: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/tmrg/mountainresource.org/includes/file.inc on line 530.
: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/tmrg/mountainresource.org/includes/file.inc on line 530.
: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/tmrg/mountainresource.org/includes/file.inc on line 530.
: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/tmrg/mountainresource.org/includes/file.inc on line 530.
: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/tmrg/mountainresource.org/includes/file.inc on line 530.
: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/tmrg/mountainresource.org/includes/file.inc on line 530.
: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/tmrg/mountainresource.org/includes/file.inc on line 530.
: Function ereg() is deprecated in /home/tmrg/mountainresource.org/includes/file.inc on line 530.
warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tmrg/mountainresource.org/includes/common.inc:384) in /home/tmrg/mountainresource.org/includes/common.inc on line 99.
]> NAIL http://www.mountainresource.org/nail_forum Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging en Welcome! MRG/NAIL Signup Instructions http://www.mountainresource.org/node/34 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: <b>Registering</b> <ol> <li>If you are on this page, you should see a "User Login" form on the right side. Click on the "Create New Account" link. </li> <li>On the registration form, fill our your desired user name. <br><b>Note:</b> 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.</li> <li>Enter the email address that you want your account details to be sent to.</li> <li>Check the box next to "Subscribe to NAIL" in order to be a member of the NAIL Group. <br>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. <li>Click the <em>Create New Account</em>button<br>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.</li> </ol> <b>Signing On</b> Follow these steps to sign on for the first time (<b>Important!</b>): <ol> <li>Wait for the <em>second</em> confirmation email to be sent to you. <br> 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.</li> <li>Use the password sent in your first email to sign on.</li> <li>Immediately click on the <em>My Account</em> link on the left, and click on the <em>Edit</em> tab under your name</li> <li>In your account details form, type in a new password in the form. <br> 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.</li><br>You're done! You can begin reading the NAIL posts, commenting on them, and adding your own topics. </ol> NAIL Forum Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:18:45 -0700 Site Features & Posting Guidelines http://www.mountainresource.org/node/35 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: <ul> <li><strong>Only site members can post messages to the site.</strong> If you are a member, and you are unable to post, you might not be logged in.</li> <li>When you post to the site, <strong>you can choose whether you want to make your post viewable only to the group, or to the entire public</strong>. <br>To make the post viewable only to NAIL, remove the mark from the <em>Public</em> checkbox at the end of the form. Make sure the checkbox next to <em>NAIL</em> is on. </li> <li><strong>If you make your posting public, then anyone who replies to that post will have their comments publicly available too.</strong> So, think carefully when making this choice, and also when replying to a public topic.</li> <li><strong>You can attach files to your posts</strong> (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.</li> <li><strong>Group topics are not "organized" yet, so please use descriptive topics to help people find relevant posts!</strong> 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.</li> <li><strong>Stuck? In trouble?</strong> Send email to <a href="user/1/contact">tmrg</a> (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.</li> <li><strong>OH, and finally...</strong> 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.</li> </ul> Happy Posting! tmrg NAIL Forum Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:34:48 -0700 Map Information http://www.mountainresource.org/node/38 <p>How do we access the maps that Rebecca has assembled? </p> <p>I would to see the parcels that SJWC is proposing to log and the adjacent parcels.</p> <p> - Rick</p> NAIL Forum Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:02:44 -0700 Master Plan Map from Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District http://www.mountainresource.org/node/39 <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>I will also soon post a map I've made which shows detailed parcel boundaries in the area.</p> <p>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!)</p> NAIL Forum Wed, 31 Aug 2005 09:04:28 -0700 Big Creek mailer http://www.mountainresource.org/node/40 <p>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.</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 01 Sep 2005 11:59:00 -0700 Letter to the Los Gatos Weekly - Sept 1 http://www.mountainresource.org/node/41 <p>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.</p> <p>regards, </p> <p>Patricia Boswell</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 01 Sep 2005 21:14:55 -0700 SJWC Logging Map - Tiff format http://www.mountainresource.org/node/42 <p>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.</p> <p>Some browsers may have trouble opening and viewing this file. I'm working on some other ways to present this information. So, stay tuned...</p> NAIL Forum Fri, 02 Sep 2005 00:23:22 -0700 SJWC Logging Map, PDF Format (use this) http://www.mountainresource.org/node/43 <p>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&amp;W so difficult to make out without some studying. </p> <p>PDF viewing tips:</p> <ul> <li>In Acrobat Reader, the map will appear rotated and not to 100% scale.</li> <li>To the right of the + symbol, there are two "stack paper" images with an arrow.<br /> Mouse over the symbols until you see the Tool Tip "rotate counter clockwise." Click that one to orient the map correctly.</li> <li>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)</li> <li>Go through the pages by clicking at the arrows on the bottom of the viewer</li> </ul> <p>Hope this helps!</p> <p>-patricia</p> NAIL Forum Fri, 02 Sep 2005 10:32:41 -0700 Petition http://www.mountainresource.org/node/44 <p>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).</p> NAIL Forum Fri, 02 Sep 2005 12:07:33 -0700 Map of the San Jose Water/Big Creek Lumber Logging Proposal http://www.mountainresource.org/sjw_logmaps <p>Great meeting yesterday at Lexington School!</p> <p>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 <a href="http://www.mountainresource.org/node/43">previous post</a> for a copy of that "Notice of Intent".)</p> <p>- Rebecca</p> NAIL Forum Mon, 12 Sep 2005 10:15:32 -0700 Petition to Protect Los Gatos Redwoods and Mountain Environment (Opposed to SJWC “Timber Harvest Proposal”) http://www.mountainresource.org/node/49 <p><strong>This summary is based on information released to the press by San Jose Water Company (SJWC) and Big Creek Lumber Company.</strong></p> <p>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: </p> <ol> <li><strong>Increased Fire Risk: </strong>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.</li> <li><strong>Impacts to Water Quality: </strong>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.</li> <li><strong>Change in Forest Ecosystem: </strong>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.</li> <li><strong>Quality of Life and Noise Impacts: </strong>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.</li> <li><strong>Incompatible with Public Open Space and Residential Neighborhoods: </strong>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.</li> <li><strong>Impact to roads: </strong>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.</li> </ol> <p>Based on information released to the press by both San Jose Water Company (SJWC) and Big Creek Lumber Company, <strong>I oppose the impending “Timber Harvest Proposal”:</strong></p> <p>Signature (sign your own name, do not print)<br /> Address (home address, city, state, and zip code)</p> <ol> <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ <li>_______________________ _________________________ </ol> NAIL Forum Wed, 14 Sep 2005 22:30:35 -0700 WILDLIFE IMPACT FROM SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY LOGGING PLAN http://www.mountainresource.org/node/50 <p>By Freddy Howell, Owner, Wild Bird Center-Los Gatos</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>I strongly urge mountain residents to contact Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging (NAIL) to find out how we as a "village” can defeat this logging </p> <p>---------------------<br /> This article is by Freddy Howell, posted here at her request.</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 15 Sep 2005 04:17:43 -0700 Aldercroft Heights Water District activty? http://www.mountainresource.org/node/51 <p>I live in Aldercroft Heights and am most concerned about our water source being compromised due to the logging. </p> <p>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).</p> <p>Can anyone comment on what the Aldercroft Heights Water District is doing as an entity with regard to this proposed logging project?</p> <p>Thanks,</p> <p>Catherine</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:59:11 -0700 View the Logging Proposal using Google Earth http://www.mountainresource.org/loggingmodel <p><br /> </p><center><a target="_blank" href="images/uploads/annotated_logging_flyover_w.jpg"><img src="images/uploads/annotated_logging_flyover_6.jpg" title="Click for bigger image" /></a></center><p>&nbsp;</p><center><a></a><p><font size="2"></font></p></center><font size="2"> Here's another way to study the San Jose Water Company logging proposal, in virtual-reality 3D: by viewing the <a href="files/redwood_logging_plan_11Jan06.kmz">model</a> 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:<br /><br /> <a href="http://earth.google.com/"> Google Earth download site</a> <br /><br /> 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.&nbsp; All you need is the freely downloadable Google Earth.&nbsp; The attached <a href="http://www.mountainresource.org/files/SJWC%20Redwood%20Logging%20Plan%20v18-Oct-08.kmz">model</a> has been successfully viewed on both PCs and Macs.<br /><br /> Check the requirements...you do need broadband Internet access and a somewhat modern computer.<br /><br /> 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. <br /><br /> Now you are ready to look at this file. Just download the <a href="http://www.mountainresource.org/files/SJWC%20Redwood%20Logging%20Plan%20v18-Oct-08.kmz">attached file</a> 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 &quot;kmz&quot; file will open up automatically inside of Google Earth. <br /><br /> 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 &quot;Flyover Tour of the Logging Zone&quot;. <br /><br /> For those of you who were at the NAIL meeting last Sunday, this is what I demonstrated to you.&nbsp; To learn more about the logging controversy and how you can get involved, visit the Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging (NAIL) <a href="nail">home page</a>.<br /><br /> 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 <a href="mailto:rebecca@mountainresource.org">let me know</a>. Thanks. <br /><br /> Rebecca <br /><br /> P.S. If you'd like to view several other screen shots of this Google Earth logging model, see <a href="node/58">this post</a>.&nbsp; To learn about how to download and view a movie of the logging flyover, click <a href="flyover">here</a>.<br /></font><p><font size="2"><em><strong>Updates:<br /></strong>05-Mar-06: Added screenshot to this post.&nbsp; Google Earth model is unchanged - still the 11-Jan-06 version.<br />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 &quot;screen overlay&quot; of our NAIL bumper sticker in the upper left corner.</em><br /><br /></font></p> NAIL Forum Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:05:53 -0700 Collecting signatures for the petition at the Los Gatos Farmer's Market http://www.mountainresource.org/node/54 <p>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. </p> <p>Would anyone be interested in helping me circulate the petition and raise awareness about this plan at the market? </p> <p>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.</p> <p>Catherine</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 15 Sep 2005 22:38:58 -0700 NTMP Copy Available? http://www.mountainresource.org/node/55 <p>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.</p> <p>I have had the most success with contesting THPs and NTMPs when I picked at them for non-compliance with the rules.</p> <p> 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?</p> <p>I would be happy to prepare the legal paper work and file it in the federal court if people are interested in that.</p> <p>Elise Moss</p> NAIL Forum Fri, 16 Sep 2005 14:02:16 -0700 NAIL Email Signup Sheet (.doc MSWord format) http://www.mountainresource.org/node/56 <br /> NAIL Forum Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:32:27 -0700 Petition to Protect Los Gatos Redwoods and Mountain Environment (.doc MSWord format) http://www.mountainresource.org/node/57 <br /> NAIL Forum Fri, 16 Sep 2005 16:44:50 -0700 Screen shots of Logging Zones http://www.mountainresource.org/node/58 <p>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.</p> <p>As you open each of these images, remember to use the &quot;Back&quot; button on your browser to return to this page, in order to view the rest of the images.</p> <p>Also, if you try using Google Earth (see <a href="node/52">earlier post</a>), you can easily create these types of screenshots yourself. Just select &quot;Save Image&quot; from the Google Earth &quot;File&quot; menu.</p> <p>Rebecca</p> NAIL Forum Sun, 18 Sep 2005 15:39:00 -0700 Why the name "NAIL"? http://www.mountainresource.org/node/59 <p>FYI, in response to several questions, here's the reasoning behind my original suggestion (back in early August) of the name &quot;Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging&quot; (NAIL) for our group....please see email below.</p> <p>-------------------------------<br /> From: Rebecca Moore<br /> Sent: Wednesday, August 10, 2005 1:53 AM<br /> To: 'TerryClark'<br /> Subject: RE: Mountain Residents test email (please reply) </p> <p>Hi Terry,</p> <p>Thanks for your message.&nbsp; You have been busy the past two days with this issue!&nbsp; Nice article for mountain network news.<br /> ...</p> <p>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. &nbsp;(Such as the maps I displayed at Sunday’s meeting.) &nbsp;The second is to offer the use of our being-birthed Mountain Resource Group web site.&nbsp; The site could allow you to share documents, photos, discussion forums, talking points, etc.&nbsp; For example, the letters and articles that people are writing would be wonderful to collect on the site.&nbsp; And, of course, the maps as well.</p> <p>By the way, a potential name for the group jumped into my head today: “Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging” (NAIL).&nbsp; I think it is useful to frame this as “irresponsible logging”, because that conveys the fact&nbsp; that the group is reasonable and would not object to responsible logging.</p> <p>Terry, I am very concerned about this logging proposal, even though I do not live in the immediate vicinity.&nbsp; I think it will be devastating to the forest, and set a bad precedent for other areas in the region.&nbsp; Thanks for handling the important “media stuff “ for this project.</p> <p>Regards,<br /> Rebecca<br /> ----------------------<br /> Rebecca Moore<br /> Founder and President, <strong>The Mountain Resource Group</strong><a href="http://www.mountainresource.org"><br /> <em>www.mountainresource.org</em></a><em> (coming soon)</em>&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 01 Sep 2005 22:15:01 -0700 Help Stop the Logging http://www.mountainresource.org/node/64 <p>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,</p> <p>* 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. </p> <p>* Download the petition and get signatures.</p> <p>* Write letters to the editor of any newspaper in the area about your concerns. Again stick to the facts as you know them.</p> <p>* Sign up on the list of volunteers to help with projects that need doing to stop the logging.</p> <p>*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.</p> <p>* 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.<br /> We will use donated funds to hire experts, do mass mailings and cover other expenses directly related to stopping the proposed logging plan.</p> <p>Mail donations to:<br /> Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging (NAIL)<br /> P.O. Box 1975<br /> Los Gatos, CA 95031</p> NAIL Forum Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:33:32 -0700 Response to SJWC Mailer to Homes 9/24 http://www.mountainresource.org/node/69 <p>NAIL Members and Residents, </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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: </p> <p>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. </p> <p>Here is another fact that was not mentioned: </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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: </p> <p>- Cutting the big trees increases fire risk<br /> - Logging will be harmful to the water supply<br /> - We want no helicopter logging in our neighborhoods and we are a large neighborhood<br /> - Logging trucks are dangerous, cause a high percentage of fatal accidents, and damage the roads<br /> - These trees are 115 years old, and they need to be protected<br /> - SJWC should use money from sources other than chopping down the tall trees to take care of the fire<br /> protection efforts they should have managed on these acres years ago</p> <p>- Show us The Plan </p> <p>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. </p> <p>Sincerely,</p> <p>NAIL Steering Committee</p> NAIL Forum Sun, 25 Sep 2005 11:56:16 -0700 Problems with the NTMP Process http://www.mountainresource.org/node/70 <p>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:</p> <p>The rules for an NTMP are set up and managed by the Calif. Dept. of<br /> 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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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<br /> a changeable area in many details.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Yes, if someone wanted to tackle a bad system that needs legislative overhaul, this is a prime candidate.</p> <p>Terry Clark<br /> NAIL Steering Committee</p> NAIL Forum Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:11:44 -0700 Next NAIL Public Meeting Now Scheduled: Sunday, Oct 2 http://www.mountainresource.org/node/71 <p>Logging in Our Neighborhoods</p> <p>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:</p> <p>• Taking only the biggest, most fire-resistant trees<br /> • Leaving all brush, dead trees, and “slash” behind<br /> • Creating erosion-prone dirt roads in the forest<br /> • Logging on steep, unstable hillsides above an essential water source<br /> • Building towers and using helicopters to haul away trees when necessary</p> <p>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.</p> <p>This logging and its side-effects are likely to decrease property values for mountain residents.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>What can you do?<br /> 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.</p> <p>We will also update the community on new information and our activities since the Sepetember 11th meeting. </p> <p>MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!</p> <p> Join NAIL (Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging)<br /> At Loma Prieta School gymnasium on Sunday, October 2nd, at 12 noon. Address: 23800 Summit Road.</p> NAIL Forum Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:28:40 -0700 Circulated Letter From Rea Freedom, NAIL Steering Committee http://www.mountainresource.org/node/72 <p>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. </p> <p>This is a little of what we know:</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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?</p> <p>Some things not mentioned in the flyer:</p> <p>The logging will go on forever once the plan is approved with no review.<br /> The logging will be done in a populated area, the entire nature of the area will be changed.<br /> The equipment and the men hired to do the logging will be very close to neighborhoods.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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!</p> NAIL Forum Sun, 25 Sep 2005 12:43:26 -0700 NTMP Review Process http://www.mountainresource.org/node/81 <p>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.</p> <p>-patricia</p> NAIL Forum Mon, 26 Sep 2005 20:17:42 -0700 Bumper sticker: NO LOGGING THE LOS GATOS WATERSHED! http://www.mountainresource.org/node/82 <p>NAIL has a new bumper sticker that should be available at our upcoming meeting on October 2nd! </p> <p>Every bumper sticker will help us get the word out to the entire community. Click the link to the <strong>no_logging.jpg</strong> attachment below to view. </p> <p>A <strong> suggested donation of $2 </strong> per sticker will help cover the cost of printing, advertising, etc. Buy some for your friends and neighbors!</p> NAIL Forum Tue, 27 Sep 2005 14:21:35 -0700 Recent petition signature gathering efforts http://www.mountainresource.org/node/87 <p>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.</p> <p>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:</p> <p>18% - 95033<br /> 17% - 95932<br /> 27% - 95030</p> <p>Renee Pressler and others worked the Summit Market on Sunday gathering approximately 200 signatures.</p> <p>Adding these signatures to others that we know of, namely,</p> <p>231 from Sept 11 meeting @ Lexington<br /> 9 from Rick Parfitt's gym</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Cathy Daigle and I came up with a list of our perceptions on collecting signatures for the NAIL petition:</p> <p>Maps are critical - color and laminated really helped -- THANK YOU REBECCA!<br /> Spending time with people talking about the maps is important<br /> Talking points that help organize thoughts are essential<br /> A unified message is essential<br /> 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.</p> <p>People seemed genuinely concerned. Issues that really seemed to hit home with signers:</p> <p>increased fire danger<br /> increased traffic<br /> loss of trees<br /> the perpetual plan<br /> SJWC seems to sugar coat the facts - esp. re. fire</p> <p>Issues that we expected to be more resonant:</p> <p>impact on water quality<br /> noise issues<br /> potential for erosion<br /> safety</p> <p>We had fun! Met lots of our community neighbors and felt appreciated by bringing this important message to the forefront of people’s attention.</p> <p>Those who showed up at the Farmer's Market to help included:</p> <p>Catherine Russell<br /> Cathy Daigle<br /> Bob Mende<br /> Scott Bradley<br /> Michelle Gonzales<br /> Gabrielle Gonzales<br /> Emmanuelle Pancaldi<br /> Rea Freedom<br /> Kevin Flynn</p> <p>Summit Market folks:<br /> Renee Pressler, Chief Coordinator<br /> Ed Magakian<br /> Toni Impy</p> <p>Future Plans:</p> <p>Summit Market:<br /> 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.</p> <p>Renee definitely needs help! Please call her if you can help collect signatures for even an hour! </p> <p>Farmers’ Market: Sundays:<br /> 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. </p> <p>Other ideas to raise awareness among the local population:</p> <p>Post information at local coffee shops in Los Gatos (the Bear and the Coffee Roastery) - I plan on doing this over the weekend,<br /> 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)<br /> Post info at Bike shops in Los Gatos -- I plan on going to Summit Bicycles this weekend.<br /> Post info at your gym -- I plan on posting info at the Los Gatos Athletic Club<br /> Redwood Estates Flea Market</p> <p>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!</p> <p>A Big Thank You to Team NAIL!</p> <p>Catherine Russell</p> NAIL Forum Wed, 28 Sep 2005 21:40:27 -0700 Erosion and Logging In Santa Cruz Mountains http://www.mountainresource.org/node/89 <p>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 - <a href="http://www.lompicocreek.org">www.lompico.org</a>.</p> NAIL Forum Sat, 01 Oct 2005 00:11:15 -0700 Tactics fpr Collaboration and other illusions http://www.mountainresource.org/node/93 <p>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?</p> NAIL Forum Sun, 02 Oct 2005 19:11:47 -0700 Watershed Conference, Oct 29-30 http://www.mountainresource.org/node/96 <p>Healthy Rivers, Happy Fish<br /> Watershed Conference<br /> October 29-30, 2005<br /> $15 per day (includes lunch)<br /> $25 for two days (includes lunch both days)</p> <p> First Congregational Church<br /> 900 High Street, Santa Cruz</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.<br /> Also what we can do to help.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>The Honorable Fred Keeley will be our keynote speaker.</p> <p>Complete schedule attached.<br /> To register:</p> <p>www.crfm.org or phone: 831-426-1697</p> <p>This conference made possible courtesy of grants from:<br /> San Lorenzo Valley Water District and<br /> Santa Cruz County Fish &amp; Game Advisory Commission</p> NAIL Forum Tue, 04 Oct 2005 13:21:33 -0700 October 2nd meeting http://www.mountainresource.org/node/97 <p>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</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 06 Oct 2005 17:22:08 -0700 Letter to the Los Gatos Weekly http://www.mountainresource.org/node/98 <p>Seeking the truth<br /> about logging in<br /> the mountains</p> <p>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.</p> <p>* Eighty-five percent of the water used by Los Gatos and Monte Sereno comes from the proposed logging area.</p> <p>* If the winds that swept the 1985 Lexington fire had been blowing the other way, the town of Los Gatos would have been endangered.</p> <p>* The wear on our roads and traffic slow-downs from the 80,000-pound logging trucks on Highway 17 will affect all of us.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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?</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Rick Parfitt</p> <p>Los Gatos</p> NAIL Forum Sun, 09 Oct 2005 14:09:14 -0700 Why We Oppose Logging The Los Gatos Creek Watershed http://www.mountainresource.org/node/99 <p>Here is a summation of the reasons why NAIL is opposed to logging the Los Gatos Creek watershed:</p> <p><strong>Increased Fire Danger</strong>: 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.</p> <p><strong>Risk To Water Quality</strong>: 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?</p> <p><strong>Decreased Quality of Life</strong>: 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.</p> <p><strong>Decreased Property Value</strong>: 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.</p> NAIL Forum Sun, 09 Oct 2005 15:13:11 -0700 Excavating in Lexington dam http://www.mountainresource.org/node/100 <p>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</p> NAIL Forum Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:30:57 -0700 NAIL UPDATE ANNOUNCEMENT http://www.mountainresource.org/node/101 <p>Hello Everyone,</p> <p>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.</p> <p>What's new:<br /> - 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.<br /> - Another successful community meeting was held on October 2. Over 150 people showed up at the Loma Prieta School on Summit Road.<br /> - 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.<br /> - 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.<br /> - Legal efforts to stop the plan are already underway, with help from lawyers in our community and the Stanford University Environmental Law Clinic.<br /> - Media outreach continues with major Bay Area media outlets. Read the Santa Cruz Sentinel article <a href="http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2005/September/19/local/stories/02local.htm"> here</a>.<br /> Expect to see more stories in area newspapers.<br /> - NAIL members have presented at meetings of the Los Gatos City Council and Loma Prieta School Board.<br /> - Meetings have been held with members of the Santa Clara County Board Of Supervisors and the Santa Clara County Fire Department. </p> <p>What you can do:<br /> - Attend the NAIL meeting this Friday, October 10 at the Chemeketa Park Clubhouse on Comanche Trail.<br /> - 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.<br /> - Read a summary of the reasons we oppose logging at <a href=" http://www.mountainresource.org/node/99">this post</a>.<br /> - Write letters to the media: <a href="mailto:letters@mercurynews.com">San Jose Mercury News</a> and <a href= "mailto:lgwt@community-newspapers.com">Los Gatos Weekly Times</a>.<br /> - Write letters to elected officials: Addresses can be found at <a href=" http://www.mountainresource.org/node/79">this post</a>.<br /> - Collect signatures for the petition drive. The petition is at <a href="http://www.mountainresource.org/node/57">this post</a>.<br /> - Help with the fundraising. Tax-deductible donations can be sent to NAIL, P.O. Box 1975, Los Gatos, CA, 95031<br /> - 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.<br /> - Send this email to anyone and everyone who is concerned about what is being planned for the Los Gatos Creek watershed.</p> <p>Thanks again for all your help!</p> <p>Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:20:17 -0700 FRIDAY Oct 14 MEETING FOR MEMBERS! http://www.mountainresource.org/node/102 <p>Membership Meeting<br /> Friday, October 14th, 7:00 PM<br /> Chemeketa Clubhouse<br /> Our current information is that the NTMP will be filed on this date.<br /> The purpose of the meeting is to discuss where we are, and where we want to go.<br /> Your input is needed.<br /> Discussion will include fundraising, committee members, taking action.<br /> There will be time for each person to share ideas, ask questions and be a part of preserving these beautiful mountains.<br /> See you there!</p> <p>NAIL Steering Committee</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:21:33 -0700 NAIL Fundraiser Event - Oct 16 http://www.mountainresource.org/node/103 <p>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.</p> <p> 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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:53:19 -0700 Logging Plan Submitted-SJWC's Misleading FAQ http://www.mountainresource.org/ntmp <p>The Los Gatos logging plan has been posted by the CDF. The location is: </p> <p><a href="ftp://thp.fire.ca.gov/THPLibrary/North_Coast_Region/NTMPs2005/1-05NTMP-022SCL/">ftp://thp.fire.ca.gov/THPLibrary/North_Coast_Region/NTMPs2005/1-05NTMP-022SCL/ </a></p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>This is just a preliminary analysis of the NTMP plan. Further analysis is underway.</p> <p><strong>Cutting The Largest Most Fire Resistant Trees</strong></p> <p>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. </p> <p>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. "</p> <p>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."<br /> NTMP Section 2 Page 5</p> <p><strong>Year Round Logging</strong></p> <p>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. </p> <p>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..."</p> <p>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"<br /> NTMP page 12.</p> <p><strong>Hours of Operation</strong></p> <p>No mention is made in the NTMP about a 4:00 pm cut-off</p> <p>SJWC FAQ - "Big Creek restricts active operations of their crews to the hours of 7 a.m. and 4 p.m."</p> <p>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.</p> <p><strong>Logging Slash</strong></p> <p>Logging slash will be nearly 3 feet high.</p> <p>SJWC FAQ - "Logging slash will be lopped (cut) to a level close to the ground." </p> <p>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</p> <p><strong>Opening Up The Forest Canopy</strong></p> <p>The forest canopy WILL be opened allowing the introduction of invasive fast growing fire prone species such as scotch broom.</p> <p>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" </p> <p>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</p> <p><strong>Other information</strong></p> <p>Endangered Species<br /> 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.</p> <p>Archeological Sites<br /> Archeological sites are found in the NTMP area. NTMP page 29</p> <p>Erosion Hazard Rating<br /> Erosion Hazard Rating is High NTMP page 9</p> NAIL Forum Wed, 19 Oct 2005 22:31:57 -0700 NAIL FAQ http://www.mountainresource.org/node/107 <p>Frequently Asked Questions </p> <p>When will the NTMP plan be filed and how can I get a copy? </p> <p>The Los Gatos logging plan has been posted by the CDF. The location is </p> <p>ftp://thp.fire.ca.gov/THPLibrary/North_Coast_Region/NTMPs2005/1-05NTMP-022SCL/ </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>In Summary, What is Wrong with the San Jose Water Company's plans to log the Los Gatos Creek Watershed?<br /> The logging plans are fraught with many problems. Here are just a few of the bigger issues:<br /> • 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.<br /> 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."<br /> • 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.<br /> 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.<br /> • 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. </p> <p>Hasn't fire mitigation been part of the logging plan all along?<br /> 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.<br /> 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. </p> <p>Isn't it true that the San Jose Water Company hired a fire scientist to help them implement a fire mitigation plan?<br /> 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. </p> <p>San Jose Water Company claims that thinning the forest will reduce the risks of fire. Isn't this type of logging a good thing?<br /> 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.<br /> In fact, CDF guidelines recommends removing the undergrowth and leaving trees over 24" in diameter because they are the most fire resistant. </p> <p>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?<br /> 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. </p> <p>Most of us live in wood homes. Isn't logging necessary to meet our ever growing need for forest products?<br /> 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. </p> <p>Will logging hurt the watershed and affect the quality of the water that goes to Los Gatos and Mount Serno? </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>There has been a lot said about helicopter logging. Should I be concerned? </p> <p>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. </p> <p>If San Jose Water Company is not allowed to log, where will they get the money to do fire mitigation? </p> <p>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? </p> <p>If clean water is one of SJWC most valuable assets, why would the do anything to endanger it? </p> <p>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.<br /> 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. </p> <p>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? </p> <p>CDF can not force private property owners to follow state guidelines. </p> <p>How long is the logging permit good for? </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>Will Old Growth Trees be cut? </p> <p>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. </p> <p>Is it true that the logging will only occur every other year? </p> <p>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. </p> <p>Will the value of my property be devalued by logging? </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>Will there be a risk to school children? </p> <p>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. </p> <p>Aren't log trucks dangerous on mountain roads? </p> <p>Yes. Logging trucks for each mile driven are involved in more accidents than other vehicles. </p> <p>Will logging promote the growth of more flammable brush? </p> <p>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. </p> <p>Will logging promote the spread of non-native species? </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.. </p> <p>Will the trees grow back? </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>Will the logging affect endangered species? </p> <p>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. . </p> <p>If I have other concerns or questions that I don't think SJWC is adequately addressing, who can I contact? </p> <p>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.<br /> Please visit our web page at www.mountainresource.org</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:56:08 -0700 Suggestions for consideration of NAIL members http://www.mountainresource.org/node/108 <p>10/23/05<br /> 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.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>* Make clear it is the slash and ladder fuels that is most likely to burn, not the large trees<br /> * Make clear ladder fuels should be removed and most ideally (but expensively) chipped.<br /> * Show photos of areas under Redwood trees free of fuel due to the excess shade.<br /> * Show photos of sunny areas with Scotch Broom and ladder fuels that are nearby above<br /> * Show photos of landslides and sediment inducing issues related to logging<br /> * Highlight the non-logging policies of other West Coast municipalities</p> <p>2. Picket SJW headquarters and publicize the event to newspapers and TV news organizations. Reiterate messaging above.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>4. Challenge SJW to use experts and consider studies that NAIL considers relevant.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>6. Find ways to boycott SJW or major shareholder products. Unfortunately, institutions hold the largest chunks of shares.</p> <p>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</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>10. Contact the top mutual fund holdings and top institutional investors<br /> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=SJW</p> <p>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 </p> <p>2. Explore ways to increase public participation and enjoyment in SJW’s properties such as hiking trails through the redwood groves.</p> <p>Thanks,<br /> Nick Arreguy</p> NAIL Forum Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:33:59 -0700 Suggestions to NAIL Members/Response http://www.mountainresource.org/node/109 <p>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:</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>Nick: Picket SJW headquarters and publicize the event to newspapers and TV news organizations. Reiterate messaging above.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Nick: Challenge SJW to use experts and consider studies that NAIL considers relevant.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Nick: Find ways to boycott SJW or major shareholder products. Unfortunately, institutions hold the largest chunks of shares.</p> <p>NAIL: Again, anything that citizens can do to make it clear to SJWC how much they oppose this plan, is important.</p> <p>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</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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."</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>NIck: Contact the top mutual fund holdings and top institutional investors<br /> http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=SJW<br /> NAIL: Great suggestion!</p> <p>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</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Nick: Explore ways to increase public participation and enjoyment in SJW’s properties such as hiking trails through the redwood groves.</p> <p>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...!</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>NAIL Steering Committee</p> NAIL Forum Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:44:15 -0700 Local Residents and SJWC Own Proposed Acres to be Logged http://www.mountainresource.org/node/110 <p>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.</p> <p>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:</p> <p>Bruce Kennedy, Loma Prieta Avenue<br /> Charles Kennedy, Loma Prieta Avenue<br /> Mark and Robin Porter, Loma Prieta Avenue</p> <p>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.</p> NAIL Forum Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:54:57 -0700 Overview of NTMP Process http://www.mountainresource.org/node/111 <p>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)</p> <p>Timber Harvest Review Process<br /> Domestic Water Supply Inquiry: Property owners should respond w/in 10 days:<br /> • to alert submitter of domestic water use from a water course within the NTMP or within 1000 ft down stream<br /> • to request mitigations to prevent adverse effects to their water source.</p> <p>Notice of Intent and Plan Submittal: CDF has 10 days to do 1st review</p> <p>First Review &amp; Acceptance for filing: Plan rejected or accepted for filing<br /> County Supervisor should request night-time public hearing at an easily accessible location</p> <p>Pre-Harvest Inspection (PHI): to take place w/in 10 days of plan filing.<br /> • Various Review Team members conduct a site visit.<br /> • Review Team is led by CDF.<br /> • Advisory members include:<br /> –California Geological Survey (CGS)<br /> –Department of Fish and Game (DFG)<br /> –San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB)<br /> –Santa Clara County Planning Department</p> <p>Public Hearing:<br /> • This is the chance for the community to voice concerns<br /> • Not a Q &amp; A session (CDF gathers info)<br /> • Usually little or no presentation of issues<br /> • Speakers have from 3-5 minutes each<br /> • CDF must address in writing every significant environmental, public health, &amp; safety concern raised</p> <p>Review Team Meeting (Review Team):<br /> • Agencies discuss Registered Professional Forester’s (RPF) response to PHI requests<br /> • Takes place in Santa Rosa<br /> –Public can sit in and listen via conference line from Felton CDF office (limited public attendance) Take notes; tape record<br /> –Issues are hammered out here<br /> –Public may have the opportunity to ask questions of RT members<br /> • CDF prepares Review Team Recommendations<br /> • County (DFG) can non-concur w/in 5 days</p> <p>Close of Public Comment:<br /> • Ten days after last significant info is received by CDF (RPF responses, etc.)<br /> • Call CDF to confirm date (831-335-6740)<br /> • Send comment letters to CDF prior to date:</p> <p>Decision-Approval:<br /> • CDF Director approves plan<br /> • CDF has 15 days to prepare Official Response to Comments (often takes longer)<br /> • Can be obtained from CDF or is sent to those who submitted comments</p> <p>Official Response to Comments</p> <p>Appeal<br /> • Board of Supervisors can vote to appeal the plan<br /> • Need to get vote of Board of Supervisors before Decision Date<br /> • Board of Forestry decides whether or not to hear appeal<br /> • Board of Forestry holds public hearing on appeal (Sacto)<br /> • Rarely upholds appeal</p> <p>Litigation</p> NAIL Forum Wed, 26 Oct 2005 20:57:57 -0700 CDF Evaluation of Fire Danger in our Zone http://www.mountainresource.org/node/112 <p>CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION<br /> SANTA CLARA UNIT FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, 2005<br /> (Reproduced from pages 27 and 28)</p> <p>Battalion Three: (Los Gatos)<br /> 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. </p> <p>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, &amp; Very High - based on homogeneous lands and their fuel 27.</p> <p>Santa Clara Unit<br /> 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.</p> NAIL Forum Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:03:50 -0700 Response to Letter in Mountain Network News http://www.mountainresource.org/node/113 <p>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.</p> <p>NAIL Steering Committee:</p> <p>Terry Clark, Debbie Daly, Kevin Flynn, Rea Freedom, Rebecca Moore, Rick Parfitt, Linda Wallace</p> NAIL Forum Mon, 31 Oct 2005 09:15:49 -0800 More SJWC Land Sale Activity http://www.mountainresource.org/node/114 <p>A link to land sale activity/pending.</p> <p>http://www.cbre.com/USA/US/CA/San+Jose/Property/sjw.htm?pageid=1 </p> <p>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.</p> <p>See more on YahooFinance: SJWC headlines.</p> NAIL Forum Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:07:01 -0800 SJWC now listed on NYSE http://www.mountainresource.org/node/115 <p>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.<br /> _________________________<br /> Form 8-K for SJW CORP </p> <p>31-Oct-2005<br /> Notice of Delisting or Transfer, Regulation FD Disclosure, Financial Statements and Exhibit.</p> <p>Item 3.01 Notice of Delisting or Failure to Satisfy a Continued Listing Rule or Standard; Transfer of Listing.<br /> (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. </p> <p>Item 7.01 Regulation FD Disclosure.<br /> 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. </p> <p>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.</p> NAIL Forum Mon, 31 Oct 2005 15:25:25 -0800 First Review Team Questions/NTMP http://www.mountainresource.org/node/118 <p>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.</p> <p>NAIL Steering Committee</p> <p>NOTE:<br /> 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.<br /> This may result in an increase in the time necessary to determine if the plan is acceptable for approval.</p> <p> Contact CGS (Tom Spittler) @ (707) 576-2949 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI<br />  Contact CDF Archaeology (Chuck Whatford) @ (707) 576-2966 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI<br />  Contact WQ (Richard McMurtry) @ (408)821-4658 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI<br />  Contact DFG (Rick Macedo/Richard Fitzgerald @(707)928-4369/964-1691 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI<br />  Contact CDF (Pete Cafferata) @ (916) 653-9455 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI<br />  Contact CDF (John Munn) @ (916) 653-5843 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI<br />  Contact CDF Biometrician (Chris Maranto) @ (916) 651-6860 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI<br />  Notify CDF (Ruth Norman) @ (707) 576-2940 of PHI date and time.</p> <p>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)</p> <p>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] </p> <p>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:<br /> a) For disclosure purposes, please clearly state that road and landing construction is proposed on their properties, not just use.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>5. The following questions pertain to Item 17 (Erosion Hazard Rating):<br /> A. Please briefly discuss the III. PROTECTIVE VEGETATIVE COVER REMAINING AFTER DISTURBANCE rating of 1 for areas C, D, F, G &amp; 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]?<br /> 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.<br /> C. Please review the EHR determination for factor rating area H on page 210. It appears that the rating should be High.</p> <p>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):<br /> 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?<br /> 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.<br /> 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).<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> G. Please provide a table that identifies the number of acres by vegetation type in each management unit.<br /> 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:<br /> i. A pre-harvest stand table for each stand (vegetation type) with diameter class representation by 2” class.<br /> ii. A stand table for each stand (vegetation type) after the initial entry.<br /> 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.)</p> <p>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).</p> <p>8. The following questions pertain to geological issues:<br /> 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.)<br /> 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.<br /> C. Where is G6-6 shown on a map? Please clarify.<br /> 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.<br /> E. Should the feature described by N7 on page 252 be mapped on the Operations Map? Please address.<br /> F. Should the feature described by N10 on page 252 be shown on the Operations Map? Please address.<br /> 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.<br /> H. It is noted that all proposed roads on the Operations Maps are shown as abandoned roads on the CEG’s maps.</p> <p>FOR CLARIFICATION</p> <p>9. Please have the Licensed Timber Operator sign and date Item 3 on page 2 [ref. 14 CCR 1035.3(a)].</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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):<br /> 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.”<br /> B. “Hardwoods occupying growing space that would be suitable for planting redwood or Douglas-fir seedlings may be selectively harvested.”<br /> 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.</p> <p>13. The following questions pertain to Sudden Oak Death under Item 15:<br /> A. Please revise 4. on page 7 to specify all host material, not only hardwood host material.<br /> 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.<br /> C. Please include a statement that the destination(s) of host material will be amended into the plan prior to transport of host material.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>15. The following questions pertain to Item 24:<br /> 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.<br /> B. The following questions pertain to landings:<br /> i. Should the Yarding Method column associated with L2 (page 13) include Cable? Please review and revise if necessary.<br /> ii. The map on page 33.6 shows L25 twice. Please clarify.<br /> 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.</p> <p>16. Mitigation Points<br /> 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.<br /> b) The last recommendation under MITIGATION POINT M24-2 on page 16 is not consistent with the CEG’s recommendation. Please address.<br /> c) Will elevating the crossing at MITIGATION POINT M18-4 conform to 14 CCR 923.4(n)? Please address.<br /> d) Under CLASS I WATERCOURSES WITH FISH HABITAT on page 18 please address 14 CCR 916.4(b)(6).<br /> e) Under CLASS II WATERCOURSES on page 19 please address 14 CCR 916.4(b)(6).<br /> 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.</p> <p>17. Crossing points<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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].</p> <p>24. The following questions pertain to the NTMP maps:<br /> 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.<br /> 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)]. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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)].</p> <p>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.)</p> <p>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.)</p> <p>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).</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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:<br /> A. The 2nd paragraph appears to be incomplete. For plan clarity, please review the last sentence and revise as necessary.<br /> B. Please carefully review the 5th paragraph. Verify that all sentences are complete and the time period specified is correct. Revise if necessary.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>54. Please make the following minor revisions:<br /> A. Fomes to Phellinus under Wildlife Tree Retention – specifically 4. – toward the top of page 6.<br /> 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.<br /> C. Please provide the unit of measure associated with 30 under MITIGATION POINT M20-5 on page 17.<br /> 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.<br /> 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].<br /> F. Please review the 1st sentence on page 115. Please revise as necessary [ref. miles versus feet].</p> <p>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.</p> <p>55. Under Native American Consultation Information (pg. 383):<br /> A. Add the date that the second Native American notification letters were sent.<br /> 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.<br /> C. Did the RPF receive a written response from Ann Marie Sayers? Any written responses shall be attached to the CAA. (ARCH)</p> <p>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 &amp; West 1876) or the two historic roads (General Land Office 1866 &amp; 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)</p> <p>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)</p> <p>58. On the Archaeological Survey Coverage Maps (pp. 396 &amp; 397), plot the locations of the Williams Dam, the Rattlesnake Wall, and the Homestead Cabin. (ARCH)</p> <p>59. On the Primary Record forms (pp. 398-450):<br /> A. P11, cite the author and year of the CAA;<br /> B. On the Site Location Maps, provide the publication date(s) of the USGS<br /> quadrangles. All Site Location Maps should include a north arrow. Outline the<br /> boundaries of the resources with a solid black line (instead of a line with cross-<br /> hatches in it). The locations of linear resources (such as the fences and the<br /> railroad grade) should be plotted as black lines. Very small resources can be<br /> depicted with a black dot.<br /> C. The Site Sketch Maps must include site datum points. The datum should be a<br /> relatively permanent natural or cultural feature. A description of the datum shall<br /> be included either in the map legend or in the Archaeological Site Record form;<br /> D. P2c (Southern Pacific Coast Railroad Grade, pg. 442), the Legal Description<br /> should be to the nearest quarter quarter Section whenever possible. For example:<br /> the SE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 9, the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 9, the SE<br /> ¼ of Section 9, etc.;<br /> E. P4 (Gulch Site, pg. 449), should be ‘Site’ instead of ‘Structure’. (ARCH)</p> <p>60. If it is located on San Jose Water Company landholdings, the Rattlesnake Wall should be recorded on a primary record form. (ARCH)</p> <p>Agency Questions:</p> <p>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].</p> <p>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]. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>65. Please evaluate proposed road construction within the WLPZ of Los Gatos Creek at Mitigation Point M24-2 [ref. page 16].</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>68. Springs are discussed on page 20. Are the protection measures prescribed adequate? Please evaluate.</p> <p>69. Should the sag pond described by N9 in the CEG’s Report on page 252 be shown on the Operations Map? Please evaluate.</p> <p>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].</p> <p>71. Please review the descriptions of the five haul routes described on pages 143 and 144. Are they accurate?</p> <p>72. It is appropriate to exclude Columbus Day as a nationally designated legal holiday [ref. LOG HAULING on page 31]? Please evaluate.</p> <p>73. Please verify that the Scenic Roads Maps [ref. pages 234 – 243] identify all the necessary roads.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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].</p> <p>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]? </p> <p>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?</p> <p>Agency Archaeology Questions. For confidentiality, please submit responses clipped or stapled separately.</p> <p>78. Evaluate the locations, significance assessment, and protection measures for the fifteen historic sites. (ARCH)</p> <p>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)</p> <p>7 ½” QUADRANGLE: Castle Rock Ridge, Laurel &amp; Los Gatos</p> <p>PAST OVERLAPPING PLANS: **<br /> CDF Representative: Jay Gayner<br /> CGS Representative: Michael Huyette<br /> ARCH Representative: Chuck Whatford/Lisa Hagel<br /> WQ Representative: Richard McMurtry<br /> DFG Representative: Rick Macedo/Richard Fitzgerald<br /> NOAA Fisheries Representative: ***</p> <p>***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.” </p> <p>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:</p> <p>CDF Forest Practice<br /> 135 Ridgway Avenue<br /> Santa Rosa, CA 95401</p> NAIL Forum Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:14:30 -0800 Residents: Please Make This Contact!! http://www.mountainresource.org/node/119 <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>NAIL opposes the logging on four platforms: </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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? </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>NAIL Steering Committee</p> NAIL Forum Wed, 02 Nov 2005 14:25:54 -0800 NAIL Issues With NTMP http://www.mountainresource.org/nail/manifesto <p align="center" class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 16pt; font-family: Times;"><font size="4" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Issues and Concerns regarding<br />San Jose Water Company’s NTMP <br />Affecting 1002 Acres of Los Gatos Watershed</font><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong><span style="font-size: 16pt; font-family: Times;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></strong></font><strong><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Times;"><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Prepared by: Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging – N.A.I.L.</font><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal"><strong><em><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Times;"><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">A community organization of residents affected by the NTMP</font><o:p /></span></em></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Times;"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">November 1, 2005</font><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><em><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p>&nbsp;<br /></o:p></span></em></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="times new roman,times,serif"><strong><em><span style="font-family: Times;">Increased Fire Danger</span></em></strong><em><span style="font-family: Times;">:</span></em></font><span style="font-family: Times;"> <o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><br /><!--[if !supportLists]--><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;; font-weight: normal;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span></strong><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Times;">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 </span><strong><span style="font-size: 11pt;">CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">SANTA CLARA</st1:place></st1:city> UNIT FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, 2005 - </span></strong><span style="font-size: 11pt;">attached to this document<strong>.)<br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--></strong></span><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"><o:p /></span></strong></p> <ul type="disc" style="margin-top: 0in;"><ul type="circle" style="margin-top: 0in;"><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: Times;">The overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports the fact that </span>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<em>. &quot;Timber harvest, through its effects on forest structure, local microclimate, and fuels accumulation, has increased fire severity more than any other recent human activity.&quot;</em> <br /> <span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>-<span>&nbsp; </span><st1:place w:st="on"><em>Sierra Nevada</em></st1:place><em> Ecosystem Project, 1996. Final Report to <br /> <span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Congress<br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--></em><em><span style="font-family: Times-Roman;"><o:p /></span></em></li></ul></ul> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Times;">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</span><em>). &nbsp;&quot;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 </em><em><span style="font-family: Times-Roman;">(PNW-GTR-355)<br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></span></em></p> <ul type="disc" style="margin-top: 0in;"><ul type="circle" style="margin-top: 0in;"><li class="MsoNormal"><span style="color: black;">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. </span>The NTMP Document states in Section 2:&quot;A well distributed timber stand shall be left after operations that is at least&nbsp; 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.&quot; <br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p /></span></li><li class="MsoNormal">The plan calls for far more cutting of the most fire resistant trees than is mentioned in SJWC's previous public statements.