Your account does not include highlighter on images.
Searches Highlighted on Image
National Sponsors
| May 18, 2011 Indian Valley Record |  |
|
©
Indian Valley Record. All rights reserved. Upgrade to access Premium Tools
PAGE 19 (19 of 34 available) PREVIOUS NEXT Jumbo Image Save To Scrapbook Set Notifiers PDF JPG
May 18, 2011 |
|
|
Website © 2025. All content copyrighted. Copyright Information Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Request Content Removal | About / FAQ | Get Acrobat Reader 
|
Bulletin, Progressive, Record, Reporter Wednesday, May 18, 2011 91J
COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE
Board responds to Forest Service plans
WHERE I STAND
PLUMAS COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
Hease accept the following
comments from the County of
Plumas regarding the new
forest planning rule proposed
by the United States Forest
Service.
Water and timber: It has
been said from time to time
that for today's Forest Service
"water is the new timber." In
Plumas County, there is a
high level of public recogni-
tion of the water supplies that
flow from National Forest
lands to meet local needs and
- to feed into California's State
Water Project, which pro-
vides water to 25 million peo-
ple from Northern California
to as far away as San Diego.
We applaud the steps taken
by the Forest Service in recent
years to elevate its mission of
ensuring "favorable condi-
tions of vater flows" (one of
the two forest purposes estab-
lished in 1897) and to seek to
establish better connections
between our relatively remote
forest lands and the people
downstream who benefit from
the abundant water supplies
that come off the forests.
However, the other funda-
mental purpose for establish-
ing the National Forests was
.to provide a "continuous sup-
ply of timber for the use and
necessities of citizens of the
United States." From the
broadening of recognized for-
est uses in the Multiple-Use
Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, to
today's interest in monetizing
an array of ecosystem ser-
vices, the fact must not be lost
that the primary purposes of
the National Forests are to
supply water and timber. This
conc.ept must be stated explic-
itly in the planning rule to
provide context for the ambi-
tious inventory of spiritual
sustenance, wilderness desig-
nations, sustainable recre-
ation facilities and many oth-
er things the proposed rule
seeks to advance.
As clearly stated in the Mul-
tiple;Use Sustained-Yield Act
and reinforced by the United
States Supreme Court, uses of
the forest for purposes such
as grazing, aquatic habitat or
recreation are to be supple-
mental to, and not in deroga-
tion of, the purposes for
which the national forests
were established in 1897,
which are the twin pillars of
water and timber. (United
States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S.
696, 714 (1978).)
We are pleased that water is
receiving a renewed level of
appreciation and attention,
but only as a complement to
timber and not as a replace-
ment. In that vein, the new
planning rule should seek to
resurrect an effective level of
active forest management, not
only to restore the continuous
supply of timber, but also in
recognition of the many atten-
dant benefits, such as bio-
mass, fire resiliency and long-
term habitat preservation and
species conservation.
Forest receipts: When the
National Forests were re-
served by the federal govern-
ment and taken off the local
property tax rolls, a commit-
ment was made for a mecha-
nism to generate revenue and
pay for local public services.
New forest plans should in-
clude proactive planning that
will increase economic activi-
ty and fulfill the promise of
that compact wRh the forest
counties. In addressing eco-
nomic sustainability, as the
new rule requires in section
219.8(b)(3), forest plans should
recognize the local economic
benefits and impacts of the
National Forest and address
the relationship between
trends in forest manage-
ment/forest receipts and pay-
ments to support local roads
and schools. Instead, and un-
like the 1982 Planning Rule,
the new rule eliminates any
reference to forest receipts,
which is an unfortunate re-
flection of the abandonment
of forest counties.
Coordination: In 2008, the
Plumas County Board of Su-
pervisors adopted Resolution
08-7514, implementing Coordi-
nated Agency Status and noti-
fying federal and state agen-
cies of Plumas County's ex-
pectation that other agencies
coordinate their plans and
projects with the county as re-
quired by various federal and
state laws.
In particular, the National
Forest Management Act (NF-
MA) requires that forest plans
be coordinated with the land
and resource management
planning processes of state
and local governments. The
provisions of the 1982 plan-
ning rule that address coordi-
nation (section 219.7) provide
an appropriate framework for
coordination with other pub-
lic agencies, and those provi-
sions should be carried for-
ward in the new planning
rule without alteration. Areas
of particular concern include
the following:
• Section 219.7(b) of the cur-
rent planning rule requires
county governments to be giv-
en direct notice of forest plan
revisions and schedules of an-
ticipated planning actions.
Providing a mechanism for
direct notice is a vital means
of ensuring engagement in
planning processes, and we
are strongly opposed to the
elimination of the county no-
tice requirement in the pro-
posed rule.
