Hands Across the Sand is coming to a beach or park near you, Saturday June 26th.

A full listing of all coastal San Diego County Hands Across the Sand events, Saturday June 26th, compiled by Richard Miller and our friends at the San Diego and Imperial County Sierra Club chapter.

For additional information on Hands Across the Sand and other coastal conservation and clean-up events, check out the San Diego Surfrider chapter, along with our friends at San Diego Coastkeeper, Pro Peninsula, and Wildcoast / Costasalvaje.

What to do at a Hands Across the Sand event:

STEP 1 – Go to one of the gatherings listed below at 11:00 am for one hour, rain or shine.

STEP 2 – Join hands for 15 minutes at 12:00 noon forming lines in the sand against oil drilling in our coastal waters.

STEP 3 – Leave only your footprints.

Whether a primary or general election, remember to vote green.

“If you don’t vote, don’t bitch.”  -  Steve Earle

By Tommy Hough

These are partisan picks based upon a Democratic ballot for the June 8th primary election in California.

My picks are specific to San Diego County and the 53rd Congressional district, though statewide candidates, propositions, and U.S. Representatives for all San Diego County federal Congressional seats are included.  The judicial choices, city positions, and propositions are non-partisan and appear on both Democratic and Republican ballots, so feel free to apply my picks on GOP ballots in those cases.

Not all offices and primary races are included.

Polls open at 7:00 am and close at 8:00 pm, Tuesday June 8th.

STATE OFFICES

Governor:  Richard Aguirre or Jerry Brown

Lieutenant Governor:  Gavin Newsom

Sec. of State:  Debra Bowen

Controller:  John Chiang

Treasurer:  Bill Lockyer

Attorney General:  Pedro Nava

Pedro Nava has consistently been recognized for his environmental work in the legislature, especially in writing the legislation which outlawed lead ammunition in California in order to save the California condor, and his early opposition to the Tranquillon Ridge offshore oil drilling project in the Santa Barbara Channel, which is looking like a pretty brilliant call today.  In the June 8th primary, “vote for Pedro.”

Insurance Commissioner: Hector de la Torre

FEDERAL OFFICES

U.S. Senator: Barbara Boxer

U.S. Representative(s):

49th District: Howard Katz

50th District:  Tracy Emblem

Enough.  Francine Busby has run enough times to lose each time out to Brian Bilbray, a GOP survivor who knows how to hang on in tight races, even as the 50th dwindles down to 40% GOP registration.  New blood, let’s give Ms. Emblem a whirl.

51st District: Bob Filner

Despite his occasional airport freakout, Filner is a reliable incumbent and has been a strong advocate for the 51st, even though I think his idea of moving the San Diego Airport to Imperial County and installing a high-speed rail system to move people out there is ridiculous, but might make a cool use of the Carizzo Gorge train trestle.  To his credit, Congressman Filner hasn’t said much about it since 2006 and has let the idea quietly go away.

52nd District: Ray Lutz

Ray Lutz is the guy who worked with the town of Potrero to kick out Blackwater; give him your vote if you’re in the 52nd.  Mr. Lutz is also a proponent of green energy and solar panels, which San Diego County should be the world leader in, and he likes to call incumbent Duncan D. Hunter, the first term son of long-running Congressman Duncan Hunter, “junior” (with all due respect to Duncan D. Hunter’s military service, if not his political positions).

53rd District: Susan A. Davis

State Assembly Member, 76th District:  Toni Atkins

COUNTY COMMITTEE

County Central Committee, 76th Assembly District: Fred Rogers

Full disclosure, Fred Rogers is a friend of mine.  Nothing against Lori Saldaña, but I’m voting for Fred.  If I was actually running, it’s hard to see how my positions would differ from Fred’s.

JUDICIAL

Superior Court office 20: Richard R. Monroy

This next item is very important.

Judicial candidates are non-partisan seats.  As a result, candidates appear on both the Democratic and Republican ballots, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have agendas contrary to the ballot which they may be on.

Case in point in San Diego County: beware of judicial candidates put forward by the conservative group Better Courts Now, which is backed by a coalition of evangelical pastors, an El Cajon gun store, and opponents of reproductive choice and marriage equality.  The Rev. Don Hamer, the founder of Better Courts Now, recently died, but during the 2008 election cycle took an active role in the campaign for Proposition 8 and was one of the nutjobs who produced a series of videos “proving” Barack Obama was a secret Muslim.  Wrong morally and factually.

The Better Courts Now slate of four judges are challenging incumbent judges, and according to the June 2nd edition of the Los Angeles Times, “three of the four incumbent judges have been given the highest possible rating, ‘well qualified,’ by the local bar association.  The fourth, a veteran judge, was given a lesser ranking, apparently because she’s suing her colleagues in a dispute over probation policy.”

Fair enough, but most importantly the piece goes on to say (italics are mine), “the bar found three of the four challengers unqualified; the fourth had too spotty a legal record to permit a rating.”  Understand what’s going on? Here are the judicial candidates you need to AVOID.  Tell your friends to AVOID these judicial candidates too and VOTE AGAINST them:

Superior Court office 14:  Vote AGAINST Craig Candelore (vote for Lantz Lewis)

Superior Court office 21:  Vote AGAINST Bill Trask (vote for Robert C. Longstreth)

Superior Court office 27:  Vote AGAINST Harold Coleman Jr. (vote for DeAnn Salcido)

Superior Court office 34:  Vote AGAINST Larry “Jake” Kincaid (vote for Joel R. Wohlfeil)

In fairness, Mr. Candelore has an impressive 32-year military career to draw upon, including a Combat Action Badge and Bronze Star.  However laudable, Mr. Candelore is regrettably the kind of judicial candidate who brings out the straw man argument, “we need judges to uphold the law.”  What, because they don’t already?

