Wildland fi res typically have very complex behaviors. They are
affected by changes in fuels, topography, weather, and ignition
patterns. This diverse behavior produces equally diverse effects.
To predict fi re effects you must fi rst quantify fi re behavior and fuel
consumption, fi re size, fi re season, and past fi re occurrence. In many
cases the use of replicated experimental prescribed fi res are necessary
to make inferences. Information from these studies can then be used
to develop quantitative models.
Currently there is substantial debate on how or if land managers
should reduce fuel hazards or engage in salvage logging. Dr. Stephens
has given testimony on this topic on three occasions at the US House
of Representatives Subcommittee on Forest and Forest Health and
Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands. He believes the
central question in this debate is the defi nition of desired future
conditions for our diverse ecosystems. Once we have this then we
must decide what management tools are appropriate to achieve and
maintain the desired conditions.
Dr. Scott Stephens, UC Berkeley, is interested in the
interactions of wildland fi re and ecosystems. This
includes how prehistoric fi res once interacted with
ecosystems, how current wildland fi res are affecting
ecosystems, and how future fi res and management
may change this interaction. How can wildland fi re
policy be improved to meet the challenges of the next
decades? How will fi re be affected by climate change?
FIRE BEHAVIOR:
WILDFIRE AND OLD-GROWTH JEFFREY PINE-MIXED
CONIFER FORESTS
DR. SCOTT STEPHENS (UC BERKELEY)
Date: Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Time: 5:30 – 7:00 p.m.
Lecture begins promptly at 6:00 p.m.
Cost: $5 donation requested. Includes a No-Host Bar.
Location: Assembly Rooms A & B, Tahoe Center for
Environmental Sciences
291 Country Club Drive, Incline Village, Nevada
(on the campus of Sierra Nevada College)
Monday, October 29, 2007
Scientists talk fire, Oct. 29
Gain scientifi c perspectives on fi re, fuels and their impacts in the Tahoe Basin. Join local experts for three short presentations and a discussion on fi re science. Following the presentations, you will have an opportunity to discuss the inter-related issues concerning wildfi res and their impact and ask questions of our panel of experts.
Wildfi re and Prescribed Fire Effects on Watersheds: Professor
Wally Miller, University of Nevada Reno presents the effects of
wildfi re and prescribed fi re on soils, forest carbon and nutrient
budgets and the resulting impacts on water quality and food webs.
How do thinning and prescribed fi re affect the forest fl oor fuels?
What is a “Strategically Placed Land Area Treatments (SPLATs)”?
Jeff Brown, Station Manager at the UC Berkeley, Sagehen Creek Field
Station presents recent research on SPLATs and their use as a tool
designed to modify forest fi re behavior.
Protecting Communities & Defensible Space: Norb Szczurek,
NLTFPD Division Chief, presents practical information about how
to protect your property from wildfi re. Learn what is being done in
your community.
Panel includes presenters, Fire Safe Council and TRPA representatives.
Presented by Wally Miller (University of Nevada, Reno), Jeff Brown (UC Berkeley Sagehen Creek Field Station) and Norb Szczurek (Division Chief, North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District)
FIRE SCIENCE
LECTURE WITH WALLY MILLER (UNIV. OF NEVADA, RENO),
JEFF BROWN (UC BERKELEY) &
NORB SZCZUREK (N. LAKE TAHOE FIRE PROTECTION)
Date: Monday, October 29, 2007
Time: 5:30 – 7:30 p.m.
Lecture begins promptly at 6:00 p.m.
Cost: $5 donation requested. Includes a No-Host Bar.
Location: Assembly Rooms A & B, Tahoe Center for
Environmental Sciences
291 Country Club Drive, Incline Village, Nevada
(on the campus of Sierra Nevada College)
Wildfi re and Prescribed Fire Effects on Watersheds: Professor
Wally Miller, University of Nevada Reno presents the effects of
wildfi re and prescribed fi re on soils, forest carbon and nutrient
budgets and the resulting impacts on water quality and food webs.
How do thinning and prescribed fi re affect the forest fl oor fuels?
What is a “Strategically Placed Land Area Treatments (SPLATs)”?
Jeff Brown, Station Manager at the UC Berkeley, Sagehen Creek Field
Station presents recent research on SPLATs and their use as a tool
designed to modify forest fi re behavior.
Protecting Communities & Defensible Space: Norb Szczurek,
NLTFPD Division Chief, presents practical information about how
to protect your property from wildfi re. Learn what is being done in
your community.
