Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dianna Suarez, Colfax, Placer County, CA November 12, 2017 [email protected]
Response to Proposition 1 WSIP Application Nevada Irrigation District, Centennial Reservoir
Following are my comments on the NID WSIP submission
Proposition 1, Chapter 7 Regional Water Security, Climate and Drought Preparedness (Water Code § 79740 – 79748): The Nevada Irrigation District (NID) application does not meet the majority of this intent because NID does not intend to collaborate in managing the region’s water resources and setting regional priorities for water infrastructure. Chapter 8, Water Code section 79751 According to an NID press release dated August 10, 2017 about the Aug. 9th NID Board Meeting; (http://nidwater.com/2017/08/18081/) “In light of public comments, the Board unanimously provided direction to the General Manager to not transfer water outside the District as part of a Proposition 1 grant.” NID has repeatedly assured their ratepayers that they will not sell water out of district. Under the Program Requirements Tab, A.1: Delta or Tributary Measurable Improvement, the NID WSIP application given to the Board and the public at that time clearly states, “The proposed project does not provide measurable improvement to the Delta Ecosystem or tributary to the Delta.” Q3 In this tab the application states that no Wild and Scenic River is affected by the project. The Yuba River is a Wild and Scenic River Under (California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Public Resources Code section 5093 et seq., or the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act pursuant to 16 U.S.C. §1271 et seq.) Eligibility and General Project Information Tab A
The northern area within the Eligibility and General Project Information Tab A.3 figure 1: Project Description is not within the Bear River Watershed. The described area is within the upper Yuba River Watershed. The Yuba River is a Wild and Scenic River Under (California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Public Resources Code section 5093 et seq., or the Federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act pursuant to 16 U.S.C. §1271 et seq.). Fully two thirds of the water currently flowing down the Bear River is taken from the Wild and Scenic
Dianna Suarez, Colfax, Placer County, CA November 12, 2017 [email protected]
Yuba River. There is an expectation and a concern that additional water from the Wild and Scenic Yuba River will be needed to fill an additional reservoir. The request for water rights submitted to the California State Water Resources Control Board for the Centennial Project (Application 5634, Sept. 26, 2014) was specifically for the precipitation falling exclusively within the Bear River Watershed. The project area described in the environmental documents does not include the described headwaters in the Upper Yuba River Watershed and the resulting effects on the Yuba River flows. The environmental analyses will be incomplete as they will not include the full landscape affected by the proposed project. The Project Overview and Study Area fails to mention that both Rollins and Combie Reservoirs are not totally within the NID Service area. The Bear River is the boundary between Nevada and Placer Counties. Fully half of the Bear River Watershed lies within Northern Placer County, an area not within the NID District and with no vote for the NID Board of Directors. (There is a small area near North Auburn inside Placer County that NID serves located far from the project area.) The residents of Placer County do not support this project. Eminent Domain is being used to take away the homes of Placer County Residents without their permission or representation. (see “Walls” attachment) Q.6 asks if the project affects a groundwater basin. NID answers “not applicable” but it does affect a groundwater basin. The North American Sub Basin under the Western Placer Groundwater Management Plan, (http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/docs/GWMP/SR33_WesternPlacerCounty_GWMP_2007.pdf) page 75, section 3.7.4, Protection of Recharge Areas states, “The run off characteristics and recharge potential of the soil throughout the Lincoln area have been investigated and mapped providing a qualitative indication of a real potential for deep percolation of surface water into the aquifer systems…. Current recharge that may be of interest include the following: Nevada Irrigation District, Bear River-Use of NID Canal to deliver raw surface water to recharge basins.” This is part of a larger water supply resiliency program. This is the water storage that NID should be pursuing. A key question to be asked is; Why did NID not pursue funds for injection wells to utilize the much larger storage available in the North American Sub Basin under Lincoln, the area where most of its growth is expected?
Dianna Suarez, Colfax, Placer County, CA November 12, 2017 [email protected]
The Project Overview and Study Area mentions a 7 mile stretch of river. This, 7 miles of Bear River, is the last portion that is still accessible to the recreating public. The upper Bear River begins in a meadow that includes a trail. Other than that, the Bear River is inaccessible due to industrialization and private property holdings. The main stem of the Bear River is 73 miles. This River is consumed with diversions, canals, tunnels, fore bays, pipelines, hydro plants, reservoirs, and private property. This remaining 10% of River is all that is left and should remain as mitigation for the gross overuse perpetrated upon this severely impacted watershed. Unfortunately it appears that NID’s plan for the Bear River is more of the same.
One question that has come up in the NID Board meetings is; How many places in California have 3 reservoirs back to back along 17 miles of river? And how many rivers have 5 reservoirs on them? It seems that NID has 10 reservoirs for a total of 280,380 acre feet of storage. Five watersheds contain these Reservoirs. The Middle Yuba watershed has 2 reservoirs, Milton and Jackson Meadows holding 69,500 acre feet. Canyon Creek watershed has 3 small reservoirs and Bowman Reservoir holding 89,460 acre feet. Jackson Creek watershed has a small 1,330 acre foot reservoir. Deer Creek watershed has one reservoir holding 48,547 acre feet. Then there is Bear River watershed with 4 reservoirs Rollins, Combie, Lake of the Pines on Magnolia Creek and Camp Far West for 177, 588 acre feet stored already. With the new proposal, Bear River watershed would have 5 reservoirs holding 287,588 acre feet. That is more than the entire current capacity of the Nevada Irrigation District in one watershed. And that is overkill! NID’s “stewardship” of our Bear River Watershed is criminal!