Mr. Candelore also indicates he’s running “to restore people’s trust and confidence in our courts.”

Did we miss something?  Since when have people lost faith in the courts to adequately and impartially serve justice?  When I hear rhetoric like this from a local judicial candidate, I cut and run to the other guy.  Mr. Candelore writes on his Facebook page “judges simply need to be held accountable for their rulings, rule within their established boundaries, and display common sense,” which sounds like Mr. Candelore has been on the receiving end of too many losing decisions and is feeling discriminated against, despite the fact he is the founder of the Men’s Legal Center and therefore should not be a stranger to the inside of a courtroom.

All of this is simply O’Reilly Factor grandstanding, and the fact Mr. Candelore is already part of a far-right slate of judges makes it much easier for me to say avoid him and his Better Courts Now colleagues.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY

Member, Board of Supervisors 4th District: Stephen Whitburn

Assessor-Recorder County Clerk:  Howard Johnson

District Attorney:  Bonnie Dumanis

Sheriff:  Bill Gore

This is not necessarily an endorsement, but incumbent Sheriff Gore is a better and more equable choice than his two challengers (sorry Treehuggers International fans, Sheriff Gore has no familial connections to the former Vice President).

Treasurer-Tax Collector: Dan McAllister

I don’t necessarily approve of Mr. McAllister, he’s run unopposed twice and I think it was about time he was challenged for a job which pays over $150,000 a year, but the guy running against him, while a public service and city treasury veteran, pops up as a pick on several far-right websites, so I will go with a presumed lesser-of-two-evils choice here.

STATE PROPOSITIONS

Propositions are a crapshoot, and I’ve never liked the odds.  Yes, I agree partisanship has grown unworkable in Sacramento.  Yes, I agree the only way California will ever really solve its budget problems is by undoing or reforming Prop. 13, but it’s become political kryptonite to do so in Sacramento and both parties are cowardly in the face of it.  The classic Prop. 13 (of 1978, not 2010) highlights the problem with the proposition system in the first place; it handcuffs the legislature to a certain year and a particular era, where the results are usually designed to be short-term.

If you don’t like the way a candidate is voting, vote them out.  You can’t do that with propositions.  If you can’t vote an incumbent you don’t like out, organize a group to elect candidates which will vote your way.  The right wing is exceedingly good at this, and they’re also adept at using business interests to push propositions designed as the taxpayer’s friend.

The problem with propositions is they are faceless, and can easily have their true meanings hidden by cryptic ballot language.  Vote for humans to make the laws, not broad law-making measures.  My two cents.

PROP 13:  YES

Despite my cantankerous attitude toward propositions, okay, I am cautiously voting yes on this, even though the main endorsement for this proposition comes from Kern County State Senator Roy Ashburn, who was one of the most staunchly (and some would argue, cruelly) anti-gay legislators in the statehouse until, you may recall, he was revealed to be a practicing homosexual after a few too many drinks at a Sacramento bar in March.

For what it’s worth, there is no active opposition to this proposition, and it would eliminate a dangerous disincentive for property owners to upgrade un-reinforced masonry structures in order to improve earthquake safety (think of all those brick buildings in San Luis Obispo which warn you to get away from them if there’s an earthquake). The state’s own website says the “proposition promotes fairness by eliminating the unequal treatment of different types of property which undergo seismic safety improvements.”

The loss to local property taxes as a result of this measure is probably going to be minor, and we at Treehuggers International would rather see owners retrofit their un-reinforced masonry structures before the next Medium One arrives.  We all know it’s coming, and frankly, it’s overdue.

PROP 14:  NO

Again, this sounds like a novel idea, but while the proposition’s backers argue this will enable more moderate candidates to advance into the general election by making the top-two vote getters from either party the two to face each other in a general election, I think it’s an invitation for extremists and would rather have a defined choice in the general election. Why? Candidates will no longer be required to list their party affiliation on the ballot.  Being an alleged Independent is sexy these days, but it’s also deceptive if you don’t list the party whose apparatus actually got the candidate there in the first place.  Business as usual disguised as reform with too many risks for my liking.  The more I learn about 14, the more I’m against it.

PROP 15:  YES

I know, I know, the “California Fair Elections Act” sounds like more plastic apple pie, but the proposition would create a pilot project to make voluntary public financing available to Secretary of State candidates in 2014 and 2018, in other words, marking the beginning of public financing of elections and taking companies and corporations out of the loop.  The Sierra Club argues, “cleaning up our political system is crucial to cleaning up our air and water and preserving our coast, parks, forests and deserts.  Public financing is a way to get politicians out of the fundraising game and back to solving California’s problems.”  We at Treehuggers International are on board, but cautiously.  The far right also seems to hate this idea, which makes me as a moderate like it.

