WCB 12/2011: more CA land saved...

State $$ to Save over 20,000 acres in December

from the agenda of the 12/8/2011 meeting of the California Wildlife Conservation Board

The WCB is buying conservation easements on 16,033 acres and full ownership of 4218 acres of California wildlife habitat.

SUMMARY:

LASSEN COUNTY: 535 ACRES

TEHAMA COUNTY: 2910 ACRES

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY: 436 ACRES

RIVERSIDE COUNTY: 188 ACRES

SISKIYOU AND SHASTA COUNTIES: 8230 ACRES

PLUMAS COUNTY: 2946 ACRES

SIERRA AND NEVADA COUNTIES: 2995 ACRES

FRESNO COUNTY: 2011 ACRES

FOR THE MEETING AGENDA:

http://www.nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=39028

FOR MAPS: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=40356

SPECIFICS:

Bass Hill/Lassen Creek Conservation Easement (Hulsman) in Lassen County

acquire a conservation easement over 535± acres located adjacent to the Department of Fish and Game’s Bass Hill Wildlife Area

grant to The Nature Conservancy for a conservation easement over 2,311± acres, Lassen Foothills expansion 7, (Kerstiens Ranch) in Tehama county

Lassen Foothills, Expansion 8 (Lower Deer Creek Falls, Tehama County

a grant to the Northern California Regional Land Trust for a cooperative project with Western Rivers Conservancy and the Department of Fish and Game to acquire fee title to 599± acres of land for the expansion of the Lassen Foothills Conservation Area, located northeast of Chico along a State Highway 32 in Tehama County. The project will protect approximately 1.4 miles of riparian corridor along Deer Creek

San Joaquin Multi-Species Conservation Plan 2008 Vaquero Farm Central  in Contra Costa County, acquire 320± acres

San Joaquin Multi-Species Conservation Plan 2008 (Affinito) in Contra Costa County

acquire 116± acres  in the City of Pittsburg.

Santa Rosa Mountains, Expansions 11—13 in Riverside County

acquisition in fee of 50± acres of land

Western Riverside County MSHCP, Expansion 6 

Grant to the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District, for a cooperative project with the Redevelopment Agency of the County of Riverside and the Riverside Land Conservancy, to acquire in fee 138± acres

Bear Creek Working Forest in Siskiyou and Shasta Counties

a grant to the Pacific Forest Trust to acquire a conservation easement over 8,230± acres of working forest lands allowing for continued forest management, passive public use and enhancing the protection of forest, meadow, riparian, fisheries and water resources. The property is located north and south of Highway 89 in a rural area of the southern Cascade Mountain Range in Shasta and Siskiyou Counties near the communities of McCloud, Pondosa and Bartle.

Goodwin Sierra Valley Ranch Conservation Easement in Plumas County

a grant to the California Rangeland Trust to acquire a conservation easement over 2,946± acres of working ranch land allowing for continued livestock grazing and other permitted agricultural uses while enhancing the protection of meadow, watershed, riparian, fisheries and wetland resources. The property is located north and south of Highway 70, just east of the town of Beckworth in Sierra Valley.

Webber Lake/Lacey Meadows in Sierra and Nevada Counties

a grant to the Truckee Donner Land Trust to acquire 2,995± acres of land for the protection of significant alpine and wet-meadow habitat, north of the town of Truckee.

Black Mountain Preserve, Expansion 4 (Kimbler) in Fresno County

a grant to the Sierra Foothill Conservancy to acquire conservation easements over 2,011± acres of land for the protection of grazing lands, grasslands, and blue oak woodlands located between Prather and Tollhouse in Fresno County.

Even More New Parks to Explore....

In the Sierra Nevadas and Central Valley:

IN SHASTA COUNTY:

Hathaway ranch 6630 acre conservation easement
http://www.pclfoundation.org/publications/sierranevada/shasta.html
http://www.shastalandtrust.org/content/view/19/1/

JS ranch 5940 ac conservation easement
http://www.alcnet.org/PR_JS_Ranch

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

IN TEHAMA COUNTY:

(NOT FINALIZED) 5545 ac Pine Creek CE—Rose Ranch, seeking $1 million of total $1.5 mil cost of CE from SNC
http://grants.sierranevada.ca.gov/Easygrants_WS_SNC/applicationpdf.aspx?id=385

80 acres—near Lassen NP—saved 4/2011
http://www.wildernesslandtrust.org/news/eighty-acre-added-to-the-lassen-volcanic-wilderness/

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

IN PLUMAS COUNTY:

BY THE FEATHER RIVER LAND TRUST:

Heart-K ranch 884 acres
http://www.frlt.org/docs/hk_directions.pdf
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Come-Celebrate--Heart-K---Signed--Sealed--Delivered-.html?soid=1102283092745&aid=3XGHZYiLLRU

Maddalena ranch—575 acres
http://frlt.org/oursuccesses.html
http://www.frlt.org/docs/madd-directions.pdf

