Save Van Norden Lake and Wetlands

I would like to invite everyone to please read the letter of support from Joanne Roubique of the U.S. Forest Service for the TDLT plan to drain Van Norden Lake and wetlands. I think you will all enjoy this example of bureaucratic doublespeak as much as I did.

Van Norden Dam original plans (click for larger image)

I would just like to address a couple of the points discussed in the letter. The most important of course is the reference to public safety which is not to be taken lightly. Let’s just look at how the paragraph on safety is worded. It is true that a hydraulic evaluation of Van Norden Dam was done by Balance Hydrologics (although that report has not been made public). Now the next two sentences are the crafty ones. According to this report their engineers concluded that 5 acre-ft is pool size that would not result in increased risk IF THE DAM FAILED. Of course the real question here is WHAT IS THE RISK OF THE DAM FAILING?  This is not addressed by any report that I am aware of. You can make this argument for any dam in the country. If Hoover dam failed the results would be catastrophic. Should we tear it down? By this logic we should tear down any structure that could cause damage IF IT FAILED. What is the likelihood that Van Norden Dam would fail? While the studies have not been done, consider the fact that the 1600 ft long existing dam was built and operated safely for over 100 years in containing a 24 ft deep lake of 5800 acre-ft of water. That same infrastructure would now be required to contain a shallow lake that is 400 ft wide and 6 ft in depth at the deepest (average depth is 3 ft) containing 50 acre-ft of water (less than 1% of what it was built for). And what about requirement for a 5 acre-ft pool size? The State Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) uses a minimum volume of 50 acre-ft for dams when taking jurisdiction. They use this limit because they consider a lake smaller than this does not pose a significant danger to the public. It was publicly stated in a meeting held by TDLT by the DSOD engineer in charge of Van Norden Dam that the state did not consider it a significant safety risk. You can draw your own conclusions as to why the Forest Service has chosen to distort this issue, but it does make a pretty good smoke screen.

Willow Flycatcher

I could go on and on about the inaccuracies and unfounded speculations made in this letter (Ranger Roubique admits they have really done no analyses and have no plan yet) but let me just focus in on one inaccuracy that says it all on how to distort the truth to push an agenda. Let’s consider the Willow Flycatcher. The claim is made that “restoring” the meadow will increase the habitat for the Willow Flycatcher. For those of you that don’t know anything about the Willow Flycatcher, it is a small insect eating bird that makes it’s nest in the crooks of Willow branches, thus the name “Willow” Flycatcher. Currently it has been classified as endangered in the state of California because its habitat is being destroyed. Currently in Summit Valley Van Norden Lake supports a wetland area of approximately 70 acres that is made up primarily of Lemon Willow. The Lemon Willow is a favorite of the Willow Flycatcher. The Lemon Willow thrives in the valley right now because Van Norden Lake maintains a high surface water table, thus the wetlands. The Lemon Willow has a root depth of 20 inches which is well suited for wetlands. It is not drought tolerant and will not grow without a high water table. Notching the dam down 5 ft as planned by TDLT would effectively drain the lake and lower the water level in the valley a commensurate amount. This would mean that the Lemon Willow would be left high and dry (the new water level would be 3 ft below the roots) and it would disappear from the “restored meadow”. You only need look at the east end of Van Norden Meadow now to see that it is completely devoid of willow. The result is simple. No Willows, no Willow Flycatchers. And yet Ranger Roubique touts the “restoration” of the meadow as increasing Willow Flycatcher habitat. You don’t have to be a wildlife biologist to understand the illogic of this statement. The smoke is getting thicker.

Of course the question remains as to why the Forest Service is really opposed to a lake and wetlands in the Summit Valley. I don’t know the answer to that but I can speculate (hopefully without any distortions). The Forest Service is tasked with a huge undertaking in managing the Tahoe National Forest. It’s no secret that the federal budget is tight and the agency is underfunded making it difficult to thoroughly manage the forest (consider the poor state of much of the forest in the summit area). Lake and wetland habitat destruction is a major concern today in most of the world. As rare as mountain meadow habitat is, alpine wetland habitat is much rarer. The federal government has made wetland preservation and restoration a major goal and there is a large body of regulations governing wetland habitat today. The presence of lake and wetlands in the Summit Valley would require a significant level of effort and budget by the Forest Service if they were to choose to maintain it. It would be much simpler and require much less resources (money) to remove the lake and wetland habitat. If the Forest Service takes the valley with the lake and wetlands it would be very difficult for them to justify removing the habitat under federal regulations. However, thinking bureaucratically, if TDLT removes them before the Forest Service takes possession, they are off the regulatory hook.

