NAIL

Welcome! MRG/NAIL Signup Instructions

Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:18:45 -0700

Hi everyone: If you are reading this post, then you've found your way to the Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging (NAIL) group on our website. We hope that this website serves a valuable purpose for the group. Because only members can participate in this group (and post on the website), we are publishing these guidelines to describe how to sign up: Registering

If you are on this page, you should see a "User Login" form on the right side. Click on the "Create New Account" link.
On the registration form, fill our your desired user name.
Note: We ask that for community building reasons, you use your entire first and last name as your user name. If that name is already taken, try your middle initial.
Enter the email address that you want your account details to be sent to.
Check the box next to "Subscribe to NAIL" in order to be a member of the NAIL Group.
This might seem redundant, but eventually we will have multiple groups on this site with specific purposes, so you also want to be a member of the NAIL group.
Click the Create New Accountbutton
You will see a message on the screen that tells you your membership is awaiting approval, but that signup details have been mailed to you.

Signing On Follow these steps to sign on for the first time (Important!):

Wait for the second confirmation email to be sent to you.
You will receive one email containing your first-time password, and a second email indicating that you can begin posting to the NAIL group. This 2nd email is your indication that your account has been approved.
Use the password sent in your first email to sign on.
Immediately click on the My Account link on the left, and click on the Edit tab under your name
In your account details form, type in a new password in the form.
You must enter the password twice. Pick something that is easy to remember, but also a mix of letters and numbers. Please avoid names or phrases that you might find in a standard dictionary.

Site Features & Posting Guidelines

Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:34:48 -0700

Hi there again! If you are reading this message, then you are a registered member of the site who is also subscribed to the NAIL group. This message does not appear to the general public, because it is only relevant to group members. Here are the general site features and posting guidelines:

Only site members can post messages to the site. If you are a member, and you are unable to post, you might not be logged in.
When you post to the site, you can choose whether you want to make your post viewable only to the group, or to the entire public.
To make the post viewable only to NAIL, remove the mark from the Public checkbox at the end of the form. Make sure the checkbox next to NAIL is on.
If you make your posting public, then anyone who replies to that post will have their comments publicly available too. So, think carefully when making this choice, and also when replying to a public topic.
You can attach files to your posts (photos, documents, etc). Please, be considerate of disc space when posting photos. I will post some photo guidelines shortly, but in general photos should be smaller than 1MB (1000KB). Same thing for Word and Excel files.
Group topics are not "organized" yet, so please use descriptive topics to help people find relevant posts! For example, if you have a new idea about something, don't write "new idea" as your subject line, but rather describe it: "idea for how to take photos of frogs." If the post is about a meeting, give the subject line the date meeting, and so on.
Stuck? In trouble? Send email to tmrg (the site admin). Click on the link to TMRG anywhere you find it on this site and send an email. I won't print the email address out here, because that simply invites spam.
OH, and finally... it's a good idea not to print user's emails in your public postings for the very same reason. If you are trying to deliver valuable contact information, then make your posting private.

Happy Posting! tmrg

Map Information

Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:02:44 -0700

How do we access the maps that Rebecca has assembled?

I would to see the parcels that SJWC is proposing to log and the adjacent parcels.

- Rick

Master Plan Map from Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District

Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:04:28 -0700

San Jose Water has not yet made public a definitive map showing where they want to log. However, they are required by law to include such maps when they submit their proposal. They have stated that they plan to submit their logging proposal this week.

In the meantime, attached is a map prepared by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD) which shows the land owned by SJW in this region.

I will also soon post a map I've made which shows detailed parcel boundaries in the area.

Standard map disclaimer: as with all maps posted here, please keep in mind that their accuracy may not be 100% perfect....for example, they may not be current if SJW has acquired or sold parcels since the MROSD map was made last year (I have no reason to think that SJW has done this, just mentioning it as an example.) We assume that the authors of any maps posted on this site have made a good faith effort to ensure accuracy, and are not responsible nor liable for any mistakes herein. (End of disclaimer!)

Big Creek mailer

Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:59:00 -0700

I received a letter from the folks at Big Creek yesterday, with maps of the proposed NTMP area, and request for info on surface water usage (within 10 days). Did everyone else get this ? The approx. filing date for the NTMP was listed on this mailer as 9/10.

Letter to the Los Gatos Weekly - Sept 1

Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:14:55 -0700

This was sent September 1 by Terry Clark. It is here so that other people can read this letter should they not have access to the Los Gatos Weekly Times.

regards,

Patricia Boswell

SJWC Logging Map - Tiff format

Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:23:22 -0700

Attached is "Tiff"-format file containing scanned images of the three pages of proposed logging maps sent to residents yesterday by San Jose Water Company. They are proposing to log more than 1000 acres.

Some browsers may have trouble opening and viewing this file. I'm working on some other ways to present this information. So, stay tuned...

SJWC Logging Map, PDF Format (use this)

Fri, 02 Sep 2005 10:32:41 -0700

Something's funky with that TIF format, so I converted the map to PDF format. You can see all three pages, but it's still B&W so difficult to make out without some studying.

PDF viewing tips:

In Acrobat Reader, the map will appear rotated and not to 100% scale.
To the right of the + symbol, there are two "stack paper" images with an arrow.
Mouse over the symbols until you see the Tool Tip "rotate counter clockwise." Click that one to orient the map correctly.
Click the + symbol to enlarge the size (or click the magnifying symbol and then click the map until it is the size you want it to be)
Go through the pages by clicking at the arrows on the bottom of the viewer

Hope this helps!

-patricia

Petition

Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:07:33 -0700

Do we already have the text defined for the petition we talked about circulating at the 9/11 meeting ? If so, do you think it makes sense to include the same text in an online petition with a link from our NAIL website ? There is a place that does free petition hosting which we could use (http://www.petitiononline.com/petition.html).

Map of the San Jose Water/Big Creek Lumber Logging Proposal

Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:15:32 -0700

Great meeting yesterday at Lexington School!

Attached is a map I've created which shows the logging proposal in more detail and context than was provided by San Jose Water and Big Creek in their "Notice of Intent to Harvest Timber" sent to local residents in August 2005. (See previous post for a copy of that "Notice of Intent".)

- Rebecca

Petition to Protect Los Gatos Redwoods and Mountain Environment (Opposed to SJWC “Timber Harvest Proposal”)

Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:30:35 -0700

This summary is based on information released to the press by San Jose Water Company (SJWC) and Big Creek Lumber Company.

San Jose Water Company (SJWC), with the assistance of Big Creek Lumber Company of Davenport, California, has prepared a Non-industrial Timber Management Plan on 1000 acres of SJWC’s forested watershed lands in the mountains above Los Gatos. Information they have released to the public indicates that the impending “Timber Harvest Proposal” will result in:

Increased Fire Risk: SJWC’s selective logging plan to remove 40% of the largest trees (redwoods and Douglas fir,) while leaving untouched the dead oaks (Sudden Oak Death trees,) broom and other underbrush, will, we believe, increase fire risks for all residents. Studies done by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, and other scientists and fire ecologists show that fire risks may increase when only the larger trees are removed.
Impacts to Water Quality: Any commercial logging activity in the fragile and steep sloped areas on SJWC’s watershed land will have the potential to put silt into the streams, result in mud slides, and adversely affect the water supply of local residents. The proposed long-term NTMP will most likely require an extensive road-network with numerous culvert crossings. All have the potential to deliver sediment to Los Gatos Creek and the Lexington Reservoir. Drive Highway 17 during the rainy season when silt constantly washes across the road and understand how fragile the slopes are. Residents may also recall the structural failure and required re-engineering of the newly-installed Bear Creek overpass some years back when Cal Trans engineers were expensively surprised by the effect that water drainage and unanticipated slope failure had on cleared land.
Change in Forest Ecosystem: Without question, turning the water supply watershed from a forest into a profit-generating tree farm will financially benefit a corporation responsible for safeguarding the watershed. This land contains 115+ year old trees, some as large as 7 feet in diameter. Logging will negatively change the environmental character of our mountain community. The impact to nesting osprey and the population of beavers, bobcat, mountain lion, coyote and deer will be serious. With their habitat disturbed, many of these animals will migrate to other open space and feeding grounds, including gardens, back yards and residential neighborhoods.
Quality of Life and Noise Impacts: The NTMP proposes running a logging operation 5 days a week starting at 7:00 in the morning in the midst of a large, residential area. Helicopters and chain saws will be operating 9 hours a day, ending at 4:00PM. Noise pollution is a high concern. A helicopter hovering at 500 feet generates 100 decibels of sound; a chain saw generates 125 decibels, while a jet plane generates 120 decibels. The degradation of quality of life and resultant lowering of property values will be enormous for thousands of people. The proposal includes logging every other year for 18 years, with the opportunity to start over again at that time.
Incompatible with Public Open Space and Residential Neighborhoods: The recent purchase of the surrounding Sierra Azul and Bear Creek properties and their conversion into public park lands is inconsistent with the watershed forest lands being converted into an active and ongoing logging venture. Adding the SJWC lands to the Sierra Azul and Bear Creek Preserve as an alternative to logging would help protect the Los Gatos to Summit Rd greenbelt as it now exists, protecting our environmental community, our water supply and the stunning forested hills that surround the town of Los Gatos.
Impact to roads: The wear, tear and increased traffic on county maintained roads by heavy logging trucks will increase repair costs on our local roads. The opportunity sharply rises for traffic fatalities and worsening traffic congestion as 80,000 pound logging trucks travel our local, 2-lane roads and merge onto Highway 17 at both Summit and Bear Creek. The wear and tear from an 80,000 lb vehicle is equivalent to over 9,600 automobile trips according to a report from the US General Accounting Office.

Based on information released to the press by both San Jose Water Company (SJWC) and Big Creek Lumber Company, I oppose the impending “Timber Harvest Proposal”:

Signature (sign your own name, do not print)
Address (home address, city, state, and zip code)

_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________
_______________________ _________________________

WILDLIFE IMPACT FROM SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY LOGGING PLAN

Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:17:43 -0700

By Freddy Howell, Owner, Wild Bird Center-Los Gatos

From my perspective, it is important to preserve wildlife and their habitat. They also don't have a voice so it is up to us.

As many of you know, the San Jose Water Company (SJWC) owns many acres adjacent to Sierra Azul Open Space in the Los Gatos Creek watershed and is planning to log over 1000 acres. There are some major environmental issues associated with this plan. The impact on wildlife is what I am addressing here.

Since an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not required in this instance, it is a red flag to our legislators that there is a major loop hole in the permitting process. Usually, an EIR must be done on any project that has any potential impact, direct or indirect, on listed species of the Federal Endangered Species Act. This watershed area is a known habitat of the California Red Legged Frog. This listed specie is very sensitive to degradation of water quality. An EIR also requires a base line species inventory to find out what plants and wildlife are present.

Any plan must be assessed for impacts. Direct impacts would include trees cut down that have active raptor nests. “Species of special concern” such as the Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned Hawks are known to nest in the redwoods in this area. Indirect impacts include the cutting down of these same trees or adjacent trees in non nesting times that could induce birds to abandon this area as a nesting site.

Because the SJWC land is contiguous to Midpeninsula Open Space’s Sierra Azul, logging this area would cause forest fragmentation. Fragmentation of the forest disrupts the habitat of sensitive species which allows more aggressive species to move in. Crows, jays and especially the parasitic nesting Brown-headed Cowbirds are considered “edge” species and as more land is opened up, they move in and compete with the native birds for food and nesting sites. Crows and jays also prey on eggs and nestlings of resident songbirds, while Brown-headed Cowbirds lay their eggs in these songbird’s nests so that the host bird raises the cowbird, usually 2 to 3 times it’s size. Since the cowbird has expanded it’s range as land is opened up to agriculture and forest clearing, resident songbirds have not evolved with the cowbird and do not recognize the larger egg and therefore, raise the cowbird baby instead of their own.

Other examples of aggressive species impact include the bolder, introduced species like the red fox overtaking native gray fox territory or eastern gray squirrel driving the less aggressive western grays further up into the mountains. Another example that is playing out in the northwest is the Spotted Owl’s historic territory being invaded by the larger, bolder Barred Owl. This could translate into the Great Horned Owl moving into the territory of the smaller Northern Pygmy and Saw-whet Owls.

Fragmentation of the closed canopy forests creates space for invasive species such as French Broom, a great fire hazard, that keeps the native forest from reestablishing. Breaks, such as logging roads and helicopter landing sites, create isolated island like habitats and intimidates species from normal migration and dispersal. Each helicopter landing site is a clear cut acre. On the map of the proposed logging area near Lake Elsman, there six landing sites designated.

Fragmented habitats may disperse wildlife into residential areas or it may disperse them from the logged areas altogether. It is important to keep the wildlife in mind and the balance preserved.

I strongly urge mountain residents to contact Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging (NAIL) to find out how we as a "village” can defeat this logging

---------------------
This article is by Freddy Howell, posted here at her request.

Aldercroft Heights Water District activty?

Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:59:11 -0700

I live in Aldercroft Heights and am most concerned about our water source being compromised due to the logging.

I received a note with my last water bill about the Sept 12 meeting but didn't hear the water disrict personnel make any public comments on what the district can/is/will do? To me, the fact that our water stands a chance of being contaminated and/or silted up is one of the most pressing concerns about this whole project (in addition to my concern for the forest, roads, noise, schools, etc).

Can anyone comment on what the Aldercroft Heights Water District is doing as an entity with regard to this proposed logging project?

Thanks,

Catherine

View the Logging Proposal using Google Earth

Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:05:53 -0700

Here's another way to study the San Jose Water Company logging proposal, in virtual-reality 3D: by viewing the model I've made of it in Google Earth. Google Earth is a new 3D satellite imagery software application which is available, for free, from Google. Just go to:

Google Earth download site

and follow the instructions to download the free Google Earth client. You don't need to pay for Google Earth Plus or Google Earth Pro. All you need is the freely downloadable Google Earth. The attached model has been successfully viewed on both PCs and Macs.

Check the requirements...you do need broadband Internet access and a somewhat modern computer.

Once you've got it installed and up and running, try entering your address in the search window, and flying to your home from space.

Now you are ready to look at this file. Just download the attached file to your computer, and open it. It should open up inside Google Earth. Just as a PDF file will open up inside of Adobe Acrobat, a "kmz" file will open up automatically inside of Google Earth.

I've embedded some suggestions in there as to what to do. Try double-clicking on layers to fly there, or turning them on and off. Definitely try the "Flyover Tour of the Logging Zone".

For those of you who were at the NAIL meeting last Sunday, this is what I demonstrated to you. To learn more about the logging controversy and how you can get involved, visit the Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging (NAIL) home page.

I am personally and professionally interested in whether (or not) you find Google Earth helpful in understanding the logging proposal. If you have a moment, please let me know. Thanks.

Rebecca

P.S. If you'd like to view several other screen shots of this Google Earth logging model, see this post. To learn about how to download and view a movie of the logging flyover, click here.

Updates:
05-Mar-06: Added screenshot to this post. Google Earth model is unchanged - still the 11-Jan-06 version.
11-Jan-06: Revised Google Earth model to simplify for faster loading; also embedded the nature photos in the pop-up balloons, added additional annotation such as helicopter landing zones, affected communities and the "screen overlay" of our NAIL bumper sticker in the upper left corner.

Collecting signatures for the petition at the Los Gatos Farmer's Market

Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:38:58 -0700

I've been thinking about trying to broaden awareness of the logging plan and gathering signatures for the petition posted on this forum and circulated at Lexington down to the Farmer's Market in Los Gatos on September 25.

Would anyone be interested in helping me circulate the petition and raise awareness about this plan at the market?

I'm not sure what it takes to set up a table down there but I know someone who has done so recently and I will ask him what the procedure was.

Catherine

NTMP Copy Available?

Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:02:16 -0700

It would be useful if someone could pick up a copy of the NTMP once it if filed and scan it so folks could review it on-line and prepare for the public hearing.

I have had the most success with contesting THPs and NTMPs when I picked at them for non-compliance with the rules.

Also, has there been any discussion about filing a request for a temporary injunction until such time as the the water company posts a bond to cover any road damage, water damage, property loss, etc?

I would be happy to prepare the legal paper work and file it in the federal court if people are interested in that.

Elise Moss

NAIL Email Signup Sheet (.doc MSWord format)

Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:32:27 -0700

Petition to Protect Los Gatos Redwoods and Mountain Environment (.doc MSWord format)

Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:44:50 -0700

Screen shots of Logging Zones

Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:39:00 -0700

Attached are several interesting Google Earth screen shots of the logging proposal. On several of these, I've noted the distance from the town of Los Gatos to the proposed logging zones.

As you open each of these images, remember to use the "Back" button on your browser to return to this page, in order to view the rest of the images.

Also, if you try using Google Earth (see earlier post), you can easily create these types of screenshots yourself. Just select "Save Image" from the Google Earth "File" menu.

Rebecca

Why the name "NAIL"?

Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:15:01 -0700

FYI, in response to several questions, here's the reasoning behind my original suggestion (back in early August) of the name "Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging" (NAIL) for our group....please see email below.

-------------------------------
From: Rebecca Moore
Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:53 AM
To: 'TerryClark'
Subject: RE: Mountain Residents test email (please reply)

Hi Terry,

Thanks for your message. You have been busy the past two days with this issue! Nice article for mountain network news.
...

Regarding roles, there are two main ways I’d like to support this “resistance” effort, as you called it. One is to provide digital maps and related data, to help inform and motivate the community about the details of this logging plan. (Such as the maps I displayed at Sunday’s meeting.) The second is to offer the use of our being-birthed Mountain Resource Group web site. The site could allow you to share documents, photos, discussion forums, talking points, etc. For example, the letters and articles that people are writing would be wonderful to collect on the site. And, of course, the maps as well.

By the way, a potential name for the group jumped into my head today: “Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging” (NAIL). I think it is useful to frame this as “irresponsible logging”, because that conveys the fact that the group is reasonable and would not object to responsible logging.

Terry, I am very concerned about this logging proposal, even though I do not live in the immediate vicinity. I think it will be devastating to the forest, and set a bad precedent for other areas in the region. Thanks for handling the important “media stuff “ for this project.

Regards,
Rebecca
----------------------
Rebecca Moore
Founder and President, The Mountain Resource Group
www.mountainresource.org (coming soon)

Help Stop the Logging

Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:33:32 -0700

The forest needs you help to stop the logging plan proposed by San Jose Water Company and Big Creek Lumber. Here are just a few things you can do,

* Write short, concise letters about your concerns about this logging plan to any of the Board of Supervisors, especially Don Gage. You can also make phone calls and send emails to any public official you think may be interested. Stick to the facts.

* Download the petition and get signatures.

* Write letters to the editor of any newspaper in the area about your concerns. Again stick to the facts as you know them.

* Sign up on the list of volunteers to help with projects that need doing to stop the logging.

*We need digital photos of wildlife, especially osprey, cooper's hawk or sharp shinned hawk nests in the area Any nice pictures of wildlife may be useful in presentations. You can post them on the web site, but do not disclose the location of nests or rare species. Email that to realfre@aol.com.