Leonhardt Learning Landscape—42 acres,
http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs092/1102283092745/archive/1105007767955.html

318 acre conservation easement at Pierce Family ranch, completed 12/2010
http://www.flickr.com/photos/frlt/sets/72157625403168342/

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

IN SIERRA COUNTY:

Sierra County Land Trust Protects Volcano and Young America Lakes
5/19/11 from High Sierra Rural Alliance
http://sierracountylandtrust.org/index.shtml
http://www.sierrafund.org/news/495-sclt

Thanks to the herculean efforts of Laurie Oberholtzer of the Sierra County Land Trust and Carl Somers of The Trust for Public Land, three more parcels totaling 835 acres surrounding the Sierra Buttes will be kept in trust for the public. One parcel contains Young America Lake. Another parcel includes Volcano Lake. The acquisition also includes a large portion of the craggy face of the Sierra Buttes.
Previous purchases by the SCLT have included two parcels bordering the eastern edges of Volcano Lake and four parcels on Upper and Lower Sardine Lakes. Their land holdings now total over 1500 acres. The public will now be able to enjoy un-gated access to these jewels in the Lakes Basin area which will be managed by SCLT for hiking and back country camping.
The most recent 835 acre purchase was made possible by a grant funded through Prop 50 in 2007 to the High Sierra Rural Alliance as sponsor for SCLT from the Sierra Nevada-Cascade Grant Program. HSRA is thrilled to have played a part in the acquisition of this unparalleled landscape for public use. We wish to thank everyone who helped make the purchase possible and wish the SCLT much good luck and further successes in protecting the treasures of Sierra County.

MAP OF Young America lake
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=39.59960,-120.65091&z=15&t=T

map of Volcano lake
http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=39.60668,-120.62521&z=15&t=T

http://sierracountylandtrust.org/whatwedo.shtml
While much of the Lakes Basin is in the Tahoe National Forest, almost 3,000 acres are still privately owned, mostly old mining claims.

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

IN NEVADA COUNTY:

Sugarloaf Mtn-- 30 acres bought by city of Nevada City, 12/10/10
http://www.nevadacityadvocate.com/nevada-city/3498.html
http://sierrafoothillsreport.com/2011/01/31/nevada-city-gains-title-to-sugarloaf/

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

IN PLACER COUNTY:

1800 acre Bruin ranch, (WCB 11/2010 gave half the purchase price)
http://www.tpl.org/what-we-do/where-we-work/california/northern-sierra-nevada/harvego-bear-river.html
http://auburnjournal.com/detail/144340.html

MAP: http://geocommons.com/overlays/68765

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

TDLT buys 122 ac in Martis Valley,

http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/12/3623207/preservation-trust-buys-martis.html#ixzz1MoxyPCwl
Approx. location: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=39.29957,-120.10657&z=14&t=T

52 acre Big Gun preserve
http://www.placerlandtrust.org/news-detail.aspx?title=Big+Gun+Preserve+Protects+Endangered+Species&newsID=49

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

IN EL DORADO COUNTY:

1/18/2011
http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/18/3330966/talks-begin-on-public-uses-for.html
The Bureau of Land Management acquired the 695-acre property near Rescue just beyond Folsom Lake in 2010.
http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/fo/folsom/kanaka_valley.html

land ownership map: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/folsom/kanaka_valley.Par.75978.File.dat/ownership.pdf

topo map: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ca/pdf/folsom/kanaka_valley.Par.29358.File.dat/topo.pdf

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

IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY

IN ALPINE COUNTY:

20 acres from Wilderness Land Trust to USFS
http://www.wildernesslandtrust.org/news/ilderness_land_trust_acquires_20_acres_to_add_to_the_mokelumne_wilderness/

http://www.wildernesslandtrust.org/news/wilderness-land-trust-permanently-protects-20-acre-private-inholding-as-part-of-the-mokelumne-wilderness/

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

IN MADERA COUNTY:

Topping ranch conservation easement—1362 acres
http://yubanet.com/regional/Sierra-Nevada-Conservancy-Board-Approves-10-Million-in-Bond-Funded-Watershed-Protection-Projects-in-the-Sierra.php

2990 acre conservation easement, by Sierra Foothill Conservancy
http://www.californiaoaks.org/html/current_issues.html

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

IN TULARE COUNTY:

152 acre Dry Creek and 1819 acre Homer ranch preserves,
http://www.thesungazette.com/articles/2011/05/18/news/news04.txt
http://www.sequoiariverlands.org/map/nature-preserve-map.html

50 acres added to US BLM's Atwell Island preserve in 2010
http://www.alcnet.org/projects/overview/california/atwell_1
Atwell Island Land Retirement Demonstration Project,

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

IN KERN COUNTY:

434 acres donated by National Audubon Society to feds, 3/10/11
http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/info/newsbytes/2011/471xtra_wild_adds.html

WCB 11/2010: Calif. Wildlife board to save 84,000 acres in November...