Panel includes presenters, Fire Safe Council and TRPA representatives.
Presented by Wally Miller (University of Nevada, Reno), Jeff Brown (UC Berkeley Sagehen Creek Field Station) and Norb Szczurek (Division Chief, North Lake Tahoe Fire Protection District)
FIRE SCIENCE
LECTURE WITH WALLY MILLER (UNIV. OF NEVADA, RENO),
JEFF BROWN (UC BERKELEY) &
NORB SZCZUREK (N. LAKE TAHOE FIRE PROTECTION)
Date: Monday, October 29, 2007
Time: 5:30 – 7:30 p.m.
Lecture begins promptly at 6:00 p.m.
Cost: $5 donation requested. Includes a No-Host Bar.
Location: Assembly Rooms A & B, Tahoe Center for
Environmental Sciences
291 Country Club Drive, Incline Village, Nevada
(on the campus of Sierra Nevada College)
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Tahoe City votes for fire tax
Associated Press - October 28, 2007 4:05 PM ET
TAHOE CITY, California (AP) - Four months after Lake Tahoe's largest recorded wildland fire, Tahoe City-area property owners have overwhelmingly voted to pay an annual assessment to improve fire safety on the lake's north shore.
A total of 3,873 voters approved the assessment while 1,589 voters rejected it. The 45-day mail-in election ended Wednesday, when ballots were counted.
The tax is expected to generate $625,000 a year for expansion of the North Tahoe Fire Protection District's chipping and fuels reduction programs, and defensible space inspections.
The revenue also will be used to modernize communications systems, contract water-dropping helicopters, plan neighborhood evacuation routes and increase engine staffing during periods of high fire danger.
Single-family homeowners will be assessed an annual fee starting at $48, while commercial property owners will pay a higher rate.
Approval of the tax follows the 3,000-acre Angora wildfire in June that destroyed 254 homes on Lake Tahoe's south shore.
TAHOE CITY, California (AP) - Four months after Lake Tahoe's largest recorded wildland fire, Tahoe City-area property owners have overwhelmingly voted to pay an annual assessment to improve fire safety on the lake's north shore.
A total of 3,873 voters approved the assessment while 1,589 voters rejected it. The 45-day mail-in election ended Wednesday, when ballots were counted.
The tax is expected to generate $625,000 a year for expansion of the North Tahoe Fire Protection District's chipping and fuels reduction programs, and defensible space inspections.
The revenue also will be used to modernize communications systems, contract water-dropping helicopters, plan neighborhood evacuation routes and increase engine staffing during periods of high fire danger.
Single-family homeowners will be assessed an annual fee starting at $48, while commercial property owners will pay a higher rate.
Approval of the tax follows the 3,000-acre Angora wildfire in June that destroyed 254 homes on Lake Tahoe's south shore.
Friday, October 26, 2007
LTUSD candidate controversy
Two incumbents and four challengers are vying for three seats on the Lake Tahoe Unified School District's board of education. The email below was sent to me and others this week. The daily paper in town ran a story today that didn't mention this controversy. It merely wrote about what former union prez Mike Patterson fed them. No need for me to vent about what's going on with the deliveryof news from Harrison Ave. And by mentioning all of this, I'm not taking a stand one way or the other or for particular candidates. I've already voted. But for those who haven't, I think they should have access to as much information as possible.
Here's the email:
You should know that 2 candidates for LTUSD school board (Kemper and Green) plagiarized large parts of their Personal Statements on the ballot.
The ballot is attached. Here's what Kemper said:
Nobody knows better than parents what their children need. Nobody works harder than teachers to prepare our students to meet the challenges of tomorrow. We can only improve our schools if parents and teachers have a seat at the table where decisions are made. As your school board member, I will build a team to make partnerships, not politics, a priority. I will bring people together , not pull them apart – teachers, students, parents, administrators, and the school board. We need a school board that models the behaviors we want for our children; a board that respects teachers, parents, and students, and works with them to make the best decisions about our schools.
Here's what Green said (the underlined material is the same as Kemper's):
Nobody knows better than parents what their kids need. Nobody works harder than teachers to prepare our students to meet the challenges of tomorrow. As your school board member, I will build a team to make partnerships a priority, bring ing people – children, teachers, parents, staff, administrators, community members and the school board. We need a school board that respects teachers, parents, and students, and works with them in partnership to make the best decisions about our schools.