NID is a small irrigation special district over in Nevada County. What circumstances have given this poorly equipped group jurisdiction over a neighboring watershed in an adjacent county? Placer County has enacted a Legacy Plan to protect the natural features we all enjoy. Placer County planners initiated the Placer County Conservation Plan to facilitate landscape level planning over mixed ownership areas. https://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planning/PCCP.aspx
“The Placer County Conservation Plan (PCCP) is a County-proposed solution to coordinate and streamline the permitting process by allowing local entities to issue state
Dianna Suarez, Colfax, Placer County, CA November 12, 2017 [email protected]
and federal permits. The proposed PCCP is a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under the Federal Endangered Species Act and a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) under the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act . As proposed, the PCCP would include the County Aquatic Resources Program (CARP) to issue permits related to the Federal Clean Water Act and the California Fish and Game Code. The CARP component would distinguish the Plan as a nationally unique model of natural resource management. In proposing this streamlined process, both costs and uncertainties would be reduced substantially, thus ensuring a more efficient use of public dollars. Furthermore, the proposed PCCP is a landscape-level plan so that each project would be issued permits based on how it contributes to the County’s natural, social, and economic health now and in the future.” The area currently threatened by the project has not yet been analyzed under this plan because of lack of funding. The plan is complete for southern Placer County where the bulk of development has occurred, paid for by developer’s fees. NID will need to pay for completion of this plan for the northern portion of Placer County within Bear River watershed in order for the citizens of northern Placer County to receive the same consideration. This has not been done and the plan will take multiple years to complete. On page 24 of the application, NID goes from discussing the 2015 Capital Improvement Program for the Raw Water Management Plan to a 1957 Department of Water Resources California Water Plan (Bulletin No. 3). Isn’t that kind of outdated? Then, even worse, it goes on to put forward the 1926 NID Reconnaissance Project on Bear River, and the development plan was done in 1924! Our environment has changed significantly since then. I sincerely doubt that even back then, the surveyors intended to put a dam at every available point on our Bear River. Why is NID using such outdated planning documents? These plans should have been discarded long ago and new technologies in water management investigated. The 2007 Western Placer County Groundwater Management Plan would have been a better up to date planning document for NID to use in this process. http://www.water.ca.gov/groundwater/docs/GWMP/SR33_WesternPlacerCounty_GWMP_2007.pdf
Dianna Suarez, Colfax, Placer County, CA November 12, 2017 [email protected]
Resolution: At the August 9th NID Board Meeting, a resolution was brought up that created quite a discussion. This is because the application for this project had not been vetted, or even discussed amongst the NID Board and certainly not the public. They were being asked to vote affirmatively on this application, sight unseen. General Manager, Rem Scherzinger, assured the Board that this was only a way to get their “foot in the door” to receive proposition 1 money from the state. Director Webber questioned whether the district would be obligated to send water out of district. She stated that if this happened, then out of district urban water users would have a higher priority than local agriculture users in the case of another drought. Director Wilcox stated that they are not getting enough money for their water under this diminished payout of only 12 million dollars. The original expectation was to get the entire sum to pay for the dam. The General Manager assured the Board that they were not committing to anything and could pull the application at any time.
At the following NID BOD meeting, a representative from the Association of California Water Agencies made a presentation. It received a lukewarm response from the Board and 3 members stated that they would not support sending water out of the NID district except to South Sutter WD because they already sold them water. When asked if they would consider withdrawing the application; Director Miller said, “Sure.” And Director Wilcox said, “That is a discussion for another time.” So when the vote occurred the Resolution was not well understood or trusted. According to an NID press release dated August 10, 2017 about the Aug. 9th NID Board Meeting; (http://nidwater.com/2017/08/18081/) “NID’s Board of Directors unanimously voted to approve Resolution #2017-24, a preliminary funding application to the California Water Commission for the Centennial Reservoir proposed project. The application, at the request of the CWC, is intended to gauge interest in potential Proposition 1 funding requests from California stakeholders. The resolution and application is not a guarantee or offer of funding, but rather an administrative requirement from the state. Those in attendance voiced concern regarding the potential to connect Proposition 1 funds with out-of-district water sales. In light of public
Dianna Suarez, Colfax, Placer County, CA November 12, 2017 [email protected]
comments, the Board unanimously provided direction to the General Manager to not transfer water outside the District as part of a Proposition 1 grant.” NID has repeatedly assured their ratepayers that they will not sell water out of district. The general manager added, “at this time.” There is distrust between the rate payers, the Board, and the general manager. From WSIP Rules and Public Participation: The water bond’s storage money can only be used for funding “public benefits” resulting from storage projects. For any given project, at least half of these benefits must be for improving ecosystem conditions. Other qualifying benefits include better flood protection, recreation opportunities, emergency supplies, and water quality. The NID application says: “The proposed project provides ecosystem public benefits through habitat acreage.” This is the manufacture of engineers. They can increase the shoreline and “open water habitat” mathematically by filling a reservoir but pay no attention to the quality of the habitat. There is an immense difference between a fluctuating shoreline of eroding dirt that constitutes most of the reservoir “wetland” acreage compared to the living, riverine, riparian ecosystem that will be destroyed. Additionally NID has spoken of storing cold water to be released for habitat down river except there are 2 more reservoirs downriver, one immediately below the proposed site. Why would we destroy existing habitat to provide cold water when a cold water fishery exists already in a perfect place with a 200 acre park and surrounding land with compatible land use? According to the application: Approximately 1,300 acres of open water habitat created by the proposed project during maximum pool conditions would replace approximately 188.2 acres (Bear River [183.005 ac]; Ponds [5.218 ac]) of open waters identified in the wetlands delineation of the projected area of inundation. In addition to the Bear River and pond, “other waters” habitat, the project would inundate or otherwise affect other habitats considered waters of the U.S. including perennial marshes, riparian wetlands, seasonal marshes, seasonal wetlands, seasonal wetland swales, and seeps, as well as drainage and other features including the ephemeral drainages, intermittent drainages, perennial creeks. The total area of these habitats is 22 acres. These are exactly the type
Dianna Suarez, Colfax, Placer County, CA November 12, 2017 [email protected]
of quality wetland features that are most desirable and cannot be replicated in a reservoir. These preexisting natural wetlands provide a diverse riparian ecosystem with a wide range of habitat that extends into and nourishes the entire watershed encompassing thousands of acres. These natural features are the living water seeping through the land. How can you quantify the blood vessels that flow through your body and replace them with a bigger pool of blood just sitting in your gut? It does not work, you will not live like that. The true acreage of the riverine wetlands would be more than double what the reservoir offers because the water would be coursing through that landscape. This is not represented in the data that will be input into the mathematical models that determine cost benefit. The cost is much higher and the “benefit” is degradation.