* Make donations to NAIL. Checks made out to CRFM (Citizens for Responsible Forest Management) with a note they are for NAIL are tax deductible. Checks can also me made out to NAIL, but are not tax deductible. Please do not send cash and we can’t take credit cards.
We will use donated funds to hire experts, do mass mailings and cover other expenses directly related to stopping the proposed logging plan.

Mail donations to:
Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging (NAIL)
P.O. Box 1975
Los Gatos, CA 95031

Response to SJWC Mailer to Homes 9/24

Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:56:16 -0700

NAIL Members and Residents,

Many of you may have received the latest attempt by San Jose Water Company to position themselves to you with regard to their logging plan. This single page mailer seeks to assure residents that the logging is a good thing, and that concerns raised by you and by NAIL are groundless.

Alleging that they are presenting the reader with "facts" the public relations writers of this piece attempt to play down or obscure the carefully researched information presented to you on September 11 by NAIL. The mailer states that they want "to give people the opportunity to know the facts before they make up their minds." NAIL believes the facts are very important, and here is one that SJWC did not tell you about in their mailer:

Given that to-date their plan still has not been submitted, there is no factual source to back up the claims made in their mailer. Without the true facts as submitted in their plan, the mailer you received serves no purpose except as a spin document designed to convince you that you need not be concerned.

Here is another fact that was not mentioned:

Once the plan is submitted and endures the review process, SJWC can change the plan, either because they have been required to do so by the reviewing agencies, or because they themselves decide to make changes.

Additionally, once a Non Industrial Timber Management Plan (NTMP) is approved, the submitter can still make changes afterwards. What SJWC is asking you to believe is the intent of their plan today holds no guarantee that the plan will not be altered many times in the future. And you won't know.

Despite SJWC's friendly assurance that this logging plan is a truly wonderful opportunity for our forests, our water quality, our property values and our personal environment, NAIL continues, with strong conviction, to stand behind the following:

- Cutting the big trees increases fire risk
- Logging will be harmful to the water supply
- We want no helicopter logging in our neighborhoods and we are a large neighborhood
- Logging trucks are dangerous, cause a high percentage of fatal accidents, and damage the roads
- These trees are 115 years old, and they need to be protected
- SJWC should use money from sources other than chopping down the tall trees to take care of the fire
protection efforts they should have managed on these acres years ago

- Show us The Plan

We hope you will continue to communicate with each other, with NAIL, and with your public representatives to express your opposition to SJWC's plan to make a redwood supermarket out of this beautiful and important land.

Sincerely,

NAIL Steering Committee

Problems with the NTMP Process

Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:11:44 -0700

The following is a copy of a response sent to a NAIL member who asked about changes that can be made in the NTMP after it is approved:

The rules for an NTMP are set up and managed by the Calif. Dept. of
Forestry. Yes, they must include certain state statutes into their process (state environmental quality acts, Fish and Game and others) but in the end they are an entity empowered to interpret information and make their own decisions. They can choose to act on public feedback or not. Because our quality of life is not something governed by any state statute, it isn't really a concern they need to factor into their decision. Fire, water, environmental impact are the key areas that have some state legislative guidelines behind them. County and city statutes are over-ridden by the state's evaluation unless there is a very hard push by local politicos - and even then it can end up in court unresolved for years.

It is a difficult system, I agree. CDF and the review team are pretty much free to do what they want and operate in this manner, expecting us to believe that they are doing the "right thing" because they are the forestry arm of the state. But you know, just being in charge of forestry does not mean you are 1) incapable of making bad decisions 2) incapable of being influenced by an old-boys network of people in the industry and 3) incapable of weilding unchecked power because there are no real laws (short of the court system after the fact) to challenge you.

Provisions of an NTMP include a process wherein the logger/owner may submit requests for a need to alter the plan after it has been approved. These are not reviewed in the same lengthy manner as the original plan, and are, in the words of experts "rubber-stamp OK'd" in most cases. Things added later can include cutting in more roads, adding more helicopters and landing areas, using more trucks, etc. Increasing the acreage would not necessarily be one of those things, but how they end up logging the approved acreage is
a changeable area in many details.

You can purchase a small book entitled "California Forest Practice Rules" that covers the information. It is published by CDF and costs $5. I believe the Felton CDF office (nearest) has them. Call 831-335-6740 about purchasing a book.

Yes, if someone wanted to tackle a bad system that needs legislative overhaul, this is a prime candidate.

Terry Clark
NAIL Steering Committee

Next NAIL Public Meeting Now Scheduled: Sunday, Oct 2

Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:28:40 -0700

Logging in Our Neighborhoods

It’s hard to believe, but San Jose Water Company (SJWC), Inc. is planning to log watershed land along the Los Gatos Creek, from Lake Elsman to Lexington Reservoir, as well as Thompson Road. Their plan includes:

• Taking only the biggest, most fire-resistant trees
• Leaving all brush, dead trees, and “slash” behind
• Creating erosion-prone dirt roads in the forest
• Logging on steep, unstable hillsides above an essential water source
• Building towers and using helicopters to haul away trees when necessary

If this plan is approved, there will be logging trucks and helicopters in our neighborhoods for the next 18 years. Every 10 years, previous areas may be re-harvested. The tranquility of our neighborhoods will be lost. Everyone will be affected, not just those people whose property is adjacent to the proposed logging areas. Fire and erosion are serious problems in the mountains, and taking the biggest, most fire-resistant trees from steep, unstable slopes will only increase these threats to our community.

This logging and its side-effects are likely to decrease property values for mountain residents.

Your help will make a difference. After our September 11th meeting attended by over 300 people, SJWC decided to delay submitting their plan. Resident concern had impact! Their plan does not make sense.

What can you do?
Come to an informational meeting at Loma Prieta School on Sunday October 2, 2005, at 12 noon to learn more from your neighbors and local experts about this plan and its serious impacts. Find out what you can do to help prevent this irresponsible logging plan.

We will also update the community on new information and our activities since the Sepetember 11th meeting.

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

Join NAIL (Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging)
At Loma Prieta School gymnasium on Sunday, October 2nd, at 12 noon. Address: 23800 Summit Road.

Circulated Letter From Rea Freedom, NAIL Steering Committee

Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:43:26 -0700

Many of you received a flyer in the mail yesterday from San Jose Water Company. This flyer covered topics that NAIL members spent many hours researching to bring you factual information at the Sept. 11 meeting. We had to spend those hours because San Jose Water has not released the Non-Industriual Timber Harvest Plan, and will not tell us its contents.

This is a little of what we know:

Many fire scientists, including those of the Congressional Research Service, as cited by the USDA Forest Service and Department of the Interior, agree that cutting the largest trees in the forest is not fire suppression. Cutting these trees opens up the canopy, letting in more light and allowing brush to grow. In our area it is broom we have to worry about. Broom is highly flammable.

The map sent to all the neighbors of the logging plan area a couple of weeks ago clearly shows 6 helicopter landing areas. These areas require at least an acre of cleared space, and a larger area of short trees. Why are so many needed if San Jose Water is telling the truth that these large commercial helicopters will only be used occasionally? Remember they do not have to tell the truth until the plan is released, and can add things in later if they choose.

Impact to real esate? Remember that you WILL be required to disclose the logging situation to any future buyer. Would you want to buy a house in an area next to a large commercial logging operation that is going to reoccur periodically forever? The view and the natural quality of the area will be compromised.

One logging truck weighs the equivalent of 9,000 cars. They move slowly, and are dangerous on roadways. They may damage our already frail roads. The repairs have to be made at some point, but when and how long will it take? Santa Clara County is already severely understaffed for road maintenance crews. Even if SJWC posts a bond, the county still has to spare staff to oversee the repairs. How long do you want to have to drive on damaged roads until the repairs are made?

Some things not mentioned in the flyer:

The logging will go on forever once the plan is approved with no review.
The logging will be done in a populated area, the entire nature of the area will be changed.
The equipment and the men hired to do the logging will be very close to neighborhoods.

Amendments to the plan, like more helicopters, more trees taken, and other additions can be made after the plan is approved - without public review or notification.

Ask San Jose Water to tell us what is really in the plan, not just what they want us to believe. NAIL has asked repeatedly for the plan, we have been ignored. Is there something they are hiding? Show us the plan!

NTMP Review Process

Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:17:42 -0700

Attached is a PDF version of Jodi Frediani's NTMP powerpoint presentation given at the Sept 11th meeting. The file size is 3 MB, so the download may take some time, fyi.

-patricia

Bumper sticker: NO LOGGING THE LOS GATOS WATERSHED!

Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:21:35 -0700

NAIL has a new bumper sticker that should be available at our upcoming meeting on October 2nd!

Every bumper sticker will help us get the word out to the entire community. Click the link to the no_logging.jpg attachment below to view.

A suggested donation of $2 per sticker will help cover the cost of printing, advertising, etc. Buy some for your friends and neighbors!

Recent petition signature gathering efforts

Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:40:27 -0700

This is a summary of the signature collection on the NAIL petition from Sunday September 25 at the Farmer's Market and the Summit Market.

151 signatures from Farmer's Market effort. Although not all addresses provided zip codes, I was able to ascertain that 62% of the signatures came from individuals residing either in incorporated or unincorporated Los Gatos. The zip code breakdown is:

18% - 95033
17% - 95932
27% - 95030

Renee Pressler and others worked the Summit Market on Sunday gathering approximately 200 signatures.

Adding these signatures to others that we know of, namely,

231 from Sept 11 meeting @ Lexington
9 from Rick Parfitt's gym

adds up to approximately 591 collected signatures. We know there are other people collecting signatures and hope all the petitions can be collected and counted at the meeting this Sunday.

Cathy Daigle and I came up with a list of our perceptions on collecting signatures for the NAIL petition:

Maps are critical - color and laminated really helped -- THANK YOU REBECCA!
Spending time with people talking about the maps is important
Talking points that help organize thoughts are essential
A unified message is essential
Good brief flyer detailing a useful website and meeting info really helped. We handed out more than 160 flyers which were a great tool to give people to take home and keep their thoughts on the issues.

People seemed genuinely concerned. Issues that really seemed to hit home with signers:

increased fire danger
increased traffic
loss of trees
the perpetual plan
SJWC seems to sugar coat the facts - esp. re. fire

Issues that we expected to be more resonant:

impact on water quality
noise issues
potential for erosion
safety

We had fun! Met lots of our community neighbors and felt appreciated by bringing this important message to the forefront of people’s attention.

Those who showed up at the Farmer's Market to help included:

Catherine Russell
Cathy Daigle
Bob Mende
Scott Bradley
Michelle Gonzales
Gabrielle Gonzales
Emmanuelle Pancaldi
Rea Freedom
Kevin Flynn

Summit Market folks:
Renee Pressler, Chief Coordinator
Ed Magakian
Toni Impy

Future Plans:

Summit Market:
Renee: plans to target prime time hours at the market during the week prior to 10/3 meeting. Plans to staff her table from 8-10am, and again 3:30 – 8pm.

Renee definitely needs help! Please call her if you can help collect signatures for even an hour!

Farmers’ Market: Sundays:
This is a good audience to continue efforts of increasing public awareness. There’s a fine line between providing effective information and wearing out our welcome. We do think that we need to have a presence there. Could also be a source of updated information to those who already have signed the petition.

Other ideas to raise awareness among the local population:

Post information at local coffee shops in Los Gatos (the Bear and the Coffee Roastery) - I plan on doing this over the weekend,
Post info at Whole Foods. Whole Foods might be a good place to collect signatures (although I am not sure how it would be received)
Post info at Bike shops in Los Gatos -- I plan on going to Summit Bicycles this weekend.
Post info at your gym -- I plan on posting info at the Los Gatos Athletic Club
Redwood Estates Flea Market

URGENT NEED to build a team to staff the sites. If more people help, it is less work for all. We worked well together and even folded 1000 mailers all while educating the public!

A Big Thank You to Team NAIL!

Catherine Russell

Erosion and Logging In Santa Cruz Mountains

Sat, 01 Oct 2005 00:11:15 -0700

Here's an example of the massive soil erosion that takes places during logging in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Click on the attachment to see what happened in Lompico near Santa Cruz. The photo is courtesy of the Lompico Watershed Conservancy - www.lompico.org.

Tactics fpr Collaboration and other illusions

Sun, 02 Oct 2005 19:11:47 -0700

If todays meeting at Loma Prieta School is the last one as a intro to the logging issue and the creation of a "natural" community of interest amoung most mountain residents, is the next phase raising money for experts and lawyers? At the meeting the water company representative mewed about not being invited, and in the September 11th meeting the Los Gatos Weekly alluded to the water company's and Big Creek's complaint of not having an opportunity to present their views. What would happen if there is a forum and all parties stated their case and rebuttals? Who would make the best impression and how would that influence future decisions?

Watershed Conference, Oct 29-30

Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:21:33 -0700

Healthy Rivers, Happy Fish
Watershed Conference
October 29-30, 2005
$15 per day (includes lunch)
$25 for two days (includes lunch both days)

First Congregational Church
900 High Street, Santa Cruz

Have you ever hiked along your local creek or river and wanted to know more about the fish or the stream itself? Then this conference is for you.

Come learn what makes a fish-friendly, truly healthy river. A host of experts will gather on Saturday to educate and inspire us. On Sunday we’ll get out in the field for two hikes along north coast creeks.

We’ll learn about obstacles to fish survival from chronic turbidity to lack of water, including fish passage barriers, the importance of large wood in streams and the necessity of sufficient water flows.
Also what we can do to help.

Plus what bugs (macroinvertebrates) can tell us about stream health, how mapping can be used as a restoration tool, and just how many coho and steelhead still swim in our local waters.

This conference is for all community members - landowners, nature lovers, activists, scientists, fishers, foresters and anyone just plain interested in fish and streams. Come join us for healthy rivers and happy fish.

The Honorable Fred Keeley will be our keynote speaker.

Complete schedule attached.
To register:

www.crfm.org or phone: 831-426-1697

This conference made possible courtesy of grants from:
San Lorenzo Valley Water District and
Santa Cruz County Fish & Game Advisory Commission

October 2nd meeting

Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:22:08 -0700

I haven't read anything on the October 2nd meeting... I couldn't attend and am wondering how it went. I also noticed that there is no way to get in touch with someone re: the NAIL/Mtn Resource Group website/emails if there's a problem on my end getting emails and such. The reason I ask is that I have not received any emails on Oct 2-4, which seems odd to me. Thanks, Ralph Alley

Letter to the Los Gatos Weekly

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:09:14 -0700

Seeking the truth
about logging in
the mountains

We appreciate the coverage by the Los Gatos Weekly-Times on the complex issue of logging the Los Gatos watershed. It is critical that the citizens of the greater Los Gatos area know the issues that concern all of us.

* Eighty-five percent of the water used by Los Gatos and Monte Sereno comes from the proposed logging area.

* If the winds that swept the 1985 Lexington fire had been blowing the other way, the town of Los Gatos would have been endangered.

* The wear on our roads and traffic slow-downs from the 80,000-pound logging trucks on Highway 17 will affect all of us.

During our Sept. 11 meeting, my job was to present what we know to date. Since that meeting, we know: San Jose Water Company has delayed submitting its request for a logging permit; knows there is widespread opposition to its plans; is being told by the California Department of Forestry that fire safety must be addressed; has never met with the Santa Clara County fire marshal to discuss fire safety on this issue.

We have directly contacted Andrew Gere, the SJWC project manager for this logging project. He indicated that meetings are planned to discuss fire safety. It's incredible. How can you remove the largest, most fire-resistant trees from an area that is periodically visited by devastating fires without doing a fire safety plan first? Is it possible that the logging truck is driving the plan, ala Big Creek Lumber?

John Tang, a representative of the SJWC, announced at the Sept. 19 Los Gatos Town Council meeting that his company plans to work with the community to address our concerns. My only regret is they didn't do this first before their fait accompli announcement to the community.

I say to SJWC: Invite us to your meetings with CDF and Santa Clara Fire, invite Mid-Peninsula Open Space and invite representatives from Los Gatos and Monte Sereno. Let's all work as neighbors and come up with a cohesive plan that mitigates future fires, protects our water and is consistent with the current land use.

Rick Parfitt

Los Gatos

Why We Oppose Logging The Los Gatos Creek Watershed

Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:13:11 -0700

Here is a summation of the reasons why NAIL is opposed to logging the Los Gatos Creek watershed:

Increased Fire Danger: Cutting a large percentage of the largest, healthiest, most fire-resistant trees increases the risk of a fire spreading into our neighborhoods. The overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports the fact that commercial logging increases fire risk. Sources for this evidence include the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and the US Department of Agriculture. We support activities that reduce ladder fuels. However, such fire suppressant efforts should not be funded by activities that increase fire danger.

Risk To Water Quality: Los Gatos Creek acts as the primary water source for hundreds of local residents and as secondary source for hundreds more. In addition, the creek supplies water to Lexington Reservoir, a water source for many thousands of Santa Clara Valley residents. Logging will take place along Los Gatos Creek and an additional 11 streams that feed into the creek. Since timber harvesting and related activities such as road building are associated with increased risk of landslides and sediment generation, the planned logging activities pose a threat to our water supply. Large west coast cities such as Seattle, Portland, Marin County, San Francisco and Santa Cruz all protect their water supply by explicitly prohibiting logging in their watersheds. Why should San Jose permit something other communities prohibit?

Decreased Quality of Life: The proposed logging takes place in a heavily residential area. Over 2,000 people live within 800 yards of the logging area boundary. Thousands more live within 2 miles. More than three schools lie within 1 mile of the area. Some of these schools are within a few hundred feet of the boundary. Noise pollution from chain saws and helicopters, and increased traffic from logging trucks, with the resultant damage to local roads, will greatly diminish the quality of life for Los Gatos residents. In addition the logging activities will harm the local ecosystem, destroying wildlife habitats and increasing the risk that mountain lions and coyotes will leave the logging area and enter local neighborhoods. Also, private property would face even greater exposure to landslides as the soil stability provided by large trees would be reduced significantly.

Decreased Property Value: This proposal allows for logging in perpetuity. The combination of ongoing noise, traffic and increased fire risk are likely to reduce property values for Los Gatos residents in the affected areas. We feel that increased profits for the San Jose Water Company should not come at the expense of thousands of citizens.

Excavating in Lexington dam

Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:30:57 -0700

HI HAS ANYONE NOTICED their excavating by the fire station. The noise is horendous in Chemeketa Park! I wonder if we should record that. I hear dozers and other equipment, maybe contact a news crew to record it up here? Thanks Victor

NAIL UPDATE ANNOUNCEMENT

Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:20:17 -0700

Hello Everyone,

Here's an update on efforts to stop the logging along the Los Gatos Creek watershed. A great deal has happened in the month since the first community meeting on September 11. With the logging plan about to be submitted we're all going to have to work very hard and very quickly to protect our community. We're facing a critical junction in our fight. The hard work is about to begin. Now's the time to let our elected officials know about our concerns. Now's the time to write letters to the newspapers. Now's the time to raise critical funds. Remember, if the plan is approved we can expect logging to continue in our backyards forever -with no way to stop it once it's begun.

