LOTS OF FUN AT NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, DESPITE THOSE ALL NIGHTERS
Tbe night before National Night Out in Fort Bragg (and the rest of the nation), local deputies, rangers and CHP officers drove to Manchester in the early morning hours to investigate a report of a man getting snatched by a mountain lion. At the same time, also after midnight a big fight between frustrated salmon fishermen camping at MacKerricher Park happened. As often happens, the “adventures” resolved with, deescelation, helping people get to bed, no arrests and nobody devoured by lions. Shortly before sundown everybody was in bed while the officers drove back north or east.
Intoxicants of different types were involved at both calls.
Then those same officers came out the next day in Fort Bragg and had fun clowning with kids and meeting and greeting at National Night Out.
The National Night Out event introduces these officers and many more to those of us who don’t understand what its like to go out and make sense of foolishness and a dangerous situation in the middle of the night.
National Night Out, which might be also called “Meet the police, ” started out in 1984 in the Philadelphia area, with people turning all their house lights on and sitting out on their front porches. The original intent was a local neighborhood watch but it quickly grew to be an opportunity for the law and the rest of us to meet and talk about how we are all in this society together. . The event in Fort Bragg was packed in its new location downtown in front of City Hall. Everybody was closer together but we liked it a bit better at the park in front of Veteran’s Hall. The American Legion hot dogs were a big hit. We met an eager new recruit just about to start as a deputy. Very inspiring energy! Best of all was how the kids came together with all the components of the system, schools, Coast Guard, wildlife law enforcement, Fort Bragg Police and support agencies. Everybody had something fun to do, like face painting or the CHP’s mascot ?? who was most fun of all for the kids.
TWO MISSING MEN WERE ACTUALLY FINE THE WHOLE TIME
Two men reported missing turned out to be fine. The Mendocino County Sheriff’s Department took reports on both and put out fliers but both cases ended up being misunderstandings. The sheriff’s office does searches when someone is reported missing, especially if the report comes in they have been ill, or at risk or like the one in Manchester, had friends who thought he was eaten by a mountain lion. We tracked the stories down after we reported them missing. Joseph Paul Kruchowski, 65, turned up less than 24 hours after he was reported missing from Dolphin Isle, but the word didn’t get back right away. It also turns out the guy feared eaten by a mountain lion was OK too, it was a personal matter we don’t need to report but he is back as well. Jason Bean, 54, of Gualala also turned out to be fine.
TRUMP PLANS FOREST SERVICE CUTS BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN HERE?
The Trump Administration announced in April it would be shutting down 6 of the 8 U.S Forest Service research stations in California, including the one in Fort Bragg.But they have not done so and from what we have learned, the one here in Fort Bragg won’t be shut down anytime soon. This is part of a massive reorganization and downsizing of the U.S Forest Service. Trump is moving the headquarters from Washington D.C to Salt Lake City. But there have been downsizing pains. The Forest Service website says the closing of many local stations across the country may not happen after. all. The Fort Bragg Forest Service station, located in an office trailer behind the Cal Fire offices has been operating since the end of the Korean War to monitor Caspar Creek and the impacts of changing weather, logging practices and residential runoff all that time. The scientific data set is priceless and apparently, it’s not being closed anytime soon, or perhaps not at all. We have talked to a dozen people since the announcement was made and have figured out the story although nobody could talk on the record to us at all. All government employees declined to make any statement. The Trump administration has a clear track record of punishing anyone who criticizes it and also of prioritizing issues he sees on the news. , The Trump Administration’s websites now say they never really intended to close all those research station, but those were “proposed” cuts. That is not true. Turns out, many of these efforts involve multiple contracts and multiple funding sources. When Elon Musk was in charge of the federal agency DOGE, he fired people involved in many of these type efforts. This didnt negate contracts, its only cost huge amounts of money and usually, having to go back and rehire and payoff those whose contractual rights were violated. Apparently, they have learned from those mistakes. Here is the initial story from SF Gate. They only had the social meet tweet to go on and the story was accurate from what they had, but has not happened, nor appears to be happening. April SF Gate story on forest service cuts
MUSK’S FRUSTRATION WITH CALIFORNIA LEADS TO “PERFORMANCE REVIEW” OF THE STATE, PLUS RENEWED PUSH FOR OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING, DESALINIZATION AND EASIER PROCESS
The state of California frustrated Elon Musk in his efforts to build a SpaceX launch facility on Vandenberg Space Force Base. (used to be Air Force) The Space Force recently demolished a historic rocket launch area funded by taxpayers to turn the land over to Musk. But the state didnt want exemptions given to military branches like the Air Force and Space Force to apply to Musk. This caused him to complain to the man he spent over $100 million on getting elected. Then, the Trump administration to launch a full review of the California Coastal Act (not hiding that Musk’s conflict was at the heart of it all). In the last sentence of the Tweet by Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, he says because of the SpaceX Spaceport stickywicket, he would also be reviewing how offshore oil drilling, undersea cables and other commercial development are regulated in California.