The idea that this industrial water storage facility will produce quality wetlands can be judged by the current condition of Rollins Reservoir directly up stream of the project site. There are not many wetlands or riparian areas because the banks are steep red dirt, the vegetation is manzanita and pines, and the water level fluctuates to promote water sales and hydroelectric sales, NID’s highest priorities. NID’s Ecosystem Priorities Application Worksheet (August 2017) states “Operations would not be altered for the purpose of wetland habitat development and maintenance.” The wetlands would not be established because they would not remain wet. Rev9 states, “Although, enhanced wetland and riparian habitat is inherent to project implementation it is not the primary factor in siting the proposed project.” The application does not demonstrate that operating a reservoir would increase wetlands, they assume it. There are no studies in the local area to assert these findings. That is inadequate and not scientifically validated. The canyon where the project is located is so steep that the speed limit on the proposed reservoir will be 5 mph to lessen the erosion that is inevitable. For comparison, Rollins is a speed boat and jet ski reservoir and still has eroding dirt banks. From the Centennial Ecosystem Priorities Application Worksheet (August 2017) REV 9: “The area inundated by the proposed project would be located in a narrow canyon of the Bear River and
Dianna Suarez, Colfax, Placer County, CA November 12, 2017 [email protected]
would result in a deep, narrow reservoir.” This describes steep, eroding, mud banks. The shore of Rollins Reservoir is eroding mud, or desertification down to the water level. The changes in lake level do not allow riparian vegetation to establish itself. It becomes an ecological desert. The whole premise of this project is false and resulting wetlands are vastly overestimated. The environmental benefit claimed is misleading and will produce flawed outputs. The seven miles of the Bear River that would be destroyed is in a canyon of continuous oak woodland with many old growth components including many canyon live oak specimens that are over 300 years old and 5 feet diameter at the base. (see attachment Bear River Park Avenue of the Giants) These trees would be eligible for Legacy classification under the not yet complete, Placer County Oak Woodlands Management Plan. This is the last continuous oak woodland at this elevation in the region as the intense pressure of development in Placer County, one of the fastest growing counties in the state, has led to development of most areas. This woodland extends from the Spenceville Wildlife Refuge all the way to the American River. It constitutes a major wildlife corridor that would likewise be destroyed. (see attachment Dear California Water Commission) Recreation: The proposed recreation component of the NID application is similarly misleading. The existing recreation along the Bear River in Placer County, specifically Bear River Park, has served the people of Placer County for many generations.
file:///C:/Users/Toshiba/Downloads/BearRiverCampgroundVisitorsMap%20(5).pdf http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/facility/parks/parks-content/parks/bear-river-park-campground The entire 7 miles of river from the Ben Taylor crossing to the Dog Bar Bridge is accessible to the public and is a navigable waterway covered under the Public Trust Doctrine. The main component is the 200 acre Bear River Park, including day use, a family campground and group campgrounds. The actual use at this facility is very high because of the quality of the setting, in an old growth forest, with a functioning riparian ecosystem, robust bird and wildlife, as well as a prime wild trout fishery. Fly fishing
Dianna Suarez, Colfax, Placer County, CA November 12, 2017 [email protected]
outfitter guides, group rafting and kayaking operations, gold miners and the general public enjoy this area all year long and it is FREE!! The vast majority of resources available to the public within Bear River Park and the 7 miles of publically accessible Bear River has been reduced to 23 campsites, 2 group camps, and 2 shore side developments in the NID application. The river recreation occurring on this section of Bear River is akin to the wild popularity of the American River Canyon in its infancy. Rafting, tubing, and kayaking the 7 miles between Bear River Park and the Dog Bar Bridge access is a favorite seasonal activity. The Park is growing in popularity as people travel from outside our region to enjoy the beauty, openness and spirituality of this place. This Park is included in the Placer County Parks and Trails Master Plan Project. Bear River Park is the future opportunity for Placer County and the little town of Colfax to thrive. In Placer County, Hidden Falls Park has begun taking reservations because of the public’s demonstrated desire for parkland in Placer County. Bear River Park at 200 acres adjacent to a PG&E Stewardship Council Parcel (recreation easement) offers prime open space and more miles of trails than NID represents. The 7 miles of river is called “highly regulated” in NID terms but is joyfully accessed as a navigable river by kayakers, tubers, fly fisher people, gold panners, and others throughout its entire course making the recreation area much larger than represented. This portion of flowing river is subject to the Public Trust Doctrine which will be asserted throughout the proceedings. A major problem with this project is logistical. Everyone living on the Placer County side of the Bear River would lose access to the water because of the Bear River Canal which runs along the proposed project high water mark for the entire shoreline on the Placer County side of the river. This is clearly shown in NID Application Benefits Calculation, Monetization, and Resiliency Tab A.1: Project Conditions, figure 3. (https://cwc.ca.gov/WISPDocs/A1ProjectConditions.pdf) All the roads currently leading down to a beautiful river and public access will be blocked with gates and signs saying No Trespassing, No Lake Access, Parked Cars Will Be Towed Away at Owner’s Expense, just like the sign at Combie Reservoir. (see attachment photo, sign at Combie Reservoir) This canal effectively forms a moat around the Placer County side of the proposed reservoir. Even the animals will be risking their
Dianna Suarez, Colfax, Placer County, CA November 12, 2017 [email protected]
lives trying to cross dangerous canals to get a drink of water. This will be a terrible loss for all the residents on our side of the Bear River. Many families have been camping annually at the group camps for years and travel from other regions of California and out of state. The occupancy rates are much higher than the neighboring reservoir areas because there is no other place to camp alongside a river without a major highway nearby in our part of the state. The group camp reservations fill up on the first business day of each year. This year Placer County is moving to an online reservation system to better serve the public. The family campground is also full all season long. Reservoir campgrounds are much lower occupancy because of the saturation of such opportunities in our area and distance from the water. Because of the widely fluctuating shoreline they are generally located far from the water or on ridge tops. Many of NID’s assumptions and much of the data is inaccurate, unrepresentative and biased. When flawed data is input, then flawed outcomes result. (Garbage in, garbage out.) Only one world view, a comprehensive water conveyance system, is being represented. The lack of environmental documents exacerbates the problem because it keeps the existing conditions of a flowing river and viable living riparian ecosystem as well as the indigenous people and general public out of the picture. The Recreational Use Spreadsheet is also misleading in its assumptions and data. Use levels and occupancy rates will be different for a speedboat and jet ski reservoir compared to the 5mph reservoir that is proposed. Opportunity saturation for reservoir camping is also a factor because of nearby Rollins Reservoir, Scotts Flat Reservoir, Lake Valley Reservoir, and Sugar Pine Reservoir, all within our region. Another problem with the spreadsheet data is the days open. Currently Only Orchard Springs CG is open year ‘round. Peninsula Campground on Rollins Reservoir closed September 11th and doesn’t open until late May. Long Ravine CG also on Rollins closed September 17th except for 1 loop of 30 sites for RV campers. Boat owners who rent the $1,000/year slips must be out of the water by September 10th and cannot go in until Memorial Day weekend.