What's new:
- Our community is already having an affect. The outpouring of public concern lead the San Jose Water Company and Big Creek Lumber to postpone their logging proposal. Originally, they planned on submitting the NTMP (Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan) on September 10. We understand that a revised plan is to be submitted on October 14.
- Another successful community meeting was held on October 2. Over 150 people showed up at the Loma Prieta School on Summit Road.
- The petition drive continues. We've collected over 600 signatures. NAIL members have been at the Los Gatos Farmers Market collecting signatures and educating the community.
- Fundraising efforts have begun. These funds will be used to hire outside experts on forestry and water management issues as well as defray legal costs. Much money has already been spent on the two mailings sent to all households in the 95033 zip code.
- Legal efforts to stop the plan are already underway, with help from lawyers in our community and the Stanford University Environmental Law Clinic.
- Media outreach continues with major Bay Area media outlets. Read the Santa Cruz Sentinel article here.
Expect to see more stories in area newspapers.
- NAIL members have presented at meetings of the Los Gatos City Council and Loma Prieta School Board.
- Meetings have been held with members of the Santa Clara County Board Of Supervisors and the Santa Clara County Fire Department.

What you can do:
- Attend the NAIL meeting this Friday, October 10 at the Chemeketa Park Clubhouse on Comanche Trail.
- Attend the fund-raising event on Sunday, October 16 at Lupin off Aldercroft Heights Road. While Lupin is normally clothing-optional, this will be a 'clothed' event. Admission for the NAIL Benefit BBQ, Barn Dance and Mountain Music Festival will be $10 for adults, $5 for teenagers and seniors and free for children accompanied by their parents. There will be live music, food and games. The event runs from 10 AM to 10PM.
- Read a summary of the reasons we oppose logging at this post.
- Write letters to the media: San Jose Mercury News and Los Gatos Weekly Times.
- Write letters to elected officials: Addresses can be found at this post.
- Collect signatures for the petition drive. The petition is at this post.
- Help with the fundraising. Tax-deductible donations can be sent to NAIL, P.O. Box 1975, Los Gatos, CA, 95031
- Plan to attend the public input meetings for the NTMP. Notice will be sent to everyone on this list as soon as the date is determined.
- Send this email to anyone and everyone who is concerned about what is being planned for the Los Gatos Creek watershed.

Thanks again for all your help!

Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging

FRIDAY Oct 14 MEETING FOR MEMBERS!

Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:21:33 -0700

Membership Meeting
Friday, October 14th, 7:00 PM
Chemeketa Clubhouse
Our current information is that the NTMP will be filed on this date.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss where we are, and where we want to go.
Your input is needed.
Discussion will include fundraising, committee members, taking action.
There will be time for each person to share ideas, ask questions and be a part of preserving these beautiful mountains.
See you there!

NAIL Steering Committee

NAIL Fundraiser Event - Oct 16

Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:53:19 -0700

Ed Dennis, mountain resident and owner of Lupin Naturist Club has created a fine fall event to raise funds benefiting NAIL’s anti-logging activities. Dennis has offered his facility to the mountain community on this Sunday, October 16, 10AM to 10PM. Lupin is located at 20600 Aldercroft Heights Road. Clothing is required at this event.

The first band will be playing at noon and a ten o'clock festival start gives time for people to be fashionably late and still get all the music. The outside music will go on until dusk and the last event, the "NAIL Barn Dance," will be held inside the Clubhouse Restaurant with its upscale array of night club lighting, ample autumnal decorations and ongoing Art Show.

The charge to get into the NAIL Benefit BBQ, Barn Dance and Mountain Music Festival will be $10 for adults, $5 for teenagers and seniors, and free for children accompanied by their parents.

Admission to the NAIL Festival allows admission just to the NAIL Festival Area and not the entire 110 acres of Lupin. All proceeds beyond the actual cost for bands and raw food and drink will go to NAIL! Lupin is supplying the grounds, restaurant, lawns, stage, promotional materials, tickets, wrist bands, and personnel at no charge.

There are plans to erect a 12' x 20' canvas canopy (or two) a White Elephant NAIL Sale. The idea is for people to donate their unwanted but valuable "white elephants" to NAIL to sell at the event. Any items of particular value will be put up for a silent auction. Anything that does not sell, we should either auction or give away at the Barn Dance.

There will also be colorful NAIL helium balloons for sale, games that people can pay to play. Please come and contribute to Lupin’s NAIL fundraiser, and enjoy a fun day.

Logging Plan Submitted-SJWC's Misleading FAQ

Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:31:57 -0700

The Los Gatos logging plan has been posted by the CDF. The location is:

ftp://thp.fire.ca.gov/THPLibrary/North_Coast_Region/NTMPs2005/1-05NTMP-022SCL/

The plan itself is quite alarming and differs in many significant ways from the previous public statements made by SJWC. They have been misleading the public about the extent and scope of the plan.

Below are examples drawn from the FAQ posted by SJWC on the www.hiway17.com website and contrasted with the ACTUAL plan found on the CDF website. The NTMP document used for comparison is entitled 20051018_1-05NTMP-022SCL_Sec2.pdf. Page numbers from this document are provided.

This is just a preliminary analysis of the NTMP plan. Further analysis is underway.

Cutting The Largest Most Fire Resistant Trees

The plan calls for the maximum amount of cutting allowable by law. The NTMP document makes NO mention of trees over 24" in diameter. In fact the plan calls for cutting 60% of the trees 18 inches in diameter or greater (ie leaving 40%). The plan calls for far more cutting of the most fire resistant trees than is mentioned in SJWC's previous public statement.

SJWC FAQ - "In accordance with harvesting requirements in this NTMP, approximately one fifth of the conifers 12” or larger in diameter at breast height (dbh) within the stand will be harvested at any given time. Of these, typically about 40% of the trees greater than 24” dbh will be harvested. This means that immediately after a harvest, the majority of the largest trees will be left standing, along with a great proportion trees throughout all diameter classes. "

NTMP Document - "A well distributed timber stand shall be left after operations that is at least 40% by number of those trees 18 inches or more in dbh (diameter at breast height) and at least 50% of those trees over 12 inches but less than 18 inches."
NTMP Section 2 Page 5

Year Round Logging

SJWC has stated that logging will occur for a limited time. The NTMP calls for year-round logging. By the way, the NTMP includes letters from local schools referring to the fact that day-care and other school activities will take place year-round.

SJWC FAQ - "Each separate harvest will occur during the late spring or summer and will take approximately 6 weeks to complete." "While schools are unlikely to be in session during operations..."

NTMP Document - "Will timber operations occur during the winter period - YES" "Tractor operations may occur during the winter period." " I choose to prepare a winter operating plan" "Cable yarding may occur during the winter period" "Helicopter logging may occur during the winter period"
NTMP page 12.

Hours of Operation

No mention is made in the NTMP about a 4:00 pm cut-off

SJWC FAQ - "Big Creek restricts active operations of their crews to the hours of 7 a.m. and 4 p.m."

NTMP Document - "Within 300 feet of any occupied dwelling, the operation of power equipment, including chain saws, except licensed highway vehicles, shall be restricted to the hours between 8:00AM and 7:00PM. Operations elsewhere on the property may occur between the hours of 7:00AM and 7:00PM." NTMP page 31.

Logging Slash

Logging slash will be nearly 3 feet high.

SJWC FAQ - "Logging slash will be lopped (cut) to a level close to the ground."

NTMP Document - "Logging and distributing logging slash in designated areas so that no part of it remains more than 30 inches above the ground." NTMP Page 24

Opening Up The Forest Canopy

The forest canopy WILL be opened allowing the introduction of invasive fast growing fire prone species such as scotch broom.

SJWC FAQ: "Because forest canopy will be only partially removed during any given harvest, invasive species will not establish themselves as aggressively in the shaded conditions"

NTMP Document: "The objective of the hardwood treatment would be to reduce canopy closure and allow more sunlight to reach the redwood generation" - NTMP Page 6

Other information

Endangered Species
NTMP explicitly mentions the presence of California Red-Legged Frogs (an endangered species) and Ospreys (a sensitive species) in the logging area. NTMP Page 25.

Archeological Sites
Archeological sites are found in the NTMP area. NTMP page 29

Erosion Hazard Rating
Erosion Hazard Rating is High NTMP page 9

NAIL FAQ

Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:56:08 -0700

Frequently Asked Questions

When will the NTMP plan be filed and how can I get a copy?

The Los Gatos logging plan has been posted by the CDF. The location is

ftp://thp.fire.ca.gov/THPLibrary/North_Coast_Region/NTMPs2005/1-05NTMP-022SCL/

The plan itself is quite alarming and differs in many significant ways from previous public statements made by SJWC. They have been misleading the public about the extent and scope of the plan. The best source to see a physical copy of the filed plan is via the CDF office in Felton, 831-335-6740. You can also electronically download the plan at the above location.

The issues surrounding the San Jose Water Company's plans to log the Los Gatos Watershed are complex. As the community raised issues and public officials registered objections, the publicly stated plans kept changing. We will make every effort to update our community as we gather more information. Remember that our concerns are being heard and the questions we ask will affect the final outcome.

In Summary, What is Wrong with the San Jose Water Company's plans to log the Los Gatos Creek Watershed?
The logging plans are fraught with many problems. Here are just a few of the bigger issues:
• The plans to remove 60% of the most fire resistant trees will promote the growth of underbrush and saplings creating a much greater fire risk.
A 20 year analysis of logging and forest fires by the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress showed that logged areas have an increased propensity for fire. And, according to the USDA Forest Service, in a statement dated September 8, 2000 " The removal of large, merchantable trees from forests does not reduce fire risk and may, in fact, increase such risk."
• The steep slopes of the proposed logging area are geologically unstable. Logging operations on these steep slopes will result in increased sediment in the streams that feed into the water collection system.
US Department of Agriculture studies show that selective logging of second-growth Redwoods can lead to a 500% increase in stream sediments. Communities such as Aldercroft Heights and Chetemeketa Park draw their water downstream from and within the logging area.
• The long term presence of logging trucks, chain saws and helicopters during our summer and winter months will permanently change the character of our mountain community and adversely affect the surrounding open space parks.

Hasn't fire mitigation been part of the logging plan all along?
According to Mr. Andrew Gere, project director at SJWC, there have been discussions with the California Department of Forestry about the need for SJWC to do fire mitigation on their lands. As far as we can determine, there has never been any written plans by SJWC to do the necessary mitigation as requested by CDF until public officials started receiving complaints from members of our community.
While CDF Battalion 3 (responsible for fighting fires in the LG watershed) is actively implementing fire mitigation in our area, SJWC has not been part of those plans. There have been complaints by several CDF officials that they have been unable to get SJWC to respond to such simple request as providing keys to their locked gates and water storage tanks for fighting small blazes before they become unmanageable.

Isn't it true that the San Jose Water Company hired a fire scientist to help them implement a fire mitigation plan?
SJWC has hired a firm that helps companies develop natural resources, TSSConsultants.com. An associate of TSS, David Ganz is a recent graduate of UC Berkeley (2002) with some experience in fire mitigation. We have been told that the contract to hire Mr. Ganz was only completed on October 4th, 2005. When SJWC was asked if Mr. Ganz would work collaboratively with the community, we were told by John Tang, SJWC, that it would be a conflict of interest.

San Jose Water Company claims that thinning the forest will reduce the risks of fire. Isn't this type of logging a good thing?
Originally Andrew Gere and other officials at SJWC have been quoted by local papers as saying that thinning of the trees will reduce fire risks. There is very little truth to this claim and company officials appear to be backing away from this claim.
In fact, CDF guidelines recommends removing the undergrowth and leaving trees over 24" in diameter because they are the most fire resistant.

San Jose Water Company has stated that since this is a second-growth Redwood forest the trees are overcrowded and logging will promote a healthy forest by allowing the remaining trees to grow stronger. Isn't this better for the forest?
Over 90% of the Redwood forests in California are second-growth. A logical extension of their argument would mean that California Redwood forests would be healthier and better off if 40% of all the large Redwood trees in the state were cut. There is obviously little public call for such an 'improvement' to our state's Redwood forests.

Most of us live in wood homes. Isn't logging necessary to meet our ever growing need for forest products?
While some people may be philosophically opposed to logging, most of use wood products and accept the need for logging. There are over 17 millions acres of forest land in California. We are opposed to logging one of the last large strands of old Redwoods in Santa Clara for health and safety reasons as well as concern for protecting our rapidly diminishing open space.

Will logging hurt the watershed and affect the quality of the water that goes to Los Gatos and Mount Serno?

Eighty Five per cent of the water supplied to Los Gatos and Mount Sereno comes from the proposed logging area. In addition, the community of Aldercroft Heights draws its water directly from Los Gatos Creek and Chetemeketa Park uses Los Gatos Creek as a secondary source. Steep slopes and many active tributaries to the Los Gatos creek will contribute to increased sediment ending up in the water supplies. While there are many CDF rules and guidelines designed to minimize this damage or fix it once it occurs, damage will occur. How much damage will occur will be affected by how well SJWC repairs their roads, the amount a rainfall in a given year and other complex factors. This is probably one of the reasons no other major metropolitan area on the West Coast allows logging in their watershed.

Doesn't removing large trees reduce the amount of fuel in case a large fire does occur? Removing the large trees temporarily reduces the available fuel in case of a fire. However, new trees, and brush quickly grow. Opening up the forest canopy leads to the growth of invasive and fire prone species such as Scotch Broom. The new growth is considerably easier to ignite once the large trees are removed. The risk of a fire spreading out of control is actually increased.

San Jose Water Company claims that it will be required to post a bond for any damage done to our roads by the logging trucks. Why are claims being made that our roads will be damaged? The bond will only cover damage due to negligence. The excessive wear and tear caused by logging trucks is not covered by the bond.

It's their land, why shouldn't they be able to do what they want? There are many federal, state and local laws that restrict land use. Many of these laws are designed to create a safe and healthy environment. As one example, building codes are designed to guide us so our homes don't fall down during an earthquake. Laws that regulate logging are similarly designed to make sure we protect our water supplies and environment.

There has been a lot said about helicopter logging. Should I be concerned?

The information in the NTMP confirms that the logging plan will occur year round. Thus helicopter logging will occur in the winter months as well as the summer. What we do know is that these are very large and extremely noisy helicopters. Landing and staging areas for the helicopters will also have to be cleared in the forest area. Unless it is an emergency, they should not be allowed to operate in our heavily populated mountain community. Once logging helicopters are allowed into our neighborhoods, it will be easier for SJWC to expand there use into additional acreage not currently included in the plans.

If San Jose Water Company is not allowed to log, where will they get the money to do fire mitigation?

SJWC has about 220,000 customers. The company has generated billions of dollars in revenue since the 1985 Lexington Fire. They can easily afford to divert a small fraction of their profits to protect the watershed. The real question is why haven't they done so?

If clean water is one of SJWC most valuable assets, why would the do anything to endanger it?

Sometimes companies make mistakes. SJWC has never been in the timber business. The company that is guiding them is not a water company, but a forest products company who's main intent is to maximize the amount of timber they can get out of a forest. The two sets of interest are not the same.
Other large West Coast municipalities including San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Marin County, Portland and Seattle understand the fact that logging and watershed protection are mutually exclusive and all expressly prohibit logging in their watersheds.

If it's true that SJWC has not responded to repeated request from CDF to do basic fire mitigation, why can't CDF force them to do so?

CDF can not force private property owners to follow state guidelines.

How long is the logging permit good for?

The permit, called a Non Industrial Timber Management Plan, NTMP, lasts in perpetuity. The concept is to promote a forest of mixed sized trees that can be sustainability harvested forever. In essence, we will never see the end of the logging trucks, heavy duty chainsaws and loud helicopters in our mountain neighborhoods.

One time SJWC states that 40% of the trees will cut and another time they state only 20% of the trees will be cut, which is it? Both numbers are incorrect. The current NTMP calls for the maximum amount of cutting allowable by law. The NTMP document makes NO mention of trees over 24" in diameter. In fact the plan calls for cutting 60% of the trees 18 inches in diameter or greater (ie leaving 40%). The plan calls for far more cutting of the most fire resistant trees than is mentioned in SJWC's previous public statements. What is most important to understand is the goal. The big trees are the most valuable as lumber products. 60% of the largest trees will be removed. The CDF rules are intended to make sure that a significant number of small trees are left behind to replace the large ones that are removed. Since many of these trees are 115 years old, they are quite large and least likely to ignite during a fire. The small trees that are left behind are much easier to ignite, create ladder fuels and have the potential to make any future fires in our area much worst.

Will Old Growth Trees be cut?

CDF guidelines have no specific provisions to protect old growth. Redwoods can live to be 3,000 year old. Many of the trees being considered for harvest are over 115 years old. They are typically four to seven feet in diameter. we believe they are majestic in stature and worthy of protecting for future generations to appreciate. Given their current age, they are now part of a well established ecosystem.

Is it true that the logging will only occur every other year?

The current NTMP plans call for year-round summer and winter logging and may have to be continued in the following Spring. One of problems with the NTMP process is the ability to easily make changes after the permit is granted without a full review.

Will the value of my property be devalued by logging?

It should be obvious to anyone that trying to sell a home while commercial logging is taking place on your property line is going to affect the sales price. The problem is only aggravated if your home is next to an area that is being helicopter logged.

Will logging trucks add to traffic congestion? Yes. Logging trucks move slowly causing substantially more traffic accidents per mile driven than other vehicles. Summit Rd, the Old Santa Cruz Highway and Highway 17 are already heavily congested. Logging trucks during the summer months on Highway 17 will certainly add to traffic delays. Yes. Logging trucks move slowly causing substantially more traffic accidents per mile driven than other vehicles.

Will there be a risk to school children?

Since the NTMP has now indicated the plan to log in the winter, our parents and school children will share the road with logging trucks during the regular school year. Most schools operate summer programs and logging trucks on our roads where schools are open during any month is a real concern. Forcing our teen children who are just learning to drive to share the road with logging trucks is another real concern.

Aren't log trucks dangerous on mountain roads?

Yes. Logging trucks for each mile driven are involved in more accidents than other vehicles.

Will logging promote the growth of more flammable brush?

Yes. Removing the largest trees from the forest will open canopy and promote the growth of smaller trees, new trees and brush. It will turn a forest of mostly 115 year old trees into a mixed forest. These are exactly the conditions that create ladder fuels and increase the risks of catastrophic fires.

Will logging promote the spread of non-native species?

Yes. Removing the largest trees from the forest will open the canopy and permit more sunlight to enter the forest. This will exacerbate the problems of non-native species. Many of these species such as Scottish Broom is highly flammable.

What happens to the logging slash (debris)? It is left in the forest. It disrupts the natural ecosystem of the forest and when it dries out, it can contribute to increased fire risk. The current NTMP calls for slash up to 30” to be left, a departure from SJWC’s public FAQ that promised slash close to the ground..

Will the trees grow back?