State Plans Big End of Year Land Purchases—over 84,000 acres of land and development rights

Deals include $15 million paid to the Tejon Ranch Company

NOTICE OF MEETING --WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD
November 18, 2010

http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=24287

MAPS: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=25149

HIGHLIGHTS:

Heart K Ranch, 880 acre conservation easement, Plumas County

Lower Yuba River, Excelsior, 527± acres, Nevada and Yuba Counties

Bruin Ranch, 1,773± acres, Placer County

Oak Hills Ranch, conservation easement over 3,316 ± acres, Yolo County

Los Vaqueros Ranch Conservation Easement, 800± acres, Monterey County

Santa Clara River Watershed, 123± acres, Ventura County

Tejon Ranch -- conservation easements over 62,003± acres--$15.8 million Kern/Los Angeles Counties

Bottle Peak 418± acres $3.5 million San Diego County

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPECIFICS ON AGENDA ITEMS


20. Heart K Ranch $1,090,000 Plumas County
To consider the acquisition of a conservation easement for the Department of Fish and Game over approximately 880± acres for protection of critical habitat for the Sloat Deer herd as well as protection of black oak woodland, montane riparian, and wet meadow habitats, located in the Genesee Valley along Indian Creek in Plumas County.

21. Upper Butte Basin Wildlife Area, Expansion 6 $1,120,000 Butte County
To consider the acquisition of 222± acres of land for the Department of Fish and Game for the protection of wetland habitat, located approximately five miles west of the City of Biggs in Butte County.

22. Lower Yuba River, Excelsior, Phase I, $3,216,440 Nevada and Yuba Counties
To consider the acquisition of 527± acres of land by the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) known as the Yuba Narrows Ranch for protection of deer and mountain lion habitat, located along the Yuba River within the lower Yuba River watershed, situated between the DFG Daugherty Hills and Spenceville Wildlife Areas, in Nevada and Yuba Counties.

23. Bruin Ranch Phase I, $4,515,000 Placer County
To consider the allocation for a grant to Placer Land Trust for a cooperative project with the Department of Fish and Game, Caltrans and Placer County to acquire 1,773± acres of property to protect habitat for threatened and endangered species, including blue oak woodland habitat and approximately three miles of riparian corridor along the Bear River, located in Placer County. Protection of this property will also allow the connection of a regional trail through previously protected land to Placer County's Hidden Falls Regional Park and Coon Creek.

24. Oak Hills Ranch, $2,296,000, Yolo County
To consider the allocation for a grant to the California Rangeland Trust for a conservation easement over 3,316 ± acres of native oak woodlands located south of the community of Dunnigan and north of the town of Esparto in Yolo County.

26. Los Vaqueros Ranch Conservation Easement, $1,210,000.00 Phase II Monterey County
To consider the allocation for a grant to The Nature Conservancy to acquire a conservation easement over 800± acres of property to protect critical steelhead habitat as well as habitat for sensitive wildlife species including the red-legged frog, yellow-legged frog, western pond turtle and intact populations of native fish, oak woodlands, and grasslands on the west side of Salina Valley along the Arroyo Seco River in Monterey County.

27. Santa Clara River Watershed, Totlcom , $2,298,500 Ventura County
To consider the allocation for a grant to The Nature Conservancy, the acceptance of a Recovery Land Acquisition Grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife; and the authorization to enter into an Agreement to Subgrant to The Nature Conservancy for a cooperative project with the State Coastal Conservancy, Santa Clara River Trustee Council and the Department of Fish and Game to acquire 123± acres of land for the protection of threatened and endangered species and habitat corridors, located south of the City of Ventura in Ventura County.

29. Tejon Ranch $15,800,000 Kern/Los Angeles Counties
To consider the allocation for five grants to the Tejon Ranch Conservancy to acquire five conservation easements over 62,003± acres for the protection of significant natural landscapes and wildlife linkages and corridors, located south of the City of Bakersfield and north of the City of Los Angeles, adjacent to Interstate 5 and State Highway 138, in Kern and Los Angeles Counties.

30. Bottle Peak $3,562,900 San Diego County
To consider the allocation for a grant to The Escondido Creek Conservancy to assist with the acquisition of 418± acres of property to anchor regional habitat conservation planning efforts, including a Natural Community Conservation Plan, in central San Diego County and provide a critical ecological link between coastal habitat and the higher elevation Cleveland National Forest.

NOTE: PART 2 OF THE AGENDA IS IN NEXT POST

WCB 8/2010: Calif. Wildlife Board to save 11,159 acres in August...

-

Critters Will Be Safe in 13 new State Land Preservation Deals

SUMMARY: The State will buy 2440 acres outright and will also purchase development rights on another 8719 acres in Napa, Mono, Riverside, Plumas, Monterey, San Luis Obispo and Orange Counties

NOTICE OF MEETING
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION BOARD

http://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=22554

August 26, 2010


MAPS: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=25150

AGENDA ITEMS

Quail Ridge Preserve--$310,000--Napa County
--grant to the Regents of the University of California (UC) to acquire approximately 120± acres at the south end of Lake Berryessa, 14 miles west of the City of Winters, in Napa County.