Dianna Suarez, Colfax, Placer County, CA November 12, 2017 [email protected]
There is no reason to believe that this new reservoir with fewer services and opportunities would be able to stay open year ‘round. Suffice it to say that the occupancy spreadsheet is useless and does not represent an accurate picture of visitor days. And that of course means that the Revenue Spreadsheet and Summary is likewise worthless. I was astounded to see how much money NID plans to take from the pockets of our citizens to put into their coffers. NID wants to make as much money as possible from this reservoir and proudly inflates the profit. Another way to look at this data is to think about the value our citizens have been getting all these years from our lovely River for FREE! The value of this River resource to our citizens far exceeds the inflated figures on this contrived revenue spreadsheet. The citizens of Placer County are almost universally against this project. Our voices have been silenced because we have no vote in the NID elections. Fully half of the land and people affected by this project are outside the NID service area and are not represented by this special district, but these silenced citizens represent fully one half of the Bear River Watershed. Ten permits needed, none sought, Draft Environmental Impact Report delayed another year until fall of 2018. This project is highly controversial with many groups opposed who are now uniting to defeat this terrible idea. We are reaching out to our communities and being heard in a wide area. The costs mentioned in the proposal do not include all the collateral damage that will be done to the watershed and the people living in the sacrifice zone. The application focuses solely on the construction of the components involved with the new dam but do not include the loss of 25 homes worth millions of dollars. NID has proceeded with land purchases, some under duress and under market value because of the threat of inundation. To date it has been reported that the district has spent 12 million sunk costs on land acquisition, a public relations firm to promote the Dam, and environmental documents which have been delayed for another year. The first NOP for the CEQA document generated 300 comment letters, and the NOI for the NEPA document generated 1,000 comment letters. There will be continuing costs as the complexities of the project continue to increase. NID has no idea the true cost of any mitigations because again, the environmental documents are yet to be completed.
Dianna Suarez, Colfax, Placer County, CA November 12, 2017 [email protected]
Another cost not accounted for would be the removal of the oak woodlands currently connecting wildlife corridors across the Bear River Canyon. (see Gary Zimmerman economic analysis) The overall effect of this project related to recreation would be a gross transfer of wealth from Placer County, the current recipient of Bear River Park revenues, directly into the coffers of Nevada Irrigation District, with Nevada County pocketing the taxes generated. This is a money grab. NID’s Uncertainty Analysis lists several sources of uncertainty including water supply impacts due to climate change, changes in water management, projected customer demand uncertainty, and drought. These would impact recreation and ecosystem and non public benefits like water supply. NID goes on to explain that water runoff and carryover water are their 2 sources of water that would be impacted by drought. They have only a reservoir to face these problems and talk at length about thermocline depth and carryover storage. NID has limited itself to a single tool to face the challenges of future climate uncertainty, a reservoir. What is missing is the complete picture of a healthy watershed surrounding a living river with intact riparian communities feeding it and storing water in the various wetlands currently existing along the 7 miles of flowing river. They have not embraced another tool that is available in the aquifer available under the city of Lincoln (North American Sub Basin, West Placer Groundwater Management Plan) nor proposed injection wells within the NID district where winter runoff could be stored for future use to the tune of over 4.5 million acre feet storage pre-drought. Lincoln could easily retrieve the water during periods of high need reducing the strain on existing reservoirs. On page 196 of 198, the application states that, “The proposed project does not provide measurable improvement to the Delta Ecosystem or tributary to the Delta.” It doesn’t help the rest of us either. Thank you for your time and consideration,
Dianna Suarez
Dianna and Cam Suarez, 1331 Sierra Oak Lane, P.O. Box 1174, Colfax, CA 95713 530-346-8564, 530-263-7200
Dear California Water Commission,
I am writing to protest the Centennial Water Storage WSIP application submitted by Nevada Irrigation District to acquire funding for “habitat enhancement” and “recreation” for Centennial Dam which would flood the remaining Bear River from Combie Reservoir up to a third reservoir, Rollins Reservoir. This plan would eliminate the Bear River in our area. On a landscape level, this project would have a devastating impact on existing old growth riparian plant communities as well as diminish valley oak woodland, valley foothill riparian, blue oak woodland, and montane hardwood. It would fragment important oak woodlands and existing wildlife habitat on both sides of the river in opposition to the The Oak Woodlands Conservation Act of 2001 and The Placer County Oak Woodland Management Plan.