Did you see Kemper even has the nerve to write: "We need a school board that models the behaviors we want for our children."
Yeah, right. She'd make a great role model for our kids - a plagiarist. If our kids did what she and Green did, their teachers would flunk them (as they should!). I don't want my kid "modeling" her behavior, do you?
This is not a trivial matter, or a simple mistake. Kemper and Green plagiarized the very statement that is supposed to communicate to you why you should vote for them. Their actions make a mockery of our schools' academic disciplinary policy. It would be an embarrassment to have them in charge of our schools.
Here's the email:
You should know that 2 candidates for LTUSD school board (Kemper and Green) plagiarized large parts of their Personal Statements on the ballot.
The ballot is attached. Here's what Kemper said:
Nobody knows better than parents what their children need. Nobody works harder than teachers to prepare our students to meet the challenges of tomorrow. We can only improve our schools if parents and teachers have a seat at the table where decisions are made. As your school board member, I will build a team to make partnerships, not politics, a priority. I will bring people together , not pull them apart – teachers, students, parents, administrators, and the school board. We need a school board that models the behaviors we want for our children; a board that respects teachers, parents, and students, and works with them to make the best decisions about our schools.
Here's what Green said (the underlined material is the same as Kemper's):
Nobody knows better than parents what their kids need. Nobody works harder than teachers to prepare our students to meet the challenges of tomorrow. As your school board member, I will build a team to make partnerships a priority, bring ing people – children, teachers, parents, staff, administrators, community members and the school board. We need a school board that respects teachers, parents, and students, and works with them in partnership to make the best decisions about our schools.
Did you see Kemper even has the nerve to write: "We need a school board that models the behaviors we want for our children."
Yeah, right. She'd make a great role model for our kids - a plagiarist. If our kids did what she and Green did, their teachers would flunk them (as they should!). I don't want my kid "modeling" her behavior, do you?
This is not a trivial matter, or a simple mistake. Kemper and Green plagiarized the very statement that is supposed to communicate to you why you should vote for them. Their actions make a mockery of our schools' academic disciplinary policy. It would be an embarrassment to have them in charge of our schools.
Lassen County development under fire
Media release
October 26, 2007
Contacts: Steve Robinson (530) 256-3982
Peter Van Zant (530) 265-2849
Tom Mooers (530) 265-2849
Terry Davis (916) 557-1100 x 108
COMMUNITY, CONSERVATION GROUPS ASK COURT TO OVERTURN DYER MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
Sierra Nevada’s Largest Development Proposal Deemed Irresponsible, Illegal by Mountain Meadows Conservancy , Sierra Watch, and Sierra Club
Susanville ( Lassen County ), CA, October 26, 2007 – A powerful coalition of local, state, and national conservation groups petitioned Lassen County Superior Court yesterday to overturn the county’s approval of a massive resort development project proposed for remote Dyer Mountain .
Dyer Mountain Associates proposes 4,000 new homes, three golf courses, and a ski resort on 7,000 acres of forest lands in remote Lassen County .
“The county has an obligation to look before it leaps into approving a development that threatens everything we love about Lassen County ,” said Steve Robinson of Mountain Meadows Conservancy . “That’s not just common sense; it’s also the law.”
Local residents contend that the project would overrun existing communities; at build out, the new development would dwarf neighboring Westwood and stress county services. The threatened landscape also has important wildlife, watershed, and cultural value. Dyer Mountain is home to bald eagles and an important part of the Feather River watershed. And it’s the ancestral home of the local Honey Lake Maidu tribe.
In a sweeping fifteen-page petition to Lassen County Superior Court, Mountain Meadows Conservancy , Sierra Watch, and Sierra Club contend that approval of the proposed development was not only irresponsible but also illegal.
A version of the project was initially approved by a voter initiative in 2000. Since then, the scope of the project, as well as the prospects for its actual completion, have changed dramatically.
The initial project proposed about 1,000 houses and a ski resort, with construction guaranteed by fall of this year. It has ballooned into a massive proposal of more than 4,000 resort homes, with no completion date in sight.
In the meantime, the project is mired in deepening legal and financial turmoil. The development proponents, Dyer Mountain Associates, have been subject to at least four lawsuits and two scathing court orders. In May, San Francisco Superior Court assigned a majority stake in DMA to a court appointed receiver, stating that DMA “…is in default of outstanding loans to creditors, payroll, rent and other financial obligations.”
