Mr. Bruce Fodge October 9, 1993
Environmental Review Unit
Division of Water Rights
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812
Re: Navarro River Special Use Terms
Dear Mr. Fodge:
We have reviewed the proposed special terms for the Navarro River watershed. The following are the comments of the CSPA:
Permit Term U-1 - Storage Sites
Fish and Game Section 5937 requires water to be released at all times to keep fish in good condition below the dam. Permit Term U-3 provides a mandatory flow of water at all times of 100 cfs in the main stem Navarro River at the gauging station near Navarro, California. However, in cases where storage and diversion is being sought from tributaries, Permit U-3 does not provide for mandatory flows in tributaries to protect the fishery and aquatic resources, riparian habitat and riparian dependent species to be affected by said storage and diversion. Depending upon the water year type, the diverter could divert the entire flow from said tributary. Consequently we believe the State Water Board needs to require the water right applicant(s) to prepare fishery and ecosystem studies which determines the amount of water to be released from said onstream dams and/or below points of diversion in said tributaries.
Permit Term U-2 - Diversion Season
Under this special permit condition the recommended season of diversion from the Navarro River watershed is from November 15 to April 30 of each year. Taking into consideration the flow requirements of 100 cfs in Permit U-3, 100 cfs may not be applicable for upstream migrating adult and downstream migrating juvenile steelhead trout during that period. Studies need to be prepared by the applicant(s) to determine the amount of water necessary for successful migration flows for adult and juvenile steelhead trout. We believe in waterways which sustain anadromous fish, the State Water Board needs to have migration flows conditions in permits. A good example of this is migration flow recommendations by the Department of Fish and Game for the Lower Yuba River and the Lower Mokelumne River which are pending for the State Water Board.
(See CSPA Complaints)
Permit Term U-3 - Fish, Wildlife and Instream Bypass Flows
100 cfs at the gauge may and/or may not be the sufficient amount of water for all stages of steelhead trout. Studies need to be prepared by the applicant(s) to determine the amount of water necessary to protect all life stages of steelhead trout in the river.
Having all water right applicants (permittees) comply to a mandatory flow requirement of 100 cfs at the gauge will create an enforcement problem for the State Water Board. How will the Board determine who violated the requirements at the gauge when violations ocurr? How will each permittee obtain the daily data from the USGS gauging station to determine whether they can divert? (See CSPA complaints against permittees for alleged violations of mandatory fish flow requirements)
Permit Term U-4 - Preservation of Peak Flows for Sediment Transport
The 100 cfs requirement at the gauge may not be sufficient water which would allow for sediment loads to be carried down the main stem to the ocean. Studies should be prepare by the applicant(s) to determine the amount of water necessary to flush sediment loads from the watershed to the ocean.
California Environmental Quality Act
There were 13 pending water right applications pending before the State Water Board on the Navarro River watershed ranging from 1,500 afa to 6 afa. On October 18, 1991 we filed a protest against two applications (29679 and 29680) by Scharffenberger Cellars We complained to Ed Anton and Mike Falkenstein of the Division about the cumulative impacts from all pending water right application in our letter of November 4, 1991, and we requested an EIR.
Will a CEQA document be prepared for the proposed special permit terms to mitigate direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to the fishery and aquatic resources from all pending water right applications?
It is our understanding the Friends of the Navarro River and the Department of Fish and Game filed complaints with the Division concerning the Navarro River Watershed. Please advise the Complaint Unit of the Division that our letter of November 4, 1991 was a complaint and that we wish to be a party in the complaint proceedings. We would appreciate a status report of the complaints from the Complaint Unit.
Please advise me regarding our comments and what the Division plans to do regarding the CEQA process.
If there are any questions, I can be reached at my office at 916-283-3767.
Respectfully Submitted
_________________________________
Robert J. Baiocchi, Executive Director
P.O. Box 357
Quincy, CA 95971
cc: Jim Crenshaw, President, CSPA
Mike Jackson, Counsel, CSPA
Steve Volker
c/o Perry DeValpine
Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund
Interested Parties