WCB 6/2013: State $ saves another 10,000 acres

WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD Purchases

From meeting on June 4, 2013

SUMMARY:

4649 acres purchased in full

5048 acres of development rights retired

COST: $13.8 million

http://cdfgnews.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/wildlife-conservation-board-funds-environmental-improvement-and-acquisition-projects-8/

FULL AGENDA: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=67524

MAPS: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68101

(BELOW: Royal Gorge)

Royal Gorge $3,010,000, Placer and Nevada Counties

grant to Truckee Donner Land Trust to acquire two parcels totaling 2,520± acres for the purposes of protecting alpine forests and meadows, … approximately 10 miles west of the City of Truckee, in the Donner Summit area

MORE INFO: http://www.tpl.org/news/press-releases/2012-press-releases/royal-gorge-protected.html

http://www.tdlandtrust.org/

-------------------------

MORE PURCHASES:

Sardella Ranch Conservation Easement, $520,000, Tuolumne County

grant to the California Rangeland Trust to assist with the acquisition of a conservation easement over 523± acres located 7 miles southeast of the town of Sonora

San Diego County MSCP/HCPLA 2009 $578,750,  (Kemerko)

acquire 132± acres of land to protect core areas of habitat that will benefit threatened and endangered species, and secure key regional wildlife linkages located near the communities of Crest and Harbison Canyon in an unincorporated area of San Diego County.

Ten Mile River (Perry-Smith Ranch) $3,510,000, Mendocino County

grant to The Nature Conservancy to acquire a working forest conservation easement over 872± acres of native forest lands located adjacent to, and along the Ten Mile River, north of Inglenook on the Mendocino Coast.

Garden Bar Preserve $1,452,000, Nevada County

grant to the Bear Yuba Land Trust to acquire 652± acres along the Bear River, approximately 10 miles northwest of the City of Auburn

El Dorado Ranch $3,000,000, El Dorado and Amador Counties

grant to the American River Conservancy (ARC) to acquire in fee 1,059± acres fronting the Cosumnes River, located approximately 15 miles south of the City of Placerville

Wilmar Ranch, Diablo Range Oak Woodland $275,000, Conservation Easement

Monterey County

grant to California Rangeland Trust to acquire a conservation easement over 2,114± acres

Rancho Vierra Oak Woodland $660,000, Conservation Easement

Monterey County

grant to Big Sur Land Trust to assist with the acquisition of a conservation easement over 964± acres 6 miles northeast of the City of Salinas

Bufford Ranch Conservation Easement $570,000, Kern County

grant to the California Rangeland Trust to assist with the acquisition of a conservation easement over 575± acres located approximately 12 miles south of Lake Isabella

Arrastre Canyon $260,000, Los Angeles County

grant to The Nature Conservancy (TNC), acceptance of settlement funds from the U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Fund (aka ARCO funds), and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Recovery Land Acquisition grant and the approval to subgrant the ARCO funds and grant funds to TNC to acquire 286± acres of land to protect habitat for threatened and endangered species, and maintain habitat connectivity within the upper Santa Clara River floodplain and watershed in Arrastre Canyon, a tributary to the Santa Clara River located just south of community of Acton

-
Water Agency Threatens Mokelumne River

http://www.friendsoftheriver.org/site/PageNavigator/FOR%20pages/California%20Rivers/FORCalRiversMokelumneRiver

4/2009--Friends of the River and other conservationists have worked for years to improve flows in the Mokelumne River for fish, wildlife, and recreation, as well as to enhance recreational access. A proposed reservoir expansion threatens to drown these recent environmental and recreational gains.

The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) is proposing to expand the existing Pardee Reservoir to increase the reliability of drought year water supplies for its service area.

The issue really comes down to fear. The fear of future water shortages is being used as pretext to attack California’s free-flowing rivers. In this case, some at the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) are advancing a plan to enlarge Pardee Reservoir, a move that would drown an additional two miles of the Mokelumne. The threatened river is loved by many for its beauty, for its beginner kayak runs and year-round angling. This would be needless river destruction.

