By Don Pelton
As I understand it, Sacramento’s CBS13 News Live Reporter Kelly Ryan this morning had “mixed results” when attempting to find someone in the City of Grass Valley willing to be interviewed about the Whispering Pines Brewery proposal.
Here, however, is the CBS13 brief report (snipped from their 10pm broadcast) that includes an interview with Dan Ketcham of CARD (Citizens Advocating Responsible Development), the local citizens’ group that initiated a lawsuit over the issue:
By Don Pelton
Attorney Michael W. Graf, representing local citizens’ group, Citizens Advocating Responsible Development (CARD), yesterday filed a petition in Nevada County Superior Court challenging the City of Grass Valley’s “actions on May 10, 2016 and May 24, 2016 approving Text Amendments of the Whispering Pines Specific Plan SP-1A Corporate Business Park designation.” Graf, in his notice to the City, added that “petitioner’s actions will include claims under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).”
The complete “Petition for Writ of Mandate” plus associated documents filed yesterday (including Graf’s notice to the City) can be read in their entirety here.
As I reported on May 11th (see “Grass Valley City Council Ignores CEQA Guidelines in Last Night’s Whispering Pines Decision“), the “Grass valley City Council last night voted 3 (Jason Fouyer, Howard Levine, Ben Aguilar) to 2 (Jan Arbuckle, Lisa Swarthout) to adopt an ordinance that includes (1) amendments to the Whispering Pines Business Park Specific Plan and (2) the adoption of a Negative Declaration as ‘the appropriate level of environmental review’ of these amendments.”
Now that the City is facing legal action over this issue, it has scheduled a closed meeting next Tuesday the 14th (prior to the regular City Council meeting) in order to discuss the matter, although there are no items concerning Whispering Pines in the regular open agenda for Tuesday. The following notice describing the reason for the closed meeting appears in the agenda for Tuesday’s meeting:
The “copy available for public inspection in Clerk’s Office” (referred to above) is most likely the same Petition and associated documents that I’ve made available here.
Attorney Michael Graf’s filing is a model of clarity, and leaves little doubt that — in approving the zoning changes — both Planning staff and the three Council members who approved the zoning changes failed to adequately consider CEQA’s requirements in the broadest sense (as they apply to potential environmental impacts) and in the narrowest details (the City’s failure to recirculate the revised Negative Declaration for further public comment).
The formal Petition for Writ of Mandate concludes with this request:
Nevada City-based non-profit Sierra Streams Institute is partnering with the Cancer Prevention Institute of California to launch an important new study on the health consequences of living in a mining-impacted community.
Sierra Streams Institute is currently seeking women over the age of 18 years, with a history of breast cancer and currently living in western Nevada County to participate in this exciting research project. Participants will be asked to provide a urine sample, toenail clippings, and complete a brief questionnaire. They are also planning a subsequent study involving in-home environmental sampling and are waiting for final approval of the study protocols.
This study, funded by state tobacco taxes through the California Breast Cancer Research Program, will focus on the amount of cadmium and arsenic in the bodies of women with and without breast cancer residing in historical Gold Country.
These two metals are of interest because they are found at high levels throughout Gold Country, are known carcinogens and may play a role in developing breast cancer. The three most populous counties in Gold Country, including Nevada County, have breast cancer rates that rank in the top ten counties in California.
To volunteer for the CHIME (Community Health Impacts of Mining Exposure) study or to learn more about this ground-breaking study, please visit Sierra Streams Institute website at: http://www.
Our power went out at 1:45 pm. We got an automated PG&E call just now that said the outage is affecting 1400+ customers. They estimate resolution by 4:45 pm.
Scientists believe that simple land management techniques can increase the rate at which carbon is absorbed from the atmosphere and stored in soils.
For many climate change activists, the latest rallying cry has been, “Keep it in the ground,” a call to slow and stop drilling for fossil fuels. But for a new generation of land stewards, the cry is becoming, “Put it back in the ground!”
As an avid gardener and former organic farmer, I know the promise that soil holds: Every ounce supports a plethora of life. Now, evidence suggests that soil may also be a key to slowing and reversing climate change.
Evidence suggests that soil may also be a key to slowing and reversing climate change.
“I think the future is really bright,” said Loren Poncia, an energetic Northern Californian cattle rancher. Poncia’s optimism stems from the hope he sees in carbon farming, which he has implemented on his ranch. Carbon farming uses land management techniques that increase the rate at which carbon is absorbed from the atmosphere and stored in soils. Scientists, policy makers, and land stewards alike are hopeful about its potential to mitigate climate change.
Carbon is the key ingredient to all life. It is absorbed by plants from the atmosphere as carbon dioxide and, with the energy of sunlight, converted into simple sugars that build more plant matter. Some of this carbon is consumed by animals and cycled through the food chain, but much of it is held in soil as roots or decaying plant matter. Historically, soil has been a carbon sink, a place of long-term carbon storage.