So Elon complains about Spaceport permits and offshore oil drilling is back on the table.
Then, Lutnick did something extraordinary. He said this was not a new plan, but merely the continuation of a review of the California Coastal Act by the Biden Administration. The Trump administration had let lapse the Biden plan to review the Coastal Act, which sought to find ways to solve water issues while not violating the Clean Water Act. Now the Trump administration said that they will lump all the public comments from the 2024 Biden plan with the new plan and then issue a review of the California Coastal Act, with the stated intention of making California more obedient to federal goals of energy development, desalination plants and not interfering with Musk’s efforts to develop the former Air Force launching area. The reason? We have not confirmed this entirely and reporting on statewide and nationwide issues is a bit beyond our focus, but when fellow reporter Ed Oberweiser got us into this, we couldn’t resist drilling down. But what we understand is that the Musk-Trump administration did this to shorten the timeline.
The letter that announced this is below and the entire letter, except for the last line, is about the SpaceX stickey wicket.. It is directed to Kevin Hassett, the head of President Trump’s Economic Council. It was also sent out on Twitter, announcing the decision to do a “performance review” of the California Coastal Commission, the California Coastal Act and indeed the entire performance of California on economic matters as a Coastal State, a bit of a stretch of the authority of NOAA?.
Perhaps most unsettling of all is the fact none of the press that have the resources chose to look at this issue other than to say a hearing was going on and possibly Trump wants to restart offshore oil drilling. He has not ever hidden this intent, nor is the Musk controversy at all hidden below in the letter. California has not made any issues with Air Force or Space Force (the new branch of the military) Spaceport Development. All of the problem is Musk complaining to Trump.
The Trump administration is now seeking your comments on all of this and whether the federal government should exercise power over the Coastal zone of California the way it does in Gulf and some Atlantic States (as the Secretary states above). We have links at the bottom on how you can comment on the review of the Caalifornia Coastal Act, Coastal Commission and the issues raised. The messages about both the Forest and Ocean plans have been confusing in the media.
- Why the confusion? The reason is simple. The Trump Administration now uses boss Donald’s method of announcing everything through tweets on selected social media. They dont have press conferences, or any two way processes. They say they are going to do something and don’t answer questions. But those questions would have helped them as much as anybody. So they end up finding out the hard way that many of the ideological plans they announce don’t work in the real world.
Trump’s head of oceans in May directed the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to initiate an assessment. Now there are hearings that originated from this. This letter was the only communication about the initiation of the process. It was ONLY issued on Elon Musk’s X-Twitter and issued as JPG with small print. The lines run off the end of the page and the document fades dark and light as if it was taken off an old-fashioned copy machine. That was all the press had, that’s how they communicate now. I obtained the JPG, took a screenshot and cut it to be larger and took the shading out.
The letter was written by Lutnick when he became frustrated with delays in the process of making Vandenberg Air Force Base into a spaceport of the future. SpaceX complained to Lutnick about delays to property on Vandenberg where Elon Musk’s company is installing a launch facility. The Air Force removed a long-used, historic rocket launching facility over the past year to allow Musk to build on that spot. We are not sure what sort of delays have been happening and we don’t have the sources or location to report on Spaceports. Sounds exciting! Who is against a “spaceport?” What is it? We have to wonder i the Air Force first destroying its historic launch facility and then leasing that land to Musk was designed to benefit taxpayers or the former trillionaire?