Over time, an uneven aged forest will develop across the SJWC forestlands. There will be fewer large trees and more small trees. The smaller trees are easier to ignite and provide a ladder or easier path for fire to move from the forest floor to the canopy of the largest trees. The risks of catastrophic fire will be higher.

How will logging help with fire management? It will exacerbate the problem. The two activities are unrelated. The logging plan is designed to generate revenue for the company at the expense of creating an uneven aged forest. Fire mitigation and the commercial aspects of the SJWC logging plan are incompatible.

Will the logging affect endangered species?

This is a real concern. The NTMP explicitly mentions the presence of California Red-Legged Frogs (an endangered species) and Ospreys (a sensitive species) in the logging area. .

If I have other concerns or questions that I don't think SJWC is adequately addressing, who can I contact?

Based on the nature of you question we will do our best to either answer it or refer you to an expert that might be able to help.
Please visit our web page at www.mountainresource.org

Suggestions for consideration of NAIL members

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:33:59 -0700

10/23/05
I have some suggestions I would like to propose to the members and officers of NAIL. Order does not necessarily indicate importance; it is just in the order I thought of them.

1. Call press TV and Radio conferences to educate the public on how logging increases Fire danger and harms water sheds. Publicize the inaccuracies and omissions in the NTMP document. Publicity will attract volunteers from colleges and the rest of the Bay area community. We have to build our numbers into overwhelming proportions.

* Make clear it is the slash and ladder fuels that is most likely to burn, not the large trees
* Make clear ladder fuels should be removed and most ideally (but expensively) chipped.
* Show photos of areas under Redwood trees free of fuel due to the excess shade.
* Show photos of sunny areas with Scotch Broom and ladder fuels that are nearby above
* Show photos of landslides and sediment inducing issues related to logging
* Highlight the non-logging policies of other West Coast municipalities

2. Picket SJW headquarters and publicize the event to newspapers and TV news organizations. Reiterate messaging above.

3. Find out when and where the investors meeting is and present views and or past presentation to Los Gatos City council. If need be, purchase a least one share per protester, in order to enter the meeting.

4. Challenge SJW to use experts and consider studies that NAIL considers relevant.

5. Try to force the state to hold approval hearings in our community in venues large enough to hold all interested parties and well publicize the times and locations of and well in advance of the meetings.

6. Find ways to boycott SJW or major shareholder products. Unfortunately, institutions hold the largest chunks of shares.

7. Explore potential liability SJW Corp might incur if their logging activities (if approved) are shown to increase sediments in Lexington reservoir. Any liability must be considered a part of the fiduciary responsibility of the officers of SJW. Make clear that any fires that occur after logging operations (if executed) will result in law suites against SJW

8. Continue outreach and the forming of alliances with other environmental groups such as Green Peace and Sierra Club and other groups to publicize and fight through legal action and protests if required. If logging in watersheds is allowed, then we will be going down the slippery slope of more logging throughout our region.

9. Show SJW that logging increases fire danger. This could be a prelude in order to take legal action to fight the logging. Consider the tobacco companies. Even though they knew smoking was dangerous to ones health, they publicly maintained it was not harmful. For that stance, in the end, they were legally responsible for the harmful effects of smoking despite legally selling tobacco at the time.

10. Contact the top mutual fund holdings and top institutional investors
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=SJW

11. Put a link in the left hand side of the main page to make it easier to find who to contact to express my views and to find the petitions. Link to the documents prescribing the policies for the water sheds of other large West Coast municipalities including San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Marin County, Portland and Seattle

2. Explore ways to increase public participation and enjoyment in SJW’s properties such as hiking trails through the redwood groves.

Thanks,
Nick Arreguy

Suggestions to NAIL Members/Response

Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:44:15 -0700

Thank you to Nick Arreguy for his suggestions to NAIL members and the NAIL steering committee. They were excellent thoughts and suggestions and we would like to reply to them:

Nick: Call press TV and Radio conferences to educate the public on how logging increases Fire danger and harms water sheds. Publicize the inaccuracies and omissions in the NTMP document. Publicity will attract volunteers from colleges and the rest of the Bay area community. We have to build our numbers into overwhelming proportions.

NAIL: We are in touch with reporters from a number of newspapers; the LG Weekly, the SJ Mercury News, The Santa Cruz Sentinel and The SF Chronicle. We have ongoing relationships with the press and are doing everything possible to educate them so that readers can be educated. We recently submitted a first-review article about the innacuracies of the NTMP to the press. A more thorough study of the massive NTMP document by NAIL-hired experts is ongoing and we will be communicating with the press about our findings.

Building our numbers into overwhelming proportions would be an excellent thing to have happen. The probem is that the average person has a general lack of knowledge about logging plans, and specifically NTMP's because it is not something commonly encountered. The learning process takes time. The more you learn about the process, the more you are able to talk to your friends and neighbors about it, the more you are able to speak out to your public guardians about it, the larger our numbers will grow.

Additionally, NAIL is working with consultants who are experts in key areas of the NTMP. They will review it critically and we will proceed in our resistance strategy to stop the plan.

Nick: Picket SJW headquarters and publicize the event to newspapers and TV news organizations. Reiterate messaging above.

NAIL: Residents who would like to organize peaceful public events are encouraged to do so. If you have the time and inclination to lead a public activity to express your opposition to the NTMP, please contact us so we can discuss it with you. During the NTMP process we will need as many residents as possible to attend the public feedback meeting. The date has not yet been scheduled, but we will let everyone know as soon as it is confirmed to us.

Nick: Find out when and where the investors meeting is and present views and or past presentation to Los Gatos City council. If need be, purchase a least one share per protester, in order to enter the meeting.

NAIL: Again, excellent suggestions. Anything and everything that residents can do to show their support for defeating this terrible plan is needed and valued. Remember however that the Los Gatos town council has no jurisdiction over this matter, given that we live in unincorporated Santa Clara County. You might want to direct your views on this terrible plan to Santa Clara County supervisors. They are interested in hearing from you and welcome your commentary. Supervisor Don Gage oversees this area of the county and he has stated that he intends to work with residents and welcomes their communications about the NTMP. Urge the supervisors to vote on a resolution to challenge the NTMP.

Nick: Challenge SJW to use experts and consider studies that NAIL considers relevant.

NAIL: SJWC believes that the experts they have on staff, their hired experts, and those with whom they interface at Big Creek Lumber, are the right experts. As NAIL experts complete reports from studies, those studies will be shared. You can be assured that SJWC is well aware of studies showing that cutting out the canopy will increase the risk of fire, but they reject that information because it does not fit with their goal of making a financial profit off of logging trees.

Nick: Try to force the state to hold approval hearings in our community in venues large enough to hold all interested parties and well publicize the times and locations of and well in advance of the meetings.

NAIL: The county has the ability to request that the public feedback aspect of the NTMP be held at a time and location convenient to the affected population. We have received assurances from Supv. Gage that this request will be made. It is possible that we will be able to attend the public feedback meeting in the evening and probably at the CDF site in Felton. This is better than a morning meeting in Santa Rosa, which could have been the scenario. Stay tuned to the NAIL website for confirmation of meeting time and location.

Nick: Find ways to boycott SJW or major shareholder products. Unfortunately, institutions hold the largest chunks of shares.

NAIL: Again, anything that citizens can do to make it clear to SJWC how much they oppose this plan, is important.

Nick: Explore potential liability SJW Corp might incur if their logging activities (if approved) are shown to increase sediments in Lexington reservoir. Any liability must be considered a part of the fiduciary responsibility of the officers of SJW. Make clear that any fires that occur after logging operations (if executed) will result in law suites against SJW

NAIL: Our expert consultants will be looking at all of this, rest assured. Residents should feel free to voice these sentiments to SJWC, Santa Clara County, CDF and other involved agencies.

Nick: Continue outreach and the forming of alliances with other environmental groups such as Green Peace and Sierra Club and other groups to publicize and fight through legal action and protests if required. If logging in watersheds is allowed, then we will be going down the slippery slope of more logging throughout our region.

NAIL: We have an alliance with the Loma Prieta chapter of the Sierra Club. They have been helping us greatly and continue to be a part of our resistance team. They are on board. We also have alliances with other "green" organizations who are aware of this plan, who are equally alarmed and who are doing work on our behalf, some of it "behind the scenes."

Nick: Show SJW that logging increases fire danger. This could be a prelude in order to take legal action to fight the logging. Consider the tobacco companies. Even though they knew smoking was dangerous to ones health, they publicly maintained it was not harmful. For that stance, in the end, they were legally responsible for the harmful effects of smoking despite legally selling tobacco at the time.

NAIL: There is no SHOWING SJWC that logging increases fire danger. They know this but they choose to ignore it. Again, this NTMP is about making money off of trees on their watershed land. Fire plans, source water quality plans, impact to the environment and to the quality of life of area residents, (as well as the hit to our property values,) is of no interest to SJWC. Neither is the conventional wisdom of most water companies that the logging of watershed land is not a good practice.

We would like members and resident to know that NAIL is working 24x7 on this issue. As stated, we have expert topical consultants and legal consultants working with us. Now that the NTMP has been filed and we can see the REAL language and REAL intent, we are heavily strategizing as to our next steps. We will be holding another community meeting so watch the website for that date.

NIck: Contact the top mutual fund holdings and top institutional investors
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=SJW
NAIL: Great suggestion!

Nick: Put a link in the left hand side of the main page to make it easier to find who to contact to express my views and to find the petitions. Link to the documents prescribing the policies for the water sheds of other large West Coast municipalities including San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Marin County, Portland and Seattle

NAIL: We do plan an upgrade to our NAIL site. The committee has been so busy with fighting the plan on different planes that we have had less time for web page adjustments. If anyone would be willing to donate funds to assist us in this task, it would be welcomed.

Nick: Explore ways to increase public participation and enjoyment in SJW’s properties such as hiking trails through the redwood groves.

NAIL: This is a subject that has been addressed before. SJWC has shown no desire to allow the public access to this land. SJWC recently increased the security fencing around entrances to their watershed, and replaced old locks with heavier, newer locks. Hired guards ensure that there is no trespassing on their property. Security is so tight in Aldercroft Heights that if a fire were to shut off resident exit via Alma Bridge, the entire neighborhood would be locked in. All other vehicle exits out of Aldercroft have SJWC locked gates across them, and no one has a key to the locks in the event of an emergency. SJWC will not offer a key even to the Aldercroft Heights Water board. John Tang, SJWC engineer has stated that: "SJWC cannot take responsibility for people who choose to live in a more fire-prone area" but does mention that if there were a fire they'd send up someone with a key. Hope it is in time...!

Additionally, even if SJWC were to open even some percentage of their lands for public use, in the way that East Bay Municipal Utility Disrict does, for example, and forgo the enormous profit they plan to make off of logged trees, they would have quite a bit of work to do just to make the land accessible. SJWC has been a very poor steward of the land in terms of clearing out brush, sudden-death oakfall, and invasive broom.

Again, we thank Nick for his well thought out remarks and suggestions and we hope NAIL members will consider them seriously. NAIL is more than just your steering committee, it is ALL OF US up here who care about this land and the impact the logging plan will have on it, and us. The steering committee can't do it all. We need you and we need our hired experts to stop the plan. Whether you can donate time or money, or both, we need you here and now.

NAIL Steering Committee

Local Residents and SJWC Own Proposed Acres to be Logged

Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:54:57 -0700

The NonIndustrial Timber Management Plan recently filed by San Jose Water Company lists the timber owners of record for the 1000 acres proposed for logging.

Mountain residents might be interested to know that San Jose Water Company is only one of the owners of this land. Please note the other owners on record:

Bruce Kennedy, Loma Prieta Avenue
Charles Kennedy, Loma Prieta Avenue
Mark and Robin Porter, Loma Prieta Avenue

The NTMP is a public document and the named individuals above are on public record as owners of this land that is to be logged for profit.

Overview of NTMP Process

Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:57:57 -0700

45 day minimum review period from the date the initial inspection is completed, or from the date an accepted NTMP is filed, if the Director determines an inspection is not necessary (1090.18)

Timber Harvest Review Process
Domestic Water Supply Inquiry: Property owners should respond w/in 10 days:
• to alert submitter of domestic water use from a water course within the NTMP or within 1000 ft down stream
• to request mitigations to prevent adverse effects to their water source.

Notice of Intent and Plan Submittal: CDF has 10 days to do 1st review

First Review & Acceptance for filing: Plan rejected or accepted for filing
County Supervisor should request night-time public hearing at an easily accessible location

Pre-Harvest Inspection (PHI): to take place w/in 10 days of plan filing.
• Various Review Team members conduct a site visit.
• Review Team is led by CDF.
• Advisory members include:
–California Geological Survey (CGS)
–Department of Fish and Game (DFG)
–San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB)
–Santa Clara County Planning Department

Public Hearing:
• This is the chance for the community to voice concerns
• Not a Q & A session (CDF gathers info)
• Usually little or no presentation of issues
• Speakers have from 3-5 minutes each
• CDF must address in writing every significant environmental, public health, & safety concern raised

Review Team Meeting (Review Team):
• Agencies discuss Registered Professional Forester’s (RPF) response to PHI requests
• Takes place in Santa Rosa
–Public can sit in and listen via conference line from Felton CDF office (limited public attendance) Take notes; tape record
–Issues are hammered out here
–Public may have the opportunity to ask questions of RT members
• CDF prepares Review Team Recommendations
• County (DFG) can non-concur w/in 5 days

Close of Public Comment:
• Ten days after last significant info is received by CDF (RPF responses, etc.)
• Call CDF to confirm date (831-335-6740)
• Send comment letters to CDF prior to date:

Decision-Approval:
• CDF Director approves plan
• CDF has 15 days to prepare Official Response to Comments (often takes longer)
• Can be obtained from CDF or is sent to those who submitted comments

Official Response to Comments

Appeal
• Board of Supervisors can vote to appeal the plan
• Need to get vote of Board of Supervisors before Decision Date
• Board of Forestry decides whether or not to hear appeal
• Board of Forestry holds public hearing on appeal (Sacto)
• Rarely upholds appeal

Litigation

CDF Evaluation of Fire Danger in our Zone

Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:03:50 -0700

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION
SANTA CLARA UNIT FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, 2005
(Reproduced from pages 27 and 28)

Battalion Three: (Los Gatos)
Battalion Three is located in Santa Clara County and lies solely in the State Responsibility Area (SRA) bordering the north of Highway 152; west of the Almaden Valley; then east of the Santa Cruz County line; South from the San Mateo County Line. The Battalion includes watershed for local communities, as this watershed flows in to many lakes and streams managed by both the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Jose Water Company. The Battalion also is home to a large amount of Coastal Redwoods protected from development by open space districts along with County parks. The Battalion also has a number of small rural communities that have little or no governmental services.

Historically, the major wild land fire occurrence has been in the remote and sparsely populated South western portion of the Battalion Three, the 1987 Lexington Fire and the 1994 Croy Fire were large structure loss incidents in the Santa Clara Unit. The 2004 Fire Cause Statistics are consistent with previous years equipment use being the leading cause for preventable wild land fires. The 2004 Fire Season (May through October) statistics for Battalion Three are: 1 Battalion Chief; 7 permanent and 2 seasonal Fire Captains; 2 Fire Pilots and 2 seasonal Fire Apparatus Engineers; and 25 seasonal firefighters answered the calls with one utility (circa 1986) two fire engines (circa 1985, 1991) one helicopter (circa 1968) and one helicopter service unit (circa 1996) responded to 488 separate incidents, The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has identified (SRA) Fire Hazard Severity Zones as Moderate, High, & Very High - based on homogeneous lands and their fuel 27.

Santa Clara Unit
Fire Management Plan, 2005 loading, slope, and fire weather. In Battalion Three they are located by vertically dividing into three sections: the South section is a Very High (Loma Preita area), the center section is Moderate (West Santa Clara Valley Foothills), and the North section is High (Hwy 85 and Interstate 280) Battalion Three, because of its unique combination of vegetation, topography, climate and population, has one of the most severe wild land problems in the San Francisco Bay Area. Wild land and urban interface, rugged terrain and highly flammable vegetation coupled with high winds make the South West Santa Clara County foothills especially unsafe for development unless adequate fire safe measures are taken. Without regard for wild land fire protection and water sources, continued development in the SRA will heavily impact fire protection and emergency medic services. Solutions center on designing an acceptable level of risks for firefighters and residents that measure all elements of that risk. Pre-fire planning, mutual aid agreements, standard response plans, Mutual threat zones and high fire behavior warnings are necessary elements to measure the risks to reduce losses from wildfires.

Response to Letter in Mountain Network News

Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:15:49 -0800

Despite the many attempts by San Jose Water Company and certain individuals to characterize NAIL members as uninformed and one-sided, NAIL has worked continuously to provide residents with factual, researched and documented information about the dangers of this logging plan. NAIL made the decision not to post on our website the multi-paged FAQ sent to us by San Jose Water because we believed much of the "information" in the FAQ was public relations "spin" designed to obfuscate the true facts and pacify the community about the impact of the logging plan. We believed that the true facts and the true story would be reflected in the wording of the NTMP. Indeed, now that the NTMP is public it can be validated that San Jose Water Co.'s FAQ "story" does not match their intent via the permit language.

NAIL Steering Committee:

Terry Clark, Debbie Daly, Kevin Flynn, Rea Freedom, Rebecca Moore, Rick Parfitt, Linda Wallace

More SJWC Land Sale Activity

Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:07:01 -0800

A link to land sale activity/pending.

http://www.cbre.com/USA/US/CA/San+Jose/Property/sjw.htm?pageid=1

As noted in an earlier company press release, they are selling property with approvals for high rise residential/retail. While adjacent to the historical corporate buidling, it does not include the building. Here is the link to the property for sale that was included in the press release.

See more on YahooFinance: SJWC headlines.

SJWC now listed on NYSE

Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:25:25 -0800

News indicates that the SJWC Board has approved to transfer its stock listing from the American Stock Exchange to the New York Stock Exchange effective 11/14/05.
_________________________
Form 8-K for SJW CORP

31-Oct-2005
Notice of Delisting or Transfer, Regulation FD Disclosure, Financial Statements and Exhibit.

Item 3.01 Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard; Transfer of Listing.
(d) On October 27, 2005, the Board of Directors of SJW Corp. (the "Company") approved the transfer of the listing of the Company's common stock to the New York Stock Exchange from the American Stock Exchange.

Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure.
The Company anticipates that its common stock will begin trading on the New York Stock Exchange on November 14, 2005. The Company's shares will continue to trade on the American Stock Exchange under the symbol "SJW" until its common stock has been accepted for listing on the New York Stock Exchange and its shares begin trading on such exchange. A copy of the press release issued by the Company is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.

This Item 7.01 and the exhibit to this report contain forward- looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act. Specifically, these forward-looking statements relate to the timing of listing and trading on the New York Stock Exchange and whether such listing and trading will occur at all. These forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties and there is no assurance that the listing and trading will be accomplished as anticipated.

First Review Team Questions/NTMP

Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:14:30 -0800

THE DOCUMENT BELOW CONTAINS THE FIRST NTMP REVIEW TEAM QUESTIONS. CDF WANTS CLARIFICATION ON THESE ISSUES. PLEASE REVIEW THIS DOCUMENT AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THE CONTENTS.