&nbsp; <span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p /></span></li></ul></ul> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in;">SJWC letter to residents states <span style="color: black;">that &quot;about 80% of the total Redwoods and Douglas Firs remaining after the harvest&quot;. The precise figure in the NTMP is 66%. NTMP Section 3 page 71: <br /> Present Volume Of All Trees In The NTMP = 337,837<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="color: black;">Harvest Volume of All Trees = 112, 011 (33% of present volume)<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: 0.5in;"><span style="color: black;">Harvest Volume Of 36&quot; Trees = 73,150 (65% of harvest volume)<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><em><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></em></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><em><span style="font-family: Times;"><font size="4" face="times new roman,times,serif">Risk To Water Quality:</font><o:p /></span></em></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><em><span style="font-family: Times;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></em></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->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. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->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. &nbsp;Residents of mountain communities such as <st1:placename w:st="on">Aldercroft</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Heights</st1:placetype> and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Chemeketa</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:place> will be forced to bear the burden of increased sedimentation to their water source, brought about by the logging. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Large west coast cities such as <st1:city w:st="on">Seattle</st1:city>, <st1:city w:st="on">Portland</st1:city>, <st1:placename w:st="on">Marin</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype>, <st1:city w:st="on">San Francisco</st1:city> and <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Santa Cruz</st1:place></st1:city> all protect their water supply by explicitly prohibiting logging in their watersheds. Why should <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> permit something other communities find it prudent to prohibit? </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->CDF in their response to the NTMP has raised this issue. In a response from CDF to SJWC they ask:<em> “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? “<o:p /></em></p> <em><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" /> </span></em> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.75in;"><strong><em><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></em></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4" face="times new roman,times,serif"><strong><em>Decreased Quality of Life</em></strong></font><em><font size="4" face="times new roman,times,serif">:</font> <o:p /></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->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. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->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 (<a href="http://www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm">http://www.lhh.org/noise/decibel.htm</a>). Residents will, in effect, have the equivalent of a Shoreline Amphitheatre placed 300 feet from their homes.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->We feel that the proposed logging will be in violation of local noise ordinances. Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance Section B11-192 states that <em>“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 <o:p /></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in;"><em>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:p /></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->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 <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Los Gatos</st1:place></st1:city> mountain&nbsp;residents.<span>&nbsp; </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Thee logging activities will harm the local ecosystem, destroying wildlife habitats (an endangered species – the red-toed frog- &nbsp;has been found in the NTMP area – per the NTMP document) &nbsp;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.<span>&nbsp; </span>Additionally, private property would face even greater exposure to landslides as the soil stability provided by large trees would be reduced significantly.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->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<em>: “Are full winter period operations, especially ground-based yarding, appropriate?”</em>&nbsp; </p> <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" /> </span> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><em><font size="4" face="times new roman,times,serif">Decreased Property Value:</font><o:p /></em></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><em><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></em></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The NTMP proposal allows for logging in perpetuity.<span class="msoins0"> </span>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 <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Los Gatos</st1:place></st1:city> residents in the affected areas.&nbsp; We feel that increased profits for the San Jose Water Company should not come at the expense of thousands of&nbsp;residents.<strong><o:p /></strong></p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><strong><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></strong></p> <div align="center"><strong><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"></span></strong><br clear="all" style="page-break-before: always;" /><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;"> </span></strong></font> </div><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION<o:p /></strong></font></p><div align="center"> </div><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><strong>SANTA CLARA</strong></st1:place></st1:city><strong> UNIT FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN, 2005<o:p /></strong></font></p><div align="center"> </div><p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><strong><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">(Reproduced from pages 27 and 28)</font><o:p /></strong></p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><strong><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></strong></p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><strong><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></strong></p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><strong><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Battalion Three: (<st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Los Gatos</st1:place></st1:city>)</font><o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Battalion Three is located in Santa Clara County<span>&nbsp; </span>and lies solely in<span>&nbsp; </span>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. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Historically, the major wild land fire occurrence has been in the<span>&nbsp; </span>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, &amp; Very High - based on homogeneous lands and their fuel 27.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>&nbsp;</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:place></st1:city> Unit </p> <p class="MsoNormal">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)<span>&nbsp; </span><strong><u>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 <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">South</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">West</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> 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.</u></strong> 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. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on">Mission</st1:place> Statements:</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Primarily:</p> <p class="MsoNormal">To protect and enhance <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Western</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place>’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. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Secondarily:</p> <p class="MsoNormal">To protect all <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:state>’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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> NAIL Forum Fri, 04 Nov 2005 09:43:19 -0800 "Timber!" - Los Gatos Weekly Times Cover Story (11/02/05) http://www.mountainresource.org/node/125 <p><a title="Los Gatos Weekly Times Article, 11/02/05: Timber! There's plenty of it in the Santa Cruz Mountains" href="http://www.community-newspapers.com/archives/lgwt/20051102/lgcover.shtml" target="_blank"><em>Timber! There's plenty of it in the Santa Cruz Mountains</em></a>&nbsp;is the cover story in this week's Los Gatos Weekly Times. </p> <p>Jennifer McLain describes residents' concerns about the SJWC&nbsp;logging&nbsp;proposal, and highlights NAIL's activities to stop&nbsp;it. </p> <p>Many thanks to Jennifer for her excellent article! </p> NAIL Forum Fri, 04 Nov 2005 09:24:44 -0800 Next NAIL Membership Meeting Scheduled/IMPORTANT! http://www.mountainresource.org/node/126 <p>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.</p><p>A great deal of new information, updates and instructions on participating in the public feedback part of the NTMP review will be discussed.&nbsp; We need all NAILers present for this meeting!</p><p>To get to Skyland Church take Summit Rd to San Jose Soquel Rd.&nbsp; Rt. on San Jose Soquel Rd.&nbsp; A few miles down make a left onto Miller Hill Rd.&nbsp; Continue to the top of Miller Hill (do not turn off the road).&nbsp; At the top make a left onto Skyland.&nbsp; The church is on your right.&nbsp; Whitaker Hall is the building behind the church.</p><p>Address:&nbsp; 25100 Skyland Road.</p><p>To assist in the use of the facility, please plan on dropping a few dollars into the basket by the door.&nbsp; Thanks everyone!<br /><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:23:42 -0800 SJ Water Already Creating Logging Roads http://www.mountainresource.org/node/127 <p>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.</p><p>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.&nbsp; The planning department contact was not aware of a permitted grading job in that area and promised to phone back the resident.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</p><p>Concerned residents should contact District 1 Supervisor Don Gage at 408-299-5010 (phone,) 408-295-6993 (fax,) or at <a href="http://www.dongage.org">http://www.dongage.org</a> and voice their opinions.<br /></p><p><br /></p> NAIL Forum Sat, 05 Nov 2005 09:17:12 -0800 Resident Letter to Supv. Don Gage http://www.mountainresource.org/node/130 <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">MURPHY RESIDENCE</p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">21976 GILLETTE DRIVE</st1:address></st1:street></p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">LOS <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">GATOS</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state> <st1:postalcode w:st="on">95033</st1:postalcode></st1:place></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Hon. Don Gage<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><st1:date month="10" day="31" year="2005" w:st="on">10/31/05</st1:date></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Hedding Street</st1:address></st1:street></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">San Jose</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state></st1:place> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Dear Supervisor Gage:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">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.<span>&nbsp; </span>This logging would take place within ¼ mile of my residence as well as to other parcels and schools in the area.<span>&nbsp; </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">One would expect this logging for profit to occur in rural areas and not in the backyards of thousands of people or school playgrounds.<span>&nbsp; </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I understand that San Jose Water Company operates under a franchise in the County for the purpose of selling water.<span>&nbsp; </span>As far as I can tell, it <em>does not operate</em> as a logging business nor has a franchise to log for profit.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">That this plan is being conducted for one reason is fairly apparent, and that is for monetary profit <em>.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>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<span>&nbsp; </span>and interference with the lives of thousands of County residents.</em><span>&nbsp; </span>The plan appears to run into perpetuity.<span>&nbsp; </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The San Jose Water Company claims that this is also fire prevention.<span>&nbsp; </span>Ostensibly, this is in part the reason that the Department of Forestry has jurisdiction over the plan.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Further, that this plan addresses fire prevention and reduces the risk of fire appears to be pure speculation.<span>&nbsp; </span>The area planned for harvest<span>&nbsp; </span>was not part of the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Lexington</st1:city></st1:place> fire area and is a redwood canyon. My understanding is that it has been stable for decades.<span>&nbsp; </span>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<span>&nbsp; </span>trees in the forest---the redwoods and expose the forest canopy,. Based on these facts,<span>&nbsp; </span>I believe that the logging would increase the risk of fire and not reduce it or prevent it.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">In addition, what will the habitat do.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>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. </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Finally, there is also an issue of erosion control once the logging trails and trees are removed.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">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.<span>&nbsp; </span>With so many area homes and schools affected by this activity, the least that should be required are evaluations done truly by independent experts.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">As a government<span>&nbsp; </span>official who represents the people of this area,<span>&nbsp; </span>I ask you to address these several areas covering these issues with reference to the plan.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Thank you for your time.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Very truly yours,</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Maryanne Zanios Murphy, Esq.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">cc:CDF</p> NAIL Forum Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:52:17 -0800 Clarification of County Planning Role/Aldercroft Grading Question http://www.mountainresource.org/node/131 <p> 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.<br /><br />The planning department did not accuse SJWC of building a logging road in violation of NTMP/CDF regulations.&nbsp; 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. <br /><br />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&nbsp; has not been issued as of Tuesday afternoon November 8.&nbsp; Any claims by SJWC about the findings from that inspection are premature prior to the issuance of the report.</p><p>The Santa Clara Valley Water District did issue a report memo on November 8 which stated: <span class="981033523-08112005">&quot;</span>I asked if they had a winterization plan and there was not.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; There were woodchips deposited in the bottom of the flood plain.&nbsp; Chris explained that this was a miscommunication with the contractor and that the chips should have been disposed of off site.&quot;&nbsp;</p><p> 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.&nbsp; The Department of Fish and Game has responsibility for overseeing this work.</p><p> </p> <span class="981033523-08112005"></span><span class="981033523-08112005"></span>NAIL will publish the full findings of the county report should it be made available to the public.<br /><p>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.<br /><br />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. </p> NAIL Forum Tue, 08 Nov 2005 17:32:45 -0800 SJWC found to have poor erosion control at Los Gatos Creek construction site http://www.mountainresource.org/node/132 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. <div></div> <div><span class="383044518-09112005"><font face="Arial"> <div><span class="383044518-09112005">The shoddy practices at this construction site should cause everyone to question assurances by SJWC.</span></div></font></span></div> <div><span class="383044518-09112005"><font face="Arial">To summarize the findings of the inspection:</font></span></div> <div><span class="383044518-09112005"><span class="383044518-09112005"><font face="Arial">- There is no winterization plan for the construction site</font></span></span></div> <div><span class="383044518-09112005"><font face="Arial">- There is a high exposure to erosion at the construction site</font></span></div> <div><span class="383044518-09112005"><span class="383044518-09112005"><font face="Arial">- The plastic fence was deemed inadequate and the construction of a new and more robust&nbsp;fence to back up the collapsing fence was recommended.</font></span></span></div> <div><span class="383044518-09112005"><font face="Arial">- No straw has been layed down to protect dirt from running off into the creek.</font></span></div> <div></div> <div><span class="383044518-09112005"> <p><font face="Times New Roman">To:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Vincent Stephens of Community Projects Review Unit<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </font><font face="Times New Roman">Dale Jacques of Stream Water Quality Unit</font></p> <p><font face="Times New Roman">From:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Tim O’Loughlin of the Guadalupe Watershed Field Operations<br /></font><font face="Times New Roman">Date:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>November 8, 2005<br /></font><font face="Times New Roman">Subject: Report of a potential permit violation in Los Gatos Creek</font></p> <p><font face="Times New Roman">Gentlemen,<br /></font><font face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p> <p style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in"><font face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p> <p style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in"><font face="Times New Roman">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.</font></p> <p style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in"><font face="Times New Roman">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.<br /><br /></font><font face="Times New Roman">Best Regards,<br /></font><font face="Times New Roman">Tim O’Loughlin<br /></font><font face="Times New Roman">Santa Clara Valley Water District<br /></font><font face="Times New Roman">Guadalupe Watershed Field Operations</font></p> <p style="TEXT-INDENT: 0.5in">&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><span><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </font></span></p></span></div> <div></div> <div></div> NAIL Forum Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:35:50 -0800 San Jose Water's FAQ's Revisited http://www.mountainresource.org/node/154 <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-size: 14pt;">San Jose Water’s FAQs Revisited<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">Further clarification of SJWC’s logging proposal</p> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;">Prepared for NAIL by Jodi Frediani</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This 1002 acre NTMP was filed by CDF on <st1:date month="10" day="27" year="2005" w:st="on">October 27, 2005</st1:date>.<span>&nbsp; </span>The First Review produced eleven pages of questions (79) regarding items that need clarification.<span>&nbsp; </span>The first question asks whether San Jose Water qualifies to file an NTMP since they own over 6000 acres.<span>&nbsp; </span>If they own 2500 acres of timberland or more, they do not.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">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.<span>&nbsp; </span>I will try to address some of the misconceptions that are currently making the rounds.<span>&nbsp; </span>I also encourage anyone interested to re-read the SJW FAQ very carefully.<span>&nbsp; </span>Much of the inconsistency in their responses are not lies, but are carefully worded statements that can be easily misleading.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Q3. But isn’t the forest pristine wilderness?<span>&nbsp; </span><o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">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’.<span>&nbsp; </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">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.<span>&nbsp; </span>Interestingly, CDF First Review question #3 states that “<em>the stand descriptions in the plan initially appear to meet the definition of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Late</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Successional</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Forest</st1:placetype></st1:place>. “ 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.</em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Q4 What is an NTMP?<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-align: justify;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">Their answer is full of lots of fancy language. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">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.<span>&nbsp; </span>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”.<span>&nbsp; </span>Therefore, the real difference between an NTMP and a THP is that <em>an</em> <em>NTMP is basically a permanent exemption from any further agency or public review</em> <em>for timber harvesting in perpetuity.<o:p /></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><em><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></em></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Q5<span>&nbsp; </span>Does this permitting process require an EIR?<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">SJW says the NTMP addresses cumulative impacts, but the bulk of the scientific literature is in agreement that <em>the CDF timber harvest review process does not adequately address cumulative impacts.<o:p /></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Q6<span>&nbsp; </span>How can someone be allowed to do logging near my community?<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">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.<span>&nbsp; </span>Previous to the legislative change, counties had the authority to approve or disapprove logging plans.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The Notice of Filing says that notices were mailed to 343 landowners within 300’ of the plan boundary.<span>&nbsp; </span>This is essentially an industrial activity being planned in a residential neighborhood.<span>&nbsp; </span>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 <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">California</st1:state></st1:place>’s forested areas, not in suburbia.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">SJW says that applying for a timber harvest permit is not unlike applying for a building permit.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Oh yes, a small fee is due to DFG for needed stream alteration permits at certain watercourse crossings.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Q7<span>&nbsp; </span>How many trees will be cut?<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This is a bugaboo/numbers question.<span>&nbsp; </span>These numbers can and have been manipulated multiple times.<span>&nbsp; </span>We do not actually know how many trees will be cut.<span>&nbsp; </span>Neither does SJW.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What we do know is that <em>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.</em><span>&nbsp; </span>This is stated in Section II and Section III of the plan.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span><em>But this language is not enforceable.</em> </p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">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.<span>&nbsp; </span>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) .</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">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.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">For instance, Section II, item 14b says per CEG recommendation, “all harvest area west of Austrian Dam shall incorporate <em>single tree selection maintaining 50% of existing stand greater than 12” dbh,</em> 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. <em>And the plan language allows for even less than 50% retention where there is damage.<o:p /></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">SJW continues to assert that item<span>&nbsp; </span>#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.<span>&nbsp; </span>That‘s not how it works.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>CDF has asked for a $5 check for inclusion of the 2006 rule book.<span>&nbsp; </span><em>Section I and II lays out the maximum harvest that will be allowed for this NTMP.</em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Q12 How long will you be logging next to my property?<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">“<em>Each separate harvest will occur during the late spring or summer</em> and will take<span>&nbsp; </span>approximately 6 weeks to complete.<span>&nbsp; </span>This is really <em>intent</em> language-what SJW says they would like to do.<span>&nbsp; </span><em>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.</em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">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.<span>&nbsp; </span>(This is a practice that is not allowed, unless justified and explained, and is rarely even proposed in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Cruz</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Mountains</st1:placetype></st1:place>.)<span>&nbsp; </span>So, under the plan language <em>logging may take place in the winter.<span>&nbsp; </span>Operations could also take longer than 6 weeks per unit</em>.<span>&nbsp; </span>And, the way the plan is written, <em>more than one unit could be harvested at a time, or harvesting could extend for more than one season.<o:p /></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">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.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Q16 Will this be a risk to schoolchildren?<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">“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.”<span>&nbsp; </span>The plan has<em> </em>included language that says <em>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.”<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<o:p /></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em>SJW says that “schools are unlikely to be in session during operations”, yet again, they are leaving ALL their options open. <o:p /></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Q18 Will the log trucks damage the public roads?<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">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.”<em> But the plan says, pg 12, that log hauling may occur during the winter period.<o:p /></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em>A report from the <span>Congressional Office of Research<strong> </strong><span>has found that “The wear and tear from an 80,000 pound vehicle is equivalent to over 9,000 automobile trips.”<o:p /></span></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>SJW does not agree to post a bond to ensure that road related damage will be addressed.<span>&nbsp; </span><em>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.</em><o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><em><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></em></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span>QQ 19 Logging on weekends/hours of operation<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>The plan is not tied to Big Creek conducting operations.<span>&nbsp; </span>In fact, the LTO can be changed at a moments notice under a minor amendment.<span>&nbsp; </span>And this plan, if approved, will be good in perpetuity.<span>&nbsp; </span>So what is important is WHAT THE PLAN ACTUALLY SAYS.<span>&nbsp; </span>That is the only thing that is enforceable.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>Again, <em>SJW is keeping all their options open.</em><span>&nbsp; </span>Remember that.<span>&nbsp; </span>What they “intend” to do, and what they will be allowed to do are quite different. <em>The language in the NTMP allows for harvesting from <st1:time hour="7" minute="0" w:st="on">7:00am</st1:time> to <st1:time hour="19" minute="0" w:st="on">7:00pm</st1:time>.<span>&nbsp; </span>The plan even asks for log hauling on Columbus Day,</em> rather than sticking to the strict rule which does not allow for operations and hauling on National Holidays, or weekends.<span>&nbsp; </span>Yes, they have included a provision to restrict operations prior to <st1:time hour="8" minute="0" w:st="on">8:00am</st1:time> within 300’ of a residence.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span>Q20 SJW Roads<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>We are told that roads throughout the property will benefit form using modern day techniques to improve drainage and maintenance.<span>&nbsp; </span>Since the plan mentions one internal road with a 1000’ gully running down it, maybe SJW finally plans to be a good land manager.<span>&nbsp; </span>However, road maintenance is critical to clean water and should not need an NTMP for SJW, the largest private water purveyor in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place>, to decide to fix their road network, by increasing culvert size, repairing excessive gullying and more.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>However, from SJW’s latest road winter grading project at the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Alma</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Bridge</st1:placename></st1:place> intersection, it appears that they do not fully understand the basics of stream protection.<span>&nbsp; </span>Grading in the WLPZ (riparian zone) after October 15 is either seriously frowned upon or considered illegal by most governmental agencies in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">California</st1:state></st1:place>.<span>&nbsp; </span>Creating ustable sidecast (piling loose fill on top of organic matter) sloping toward the stream is very bad management at that. <o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>Insloping the road to prevent surface runoff is also considered poor road management.<span>&nbsp; </span>The loose soils should have been end-hauled to a location where they stood no chance of entering the stream.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span>Q 21 Won’t logging cause landslides?<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>There are a number of large and small, active landslides in the plan area, some as close as 600’ downslope of people’s homes.<span>&nbsp; </span>Logging is proposed on these slides. Who should determine the level of risk to the upslope homeowners??<span>&nbsp; </span>What is “significant risk”? The NTMP clearly acknowledges that the plan is proposed along the <st1:place w:st="on">San Andreas Fault</st1:place> 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.<span>&nbsp; </span><o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>For instance, pg 12, Mitigation Point G7-7: “This is a secondary deep-seated translational landslide block located below the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Chemeketa</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:place> 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.<span>&nbsp; </span>Within the STZ and <em>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</em>.”<span>&nbsp; </span>Which of course, means that where slopes are less than 70%, no restrictions will be in place.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span>Q 22<span>&nbsp; </span>The increased brush question<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>Removal of canopy allows for additional sunlight to hit the forest floor.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>The NTMP proposes hardwood management, harvesting tanoaks and madrones.<span>&nbsp; </span>Page 6 states that <em>“The objective of hardwood treatment would be to reduce canopy closure and allow more sunlight to reach the redwood regeneration</em> to increase maximum sustained production of high quality timber products.<span>&nbsp; </span>Hardwood site occupancy may be reduced with one or more of the following methods: falling and removal, <em>falling and lopping, girdling,</em> mastication or other appropriate treatments.”<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span>Q 25 &amp; 26 Helicopters<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>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:<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> </span>&nbsp; &nbsp; If the aircraft isn't normally certified by the FAA, then load operations over a &quot;densely populated area&quot; are prohibited (14 CFR 133.45(d)), but &quot;densely populated&quot; isn't defined as is generally taken to mean cities (eg, downtown <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">San Jose</st1:city></st1:place>) and is shown on aviation charts a particular way.&nbsp; 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).<br /> <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> </span>&nbsp; &nbsp; There is no prohibition on overflight.&nbsp; 14 CFR 91.119 prescribes minimum altitudes for aircraft.&nbsp; 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.<br /> However, 14 CFR 91.119(d) exempts Helicopters &quot;if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface&quot;. I had thought there was a prohibition on a helicopter carrying an external load from overflying structures not participating<br /> in the lift operation, but I can't find any such reference in the regulation.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span>Q 27<span>&nbsp; </span>Logging slash<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>This is actually pretty funny.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>Until the language in the plan is changed to reflect the 18”,<span>&nbsp; </span>SJW’s pledge is no more enforceable by CDF, than a Girl Scout pledge to help the elderly.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><strong><span>Forest</span></strong></st1:place><strong><span> Canopy<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>This issue is found in SJW’s latest mailer to neighbors.<span>&nbsp; </span>They state that invasive species will not establish themselves because the majority (80%) of the trees will remain.<span>&nbsp; </span>One should not confuse the number of stems with the amount of canopy.<span>&nbsp; </span>The larger the trees harvested, the more canopy reduction will occur.<span>&nbsp; </span>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%....”<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>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)?”<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span>Overall land management (from latest SJW mailing)<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>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 <o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>Jodi Frediani<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>Executive Director<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>Citizens for Responsible <st1:place w:st="on">Forest</st1:place> Management (CRFM)<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>831-426-1697<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>JodiFredi@aol.com</span></p> NAIL Forum Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:13:18 -0800 Letter Written by Affected Resident http://www.mountainresource.org/node/155 <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4">Don Gage<br />District Supervisor of the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename></st1:place><br />70 West Hedding<br /><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">San Jose</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state> <st1:postalcode w:st="on">95110</st1:postalcode></st1:place></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><br />Dear Supervisor Gage,</font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><o:p /><span style="font-size: 14pt;">A month or so after we moved to the <st1:city w:st="on">Los Gatos</st1:city> mountains from the <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Los Angeles</st1:place></st1:city> area, knowledge of San Jose Water Company’s plan to put forward a Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan seemed to enter public consciousness.<span>&nbsp; </span>It certainly entered ours as, if this plan is accepted, it negates many of the reasons we chose to leave <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Los Angeles</st1:place></st1:city> to move to this spot of great natural beauty.<o:p /></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><o:p>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>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<sup>st</sup> letter sent to you by Maryanne Zanios Murphy, posted on the mountainresource.org website.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>This section states </o:p></span><em><span style="font-family: TrebuchetMS-Italic; color: rgb(11, 38, 69);">“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</span></em><em><span style="font-family: TrebuchetMS-Italic;"> <span style="color: rgb(11, 38, 69);">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:p /></span></span></em></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><em><span style="font-family: TrebuchetMS-Italic; color: rgb(11, 38, 69);"><o:p /></span></em><span style="font-size: 14pt;">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.<span>&nbsp; </span>San Jose Water Company is a private company, albeit providing a public service.<span>&nbsp; </span>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?<o:p /></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Also, I understand SJWC will be erecting towers to facilitate the removal of felled trees from inaccessible areas.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>Will they turn into rusting visual and environmental blights, too expensive and inconvenient to maintain/tear down?<span>&nbsp; </span>And how will they be erected in the first place?<span>&nbsp; </span>A tower implies something tall.<span>&nbsp; </span>Will helicopters be used to erect them? <o:p /></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">The use of helicopters in general makes me nervous.<span>&nbsp; </span>In <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Los Angeles</st1:place></st1:city> 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.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>I also find myself wondering about the statistical likelihood over time (in perpetuity) of a helicopter crash, and the likelihood of ensuing fire.<span>&nbsp; </span>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?<o:p /></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">The condition of the roads if the NTMP is approved is something else which concerns me.<span>&nbsp; </span>Logging trucks are not very maneuverable.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>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?<span>&nbsp; </span>Old <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Santa Cruz Highway</st1:address></st1:street> is already reduced to one lane at the southwestern end of Lexington Reservoir.<span>&nbsp; </span>The other lane has actually fallen <strong><em>into</em></strong> the Reservoir and I understand it has been in this state for a year, possibly two.<span>&nbsp; </span>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?<span>&nbsp; </span>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?<o:p /></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Then what happens when the logging trucks travel on Highway 17, which has only two lanes in each direction?<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>Travel time on the 17 is already generally doubled during morning and evening rush hours.<span>&nbsp; </span>What happens when a logging fleet is added to the mix? <o:p /></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">The San Jose Water Company is already working on construction projects at <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Alma</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Bridge</st1:placename></st1:place>.<span>&nbsp; </span>There is a signposted project on <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Alma Bridge Road</st1:address></st1:street>, and a project with no community notification posted occurring behind the locked gates of SJWC’s private road adjacent to <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Alma</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Bridge</st1:placename></st1:place>, continuing out of sight along Los Gatos Creek in a southerly direction.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.”<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>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. <o:p /></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">I know others have mentioned the reduction in property values that residents expect to be one outcome of the NTMP once it passes.<span>&nbsp; </span>Has the Supervisor’s office considered the negative impact on revenue that could bring to the county?<span>&nbsp; </span>If houses sell for less, the assigned property tax rate will be correspondingly less.<span>&nbsp; </span>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?<span>&nbsp; </span>I don’t know the facts on this one) resulting in a further loss of revenue for the county.<span></span><o:p> <br /></o:p></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">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:<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>I see hundreds of them on any given weekend.<span>&nbsp; </span>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.<span>&nbsp; </span>Are you prepared for a backlash?<span>&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><o:p /></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><o:p>Finally, there must be good reason for the neighboring counties of Marin, <st1:city w:st="on">San Francisco</st1:city> and <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Santa Cruz</st1:place></st1:city> to have banned logging of their watersheds.<span>&nbsp; </span>As our <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype> <st1:placename w:st="on">Supervisor</st1:placename></st1:place>, I trust your office has contacted, or plans to contact, the relevant departments in these neighboring counties.<span>&nbsp; </span>I like to think <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> will be afforded the benefit of learning from the experiences of other counties in similar locales.<o:p> <br /></o:p></o:p></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Mistakes in this matter should be avoided at all costs, since the effects will be felt “in perpetuity”. <o:p /></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><br />Sincerely,<o:p /></span></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><o:p /></span></font>Celia Francis<span><font size="4">&nbsp;&nbsp; </font><br /></span></p> <span style="font-size: 14pt;"></span></span></p> NAIL Forum Sun, 13 Nov 2005 08:45:27 -0800 Please Contact These People With Your Opinions http://www.mountainresource.org/node/156 <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">PLEASE EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS ABOUT LOGGING OUR MOUNTAINS TO THE FOLLOWING:<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">Mr. Andrew Gere<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">San Jose Water Company<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">1221 S. Bascom Ave.</span></strong></st1:address></st1:street><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">San Jose</span></strong></st1:city><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">, <st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state> <st1:postalcode w:st="on">95128</st1:postalcode></span></strong></st1:place><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">408-279-7900<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">California</span></strong></st1:placename><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"> <st1:placetype w:st="on">State</st1:placetype></span></strong></st1:place><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"> Senator<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">Abel Maldonado<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">100 Paseo de <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">San Antonio</st1:place></st1:city> #206<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">San Jose</span></strong></st1:city><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">, <st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state> <st1:postalcode w:st="on">95113</st1:postalcode></span></strong></st1:place><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">408-277-9461<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">U.S.</span></strong></st1:place></st1:country-region><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"> Congresswoman Anna Eshoo<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">698 Emerson St</span></strong></st1:address></st1:street><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">.<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">Palo Alto</span></strong></st1:city><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">, <st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state> <st1:postalcode w:st="on">94301</st1:postalcode></span></strong></st1:place><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">(408) 245-2339<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">OR: 205 Cannon Bldg.<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">Washington</span></strong></st1:city><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">, <st1:state w:st="on">DC</st1:state> <st1:postalcode w:st="on">20515</st1:postalcode></span></strong></st1:place><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">Mr. Bob Berlage<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">Big Creek Lumber Company<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">3564 Highway 1<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">Davenport</span></strong></st1:city><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">, <st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state> <st1:postalcode w:st="on">95017</st1:postalcode></span></strong></st1:place><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">831-457-6390<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">Santa Clara</span></strong></st1:placename><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></span></strong></st1:place><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"> Supervisor <o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">Don Gage<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><a href="http://www.dongage.org/">www.dongage.org</a><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">County Government Center<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></strong></span><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><br /> <st1:address w:st="on"><st1:street w:st="on"><span class="btmed">70 West Hedding Street</span></st1:street><br /> <st1:city w:st="on"><span class="btmed">San Jose</span></st1:city></st1:address><span class="btmed">, CA. 95110<o:p /></span></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></strong></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">Assemblyman Ira Ruskin<o:p /></span></strong></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:address w:st="on"><st1:street w:st="on"><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">P.O. Box</span></strong></span></st1:street><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"> 942849</span></strong></span></st1:address><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p /></span></strong></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on"><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">Sacramento</span></strong></span></st1:city><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">, <st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state> <st1:postalcode w:st="on">94249</st1:postalcode></span></strong></span></st1:place><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">-00221<o:p /></span></strong></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><a href="mailto:assemblymember.ruskin@assembly.ca.gov">assemblymember.ruskin@assembly.ca.gov</a><o:p /></span></strong></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">916-319-2021<o:p /></span></strong></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></strong></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on"><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">California</span></strong></span></st1:state></st1:place><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"> Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><o:p /></span></strong></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on"><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">135 Ridgeway Ave.</span></strong></span></st1:address></st1:street><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p /></span></strong></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on"><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">Santa Rosa</span></strong></span></st1:city><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">, <st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state> <st1:postalcode w:st="on">95401</st1:postalcode></span></strong></span></st1:place><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p /></span></strong></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></strong></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">U.S.Congressman Mike Honda <span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><o:p /></span></strong></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">Washington</span></strong></st1:city><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">, <st1:state w:st="on">DC</st1:state></span></strong></st1:place><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);"> Address:<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">The Honorable Michael Honda<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">1713 <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Longworth House Office Building</st1:city><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><br /> <st1:state w:st="on">Washington</st1:state></st1:place>, DC 20515<br /> Phone: (202) 225-2631<br /> Fax: (202) 225-2699</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">OR:&nbsp;</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">District Office</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">:</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;; color: rgb(34, 34, 34);">The Honorable Michael Honda<br /> <st1:address w:st="on"><st1:street w:st="on">1999 South Bascom Ave<br /> Suite 815</st1:street><br /> <st1:city w:st="on">Campbell</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state> <st1:postalcode w:st="on">95008</st1:postalcode></st1:address><br /> Phone: (408) 558-8085<br /> Fax: (408) 558-8086</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></strong></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></strong></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></strong></p> NAIL Forum Sun, 13 Nov 2005 09:05:56 -0800 Inspirational Words http://www.mountainresource.org/node/157 <p>Below are excerpts from Terry Tempest Williams author of <em>The Open Space of Democracy</em>.&nbsp; It is just $8 and I recommend it for inspiration.&nbsp; She speaks of the Castle Valley fight to save open space in her community.&nbsp; 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.</p><p>&nbsp;Jodi Frediant, Citizens for Responsible Forest Management<br /><br />&quot;<em>If we listen to the land, we will know what to do.</em><br /><br />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.&nbsp; I consult this tree by simply seeking its company.&nbsp; No words are spoken.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; We share a pact of survival.&nbsp; I used to be embarrassed to speak of these things, my private correspondences with trees and birds and deer, for fear of seeming mad.&nbsp; But now, it seems mad not to speak of these things -- our unspoken intimacies with Other.<br /><br />Open lands open minds.<br /><br />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.&nbsp; Our oscillations between local, national, and global gestures map the full range of our movement.&nbsp; Our strength lies in our imagination, and paying attention to what sustains life, rather than what destroys it.&quot;<br /><br /> </p> NAIL Forum Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:28:21 -0800 FIRST NTMP REVIEW QUESTIONS http://www.mountainresource.org/node/159 <div class="content"> <p>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.</p> <p>NAIL Steering Committee</p> <p>NOTE:<br /> 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.<br /> This may result in an increase in the time necessary to determine if the plan is acceptable for approval.</p> <p> Contact CGS (Tom Spittler) @ (707) 576-2949 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI<br />  Contact CDF Archaeology (Chuck Whatford) @ (707) 576-2966 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI<br />  Contact WQ (Richard McMurtry) @ (408)821-4658 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI<br />  Contact DFG (Rick Macedo/Richard Fitzgerald @(707)928-4369/964-1691 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI<br />  Contact CDF (Pete Cafferata) @ (916) 653-9455 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI<br />  Contact CDF (John Munn) @ (916) 653-5843 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI<br />  Contact CDF Biometrician (Chris Maranto) @ (916) 651-6860 to schedule a mutually agreeable PHI<br />  Notify CDF (Ruth Norman) @ (707) 576-2940 of PHI date and time.</p> <p>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)</p> <p>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] </p> <p>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:<br /> a) For disclosure purposes, please clearly state that road and landing construction is proposed on their properties, not just use.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>5. The following questions pertain to Item 17 (Erosion Hazard Rating):<br /> A. Please briefly discuss the III. PROTECTIVE VEGETATIVE COVER REMAINING AFTER DISTURBANCE rating of 1 for areas C, D, F, G &amp; 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]?<br /> 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.<br /> C. Please review the EHR determination for factor rating area H on page 210. It appears that the rating should be High.</p> <p>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):<br /> 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?<br /> 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.<br /> 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).<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> G. Please provide a table that identifies the number of acres by vegetation type in each management unit.<br /> 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:<br /> i. A pre-harvest stand table for each stand (vegetation type) with diameter class representation by 2” class.<br /> ii. A stand table for each stand (vegetation type) after the initial entry.<br /> 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.)</p> <p>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).</p> <p>8. The following questions pertain to geological issues:<br /> 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.)<br /> 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.<br /> C. Where is G6-6 shown on a map? Please clarify.<br /> 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.<br /> E. Should the feature described by N7 on page 252 be mapped on the Operations Map? Please address.<br /> F. Should the feature described by N10 on page 252 be shown on the Operations Map? Please address.<br /> 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.<br /> H. It is noted that all proposed roads on the Operations Maps are shown as abandoned roads on the CEG’s maps.</p> <p>FOR CLARIFICATION</p> <p>9. Please have the Licensed Timber Operator sign and date Item 3 on page 2 [ref. 14 CCR 1035.3(a)].</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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):<br /> 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.”<br /> B. “Hardwoods occupying growing space that would be suitable for planting redwood or Douglas-fir seedlings may be selectively harvested.”<br /> 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.</p> <p>13. The following questions pertain to Sudden Oak Death under Item 15:<br /> A. Please revise 4. on page 7 to specify all host material, not only hardwood host material.<br /> 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.<br /> C. Please include a statement that the destination(s) of host material will be amended into the plan prior to transport of host material.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>15. The following questions pertain to Item 24:<br /> 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.<br /> B. The following questions pertain to landings:<br /> i. Should the Yarding Method column associated with L2 (page 13) include Cable? Please review and revise if necessary.<br /> ii. The map on page 33.6 shows L25 twice. Please clarify.<br /> 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.</p> <p>16. Mitigation Points<br /> 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.<br /> b) The last recommendation under MITIGATION POINT M24-2 on page 16 is not consistent with the CEG’s recommendation. Please address.<br /> c) Will elevating the crossing at MITIGATION POINT M18-4 conform to 14 CCR 923.4(n)? Please address.<br /> d) Under CLASS I WATERCOURSES WITH FISH HABITAT on page 18 please address 14 CCR 916.4(b)(6).<br /> e) Under CLASS II WATERCOURSES on page 19 please address 14 CCR 916.4(b)(6).<br /> 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.</p> <p>17. Crossing points<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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].</p> <p>24. The following questions pertain to the NTMP maps:<br /> 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.<br /> 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)]. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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)].</p> <p>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.)</p> <p>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.)</p> <p>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).</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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:<br /> A. The 2nd paragraph appears to be incomplete. For plan clarity, please review the last sentence and revise as necessary.<br /> B. Please carefully review the 5th paragraph. Verify that all sentences are complete and the time period specified is correct. Revise if necessary.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>54. Please make the following minor revisions:<br /> A. Fomes to Phellinus under Wildlife Tree Retention – specifically 4. – toward the top of page 6.<br /> 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.<br /> C. Please provide the unit of measure associated with 30 under MITIGATION POINT M20-5 on page 17.<br /> 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.<br /> 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].<br /> F. Please review the 1st sentence on page 115. Please revise as necessary [ref. miles versus feet].</p> <p>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.</p> <p>55. Under Native American Consultation Information (pg. 383):<br /> A. Add the date that the second Native American notification letters were sent.<br /> 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.