Let me once more for the record reiterate that the goal must be developing positive relationships to move beyond conflict. No one and nothing is well-served by blood-sport. But respectful confrontation with valid arguments and a level playing field are the first order of business. I’m not a huge football fan, but here’s a metaphor that works. Game on!

Imagine a football team thinking it could win a game without the entire team showing up to play. That’s what we do. Conservationists are moving down the field to “save the earth” like Oakland Raiders playing a five-man high school team. Our team is just trying to reach balance. They’re in a no-holds-barred fight to the finish. They’ve got money, political and spin control, and they’ve got the home team advantage.

And us? Those that show up don’t wear uniforms and have no coaches, cheerleaders, or protective gear. We mostly play defense – and not very well. The rest of our team – mainstream America – isn’t even watching the game.

Care to guess how this one ends?

Last week, a few folks did show up. Congressmen Herger and McClintock and a dozen frustrated and angry county supervisors met with USFS Regional Forester Randy Moore in Sacramento on a wide variety of forest issues. As you read in my last post, Congressman McClintock was particularly unhappy. Conservationists, while not officially present, were not unrepresented.

We’d been invited by Congressman Herger to discuss forest timber harvest yield targets, fire and fuels management, litigation and planning, the federal budget, the Forest Plan process, and the pending revision of the Planning Rule.

Congressman McClintock and Congressman Herger expressed well what county supervisors and our constituents have been hearing and saying for the last few years.  While It helped to vent – Moore listened intently and politely – we need more than that. We need action and  sooner rather than never.

Moore knows we’re in trouble. We’re losing jobs and young families: communities are hurting. He gets it, but can’t or won’t help us. He’s got his own ball game to play. Moore knows we’re playing zero-sum games – we lose more than win. So does the Forest Service.

So while the congressmen and supervisors made a good case for economically depressed communities and asked for continued access and common-sense stewardship of our national forests, it didn’t get us anywhere. The radical conservation organizations –groups that generally litigate almost every plan and action proposed  – have ensured there’s no longer a market for good stewardship.

The science driving the conservation movement has dismissed good stewardship as inadequate now to address the magnitude of the earth’s crisis. They’re demanding more drastic changes to the use and enjoyment of public and private lands and resources. A variety of crises from global warming to drought  are used to justify and advance their goals. They’re well on their way to reestablishing a natural system that hasn’t existed for generations and that’s incompatible with life as we know it.

The goal line has shifted. Human interests are not a priority.

Why you should care Right about now, you may be asking, “What’s the big deal about conservationists saving the earth? The earth they’re saving is the rainforest or Montana or something, isn’t it?” Well, yes and no.

While conservationists think and work globally, they really think and work locally. Policies and regulations that impact public and private lands and resources may be enacted elsewhere, but they are generally applied here. Most of them, when applied, in some way negatively impact our communities.

Over the last thirty-plus years, we’ve seen new environmental laws enacted and experienced shifts in public values, particularly in urban areas where the majority of voters live. As a result, we’ve seen rural economies change as mills close, cattle and sheep producers quit ranching, and tourism is suggested to replace them.

We live where we live for a reason. In California’s Sierra Nevada Mountains, many of us are here because of the awesome beauty – the forests, lakes, and wildlife – and because we love the rural lifestyle and values. We’ve built families, businesses, and futures. But we need to make a living to stay here. And the land and forests do need management.

Conservation has a big picture and plan that seeks to reset our future way beyond what has already occurred.  Yet many of you still aren’t paying attention.

We’re in a critical phase in their plan to control America’s lands and resources. Local government is uniquely capable of defending communities’ socioeconomic interests (more about that later), but many of us are just watching from the bleachers, when we show at all.

So I hope you keep reading this series and seriously consider getting down on the field with us. You can’t win if you don’t play.

Come on. Get in the game! 

For Immediate Release:

August 26, 2010
Media Contacts: Jennifer Cressy | 202-225-2511
Bill George | 916-786-5560

Congressman Tom McClintock made the following statement to the Regional U.S. Forest Service Management Roundtable hosted by Congressman Wally Herger in Sacramento on Wednesday, August 25th:

I want to thank my friend and colleague, Congressman Herger, for organizing this meeting and for his invitation to participate in it.