Is the smoke clearing a little?

(How ironic is this that we are getting this news during National Wetlands month?)

You have probably seen the announcements from the Truckee Donner Land Trust (TDLT) of their plan to “restore Van Norden Meadow”. As readers of this site, I suspect that you might be a little confused after reading our information and then TDLT’s rationale. What we have here is a grade A example of public relations SPIN.

Artic Swans rest in Van Norden Lake on their way south

TDLT is trying to take the position that they are restoring Van Norden Meadow. They are also trying to say that they couldn’t get the water rights to maintain a lake of 50 acre-ft. I have already addressed both of these arguments in previous posts as being red herrings. I am not going to rehash the details here again (please read the details for yourself here and here). The question of course is who do you believe?  I know whenever I am presented with a controversy in which arguments are diametrically opposed and both seem to sound plausible that I like to examine the motives of the participants. Let’s take a peek.

Our motives are pretty simple. We know there is a stable vibrant lake and wetland habitat that has existed in the Summit Valley for almost 40 years. The unique habitat is a rich source of bio-diversity in the valley.  Preserving this valuable habitat should be a top priority that would be worth the relatively small investment of repairing the dam and obtaining the water rights would incur. The only enrichment we are after is the the opportunity for all of us to enjoy this wonderful natural resource.

Now before we discuss the motives of TDLT, let me reiterate that we have been long time supporters of TDLT and are still strong supporters of most of the good works that they do. However  (you knew there had to be a however), we believe that in the case of the Summit Valley, TDLT has made a serious mistake by putting finances in front of preservation. Let’s examine the facts.

• When raising the funds for the acquisition of the Royal Gorge property, TDLT supported the preservation of the lake.
• TDLT repeatedly assured many of us in meetings and personal communications that they were sympathetic to the preservation of the lake and wetlands even in a reduced capacity.
• And finally the compelling motive. TDLT completely reversed their position when the U.S. Forest Service threatened to cancel the purchase of the Summit Valley property for approximately $2 million, if the lake was not removed. It was only after this reversal that TDLT claimed that they couldn’t get water rights, and switched the rhetoric from “preservation” to “restoration”. Never mind that there is no real need for restoration, the fact that TDLT never mentions that over 100 acres of lake and wetlands will be destroyed in this “restoration” speaks volumes about how they are trying to spin this. I can understand that they are trying to make some lemonade, but please don’t try and make us drink it.

Now please don’t think that we are being naive here. We are very aware that for most things money makes “the world go round”. However, we all put that to the side when we contributed millions to acquiring the land in the first place. In fact we all gave even more than TDLT needed to make the acquisition. Now we are talking about sacrificing the lake and wetlands for a $2 million transaction, a little over 10% of what the whole acquisition will cost. You would like to think that the goal of preservation in Summit Valley is above financial motivation, but unfortunately, TDLT has chosen “poorly”.

(If you haven’t read our previous post about water rights for Van Norden Lake, you may want to check it out for more information.)

In communications with the Truckee Donner Land Trust it has become clear that part of the rationale for their plan to drain Van Norden Lake is that they claim that getting the water rights to the 50-100 acre-feet of water (depending on whether there were 1 or 2 lakes)  that would be sequestered would be prohibitively expensive and very hard to get.  This is what I was told and this is also the argument they use in their “white paper” to justify the draining of the lake.