<br /> C. Did the RPF receive a written response from Ann Marie Sayers? Any written responses shall be attached to the CAA. (ARCH)</p> <p>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 &amp; West 1876) or the two historic roads (General Land Office 1866 &amp; 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)</p> <p>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)</p> <p>58. On the Archaeological Survey Coverage Maps (pp. 396 &amp; 397), plot the locations of the Williams Dam, the Rattlesnake Wall, and the Homestead Cabin. (ARCH)</p> <p>59. On the Primary Record forms (pp. 398-450):<br /> A. P11, cite the author and year of the CAA;<br /> B. On the Site Location Maps, provide the publication date(s) of the USGS<br /> quadrangles. All Site Location Maps should include a north arrow. Outline the<br /> boundaries of the resources with a solid black line (instead of a line with cross-<br /> hatches in it). The locations of linear resources (such as the fences and the<br /> railroad grade) should be plotted as black lines. Very small resources can be<br /> depicted with a black dot.<br /> C. The Site Sketch Maps must include site datum points. The datum should be a<br /> relatively permanent natural or cultural feature. A description of the datum shall<br /> be included either in the map legend or in the Archaeological Site Record form;<br /> D. P2c (Southern Pacific Coast Railroad Grade, pg. 442), the Legal Description<br /> should be to the nearest quarter quarter Section whenever possible. For example:<br /> the SE ¼ of the NW ¼ of Section 9, the NE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 9, the SE<br /> ¼ of Section 9, etc.;<br /> E. P4 (Gulch Site, pg. 449), should be ‘Site’ instead of ‘Structure’. (ARCH)</p> <p>60. If it is located on San Jose Water Company landholdings, the Rattlesnake Wall should be recorded on a primary record form. (ARCH)</p> <p>Agency Questions:</p> <p>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].</p> <p>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]. </p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>65. Please evaluate proposed road construction within the WLPZ of Los Gatos Creek at Mitigation Point M24-2 [ref. page 16].</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>68. Springs are discussed on page 20. Are the protection measures prescribed adequate? Please evaluate.</p> <p>69. Should the sag pond described by N9 in the CEG’s Report on page 252 be shown on the Operations Map? Please evaluate.</p> <p>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].</p> <p>71. Please review the descriptions of the five haul routes described on pages 143 and 144. Are they accurate?</p> <p>72. It is appropriate to exclude Columbus Day as a nationally designated legal holiday [ref. LOG HAULING on page 31]? Please evaluate.</p> <p>73. Please verify that the Scenic Roads Maps [ref. pages 234 – 243] identify all the necessary roads.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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].</p> <p>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]? </p> <p>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?</p> <p>Agency Archaeology Questions. For confidentiality, please submit responses clipped or stapled separately.</p> <p>78. Evaluate the locations, significance assessment, and protection measures for the fifteen historic sites. (ARCH)</p> <p>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)</p> <p>7 ½” QUADRANGLE: Castle Rock Ridge, Laurel &amp; Los Gatos</p> <p>PAST OVERLAPPING PLANS: **<br /> CDF Representative: Jay Gayner<br /> CGS Representative: Michael Huyette<br /> ARCH Representative: Chuck Whatford/Lisa Hagel<br /> WQ Representative: Richard McMurtry<br /> DFG Representative: Rick Macedo/Richard Fitzgerald<br /> NOAA Fisheries Representative: ***</p> <p>***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.” </p> <p>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:</p> <p>CDF Forest Practice<br /> 135 Ridgway Avenue<br /> Santa Rosa, CA 95401</p> </div> NAIL Forum Tue, 15 Nov 2005 23:02:45 -0800 Letter to CDF questions validity of NTMP http://www.mountainresource.org/node/164 NAIL Forum Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:13:48 -0800 NAIL requests CDF to schedule appropriate Public Hearing & Pre-Harvest Inspection dates http://www.mountainresource.org/node/165 NAIL Forum Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:24:01 -0800 NAIL requests CDF and SJWC to allow advisor to participate in Pre-Harvest Inspection http://www.mountainresource.org/node/166 NAIL Forum Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:31:44 -0800 Letters to the California Department of Forestry http://www.mountainresource.org/node/167 <p><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Dear Neighbors and Concerned Citizens,</font></span></p> <p><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The NAIL Steering Committee and CRFM's Jodi&nbsp;Frediani&nbsp;on behalf of NAIL have sent three letters to the California Department of Forestry (CDF).<font color="#000000"> </font><strong><em><font color="#000000">Please take a minute to review these letters which are posted on this website:</font> </em></strong>&nbsp;</font></span></p> <ul> <li><a href="node/164"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Letter to CDF questions validity of NTMP</font></span></a> </li> <li><a href="node/165"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">NAIL requests CDF to schedule appropriate Public Hearing &amp; Pre-Harvest Inspection dates</font></span></a> </li> <li><a href="node/166"><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">NAIL requests CDF and SJWC to allow advisor to participate in Pre-Harvest Inspection</font></span></a> </li> </ul> <p><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">In essence, we believe that the NTMP as filed by the San Jose Water Company is fraught with problems and should be rejected, and any Pre-Harvest Inspections, or Public Hearings should be delayed until the issues raised in each of the letters are addressed.</font></span></p> <p><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The CDF works to protect us and indeed it is their mission. <strong><em><font color="#000000">Please take a minute to <font color="#ff0000">write a short letter to the CDF </font>and let them know that you support the request that we are making in the letters.</font></em></strong> You can address your letters to:</font></span></p> <p><strong><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Leslie Markham<br /></font></span></strong><strong><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Division Chief, Forest Practice<br /></font></span></strong><font size="2"><strong><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">California Department of Forestry<br /></font></span></strong></font><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">135 Ridgeway Ave.<br /></font><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Santa Rosa, CA 95401</font></p> <p><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Thank You,</font></span></p> <p><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The NAIL Steering Committee</font></span></p> <p><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51);"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Terry Clark, Debra Daly, Kevin Flynn, Rea Freedom, Rebecca Moore,&nbsp; Rick Pariftt, <br />&amp; Linda Wallace</font></span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:51:18 -0800 Letter to SJWC President http://www.mountainresource.org/node/168 <p> November 29, 2005</p><p> VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL &amp; FACSIMILE</p><p> Richard Roth, President San Jose Water Company<br />374 West Santa Clara Street<br />San Jose, CA 95196 </p><p>&nbsp;<br />Dear Mr. Roth:</p><p> We would like to meet with you to discuss your plan to log the Los Gatos Mountains. Given the vast areas covered by your plan and the severe impact it will have on our community and our family, it is important that we meet at your earliest opportunity.<br /></p><p>Upon our initial review of your logging plan, we find two aspects most disturbing. First, you plan to log 244 acres with massive, twin-rotor helicopters that will be flown near schools and neighborhoods. The plan openly acknowledges that these operations will generate horrendous noise. (Plan, Sec. IV, pp. 145-150.)</p><p>Incredibly, you have chosen to locate the landing strips for these helicopters within a few hundred yards of Loma Prieta Elementary School. Other landing strips will be located in a residential neighborhood. (Plan, Sec. II, p. 33.24.) Under your plan, children sitting in their classrooms will be subjected to the relentless blasting of helicopters flying near their schools, and local residents will be forced to endure the excessive noise and disruption caused by these airships. It is difficult to imagine how such a plan could have ever been submitted. Our children should never be forced to endure such noise where they live, play, and attend school. The levels of noise that you plan to generate will not simply be a nuisance, but it will in fact endanger our children’s health and well being.</p><p> Your plan threatens our own son. Although he is a beautiful and fearless little boy, when he hears loud noises, he puts his fingers in his ears and seeks to get away. Many children react to loud noises in a similar manner. Where are our children supposed to escape to as your helicopters roar relentlessly above their homes and schools?</p><p> I want to emphasize to you in the strongest terms possible that under no circumstances will we allow you to endanger our children, and we will take every lawful measure necessary to prevent you from doing so. We demand that you modify your plan so that the use of helicopters near schools and residential areas will be strictly prohibited. </p><p>Secondly, your plan makes clear that you intend to violate the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance on a constant basis. In your plan you state that your twin-rotor, twin-engine helicopters will generate noise at 92 decibels when hovering and 85 decibels for flyovers. (Plan, Sec. IV, pp. 145-150.) Under Santa Clara County law, the maximum noise levels that can be generated in residential and school zones is 55 decibels. Although the law provides for some noise to exceed this limit, it can only occur for a short duration. For instance, noise is permitted at 70 to 75 decibels five minutes every hour and at 75 to 80 decibels for one minute every hour. No noise is allowed above 80 decibels. Yet your plan states that your helicopter operations alone will routinely exceed these levels.</p><p> Further, you have understated the levels of noise that will actually be generated by your helicopters. They typically operate at 95 to 105 decibels. And you have not disclosed any information as to the noise that will be generated by other logging operations, such as chain saws, heavy equipment, and cable operations. Generating this level of noise is not only a violation of the Noise Ordinance, but it creates a nuisance that violates the property rights of those that must endure it. </p><p>Certainly your company should not be above the law. Nor should it disregard the property rights of those living in the community near your logging operations. Therefore, we demand that you modify your plan so that it expressly states that the logging must comply with the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance. We also insist that your plan be revised to eliminate the activities that you know beforehand will violate the Noise Ordinance. </p><p>Finally, it is evident that even early in this process there is significant public outrage over your logging plan. The public opposition goes well beyond the issues I have raised in this letter and is due to the far-reaching harms that your plan is certain to cause, or threatens to cause, both the community and the environment. If necessary, we will address those issues on another occasion. We understand that your principal motivation for logging is economic. Yet your logging plan is one that is certain to generate protracted and costly litigation and considerable bad will towards your company. In fact, the latter has already occurred. </p><p>Rather than proceed with your plan to log the mountain forest, we invite you to work with us in developing a plan that will protect the community, respect the environment and at the same time allow you to realize substantial financial profits. The best solution would be for your company to sell the property (while retaining water rights) or a conservation easement at fair market value to the agencies and conservancies interested in preserving this unique forest landscape. Given that you operate as a public utility water company and not a logging company, it seems to make far more sense to work with the community to achieve an outcome that we can all appreciate. We look forward to meeting with you. Please let us know the convenient times when we can meet. It is best to contact us by email at jc484@comcast.net.</p><p> Sincerely, Jim &amp; Dawn Cracolice </p> NAIL Forum Thu, 01 Dec 2005 18:07:33 -0800 Letter to SJW Corp. Board of Directors http://www.mountainresource.org/node/169 NAIL Forum Fri, 02 Dec 2005 08:53:18 -0800 Response to Questions about NTMP Process & Time Line http://www.mountainresource.org/node/170 <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Hi Jodi Frediani<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> This email is to seek clarification on the procedure and time-line for the SJWC NTMP. It attended the Sept. 11 meeting and heard your presentation there, have downloaded, made a hard copy and have studied&nbsp; the set of slides you used at that meeting, and have also made a copy and studied the later posting on the NAIL Forum by Terry Clark on the NTMP process. I attended the most recent NAIL meeting on Nov. 14. After all of this, I am still very unclear about the process and just where we are in the process today.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">I will try to do my best to answer, but some of your questions don't have firm answers at this time.&nbsp; Thanks for your interest!<br /> </span></em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> 1. According to your chart, the CDF has 10 days to do the 1st Review. The 1st Review has been done and I have a hard copy of it and have studied that too. <br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Question 1a: At this stage, has the NTMP been &quot;accepted&quot; for filing? If so, I do not understand how the plan can be accepted for filing by the CDF until SJWC has provided at least minimally satisfactory responses to the 78 questions raised in the 1st Review. Please clarify.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">The NTMP was accepted for filing on October 28.&nbsp; I agree with your assessment that it should not have been accepted with 11 pages of unanswered question including,”Does SJW even qualify to submit an NTMP?”&nbsp; But CDF thought differently. See my posted letter to CDF on this issue<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><strong><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">[1]</span></strong></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>.<br /> <br /> I think they think they can get away with this based on when the &quot;clock&quot; starts ticking.&nbsp; The information I gave out re the start of the &quot;clock&quot; (the 45 day minimum review period) which is posted on the NAIL webpage is correct for THPs, but incorrect for NTMPs.&nbsp; Rather than starting the clock when the plan is accepted for filing, in the case of an NTMP, it is starts at the completion of the pre-harvest inspection (PHI).&nbsp; <br /> <br /> (<st1:place w:st="on">Forest</st1:place> Practice Act 4593.7 Review of plans; non-conforming plans; denial of plans; appeals. (a) The director has 45 days from the date the initial inspection is completed as provided in Section 4604, or a longer period mutually agreed upon by the director and the person submitting the nonindustrial timber management&nbsp; plan, to review the plan to determine if the plan is in conformance with the rules and regulations of the board and this chapter.&quot;<br /> <br /> The PHI is supposed to be held within 10 days of filing, but Big Creek, in this case, agreed (or maybe even volunteered) to have the PHI(s) after Thanksgiving, on the grounds that there should be a multi-day review and it would not be possible to&nbsp; find acceptable dates before then.&nbsp; (4604 says 10 days from filing or longer if agreed upon).<br /> <br /> So, in reality, the public and agencies will not be shorted review time on the new information (requested in the First Review questions) that must be submitted prior to the PHI. However, there are other significant issues which I have addressed in my posted letter<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><strong><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">[2]</span></strong></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a>.<br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--></span></em><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;"><o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Question 1b: You said in your slides that once the plan is &quot;accepted,&quot; the &quot;clock starts ticking.&quot; I have understood your point here to be that within 10 days of acceptance, the PHI has to take place? If the NTMP has been accepted, then the 10 days have already gone by and the PHI is supposed to have taken place. Has it? I understand that it has not. Not only that, I understand there is still great controversy about who will be on the Review Team, Aldercroft Water District and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, for example. If the PHI has not taken place, what is the explanation? <o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">In my power point presentation, I tried to accurately and <span>simply</span> reflect the <st1:place w:st="on">Forest</st1:place> Practice Rules.&nbsp; With the exception of the time the clock starts ticking (see above), I believe the rest of the information is accurate.&nbsp; (Some rules that apply to THPs apply to NTMPs, but some are different.) However, one has to realize that the time frame just refers to minimums.&nbsp; I encourage you or anyone interested in following more closely to go directly to the <st1:place w:st="on">Forest</st1:place> Practice Rules themselves.&nbsp; A spiral bound book can be purchased from CDF for $5 or the rules can be accessed on-line.&nbsp; A link can be found on CRFM's home page&nbsp;at www.crfm.org. Finding and keeping track of the various rules that apply to a given plan is more like a convoluted treasure hunt, rather than an arcane secretarial task.<br /> <br /> In this case I was told by CDF that Big Creek requested that the PHI take place after Thanksgiving.&nbsp; I also understand that CDF is looking at a three-day PHI and is currently trying to find acceptable dates for all agencies involved.&nbsp; Since this is such a high-profile plan, it appears that agencies will be sending out multiple participants for the PHI.&nbsp; I am told that there will be approximately 35 people in attendance.<br /> <br /> Tentative dates were originally set for December 7, 8 and 9. The tentative dates were then changed to December 14, 15, and 16, but these are no longer valid. The PHI may get postponed until after the first of the year.<br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--></span></em><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> Question 1c: Does SJWC file an amended plan in response to the 1st Review? An amendment? Or what? When and how does one get a copy of SJWC's responses? Are these responses in writing?<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">Per my response to Question 1a above, the clock has not started ticking yet; not until the completion of the PHI.&nbsp; However, the issue is really moot, as the review for this plan will go way over the minimum 45 day required review period.<br /> <br /> SJW will submit revised pages in response to the 1st Review questions due prior to the PHI. I believe the revised pages will be posted on CDF's ftp website: <o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;"><a href="ftp://thp.fire.ca.gov/THPLibrary/North_Coast_Region/NTMPs2005/1-05NTMP-022SCL/">ftp://thp.fire.ca.gov/THPLibrary/North_Coast_Region/NTMPs2005/1-05NTMP-022SCL/</a><o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">Or anyone can request a copy of the revised pages for copying costs from CDF Felton office:<br /> 831-335-6740<o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;"><br /> The change pages will be incorporated into the NTMP that was accepted for filing.&nbsp; The pages are to be noted as revised and dated.&nbsp; They are to replace the original pages where ever changes have been made.&nbsp; This leads to lots of paper and the opportunity for much confusion as revised pages continue to get added and replaced throughout the review process.<br /> <br /> </span></em><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"><span>&nbsp;</span></span></em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> 2. Your charts seem to say that comment letters to the CDF should be sent in the 10 day period &quot;after the last significant info is received by the CDF.&quot; <br /> At the Nov. 14 NAIL meeting, we were told that comment letters from the public can be sent now (and the NAIL Steering Committee members present&nbsp;seemed to be suggesting that they should be sent now).<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> Question 2: But how can a member of the public send a comment letter to the CDF when we do not know what the plan ultimately is going to contain (presumably SJWC has not yet responded to the questions in the 1st Review? In other words, how does a member of the public make an intelligent comment at this stage?<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">My power point showed the latest date for submission of comments.&nbsp; Comments can be submitted at any time once the plan has been filed.(A number of people have already submitted generic comments.)&nbsp; Needless to say, you are quite correct that it is difficult to intelligently comment at this stage of the game hence, the suggestion to wait until the plan has morphed sufficiently, based on PHI reports and Review Team suggestions, etc. The more specific comments are to particular issues addressed in the plan, the more effective they will be,<span>&nbsp; </span>Though volume sends a clear message that this plan will impact a huge population.</span></em><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> 3. Public Hearing. I was quite surprised to hear at the Nov. 14 meeting that the &quot;decision makers,&quot; (I thought there is only one, namely, the CDF Director) is not even present at the Public Hearing. <o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Question 3: Is this true? <o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">YUP. The public hearing is more or less just an opportunity for the public to vent. CDF hopes to gather pertinent info at the hearing, but does not offer any.&nbsp; Nor does it usually engage in dialog or answer questions.&nbsp; At the recent hotly contested Lompico public hearing with 250+/- people in attendance, CDF did give the RPF an opportunity to respond to questions at the end.<br /> <br /> The public hearing is either tape-recorded, or video-taped.&nbsp; Rich Sampson, RPF, CDF Forest Practice Officer, who will be present at the hearing, will head up the NTMP review and the PHI. I expect that Rich Sampson will make PHI recommendations for CDF. However, Anthony Lukacic, CDF <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Santa Rosa</st1:city></st1:place>, has taken over as Review Team Chair and will most likely be the one who makes the Review Team recommendations. <span>&nbsp;</span>I have only been aware of one plan this past year where Mr. Luckacic actually attended the PHI.<span>&nbsp; </span>I find this more problematic than the fact that he does not attend the Public Hearing, because he is making significant decisions without having been on the ground to see things first hand. Don’t be surprised, however, if he shows up for this one.<o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><span>&nbsp;</span><br /> 4. Public Hearing. You indicate that speakers at the Public Hearing each have from 3-5 minutes to speak. If this is generally true, is there no mechanism for an organization such as NAIL to make a coordinated,&nbsp;longer presentation? Many of us have been looking to NAIL to develop a coordinated response to all of the issues being raised, or at least the key ones, where necessary using&nbsp; experts of various kinds who will speak to the issues and provide references or source material to support their positions. If no person has more than 3-5 minutes, it is hard to understand how a &quot;coordinated presentation&quot; can take place. <o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">NAIL members can make a &quot;coordinated&quot; presentation simply by dividing up topics so that each person speaks on a different issue or different portion of each issue in three minute increments. NAIL can certainly ask to be given a block of time, but I have never seen a CDF public hearing be that accommodating. It's a pretty basic process, nothing like other hearings or other official Boards or bodies.<br /> <br /> Only counties with Special Rules (<st1:city w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:city>, <st1:city w:st="on">Santa Cruz</st1:city>, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">San Mateo</st1:city></st1:place>, etc.) even have public hearings.&nbsp; Most hearings go unattended.&nbsp; FYI, CDF wanted <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Cruz</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> to provide two armed guards for the Lompico hearing.&nbsp; The county declined to do so.&nbsp; Needless to say, the hearing was passionate, but uneventful.&nbsp; People were in attendance with their children and babies.</span></em><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"><br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--></span></em><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> 5. Public Hearing. If one can speak only 3-5 minutes at the public hearing, but has more materials than can be verbally submitted in that period of time, is there a mechanism by which a speaker at the Public Hearing can submit further written materials to support his or her remarks, such as members of Congress often do when they submit in writing &quot;extended remarks&quot; elaborating their points made verbally on the floor of Congress?<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> Question: In other words, just how does a &quot;coordinated presentation&quot; on all the key issues get made to the &quot;decision maker(s)&quot;?<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">I consider the public hearing an opportunity to show CDF, the Board of Supervisors, the Media and the community how much concern and opposition there is to a contentious plan. If you have legitimate, significant comments based on issues of environmental significance or issues of public health, safety and welfare, I recommend that those comments be submitted in writing, whether or not they are made at the public hearing. CDF is required to provide a written response to all such comments, both those made during the public hearing and those submitted in writing.&nbsp; They are not required to respond to philosophical issues. Such written material is submitted to <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Santa Rosa</st1:city></st1:place> and hopefully, the “decision maker” reads them.<span>&nbsp; </span>A copy of the video of the hearing will also be sent to Santa Rosa</span></em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">. I do expect CDF personnel from <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Santa Rosa</st1:city></st1:place> to be present at the PHI.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> 6. Review Team Meeting.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> Question: Does the Review Team Meeting, at which presumably the Review Team Recommendations are prepared, take place before or after the Public Hearing? And if before the Public Hearing, how do the public inputs at the Public Hearing even get taken into consideration at all by the Review Team? <o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">The Review Team (RT) meeting is always held after the Public Hearing.&nbsp; If there are issues to be incorporated at that time, the opportunity is there.&nbsp; However, there is also the opportunity to fine tune the plan based on written testimony as well.&nbsp; With the RT occurring after the PH, it is difficult for the public to comment at the public hearing on the &quot;final&quot; proposed version of the plan.&nbsp; Most of the &quot;wheeling and dealing&quot; takes place at the RT meeting(s) (often referred to as Second Review).&nbsp; This is where the agencies try to hammer out their differences with the plan RPF.&nbsp; </span></em><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"><br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--></span></em><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> 7. Public Hearing<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">. <br /> Question: What event or point in this whole procedure sets the time frame within which the Public Hearing must be scheduled, and how many days is that time frame? <o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">The County must request a public hearing within 24 hours of the PHI.&nbsp; And CDF is required to schedule the hearing within 25 days of the request.&nbsp; I spoke with Rich Sampson and he seemed to think the rule did not allow for CDF to schedule more than 25 days after the request, however, this has already happened, as the County requested a PH awhile ago. The county has submitted a second letter requesting that the PH take place after January 1.<br /> <br /> I know NAIL wants the PH to be scheduled after the first of the year and has made a request for such to CDF.<br /> <br /> CDF is only required to notice the public 5 days in advance of the PH, but it is possible that the 'tentative' date will be know prior to that.</span></em><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"><br /> &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--></span></em><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">8. Official Response to Comments<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> Question: Does the Official Response to Comments take place only after the CDF Director has already approved the plan?<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">Yes.<o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> 9. Appeal. You indicate in your charts that there is a need to get a vote of the Board of Supervisors to appeal before the Decision Date.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> Question: How can the Board of Supervisors vote to appeal before the Supervisors even know what the decision is going to be?<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">They can meet and agree to appeal if their staff non-concurs or intends to non-concur and finds that their concerns are not addressed.&nbsp; All RT members act in an advisory capacity only.&nbsp; CDF does not have to incorporate mitigations requested by other agencies.&nbsp; If they do not, some of those agencies, including the County, may non-concur.<br /> <br /> If the Board of Supes waits till after the plan is approved, there is the possibility that timber operations could commence prior to the Board of Supes decision to appeal. </span></em><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"><br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--></span></em><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Question: If the Board of Forestry decides not to hear the appeal, what remedy does the County have? Litigation immediately?<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">Either the County or the public can choose to litigate immediately.</span></em><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> 10. Other. My impression is that there are agencies in addition to the CDF whose concurrence is specifically needed for the NTMP to be approved, or who have laws that first need to be complied with by the Timber Owner. An example of the latter would be the Santa Clara County Noise ordinance. Are these all preempted&nbsp;by the decision of the CDF? <o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">My understanding is that local ordinances are superceeded by State regulation, ie. the <st1:place w:st="on">Forest</st1:place> Practice Rules in this instance.&nbsp; The Review Team members have the ability to non-concur.&nbsp; CDF prefers to resolve non-concurrences prior to plan approval, but this does not always happen.&nbsp; The Regional Waterboard can actually stop plan approval with an unresolved non-concurrence (recent legislation gave them this power).<o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">The public can still bring up the issue of noise as an issue of public health, safety and welfare.<span>&nbsp; </span>Some people work at home, work nights and sleep days, etc. According to my understanding, the local ordinance cannot simply be invoked.</span></em><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"><br /> </span></em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> There are also some other points, such as the case of Santa Cruz County vs Big Creek before the California Supreme Court which ultimately could have a bearing on this NTMP. I do not not been able to learn the status of that case on the Supreme Court's docket. As you know, the issue there is whether the CDF (as opposed to the County) has jurisdiction on the question where logging can occur, as well as over how it occurs. I also have not been able to find out from the County of Santa Clara what its position is, i.e., whether it takes the legal position that its zoning ordinances give it authority over the &quot;where&quot; logging can be done, to the exclusion of the CDF. In trying to find out, I had the impression that <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> was more or less oblivious to this point, or at least I could find no one who could speak to the issue. That was, however, about 2-3 weeks ago, so maybe it is being actively considered now.<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">I am not sure that the court case you refer to will have an immediate bearing on this NTMP, if resolved prior to NTMP approval.&nbsp; The case will determine whether counties have the right to determine where logging takes place, not how logging is conducted.&nbsp; The only way I know of that the County could determine that logging should not take place on SJWC lands would be through zoning.&nbsp;This would be a complex process involving public hearings, etc. <span>&nbsp;</span>I suppose the County could make an independent determination that this &quot;area&quot; is not suitable for logging, but that would be something to be discussed with the county.&nbsp; This would take a vote of the Board of Supervisors. Of course, all this would depend on the outcome at the State Supreme Court.</span></em><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"><br /> <br /> </span></em><st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on"><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">San Mateo</span></em></st1:place></st1:city><em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;"> and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Cruz</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Counties</st1:placetype></st1:place> currently have ordinances which prohibit logging in certain locations. <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">San Mateo</st1:place></st1:city> has a 1000' no-cut buffer adjacent to habitable structures and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Cruz</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> has limited industrial logging to certain zone districts. The counties are in two different appellate districts.&nbsp; In the case of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">San Mateo</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> the appellate court upheld the county's right to determine where logging takes place.&nbsp; In the case of Santa Cruz, the court determined that prohibiting logging was, in fact, engaging in the &quot;conduct&quot; of logging and therefore not in the county's jurisdiction.<br /> </span></em><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;"><br /> <em>Both appellate courts have determined that only the state has jurisdiction over the conduct of timber operations.&nbsp; In my last communication with outside council for <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Cruz</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place>, I was informed that the case has not been docketed for the State Supreme Court yet and there is no known date.&nbsp; I was told I would be informed when a date is set.<br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--></em></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><br /> Regards, <br /> Bill Moore<span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; color: black;"><br /> <span>&nbsp;</span><br /> </span><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; color: blue;">Yours,<br /> Jodi Frediani<br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--></span><o:p /></span></p> <div><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><br clear="all" /> <hr width="33%" size="1" align="left" /> <!--[endif]--> <div id="ftn1"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> “Letter to CDF questions validity of NTMP”</p> </div> <div id="ftn2"> <p class="MsoFootnoteText"><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoFootnoteReference"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a> <em><span>&nbsp;</span>ibid</em></p> </div> </div> NAIL Forum Mon, 05 Dec 2005 09:11:36 -0800 S.F. Chronicle Article About NAIL and Logging http://www.mountainresource.org/node/177 <p>An excellent article regarding NAIL's position and the logging issue in general has been printed in the San Francisco Chronicle.&nbsp; Please go to this website to read the article:</p><div><font size="2" face="Arial"><a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/11/BAGLCG6CNT1.DTL">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/11/BAGLCG6CNT1.DTL</a></font></div><p>&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:13:20 -0800 SJ Metro Article Features NAIL & Issues http://www.mountainresource.org/node/178 <p>The San Jose Metro has published a well-researched article regarding NAIL's efforts and the logging issue.&nbsp; Please go to this website to read it:</p><div><font size="2" face="Arial"><a href="http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.07.05/logging-0549.html">http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.07.05/logging-0549.html</a></font></div><p>&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:15:54 -0800 Summary Of Logging Situation http://www.mountainresource.org/node/180 <p style="margin: 0in -27pt 0pt -45pt; text-align: justify;"><font face="Times New Roman"></font></p> NAIL Forum Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:29:22 -0800 Critical Information/Loma Resident Letter to SJWC http://www.mountainresource.org/node/182 <p class="MsoNormal">John Tang<br /> San Jose Water Company<br /> <st1:address w:st="on"><st1:street w:st="on">1265 South Bascom Avenue</st1:street><br /> <st1:city w:st="on">San Jose</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state> <st1:postalcode w:st="on">95128</st1:postalcode></st1:address><br /> <br /> Dear Mr. Tang:<br /> <br /> Steve and I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you and Andy Morse of Big Creek Lumber yesterday. The following summarizes information you provided:<br /> <br /> 1. San Jose Water (SJW) acknowledges that its helicopter logging will violate the County Noise Ordinance.<br /> <br /> 2. SJW refuses to be subject to the County Noise Ordinance and will not insert any language in the plan requiring it to comply with that law.<br /> <br /> 3. SJW’s logging plan contains no limitations on the duration of logging in each area.<br /> <br /> 4. SJW refuses to insert in the plan any limitations on how long it can log each area.<br /> <br /> 5. SJW has elected to locate a helicopter landing and service area within 900 yards of the elementary school.<br /> <br /> 6. SJW made no attempt to contact the school administration prior to filing its plan.<br /> <br /> 7. SJW has decided to locate another helicopter landing within 150 yards of <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Loma Prieta Avenue</st1:address></st1:street>.<br /> <br /> 8. SJW made no attempt to contact residents in the Loma Prieta neighborhood prior to filing its plan, except to ask a few residents if they would allow their property to be used for a landing site.<br /> <br /> 9. SJW will conduct its logging operations using twin-engine, twin-rotor Chinook helicopter airships.<br /> <br /> 10. It is evident that SJW has made no attempt to determine how loud noises over a sustained period adversely impacts children. It did not consider how such noise disrupts their sleep, impairs their development, generates fears, impairs their hearing, or impacts learning ability.<br /> <br /> 11. In fact, SJW has the opinion that generating helicopter noise near schools and homes at levels not permitted under County law over a sustained period does not constitute a significant adverse environmental impact.<br /> <br /> 12. SJW executive officers reviewed and approved this logging plan.<br /> <br /> 13. SJW acknowledges that the forest contains old growth redwood trees.<br /> <br /> 14. SJW has made no attempt to determine the number of old growth trees in the forest.<br /> <br /> 15. SJW will log old growth trees when its logging contractors determine that it is not feasible, due to operational or safety concerns, to allow them to stand. Also, although SJW has stated that the FAA strictly regulates helicopter operations, neither you nor Mr. Morse were familiar with such regulations and could not provide any information regarding them. You agreed to look into the issue and provide information to me following our meeting.<br /> <br /> If you believe that we have misunderstood your statements regarding the information described above, please contact me at your earliest opportunity. Please note that the purpose of this letter is to confirm information you provided on issues of greatest concern to us. It does not purport to describe all of the comments and opinions expressed by you and Mr. Morse during our meeting.<br /> <br /> Sincerely,<br /> Jim Cracolice<br /> <br /> cc: Richard Roth, San Jose Water Company<br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--></p> NAIL Forum Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:45:29 -0800 NAIL Progress Report http://www.mountainresource.org/node/183 <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005">All NAIL Members,</span></font></div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005"></span></font>&nbsp;</div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005">We've come a long way in the four months since we all first heard of San Jose Water Company's plans to log the Los Gatos Creek watershed. A lot of work has been done and a lot of progress has been made. But there's still a long way to go.</span></font></div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005"></span></font>&nbsp;</div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005"><strong>Here is a short summary of recent developments:</strong></span></font></div> <div><span class="146283720-15122005"></span><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005">- Over 2,000 signatures have been gathered in opposition to the plan.</span></font></div> <div><span class="146283720-15122005"><font face="Arial"><font size="2">- We've made a great deal of progress with the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. <span class="146283720-15122005">The county has</span></font></font><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005">&nbsp;hired Thomas Lippe<span class="561031123-17122005">,</span> one of the top environmental lawyers in the field<span class="561031123-17122005">,</span> to help them analyze the logging plan. Mr. Lippe has been authorized by the County to subcontract with a team of experts to assist in his review of the NTMP.<br /></span></font></span><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005">- The&nbsp;<span class="561031123-17122005">Loma Prieta</span>&nbsp;chapter of the Sierra Club has decided to make fighting the SJWC's logging plan a top priority.</span></font></div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005">- Articles regarding the situation have recently been written in the San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Metro and the Los Gatos Weekly. We'll continue our outreach&nbsp;efforts with a variety of media outlets.</span></font></div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005">- NAIL has hired experts in fire management, erosion and water quality issues to help us fight the logging plan.</span></font></div> <div><font face="Arial"><font size="2"><span class="146283720-15122005">- NAIL has retained Jodi Frediani&nbsp;<span class="561031123-17122005"> of Citizens For Responsible Forest Management </span>to help review the NTMP</span></font></font></div> <div><font size="+0"><font face="Arial"><font size="2"><span class="146283720-15122005"><span class="561031123-17122005">- </span>NAIL is pursuing the possibility of a Conservation Easement to protect the Watershed lands. <br /></span><span class="146283720-15122005">- The NAIL website at <a title="nail" href="../../nail"><font color="#000000">www.mountainresource.org/nail</font></a> has expanded. Everyone is urged to visit the site and read the posted documents<span class="561031123-17122005">.</span><span class="561031123-17122005"> </span></span></font></font></font></div> <div><font size="+0"><font face="Arial"><font size="2"><span class="146283720-15122005"><span class="561031123-17122005"></span></span></font></font></font><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005"></span></font>&nbsp;</div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005"><strong>Ongoing needs:</strong></span></font></div> <div><span class="146283720-15122005"><font size="2" face="Arial">- Fundraising efforts continue. We continue to require outside&nbsp;experts to help&nbsp;in our fight. Please contribute. All donations will go directly to help preserve our community. The NAIL website at </font><a title="nail" href="../../nail"><font size="2" face="Arial">www.mountainresource.org/nail</font></a><font size="2" face="Arial"> now has a link to&nbsp;PayPal, allowing for online donations. </font></span></div> <div><span class="146283720-15122005"></span><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005">- Continued petitioning. An online petition now exists at the website. Forward the link to others and tell your friends about it! Download the petition forms and gather signatures. Anyone can sign the petitions - they don't have to be mountain residents.</span></font></div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005">- Please continue to write letters to media outlets,&nbsp;elected officials and the California Department of Forestry. The more they hear our voices the more responsive they will be to our needs.</span></font></div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005"></span></font>&nbsp;</div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005"><strong>Next Steps In The Process:</strong></span></font></div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005">- A public hearing is expected to be held in January where citizens can voice their concerns. We'll notify NAIL members as soon as we learn details.</span></font></div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005"></span></font>&nbsp;</div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005"></span></font>&nbsp;</div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005">Thanks again for all your help and all your efforts. We've still a long way to go before the forest is protected but we've made a great deal of progress.</span></font></div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005"></span></font>&nbsp;</div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005">Signed,</span></font></div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005"></span></font>&nbsp;</div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005">The NAIL Steering Committee</span></font></div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="146283720-15122005"></span></font>&nbsp;</div> <div><font face="Arial"><font size="2"><span class="146283720-15122005"></span><span class="146283720-15122005"></span></font></font> <br /></div> NAIL Forum Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:49:02 -0800 SJWC Withdraws Current NTMP!!!! http://www.mountainresource.org/node/185 <p><font size="3" face="times new roman,times,serif">NAIL has just learned that San Jose Water Company has withdrawn the currently-submitted NTMP logging application.&nbsp; In a press release today, SJWC stated that they withdrew the plan in order to work on the issue of fire, and because the plan lacked information requested by CDF, (reviewers of the plan.)</font> <br /></p><div align="left"><font size="3" face="Arial"><span class="427373100-22122005"><font face="Times New Roman">CDF identified eleven pages of issues with the SJWC's plan. Seventy-nine numbered questions, some with multiple parts totaling approximately 100 items, ask for clarification, completion, change, addition or deletion. The range of items covered include Erosion Hazard Ratings, operations on unstable areas, road construction outside of the plan boundary, removal of organic debris (large wood) from streams, protection of springs, protection of Class I watercourses, cross-stream felling of Class II watercourses, omission of requests by Aldercroft Heights County Water District and Chemeketa Park Mutual Water Company to participate in the Pre-Harvest Inspection, winter period operations, historic and archeological resources to be protected, Native American notification, fire hazard mitigation, mapping of unstable areas, the number of “Inner Gorge” Class II watercourses, stream crossings, protection of endangered and threatened species and the location of osprey nests, among other items. </font><br /></span></font></div><p><font size="3">Below is NAIL's official press release regarding the plan withdrawal.</font></p><p>********************************************************************<br /></p><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Many Los Gatos residents feel they've received an early holiday present upon hearing news that under the recommendation of the California Department of Forestry, the San Jose Water Company has withdrawn their plan to log the Los Gatos Creek watershed</font><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">. SJWC’s proposal to log over 1000 watershed acres has united the affected community in opposition.<span>&nbsp; </span>Hundreds of citizens have attended resistance meetings over the past few months. Over 2,000 signatures have been collected opposing the plan and thousands of dollars have been raised to fight the plan.&nbsp; <span style="color: blue;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Arial;"><br /></span></p><div align="left"> </div><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">The withdrawal of the logging permit application reinforces the position held by Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging (NAIL) that the plan to harvest the watershed was deeply flawed and poorly executed from the very beginning.<span>&nbsp; </span>NAIL believes that logging a healthy forest, in a watershed, adjacent to thousands of residents was and always will be a bad idea.&nbsp;<span style="color: blue;">&nbsp; </span></span><br /></p><div align="left"> </div><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Despite SJWC’s desire to resubmit a plan in the future, the issues of logging in the Los Gatos Creek watershed remain: increased fire danger,&nbsp;threats to drinking water, harm to the environment, harm to residents' quality of life and&nbsp;harm to the safety and value of their property. <span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; color: black;">NAIL, and the thousands of residents&nbsp;which NAIL represents, will continue to oppose any plan to log this&nbsp;healthy forest and compromise water quality.<o:p /></span></span></p><div align="left"> </div><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"><o:p>NAIL intends to continue the fight to provide our watershed the same protection afforded to watersheds for the cities of <st1:city w:st="on">San Francisco</st1:city>, <st1:city w:st="on">Santa Cruz</st1:city>, <st1:city w:st="on">Seattle</st1:city> <st1:state w:st="on">WA</st1:state>, Portland OR., <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Marin</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> and the area served by the<span>&nbsp; </span>East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). All these locations prohibit logging in their watershed, while protecting water quality&nbsp;and maintaining fire protection. NAIL and affected residents&nbsp;are asking that</o:p></span><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">&nbsp;</span><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;">the Los Gatos Creek</span><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">&nbsp;</span><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;">watershed be afforded similar protection.<o:p /></span></p><div align="left"> </div><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"><o:p>We urge the San Jose Water Company to&nbsp;seek a conservation easement on their property to protect the watershed&nbsp;and prohibit logging.</o:p></span><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: blue;">&nbsp;</span><span style="background: white none repeat scroll 0% 50%; -moz-background-clip: initial; -moz-background-origin: initial; -moz-background-inline-policy: initial; font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black;"> Any re-submittal&nbsp;of a logging plan that does not&nbsp;afford the Los Gatos Creek watershed the same protection as that afforded to watershed for virtually every large municipality on the&nbsp;West Coast will be opposed by NAIL.</span></p><div align="left"> </div><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><br /> <span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging - NAIL</span></p><div align="left"> </div><p align="left" class="MsoNormal">&nbsp;</p><div align="left"> </div><p align="left" class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> NAIL Forum Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:40:34 -0800 Sierra Club Opposes This Logging Plan http://www.mountainresource.org/node/189 <h1><u><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black;">Regarding the proposed logging of 1000 acres near Lexington Reservoir by San Jose Water Company:<u1:p /></span></u><o:p /></h1> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><u1:p>WHEREAS, the Lexington Reservoir was built in the 1950’s to provide water for the population of the Santa Clara County area by meeting the need for human utility and consumption, and<u1:p> <o:p /></u1:p></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">WHEREAS, the San Jose Water Company and the Big Creek Lumber Company have proposed logging around Los Gatos Creek, which is the source of water for two local water districts and the Santa Clara Valley Water District water which is stored in Lexington Reservoir, and<u1:p> <o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">WHEREAS, forests produce and preserve water through a complex array of trees, shrubs, ground covers and roots slows runoff from rain and snow, and water is purified as it percolates though the soil and into aquifers.&nbsp; By slowing runoff, forests also reduce floods and erosion, minimizing the sediment entering streams and rivers, and<u1:p><br /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; font-weight: normal;">WHEREAS, logging frequently causes the deterioration of a watershed, thus contaminating drinking water supplies, and<br /></span><br /><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">WHEREAS,&nbsp; <strong>&nbsp;</strong>logging<strong> </strong>large merchantable trees from forests frequently increases the risk of forest fire, and<u1:p> <o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">WHEREAS, it is important to prevent the reoccurrence of fire devastation such as the 1985 <span style="color: black;">fire</span> in Lexington which consumed 14,000 acres, 42 homes, and caused the evacuation of 4500 people and approximately $7 million in damage, and<span style="color: black;"> </span><o:p /></span></p> <u1:p> </u1:p><h1><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial; color: black; font-weight: normal;">WHEREAS, our forest resources are a resource which enable a biodiversity of species, water which is cleaned by filtration through forest soils, critical oxygen supplies that combat global warming, and contribute greatly to the environmental health of our planet, and</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><u1:p> <o:p /></u1:p></span></h1> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">WHEREAS, logging frequently fragments and degrades wildlife habitat such as for the endangered <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:state> red-legged frog as well as osprey, Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned Hawks; <u1:p><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black;"><br /> THEREFORE, let it be resolved that The Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club opposes the San Jose Water Company’s and Big Creek Lumber’s stated plan to log large merchantable trees along Los Gatos Creek.</span></strong></p> <h1><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; color: black; font-weight: normal;"><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></span></h1> NAIL Forum Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:57:16 -0800 San Jose Metro Article 1/4/06 On Withdrawal of NTMP http://www.mountainresource.org/node/191 <p><em><font size="2">Article by Vrinda Normand, Metro reporter:</font></em></p><p>&nbsp;<br /><font size="5"><em><strong>Tree Reprieve</strong> </em></font></p><p><font size="3"><em>In a surprise twist, <u><strong>San Jose Water Company has withdrawn its plan to log 1,000 acres on the Los Gatos Creek watershed</strong></u>. The move comes after Metro's recent story on the logging plan (&quot;Chopping Mad,&quot; MetroNews, Dec. 7) exposed potential risks the timber harvest could pose to fire safety, water quality and the lifestyle of over 4,000 people living near the logging zone<strong>. <u>This is a huge victory for residents opposed to the proposal, who formed NAIL (Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging)</u></strong> and then went on to put one in the coffin of the company's plan, at least for the time being. In the past four months, NAIL members have collected over 2,000 petition signatures, presented their concerns to county supervisors and held community meetings with hundreds attending. &quot;The plan to harvest the watershed was deeply flawed and poorly executed from the very beginning,&quot; NAIL members wrote in their response to San Jose Water's press release. San Jose Water said it will resubmit the logging proposal in the spring of 2006 after it completes a fire protection study and provides further information to the California Department of Forestry. Jodi Frediani, the consultant hired by NAIL to analyze the 450-page document, said CDF should have never accepted it for filing in the first place. The state agency needed clarification on 100 items after the first review—evidence, Frediani believes, of the proposal's shortcomings. CDF official Leslie Markham told Metro it's not unusual to have so many questions about logging plans of this size. Meanwhile, NAIL is taking this opportunity to plug for an alternative, urging San Jose Water to seek a conservation easement on its property.</em></font></p><p><font size="3">&nbsp;</font></p> NAIL Forum Fri, 06 Jan 2006 00:11:10 -0800 Watershed Land Stewardship Concerns http://www.mountainresource.org/node/195 <p><font size="3" face="Arial">Mountain resident Mike Accorsi sent a letter to the Los Gatos Weekly,&nbsp; published in the January 25 issue.&nbsp; The letter addresses his concerns over<span class="766262421-24012006"> huge </span>piles of graded dirt<span class="766262421-24012006"> </span>left near Los Gatos Creek in the Aldercroft Heights area.</font></p><p><font size="3" face="Arial">The dirt piles were formed by contractors working for San Jose Water Company and sit on SJWC watershed land above and close to the creek.&nbsp;&nbsp; The piles have not been attended to for many weeks during this wet season.&nbsp; Residents feel concern regarding erosion from the dirt&nbsp; into the creek.&nbsp; In his editorial letter Accorsi references a complaint against SJWC that has now been made to the Public Utilities Commission in Sacramento.