There are four general subjects that my constituents have brought to my attention that I feel are important to raise in this forum.

First, some of the most disturbing stories I have heard locally involve the abuse of cost recovery fees by the Forest Service. This has been a source of great frustration and evinces an attitude within the Service that I believe requires immediate correction.

For example, the California Endurance Riders Association had been using the El Dorado National Forest for many years. This time, when they sought a simple 5-year 10-event permit to continue doing exactly what they have been doing without incident for decades, the Forest Service demanded $11,000 in fees.

They paid these fees, but the El Dorado National Forest management nevertheless pulled the approved permit and halted the process on utterly specious grounds. It then demanded an additional $17,000 fee, causing the Endurance Riders Association to cancel what had been a long-term civic tradition that had been a boon to the local economy. In 2010 this outrage was repeated after the group spent $5,800 for the “Fool’s Gold Endurance Run” that had been an ongoing event for more than 40 years.

The Polka Dots Motorcycle Club tells a similar story of excessive Forest Service fees that forced them to cancel a ride they have sponsored for four decades. Likewise, the Gold Country Endurance Riders, an equestrian group, had to cancel an event they had been holding since 1993 because of a prohibitive increase in the permit fees.

I seriously question the authority of the Forest Service to exact these fees at all, since federal guidelines do not require them if the surveys or research are done in the “public good.” Moreover, it is clear the Forest Service was not dealing in good faith with these groups and that it should refund these fees in full and restore to them the full access to our public lands that they have been accorded for many years.

Second, the Forest Service is charging exorbitant Cabin User Fees to families that have had long-term possession of mountain cabins, based on peak market prices from 2007 and 2008. These inflated prices are many times the actual market price in this distressed economy, forcing many of these families to abandon cabins that they have had for decades and even generations.

Third, my office has been approached by several families that have had long-established grazing permits dating as far back as 1931, who are now seeing conditions placed on their use that are simply ludicrous.

For example, the Leavell Family has grazed cattle in the Tahoe National Forrest since 1931 and by all accounts has been an excellent and responsible steward of the land. The incidents of harassment that they have encountered from the Forest Service have been unconscionable.

With absolutely no warning, the Forest Service presented them with a letter declaring that they were in non-compliance because of cattle that occasionally stray off the land. Yet in the past, federal regulations have prohibited them from building fences to prevent that very problem. The Forest Service recently charged that the cattle were damaging Aspen stands – allegations that further inspection proved to be groundless. Having failed to make its case on these grounds, the Forest Service then ordered the Leavells to remove cabins they have maintained and paid property taxes on for 79 years.

Also without warning, the Forest Service told the Coughlin family that it was cancelling their long-standing grazing permit because of a lack of sufficient feed as determined by a Forest Service biologist. A subsequent field trip utterly disproved the biologist’s opinion – so the Forest Service next informed them that their permit is still in jeopardy because of the same wandering cows that it used as pretense in the Leavell’s case.

Finally – and most importantly, since this affects the safety of entire communities in my district – I remain concerned over the demonstrated disinterest that the Forest Service has recently demonstrated in supporting sustainable timber harvests. The expensive and labor-intensive process of twig removal cannot achieve fuel reductions that reduce the risk and intensity of forest fires. We must restore responsible and sustainable thinning of over populated forests called for in the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Restoration Act of 1998, and which the U.S. Forest Service is now thwarting in our region.

For generations, the U.S. Forest Service maintained a balanced approach to the management of our forests that assured both healthy forests and a healthy economy. Now, it seems to be following a very different policy of exclusion, expulsion and benign neglect of our forests.

My office has brought these concerns and complaints of arbitrary and capricious conduct to the Forest Service’s attention without a satisfactory resolution.

Practiced in the marketplace, we would renounce these tactics as predatory and abusive. In the public service sector, they are intolerable.

Combined, these actions evince an ideologically driven hostility to the public’s use of the public’s land – and a clear intention to deny the public the responsible and sustainable use of that land.