I have already made the argument in a previous post for just how minuscule the amount of water we are talking about. TDLT shared the letter that they received from the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWR) from April 30th of this year that lays out the current water rights status (you can read the letter for yourself here). It is clear that currently the water rights for water in the Summit Valley have reverted to the state after PG&E abandoned them in 1976 when they breached the dam. The letter clearly lays out the alternatives for TDLT to proceed and the first one is to apply to SWR for the water rights. The letter also designates a contact, Michael Contreras, at SWR for questions concerning those rights. I called Mr. Contreras last week and asked him directly why it would be so hard to obtain the water rights for Van Norden Lake. I explained to him that I had been told by TDLT that it would “highly unlikely” that they could get the water rights. The first thing Mr Contreras told me is that he was not aware of any inquiries concerning water rights for Van Norden Lake that had been made to their office. When I asked him if it was indeed true that it would be unlikely that water rights for the lake could be obtained he told me that there was no reason that he knew of why the water rights could not be obtained if an application was submitted. I am not saying that he said rights would be granted, but there were no a priori reasons why they would not. My point is you don’t know if you don’t try.

I was also told by TDLT that there would probably be objections from downstream users of the Yuba water. If you do the calculations based on a flow rate of 1000 cfs (cubin ft/sec) which is probably about the average flow over the spillway at full melt,

50 acre-feet x 43,560 cubic ft/acre-ft = 2,178,000 cubic ft of water / 1000 cfs = 2,178 seconds = 36 minutes

That’s right, we are talking about a 1/2 hour of water flowing down the Yuba. Thirty-six minutes out of the nine months that the Yuba flows through Summit Valley. Is this really something that’s going to affect things downstream?

The only concerns I have heard from people downstream of the lake is for flood control issues if the dam is removed. Right now Van Norden Lake and wetlands provides a large flood buffer zone that would help to mitigate flooding in the Summit Valley. That discussion, however, is for another post.

Obtaining water rights for wildlife and habitat preservation is a very common practice in California. There are hundreds of wild life reserves throughout the state that sequester water to support wetland habitat (check out the Sacramento NWR). While Van Norden Lake is not on the same scale, it still provides refuge to a large array of wildlife.

The issue of water rights to justify removing the lake is, excuse the pun, a red herring. It is however a convenient way to put blinders on and provide cover for removing the lake for the real reason, because the US Forest Service doesn’t want to deal with the issue. That too is for another post.

 (5/21/14 Update – I have had several people comment that TDLT did not intentionally set out to mislead people concerning the lake. To be fair, this is true. However, it is also true that whether intended or not this has effectively turned into a classic case of bait and switch)

You have probably seen this iconic image of a sunrise at Van Norden Lake. If you don’t remember where you saw it, here it is on the web page on the Truckee Donner Land Trust (TDLT) Royal Gorge Outreach website.
It was just one of many of my photographs of Van Norden Lake that were used by TDLT in their fund raising and outreach program for the Royal Gorge Properties. No one supported their cause to conserve the Royal Gorge porperties more than I did. The promise was that the lands would be preserved and saved from development for the enjoyment of all of us. Implicit in that promise was that the Summit Valley including Van Norden Lake and Meadow would be preserved as the beautiful natural resource that it is. That was reinforced by many other images on their website and in their fund raising material like the image of the lake that is the current banner on their Facebook page. How many times did I hear in speeches by various “conservationists” that the lake and meadow were going to be preserved. There was also the slide in their presentation on the “Crown Jewel of Van Norden” in which they explicitly set the goal for preserving Van Norden Lake.

That was the BAIT! (And we all gave our wholehearted support for the acquisition)

This week we learned of the SWITCH.

TDLT revealed their plan for “fixing” the Van Norden Dam. The “fix” is to remove the Crown Jewel, Van Norden Lake. They plan on notching the existing dam 5 feet which will effectively drain the over 100 acres of lake and wetlands area down to a 2 acre puddle. This drastic move will remove the most biodiverse habitat in the Summit Valley as well as one of the most scenic landscapes in the Sierras. The purpose of this site has been to preserve as much of this natural resource as possible and we were hoping to save most of it with our two lake solution.  TDLT claims that they are doing this because the lake poses a public safety risk and there is an issue over water rights. This doesn’t make sense in light of the fact that they have shown in their own studies that they can lower the dam 2.3 feet to reduce the volume the lake to less than 50 acre-ft which will remove it from state jurisdiction and still maintain about 30 acres of lake and 30 acres of adjoining wetlands. The 50 acre-ft limit has been implemented by the state because they do not consider lakes below this limit of being a risk. With regard to water rights, the lake has been in Summit Valley for over 100 years and its current configuration for over 35 years. There was never any water rights issue before. And why did TDLT pay $10,000 to SLCWD for them to grant water rights to TDLT for the Summit Valley?

