Teri Murrison @ Shepherd's Crook Enterprises - Rural Communities Advocate, former Tuolumne County Supervisor

Warming Stations Open in Tuolumne County

By Teri | March 22, 2011

PRESS RELEASE
Date:  Tuesday, March 22, 2011;
Contact: Kathleen K Rustrum; OES Coordinator
  (209) 533-5511

Sonora - …due to the numerous winter storm-caused electrical outages and PG&E’s estimated restoration for most of these outages by Thursday, March 24th, two warming centers have been identified as follows:

1. Soulsbyville area: Moose Lodge (off Highway 108, Soulsbyville exit)
20921 Longeway Road Sonora, California

2. Twain Harte/MiWuk area: Word of Life Fellowship Center
24630 California 108 Mi-Wuk Village, California

These warming centers will be open to accept people beginning at 8 am today. Our local chapter of the American Red Cross will be opening and operating these shelters. Please remember to bring any prescriptions or medical equipment you may need.

Stay tuned to your local radio station or mymotherlode.com for further updates on warming center openings and/or closings and other storm-related bulletins.

###

Brother, Can You Spare a Bunch of Dimes? It’s Your Forest Too, Folks

By Teri | March 18, 2011

Are you unhappy about road closures and restrictions to access in the Stanislaus National Forest as a result of the recent decision on the Travel Management Rule Plan? Despite the fact that spare change is hard to part with these days, in response to a lawsuit filed by a Tuolumne County preservation group acting in coordination with national groups, public access supporters from around the state are riding to the rescue. They need our help.

If the lawsuit is successful, those miles we managed to hold onto could be lost. Not only that, but the next phase of the Travel Management Rule Plan (Subpart A) could be even more devastating to access and our local economy.

Read on… and please go to the website and donate.

Stanislaus National Forest & Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe

From the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center website:

“On August 12, 2010, preservationist groups Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center, The Wilderness Society and PEER [Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility - www.PEER.org says: "As a service organization assisting federal & state public employees, PEER allows public servants to work as "anonymous activists" so that agencies must confront the message, rather than the messenger."] filed suit challenging the Stanislaus NF travel plan adopted Nov. 12, 2009. The suit alleges claims under NEPA, NFMA and related law. Of particular note are claims that the Forest failed to properly define alternatives under NEPA, failed to properly analyze effects, failed to “minimize” OHV impacts, failed to properly designate a “minimum road system” and failed to comply with applicable forest plan direction. Motor Vehicle Use Map (MVUM) indicating only those routes that are on the map are legal for travel.”

The concept of ‘minimizing OHV impacts can be particularly problematic due to the question of whose definition of ‘minimize’ would be adopted. The suit also targets the decision of the Forest Service regarding Subpart A, the analysis of the minimum, necessary road system needed in each forest. The question of how to define ‘need’ has never been answered. The CA4WDC and partners have filed for Defendant/Intervenor status to ensure that our members needs, and the needs of all forest visitors who enjoy motorized access, are being represented in this lawsuit. We have formed a coalition, and need everyone’s support on this critical issue.

Posted in Blog Mailing, Land Use, Public Lands, Shepherd's Crook | Tagged County Services, USFS | Leave a comment

What to Ask At Upcoming Planning Rule Roundtables

By Teri | March 16, 2011

The US Forest Service (USFS) has announced a series of Roundtable public meetings next week to explain and answer questions about the Draft 2011 Planning Rule (click here to see it) and comment process. Technically, no public comment will be permitted at the Roundtables, but creative public speakers could ask questions to highlight the need to tweak the Draft Rule before the final is issued. See the talking points below. :)

First of all, a little context. Planning rules are issued by the Chief Forester in Washington, DC. They guide every forest on how to interpret and implement the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). You’d think that rules would only need to be issued once, but changing agency values lead to changing interpretations and implementation practices. Some of them (like the last few iterations) have been struck down in federal court. This one will likely be no exception. The Planning Rule in effect currently dates back to 1982.

Here’s the info for the three California meetings. A nationwide schedule of public meetings can be found at: Meetings.

USFS Roundtable Meetings, March 21, 2011, 9 am to 12 pm

Wildland Fire Training & Conference Center, 3237 Peacekeeper Way, McClellan, CA 95652, for more info contact Deb Whitall at 707‐562‐8823;
Angeles National Forest, Forest Supervisor’s Office, 701 North Santa Anita Ave., Arcadia, CA 91006; and
Shasta‐Trinity National Forest, Forest Supervisor’s Office, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, CA 96002.

Point ONE: Coordination Missing From Draft Rule

At the top of the list of my most important talking points is - no surprise - retaining local governments’ ability to coordinate government to government, as provided for in the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and with great clarity in the 1982 Planning Rule’s Section 219.7.

The 1982 Rule’s Section 219.7 went missing from the Draft 2011 Planning Rule. Not good.

Quite a few Western counties sent in letters last year commenting that Section 219.7 (in its entirety) must be added to the new Rule. Some noted that the agency is actually out of compliance with the 1982 Planning Rule for not coordinating with them in development of the new Rule. The counties, Tuolumne included, got nowhere – though we were polite and respectful – following the USFS preferred method of “collaboration” (public comment).

Posted in Blog Mailing, Land Use, Public Lands, Shepherd's Crook | Tagged USFS | Leave a comment

California’s Demographic Dilemma: A Class And Culture Clash

By Teri | March 14, 2011

This piece originally appeared at www.Forbes.com and was most recently posted at www.NewGeography.com. The author, Joel Kotkin, is executive editor of NewGeography.com and is a distinguished presidential fellow in urban futures at Chapman University, and an adjunct fellow of the Legatum Institute in London. He is author of The City: A Global History. His newest book is The Next Hundred Million: America in 2050, released in February, 2010.

Posted: 10 Mar 2011 09:05 AM PST

The newly released Census reports reveal that California faces a profound gap between the cities where people are moving to and the cities that hold all the political power. It is a tale that divides the state between its coastal metropolitan regions that dominate the state’s politics — particularly the San Francisco Bay Area, but also Los Angeles — and its still-growing, largely powerless interior regions.

Indeed, the “progressives” of the coast are fundamentally anti-growth, less concerned with promoting broad-based economic growth — despite 12.5% statewide unemployment — than in preserving the privileges of their sponsors among public sector unions and generally affluent environmentalists. This could breed a big conflict between the coastal idealists and the working class and increasingly Latino residents in the more hardscrabble interior, whose economic realities are largely ignored by the state’s government.

Posted in Blog Mailing, Shepherd's Crook | Tagged Opinion | Leave a comment