PROP 16:  NO

Not just no, (exclamation of choice) NO.  Tell your friends to vote no on this, the whole initiative is bankrolled by Northern California’s Pacific Gas and Electric utility, and they hope by framing this as a “taxpayer’s right to vote” argument Southern California will pass it for them.  Say no. The Green Chamber of Commerce writes, “Prop 16 would impose new voter approval requirements on local governments before they can use ‘public funds,’ defined broadly in the measure to include tax revenues, various forms of debt, and ratepayer funds, to start up electricity service, expand electricity service into a new territory, or implement Community Choice Aggregation.”  In other words, it has nothing to do with “your right to vote.”  This will eliminate your community’s choice to opt out of PG&E’s high rates, and some argue it even violates state law by thwarting local control of energy.  No on 16.  No on 16.  Say it with me.  No on 16.  Seriously, anyone who frames something as the “taxpayer’s right to vote,” if you’ll pardon the choice of words, has got to be full of shit.

PROP 17:  NO

Mercury Insurance is Proposition 17’s primary sponsor, and they’ve been responsible for about 98% of the funding for the Yes on 17 campaign, kicking in about $14.6 million dollars.  Think about how much they could’ve reduced their customers’ rates with that money instead.  When it’s too good to be true, it usually is, and believe me, insurance companies are worse than banks when it comes to giving a customer a break.  Also, Prop 17 is opposed by the editorial boards of almost every major newspaper in the state.  The only major newspaper in favor of Prop 17 is the Orange County Register, which is enough to be a cause for concern, but even the Bakersfield Californian, not exactly an editorial board known for even vaguely leftist sympathies, says Prop 17 “isn’t about lowering the cost of insurance; it’s about raising the cost for those who can least afford it.”

COUNTY PROPOSITIONS

PROP A:  YES

Despite the fact the official argument in favor of a new landfill in Otay Mesa was written by an out-of-town consulting firm which incorrectly identifies State Route 905 as an Interstate highway, I have a problem with building a new recycling collection center and landfill because I think it’s going to be 99% landfill and 1% recycling.  While doing better than it was a few years ago, San Diego is still not holding up its end of recycling as well as other major cities in the state.  I also don’t like building a sizable facility in what is an otherwise wild area of the lower Otay and carving wildlife habitat into smaller and smaller pieces.  However, the landfill at Miramar will soon be full, and it has been exceedingly well run and managed in a way which all San Diegans should be proud of; that’s an official Treehuggers International position.  If the same management is applied at this new facility, I’ll be happy.  Plus it’s supposed to run entirely on solar energy, which would set a nice precedent, albeit about time.  A reluctant yes, with my arms crossed.

PROP B:  YES

Pam Slater-Price is my hero on the Board of Supervisors, so no offense meant here.  Normally I’m against term limits, but in the case of the San Diego County Board of Supervisors, I think it may be about time to shuffle the deck.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO PROPOSITIONS

PROP D:  NO

Tommy at the Shadow of the Giants Sequoia Grove, Sierra National Forest.

Despite significant urbanization, the San Diego River still flows through Mission Valley.

San Diego Is Named for Its River

Even with all the rain Southern California received this past winter and spring, most residents of San Diego County tend not to think of their corner of the Golden State as teeming with rivers. Part of this can be attributed to the region’s arid Mediterranean climate, but this perception can also be attributed to the effective job man has done tucking the river out of sight, attempting to reign in the course and power of San Diego River.

Yet the San Diego River, and other rivers and creeks in the county like the San Dieguito, San Mateo, San Luis Rey, Sweetwater, and Santa Margarita, on some occasions flow with  a speed and volume as great as some of the biggest rivers in North America, with surprises along the length of each of them. While pollution continues to affect the San Diego River at several of its tributaries and old industrial sites, the San Diego River Park Foundation has literally pulled a million tons of trash from the river over the last decade, bringing a new respect and appreciation for the river which gave the city and county of San Diego its name.

The San Diego River Park Foundation is a community-based, grassroots, non-profit organization seeking to tie the San Diego River together as a greenbelt from the river’s headwaters in the Cuyamaca Mountains to the sea at Ocean Beach, along the river’s 52-mile course. This greenbelt will double as a trail system, connecting a variety of parks and open spaces spread out along the length of the river.

Wild and Scenic River Designation

The foundation has also been active in the pursuit of Wild and Scenic River designation for the upper portion of the San Diego River, including the dramatic San Diego River Gorge.  The upper reaches of the Santa Margarita River west of the Santa Rosa Plateau has also been identified by the Forest Service as having Wild and Scenic potential, and since portions of the rivers flow through Congressman Darrell Issa’s district, we at Treehuggers International are encouraging the congressman to add Wild and Scenic River designations to the wise legislation he has already put forth to expand the Agua Tibia and Beauty Mountain wilderness areas into northern San Diego County (previously discussed on the March 31, 2010 edition of Treehuggers International).

River Days and Riverfest

This year’s San Diego River Days festival culminates in the first ever Riverfest, happening Sunday, May 16th at the Qualcomm Stadium practice field, featuring a roster of area bands and musicians, including headliner Gregory Page.

Congratulations to San Diego River Park Foundation Executive Director Rob Hutsel and friends for landing a great piece in the May 9th edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune, and thanks to Rob for dropping by host Tommy Hough’s “other” radio show, the weekly Living Better In San Diego program on the San Diego Lincoln Financial Media stations.

