By Jim Steele
About 50 years ago I was assigned to a headquarters team in the Department of Fish and Game to analyze projects in the new CEQA process required of agencies approving projects. The chief complaint leading to new legislation was approving agencies such as county planning departments or state agencies ignored the concerns of resource agencies and the public regarding sensitive habitats and species. Wetlands and special species were being lost at an alarming rate to pollution, urban expansion and transportation routes.
Our job at the time was to develop a stance letter that the Director would sign. We needed to keep both the spirit of the commenter and the law so the Department was consistent in its policies. In reviewing over 6,000 EIR’s we noticed an interesting trend developing from some project proponents. The description of the project area, which was required to outline the resources that might be impacted, very often missed important detail. No sense in mentioning a project altering or stopping detail is there?
This tactic sometimes called the “Attorney’s Dodge” was probably used to see if anyone is even looking. We used that reference because in investigating through people close to the proponents, the final attorney’s review was where some detail was lost. This makes me wonder if PG&E’s draft Potter Valley Hydroelectric Project Surrender Application and Decommissioning Plan hasn’t suffered the same fate. If valuable resources dependent on the headwaters lake of Pillsbury are ignored maybe people will think they are not important or relevant. Of course there are only a few people living near the lake to bear witness compared to the many thousands concerned about water supply downstream.
For leaders making decisions, the natural history above the dam should begin back when trappers removed beavers from what became Gravelly Valley due to loss of beaver structures flooding the flat features of the area. Add a dam and the lake becomes again a giant beaver pond. The difference is that migratory fish passage was lost. Above the dam, healthy resident fish populations still exist as do Tule’ Elk, and many of the forest creatures dependent on water. Where is that historical detail and potential impacts in the report?
The preferred alternative for decision makers would be to review wildlife response to water in the upper reaches and promote the features necessary for a proper ecological restoration. The issue is not just about fish passage as the water proponents or PG&E attorneys would have you believe. Beaver dams used to be prevalent throughout California, supporting grow-out areas for young anadromous fish preparing for a downstream run and the smolting process that readies them for the ocean. Eagles, deer, elk, bear, fish, beaver, mink, otters, not to mention aboriginal tribes depended on year-round water. The dam just rekindled this dependence and reestablished an ecosystem.
A decommissioning project could include either a two way fish bypass around a modified dam or if it’s removed, check dams that pond water to support historical wildlife. Beavers will take a while to establish but soon can keep the ponds in repair. Campgrounds, trails of all stripe to reach the National Forest resource treasures will allow residents, visitors, tribes alike to enjoy the North-most end of Lake County and restore the economy. Now that’s restoration PG&E.
Absent leadership from the Governor who recently praised the leadership of others who raise and release beavers, who will create a plan for restoration needed in Lake County? The land partly belongs to PG&E who is trying to look the other way. How about major landowner U.S. Forest Service, or the Federal Regulatory Commission overseeing the decommissioning, or even the two Congressmen representing the Federal Government’s actions? It took a village to build the dam, it will take one to bring it down.