Wheeler Ridge, Expansion 2--$2,000--Mono County
--a private donation of land to the Department of Fish and Game, of 2± acres of fee title property near Crowley Lake, approximately 20 miles northwest of the City of Bishop in Mono County.

Western Riverside County MSHCP (2006)--$35,000 Expansion 2-6 --Riverside County
--acquisition of five properties, totaling 820± acres, south of the City of Murrieta, in Riverside County.

Whitewater Floodplain, Expansion 1--$5,000 Riverside County
--acquire a total of 142± acres located west of the City of Palm Springs, in Riverside County.

Goodwin Red Clover Valley Ranches--$1,993,500 Plumas County
--acquire a conservation easement over 3,904± acres of rangeland for the protection of rangeland, riparian and wet meadow habitat, and conservation of critical wildlife migration corridors. The property is located approximately 45 miles north of the Town of Truckee in the Red Clover Valley area of Plumas County.

Wildlake Ranch Conservation Easement--$6,020,000--Napa County
--acquire a conservation easement over 3,029± acres of land to protect oak woodland, conifer forest, chaparral, and riparian habitats located 20 miles northeast of the City of Napa, in Napa County.

Marks Ranch--$2,195,000--Monterey County
--acquire 624± acres of coastal range habitat with native grasslands, oak woodlands, riparian habitat and seasonal wetlands which serve as an important wildlife corridor, located adjacent to the Toro Regional Park, near the City of Salinas, in Monterey County.

Alamo Creek Conservation Easement--$2,220,000--San Luis Obispo County
--acquire a conservation easement over 1,767± acres for the protection of oak woodlands, riparian habitat, and conservation of critical wildlife migration corridors, located approximately 10 miles northeast of the City of Santa Maria in San Luis Obispo County.

Los Cerritos Wetlands--$5,180,000--Orange County
--acquire 100± acres of land in the City of Seal Beach

Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve,--$145,000.00 Tenaja Corridor, Expansions 1 -10 in Riverside County
--accept a donation of fee title to seven properties totaling 73± acres, conservation easements over two properties totaling 19± acres, and the acceptance of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat Conservation Planning Land Acquisition grant to acquire 39± acres

Vail Lake--$965,000--Riverside County
--acquire 520± acres of native upland and wetland habitat to support threatened and endangered species, 20 miles east of the City of Temecula, in the unincorporated area of Aguanga, in Riverside County.

Saving the Headwaters of the Feather River

-
Lands Saved by the Feather River Land Trust

(on this map, the Sierra Valley is in the upper left.
The pink and dark green shading on this map shows land saved by land trusts and by the private land owners. The light green and yellow shadingshows federal lands; the blue shading is State land.)

http://www.frlt.org/oursuccesses.html

By July, 2004, using both conservation easements and outright purchase, the Feather River Land Trust has protected over 27,000 acres in the Feather River region. About 90% of these 27,000 acres consist of working cattle ranches. The properties we've protected include:

--The 1,030-acre Matley Ranch along Last Chance Creek
--The 1,360-acre Balderston Ranch (formerly known as the Lombardi Ranch) in Sierra Valley --The 575-acre Maddalena Property in Sierra Valley
--The 13,120-acre Bar One Ranch in Sierra Valley—conservation easement
--The 450-acre Ranz Property along Little Truckee River
--The 480-acre Babbit Peak Property south of Sierra Valley
--The 884-acre Heart K Ranch and 80-acre Taylor Lake, in Genesee Valley
--the 1,360-acre Trosi Canyon Ranch in the Sierra Valley—conservation easement
--the 160 acre Don Balderston ranch in Sierra Valley—conservation easement

-
Sierra Pacific Industries Settles Case, Withdraws Bid to "Upzone" 34,000 Acres of Forests in 6 Northern Calif. Counties

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/1660393.html

2-28-2009--Timber firm, Sierra Nevada environmental groups settle dispute

Two Sierra Nevada environmental groups have settled lawsuits challenging the rezoning of 12,541 acres of timberland owned by Sierra Pacific Industries, the largest private landowner in California…

Sierra and Lassen counties are among eight Northern California counties where the Anderson-based timber company had sought to remove a total of about 40,000 acres of its forests from timber production zoning. New zoning designations would start a 10-year countdown that would end the tax benefits Sierra Pacific has enjoyed under timberland production zoning, approved by the Legislature in 1976 to encourage long-term working forests.

After 10 years, the company could request new zoning designations that permit development.

With the settlements in Sierra and Lassen counties, only Tehama and Shasta counties have authorized the company's rezone requests on a combined 6,339 acres.