It is much more likely that the motivation for this drastic plan is the pressure put on TDLT by the US Forest Service. The Forest Service is planning on acquiring the land in the next two years and have told the Land Trust they do not want a dam on the property. I think part of this is bureaucratic expediency and part is the current “trend du jour” in the Forest Service to remove dams. It is true that there are many dams in the US today that really don’t provide value to the environment and could be removed. Unfortunately, this trend is also effecting dams that actually enrich otherwise less bio-diverse habitats such as Van Norden Dam. There has been a rush to restore meadow habitat in the Sierras after exploitation from logging and mining. In the case of the Summit Valley, however, there is a thriving meadow habitat in Van Norden Meadow that is complemented by an equally thriving alpine lake and wetland habitat that is even rarer in today’s mountains. It is hard to understand the logic in removing the rare and bio-diverse lake/wetland habitat and replace it with a less bio-diverse habitat that already exists in the majority of the Summit Valley. The idea that this valuable habitat should be lost so that the Forest Service won’t have to worry about maintaining it is even more troubling.

The bottom line for us is that the removal of Van Norden Lake goes against every intention that the whole effort to preserve the land engendered. The reason the lake was such good bait is because it is indeed the Crown Jewel of the Summit Valley in so many ways. Removing the Jewel will diminish the natural experience for all of us. We intend to fight this short sighted move and would welcome any support in this endeavor. Please contact us if you would like to help. Also see what you can do.

There is an argument that you may hear about Van Norden Lake concerning the water rights that are necessary any time water is impounded by a dam in California. You may hear that the lake is “stealing” water from the people of California. There is no doubt that water rights in California are a very complicated issue. It has also become clear that the water rights attached to Van Norden Lake are also complicated. We do not pretend that we are water rights experts and realize this issue will have to be resolved to implement our Two Lake solution. It is the California Department of Water Resources that regulates water rights and there is a process for application of water rights that will have to be completed. While we are not really qualified to address the legal issues involved, in this post we would like to discuss some of the history and practicalities of the situation.

First dam in Summit Valley, circa 1870
(click to see a larger image)

When you consider that the first dam in the Summit Valley was built circa 1870, almost 150 year ago, it is obvious that water rights were being exercised in the Summit Valley very early in the history of the state of California. The original dam was first built by the Yuba Canal Company that later became Pacific Gas & Electric. PG&E operated the dam from 1900-76 as a 24 ft high structure impounding a 5800 acre-ft lake, which they used to regulate the flow of their down stream hydroelectric plants. You would think that it would be a pretty safe assumption that they had the rights to that water, but it turns out that even those obvious water rights are a little muddied. When the Truckee Donner Land Trust (TDLT) acquired the land and offered to sell is to the US Forest Service, a deed was discovered from SVH Investments (developers of the Serene Lakes subdivision) that claimed all the water rights in the Summit Valley (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Water rights claimed by SVH Investments deed (the claims were completely unsubstantiated)
(click to see a larger map)

This was in the mid 60s when PG&E was still maintaining Van Norden Lake and obviously must have had the water rights, but this deed was enough to “cloud” the issue for the Forest Service.. Why this deed was granted with this claim is beyond us, but this little hiccup required that the Sierra Lakes County Water District (SLCWD), who had inherited the SVH water rights, did a transfer of their theoretical rights to TDLT in 2013 for $10,000 (see p61 of the SLCWD information packet). This is just an example of how complicated water rights can be. It is still not clear to us what exactly happened to the water rights to Van Norden Lake after PG&E sold the lake parcels to Royal Gorge and what the status of those rights are currently. We assume that those rights transferred with the property and that TDLT does currently have them. While the SVH claims were apparently unsustantiated, it is interesting  to contemplate that if they were valid, SVH then SLCWD and now TDLT would actually have all the water rights for most the Summit.

