Know Your Nonprofit: Building stronger services through top leadership
From: The Union – http://www.theunion.com/article/20101129/MISC/101129784/1001&parentprofile=1053
ENLARGE
The board of directors for the Center for Nonprofit Leadership consists of, front row from left, Norm Westmore, Jennifer Singer, Jeffrey Brown and Holly Hermansen; back row from left, Dennis Fournier, Dena Valin, Gail Johnson Vaughan, Gary Quehl, Karen Marinovich, Cheri Flanigan, Bill Neff, Dan Halloran and Wendy Willoughby.
Submitted photo
Center for Nonprofit Leadership
• P.O. Box 1227, Nevada City, CA 95959
• (530) 265-5600 or info@cnlsierra.org
What is your mission?
The Center for Nonprofit Leadership strengthens nonprofit organizations in order to advance the quality of community life.
What is your yearly budget, and how many paid employees do you have?
CNL’s annual budget is $90,000 and we have one paid employee.
What is your nonprofit’s history?
In the late 1990s, local public benefit organizations began exploring ways to strengthen themselves and their sector. A needs analysis was undertaken in October 2002 and resulted in 14 organizations creating an informal collaborative in April 2003.
They called it the Center for Nonprofit Leadership. CNL’s founding purpose was to provide high-quality, low-priced workshops and services to which nonprofit governing boards and executive directors can turn for continuing education and development.
We now have 48 member nonprofit organizations. Workshops have been supplemented by informal best practices exchanges and periodic coaching and mentoring of organizations.
Workshop themes include strategic planning, fund raising, finance, board recruitment and evaluation, building successful boards, board relations, effective meetings, and recruiting and training volunteers.
We began comprehensive strategic planning in 2007.
Who is your primary audience?
Nonprofit and public benefit organizations in Nevada County; we also pull from Sierra County and Placer County.
CNL also caters to people who volunteer for nonprofits, are on the board of directors or are contract workers in the nonprofit sector such as grant writers and consultants.
List your biggest achievements.
A November 2009 community-wide summit on collaboration drew 150 participants, with follow-up facilitation of 34 ideas for community-wide collaboration.
CNL has hosted 36 workshops on a wide range of nonprofit topics, hosted three leadership seminar series serving 10 executive directors and 23 two-person teams.
CNL also offers mentoring and best practices exchanges to member organizations.
List your biggest challenge.
Raising awareness about the vital role our nonprofit organizations play in the quality of life in our community.
This challenge includes dispelling the myth that we have too many nonprofits in our community. Of the 683 registered nonprofits, 154 are active organizations and have annual budgets of at least $25,000.
These 154 nonprofit organizations they employ 600 people and spend $34 million in salaries and benefits yearly. Together, they are the third-largest employer after the hospital and county government.
Together, these 154 nonprofits have annual budgets of $75 million. If a conservative multiplier of 1.32 were used, that would predict an annual economic impact on our county of $100 million. If a more typical multiplier of 3.0 were used, their annual economic impact exceeds $200 million.
What is your No. 1 short-term goal?
Engage nonprofits in the 2010-11 workshop series beginning Dec. 3 (see accompanying story). The series will analyze the life stages of nonprofits and better prepare them for changes and growth.
What is your No. 1 long-term goal?
Growth and sustainability of the center.
CNL’s extraordinary volunteer leaders cannot deliver expanded programming without having at least a part-time professional staff member. To build needed staff and program capacity, we must secure funding beyond out modest income from membership dues and workshop and seminar fees.
What are your major events?
We have an annual meeting in October for nonprofits and community members to network and learn about upcoming training opportunities and services provided by CNL.
What is the best way to help?
Anyone interested in attending CNL’s workshops can visit www.cnlsierra.org for more information and to download registration forms.
Local nonprofits: Learn how to survive and thrive
A seven-part workshop series starting Friday will teach leaders of nonprofit organizations “The Five Life Stages of Nonprofit Organizations.”
Participants will assess the life stages of their organizations over seven areas of business. Organizations will begin to identify the obstacles, opportunities, and action steps for surviving, thriving and excelling in challenging times.
Though workshops in the series may be attended individually, attendance at the first workshop is essential to maximize the benefits any in CNL’s 2010-11 series. Visit www.cnlsierra.org for a complete list of workshops.
“The goal of this workshop is for participants to develop an understanding of nonprofit life cycle stages, learn to skillfully project future needs and anticipate challenges, and recognize and address critical junctures in the life of the organization,” said workshop presenter Karen Marinovich.
The first workshop is at 8:30 a.m. Friday, Dec. 3, at Emmanuel Episcopal Church, 235 S. Church St., downtown Grass Valley.