Sierra Pacific recently withdrew applications for rezoning 34,237 acres of timberlands in Butte, Lassen, Plumas, Sierra, Siskiyou and Trinity counties, said Mark Pawlicki, a company spokesman. The requests ranged from 7,826 acres in Plumas County to 2,537 acres in Tehama County.

Although it has no plans for development, the company is not abandoning zoning changes on some of its 1.7 million acres, Pawlicki said.

Instead of a piecemeal approach, company officials want to take a more comprehensive view that adheres to the legal processes required by state environmental laws, he said.

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

http://www.sierracounty.ws/county_docs/bos/050808%20BOS/mno05062008bosweb.pdf

County planning staff doesn’t think any development is foreseen for the thousands of acres of SPI’s forest lands that they are rezoning in Sierra County...

-
Northern Sierra Partnership Launched

February 2009--5 conservation groups have joined in an effort to protect more than 100,000 acres in California's northern Sierra Nevada. The groups will work to attract $75-$100 million in private conservation funding to leverage $225-$300 million in federal, state and local funds. Other goals are to build regional support for land and water conservation, address the impacts of climate change, encourage sustainable economies in the northern Sierra, and serve as a model for nonprofit collaboration in other regions.

Click on map to enlarge

http://www.northernsierrapartnership.org/

http://www.tpl.org/tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=22704&folder_id=1705

Click to enlarge program area map.

Collaborating to Conserve

Northern Sierra's rapid growth threatens open space and drinking water
Nearly half of the land in the northern Sierra is privately owned, and threatened by the rapid pace of change in California. Population growth is driving an influx of new home, golf course, and ski resort development to the region, jeopardizing the source of clean drinking water for much of California and imperiling precious habitat.

Five conservation groups join forces
In October 2008, TPL and four other conservation organizations — Feather River Land Trust, Truckee Donner Land Trust, Sierra Business Council, and The Nature Conservancy — joined forces to create The Northern Sierra Partnership (NSP), a unique alliance whose goal is to protect 100,000 acres of the northern Sierra's highest-priority land and waters over the next five years.

Comprehensive plan secures resources for future generations
By developing a comprehensive plan that integrates land protection, restoration, policy development and community enhancement projects, TPL and its partners are working to ensure that the Sierra's remarkable natural, cultural, and recreational resources-and California's drinking water-will be protected for future generations.

-
Sierra Valley Agricultural Preserves (north of Lake Tahoe) Threatened by Lot Splits

http://www.highsierrarural.org/announcements/subdivisionofagpreservelandinsierravalley

February 2009--After hearing and reviewing testimony from the applicant and the public, the Zoning Administrator continued the hearing on the Thran Subdivision until May 21, 2009 at 10:00 am in order to give the Plumas-Sierra Ag Commissioner and Farm Advisor an opportunity to testify. Thank you to everyone who sent a letter to the Zoning Administrator voicing concern about the subdivision of land in the Sierra Valley. If you didn't have time to send a letter before today, don't despair. The public hearing is still open through May 21, 2009. Your opinion counts. For more information click here.

overworked webmaster goes mad...starts posting loose news items...

-
CENTRAL VALLEY-SIERRA NEVADA REGION-- ASSORTED WEBSITES:

PLUMAS AND SIERRA COUNTIES:

http://frlt.org/docs/summer07.pdf

map of lands saved in the Sierra Valley; group is based in Quincy in Plumas County;

Story on 160 acre conservation easement in Sierra Valley

--Also see website for 2007-2008 annual report: lands saved in 07-08 include 160-acre Dan Balderston Ranch in Sierra Valley saved with a conservation easement, 725 acre conservation easement at the Turner Creek Ranch, and contracted to buy the 976 acre Mello Ranch near Loyalton in Sierra County. All total in the FRLT’s history, 12 properties totaling nearly 30,000 acres have been saved in Sierra Valley by FRLT and its partner groups.

High Sierra Rural.org

on the Sierra Valley, how Sierra County strongly protects its rural qualities, while Plumas county does not

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

PLACER COUNTY:

http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planning/PlacerLegacy/PlacerLegacyProperties.aspx

map of land preserved in Placer County

http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planning/PlacerLegacy/~/media/cdr/Planning/PlacerLegacy/Acquisitions/2007%2008YearEnd4thQtrReport.ashx

table lists 2687 acres saved since year 2000; around 1500 acres of that total is conservation easements

http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planning/PlacerLegacy/Accomplishments.aspx Placer legacy timeline

http://www.placer.ca.gov/Departments/CommunityDevelopment/Planning/PlacerLegacy/~/media/cdr/Planning/PlacerLegacy/PrimaryWatersheds.ashx

map of watersheds in Placer County

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

SOLANO COUNTY:

http://www.solanocounty.com/civica/filebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=4865