, Section 219.7(e) of the cur-
rent planning rule requires
the Forest Service to seek in-
put specifically from local gov-
ernments to help resolve man-
agement concerns in the plan-
ning process. This require-
ment for direct consultation
stems from NFMA's mandate
for coordination with local
agencies and confers a status
in planning processes that ac-
knowledges the contributions
and responsibilities that are
in many ways unique to local
agencies, including represen-
tation of the local electorate,
institutional memory and
planning responsibilities for
the private lands that fall un-
der the "all lands" umbrella.
• Section 219.4(b) of the pro-
posed rule states that the For-
est Service will comply with
the local government coordi-
nation requirements of NF-
MA (16 U.S.C. section 1604) "to
the extent practicable and ap-
propriate" (emphasis added).
The proposed rule adds no
such qualifying language
where reference is made to
the requirements of the En-
dangered Species Act, Clean
Water Act, Clean Air Act or
Wilderness Act. It is inappro-
priate to graft that qualifica-
tion onto the clear statutory
language of NFMA, as if to en-
courage the responsible offi-
cial to look for excuses to cir-
cumvent the statute.
• Section 219A(b)(3) of the
proposed rule states that the
Forest Service will not con-
form resource management to
meet non-Forest Service ob-
jectives or policies. That ap-
proach is completely back-
wards. Forest Service plan-
ning and actions should strive
to be consistent with the
plans and priorities of local
agencies for forest manage
ment, recreation, fire safety,
transportation and ecological
and economic sustainability,
among other things. If the
plans and priorities of the
Forest Service and local gov-
ernments cannot be recon-
cried, there must be adequate
analysis to document that
there is no superior alterna-
tive to a proposed plan or ac-
tion. This analysis is already
required by the implementing
regulations of the National
Environmental Policy Act (40
CFR 1506.2(d)).
• Section 219.7(e)(2) of the
proposed rule provides that
"coordination activities" are
among the optional content of
a forest plan. Forest-specific
coordination protocols should
be included in Section
219.7(e)(1) as part of the re-
quired content in a forest
plan.
As a general matter, the
rule should be proactive in
encouraging and requiring
better coordination with local
governments. The statutory
mandate of NFMA is only a
starting point, and the intent
of Congress in mandating "co-
ordination" is reflected in the
Federal Land Policy and Man-
agement Act (FLPMA). The
Forest Service should em-
brace the positive lessons of
successful coordination that
have come out of the FLPMA
process rather than attempt
to hide behind a narrow inter-
pretation of NFMA. And, as
explained in the February 2011
letter to Chief Tidwell from
Fred Kelly Grant and Scan
Curtis, there is a strong case to
be made that the Forest Sei'-
vice is legally compelled to ac-
knowledge and apply the FLP-
MA coordination process.
The elected officials in am"
national government repre-
sent the broad interests of the
American people in how our
National Forests are managed,
but the consequences of Wash-
ington, D.C., management de-
cisions are felt most immedi-
ately and directly by the citi-
zens of forest communities.
Local governments and locally
elected representatives bring a
reservoir of knowledge and in-
stitutional memory to assist
often-transient Forest Service
staff, and they must continue
to have input into forest plan.
ning and management deci-
sions. The recent decisions tra-
der the Travel Management
Rule and the ensuing wave of
appeals and pending lawsuits
are just the latest example of
the chaos created when na-
tional policy directives are im-
posed without any meaningful
local coordination,
Finally, while we support
the coordination provisions of
the 1982 rule over the newly
proposed structure, we also
support the provisions of the
new rule that seek to provide
earlier and greater opportuni-
ties for public input and to
give greater discretion to lo-
cal Forest Service staff to de-
termine what forms of out-
reach and interaction are ap-
propriate for a particular
planning process.
See Response, page 11B
Guidelines for Letters
All letters must contain an ad-
dress and a phone number.
We publish only one letter per
week, per person and only
one letter per person, per
month regarding the same
subject. We do not publish
third-party, anonymous, or
open letters. Letters must be
limited to a maximum of 300
words. The editor will cut any
letter in excess of 300 words.
The deadline is Friday at 3
p.m. (Deadlines may change
due to holidays.) Letters may
be taken to any of Feather
Publishing's offices, sent via
fax to 283-3952, or e-mailed to,
mail@plumasnews.com.
Sign him up
SmartMeters are installed
on homes regardless of radio
frequency radiation concen-
trations or consumer sensitiv-
ities.
PG&E is now proposing
one-time charges and month-
ly fees from consumers who
want to stop SmartMeter RF
radiation.
Our municipal right-of-ways
already contain gas/electric,
without new fees.