Cost for the first workshop is $75 for center members and $95 for nonmembers; it includes a continental breakfast and lunch. A season pass for all seven workshops costs $275. The series is hosted by the Center for Nonprofit Leadership; organizations must be a current member to buy a season pass.
Advanced registration is requested; contact the Center for Nonprofit Leadership at info@cnlsierra.org or download the registration form at www.cnlsierra.org or call (530) 265-5600.
By Rochelle Nason
Tahoe Daily Tribune
Dec 18, 2010
We are nearing the end another year of strong efforts by many agencies and groups to protect and restore Tahoe’s unique environment.
Our community continues to make progress on several fronts, including preventing wildfire and invasive species, restoring meadows and trails, enhancing low-impact recreation opportunities, creating ideas for a sustainable environment and economy, and working toward a comprehensive, long-term plan for Tahoe’s future.
First, the boat inspectors and staff at the Tahoe Resource Conservation District deserve immense praise for their diligent efforts to protect Tahoe from the threat of new invasive species. This summer, Tahoe RCD inspected 8,000 boats and decontaminated 1,200, including 11 that contained invasive mussels or New Zealand mudsnails. The League to Save Lake Tahoe, in partnership with the Tahoe Lakefront Homeowners Association, has provided funding for this program.
In 2010, we also saw the first enforcement action against a boater trying to evade inspections. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency delivered a strong message that inspection evasion will not be tolerated.
In addition, property owners continued efforts to implement defensible space, which protects both our forests and our lake. More than 1,900 properties have completed defensible space since 2008, according to the Nevada Fire Safe Council.The League has urged its members to conduct defensible space since at least the early 1990s.
On another front, the U.S. Forest Service, which manages 85 percent of land in the Tahoe Basin, continued restoring heavily used trails to protect streams and meadows, and enhance low-impact recreation opportunities like hiking and mountain biking. The Forest Service also started a two-year project to restore 80 acres of High Meadow. The project received funding from the Southern Nevada Public Lands Management Act, a piece of legislation that passed in 2004 after many years of League effort. The League has been a longtime member of the Federal Advisory Committee, which oversees the activities of Forest Service in Tahoe.
This year also marked the 13th year of the Environmental Improvement Program, a massive effort to fix past development mistakes that threaten Tahoe’s clarity. Near Tahoe City this summer, crews began an EIP project to restore 35 acres of meadow that were filled in decades ago for a condominium development that never materialized.
The League, in partnership with the TRPA and the business community, helped create the EIP in the 1990s. The League paid for the lobbying effort to identify and secure funding for the EIP and assembled a broad range of interests to support that effort. To date, the program has brought over $1.5 billion for restoration at Tahoe.
This year, we saw the release of the Tahoe Prosperity Plan, which embraces concepts the League has supported since its inception over 53 years ago. We have long believed the region holds great potential as an ecotourism destination for low-impact recreation.
Finally, the League has been working hard on evaluating several policy issues. The work of our program staff and volunteers requires scientific and policy expertise, as well as an excellent grasp of TRPA regulations. The League devotes countless hours researching plans and convincing policy makers to do the right thing before a vote is ever cast. This often involves reading hundreds of pages of environmental documents, and many hours of meetings with decision makers.
For these same reasons, our staff has worked closely with TRPA staff to refine a regional plan alternative that places environmental protection as paramount at Lake Tahoe. The League has also been coordinating efforts to seek improvements on the Boulder Bay and Homewood development projects.
Also, in an effort to increase our transparency in the community, we have launched a new website. Of all the things we do, our comments to public agencies tell the most about the League’s work. Read these comments by visiting “Current Priorities” at KeepTahoeBlue.org.
Finally, the past year has been one of healthy debate, which is an important part of any democratic society. For the year ahead, we encourage everyone to stay informed and engage in the issues.
- Rochelle Nason is executive director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe, Tahoe’s oldest and largest environmental advocacy group. Nason is a recipient of the California governor’s Environmental and Economic Leadership Award, and the Outstanding Environmental Achievement Award of the U.S. EPA’s Region 9. Contact the League at info@keeptahoeblue.org.
Decisive victory ensures development plans will be held to high standard
Sacramento, CA – In a landmark decision that will affect all future development plans at Lake Tahoe, a federal district court judge on Thursday overturned a plan to allow the addition of new piers, boat ramps, buoys and other boat facilities along the lake’s shoreline.
Judge Lawrence K. Karlton of the U.S. District Court in Sacramento ruled in favor of the League to Save Lake Tahoe and the Sierra Club, sending the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s shorezone development plan back to the drawing board. The groups were represented by the non-profit law firm Earthjustice.