For more information on San Diego River Days or Riverfest, click on one of the links below, or call the san Diego River Park Foundation at (619) 297-7380.

The 300 ft. drop of Mildred Falls, near the headwaters of the San Diego River.

More about this post at:

• San Diego River Park Foundation
• San Diego River Days
• Riverfest Schedule of Events
• Living Better In San Diego, Executive Director Rob Hutsel with host Tommy Hough
• River Network
• California Wild Heritage Campaign, information on Wild and Scenic River designation
• Friends of the River, PDF of Wild and Scenic River qualities of the San Diego River Gorge
• Friends of the River, San Diego River page
• Clean Green / Get Involved, San Diego River clean-up opportunities
• A River Runs Through Them (San Diego Union-Tribune; 5/9/10)
• River Trash Tally to Hit One Million Pound Mark (San Diego Union-Tribune; 10/24/09)
• Land Donation Paves Way for Riverfront Park (San Diego Union-Tribune; 5/18/09)
• Volunteers Love River Enough to Clean It Up (San Diego Union-Tribune; 2/15/09)
• Developers Eye Mission Gorge (San Diego Union-Tribune; 3/23/08)
• Project Clean Water, San Diego River Watershed
• San Diego River, Wiki entry
  

From Cape Flattery, the mountains of Vancouver Island rise above the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

While many in Western Washington are mourning the passing of KIRO weatherman Harry Wappler or the closing of Seattle’s naughty marquee landmark the Lusty Lady, there are plenty of reasons to be excited and optimistic about wilderness conservation in the Evergreen State on the 40th anniversary of Earth Day.

Developing stories include a proposed addition to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness, which just passed the U.S. House of Representatives, and a renewed Forest Service effort to determine possible year-round grizzly bear populations in the North Cascades. Here’s hoping a few silvertips are once again calling the North Cascades home.

In the meantime, Treehuggers International has been following these three key stories.

Further Preservation of the Hoh River

The Hoh River near the park boundary.

The culmination of a decade-long struggle, some 7,000 acres of the Hoh River outside of Olympic National Park have come under the protection and oversight of the Hoh River Trust, a coalition formed by the Western Rivers Conservancy and Wild Salmon Center to preserve as much of the Hoh River watershed as possible between the beach and inland components of Olympic National Park. As Lynda Mapes writes in the April 7th edition of the Seattle Times,

The groups still are seeking to acquire lands along another prime salmon tributary of the Hoh. But the core mission of protecting large swaths of private land along the river was attained this winter, with final purchase of about 2,000 acres from the Fruit Growers Supply Co.

Preservation of the landscape, mostly former industrial timberlands, provides a critical connection between lands in the upper river and the beach already within Olympic National Park.

“The park has the high country and the beach,” said Phil Davis, executive director of the Hoh River Trust. “We are connecting the dots in between.”

We at Treehuggers International offer our congratulations to the Hoh River Trust, not only for their success in “one of the largest single conservation efforts in Washington,” but also for their determination to protect, conserve, and perhaps most importantly, restore significant stretches of the Hoh River watershed outside of public land along the river’s final march to the sea. A number of these areas were the site of major timber operations, some of which ended only a few months ago.

Mt. Si and Other DNR Lands to Remain Open

Some great reward: the view of the Snoqualmie River Valley from atop Mt. Si.

Additional, albeit temporary, good news comes in the form of trails on state Department of Natural Resources land, which will remain open after a budget compromise was reached in Olympia. A proposed cut of $278,000 to the DNR budget could have meant the closure of iconic Western Washington trails like Mt. Si and Rattlesnake Mountain, both located near North Bend on either side of the Snoqualmie River Valley. Anyone who has ever done the grueling hike up Mt. Si to enjoy the stellar view from above, perhaps even the view of Downtown Seattle from the Haystack, knows the trail is one of the busiest and most popular in the region.

The downside?  The compromise only ensures the trails will remain open for another year, as official and unofficial trail maintenance falls to volunteer groups and organizations, in particular the Washington Trails Association, or WTA. Jonathan Guzzo, Advocacy Director for Washington Trails Association, wrote about the struggle to keep DNR lands open for the public in an April 13th posting on the Washington Trails Association website.

This was an uphill fight the whole way, and much of the credit is due to you. Hikers like you littered the mailboxes, inboxes and legislative hotline with compelling pleas to preserve the funding. Those who came to WTA’s Hiker Lobby Day were instrumental in raising awareness of this issue and of demonstrating that DNR lands are places that people like to hike. Thank you to all who helped make this victory possible!

But I almost hate to tell you this next thing. The restoration of recreation funding this year is only a reprieve. Once we’re done celebrating, we need to get geared up again. If we don’t find a way to provide new and sustainable funding for DNR, we’re going to find ourselves back in the same spot next year.

Further proof writing letters and stomping your feet so those in Olympia, and in the words of Harvey Manning, those in “the other Washington” can hear you, works. While not all solutions are permanent or as long-lasting as a Wilderness or National Park designation, when politicians can’t hear you, they don’t care. Build upon the little, day-to-day victories.

Removal of Elwha River Dams to Begin In 2012

The Elwha Dam in March 2007, with Lake Aldwell behind it.