Rollins Reservoir
Combie Reservoir
The large unfragmented oak woodland apparent in this Google Earth photo is one of the last areas in Placer County where public and private land constitute continuous wildlife habitat for scores of native California species. The Centennial Reservoir would destroy a large area of habitat, fragment the existing oak woodland and severely impact small mammal migration corridors by cutting off the remaining river crossings from above Rollins Reservoir near Dutch Flat, to below Combie Reservoir near Auburn, a distance of around 20 miles.
Bear River
The Parker Dam and Centennial Reservoir project is located on the Bear River which is a boundary between Nevada and Placer counties. The Placer County Oak Woodland Management Plan states, “The Oak Woodlands Conservation Act, enacted by Chapter 588, Statutes of 2001, recognizes the importance of California’s oak woodlands, how they enhance the natural and scenic beauty of California, the critical role of the private landowner and the importance of private land stewardship.”
The Placer County Oak Woodland Management Plan , (the PCOWM Plan), further states that “The County has recognized the value of native trees over the years through the adoption of both policy language and ordinances. The 1994 Placer County General Plan Policy Document and numerous community plans contain policy language, which is explicitly written to protect woodland habitat. Moreover, in 1987, Placer County adopted a tree ordinance (Chapter 12, Article 12.16 PCC). In addition, Placer County has developed the Placer Legacy Open Space and Agricultural Conservation Program to protect and conserve open space and agricultural lands. Placer Legacy has identified oak woodlands as natural communities with the single greatest opportunity for large-scale conservation. Placer County is working with landowners through easement agreements and education
to protect our oak woodland resources.” Recently the Placer Land Trust received a conservation easement for two large parcels within the proposed flood zone to “preserve and/or enhance the existing environmental and economic benefits of the watershed lands…” These lands are not located within the Nevada Irrigation District boundaries. (Appendix B, 1) Four different types of Oak Woodland are defined in the Plan, all of which are present in the Bear River drainage; valley oak woodland, valley foothill riparian, blue oak woodland, and montane hardwood. Specifically valley oak woodland and valley foothill riparian are a priority for restoration, not obliteration. In Placer County, valley oaks are typically associated with riparian corridors. A large intact woodland remains on the Bear River according to the PCOWM Plan, and it further states, “The remaining valley oak woodlands should be protected and restoration should be a priority. Impacts to valley oaks should be avoided particularly when they are part of larger unfragmented woodlands or connected to other unfragmented ecological landscape”…. “The valley foothill riparian community provides resources that make it the most bio-diverse, densely populated habitat in the western United States, and it plays a crucial role in the migration and dispersal of wildlife as they use these riparian habitats for movement corridors (Rogers etal., 1996).” “Valley foothill riparian habitat in Placer County, like most regions in California, has seen a significant reduction in acreage since European settlement of the region. Clearing for agricultural practices, flood control, infrastructure development, road construction and land development have eliminated much of the riparian forests of western Placer County. Remaining habitat is associated with major stream corridors and the American and Bear Rivers. Auburn Ravine, Dry Creek and Coon Creek contain the largest expanses of contiguous valley foothill riparian in Placer County today.” We need to preserve this oak woodland resource and associated wildlife habitat more than we need another reservoir between two existing reservoirs that will permanently eliminate the Bear River in our region.
The proposed reservoir would also flood a popular public access area of great value to the local population, city, county and state governments. The Bear River Park and campgrounds offer free access on land owned in the public trust by the state of California, and managed by Placer County Parks for the public interest http://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/facility/parks/parks-content/parks/bear-river-park-campground . Natural History
The Bear River is part of a large network of streams draining the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. It was to these streams and rivers that the pioneers of the 1800’s came to seek their fortunes. Although the “Gold Rush” is over, the Bear River is still a valuable mining resource. However, today it is aggregate, not gold, which is taken from the river bed.
At the park’s average elevation of 1800 feet, there exists a diversity of plant life, from willows and alders at the river’s edge, to towering ponderosa pines and douglas firs along the hiking trails. Beneath these largest members of the plant community can be found a variety of grasses, wildflowers and shrubs, such as manzanita, ceanothus, poison oak, California buckeye, elderberry, toyon, bleeding heart, trillium and mountain misery. Wildlife is also abundant although most are wary of
people and are not often seen. Animals such as black-tailed deer, raccoons, squirrels, skunks, porcupines, foxes, and even a few bobcats are among the many animals living in the park. And of course, always be careful of rattlesnakes which are native to this area.
I live in Colfax above the proposed reservoir. The land on our side of the river is not within NID jurisdiction. Right now we have a rich diversity of local wildlife that migrates through our neighborhood including turkeys, deer, foxes, skunks, cougars, bear, bobcats, small mammals, and a robust population of beautiful wild birds. Multistory forests, offering critical wildlife habitat, with old-growth riparian river corridors, are being maintained on public and private land because of our rural lifestyle. Animals can travel long distances from one side of the river to the other and occupy large patches of suitable wildlife habitat. This situation creates healthy biodiversity. The mature oak woodlands in and surrounding the Bear River Canyon contain many legacy and heritage eligible canyon, interior live and black oaks. The old growth trees add to property values for the local residents and communities along the Bear River.
I walk my dog down at the Bear River Park a few times a week. There is a public river access with a parking lot and toilets open year ‘round and the Bear River Campground along the river is fully occupied from opening season to winter when the county closes it by blocking the sites with large rocks. People love that place! At the end of the access parking is a one mile dirt road leading to the group campsites that are full all season long.
Another large group of river users enjoy standing in the river all day and panning for gold. This goes on all year long. I see families enjoying the river, kids tubing in the water; and always hikers, bikers, and dog walkers. My son, his friends, and their father, tube from the Bear River Park all the way down to the bridge crossing on Dog Bar Road. UC Davis outdoor education has a class 2 kayak course on the Bear River from Ben Taylor Road to the Dog Bar bridge, about 5 miles. Other activities also benefit from the access to a beautiful and peaceful place for fishing, rafting, swimming and wading, picnicking, and just being there. And it is Free!! The American River on the other side of Interstate 80 costs $10 just to park on a dirt road. Bear River Park is a key recreation site for the local Placer County residents. There used to be a community pool in the town of Colfax. It is gone now. The kids can swim and raft at the river for free. The Bear River is the best option for an economically disadvantaged population. There are no mitigations available for this loss of opportunity for this group of people. This project will cut these people off from the only free river recreation available to them.