“The Court has clearly signaled that Tahoe’s regional planning agency can no longer ignore its duties to protect Lake Tahoe, which it has failed to do for decades. In fact, it has instead acquiesced to private developers, when Lake Tahoe belongs to everyone,” said Earthjustice attorney Wendy Park.
In November 2008, the groups filed suit against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to force a proper environmental review of the agency’s shoreline development plan. The plan would have allowed for the building of 138 new piers, thousands of new buoys, and other boat facilities, resulting in more than 62,000 additional boat trips each year on the lake. The construction and additional traffic would have imperiled water and air quality, and negatively affected non-motorized boaters and public shoreline access. As a result of Thursday’s decision, miles of Tahoe shoreline will remain pristine and enjoyable for all users.
“The Lake won,” said Michael Donahoe, former conservation co-chair of the Tahoe Area Sierra Club. “We are elated that the judge recognized that business as usual is not sufficient. He has affirmed the agency’s duty to not only protect Lake Tahoe from further degradation but also to restore this national treasure to its former health and natural beauty.”
In his ruling, Judge Karlton agreed with environmental groups that new boat facilities should not be allowed along the shoreline until the TRPA shows how it will achieve mandatory environmental goals aimed at restoring the Lake to its former clarity and improving the environment of the spectacular Sierra basin in which it lies. He rejected TRPA’s position that it was only required to show that the plan would not harm the Lake, where those goals had not been met.
The decision holds implications for a separate TRPA plan to substantially increase urbanization and development on land in Tahoe over the next 20 years.
“This is a great day for everyone who wants to Keep Tahoe Blue,” said Rochelle Nason, executive director of the League. “This decision provides the guidance the agency needs to resume its rightful place as the leader of a bi-state, science-based, and broadly supported effort to save Lake Tahoe.”
The judge also ruled that the agency’s development plan violated Lake Tahoe’s “Outstanding National Resource Water” designation under the Clean Water Act, which prohibits any long-term degradation of waters of exceptional ecological and recreational significance.
Lake Tahoe is the largest Alpine lake in North America. The beauty of its cobalt blue waters and pristine clarity has inspired visitors since the time of Mark Twain. Lake Tahoe is protected by a decades-old Congressionally-approved Compact between the states of California and Nevada, which mandates the region to protect the environmental health and scenic quality of the Lake Tahoe Basin watershed.
Last year, Judge Karlton issued an injunction halting the construction of any new piers or boat facilities on the lake until the case concluded.
Artisan breadmaker Nathan Shreve displays some of the freshly baked loaves at his commercial kitchen in Auburn. The Shreves make and sell 12 kinds of bread plus scones and muffins at the farmers market and local retail shops.
Nathan and Alice Shreve’s freshly baked artisan breads and pastries have gained a loyal following in the seven short months the couple has had a booth at the Auburn Farmers Market.
But food has always been a big part of Alice Shreve’s life. Growing up in Auburn, her parents, Pete and Pat Enochs, have been in the restaurant business for 35 years and own Latitudes in Old Town.
“I’ve always liked to cook,” Shreve said. “(At the restaurant) I would stand on a 5-gallon bucket with my dad and chop vegetables with him before I could even reach the counter.”
After graduating from Placer High School, Shreve headed east to study at the Culinary Institute of America in Hyde Park, N.Y. That’s where she and Nathan met.
After graduation in 2002, the two chefs continued to hone their skills in Texas and then in the Bay Area.
It was during his time working in a Bay Area bakery that Nathan discovered how much he enjoyed baking.
Then, a five-month backpacking trek through Europe gave the Shreves the opportunity to taste a lot of bread.
As backpackers, they did a lot of walking. Along the way, they’d frequently stop at bakeries.
“We visited 14 countries and focused on France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Portugal,” Alice said. “We walked and ate our way through Europe.”
Back in the U.S., when the Shreves decided to start a family, Alice knew she wanted to raise her children in Auburn.
Preparations for opening the bakery took about a year — finding a suitable commercial kitchen (in North Auburn) and then refitting it with specialized equipment
“We’re using an Italian-style hearth oven,” Shreve said. “You bake right on the oven base. We had to knock out a wall to get it in. It is about 15 feet tall, 6 feet wide and 20 feet long. All the bread is baked in that.”
The loaves that come out of the oven are unique, too. Nathan Shreve creates 12 different kinds including the epis — a baguette shaped like a wheat stalk.
“It’s popular for parties — a very festive looking baguette,” Alice said.
Their most popular seller is the meyer lemon rosemary bread.