A long-term solution we at Treehuggers International are particularly excited about is the impending removal of the Elwha River dams in Olympic National Park. In what will be the largest engineering undertaking in the history of the National Park Service and the largest dam removal effort ever in the U.S., the project is already serving as a precursor to the eventual removal of dams along the mighty Snake and Klamath rivers. Preliminary work on removing the Elwha River dams is due to begin next year.

The Elwha flows north out of the Olympic Mountains into the Strait of Juan de Fuca, separating the Olympic Peninsula from Vancouver Island.  For centuries, through the history of the Klallam people to the arrival of the Europeans, the Elwha was one of the greatest salmon-producing rivers in North America, laying claim to Pacific salmon like coho, pink, chum, and sockeye, along with steelhead trout, cutthroat trout, and bull trout. Before the first phase of the Elwha Dam was completed in 1910, approximately 400,000 salmon returned to the river each year to spawn in over 70 miles of the Elwha and its tributaries.  Pink salmon and coho were particularly robust in the river, spawning to nearly the Elwha’s headwaters in the glacial high country of the Olympic Mountains.

The Elwha Dam was originally constructed to provide cheap hydroelectricity to sawmills in Port Angeles, then busily eviscerating the pride of Olympic forests into 2 x 4s and shingles for San Francisco, which was undergoing a massive re-building effort following the 1906 earthquake and fire. Sadly, in the haste to build it, the original Elwha Dam was a comedy of colossal, ecologically-tragic errors. Littered with construction shortcuts, including an absence of fish ladders (despite a request to include them from the Washington state fish comissioner), the dam wasn’t even adequately secured to the bedrock walls of the valley with sufficient anchoring and grouting, resulting in a partial collapse of the original structure in 1912 when portions of the side and bottom of the dam were washed downstream.

The Lake Mills reservoir behind Glines Canyon Dam.

The dam as it stands today was completed in 1913, and from that moment effectively sealed off nearly 40 miles of the Elwha River and about another 30 miles of Elwha tributaries to salmon, decimating the run.  Today, fewer than 4,000 salmon return to spawn in the lower seven miles of the river below the Elwha Dam.

The area around the Elwha Dam also served as the Klallam nation’s only inland village, as well as their tribal creation site, all of which wound up 90 feet underwater with the formaton of Lake Aldwell, the reservoir behind Elwha Dam.

The higher Glines Canyon Dam, also known as the Upper Elwha Dam, was completed in 1926, further sealing the fate of the native salmon and fish population. Though left outside of the original National Park boundary in 1938, a major addition to the park two years later brought the Upper Elwha and its reservoir, Lake Mills, into park service oversight, a terrible irony as Olympic National Park was intended to preserve only natural ecosystems and the natural conditions of the Olympic Peninsula.

By the time of the 1940 park expansion, the Elwha was already three decades into a murderous strangulation of the river’s native salmon, and coupled with sediment build-up behind the dams and a lack of organic material from the decomposing bodies of salmon to nourish other organisms in the river, by the early 1990s the Elwha had long been relegated to a tragic shell of its former self.

With the reality of the Elwha’s dire ecological situation, erosion of clam beds at the mouth of the Elwha, increased erosion at Port Angeles Harbor due to a lack of river-transported sediment, decreased ability of the antiquated dams to produce hydroelectricity, and ongoing concerns about construction shortcuts in the original Elwha Dam structure, Congress passed the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act in 1992, beginning the process leading to the removal of the dams starting in 2012. As Les Blumenthal wrote in the April 12th edition of The Olympian,

The dams won’t be blown up, but deliberately dismantled over roughly three years so the 19 million cubic yards of silt, gravel and rock behind them can be flushed downstream gradually.

Once the dams are down, it may take 10 years to re-establish the runs. Some salmon will be flown by helicopter to the upper reaches of the Elwha watershed. The initial runs will include what native fish remain and those raised in a nearby hatchery. Eventually, the runs are expected to become wild.

Scientists say that if the salmon runs can’t be restored on the Elwha, they can’t be restored anywhere.

More than 85 percent of the river’s salmon habitat is in Olympic National Park, remote backcountry even now barely touched by humans.

While the majority of the Elwha River is preserved within Olympic National Park upriver from Glines Canyon, removing the two dams, now approaching 100 years in age, is not without some risk. The dam removal will surely, though temporarily, increase the amount of silt in the river. The volume of sediment which has collected behind the Elwha dams over the last 100 years is estimated to be about 18 million cubic yards. To head off the expected flooding and increased silt in Port Angeles and for the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, a new water treatment plant has been constructed in anticipation of the soon-to-be-released Elwha.

The thought of renewing the once great salmon runs and bringing the Elwha River back to life from its ignominious slow strangulation is enticing, and cause of celebration.  It won’t be long before the Elwha again flows freely into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and it’s valleys and tributaries begin the process of rehabilitation. Should the Elwha rehabilitation be a success, its easy to see how the engineering and conservation lessons learned could, in addition to the Snake and Klamath rivers, also be applied to the long-standing environmental wrong done to Yosemite’s Hetch Hetchy Valley.

How fitting then, on the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, we look to the release of the Tuolomne River and the removal of the O’Shaughnessy Dam as a goal to build upon with the removal of the Elwha dams. For John Muir, who spent his last years fighting a brutally uphill battle for a man haf his age to keep the O’Shaughnessy Dam from being built at Hetch Hetchy, there would be no better ending or sense of justice. After all, April 22nd was selected as Earth Day in part to honor the memory of John Muir, whose birthday falls the day before, on April 21st.