</font><font size="3"> <br /></font></p><p><font size="3" face="Arial">L.G. Creek is a key water source flowing out of the mountains into Lexington Reservoir and serving the Santa Clara Valley. To read Mike's letter,</font><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> click&nbsp; <a target="_blank" href="http://www.community-newspapers.com/archives/lgwt/20060125/lgletters.shtml">here</a> (LGWT Letters page).&nbsp;</font> </p> NAIL Forum Thu, 26 Jan 2006 17:37:44 -0800 Important Court Decision Affects Logging and Waterways http://www.mountainresource.org/node/196 <p>The Tuesday, January 31 issue of the San Jose Mercury News contains an article that may impact the SJWC logging plan in the Santa Cruz mountains. The article is entitled:</p><div align="center">Supreme court ruling goes against loggers</div><div align="center"> </div><h2 align="center">WATER REGULATORS' POWERS AFFIRMED</h2><p>The article states that the Calfiornia Supreme Court has just upheld the authority of state water regulators with regard to monitoring water quality in streams and rivers affected by timber companies engaged in logging.</p><p> The impact of this ruling is that logging companies may be required to demonstrate that erosion from their logging will not clog waterways with mud and other debris, a practice that can kill salmon and increase the risk of flooding downstream.</p><p>The safety and water quality of Los Gatos Creek, Lexington reservoir and the drinking water of the valley community served by these waterways and this important, forested watershed land is one of the four prime objections that NAIL has expressed in response to the SJWC logging permit application.</p><p>To read the article and learn more about the court decision, go to <a href="www.mercurynews.com" title="SJ Merc">www.mercurynews.com</a><br /></p><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><!-- begin body-content --> <p><br /></p><br /> NAIL Forum Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:34:03 -0800 Valley Water District Cites Reason for Safeguarding Watershed Lands http://www.mountainresource.org/node/197 <div>The San Jose Mercury News Wednesday, February 15 issue features an editorial opinion written by Larry Wilson, chairman of the Santa Clara Valley Water District board of directors.&nbsp; Wilson's article, entitled <em>Global warming threatens smug attitude about water supply </em>offers an intelligent commentary about the importance of protecting the county's groundwater basins and watersheds, reservoirs, pipelines, groundwater recharge ponds, and other water-related sources so that the valley will have water available for its citizens in years to come.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>NAIL supports this rational thinking and so continues to oppose San Jose Water Company's plan to log between 40 and 60 percent of&nbsp;the mature redwood and Douglas fir trees from the richly forested and sloped watershed lands surrounding Lexington Reservoir.&nbsp;To read Larry Wilson's editorial, please go to:</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/13876367.htm">www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/13876367.htm</a></div> NAIL Forum Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:36:04 -0800 More on Watershed Land Stewardship Concerns http://www.mountainresource.org/node/198 <p><font size="3" face="times new roman,times,serif" color="#000000">SJWC representative JohnTang submitted a rebuttal letter in the 2/15/06 issue of the Los Gatos Weekly in response to Aldercroft Heights resident Mike Accorsi's expressed concerns about SJWC leaving multiple grading mounds to erode into Los Gatos Creek.&nbsp; The mounds were piled and left along a SJWC watershed road in Aldercroft Heights.&nbsp;<br /></font> </p><p><font size="3" face="times new roman,times,serif" color="#000000">Tang states that SJWC feels they are good stewards of their watershed lands.&nbsp; Information obtained by NAIL questions Mr. Tang's statement.<br /></font> </p><p> </p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="times new roman,times,serif" color="#000000">The Aldercroft grading problem demonstrates<span style="color: black;"> a pattern of poor practices by the San Jose Water Company. What Mr. Tang did not mention in his letter is that in November, the construction site alongside Los Gatos Creek was inspected by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. At that time SJWC was criticized for poor construction practices. The&nbsp;inspector's report noted that there was no winterization plan in place. To quote from that inspection report. &quot;Having this large unprotected earthen bank without having a winterization plan has the highest exposure for erosion.&quot;<o:p /></span></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="times new roman,times,serif" color="#000000"><span style="color: black;"><br />Three months later, the construction site remains a problem. Inspections were performed by the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename></st1:place> in early February. This inspection revealed that the site still does not represent compliance with the County Grading Ordinance or the State NPDES Permit for Linear Construction Projects.</span></font></p> <p><font size="3" face="times new roman,times,serif" color="#000000">NAIL's concern is that if SJWC cannot properly manage a simple grading construction project on a roadway above a prime water source without corrective action being requested, how can we expect they would be good stewards during their proposed ongoing logging project that involves helicopters flying over our community, huge trucks navigating our roads, and alterations to the ecology and wildlife habitats in our mountains?<br /></font> </p> <p><font size="3" face="times new roman,times,serif" color="#000000">&nbsp;</font></p> NAIL Forum Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:52:25 -0800 Watershed Protection & Logging Status/Important Meeting http://www.mountainresource.org/node/199 <p style="margin-left: 1in;" class="MsoNormal"><em><strong><em><font size="3" face="Arial" color="black"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-size: 12pt; color: black; font-family: Arial;">A Seminar On Watershed Protection<br /></span></font></em></strong></em><strong><strong><font size="2" face="Arial" color="black"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Arial;">Date:</span></font></strong></strong><font size="2" face="Arial" color="black"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Arial;"> Saturday, March 25<br /></span></font><strong><strong><font size="2" face="Arial" color="black"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Arial;">Time</span></font></strong></strong><font size="2" face="Arial" color="black"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Arial;">: 7:00-9:00 PM<br /></span></font><strong><strong><font size="2" face="Arial" color="black"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Arial;">Place: </span></font></strong></strong><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on"><font size="2" face="Arial" color="black"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Arial;">Los Gatos</span></font></st1:placename><font size="2" face="Arial" color="black"> <st1:placename w:st="on">Neighborhood</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Center</st1:placetype></font></st1:place><font size="2" face="Arial" color="black">, <st1:address w:st="on"><st1:street w:st="on">208 East Main St.</st1:street> <st1:city w:st="on">Los Gatos<br /></st1:city></st1:address></font><font size="2" face="Arial" color="black"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Arial;">(entrance on <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Fiesta Way</st1:address></st1:street>, across from <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Los Gatos</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Civic</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Center</st1:placetype></st1:place> parking lot)<br /></span></font><strong><strong><font size="2" face="Arial" color="black"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Arial;">Topics:</span></font></strong></strong><font size="2" face="Arial" color="black"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Arial;"> Status of Logging Proposal, Water Quality and Watershed Protection, Protecting Communities From Fire.<br /></span></font><font size="2" face="Arial" color="black"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Arial;">Refreshments will be provided.</span></font><font color="#993366"><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 102);"><o:p /></span></font></p> <p style="margin-left: 1in;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt; color: black;">&nbsp;</span></font><font size="2" face="Arial" color="black"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Arial;">Also, the logging plan will be discussed at the regular March meeting of the Guadalupe Regional Group of the Sierra Club on Thursday, March 23 at 7:30PM. The location is the Community Room of the Saratoga Library on <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Saratoga Ave</st1:address></st1:street> at <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Fruitvale Ave</st1:address></st1:street> in <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Saratoga</st1:place></st1:city>. Everyone is welcome to attend.</span></font><font color="#993366"><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 102);"><o:p /></span></font></p> <p style="margin-left: 1in;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman" color="black"><span style="font-size: 12pt; color: black;">&nbsp;</span></font><font size="2" face="Arial" color="black"><span style="font-size: 10pt; color: black; font-family: Arial;">For more information check out the website at <a href="http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/" title="http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/">http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/</a>&nbsp;and remember to visit NAIL's website at <a href="../../"><font color="#0000ff">www.mountainresource.org</font></a></span></font><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 102);"><o:p /></span></p> NAIL Forum Tue, 07 Mar 2006 08:59:53 -0800 Fire Risk Reduction http://www.mountainresource.org/node/200 <p>NAIL Steering Committee member Rick Parfitt wrote the attached article about mountain fire safety and what realistic steps&nbsp; home owners can take to help reduce the risk that their home will burn down in a wild fire. NAIL strongly encourages mountain residents to seriously consider the value of a fire-safe plan for your home, land and neighborhood.<br /><br />Reprints of this article are provided as courtesy of Mountain Network <br />News: <a href="http://www.mnn.net">http://www.mnn.net</a><br />&nbsp;<br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><a href="http://www.mnn.net/"></a><br /> </p> NAIL Forum Sun, 21 May 2006 16:59:54 -0700 How Forests Can Be Protected http://www.mountainresource.org/node/201 <div>A local forest at risk is now protected through the actions of partnering good stewards.&nbsp; The San Lorenzo Valley Water District agreed on a conservation easement for the Molosky Creek Forest that will prohibit logging in perpetuity.</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>Santa Cruz Sentinel</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>May 20, 2006 <br /><br /><!-- tablestart --><!-- tableend --><strong> <h2>Sempervirens to sell Malosky Forest</h2></strong> <div>The Sempervirens Fund announced yesterday it will sell a portion of the Lompico Headlands to the San Lorenzo Valley Water District. </div> <div>The land, called Malosky Creek Forest, is about 190 acres and is surrounded by water district land. The district serves 17,500 residents in the Boulder Creek area. </div> <div>This $1.7 million sale creates a contiguous tract of government land, and will prevent silt from construction from entering the watershed, fund officials said in a statement.</div> <div>The Sempervirens Fund, which buys redwood forests on behalf of public land, hopes the sale will offset the costs of the $5.6 million purchase of the wider Lompico Headlands earlier this year.</div> <div>To date, the fund has only raised $250,000, and it has just two months to raise the remaining $3.5 million to complete of the purchase. If the group doesn't raise the full amount, it will borrow the rest and pay interest, fund executive director Brian Steen said in the statement. The Lompico Headlands purchase was too important to pass up, he said. </div> <div>The 425-acre Lompico Headlands are just north of Felton and Ben Lomond. Cut by loggers in the last century, the forest is second growth and plays an important role in controlling erosion.</div></div> NAIL Forum Mon, 22 May 2006 09:00:12 -0700 Destructive Forest Bill Passed http://www.mountainresource.org/node/202 <p> <a target="_blank" href="http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2006-05-17b.asp">http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2006-05-17b.asp</a> For Immediate Release: May 17, 2006 Contact: Annie Strickler, (415) 977-5619</p><p><strong>House Passes Destructive Salvage Logging Bill Based on Controversial Science</strong></p><p><strong>Bill Would Increase Future Fire Risk</strong></p><p><strong>Washington, D.C. --- </strong>Ignoring concerns about increased fire risk and more taxpayer-subsidized commercial logging, the House today passed, by a 243 to 182 vote, a far-reaching Salvage Logging bill. The ill-named Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act, a bill which disregards important protections for clean drinking water and wildlife, promotes subsidized logging road construction in wild roadless forests and eliminates meaningful environmental analysis and public involvement required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). &quot;As the fire season gets underway, it is shameful that Congress is once again diverting critical funds from real fire protection measures in order to fast track more destructive logging,&quot; said Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. &quot;This bill has nothing to do with forest recovery or research, and everything to do with logging and subsidizing the timber industry.&quot; The bill creates more perverse incentives for harmful logging, and diverts funding from fire suppression, preparedness, hazardous fuels reduction and community fire planning. It is also likely that more funds will even be diverted from needed replanting and restoration work to pay for salvage logging. &quot;This bill in effect says that compromising citizen and firefighter safety in order to cut down more trees is a fair trade,&quot; said Pope. Salvage logging after fires or other disturbances can increase the severity of future fires because of the increase in fuel loads from logging slash and the alteration of the character and condition of other vegetation. In recent weeks the group Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology (FUSEE) -- a non-profit organization of current, former, and retired wildland firefighters to promote firefighter and community safety -- came out in opposition to the bill. They know that this bill would make forests more flammable and increase the safety risks for wildland firefighters. The bill is also opposed by taxpayers advocates because of the great increase in waste, fraud and abuse associated with the federal timber program. The bill has been at the heart of a scandal over efforts to censor the science showing that post-fire logging can increase fire risk and hamper the ability of forests to recover from natural disturbances. A handful of faculty at Oregon State University sought to derail publication of a contradictory ground breaking scientific report by some of their colleagues. The study, based on two years of on-the-ground research from the aftermath of logging in the Biscuit fire area in Southwest Oregon, appeared in Science magazine in January and was critical of post-fire logging due to increased fire risk and the destruction of young trees growing back on their own. An inquiry by the Oregon state legislature revealed that some of the same OSU faculty and staff that had been involved in the censorship efforts also collaborated closely with Republican congressional staff and timber industry lobby groups to do 'damage control' so that the Science article would not derail the progress of the Walden bill. &quot;Congress didn’t just ignore the implications for wildlife and forest health when passing this salvage logging bill,&quot; said Pope. &quot;They also shoved aside legitimate concerns about firefighter and community safety while making room for politicized science.&quot; </p> NAIL Forum Wed, 24 May 2006 10:14:48 -0700 NAIL Status Update http://www.mountainresource.org/node/203 <div>May 24, 2006 </div> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>As of this posting date the San Jose Water Company NTMP re-submittal has not occurred, but NAIL believes that the submittal will happen soon.</o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">We want to let NAIL members and residents know that just as we sought to stop the NTMP during the first submittal, NAIL will continue efforts to stop the NTMP during this second submittal round when it does occur.<span>&nbsp; </span>The NAIL Steering Committee has been meeting regularly and continuing our planning process. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">We have a number of partners in our efforts, including the Sierra Club and the thousands of people from valley communities who have signed our petitions.&nbsp; We have also received offers of public support from a number of respected and well known individuals prepared to speak on NAIL's behalf if the NTMP is submitted.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Please re-commit yourself to stopping this ecologically devastating plan and to supporting the retention of un-logged and responsibly managed forest land acreage here in our mountains.<span>&nbsp; </span>For further information and announcement of NAIL activities and meetings please continue to visit this site.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>Financial donations to support NAIL’s work are welcomed.<span>&nbsp; Please use the convenient PayPal link on the NAIL home page.&nbsp; </span><o:p><br /></o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Thank you.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">NAIL Steering Committee</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 25 May 2006 17:03:35 -0700 Concerns About Private Water Company Take-Overs http://www.mountainresource.org/node/204 <p>Please go to the website: <a href="http://www.commondreams.org">http://www.commondreams.org/</a> and learn about the increasing problems some California resident water users are having with private water companies that take over their systems.&nbsp; Click on the headline &quot;Small Towns Tell a Cautionary Tale of the Privatization of Water&quot; to read the detailed story.<br /></p><p>This information published in the L.A. Times focuses on a problem springing up all over the state and is relevant to Santa Cruz Mountain residents supported by small,local systems that are attractive takeover targets for larger, private water companies such as San Jose Water Co.&nbsp;</p><p>With a heavy for-profit emphasis that could put the cost of water beyond the reach of low-income households.&nbsp; Privatization of water in the growing trend can pose a threat to important watershed land stewardship&nbsp; with conservation responsibilities reverting to large multi-national corporations.<br /></p><p>&nbsp;SJWC is mentioned in the article.&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Tue, 30 May 2006 19:02:10 -0700 NAIL Prepares for Next Round of NTMP Opposition http://www.mountainresource.org/node/205 <div><font size="2" face="Arial"> </font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="835190716-06062006"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman"><strong>The fight to protect our neighborhood continues.</strong></font></font></span></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span><span class="835190716-06062006"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3">SJWC has resubmitted their plan to log the forest. The plan was published on the California Department of Forestry's website 6/5/06 and is available for viewing at the following locations.<font face="Arial" color="#0000ff"> </font></font><font size="3" face="Arial">ftp site: </font><font color="#0000ff"><font size="3" face="Arial"><a href="ftp://thp.fire.ca.gov/THPLibrary/North_Coast_Region/%C2%A0%C2%A0%C2%A0%20Folder">ftp://thp.fire.ca.gov/THPLibrary/North_Coast_Region/</a></font></font><font size="3" face="Arial"><font color="#000000">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Folder</font> title is 1-06NTMP-012SCL </font></font></font></span></span></p><span><span class="835190716-06062006"></span></span></div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span><span class="835190716-06062006"><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3"> </font></font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span class="835190716-06062006"></span><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3">&nbsp;</font></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3"><font face="Arial"><font size="2">B<span class="835190716-06062006">elow is the press release put out by NAIL to numerous Bay Area news outlets. Experts hired by NAIL are in the process of conducting an in-depth review of the plan.&nbsp; That review will be posted on the NAIL website shortly.<br /></span></font></font></font></font></p><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3"><font size="+0"><span class="835190716-06062006"> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><br /></p></span><span class="835190716-06062006"></span><font face="Arial"><font size="2">T<span class="835190716-06062006">hanks for all your help! We've all really made a difference. Still, everyone needs to continue writing letters to the press and public officials and collecting signatures on petitions. Make your voice heard! Please remember to visit the NAIL website at <a href="../../nail">www.mountainresource.org/nail</a> .&nbsp; You can sign an online petition and contribute to NAIL's fundraising efforts through PAYPAL. We'll be updating the website with our analysis of the NTMP shortly.</span></font></font></font></font></font> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3"><font size="+0"><font face="Arial"><font size="2"><span class="835190716-06062006"></span></font></font>&nbsp;</font></font></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3"><font size="+0"><font face="Arial"><font size="2"><span class="835190716-06062006">Fundraising events and further community education efforts are being planned - so stay tuned.&nbsp;&nbsp;</span></font></font><font face="Arial"><font size="2"><span class="835190716-06062006"> </span></font></font></font></font></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3"><font size="+0"><font face="Arial"><font size="2"><span class="835190716-06062006"></span></font></font>&nbsp;</font></font></font></p><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3"><font size="+0"><font face="Arial"><font size="2"><span class="835190716-06062006"> <div align="left"><font size="2" face="Arial">Kevin Flynn</font></div> <div align="left"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="835190716-06062006">NAIL Steering Committee</span></font></div> <div align="left"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="835190716-06062006"></span></font>&nbsp;</div></span></font></font><font face="Arial"><font size="2"><span class="835190716-06062006"></span></font></font> </font></font></font><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman"><font size="3"><font size="+0"><font face="Arial"><font size="2"><span class="835190716-06062006"></span></font></font></font></font></font></p></span></span><strong><span style="font-size: 16pt;">Residents Protest Watershed Logging Plan<o:p /></span></strong></font> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">Residents of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> reacted strongly in opposition to the San Jose Water Company’s resubmitted plan to log 1,000 acres of redwood and Douglas fir forest in the Los Gatos Creek watershed. The plan, originally submitted to the California Department of Forestry in the fall of 2005, was withdrawn in December, 2005.<span>&nbsp; </span>Over 3,500 citizens in mountain and valley communities have signed petitions in opposition to the plan. The logging plan – called a Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan or NTMP - allows for logging to occur in perpetuity without any further public or agency review once approved by the California Department of Forestry.</font></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font></o:p></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">Opposition to the plan centers on three points.</font></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman"><span><span><font size="3">-</font><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><font size="3"><em>Water Quality Protection.</em> Over 100,000 <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> residents draw their drinking water directly from intakes in Los Gatos Creek within the logging zone. <strong>Commercial logging is so incompatible with retaining drinking water quality that <st1:city w:st="on">San Francisco</st1:city>, <st1:city w:st="on">Portland</st1:city>, <st1:city w:st="on">Seattle</st1:city>, <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Santa Cruz</st1:place></st1:city>, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and Marin County-virtually every large west coast municipality-expressly forbid commercial logging in their watersheds.</strong><span>&nbsp; </span><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> residents desire the same protection for their water.</font></font></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman"><span><span><font size="3">-</font><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><font size="3"><em>Fire Protection.</em> The mature redwood canopy acts as a shaded fuel break, protecting the lives of residents and the security of their homes. The largest, healthiest, most fire resistant trees in the forest are slated for cutting – 40% of redwoods over 36” in diameter. <strong>Destruction of the forest canopy will allow sunlight to reach the forest floor and create new ladder fuels and fire hazards adjacent to thousands of homes.</strong> As the forest canopy is opened, fire-prone invasive species will proliferate. The plan also calls for a 12 inch deep layer of dried twigs and broken branches (logging slash) covering 1.6 square miles of forest floor. The slash will not be removed and poses a serious fire hazard for thousands of residents. <em><o:p /></em></font></font></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in -27pt 0pt 0.5in; text-indent: -27pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman"><span><span><font size="3">-</font><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><font size="3"><em>Quality of Life.</em><span>&nbsp; </span>Thousands of citizens live beside the logging zone. Logging operations will occur adjacent to homes, churches, schools, day care centers and playgrounds. Helicopter landings will occur within 150 feet of homes. <strong>Helicopter operations are slated for 24% of the logging zone.</strong> The plan calls for <strong>logging 12 hours a day</strong>. Special permission has been requested by the SJWC to conduct operations <strong>12 months a year</strong>. Noise levels as described in the plan exceed <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place>’s noise ordinance. Residents will be faced with an <strong>expected decline in property values</strong> as chainsaws and logging trucks will invade residential neighborhoods. <em><o:p /></em></font></font></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font></o:p></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">Over 200 residents have formed N.A.I.L (Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging) to fight the plan. Experts in logging, fire hazards and hydrology have been hired by the group. Legal actions are being contemplated should the plan be approved by the CDF. The Sierra Club has joined local efforts in opposition to this irresponsible logging plan. </font></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font></o:p></p></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div align="left"><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="835190716-06062006"></span></font> <br /></div> NAIL Forum Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:35:30 -0700 San Jose Water/A Troubling History in the Mountains http://www.mountainresource.org/node/206 <p>The following article presents a look at some of the difficult history of San Jose Water operations in the mountains.&nbsp; It is interesting to note the references to water pollution, erosion, tree-cutting and locked gates barring residents a safe egress from communities sharing boundaries with SJWC - problems still existing today.</p><p>&nbsp;The late Joan Barriga was a mountain resident who spent a great deal of time researching and writing about Santa Cruz Mountain history.<br /></p><p>&nbsp;<br />Reprinted from the Mountain Network News, May/June 1995 and September/October 1995.&nbsp; <a href="http://www.mnn.net">www.mnn.net</a> <br /></p><p> </p><div><p><strong><font size="4">Shelley Cothran</font></strong><br />The Backwoods Blackstone</p><p><br />By Joan Barriga</p></div> <p><br />In the early 1900s Edward E. Cothran, a prominent San Jose attorney, bought 500 acres high in the Santa Cruz Mountains from Mercedes Demoro.<br /><br />Mercedes’ late husband, Rafael, had been a Spanish sea captain who owned seven sailing ships. Rafael made his fortune transporting Chinese workers from Hong Kong and Shanghai to San Francisco in the early 1850s.<br />On top of a ridge overlooking the Demoro property stood a large white cross. When Cothran acquired the land, one of the deed requirements was that the new owner preserve the wooden cross. It was an agreement kept by two generations of Cothrans.<br /><br />Cothran and his sons, Shelley and Ralph, operated a small sawmill at the ranch. They bought their supplies and picked up their mail at Wrights, a nearby settlement that had grown up with the coming of the South Pacific Coast Railroad.<br /><br />After World War I, Wrights slowly declined. Neighboring San Jose, down in the valley, was beginning to experience minor growing pains. Still largely agricultural, San Jose had begun attracting more industry and the population was growing. Water consumption increased and deeper wells had to be drilled. Sites for dams and reservoirs were explored in order to impound the new sources of water needed in the valley.<br /><br />San Jose Water Works (SJWW), the water supplier since 1866, began quietly acquiring land in the Santa Cruz Mountains. By the early 1930s the Cothran property was surrounded by SJWW land, and the trouble began.<br />The Cothran-SJWW feud started in 1933 when Ed Cothran cut a couple of redwoods on his property. The water company claimed that he had muddied Los Gatos Creek. They sued him for $10,000.<br /><br />As an experienced attorney, Cothran fought the suit in court. He argued that the trees were on his property and the water company was trying to prevent him from doing anything profitable with his land.<br /><br />Shelley and Ralph carried on their father’s legal battle after his death. Although Shelley’s formal education had ended with the fourth grade, he was undeterred by the fact that he never went to law school or took the bar exam. He studied his father’s law books and read Shakespeare until his command of the English language was “awesome,” according to a newspaper account.<br /><br />In 1936 SJWW bought Wrights, “lock, stock and barrel.” A brochure, A Wealth of Good Water, published by the water company at the time gives an idea of the company’s attitude:<br />“The town [Wrights] consisted of 125 acres of land. All that remained of the village itself were fourteen buildings—two or three homes in good condition, and several moldy old structures that were falling to ruin. The company purchased outright both the land and the buildings. It tore down all the buildings except the houses and the structure that once served as a hotel, restaurant, and Post Office building. In one end of this ancient building the U.S. Government still maintains a Post Office for residents of the surrounding area.” The Wrights Post Office was officially closed November 16, 1937.<br />&nbsp;<br />At this time, SJWW employed men on foot and on horseback—“riders”—to give “special protection against contamination of the creek at this point.” The special protection included armed deputy sheriffs who patrolled the land on horseback along Los Gatos Creek “from Los Gatos practically to the headwaters near Mt. Loma Prieta.”<br /><br />Rights-of-way were granted to land-locked property owners to enable them to reach their homes; but the roads, once public property and paid for with public tax monies, were now on the water company’s property.<br /><br />Early in December 1936, Shelley and Deputy Sheriff William Hughes, a SJWW rider, met on a road near Wrights and got into a scuffle when Hughes thought Cothran was going to reach for his gun leaning against a nearby tree. Judge Bell found Hughes not guilty (even though Hughes admitted he had struck Cothran “lightly” several times). Judge Bell warned Hughes about using excessive force in carrying out his duties.<br />Less than a year later, on May 13, 1937, Ralph went to collect the mail at Wrights Post Office. He was challenged to a fight by another rider, Deputy A. E. Waibel, “a water company employee who was armed.” <br />To even the odds, Ralph went home and got his own gun. He returned to the Post Office and was promptly arrested. Deputy Waibel charged that Cothran threatened him with a firearm and was “hallucinating.” The Los-Gatos Times-Observer (June 25, 1939) reported on the trial: “Cothran is suing both the water company and Waibel on grounds that he was jailed maliciously on an affidavit of insanity—a charge on which he was later acquitted by a jury. He claims that the company had him imprisoned as a part of an attempt to get control of the land owned by himself and his brother, adjoining Water Company holdings at Wrights.”<br /><br />After Cothran’s acquittal on the insanity charge, Waibel then charged him with attempted murder. Ralph spent an additional five months in county jail because he refused to post a $2,000 peace bond.<br />By now, what had started with a charge of “muddying” Los Gatos Creek had grown into charges of insanity and attempted murder. There was no end in sight.<br /><br />In January 1938, Shelley and Ralph were returning home when their car skidded on a muddy road and stalled. They were cutting some saplings beside the road to extricate the car when Deputy Hughes came along. Hughes ordered them off water works property and emphasized his order by firing a couple of shots. The Cothrans left the car where it was and walked home. The next morning they swore out a warrant for Hughes’ arrest. The $500 bail was promptly paid and Hughes claimed “there wasn’t a shot fired.” Hughes added an interesting complaint: after the Cothrans filed charges against him, they later appeared at his place—after dark—and “were pulling up ferns near his water tank.” (Malicious mischief? Hallucinations?)<br /><br />Up to this point the battle had been about control of land, water, and property access rights. Property owners felt that they literally were living in an armed camp. They looked upon Shelley Cothran as their spokesman against the water company’s lawyers, and he relished the job.<br /><br />Cantankerous, bombastic, and hard-drinking, Shelley provided entertainment for the courts, copy for the newspapers, and hope for his neighbors. The battle was about to expand.<br /><br />In 1949 the San Jose Water Works closed Wrights Station Road. Shelley took on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.<br /><br />With the end of rail service in March 1940 and the closure of Wrights Station Road nine years later, area residents found their only way out was by Summit Road. This added miles to their travel.<br /><br />This was not only inconvenient, but posed a very real danger of being trapped by forest fire. Difficult access by emergency vehicles slowed response time. The Santa Clara County board of supervisors had sold a portion of the road to a private company (San Jose Water Works) which only added fuel to the fire.<br />In April 1962 Shelley headed a group of petitioners. They appeared before the supervisors to demand that Wrights Station Road be reopened “in the interest of fire protection and safety.”<br /><br />A ten-day fire at Austrian Gulch in 1961 also made this a matter of concern to residents. “If the road had been open during the Austrian Gulch fire last year,” said Bruce Franks, chairman of the Alma Fire District, “firefighters would have been able to reach the fire an hour sooner.”<br /><br />Other petitioners accused the supervisors of ignoring their pleas for years. Shelley grimly forecast a fire of “destructive proportions” if Wrights Station Road remained closed. The matter was referred to attorneys for further study.<br /><br />Seven months later, the supervisors came back with their decision: The Public Works Department had their permission to build an emergency fire trail. It would be secured at either end with chained and padlocked gates since it passed through private (Water Works) property.<br /><br />Cothran wasn’t at all satisfied by the outcome. He wanted the original road reopened year-round, but the board voted 3-2 against spending the $25,000 to reopen the mile-long stretch of road.<br /><br />Supervisor Della Maggiore argued that the road was not the county’s responsibility, despite residents’ claims that they had seen county crews working on it. The supervisor conceded that county road crews had worked on the road, but it did not mean the road belonged to the county. Anyway, he added, the Water Works gates could always be knocked down in case of an emergency.<br /><br />Such a narrow defeat, after 28 years of struggle, would discourage most people, but Shelley wasn’t most people. Shelley was “(A) man of commanding voice and presence,” said one newspaper article. The article described how Shelley would stop by the newspaper office after a day in court to regale the staff with stories and explain legal intricacies to them.<br /><br />A friend recalled that “Mr. Cothran enjoyed a bit of brandy before his court appearances.” When a judge once asked Shelley if he smelled liquor on his breath, Shelley turned the question to his advantage: “… If the Court’s sense of honor is a keen as the Court’s sense of smell, then you will see the folly of the Water Works’ position.”<br /><br />Shelley was a consummate showman in court, acting as attorney, litigant, witness, executor of his father’s estate, and heir. “He was a cantankerous son of a gun,” said longtime friend Connie Kidwell.<br />She attended a number of his court appearances and described one: “He would stand tall and dignified while firing questions at an empty witness chair. Then he would sit in the witness chair and answer those same questions in a meek and humble tone.”<br /><br />Judges enjoyed the bombastic language and colorful presentations, often coming up to shake hands with him before a case.<br /><br />But the lawsuits dragged on year after year. Shelley decided to bring matters to a head in March 1973.<br />On the day before spring, he and a few friends finished planting the last of some Douglas fir seedlings; he was 83 and knew that he’d never live to see them grow tall, but he remarked that others would enjoy them.<br />The next day Shelley made up his mind to file a $1.5 million suit in Superior Court against the county supervisors, the Department of Public Works, and the San Jose Water Works. He charged that they had attempted to confiscate his land with a grading ordinance that threatened him with six months jail and heavy fines for “maintaining the family cemetery, firebreaks, dams, and existing roadways.”<br /><br />On Monday, March 19, he left the courthouse at noon and stopped off to visit friends near Holy City. At 3 o’clock he returned to his cabin to find it in flames.<br /><br />Devastation<br />Shelley first attempted to put out the fire himself, filling buckets of water from the sink. He soon realized that it was useless, so he went outside to call for help. His closest neighbors, renters who lived in a nearby cabin, were not at home. By then the fire had made too much headway to be stopped. “There’s nothing but ashes now,” he told the deputy fire marshal in an interview the next day.<br /><br />Shelley knew that he had made a lot of enemies over the years and believed that the fire had been deliberately set. Not only was his home destroyed, but his law books, legal papers and mementoes accumulated over an 80-year period were gone. He was left with only the clothes on his back.<br /><br />The county fire marshal investigated and concluded that there were “very suspicious circumstances” surrounding the fire. Shelley’s dog, locked in the cabin when he left, was found outside when he returned. A gas can was found in the driveway. Specific threats recently had been made in the presence of witnesses. The fire had originated in two rather questionable locations: the bathroom and the living room. The marshal concluded that there was lack of evidence of arson.<br /><br />Rebirth<br />The ashes had barely cooled before Shelley’s friends began constructing his new cabin. It was built with logs from his own property. Nine months later, a few months after this 84th birthday, he held a “Great Fandango” to celebrate the completion of the new home on the site of the original. The occasion was noted in the newspapers with photographs and articles.<br /><br />Shelley continued to make court appearances. He used his increasing deafness as an excuse to ignore the judges’ admonitions. When he broke his hip at age 90, it marked the end of his courtroom career.The broken hip also forced Shelley to move in with friends, where he stayed until his death four years later in May 1985.<br /><br />Longtime friend Connie Kidwell remarked that his illness and dependency “softened his demeanor,” but not entirely. He managed to muddy Los Gatos Creek one final time. His ashes were scattered over his property and eventually found their way into SJWW’s protected stream.<br /><br />Perhaps his best obituary appeared in a local newspaper, perhaps the one he stopped by after appearances in court. It read: “He was never dull.”<br /><br />Sources<br />“A Wealth of Good Water,” San Jose Water Works, Los Gatos Times-Observer<br />Shelley Cothran, autobiographical notes<br />Reprinted from the Mountain Network News, May/June 1995 and September/October 1995</p><p> </p> NAIL Forum Thu, 08 Jun 2006 22:14:57 -0700 NAIL Response to New NTMP and FAQ's http://www.mountainresource.org/node/207 <p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="MsoNormal"><strong><u><span style="font-size: 14pt;">San Jose Water Company Plans To <br /> Log The Los Gatos Creek Watershed<o:p /></span></u></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 14pt;">Frequently Asked Questions</span></strong><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p> <br /></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Q: What’s going on? <o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">The San Jose Water Company (SJWC) has resubmitted a Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan (NTMP) for 1,000 acres of redwood forest along 6 miles of the Los Gatos Creek Watershed stretching from Lexington Reservoir past Lake Elsman to Williams Reservoir. Additional logging will occur off <span>&nbsp;</span><st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Thompson Road</st1:address></st1:street> on the east side of Hiway 17. The plan, should it be approved, will allow for logging to occur in perpetuity – no matter who owns the land and who does the logging. <span>&nbsp;</span>Citizens of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> will be facing the repercussions of this decision for many decades. Community opposition has been very strong.<span>&nbsp; </span>As of<span>&nbsp; </span>late June, nearly 4,000 citizens have signed petitions in opposition to the plan. A citizens group, Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging (NAIL) has been formed to fight the plan. Additional information about NAIL and the logging can be found at www.mountainresource.org<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><br /><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Q: How many trees will be cut</span></em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">? <o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">40% of the trees greater than 24” in diameter will be harvested according to the SJWC. The average redwood or Douglas Fir in the logging zone is 31” in diameter. Trees as large as 6 feet in diameter are planned to be cut.<span>&nbsp; </span>However, the type of permit they are requesting allows them to cut 60% of the trees 18” or more in diameter. The plan allows for changes in the number of trees to be cut – without further public review. The logging will occur in perpetuity, so the number of trees cut could be different – within a year – or within 50 years. <o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><br /><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Q: What about protecting the water? <o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Good question. According to SJWC documents, 100,000 people in <st1:city w:st="on">Los Gatos</st1:city>, <st1:city w:st="on">Campbell</st1:city>, <st1:city w:st="on">Saratoga</st1:city>, Monte Sereno and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">San Jose</st1:city></st1:place> obtain drinking water from intakes in Los Gatos Creek within the logging zone. This is in addition to residents of <st1:placename w:st="on">Chemeketa</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Park</st1:placetype> and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Aldercroft</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Heights</st1:placetype></st1:place> who also draw water from the creek. Commercial logging of this type is so incompatible with protection of drinking water that the largest municipalities on the west coast – <st1:city w:st="on">San Francisco</st1:city>, Marin, the East Bay (EBMUD), <st1:city w:st="on">Santa Cruz</st1:city>, <st1:city w:st="on">Portland</st1:city> and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Seattle</st1:city></st1:place> forbid such activities. Here are the facts drawn from published sources:<br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><!--[endif]--><o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: Arial;">EBMUD:&quot;</span></strong><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: Arial;">Charles Hardy, spokesman for the East Bay Municipal Utility District, says logging is a &quot;big no-no&quot; on its watersheds for &quot;obvious reasons.&quot; Uprooting trees loosens the soil and results in more runoff into water systems when it rains. The only tree-removal activities his company engages in are to clear paths for fire trucks and clean out the underbrush to maintain trails.&quot; <br /> <em>San Jose Metro. 12.7.05</em><br /> <strong><span style="font-family: Arial;">Marin Municipal Water District</span></strong>:&quot;The Marin Municipal Water District manages 22,000 acres of watershed land and does not allow logging, in order to the keep the area as pristine as possible. The last time it removed any trees was in 1997. That was a small population of nonnative pine trees that infringed upon the native ecosystem. Spokesman Michael Swezy puts it simply: &quot;An undisturbed watershed is going to yield better-quality water.&quot; <em>San Jose Metro 12.7.05</em> <br /> <strong><span style="font-family: Arial;">San Francisco Public Utilities District</span></strong></span><span style="font-size: 8pt;">: </span><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: Arial;">&quot;Critics of the logging plan say the company (SJWC) can reduce the fire risk by thinning trees instead of logging the forest. That is how the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission handles fire suppression in the 23,000-acre watershed around Crystal Springs Reservoir, said spokesman Tony Winnicker. &quot;We do an annual survey of our lands, and selectively thin vegetation, especially in areas that are close to urban centers or homes and businesses,&quot; he said. &quot;We selectively and strategically eliminate trees and clean some of the ground cover. That tends to be brush and eucalyptus trees, which are rapidly growing and extremely combustible.&quot; <em>San Francisco Chronicle. 12.11.05 <o:p /></em></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: Arial;">City of <st1:city w:st="on">Seattle</st1:city>:</span></strong><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: Arial;"> &quot;The Cedar River Watershed east of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Seattle</st1:city></st1:place> is a forested area of 90,346 acres. It’s been the region’s primary water supply for longer than a century, providing much of the clean water to more than 1.3 million residents of <st1:city w:st="on">Seattle</st1:city>, <st1:city w:st="on">Bellevue</st1:city> and other areas of <st1:placename w:st="on">King</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype> in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Washington</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">State</st1:placetype></st1:place>. The 50-year HCP, signed in April 2000, established the entire watershed as no-logging forest reserves. Commercial timber harvesting is barred and 40 percent of the area’s logging roads will be removed.&quot; <br /> <em>National Oceanographic &amp; Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Northwest Regional Office website <br /> </em><st1:city w:st="on"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;">City of Portland</span></strong></st1:city><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"> <st1:state w:st="on">Oregon</st1:state></span></strong>: In 1996, The United States Senate adopted the Oregon Resources Conservation Act (ORCA), S.1662, which outlaws logging in the 100-square mile area around the Bull Run Reservoir, the chief source of drinking water for <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Portland</st1:place></st1:city>'s 800,000 residents. <em>US Congressional Record</em> <br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /><!--[endif]--></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Q. What about <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Lexington</st1:city></st1:place> Reservoir – how will it be affected?<o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">This NTMP proposes building many miles of new roads and skid trails and using tractors on unstable areas and highly erodable hillsides with slopes over 50%. Such actions will lead to increased erosion with more sediment entering waterways. This means that more sediment will flow into Lexington Reservoir – diminishing its capacity to store water in the future.<span>&nbsp; </span>The reservoir has </span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">lost 1,000 acre feet of capacity in just the past 10 years. This trend will be accelerated by logging. Increased sediment will flow into <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Lexington</st1:city></st1:place> for decades to come, reducing water capacity and flood control capability for future generations. <span style="color: black;">Expenses related to decreased water availability or ongoing dredging of the reservoir will be passed on to consumers.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p /></span><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Q. What about fire danger? <o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Simply put, cutting the largest trees in a forest and leaving slash (essentially dried, stacked kindling) on the forest floor presents a large fire hazard. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board has studied this NTMP and has made the following comment in their official response to the California Department of Forestry. </span><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times;">&quot;The opening of a forest for light and regrowth will promote new ground and mid-canopy growth that leads to ladder fuel jumps into upper canopy catastrophic fire, which is not a desired effect for fire hazard reduction.&quot;<o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times; font-style: normal;">Of note is the fact that in this NTMP</span></em><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times;"> SJWC has not stated any fire mitigation plans for the thousands of acres of fire-prone chaparral that they own adjacent to the redwood forest.<o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times;"><o:p /></span><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Q. What happens to the logging slash (debris)? <o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">According to the NTMP, dried branches and twigs (slash) will not have to be reduced in height until April 1. That means that acres of forest will have piles of slash many feet high on the ground through the fire season. After April 1, 12 inches of slash will remain on the ground throughout the logging area. This 12” covering of twigs and branches will not be removed from the forest floor - ever. While SJWC plans to reduce slash within 200’ of adjacent homes (before the following April 1), new growth of flammable underbrush due to loss of canopy from harvested trees will grow up between harvests.<o:p> <br /></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Q: Will logging take place all at once? <o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Not according to what is in the current plan. The logging zone is divided into 9 separate units averaging approximately 100 acres each. SJWC has stated that they will only log one unit at a time, every other year – however, this NTMP allows them the option to log in more than one unit at a time. The deposition of increased sediment and organic materials into the water supply as well as increased fire danger adjacent to homes, schools and businesses will be present 12 months a year in perpetuity.<o:p> <br /></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Q. Will logging take place in the winter? <o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">SJWC has requested special permission from the California Department of Forestry to perform logging operations (including the falling of trees and hauling adjacent to streams and on county roads) during the wintertime.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p /></span><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span> </span>Q. How close will logging be to my property?</span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;"></span></em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Logging will occur within 100 feet of the homes of hundreds of residents. Schools, day care centers and churches are also adjacent to the logging zone. The <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Chemeketa</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:place> playground is even within the logging boundary. Logging will take place 300 yards from <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Loma</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Prieta</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Elementary School</st1:placetype></st1:place> and 230 yards from the Building Blocks Pre-School located on <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Summit Road</st1:address></st1:street>. A GoogleEarth depiction of the logging zone is available at <a href="../../">www.mountainresource.org</a>.<span>&nbsp; </span>Residents can see their individual streets and homes and precisely measure the distance to the logging zone.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><em>Q. How much noise is generated by logging?</em></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><em></em>The SJWC included a noise study in their NTMP. From as far as 1,000 feet away, chainsaws in the study generated a sustained<em> </em>level 52-58 decibels, a noise that exceeds the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance of 50 decibels. From 200 feet away, chain saws in this study generated sustained levels of 66-68 decibels which, according to the NTMP, is louder than a noisy freeway heard from 100 yards away. The NTMP document even concedes that during logging operations trucks, tractors, loaders and other equipment will add to the noise generated by chainsaws. The study just measured the sound of a ‘revving’ chainsaw and did not measure the much louder sound a chainsaw generates when cutting down a tree.<br /><br /> <em>Q. What about helicopter logging? How close will helicopter landing zones be to my property?<o:p /></em></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Helicopter logging is proposed on 25% of the land alongside Los Gatos Creek.<span>&nbsp; </span>However, there is little to stop them from logging most of the property using helicopters, without notifying the public of such a change. <span>&nbsp;</span>Large Chinook Helicopters will be used. According to the NTMP document, these helicopters generate 78-92 decibels from 600 feet away. According to the US Occupational Safety &amp; Health Administration (OSHA), prolonged exposure to 90 decibels or more can lead to gradual hearing loss.<span>&nbsp; </span>The NTMP states that some residences will be as close as 150 feet away from helicopter operations. One landing zone will be within 200 feet of <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Loma Prieta Avenue</st1:address></st1:street>. Another will be 750 yards from the Building Blocks Day Care Center.<o:p> <br /></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Q. How close can these helicopters fly to my house?<o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Helicopters can fly within 500 feet of homes in sparsely populated areas according to the Federal Aviation Administration ( FAA regulation 91.119d).<span></span><o:p> <br /></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Q. What about property values?<o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Home sellers will be obligated to disclose to potential buyers the existence of the NTMP and the presence of a logging operation on adjacent properties. The potential effect on property values could be quite large.<o:p> <br /></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Q. What routes will be used for hauling logs from the logging zone? <o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Some of the logs harvested will be transported via log trucks through the property on the lower portion of Wright’s Station Road onto a seasonal road on SJWC property to Morrill Road, and then on Summit Road to Highway 17 South. Log trucks from 2 harvest areas will travel on <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Old Santa Cruz Highway</st1:address></st1:street> to State Highway 17 or from <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Aldercroft Heights Road</st1:address></st1:street> across the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Alma</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Bridge</st1:placename></st1:place> and onto <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Old Santa Cruz Highway</st1:address></st1:street>. The logs from the Briggs Creek harvest area will be hauled onto lower Thompson Road to (R) on Black Road and then to State Highway 17. <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Loma Prieta Avenue</st1:address></st1:street> to <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Summit Road</st1:address></st1:street> and onto State Highway 17 may also be utilized as a haul route during the time of helicopter yarding operations. Approximately 8-12 loads will be hauled on any given day. Including return trips, there will be an average of one log truck on the road every twenty minutes to half hour during an eight hour day.<o:p> <br /></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span>&nbsp;</span>Q: Will the log trucks damage the roads? <o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">One 80,000 lb. loaded log truck is equivalent to about 9,000 automobile trips. Heavy load hauling during wet, saturated winter conditions are known to cause extra road damage.<span>&nbsp; </span>Even SJWC admits that road surfaces are more “vulnerable to damage that occurs during wet weather traffic”.<span>&nbsp; </span>Yet, the plan allows for hauling logs during the Winter Period between October 15 – April 15.<o:p> <br /></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Q. Will log truck traffic be a risk to schoolchildren?<o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">The NTMP includes a winter operating plan, including log hauling.<span>&nbsp; </span>While SJWC claims that hauling is unlikely when school is in session, the plan allows for logging and hauling year round.<span>&nbsp; </span>There is no mention in the plan that log hauling would be prohibited during school bus hours.<span>&nbsp; </span>Rather we found the following, “<em>Though each public segment of the haul route bears the potential for traffic problems, these traffic problems will likely occur most often during the morning and evening commute hours</em>.”