The geographic location and access to the Bear River Campground is unique in our local Sierra Nevada Foothills and Mountains. All the other campgrounds offering access by car and paved road to camp along a river are directly adjacent to state highways. Additionally, the land adjacent to the river in our area is flat and accessible to Elders and disabled people confined to wheelchairs. In the other campgrounds, the presence of the highway significantly degrades the camping experience due to highway noise, and occupancy rates are much lower. This access is unique to the Bear River Campground and Group Campground in the little town of Colfax. If this campground is flooded, there are no opportunities to replace that type of access.
Coupled with the unique access offered by the Bear River campgrounds is the proximity to services in the town of Colfax, a couple miles away up Milk Ranch Road. Stores that sell food and camping supplies, as well as restaurants and most of the businesses in town benefit greatly from the Bear River attracting people to this area. The economy of our town is largely dependent on the Bear River.
The town of Colfax is currently assessing the volume of revenue that flows into the local economy associated with Bear River recreation. Other aesthetic values extend to the larger community outside the town limits where property values are greatly enhanced by the proximity of mature oak woodland. According to the PCOWM Plan, “Eco-tourism is one of the fastest growing industries globally and is particularly significant in the eastern reaches of the county. Furthermore, a recent study by Richard B. Standiford of the University of California- Berkeley and Thomas Scott of the University of California-Riverside showed how real dollar pricing could be used to evaluate the relative value of open space on individual house and land prices, as well as its overall community value. The regression equation used to determine the economic value of open space was based on the idea that households maximize their utility by equating the marginal willingness to pay for an additional unit of each characteristic to the marginal aesthetic price of that characteristic. It was hypothesized that housing and land value is a function of the characteristics of the housing (size, number of rooms, presence of swimming pools, etc.), location of the units (access to job location, condition of roads), the improvements at the site (roads, fencing, utilities), and the amenity aspects of the area (view, vegetation type, access to open space). Multiple regression analysis was used to break down the relative contribution of
these variables to the overall value of the property.
It was found that the open space land has the effect of increasing the overall value of the entire community. In addition to providing important conservation values for an area, the overall value of all the land in the area increases. The effect of increasing the amount of open space land (decreasing the distance to the open space area) on an individual’s land value can be investigated by applying the results of the regression analysis. By using a regression model with a aesthetic price as the primary variable, it was determined that a 10 percent decrease in the distance to the nearest oak stands and to the edge of the permanent open space land resulted in an increase of over $20 million in the total land and home value of 4,800 parcels immediately surrounding The Nature Conservancy oak woodland reserve on the Santa Rosa Plateau in Riverside County California. Private owners receive a premium by being located adjacent to land that will remain as dedicated open space. Moreover, this 10 percent decrease in the distance to open space land and oaks also results in additional tax revenue of $160,000 annually, with a present value of $3.2 million (at a 5% percent real discount factor). In addition, previous work has shown that native oak trees on rural subdivisions may contribute as much as 27 percent to the value of the property. It is clear that natural resources in a broad geographic area contribute to the economic value of real property. This increased value provides an economic incentive for investing in oak woodland conservation. The increasing scarcity of natural resources in rapidly urbanizing areas is resulting in economic values that are reflected in both individual and community economic values promising results that can be used to evaluate how public and private investments in conservation and restoration can be justified in economic terms.”
The land, trees and animals proposed to be cut down, cleared out, and flooded, are on both sides of the Bear River. The River is the boundary between Placer and Nevada Counties. The land on the Placer County side of the River, in the proposed flood zone, is not within the Nevada Irrigation District jurisdiction. We get our water from Placer County Water Agency. The people who can speak for this area are not represented by the NID Board or the Nevada County Supervisors. We do not have a vote for NID Board members or Nevada County officials. NID did not host a scoping meeting for the public outside their District, in Colfax or Meadow Vista, the two towns within the impact zone. Their general manager went to meetings with government officials to promote their project, but an open forum for the public was not held. I attended one meeting in Grass Valley and specifically requested a public meeting in Colfax or Meadow Vista. This request was not accommodated.
We are not being represented at the water agency, or county government level. Our county supervisor has a personal stance on this issue but the full resources of Placer County to evaluate this project and stand for those of us on this side of the River is not there. There has been a lot of controversy surrounding this proposal. I have attached, in Appendix A, an online list of several articles and letters to the editors from local papers expressing citizen views that differ
from NID. The last one is an online petition signed by over 1,800 people opposing the Centennial Reservoir formerly called Parker Dam. There were around 300 comments put in to NID during the CEQA scoping and 1,000 comments for the NEPA process. I attend the NID Board meetings. Based on the people who come to comment, opposition runs 80-90%.
We look to the State of California, the entity who owns the Bear River Park land in Trust for the Public and in the Public Interest, and the County of Placer who manages that land in the Public Interest, to step up and stand for the People who otherwise have no voice in this matter. The Public Trust Doctrine is in force here. We look to the Placer Land Trust, who owns conservation easements within the proposed flood zone, to vigorously represent the values that brought us here to live in this beautiful place. This River is more to us than a water conveyance or commercial water storage facility. This River has life all around it, and this life would be destroyed.
I propose that both the EIS and the EIR take on the efforts to further the Placer County Conservation Plan and Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) for the last largely undisturbed portion of the Bear River Watershed affected by the NID project proposal, and voluntarily support the Legacy Program as outlined in the Oak Woodlands Management Plan.
In conclusion, because the voices of the opposition to this project are many and diverse, it is important that they be heard.
This project would have an adverse environmental impact, take away important river recreation opportunities, and would not best serve the public interest or public trust, please reject this bad idea.