We at Treehuggers International want to wish you a happy Earth Day, and thank you for your support and words of enthusiasm as we move into our fourth year. Happy Earth Day.

Summertime in the high country of the Olympic Mountains, near Hurricane Ridge.

More about this post at:

• Washington Trails Association
• Hoh River Trust
• Sierra Club Cascade Chapter
• Washington’s National Park Fund
• The Wilderness Society, statement on proposed expansion of Alpine Lakes Wilderness
• Olympic National Park, Removal of the Elwha Dam
• Olympic National Park, Elwha Ecosystem Restoration
• Forest Service Scans Backwoods for Grizzlies (Wenatchee World; 4/14/10)
• Mt. Si Trail Saved from Budget Cuts (Snoqualmie Valley Star; 4/13/10)
• Mt. Si Will Stay Open for Another Season (Washington Trails Association; 4/13/10)
• Will Dam Removal Return Life to Elwha? (The Olympian; 4/12/10)
• 7,000 Acres Along Hoh River Permanently Protected (Seattle Times; 4/8/10)
• Last Summer for Elwha Dams (Seattle Times; 4/6/10)
• Contractor Sought to Remove Elwha River Dams (Seattle Times; 2/5/10)
• Legislators Seek Alternatives to Closing Mt. Si Trail (Snoqualmie Valley Star; 1/20/10)
• Budget Cuts to Close Mt. Si? (Snoqualmie Valley Record; 1/6/10)
• Dam Removals Will Bring Fish Back to the Elwha River (Seattle Times; 5/3/09)
• Stimulus Money Will Speed Elwha Dam Removal (Seattle Times; 4/22/09)
• Bringing the Elwha River Back to Life (Seattle Times; 3/2/08)
• Tearing Down the Elwha River Dam (Popular Mechanics; 2/06)
• Elwha Dam Removal Gets Final Go-Ahead (Seattle Times; 8/6/04)
• Surveying the Elwha: A Picture Before the River (Seattle Times; 8/19/02)

Pro Peninsula volunteer Rachel Tuck makes friends with a gray whale.

Screenings are March 23rd and March 25th from 7:00 to 9:00 pm at the Ultra Star Cinema at Hazard Center, located in San Diego’s Mission Valley.

Treehuggers International is thrilled to be on board for the second year in a row as the media sponsor for the Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Festival, presented locally in San Diego by Pro Peninsula.

A fund within the larger Ocean Foundation, Pro Peninsula was created in 2001 by Kama Dean and Chris Pesenti to strengthen efforts protecting the natural environment of Baja California, and in particular, reaching out to fishing communities along the length of the peninsula about the need to protect endangered sea turtle populations and safeguard the seasonal passage of gray whales along the Pacific coast.

While still largely wild, Baja California faces particular threats to its unique environments, and the need remains for strong environmental advocacy to promote social awareness and environmental participation, while promoting sustainable development alternatives. Working with local communities and a pool of local fishermen and citizens, Pro Peninsula continues to advance the cause of ocean conservation along the Baja coast, and whereas 10 years ago there were only two similar environmental organizations active in Baja, today there are near 30.

Stopping by Treehuggers International to talk about this year’s Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Festival is Giuliana Schroeder, the Communications and Marketing Manager for Pro Peninsula; and a long-time Pro Peninsula volunteer, naturalist, ocean enthusiast, and co-emcee of this year’s Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Festival, Rachel Tuck.

This year the Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Festival moves to the Ultra Star Cinemas at Hazard Center in San Diego’s Mission Valley, located along the San Diego River just steps from the San Diego Trolley’s Hazard Center stop, and instead of one night of films, the Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Festival has grown to two nights: March 23rd and March 25th. Screenings run from 7:00 to 9:00 pm, and are $15 per night, or both nights for $25.  VIP packages are also available in conjunction with Point Loma Outfitting, at $30 for one night or $50 for both nights.

(originally posted March 6th)

Julio Solas releases a marker off the Baja coast as part of sea turtle monitoring efforts.

More about this post at:

• Pro Peninsula Wild and Scenic Page
• About Pro Peninsula
• Point Loma Outfitting
• The Ocean Foundation
• Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Festival
• Pro Peninsula E-Bulletin, February 2010 edition details current initiatives and festival schedule
• 35 San Diego Leaders Under 35, includes profile of Kama Dean (San Diego News Network; 1/14/10)
• Slow, Steady Wins Conservation Race (San Diego Union-Tribune; 1/19/08)

Along with the film’s producers, narrator Zuliekha Robinson will be in attendance.

Spring runoff along Big Rock Creek, San Gabriel Mountains.

With World Water Day coming up on Monday, March 22nd, it’s a good time to think about the myriad of directions water agencies tend to go, with some agencies charged with the task of bringing water to thirsty Southern California, while others are charged with the task of flood control, flushing any rainwater the region may receive into the ocean as quickly as possible.

It’s not counter-intuitive to take a step back and ask why these agencies’ goals aren’t more in tandem. When rainwater falls in Southern California or a similarly dry climate, it would make as much sense to keep more than just what winds up in reservoirs and use it, rather than expel the rainwater into the sea, only to pull it from the ocean again in the form of a desalination plant, thereby burning more fossil fuels to extract the same fresh water which was just flushed away.