In June, Santa Cruz Superior Court ordered a lien placed on DMA, ordering the Lassen County Sheriff to “attach” Dyer Mountain property until payment. And in August DMA was sued by a creditor for defaulting on a $10 million loan.
“Any way your look at it, this project simply does not make sense,” contends Peter Van Zant of Sierra Watch. “It ignores every lesson we’ve learned about planning in the Sierra Nevada – threatening our irreplaceable resources and local communities with irresponsible development.”
The lawsuit clearly contends that Lassen County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it approved the project last month. CEQA is the foundation of environmental policy in California ; it requires state and local decision makers to consider the environmental consequences of their actions. But environmental review of the Dyer Mountain project failed to assess its impacts on issues ranging from local traffic patterns to global climate change.
Conservationists throughout California are taking note. Earlier this month, the 700,000-member Sierra Club signed on to the suit to stop the Dyer Mountain project.
“We recognize that growth will continue in the Sierra Nevada ,” says Terry Davis of Sierra Club. “Our goal is to encourage responsible growth instead of irresponsible development that consumes our scenic forest habitat.”
In the coming months, the Court will assign a judge to the case. There is no time table for resolving the case.
“We’re in this for the long haul,” says Robinson of Mountain Meadows Conservancy . “Our own communities and surrounding landscapes are at stake.”
The Mountain Meadows Conservancy 's mission is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty and environmental health of the Mountain Meadows watershed; protect its significant Mountain Maidu burial and cultural sites; and provide recreation and public access for generations to come. For more information, visit www.mtmeadows.org.
Sierra Watch defends the incomparable natural resources and unparalleled quality of life in the Sierra Nevada mountain range. For more information, call (530) 265-2849 or visit www.sierrawatch.org.
# # #
October 26, 2007
Contacts: Steve Robinson (530) 256-3982
Peter Van Zant (530) 265-2849
Tom Mooers (530) 265-2849
Terry Davis (916) 557-1100 x 108
COMMUNITY, CONSERVATION GROUPS ASK COURT TO OVERTURN DYER MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT
Sierra Nevada’s Largest Development Proposal Deemed Irresponsible, Illegal by Mountain Meadows Conservancy , Sierra Watch, and Sierra Club
Susanville ( Lassen County ), CA, October 26, 2007 – A powerful coalition of local, state, and national conservation groups petitioned Lassen County Superior Court yesterday to overturn the county’s approval of a massive resort development project proposed for remote Dyer Mountain .
Dyer Mountain Associates proposes 4,000 new homes, three golf courses, and a ski resort on 7,000 acres of forest lands in remote Lassen County .
“The county has an obligation to look before it leaps into approving a development that threatens everything we love about Lassen County ,” said Steve Robinson of Mountain Meadows Conservancy . “That’s not just common sense; it’s also the law.”
Local residents contend that the project would overrun existing communities; at build out, the new development would dwarf neighboring Westwood and stress county services. The threatened landscape also has important wildlife, watershed, and cultural value. Dyer Mountain is home to bald eagles and an important part of the Feather River watershed. And it’s the ancestral home of the local Honey Lake Maidu tribe.
In a sweeping fifteen-page petition to Lassen County Superior Court, Mountain Meadows Conservancy , Sierra Watch, and Sierra Club contend that approval of the proposed development was not only irresponsible but also illegal.
A version of the project was initially approved by a voter initiative in 2000. Since then, the scope of the project, as well as the prospects for its actual completion, have changed dramatically.
The initial project proposed about 1,000 houses and a ski resort, with construction guaranteed by fall of this year. It has ballooned into a massive proposal of more than 4,000 resort homes, with no completion date in sight.
In the meantime, the project is mired in deepening legal and financial turmoil. The development proponents, Dyer Mountain Associates, have been subject to at least four lawsuits and two scathing court orders. In May, San Francisco Superior Court assigned a majority stake in DMA to a court appointed receiver, stating that DMA “…is in default of outstanding loans to creditors, payroll, rent and other financial obligations.”
In June, Santa Cruz Superior Court ordered a lien placed on DMA, ordering the Lassen County Sheriff to “attach” Dyer Mountain property until payment. And in August DMA was sued by a creditor for defaulting on a $10 million loan.
“Any way your look at it, this project simply does not make sense,” contends Peter Van Zant of Sierra Watch. “It ignores every lesson we’ve learned about planning in the Sierra Nevada – threatening our irreplaceable resources and local communities with irresponsible development.”