<o:p> <br /></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Q. What times will the logging occur? <o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Logging will commence at 8:00AM within 100 yards from a residence and at 7:00AM further than 100 yards from homes and continue till 7:00pm. It is common practice for CDF to allow a change in hours of operation without any public review.<span>&nbsp; </span>If neighbors complain, then CDF may require the operator to change back.<o:p> <br /></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span>&nbsp;</span>Q. Won’t logging cause landslides? <o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">The bulk of the logging zone is located along the notoriously active San Andreas Fault Zone.<span>&nbsp; </span>According to the NTMP, on-the-ground conditions consist of extremely unstable slopes, steep “inner gorge” areas along seven tributaries, and numerous active landslides, including a 6+ acre slide below the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Chemeketa</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:place> neighborhood.<span>&nbsp; </span>The plan notes large channel bank failure, watercourse flow already constricted by slide movement undercutting stream banks, recent bank failure in other locations, and notes that ‘future movement’ of some slides is very likely even during moderate storms.<span>&nbsp; </span>Logging will be allowed on most of the slide areas, and tractor operations are also proposed on unstable areas and steep, highly erodable slopes with a gradient over 50%.<span>&nbsp; </span>Skid trails often concentrate run-off leading to increased erosion and sometimes landsliding. Removal of canopy can reduce rainfall interception and increase runoff on landslides and steep slopes as well.<o:p> <br /></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Q. Won’t the logging affect endangered species? <o:p /></span></em></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">The biological assessment in the NTMP is seriously deficient.<span>&nbsp; </span>Sensitive species known to live in the biological assessment area (BAA) are not noted as such. The endangered Red-legged frog is known to exist in the watershed, and mitigations are proposed.<span>&nbsp; </span>The plan also notes the existence of at east three osprey nests in the assessment area. However, many species of mammals and birds that are known to inhabit the BAA are not identified, and it is unclear whether the broad variety of wildlife species in the vicinity will be adequately protected.<br /><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></p> NAIL Forum Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:48:29 -0700 CA Dept. of Fish & Game Raises Concerns Over NTMP http://www.mountainresource.org/node/208 <p>Please read the attached document outlining concerns expressed by the California Department of Fish and Game regarding the NTMP submission by San Jose Water Company.</p><p>The concerns were expressed as part of the standard first review cycle in the NTMP approval process.&nbsp; Note DFG's assertion that the NTMP should have been rejected on the basis of&nbsp; the errors it contains.&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;NAIL Steering Committee<br />&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:40:33 -0700 State Supreme Court Says Loggers Can't Make All the Rules http://www.mountainresource.org/node/209 <p>Please go to the site listed below for an informative article regarding a decision handed down this week by the California State Supreme Court.&nbsp; The decision puts restrictions on loggers such as Big Creek Lumber and gives local municipalites more leeway in passing laws and ordinances regarding logging in their midst.</p><p><a href="http://www.topix.net/content/cbs/1191122750075937384833993704620877369426">http://www.topix.net/content/cbs/1191122750075937384833993704620877369426</a></p><p>&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Fri, 30 Jun 2006 17:55:54 -0700 NAIL'S RESPONSE TO RECENT SJWC FLYER http://www.mountainresource.org/node/210 <div dir="ltr" align="left"> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="147013017-02072006"></span></font></div><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="147013017-02072006"></span></font><font size="2" face="Arial"><span class="147013017-02072006"></span><span class="147013017-02072006">Dear </span>M<span class="147013017-02072006">embers of NAIL,</span></font></div> <div> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span class="147013017-02072006"></span><font size="2" face="Arial"><br /><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">It was very disturbing to see San Jose Water Company's latest mailing&nbsp;to residents.<span class="147013017-02072006">&nbsp; </span>From the beginning of the community effort to save the Los Gatos Creek watershed NAIL has been committed to dealing only in facts.. Our information comes from published, expert sources and the San Jose Water Company's own documents. With that in mind, here is a point by point refutation of the content in <span>&nbsp;</span>SJWC’s latest flyer mailed to residents. Please discuss this freely with your friends and neighbors. You will soon be receiving a separate email summarizing recent NAIL efforts to stop the logging plan.</span><o:p /></font></font></p></div> <div> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><br /><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Thank you once again for your support.</span><o:p /></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><font size="2" face="Arial">The NAIL Steering Committee</font></span><o:p /></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p /></font></font></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><font size="2" face="Arial">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></span><o:p /></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p /></font></font></font></p> <p style="margin: 2pt 20pt 0pt 0in;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Times New Roman">SJWC: NAIL claims the NTMP &quot;allows for logging to occur in perpetuity without any further public or agency review once approved by the California Department of Forestry.&quot;<o:p /></font></span></em></font></p> <p style="margin: 2pt 20pt 0pt 0in;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font></o:p></p> <p style="margin: 2pt 20pt 0pt 0in;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman">Here is text&nbsp;from the&nbsp;<span class="147013017-02072006">NTMP </span>law. The<span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 102);"><font color="#000000"> Legislative findings [4593(c)] give the authority for</font></span><font color="#000000"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 153); font-family: Verdana;"><strong>&nbsp;</strong><span class="816321320-05072006"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff">&nbsp;&nbsp;</font></span><font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">“approving nonindustrial timber management plans in advance and <em>withdrawing governmental discretion to disapprove</em> nonindustrial timber harvest notices submitted pursuant to the approved nonindustrial timber management plans</font></span></font></font><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 102); font-family: Verdana;">.”<span class="147013017-02072006"> </span></span></font></font></span></p> <p style="margin: 2pt 20pt 0pt 0in;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 102); font-family: Verdana;"><span class="147013017-02072006"></span></span></font></font></span><font size="2" face="Arial">&nbsp;</font></p> <p style="margin: 2pt 20pt 0pt 0in;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 102); font-family: Verdana;"><span class="147013017-02072006"><font color="#000000"><font face="Times New Roman">Here is an excerpt from </font><font face="Arial Narrow">a</font><font face="Times New Roman"> memo written by </font><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Arial Narrow';"><font face="Times New Roman">William&nbsp;<span class="816321320-05072006">Snyder</span>, Deputy Director, Resource Management, California Department of Forestry to Registered Professional Foresters on&nbsp;<st1:date month="8" day="11" year="2004" w:st="on">8/11/04<span class="816321320-05072006">&nbsp; &nbsp;</span></st1:date></font><span class="816321320-05072006"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff"><font face="Times New Roman" color="#000000">describing NTMP logging plans</font>.&nbsp;</font></span><span><font face="Times New Roman"><em>&quot;</em>Periodic harvest operations would not require a costly Timber Harvesting Plan (THP) but a simple Notice of Operations.&quot;<span class="147013017-02072006">&nbsp;</span></font></span></span><span style="font-family: 'Arial Narrow';"><o:p /></span></font></span></span></font></font></span></p> <p style="margin: 2pt 20pt 0pt 0in;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman"><font color="#000000"><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 102); font-family: Verdana;"></span></font></font></font></span><font size="2" face="Arial">&nbsp;</font></p> <p style="margin: 2pt 20pt 0pt 0in;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman"><font color="#000000"><span style="color: rgb(153, 0, 102); font-family: Verdana;"></span>Unlike a timber harvest plan (THP), an approved NTMP is good forever.&nbsp;It never expires and once approved there is no further public/agency review process per California Environmental&nbsp;Quality Act&nbsp;(CEQA). There will be some limited inspections during the life of an NTMP made by the California Department of Forestry. CDF will conduct a limited number of site inspections during or following logging operations, and SJWC’s NTMP proposes having some inspections by the California Geological Survey (CGS). But there is no further opportunity for the agencies' function as a review team or for the public to participate at all.&nbsp;</font></font></font></span></p> <p style="margin: 2pt 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial">&nbsp;</font></p> <p style="margin: 2pt 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><em><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">SJWC: NAIL claims that water quality protection will be compromised since watershed protection and timber harvesting are &quot;incompatible.<span style="color: black;">&quot;<o:p /></span></font></font></em></font></p> <p style="margin: 2pt 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font></o:p></p> <p style="margin: 2pt 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="color: black;"><font size="3">Here are quotes from published sources on how public water utilities deal with the issue of logging and watershed protection. None perform logging of the type proposed by SJWC, a private, for-profit corporation. <br /></font></span><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt;">East Bay Municipal Utilities District</span></strong></font><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Times New Roman"> (<strong>EBMUD</strong><em><strong>): &quot;</strong>Charles Hardy, spokesman for the East Bay Municipal Utility District, says logging is a &quot;big no-no&quot; on its watersheds for &quot;obvious reasons.&quot; Uprooting trees loosens the soil and results in more runoff into water systems when it rains. The only tree-removal activities his company engages in are to clear paths for fire trucks and clean out the underbrush to maintain trails.&quot;&nbsp; San Jose Metro. 12.7.05</em></font><em><br /></em></span><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Marin Municipal Water District</span></strong><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">: <em>&quot;The Marin Municipal Water District manages 22,000 acres of watershed land and does not allow logging, in order to the keep the area as pristine as possible. The last time it removed any trees was in 1997. That was a small population of nonnative pine trees that infringed upon the native ecosystem. Spokesman Michael Swezy puts it simply: &quot;An undisturbed watershed is going to yield better-quality water.&quot; San Jose Metro 12.7.05 </em></span><br /></font><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">San Francisco Public Utilities District</span></strong><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">:</span><span style="font-size: 8pt;"> </span><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">&quot;Critics of the logging plan say the company (SJWC) can reduce the fire risk by thinning trees instead of logging the forest. That is how the <st1:city w:st="on">San Francisco</st1:city> Public Utilities Commission handles fire suppression in the 23,000-acre watershed around <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Crystal</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Springs</st1:placename></st1:place> Reservoir, said spokesman Tony Winnicker. &quot;We do an annual survey of our lands, and selectively thin vegetation, especially in areas that are close to urban centers or homes and businesses,&quot; he said. &quot;We selectively and strategically eliminate trees and clean some of the ground cover. That tends to be brush and eucalyptus trees, which are rapidly growing and extremely combustible.&quot; San Francisco Chronicle. 12.11.05</span></em></font><em><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: Arial;"> <o:p /></span></em></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman"><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt;">City of <st1:city w:st="on">Seattle</st1:city>:</span></strong><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> <em>&quot;The Cedar River Watershed east of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Seattle</st1:city></st1:place> is a forested area of 90,346 acres. It’s been the region’s primary water supply for longer than a century, providing much of the clean water to more than 1.3 million residents of <st1:city w:st="on">Seattle</st1:city>, <st1:city w:st="on">Bellevue</st1:city> and other areas of <st1:placename w:st="on">King</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype> in <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Washington</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">State</st1:placetype></st1:place>. The 50-year HCP, signed in April 2000, established the entire watershed as no-logging forest reserves. Commercial timber harvesting is barred and 40 percent of the area’s logging roads will be removed.&quot;&nbsp; National Oceanographic &amp; Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Northwest Regional Office website</em></span><em><span><font size="3"> </font></span></em></font><em><span><br /></span></em><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">City of Portland Oregon</span></strong><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">:</span><span><font size="3"> </font></span><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;">In 1996, The United States Senate adopted the Oregon Resources Conservation Act (ORCA), S.1662, which outlaws logging in the 100-square mile area around the Bull Run Reservoir, the chief source of drinking water for Portland's 800,000 residents. US Congressional Record </span></em><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p /></span></font></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><font size="2" face="Arial">&nbsp;<o:p /></font></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">Regarding the Sierra Club's position on the logging proposed for the Los Gatos Creek Watershed &nbsp;- The Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club has stated publicly their opposition to this plan. For more information on the Sierra Club's position visit their web site at. </span><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: Arial;"><a href="http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/ForestProtection/Anti-SJWCloggingResolution.html"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman';">http://lomaprieta.sierraclub.org/ForestProtection/Anti-SJWCloggingResolution.html</span></a></span></font><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p /></span></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><font size="2" face="Arial">&nbsp;<o:p /></font></span></p> <p style="margin: 3pt 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Times New Roman">SJWC. NAIL claims that the NTMP will increase, not reduce, fire risk.<o:p /></font></span></em></font></p> <p style="margin: 3pt 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font></o:p></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman">The&nbsp;State of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:state w:st="on">California&nbsp;North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board</st1:state></st1:place> has studied this&nbsp;particular NTMP and has made the following comment in their initial official response to the California Department of Forestry. <em>&quot;</em></font></font></span><font size="2" face="Arial"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times;">“Looking at the harvest prescription for all but one vegetation type (DFH) harvest is concentrated on the larger diameter trees. </span></em><font face="Times New Roman"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><span>&nbsp;</span>The opening of a forest for light and regrowth will promote new ground and mid-canopy growth that leads to ladder fuel jumps into upper canopy catastrophic fire, which is not a desired effect for fire hazard reduction.&quot;</span></em><span style="font-size: 10pt;"> </span><span><o:p /></span></font></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p /></font></font></font></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman">Furthermore, in the description of the forest affected by the 1985 Lexington Fire, the NTMP document states that the smaller trees suffered the greatest mortality while the largest most mature redwoods survived. </font></font></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times;"><font size="2" face="Arial">.Yet the<span>&nbsp; </span>NTMP also<span>&nbsp; </span>states<em>, “While trees in all four size classes will be harvested, timber marking will focus on tees in each unit that have diminishing growth rates, particularly those in the 28-34 inch and 36+ inch size classes.”<o:p /></em></font></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></em></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman">This is consistent with NAIL's position that cutting the largest trees in a forest increases fire danger. According to SJWC, </font></font></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times;"><font size="2" face="Arial">40% of the trees greater than 24” in diameter will be harvested. The average redwood or Douglas Fir in the logging zone is 31” in diameter.&nbsp;<span>&nbsp;</span><span>&nbsp;</span></font></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times;"><span><font size="2" face="Arial"><em></em></font></span></span><font size="2" face="Arial">&nbsp;</font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span><span></span><o:p><span class="147013017-02072006"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman">Residents will also be dealing with the vast amount of dried branches and twigs (slash) that will result from this logging.&nbsp; In the NTMP, SJWC has put in writing that logging slash will not have to be&nbsp;removed until April 1 of the year following the logging. Hence, the slash&nbsp;can remain on the ground throughout the fall fire season. After April 1, SJWC states that 12&quot; of slash can remain on the forest floor.&nbsp;<span class="816321320-05072006"><font face="Arial" color="#0000ff">&nbsp;</font></span></font></font></span></o:p></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p><span class="147013017-02072006"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman"><span class="816321320-05072006">&nbsp;</span></font></font></span></o:p></span><span><o:p><span class="147013017-02072006"></span></o:p></span><span><o:p><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font></o:p></span></p> <p style="margin: 2pt 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font face="Times New Roman">SJWC: NAIL claims that quality of life will be compromised because harvesting operations will occur 12 hours a day, possibly 12 months of the year, and that the noise will be unbearable.<o:p /></font></span></em></font></p> <p style="margin: 2pt 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><em><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><o:p><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></o:p></span></em></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman">The NTMP states that</font></font></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times;"><font size="2" face="Arial"> l</font></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times;"><font size="2" face="Arial">ogging will commence at <st1:time hour="8" minute="0" w:st="on">8:00AM</st1:time> within 100 yards from a residence and at <st1:time hour="7" minute="0" w:st="on">7:00AM</st1:time> further than 100 yards from homes and continue till <st1:time hour="19" minute="0" w:st="on">7:00pm</st1:time>.</font></span><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p /></span></p> <p style="margin: 2pt 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span><font size="2" face="Arial"><br /></font></span><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">In the NTMP, SJWC has requested special permission from the California Department of Forestry to perform logging operations (including the falling of trees and hauling adjacent to streams and on county roads) during the wintertime.&nbsp;They also state in their NTMP that they reserve the right to log more than one unit in a season.</span><span><o:p /></span></font></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3"><font face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;<o:p /></font></font></font></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-size: 10pt;">SJWC included a noise study in their NTMP whereby they tested noise levels&nbsp;in the&nbsp;<st1:placename w:st="on">Aldercroft</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Heights</st1:placetype> and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Chemeketa</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:place> neighborhoods. From as far as 1,000 feet away,&nbsp;<span class="147013017-02072006">the two </span>chainsaws in the study generated a sustained<em> </em>level 52-58 decibels, a noise that exceeds the Santa Clara County Noise Ordinance of 50 decibels. From 200 feet away, chainsaws in this study generated sustained levels of 66-68 decibels which, according to the NTMP, is louder than a noisy freeway heard from 100 yards away. The NTMP document even concedes that during logging operations trucks, tractors, loaders and other equipment will add to the noise generated by chainsaws. </span><span><o:p /></span></font></font></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: Arial;"><font size="2" face="Arial">&nbsp;<o:p /></font></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt;"><font size="2" face="Arial"><font face="Times New Roman">Large Chinook Helicopters will be used in the 25% of the logging zone along Los Gatos Creek&nbsp;specified&nbsp;for Helicopter Logging. According to the NTMP document, these helicopters generate 78-92 decibels from 600 feet away. According to the US Occupational Safety &amp; Health Administration (OSHA), prolonged exposure to 90 decibels or more can lead to gradual hearing loss.</font></font></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times;"><font size="2" face="Arial">&nbsp; The NTMP states that some residences will be as close as 150 feet away from helicopter operations. One landing zone will be within 200 feet of <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Loma Prieta Avenue</st1:address></st1:street>. Another will be 750 yards from the Building Blocks Day Care Center. Also, contrary to SJWC claims, Federal Aviation Administration regulations do not prohibit helicopter<span class="147013017-02072006">s</span> from flying close to homes in rural areas. </font></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Times;"><font size="2" face="Arial">(FAA regulation 91.119d).<span>&nbsp; </span></font></span><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p /></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 8pt; font-family: Arial;"><font size="2" face="Arial">&nbsp;<o:p /></font></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><span><o:p><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font></o:p></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><o:p><font size="2" face="Arial"><font size="3" face="Times New Roman">&nbsp;</font></font></o:p></p></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div>&nbsp;</div> NAIL Forum Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:22:40 -0700 Logging Contributes to Fatal Amphibian Fungus http://www.mountainresource.org/node/211 <p>Please click <a target="_blank" href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/07/MNG0LJRC9U1.DTL&amp;hw=EXTINCTION+CRISIS+FOR+AMPHIBIANS&amp;sn=001&amp;sc=1000">here</a> to read the details of an important science article on sfgate.com (San Francisco Chronicle) <br /></p><h1><font size="4"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/07/MNG0LJRC9U1.DTL&amp;hw=EXTINCTION+CRISIS+FOR+AMPHIBIANS&amp;sn=001&amp;sc=1000">EXTINCTION CRISIS FOR AMPHIBIANS </a><br />Frogs, toads and other species dying off -- new fungus magnifies environmental problems</font></h1> <!-- END HEADLINE/DECK & SUBHEADLINE/SUBDECK --> <div class="author"><p><font size="3"><!-- START WRITER CREDIT--><a href="mailto:dperlman@sfchronicle.com">By David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor<br /></a></font><font size="3">Friday, July 7, 2006</font></p><p>The article presents one more alarming reason why logging should not occur in the Santa Cruz Mountains.</p><p>NAIL Steering Committee<br />&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p></div> <div class="date"><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="3"><!----></font></p><p><font size="3"><!-- END WRITER CREDIT--></font></p></div><!-- end #contentheader --><!-- <hr> now part of stylesheet <hr noshade size="1" color="#CCC" />--><!-- START STORY --><p>&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:12:45 -0700 SJ Metro Reports on NTMP/NAIL http://www.mountainresource.org/node/212 <p> Please click on the link below and read an informative article entitled <em><strong>Tree, Tree Again</strong></em>, appearing in the July 12, 2006 San Jose Metro.&nbsp; The article was written by reporter Vrinda Normand and contains statements from NAIL Steering Committee members.</p><p><a href="http://www.metroactive.com/metro/07.12.06/fly-0628.html">http://www.metroactive.com/metro/07.12.06/fly-0628.html</a> <br /></p><p>&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Tue, 18 Jul 2006 20:22:27 -0700 Effects of turbidity on water quality - NY Times http://www.mountainresource.org/node/213 <p>Logging in a&nbsp;watershed can increase the amount of turbidity in drinking water supplies. The following article in the New York Times highlights the problems New York City is&nbsp;facing as a result of turbidity. The article makes mention of the fact that San Francisco, Seattle and Portland are major cities that do not need to filter their drinking water. Not coincidently, these cities also forbid commercial logging in their watershed.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><strong><strong><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">New York’s Water Supply May Need Filtering</span></font></strong></strong></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">New Yorkers are endowed with certain inalienable rights, among them bragging about the city’s water — so pure it doesn’t need to be filtered, so delicious it is better than bottled. </span></font></p> <p><a name="secondParagraph"><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">So it may surprise, perhaps even insult, proud residents to hear that federal officials are worried that the fabled water — coming from the largest unfiltered system in the country — is getting muddier and may have to be completely filtered, at a cost of billions of dollars, if it cannot be kept clean. </span></font></a></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">For much of the last year, the century-old water system that delivers 1.3 billion gallons a day to the city has been clouded by particles of clay, washed into upstate reservoirs by violent storms in quantities that make the water look like chocolate Yoo-hoo. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">To keep the tap water running clear, the city has been dumping 16 tons of chemicals a day, on average, into the water supply as an emergency measure to meet federal water quality standards. The treatment does not change the taste of the water, but the city cannot rely on this stopgap approach forever. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Turbidity — the condition that makes water cloudy and interferes with chlorination to eliminate contaminants — appears to be getting worse because of changing weather patterns and increasing runoff from land development upstate.</span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">If the city cannot find a permanent solution to the silt, it may not be able to avoid building a huge filtration plant that could cost about $8 billion.</span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Because its water has historically been so pure, New York has largely been exempt from federal rules created in the late 1980’s that require all water systems to be filtered. (A small part of the system, in Westchester, will be filtered in a few years.) </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">But as federal officials review the city’s five-year exemption, which expires at the end of this year, they have openly expressed concern about the water quality. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">“The single most important item we’re looking at, and the one that could be a problem for the city, is turbidity,” Walter Mugdan, a local director of the </span></font><a title="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org More articles about the Environmental Protection Agency." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org"><font title="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org" face="Arial" color="#004276" size="2"><span title="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org" style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #004276; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Environmental Protection Agency</span></font></a><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">, testified at a City Council hearing this spring. His office, the Division of Environmental Protection and Planning, will decide early next year whether the city’s water is clean and clear enough to avoid filtration for another five years. (Only four other major cities — Boston, San Francisco, Seattle and Portland, Ore. — are also exempt.)</span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The city is confident that it will win renewal. Emily Lloyd, commissioner of the city’s Department of Environmental Protection, which runs the water system, said that the department was working on plans to reduce turbidity without chemicals, particularly in two big reservoirs in the Catskill Mountains. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Steven C. Schindler, director of the department’s division of drinking water quality control, said, “I don’t consider turbidity a serious problem as long as we are able to operate the system the way it was designed.” </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The city’s early engineers designed a system that only on rare occasions would have to rely on a chemical, aluminum sulfate, to reduce turbidity. Alum, as it is called, is used in most public drinking water systems in the United States to keep water clear because it draws together small particles, causing them to clump up and settle before the water enters the distribution system. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">But some people see the prolonged use of alum as a sign that turbidity has become more severe. James M. Tierney, an assistant state attorney general who has special responsibility over the city’s 2,000-square-mile upstate watershed, has criticized the city for waiting too long to correct the problem. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In a letter to state environmental officials in April, Mr. Tierney said the continued use of alum “would appear to indicate seriously deficient conditions in the Catskill portion of the New York City Watershed.”</span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Mr. Tierney also said in the letter that the city’s alum use violated state water quality standards and effectively turned one of its reservoirs, where the alum clumps accumulate, into “a chemical sludge settling pond” that smothered aquatic life and would at some point need to be dredged at considerable expense. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Ms. Lloyd said the city had used alum from time to time over the last century without any impact on water quality. Mr. Tierney has called on the city to limit alum use and to hasten its efforts to reduce murkiness in the upstate reservoirs. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The city’s complex system — with 19 reservoirs bringing mountain water to New York from as far as 125 miles away through a gravity-fed web of aqueducts — is divided into three separate segments. In the 1990’s, the city agreed to filter the water coming from the Croton segment, the oldest and smallest section, which sits in Westchester and Putnam Counties, because it would be impossible to meet clean-water standards there. A $1.2 billion filtration plant is under construction in the Bronx. </span></font></p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The second oldest is the Catskill segment. In the early years of the 20th century, the city — with the help of special state laws — condemned thousands of acres in the eastern Catskills to build two reservoirs that more than doubled the city’s capacity.</span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In the 1950’s and 1960’s, the city expanded again, tapping the east and west branches of the Delaware River and other tributaries to create the newest and largest of its three segments. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The turbidity problem stems largely from conditions that have been present in the Catskill system from the beginning. Engineering studies in 1903 recognized that the clay of the steeply sloped Eastern Catskills turned the sweet waters of the Schoharie and Esopus Creeks into mudholes after storms. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Engineers decided to go ahead anyway, devising a two-reservoir system with built-in turbidity controls. Water from the farthest of the 19 reservoirs, the Schoharie, flows 18 miles through a tunnel under a mountain into the Esopus Creek, which then winds its way into the west end of the gigantic Ashokan Reservoir, 12 miles long and up to a mile wide. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The Ashokan is actually two reservoirs, separated by a dam, or weir. The turbid water from the Schoharie enters the west basin and is kept there until, in theory, the sediments drop. Then a gate in the dividing weir is lowered, allowing the cleanest surface water to flow into the east basin, where it is kept for several weeks longer to settle before making the long trip to New York City. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The system worked well for decades, with alum being used only rarely. But over the century, development in the Catskills, the building of roads, clearing of land and paving over of ground, all increased soil erosion, contributing to more runoff, federal officials said. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Water quality standards also got tougher; scientists have found that the clay particles hampered purification by providing nutrients for microbial pathogens and shielding them from decontaminants. Weather patterns over the last decade have brought more frequent and heavier rain. And the city has been draining murky water from the Schoharie Reservoir in order to repair its dam.</span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">In 1998, water from the Schoharie Reservoir had become so muddy that environmental and fishing groups sued the city, claiming the sediment violated the Clean Water Act and impaired trout fishing along Esopus Creek, which is famous for it. A federal court ruled against the city in 2003, and in June an appeals court upheld the decision and the $5 million fine. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Federal officials raised concerns about turbidity in granting the filtration avoidance permit in 2002. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Since then, the city has studied several engineering and operational options for restoring the city’s water supply to its former glory. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Among the most likely fixes is the construction of a multilevel intake at the Schoharie Reservoir. Like a huge straw with openings at different levels, the new intake, which would cost more than $100 million according to city officials, would allow operators to draw off the clearer surface water, while giving the turbid waters at lower depths more time to clear. Right now, the Schoharie is equipped with a single valve on the bottom of the reservoir, which acts like a bathtub drain, allowing the lowest-quality water to exit first. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Other options include raising the weir at the Ashokan dam by five feet. This would increase its capacity by five billion gallons, and give turbid water flowing into the west basin more time to decant. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Another option is to build a baffle around the intake in the east basin to slow down the water before it enters the aqueduct to New York. Ms. Lloyd said cost estimates for these projects had not yet been prepared. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">To avoid being forced to build a filtration plant for the Catskill and Delaware systems — which supply up to 90 percent of the city’s water — New York will also have to undertake other projects.</span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">As part of its latest filtration avoidance permit, it agreed to build a new plant in Westchester County that will use ultraviolet light to purify water. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The project, under construction in Mount Pleasant and Greenburgh, will be the largest in the world when completed in 2010. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">However, turbidity in the water would reduce its effectiveness because sediment deflects ultraviolet rays. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">The city will also have to continue protecting stream banks and controlling development, and buy additional land in the watershed. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Over the last decade, the city has bought 70,000 acres at a cost of $168 million, and it expects to match that over the next decade. The property tax bill for upstate land costs the city over $100 million a year.</span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Which raises the question of whether building a filtration plant is inevitable in the long run, and if so, wouldn’t it make more sense to simply go ahead and build it now? </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">City, state and federal officials don’t think so. Mr. Mugdan, the federal official, calculates that the city has spent about $1 billion over the last decade to protect the water supply, compared with $6 billion to $8 billion to build a plant, along with hundreds of millions of dollars in operating costs. </span></font></p> <p><font face="Arial" size="2"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">“Even if, 75 years from now, some accountant asks how much has it cost the city to avoid filtration versus how much we would have spent to build it,” Mr. Mugdan said, “we’ll still be ahead.”</span></font></p> <div> <p><font face="Times New Roman" size="3"><span style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">&nbsp;</span></font></p> </div></span></font> NAIL Forum Thu, 20 Jul 2006 00:24:39 -0700 NAIL COMMUNITY MEETING AUGUST 6TH http://www.mountainresource.org/node/214 <p>&nbsp;</p><p>All mountain community members are invited to attend an upcoming meeting regarding the logging plan.&nbsp; <br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Tahoma;">NAIL Community Meeting</span><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><o:p> <br /></o:p></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Tahoma;">Date:<span>&nbsp; </span>Sunday, August 6, 2006<o:p> <br /></o:p></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Tahoma;">Time:<span>&nbsp; </span>2-4 PM<o:p> <br /></o:p></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Tahoma;">Topic:<span>&nbsp; Status </span>Update on the Latest San Jose Water<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Company Logging Plan and Report From<br />&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging<o:p> <br /></o:p></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Tahoma;">Location:<span>&nbsp; </span>Redwood Estates Pavilion<br /><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp;</span><span>&nbsp;</span><st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">21450 Madrone Dr</st1:address></st1:street>.<br /><span>&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</span><span> </span>Redwood Estates<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><o:p>Directions:<o:p /></o:p></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Tahoma;">From <st1:city w:st="on">Los Gatos</st1:city>:</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"> <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Take Highway</st1:address></st1:street> 17 South toward <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Santa Cruz</st1:place></st1:city>.<span>&nbsp; </span>Exit at &quot;Redwood Estates&quot; (Redwood Estates to the right). Then take an immediate Right turn up the hill. The road will make a 180 degree Left curve onto &quot;Madrone&quot;.<span>&nbsp; </span>Follow Madrone up the hill curving to the right and over a small yellow speed bump. As the hill flattens out and you go over a second small yellow speed bump, you will see the Pavilion to your right.<span>&nbsp; </span>Take a Right into the parking lot.<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p><strong><span style="font-family: Tahoma;">From <st1:city w:st="on">Santa Cruz</st1:city>:</span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"> <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Take Highway</st1:address></st1:street> 17 North toward <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Los Gatos</st1:place></st1:city>. Go past <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Summit Rd</st1:address></st1:street> down the hill toward <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Los Gatos</st1:place></st1:city>. In only about 1-2 minutes after the summit, take the &quot;Redwood Estates&quot; exit to the right off Highway 17. In a couple of hundred feet, you will see a sign pointing to the right that says; &quot;Redwood Estates/Santa Cruz&quot;, follow the road around to the right, under the overpass. Start up a hill and take a 180 degree left turn on to &quot;Madrone&quot;. Follow Madrone up the hill curving to the right and over a small yellow speed bump. As the hill flattens out and you go over a second small yellow speed bump, you will see the Pavilion to your right.<span>&nbsp; </span>Take a Right into the parking lot.<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Tahoma;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></strong></p> NAIL Forum Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:29:12 -0700 Community Meeting Aug 6. Begins at 2:00PM http://www.mountainresource.org/node/215 The Community Meeting on August 6 will begin at 2:00 PM and is scheduled to end at 4:00PM. Location is the Redwood Estates pavilion. For more information and directions see the post entitled - NAIL Community Meeting. NAIL Forum Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:44:24 -0700 Woman extricated from SUV after logging truck crushes it http://www.mountainresource.org/node/216 <p><font size="3" face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">This is a very sobering account of a local woman trapped and injured yesterday when a logging truck went out of control, flipped on its side and crushed her vehicle beneath a load of redwood logs.&nbsp; </font><font size="3" face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Published today in the Santa Cruz Sentinel: </font></p><p><a href="http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/August/03/local/stories/01local.htm"><font size="3" face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2006/August/03/local/stories/01local.htm</font></a></p><p><font size="3" face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Text of the story follows.&nbsp;</font></p><p>-----------&nbsp;</p><p> </p><p> </p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> August 3, 2006 <br /><br /> <strong><h2>Woman extricated from SUV after logging truck crushes it</h2></strong> <span class="bylinewriter">By EMILY SAARMAN</span><br /> <span class="bylinecredit">SENTINEL CORRESPONDENT</span> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">WATSONVILLE — Rescue crews spent a little more than an hour extricating a woman trapped in her sport utility vehicle when a logging truck went out of control and flipped onto its side, crushing her vehicle beneath a load of redwood logs.</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The woman was alive and conscious when crews finally freed her from the crushed vehicle. </font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">&quot;That's about as close as you can get,&quot; said CHP officer Jason Morgan. </font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">&quot;She got lucky.&quot;</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Police identified her as a Watsonville resident in her mid-20s.</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Witnesses said the truck driver turned west from Highway 152 onto Holohan Road when the back end of the semi-trailer swung into a line of oncoming traffic about 6 p.m. Wednesday. </font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">All but one of vehicles were able to speed up and avoid the truck, but the woman in a white GMC SUV wasn't so lucky.</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The man in the car behind the victim said that when the truck came around the corner and it appeared to be moving too fast. </font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">&quot;I held up, thinking he would make a wider turn,&quot; the witness said. &quot;The driver tried to stay in his lane, and I noticed his back end starting to swerve out. Right before it hit her it started to roll.&quot;</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Imelda Ornelas, 34, who saw the accident from the fruit stand across the street, said she heard the woman yell &quot;No!&quot; as the truck slowly careened toward her.</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The tractor and trailer tipped onto its side and the logs, bundled with cables, rolled onto the SUV's passenger side and back seat. They crushed the windshield but left the hood mostly intact. During the crash, the shaft connecting the front and rear axles of the logging truck apparently broke, leaving the truck's carriage on its side with the wheels in the air.</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Chuck Frey, 61, of Stockton, said he was across the street at the gas station when he heard the crash. He rushed to the crushed vehicle.</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">&quot;I held her hand and told her to breathe,&quot; Frey said. &quot;I don't know how she's alive but I could see her ribs moving. I never saw her face. She was all buried in there,&quot; he said. </font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Witnesses say the truck driver climbed from his overturned truck, apparently uninjured, and rushed to the crushed car, but there was nothing he could do.</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Within minutes, three fire trucks and at least five police cars were on the scene.</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Rescue crews were on tenterhooks for more than an hour, unsure whether there were other passengers in the vehicle under the tremendous weight of the logs.</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">At least 15 firefighters worked feverishly with the driver of the semi, and three tow trucks were called to stabilize the logs and prevent them from shifting and crushing the victim or rescue workers. Firefighters had to move the truck's carriage to reach the injured woman. After an hour, crews peeled off the door of the SUV, and minutes later were able to free the woman, who was conscious and responsive and covered in tree bark. </font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">&quot;I called her by her first name and she seemed to respond,&quot; said CHP officer Jennifer Mapa, who is in charge of investigating the accident. &quot;She said there was no one else in the car.&quot;</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Both rescue workers and more than a hundred onlookers were relieved to see the woman extracted alive. Some in the crowd called it a miracle.</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">&quot;I'm grateful she's alive but I'm even more grateful she was alone,&quot; officer Morgan said.</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">The woman was taken by helicopter to the trauma center at Regional Medical Center in San Jose. Her condition was unknown, but she wasn't bleeding and only scratches could be seen as they loaded her onto an ambulance.</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Leeroy Bowles, 72, who owns a transport service in Freedom, was on the scene with a 10-ton forklift. He said he would help the emergency crew move the logs from the road once the fire trucks and tow trucks cleared the scene. </font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">According to police, the truck was owned by the driver.</font></p> <font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"> </font><p><span class="tagline"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif">Contact Emily Saarman at <a href="mailto:esaarman@santacruzsentinel.com?subject=Woman%20extricated%20from%20SUV%20after%20logging%20truck%20crushes%20it">esaarman@santacruzsentinel.com</a>.</font></span></p><p>&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:40:38 -0700 Report Summary: NAIL Steering Committee Meets with Don Gage http://www.mountainresource.org/node/217 <p class="MsoNormal">On August 10 the NAIL Steering Committee met with Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage and his staff to discuss the county’s status with regard to the logging permit</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>The Steering Committee was assured that Supervisor Gage, his aides and county staff are closely following the status and process of the logging permit request.<span>&nbsp; </span>The county has continued to retain attorney Tom Lippe, an expert in opposing bad logging plans.<span>&nbsp; </span>Mr. Lippe has retained a number of experts in key areas to work with him.<o:p> <br /></o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place>’s in-house legal counsel is also reviewing the impact of the recent state Supreme Court decision ruling in favor of counties with regard to regulating where logging may occur.<span>&nbsp; </span>Supervisor Gage is awaiting the results of that review as well as recommendations by his staff.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">As always we encourage residents to contact the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype> <st1:placename w:st="on">Board</st1:placename></st1:place> of Supervisors as a whole and/or District 1 Supervisor Don Gage to express your views about the logging plan and the county’s role in prohibiting logging.<span>&nbsp; </span><o:p><br /></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">Santa Clara</span></strong></st1:placename><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></span></strong></st1:place><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"> Supervisor<br />Don Gage<br /></span></strong><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">County Government Center<span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></strong></span><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><br /> <st1:address w:st="on"><st1:street w:st="on"><span class="btmed">70 West Hedding Street</span></st1:street><br /> <st1:city w:st="on"><span class="btmed">San Jose</span></st1:city></st1:address><span class="btmed">, CA. 95110</span></span></strong><br /><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;">408-299-3273</span></strong></span><br /><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><a href="http://www.dongage.org/">www.dongage.org&nbsp;</a><span> </span></span></strong></p><span class="btmed"><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Eras Light ITC&quot;;"><o:p /></span></strong></span> <p class="MsoNormal">Residents should also contact the county requesting that the important, upcoming Public Hearing facilitated by CDF, be scheduled for a time, place and date that allows the affected public to attend. <span>&nbsp;</span>The County is charged with making that request. <span>&nbsp;</span>Please watch your e-mail for an imminent communication from the Steering Committee on this critical issue.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> NAIL Forum Wed, 16 Aug 2006 20:15:00 -0700 SJWC Sprays Dangerous Herbicide on Watershed Land http://www.mountainresource.org/node/218 <div> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><strong><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">September 5, 2006</span></font></strong></strong> <br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><strong><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Herbicides In The Los Gatos Creek Watershed</span></font></strong></strong><font size="2" face="Arial"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> <o:p /></span></font></p></div> <div> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="times new roman,times,serif"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The San Jose Water Company has admitted to their application of the herbicide &quot;Roundup Pro&quot; in a 2% solution</span></font><font size="3" face="times new roman,times,serif"><span style="font-family: Arial;"> </span>along its private roadsides, above-ground pipelines, earth embankment dams and other structures within the Los Gatos Creek watershed.&nbsp;According to an environmental scientist for a state agency who participated in the Pre-Harvest Inspection of the watershed, the herbicide application was over water running in the inside ditch of the road. This is very troubling. Residents should know Roundup Pro is not approved for use in or near water according to, among others, &nbsp;the Santa Clara Valley Water District, the <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Oregon</st1:placename>'s <st1:placename w:st="on">Environmental</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Health</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Science</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Center</st1:placetype>, and the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Florida</st1:placename></st1:place>. This is due to the toxicity of the chemical surfactant POEA (polyethoxylated tallowamine) used in Roundup Pro.</font><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> <o:p /></span></font></p></div> <div> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="times new roman,times,serif"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The US Department of Agriculture had this to say about Roundup Pro &quot;Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the surfactant in Roundup Pro will enhance the toxicity of glyphosate to aquatic species.&quot;&nbsp; The Santa Clara Valley Water District's Environmental Impact Report on herbicide usage states that &quot;In extensive aquatic testing, the surfactant in Roundup is found to have greater toxicity than the active ingredient (Glyphosate).&quot; Even Monsanto, the manufacturer of Roundup states that &quot;This is why the formulation was not registered for aquatic uses; nor are glyphosate-containing products with POEA now registered for aquatic use.&quot;</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> <o:p /></span></font></p></div> <div> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="times new roman,times,serif"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Also troubling is the fact that San Jose Water Company uses Roundup Pro in nearly twice the recommended concentration. They use a 2% solution of Roundup, while the Santa Clara Valley Water District states that professional users of Roundup Pro typically use 'about 1%'.</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> <o:p /></span></font></p></div> <div> </div> <div> <p class="MsoNormal"><font size="3" face="times new roman,times,serif"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">The Los Gatos Creek watershed is a known habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog.&nbsp;This is the frog made famous in Mark Twain's short story &quot;The Celebrated Jumping Frog Of Calaveras County&quot;. The frog is&nbsp;listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act and its existence in the watershed&nbsp;is known to the SJWC.</span></font></p></div> NAIL Forum Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:08:59 -0700 Problematic Report Filed/Problems with Logging Plan http://www.mountainresource.org/node/219 <p>The following report was submitted by a member of the team participating in the Pre-Harvest Inspection process related to SJWC's logging plan (NTMP) application.&nbsp; It presents some very disturbing findings related to SJWC.</p><p>Residents should read this report completely, despite its length.&nbsp; This is valuable information.</p><p> </p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;"><st1:date month="9" day="4" year="2006" w:st="on">September 4, 2006</st1:date><br />Richard Sampson<br />Review Team Chair<br />California Department of Forestry</p> <p class="Report"><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Felton</st1:city>, <st1:state w:st="on">CA</st1:state></st1:place></p> <p class="Report">Re: 1-06NTMP-012SCL</p> <p class="Report">Mr. Sampson:</p> <p class="Report">I represented Aldercroft Heights County Water District on the PHI for the San Jose Water Company NTMP. Chemeketa Park Mutual Water Company also has contracted me to prepare comments on the San Jose Water Company NTMP.</p> <p class="Report">I was the Hydrologist for the Mendocino County Water Agency (MCWA) from May 1989 to November 1994. The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors appointed me as their representative on pre-harvest inspections for THPs with the potential to impact public water systems. As the MCWA Hydrologist, I also reviewed Proof-of-Water pump tests for the Town of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Mendocino</st1:city></st1:place>. I also routinely reviewed CEQA documents for projects before the Planning Commission. I have a Masters in Physical Science specializing in Hydrology from <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Chico</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">State</st1:placetype> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype></st1:place>. Since 1994 I have been a consulting Hydrologist. I have also taught Hydrology at <st1:placename w:st="on">California</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">State</st1:placetype> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype>, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Monterey</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Bay</st1:placetype></st1:place>.</p> <p class="Report">First I make some general observations and recommendations. Then my notes from the PHI are presented. Mitigation specific recommendations are presented in the PHI notes. Photos are available upon request.