If the Forest Service fails to reverse these policies – and the attitude that has produced them – I intend to use my position on the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands subcommittee of the House Natural Resources Committee to press for extensive hearings during the next session of Congress into the economic damage these actions have caused.

Where’s Gary?  He DID take this photo… Come on, Gary. Post some photos of yourself, will ya?!

Gary Sipperley is an action hero. He’s a Peace Corp volunteer, talented writer, friend, and uber citizen. What he accomplished last Tuesday from Ethiopia was a big win for him and Tuolumne County.

Gary was the editor of the Sierra Mountain Times (SMT) in Twain Harte when I ran for supervisor in 2005/06. When he asked questions, I saw wheels turning. Fast ones. He was not adversarial, but neither did he try to make friends or influence. He told the truth.

He’s become a favorite constituent.

He eventually left the SMT and awhile back joined the Peace Corp in Ethiopia, working to prevent HIV there. Like other Peace Corp volunteers, he exchanged a comfortable home here  for primitive housing and work of great significance. Although his work predominantly benefits the Ethiopian people now, last Tuesday he scored for us big-time.

About two years ago,  he contacted me to ask if there was a way to get his road plowed when it snows. His home is on a non-county-maintained, very steep road that is treacherous in winter. We tried the usual channels and discovered there is a way, but the cost and obstacles to achieving it were insurmountable.

Gary wouldn’t give up. He emailed, made personal visits, spoke before the Board, and emailed some more. He even emailed from Ethiopia. Tuesday, he prevailed.

Anyone who lives on a non-county maintained road in Tuolumne County knows how frustrating it is to drive unplowed roads in the winter. When our Board passed an ordinance allowing property owners to approve a parcel tax to bring their road up to county standards, maintain, and plow it in perpetuity, staff discovered that the advance work was prohibitively expensive. Since those costs can only be recouped when 2/3 of the impacted property owners vote to assess themselves and they might not choose to do so (the advance work alone including engineering is around $10,000)  , Gary couldn’t get past first base.

He politely and respectfully continued his campaign anyway.

The first time the Board considered his request, it didn’t look good. But we asked staff to make it work. And you know what? They did. Public Works Director Peter Rei, his staff, and Counsel Carlyn Drivdahl found a way. Here’s how it will work:

The county will establish a  trust fund to be used to cover the costs of determining parcel assessments to inform the property owners. Folks like Gary and his neighbors will deposit $1,500 in advance and gather signatures from 75% of the property owners on their road so the engineering can start and a measure to consider an assessment can be placed on a ballot. Based on the subsequent high likelihood of success, the county will go ahead. When it’s approved the advance will be added to and the trust fund repaid via their annual assessment.

Gary made it happen – he scored his goal.

Good job, Citizen Sipperley.  You’re a veritable action hero!

So now the question is, what will Gary take on next? He’s got another year or more in the Peace Corp, but before he left there were still improvements in Twain Harte he wanted to see happen. A bocce ball court, for one.

Gary may be in Ethiopia, but hey, it could happen.

If Citizen Sipperley can do what he did on Tuesday, a bocce ball court should be a cake-walk for him.

Much of my career has been devoted to solving conflict:  identifying areas of agreement and seeking balance and harmony among people, agencies, and places in conflict. As you read the upcoming series, you may think I’ve abandoned that. I have not.

Until I show you how far out of balance things are, you may not see that only you – the people of Tuolumne County, California, and America –   can require your elected representatives to apply the brakes and seek balance.

 When you see the big picture, don’t get angry. Calmly and respectfully insist on  transparency and true balance between people AND the environment.

There’s a disturbing picture I need to show you. It’s disturbing both because it’s developed while we were sleeping -  without our knowledge and consent – and because it may not be the picture we want to live in.

I’ll reveal it by connecting a number of dots I’ve discovered. As you read and research what I show you, you’ll see the big picture I see.