But many modern land management techniques, including deforestation and frequent tilling, expose soil-bound carbon to oxygen, limiting the soil’s absorption and storage potential. In fact, carbon released from soil is estimated to contribute one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Ranchers and farmers have the power to address that issue. Pastures make up 3.3 billion hectares, or 67 percent, of the world’s farmland. Carbon farming techniques can sequester up to 50 tons of carbon per hectare over a pasture’s lifetime. This motivates some ranchers and farmers to do things a little differently.
“It’s what we think about all day, every day,” said Sallie Calhoun of Paicines Ranch on California’s central coast. “Sequestering soil carbon is essentially creating more life in the soil, since it’s all fed by photosynthesis. It essentially means more plants into every inch of soil.”
Carbon released from soil is estimated to make up to one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Calhoun’s ranch sits in fertile, rolling California pastureland about an hour’s drive east of Monterey Bay. She intensively manages her cattle’s grazing, moving them every few days across 7,000 acres. This avoids compaction, which decreases soil productivity, and also allows perennial grasses to grow back between grazing. Perennial grasses, like sorghum and bluestems, have long root systems that sequester far more carbon than their annual cousins.
By starting with a layer of compost, Calhoun has also turned her new vineyard into an effective carbon sink. Compost is potent for carbon sequestration because of how it enhances otherwise unhealthy soil, enriching it with nutrients and microbes that increase its capacity to harbor plant growth. Compost also increases water-holding capacity, which helps plants thrive even in times of drought. She plans to till the land only once, when she plants the grapes, to avoid releasing stored carbon back into the atmosphere.
Managed grazing and compost application are just a few common practices of the 35 that the Natural Resources Conservation Service recommends for carbon sequestration. All 35 methods have been proven to sequester carbon, though some are better documented than others.
David Lewis, director of the University of California Cooperative Extension, says the techniques Calhoun uses, as well as stream restoration, are some of the most common. Lewis has worked with theMarin Carbon Project, a collaboration of researchers, ranchers, and policy makers, to study and implement carbon farming in Marin County, California. The research has been promising: They found that one application of compost doubled the production of grass and increased carbon sequestration by up to 70 percent. Similarly, stream and river ecosystems, which harbor lots of dense, woody vegetation, can sequester up to one ton of carbon, or as much as a car emits in a year, in just a few feet along their beds.
One application of compost doubled the production of grass and increased carbon sequestration by up to 70 percent.
On his ranch, Poncia has replanted five miles of streams with native shrubs and trees, and has applied compost to all of his 800 acres of pasture. The compost-fortified grasses are more productive and have allowed him to double the number of cattle his land supports. This has had financial benefits. Ten years ago, Poncia was selling veterinary pharmaceuticals to subsidize his ranch. But, with the increase in cattle, he has been able to take up ranching full time. Plus, his ranch sequesters the same amount of carbon each year as is emitted by 81 cars.
Much of the research on carbon farming focuses on rangelands, which are open grasslands, because they make up such a large portion of ecosystems across the planet. They are also, after all, where we grow a vast majority of our food.
“Many of the skeptics of carbon farming think we should be planting forests instead,” Poncia said. “I think forests are a no-brainer, but there are millions of acres of rangelands across the globe and they are not sequestering as much carbon as they could be.”
The potential of carbon farming lies in wide-scale implementation. The Carbon Cycle Institute, which grew out of the Marin Carbon Project with the ambition of applying the research and lessons to other communities in California and nationally, is taking up that task.
“It really all comes back to this,” said Torri Estrada, pointing to a messy white board with the words SOIL CARBON scrawled in big letters. Estrada is managing director of the Carbon Cycle Institute, where he is working to attract more ranchers and farmers to carbon farming. The white board maps the intricate web of organizations and strategies the institute works with. They provide technical assistance and resources to support land stewards in making the transition.
“If the U.S. government would buy carbon credits from farmers, we would produce them.”
For interested stewards, implementation, and the costs associated with it, are different. It could be as simple as a one-time compost application or as intensive as a lifetime of managing different techniques. But for all, the process starts by first assessing a land’s sequestration potential and deciding which techniques fit a steward’s budget and goals. COMET-Farm, an online tool produced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, can help estimate a ranch’s carbon input and output.
The institute also works with state and national policy makers to provide economic incentives for these practices. “If the U.S. government would buy carbon credits from farmers, we would produce them,” Poncia said. These credits are one way the government could pay farmers to mitigate climate change. “Farmers overproduce everything. So, if they can fund that, we will produce them,” he said. While he is already sequestering carbon, Poncia says that he could do more, given the funding.
Estrada sees the bigger potential of carbon farming to help spur a more fundamental conversation about how we relate to the land. “We’re sitting down with ranchers and having a conversation, and carbon is just the medium for that,” he said. Through this work, Estrada has watched ranchers take a more holistic approach to their management.
