of March 30, 1994 from James Kassel, Division of Water Rights, to Robert J. Baiocchi, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; Application 29466]

o No. 2 "Because there may be upstream and/or downstream diversions of water, there may be cumulative impacts to fishery resources And habitat in the main stem Gualala River and lagoon from the Sea Ranch Water Company's (Company) diversion during the period from June 1 to November 30 of each year." [See page 1 of letter of March 30, 1994 from James Kassel, Division of Water Rights, to Robert J. Baiocchi, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; Application 29466]

Under the California Environmental Quality Act and its Guidelines, the potential adverse cumulative impacts to steelhead trout and Coho salmon resources resulting from the proposed project and other existing projects as well as future project must be evaluated in the Draft and Final EIR and mitigated to less than significant. The conclusion reached by you concerning these issues is deficient and lacks foresight, and violates Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines. [See page 2 of letter of March 30, 1994 from James Kassel, Division of Water Rights, to Robert J. Baiocchi, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; Application 29466]

Your conclusion did not disclose the potential cumulative impacts to the steelhead trout and Coho salmon resources from the proposed project and existing projects during below normal and drought conditions in the South Fork Gualala River, main stem Gualala River and the Gualala River Lagoon. We believe a biological opinion and conclusion should be made by the Division's Environmental Unit. The Environmental Unit has a staff of CEQA experts and environmental specialists. [See page 2 of letter of March 30, 1994 from James Kassel, Division of Water Rights, to Robert J. Baiocchi, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; Application 29466]

Your letter of March 30, 1994 did not disclose the number of diversions in the Gualala River watershed. i.e. the number of diversions, the names of the diverters, the amount of diversion, season of diversion, etc. Without this information we believe you cannot reject the CSPA protest without you specifically knowing exactly what is being diverted and cumulatively used and the resulting potential adverse cumulative impacts to the steelhead trout and Coho salmon resources from the proposed project and existing projects during below normal and drought conditions in the South Fork Gualala River, main stem Gualala River and the Gualala River Lagoon. [See page 2 of letter of March 30, 1994 from James Kassel, Division of Water Rights, to Robert J. Baiocchi, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; Application 29466]

Your interpretation of Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations is in error of those regulation and violates the CSPA due process rights. The CSPA protest contained a statement of facts as required by Section 745 (c) and Section 749. Supporting facts and evidence were included in the CSPA protest as clarified in this letter of comment. [See page 2 of letter of March 30, 1994 from James Kassel, Division of Water Rights, to Robert J. Baiocchi, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; Application 29466]

When there exist conflicts with allegations made by the applicant and by the protestants, and the parties cannot resolve the protest, a hearing is held by the State Water Board to evaluate evidence and alleged facts. Now is not the time and the format to review alleged facts and evidence. The hearing process and hearing record will give the State Water Board the basis to make a finding and order a decision on Application 29466 and Permit 15358.

The opinions expressed by you in your letter are not a matter of fact or evidence supported by the State Water Board's records and state law. However, you did not disclose and submit to me the evidence and facts which supports your claims to reject the CSPA protest.

In order to determine whether your claims were factual and based on evidence please forward the following documents.

1. The cumulative environmental analysis prepared by the applicant that shows that there will be no adverse cumulative impacts to steelhead trout and Coho salmon resources during below normal and drought conditions from the proposed project and other existing projects in: South Fork Gualala River; Main Stem Gualala River; and the Gualala River Lagoon. [See Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines]

2. The cumulative environmental impact analysis for the South Fork Gualala River and the main stem Gualala River which was approved by the State Water Board which provides the evidence that there will be no cumulative impacts to steelhead trout and Coho salmon resources during below normal and drought conditions from the proposed project and other existing projects.

3. The environmental findings made by the staff of the Division's Environmental Unit which documents that there will be no direct and cumulative impacts to steelhead trout and Coho salmon resources during below normal and drought conditions from the proposed project.