The key word is needless. EBMUD does not need to drown more of the Moke to get the water they need. As a matter of fact, alternatives have already been laid out for the EBMUD Board (some of who support the alternatives, but some still need to be won over).

http://www.foothillconservancy.org/pages/ws_maps.cgi

http://calrivers.blogspot.com/ for the Friends of the Rivers' news blog

------------------------------
Help keep motorized vehicles out of Northern Sierra Nevada National Forest sensitive habitat, watersheds and unprotected wilderness; Letters Needed NOW!

Eldorado National Forest

Route Designation

Comments Needed

DEADLINE: October 22

(ACTION ITEM)

The following comes from Vicky Hoover at the Sierra Club.

The Forest Service, which has recently called unmanaged motorized vehicle recreation a major threat to America's spectacular public lands, is changing over to a national off-road vehicle (ORV)-management system of allowing recreation off-road vehicle use on designated routes only, instead of general cross-country use anywhere except where specially prohibited. To make this major (and long needed!) change, the Forest Service has undertaken the enormous task of designating off-highway travel routes on all National Forests. Each forest is dong separate planning. Here in California, right now, the Eldorado National Forest (which is just south of Lake Tahoe and north of the Stanislaus National Forest) has released its Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to confine vehicle use to specifically designated roads and trails. The comment period for this plan ends Oct. 22.

The public has an unprecedented opportunity RIGHT NOW to write to keep motorized vehicles out of sensitive habitat, watersheds and unprotected wilderness. Here are some general talking points to put into your OWN words, to begin your comment letter, before you ask for adoption of Alternative E, with two important changes:

** The law requires the Forest Service to minimize damage from off-road vehicles. It does NOT require the Forest Service to fulfill ALL the demand for motorized routes that now exists or may ever exist.

** When figuring out where motorized routes of travel should be the Forest Service should keep in mind the needs of the MANY, many visitors to the Forest who do NOT come for motorized-vehicle recreation. They shouldn't discriminate against people who wish to hike or families who want to go for a walk from a campground without being disturbed by noise, dust, or pollution of off-road vehicles. (There are two relatively small wilderness areas on the Eldorado Forest, the Desolation in the north, and the Mokelumne in the south. These don't accommodate all the visitors who just wish for some short and quiet walking places, without the challenge of accessing wilderness.)

** The Forest Service must consider how any new motorized route they add to their travel system contributes to the problem of fragmenting habitat for wildlife. (Since wildlife cannot speak up for themselves, the Forest Service must take special care to assure that providing for human recreation minimizes the harm to wildlife, both plants and animals.) Special concern must be given to sensitive species.

In addition, the Forest Service must be careful not to allow more routes in the travel system than the agency has the staff and funding to monitor, manage, restore, AND enforce. One of the problems of off-road vehicle use has been precisely the lack of adequate monitoring, restoration of impacts, and enforcement of regulations. The agency must consider how THIS plan will facilitate those essential management actions.

Specifically: Urge the Forest Supervisor to adopt Alternative E, with the following important changes:

· Alternative E should adopt the seasonal closures and over-the-snow requirements of Alt. C: "Seasonal closure on all designated system trails and native surface roads from Nov. 1 through April 3. Wheeled motor vehicle over-the-snow travel allowed on surfaced roads only with 12 inches of snow or more and no ground contact." These closure dates can be shortened by the Forest Supervisor if dry weather warrants opening the forest to vehicles.

· In the Rubicon River area, Hunters Trail (11E09), Gray's (aka Frey's) Trail (11E04), Deer Creek Trail (14E11) should not be designated for motorized use. Reason: The Rubicon Canyon is an historic hiking/backpacking/fishing area. Hunter's is one of the most popular hiking trails on the Georgetown District. Because it is relatively level, it is one of the easier trails for the very young, the elderly or infirm. Fishermen use the trails to access the excellent trout fishing in the Rubicon. Motorized use conflicts with traditional quiet recreation in numerous ways. Dirt bike noise echoes in the canyon, spoiling the natural quiet. Tell the Forest Service motorized use of these trails will create/continue significant user conflicts.