”It has meyer lemon zest and rosemary just under the crust with a little coarse sea salt on top,” she said.
Another favorite is the seed wheat bread.
“(It’s) a whole wheat bread with roasted pumpkin seeds, sunflower seeds, sesame seeds, flax and polenta,” Alice said. “It’s a hearty breakfast bread because it has so much nutrients in it.”
Recent additions to the selection include ciabatta and kalamata loaf.
Each week, they feature all 12 of the breads at the farmers market, as well as scones, cookies and muffins.
“The farmers market is great. That’s where we sell most of our bread,” Alice said. “We sell out often. We have our regular customers who come to the market every week and we’ve gotten to know them.”
They even barter bread for vegetables from other vendors.
“It’s just a great community around the farmers market,” she said. “It’s amazing how well Auburn supports it.”
The secret to producing good bread is using high quality ingredients and a good oven, she said.
Typically, Nathan makes the dough in the afternoon. Then they shape the loaves in the evening.
“It’s really hands on,” Alice said.
Nathan uses a sourdough starter.
“His baby is keeping the sourdough starter as a perfect happiness,” Alice said.
Alice makes all the pastries. Hence the name of the business — The Baker & the Cakemaker
The apricot scones are a top seller along with the cinnamon swirl muffins.
“It’s like the inside of a cinnamon roll, but in muffin form,” Alice said.
With peaches in season, she’s also making peach muffins.
“We’re trying to use farmers market ingredients (whenever possible),” she said.
Eventually they’d like to add croissants to the repertoire.
Besides selling at the farmers market, the Shreves’ baked goods are available at Ikeda’s in Auburn, Newcastle Produce in Newcastle, the Blue Goose in Loomis and at businesses in Grass Valley and Nevada City.
As they celebrate one year in business this month, they’re planning for the future.
“Our ultimate goal is to have a retail spot to have a good cup of coffee and a croissant,” Alice said. “We have to find the right spot because it needs to be in Auburn.”
At Ikeda’s in Bowman, Glen Ikeda said he carries the Shreves’ bread not only to support a local producer, but because of the high quality of the product.
“When (the Enochs) said their daughter and her husband were going to start an artisan bread company, I was really excited because there‘s no one who does that in Auburn,” Ikeda said. “Then when they came out with the samples, (the bread ranks up there with the other great artisan bread makers.”
The bread is popular with customers, too.
“(Many of) our customers are not local,” Ikeda said. “They’re coming from the Bay Area and they’re used to that kind of artisan bread — the top brands. If you can compete against them, you’re doing well. (Customers) have come into our store from San Francisco and Berkeley and said ‘this bread is fantastic.’ On their way to Tahoe and coming back, they buy it on the way up and then going home.
“That gives Nathan and Alice more of a gut check on how their bread compares to top end artisan bread company. They can go head to head.”
Reach Gloria Young at gloriay @goldcountrymedia.com.
————
The Baker and the cakemaker
Owners: Nathan and Alice Shreve
Website: thebakerandthecakemaker.com
Where to find it:
• Blue Goose Produce, 3550 Taylor Road, Loomis
• Newcastle Produce, 9230 Cypress St., Newcastle
• Ikeda’s, 13500 Lincoln Way, Auburn
• Sunrise Natural Foods, 2160 Grass Valley Highway, Auburn
• Auburn Farmers Market
Also available in Nevada City and Grass Valley
at BriarPatch Co-op and Sierra Mountain Coffee Roasters
Editorial: State blazes new path on chemical risks
Published Sunday, Aug. 08, 2010
Every now and again, California legislators and regulators aim high and make a serious effort to work for the public good. So it is with the ambitious “green chemistry” project, brought about by legislation approved in 2008.
Under the leadership of Maziar Movassaghi and Maureen Gorsen, acting and former directors of the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Schwarzenegger administration has embarked on what could be one of the most significant consumer initiatives in years – perhaps rivaling efforts to limit greenhouse gas as envisioned by AB 32 of 2006.
The goal is lofty. Scientists and regulators would analyze virtually every chemical currently in commerce. Some would be banned based on health concerns. There would be warnings issued on others. The beneficiaries would be Californians who would know about the health and environmental implications of chemicals they contain.
Manufacturers could choose to find safer and environmentally benign substitutes, a step that would help them market to consumers who are ever more concerned about what they ingest and what gets released into the environment. It would be a first-in-the-nation effort, and could help spur a new industry in green building material, solvents that are far less damaging to the environment and much more.
But in a hearing last week, legislators and environmental advocates raised numerous legitimate concerns.
