State of California
Before the State Water Resources Control Board
_________________________________________________
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
Licensed Application No. 15083
Noyo River tributary to Pacific Ocean
Petition Change to Add a Point of Diversion on the Noyo
River
___________________________________________
Public Trust Protest
by California Sportfishing Protection Alliance
We the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance (hereinafter known as "CSPA") of P.O. Box 357, Quincy, CA 95971, c/o Bob Baiocchi, Executive Director, CSPA, have carefully read a copy of, or a notice relative to the above mentioned petition for change and to add a new point of diversion.
Water is pumped from the Noyo River, near the location where the City of Fort Bragg pumps its water, approximately two miles east of the City of Fort Bragg. Water is piped to a 200 acre-foot regulating storage reservoir on Pudding Creek. The water is used at the petitioner's pond and for plant operation.
We desire to protest against the approval of said petition because to the best of our knowledge and belief the proposed new point of diversion in conjunction with the existing diversion and other projects may have potential "cumulative impacts" to the anadromous fisheries habitat, water quality and water quantity of the Noyo River during low water and drought conditions.
Facts which support the foregoing allegations are as follows:
1. The Noyo River sustains coho salmon and steelhead trout. Anadromous fish species need adequate quantity of water, water quality and habitat to survive and reproduce.
2. There are other diversions on the Noyo River. i.e. City of Fort Bragg and an existing diversion operated by the petitioner. This project, existing projects and future projects may have potential cumulative impacts on coho salmon habitat, steelhead trout habitat, water quantity and water quality during low water and/or drought conditions.
3. "Cumulative Impacts" is defined under Section 15355 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines mandates cumulative impacts to be discussed and evaluated in a EIR. Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21087, Public Resources Code; Reference: Section 21083(b), Public Resources Code; Whitman v. Board of Supervisors, 88 Cal. App. 3d 397. San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco, (1984) 151 Cal. App. 3d 61. Formerly Section 15023.5(c).
The petitioner should be required by the State Water Board to prepare an environmental document which evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts to the environment of the Noyo River. [See California Environmental Quality Act and its guidelines]
4. The petitioner is requesting the new point of diversion to be added to Licensed Application 15083. The California Water Code requires the petitioner to file a new water rights application. [See section 1250 et seq. of the California Water Code]
5. Pudding Creek may provide habitat for steelhead trout and should provide habitat for aquatic resources and riparian habitat. Licensed Application No. 15083 may NOT contain terms and conditions which protects the public trust fish and wildlife species, aquatic species and riparian habitat affected by the storage reservoir on Pudding Creek. i.e. mandatory minimum fish bypass flow requirements, fish ladder, fish screen, etc.
6. Application 15083 may not have been subject to the California Environmental Quality Act and its guidelines. The State Water Board must re-visit the project and order terms and conditions in Licensed Application No. 15083 which protect the public trust assets of Pudding Creek and the Noyo River.
This protest is based on all applicable state statutes, regulations and rules, including the Public Trust Doctrine, Racanelli Decision, Clean Water Act, Section 5937 of the California Fish and Game Code, Article X, Section 2 of the State Constitution, Section 275 of the Water Code and the California Environmental Quality Act. (Emphasis Added)
Under what conditions may this protest be disregarded and dismissed?
None at this time. The CSPA is formally requesting the State Water Board to have the petitioner prepare an Environmental Impact Report for said change petition because the proposed change has the potential to have adverse direct and cumulative impacts to anadromous fish habitat, water quality and water quantity during low water and drought conditions in the Noyo River as well as direct and cumulative impacts on anadromous fish, aquatic resources and riparian habitat in Pudding Creek from the operation of the project under Licensed Application No. 15083. Upon review of the CEQA document the CSPA will submit dismissal terms or request a hearing before the State Water Board.
The CSPA is also requesting the State Water Board to make a finding whether a new water right application should be filed by the petitioner.
A true copy of this protest has been served upon the applicant and other interested parties by first class mail.
___________________________________________
Robert J. Baiocchi, Executive Director, CSPA
P.O. Box 357
Quincy, CA 95971
Date: July 5, 1992
Certificate of Service
Mr. Ed Anton, Chief
Mr. Ross Swenerton, Environmental Unit
Division of Water Rights
State Water Resources Control Board
Mr. Boyd Gibbons, Director
California Department of Fish and Game
Mr. Michael Jackson, Counsel. CSPA
Quincy, California
Mr. Jim Crenshaw, President, CSPA
Woodland, California, California
Mr. Bill Jennings, Chairman, CSPA
Stockton, California
Georgia-Pacific Corporation
90 West Redwood Avenue
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
Interested Parties