Bibliography
1. Oak Woodlands Management Plan, Placer County Conservation Plan,
Jennifer Byous, Senior Planner Placer County Planning Services Division 3091 County Center Drive Auburn, CA 95603 530-745-3008 530-745-3080 (FAX) email address: [email protected] http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/planning/PCCP.aspx (Oak Woodlands Management Plan, .pdf link on main page)
2. CEQA AND THE PUBLIC TRUST DOCTRINE: A CITIZENS’ GUIDE http://www.marinefm.org/assets/images/Stories/public%20trust%20guide.pdf
APPENDIX A (ONLINE)
1. http://www.theunion.com/news/local-news/nid-hears-from-supporters-detractors-of-centennial-reservoir-at-scoping-meeting/#
2. https://www.theunion.com/opinion/columns/diana-suarez-whats-the-real-purpose-of-the-centennial-dam/
3. http://yubariver.org/centennial-dam-media/ 4. http://www.savebearriver.com/ 5. http://www.theunion.com/news/twi/david-ryland-centennial-reservoir-project-a-bad-idea/ 6. http://www.auburnjournal.com/article/2/29/16/bear-river-dam-project-discussion-heating-placer-nevada 7. http://www.auburnjournal.com/article/4/15/16/wrangle-on-bear-gain-lake-lose-river 8. http://www.theunion.com/news/local-news/foothills-water-network-submits-33-page-public-comment-
about-nids-centennial-reservoir-project/ 9. https://sierrafoothillsreport.com/2016/04/19/conservation-groups-question-need-for-centennial-dam/ 10. http://www.auburnjournal.com/article/10/05/16/reader-input-don%E2%80%99t-block-public-access-
bear-river 11. http://www.auburnjournal.com/article/6/06/16/reader-input-questions-centennial-dam 12. http://www.auburnjournal.com/article/6/07/16/reader-input-dam%E2%80%99s-water-would-flow-
elsewhere 13. http://www.auburnjournal.com/article/11/11/15/new-dam-plans-go-under-nevada-county-supes-scrutiny 14. http://www.auburnjournal.com/article/4/07/16/reader-input-dam-dead-end-placer-county 15. http://www.colfaxrecord.com/article/4/10/16/another-view 16. http://www.colfaxrecord.com/article/4/03/16/wither-water 17. http://www.auburnjournal.com/article/8/10/15/nevada-irrigation-district-starts-studies-new-reservoir-
dam 18. https://www.change.org/p/save-the-bear-
river?recruiter=16435849&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=des-lg-embedded_petition_view-custom_msg
Appendix B 1
State of California State Water Resources Control Board
DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS P.O. BOX 2000, Sacramento, Ca. 95812-2000
Info: (916) 341-5300, FAX: (916) 341-5400, Web: http://www.waterrights.ca.gov
PROTEST – (Applications & Petitions)
BASED ON ENVIRONMENTAL, PUBLIC INTEREST, or LAW CONSIDERATIONS APPLICATION: 5634X01
PETITION FOR ASSIGNMENT OF STATE-FILED APPLICATION: 5634 PETITION TO CHANGE STATE-FILED APPLICATION: 5634
A. Stewardship Council Earlier this year, the Pacific Forest and Watershed Lands Stewardship Council approved a conservation easement transaction that will conserve in perpetuity land adjacent to the Bear River “for beneficial public values (BPV)”. NID’s proposed Centennial Dam willwould flood the entire 50 acres of Parcels 871 and 879 covered by this conservation easement. The goal of the Stewardship Council is to “preserve and/or enhance the existing environmental and economic benefits of the watershed lands... .” ( Stewardship Council Land Conservation Plan Vol. 1, 1.2.4) At its September 21, 2016, Meeting of the Board of Directors, the Pacific Forest and Watershed Lands Stewardship Council adopted the following resolution:
• That the board approve the proposed Land Conservation and Conveyance Plan (LCCP) for lands to be retained by PG&E at the Lower Drum (Upper Pinecroft) planning unit, which LCCP describes how the proposed conservation easement transaction conforms to and fulfills the requirements of the 2003 Settlement Agreement and Stipulation.
• That the board approve the proposed conservation easement funding agreement between the Stewardship Council and Placer Land Trust. [CITE]
As noted above, NID’s proposed Centennial Dam wouldwill flood the entire 50 acres of Parcels 871 and 879 covered by the conservation easement. In addition, the remaining acres within the planning unit, which have been recommended for donation to the Auburn Area Recreation District and to Placer County, willwould also be impacted. Rather than preserve and enhance the existing Bear River watershed lands and its designated “Beneficial Public Values,” NID’s Centennial project willwould destroy existingthe fish, wildlife and plants; the mixed woodland forests; the viewshed; the outdoor recreation, including portions of a heavily used public campground and trails; and numerous historical and tribal sites all native to this riverine reach and subject to the conservation easement.
In Honor of a World Without Walls
I am a Placer County resident. I have been living close to our Bear River for almost 10 years now. The most obvious wall in our life is Nevada Irrigation District’s (NID) proposed Centennial Dam on the Bear River, the small watershed between the American River and the Yuba River. These dams are walls that hold back water and block migrating fish from completing their journey.
It turns out that NID has 10 dams in our area for a total of 280,380 acre feet of water storage. Five watersheds contain these Reservoirs. The Middle Yuba has 2 reservoirs, Milton and Jackson Meadows holding 69,500 acre feet. Canyon Creek has 3 small reservoirs and Bowman Reservoir holding a total of 89,500 acre feet. Jackson Creek has a small 1,330 acre foot reservoir. Deer Creek has one reservoir holding 48,500 acre feet. Then there is Bear River watershed with 4 reservoirs, Rollins, Combie, Lake of the Pines on Magnolia Creek and Camp Far West for 177, 588 acre feet storage. With the new proposal, this watershed would have 5 reservoirs holding a total of 287,588 acre feet. That is more than the entire current capacity of the Nevada Irrigation District in one watershed! Why do you suppose that our Bear River watershed is being used in such a destructive way?