NAIL Steering Committee

NOTE:
Any correspondence or materials regarding this plan which are not submitted directly to Santa Rosa, will not be recognized by the Department as part of the official NTMP.
This may result in an increase in the time necessary to determine if the plan is acceptable for approval.

 Contact CGS (Tom Spittler) @ (707) 576-2949 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI
 Contact CDF Archaeology (Chuck Whatford) @ (707) 576-2966 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI
 Contact WQ (Richard McMurtry) @ (408)821-4658 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI
 Contact DFG (Rick Macedo/Richard Fitzgerald @(707)928-4369/964-1691 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI
 Contact CDF (Pete Cafferata) @ (916) 653-9455 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI
 Contact CDF (John Munn) @ (916) 653-5843 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI
 Contact CDF Biometrician (Chris Maranto) @ (916) 651-6860 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI
 Notify CDF (Ruth Norman) @ (707) 576-2940 of PHI date and time.

RPF Questions to be addressed prior to PHI: (Please send your original response to the CDF Santa Rosa office, and make available at the PHI TO ALL PARTICIPATING AGENCIES)

1. It appears that San Jose Water Company owns approximately 6,000 acres. Please verify that the ownership does not include more than 2,500 acres of commercial timberland [ref. PRC 4593.2]

2. Additional Timberland Owners are involved in the proposed project for road and landing use. Their involvement is described under Additional Timberland Owners toward the top of page 2. Please add the following information to that description on Page 2:
a) For disclosure purposes, please clearly state that road and landing construction is proposed on their properties, not just use.
b) Based on information in the plan, it appears the construction/use of these facilities is not a “vested right” of the timberland owner/submitter and may be revoked at any time [ref. pages 314 – 316]. Please add a disclosure statement.
c) For plan clarity, please include a statement that although the use of the facilities on the neighboring properties would allow for more efficient operations, the NTMP is still operational even if use of the other timberland owners property is denied in the future.

3. Item 34 on page 29 is checked “No”, however, the stand descriptions in the plan initially appear to meet the definition of Late Successional Forest. Please provide a discussion that addresses why Late Successional Forest Stands are not present within the plan area.

4. Unit #8 (i.e. Helicopter Unit) is 244 acres and prescribes helicopter yarding with the option to use cable equipment. For the Department to adequately evaluate the use of cable yarding the plan must disclose how cable operations are planned. Particularly for the northern portion of the unit, it does not appear that existing facilities are adequate to conduct a cable operation. Based on the NTMP maps, the entire unit may be cable yarded. Please address.

5. The following questions pertain to Item 17 (Erosion Hazard Rating):
A. Please briefly discuss the III. PROTECTIVE VEGETATIVE COVER REMAINING AFTER DISTURBANCE rating of 1 for areas C, D, F, G & I. Given the harvest level necessary to generate an economically feasible helicopter operation and the prescribed canopy retention levels of 40 – 60%, is it reasonable to expect 100% vegetative cover remaining post-harvest [ref. top of page 124]?
B. Under Item 17 on page 9 the plan states, “See EHR Maps following Section II of the NTMP.” The EHR maps appear to be in Section V, on pages 212 – 223. For plan consistency, please review and revise as necessary.
C. Please review the EHR determination for factor rating area H on page 210. It appears that the rating should be High.

6. The following questions pertain to Growth and Yield and general stand conditions (The following questions are intended to solicit additional information to be used by the Department’s biometrician during his evaluation of the sustainability analysis):
A. Please provide a discussion in the NTMP concerning how WLPZs were considered in the sustainability analysis. Approximately how many acres of the plan area are in Class I and Class II WLPZ?
B. Based on Tables S6 and S7 on pages 66 and 67 there appears to be a deficit in recruitment trees between 6” and 10” dbh. Was this deficit considered in the sustainability analysis? Please address.
C. Hardwood occupancy will influence stand development over time. Please provide additional information on hardwoods, including stems per acre, for the pre-harvest stand and following the initial entry in each stand (vegetation type).
D. Item 14f is checked Yes for the need to reduce hardwood occupancy relative to Group A species. The information on pages 74 and 75 does not discuss hardwood reduction. In fact, the balanced conditions of the stands, based on conifer volume, suggest no enforceable reduction in hardwood stocking. Please address.
E. Vegetation types DF, RW and RWDF will be harvested from their current stocking levels down to approximately 40 mbf/acre, 45 mbf/acre and 45 mbf/acre, respectively. Growth rate is provided by unit on page 66, whereas harvest rate is provided by vegetation type on page 74. By how much will this harvest level exceed the current growth rate? Was quantitative data used to determine a balanced condition? Please address.
F. The long-term productivity of the DFH, RWDFH and RWH vegetation types is discussed on pages 74 and 75. The plan states that, “In this vegetation type, the volume per acre is at a level consistent with that level often found in historically managed stands. While this property does not have that stand history, volume targets do not require adjustment as in other vegetation types, due to the likelihood of good stand growth and vigor following the initial harvest entry. Therefore, the time period over which growth is to be balanced with harvest is the period between harvest entries.” How can the stands be balanced if all ages and size classes are not adequately represented [ref. what appears to be underrepresented trees in the 6” to 10” diameter classes]? While a stand that closely resembles an inverse j-shaped curve may not be desirable or even feasible, conditions must be demonstrated that shows adequate recruitment to support the balanced condition. A balanced stand is not one where volume harvested is forced to balance with volume grown based on 15-year intervals, but rather one that can provide a dependable level of volume over long periods of time (barring fires, landslides, insect infestations, etc.) Please address.
G. Please provide a table that identifies the number of acres by vegetation type in each management unit.
H. 14 CCR 1090.5(g) and (h) provide the Department with current stand conditions, as well as stand conditions expected in the future. Not only does the Department require this information to evaluate the long-term expectations of the Plan Submitter (growth versus harvest), but baseline conditions are necessary for the Department to evaluate changes in stand structure over time. In order for the Department to adequately evaluate the validity of the sustainability analysis, please provide the following information:
i. A pre-harvest stand table for each stand (vegetation type) with diameter class representation by 2” class.
ii. A stand table for each stand (vegetation type) after the initial entry.
iii. A stand table for each stand (vegetation type) when balanced. (Please note that the Department is not requesting enforceable standards, but rather desired stand conditions and adequate information that demonstrates that these conditions are achievable.)

7. Under 2. Identify any public roads that have not been used recently for the transport of logs on page 144 the plan states that, “Signs shall be placed at minimum of at least ½ mile intervals, giving consideration to sign visibility for oncoming traffic.” This ½-mile standard was not included under CAUTION LOG TRUCK SIGNS on page 31. Please include on page 31 so the LTO can comply with 14 CCR 1090.12(d).

8. The following questions pertain to geological issues:
A. MITIGATION POINT G8-1 is described on page 11. The plan states that, “At this location the road will be reconstructed on an existing prism that crosses a scarp approximately 24” inches wide.” The CEG’s report describes the feature as a proposed road that follows an old tractor trail. Please clarify. (If a tractor trail is being converted into a truck road, the road must be identified as proposed construction rather than reconstruction.)
B. MITIGATION POINT G6-6 is described on page 12. The plan states that, “No harvesting shall occur on the slide for the first entry….” The CEG’s report [ref. page 259] states that, “Because of the high rate of slide movement and because of the existence of upslope residential structures adjacent to the slide it was concluded that it would be prudent to exclude this slide from the proposed harvest.” The CEG does not appear to be limiting harvest to the first entry. Please address.
C. Where is G6-6 shown on a map? Please clarify.
D. Under 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION on page 247 the CEG states that, “Treatment of hardwoods is not proposed.” Apparently during the geologic review, hardwood treatment was not proposed. However, Item 14f indicates that hardwoods will be treated to reduce site occupancy. Please discuss if the geologist’s recommendations have been modified to account for a change in hardwood treatment.
E. Should the feature described by N7 on page 252 be mapped on the Operations Map? Please address.
F. Should the feature described by N10 on page 252 be shown on the Operations Map? Please address.
G. Does the 3rd paragraph under Item 14b on page 5 address G1? Please verify. Also, please verify that the area is clearly identified on the map.
H. It is noted that all proposed roads on the Operations Maps are shown as abandoned roads on the CEG’s maps.

FOR CLARIFICATION

9. Please have the Licensed Timber Operator sign and date Item 3 on page 2 [ref. 14 CCR 1035.3(a)].

10. Under Item 5c on page 3 the plan states that, “The Plan Submitter, San Jose Water Company, shall be responsible for inspection and any needed repair and maintenance of erosion controls during the remainder of the prescribed maintenance period.” In the letter to the Plan Submitter/Timberland Owner on page 181 the letter states that, “The landowner is responsible for inspection and any needed repair and maintenance of erosion controls during the remainder of the prescribed maintenance period.” Pursuant to 14 CCR 1050(c) the Timberland Owner is the responsible party, unless a third party accepts responsibility and provides written acknowledgement of that responsibility to the Department. Since no written acknowledgement has been provided, please revise Item 5c from Plan Submitter to Timberland Owner. This is also necessary given the additional Timberland Owners or in the event that the timberland changes ownership.

11. Proposed road construction outside the flagged NTMP boundary is usually identified as ROW under Item 14a on page 5. While a majority of the proposed road construction appears to be occurring within the NTMP boundary, the NTMP map does show road construction outside of it [ref. NTMP map on page 33.5, specifically associated with Landings 23 and 24]. As such, please indicate the amount of area estimated in road right of way outside the flagged NTMP boundary under Item 14a on page 5. Please be sure to include the area on the additional timberland owners’ properties too.

12. Item 14e on page 6 indicates that Group B species will need to be reduced to maintain relative site occupancy of Group A species. The plan provides a two paragraph discussion concerning hardwood reduction. It appears that enforceable standards have not been provided. The following excerpts are two examples (bold added for emphasis):
A. “In order to maintain relative site occupancy of Group A species, hardwoods that will have a significant negative effect on redwood sprouts or seedlings may be reduced.”
B. “Hardwoods occupying growing space that would be suitable for planting redwood or Douglas-fir seedlings may be selectively harvested.”
Please provide enforceable standards for the reduction of Group B species. These standards must be consistent with hardwood treatment that will be necessary to perpetuate anticipated harvest levels described in Section III.

13. The following questions pertain to Sudden Oak Death under Item 15:
A. Please revise 4. on page 7 to specify all host material, not only hardwood host material.
B. The list of regulated SOD host species has recently been expanded. Please revise the list under List of all known Sudden Oak Death Regulated Hosts (as of May 23, 2005) on page 8 to include the recent species additions.
C. Please include a statement that the destination(s) of host material will be amended into the plan prior to transport of host material.

14. Map Points M5-1 and M8-1 are described under ITEM # 21 (c): SKID TRAIL ON SLOPES OVER 50% WITH HIGH EHR on page 11. Based on the plan M5-1 involves 150 feet of skid trail and M8-1 involves approximately 100 feet of skid trail. The EHR map on page 218 identifies the area as Moderate, not High. Please clarify.

15. The following questions pertain to Item 24:
A. Item 24e on page 14 is checked Yes. There is no Explanation and Justification associated with the Yes response. Is Yes the appropriate response? Please clarify.
B. The following questions pertain to landings:
i. Should the Yarding Method column associated with L2 (page 13) include Cable? Please review and revise if necessary.
ii. The map on page 33.6 shows L25 twice. Please clarify.
C. The locations of L28, L29 and L35 could not be found on any of the NTMP Operations maps. Please verify that they have been included on the appropriate map(s) and refer the reviewer to their locations.

16. Mitigation Points
a) MITIGATION POINT M23-2 is described on page 16. The plan states that, “A portion of existing road is located on slopes over 65% for approximately 150 feet at M23-2. The existing grade is stable and will require minimal ground disturbance to reconstruct.” The road associated with Mitigation Point M23-2 is shown on the map on page 33.2 as proposed. Please clarify.
b) The last recommendation under MITIGATION POINT M24-2 on page 16 is not consistent with the CEG’s recommendation. Please address.
c) Will elevating the crossing at MITIGATION POINT M18-4 conform to 14 CCR 923.4(n)? Please address.
d) Under CLASS I WATERCOURSES WITH FISH HABITAT on page 18 please address 14 CCR 916.4(b)(6).
e) Under CLASS II WATERCOURSES on page 19 please address 14 CCR 916.4(b)(6).
f) MITIGATION POINT M7-1 is described on page 20. The plan prescribes the installation of an 18” DRC under the reconstructed road. The map on page 33.1 identifies the road as proposed. Please clarify.

17. Crossing points
a) Is the road associated with Crossing R1-1 proposed or existing? The plan refers to reconstruction [ref. CROSSING R1-1 on page 20 and the map on page 33.1], whereas the CEG’s report refers to proposed construction [ref. DESCRIPTION under R1 on page 261]. Please clarify.
b) CROSSING R3-1 is described on page 21 as a seasonal road requiring reconstruction. The road is shown on the map on page 33.1 as proposed. Please clarify.
c) Crossings S2-2 and S3-2 are described on page 21 as tractor road crossings on Class III watercourses. Based on the map on page 33.2 the watercourse associated with S2-2 appears to be a Class II. Please verify that the watercourse is a Class III, as described in the text.

18. The use of Landing L31 is described at the bottom of page 22. The plan states that, “The landing surface shall be treated with effective erosion control measures upon completion of operations, prior to the winter period.” For LTO clarity, evaluation and compliance purposes please specify the effective erosion control measures. This can be done by referencing Item 18 or providing site specific controls.

19. MITIGATION POINT M9-6 is described on page 23 as a skid trail in the WLPZ of a Class II watercourse. The map on page 33.8 shows a seasonal truck road associated with the map point. Is there a skid trail covered by the mitigation point symbol, or is the truck being used only as a skid trail? Please clarify.

20. As the RPF of record for this NTMP you have requested that the Department include a Review Team Question (RTQ) concerning Item 30 on page 24. In the 1st paragraph under Item 30 the plan states that, “The LTO is responsible for lopping and distributing logging slash in designated areas so that no part of it generally remains more than 30 inches above the ground.” You indicated that reference to 30 inches was incorrect and that the intended height was 18 inches. Please revise.

21. Under “INNER GORGE” CLASS II WATERCOURSES on page 19 the plan states that, “Seven Class II watercourses on the project area are deeply incised and exhibit inner gorge characteristics….” Under DESCRIPTION in the CEG’s report for G4 (page 258) reference is made to six Class II watercourses. Please clarify.

22. A diagram is included on page 33.23. It appears to be related to Mitigation Point G11-1. Please label the diagram so it is clearly related to the specific mitigation point.

23. Under Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) on page 26 the plan states that, “Three osprey nest sites have been documented on the NTMP area.” This same statement is also provided under Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) on page 58. The expectation is that three nest sites have been documented within the boundaries of the proposed NTMP. Since there are two nest sites within, and one nest within close proximity, please revise accordingly. As written it appears that either one of the nest sites is incorrectly mapped, or that one nest site was accidentally omitted from the map [ref. map on page 33.17 and E. Significant Wildlife Areas on page 137].

24. The following questions pertain to the NTMP maps:
A. Please provide a map, or series of maps, that clearly identify public versus private roads [ref. 14 CCR 1090.5(w)(4)]. Including the location of locked gates would be helpful.
B. The plan boundary and management units are difficult to locate in some areas, particularly where they are associated with a road or watercourse. Please use a symbol that clearly shows the plan boundary and management units [ref. 14 CCR 1090.5(w)(1)].

25. Under Unit #8 (Helicopter Yarding with Cable Option; 244 acres) on page 37 the 1st sentence refers to Unit #7. Please revise, verifying that the information provided is applicable to Unit #8.

26. Under Briggs Creek Unit (Cable, Tractor/Cable Option; 38 acres) on page 37 the plan discusses two unstable areas. The first unstable area is described as being within the western portion of the Unit on the north side of Briggs Creek. The second unstable area is described as being in the southern portion of the Unit under Thompson Road. The unstable area north of Briggs Creek is clearly shown on the map on page 33.16. The location of the other unstable area is not clear. Please clearly show the location of this feature on the map [ref. 14 CCR 1090.5(w)(10)].

27. In the 2nd paragraph on page 46 the plan states that the CEG will oversee tractor operations on unstable areas and slides. Please verify that this provision is included in Section II so the LTO knows not to commence operations without the CEG present. If this provision has been included, please refer the reviewer to its location. (See also the 4th paragraph under Justification on page 47 for the (possible) need to make a similar revision.)

28. About half way through Explanation on page 46 the plan states that, “Following operations, or prior to the winter period, the trail shall be waterbarred to the specification for high EHR….” Under MITIGATION POINT M5-1, M8-1, M11-1, M12-1 on page 11 the plan states that, “Following operations, or prior to the winter period, the trail shall be waterbarred to the specification for extreme EHR….” Please clarify the EHR related to waterbar spacing. (See also under Justification for the (possible) need to make a similar revision.)

29. In the last paragraph on page 48 the plan states that, “The road construction in the WLPZ will maintain at least 20 feet of undisturbed vegetated filter strip between the outside edge of the road and the watercourse and/or pond.” Under ITEM #27 (a, f): ROAD CONSTRUCTION IN THE WLPZ on page 22 the plan discusses vegetation retention between the road and the watercourse, but does not provide a specific distance. It appears that the 20-foot retention provision included on page 48 should also be included in Section II so the LTO can comply with 14 CCR 1090.12(d).

30. At the top of page 50 the plan states that, “Following operations, or prior to the winter period, the skid trail shall be waterbarred to the specification for high EHR….” In the discussion of Mitigation Points M10-2, M9-6 and M25-6 on page 23 there is no reference to waterbars at the high EHR specifications. While the 50-foot spacing requirement appears to equal and/or surpass the high EHR specifications, for plan clarity, please have the discussions in Section II and III consistent.

31. In the text under Table S9: Present Volume per Acre on page 67 the plan states that, “Some variation between the “present volume” above and the “present volume” used in Table S12 in this Sustainability Analysis can be found.” Table S12 does provide present volume per acre, however it is by management unit as opposed to vegetation type. Table S13 provides present volume per acre by vegetation type, and values in Table S13 do somewhat differ from the values in Table S9. Was reference to Table S12 on page 67 correct? Please review and revise as necessary.

32. In the 1st paragraph under B. Silvicultural Prescriptions for Harvesting on page 72 the plan states that, “For the purposes of maintaining compliance with stocking requirements…either 75 square feet per acre of conifer basal area, or 450 countable conifer trees (using point count) per acre shall remain following harvest.” This is inconsistent with Item 14b on page 5, which specifies 75ft2 only. For plan consistency, please review and revise as necessary.

33. The following questions pertain to 2. Public or Private Purchase of the Timber/Timberland or Purchase of the Timber/Timberland as a Conservation Easement Alternative on page 87:
A. The 2nd paragraph appears to be incomplete. For plan clarity, please review the last sentence and revise as necessary.
B. Please carefully review the 5th paragraph. Verify that all sentences are complete and the time period specified is correct. Revise if necessary.