I liked connecting dots when I was a kid. My teacher wanted to convey that numbers are sequential, but I liked discovering what was not visible until I connected the dots – puppies and burros. Dots themselves don’t reveal the hidden picture. Connected they do. Some pictures are so obvious they shout, “Look at me!” and you wonder how you missed it.

The big picture under the dots I’ll share has been painstakingly constructed by proponents of conservation. Conservation is not mere environmentalism. It’s environmentalism with a radical agenda. It espouses the need for balance and harmony between man and nature and most of us readily agree. But conservation values wild places and wild things above all else – especially man – and seeks a different balance.

It’s important to understand what people mean when they a word. Your meaning for “balance” may not be theirs. Conservationists say they want the best for the earth as do we, but again we have different interpretations. Why is that?

Conservation biology drives conservation. It’s a discipline or blueprint, a road map, and philosophy to save our earth. The theory is that balance will be restored to an earth in crisis and extinctions will slow to normal rates only by:

• Reversing and halting man-caused habitat destruction (setting aside vast protected areas like wilderness, monuments, and national parks);
• Reestablishing “connectivity”  for wildlife to move between protected areas (via wildlife corridors on public and private lands); and
• Rewilding entire continents (reestablishing large carnivores like wolves, grizzly bears, and mountain lions).

If that – especially the rewilding measure – sounds too much to believe, pause to remember that mountain lions are already reestablished, the grizzly bear is on our state flag, and wolves once roamed the state.

It’s not just rural areas that will be impacted by the setting aside of protected areas, wildlife corridors, and rewilding. Conservationists are actively conserving lands (public and private) in the LA Basin and other urban areas. The big picture of where Conservation is taking us is both overwhelming and advanced.

Conservation has achieved a measure of credibility in the environmental community since the formation of The Wildlands Network in 1991. The Wildlands Network was formed to advocate for the creation of continental scale networks of protected lands (corridors that stretch across continents, not just counties) that are connected by wildlife corridors.

Acre by acre, dot by dot, over the years conservationists have orchestrated many of the changes in the way we live and grow as communities and individuals. Some of them have been good. Others, not so much.

Seeing the big picture influences questions I ask staff and my votes as an elected official. Seeing the big picture has changed my perspective. My propensity to look for consensus on land use Board decisions has lessened considerably.

My resistance to going where we’re being taken without our knowledge and consent and my efforts to advance policies to protect Tuolumne County’s traditional values have enraged local conservation activists.

They’ve been under the radar, actively advancing conservation’s big picture in Tuolumne County for years and don’t want to slow their momentum. They and those they influence have attempted to marginalize and discredit me and anyone else who disagrees and stands up to them.

That tells me I’m on to something. Something big.

One of the first things a conflict resolution practitioner learns is that intimidating others into submission doesn’t end conflict. Neither does accommodating others to “keep the peace.” In this and every conflict, there are peace breakers, peace fakers, and peace makers. I am a peace maker.

Peace makers are not afraid to point out what’s wrong and insist that it be made right. They do it respectfully and firmly, but they do it. When everyone is compelled to come to the table and the balance of power is even, then and only then can conflict be resolved and balance be obtained.

Most of us want balance. We want to see thriving communities, productive working landscapes, clean water, fresh air, and healthy forests. To get there we must have local, federal, and state governments working together with each other and the public to achieve balance and harmony between people and the environment.

As you read this series, please check, double check, and triple check everything I tell you. Read books on conservation biology and visit the many websites devoted to conservation. Educate yourself. If I’m wrong, tell me.

I can place evidence in front of you, but you have to decide what to do with it. Act now or live with the consequences? Stand up for balance and what is right or carry on with your life while conservationists carry on with theirs? It’s up to you.

I’ll do what I can as a county supervisor and finish my term in December. In the future, I plan to keep connecting dots, looking at the big picture, and seeking balance and harmony between man and environment.

State Board Adopts Delta Flow Criteria, an analysis posted on Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard’s website at http://www.kmtg.com.