Assemblyman Mike Feuer, D-Los Angeles, who with Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, and others pushed the legislation, led the critique. Feuer worries that the process as outlined by the department could become overly bureaucratic, with decisions delayed for years. The process needs to be fair but not cumbersome.
The department proposes that as it develops its list of chemicals of concern, it would rely on substances that have been listed under Proposition 65 as carcinogens and reproductive toxins. That is unduly restrictive. Useful though Proposition 65 may be, its list is not all-inclusive. Other scientific authorities have identified chemicals not on the Proposition 65 list that ought to be a focus of the green chemistry process.
Additionally, there is legitimate concern that companies would be able to keep too much information secret by claiming trade secrets. Environmentalists make a convincing argument that there should be clear steps for manufacturers to substantiate trade secrecy claims at the start of the process.
The department proposes a system in which disinterested third parties would analyze alternatives to questionable chemicals. Those third party verifiers ought to be barred from having economic interests in companies that profit from chemicals of concern.
The process takes place as the Washington Post reported in an article reprinted by The Bee last week the startling fact that federal regulators have little or no information on health risks posed by 80,000 chemicals currently used in the United States.
The green chemistry process could help shed light where there is none.
Certain industry groups continue to attack the initiative, claiming that green chemistry would burden businesses with a new regulatory framework at exactly the wrong time.
But if the process proves to be too burdensome, it could be modified. The alternative should not be to scrap the program.
As it is, legislators introduce laws on an ad hoc basis to ban chemicals one by one, which forces businesses to engage in expensive campaigns to lobby legislators over extremely technical matters. Lawmakers simply are not equipped to analyze which chemicals are safe or not.
It would be far wiser for the state to take a proactive approach to possible chemical hazards, and rely on scientists who have the background, training and independence that lawmakers generally lack. The administration is headed in the right direction. It needs to heed critics and incorporate their legitimate concerns.
NEVADA CITY, Calif. April 26, 2010 – Planning Commissioners postponed a decision on granting a vested right to mine to Blue Lead Mine LLC during their Thursday meeting. After over four hours of staff reports, public testimony, refutations and allegations by the applicant’s attorney and discussion among themselves, commissioners were unable to reach a decision.
Brief History
The item came before the commission after the owners of the property were cited by Nevada County for code violations and not taking out required permits. BLM and the Regional Water Quality Control Board also issued separate notices of violations. After returning an incomplete use permit application to Nevada County, the company then claimed to be exempt by virtue of having a “vested right to mine.”
The public was largely unaware of the March hearing, but requests to reopen the public hearing were sent to the commission from neighbors, public interest groups and neighborhood associations, after the commission’s decision was made public.
Presentation by Staff
Blair Will, on behalf of County Counsel’s office, gave the commissioners a brief recap of the issue. The first slide of the PowerPoint presentation summed up the question before the commission:
Was there a surface mining operation at the time of enactment of the ordinance which made the mining use nonconforming? If so,
- What is the geographic scope?
- What is the operational scope (i.e., production level)?
The scope of vested rights is contingent upon either ongoing operation or the objective manifestation of intent, defined by the Supreme Court in the Hansen case as follows: “The mere intention or hope on the part of the landowner to extend the use over the entire tract is insufficient; the intent must be objectively manifested by the past operations.”
Staff concluded their presentation by recommending the public hearing be reopened and “The vested right, if granted, be limited in geographic and operational scope consistent with historic scale of mining on the property, as supported by the evidence provided by miner, plus a ‘natural and gradual increase.’”
Public Hearing Reopened
For this hearing, unlike the previous one, public interest was great and the chamber was filled to capacity. Braiden Chadwick, the applicant’s attorney, recycled his March PowerPower presentation for a repeat performance, after which commissioners voted unanimously to reopen the public hearing.
First to speak was local author and historian Dave Comstock. He has written extensively about mining operations in the area and sent comments to the Planning Commission prior to Thursday’s hearing, including photos of area mining, Red Dog-You Bet Maps and a history of the property. Nothing can be done secretly in the area, Comstock said. Stating that the former owner was an honorable man who did things lawfully, Comstock concluded his remarks to the Planning Commission by saying he was neither in favor or opposed to mining, but “for doing things right.”
Tom Brown, the mine’s immediate neighbor, now lives in Virginia. His property had been directly impacted when a road was bulldozed through his land — without his consent — by Blue Lead Mine LLC. In his stead, Reinette Senum read his letter into the record. Brown stated his intention to appeal the decision if the commission was to grant vested rights to Blue Lead LLC.