34. Please verify that water, not timber, is the high quality product associated with the NTMP [ref. last sentence under 6. Alternative Land Uses on page 90]. Producing high quality water can be a primary objective of the Timberland Owner without an NTMP.

35. Please review the 2nd sentence in the 3rd paragraph under Lyndon Canyon Planning Watershed (CALWATER V2.2 2205.400202) on page 98. The sentence is confusing.

36. In the text immediately above the 1st photograph on page 101 the plan states that, “All recommendations of the project Certified Engineering Geologist have been incorporated into NTMP Section II for clarity.” For consistency, please verify that recommendations 1 and 2 under Other on page 265 have been clearly provided in Section II.

37. Under 4., Noise, on page 104 the plan refers to bi-annual harvesting operations. Is this consistent with the approximate 15-year re-entry period described under A. Projected Frequencies of Harvest on page 72 and the re-inventory requirements described on page 75 [ref. Re-Inventory of the Timber Stand]? Please clarify.

38. Please review the last sentence in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th paragraphs on page 108 for consistency with the same information included on page 91. Revise as necessary.

39. In the 2nd paragraph on page 115 the plan states that, “The project boundaries also encompass multiple class II ponds and wet areas.” No wet areas were described in Item 26, Section II or shown on the Operations Maps. Please clarify.

40. Under Debris Clearing at the top of page 117 the plan states that, “No naturally occurring debris will be removed from the stream channel as part of NTMP operations.” Under 13. Extraction of large organic debris from streams or lakes as a result of the project on page 121 the plan discusses the prohibition of the removal of large woody debris in quantities that may cause harm to beneficial uses of water. If no naturally occurring debris is to be removed from Class II and Class III stream channels, the retention requirement needs to be included in Section II. Currently, large woody debris retention is discussed in Section II in relation to Class I watercourses only.

41. Under 7. Sheet, rill, or gully erosion from harvesting or site preparation that could enter the stream system on page 120 the plan refers to the waterbarring of skid trails to the High EHR specification. Please clarify where this applies, as the implication is that it pertains to all skid trails.

42. Under 3. The combined loss of soil productivity… on page 125 please address growing space loss due to the proposed construction of numerous landings and several segments of seasonal road.

43. Under Fish on page 127 please review the sentence starting with, “Fish species including land-locked trout….” It does not appear to be complete? Revise if necessary.

44. In the 3rd paragraph on page 136 the plan states that, “Mitigation points such as widening of a switchback on Wright’s Station Road and the backfilling of gully erosion on a seasonal road within Unit #2…all facilitate fire suppression activities into the future.” In the 2nd paragraph on the bottom half of page 123 the plan indicates that the gully/seasonal road location is in Unit #1. For plan consistency, please review and revise as necessary.

45. Under 2. Nutrients on page 136 please review the sentence that starts with, “No harvesting of trees along the watercourse transition lines….” Revise for clarity.

46. Under B. 1. on page 140 the plan states that, “Parcels included in the assessment area are private ownerships with no legal public recreational opportunities.” Is this statement consistent with the end of the 1st paragraph on page 140? Please clarify.

47. Please review the last paragraph under C. Change in Visual Resources on page 142 with the last paragraph under B. Visual Resources Inventory on page 141. Revise if necessary.

48. In the last paragraph on page 144 the plan limits entry into Unit #6 and for other purposes of heavy equipment movement until the bridge upgrades are complete. Please verify that all restrictions are clearly addressed in Section II, not just entry into Unit #6.

49. Please verify that the lopping standard discussed under 16. Will the project increase fire hazard significantly on page 152 is consistent with that prescribed under Item 30 on page 24. Revise if necessary.

50. Rock is proposed for use throughout the NTMP area. Please address the source of the rock, and if from the Timberland Owner’s property, the need for a SMARA permit.

51. Please review page 326. The Plan Submitter has retained the services of an RPF, while at the same time the Timberland Owner has authorized the Plan Submitter to act on behalf of an RPF. Revise as necessary.

52. When submitting your responses to the RTQs, please provide $5 for the Rules. Since the plan may not be approved until 2006, submitting the 2005 Rules may not be appropriate.

53. Please make sure that all page numbers are located high enough on the page so they are clearly legible when the plan is copied.

54. Please make the following minor revisions:
A. Fomes to Phellinus under Wildlife Tree Retention – specifically 4. – toward the top of page 6.
B. Under MITIGATION POINT M24-2 on page 16 the plan states that, “See also M2-2 under Item 24 in NTMP Sections II and III.” Do you mean Item 27? Please review and revise as necessary.
C. Please provide the unit of measure associated with 30 under MITIGATION POINT M20-5 on page 17.
D. The last sentence on page 23 states that, “Further explanation and justification of this alternative practice is provided in Section V.” Do you mean Section III? Please review and revise accordingly.
E. Under Item 33 at the bottom of page 28 please revise Stand Description to Stand Conditions to be consistent with the text [ref. pages 41 – 43].
F. Please review the 1st sentence on page 115. Please revise as necessary [ref. miles versus feet].

RPF Archaeology Questions to be addressed prior to the PHI. For confidentiality, please submit responses and replacement/additional pages clipped or stapled separately. A single envelope is acceptable.

55. Under Native American Consultation Information (pg. 383):
A. Add the date that the second Native American notification letters were sent.
B. During the telephone conversation with Ann Marie Sayers of the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of Costanoan, did she have any concerns about the plan or provide information about the plan area? If so, include a summary of the conversation.
C. Did the RPF receive a written response from Ann Marie Sayers? Any written responses shall be attached to the CAA. (ARCH)

56. Under Survey Results (pp. 388-390), was there any evidence of the historic buildings shown on the map from the New Historical Atlas of Santa Clara County, California (Thompson & West 1876) or the two historic roads (General Land Office 1866 & 1868) within the site survey areas? These historic resources were identified within the NTMP boundaries in the records check on pp. 343-347. If so, provide descriptions of the resources, significance assessments, and protection measures (if needed). (ARCH)

57. Under Protection Measures (pp. 392-393), clearly describe the specific enforceable protection measures to be implemented within 100 feet of the fifteen historic resources. (ARCH)

58. On the Archaeological Survey Coverage Maps (pp. 396 & 397), plot the locations of the Williams Dam, the Rattlesnake Wall, and the Homestead Cabin. (ARCH)

59. On the Primary Record forms (pp. 398-450):
A. P11, cite the author and year of the CAA;
B. On the Site Location Maps, provide the publication date(s) of the USGS
quadrangles. All Site Location Maps should include a north arrow. Outline the
boundaries of the resources with a solid black line (instead of a line with cross-
hatches in it). The locations of linear resources (such as the fences and the
railroad grade) should be plotted as black lines. Very small resources can be
depicted with a black dot.
C. The Site Sketch Maps must include site datum points. The datum should be a
relatively permanent natural or cultural feature. A description of the datum shall
be included either in the map legend or in the Archaeological Site Record form;
D. P2c (Southern Pacific Coast Railroad Grade, pg. 442), the Legal Description
should be to the nearest quarter quarter Section whenever possible. For example:
the SE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 9, the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 9, the SE
¼ of Section 9, etc.;
E. P4 (Gulch Site, pg. 449), should be ‘Site’ instead of ‘Structure’. (ARCH)

60. If it is located on San Jose Water Company landholdings, the Rattlesnake Wall should be recorded on a primary record form. (ARCH)

Agency Questions:

61. Please verify that the buffer zones along Wright’s Station Road and Morrill Road have been marked for the PHI [ref. County Roads at the bottom of page 5].

62. Please verify that Map Points M5-1, M8-1, M11-1, M12-1 and M6-2 have been flagged for the PHI [ref. ITEM # 21 (c): SKID TRAIL ON SLOPES OVER 50% WITH HIGH EHR on page 11].

63. Are full winter period operations, especially ground-based yarding, appropriate? To avoid multiple “spring flushes” should tractor yarding be terminated after a prescribed amount of precipitation has fallen? Please evaluate.

64. Proposed landings L41 and L42 are not to exceed ¼-acre. Given that these landings service helicopter operations, can a landing less than ¼-acre accommodate the anticipated activities? Please evaluate.

65. Please evaluate proposed road construction within the WLPZ of Los Gatos Creek at Mitigation Point M24-2 [ref. page 16].

66. Given that the Plan Submitter/Timberland Owner is in the business of water collection, distribution and supply, have Class I watercourses (both fish-bearing and domestic supplies) been provided adequate protection? Please evaluate.

67. Cross-stream felling of Class II watercourses is proposed throughout the plan area where such felling will improve safety or better protect residual vegetation and the beneficial uses of water [ref. 4. on page 19]. Is this a reasonable proposal, and who shall determine where and when it is appropriate? Please evaluate.

68. Springs are discussed on page 20. Are the protection measures prescribed adequate? Please evaluate.

69. Should the sag pond described by N9 in the CEG’s Report on page 252 be shown on the Operations Map? Please evaluate.

70. Please note that the RPF believes that some tanoak mortality within the plan area is a result of Sudden Oak Death [ref. 2nd paragraph on page 43].

71. Please review the descriptions of the five haul routes described on pages 143 and 144. Are they accurate?

72. It is appropriate to exclude Columbus Day as a nationally designated legal holiday [ref. LOG HAULING on page 31]? Please evaluate.

73. Please verify that the Scenic Roads Maps [ref. pages 234 – 243] identify all the necessary roads.

74. Do any of the roads on the Scenic Roads Maps meet the definition of a Special Treatment Area per 14 CCR 895.1? Please evaluate.

75. Please note that in a letter from the Chemeketa Park Mutual Water Company dated September 7, 2005, the water company requested that it be allowed to participate in the PHI and review of the NTMP [ref. page 329]. A similar request was made by the Aldercroft Heights County Water District [ref. page 327].

76. Several of the factor rating areas on the EHR worksheets on pages 210 and 211 have a rating of 1 for III. PROTECTIVE VEGETATIVE COVER REMAINING AFTER DISTURBANCE. Is this a reasonable rating, especially considering that canopy retention is estimated to be between 40% and 60% [ref. top of page 124]?

77. For CGS: MITIGATION POINT G5-6 is described on page 11. The plan states that, “There are no trees on the slide scar at this time. No harvesting will occur on this slide for the first entry.” The CEG’s report recommends no treatment since no harvesting is proposed. Should an enforceable statement be included in the plan that requires a geologic review prior to harvesting trees from the slide in the future?

Agency Archaeology Questions. For confidentiality, please submit responses clipped or stapled separately.

78. Evaluate the locations, significance assessment, and protection measures for the fifteen historic sites. (ARCH)

79. Spot check the high probability areas for archaeological resources, such as the ridge top, ridge spurs, midslope terraces and flats near Los Gatos Creek and other water sources. (ARCH)

7 ½” QUADRANGLE: Castle Rock Ridge, Laurel & Los Gatos

PAST OVERLAPPING PLANS: **
CDF Representative: Jay Gayner
CGS Representative: Michael Huyette
ARCH Representative: Chuck Whatford/Lisa Hagel
WQ Representative: Richard McMurtry
DFG Representative: Rick Macedo/Richard Fitzgerald
NOAA Fisheries Representative: ***

***PLEASE NOTE: For many of the THP’s and NTMP’s being submitted, CDF is receiving notification from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA—Fisheries), that NOAA-Fisheries will not be able to review and provide comment to the specific plan. The notification reminds CDF, the plan submitter, and the timberland owner that they “…bear full responsibility of ensuring that their activities do not result in “take” of listed salmonids, and that this THP (or NTMP) is approved and implemented in compliance with the ESA and other applicable laws. Absent an ESA section 4(d) limitation on the prohibitions dealing with forestry activities in California, or an ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit (Habitat Conservation Plan), incidental take of listed salmonids is not authorized.”

CDF will retain the notification in the administrative file for the plan, but will not be distributing copies. If you would like a copy of the letter for a specific plan, please make your inquiry by requesting a copy of the NOAA Fisheries Letter for the specific plan you are interested in, and send your requests to:

CDF Forest Practice
135 Ridgway Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 95401

Residents: Please Make This Contact!!

Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:25:54 -0800

We strongly encourage residents to immediately contact Santa Clara County District 1 Supervisor Don Gage at Tel: (408) 299-5010, Fax: (408) 295-6993 or http://www.dongage.org and express their views on the watershed logging issue.

Please use your own words to encourage Supverisor Gage and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to appeal this plan. Supervisor Gage has invited residents with concerns to make those concerns known to him.

NAIL opposes the logging on four platforms:

Increased Fire Danger: Cutting a large percentage of the largest, healthiest, most fire-resistant trees increases the risk of a fire spreading into our neighborhoods. The overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports the fact that commercial logging increases fire risk. Sources for this evidence include the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and the US Department of Agriculture. We support activities that reduce ladder fuels. However, such fire suppressant efforts should not be funded by activities that increase fire danger and harm the community in a variety of ways.

Risk To Water Quality: Los Gatos Creek acts as the primary water source for hundreds of local residents and as secondary source for hundreds more. Logging will take place along Los Gatos Creek and an additional 11 streams that feed into the creek. Since timber harvesting and related activities such as road building are associated with increased risk of landslides and sediment generation, the planned logging activities pose a threat to our water supply. Residents of mountain communities such as Aldercroft Heights and Chemeketa Park will be forced to bear the burden of increased sedimentation to their water source, brought about by the logging. Other west coast cities such as Seattle, Portland, Marin County, San Francisco and Santa Cruz all protect their source water supply and explicitly prohibit logging in their watershed. Why should San Jose Water be allowed to exploit watershed land when other communities understand the danger of doing so and prohibit it?

Decreased Quality of Life: The proposed logging takes place in a heavily residential area. Over 2,000 people live within 800 yards of the logging area boundary. Thousands more live within 2 miles. More than three schools lie within 1 mile of the area. Some of these schools are within a few hundred feet of the boundary. Noise pollution from chain saws and helicopters, and increased traffic from logging trucks, with the resultant damage to local roads, will greatly diminish the quality of life for Los Gatos mountain residents. In addition the logging activities will harm the local ecosystem, destroying wildlife habitats and increasing the risk that mountain lions and coyotes will leave the logging area and enter local neighborhoods. Also, private property would face even greater exposure to landslides as the soil stability provided by large trees would be reduced significantly.

Decreased Property Value: The NTMP proposal allows for logging in perpetuity. The combination of ongoing noise, traffic and increased fire risk are likely to reduce property values for Los Gatos residents in the affected areas. We feel that increased profits for the San Jose Water Company should not come at the expense of thousands of citizens.

NAIL Steering Committee

NAIL Issues With NTMP

Fri, 04 Nov 2005 09:43:19 -0800

Issues and Concerns regarding
San Jose Water Company’s NTMP
Affecting 1002 Acres of Los Gatos Watershed

Prepared by: Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging – N.A.I.L.

A community organization of residents affected by the NTMP

November 1, 2005

Increased Fire Danger:

o Cutting a large percentage of the largest, healthiest, most fire-resistant trees weakens the forest and increases the risk of a fire spreading into our neighborhoods. 66% of the trees to be cut are over 36” in diameter. These are the most fire-resistant trees in the forest. This forested land has a long history of large fires and is considered one of the most fire-volatile areas in the Battalion 3 region, as described by the California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection. (See CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION SANTA CLARA UNIT FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, 2005 - attached to this document.)

The overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports the fact that commercial logging increases fire risk. Sources for this evidence include the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress and the US Department of Agriculture. "Timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate, and fuels accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent human activity."
- Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, 1996. Final Report to
Congress

o We support activities that reduce ladder fuels. However, such fire suppressant efforts should not be funded by activities that increase fire danger and harm the community in a variety of ways. Logging slash will cover the forest floor to a depth of either 18” or 30” (NTMP states 30” which differs from other SJWC statements). "As a by-product of clear cutting, thinning, and other tree-removal activities, activity fuels create both short- and long-term fire hazards to ecosystems. The potential rate of spread and intensity of fires associated with recently cut logging residues is high, especially the first year or two as the material decays. High fire-behavior hazards associated with the residues can extend, however, for many years depending on the tree. USDA (PNW-GTR-355)

The NTMP contains contradictory information about the amount of trees to be cut. While Section 2 describes a 60% cut of trees over 18” diameter (the maximum allowable by law). Section 3 details a 40% cut of trees over 24” in diameter. It is important to note that once the plan passes, SJWC (or whoever buys SJWC in the future) can change Section 3 with little/no public comment and still be within the limits of this NTMP. The NTMP Document states in Section 2:"A well distributed timber stand shall be left after operations that is at least 40% by number of those trees 18 inches or more in dbh (diameter at breast height) and at least 50% of those trees over 12 inches but less than 18 inches."
The plan calls for far more cutting of the most fire resistant trees than is mentioned in SJWC's previous public statements.

SJWC letter to residents states that "about 80% of the total Redwoods and Douglas Firs remaining after the harvest". The precise figure in the NTMP is 66%. NTMP Section 3 page 71:
Present Volume Of All Trees In The NTMP = 337,837

Harvest Volume of All Trees = 112, 011 (33% of present volume)

Harvest Volume Of 36" Trees = 73,150 (65% of harvest volume)

Risk To Water Quality:

o Los Gatos Creek acts as the primary water source for hundreds of local residents and as secondary source for hundreds more. Logging will take place on slopes along Los Gatos Creek and an additional 11 streams that feed into the creek.

o Since timber harvesting and related activities such as road building are associated with increased risk of landslides and sediment generation, the planned logging activities pose a threat to our water supply. Residents of mountain communities such as Aldercroft Heights and Chemeketa Park will be forced to bear the burden of increased sedimentation to their water source, brought about by the logging.

o Large west coast cities such as Seattle, Portland, Marin County, San Francisco and Santa Cruz all protect their water supply by explicitly prohibiting logging in their watersheds. Why should Santa Clara County permit something other communities find it prudent to prohibit?

o CDF in their response to the NTMP has raised this issue. In a response from CDF to SJWC they ask: “Given that the Plan Submitter/Timberland Owner is in the business of water collection, distribution and supply, have Class I watercourses (both fish-bearing and domestic supplies) been provided adequate protection? “

Decreased Quality of Life:

o The proposed logging takes place in a heavily residential area. Over 2,000 people live within 800 yards of the logging area boundary. Thousands more live within 2 miles.

o Five schools and a pre-school lie within 1 mile of the area. Some of these schools are within a few hundred feet of the boundary.

o Chain saws generate noise levels of 125 decibels. Ambulances generate noise levels of 120 decibels; rock concerts generate noise levels of between 110-120 decibels. Source: League for The Hard of Hearing (http://www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm). Residents will, in effect, have the equivalent of a Shoreline Amphitheatre placed 300 feet from their homes.

o We feel that the proposed logging will be in violation of local noise ordinances. Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance Section B11-192 states that “No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the unincorporated territory of the county or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or

otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property either incorporated or unincorporated to exceed: 55 decibels for residential land use between 7:00AM and 10:PM.

o Noise pollution from chain saws and helicopters, increased traffic from large, heavy logging trucks on winding two-lane roads, with the resultant damage to these roads, will greatly diminish the quality of life for Los Gatos mountain residents.

o Thee logging activities will harm the local ecosystem, destroying wildlife habitats (an endangered species – the red-toed frog- has been found in the NTMP area – per the NTMP document) and increase the risk that mountain lions and coyotes will leave the logging area and enter local neighborhoods. It appears via language in the NTMP that Native American archaeological sites have also been recognized. Additionally, private property would face even greater exposure to landslides as the soil stability provided by large trees would be reduced significantly.

o SJWC in their public statements had said that logging will only take place for 6 weeks at a time. Yet in the NTMP, they have asked for permission to log year-round. Even the CDF questions the need for this. This quote is from the CDF response to the NTMP: “Are full winter period operations, especially ground-based yarding, appropriate?”