Important: Point out that Alt. E also reduces damage from the other leading "threats" identified by the Forest Service: Fire, noxious weeds, and habitat fragmentation.

Comments on the Travel Management DEIS will be accepted until October 22, 2007. Comments may be submitted by mail to:

Forest Supervisor Ramiro Villalvazo

Attn: Travel Management DEIS

100 Forni Road

Placerville, CA 95667

By email to: comments-pacificsouthwest-eldorado@fs.fed.us

By fax: 530-621-5297

Or by leaving a message on the project hotline: 530-295-5666.

Click here for more information on the Eldorado's DEIS.

---------------------------
Fool’s Gold Mitigation for Oak Trees in Amador County?

http://www.californiaoaks.org

Below are comments submitted by California Oak Foundation for the Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort project in the Sierra foothill city of Sutter Creek, Amador County:

August 2, 2007

Jeff Kelly, Director
Sutter Creek Community Development
18 Main St
Sutter Creek, CA 95685

Re: Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort Specific Plan

Dear Director Kelly:

The California Oak Foundation writes with comments regarding the Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort Specific Plan (SP):

1. The SP correctly notes that the trunk diameter for all trees under City Code Chapter 13.24 are to be measured “at forty-eight inches above natural grade,” yet the SP also states that “The survey used the State and industry forester standard of measuring 54 inches above grade” (p. 82).

Chapter 13.24 specific provisions supersede state and industry general standards. Gold Rush consultants had no authority to use a tree diameter measure inconsistent with the standard established by city code. Consequently, the SP Tree Inventory Report is unlawful.

2. The proposed “active” oak reserve has marginal residual oak habitat value. A more accurate characterization of this group of remaining oak trees would be a remnant oak stand encircled on three sides by residences and roads, bisected by a golf course and adjacent to property that will be developed in the near future.

Moreover, this oak preserve doesn’t constitute an oak habitat mitigation measure. Preservation of existing oaks in no way mitigates for project removal of 12,350 oak trees (41 percent), direct impacts to 185 oak woodland acres (44 percent) and indirect habitat degradation of 235 oak woodland acres (56 percent).

Impact avoidance through on-site oak woodlands conservation easement serves only to limit the degree of significant oak woodland impacts and the project applicant’s oak woodlands mitigation responsibilities. Gold Rush’s oak preserve amounts to nothing more than a promise not to further remove or fragment the remnant oak resource; this preserve does nothing to mitigate the actual impacts from removing over 40 percent of project site oak trees and oak habitat.

3. Gold Rush’s “comprehensive” oak woodlands mitigation plan relies on planting three oaks for every oak removed and a monitoring program to ensure a 90 percent survival rate after 10 years. This approach represents blind faith mitigation, a hope that after 10 years a vibrant oak forest will begin to rise and in another century or two replace the habitat values of their long-gone brethren.

The Gold Rush draft EIR needs to present peer-reviewed information documenting projects that have successfully created mature oak woodland habitat for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) mitigation purposes on the scale proposed by Gold Rush.

4. CEQA requires that the Gold Rush draft EIR produce a comprehensive cumulative impacts list of past, present and probable future projects impacting oak resources in the Sutter Creek region, including quantifying the extent and severity of those oak habitat impacts.

Summary
Gold Rush advertises that the project “is designed to fit sensitively into the gently rolling foothills.” COF finds that the project design in fact directly or indirectly destroys oak habitat connectivity and functionality across 420 acres of oak woodlands, without providing proportional habitat mitigation.