The final flow criteria were unchanged from draft criteria that the State Board released for public comment on July 21, 2010. The final criteria appear in a Flow Report (Report) featuring both increased Delta outflow and increased inflow from the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, including their tributaries:

The Report does not describe the water supply impact that would occur if the Delta flow criteria were actually applied. Some estimates suggest that water diversions from the Sacramento River watershed would have to be cut by 50 percent from November through June. Such reductions would have local, regional and statewide significance. The Report also noted its inherent limitations, in that it did not examine non-flow factors affecting the Delta’s fisheries, such as pollution, predation, exotic species or habitat loss…”

To read more, go to: http://www.kmtg.com/data/news/news.php?IDD=1181938593&IDDParent=1181938433&useSpr.

On the Flow Criteria Report

Adoption of flow report marks latest delta development, from California Farm Bureau Federation’s AG Alert.

Issue Date: August 11, 2010, by Kate Campbell, Assistant Editor

“The adoption of a controversial flow report by the State Water Resources Control Board last week marked the most recent in a series of developments involving the state’s water supplies and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. During the past two weeks, the federal government awarded a contract for a project to improve flexibility in water deliveries from the delta, and a gubernatorial appointment filled out a council charged with developing a plan for delta management.

In addition, another session of the National Academy of Sciences committee charged with reviewing the scientific underpinnings for decisions related to restoring the delta ecosystem and ensuring water supply reliability convened in Sacramento last month, and government agencies continue processes that also have bearing on water supply and delta environmental conditions.

The flow report, regarded as a theoretical exercise by most water agencies and organizations but heralded by environmental groups, resulted from last year’s package of water bills passed by the Legislature. It considered the flows through the delta needed to protect fishery resources, without considering any of the other uses for water from the delta.

In written comments to the Water Resources Control Board prior to the vote, the California Farm Bureau Federation pointed out that the advisory report set delta flow criteria that would reduce the state’s existing water supply—north, south, upstream and downstream of the delta—by nearly 5.4 million acre-feet.

The report notes this represents a 73 percent reduction in north-of-delta water deliveries and a 25 percent reduction for south-of-delta flows, from already reduced delivery levels…”

To read more, go to: http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStory.cfm?ID=1587&ck=49AF6C4E558A7569D80EEE2E035E2BD7.

And on withdrawing the Water Bond from the November ballot.

Editorial from the LA Times: Sinking the water bond at  http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-prop18-20100811,0,3329667.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Feditorials+%28Los+Angeles+Times+-+Editorials%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

“Because factions in the Capitol can’t, or won’t, compromise, nothing changes, no matter how important the issue…”

This is good news for those who are tired of being labeled extremists for seeking balance between the natural and human environments. It’s surprising news too, given that RMEF didn’t oppose the reintroduction of wolves and is generally on the same side as pro-wolf groups.

But as rural communities have known for years, the ESA needs fixing: balance is non-existent and common sense has gone missing. In this case it’s not humans vs. fish though, it’s species vs. species. Wolves win, elk don’t matter.

Why is that? Conservation groups in general adhere to Conservation Biology theory and wolves are major actors in its overarching vision: large migrating carnivorous populations of wolves, grizzly bears, and mountain lions are reestablished to slow extinctions and save the earth.  Conservationists in national, state, and local environmental groups have bought into it lock, stock, and barrel.

As they bring pressure to bear on politicians and bureaucrats, we see increasingly restrictive laws enacted and access to public lands for multiple uses disappearing. Believe it or not, Conservation Biology is driving many environmental decisions in the United States these days.

A very simplistic explanation of Conservation Biology theory is that there are too many people, too much habitat disturbance and fragmentation (habitats aren’t connected for migration), and as a result the whole system is out of whack. We are in the midst of a major extinction period that didn’t have to happen. If we limit peoples’ activities by “protecting” public and private lands and bring back the carnivores – “rewild America” – it will modify the behavior of prey species, shift consumption dynamics all the way down the food chain, and restore equilibrium to the system.

It may sound nutty, but it’s mainstream thought these days in the environmental community. More about that another day… If you want to read up on it, Conservation Biology by Michael Soule and Rewilding North America by EarthFirst founder David Foreman are good introductions. In addition, Google “conservation biology”, “rewilding”, and “The Wildlands Network” for more info.