4. A copy of the hydrology analysis prepared by the applicant which shows there is sufficient daily flows in the South Fork Gualala River during below normal and drought conditions to support the proposed project and prevent adverse impacts to the public trust steelhead trout and Coho salmon resources.

o No. 3 "The staff of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is not specifically responding to the comments received on the draft EIR, and as lead agency it is the duty of the SWRCB to do so." [See page 1 of letter of March 30, 1994 from James Kassel, Division of Water Rights, to Robert J. Baiocchi, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance; Application 29466]

You claim that the above mentioned issue is not relevant to Application 29466 and cannot be answered by the protestant. You further stated that it is inappropriate to use the protest procedure relative to applications to appropriate water for raising issues regarding compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

We totally disagree with your conclusions concerning your opinion that protestants filing environmental protests cannot base their protest on the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and its Guidelines. Environmental protest based on CEQA grounds have been filed by the CSPA and other parties with the State Water Board. Those protests have been accepted by the Division of Water Rights. Section 745 (c) of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations does not expressly deny protestants filing environmental protests based on the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and its Guidelines. In fact Section 745 (c) provide for protestants to submit allegations whether the proposed appropriation is contrary to state law.

Secondly, you stated that allegation No. 3 is not relevant to Application 29466 and cannot be answered by the protestant (CSPA). Apparently you do not understand what we stated in our protest. Again, it is the responsibility of the State Water Board as the lead agency to specifically answer comments to the draft EIR. It is not appropriate for the applicant to answer said comments to the draft EIR because the answers are self serving and may not be in compliance with; (1) CEQA and its Guidelines; (2) Fish and Game Code 5937; the Public Trust Doctrine; (4) California Water Code; and other applicable state laws.

The CSPA protest was based on CEQA grounds. The statements in your letter do not satisfy the CSPA protest nor do they satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and its guidelines. Your position to dismiss a protest filed on CEQA grounds is grossly outrageous and violates the CSPA due process rights as defined in Section 745 (c) of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

Please provide me with a timely copy of the Notice of Determination and a timely copy of the certified final EIR when the NOD is filed with the State Office of Planning and Research.

o No. 4 " Permit 15358 is presently in violation of California Fish and Game Code 5937 and the Public Trust Doctrine because the environmental flow requirements in Term 14 of Permit 15358 have not been ordered into effect by the SWRCB or complied with by the Company. "

You claim that CSPA Allegation No. 4 is not relevant to Application 29466. You further claim that the legality of Order WR 90-15 and the implementation of Term 14 is not at issue with Application 29466.

We disagree with your conclusion because you are advocating the State Water Board continue to violate state law and not protect the public trust resources of the South Fork Gualala River. The fishery bypass flow requirements to protect the public trust fishery resources of the South Fork Gualala River is the heart and soul of the issue and is pertinent to Application 29466. The approval of Application 29466 without the State Water Board ordering Term 14 in effect immediately as a condition in that proposed water right permit would violate state law and not protect the public trust fishery resources of the South Fork Gualala River.

You claim that CSPA Allegation numbers 4 and 5 are not relevant to Application 29466. You stated that Order 90-15 requires the implementation of the fishery bypass term (Term 14) of Permit 15358 by January 1, 1995. You state that the legality of Order WR 90-15 and the implementation of Term 14 is not at issue with Application 29466. You further stated that if the State Water Board were to consider an extension of the date for Term 14 implementation, a water right hearing would be necessary. You further stated that the hearing would be the proper forum for the State Water Board to receive testimony and evidence.

We disagree with your conclusion. To allow the applicant to petition the State Water Board for an extension of time to implement Term 14 would violate state law and not protect the public trust fishery Resources of the river. Term 14 should be implemented in conjunction with Application 29466. Then if the applicant wants to petition the State Water Board to delete or reduce the flow requirements, Term, 14 would be in effect to protect the trust assets until the State Water Board orders differently.

In said CSPA protest we requested a copy of the draft and final EIR for Application 29466. In your letter you advised me that review of said EIRs are available at the Division's offices. You further stated that in the event we want a copy of said documents, that we would have to arrange for it to be mailed to me at a cost of 15 cents per page.

This statement is a new one on the CSPA. Your request for payment of said EIRs from the CSPA is highly unreasonable and not in accordance with past procedures dealing with CSPA protests and other environmental protests. We are again requesting a copy of the Draft EIR. We are entitled to that document at no costs as a protestant.