Decreased Property Value:

o The NTMP proposal allows for logging in perpetuity. The combination of ongoing noise, traffic, increased fire risk, the slash and logged open areas in the scenic terrain are likely to create longterm property value reductions for Los Gatos residents in the affected areas. We feel that increased profits for the San Jose Water Company should not come at the expense of thousands of residents.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION

SANTA CLARA UNIT FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, 2005

(Reproduced from pages 27 and 28)

Battalion Three: (Los Gatos)

Battalion Three is located in Santa Clara County and lies solely in the State Responsibility Area (SRA) bordering the north of Highway 152; west of the Almaden Valley; then east of the Santa Cruz County line; South from the San Mateo County Line. The Battalion includes watershed for local communities, as this watershed flows in to many lakes and streams managed by both the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Jose Water Company. The Battalion also is home to a large amount of Coastal Redwoods protected from development by open space districts along with County parks. The Battalion also has a number of small rural communities that have little or no governmental services.

Santa Clara Unit

Fire Management Plan, 2005 loading, slope, and fire weather. In Battalion Three they are located by vertically dividing into three sections: the South section is a Very High (Loma Preita area), the center section is Moderate (West Santa Clara Valley Foothills), and the North section is High (Hwy 85 and Interstate 280) Battalion Three, because of its unique combination of vegetation, topography, climate and population, has one of the most severe wild land problems in the San Francisco Bay Area. Wild land and urban interface, rugged terrain and highly flammable vegetation coupled with high winds make the South West Santa Clara County foothills especially unsafe for development unless adequate fire safe measures are taken. Without regard for wild land fire protection and water sources, continued development in the SRA will heavily impact fire protection and emergency medic services. Solutions center on designing an acceptable level of risks for firefighters and residents that measure all elements of that risk. Pre-fire planning, mutual aid agreements, standard response plans, Mutual threat zones and high fire behavior warnings are necessary elements to measure the risks to reduce losses from wildfires.

Mission Statements:

Primarily:

To protect and enhance Western Santa Clara County’s open areas and all who abide in it, their property, and the public lands in it. To respond with due diligence to all types of emergencies. We will assist local city and county fire jurisdictions requesting our assistance. Also, to continue to use proven methods of public fire prevention techniques such as school programs, Informational roadside check points. Foster contacts and continued involvement in the Santa Clara Fire Safe Council. Continue to Issue burning permits and aggressively pursue vegetation fuel hazard reduction inspections. Keep the good working relationship with those involved with the County building permit process to insure proper review of permits and compliance with the public resources code.

Secondarily:

To protect all California’s open lands between local responsibility and federal lands to reduce costs and losses due to wild land fires. Additionally, to be prepared for and major emergencies and natural disasters throughout California to the best of our abilities and train for implementing the Incident Command System to assist local agencies during earthquakes, floods, landslides, hazardous materials spills and possible terrorist acts.

"Timber!" - Los Gatos Weekly Times Cover Story (11/02/05)

Fri, 04 Nov 2005 09:24:44 -0800

Timber! There's plenty of it in the Santa Cruz Mountains is the cover story in this week's Los Gatos Weekly Times.

Jennifer McLain describes residents' concerns about the SJWC logging proposal, and highlights NAIL's activities to stop it.

Many thanks to Jennifer for her excellent article!

Next NAIL Membership Meeting Scheduled/IMPORTANT!

Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:23:42 -0800

NAIL members please plan on attending the next NAIL membership meeting on Nov. 13 from 3-5PM in Whitaker Hall on the grounds of Skyland Community Church.

A great deal of new information, updates and instructions on participating in the public feedback part of the NTMP review will be discussed. We need all NAILers present for this meeting!

To get to Skyland Church take Summit Rd to San Jose Soquel Rd. Rt. on San Jose Soquel Rd. A few miles down make a left onto Miller Hill Rd. Continue to the top of Miller Hill (do not turn off the road). At the top make a left onto Skyland. The church is on your right. Whitaker Hall is the building behind the church.

Address: 25100 Skyland Road.

To assist in the use of the facility, please plan on dropping a few dollars into the basket by the door. Thanks everyone!

SJ Water Already Creating Logging Roads

Sat, 05 Nov 2005 09:17:12 -0800

Residents in the Aldercroft Heights area have been concerned about extensive road grading work being done on SJWC land adjacent to Aldercroft Heights Road at the Alma/Aldercroft junction. Although pipe replacement work has been done on Alma Bridge Road near that junction, it appears that SJWC utilized work crews already in the area to do some widening, grading and extension of a small dirt lane that has existed untouched for decades, used primarily by their security guard trucks.

On Friday Nov. 4, a resident contacted a Santa Clara County planning department employee regarding the grading work going on at the Alma Bridge/Aldercroft intersection. The planning department contact was not aware of a permitted grading job in that area and promised to phone back the resident. A few hours later the planner called and said that SJWC has apparently jumped the gun on creating a road for logging, and has started creating a road not in the NTMP and certainly not approved. The planner called CDF and they apparently said they would tell SJWC to stop. NAIL will follow up with the county grading permit engineering department.

Concerned residents should contact District 1 Supervisor Don Gage at 408-299-5010 (phone,) 408-295-6993 (fax,) or at http://www.dongage.org and voice their opinions.

Resident Letter to Supv. Don Gage

Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:52:17 -0800

MURPHY RESIDENCE

21976 GILLETTE DRIVE

LOS GATOS, CA 95033

Hon. Don Gage 10/31/05

Hedding Street

San Jose, CA

Dear Supervisor Gage:

I am writing to you because of San Jose Water Company’s submitted plan for harvest of redwood trees along the Los Gatos Creek Watershed from which it draws water to service us. This logging would take place within ¼ mile of my residence as well as to other parcels and schools in the area.

One would expect this logging for profit to occur in rural areas and not in the backyards of thousands of people or school playgrounds.

I understand that San Jose Water Company operates under a franchise in the County for the purpose of selling water. As far as I can tell, it does not operate as a logging business nor has a franchise to log for profit.

That this plan is being conducted for one reason is fairly apparent, and that is for monetary profit . It appears that this would involve a substantial portion of some of the best trees that the forest has to offer at considerable risk to and interference with the lives of thousands of County residents. The plan appears to run into perpetuity.

The San Jose Water Company claims that this is also fire prevention. Ostensibly, this is in part the reason that the Department of Forestry has jurisdiction over the plan. But does it have jurisdiction when the plan really is primarily a plan for profit and not for fire prevention, and when the private owner is under a public franchise to do business or to be in the position of managing its property for profit to begin with because of the franchise.

Further, that this plan addresses fire prevention and reduces the risk of fire appears to be pure speculation. The area planned for harvest was not part of the Lexington fire area and is a redwood canyon. My understanding is that it has been stable for decades. The fog bathes this area frequently and the trees are “fire resistant.” What we do know is the plan would cut down the most fire resistant trees in the forest---the redwoods and expose the forest canopy,. Based on these facts, I believe that the logging would increase the risk of fire and not reduce it or prevent it.

In addition, what will the habitat do. I do not think that it is safe for San Jose Water Company to assume that its residential neighbors can absorb the deer, the coyotes, and the lions onto their property, nor do I think that it is good judgment to let San Jose Water Company do anything that will promote this.

Finally, there is also an issue of erosion control once the logging trails and trees are removed. As this area is designated a hazardous earthquake zone by the County, it is questionable to me as to how and why the County would endorse such a program on this basis alone.

Without a requirement that San Jose Water Company conduct an environmental impact study by a neutral evaluator or that it would be required to guarantee the water quality of its water by a neutral evaluator under its plan on a periodic basis, to me its plan appears to be a biased one. With so many area homes and schools affected by this activity, the least that should be required are evaluations done truly by independent experts.

As a government official who represents the people of this area, I ask you to address these several areas covering these issues with reference to the plan. If you are letting San Jose Water Company operate as a franchise in this county, the public should be able to assume that you would have an interest in reviewing a plan on behalf of the public which will impact their home lives, the area’s habitat, as well as its stability. Thank you for your time.

Very truly yours,

Maryanne Zanios Murphy, Esq.

cc:CDF

Clarification of County Planning Role/Aldercroft Grading Question

Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:32:45 -0800

NAIL would like to correct any negative impression that readers may have formed via our web posting regarding the role of Santa Clara County planning department members and the watershed road grading in Aldercroft Heights.

The planning department did not accuse SJWC of building a logging road in violation of NTMP/CDF regulations. Upon hearing of the creekside roadwork activity of SWJC, the planning department made agency contacts on its own to determine the veracity and extent of any violations, and encouraged concerned citizens to make those same contacts.

The County Planning department, along with California Department of Fish and Game and Santa Clara Water District representatives did visit the roadwork site on Monday morning, November 7. A report on the Planning Department findings has not been issued as of Tuesday afternoon November 8. Any claims by SJWC about the findings from that inspection are premature prior to the issuance of the report.

The Santa Clara Valley Water District did issue a report memo on November 8 which stated: "I asked if they had a winterization plan and there was not. At the end of the project the bank had been built up significantly. This is the area of most concern. Having this large unprotected earthen bank without having a winterization plan has the highest exposure for erosion. There were woodchips deposited in the bottom of the flood plain. Chris explained that this was a miscommunication with the contractor and that the chips should have been disposed of off site."

San Jose Water is also being asked to apply hay and other protective methods on the site, and to rebuild part of a creek bank that is now open to erosion. The Department of Fish and Game has responsibility for overseeing this work.

NAIL will publish the full findings of the county report should it be made available to the public.

The planning department assures residents that they maintain an impartial role in such issues and that they strive to bring together relevant agencies for resolution.

NAIL considers its relationship with Santa Clara County planners and officials to be one of value and integrity and we appreciate their time and efforts.

SJWC found to have poor erosion control at Los Gatos Creek construction site

Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:35:50 -0800

The following report was written by an inspector for the Santa Clara Valley Water District concerning SJWC's poor erosion control at their roadwork construction site along Los Gatos Creek. Pictures of the site taken by the inspector as well as residents will be placed in the Album.

The shoddy practices at this construction site should cause everyone to question assurances by SJWC.

To summarize the findings of the inspection:

- There is no winterization plan for the construction site

- There is a high exposure to erosion at the construction site

- The plastic fence was deemed inadequate and the construction of a new and more robust fence to back up the collapsing fence was recommended.

- No straw has been layed down to protect dirt from running off into the creek.

To: Vincent Stephens of Community Projects Review Unit
Dale Jacques of Stream Water Quality Unit

From: Tim O’Loughlin of the Guadalupe Watershed Field Operations
Date: November 8, 2005
Subject: Report of a potential permit violation in Los Gatos Creek

Gentlemen,
On November 7, 2005 I received a phone call from Dale Honda of the Guadalupe Watershed Field Operation to investigate a complaint from Terry Clark of Los Gatos. She reported someone was illegally depositing dirt and woodchips into the creek upstream of Alma Bridge Rd. and Aldercroft Heights. I arrived at the site around 12:30 pm and met up with Michael Kirchner of the Department of Fish and Game (DFG). Shortly afterwards Kurt Hoffman of the San Jose Water Company (SJW) and Chris Saul of West Valley Construction (WV) arrived. We discussed the concerns brought forth by the community, primarily the sloughing of loose material exiting the construction site getting into the creek. Michael of DFG had already walked the site and had a good understanding of the site conditions. There was a silt fence installed the length of the project to control sloughing. A concern was brought up that a single silt fence may not be adequate protection. So Kurt of SJW agreed to install another silt fence to provide secondary containment reinforced with metal T-Post, and install straw waddles to control the run off. This seemed to satisfy Michael of DFG. I asked if they had winterization plan and there was not.

At this point I ask permission to review the site to see the conditions for myself and I was escorted by Chris of WV. We entered the site just upstream of the bridge and walked to the end of the project at the old train trestle. The site appeared to be in good condition. The silt fence was in place and there was a high bench between the site and creek through the first part of the project. About midway I noticed some excess sloughing up against the silt fence that could be removed but the fence was still in place. At the end of the project the bank had been built up significantly. This is the area of most concern. Having this large unprotect earthen bank without having a winterization plan has the highest exposure for erosion. So I suggested to Chris of WV to provide some runoff protection. Chris explained the road would have a reverse grade back up toward the hillside to prevent water from running down the bank.

There were woodchips deposited in the bottom of the flood plain. Chris explained this was a miscommunication with the contractor and that the chips should have been disposed of off site. I didn’t see any impacts in having the woodchips within the floodplain.

In closing, the addition to the secondary containment silt fence reinforced with the T-post and installing straw waddles will improve the site conditions. Additionally, winterization the exposed earthed banks would be beneficial in preventing runoff and erosion.

Best Regards,
Tim O’Loughlin
Santa Clara Valley Water District
Guadalupe Watershed Field Operations

San Jose Water's FAQ's Revisited

Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:13:18 -0800

San Jose Water’s FAQs Revisited

Further clarification of SJWC’s logging proposal

Prepared for NAIL by Jodi Frediani

This 1002 acre NTMP was filed by CDF on October 27, 2005. The First Review produced eleven pages of questions (79) regarding items that need clarification. The first question asks whether San Jose Water qualifies to file an NTMP since they own over 6000 acres. If they own 2500 acres of timberland or more, they do not.

This response is an attempt to clarify some of the misconceptions that have arisen from SWJ’s FAQ Sheet and SJW’s various responses to concerns raised publicly by NAIL.

It appears that SJW’s Mr. Tang is not that familiar with the timber harvest review process and how the plan itself functions under the California Environmental Equality Act (CEQA) and the Forest Practice Rules. I will try to address some of the misconceptions that are currently making the rounds. I also encourage anyone interested to re-read the SJW FAQ very carefully. Much of the inconsistency in their responses are not lies, but are carefully worded statements that can be easily misleading.

Q3. But isn’t the forest pristine wilderness?

It is important to recognize that SJW’s lands were clearcut in the late 1880’s and early 1900’s and also are criss-crossed by roads throughout portions of it. Therefore this is a ‘roaded’ second growth forest and not a ‘pristine wilderness’.

However, SJW speaks of a dense stand of “young growth” trees which have grown up since the first harvests. While the term “young growth” is simply to differentiate from “old growth” to the uninitiated this can be interpreted as smaller second growth redwoods. Interestingly, CDF First Review question #3 states that “the stand descriptions in the plan initially appear to meet the definition of Late Successional Forest. “ Functional charesticstics of late succession forests include large decadent trees, snags, and large down logs.”(pg 11 FPRs) This is considered the stage on the way to return of old growth forest type. The larger trees in this stand are over 100 years old. Any remnant old growth will be hundreds of years old.

Q4 What is an NTMP?

Their answer is full of lots of fancy language.

SJW states that the NTMP “requires sustainability”. The “S” word is one that means different things to different people. The industry definition usually means that long-term harvesting can be sustained. Essentially, the Forest Practice Rules for this region, the 60/40 selection harvest rules (913.8a) are deemed by CDF to meet the criteria for “sustainability”. Therefore, the real difference between an NTMP and a THP is that an NTMP is basically a permanent exemption from any further agency or public review for timber harvesting in perpetuity.

Q5 Does this permitting process require an EIR?

SJW says the NTMP addresses cumulative impacts, but the bulk of the scientific literature is in agreement that the CDF timber harvest review process does not adequately address cumulative impacts.

Q6 How can someone be allowed to do logging near my community?

Good question. In the mid 80’s the state (CDF) took over regulating timber harvest review after Big Creek Lumber urged the legislature to rescind local control. Previous to the legislative change, counties had the authority to approve or disapprove logging plans. In fact, a Santa Clara County plan near the Summit, which drew tons of opposition from neighbors and threatened to end logging in Santa Clara County, led to the move to have the State take over control of logging plan review and approval.

The Notice of Filing says that notices were mailed to 343 landowners within 300’ of the plan boundary. This is essentially an industrial activity being planned in a residential neighborhood. Unfortunately, it is allowed under the FPRs, but clearly the intent of the NTMP legislation in the Z-Berg Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1972 was for long-term timberland management in California’s forested areas, not in suburbia.

SJW says that applying for a timber harvest permit is not unlike applying for a building permit. Actually, it is very unlike a building permit in that the plan submitter (SJW in this case) pays NO FEES to any of the reviewing agencies. All of the Review Team members’ time is essentially paid for by the public. The only fee for an NTMP is the one charged to the public for purchase of a hard copy of the plan.

Oh yes, a small fee is due to DFG for needed stream alteration permits at certain watercourse crossings.

Q7 How many trees will be cut?

This is a bugaboo/numbers question. These numbers can and have been manipulated multiple times. We do not actually know how many trees will be cut. Neither does SJW.

What we do know is that the plan allows for cutting the maximum of 60% of those conifers 18” diameter at breast height (dbh) and greater and 50% of the trees 12-18” dbh. This is stated in Section II and Section III of the plan. Mr. Tang keeps referring to the “intent” language under their proposed cutting prescriptions in Section III which says they will not cut more than 40% of the largest conifers, and less of the smaller ones. But this language is not enforceable.

Essentially, SJW has kept all their legal options open, and when all is said and done, this plan as currently written allows them to cut the maximum number of conifers allowed by the rules. All other figures are just guesstimates of what may or may not happen over time. The plan also proposes cutting hardwoods, even though the Certified Engineering Geologist’s review took place with the understanding that hardwoods would not be included in management (pg 247) .

There is no guarantee that SJW will be the landowner in perpetuity (or even next year – they attempted a sale to Amercian Water just a couple of years ago), as there is no guarantee that their plans will not change over time. Also, as written, the NTMP ‘intent language’ (stand tables) even allows for harvesting 60% of the larger trees in any given unit, or portion of any unit. If SJW really wanted to limit the number of trees they can harvest they would say so, consistently throughout the plan, not in one unenforceable section only.

For instance, Section II, item 14b says per CEG recommendation, “all harvest area west of Austrian Dam shall incorporate single tree selection maintaining 50% of existing stand greater than 12” dbh, except those damaged during operations.” That’s a little different than the 80% of trees greater than 12” that SJW keeps claiming they will leave. And the plan language allows for even less than 50% retention where there is damage.