To stop the RF emanating
from on our home, I agree to
paying new charges and fees;
however, I prefer to pay them
to "our" new-municipal-utili-
ty company.
Would municipal-utility
companies be more account-
able than a convoluted PG&E:
that loses files; that spends
millions on failed proposi-
tions; and now spends on pro-
paganda promoting Smart-
Meters?
For sure, municipal-utility
companies wouldn't spew
consumers' funds on exces-
sive executive compensa-
tions/million dollar bonus-
es/stock options.
Sign me up!
John L. Bauer
Martinez
Heads up
A day after I read Mr.
Odell's letter to the editor on
"SmartMeters," a PG&E rep-
resentative showeil up on my
property to install the meter. I
said no thanks, please don't.
He said he would not install it
LETTERS to the EDIT{2)R
as requested, and would make
a note of it for PG&E records.
Later, I researched the top-
ic of SmartMeters on the Net
and discovered that thou-
sands have indeed been over-
billed due to human error, au-
tomated (digital) reading er-
rors and/or equipment mal-
function (meters getting too
hot). One utility company
stated that "SmartMeters are
more accurate than analog or
spinning dial meters." How-
ever, I found no corporate
utility-sponsored website that
ensured the "SmartMeter"
would be always accurate.
The courts seem to be back-
ing the utility companies in
class-action and individual
lawsuits regarding Smart-
Meters. (Such a lawsuit was
recently dismissed by a judge
in Kern County Superior
Court.)
After my research, I came
to this conclusion: There are
at least three different ways
things can go wrong with a
SmartMeter: a human being
messes up the billing; the au-
tomated digital reading goes
haywire; or the equipment it-
self goes bonkers. So, for as
long as I can, I will leave well
enough alone with my analog
or spinning dial meter.
Thanks for the heads up, Mr.
Odell.
Crystal Williams
Taylorsvrile
Pave paradise
The Quincy courthouse
public meeting April 26 pre-
sented the proposed construc-
tion of an additional court-
house on the Dame Shirley
Plaza. When questioned
about other alternative loca-
tions, the audience was told
37 locations had been consid-
ered and eliminated. There
was no information present-
ed as to what, where or why
other possible locations had
been eliminated or what cri-
teria were used to make these
determinations.
Fear that downtown busi-
nesses will fail if the court-
rooms are not built on the
plaza was suggested. Is it re-
ally true that we have to rely
on the prosecution of crimi-
nals to maintain our down-
town businesses? That's a sad
commentary about what I've
believed is a peaceful commu-
nity.
How can the small plaza be
a viable location for a mon-
strous 38,238-square-foot
structure with a footprint as
large or larger than the exist-
ing courthouse when it has
yet to be determined where to
construct 135 parking spaces,
especially when 37 existing
parking spaces on the plaza
will be eliminated by the
building.* The idea that Court
Street could be closed to cre-
ate a green area is terrific but
that would eliminate another
three dozen existing parking
spaces while creating addi-
tional congestion on Bucks
Lake Road and most likely
creating the need for down-
town traffic lights. Why has
the plaza been presented as
the preferred location when
inadequate parking, in-
creased traffic congestion,
pedestrian safety and public
sentiment have not been con-
sidered?
The plaza was previously
saved and constructed by a
large collaborating group of
concerned community volun-
teers for the pleasure of all
who live and visit Quincy.
The loss of this community
park and over-development of
the picturesque downtown
sadly reminds me of the Joni
Mitchell song verse, "Don't it
always seem to go that you
don't know what you got till
it's' gone. Pave paradise, put
up a parking lot."
Paul Stancheff
Quincy
Not so common sense
Why doesn't somebody use
common sense when dis-
cussing the proposed new
courthouse?
For example, the State Judi-
cial Council says the cost is
$600 a square foot. Maybe for
the building alone, but the re-
al cost of $51.7 million for
38,000 square feet comes to
about $1,360 a square foot.
And where do they intend
to put the 135 new parking'
spaces they say we need to
provide? Take any downtown
Quincy block, bulldoze and
pave over the whole thing.
You might barely have room
for 135 spaces. Nothing else is
available.
Above all, has anybody con-
sidered whether we really
need a whole new courthouse
at all? •Why not add the im-
provements really needed to
the existing courthouse? Like
some new structure across
the back, most of it two sto-
ries, with third story blocks
at each corner, thus keeping
the window wall of the exist-
ing main courtroom, with
room for a roof garden to
boot. The addition would have
one new courtroom, and we'd
keep the two existing court-
rooms that connect easily to
the addition. This would pro-
vide holding cells and confer-
ence rooms, with secure ac-
cess to all three courtrooms.