The lawsuit clearly contends that Lassen County violated the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) when it approved the project last month. CEQA is the foundation of environmental policy in California ; it requires state and local decision makers to consider the environmental consequences of their actions. But environmental review of the Dyer Mountain project failed to assess its impacts on issues ranging from local traffic patterns to global climate change.
Conservationists throughout California are taking note. Earlier this month, the 700,000-member Sierra Club signed on to the suit to stop the Dyer Mountain project.
“We recognize that growth will continue in the Sierra Nevada ,” says Terry Davis of Sierra Club. “Our goal is to encourage responsible growth instead of irresponsible development that consumes our scenic forest habitat.”
In the coming months, the Court will assign a judge to the case. There is no time table for resolving the case.
“We’re in this for the long haul,” says Robinson of Mountain Meadows Conservancy . “Our own communities and surrounding landscapes are at stake.”
The Mountain Meadows Conservancy 's mission is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty and environmental health of the Mountain Meadows watershed; protect its significant Mountain Maidu burial and cultural sites; and provide recreation and public access for generations to come. For more information, visit www.mtmeadows.org.
Sierra Watch defends the incomparable natural resources and unparalleled quality of life in the Sierra Nevada mountain range. For more information, call (530) 265-2849 or visit www.sierrawatch.org.
# # #
Angora: County completes tree removal
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 26, 2007
COUNTY CONCLUDES HAZARD TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM
Debris Removal Operations Center Closing
(South Lake Tahoe, CA)—The El Dorado County Department of Environmental Management announced the completion of the Angora Fire hazard tree removal program.
Under the program, 8,511 tons of hazard trees were removed from over 400 non-federal, non-state owned lots in the burn area.
The county authorized the program on August 28 after soliciting informal bids from licensed timber operators. Sierra Pacific Industries won the contract by offering a zero bid for the tree removal work.
The tree program was organized following the structural debris removal program, a joint effort between El Dorado County, the California Integrated Waste Management Board and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. Nearly 70,000 tons of structural debris were removed in the weeks following the fire.
With the conclusion of the hazard tree program, El Dorado County will begin sending bills to property owners for their debris removal work. Property owners who signed up for the program agreed to reimburse the county for debris removal to the extent covered in the owner’s insurance policy.
The Debris Removal Operation Center set up at the Elks Club in the wake of the fire to oversee debris and tree removal will close this week.
Property owners with questions regarding debris billing are encouraged to contact the El Dorado County Environmental Management Department at (530) 621-5300, or (530) 573-7955 ext. 5300 from South Lake Tahoe.
“Our debris and tree programs were very successful and we are happy to conclude this phase of the recovery process,†said county Environmental Management Director Gerri Silva. “At the same time, our hearts are breaking for the victims in Southern California because we have a small taste of what they will be up against in terms of cleanup.â€
###
October 26, 2007
COUNTY CONCLUDES HAZARD TREE REMOVAL PROGRAM
Debris Removal Operations Center Closing
(South Lake Tahoe, CA)—The El Dorado County Department of Environmental Management announced the completion of the Angora Fire hazard tree removal program.
Under the program, 8,511 tons of hazard trees were removed from over 400 non-federal, non-state owned lots in the burn area.
The county authorized the program on August 28 after soliciting informal bids from licensed timber operators. Sierra Pacific Industries won the contract by offering a zero bid for the tree removal work.
The tree program was organized following the structural debris removal program, a joint effort between El Dorado County, the California Integrated Waste Management Board and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. Nearly 70,000 tons of structural debris were removed in the weeks following the fire.
With the conclusion of the hazard tree program, El Dorado County will begin sending bills to property owners for their debris removal work. Property owners who signed up for the program agreed to reimburse the county for debris removal to the extent covered in the owner’s insurance policy.
The Debris Removal Operation Center set up at the Elks Club in the wake of the fire to oversee debris and tree removal will close this week.
Property owners with questions regarding debris billing are encouraged to contact the El Dorado County Environmental Management Department at (530) 621-5300, or (530) 573-7955 ext. 5300 from South Lake Tahoe.
“Our debris and tree programs were very successful and we are happy to conclude this phase of the recovery process,†said county Environmental Management Director Gerri Silva. “At the same time, our hearts are breaking for the victims in Southern California because we have a small taste of what they will be up against in terms of cleanup.â€
###
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)