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report"><strong>Erosion Hazard Rating<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report"><em>Technical Rule Addendum No. 1, Procedure for Estimating Surface Soil Erosion Hazard Rating, Revised February 1, 1990</em> states that a loam underlain by a clay loam should be considered to have a restrictive layer at the top of the clay loam. </p> <p class="Report">The Soil Survey of Eastern Santa Clara County, page 16, describes the Felton Soil series as: </p> <p class="Quotes1">In a representative profile, the surface layer is brown, medium acid silt loam about 2 inches thick. The sub-soil is brown, light-brown, and light yelllowish-brown, medium acid and strongly acid <strong>clay loam</strong> about 37 inches thick. The substratum is light yellowish-brown, strongly acid, shaly <strong>clay loam</strong> about 9 inches thick over interbedded shale and sandstone. (Emphasis added)</p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">The above description from the Soil Survey shows that there is a restrictive layer at 2 inches below the surface. Such a shallow restrictive layer should get a rating of 15 for the Depth to <em>Restrictive Layer or Bedrock</em> on the <em>Erosion Hazard Rating Worksheet</em> instead of the 2 assigned by the RPF. The rating of 15 should apply to all of the Felton soils within the plan boundary, that is, the rating of 15 should be applied to Soil A, B, C, D, F, G, H and K on the worksheet. </p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">The Felton soil series should be assigned a permeability rating of 4 since only the top two inches of the profile is silt loam which is underlain by clay loam and since the 2-year, 1-hour rainfall intensity is <em>Extreme</em>. In addition, the PHI found that soil piping was widespread.</p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">The following table shows the HER score and rating after adjusting increasing the Depth to Restrictive layer by 13 points and increasing the Permeability score by 1for the Felton series soils:</p> <div align="center"> <table width="643" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="1" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border: medium none ; width: 6.7in; border-collapse: collapse;"> <tbody><tr> <td width="85" style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.5pt;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>NTMP EHR Map Unit<o:p /></strong></p> </td> <td width="202" style="border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 2.1in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Soil Name<o:p /></strong></p> </td> <td width="115" style="border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.2in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>NTMP Units<o:p /></strong></p> </td> <td width="77" style="border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.8in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Adjusted EHR Score<o:p /></strong></p> </td> <td width="86" style="border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.9in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Adjusted EHR Rating<o:p /></strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="85" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.5pt;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">A</p> </td> <td width="202" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 2.1in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Felton Silt Loam 20-50%</p> </td> <td width="115" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.2in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">1, 2, 5, 6, and 7</p> </td> <td width="77" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.8in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">75</p> </td> <td width="86" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.9in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">High</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="85" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.5pt;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">B</p> </td> <td width="202" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 2.1in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Felton Silt Loam 50-70%</p> </td> <td width="115" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.2in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">1, 2, and 7</p> </td> <td width="77" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.8in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">76</p> </td> <td width="86" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.9in;"> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Extreme</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="85" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.5pt;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">C</p> </td> <td width="202" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 2.1in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Felton Silt Loam 20-50%</p> </td> <td width="115" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.2in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">1, 3, 4, 5, and 7</p> </td> <td width="77" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.8in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">74</p> </td> <td width="86" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.9in;"> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">High</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="85" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.5pt;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">D</p> </td> <td width="202" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 2.1in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Felton Silt Loam 50-70%</p> </td> <td width="115" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.2in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7</p> </td> <td width="77" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.8in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">76</p> </td> <td width="86" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.9in;"> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Extreme</strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="85" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.5pt;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">E</p> </td> <td width="202" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 2.1in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Maymen Fine <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Sandy</st1:city></st1:place> Loam 30-45%</p> </td> <td width="115" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.2in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">5</p> </td> <td width="77" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.8in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">55</p> </td> <td width="86" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.9in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Moderate</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="85" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.5pt;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">F</p> </td> <td width="202" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 2.1in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Felton Silt Loam 50-70%</p> </td> <td width="115" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.2in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">8</p> </td> <td width="77" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.8in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">86</p> </td> <td width="86" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.9in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Extreme<o:p /></strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="85" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.5pt;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">G</p> </td> <td width="202" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 2.1in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Felton Silt Loam 25-50%</p> </td> <td width="115" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.2in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">8</p> </td> <td width="77" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.8in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">79</p> </td> <td width="86" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.9in;"> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Extreme<o:p /></span></strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="85" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.5pt;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">H</p> </td> <td width="202" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 2.1in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Felton Silt Loam 20-50%</p> </td> <td width="115" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.2in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Briggs Creek</p> </td> <td width="77" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.8in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">80</p> </td> <td width="86" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.9in;"> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong><span style="font-size: 11pt;">Extreme<o:p /></span></strong></p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="85" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.5pt;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">I</p> </td> <td width="202" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 2.1in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Maymen Fine <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Sandy</st1:city></st1:place> Loam 25-50%</p> </td> <td width="115" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.2in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Austrian Gulch</p> </td> <td width="77" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.8in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">55</p> </td> <td width="86" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.9in;"> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Moderate</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="85" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.5pt;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">J</p> </td> <td width="202" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 2.1in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Maymen Fine <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:city w:st="on">Sandy</st1:city></st1:place> Loam 50-70%</p> </td> <td width="115" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.2in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Austrian Gulch</p> </td> <td width="77" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.8in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">55</p> </td> <td width="86" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.9in;"> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Moderate</p> </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="85" style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 63.5pt;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">K</p> </td> <td width="202" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 2.1in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Felton Silt Loam 20-65%</p> </td> <td width="115" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 1.2in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">Briggs Creek</p> </td> <td width="77" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.8in;"> <p align="center" class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;">83</p> </td> <td width="86" style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 0.9in;"> <p align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Extreme</strong><span style="font-size: 11pt;"><o:p /></span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> </div> <p class="Report"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p class="Report"><a name="OLE_LINK1">The above adjustments to the EHR result in an adjusted rating of <em>Extreme</em> for NTMP map Units B, D, F, G, H and K of Felton Silt Loam. </a>This is a water quality concern since tractor operations are proposed in Units 1-7 on Felton Silt Loam 50%-70% soils in NTMP map units B and D. The soils with an adjusted EHR of Extreme in NTMP map units F, G, H and K are in cable or helicopter yarding units. Note that an EHR score of 75 is on the border between High and Extreme. </p> <p class="Report">The above adjustments to the EHR result in an adjusted rating of <em>High</em> for NTMP map Units A, C, and G of Felton Silt Loam. The above adjustments to the EHR result in only the Maymen soils having an EHR rating of <em>Moderate</em>. </p> <p class="Report">One result of the change of NTMP HER mapping units A, C and G from <em>Moderate</em> to <em>High</em> is that Mitigation Points M5-1 and M8-1 should be added back to the plan. First Review Team Question 6 to the RPF noted that M5-1 and M8-1 were mentioned in the text on page 60 of the NTMP but were not discussed in Section II of the NTMP. The RPF’s response was that M5-1 and M8-1 were skid trails traversing short stretches of slope between 50% and 65% with an EHR of Moderate. The above adjustments to the EHR change the rating of mapping Units A, C and G from Moderate to High. Therefore, M5-1 and M8-1 are mitigations for skid trails on slopes greater than 50% with an EHR of <em>High</em>.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>General Recommendation 1</strong>:</p> <p class="Report">To protect water quality, all erosion control measures should assume that the EHR is <em>Extreme</em>.</p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>General Recommendation 2</strong>:</p> <p class="Report">Reorganize NTMP plan by operation Units. The section of the plan for each Unit should have the Unit map, description of all mitigation point, projected time of first entry, and number of acres of each stand type in the unit, number of acres in each yarding method, description of and Special Treatment Zones. Alternatively, provide a cross reference table that identifies all mitigations by unit and by type. The cross reference table should also give the page the mitigation is discussed in the NTMP and the map page showing the mitigation point.</p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>General Recommendation 3</strong>:</p> <p class="Report">Special Treatment Zones (STZ) apply to the first entry only. The NTMP is taking an adaptive management approach to adjust constraints. However, there is no language specifically stating that revised specifications for STZ should provided better or equal water quality protection than the original prescription.</p> <p class="Report">Language guaranteeing equal or better water quality protection for all changes/modifications/amendments to the NTMP should be included in the Plan.</p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>General Recommendation 4</strong>: </p> <p class="Report">The Road Maintenance Program, page 23 of the NTMP, must be expanded to cover all roads on the San Jose Water Company property in the Los Gatos Creek watershed. The existing road system needs to be improved to protect water quality.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report"><strong><span>San Jose Water NTMP, PHI Notes, <st1:date month="8" day="15" year="2006" w:st="on">8/15/2006</st1:date> and <st1:date month="8" day="16" year="2006" w:st="on">8/16/2006</st1:date><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="Report">Met at the parking lot near the <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Bear Creek Road</st1:address></st1:street> exit at <st1:time hour="8" minute="30" w:st="on">8:30 AM</st1:time>. Drove through <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Chemeketa</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:place> to the playground area above the slide in Unit 7. Left cars at Landing 13, the primary helicopter service landing at the site of the Austrian Dam Cement Plant near <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">Lake</st1:placetype> <st1:placename w:st="on">Elsman</st1:placename></st1:place>.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-top: 6pt;"><st1:date year="2006" day="15" month="8" w:st="on"><strong><u>August 15, 2006</u></strong></st1:date><strong><u><o:p /></u></strong></p> <p class="Report"><strong>Stop-1</strong>: Mitigation point M1-2 mapped on page 42.2 and described on page 30. A new section of road is proposed within the WLPZ. Waterbars every 50 feet with outflow of waterbars directed to stable ground. All fill within 25 feet of the watercourse will be seeded and straw mulched. See Section III for further explanation and justification. See photos 2950 M1-2 and, 2951 M1-2.</p> <p class="Report">The length of road segment in WLPZ is not given in the plan. Recommend that the road be kept as far from the watercourse as possible and that no sidecast be placed on the downslope side of the road.</p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop-2: M5-2</strong>. New drainage facility crossing draw. Point not in Plan. </p> <p class="Report">RPF proposed using multiple 4” culverts with 5 feet of fill. The site is just a few feet upslope from the Class II WLPZ. The slope of the draw is nearly flat. It was suggested that using 18” culvert would allow for debris. The area is within the Lexington Fire (1985?). Maps of Lexington Fire are in the Fire Hazard Assessment.</p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 3, Landing 15</strong>.</p> <p class="Report">Relatively flat, brush covered area.</p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Stop-4, R4-2</strong>: <strong>Class-II Crossing</strong></p> <p class="Report">Discussion of whether to use 4’ arch culvert or bridge. Also discussed whether to remove crossing prior to winter or make it permanent. <st1:personname w:st="on">Dave Hope</st1:personname>, RWQCB, just wants to know what is in the Plan. He does not think that the PHI should attempt to fix the mitigations. </p> <p class="Report">Photos 2952 R4-2 to 2956 R4-2.<strong><o:p> <br /></o:p></strong></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 5, M23-2, Bench-cut road</strong>.</p> <p class="Report">Reconstruct road on scarp bench. Widen road to a full bench and end-haul. Spoils are to be placed on slopes less than 30% in 12-inch lifts. Propose to clean road of cut-face ravel by end-hauling. Michael Huyette, CGS, wants them to make sure that the subsurface is okay by having CGS inspection during actual construction. See page 21 of Plan.</p> <p class="Report">Photo 2959 shows spalling of the existing road bench where groundwater seeps from the roadbed. The spalling is located near a small swale that may be providing a portion of the groundwater. The presence of the groundwater seep on the side of the road bench indicates that saturated conditions may occur near the road surface during winter, spring and potentially early summer. <strong>Recommend</strong> that subsurface drainage facilities be provided. </p> <p class="Report">Downslope end of road crosses a flat area. As the road approaches the flat it is crossed by a Class-III which apparently resulted from the same stream diversion that created the erosion in <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Morrill Road</st1:address></st1:street>, map point G-11. This human-caused Class-III does not appear to be mapped at the crossing of the road being constructed under M23-2.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 6, Large flat on reconstructed road near Mitigation Point M17-2.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Class-III crosses the road that is to be reconstructed where the road leaves the large flat area. The Class-III is <strong>not</strong> shown on the on the map. The Class-III (photos 2961, 2962) is apparently man-made and resulted from the same diversion that exposed the PG&amp;E line in <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Morrill Road</st1:address></st1:street>. The unmapped Class-III runs from just north of R3-1 to about M17-2, see map on page 42.2. Point M17-2 is discussed on page 21.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 7, M24-2, Bench-cut road</strong>.</p> <p class="Report">Full bench road construction in the WLPZ of Los Gatos Creek, see page 21 of the Plan and page 23 of the Geology Report (page 300 of Plan) for a description. Photo 2971 shows where groundwater is seeping out of steep slope, above the site where 2 feet of fill is proposed to be placed on the existing road surface to reduce the slope of the bench cut. The fill would be placed near the lower right-hand corner of photo 2972.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 8: M2-2 Rolling Dip at Sag Pond.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Pages 30 and page 62 of the Plan describes the mitigation point as a section of new road across the outlet of the sag pond. The entrance to a large soil pipe was observed on the north bank of the sag pond, in line with the main pond outlet. There is the potential that the soil pipe runs directly under the pond outlet and that construction of or equipment traffic across the proposed rocked rolling dip will crush the pipe and result in routing groundwater flow to the surface. Photos 2973-2976 show potential exits of soil pipes on face exposed by fallen tree along the path of the defined outflow from the sag pond. </p> <p class="Report">The entrance to another large soil pipe was observed on the north bank of the sag pond roughly 60 feet to the west (photos 2977, 2978). There appeared to be faint signs of outflow from the pond across the alignment of the proposed road. The area appeared to be at a higher elevation than the well defined outlet at M2-2. However, there may be soil pipes crossing under the proposed road alignment. </p> <p class="Report"><strong>Recommend</strong> that a bridge be used to cross the defined outlet of the sag pond at M2-2. Also recommend further investigation of near-surface soil pipes that may be draining the sag pond during high water.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 9: Landing 18.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">A general discussion of the NTMP was held at the site of Landing 18. The discussion touched on the widespread occurrence of soil pipes in the plan area. Besides the soil pipes at the sag pond, <st1:personname w:st="on">Dave Hope</st1:personname>, RWQCB, said that he observed soil piping at Landing 17, see map on page 42.2. I observed soil pipes in the Austrian Gulch Helicopter Unit and in the Sample Marking Area of Unit 1 on August 16.</p> <p class="Report">Tom Spittler, CDF, wants the plan to address soil pipes. Suggested that skid trails be minimized to reduce risk of collapsing soil pipes. <st1:personname w:st="on">Dave Hope</st1:personname>, RWQCB, does not think that Tim Best, Engineering Geologist, focus on water-bar spacing is an adequate response to soil pipes.</p> <p class="Report">The discussion also touched on the responsibility of San Jose Water Company for a road maintenance program for their entire property and on Big Creek’s responsibility for roads within the NTMP.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 10: A Class-III with two channels.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">The Class-III to the west of Landing 18 appears to have shifted its channel to the west. The eastern channel bed appears higher and there are no exposed gravels. In places the channel wall separating the two channels is very thin. Camera failure produced unusable photos. The NTMP map indicates that the Class-III with the parallel channels starts in the sag pond upslope from crossing S2-2.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 11: Crossing S2-2.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Page 29 of the Plan calls skidding across the Class-III watercourse “as-is” if it is dry at the time of operations. About 30 feet upstream of the proposed skid trail crossing I noticed patches of salt-encrusted soils indicating that groundwater is relatively close to the surface (photo 3159). The soil at the crossing may be saturated in July and potentially into August. Care must be exercised that skidding operations do not occur when the soil in the crossing is saturated.</p> <p class="Report">The map of Unit 2 on page 42.2 shows that the Class-III starts at S2-2. Field observations show that the Class-III extends up to at least the sag pond (photos 3160 and 3161) by the paved road. The missing segment of the Class-III above S2-2 <strong>must be mapped</strong>.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 12: Sag Pond upslope of S2-2.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Photos 3160-3161 show that the sag pond drains and that the soil is saturated and only a few puddles of standing water were present. Drainage from the road appears to contribute to the unmapped segment of the Class-III that flows down to crossing S2-2. </p> <p class="Report">The map shows a utility line runs up the swale to the north of the pond. </p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 12: Landing 19.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Landing 19 is on the edge of a deeply incised Class-II, approximately 80’ to 100’ deep. The map indicates that the deeply incised Class-II (Geologic Mitigation Point G4-3) and the WLPZ of the deeply incised Class-II is completely contained in Unit 3. Does this mean that any trees harvested from the eastern bank of the WLPZ of the deeply incised Class-II will be cabled over to the west bank of the Class-II? <strong>Does the mapping indicate that</strong> <strong>no trees will be harvested from the eastern bank of the Class-II during the tractor yarding operations in Unit 2</strong>? Will the harvest of Unit 3 involve any operations from the east bank of the Class-II? Will the STZ and WLPZ of the Class-II be subject to entry during the harvest of Unit 3 and Unit 2?</p> <p class="Report">Photos 3162-3164 are looking west into the deeply incised Class-II from the approximate location of Landing 19. Photo 3165 is looking from the top of the inner gorge towards Landing 19.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Geologic Mitigation G4. <o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">In Item 26, WLPZ and Domestic Water Protection Measures, of the NTMP (page 27) specifies that a Special Treatment Zone (STZ) will be established along the top of the inner gorge where the slope gradient is greater than 60%. Harvesting within the STZs is proposed to be restricted to redwoods growing in groups. Page 27 of the NTMP states that:</p> <p class="Quotes" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span>·<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Special Treatment Zones (STZ) shall be flagged along the top of the inner gorge where slope gradients exceed 60%. At present the WLPZ has been expanded to encompass the STZ.</p> <p class="Quotes" style="margin-left: 0.75in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span>·<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Within the STZ,</p> <p class="Quotes" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Harvest shall be restricted to redwoods in groups retaining 2/3 of the trees in the group greater than 12-inches dbh.</p> <p class="Quotes" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Harvesting shall exclude Douglas-fir and individual redwoods, except those incidentally damaged during operations.</p> <p class="Quotes" style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -0.25in;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Minor modifications to level of retention may be made to facilitate operations or regeneration based on site specific review by the project Engineering Geologist.</p> <p class="Report"><strong>Discussion:<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Harvesting trees within the Inner Gorge STZ unnecessarily jeopardizes water quality. The NTMP states (p. 27) that, “Harvesting on the steep valley walls could contribute to a higher incidence of shallow landslides through reduced root reinforcement.” The proposed method of limiting harvest to groups of redwoods is experimental. There are significant problems with the proposed protocol to harvest within the Inner Gorge STZ.</p> <p class="Report" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in; line-height: normal;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The NTMP does not define “redwoods in groups”. Big Creek Foresters stated that “groups” were redwoods within 10 feet of each other. This definition does not appear in the NTMP and so has no legal standing. Furthermore, nothing was said about the minimum number of trees required for a “group”. Logically, a group has to be three or more trees since the protocol calls for, “retaining 2/3 of the trees in the group greater than 12” dbh.”<span>&nbsp; </span></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in; line-height: normal;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->There is no way of knowing if root systems of a specific “group” of redwoods are actually interconnected. If the roots systems of the redwood trees in a “group” are not actually interconnected, then cutting the trees may have the same effect of cutting single trees.</p> <p class="Report" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in; line-height: normal;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Even if it could be demonstrated that the root network of redwood trees in a “group” were actually interconnected, the potential loss in root strength over time may result in the initiation of shallow landsliding. The proposed harvest protocol calls for, “… retaining 2/3 of the trees in the group greater than 12-inches dbh.” It is likely that the 1/3 of the trees harvested will be the largest trees and may account for more than 1/3 of the foliage. The resulting loss of food production may cause a die back in the root system. Loss of vigor in the root system may lead to a reduction in root reinforcement sufficient to allow initiation of shallow landsliding at some future date. Slides associated with the reduction in root strength typically occur 10 to 15 years after harvest. </p> <p class="Report" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in; line-height: normal;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->There is no way of knowing if even a small loss of root reinforcement would be sufficient to result in the initiation of a shallow landslide at some future date. Any shallow landslide within the Inner Gorge should be considered to have a sediment-delivery-ration of 100%. </p> <p class="Report" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in; line-height: normal;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->San Jose Water Company, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Chemeketa Park Mutual Water Company, and Aldercroft Heights County Water District all draw water from Los Gatos Creek for municipal or domestic water supply. Therefore, if there is any question of whether proposed harvest operations, under the NTMP, pose a risk to water quality, the proposed harvest methodology should be changed to ensure that no threat to water quality will occur as the result of the harvest.</p> <p class="Report" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in; line-height: normal;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The NTMP and Geologist Report have not demonstrated that the proposed harvesting within the Inner Gorge STZ (G4) has a zero risk to water quality. </p> <p class="Report" style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.25in; line-height: normal;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: &quot;Courier New&quot;;"><span>o<span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;">&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->The proposed protocol for the Inner Gorge STZ allows for “minor modifications to the level of retention to facilitate operations or regeneration.” The most protective measure is to prohibit harvest within the STZs established under Geologic Mitigation G4. The entire proposed harvest protocol is experimental and the definition of “minor modifications” is subject to dispute. </p> <p class="Report" style="page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Recommendations</strong>:</p> <p class="Report">Harvesting within the Inner Gorge areas of the NTMP should be prohibited. Protection of water quality should outweigh the economic value of harvesting the relatively few trees that would be removed under the proposed STZ for Inner Gorges.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 13:M10-2. Skid Trail within Class-II WLPZ<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Page 30 of the NTMP describes the measures to be applied to minimize sediment from the skid trail moving from the 240 feet of skid trail in the WLPZ towards the Class II watercourse.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 14: Exposed Utility Line R3-1.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Page 28 of the NTMP describes the problem as groundwater seeping out of the bank on the south side of the road has created a gully in the road surface exposing utility lines (photos 3168-3170). The exposed utility lines are a 12kv electrical line owned by PG&amp;E and two Verizon phone lines. The gully flows down the road surface for several feet and then turns, along with the utility lines, towards the north. The gully leaves the utility right-of-way about 70’-100’ north of R3-1 (photo 3166, 3167). The gully heads downslope towards M17-2. The <strong>gully should be mapped</strong> on page 42.2 as a Class-III. </p> <p class="Report">The plan of action for R3-1 depends on cooperation of the two utility companies. Various plans were discussed for addressing the problem <st1:personname w:st="on">Dave Hope</st1:personname>, RWQCB, stressed the importance of diverting any water that did not naturally belong. One of the Big Creek Foresters suggested the possibility that the groundwater was coming from the spring tapped by the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Loma</st1:placename> <st1:placename w:st="on">Prieta</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">School</st1:placetype></st1:place>. </p> <p class="Report">The map on page 42.1 suggests the possibility that water that leaves the gully in the road surface at G11-1 may travel downslope to R3-1 and contribute to the problem there. This possibility should be examined in the field. If this is the case, repair of the road at G11-1 and proper drainage for the repaired road may reduce the amount of groundwater seeping from the road cut at R3-1.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Stop 15: M14-1.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The NTMP proposes about 200 feet of inside ditch to drain groundwater seepage from the cutbank. I speculate that removing this groundwater seepage may reduce the water concentration at R3-1 and help reduce the future potential to erode the road surface after the mitigation at R3-1 has been applied. Note that M14-1 is about 250 feet upslope from R3-1.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 16: G11-1.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">See page 20 of the NTMP for details. A 2-5 foot gully has formed along the road surface exposing utility lines. The gully was apparently caused by watercourse on an adjoining property was diverted don the road. The diversion appears to have been corrected. The fill over the utility line may not have been properly compacted. The proposed mitigation is to backfill the gully with moist-compacted earth. Follow the recommendations of California Geologic Survey.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 17: G10-1.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">About 150 feet of a proposed road 650 feet long will cross 55%-65% slopes on a full bench cut to reach <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Morrill Road</st1:address></st1:street>. Details of the proposed mitigation are on page 20 of the NTMP. Follow the recommendations of California Geologic Survey.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Stop 18: M11-1 and M12-1.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Skid trails on slopes 50%-65% with a High EHR, see page 14 of the NTMP. <st1:personname w:st="on">Dave Hope</st1:personname>, RWQCB recommend that the few trees to be accessed by hauled upslope using a long-line. Michael Huyette, CGS, pointed out that the Plan did not provide for traffic control on <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Wrights Station Road</st1:address></st1:street> downslope.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 19: Osprey Nest.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Walked down <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Wright Station Road</st1:address></st1:street> to view an osprey nest.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Photo 3172</strong> shows the steep scarp along the head of the Class-II that is crossed at R1-1. Failure cracks were observed along the east bank of the Class-II about 15-20 feet from the break in slope at the top of the Inner Gorge.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 20:<span>&nbsp; </span>Class-II Crossing R1-1.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Place a Class-II crossing along an existing road proposed for reconstruction. The details are given on page 28 and on page 296-297 in the Geology Report. Photos 3173 and 3174 show the channel at or near the proposed crossing. A 36” by 50 foot long culvert is proposed. The western approach will be cut down 3-4 feet. The proposed crossing will require about 150 cubic yards of fill with a maximum depth of about 7 feet. Fill will be keyed below grade and will be compacted around the culvert. The inlet and outlet will be rocked to the top of the culvert.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">The proposed culvert may be capable of carrying the 100-year water discharge but it is likely that debris flows will periodically move through this section of the Class-II. The head of the Class-II is very steep and failure cracks were noted on the walk down to R1-1 (discussion of photo 3172 above). The proposed culvert may not be able to handle debris flows. Therefore, a bridge would be the environmentally superior choice of a crossing at this location.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong>Mitigation Points M5-1 and M8-1</strong> should be put back into the plan since the EHR of the soil should be <em>High</em> not <em>Moderate</em> as in the NTMP (see discussion at the beginning of this report). Thus, M5-1 and M8-1 are skid trails on slopes between 50% and 65% on soils with a <em>High</em> EHR. <strong>Request that M5-1 and M8-1 be visited on the next PHI</strong>.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 21: Class-III Crossing R2-1.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Page 28 and page 298 describe R2-1 as a seasonal crossing of a small watercourse draining a hydric area. Presently, some of the storm flows appear to be going down the road surface towards R1-1. Page 28 says that the soils in the hydric area are relatively dry in the summer months. Upslope of the proposed crossing there were some wet areas. One of the Big Creek Foresters mentioned that water appears to bubble out of the ground in the winter. Photo 3175 shows the entrance to a soil pipe in the hydric area.<br /><br />The NTMP offers three options: a temporary crossing; a rock ford; or a 24” culvert. The northern edge of the road is at the break in slope. Any action that lowers the subsurface control on flow out of the hydric area has the potential to increase the discharge out of the hydric area which may in turn lead to drier conditions in the summer in this valuable habitat area. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">I recommend a temporary crossing that will be removed after operations. I also recommend that storm flows be prevented from traveling down the road surface.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 22: S4-1, Class-II Tractor Crossing.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The tractor crossing is on flat ground and the Class-II is not incised (Photo 3176). A temporary crossing will be made by placing straw on the streambed prior to placing log bundles that are cabled together to protect the bed and bank during skidding operations. If water is present, a pipe (4” minimum diameter) will be place in the streambed.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 23: G8-1.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">An old road in a broad swale is offset 18-24 inches by a scarp from the 1989 earthquake (Photos 3177 and 3178). There is a potential for a Class-III to form in the swale. A 48” culvert under the road was recommended.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 24: Landing 2. <o:p /></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Landing 2 will be between 0.25 and 0.5 acres in size and serve as a helicopter landing (photos 3179 and 3180). The general area is flat and will probably not require much grading.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 25: Class-III at base of Dam.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Photos 3181-3183 show the bed of the Class-II below Landing 2. Slide G-2 is just upstream. Debris flow deposits were noted in the streambed.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report"><strong>End Day-1<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-top: 6pt; page-break-after: avoid;"><st1:date month="8" day="16" year="2006" w:st="on"><strong><u>August 16, 2006</u></strong></st1:date><strong><u><o:p /></u></strong></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 1: No Mitigation Number<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Old jeep trail on ridge from Landing 40 (map on page 42.13) will be turned into a fire break with waterbars spaced as appropriate for <em>High</em> EHR. RWQCB started a discussion about the inadequate condition of the road along the south shore of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">Lake</st1:placetype> <st1:placename w:st="on">Elsman</st1:placename></st1:place>. The road will be used to transport personnel such as fallers and therefore is part of the NTMP. CDF, CGS and RWQCB all want the road upgraded to FPR standards and made part of the Road Maintenance Plan. I support this position.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 2: Williams Reservoir. No Mitigation Number<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Photos 20 to 30 show the area around Williams Reservoir. There is a small saddle dam in the northwest corner of the lake. There are signs of erosion downslope of the saddle dam indicating that it is overtopped during storm events. Only about 2.5 acres of the plan is upslope of the reservoir. The area above the reservoir is in the helicopter unit. The Lexington Fire, 1985, reportedly contributed a significant amount of sediment to the reservoir.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Stop 3: Look at Example Marking in Unit 1 Below <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">Sears Road</st1:address></st1:street>. <o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Climbing down the road embankment I noticed what appears to be a soil pipe, photo 0031. People climbing down the embankment before me apparently pushed the overlying debris away from the soil pipe. Photo 32 is looking back up the embankment from the location of the apparent soil pipe.</p> <p class="Report">Class-II from crossing R1-1 goes through the sample marking area below the road. The watercourse divided into at least two channels on its way down to Los Gatos Creek. Observed soil piping near the base of trees to the east of the watercourse (photos 0033-0035). Photos 0034-0040 show the Class-III at various locations on the way down to Los Gatos Creek. There is a flat area part way down where significant amounts of sediment have been deposited and where the channel divides (photos 0039-0040 and 0052-0053).</p> <p class="Report">The eastern channel goes subsurface as it crosses an old road bench on the top of the streambank. The bank failure at the point where the eastern channel crosses the road bench shows signs of groundwater seepage where flow from the Class-III channel that went subsurface probably re-emerges (photos 0045-0048). The larger western channel cuts across the road bench. </p> <p class="Report">Met <st1:personname w:st="on">Chris</st1:personname> Rombough on his way downstream. He reported that upstream of this point the embeddedness average about 70%. </p> <p class="Report">Bankfull on Los Gatos Creek appeared to be about 2.5 to 3 feet above the current water surface. The geomorphic floodplain was on the <st1:place w:st="on">Left Bank</st1:place> (south bank, 0050-0051) to the east of the Class-III and on the <st1:place w:st="on">Right Bank</st1:place> (north Bank, photo 0043) to the west of the watercourse. Fine silt was visible along the margin of the left bank in the vicinity of the Class-III. The cobble at the crest of a riffle had a light dusting of silt.</p> <p class="Report">According to Kent Aue, DFG, the Santa Clara Valley Water District electro-fished between Lexington Reservoir and <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">Lake</st1:placetype> <st1:placename w:st="on">Elsman</st1:placename></st1:place> and found rainbow throughout the reach.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Stop 4: Landing 1 near mouth of Austrian Gulch.<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Landing 1 (page 42.16) is on the north shore of <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">Lake</st1:placetype> <st1:placename w:st="on">Elsman</st1:placename></st1:place> near the Austrian Gulch helicopter unit. Local Air Quality Control Board must be notified because of the serpentine soils (photos 0056-0058).<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Stop 5: Large Soil Pipe<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Large soil pipe discharging above road to Austrian Gulch (photos 0059-0062).<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Stop 6: Austrian Gulch Delta<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Delta of Austrian Gulch at bridge (photos 0065-0072).<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 7: Road Drainage Sediment Deposit<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report"><st1:personname w:st="on">Tom Lippe</st1:personname>, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place>, Richard Fitzgerald, DFG, Andy Morris, Big Creek Lumber and <st1:personname w:st="on">Dennis Jackson</st1:personname>, Aldercroft Water District, investigated Austrian Gulch. Road Drainage formed a deposit of sediment (photos 0073, 0076, 0077) in the Class-II tributary of Austrian Gulch a few yards upstream of its confluence with Austrian Gulch. The road drainage comes from the large hairpin turn. Photos 0074 and 0075 show the road drainage ditch as it descends to the Class-II. Photos 0078-0080 show that the watercourse upstream of the entry of the roadside ditch is relatively free of fine sediment. Photos 0081-0083 show the fine sediment in bed of Class-II downstream of the point where the roadside ditch enters the watercourse.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 8: <o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Photos 0084-0090 show Austrian Gulch upstream of the landslide marked on page 42.17 at one of the property corners. </p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 9: <o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Photos 0091-0093 show the hillslope near the southern edge of the landslide on page 42.17.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 10: Herbicide Spraying<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">RWQCB reported that herbicide was sprayed along the road near Wrights, see map on page 42.5<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Stop 11: Mis-mapped Class-II and Soil Pipe<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Discovered that the Class-III below the “Helicopter Unit” label on page 42.17 is actually a Class-II (photos 0094-0097). It has a Class-III tributary (photo 0103). Photo 0099 shows evidence that debris flows have moved down the channel. There is a 4-foot high waterfall in the channel (photo 0101) and groundwater is seeping out of the banks. Took a soil sample from the streambed at the confluence, and also took a soil sample from the hillside near the confluence of the Class-II and its Class-III tributary. Scooping up a handful of surface soil from the slope uncovered a soil pipe, photo 0106.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Stop 12: M18-4 Culvert Repair<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">A 60” culvert is causing erosion of the channel below the road fill (Photos 0107 to 0112). The mitigation is described on page 21-22 and map on page 42.5. An energy dissapator will be placed on the culvert outlet. The road prism will be elevated.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt; page-break-after: avoid;"><strong>Stop 13: M16-5, M19-5 and M20-5<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Did not stop at these mitigation points since we were trying to catch up with the main PHI group. Janet Web, Big Creek, described these measures as we drove past them. <st1:personname w:st="on">Dave Hope</st1:personname>, RWQCB, later told me that he did not like the proposed mitigations because the road surface was 14% and the maximum allowable gradient for rolling dips is 8%.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 14: Ostwald Intake<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Ostwald Intake is operated by San Jose Water Company. Photos 0113 to 0126 show the channel of Los Gatos Creek at or slightly downstream of the Ostwald Intake.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 15: Bridge Downstream of Ostwald Intake<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Photos 0127 to 0135 show Los Gatos Creek at the bridge downstream of the Ostwald Intake. There is a large tree covered bar with an overflow channel along the left bank (photo 0135) just downstream of the bridge. All of the trees on the bar/island appear to be about the same age. Water is diverted into a 24” pipe and sent to the treatment plant adjacent to the dam at Lexington Reservoir.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 16: Hooker Gulch<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Photos 0137-0142 are of Los Gatos Creek at the confluence with Hooker Gulch. Photos 0143-0147 are of Hooker Gulch.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 17: Recent Slide on Road above Los Gatos Creek<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Photos 0148-0151 show a recent slide along San Jose Water Company road on the right bank of Los Gatos Creek, downstream of Hooker Gulch. Photos 0153 through 0156 show the bed of Los Gatos Creek directly below the slide. Assigned a Mitigation Point number of <strong>M9-7</strong>. Material from the slide on road and over the bank needs to be dealt with prior to the rainy season.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 18: <o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Photos 0157-0166 are of Los Gatos Creek where the 24” pipeline from Ostwald Intake crosses the creek. Photos 0169 to 0171 show the pipeline right-of-way. Photos 0172-0177 show Los Gatos Creek near the point where an unidentified black pipe crosses the 24” water pipeline right-of-way. Photos 0178-0180 are of a Class-II close to the boundary of the NTMP. Photos 0182 and 0183 are of a Class-II with large trash racks in need of repair.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 19: Chemeketa Intake<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Photo 0186 shows the Chemeketa intake sump.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 20: Ryland Dam<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Photos 0189-0195 are of Ryland Dam and its defunct fish ladder.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 3pt;"><strong>Stop 21: Chemeketa Slide<o:p /></strong></p> <p class="Report">Photos 0196 to 0203 are of the slide, G7-7, below <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Chemeketa</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:place>. The NTMP describes the conditions on page 16 and on page 293. The slide is part of a large complex that encompasses all of the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Chemeketa</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:place> subdivision. The NTMP notes that road and rooftop runoff from <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Chemeketa</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:place> subdivision are directed on to the slide. In fact, road drainage from outside of the subdivision also is directed onto the slide. In addition, the subdivision is on septic tanks which provide a widely distributed subsurface input of water from the septic tanks into the slide complex. </p> <p class="Report">The NTMP states, on page 16, that, </p> <p class="Quotes">No signs of recent or active movement of the large slide block were observed, however the overall morphology of the slide block is consistent with infrequent slow periodic movement and limited movement has probably occurred within the past 100 years. The NTMP proposes WLPZ and selection harvesting on this slide. It is unlikely the harvest will have any significant impact due to the low number of trees proposed to be cut, particularly in light of the large drainage area located upslope. The <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Chemeketa</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:place> subdivision probably has a much greater impact on hillslope stability through the concentration of runoff from roads and rooftops. None the less, it is prudent from a public slope stability standpoint to limit the level of harvest on the steep slopes below <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Chemeketa</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:place> for public safety concerns.</p> <p class="Report">On <st1:date month="9" day="2" year="2006" w:st="on">September 2, 2006</st1:date>, Gary Shapiro told me that he has observed a large crack near the intersection of Comanche Trail, Nez Pearce Trail and Blackfoot Trail which is about where the large plastic pipe directs surface runoff down the scarp face. If this observation is confirmed it may indicate that the slide is actively moving. This observation underscores the necessity of maintaining the existing trees so they reduce the moisture content of the slide through transpiration. </p> <p class="Report">The reasoning in the NTMP is flawed. The NTMP notes that public safety requires that the slope stability of the slide not be jeopardized. The NTMP then proposes harvesting trees from the slide, which has the potential to destabilize the slide. The NTMP makes the argument that since the removal of the trees is judged, in their opinion, to have less impact than the water inputs from the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Chemeketa</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:place> subdivision; it is alright to harvest the trees. This argument misses the point; the impacts from the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Chemeketa</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:place> subdivision have been occurring for a long time and represent the baseline conditions. The harvest proposed under the NTMP is a change in the present situation. If the NTMP actually harvests trees and slope stability problems materialize San Jose Water Company and Big Creek should be held liable for any damage.</p> <p class="Report" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">A 5.5 acre Special Treatment Zone (STZ) is proposed for slide G7-7. The proposed STZ is very similar to that proposed for Geologic Mitigation G4 on Inner Gorges. My discussion of the G4 STZ above demonstrates that the proposed harvest methodology can not guarantee slope stability. While the proposed STZ for the Inner Gorges, G4, was an attempt to protect water quality, the STZ for G7-7 must protect public safety and therefore the NTMP must guarantee slope stability. Since people’s homes, and potentially lives, are at potential risk from the proposed harvest of slide G7-7, it is imperative that the most conservative standards be applied. The most conservative approach would be to exclude slide G7-7 from harvest. Therefore, I strongly recommend that no trees be harvested from this slide.<o:p><br /><!--[if gte vml 1]><o:wrapblock><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/> </v:formulas> <v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/> <o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/> </v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_s1026" type="#_x0000_t75" style='position:absolute; margin-left:-8.8pt;margin-top:34.7pt;width:165.35pt;height:52.1pt;z-index:1'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Owner\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtml1\01\clip_image001.png" o:title="SIGNAT"/> <w:wrap type="topAndBottom"/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]--><span style="position: relative; z-index: 1; left: -11px; top: 0px; width: 220px; height: 69px;"></span><!--[endif]--><!--[if gte vml 1]></o:wrapblock><![endif]--><br clear="all" /> Sincerely,<o:p><br /><st1:personname w:st="on">Dennis Jackson</st1:personname></o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Hydrologist<o:p><br /></o:p></p> <p class="Report">Cc: <span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Aldercroft Height County Water District<br /><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span>Chemeketa Park Mutual Water Company<br /><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><st1:personname w:st="on">Dave Hope</st1:personname>, Regional Water Quality Control Board<br /><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><st1:personname w:st="on">Bob Curry</st1:personname>, Geologist for <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place></p> <p>&nbsp;</p><p><br />&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Tue, 05 Sep 2006 18:20:23 -0700 Logging Truck Safety Report http://www.mountainresource.org/node/220 <p>Residents should be aware of the article below regarding the issues of unsafe logging trucks and drivers.&nbsp; If the SJWC logging permit is allowed we will have logging trucks on our mountain roads and the potential for these serious safety issues.</p><p>&nbsp;<br /></p><div> <h1>Beware of 'Zombie' Truck Loggers</h1> <div id="imgleft" style="width: 230px;"><!-- Start "Related Media" --> <div class="nooutline"><img src="http://thetyee.ca/2004/11/15/loggingtruck.jpg" /></div><span class="img_caption">Upped hours on coast</span> <!-- End "Related Media" --></div> <h3>Longer shifts are stretching truckers to the point of dangerous exhaustion, say drivers and union reps.</h3><!-- start contributors and pub date --> <h6><!-- start /util/contributor_list.mc --><span class="authorname">By&nbsp;<a class="contrib-link" title="Bio page for Quentin Dodd" href="http://thetyee.ca/Bios/Quentin_Dodd">Quentin Dodd</a></span><br /><!-- end /util/contributor_list.mc -->Published: November 15, 2004 <br /><a title="email a friend" href="http://thetyee.ca/scripts/emailfriend.php?pageaddress=http%3A%2F%2Fthetyee.ca%2FNews%2F2004%2F11%2F15%2FBewareZombieTruck%2Findex.html&amp;pagetitle=Beware+of+%27Zombie%27+Truck+Loggers" target="_blank"><img width="24" height="17" alt="email this article" src="http://thetyee.ca/images/emailButton.png" /></a> <a title="print" href="http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/11/15/BewareZombieTruck/print.html" target="emailafriend"><img width="21" height="15" alt="print this story" src="http://thetyee.ca/images/printButton.png" /></a><!-- end /util/contributor_list.mc --> <br /></h6> <h3>TheTyee.ca</h3><!-- index --><!-- Start "Page" --> <p>Jim thought he was getting used to fifteen-hour days driving a logging truck on Vancouver Island. But one bone-tired day last summer he dozed off at the wheel, sending his rig plunging off a logging road &quot;into the weeds&quot; as he put it. He has no memory of what happened. Someone found him &quot;wandering around&quot; and hauled him off to hospital.</p> <p>&quot;I guess I was concussed,&quot; he says, adding that he received eight or 10 stitches, was discharged shortly afterwards, and then had to be taken to a plastic surgeon that evening to have a &quot;caved in&quot; cheek bone &quot;straightened out&quot;.</p> <p>&quot;I could have been dead, or worse, I could have killed someone else,&quot; he admits. &quot;I knew the hours were getting to me, and I got my bell rung pretty well.&quot;</p> <p>Jim, who asked not to be identified by his real name, no longer drives a logging truck. But others who do worry that the number of similar accidents in B.C.'s coastal forest industry will climb with the arrival of a new shifting system which may have some loggers, by the time they are finished commuting, working fourteen hours a day or more.</p> <p><strong>Imposed contract unclear</strong></p> <p>Central to their concern is a new binding contract which was imposed on the industry earlier this year by arbitrator Don Munroe.</p> <p>The contract requires companies to pay for a minimum 40-hour work week and says the work day must be no longer than 10 hours for certain kinds of jobs, but fails to define just what those jobs are, apart from saying they're the ones that are &quot;dangerous or physically demanding&quot;.</p> <div style="padding: 5px; float: right;">&nbsp; <div id="beacon_158" style="left: 0px; visibility: hidden; position: absolute; top: 0px;"><img width="0" height="0" style="width: 0px; height: 0px;" src="http://thetyee.ca/adserver/adlog.php?bannerid=158&amp;clientid=177&amp;zoneid=16&amp;source=&amp;block=0&amp;capping=0&amp;cb=3ef39ae04be7ccb2ea64bb72d8909ca7" /></div></div> <p>That could apply to just about every job in the industry, say IWA union officials.