CLAIM-GV, Citizens Looking At Impacts of Mining, had submitted a memo by the law firm Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger which concluded that staff was correct in their assessment by recommending the commission deny the vested rights. The memo also raises the question if Blue Lead LLC owns the mineral rights on the property. Following a quiet title action in 1966.
Here, the property descriptions to the quiet title action specifically exclude “any veins or lodes of quartz or other rock in place bearing gold, silver, cinnabar, lead, tin, copper, or other valuable deposits within the land above described which may have been discovered or known to exist” prior to the time that the mining patents for the various parcels were issued.
Finally, the memo lays out the reasons why the project cannot be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). “The California Supreme Court recently affirmed that the existence of a
vested right cannot insulate a project from environmental review under CEQA.”
Several speakers referred to this memo as well as numerous letters submitted ahead of the hearing. Not one of the dozen speakers urged the commission to grant the vested rights.
OMG: OMR Warns of $34,675,000 in Possible Fines
Mike Luksic of the Office of Mine Reclamation (OMR) read the following statement:
I’m Mike Luksic, a Professional Geologist with the Department of Conservation, Office of Mine Reclamation, Compliance Unit. Thank you for permission to address the Commission regarding the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) and implications of the County’s decision on vested rights for the Blue Lead-Nevada County mine. I’m adding Nevada County to the name Blue Lead mine, because there is already a mine named Blue Lead in Butte County, with a State mine ID # (91-04-0020). The Blue Lead Nevada County mine has never been in compliance with SMARA and cannot be assigned a specific State ID # until it is.
The Department notes that under SMARA, the legislature provided owners of pre-1976 mines with a choice: they were either 1) surface mining operations, subject to all the requirements of SMARA, responsible for submitting an adequate reclamation plan and financial assurances among other things or 2) they were no longer mining operations, not subject to any requirements, and not entitled to the privileges of vesting. The (Blue Lead Mine-Nevada County) appears to want to be a mine for the purposes of vesting, avoiding permits and avoiding CEQA, but not be considered a mine for the purposes of complying with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. Unfortunately, a mining operation cannot have it both ways.
The Department of Conservation has reviewed the items submitted in support of a vested rights determination for the Blue Lead Mine, and Nevada County’s materials prepared for the Planning Commission hearing on vested rights. Under SMARA, it is the responsibility of the lead agency, in this case Nevada County, to determine if mining was occurring in 1976, and has occurred without break since, thus ensuring a vested right. As this is a local decision, the Department will not comment on the determination. However, based upon Blue Lead’s assertion that they have been a mining operation since at least 1983, the Department provides the following to Nevada County, to use in their proceedings as appropriate.
1. Since 1991, every mine in the state, whether active or idle, has been required to send an Annual Mine Report to the Department and to the County, documenting their status and mineral production. The Blue Lead Mine has never provided this statutorily required annual report, either under the Brady Family Trust ownership or the current ownership. If Blue Lead is indeed a mining operation, they have been in violation of this statute for nineteen years, and cannot provide the production and intent to mine that those reports were designed to provide.
2. Since 1976, and reaffirmed by the legislature in 1988, every mine in the state, vested or not, was required to have a reclamation plan approved by the lead agency (Public Resources Code §2776 and 2770(b)). If the Blue Lead Mine is indeed a mining operation, it has continued to violate this statute for 34 years. Any mine violating this provision is prohibited by statute from operating.
3. Since 1991, every mine in the State of California has been required to maintain a financial assurance to guarantee reclamation. If the Blue Lead Mine is indeed a mining operation, it has violated this section of statute for nineteen years.
4. Violation of any of the above provisions is subject to a fine of up to $5,000 per day from the first date of violation. If the Blue Lead Mine was indeed a mining operation which violated those statutes, it would be subject to those fines. 19 years x 365 days x $5,000 = $34,675,000.
5. Since 1991, all mining operations were required to pay an Annual Reporting Fee to the DOC and submit annual reports including production to the State and lead agencies. Failure to pay this fee and submit reports is subject to fines, penalties and interest. If the Blue Lead Mine was indeed a mining operation since 1983, fees, penalties and interest since 1991 are now due and payable, both from the current operators and the Brady Family Trust. Approximately $250,000 would be owed to the State.
6. As of 1991, any mine in the state which had no production, but which had intent to mine in the future, was classified as “Idle”, and was required to obtain an IMP approval from the lead agency. The documents submitted by Blue Lead assert that they have been a mining operation since at least 1983, and had intent to mine in the future. Just because a mine existed at some point in somebody’s mind does not mean it meets statutory requirements. Failure to obtain an Interim Management Plan within one year and 90 days of becoming idle results, under statute, in the mine being deemed “Abandoned”, and required to immediately reclaim. If the Blue Lead Mining operation was indeed a surface mine since 1983, with zero production and an intent to mine, it was classified by statute as “Idle”, and as no IMP was approved, is now deemed by statute as “abandoned”, and required to cease mining and immediately reclaim.