Enter The Cycle of Insanity: The Real Story of Water, a new, animated film produced by a team of activists from different chapters of the Surfrider Foundation, narrated by actress Zuleikha Robinson, and with Surfrider San Diego member and Know Your H20 co-chair Belinda Smith at the helm as Executive Producer.

As part of Surfrider’s new Ocean Friendly Gardens campaign, The Cycle of Insanity: The Real Story of Water discusses how the current management of our water supply runs counter to grade-school lessons about the water cycle, highlights controversial problems and solutions related to water management, and serves as a practical, good sense-driven outline for individuals curious about water issues.

And from one cycle of insanity to another, there remains Governor Schwarzenegger’s ongoing scheme to remove California State Parks from the state’s general fund, and instead fund the operation of all 278 state parks (and several other starving state institutions, including the U.C. and Cal. State systems) from oil revenues collected from a long-delayed, highly-controversial, twice-rejected offshore drilling plan along the Tranquillon Ridge in the Santa Barbara Channel.

In conjunction with the California State Parks Foundation, Treehuggers International was recently in Sacramento for Parks Advocacy Day actively lobbying against such a move, and pressing state legislators for support of the Parks Access Pass initiative, currently in the signature-gathering stage and expected to be on the November ballot.  By adding an annual $18 surcharge to all California-registered vehicles, state parks will similarly be removed from the general fund and fully funded from a regular, annual source of support, with the added benefit of EVERY Californian enjoying free access into all state parks, year-round.

Stefanie Sekich is best-known for her work in helping defeat the proposed Orange County toll road through the backcountry of San Onofre State Beach as part of Surfrider’s coastal campaigns and Save Trestles initiatives, and along with Belinda Smith, she stops by Treehuggers International for an update on not only the possibility of expanded offshore oil drilling in California’s coastal waters, but also in federal waters beyond the three-mile offshore mark of the state. While President Obama has been instrumental in the resuscitation of federal regulatory agencies and the creation of new wilderness areas with last year’s omnibus bill, he’s been reluctant to remove the option of renewed offshore oil drilling off the California coast.

From The Cycle of Insanity film to the ongoing parks-for-oil cycle of insanity, we cover some extra ground on this edition of Treehuggers International.

The San Diego Surfrider chapter is hosting the premiere screening of The Cycle of Insanity: The Real Story of Water on March 22nd at 4:00, 6:00, and 7:30 pm at The Loft on the UCSD campus. The screenings are open and free to the public, with a Q & A session following the 4:00 and 6:00 screenings.

More about this post at:

• San Diego Surfrider Chapter
• Not the Answer, Surfrider anti-offshore oil drilling advocacy website
• World Water Day
• Know Your H2O
• Save Trestles, updates on Trestles and San Onofre State Beach
• California State Parks Foundation
• Ocean Waves Beaches
• Oil for Parks Plan Derided As Blackmail (San Diego Union-Tribune; 1/22/10)
• On the Money: Oil Drilling Controversy (KOVR-TV Sacramento; 1/15/10)
• Governor Seeks to Use Oil Money to Save State Parks (San Francisco Chronicle; 1/9/10)
• Initiative Seeks Long-Term Funding for Cash-Strapped State (San Diego Newsroom; 1/8/10)
• Enviros Blast Arnold’s Oil for Parks Plan (Contra Costa Times; 1/8/10)
• Schwarzenegger: Fund State Parks Via Offshore Oil Money (LAist; 1/8/10)

Headwaters: Scott Gomer Creek at treeline, Pike-Arapaho National Forest, Colorado.

A Save Our State Parks demonstration at the state capitol in Sacramento.

Treehuggers International is heading to Sacramento on March 8th to put in a little face time with California state legislators on Parks Advocacy Day.

The mission is to not only encourage legislators to keep California State Parks open, but to encourage lawmakers to reject Gov. Schwarzenegger’s proposal to eliminate public funding for California State Parks by replacing it with funding from offshore oil drilling projects which are controversial at best, twice rejected by the California Coastal Commission, and far from being approved.

Along with our partners at the California State Parks Foundation, Treehuggers International continues to advocate for a statewide measure to put the State Park Access Pass on the ballot in November. Called the California State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund Act of 2010, the initiative is currently in the signature-gathering stage.

If passed, Californians would support their state park system and wildlife conservation areas by paying an $18 dollar annual surcharge on vehicle license fees. In return, state parks would not only remain open, but ALL Californians with vehicles registered in their name would be able to access any California State Park, at any time, for free.

Talk about a win-win. Californians get free access to their parks, and the parks remain open with a steady, reliable, regular funding apparatus.

Sacramento, we’re coming your way on March 8th. See you then.

An eagle makes a stand at Ahjumawi Lava Springs State Park.