</p> <p>Weyerhaeuser has imposed an 11.5-hour &quot;standard&quot; day for its employees, and a number of contract operations already have some of their personnel working 15 to 16 hour days, especially in summer. On Vancouver Island a truck driver's wife recently emailed the IWA that she feels &quot;the potential for catastrophic accidents is just a matter of time&quot;. She said she worries more now that her husband is driving on-highway than when he was driving off-highway.</p> <p>And she said she does not want her children on the highways now with logging trucks pushing the speed limits. &quot;Factor in drivers who are exhausted and frustrated,&quot; she wrote. &quot;Let the public beware.&quot;</p> <p><strong>Longer days, added pressures</strong></p> <p>Weyerhaeuser NIT human resources supervisor Don Carlyle and divisional manager George Nyland told <em>The Tyee</em> that Weyerhaeuser employees are always welcome to draw attention to potential safety problems at the workplace, and stressed that the company has no intention of putting its personnel into peril.</p> <p>But IWA representatives say the longer days combine with other added pressures in the logging industry that are creating mounting hazards, including:</p> <ol><li>Smaller and fewer crews working harder and faster too much on top of each other, so that down-slope personnel are in danger; </li><li>Truck drivers cutting corners on safety practices and hauling faster and-or for longer hours; </li><li>Logging roads closed to the public so that potential incidents, problems, issues and concerns are less likely to be reported; </li><li>Accidents being downplayed so that action is not taken against the individual by the company or against the company by the regulatory authorities, Workers' Compensation Board or insurance organizations; </li><li>Reduced earning capacity pushing some employees into working excess hours and even during days off, increasing the likelihood of fatigue leading to increased accidents and injuries or fatalities.</li></ol> <p>Union representatives and members predict the new longer &quot;standard&quot; shifts being spearheaded by Weyerhaeuser will lead to more fatigue and more drivers falling asleep at the wheel or not paying sufficient attention to safety.</p> <p>They also point out that if an accident does occur -- perhaps with a rollover or losing a load -- dozing off at the wheel or driving too fast is a firing offence and can lead to termination, so drivers aren't likely to admit it.</p> <p><strong>IWA boycotts safety committee</strong></p> <p>Union officials paint a picture of truck drivers stressed by having to haul huge loads at speeds to meet three-times-a-day delivery requirements, then commuting hours a day between the marshalling yards and home.</p> <p>An increasingly bitter standoff between Weyerhaeuser and the union over the way the company operates its own sites and has been running its contractor sites has led all IWA safety reps to resign en masse from the company's Accident Prevention Committee (APC) meeting in the North Island Timberlands (NIT) division.</p> <p>The department representatives said they would continue to represent their sectors but, in protest, would not be attending the APC meetings.</p> <p>Weyerhaeuser has said it was instituting 11.5-hour standard days on a four-on, four-off system because in a seven-day week, having to pay for a minimum of 40 hours a week and having personnel only working 10 hours a day meant they could only run one 40-hour shift and one 30-hour shift. That meant, the company said, that it would have to pay for an average of five hours per shift which had not been worked.</p> <p><strong>Three deliveries a day</strong></p> <p>IWA Local 1-363 president Rick Wrangler contends the new shift system is part of an overall program to get rid of the union in the industry. Bill Routley, president of the Duncan area's Local 1-80, says the companies have moved increasingly into very expensive job-cutting machinery and need to have it running as close to 24 hours a day as possible to make it pay for itself.</p> <p>Wrangler and Routley said the longer work-days have been a practice with some industry contractor operations on the coast for some time. One driver said the longer days have been common on the coast for about two years and much longer in the B.C. Interior.</p> <p>Weyerhaeuser NIT confirmed that three deliveries a day is now standard in the division.</p> <p>Routley acknowledged that worsening the problem is that some truck drivers have taken to going to work for other companies when they are technically &quot;off shift&quot; with their main employers. A lot of them are trying to make up for earnings lost under the new contract, Routley said.</p> <p><strong>'Deadly shifts' letter sent to Premier</strong></p> <p>More companies are expected to introduce some form of Weyerhaeuser's 11.5-hour standard day within the next few months, Routley said, predicting that numbers of loggers, and especially truck drivers, will wind up working 12, 14 or even 16-hour days. Some are already reporting individuals leaving home at 3 a.m. and not getting home until 6:30 or 7 p.m. – just in time to have a bite to eat, tuck the kids in and then fall into bed themselves.</p> <p>That was the life Jim was leading just before he fell asleep and crashed his truck. He claims to know many other truck loggers exhausted but in denial. He calls them &quot;zombies.&quot;</p> <p>&quot;You're going to see some family dead by the side of the road one of these days,&quot; he warned. &quot;I was just fortunate not to hurt myself too bad.&quot;</p> <p>Routley noted that accidents claim up to 30 lives a year already in B.C.'s logging industry, widely regarded as one of the most dangerous in the province. Last month the IWA Council of the United Steelworkers sent a letter to Premier Gordon Campbell demanding his &quot;immediate attention&quot; to the issue of &quot;deadly shifts.&quot;</p> <p>The union requested a meeting with Campbell and Forests Minister Bruce to discuss the situation and &quot;the serious implications of unilaterally implementing longer and longer shifts in the woods&quot;.</p> <p><em>Quentin Dodd, based in Campbell River, reports regularly for The Tyee.</em></p></div><p>&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Wed, 06 Sep 2006 11:41:34 -0700 Wisdom Vigil for Peace and Our Watershed http://www.mountainresource.org/node/221 <p>Leslie Meehan of WisdomSpace 95033 Trust Network invites all NAIL members to The Gaiafield Meditation and Prayer Vigil - a&nbsp; global meditation and prayer vigil in honor of the International Day of Peace on Sept 21. There are also plans to hold a healing vigil for our watershed after this event on another date before the public hearing.&nbsp; To contact Wisdom Space 95033 click on the WIsdom Space 95033 link seen under the Affiliated Sites header to the right of this page. <br /></p> NAIL Forum Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:10:26 -0700 Retired Water Executive Speaks Out on Logging Plan http://www.mountainresource.org/node/222 <p>The following letter was sent to representatives of CDF by a retired executive of East Bay Municipal Utility District.&nbsp; EBMUD continues to disallow logging on their watershed land.</p><p> </p> <p class="MsoNormal">Reuben Grijalva, Director<br />California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection<br />1416 Ninth Street<br />P. O. Box 944246<br />Sacramento, CA 94244-2460<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Dear Mr. Grijalva:</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p>A member of my family resides on Aldercroft Heights Road in Los Gatos, and has asked me, based on my tenure with the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), to comment on the San Jose Water Company’s (SJWC) Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan (NTMP) application for an area encompassing some 1,000 acres along Los Gatos Creek.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>During my twenty years with EBMUD as a Customer Relations Representative, lobbyist for the District in Sacramento and then Director of Public Affairs, I became a strong advocate of and spokesman for the District’s management plans for its several thousand acres of watersheds lands adjacent to seven reservoirs in five counties and also along a stretch of the Mokelumne River in Amador and Calaveras Counties and several streams and creeks in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.<span>&nbsp; </span>During that time the District frequently received, considered and occasionally approved various proposals for public and commercial uses of these lands.<span>&nbsp; </span>One which we never approved was commercial logging because of the threats such use would pose to the quality of the potable water we supplied to 1,100,000 people in the East Bay, and the environmental threats which would incur to inhabited areas close to the areas to be logged.<o:p> <br /></o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">While commercial logging has been permitted on a few watershed lands, my years of relations with representatives of other publicly owned water agencies – members of the California Municipal Utilities Association (CMUA) and the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) – convince me that it is anathema to their board members, managers and engineers.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">As a frequent visitor to my family member's home, I have acquired knowledge of that area’s water supply from Los Gatos Creek (purchased from SJWC, and treated, stored and distributed by the Aldercroft Heights County Water District).<span>&nbsp; </span>I have also become familiar with the SJWC-owned lands and the network of narrow, twisting, landslide-prone, hard-to-maintain residential roads serving the area.<span>&nbsp; </span>I have been greatly concerned with the fire danger to homes and residents, particularly along Aldercroft Heights Road which is dead-ended at gates and locked entrances to SJWC lands – allowing no possible egress to the approximately one hundred residents of the road if the single access is blocked by fire. The danger of fast spreading fires would be incrementally increased by logging operations, one of the primary reasons why we, at EBMUD, were concerned by such proposals.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The prospect of logging trucks traversing Aldercroft Heights Road, or any of the narrow, blacktop, shoulder less roads in the proposed logging area, is frankly inconceivable to anyone who is familiar with logging practices.<span>&nbsp; </span>Because of the topography of the area, homes and their garages closely front the roadways.<span>&nbsp; </span>The obvious dangers to residents – particularly children – are patently obvious, and the sounds of the logging vehicles would be nerve wracking.<span>&nbsp; </span>I understand from the application that sound tests were done, but anyone who has listened with their own ears to the way sounds carry in this quiet area cannot seriously believe the alleged results and conclusions.<span>&nbsp; </span>Go listen for ourselves!<span>&nbsp; </span>Listen to the people who live there, who are almost universally opposed to the NTMP.<o:p> <br /></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">I cannot help but sympathize with a private water agency’s need and desire to increase its revenues, but it is my professional opinion as a former executive with one of the largest and best run water agencies in the Western United States, that to permit commercial logging in this area would be an environmental disaster and the State’s Forest service should reject the plan.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><span></span>Yours truly,</p><o:p>John H. Plumb<br /></o:p><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </span><span>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /></span></p><br /><p>&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 14 Sep 2006 17:54:56 -0700 Federal Remarks on the Impact of Logging http://www.mountainresource.org/node/223 <p>The remarks below were given at a luncheon attended by members of countries across the globe.&nbsp; The statements made stand true for logging whether it is considered &quot;legal&quot; or &quot;illegal&quot;, a finite differentiator created by the powers that be.&nbsp; Loss of a tree is loss of a tree.&nbsp; Destroyed watershed is destroyed watershed.&nbsp; Impacted animals don't care if their habitat is destroyed <em>legally </em>or <em>illegally</em>.&nbsp; The term &quot;illegal&quot; is a paper term&nbsp; The impact is the same. <br /></p><p>Perhaps our administration needs to be reminded of these stirring words and sentiments.&nbsp;</p><p> </p><p><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>This initiative (<em>against illegal</em> <em>logging</em>) reaffirms <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>'s leadership, and President Bush's leadership, in fighting environmental crime and promoting democratic principles. This is the right initiative at the right time. It wreaks havoc on the fragile environment, destroying watersheds, devastating wildlife, and demolishing livelihoods.</strong></font></p> <p><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>The impact of these crimes -- and let's call them for what they are -- crimes -- the impact of these crimes does not stop with the land and the people of the forest that has been despoiled. We are all impoverished whenever environmental crime creates a tree that absorbs carbon dioxide and destroys that tree, destroys that tree and removes the replenishing value that that tree provides to our atmosphere and its life-giving oxygen that comes out from our vegetation. We are all at risk when deforestation plants the seed of despair in a new human heart.<o:p /></strong></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>The Earth's forests are the patrimony of all, and we will work with community leaders to make sure that the people most affected have a say in managing their forests. Our goal is to set in motion a virtuous circle in which people take pride in their forests and accept responsibility for managing them in a responsible manner.<o:p> <br /></o:p></strong></font></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>We will also harness market forces to give people an incentive, an incentive to preserve the forests for their long-term benefit, not chop them down indiscriminately for short-term -- and short-sighted -- gain.</strong></font></p> <p><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>My friends, we have a special bond with our environment, linked forever with our love of democracy. It runs in our blood. It is part of who we are as a people.<o:p /></strong></font></p> <p><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> DEPARTMENT OF STATE<br /> July 28, 2003<o:p /></strong></font></p> <p><font face="tahoma,arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Remarks by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell<br /> On the Launch of President Bush's Initiative Against Illegal Logging</strong></font><o:p /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 05 Oct 2006 09:30:11 -0700 Fire Reports http://www.mountainresource.org/nail/fire <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The premier wildland fire experts in the country wrote separate reports on the impact of proposed logging by the San Jose Water Company in the Los Gatos Creek Watershed. Each individual visited the site of the proposed logging and analyzed the Fire Hazard Assessment written by TSS Consultants for the San Jose Water Company. Following are excerpts from their reports. The full reports can be found attached (below).<br /><br /></font></p><ul><li><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Dr. Phillip Omi</strong> - Professor, Forest Fire Science, Colorado State Univ.</font></li><li><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Dr. Scott Stephens</strong> - Professor, Fire Science, Univ. of California,Berkeley</font></li><li><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Richard Montague</strong> - Western Regional Director, US Forest Service (retired). President Firewise 2000</font></li></ul><p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br />In addition, <strong>Dr. Mark Finney</strong>, Research Forester, USFS, Missoula, MT creator of the FlamMap computer model used by TSS Consultants, reviewed and concurred with Dr. Stephen's report.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><u><strong>Increase In Fire Hazard</strong></u><br /><br />&quot;To open up the normally dense crown cover to more sunlight and solar heating will reduce live and dead fuel moisture, thereby increasing fire spread, fire intensity and flame lengths.&quot; <em>-- Richard Montague</em><br /><br /> <br /><br />&quot;Even with the recommended lop and scatter fuel treatment option described in the NTMP and Fire Hazard Assessment, it is my opinion that fire spread, fire intensity and flame lengths will be much higher after timber harvest than if the coast redwood and Douglas fir stands within the watershed are left in their natural state&quot; <em>-- Richard Montague</em><br /><br /> <br /><br />&quot;Lopping and distributing fuels may increase fuelbed continuity and spread rate, depending on extent and quality of execution.&quot; <em>-- Dr. Omi </em><br /><br /><br />&quot;If thinning occurred it would open up the canopy and this would probably result in a forest with higher fire hazards.&quot; <em>-- Dr. Stephens</em><br /><br /> <br /><br /><u><strong>Little/No Threat of Crown Fires</strong></u><br /><br />&quot;Mature coast redwood stands usually will not support a crown fire without a heavy accumulation of ground fuels&quot; <em>-- Richard Montague</em><br /><br /> <br /><br />&quot;Apparently, about 9% of the NTMP is susceptible to crown fire, approximately, 2/3 of which is off-limits to management activities.&nbsp; Reducing the supposed crown fire threat on less than 3% of the total land area within the NTMP may not be meaningful or cost-effective&quot; -- <em>Dr. Omi</em><br /><br /> <br /><br />&quot;Removing forest canopy by thinning this forest would not effectively reduce potential fire behavior and effects, especially in areas where redwood is the dominant species. Redwood foliage is not particularly flammable and there are few records of crown fires in redwood forests.&quot; <em>-- Dr. Stephens</em><br /><br /> <br /><br /><u><strong>Regarding Fire Hazard Assessment by TSS Consultants</strong></u><br /><br />&quot;It is my professional opinion that the conclusions and recommendations presented by TSS Consultants were based on incomplete or unsubstantiated data.&quot; &quot;The data used (by TSS) does not appropriately reflect how coast redwoods and/or Douglas fir stands within the Bay Area react to wildfire.&quot; <em>-- Richard Montague</em><br /><br /> <br /><br />&quot;The TSS report is reasonably written but misguided and potentially misleading.&quot; &quot;The report (TSS) is misleading insofar as it builds an apparent rationale for timber harvest under the guise of wildfire hazard reduction.&quot; <em>-- Dr. Omi</em><br /><br /> <br /><br />&quot;In summary, I believe the forest treatments outlined in the FHA (Fire Hazard Assessment) would not result in a reduction of fire behavior and effects in these redwood forests.&quot; <em>-- Dr. Stephens</em></font></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><font size="3"><em>The full reports are attached below.</em></font><br /></p> NAIL Forum Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:06:47 -0800 Press Release - Former Vice President Al Gore and Prominent Fire Scientists Weigh In On Los Gatos Creek Logging Plan http://www.mountainresource.org/nail/pr2 <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="2"><em>Press Release From Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging (NAIL). Los Gatos, CA <br />Release Date: Monday, November 27, 2006. </em></font><br /> <br /><strong>Former Vice President Al Gore and Prominent Fire Scientists Weigh In On Los Gatos Creek Logging Plan </strong><br /> <br />Efforts to protect the Los Gatos Creek Watershed from a logging plan proposed by the San Jose Water Company (SJWC) received prominent backing in recent days - eliciting support from Former Vice President Al Gore as well as some of the country's most prominent fire scientists. The plan to log over 1,000 acres of redwood trees in a vital watershed adjacent to Silicon Valley led to the formation of the community group <strong>Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging (N.A.I.L)<em> </em></strong>to fight the plan. Nearly 5,000 signatures have been collected in opposition.&nbsp; Mr. Gore is among those who have signed the petition. <br /> <br /><strong>Former Vice President Al Gore</strong> became aware of the plan through his viewing of a Google Earth virtual flyover of the logging zone that showed the location of the logging and its proximity to thousands of local residents. He had words of praise for NAIL and criticism for the logging plan. <em>&quot;I support Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging in their diligent efforts to inform themselves and their community about the details of the San Jose Water Company proposal to log more than one thousand acres of redwoods in the Los Gatos Creek Watershed. The proposal is deeply flawed, the commercial logging of these trees simply makes no sense.&quot;&nbsp;</em> Over 100,000 Santa Clara Valley and Santa Cruz Mountain residents obtain drinking water from the creek.&nbsp; In the words of the former Vice President, <em>&quot;Forests like these are worth fighting to save&quot;</em>. Mr. Gore also spoke of the vital role this forest plays in the ecosystem. <em>&quot;As one of the largest stands of coastal redwoods in Santa Clara County and adjacent to Silicon Valley, this healthy forest is performing many vital unseen functions including storing carbon dioxide, which reduces global warming.&quot; </em><br /> <br />Residents have long stated that the plan to log the largest, most fire resistant trees will increase fire hazards in the watershed. Some of the country's most prominent fire experts have studied the logging plan and visited the site of the proposed logging. Reports from <strong>Dr. Scott Stephens, </strong>Professor of Fire Science at the University of California, Berkeley; <strong>Dr. Philip Omi, </strong>Professor, Forest Fire Scientist at Colorado State University; and <strong>Richard Montague,</strong> former Western Regional Director of the United States Forest Service and President of Firewise 2000 are being submitted to the California Department of Forestry.&nbsp; <strong>Dr. Mark Finney</strong>, Research Forester for the United States Forest Service in Missoula, Montana and the author of the FlamMap computer model for studying fire behavior, reviewed and concurred with the report written by Dr. Stephens but did not visit the site. The FlamMap model was used by SJWC in the Fire Hazard Assessment contained within the logging plan.&nbsp;&nbsp; </font></p><p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Mr. Montague had this to say in his report. &quot;<em>It is my opinion that fire spread, fire intensity and flame lengths will be much higher after timber harvest than if the coast redwoods and Douglas fir stands within the watershed are left in their natural state.</em>&quot; Dr. Stephens stated, <em>&quot;If thinning occurred it would open up the canopy and this would probably result in a forest with higher fire hazards.&quot; </em>The experts also refuted the results of a fire hazard assessment submitted by the San Jose Water Company. <em>&quot;The report is misleading insofar as it builds an apparent rationale for timber harvest under the guise of wildfire hazard reduction&quot;</em> according to Dr. Omi. <br /> <br />Issues of potential damage to water quality and increased landslide danger have also been raised by residents and corroborated by hydrology and water quality reports submitted to the California Department of Forestry as part of the logging plan review process. <br /> <br /> <br />--------------------------------------------------------------------<br />Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging - N.A.I.L. <br /><a href="nail">www.mountainresource.org/nail </a><br /><br />For more information contact: <br />Kevin Flynn - NAIL <br />email: keflynn at cisco.com<br />phone: 408-832-7180 <br /> <br />or <br /><br />Terry Clark - NAIL <br />email: taclark at cablerocket.com<br />phone: 408-353-3454 </font></p> NAIL Forum Tue, 28 Nov 2006 04:32:32 -0800 Important Public Meeting: Bear Creek+Sierra Azul Open Space Master Plan - Tuesday, Dec 5 http://www.mountainresource.org/node/226 <p>&nbsp;<table width="603" height="190" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="1" border="1"><tbody><tr><td align="center" style="width: 50%;"><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Master Plan Meeting</strong><br />Bear Creek and Sierra Azul Open Space<br /><br /><em><strong>Tuesday, 12/5</strong><br /><strong>6:30 to 9:30 pm</strong><br /><strong>Los Gatos Neighborhood Center</strong><br /><strong>280 East Main Street.</strong></em></font></td><td style="width: 50%;"><p>&nbsp;</p><div align="center"><p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Useful links</strong></font><br /><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </font></p></div><p> </p> <ul><li><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.openspace.org/plans_projects/sierra_azul_bear_creek_mp.asp">Bear Creek+Sierra Azul Master Plan Project Overview</a></font></li><li><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.openspace.org/plans_projects/downloads/SA_BCR_Maps/sa_bcr_mp_faq.pdf">Master Plan FAQ</a> <br /></font> </li><li><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><a target="_blank" href="http://www.openspace.org/plans_projects/downloads/Project_Map.pdf">Project Map</a><br /></font> </li></ul> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&nbsp;</font></p></td></tr></tbody></table></p><p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br /><strong>Please Plan to Attend</strong></font></p><blockquote><p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Los Gatos Mountain residents live adjacent to these two Open Space Preserves, so we will be greatly affected by Master Plan decisions regarding access points, trails and other recreational opportunities, traffic and security, as well as conservation and interpretive/educational opportunities.<br /></em></font></p><p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>During January-July, 2005, a group of mountain residents called Mountain Open Space Stewards (MOSS) met with Midpen representatives, made extensive site visits and ultimately submitted a set of <a href="files/MOSS_Questions_for_MROSD.pdf" target="_blank">questions</a>, as well as a <a href="files/MOSS_Petition_to_MROSD.pdf" target="_blank">community petition</a> containing ideas, recommendations and concerns about the Master Plan to MidPeninsula Open Space District.&nbsp; The District welcomed our active participation and responded to some of our <a href="files/MOSS_Questions_for_MROSD.pdf" target="_blank">questions</a> in their <a href="http://www.openspace.org/plans_projects/downloads/SA_BCR_Maps/sa_bcr_mp_faq.pdf" target="_blank">FAQ</a>.&nbsp; This important meeting on Tuesday, Dec 5 will be a more significant opportunity to see whether and how our input has been considered.&nbsp; So please plan to attend.<br /></em></font></p><p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Note that Sierra Azul Open Space is adjacent to the controversial 1002 acre logging zone proposed by San Jose Water Company and opposed by <a href="nail">Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging (NAIL)<br /></a></em></font></p><p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br /></font></p></blockquote><p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> A third public workshop will be held on December 5, 2006 at the Los Gatos Neighborhood Center from 6:30 to 9:30 PM. The Master Plan project team will present various Plan Alternatives for public review and comment. These conceptual Plan Alternatives will incorporate public comment, the results of the resource data inventory, and the challenges and opportunities analysis. The input collected at this third workshop will be used to arrive at a single Preferred Plan.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>Next Steps</strong><br /> December 2006. . . . . . . .Plan Alternatives Public Workshop<br /> Winter 2006/07. . . . . . . . Prepare Draft Preferred Plan<br /> Spring 2007. . . . . . . . . . . 1st Public Hearing on Draft Plan<br /> Summer 2007. . . . . . . . . .Final Plan and Environmental Review<br /> Fall 2007. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2nd Public Hearing and Plan Adoption</font></p> MOSS forum Sat, 02 Dec 2006 17:38:29 -0800 "Technology builds bigger soapbox" (SJ Mercury News) http://www.mountainresource.org/node/227 <p><em><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The article below appears in today's San Jose Mercury News (Sunday, Dec. 3, 2006.)&nbsp; It was written by columnist Scott Herhold.</font></em></p><p><font size="4"><strong>Herhold: Technology builds bigger soapbox</strong></font></p> <p><font size="2">By Scott Herhold</font></p> <p><font size="2">Mercury News</font></p><!-- begin body-content --> <p><font size="2">In the primitive days of politics, neighbors trying to fight an environmentally questionable project on 1,000 acres near their homes might have to depend on word of mouth, a telephone chain to summon the faithful to endless public meetings.</font></p> <p><font size="2">But this is the era of iPods, Blackberries and Google Earth, when the digital can trump the verbal, when even a national leader can be recruited to a local cause through the power of a display on the Web.</font></p> <p><font size="2">That brings me to a tale that includes former Vice President Al Gore, the trees above Lexington Reservoir and the ingenuity of Rebecca Moore, a Google Earth engineer who lives in the Los Gatos mountains.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Here's the background: Citing the need for fire protection, the San Jose Water Co. has submitted a plan to log 1,000 acres of its land in the mountains above Los Gatos.</font></p> <p><font size="2">The plan has prompted sustained protest from the neighbors, who insist that the water company's plans will degrade the water quality and increase the danger of fire.</font></p> <p><font size="2"><strong><span class="subhead">Devil in details</span></strong></font></p> <p><font size="2">I don't pretend to understand the details, which is where the good and bad of logging resides. From my quick reading, it strikes me that the neighbors have raised legitimate questions about plans to cut larger trees, defined as more than 24 inches in diameter.</font></p> <p><font size="2">But this story isn't so much about the rights and wrongs of the issue as it is about the way the debate has unfolded politically and technologically. The two strands merge.</font></p> <p><font size="2">About 15 months ago, in September 2005, the water company sent a notice to neighbors of their intent to harvest timber, complete with a somewhat sketchy map. One of the people who got it was Rebecca Moore, who worked on developing Google Earth, the cool Web feature that lets you zoom down from outer space to see your back yard.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Other folks might have shrugged. Moore created a virtual Google Earth ``flyover,'' which gives you the impression of traversing the logging area in a helicopter at 1,000 feet. You can see it yourself by going to <a href="../../nail">www.mountainresource.org/nail</a>, and scrolling down until you see the Google Earth image.</font></p> <p><font size="2">When Moore showed the flyover on a big screen to neighbors who packed a community meeting, it had a huge impact, showing how large the logging area is and how close to schools and homes. ``I essentially flew everyone up the Los Gatos Creek canyon,'' she told me. ``It just electrified the room.''</font></p> <p><font size="2"><strong><span class="subhead">View from the top</span></strong></font></p> <p><font size="2">Perhaps her best-known convert came to the cause eight months later. Gore, a senior adviser to Google and the central figure in the movie ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' wanted to see how Google Earth worked. After showing him a couple of global examples, Moore showed him the Los Gatos Creek flyover.</font></p> <p><font size="2">``He was very struck by it,'' she remembered. ``He immediately offered to help. I was sort of stunned at his generous offer.''</font></p> <p><font size="2">That led to a statement last week from Gore that came out strongly against San Jose Water's logging plans. ``The proposal is deeply flawed,'' he said. ``The commercial logging of these trees simply makes no sense.''</font></p> <p><font size="2">In response, the Big Creek Lumber Co., which is planning the cutting on San Jose Water's property, has said it will formally invite Gore to come look at other logging it has done.</font></p> <p><font size="2">``We think what Big Creek is doing is precisely the kind of land stewardship and responsible forward-looking business practices that he's been advocating for years,'' said Bob Berlage, a spokesman for Big Creek, a family-run firm that has a reputation for not clear-cutting forests.</font></p> <p><font size="2">So the kindling's in the fire. Or the logs are piled high. Whatever. With the support of the inventor of the Internet at stake, could it be anything other than a flaming controversy?</font></p><!-- end body-content --><!-- begin body-end --> <div class="body-end"> <div class="tagline"> <hr size="1" color="#cccccc" class="tagline" /><p> <font size="2"><em><span class="tagline">Contact Scott Herhold at <a href="mailto:sherhold@mercurynews.com">sherhold@mercurynews.com</a> or (408) 920-5877.</span></em></font></p><p><em><font size="2">Original article may be found <a target="_blank" href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/16154733.htm">here</a>.&nbsp;</font></em></p></div></div><p>&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Sun, 03 Dec 2006 09:20:12 -0800 LG Daily Notes Gore's Support of NAIL Objectives http://www.mountainresource.org/node/228 <p>The following article appeared in the Saturday, Dec. 2, 2006 Los Gatos Daily.&nbsp; It was written by Kristen Munsen.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><div> <p class="headline"><font size="4"><strong>Gore backs anti-logging effort</strong></font></p> <p class="subhead">Former vice president signed local petition against a proposed tree-cutting plan watershed Los Gatos Creek watershed</p> <p class="byline">By Kristen Munson / Daily News Staff Writer</p>A local grass-roots effort against logging in the Los Gatos mountains received support this week from globally renowned environmentalist Al Gore. <br /><br />The former vice president signed a petition opposing the proposed logging of 1,002 acres of the Los Gatos Creek watershed by the San Jose Water Company. <br /><br />Gore, maker of the film &quot;An Inconvenient Truth,&quot; signed the online petition and prepared a statement for the members of the Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging, or NAIL organization. <br /><br />&quot;The proposal is deeply flawed, the commercial logging of these trees simply makes no sense,&quot; Gore said in the statement. &quot;Forests like these are worth fighting to save. As one of the largest stands of coastal redwoods in Santa Clara County and adjacent to Silicon Valley, this healthy forest is performing many vital unseen functions including storing carbon dioxide, which reduces global warming.&quot; <br /><br />The San Jose Water Company owns the land and maintains that its Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan will reduce the risk of fire by thinning the forest and will not harm the water quality. <br /><br />&quot;They make the claim that this is good for fire prevention, but it's not accurate science,&quot; said Kevin Flynn, one of NAIL's steering committee members. <br /><br />Gore saw a presentation on Google Earth put together by NAIL member Rebecca Moore this spring. <br /><br />&quot;He was really struck by it,&quot; she said. &quot;He asked me if there was anything else he could do and I was stunned. He was genuinely concerned.&quot; <br /><br />Gore was impressed by the mountain residents' effort to educate themselves about the details of the proposal, he said in the statement. <br /><br />He signed the petition Nov. 14 - one of about 5,000 signatures on the document so far - and gave NAIL his backing. <br /><br />Water company officials are drafting a letter to Gore, inviting him to tour the watershed and talk to their forestry and fire experts. <br /><br />&quot;We would welcome Al Gore's involvement in this project and we are disappointed that he has not contacted us,&quot; said John Tang, community projects liaison for the water company. &quot;We are confident that he will come to the conclusion that both he and our organization share the same goals about the environment.&quot; <br /><br />Three national fire experts hired by the neighbors' organization reviewed the fire hazard assessment prepared by TSS Consultants for the water company and submitted reports last month. <br /><br />One criticized the fire behavior analysis in the assessment report, while others stated that removing forest canopy would not effectively reduce potential fire activity. Two recommended controlled burns of the forest instead, a move water company officials said poses a threat to the mountain area residents. <br /><br />&quot;Typically prescribed burns happen on public lands ... very few people do it on private land because of the threat of it getting away,&quot; said David Gantz, fire expert for TSS Consultants. <br /><br />Gantz said he plans to formally respond to the three experts hired by NAIL. <br /><br />&quot;Those letters are opinion and ours is a complete scientific analysis,&quot; he said. &quot;I think we did a strong assessment based on solid science.&quot; <br /><br />E-mail Kristen Munson at kmunson@dailynewsgroup.com. <br /></div><p>&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Sun, 03 Dec 2006 09:23:59 -0800 Silicon Valley Metro Reports on SJWC Use of Herbicides in Riparian Frog Habitat http://www.mountainresource.org/node/229 <h2>A Leg Up on Loggers<o:p /></h2> <p class="articledeck">Mountain residents find an endangered species could decide their battle against Los Gatos Creek logging plan<o:p /></p> <p><strong>By Vrinda Normand</strong><o:p /></p> <p><o:p><st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">SANTA CRUZ</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Mountain</st1:placetype></st1:place> residents have tried everything they could think of to keep logging out of the Los Gatos Creek watershed. <o:p /></o:p></p> <p>When the San Jose Water Company announced a plan last year to raze 1,000 acres on the watershed, nearby community members formed NAIL (Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging), and hammered home how tree harvesting would increase the risk of fire in their backyard forest and rattle windows in their peaceful Silicon Valley suburb. <o:p /></p> <p><!--startclickprintexclude--><!--startclickprintexclude-->More recently, they even got former Vice President Al Gore—hot off the buzz around his hip eco-flick <em>An Inconvenient Truth</em>—to sign their petition after he saw a virtual fly-over of the proposed logging zone. The computerized 3-D map, created by Google whiz Rebecca Moore, shows tree-felling operations encroaching only hundreds of yards from schools, churches and homes. <o:p /></p> <p>But the San Jose Water Company and its partner Big Creek Lumber maintain that logging will be good for the forest. They point out that timber trucks and helicopters will only be around for a few months every two years. Under NAIL's scrutiny, they've had to resubmit their NTMP (timber harvest plan) to the California Department of Forestry—but still believe they can get it approved. <o:p /></p> <p>Don't count on it. Because after all of this back and forth about noise, fire safety and water quality, it's likely to be a nonhuman neighbor that proves to be NAIL's most powerful weapon. <o:p /></p> <p>In October, the Center for Biological Diversity reached a settlement with the United States Environmental Protection Agency after a federal court found the EPA guilty of violating the Endangered Species Act by approving pesticides without considering how they might impact the red-legged frog. The settlement prohibits the use of 66 chemicals in red-legged frog habitats around <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:state>. <o:p /></p> <p>The <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Los Gatos</st1:place></st1:city> watershed area that's slotted for logging also happens to be a red-legged frog habitat, as documented in San Jose Water's timber harvest plan. This creates a few extra land-use obstacles that neighborhood activists haven't hesitated to pounce on. <o:p /></p> <p>For one, the lawsuit may mean that San Jose Water can no longer use herbicides to control weeds on its property, a practice that NAIL members have criticized for being potentially dangerous to aquatic species and humans. The privately owned company feeds off the Los Gatos Creek to provide drinking water for over 100,000 people in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">South</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">Bay</st1:placetype></st1:place>. <o:p /></p> <p>Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup (a weed killer manufactured by Monsanto), is one of the chemicals limited by the EPA lawsuit. <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">San Francisco</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">State</st1:placetype> <st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype></st1:place> professor Carlos Davidson says studies have shown that red-legged frogs die at higher rates in areas downwind of pesticide use. In fact, this phenomenon is part of a global decline of amphibians that environmentalists believe is partly linked to pesticide chemicals found in water sources. <o:p /></p> <p>Even Monsanto's product label warns against applying the herbicide directly to water, where it is more likely to come into contact with aquatic animals. It also cautions against using it in areas adjacent to known habitats of threatened or endangered species. <o:p /></p> <p>San Jose Water sprayed 600 gallons of a 2 percent Roundup solution on its land this year. Andrew Gere, director of Operations and Water Quality, says his company only applied the herbicide in the dry summer months, away from water. According to Monsanto, Glyphosate breaks down quickly when it adheres to soil particles. Gere cites a scientific study that found Roundup posed little risk to aquatic animals when it was only applied on land. <o:p /></p> <p><em>Metro</em> asked to see the study he referred to, and he directed us to a secondhand summary of a 2000 journal article published by Monsanto on its website. <o:p /></p> <p>NAIL member Kevin Flynn points to another Roundup study conducted last year by scientists at the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">University</st1:placetype> of <st1:placename w:st="on">Pittsburgh</st1:placename></st1:place>, funded by the National Science Foundation, which found that typical land application of the herbicide killed 98 percent of tadpoles and 79 percent of frogs within one day. <o:p /></p> <p>Despite the company's assurances that it uses Roundup appropriately, opponents have their doubts. During a pre-harvest inspection of the watershed in September, David Hope, a senior environmental scientist for the Regional Water Quality Control Board, noticed signs of herbicide on surface water. He says he saw dead weeds—that had obviously been sprayed—lying on a stream that ran along a roadside ditch. The stream drains into the nearby Los Gatos Creek. <o:p /></p> <p>San Jose Water's Gere told <em>Metro</em> that water wasn't present during spraying. <o:p /></p> <p>But Hope laughs at this response. &quot;Yeah, right,&quot; he says. &quot;No doubt there was water when they sprayed. It was a very consistent stream. They [San Jose Water] have guidelines against that.&quot; <o:p /></p> <p>NAIL members see this misstep as another example of poor land stewardship by San Jose Water. Gere says the neighborhood opponents are making a mountain out of a molehill. &quot;NAIL would have you believe that we're spraying this stuff willy-nilly in the water,&quot; he says. &quot;This is really about opposition to the NTMP. They're throwing darts at the credibility of our company. It's nothing more than that.&quot; <o:p /></p> <h3>Frogs in Hot Water <o:p /></h3> <p>One assertion no one would argue with is that this frog has been through a lot. <o:p /></p> <p>During the Gold Rush, San Franciscans considered them a delicacy, consuming about 80,000 every year. In 1865, the scarlet-tinged critters caught Mark Twain's attention. He featured them in his story, &quot;The Celebrated Jumping Frog of Calaveras County.&quot; <o:p /></p> <p>Unfortunately, they couldn't stay ahead of hungry humans while their habitats were being destroyed by mining operations. <o:p /></p> <p>By the time the largest native frog in the Western United States earned a spot on the Endangered Species List, nearly 90 percent of them had been wiped out from <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:state> forests and wetlands. That was 1996. A decade later, only small groups live scattered throughout coastal ranges. <o:p /></p> <p>Over the course of those 10 years, the red-legged frog has become a strategy for environmentalists, a thorn in the side of Bay Area builders and the basis for lawsuits over sprawling developments. <o:p /></p> <p>So why should we care about this plump critter that can grow as large as three human fists? Davidson of SFSU says frogs eat huge numbers of insects that could be dangerous to humans and agriculture. They're also considered important indicators for changing environmental conditions. <o:p /></p> <p>Plus, says Davidson, &quot;They're beautiful animals. It would be really sad to lose them.&quot; <o:p /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> <!--startclickprintexclude--><!--startclickprintexclude--> NAIL Forum Thu, 14 Dec 2006 07:50:40 -0800 Letters to Metro Editor Re: SJWC Herbicide Spraying http://www.mountainresource.org/node/230 <div> <div> <p>The following two letters <a target="_blank" href="http://www.metroactive.com/metro/12.13.06/letters-0650.html">appeared in the Silicon Valley Metro</a>, Dec. 13, 2006 issue.&nbsp; The letters refer to an article published by Metro writer Vrinda Normand. <br /></p><h2>Letters to the Editor<font size="4" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong><br /></strong></font></h2><p><font size="4" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><strong>What Else Are They Hiding?</strong></font></p> </div> <div class="articlecopy"> <p>Thank you for <a href="http://www.metroactive.com/metro/12.06.06/los-gatos-creek-logging-plan-0649.html">the clear and concise report about the spraying of Roundup</a> by S.J. Water Co. in the Santa Cruz Mountain watershed (<a href="http://www.metroactive.com/metro/12.06.06/los-gatos-creek-logging-plan-0649.html" target="_blank">&quot;A Leg Up on Loggers,&quot;</a> MetroNews, Dec. 6). </p> <p>This is a company that sends out nine pages of Q and A when asked why they are considering jeopardizing this watershed with a commercial logging operation. </p> <p>Here's a quote in response to one question, &quot;Won't logging affect endangered species?&quot; SJWC: &quot;The plan area has been inspected and surveyed by a consulting wildlife biologist as well as a consulting botanist. They have provided recommendations for the protection of a wide variety of plants and animals and their reports and recommendations are incorporated into the NTMP.&quot; </p> <p>They fail to acknowledge their prior use of a pesticide that is so damaging to the environment, specifically the red-legged frog. I wonder what else they have failed to acknowledge? </p> <p><em>C. Lee McKenzie, Los Gatos</em> </p> <p>&nbsp;</p><h3> </h3> <p><strong><font size="4" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">NAILed It!<br /></font></strong><br />Re NAIL vs. San Jose Water: A very good article about the endless corporate greed that threatens our water, environment, and quality of life. Big Creek, like all other loggers, are very paranoid about any limitations, however reasonable, put on their freedom to cut anywhere they desire. Along with the fact that the &quot;watchdogs&quot; of California timber operations are the desperately pro-logging Department of Forestry (no logging permits = no DOF jobs), it is very heartening to see organized groups of citizens like NAIL fight these base profiteers like San Jose Water tooth and NAIL. There is a lot more to this story than has surfaced; keep up the digging! </p> <p><em>Ted Gehrke, Los Gatos</em> </p></div></div> NAIL Forum Sun, 17 Dec 2006 14:29:02 -0800 County Expresses Serious Concerns About Logging Plan http://www.mountainresource.org/node/231 <p><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">The following are report excerpts written by a hydrologist and fisheries biologist representing <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> regarding concerns related to the SJWC logging plan.&nbsp; The full reports are now public record.&nbsp; These comments reflect serious concerns about the plan by the scientific reviewers.</span></strong><br />&nbsp;<br /><font size="2">To see the full report go to:</font> </p><div><font size="1"><a href="ftp://thp.fire.ca.gov/THPLibrary/North_Coast_Region/NTMPs2006/1-06NTMP-012SCL/20061211_1-06NTMP-012SCL_PHI-CntyPlan.pdf"><span class="correction">ftp</span>://<span class="correction">thp</span>.fire.<span class="correction">ca</span>.<span class="correction">gov</span>/<span class="correction">THPLibrary</span>/North_Coast_Region/<span class="correction">NTMPs2006</span>/1-06NTMP-012SCL/20061211_1-06NTMP-012SCL_<span class="correction">PHI-CntyPlan</span>.<span class="correction">pdf</span></a></font></div> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">In the San Jose Water NTMP site, high rainfall, major deep and shallow landslides underlying residential areas bordering the proposed cutting zones, and the fact that redwood trees are notorious for 'profligate' water use raises immediate concerns about the potential effects of forest management on slide stability and public safety.&nbsp; My conclusions are that the proposed cutting schedule and volumes will most certainly contribute to slide instability including increased rate of motion of existing deep-seated slides that affect residential areas, streams, and highways within the NTMP areas of the southwest side of Los Gatos Creek and along Briggs Creek.<u1:p><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">The primary basic premise of the authors of the NTMP is false.&nbsp; They say that timber removal from deep-seated slides is contemplated but that it will not destabilize slide masses....Timber removal will accelerate sliding near the slide head and near its base.&nbsp; The middle will follow.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Tim Best has recommended mitigations for the sites identified in NTMP Section 5…, but concludes that “<em>It is very unlikely that the proposed harvest will have any measurable impact on deep-seated stabilit</em>y”.&nbsp; I believe that I follow his reasoning but disagree fundamentally.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">….field traverses and calculation of changed water balance show that this basic premise is both false and very dangerous.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Today’s closed canopy forest is proposed to be opened in each cutting cycle, thus increasing growth of shrub and hardwood species that are now not common over the primary timber production areas.&nbsp; Such increased shrub growth increases fire danger …<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">The majority of the NTMP timber production zone is mapped as landslide…<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">The consequences of unmapped compound slides are that proposed timber harvest roads and cutting units probably cross onto active slide areas and displace surface water into obscured scarps, thus accelerating unrecognized slide masses that carry increasing sediment loads into the watercourses at the base of the slides. Sites that should at least be classed as special treatment areas with no tractor entry will not be recognized until it is too late to avoid the damage.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">….the revised Figure 2A “Landslide Map” from Best indicates that he recognizes nested features that he classes as “large failures” below <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on"><st1:place u2:st="on"><st1:placename u2:st="on">Chemeketa</st1:placename></st1:place> <st1:placetype w:st="on"><st1:placetype u2:st="on">Park</st1:placetype></st1:placetype></st1:placename></st1:place> and below Call of the Wild.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">The NTMP has not adequately evaluated natural rainfall intensity in the project area and thus underestimates winter condition site preparations such as culvert diameters, crossing design, and road standards for winter access.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">The proposed NTMP is not soundly based in its assumptions about harvesting on deep-seated landslides that dominate the proposed harvest areas.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">I estimate that 63 percent of that merchantable basal area would be equivalent to about 48 trees to be harvested per acre.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">The NTMP has not adequately evaluated natural rainfall intensity in the project area and thus underestimates winter condition site preparations such as culvert diameters, crossing design, and road standards for winter access.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">It is possible that the stream is just now beginning to recover from cutting in the late 1800’s that destabilized slide masses that were then exacerbated by the 1906 earthquake.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Thus, changes that may be imposed by the proposed NTMP must be added to past stress responses and may reasonably to expected to lengthen the period of natural recovery of the stream course in that watershed.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">It would seem prudent to simply avoid any harvest or road activities in the slide zone, which also includes the riparian zone.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">….it is certain that the proposed harvest schedule will seriously exacerbate slide stability.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Because the Santa Clara County residential areas between the Summit Area and Chemeketa Park, including both sides of Highway 17, are located on these deep seated slides that support the trees to be cut in the proposed NTMP, the potential liability for San Jose Water Company if they carry out the propose NTMP harvest plan becomes extraordinary.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Robert Curry, PhD, Hydrologist<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">The NTMP erroneously states that there are no non-listed species which will be significantly impacted by the operation.&nbsp; Coldwater species including landlocked steelhead/rainbow trout and riffle sculpin are potentially present in the project area.&nbsp; These non-listed species may be significantly impacted by the operation.&nbsp; Potential impacts are related to habitat degradation through increased sedimentation, increased water temperature, and barriers to migration at stream crossings of Class I and Class II watercourses. These potential impacts are not considered or evaluated.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Data presented in Section V of the NTMP indicates that existing temperatures approach the upper threshold of suitability for coldwater species and contradict statements elsewhere in the NTMP that temperature is not a limiting factor.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">The NTMP provides no assurances as to the degree to which the avoidance and mitigation measures for soil stabilization and erosion control will actually be implemeneted.<u1:p> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--><o:p /></u1:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Jeffrey Hagar, Fisheries Biologist<o:p /></span></p> <p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p><div><a href="ftp://thp.fire.ca.gov/THPLibrary/North_Coast_Region/NTMPs2006/1-06NTMP-012SCL/20061211_1-06NTMP-012SCL_PHI-CntyPlan.pdf"><span class="correction"></span><span class="correction"><br /></span></a></div><p> </p> NAIL Forum Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:13:43 -0800 Roseville Parks & Rec. Dept. Expresses Opposition to SJWC Logging Plan http://www.mountainresource.org/node/232 <p>&nbsp;The editorial&nbsp; letter below appeared in the Wednesday, Dec. 27 <em>Los Gatos Weekly Times.</em></p><p><br /></p><font size="4">Combined voices sound off on logging plan</font> <p> The San Jose Water Company timber management plan for the Los Gatos Creek watershed is destructive to the environment and will severely decrease the quality of life for residents. The San Jose Water Company logging plan needs to be discarded. The plan proposes cutting trees atop the San Andreas fault for 6 miles along Los Gatos Creek. Deforestation, road Cat track construction and the burning of fossil fuels pollute the drinking water of residents. When a forest is cut, especially on slopes, sediment is washed into rivers. Sediment will decrease the downstream reservoir capacity at Lexington and Elsman. </p><p> Forest watersheds perform valuable work for humans. They filter water, air, soil and decrease atmospheric and ocean temperatures. Forest and watersheds store rain, replenish groundwater supplies and control floods. Forests inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. Forests stabilize the soil. The value of the work accomplished by natural areas is staggering. For example, the average 50-year-old tree in America is worth $600 if cut for timber. If the single tree is kept alive for another 50 years, it will produce $196,000 worth of ecological services. Coast redwood are the tallest living things on Earth; therefore, they accomplish more work than an average tree. Old-growth trees perform more work and sustain more life than if they are cut. Our entire economic system is backwards because we do not take into account ecological services rendered by natural areas. </p><p> Old-growth trees are extremely fire-resistant and act as a barrier against fire, protecting lives and property. Most old redwood trees have fire scars on their trunks. When old-growth trees are cut, dense underbrush grows back, increasing the fuel load and likelihood of fire. The largest and most healthy trees are planned to be cut along Los Gatos Creek, 40 percent of redwoods over 36 inches in diameter. Instead of cutting old-growth, fire- resistant trees, the under-story needs to be aggressively harvested. Before the 1950s, fire was a returning occurrence in nature. Fire germinates seeds, releases seeds from pods, kills disease, stimulates new growth and forces trees to grow larger. Fire damage is a result of 50 years of clear cutting of forests in the Western United States and intensive fire suppression. Overall, the San Jose Water Company's logging plan is destructive. Instead of controlling fire, fire destruction will be assured. </p><p> Ninety-six percent of old-growth forest in California has been cut. It is time to get serous about protecting our natural resources. The Santa Cruz Mountains' forests and rivers generate the water and air that local residents consume. The Santa Cruz Mountains are habitat for deer, red-legged frogs, Pacific giant salamanders, arboreal salamanders, banana slugs, terrestrial garter snakes, rainbow trout, great blue heron, white snowy egrets, cougar, bobcat, raccoon, possum, beaver and raptors. </p><p> No logging of large trees in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Cutting old, large trees is an archaic and destructive activity. Do not support San Jose Water Company's logging plan. The plan is not updated to sustainable, healthy forestry practices. Please do what is in your power to protect the Los Gatos watershed and the humans that depend on it. </p><p align="right"> Michael Lee </p><p align="right"> Roseville Department of Parks and Recreation </p><p> <em>Seven others signed this letter.</em></p><p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>Original letter may be found <a href="http://www.community-newspapers.com/archives/lgwt/20061227/letters_opinions2.shtml" target="_blank">here</a>.&nbsp;</em></font></p><p> </p> NAIL Forum Fri, 29 Dec 2006 22:33:09 -0800 Public Hearing Date Set - PLEASE ATTEND! http://www.mountainresource.org/node/233 <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoTitle"><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial;"><font size="2"><strong>NAIL Members</strong>:&nbsp; The information below will be sent out soon&nbsp;to the 95033 zip code.