Letter of March 30, 1994 Violated Sections 749 and 750 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, and Also Violated the CSPA Due Process Rights

In your letter of March 30, 1994, you made the following statement:

" Your protest cannot be accepted in its present form. Please provide specific facts to support protest allegations number 1 and 2 within 15 days from the date of this letter. If we do not hear from you within that time frame, your protest against Application 29466 will be considered abandoned and rejected. " (Emphasis Added)

You gave the CSPA only 15 days to respond to your correspondence of March 30, 1994. You further stated that the CSPA had 15 days from the date your letter was written. Section 750 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations allows for a period of 30 days from the date the letter of March 30, 1994, was received by the CSPA to respond to the Division's correspondence. The letter was received on April 2, 1994. The letter was not certified. We refer you to Section 750 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations [750. Abandonment of Protest]. (Ephasis Added)

The Division has violated the due process rights of the CSPA and placed a unnecessary burden on the CSPA by the misinterpertation of Section 750 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations.

You did not gave the CSPA a reasonable opportunity to correct the CSPA Protest. You did not suggest a settlement between the CSPA and the applicant. Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations allows for a reasonable opportunity to correct the CSPA protest or to reach a settlement with the applicant.

Request of Disclosures

o You did not disclose whether the Division is rejecting other environmental protests on Application 29466. Forward to me a list of protests which were filed for Application 29466, and a list of protests which were rejected by the Division for Application 29466.

o You provided copies of your March 30, 1994 letter to two law firms and an engineering firm, but you did not include other interested parties who were involved in Permit 15358, and interested parties who may be interested in Application 29466. Why didn't you copy all interested parties to Application 29466 and Permit 15358.

In summary and as stated beforehand, as we have shown you the CSPA Protest was based on facts, the State Water Board's records and state law relevant to Application 29466 and Permit 15358. We believe your rejection of the CSPA Protest is not in compliance with Section 745 (c) and Section 749 of Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, not in compliance with state law, violates the due process rights of the CSPA, and is an attempt by the Division to avoid environmental protests on Application 29466 and Permit 15358.

We are requesting the Division to accept the CSPA Protest as clarified by this letter.

We are further requesting the Division to have the State Water Board's legal staff determine whether or not the CSPA Protest should be accepted by the Division and to determine on what legal grounds the protest is subject to rejection. Barbara Katz is the SWRCB's attorney assigned to this application. I am providing Ms. Katz with a copy of this letter, your response of March 30, 1994, and a copy of the CSPA Protest.

The purpose of the CSPA Public Trust Protest is to assure the CSPA and the public that the water right permit for Application 29466 contains Term 14 (mandatory environmental flow requirements for public trust fishery resources) as a condition, and that Term 14 is in effect at all times and is mandatory on January 1, 1995 forth to protect the public trust fishery resources of the South Fork Gualala River. We are aware that the construction of the off stream reservoir must be completed by about October 31, 1994. The CSPA would withdraw its protest provided the State Water Board, its staff, and the applicant agree to the above stated condition.

If you and/or the staff of the Division of Water Rights and the staff of the State Water Board have any further questions, please contact Mike Jackson, Counsel, CSPA, at his office at 916-283-1007 or me.

___________________________________________

Robert J. Baiocchi

For: California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

P.O. Box 357

Quincy, CA 95971

Office Tel: 916-283-3767 (CSPA Quincy Office) or 916-836-0338 (Home Office) or 916-283-1007 (Law Office)

Fax: 916-283-5017

Certificate of Service

Jim Kassel, Engineer

Division of Water Rights

State Water Resources Control Board

(Original)

Barbara Katz, Staff Attorney

State Water Resources Control Board

Bruce Fodge, Environmental Unit

Division of Water Rights

State Water Resources Control Board

John Turner, Chief, Environmental Services

Department of Fish and Game

Jim Crenshaw, President

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

Michael Jackson, Counsel

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

Bill Jennings

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

Tom Gregory

California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

Sea Ranch Water Company

c/o James V. Daugherty

Brelje & Race Consulting Engineers

P.O. Box 1895

Santa Rosa, CA 95402

Daniel Taaffe

Payne, Thompson, Walker and Taaffe

Steve Lowenthal

Farella, Braun and Martell

Interested Parties