RMEF Calls on Congress to Reform Endangered Species Act

RMEF Mission: “to ensure the future of elk, other wildlife and their habitat”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Since then, county staff has been pretty preoccupied trying to adjust to the ever-shrinking revenue stream and take their best shot at predicting how a yet-to-be-approved state budget will impact us. That’s still up in the air… Meanwhile, consultants have kept on working.

Late last week, Bev Shane, Director of the Community Development Department, said she plans to release the draft study for public review in early September and conduct a public meeting in conjunction with the Tuolumne Design Review/Planning Advisory Committee’s regular meeting on Thursday, September 23^rd. 

Comments from the public will be incorporated into the final study which has been tentatively scheduled for consideration by the Board of Supervisors on November 2^nd.

So things are moving ahead… slowly, but surely. I’ll post a link to a copy of the draft when it’s available and let you know about public meetings scheduled.

Under legislation passed a year ago, the SWRCB was required to prepare the report within a year of passage of the Delta bills – too fast for a thorough study, say some. The report adopted was seen as scientific vindication by some environmental groups opposed to building an alternative conveyance facility (Peripheral Canal). It was received by others as incomplete and skewed due to its limited scope in only considering habitat and water quality needs.

Before adopting the report, the Board deleted an appendix that indicated draconian reductions by state and federal water contractors and upstream water users would be necessary for water quality and habitat in the Delta. The appendix was said to be too hastily assembled for adoption. Further studies will follow to determine proposed reductions.

What do you bet that the report will be heavily relied upon by folks advocating for more water to go through the Delta and provide additional fodder for the spin cycle? It can’t be a good thing for us in watersheds of origin, I’m thinking…

Read about it here:

From Indybay.org,  State Board Adopts Flow Standards for Bay-Delta

“The report, released in late July by board staff, calls for more water to be left in the Delta instead of diverting it through the giant state and federal pumps to corporate agribusiness on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley and southern California cities… The report recommends that around 75 percent of the precipitation in the Delta watershed should be allowed to flow unimpeded to San Francisco Bay. The report’s findings mirror calls for more water made by fish biologists, other scientists, and state and federal wildlife officials who have studied the problem… The board just put the stake through the heart of the co-equal goals of restoration and water supply, as defined by increased exports out of the Delta,” said Bill Jennings, executive director of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. “The document says that to restore the Delta, you need to increase Delta flows.”

From The Contra Costa Times,  Delta water users dismiss call for steep cutbacks:

“…Board member Arthur Baggett said the report was not the final word on how water will be divided between the environment and competing water users because it was put together quickly and without the formal processes the board uses to make water rights decisions… It’s not cross-examination; it’s not testimony under oath. We took the best available science,” Baggett said. “It’s a term paper.”

From The San Francisco Chronicle, Study: Cut in delta water use needed for fish

“…The document, issued by the five-member board after nine months of scientific study, determined that 75 percent of runoff from snowpack and rainfall would need to funnel through the delta to San Francisco Bay and the ocean in order to sustain the estuary’s most important wildlife and habitats, known in legal parlance as “public trust” resources.

Right now, about 50 percent of the state’s runoff flows through the delta all the way to the ocean. The other 50 percent goes to cities and farms. Raising the flow into the ocean from 50 percent to 75 percent would require taking away roughly half of what cities and farms now get, according to the report… “

“…’The board has finally put to rest the argument about whether the delta needs more water,’ said Cynthia Koehler, water legislative director with the Environmental Defense Fund. ‘You can’t divert 50 percent of the flows and think the fish and ecosystem are going to be just fine.’… Many of the largest water districts in California lambasted the report as one-sided and contended that higher delta flows and less pumping would devastate the economy and hurt farmers grappling with water cutbacks first stipulated by a federal judge in 2007 and fought over ever since.”

THIS JUST IN FROM USFS!

Begining yesterday, August 2nd, there will be a great deal of helicopter traffic above the Strawberry timber sale, which is in and around the communities of Strawberry and Cold Springs.