1580 acre Rockville Trails Estates project in Solano County—9/25/2008

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

MERCED COUNTY:

http://www.ucop.edu/news/archives/2001/march20art1.htm

3/20/2001: With a grant in excess of $11 million from the Packard Foundation, UC will acquire the 7,030-acre Virginia Smith Trust parcel northeast of the city of Merced…After acquisition, the university plans to set aside 5,030 acres as a conservation preserve that would protect vernal pool habitat in perpetuity. The remaining 2,000 acres would be used for the proposed new UC Merced campus on the southwest portion of the Virginia Smith Trust lands; the campus portion would include a 750-acre natural reserve of vernal pool habitat protected from development….Triggering the release of $15 million in state-approved habitat acquisition funds from the Wildlife Conservation Board to ensure the conservation of key wetland and vernal pool resources in the surrounding area.

http://www.ucop.edu/news/archives/2001/march20art1a.htm

The UC Merced campus is planned to have an area of 2,000 acres, consisting of: 1) a developed campus of 910 acres; 2) a 750-acre natural reserve, and 3) a reserve of 340 acres for future potential development. The Campus will ultimately host 25,000 students. The Campus Community will be a planned development of approximately 2,000 acres that will eventually have about 30,000 residents.

…Under the proposal, the new campus would be situated away from the most sensitive vernal pool areas of the VST site. The new proposal also calls for the University to create the first phase of the campus on the Merced Hills Golf Course, which is part of the VST.

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

TULARE COUNTY:

http://www.visaliatimesdelta.com/article/20081120/NEWS01/811200316/1002

Exeter and Porterville landowners are wary of state park proposals

11-20-2008: The state's proposal would create a 1,000-acre park near Porterville and a 2,300-acre park near Exeter. A third plan would set aside 500 acres of trails along the Kings River near the Tulare County line just below the Pine Flat Dam….Jack Shannon, whose 4,000-acre cattle ranch near Porterville has been in his family for five generations, found out about the proposed Deer Creek park near his property only a few days ago. On Wednesday he made the hour-long drive to Visalia to find out more about the project….Chad Noble's 3,000-acre ranch property would be bisected by the proposed Deer Creek park….

http://www.sequoiariverlands.org/pdf/IRWMP/WaterConflExistPlans_QualQuant_EconSocial_07_22_08.pdf

-- Land use issues in foothills- urbanization and development moving up from the valley, relying heavily on groundwater

--New development drawing water from other people’s wells- example: Shaver Lake

--Tulare County directing all growth to the foothills to protect agriculture

--Diverting runoff from the Kings River into the San Joaquin to avoid local flooding of Homeland Ranch (Boswell) which is prime agricultural land.

--Yokohl Valley- proposing to build on a stream corridor,

--Shaver Lake development- will be looking for surface water

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

KERN COUNTY:

http://www.cuddyvalley.org/blogs/nimby/?p=294

According to Tejon’s very own Draft Water Supply Assessment, this is how Centennial will look from the air. It’s beautiful. It’s like the tulip fields. Who needs wildflowers...

http://www.bakersfield.com/hourly_news/story/506919.html

7-26-2008: The PdV Wind Energy Project, proposed by enXco, would use 5,820 acres west of Rosamond to generate electricity for Southern California Edison.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/pearsonville-ca/TPJ4IOKJ6DGJGT887

web comments on sale of Onyx Ranch

The windmills will be located on the southern-most section of the property, near the intersections of Jawbone Canyon and Kelso Valley Roads. Other areas closer to Lake Isabella will be olive orchards and vineyards. But whether the family gave some land to the BLM for OHV use, whether they held back any for themselves, and whether they kept the mineral rihts remains to be seen. They have always been responsible landowners, and so I can't see too much becoming tract homes.

http://www.kernsmartgrowth.com

http://www.kernsmartgrowth.com/notices.html

Pine Tree Wind Development Project by Wind Turbine Prometheus proposes a zone change from E (20) to A and A WE (Wind Energy) on 8,000 acres, along with CUPs to allow construction of a temporary batch plant, located 15 miles northeast of Tehachapi.

http://www.proland.com/antelope_valley.asp

Antelope Valley development booster website

http://gthompso.blogspot.com/2008/12/tehachapi.html

photos of Tehachapi region

http://www.cityofvernon.org/about_cov/2008NovGazette.pdf

vague city newsletter mentioning city purchase of portion of Onyx Ranch in the lower Sierra Nevadas

-----
Cutting Bad Deals

Environmental Groups that Embrace Collaboration are Selling Out the Public

Opinion piece By Erica Rosenberg
L.A. Times 1/24/2008

There's nothing wrong with a group of people historically at odds sitting down to find common ground. Or is there?

For decades, our public lands have been a battleground: Timber, wildlife, recreation, wilderness -- which interests and uses should dominate? But now, "collaboration" is all the rage. In collaboration, diverse stakeholders (as they invariably tag themselves) -- environmentalists, developers, off-roaders, timber companies, county officials -- hash out an agreement on how to manage their local public lands and then submit it to Congress for approval.