SJW continues to assert that item #14 Section II Silvicultural Method was just a reiteration of the FPRs, or “written to comply with the Forest Practice Rules”, and that the information on stand management is the correct answer. That‘s not how it works. A copy of the rules in effect when the plan is approved must be included as these will be the rules in effect for this plan on down the road. CDF has asked for a $5 check for inclusion of the 2006 rule book. Section I and II lays out the maximum harvest that will be allowed for this NTMP.

Q12 How long will you be logging next to my property?

“Each separate harvest will occur during the late spring or summer and will take approximately 6 weeks to complete. This is really intent language-what SJW says they would like to do. In reality they have kept all their options open. They are not required to do winter operations, but they have chosen to keep this option on the table.

The plan has a very comprehensive Winter Operations plan, complete with a proposal to fell trees across Class II and III watercourses during the winter. (This is a practice that is not allowed, unless justified and explained, and is rarely even proposed in the Santa Cruz Mountains.) So, under the plan language logging may take place in the winter. Operations could also take longer than 6 weeks per unit. And, the way the plan is written, more than one unit could be harvested at a time, or harvesting could extend for more than one season.

Some homes will be at the boundary of two units and could see logging one year after the next, for an extended period of time, depending on individual circumstances.

Q16 Will this be a risk to schoolchildren?

“While schools are unlikely to be in session during operations, each school is notified and trucking is timed so as not to conflict with school bus schedules.” The plan has included language that says truck drivers will be given school and school bus schedules (pg 104) “to assure safety of children that may be in route to or from schools located along the haul route.” That is not the same as a prohibition on log hauling during school bus hours. They apparently have not chosen to limit truck log hauling hours.

SJW says that “schools are unlikely to be in session during operations”, yet again, they are leaving ALL their options open.

Q18 Will the log trucks damage the public roads?

The FAQ says that “log hauling typically occurs during the dry season when road surfaces are less vulnerable to the damage that occurs during wet weather traffic.” But the plan says, pg 12, that log hauling may occur during the winter period.

A report from the Congressional Office of Research has found that “The wear and tear from an 80,000 pound vehicle is equivalent to over 9,000 automobile trips.”

SJW does not agree to post a bond to ensure that road related damage will be addressed. Saying a bond ”must” be posted to address road damage is quite different than saying it “shall” be posted. In fact, such bonds usually are limited to willful negligence and not “normal” wear and tear.

QQ 19 Logging on weekends/hours of operation

SJW continues to confuse the practices of Big Creek Lumber with the options allowed in their NTMP. It really does not make a hoot of difference what Big Creek does or does not do. The plan is not tied to Big Creek conducting operations. In fact, the LTO can be changed at a moments notice under a minor amendment. And this plan, if approved, will be good in perpetuity. So what is important is WHAT THE PLAN ACTUALLY SAYS. That is the only thing that is enforceable.

Again, SJW is keeping all their options open. Remember that. What they “intend” to do, and what they will be allowed to do are quite different. The language in the NTMP allows for harvesting from 7:00am to 7:00pm. The plan even asks for log hauling on Columbus Day, rather than sticking to the strict rule which does not allow for operations and hauling on National Holidays, or weekends. Yes, they have included a provision to restrict operations prior to 8:00am within 300’ of a residence.

Q20 SJW Roads

We are told that roads throughout the property will benefit form using modern day techniques to improve drainage and maintenance. Since the plan mentions one internal road with a 1000’ gully running down it, maybe SJW finally plans to be a good land manager. However, road maintenance is critical to clean water and should not need an NTMP for SJW, the largest private water purveyor in Santa Clara County, to decide to fix their road network, by increasing culvert size, repairing excessive gullying and more.

However, from SJW’s latest road winter grading project at the Alma Bridge intersection, it appears that they do not fully understand the basics of stream protection. Grading in the WLPZ (riparian zone) after October 15 is either seriously frowned upon or considered illegal by most governmental agencies in California. Creating ustable sidecast (piling loose fill on top of organic matter) sloping toward the stream is very bad management at that.

The black plastic ‘silt-fence’ placed at the bottom of the sidecast is inadequate to prevent slope failure during heavy rains and when soils become saturated. Insloping the road to prevent surface runoff is also considered poor road management. The loose soils should have been end-hauled to a location where they stood no chance of entering the stream.

Q 21 Won’t logging cause landslides?

Many other geologists do not agree with SJW’s certified engineering geologist (or the State’s geologists) that harvesting on unstable areas and active landslides will pose “no significant risk of accelerating or exacerbating land movement or sliding.

There are a number of large and small, active landslides in the plan area, some as close as 600’ downslope of people’s homes. Logging is proposed on these slides. Who should determine the level of risk to the upslope homeowners?? What is “significant risk”? The NTMP clearly acknowledges that the plan is proposed along the San Andreas Fault zone which is already geologically unstable without additional human intervention. Some of these slides probably occurred, in part, as a result of the previous clear-cutting and other ‘legacy’ land use activities in the area. The area is also in a zone of high rainfall which can add to the already vulnerable site conditions.

For instance, pg 12, Mitigation Point G7-7: “This is a secondary deep-seated translational landslide block located below the Chemeketa Park subdivision. A Special Treatment Zone (STZ) covering approximately 5.5 acres shall extend approximately 550 feet along Los Gatos Creek, between Ryland Dam and 100 feet northwest of the third Class III watercourse. Within the STZ and where slopes exceed 70%, the harvest shall be restricted to redwood in groups , cutting no more than 1/3 of the trees in any group at any onetime.” Which of course, means that where slopes are less than 70%, no restrictions will be in place.

Removal of stems (and canopy) from a moving slide mass reduces the amount of interception of raindrops, an important function of canopy to help reduce overland flow. Logging also causes surface disturbance, which can lead to increased rilling and concentration of runoff.

Q 22 The increased brush question

Removal of canopy allows for additional sunlight to hit the forest floor. It is a well known fact that logging can increase the amount of brush, or ladder fuels, that grow and invade on and alongside landings, roads and openings from hardwood management, as well as in some redwood dominated areas.

The NTMP proposes hardwood management, harvesting tanoaks and madrones. Page 6 states that “The objective of hardwood treatment would be to reduce canopy closure and allow more sunlight to reach the redwood regeneration to increase maximum sustained production of high quality timber products. Hardwood site occupancy may be reduced with one or more of the following methods: falling and removal, falling and lopping, girdling, mastication or other appropriate treatments.”

Falling and lopping will leave dead hardwoods in place on the ground, and girdling will kill them and leave them standing. Both practices will increase dry fuel loads and, therefore, fire hazard.

Q 25 & 26 Helicopters

SJW assures us that FAA regs are very strict and do not allow helicopters to fly over residential houses. Here is info provided by a helicopter pilot:

If the aircraft isn't normally certified by the FAA, then load operations over a "densely populated area" are prohibited (14 CFR 133.45(d)), but "densely populated" isn't defined as is generally taken to mean cities (eg, downtown San Jose) and is shown on aviation charts a particular way. I can't imagine any area that logging could occur near by qualifying as densely populated, and we don't even know if the helicopter they are using is normally certified. Most of the regulations specific to the carrying of an external load (dangling logs) have to do with the certification, equipment, and pilot training requirements (14 CFR 133).

There is no prohibition on overflight. 14 CFR 91.119 prescribes minimum altitudes for aircraft. In short, in sparsely populated areas, except for the purpose of takeoff or landing, you need to remain 500ft away from any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
However, 14 CFR 91.119(d) exempts Helicopters "if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface". I had thought there was a prohibition on a helicopter carrying an external load from overflying structures not participating
in the lift operation, but I can't find any such reference in the regulation.

Q 27 Logging slash

This is actually pretty funny. The plan was submitted only requiring that slash be lopped to the FPR required 30”. However, in what is clearly a concession to the expressed concerns of the neighbors, SJW has “pledged” to reduce slash to 18” inches. Until the language in the plan is changed to reflect the 18”, SJW’s pledge is no more enforceable by CDF, than a Girl Scout pledge to help the elderly.

SJW hasn’t included in the NTMP the fuel hazard reduction plan that they have ‘pledged’, but it says on page 24 that recommendations will be incorporated ‘prior to plan approval’. That could mean that at a minimum the public may have only 10 days to review that proposal.

Forest Canopy

This issue is found in SJW’s latest mailer to neighbors. They state that invasive species will not establish themselves because the majority (80%) of the trees will remain. One should not confuse the number of stems with the amount of canopy. The larger the trees harvested, the more canopy reduction will occur. The rules have certain requirements for canopy closure adjacent to streams, but canopy is often reduced to around 50% elsewhere in harvest areas. 75’ spacing between trees is allowed. Page 124 states that “Selection silviculture will supply a canopy coverage range from 40-60%....”

In fact, CDF First Review question # 5 says, “Given the harvest level necessary to generate an economically feasible helicopter operation and the prescribed canopy retention levels of 40-60% is it reasonable to expect 100% vegetative cover remaining post-harvest ( ref top of page 124)?”

Overall land management (from latest SJW mailing)

The best way for SJW to prepare a comprehensive timberland management plan that addresses the concerns of their thousands of upslope neighbors is to develop a Source Water Assessment Plan, with public involvement. To do so would put this NTMP on hold, until the overall plan, with the primary focus of providing high quality drinking water that is adequately protected from possible contaminating activities (of which selective logging is one) is complete. The process would look at alternatives to road management, fire management, fish and wildlife protection, and forest health

Jodi Frediani

Executive Director

Citizens for Responsible Forest Management (CRFM)

831-426-1697

JodiFredi@aol.com

Letter Written by Affected Resident

Sun, 13 Nov 2005 08:45:27 -0800

Don Gage
District Supervisor of the County of Santa Clara
70 West Hedding
San Jose, CA 95110

Dear Supervisor Gage,

A month or so after we moved to the Los Gatos mountains from the Los Angeles area, knowledge of San Jose Water Company’s plan to put forward a Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan seemed to enter public consciousness. It certainly entered ours as, if this plan is accepted, it negates many of the reasons we chose to leave Los Angeles to move to this spot of great natural beauty.

I am sure, as the publicly elected official responsible for the welfare of our county and its citizens, you, or a delegate in your department, have been following all the arguments and developments associated with the proposed logging within the Los Gatos watershed. I don’t wish to reiterate what I’m sure you have heard from other people who are undoubtedly more knowledgeable in this matter than I am, except to say that I concur with all points expressed in the October 31^st letter sent to you by Maryanne Zanios Murphy, posted on the mountainresource.org website. In addition, the Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging seem to have supported their valid concerns regarding increased fire danger, risk to water quality, decreased quality of life and decreased property value with many well documented facts. Especially pertinent appear to be Santa Clara County’s own Noise Ordinance Section B11-192 with regard to San Jose Water Company’s proposed use of chainsaws, logging trucks and helicopters. This section states “No person shall operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location within the unincorporated territory of the county or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property either incorporated or unincorporated to exceed: 55 decibels for residential land use between 7:00AM and 10:PM.”

However, a few unanswered questions have been churning about in my mind as I have been attempting to follow the logging proposal. The first question regards the “Non-industrial” part of the Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan. San Jose Water Company is a private company, albeit providing a public service. If a private company contracts for logging to be done on its property and intends to take profit from that operation in any way, shouldn’t that company be applying for an “Industrial” plan of timber management, which I believe operates under different parameters?

Also, I understand SJWC will be erecting towers to facilitate the removal of felled trees from inaccessible areas. Although not familiar with what these proposed towers might look like or what materials they will be constructed from, I would imagine they are likely to be built at least partially out of steel. Since, if approved, the NTMP apparently stands “in perpetuity” (though one wonders how any proposal can be accepted in perpetuity, since our entire system of government is based on the ability to amend in order to accommodate changing needs over time), I find myself wondering what will happen to these towers. Will they turn into rusting visual and environmental blights, too expensive and inconvenient to maintain/tear down? And how will they be erected in the first place? A tower implies something tall. Will helicopters be used to erect them?

The use of helicopters in general makes me nervous. In Los Angeles the circling of police and media helicopters is fairly commonplace, so I am familiar with the effects their noise has on people, none of which are positive. In fact, I worked in a school where we had a lockdown as a result of a suspected burglar, and was able to observe at close quarters the effect prolonged helicopter noise had on young children. Here, I understand, the helicopters involved will be larger and produce far more noise than their police and media counterparts, yet they will also be flying in close auditory, if not physical, proximity to our local elementary schools. I also find myself wondering about the statistical likelihood over time (in perpetuity) of a helicopter crash, and the likelihood of ensuing fire. Is this risk worth taking, especially since the purported reason for logging in the first place is to reduce risk from fire, either (conflicting versions given by SJWC at different times, I believe) directly and immediately and/or by raising revenue for the reduction of fire risk at a later date?

The condition of the roads if the NTMP is approved is something else which concerns me. Logging trucks are not very maneuverable. The logs they carry are very heavy and can roll if dislodged, and although I am sure every effort would be made to secure them, accidents do happen. How well are the logging trucks going to take the bends of Highway 17, not to mention the smaller county roads such as Aldercroft Heights Road (our only point of egress, incidentally) and Old Santa Cruz Highway? Old Santa Cruz Highway is already reduced to one lane at the southwestern end of Lexington Reservoir. The other lane has actually fallen into the Reservoir and I understand it has been in this state for a year, possibly two. How will these roads withstand the considerable and constant (one might say perpetual!) weight of a fleet of logging trucks traveling daily in both directions? Is the county equipped to foot the bill to keep its several thousand mountain residents from being cut off from their jobs, schools, medical treatment, groceries?

Then what happens when the logging trucks travel on Highway 17, which has only two lanes in each direction? The hours of operation applied for in the NTMP (7a.m. to 7p.m., with an unofficial proviso of 7a.m. to 4p.m.) overlap with peak travel times at both ends of the day. Travel time on the 17 is already generally doubled during morning and evening rush hours. What happens when a logging fleet is added to the mix?

The San Jose Water Company is already working on construction projects at Alma Bridge. There is a signposted project on Alma Bridge Road, and a project with no community notification posted occurring behind the locked gates of SJWC’s private road adjacent to Alma Bridge, continuing out of sight along Los Gatos Creek in a southerly direction. This latter unspecified (to my knowledge) project has already been the subject of a visit by a Santa Clara Valley Water District inspector (text on mountainresource.org/node/132) who reported on San Jose Water Company’s potential permit violations due to poor soil erosion control, poor control of water run-off, and absence of a winterization plan, There were also woodchips found in Los Gatos Creek, the presence of which were due to SJWC’s “miscommunication with the contractor … Chips should have been disposed of off site.” This highlights the fact that environmental violations may occur, miscommunications can and do happen, that these miscommunications can lead to consequences which may or may not have negative impacts, and that these consequences may or may not be corrected.

I know others have mentioned the reduction in property values that residents expect to be one outcome of the NTMP once it passes. Has the Supervisor’s office considered the negative impact on revenue that could bring to the county? If houses sell for less, the assigned property tax rate will be correspondingly less. Possibly existing residents might also be entitled to request a reassessment of their property tax rate based on one or more of the adverse ramifications of the NTMP (reduced water quality or road access, for instance? I don’t know the facts on this one) resulting in a further loss of revenue for the county.

Mountain residents aside, there are many other voters within the county who come out to use the area abounding the proposed site of the NTMP for recreational purposes: cyclists, joggers, rowers, hikers, anglers and people driving through the mountains and redwoods simply for pleasure, all choosing to pursue their pastimes in this area of great natural beauty. I see hundreds of them on any given weekend. I’m sure many of these people aren’t aware that the destination for their recreational outings is about to undergo major topographical and environmental alteration, but they will if the NTMP is approved. Are you prepared for a backlash?

Finally, there must be good reason for the neighboring counties of Marin, San Francisco and Santa Cruz to have banned logging of their watersheds. As our County Supervisor, I trust your office has contacted, or plans to contact, the relevant departments in these neighboring counties. I like to think Santa Clara County will be afforded the benefit of learning from the experiences of other counties in similar locales.

Mistakes in this matter should be avoided at all costs, since the effects will be felt “in perpetuity”.

Sincerely,

Celia Francis

Please Contact These People With Your Opinions

Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:05:56 -0800

PLEASE EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS ABOUT LOGGING OUR MOUNTAINS TO THE FOLLOWING:

Mr. Andrew Gere

San Jose Water Company

1221 S. Bascom Ave.

San Jose, CA 95128

408-279-7900

California State Senator

Abel Maldonado

100 Paseo de San Antonio #206

San Jose, CA 95113

408-277-9461

U.S. Congresswoman Anna Eshoo

698 Emerson St.

Palo Alto, CA 94301

(408) 245-2339

OR: 205 Cannon Bldg.

Washington, DC 20515

Mr. Bob Berlage

Big Creek Lumber Company

3564 Highway 1

Davenport, CA 95017

831-457-6390

Santa Clara County Supervisor

Don Gage

www.dongage.org

County Government Center
70 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA. 95110

Assemblyman Ira Ruskin

P.O. Box 942849

Sacramento, CA 94249-00221

assemblymember.ruskin@assembly.ca.gov

916-319-2021

California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection

135 Ridgeway Ave.

Santa Rosa, CA 95401

U.S.Congressman Mike Honda

Washington, DC Address:

The Honorable Michael Honda

1713 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2631
Fax: (202) 225-2699

OR:

District Office:

The Honorable Michael Honda
1999 South Bascom Ave
Suite 815
Campbell, CA 95008
Phone: (408) 558-8085
Fax: (408) 558-8086

Inspirational Words

Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:28:21 -0800

Below are excerpts from Terry Tempest Williams author of The Open Space of Democracy. It is just $8 and I recommend it for inspiration. She speaks of the Castle Valley fight to save open space in her community. If you are unfamiliar with her work, she is a thoughtful, wise and extremely talented nature writer. Her work is pragmatic, romantic, honest, alive, heroic, humble, and inspirational. She speaks of the collaboration, the humor, the perseverance and the successes around Castle Valley. When reading about the Castle Valley struggle I thought of NAIL.

Jodi Frediant, Citizens for Responsible Forest Management

"If we listen to the land, we will know what to do.

There is a particular juniper tree, not so far from our house, that I sit under frequently. This tree shelters my thoughts and brings harmony to mind. I consult this tree by simply seeking its company. No words are spoken. Sensations come into my body and I recognize this cellular awakening as an organic form of listening, the spiritual cohesion one feels in places like the Arctic on such a grand scale. A throbbing intelligence passes from this tree into my bloodstream and I remember my animal body that has evolved alongside my consciousness as a human being. This form of engagement reveals familial ties and I honor this tree's standing in the community. We share a pact of survival. I used to be embarrassed to speak of these things, my private correspondences with trees and birds and deer, for fear of seeming mad. But now, it seems mad not to speak of these things -- our unspoken intimacies with Other.

Open lands open minds.

In the open space of democracy, we are listening--ears alert--we are watching--eyes open--registering patterns and possibiliites for engagement. Some acts are private; some are public. Our oscillations between local, national, and global gestures map the full range of our movement. Our strength lies in our imagination, and paying attention to what sustains life, rather than what destroys it."

FIRST NTMP REVIEW QUESTIONS

Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:02:45 -0800