Well. This brings me to the next wall, the wall between the powerful exploiters of resources and the economically and politically disadvantaged population in the sacrifice zone. In our local area, that would be the NID Board, who governs a water district built back in the 1920’s from remnants of the California Gold Rush; and the communities across the Bear River.
The town of Colfax has been officially designated an economically disadvantaged community for most of the past decade. None of the communities across the Bear River in Placer County can vote in any NID or Nevada County elections. There were no scoping meetings held across the River to inform these citizens. What did happen was that Rem Scherzinger, the NID General Manager, went around to individuals living within the inundation zone and told them there was going to be a reservoir and they needed to sell their homes. He said the project was a done deal and there was nothing that could be done about it. Sadly, they believed him.
Then Mr. Scherzinger went to the Colfax City Council, the Weimar, and Meadow Vista Advisory Councils and told them that they would have an economic boom because a new reservoir and recreation area was being built by NID. They believed him also. I attended a Colfax City Council meeting where 9 out of 10 citizens were against the dam idea but the Council was thrilled. Rem told them maybe they would get a sign that said “Welcome to the Twin Reservoirs”. They were dancing around the room. It didn’t even make any sense because the planned access is on the Nevada County side with only 2 acres across the new bridge in Placer County.
These communities stand to lose property values, tax revenue, and their quality of life. Even here, there is a wall between the wealthy residents of southern Placer County and the lower rent neighborhoods in northern Placer County. The Legacy Program in Placer County was funded to protect outstanding natural landscapes, oak woodlands, aquatic resources and parklands. A comprehensive planning process has been complete for southern Placer County for a decade. The northern area has not been done and no funding is anticipated. Only people in the wealthy areas to the south get to keep their natural heritage. Amazingly, the Placer County Government seems to support this system as well.
This brings me to a wall in time, a wall meant to separate the genocide of the past from the ecocide of the present. The purposeful and unrelenting taking of the water, the land and the lives of the original people needs to be acknowledged before healing can begin. In our area this genocide took the form of organized massacres.
According to the Program Timberland Environmental Impact Report for the Meadow Vista Vegetation Management Project, 2003 and a History of Placer County, Angel, 357-359
“With the discovery of gold and the consequent wave of emigration, attacks on the Nisenan became quite common. A number of permanent villages on the divide between the Bear River and the American were a notable feature of the area. In 1849, white settlers, calling themselves the Placer Blades, attacked and burned the villages, killing and scalping the men. Their scalps were hung along the Old Emigrant Road between Colfax and Auburn.”
The Barbour Treaties, negotiated and signed in 1851 and 1852, transferred title away from the tribes in exchange for a promise of large reservations, though none were ever provided to the Maidu or the Nisenan. The violence against the Nisenan was so extreme that the Army established Camp Far West on the Bear River (near present day Wheatland) to protect the natives from the emigrants.
“During the summer of 1849 a small detachment of troops had been sent to Johnson’s Rancho, on Bear River, to establish a post for the purpose of preventing conflicts between the Indians and the increasing number of settlers at the mines of the Yuba and Feather rivers…for the purpose of putting an end to outrages that were then being committed by the whites upon the Indians of that neighborhood.”
This extreme violence is documented in; Derby, George, “The Topographical Reports of Lieutenant George H. Derby, Sacramento Valley in 1849” Quarterly of the California Historical Society, Vol. XI No 2, June 1932 pp 101 & 104
The taking of the water and the land continues to this day. The proposal by the Nevada Irrigation District to place a fifth dam on our Bear River is an extension of this genocide. The mindset of this mentality of entitlement is evidenced by the very name of this proposed dam and reservoir. NID is getting ready to celebrate their 100th birthday. They will call their new dam “Centennial”, their birthday gift to themselves, financed by the rate payers and citizens of Nevada County.
It is important for every human being to stand up to this genocidal mentality and say no more! It is important for every indigenous person to stand up and say, “We are still here! You did not get us all.” All of us together must stand up for our Bear River to keep the last public access to our river open and available to all the people. All of us together must stand up and say no to the killing off of this river and the Nisenan culture dependant on it. Nem Seyo, Tu’in Seyo are names for our Bear River, tying the past to the present. No Walls.
THIS?
Entrance to Bear River Campground, Public Access and Group Campgrounds.
Milk Ranch Road, Colfax, CA
Combie Reservoir, Nevada Irrigation District (NID) NID is the Water District Proposing to build a new Dam flooding the remaining 6 miles of the
Bear River. They call it Centennial Dam. If you do not want to lose public access to this beautiful area please go to savebearriver.com to learn more about the Centennial Dam and Parker Reservoir Project; also at centennialreservoir.org. Comment to NID at 916-658-0144.
Like us on Facebook at Save Bear River.
Which Do You Want?
OR THIS?
Bear River Park Avenue of the Giants
Most of the large oaks in the 200 acre Bear River Park are canyon live oaks. There are also very large, old growth ponderosa pines and Douglas fir trees. These trees are between 300 and 700 years old. They have stood for centuries as this land and this river have gone through their seasons and the changes in weather cycles and land use.
Old growth trees were beloved by the Indigenous Nisenan people who saw them as beloved relatives and elders. The trees stood and watched the genocide of these original people by a new breed of humans who did not see these trees as living relatives to be treasured. Many surrounding areas were denuded because they were flat and more accessible to roads and railways. When the Nisenan villages on the ridge between the Bear and American Rivers were massacred and burned, the survivors ran into the Bear River canyon to escape, to these trees for safety.
At one time this Bear River canyon was proposed to become a reservation where the Nisenan could live in safety. This was just another broken promise. Now these trees are facing their own ecocide at the hands of these same human beings who do not see the sacred spirit in these ancient souls. I sincerely hope you do. Dianna Suarez
The trees that follow are; 8 canyon live oaks 5 feet diameter at the base and over 300 years old; 2 Douglas fir trees 50 inches diameter breast height (dbh) and over 40 inches dbh, and between 500 and 600 years old; the ponderosa pine is 48 inches dbh and 500 to 600 years old.