Putting the legal issues aside for now, consider the practical aspects of the water situation for Van Norden Lake. The watershed that drains into the lake is shown in Figure 2.Let’s do some simple calculations. The combined watershed areas of Summit and Castle Valleys is approximately 6000 acres is size. The summit area receives about 32 ft of snow on average (see snowfall chart). Conservatively that much snowfall melts into about 10 ft of water, 2 ft of  which stays in the ground on the summit. The remaining 8ft of water drains into Van Norden Lake and flows down the Yuba River. That means that approximately 50, 000 acre-ft of water are drained from the watershed

8 ft water x 6000 acres = 48,000 acre-ft of water

The Two Lake plan that we are proposing would sequester just a little less than 100 acre-ft of water . To put that into perspective

100 acre-ft sequestered / 48,000 acre-ft  total = .002 or .2 %

Figure 2. Summit Valley watershed

The amount of water that would be sequestered represents a minuscule amount of the total water going down the Yuba.  Moreover, that is only about .1% of the size of Lake Spaulding which impounds the majority of the water in the South Yuba watershed.

It does not seem unreasonable that the Summit Valley and Van Norden Lake and its surrounding wetlands as well as the thousands of residents and visitors to the area (both human and fauna) should have the right to a small portion of the water that naturally falls on it. The Summit Valley is also part of the state of California and while it contributes much more that its fair share of water to the state, it should not be denied the tiny amount that will preserve the valuable habitats that it now enjoys.

It is really amazing what you hear and read about the Summit Valley and Van Norden Lake when you do some research. Any place as rich in human and natural history as the Summit Valley is bound to generate many myths. In this and future posts I would like to bust some of those myths with some real facts.

A recurring myth that you hear is that before there was a dam and lake in Summit Valley, there was a pristine meadow with rich wetlands teaming with biodiversity. If we just remove the dam, we can get back to that pristine time. The first problem with this myth is lack of information. There is really very little information about the prehistoric Summit Valley whose written history is only very recent. Prior to the first American expeditions starting in the early 1840s, there is no documentation about the valley. It is true that Native Americans passed through the valley for thousands of years, but unfortunately there are no written records describing the conditions in the Summit Valley prior to pioneer settlement. Even the first American pioneers that passed through in the 1850s and 60s on the way to California were doing just that, passing through. Other than a few diary entries, there was very little description of the conditions in the Summit Valley during pioneer times.

We may never really know what the Summit Valley looked like prior to the first emigrants passing through in 1844. It was only a short 20 years later that the first commercial road , the Dutch Flat Donner Lake Wagon Road, was built and only 3 years after that that the first railroad was running through the valley. By 1870 the Summit Valley had been extensively logged to provide wood for the railroad snow sheds, stock was being grazed in the meadow and the first dam was being constructed. By 1890 there was a dam that spanned the width of the valley and formed a lake that filled two thirds of the valley. What this means is that for the large majority of the modern history of the Summit Valley, it had been completely transformed and exploited by man. There is no one alive today that knows what the valley looked like without a dam or a lake.

All is not lost, however. Fortunately in 1867 a railroad photographer, Alan A. Hart, traveled over the summit to document the building of the railroad. While the railroad line was finished by this time, the new dam was still under construction and the lake had not been created yet. The first photo shown here is taken from what is now Soda Springs ski hill looking east down the valley. The grassy meadow is bisected by the Yuba river running through it. There are already stock fences present. The second photo is also from the same location but shows the western end of the valley with old Soda Springs and the new dam under construction. The Yuba river winds through this end of the valley in the absence of a lake or any wetlands.

It is clear from these vintage photos that prior to the construction of the dam there was no “natural” lake or wetlands in the Summit Valley. The meadow would have of course been completely saturated with water during the snow melt every year, but it would have gone seasonally dry by July or August (depending on the snow pack), once the melt water had drained down the Yuba.  Without a dam to hold back some of the water, no lake would have formed and no wetlands could have been supported. The valley then would have supported just wet meadow, riparian and  mixed conifer habitats. The open lake and wetland habitats that provide rich biodiversity today were not present. By definition, wetlands require a surface level water table and without a dam that would not happen in Summit Valley.

It is, therefore, a myth that the Summit Valley supported rich wetlands prior to the damming of the valley. Moreover, the removal or reduction of the lake will result in the concomitant removal or reduction of the wetlands that currently exist in the valley. The absence of this rich source of biodiversity would be a loss for all of us.