Without doubt, all that
could be done for much less
cost and with full architectur-
al compatibility, while avoid-
ing any need to trash other
parts of downtown. If some
additional parking is really
needed, put it on Dame
Shirley. Still better than a
huge new building there.
Unfortunately, it seems that
common sense questions
aren't often raised or consid-
ered when the state offers to
give us local yokels a
grandiose project at "no cost."
It's only bond money. Nobody
has to pay for it. Yeah. Sure.
Bottom line: ff their project
makes any sense at all, it isn't
common sense.
George Terhune
Quincy
Good neighbor
I wish to express my appre-
Ciation for the "green waste"
free service Collins Pine has
offered in Chester. Having a
place to bring pine needles
and branches has helped to
See Letters, page 11B
This week at plumasnews.com
The most read stories on our website for the past week were:
"Getting the Moonlight cut up and out"
"Sheriff draws a crowd at Basin Tea Party meeting"
"Judge denies county's motion to reconsider Cunan case"
The tea party meeting story received the most comments.
Readers were split on whether Sheriff Greg Hagwood's
appearance at the meeting was appropriate for an elected
official. A sampling:
"He CAN have an opinion. Using his position of power to
support a particular segment of society only is a violation
of hb position. He b not being law enforcement when
speaking for a political group." --Concerned citizen
"Sheriff was elected to protect our rights guaranteed by
the Constitution. In his County, his authority is higher than
that of the Federal or State Government. What he did was
not only his job but a sworn duty. He is exactly the kind of
Sheriff I want protecting my rights." --Paul Martinek
HI support the Sheriff's position. The federal government
has and continues to overstep its prescribed boundaries
and I'm not sure why people are OK with this. That's the
root of the problem and the one we need to address. It's a
matter of true freedom (or not) for the people, nothing
more." --Scott C.
"What right h the sheriff protecting? To preserve our right
to drive where we want across the Forest? The FS is trying
to balance the management of public lands for Hall"
people, Not only for those that want to drive through wet
meadows. It's not your* right to damage public lands.
--Tired citizen
Contact your elected officials...
PLUMAS COUNTY SUPERVISORS - 520 Main Street, Room 309, Quincy,
CA 95971; (530) 283-6170; FAX: (530) 283-6288; E-Mail:
i pcbs@countyofplumas.com. Individual supervisors can also be
i e-mailed from links on the county website, countyofplumas.com
PRESIDENT - Baack Obama, the White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW Washington, D.C: 20500. (202) 456-1414. Fax: 202-456-2461.
E-mail: whitehouse.gov/contact/
U.S. SENATOR - Dianne Feinstein (D), 331 Hart Senate Offx'e Bldg.,
Washington, D.C. 20510. (202) 224-3841; FA,Vc 202-228-3954; TrY/TD. (202)
22 4- 2501. District Office: One Post Street, Suite 2450, San Francisco, CA 94104;
Phone: (415) 393-0707; Fax: (415) 393-0710 Website: feinstein.senate.gov.
U.S. SENATOR - Barbara Boxer (D). District Office:. 501 1 St., Suite 7-600,
Sacramento, CA 95814. (916) 448-2787; FAX (916) 448-2563; OR 112 Hart
Bldg., Washington, D.C. 20510. (202) 22443553. FAX (202) 228-0454.
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE, 4TH DIST. - Tam McClintock. 508 Cannon HOB,
Washington, D.C. 20515. (202) 225-2511; FA X (202) 225-5444.
mcdintock.house.gov. DISTRICT OFFICE: 8700 Auburn Folson Rd., Sitite
#100, Granite Ba35 CA 95746; (916) 786-5560, FAX: (916) 786-6,364.
STATE SENATOR, 1st DIST. - Ted Gaines. State Capitol, Room 3056,
Sacramento. CA 95814. (916) 651-4001, FAX: (916) 324-2680. Roseviile olBce:
2140 Professional Dr., #140, RoseviUe, CA, 95661. (916) 783-8232, FAX (916)
783-5487; Jackson office: 33 C Broadway, Jackson, CA 95642, {209) 22.3-9140.
STATE ASSEMBLYMAN, 3RD DIS'(. - Dan Logue, State Capitol,
Sacramento, CA 95814,,(916) 319-2003; FAX (916) 319-2103.
District Office, 1550 Humboldt Rd., Ste. #, Chico, CA 95928; (530) 895-4217,
FAX (530) 895-4219.
GOVERNOR - Jerry Brown, office of the Governor, State
Capitol, Suite 1173, Sacramento, CA 95814: Website: gov.ca.gov/
(916) 445-2841. FAX: (916) 558-3160.
. - . . / .- : ........... j ....... r I IL I _