Lutnick said his frustration over California’s insistence on making its own rules for federal facilities in the Spaceport case had compelled him to do an assessment of how other ocean development is being restricted by the state and its only then he mentions the process will involve offshore oil drilling and desalination as well as the spaceport issue.
Here is Surfrider’s take on the plan
. Now the assessment is complete and a process has been set up for you to comment. There are now hearings scheduled and specific actions to open oil drilling back up, against the will of the state. The Trump Administration has already managed to open up a long unused pipeline that had been shut down for years, over the objections of the California Coastal Commission and despite claims it couldn’t be done.
Is the plan to open up all of the California Coast to drilling? Or just Santa Barbara and Southern California areas, perhaps including San Diego? Any forced drilling would be an exertion of federal power beyond what anyone could have imagined before Donald Trump became president. Trump is all about his own agenda and getting it done. People both hate and love him for not worrying much about the legal process.
After many court defeats of other hasty proposals, the Trump Administration is holding what appears to be a legal process this time. This is an opportunity for you and us to try to find out what Trump and company want to do. We know the Trump administration is dedicated to increasing oil production anywhere he can. Trump shut down a private-public partnership to build massive wind energy facilities off Central California and Humboldt County. The only reason for this was that one man, Donald Trump, does not like wind energy. The projects would have greatly reduced energy costs in California, but they are now off the books, for no reason whatsoever. Many environmentalists were happy to see the projects shut down by Trump. The projects had made compromises with fishermen, but opposed on both left and right, they were silently ended, at least for the foreseeable future. But now Trump, killer of a big offshore energy project, says its imperative that offshore oil drilling happen off California. We have Ed Oberwesier as our reporting partner on this story. But investigating this is way beyond the investment of time we have available. Someone out there must care enough to help. The Democrats are telling us that the entire Coast is at stake. From what we have read, we doubt that, but we don’t know. Trump is not laying all his cards on the table, but is trying to follow legal processes for public input and such so as not to be overturned by the courts again.
So now for your comments. Perhaps you think oil drilling is needed. Or not. Being against all new offshore oil drilling makes a lot of sense to a state whose economy relies on its oceans being scenic and full of life. You could also object to the entire business of combining this plan with a Biden plan that did the opposite. Or you could object to the federal government doing all of this because Elon Musk felt the state was going too slow on a federal base. There is a link below to make your feelings known. That would be my personal comment on offshore oil drilling. Its purely idiotic to support more oil when Trump shut down the wind energy offshore for no good reason.
We do think the Coastal Commission and Coastal Act could use some revisions but not by Trump, who does everything with little research and with great haste, so having him help would only slow development and more sensible rulemaking down. But that doesnt mean we can’t spell out some of the problems and solutions. On Desalinization plants, we do think those are needd and it would be interesting to learn more.
The best way to get involved in the forest issue is to come to the upcoming Cal Fire tour of their plans to begin logging imminently in the Camp 20 area. Although that timber harvest plan is not directly connected to the U.S Forest Service research station, the people on the tour are acquainted with Caspar Creek and all of it is in the Jackson Demonstration State Forest. You can ask them about Caspar Creek, which is studied by numerous government agencies and universities. We have a press release at the end about the forest tour.
Onto the ocean plan by Trump’s regime. Here is how you comment.
Federal Register Document #2026-12907opens in a new window posted Friday, June 26, 2026, and includes the following information regarding how to engage in the public process.
Pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Office for Coastal Management will hold one in-person and two virtual public meetings to solicitinput for a performance evaluation of the California Coastal Management Program. These public meetings will add to the input obtained from the previous public meeting held in August 2024. Comments on all aspects of the California Coastal Management Program will be accepted, and in particular, NOAA seeks input from relevant stakeholders regarding: spaceport infrastructure, offshore oil production, pipeline maintenance, desalination projects, and undersea cables. NOAA will hold an in-person public meeting from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. Pacific Time (PT) on Monday, August 10, 2026, in the Pacific Ballroom, Hilton Santa Monica Hotel and Suites, 1707 4th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401. Any person who wants to speak at the in-person public meeting must be physically present and register by sending an email to czma.california-evaluation@noaa.govopens in a new window by 11:59 p.m. PT on August 8, 2026. Each speaker will have three minutes to speak. Any speakers that do not register by email can sign up on location. NOAA will adjourn the meeting at 6 p.m. or when all participants have spoken, whichever is earlier. The meeting will be livestreamed, however, comments for the in-person meeting will not be accepted via livestream. Registration for the livestream is available at:
https://noaabroadcast.adobeconnect.com/euqe1fzlqysm/event/registration.html opens in a new window.