One of the questions I’m hearing about our efforts to preserve Van Norden Lake and its surrounding wetlands is “Why now?” This question can be looked at in two contexts; “Too early” and “Too late”.

Sand Hill Cranes stop over on their way north

Too Late

Some of you that are unaware of our efforts may ask why we didn’t do more during the outreach program that the Truckee Donner Land Trust (TDLT) conducted last summer. The reason that you may not have heard much about our efforts in the last 6 months is because we were trying to work quietly with the Land Trust to convince them that the best course of action was to preserve the lake and wetlands. After the acquisition of the lake by the Land Trust and the situation with the lake and dam became clearer, we presented our solution for a second lake early last summer. As our plan was examined by the various agencies involved it was necessary to modify the plans to meet government and safety requirements (see the current Two Lake plan). We continued to work with the Land Trust during the fall to hone out a plan that would work for everyone. We can say unequivicoly that working with Perry Norris and John Svahn of the Land Trust was a productive and positive experience. We felt that the Land Trust was completely above board with us and genuinely considered our input. Late in the year, however, when we met with the Land Trust they informed us that they were going to go ahead with their plan to reduce the lake to less than 50 acre-ft of water without our two lake mitigation plan. They further informed us that the reason was not due to the additional costs involved, but due to the refusal of the US Forest Service to accept our plan. The reason this is so important is the US Forest Service is slated to purchase the Summit Valley parcels from the Land Trust in the next two years. The reasons for the Forest Service’s refusal are unclear to us and we plan to explore it with them in the future and will report our findings here.

Too Early

Western Toad tadpoles thrive in the lake

I have heard from others of you that ask why start a campaign in the dead of winter when the lake is hidden under a blanket of snow and out of the minds of most people. Why not wait until summer when the beauty of the lake is fresh in everyone’s mind. If you haven’t read the “Too Late” paragraph above now is the time to do so. The Land Trust has a deadline for fixing the current Van Norden dam which is out of compliance. In addition they are also trying to expedite selling the Summit Valley parcels to the Forest Service which can’t happen until the dam issue is solved. What that means is that a solution has to be planned, approved and implemented this year. The planning is already in progress and will probably be submitted for approval by Nevada County this spring so that work can begin in the summer. That is why NOW is the time for launching this campaign. It is our belief that most of you enjoy the Van Norden lake and meadow as it is now and do not want to see it drastically changed (you can make your opinions know by taking our survey). We also believe that the reluctance of the Forest Service to accept the Two Lake solution ignores your sentiments for the sake of expediency and following the easier path. Fortunately we live in a country where the voices of its citizens determine the path we take, even if it means taking the harder path to gain the optimum solution. That is why we are reaching out to you now to give you a chance to exercise your democratic power. You can influence the outcome for Van Norden Lake by contacting TDLT (click here) and especially the US Forest Service (click here) to let them know that the lake and wetlands are important to you and you don’t want to lose them.

Welcome to our site that is dedicated to the preservation of Van Norden Lake and its surrounding wetlands located in the Donner Summit Valley in California. The goal of the site is to provide information to people like you that are concerned about the disposition of Van Norden Lake and generate support for its preservation. For those of you that are not that familiar with the Summit Valley and Van Norden Lake, when you have the time, you may want to view the presentation at the bottom of the page that provides some general information. The site also offers more in depth information about the history of the Summit Valley and more specifically Van Norden Lake and the current situation with the dam (See the Information page). In the coming year the Truckee Donner Land Trust will be making critical decisions about the disposition of Van Norden Lake that could result in the a drastic reduction in its size and the reduction of large amounts of wetland habitat in the Summit Valley. We offer here a plan that could prevent this drastic reduction (please review our Two Lake Solution) that we would like the Land Trust to adopt as a mitigation plan. In future posts we will be discussing the details of the plan and the situation as it progresses during this critical year. If you would like to stay abreast of events please subscribe to this log by filling out the email subscription box on the right. If you would like to make your feeling known concerning the lake and wetland, please take our survey and/or send us your feedback. Please explore our site to learn more about the Summit Valley and Van Norden Lake. Learn what you can do to help keep the lake and its surrounding wetlands thriving. I will end this first post by sharing an open letter that we have sent to the board of directors for the Truckee Donner Land Trust.

(Click on letter for full sized version)