To provide proportional mitigation for Gold Rush’s significant direct and indirect oak resource impacts, COF suggests that the proposed SP tree planting program be supplemented by the following oak habitat mitigation measure, which is similar to Roseville’s 2004 West Roseville Specific Plan model:

“A fee of 0.25 percent of the gross sales price on every resale of a single family home in Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort for 20 years following the initial sale. New home sales are not subject to the fee. This conveyance fee shall be paid annually to the state Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund, Wildlife Conservation Board with the stipulation that the conveyance fee will be used to purchase oak woodland conservation easements in close proximity to the City of Sutter Creek.”

Thank you for your consideration and cooperation in conserving Sutter Creek’s very important oak resources for future generations.

Sincerely, Janet S. Cobb, President -- California Oak Foundation

--------------------------------

Oak Woodlands Threatened by Sierra Foothills Development Proposals

February 2007, www.californiaoaks.org

http://www.californiaoaks.org/html/oak_report_02-07.html

California Oak Report

Sierra Counties Seek Habitat Conservation Plans

Increasingly, Sierra counties are preparing habitat conservation plans (HCP) to address development impacts to oak woodlands and other natural resources. For example, Placer County has completed its HCP and will be submitting the proposal to state and federal wildlife agencies for review. Calaveras County, with financial support from local developers and the grudging acquiescence of ranchers, recently initiated an HCP process.

Oak woodlands are a key component of Sierra foothill HCPs due to the dozens of special status wildlife using these oak habitats. By covering oak woodlands in an HCP, a county gains immunity from the future listing of endangered and threatened species that are associated with oak woodlands. HCPs charge specified mitigation fees for every developed acre, with those monies spent to acquire local wildlife preserves in designated areas. Developers like HCPs because the plans allow them to know the exact cost for habitat loss, and a detailed habitat mitigation plan for each project isn’t required.

As the specifics of Sierra foothill HCPs come before the public, COF will pay particular attention to the maintenance of high-quality oak habitat corridors for all migratory wildlife species. Connectivity between foothill oak woodlands and higher elevation black oak habitats is of paramount importance.

Sierra Big Foots
Below is a list of larger Sierra foothill projects in process, or have draft environmental impact reports pending, that may significantly impact oak woodlands. From Nevada County to Tulare County, these big development footprints are joined by hundreds of smaller projects under 200 acres that are having direct and cumulative impacts to foothill oak habitat, often with little or no meaningful mitigation:

Amador County
Gold Rush Ranch and Golf Resort, Sutter Creek, with 936 homes, 300 units of vacation housing, 60 room resort hotel and championship golf course on 945 acres.

Golden Vale subdivision, Martell, 383 acres and 607 residential units.

Howard Ranch, Ione, 16,000 acres. A couple of hundred acres lie within city limits, while the majority of the property surrounds Ione but is within Amador County's jurisdiction.

Wicklow Way subdivision, Jackson, 201 acres and 750 residential units.

Zinfandel and Shenandoah Ridge developments, Plymouth, about 500 luxury homes on 500 acres.

Calaveras County
Spring Valley project, Valley Springs, 455 acres and 1,000 homes.

Copper Valley Ranch development, 1,500 new homes, marina, hotel and shopping center on 4,350 acres bordering Tulloch Reservoir.

Sawmill Lake development, Copperopolis, 600 new homes and a resort complex on oak woodland bordering the Town Square project.

Madera County
Al Miki Ranch subdivision, 650 homes on 900 acres.

Placer County
Clover Valley project, Rocklin, 622 acres and 558 homes, resulting in 7,500 oaks removed (draft EIR released).

Tulare County
Sequoia Ranch development, Springville, 1,385 acres and 600 homes.

Yokohl Ranch project, 36,000 acres (60% to be developed) for 9,500 homes, two golf courses and a resort/country club.

Tuolumne County
Mountain Springs project, Valley Springs, 1,063 acres with 897 units planned.

Peaceful Oaks Estates, Standard, more than 300 homes on 600 acres.

Yosemite Grand National Golf and Wetland Preserve, on 557 acres, that would allow a large hotel, 300 time-share units and 50 residential lots.