NOAA will hold two virtual public meetings on Tuesday, August 11 and Wednesday, August 12, 2026, from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. PT. NOAA will conduct the virtual public meetings via Adobe Connect. Each person who wants to attend either virtual meeting must electronically register by August 10, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Attendance at each virtual public meeting will be limited to 1,000 individuals; therefore, NOAA requests that individuals attend only one meeting, on either August 11 or 12. NOAA will call on speakers on a first come/first served basis through the raised hand function of Adobe Connect. Each speaker will have three minutes to speak. NOAA will adjourn the meeting at 5 p.m. PT or when all participants have spoken, whichever is earlier. NOAA retains discretion to extend the virtual public meetings if appropriate and feasible. To register for either virtual meeting, use the following link:
https://noaabroadcast.adobeconnect.com/e23ewcr5d65q/event/event_info.htmlopens in a new window.
Each registered participant will receive an Adobe Connect link for the meeting.
NOAA will prepare written transcripts of the in-person and both virtual meetings which will be available via email request to czma.california-evalution@noaa.govopens in a new window. Written comments may be submitted to NOAA’s Office for Coastal Management by email at czma.california-evaluation@noaa.gov. Include ‘‘Comments on Performance Evaluation of the California Coastal Management Program’’ in the subject line. Written comments received by 11:59 pm PT on August 22, 2026, will be accepted.
Please direct any questions to czma.california-evaluation@noaa.govopens in a new window.
Links:
Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Review
Coastal Zone Management Act Federal Review Fact Sheet
Press release about the forest tour: Mendocino County, CA – The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) will host a public tour at Jackson Demonstration State Forest (JDSF) in Mendocino County about the Adaptive Management Experiment, commonly referred to as the AMEX. Join leading scientists and CAL FIRE staff as we discuss how adaptive management can help our forests persist in a changing climate.
Public Tour Meeting Schedule:
Tuesday, August 11, 2026 — 4:00 p.m. – 6:00 p.m.
Location: Camp 20 (mile marker 17, Highway 20) (map below)
Call (707) 964-5674 or email JDSF@fire.ca.gov to RSVP
RSVP encouraged, but not required
The field-based tour will provide an opportunity for members of the public to learn more about AMEX, ask questions, and hear directly from scientists and CAL FIRE staff about the purpose of the project, the planned forest treatments, what visitors may see during operations, and how the project will be monitored over time. Participants should be prepared for field conditions, including uneven ground and variable weather. Sturdy footwear, water, and weather-appropriate clothing are recommended.
AMEX is a long-term climate-change forest experiment that compares different forest management approaches under real forest conditions. At JDSF, the project is in mixed second-growth forest conditions within the coast redwood range. Researchers will compare several treatment types, including resilience, resistance, transition, and untreated control areas.
The AMEX Timber Harvest Plan is the implementation step that allows the initial research treatments to occur on the ground. These treatments are designed to help researchers and forest managers evaluate how different second-growth stands respond to management over time, including changes in forest structure, species composition, regeneration, wildfire risk, wildlife habitat, tree cover, and long-term forest resilience.
“Testing, not guessing” reflects the basic purpose of AMEX: comparing different management approaches, tracking forest response over time, and using that information to help inform future redwood forest management.
In the end, all of this — the spaceport frustrations, the desalination questions, the pipeline revival, the sudden push for offshore drilling — comes down to one truth: California’s coast is being pulled into a national fight it didn’t start. The hearings are real, the stakes are unclear, and the process is moving whether anyone here is ready or not.
What happens next won’t be decided by Musk or Trump or NOAA alone. It will be shaped by whoever shows up, whoever speaks, whoever still believes the coast is worth arguing over. That’s the part they can’t streamline, tweet, or fast‑track.