Columbia Helicopter will be flying a Boeing 107 Vertol, this is a twin rotored helicopter with a considerable rotor wash; this rotor wash is capable of knocking dead branches, dead (or live) tops, and other debris from trees, it may even blow down snags or trees with compromised root systems. As the helicopter will be flying with large loads of timber dangling beneath, it is crucial to stay far away from its flight paths.

Crabtree Road for the first few days will have flagmen at both ends of the sale area stopping traffic to allow the helicopter to cross the road safely (for those on the ground) so take this into account if you are working [or recreating] out on Crabtree Road. Later this week or early next week the helicopter will be working along Strawberry Ridge, road 4n39 will be closed during this period.

Crabtree Road traffic may experience delays (which should not be very long) and the hazards of being near the helicopter. Spectaros are advised by the USFS that it is only safe to watch at distances greater than 3 miles form any portion of the flight path [looky-loos are discouraged!].

Tractor logging is also in full swing in other portions of the Strawberry sale and is just as dangerous to be around as the helicopter. Please do not approach any areas with machinery, active timber falling, or active landings. It is frequently impossible for equipment operators to see or hear you. Remember that even a small tree falling can kill you, and some of the machines can hurl debris great distances with considerable velocity. Do not place yourself downslope of any heavy equipment they can dislodge rocks. dirt. trees, etc.

Be careful on the highway and other roads in the area as there will be heavy truck traffic and trucks may be entering roads at any time. Pay particular attention when on sections of road with traffic control signage.

Any work that needs to be performed in the vicinity of these timber operations should be coodinated with the Summit Sale Administrator, Greg Brown (ext 5300) in order to ensure the saftety of employees.

Thank you for your time, and be aware and safe.

Gregory Brown
Sale Administrator
Summit Ranger District
Stanislaus National Forest
(209) 965-3434 ext 5300

The confluence of the Merced and San Joaquin Rivers.

Long time adversaries in the Delta water wars are weighing in on a State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) draft report released this week. Highly controversial, it contains recommended criteria to establish water flow requirements for the Delta, the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers, and their tributaries. It returns to the SWRCB for action on Aug. 3rd.

Folks who want more water in the Delta for habitat and fish crow that the report is a major indictment of SWRCB’s management of the California water system.  Others who want water for Southern California and Central Valley farms and communities bluster, “Nonsense! Water rights!” Still others point out that just mandating flow won’t solve all the Delta’s problems.

As reported in the Contra Costa Times yesterday, the report is really bad news for areas upstream of the Delta (including watersheds of origin).

“The key finding is that about 75 percent of all the snowmelt and rain that flows or falls into the Delta’s watershed, which covers 40 percent of California, should flow through the Delta into the Bay. Today, about 50 percent of the flow passes through the Delta on average as nearly all of California taps into its tributary rivers and the Delta itself…”

That doesn’t bode well for the water supply up here, that’s for sure. But I’ll post a number of links here over the next week or two so you can make up your own mind.

Most of today’s articles support the report’s conclusion that the Delta needs more, not less water.  I’ll balance perspectives with opposing pieces as I find them.

Click below to read the articles:

No more watered down excuses, Stockton Record (this piece is classified as news, but golly, there’s a lot of opinion in the thing);

Response to article:

It seems as though the writer completely ignored statements by the State Board throughout the report that it will take more than flow changes to fix the problems in the Delta. The Board, in fact, was prohibited by the Legislature from looking at anything BUT flow, effectively tying their hands as they conducted their work.

The approach taken by the State Board in its 181-page report limited its scope to “flow criteria determinations” and did not look at broader issues. Those issues, such as “habitat, water quality and invasive species” should be addressed in more comprehensive processes, such as the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan. The report stated that there is a “need for an integrated approach to management of the Delta. This clearly indicates that the State Board understands that fixing the Delta cannot be achieved by simply adding more water.

Mike Wade
California Farm Water Coalition

California’s ailing water supply needs help, SF Chronicle

Delta flow criteria issued, Legal Planet Blog

The next Delta report, and inevitable spin,  Fresno Bee (don’t bother with all the spin, the Bee says. Just read the Report.)