&nbsp; Please spread the word among your neighbors and local friends.&nbsp; It is time to act individually - to support and safeguard your mountain environment and keep it from attack by this profit-seeking corporation. Plan on carpooling with others to the public hearing.&nbsp;<u> Arrive early to secure parking</u>.&nbsp; Write out&nbsp;your short statement&nbsp;outlining your reasons for opposition and stand up and be heard. &nbsp;It is vital that we have a large turnout of residents to express their views on this issue.</font></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoTitle"><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial;"></span>&nbsp;</p><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial;"></span> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoTitle"><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial;"><font size="2">NAIL Steering Committee</font></span></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoTitle"><u><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial;"><strong></strong></span></u>&nbsp;</p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoTitle"><u><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial;"><strong><font size="4">Residents Be Aware and Informed<o:p /></font></strong></span></u></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoTitle"><u><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p><span style="text-decoration: none;"><br /></span></o:p></span></u></p> <p align="left" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;" class="MsoTitle"><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">The California Dept. of Forestry will hold a </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;">Public Hearing</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> on San Jose Water Company’s proposed </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;">plan</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"><font face="Times"> </font></span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;">to log the Los Gatos Creek Watershed<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p align="left" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;" class="MsoTitle"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p><strong>&nbsp;</strong></o:p></span></p> <p align="left" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;" class="MsoTitle"><strong><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;">Wednesday<span>&nbsp; </span>January 31, 2007 at<span>&nbsp; </span>7:00PM</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> <o:p /></span></strong></p> <p align="left" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;" class="MsoTitle"><strong><st1:city w:st="on"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Santa Clara</span></st1:city><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype> <st1:placename w:st="on">Board</st1:placename></st1:place> of Supervisor’s Chambers:<span>&nbsp; </span><st1:address w:st="on"><st1:street w:st="on">70 West Hedding Street</st1:street> <st1:city w:st="on">San Jose</st1:city></st1:address>.<o:p /></span></strong></p> <h1 align="left" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></h1> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">We must stop San Jose Water Company from destroying the beauty of these mountains and threatening our safety and drinking water. This commercial </span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;">logging plan will increase the fire threat, decrease water quality and open the area to slides, noise, helicopters and dangerous traffic forever.<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></strong></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"><span>&nbsp;</span>If we don’t stop it now it cannot be stopped.</span></strong><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></strong></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Bring your neighbors, friends and family and support your community.<span>&nbsp; </span>If we don’t, no one else will. </span></strong><strong><u><span style="font-family: Arial;">Let the state of <st1:state w:st="on">California</st1:state>, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> and SJWC know they cannot destroy our watershed for corporate profit!</span></u></strong><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> <o:p /></span></strong></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></strong></p> <p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"><font size="4"><span><em><strong>Directions to 70 West Hedding:</strong></em> Go NORTH on HIGHWAY 17. Continue on 17 northbound (becoming I-880.) past <st1:city w:st="on">Los Gatos</st1:city> and <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Campbell</st1:place></st1:city>.<span>&nbsp; </span>Take the <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">FIRST STREET</st1:address></st1:street> exit. Turn RIGHT onto N 1ST <st1:place w:st="on">ST.</st1:place> Turn RIGHT onto <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">W HEDDING ST</st1:address></st1:street>.<span>&nbsp; </span><st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">70 W Hedding St</st1:address></st1:street> is on your left.<span>&nbsp; There is street parking</span> <span class="street-address">and a parking lot across the street (bring coins for meters.)<span>&nbsp; </span>Enter building via front lobby and follow directions to Supervisor’s chambers.</span></span><span class="street-address"><o:p /></span></font></p> <p align="center" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;" class="MsoNormal"><span class="street-address"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></span></p> NAIL Forum Sun, 07 Jan 2007 12:01:15 -0800 CDF Changes Time of Public Hearing/New Announcement http://www.mountainresource.org/node/234 <p>CDF has changed the meeting time for the NTMP public hearing.&nbsp; The new time is an hour earlier at 6:00PM.&nbsp; Please plan on attending at 6:00 rather than 7:00 as previously announced.</p><p>&nbsp; </p> <p class="MsoTitle"><u><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial;">Residents Be Aware and Informed<o:p /></span></u></p> <p align="left" style="text-align: left;" class="MsoTitle"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">The <st1:state w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">California</st1:place></st1:state> Dept. of Forestry will hold a </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;">Public Hearing</span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> on San Jose Water Company’s proposed </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;">plan</span><span style="font-size: 12pt;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;">to log the Los Gatos Creek Watershed on<o:p /></span></p> <p class="MsoTitle"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>Wednesday<span>&nbsp; </span>January 31, 2007 at<span>&nbsp; </span>6:00PM</o:p></span><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p /></span></p> <p align="left" style="text-align: left;" class="MsoTitle"><st1:city w:st="on"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Santa Clara</span></st1:city><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype> <st1:placename w:st="on">Board</st1:placename></st1:place> of Supervisor’s Chambers:<span>&nbsp; </span><st1:address w:st="on"><st1:street w:st="on">70 West Hedding Street</st1:street> <st1:city w:st="on">San Jose</st1:city></st1:address>.<o:p /></span></p> <h1 align="left" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p /></span><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">We must stop San Jose Water Company from destroying the beauty of these mountains and threatening our safety and drinking water. This commercial </span></strong><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;">logging plan will increase the fire threat, decrease water quality and open the area to slides, noise, helicopters and dangerous traffic forever.<o:p /></span></strong></h1> <p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p>If we don’t stop it now it cannot be stopped.<o:p /></span></strong></p> <p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-family: Arial;">If we don’t stop it no one else will.</span></strong><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>Bring your neighbors, friends and family and support your community.<span>&nbsp; </span></o:p></span></strong><strong><u><span style="font-family: Arial;">Let the state of <st1:state w:st="on">California</st1:state>, <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:placename w:st="on">Santa Clara</st1:placename> <st1:placetype w:st="on">County</st1:placetype></st1:place> and SJWC know they cannot destroy our watershed for corporate profit!</span></u></strong><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"> <o:p /></span></strong></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span><br /><em><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Directions to 70 West Hedding: Go NORTH on HIGHWAY 17. Continue on 17 northbound (becoming I-880.) past <st1:city w:st="on">Los Gatos</st1:city> and <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Campbell</st1:place></st1:city>.<span>&nbsp; </span>Take the <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">FIRST STREET</st1:address></st1:street> exit. Turn RIGHT onto N 1ST <st1:place w:st="on">ST.</st1:place> Turn RIGHT onto <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">W HEDDING ST</st1:address></st1:street>.<span>&nbsp; </span><st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on"><span>70 W Hedding St</span></st1:address></st1:street><span> is on your left.<span>&nbsp; </span>There is street parking</span> <span class="street-address">and a parking lot across the street (bring coins for meters.)<span>&nbsp; </span>Enter building via front lobby and follow directions to Supervisor’s chambers.</span></span><span class="street-address"><o:p /></span></em></strong></p> <p align="center" style="text-align: center;" class="MsoNormal"><strong><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">For Information: <a href="../../nail">www.Mountainresource.org/nail</a></span><o:p /></strong></p> NAIL Forum Tue, 09 Jan 2007 19:29:03 -0800 Current Information on Public Hearing/Second Time Change http://www.mountainresource.org/node/235 <p>After much back and forth confusion between the county and CDF, we have received word from top level CDF management that the correct start time for the public hearing scheduled on January 31 is 7:00PM.&nbsp; Please disregard any communication or notice you received stating the start time is at 6PM. &nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;Full details:</p><p>Public Hearing Re: San Jose Water Company Logging Plan<br />January 31, 2007 --- 7PM to 10PM<br />Santa Clara County Board of Supervisor's Chambers<br />70 W. Hedding St.<br />San Jose, CA</p><div>Directions to 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose:</div> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><strong><em><font size="3"><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Arial;">Go NORTH on HIGHWAY 17. Continue on 17 northbound (becoming I-880) past <st1:city w:st="on">Los Gatos</st1:city> and <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Campbell</st1:place></st1:city>.<span>&nbsp; </span>Take the <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">FIRST STREET</st1:address></st1:street> exit. Turn RIGHT onto N 1ST <st1:place w:st="on">ST.</st1:place> Turn RIGHT onto <st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on">W HEDDING ST</st1:address></st1:street>.<span>&nbsp; </span><st1:street w:st="on"><st1:address w:st="on"><span>70 W Hedding St</span></st1:address></st1:street><span> is on your left.<span>&nbsp; </span>There is street parking</span> <span class="street-address">and a parking lot across the street (bring coins for meters.)<span>&nbsp; </span>Enter building via front lobby and follow directions to Supervisor’s chambers.</span></span><span class="street-address"><o:p /></span></font></em></strong></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Wed, 10 Jan 2007 19:20:31 -0800 SJ MERCURY ARTICLE RE: LOGGING PLAN http://www.mountainresource.org/node/236 <h1><font size="3">S.J. Water Co. draws plan to log land near summit</font></h1> <h2><font size="3">RESIDENTS FIGHT TO SAVE REDWOODS, DOUGLAS FIRS</font></h2> <h5><font size="3">By Paul Rogers</font></h5> <h6><font size="3">Mercury News</font></h6><p><input type="image" name="foo" src="http://www.mercurynews.com/images/mercurynews/mercurynews/16556/274104644872.jpg" />&nbsp;</p><div id="article_related"><div class="photorelated"><p><font size="2"><div class="photocredit"><font size="1" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Karen T. Borchers / Mercury News</font></div> <div class="photocaption"><font size="1" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">A view from the top of Mount Loma Prieta of an area where the San Jose Water Company<br />is proposing to thin out forests. Logging would occur over about 15 years, across 1,000 acres<br />of land the water company owns.</font></div></font></p><font size="2"> <ul> <li><a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/images/mercurynews/mercurynews/16556/274106565368.jpg"><strong>Map:</strong> Proposed logging area</a> </li> <li><a href="flyover"><strong>On the Web: </strong>Logging opponents' flyover movie</a> </li> </ul></font></div> <div class="photocredit"> <div class="photocaption"><font size="2"><em></em></font></div><font size="2">For the thousands of commuters who zoom over Highway 17 between Silicon Valley and Santa Cruz, the towering redwood trees along the route provide a scenic backdrop.</font> </div> </div> <p><font size="2">But lately, they are providing the backdrop for one of Santa Clara County's biggest logging battles ever.</font></p> <p><font size="2">The issue?</font></p> <p><font size="2">Officials at the San Jose Water Co., which provides drinking water to 1 million people -- in San Jose, Los Gatos, Saratoga, Cupertino and Campbell -- are proposing to log redwood and Douglas fir trees over 1,002 acres the company owns between Lexington Reservoir near Los Gatos and Summit Road at the Santa Clara-Santa Cruz county line.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Logging, says the company, will reduce fire danger by thinning out an overgrown forest that hasn't been logged in 100 years. They say it will protect their watershed from mud and ash that would pour into Los Gatos Creek during a major blaze. They cite a 1985 fire that burned 13,000 acres and 42 homes nearby.</font></p> <p><font size="2">``This is a modest, careful, rational and efficient plan that is mindful of the environment and the residents,'' said Rich Roth, chief executive of San Jose Water.</font></p> <p><font size="2">But neighbors strongly oppose the plan.</font></p> <p><font size="2">They have hired several top fire scientists who say the thinning will open the forest to more sunlight, drying it out and increasing fire danger. They also cite studies concluding that logging on the steep slopes could cause landslides.</font></p> <p><font size="2">``You've got some of the best people in the country saying it will increase fire risk,'' said Kevin Flynn, a Cisco Systems manager who lives in Chemeketa Park along Highway 17. ``If the wind turns the wrong way, the fire's going into downtown Los Gatos.''</font></p> <p><strong><span class="subhead"><font size="2">`Extremely alarmed'</font></span></strong></p> <p><font size="2">Flynn and other opponents say if the plan is approved by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, they'll sue to stop it.</font></p> <p><font size="2">``The landslides this could cause threaten our roads and our homes,'' said Linda Wallace, president of the Chemeketa Park Mutual Water Co., and a 26-year resident of the area. ``We're extremely alarmed.''</font></p> <p><font size="2">The logging plan will be the subject of a public hearing Wednesday in San Jose. It calls for dividing the area into nine zones of about 100 acres each, and logging each once every 15 to 20 years for six weeks at a time. Timber crews wouldn't clear-cut the forests, they note, and would remove 40 percent of the trees over 24 inches in diameter and 20 percent of trees 12 inches around.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Neighbors, however, say the cumulative impacts threaten the whole area.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Ground zero is Chemeketa Park, where logging would be closest to homes. The private neighborhood five miles south of Los Gatos was built in 1925 by a Palo Alto developer who sold lots in the San Jose Mercury-Herald for $50 each. The 150 homes were used as vacation cabins for San Francisco and San Jose residents in the 1930s, but now are year-round residences.</font></p> <p><font size="2">At the heart of the debate is the size of the trees to be cut. Many fire studies show that large trees are more resistant to fire, while small trees and brush are most flammable. Critics say the water company is looking to make money on the project by taking mostly large trees.</font></p> <p><font size="2">``The small trees burn; the big trees don't. For fire risk, this plan is backward,'' said Jodi Frediani, a longtime Santa Cruz County logging activist hired by opponents to review the plans.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Frediani and other critics say they would support some logging in the area, as long as only the brush and smaller trees were removed.</font></p> <p><font size="2">``We're not against all logging. We're against irresponsible logging,'' said Terry Clark, a retired Hewlett-Packard manager living in Aldercroft Heights.</font></p> <p><font size="2">But the water company says it needs to cut some large trees to pay for removing small trees and brush, which have no timber value.</font></p> <p><strong><span class="subhead"><font size="2">`Income stream'</font></span></strong></p> <p><font size="2">`We need the income stream. Then we've got dollars to fund the brush clearing,'' said Andrew Gere, maintenance chief of the water company.</font></p> <p><font size="2">The company has hired Big Creek Lumber, a Davenport timber company, to write the logging plans and cut the trees.</font></p> <p><font size="2">``Removing brush can cost $4,500 an acre,'' said Matt Dias, a registered professional forester with Big Creek Lumber. ``You have to cut it by hand and haul it away to a landfill. It's expensive.''</font></p> <p><font size="2">The opponents note that San Francisco, Marin County and Santa Cruz ban logging in their watershed lands. The water company counters with Watsonville, the East Bay Municipal Utility District and New York City, which allow logging.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Roth, the water company CEO, said Friday that the company would make only $500,000 in profit every two years from its logging, after thinning brush and other costs were taken into account.</font></p> <p><strong><span class="subhead"><font size="2">`Long-term road map'</font></span></strong></p> <p><font size="2">Another controversy is that the company wants an open-ended state permit, known as a ``non-industrial timber management plan,'' which never expires. It says it needs certainty to invest the money to manage the watershed, with the plan including repairs to miles of old dirt roads, along with water quality monitoring twice a month at five locations along Los Gatos Creek.</font></p> <p><font size="2">``If all we were interested in was timber revenue, we'd do one heavy cut, make the money and be out of there,'' said Gere. ``This is a long-term road map and plan for managing the land.''</font></p> <p><font size="2">Gere confirmed that the water company and local land trusts and park agencies have discussed a possible sale of an easement limiting development. But he said any such deal would have to ``ensure the same management objectives,'' meaning forest thinning to reduce fire risk would remain.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Each side has stacks of scientific documents to buttress its case. That leaves some community leaders scratching their heads. Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage, who represents the area, said he hasn't made up his mind whether the county should fight the state if it approves the plan.</font></p> <p><font size="2">``I want to see the facts,'' he said. ``I'm trying to find a win-win situation. I don't want to make decisions on an emotional basis.''</font></p> <p><font size="2">Under state law, the open-ended permit requires ``sustainability,'' meaning no more wood can be cut than naturally grows back every 15 years. The water company is seeking to remove 15 million board feet over 15 years -- enough to build 1,000 houses.</font></p> <p><font size="2">Since 1995, there have been six other logging plans in the area. One, by Big Creek, was done six years ago on the other side of Highway 17, on 500 acres of the former Alma College property, now an open-space preserve. Today, a visitor to the forest has a hard time seeing where the logging occurred. Big trees remain where logging occurred, and new trees six to eight feet tall have grown up.</font></p> <p><font size="2">``We've had harvests in that area over the last 10 years,'' said Rich Sampson, a state forestry official in Felton. ``I haven't witnessed any major landslides from them, and there haven't been any major fires there.''</font></p> <p><strong><span class="subhead"><font size="2">High profile</font></span></strong></p> <p><font size="2">The debate took on a high profile several months ago when opponents used Google Earth software to create a ``flyover'' showing the area to be logged. Google employee Rebecca Moore showed it to former Vice President Al Gore when he visited the company, and he issued a statement calling the logging plan ``deeply flawed.''</font></p> <p><font size="2">Forestry officials will make a decision in the coming months. Sampson says they will continue to ask for changes such as rewriting slope rules. Until then, both sides are digging in.</font></p> <p><font size="2">``This is probably going to be the most highly scrutinized timber harvest in the history of California,'' Big Creek spokesman Bob Berlage said.</font></p><font size="2"><hr size="1" color="#cccccc" class="infobox-hr-separator" /></font> <div class="infobox"> <p><font size="2">IF YOU'RE INTERESTED</font></p> <p><font size="2">The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection will hold a public hearing at 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 70 W. Hedding St., San Jose.</font></p> </div><!-- end body-content --><!-- begin body-end --> <div class="body-end"><font size="2"> <div class="tagline"><hr size="1" color="#cccccc" class="tagline" /></div> <div class="tagline"><em><span class="tagline">Contact Paul Rogers at <a href="mailto:progers@mercurynews.com">progers@mercurynews.com</a> or (408) 920-5045.</span></em></div> <div class="tagline"><em><span class="tagline"></span></em></div> <div class="tagline"><em><span class="tagline">Full online article may be found <a target="_blank" href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16559963.htm">here</a>.</span></em>&nbsp;</div></font></div><!-- end body-end --><!-- begin body-end --> NAIL Forum Sat, 27 Jan 2007 11:30:01 -0800 SJ Mercury Editorial Opposes Logging Plan http://www.mountainresource.org/node/237 <p><em><font size="2">The following editorial appearing in the January 30, 2007 issue of the San Jose Mercury News: </font></em><br /></p> <div> <h1><font size="6" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Logging plan excessive for future of watershed</font></h1> <h2><font size="4" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">PUBLIC OWNERSHIP OF SITE SHOULD BE PURSUED AGGRESSIVELY</font></h2> <p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Mercury News Editorial</font></p><!-- begin body-content --> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The fight over a proposed logging plan above Lexington Reservoir in the Santa Cruz Mountains comes down to two basic elements: fire and water.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">San Jose Water Co. says it needs to sell the lumber to pay for fire-prevention work on the 1,000 acres of watershed it owns between the reservoir and Summit Road east of Highway 17.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Opponents say dirt from the logging itself will contaminate the creek -- and by taking out many of the tallest redwoods and Douglas firs, this plan could actually increase the risk of fire by creating a drier forest floor.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The best resolution for everyone would be the sale of this land to the taxpayer-funded Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. The district already owns thousands of acres in the mountains and would be a good steward of this beautiful and environmentally sensitive watershed.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Fortunately, talks have begun. Unfortunately, a sale does not appear to be close enough to derail San Jose Water's application to log the area.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Some logging could be a reasonable trade-off to finance the clearing of brush, which creates the fire danger but has zero market value. However, the current proposal to take out 40 percent of trees over two feet in diameter is excessive.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection should consider a logging permit only with these limitations:</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span class="box_solid">•&nbsp;</span>Scale back the number of big trees that can be cut.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span class="box_solid">•&nbsp;</span>Prohibit logging near Aldercroft Heights and Chemeketa Park, the main enclaves of mountain homes adjacent to the water company land. Like much of the Santa Cruz Mountains, this is an area where houses should never have been built, but that's no excuse for risking further instability now.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span class="box_solid">•&nbsp;</span>Areas nearest the creek bed should not be logged.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span class="box_solid">•&nbsp;</span>Logging should begin in areas farthest from the creek, and the state should carefully monitor the first few harvests before deciding on a blanket approval of a long-range timber management plan.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The open-ended nature of this application is part of the controversy.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Rather than a one-time timber harvest, San Jose Water proposes to break the acreage into nine zones and harvest them on a rotating basis. Each zone would be logged once every 15 or 20 years for six weeks at a time. Doing the work would be Big Creek Lumber, which has a good track record of leaving behind a healthy forest: Visit one of its logging sites a few years later, and you're hard-pressed to tell where trees were cut.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">But for an indefinite logging permit, trust is a legitimate issue. San Jose Water is part of a publicly traded company subject to stockholder pressure for higher revenue. And while Big Creek today is an ecologically responsible logger, who's to say it won't be bought in 10 or 20 years by ClearCuts 'R' Us?</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Public ownership is the best alternative for this land, which can't be developed regardless of who owns it. The sooner the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and the water company get serious about negotiations, the better off the community will be.</font></p><p><em><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Original editorial may be found <a target="_blank" href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/16586541.htm">here&nbsp;</a></font></em></p><!-- end body-content --></div> NAIL Forum Thu, 01 Feb 2007 08:39:38 -0800 SJ Mercury News: Neighbors use high-tech tools to challenge logging plan http://www.mountainresource.org/node/238 <p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>The following article appeared in the February 1, 2007 </em><em>San Jose Mercury News:</em></font></p><p><font size="5"><strong><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Neighbors use high-tech tools to challenge logging plan</font></strong></font></p> <h5><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">By Paul Rogers<br /></font><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Mercury News</font></h5> <!-- begin body-content --> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Armed with high-tech cameras, mapping software and a helicopter flown by a nemesis of Barbra Streisand, neighbors opposing a plan by San Jose Water Co. to log 1,000 acres in the Los Gatos Creek watershed claim they have found the plan's Achilles' heel.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Aerial photos and a detailed computer analysis show that the water company owns at least 2,754 acres of timberland containing redwood and Douglas fir trees, opponents said outside a public forum Wednesday.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">That's a key number, because California law sets 2,500 acres as the maximum amount of forest land containing commercially viable trees that any landowner can own while remaining eligible for the kind of open-ended logging permit for which the water company has applied.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">``We did aerial photography of every piece of land in the watershed,'' said Google engineer Rebecca Moore, a Summit Road-area resident opposing the plan. ``We used the absolute strictest definition of what timberland is, and they have too much.''</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The findings could form the basis of a lawsuit against the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection if it approves the logging plan in the months ahead. At the very least, it sets up a battle of dueling computer mapping studies in an ``only in Silicon Valley'' kind of eco-showdown.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Matt Dias, a forester with Big Creek Lumber of Davenport, which San Jose Water has hired to log the property, said he has conducted his own exhaustive survey of the water company's property holdings. The company owns about 6,000 acres, with 2,002 acres of timberland, Dias said.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">``I haven't seen their methods,'' Dias said. ``But we have digitized the property, we have spent weeks walking every single parcel, and we made a conservative estimate.''</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The water company said it hopes to reduce fire risk on 1,002 acres of watershed lands it owns between Lexington Reservoir and Summit Road along the east side of Highway 17 near Los Gatos. The company has applied for a ``non-industrial timber management plan,'' to cut 20 percent of redwoods and Douglas fir trees under 12 inches in diameter and 40 percent of those trees over 24 inches in diameter during a 15-year period.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The company says the logging will reduce fire risk by thinning a forest that hasn't been logged since the 1800s. Neighbors fear noise, increased fire risk and landslides.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Wednesday night, 480 people showed up at the Santa Clara County government center in San Jose for a state forestry hearing on the plan, according to a tally by the fire marshal. Testimony continued for hours into the night. State forestry officials are expected to decide on the plan this spring.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The opponents' latest tactic involved enlisting the help of Kenneth Adelman, a Santa Cruz County resident who made millions when he founded TGV Software in the 1980s and later sold it to Cisco Systems. Adelman owns a helicopter and, in 2002, flew along the California coast, taking more than 12,000 digital photos.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">He made national news in 2003 when he was sued by Streisand for $10 million after refusing to remove from his Web site an aerial photo of the Malibu cliffs that included Streisand's home.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">A judge threw the suit out. Streisand was ordered to pay $155,000 to cover Adelman's legal fees.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Last February and July, Adelman flew Moore above the San Jose Water property. They took more than 700 photos, then she merged them with Google Earth software. Adelia Barber, a doctoral student in ecology at the University of California-Santa Cruz, then analyzed each photo, circling areas of redwoods and Douglas fir trees so the software could measure the exact area of each. At a minimum, the company has 2,754 acres of commercial timber, but it could have as many as 3,428 acres if surrounding areas where small saplings could grow are included, Barber said.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Moore said such technology has given regular people significant power in battling the government and large corporations.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">``It levels the playing field,'' she said, noting that environmentalists from British Columbia, Australia and Minnesota have called her asking about it.</font></p> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">It will be up to state forestry officials to decide whose acreage totals are most accurate. The water company could sell some property to get under the 2,500-acre minimum, but Moore said ``we'd sharpen our pencils a little more'' and take additional surveys.</font></p> <!-- end body-content --> <!-- begin body-end --> <div class="body-end"> <div class="tagline"><hr size="1" color="#cccccc" class="tagline" /> <p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em><span class="tagline">Contact Paul Rogers at <a href="mailto:progers@mercurynews.com">progers@mercurynews.com</a> or (408) 920-5045.</span></em></font><br /><em><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Original article may be found <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16598865.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.&nbsp;</font></em></p> </div> </div><p>&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Thu, 01 Feb 2007 08:45:16 -0800 Silicon Valley Metro: "Log Jam" http://www.mountainresource.org/node/239 <p><font size="5" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Log Jam</font></p><p><em><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">From <a href="http://metroactive.com/metro/02.07.07/fly-0706.html" target="_blank">Silicon Valley Metro, Feb 7-13, by Vrinda Normand</a>&nbsp;</font></em></p><h3> </h3> <p><font size="3" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">If looks could kill, <strong>Matt Dias</strong> from Big Creek Lumber would be a goner. The forester's cheeks turned red from the tension as a crowd of nearly 500 Santa Cruz Mountain residents at last week's public hearing shot eye-daggers at the man behind the plan to raze 1,000 acres owned by the San Jose Water Company between downtown Los Gatos and the summit. More than 90 people, many of them members of <strong>Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging</strong>, spoke in the Santa Clara County Building before California Department of Forestry officials, who will be deciding on the plan proposed by SJW and Big Creek. &quot;As a resident and an engineer, I'm nothing short of appalled at this plan moving forward,&quot; said <strong>Morgan Kessler</strong>, echoing concern about how logging might impact water quality and fire safety for local residents. Passionate applause from the overflow crowd peaked after Google engineer <strong>Rebecca Moore</strong> alleged that SJW is ineligible for an Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan (NTMP). The long-term timber management plan is only for landowners with less than 2,500 acres of timberland. Moore's team of scientists used high-resolution aerial photographs to map out the company's property and identified at least 2,700 acres flush with redwoods and Douglas firs. Dias could not respond at the hearing but later told the media that SJW owns only 2,000 acres of timberland. It will be interesting to see how the stakeholders fend off this latest blow after the recent onslaught of criticism: four nationally renowned fire experts said the logging plan, which aims to remove the largest (and most valuable) trees, would increase fire hazard in the forest. <strong>David Ganz</strong>, the fire scientist hired by SJW, came to the opposite conclusion, and calls his peer's reviews mere &quot;opinions.&quot; Before the public hearing, SJW held a private press conference at its office on Bascom Avenue—if the purpose was to cull sympathy from a captive media audience, it failed. Later news reports hooked on the opponents and their supporters protesting outside of the building, waving plaques that said &quot;Save Our Watershed.&quot;</font></p><p><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em><font size="2">Original article may be found <a href="http://metroactive.com/metro/02.07.07/fly-0706.html" target="_blank">here</a>.&nbsp;</font></em></font></p> NAIL Forum Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:26:59 -0800 Directions to NAIL Benefit Auction/Concert http://www.mountainresource.org/node/240 <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td valign="bottom" align="left" width="300" rowspan="6"><strong><input type="image" src="files/images/nail_web_logo_0_0.jpg" name="Nail Logo" /></strong></td> <td nowrap="true" align="left"><font color="#000000" size="2">&nbsp;San Jose Water Company Logging Plan DENIED! <a href="nail/plan_denied">Click Here</a></font></td> </tr> <tr> <td nowrap="true" align="left"><font size="2">&nbsp;NAIL and Google Earth - Hi Tech Activism :&nbsp;</font><a href="nail/google_earth"><font size="2">Click Here</font></a></td> </tr> <tr> <td nowrap="true" align="left"><font size="2">&nbsp;Who Helped Us?&nbsp;Officials To Thank:&nbsp;</font><a href="nail/officials"><font size="2">Click Here</font></a></td> </tr> <tr> <td nowrap="true" align="left">&nbsp;<font size="2">NAIL in the News: </font><a href="nail/in_the_news"><font size="2">Click Here</font></a></td> </tr> <tr> <td nowrap="true" align="left">&nbsp;<font size="2">Latest Newsletter: </font><a href="nail/news"><font size="2">Click Here</font></a></td> </tr> <tr> <td nowrap="true" align="left">&nbsp;<font size="2">Former Cable Rocket Subscribers -&nbsp; </font><a href="node/248"><font size="2">Click Here</font></a></td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="middle" align="left" bgcolor="#000000" colspan="2" height="2" /> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p><strong><font color="#000000">Welcome to DigNit! <em>Are you Diggin' it?</em></font></strong></p> <p><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3"><strong><font color="#000000">A Benefit Concert for</font><a title="Purchase Tickets Now" href="http://www.dignit.com/members/2/events.php"><font color="#000000"><img title="Benefit for NAIL" style="WIDTH: 300px; HEIGHT: 439px" height="439" alt="Benefit for NAIL" src="http://www.dignit.com/members/2/event_2_image.jpg" width="300" align="right" border="0" /></font></a><br /><font color="#000000">Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging</font></strong></font></p> <p><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font color="#000000"><strong><font size="2">Featuring:</font></strong><br /></font></font><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="2"><strong><em><a title="Shrink Circus" href="http://www.dignit.com/members/2/"><font color="#000000">Shrink Circus -<u> Click Here</u></font></a><br /></em></strong><font color="#000000">with special guests<br /><strong><em><a title="MotorPunx" href="http://www.dignit.com/members/29/">MotorPunx - <u>Click Here</u></a></em></strong></font></font></p> <p><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" color="#000000"><strong>Saturday March 15th<br />The Venue, Los Gatos</strong></font></p> <p><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" color="#000000">Doors Open at 7:00<br />Show Starts at 8:00</font></p> <p><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font color="#000000">Tickets: only $10.00 </font><a title="Purchase Tickets" href="http://www.dignit.com/members/2/events.php"><em><strong><font color="#000000">Click Here</font></strong></em></a><font color="#000000"> to Purchase.<br /><br />All ticket and food concessions will be donated<br />to NAIL.</font></font><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br /></font></p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p><br /><br />Our Previous&nbsp; Events-&nbsp;<br /><br />&nbsp;<font size="3"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" color="#0000cc"><strong><font size="4"><em>The Fight's Not Over!&nbsp;&nbsp; You are cordially invited to...<br /></em><br /></font><font size="4">A Benefit to<br />SAVE THE LOS GATOS CREEK WATERSHED!<br /><br />Sunday, March 25, 3:00 to 7:00 PM<br />at the Redwood Estates Pavilion<br /><font size="3"><em>21450 Madrone Drive<br />Redwood Estates<br /><br />See <a href="nail">NAIL Home Page</a> for more info</em></font></font></strong></font></font><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3"><br /></font><br /></p> <p style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">&nbsp;</p> <p style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="4"><strong>Directions to Redwood Estates Pavilion:</strong></font></p> <p style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3"><strong>From Los Gatos:</strong> Take Highway 17 South toward Santa Cruz, In approximately 5-8 minutes you will see a small sign which says &quot;<span style="COLOR: black">Redwood</span> <span style="COLOR: black">Estates</span>&quot; (<span style="COLOR: black">Redwood</span> <span style="COLOR: black">Estates</span> to the right). Take this exit. (If you got all the way to Summit Rd, you went too far up Highway 17, you would need to turn around at the top and follow the directions below, &quot;From Santa Cruz&quot;). Exit Right off Highway 17 as indicated. Then take an immediate Right turn up the hill and follow the signs.<br /></font></p> <p><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="3"><strong style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">From Santa Cruz:</strong><span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"> Take Highway 17 North toward Los Gatos. Go past Summit Rd down the hill toward Los Gatos. In only about 1-2 minutes after the summit, take the &quot;</span><span style="COLOR: black; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">Redwood</span><span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"> </span><span style="COLOR: black; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">Estates</span><span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">&quot; exit to the right off Highway 17. (This is indicated by a small sign: &quot;</span><span style="COLOR: black; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">Redwood</span><span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"> </span><span style="COLOR: black; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">Estates</span><span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"> &quot;). Go slow, the right turn when exiting is a very sharp slightly downhill right turn. In a couple of hundred feet, you will see a sign pointing to the right that says; &quot;</span><span style="COLOR: black; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">Redwood</span><span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)"> </span><span style="COLOR: black; BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">Estates</span><span style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: rgb(255,255,255)">/Santa Cruz&quot;, follow the road around to the right, under the overpass and follow the signs.<br /></span></font></p></font /></font /> NAIL Forum Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:48:02 -0700 L.G. Town Council Studies Dangers of Logging in Mountains http://www.mountainresource.org/node/241 <p>The following appeared in the <em>Los Gatos Weekly </em>the week of March 19th.</p><h2 class="title">Will logging plan affect town? Los Gatos looking it over now</h2><!-- <h3 class="subhead">Town to consider whether Apple Store can move in</h3> --> <p><em>By</em> Jason Sweeney</p> <p>The town of Los Gatos has stayed out of the controversy surrounding a proposal to log 1,002 acres of redwood and Douglas fir trees above the Lexington Reservoir. As the California Department of Forestry comes closer to completing its review of the proposal, the town has decided to take a closer look. </p><p>The timberland in question lies outside the town's jurisdiction. Last month, the town retained an environmental consultant to review all reports on a Nonindustrial Timber Management Plan that, if approved, would give Big Creek Lumber the go-ahead to log in perpetuity nine units of timberland owned by the San Jose Water Co. The environmental consultant hired by the town has been asked to determine whether the proposed logging would have any impact on Los Gatos. </p><p>The logging plan has been controversial since it first became public in 2005. The San Jose Water Co. and Big Creek Lumber hope the NTMP will be approved this year allowing logging to go forward, but mountain residents have organized in strong opposition. They argue logging in the mountains will have numerous negative effects on their lives. </p><p>Los Gatos has thus far taken a &quot;wait-and-see&quot; approach to the logging proposal as various county and state agencies review the NTMP. </p><p>&quot;It's beyond the town boundaries by several miles,&quot; Mayor Joe Pirzynski said. &quot;But a number of issues have been raised from this proposal that might have an effect on the town.&quot; </p><p>Pirzynski recalled the 1985 Lexington Fire that started outside town limits but threatened the downtown. &quot;The fire risk is an issue that obviously concerns us because that is the backdrop to our community,&quot; he said. &quot;We know that part of this proposal is fire mitigation, but we need to evaluate what the facts are.&quot; </p><p>Opponents of the logging proposal argue that removing large trees from the forest and leaving slash on the forest floor will increase the fire hazard. Big Creek Lumber counters that thinning the forest will reduce that hazard. </p><p>Pirzynksi said other possible consequences could be an increase in landslide risk, changes in water quality and more traffic due to logging trucks using Highway 17. </p><p>&quot;The way we are looking at this situation is at what the potential impacts could be to our town, if any,&quot; Pirzynski said. &quot;We may discover that the impacts are minimal to none. If we do find that the impacts to the town are significant, then at that point we will determine what actions we can take.&quot; </p><p>In January, several hundred people packed the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors chambers in San Jose at a public forum held by the California Department of Forestry concerning the logging plan. The majority of speakers at the meeting spoke against the plan, while representatives from Big Creek Lumber and the San Jose Water Company argued a case for responsible logging. </p><p>Currently, the CDF is addressing issues raised at the public forum and vetting a pre-harvest inspection report. The CDF is also waiting for data from Big Creek Lumber and from Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging regarding competing findings on the amount of timberland owned by the San Jose Water Co. </p><p>NAIL, a group of mountain residents opposed to the logging plan, maintains the San Jose Water Co. owns more timberland than state law allows for the type of logging plan that has been applied for. But Big Creek Lumber states otherwise. </p><p>If the CDF determines the water company owns more than 2,500 acres of commercially viable timberland, then the NTMP would be recommended for denial. </p><p>&quot;This is a fairly controversial plan,&quot; CDF forest practice inspector Richard Sampson said. &quot;There are a number of issues that we are working on--fire-related, endangered species, road access, the type of equipment to be used in the logging. For a large plan like this for as controversial as it is, I'm not surprised how long it's taking to review it, and I'd rather not rush it.&quot; </p><p>Sampson said the next step in the review process is for Big Creek Lumber to address issues and questions that have come out of various reports. If that is done satisfactorily, the report is then passed to the CDF Region Forest Practice Office in Santa Rosa for a final review. If everything received is complete, public comment would be closed and the office has 15 days to approve or deny the plan. Sampson said it is possible a decision could be made before the year is out. </p><p>NAIL is hosting a benefit on March 25 at the Redwood Estates Pavilion to raise funds to continue fighting the logging proposal and to pay for lawsuits if the plan is approved. </p><!-- ************************* End Content ******************************** --><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> NAIL Forum Sat, 24 Mar 2007 08:49:18 -0700 Thank You Residents For Your Fundraising Support! http://www.mountainresource.org/node/242 <div><font size="2" face="Arial"> <div><font size="2" face="Arial"><strong>Thank you to all NAIL members who were able to attend our fundraiser this Sunday in the Redwood Estates Pavilion</strong>.&nbsp; It was a great event with terrific food, excellent live music groups and generous bidding on the silent auction items.&nbsp; Everyone was having a good time and your efforts have allowed NAIL the finances to continue the opposition fight for more months as we await a decision on the plan.</font></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial">If you were unable to attend but would still like to donate to&nbsp;NAIL, please send a check to NAIL/MRG, P.O. Box 1975, Los Gatos CA 95033.&nbsp; You can also pay through PayPal on this website.<br /><br /> </font></div> <div>Special thanks go out to all the donors, both private and businesses, who gave items for the silent auction.&nbsp; The selection and range were perfect.&nbsp;We are grateful to the efforts of <span style="font-weight: bold;">H</span><strong>itachi</strong> for the event underwriting donation and the donation of the Sharks package with&nbsp;use of <strong>Hitachi's </strong><font size="2" face="Arial">corporate box and 20 tickets.</font> <br /></div> <div><p><font size="2" face="Arial">Additional thanks to the cadre of <strong>Lexington School parents</strong> who came out in force to manage the event, get food donations, make food, serve food, clean up, decorate and assist wherever needed.&nbsp; This is an awesome group of parents who have the running of a fundraiser down to a science.</font> <br /></p></div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial">Many thanks to both <strong>Alientar,</strong> land <strong>Soundscape Jazz Ensemble</strong> for donating their group's clear musical&nbsp;talents to the event's entertainment. <br /></font></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial">This is an undertaking that could&nbsp;not have happened without the dozens of roles that individuals in our community played to make it happen.&nbsp; For everyone who assisted in even the smallest way, we are very grateful and we extend our thanks to you.</font></div> <div>&nbsp;</div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial">Terry Clark, Kevin Flynn, Rea Freedom, Rebecca Moore, Rick Parfitt, Linda Wallace</font></div> <div><font size="2" face="Arial">NAIL Steering Committee</font></div></font></div> NAIL Forum Mon, 26 Mar 2007 17:10:30 -0700 Letter to CDF from Prof. Don Erman http://www.mountainresource.org/node/243 <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Here is a recent letter submitted to CDF regarding another NTMP up north.&nbsp; The plan is being strongly opposed.&nbsp; The letter is both uplifting and extremely supportive of NAIL's expert fire comments.</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">&nbsp;<br />The author is a fisheries biologist and Professor Emeritus at UC Davis.&nbsp; </font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p><br />43200 E. Oakside Pl.</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Davis, CA 95618</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><o:p>&nbsp; <br /></o:p></font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">April 25, 2007</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br />California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Attn: Forest Practice</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">135 Ridgway Avenue</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Santa Rosa, CA 95401</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">RE: NTMP 1-06NTMP-011SON</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I have reviewed the proposed harvest plan and submit the following comments. I am retired from the University of California where I taught and conducted research in aquatic ecology with emphasis on the effects of land use on aquatic systems. Portions of this research were located in the coastal redwood region of California.</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The proposed timber harvesting plan for the Bohemian Grove will result in substantial changes in the structure of the forest and increased disturbance to the watershed. The plan will reduce the amount of hardwood by 50% area-wide and have a similar reduction in the amount of large diameter conifers. The streamside zones (riparian) will lose significant functional processes and the aquatic community will suffer over time.<br /><o:p><br />The reasons given for this change in conditions are to improve growth and harvest and to reduce risk of catastrophic fire. In the latter case, the logic presented is that the changed condition of the forest will be closer to the pre-logged state of the early 1900s. The basis for supporting this new condition is the claim that the redwood forests of the North Coast were formerly composed of widely spaced trees, open canopy, multiage, non-old trees (and presumably a clean understory). Such a picture is surely the condition that will prevail under the proposed plan, but it has little basis in science as the natural condition.</o:p></font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">The description of this early condition sounds quite similar to the myths used to claim the Sierra Nevada forests looked the same way before intensive logging. Such a picture also implies that larger, old trees are a fire hazard when all evidence suggests that these aged trees are the most fire resistant. At the same time, slash generated by increased harvest in the plan can be left on the ground where it ³will naturally deteriorate over time² (p. 32). Certainly over some amount of time the latter is a true statement; but if the concern is fire risk, why would a doubling of the amount of slash from current harvest levels (with annual additions) not be a fuels concern if living green material is? There is no discussion in relation to increased fire risk of a drier and warmer microclimate in forest stands likely to be created under this plan . The scientific basis is highly suspect for claiming fire risk necessitates such a change in stand conditions for the foreseeable future.</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><o:p>The proposed plan will certainly lead to increased harvests over time and a change in growth. The cost is the virtual elimination (except for the small area in the camp vicinity) of the largest size class of trees in the majority of the holding and a major change in the magnitude of entry and general disturbance.</o:p></font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">From a long, and unfortunate, history of logging in the North Coast it is well known that even the best of intentions for mitigation fail when logging is extensive. The risks in this region are high when land disturbance occurs. The change proposed in this plan will increase the risk of mitigation failures, unforeseen sedimentation and other problems. Even when risks of high erosion hazards and steep slopes are acknowledged, the plan defends entry to these areas by tractor as the necessity to log.</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Plans to mitigate disturbance to riparian zones, for example, are said to be more than required by regulations. However, in broad terms the level of harvest, trail crossings of watercourses,and reductions in near-stream large trees will have an impact on stream and riparian habitat. The streamsize protection zones widths, although within the rules, are still on the order of fractions of a site potential tree height. Abundant literature continues to support riparian protection that starts with width of the site potential tree height near streams as a critical dimension for protecting stream functions.</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Thus, over time, the true riparian influence zone (scientifically known to be hundreds of feet) will be dramatically altered by this plan. For example, in the plan provision of large wood recruitment to the streams is said to be taken care of by a 50¹ zone near the channel (p. 24). Detailed studies at Caspar Creek showed that the chain of events that lead to wood recruitment is several tree lengths in distance from a channel. Leaf and needle fall to a stream and maintenance of riparian microclimate are other functions that will become impaired under the plan.</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Other so-called mitigations in the plan are long-term or permanent disturbances themselves, such as more channels in culverts and creating rip-rapped banks (armored ford crossings. This plan for the Bohemian Grove timber harvest is a hard industrial model* removal of slower growth large trees, removal of ³competing² non-conifer trees, herbicide use to enforce stand composition changes, maximization of growth and harvest, and development of a heavy-use permanent road system. What does the ³N² mean in this NTHP?</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Sincerely,</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Don C. Erman</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">================================</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Don C. Erman</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Professor Emeritus </font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Aquatic ecology/ fisheries biology </font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Recent past director, University of California Centers for Water and Wildland Resources</font></p><p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Team Leader for the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project </font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Conservation Biology </font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">University of California, Davis </font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Davis, CA 95616 </font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif">e-mail: dcerman@ucdavis.edu</font></p> <p class="MsoPlainText"><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></font></p> NAIL Forum Mon, 21 May 2007 18:49:34 -0700 Letter from Assemblymember Ira Ruskin http://www.mountainresource.org/node/245 <p><font size="3">September 27, 2007</font></p><p><font size="3"><br />Dear Friends,<br />I am pleased to inform you that the Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan<br />(NTMP) proposed in the Los Gatos Creek and Thompson Road area by the San Jose<br />Water Company and Big Creek Lumber has been denied. The California Department of<br />Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has ruled that the San Jose Water Company is<br />ineligible for an NTMP.</font></p><p><font size="3"><br />Since the beginning of this process, I voiced my concerns to CAL FIRE about the<br />fire safety issue and the size of the logging area and expressed my desire to see this land<br />preserved as open space. I have nothing but praise for the staff at CAL FIRE who worked<br />with me continuously. I also want to thank the many residents of our community and the<br />Neighbors Against Irresponsible Logging (NAIL) for initially bringing this issue to my<br />attention and working closely with my staff and me. Working together we were<br />successful.</font></p><p><font size="3"><br />Rest assured, I will continue to monitor this situation. If you have further concerns,<br />please contact me.</font></p><p><font size="3"><br />Sincerely,<br />IRA RUSKIN<br />Assemblymember, 21st District</font></p><p><font size="3"><br />STATE CAPITOL<br />P.O. BOX 942849<br />SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0021<br />(916) 319-2021<br />FAX (916) 319-2121<br />IRA RUSKIN<br />ASSEMBLYMEMBER, TWENTY-FIRST DISTRICT</font></p><p><font size="2" face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><em>(original letter attached as pdf)&nbsp;</em></font></p> NAIL Forum Wed, 03 Oct 2007 20:20:46 -0700