On his ranch, Poncia has shifted from thinking about himself as a grass farmer growing feed for his cattle to a soil farmer with the goal of increasing the amount of life in every inch of soil.
By Don Pelton (Board Member of the Wolf Creek Community Alliance)
Dear Friends of Wolf Creek:
Here’s a great way to have some fun and trigger a contribution from Summer Thyme’s Restaurant to the Wolf Creek Community Alliance (without spending an extra cent of your own)!
Drop by Summer Thyme’s Restaurant at 231 Colfax Avenue in Grass Valley and have something to eat, ask the cashier for some wooden nickels when you order (you’ll get one “nickel” for every $5 you spend) and drop them in the donation box below the Wolf Creek Community Alliance poster (see picture below). Based of the number of “nickels” in the donation box, Summer Thyme’s will donate a percentage of their profits to WCCA.
This offer is good for every visit you make to Summer Thyme’s from now through June.
Wooden Nickels (in front of register):
Here’s the Complete Summer Thyme’s Menu: http://www.summerthymes.com/menus/
By Don Pelton
The Wolf Creek Community Alliance (full disclosure: I’m on the board) received this today from Trisha Tillotson, Senior Civil Engineer/Deputy Director of Public Works, City of Grass Valley.
A new local non-profit, the Bear Yuba Watershed Defense Fund (BYWDF), filed a lawsuit on June 3rd to block Nevada County from issuing a use permit for the Blue Lead Mine. The suit, according to the BYWDF press release (below) is based on the contention that Nevada County, as the lead agency, violated CEQA (the California Environmental Quality Act), because “it did not adequately address water quality issues due to the presence of mercury on the Blue Lead Mine site, a legacy mining site.”
Here’s the press release in full:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
June 13, 2015
Non Profit BEAR YUBA WATERSHED DEFENSE FUND Established
A non-profit organization established to protect the two watersheds in this area was formed last month and is launching a fund-raising campaign to fully fund its first project and continue ongoing as an environmental defense organization specifically for the Bear and Yuba watersheds.
Filling a lawsuit on June 3 naming the County of Nevada, the Bear Yuba Watershed Defense Fund is asking the court to set aside the April 28 decision of the Nevada County Board of Supervisors to approve, without a full Environment Impact Report, a use permit for the Blue Lead Mine, which was permitted as a 20-year, open-pit gold mining operation, located approximately 3.5 miles east of the Nevada County Air Park and adjacent to Greenhorn Creek.
In fact, the momentum to found BYWDF was launched after communications among area young people, the millennial generation, who typically asked…”what can we do to stop the Blue Lead?” And thus, the Bear Yuba Watershed Defense Fund found its reason to be.
In consideration of next generation’s concern for our water and to protect the watersheds, BYWDF filed this lawsuit contending that the County as lead agency violated CEQA, a State environmental law, because it did not adequately address water quality issues due to the presence of mercury on the Blue Lead site, a legacy mine site; nor did the County adequately address water quantity issues with knowledge the Blue Lead Mine will use copious amounts of water. The Blue Lead as designed will pump during dry years two groundwater wells, 24-7, 365 days all year to obtain enough water to operate this open-pit placer gold mine (see Water Study at link following).
“It’s about the water…let’s NOT be stupid” is the mantra of the Bear Yuba Watershed Defense Fund.
When a governing agency circumvents laws intended to protect our home lands, sometimes We, the People must resort to using the law–to test and force compliance with any State or Federal laws. Approval of the Blue Lead Mine is one of those times; and the founding directors of BYWDF along with several individuals and organizations in this area who are already aligned with the efforts of BYWDF thank everyone, in advance, who can contribute any dollar amount towards this grass roots effort to protect our watersheds, and thus our home lands, from water-hogging projects and projects which threaten exposure of toxic or hazardous materials.
Learn More About It
• The Bear River Watershed is Number 76, and the Yuba River Watershed is Number 77 on Watershed Maps from the California Department of Conservation:
• For the effects of Mercury and methylated mercury on your health read Diagnosis: Mercury, Money, Politics and Poison by Jane M. Hightower, M.D.:
• For background documents including the water study on the Blue Lead Mine, a search on “Blue Lead Mine” at: http://www.mynevadacounty.com/search/pages/Results.aspx?k=Blue%20Lead%20Mine
• For an education about the effects of legacy mining in the Sierra go to the website for The Sierra Fund at: https://www.sierrafund.org
For additional information contact:
Bear Yuba Watershed Defense Fund
P O Box 262
Chicago Park, CA 95712
Keep It California: “Please Come to the Nevada County Board of Supervisors Meeting on May 12th at 12:30 PM”
I hear from Margaret Joehnck (with Keep It California Nevada County) that she and Kevin Hendricks, who headed up the successful Keep It California campaign to defeat the State of Jefferson ballot initiative in Del Norte County, will be interviewed by Lee Oborne on his show (Random Rants) on KVMR at 12 noon tomorrow (Wednesday, May 6th).
For more information, see the Keep It California website.