7. If the Blue Lead Mine is found by Nevada County to have a vested right, and to have been a surface mining operation since 1991, the County is responsible for taking measures necessary to enforce all the above SMARA requirements. Failure to take those enforcement measures would result in OMR performing enforcement duties and referring to the State Mining and Geology Board Nevada County’s SMARA mine regulatory program for ALL mines in the County. Thus, if the County finds that Blue Lead has indeed been a surface mining operation, it must order the operator to immediately cease mining and reclaim the site, or face loss of its countywide SMARA authority. Also, the Department will take all enforcement and legal actions necessary to collect fees, penalties and interest owed to the State, and if necessary, to enforce SMARA itself.
8. The right of the County lead agency to issue permits and perform annual inspections, and charge fees is the preferred way to fund the local lead agency SMARA program. Fees for permit processing, plan review, annual report, inspections and program enforcement are necessary to support a viable lead agency. Without these sources of funds, Nevada County risks losing their lead agency status. If Nevada County loses its “lead agency” status to take over by the SMGB, fees for annual inspections will increase to approximately $5,000 a year for all mine operations in the county. All mine operations should comply with SMARA in order to compete on a level playing field. Illegal, clandestine gold mines provide no support for the SMARA program, yet one illegal mine operator can consume the majority of man-hours the lead agency staff have available, necessitating the increase of associated fees paid by LEGAL mine operations. The DOC supports legal mining operations, not illegal, clandestine mining.
This prompted a surly question by Commissioner Doneski who inquired if OMR was ‘threatening’ the county. Luksic responded OMR was merely supporting the county’s lead authority. Luksic and his colleague left the hearing chamber shortly thereafter, to sustained applause from the public.
New Information?
The commissioners appeared uncomfortable when Chadwick proceeded to ridicule the testimonies of local residents, attorneys and the state. He dismissed Comstock’s eyewitness testimony and suggested he visit the Searls Library where Blue Lead LLC had obtained their “evidence.” He conceded he was advocating on behalf of his client, whereas planning staff and county counsel were bound by rules that require them to be objective.
The commissioners focused on the abandonment question, trying to determine if there was at least a continuous “intent” to mine. No Interim Management Plan or Reclamation Plan was ever filed, leaving no trace of any “intent” or “idea” to mine in the future in either county or state records.
Commissioners said several times that new information had been brought to them, even though the initial staff report contained all the information. Blair Will, on behalf of county counsel, was pressed by Commissioner Duncan to “tell us what to do.” Since staff is not the decision-making body, Will was unable to tell Duncan how to vote and instead he referred to the evidence presented.
Commissioners voted unanimously to direct County Counsel to work with Blue Lead LLC’s attorney to exchange legal briefs before the hearing. County Counsel will also provide a relevant definition of “abandonment” for the next hearing, which is set for May 27.
SACRAMENTO, CA - The scene in the parking lot of the St. Paul’s Church of God looked more like a street fair than a food bank Thursday. A chef served a tasty, but simple dish of potatoes and roast carrots. Kids got free seedlings to grow their own celery. And families got a five-day supply of food.
“Once you tell them, just go home and boil it up, a little salt and pepper, then they’re willing to try something new,” she said as clients snapped up carrots, greens and bread.
Dom Mogavero, a guest chef from Soil Born Farms, was serving each person a taste of his vegetable dish.
“I want to enable them to make simple, cost-effective choices that will really improve the quality of their life,” he said.
The message was a hit.
“I’m not gonna tell my weight, but I lost, what, 10 pounds just eating fruit and vegetables,” said food bank regular Denice McNeil.
McNeil liked the message of fresh and healthy eating so much that she’s growing her own garden. “I have tomatoes. I have okra,” she said.
The long-time Sacramento food bank began its mobile outreach program about two years ago with the emphasis on lean, green and healthy.
“This is a revolution. Changing the way people think about food,” said Street.
For client Nick Wright, the change is visible.
“I was at 280 pounds and now, I’ve gone down to 245 pounds,” he said. His grandson Daniel Crow got some seeds to plant and said he’s learned a lot about eating healthier foods.
“At my school, they have the salad bar and I usually get some vegetables and fruits from there,” he said.
The outreach program rotates through several Sacramento-area churches and emphasizes education about healthy food choices.