A few deals already have been enacted, and another half a dozen are in the works across the U.S. Collaboration has been touted as the solution to "gridlock" on our national forests. Timber companies and their allies gripe that the normal process -- extensive analysis, citizen involvement and the right to challenge agency decisions -- has ground all "management activity" (read: logging) to a halt. Western counties surrounded by public land argue that they need room to expand. Others believe lands worthy of protection are still threatened. The new paradigm means everyone sits down with their adversaries.

But these collaborations are troublesome, particularly for environmentalists, who risk undermining their mission as well as the very laws that are the basis of their power, effectiveness and legitimacy.

For example, a bill poised for introduction in Congress would turn into law an agreement reached by one collaborative group on how to manage Montana's 3.3-million-acre Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. The stakeholders -- Montana Wilderness Assn., National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited and timber companies -- had one thing in common: They hated the management plan proposed by the Forest Service. So they came up with their own plan specifying which areas can be logged, which can be opened up to off-roaders and which should be recommended to Congress for wilderness designation.

Sounds reasonable enough. So what's wrong? To start, as owners of the public lands, all Americans have a stake in their management, and they have not designated these representatives. Even the most inclusive collaboration can go bad: Outliers who pose a threat to consensus are either not invited or made to feel unwelcome. And ultimately, decisions are being made behind closed doors. But Congress loves a done deal. With a local sponsor, Congress is inclined to rubber-stamp these initiatives, overlooking the fact that they are an end-run around the suite of laws that safeguard public lands and keep land-management decisions an open process.

The Beaverhead bill, for example, triples the acreage where logging can take place from what was in the Forest Service's plan. It requires an environmental analysis only for individual logging projects rather than the plan as a whole, thereby waiving the bedrock U.S. environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act. It also allows logging in roadless areas -- a radical departure from the Roadless Area Conservation Rule that environmentalists championed during the Clinton era. Other deals have sold off vast acreage of public lands in exchange for wilderness designations.

The collaboration prototype -- the 1998 Quincy Library Group legislation -- illustrates the problem. That group, named for the California town library where it met, came up with a plan for three national forests in the Sierra affected by endangered-species listings. The proposal increased logging while protecting pristine areas. When it landed in Congress, California Rep. George Miller insisted on adding one provision: All environmental laws would apply. That meant the Quincy Library logging plan had to go through the same environmental analysis a Forest Service plan would.

The Quincy Library proposal, held up at the time as a model of local, consensus-based decision-making, has never been fully implemented. Why? Primarily because it didn't jibe with Endangered Species Act guidelines protecting the California spotted owl. In other words, it did not pass scientific or legal muster.

That environmentalist "stakeholders" signed on to the Quincy Library agreement in the first place highlights the danger of the collaboration fad. After years of being tarred as obstructionist ideologues, some environmental groups now have a seat at the negotiating table -- indeed, are seen as crucial to legitimizing any deal. Enjoying their newfound popularity, these self-appointed decision-makers become heavily invested in reaching an accord, regardless of the science, the law or the long-term effect on the land.

For decades, environmentalists fought to get a more level playing field and establish transparency and accountability in public-lands policy; they continue to fight the Bush administration's relentless efforts to dismantle these policies. How ironic it would be, then, if in their eagerness to embrace the new paradigm, they craft and push through Congress deals that undercut the very laws that got them to the table in the first place.

Erica Rosenberg directs the program on public policy at Arizona State University's law school and served as counsel to the House Resources Committee from 1999-2004.

-------------------------
Developer Scheming North of Lake Tahoe...
News from the High Sierra Rural Alliance

http://www.highsierrarural.org/

June 12, 2007

Loyalton

Much has happened since the last update.

The City of Loyalton held a workshop presenting the Citizen’s Advisory Committee’s three alternative plans for annexation. Sub-committee members of the No Annexation and Small Annexation groups were on hand to answer questions and present the results of their investigations. Committee members presenting the Large Annexation alternative provided a visual presentation, but were not at the meeting to describe their project or answer questions about it.

The meeting was well attended. The Small Annexation Proposal was by far the most popular proposal. Based on the feedback from the meeting the Citizen’s Planning Advisory Committee has finalized a version of a General Plan and Annexation Proposal to present to the Loyalton City Council. The proposal will annex the trailer park and Senior Center to the southwest of the City; part of the SPI mill site on the south of the City; the Sheriff’s sub-station on the west; and the field north of the City owned by the School District. All owners of affected property were contacted by the sub-committee and indicated their agreement to be annexed.

The plan could result in a doubling of the Loyalton population, but will not change any land uses already anticipated by the Sierra County General Plan. The plan will provide Loyalton with more tax revenue, but not significantly increase the service burden on the City because the City currently provides services to the trailer park and Senior Center. Development of SPI lands will necessarily require a separate agreement between SPI and the City. The plan does not change land uses already anticipated by the County General Plan, therefore, changes in neighborhood character and costs of environmental review will be minimal. All in all, we think the recommended plan is a wise assessment of opportunities and constraints facing the City of Loyalton and will serve the community well.

The plan will be presented to the City Council June 19, 2007. Please plan to attend. The Large Annexation sub-committee led by John Gullixson has disengaged from the process and is expected to pressure the City Council to adopt their proposal. The City Council needs your support to approve the people’s choice and not be bullied by Southern California lawyers.

The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) also met in preparation for dealing with John Gullixson’s application to increase the City of Loyalton’s sphere of influence from Lombardi Point to the County line. This is the first step in an attempt to include his property (the old Silver Ranch) and more within the City’s boundaries. It circumvents the deliberative process the City has engaged in through its Citizen’s Planning Advisory Committee. Mr. Gullixson vision for the Loyalton area appears to be an enormous development scheme that would increase the size of Loyalton from about 160 acres to over 2000 acres. An analysis of population increase or cost to the City was not addressed. One thing is for certain, though, the cost of the environmental review for the plan will be huge.

In more news about Loyalton, Mr. Gullixson still seems to be at the center. Mr. Gullixson and the Sierra Valley Development Company have sued the County and the Goichoechea family for entering into a Farmland Security Zone contract. In our opinion the suit is without legal merit. It constitutes a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation and intends to deprive the Goichoechea’s of their right to enter into a Farmland Security Zone Contract with Sierra County by imposing a procedural and economic burden upon them. By showing a united front at the City Council meeting June 19, 2007, we can help support the Goichoechea’s and the County against these bullying tactics.

Plumas County

The Plumas County Planning Department is experiencing a re-organization due to the sudden resignation of newly appointed Planning Director Jonathan Schnall. We continue to monitor the course of the General Plan Update and General Plan amendments.

We have heard the owners of the Sugar Loaf Ranch (old Bonta Ranch) are considering subdividing the ranch to create 57 three acre parcels. A year ago the County sent out an initial study asking for agency recommendations for information to be included in an Environmental Impact Report to amend the general plan designation and zoning of 240 acres of the ranch from Agricultural Preserve to Moderate Opportunity- Agricultural Buffer and Zone R-10. We strongly oppose conversion of agricultural lands to residential uses in Sierra Valley.

We will continue to represent the public’s interest in protecting agricultural interests in the Valley no matter what jurisdiction governs.Emails from Rose Comstock have been forwarded to us requesting the High Sierra Rural Alliance not interfere with Plumas County land use issues. The Sierra Valley is a regional resource which citizens of Plumas and Sierra counties wish to protect.

Sierra County

The Sierra County board has voted to curtail the function of the Sierra County Fish and Game Commission. In the past the Planning Department has elicited comments from the Commission concerning the impacts proposed land use projects may have on Fish and Game. Complaints from a special interest have succeeded in changing the policy to limit comments by the Commission “unless expressly requested or directed by the Board of Supervisors”. We consider this policy a loss to the County and wonder why the Board doesn’t wish to consider the volunteered expertise of its appointed commissioners. However, the originally proposed ordinance prohibited Commissioners as individuals from commenting on County land use projects. Thanks to the vigilance of the High Sierra Rural Alliance, and County citizens, Fish and Game Commissioners won’t be deprived of their right to free speech.

The Planning Commission is considering modifying the Timberland Production Zone (TPZ) ordinance to allow residences of indeterminate size to be built on TPZ lands. The California legislature enacted the Timberland Production Act (TPA) because it realized as the urban fringe approaches, timberland becomes valuable for residential development and timberland owners are compelled by economic factors to convert timberlands to residential uses. The cycle increases pressure for timberland conversion resulting in the loss of natural resource production lands and inefficient land use patterns at a cost borne by the public.

The TPA relies on tax incentives coupled with zoning mandates to harmonize landowner and public interests. The public contracts with landowners to limit the way their land may be used in exchange for a monetary benefit. The TPA restricts land in a timberland production zone (TPZ) to the growing and harvesting of timber and compatible uses. In exchange, the owner of TPZ land benefits by a lower property tax. “A residence or other structure necessary for the management of land zoned as timberland production” is considered a compatible use. Allowing construction of a residence beyond what is necessary for the management of timberland will defeat the purpose of the legislation by encouraging large forest estates that receive unwarranted tax incentives.

Though the property tax the county collects on TPZ parcels with a residence is limited by statute, the sale price of the parcel is unlimited. Allowing unlimited residential uses on TPZ parcels will allow developers and speculators to recoup windfall profits subsidized by county taxpayers. Adding insult to injury county tax payers will have to extend police and fire protection, health and building, planning, and road services at great cost without like compensation. Wildfire danger will increase. Wildland values including water quality will decrease. Resource production capability will deteriorate.

In enacting TPA the legislature intended to curtail conversion of resource production lands. The proposed policy will stimulate conversion at the expense of the taxpayer. Let the Planning Commission know that your generosity is intended to protect timberlands as timber resources not to subsidize forest estates.