The 2,600-acre Yuba Highlands property is slated to be sold off in pieces for permanent conservation, apparently marking the end of a contentious fight to add thousands of homes east of Beale Air Force Base.
A representative for Yuba Highlands developer Gary Gallelli and officials with the Trust for Public Land announced those plans Tuesday, with 700 acres near the Spenceville Wildlife Area to be dedicated as a conservation easement in the next few months.
“The first phase of the land conservation effort prevents development forever next to the Spenceville Wildlife Area and maintains the property for grazing and other agricultural uses,” said Dan Martin, a project manager for the Trust for Public Land, in an e-mail describing the plan.
Martin’s group is able to buy the 700-acre easement through $400,000 received from the Department of Defense for buying buffer areas around military bases, and $350,000 received last week from Caltrans for environmental enhancement.
Other Department of Defense money and act al land donations will complete the easement, which still needs to be approved by the state Department of Fish and Game, according to Martin.
Josh Cook, a land-use consultant who works with the Gallelli family, said the department is likely to do so because the easement will link two pieces of Spenceville Wildlife Area separated by Yuba Highlands property.
Cook added the Gallellis and the Trust for Public Land have a signed agreement to put the remaining 1,900 acres of Yuba Highlands into conservation easements as money to buy the land becomes available.
“It’s just a matter of finding the money to do it,” Cook said. “They’ve signed an agreement to conserve all of it.”
The 700-acre easement will have limited public access consistent with grazing operations, Martin said in an e-mail. Formal dedication will happen within the next few months, Cook said.
Yuba Foothills Associates, the development group formed by Gallelli, proposed Yuba Highlands in 2002 as a master-planned community of up to 5,100 homes on 2,900 acres.
County supervisors approved the project on a 3-2 vote in 2007 because the property was zoned for residential development, but opponents gathered enough signatures to force the matter to a February 2008 special election. Voters rejected the project with 77.6 percent in opposition.
Yuba County Planning Director Wendy Hartman said the overall result will be a better fit with the county’s ongoing General Plan update.
“The majority of folks felt that was too intensive a development for that area,” she said, referring to the 2008 vote.
The River Highlands Community Services District, an entity created to handle infrastructure for Yuba Highlands and other development in the area, issued bonds to pay for water, sewer and other necessities while the project was still under discussion.
But the district has since become defunct. County Public Works Director Mike Lee said there’s been no determination of who has responsibility for those bonds, though the county took over most of the district’s functions.
California Preservation Foundation’s 35th Annual Conference Will be Held May 12-15, 2010 in Nevada County
‘Preserving a Sense of Place: The Sierra Nevada’ Conference Will Feature Popular PBS Host Doug McConnell as Keynote Speaker
Published on Mar 17, 2010 – 10:42:14 AM
SAN FRANCISCO, March 17 2010 – The California Preservation Foundation will host its 35th Annual Conference May 12-15- 2010 in Nevada County in the communities of Grass Valley and Nevada City, California. The conference title “Preserving a Sense of Place: The Sierra Nevada” is intended to showcase the rich history and diverse beauty of one of California’s most magnificent scenic areas.
The conference keynote speaker Doug McConnell brings a traveler’s perspective on the unique character of the legendary Sierra Nevada region of California’s Mother Lode and its storied past. McConnell is co-founder and managing partner of Convergence Media Productions (CMP) in Sausalito, California which produces the popular PBS OpenRoad with Doug McConnell, and Exploring the West for Public Television nationally.
As a special highlight of this important conference, CPF is partnering with AMGEN Bike Tour (May 16-23, 2010) to create a synergistic impact on the local tourism and business community by promoting the dual events. Among the notable riders to participate in the AMGEN Tour is seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong.
Conference registration can be completed online at: www.californiapreservation.org
Among the conference highlights are more than 30 engaging sessions and workshops on a variety of issues pertaining to California’s historic, cultural and natural resources with. The sessions will feature over 100 speakers who are experts in their fields.
Over 30 seminars, panels and interactive workshops across 5 educational tracks, covering issues facing California’s historic, cultural and natural resources. This conference focuses on Sustainability and Economic Development. Tracks topics include:
Economic Development
Sustainability and Preservation
Heritage Tourism
Preserving Local Character
Local Government
The conference will also offer several exclusive tours that highlight Nevada County’s architecture, natural environment and history. Special hosted events at Grass Valley’s and Nevada City’s most historic and stunning locations – venues include the Empire Mine, Del Oro Theater, St. Joseph’s Cultural Center, Miners Foundry, Holbrook Hotel, Grass Valley Elks Club, as well as many other notable sites.
ENLARGE
Last updated 10 hrs ago from 