More about this post at:

• California State Parks Foundation
• Save Our State Parks
• Take A Hike On Mt. Diablo (Martinez News-Gazette; 2/13/10)
• Don’t Trade Oil for Parks (Santa Cruz Sentinel; 2/7/10)
• Budget Cutters Again Target State Parks (Capitol Weekly; 2/4/10)
• Ballot, Budget Targeted In Dispute Over State Parks Funding (Capitol Weekly; 2/4/10)
• Oil-for-Parks Plan Derided As Blackmail (San Diego Union-Tribune; 1/22/10)
• Arizona Decides to Close Most State Parks (Los Angeles Times; 1/16/10)
• Governor Warns of Deep Fiscal Crisis As He Unveils Budget Plan (Los Angeles Times; 1/9/10)
• State Budget Calls for Big Cuts (San Diego Union-Tribune; 1/9/10)
• Audubon California Audublog, excellent list of Southern California signature-gathering locations
• Stewards of the Coast and Redwoods
• Friends of Santa Cruz State Parks
• Sonoma Trails
• Anza Borrego Foundation

Early morning in the valley called the "jewel of San Diego conservation" and "Shangri-La."

Rancho Geujito is the largest tract of privately-owned, undeveloped land in Southern California. At about 21,000 acres, or some 36 square miles, it is an enormous island of wild San Diego County east of Valley Center, just north of the San Diego Zoo’s Wild Animal Park, and northeast of Pine Mountain near the La Jolla Indian Reservation. A relic of the Mexican land grant system, Rancho Guejito has survived for the past 200 years by virtue of its location in a remote pocket of northern San Diego County, and a legacy of determined, loving stewardship which the ranch’s succession of owners have felt compelled to give the property. Until now.

From the land’s earliest owners to visitors fortunate enough to visit the area today, all are touched by the valley’s unique, wild qualities. At one point in the 1970s Rancho Guejito was slated to be protected and set aside for the public to enjoy as a California State Park, but due to funding dilemmas, this never came to pass.

Endangered animals like the Golden Eagle and mountain lion make this huge expanse of land their home, and as a rare, intact habitat in Southern California, Rancho Guejito continues to function as a vital wildlife corridor. Unfortunately, like the recently piecemealed Tejon Ranch in northern Los Angeles and Kern County, the fate of Rancho Guejito is now in the hands of developers, and further dissection of the area’s habitat may not be far off.

Eden Valley Road at Rancho Guejito.

After years of publicly stating their desire to keep the valley’s wild character intact, the family which owns Rancho Guejito has recently made an about-face on developing the area. The newly-christened Rancho Geujito Planning Group has proposed a development plan for all 22,000 acres of the ranch, including the construction of 10,000 houses.

We at Treehuggers International wonder if this is sensible or sustainable growth. In the wake of the collapse of housing prices and overdevelopment in San Diego’s North County and other areas of Southern California, along with the proposed Merriam Mountains project similarly located in a remote area of northern San Diego County, is this kind of project even necessary or responsible?

Water issues certainly come to mind. At a time when nearby farmers in northern Escondido, Valley Center, and Pauma Valley have been forced to literally decapitate avocado trees due to water shortages, what kind of message does it send to build an enormous tract of 10,000 houses nearby? It would seem developers are, once again, enjoying free reign in San Diego County despite mandatory water cutbacks and limited access to a potential development site, which has burned over time and time again in regular wildfires.

A February 2nd meeting in Pauma Valley with the Rancho Guejito Planning Group provided few answers. Rick Halsey, the Executive Director of the California Chaparral Institute and a good friend of Treehuggers International, attended the meeting with several reporters, Native American representatives, and a number of concerned residents. According to Rick’s notes, question after question apparently resulted in glittering generalities, false empathy, and no concrete answers or plans from a developer spokesperson.

Non-answers akin to stonewalling were given to reasonable concerns regarding the need for wildlife corridors, water and sewage services, and infrastructure plans other than Highway 78, which is the only major access in road in the area. According to Rick, Native American concerns were given especially short thrift.  Apparently a person

from the Pauma Indian band reminded [the spokesperson] about the importance of cultural issues and that Indian bands want to be involved. At this point [the spokesperson] appeared to be getting tired responding and saying nothing, so she didn’t say much more than “I don’t know from here on out.” She was especially silent whenever a Native American spoke.

Another Native American representative

explained the importance of the spiritual connectedness local Indian bands have with the land, especially land that hasn’t been destroyed yet by development. [The spokesperson] said nothing of consequence.

When asked about preliminary environmental impact studies, the spokesperson talked about the maps of the area they had (topographical and vegetation maps any citizen can request from the county). When asked about rare stands of Engelman Oaks on the property, rapidly vanishing from Southern California, the spokesperson agreed they were “important,” but failed to explain what plans were on the table to preserve them once development commences.

When pressed by a San Diego Union-Tribune reporter on why the family which owns Rancho Guejito has decided to develop the area after decades of resistance, the spokesperson claimed ignorance, explaining the family’s previous conservation commitments were made before she became involved with the project. Another representative of the Rancho Guejito Planning Group denied they had ever been approached by environmental groups about how to potentially manage the site without development, even though Treehuggers International first broadcast the show linked here about the future of Rancho Guejito some 16 months ago.

Rick finally asked the spokesperson

“I just wanted to get a few things straight. It is my understanding you haven’t done any environmental studies / reports concerning the property?” [The spokesperson] replied they had vegetation maps, topographic maps, etc. [I then] asked if I heard correctly that the owners never drilled any wells or examined the water resources on the property, and [the spokesperson] said she didn’t know.

I [asked her] if she could give us two things:

1. A time line when she will be able to come back and actually provide us with useful information.

2. A commitment to bring in the local Indian bands as be part of the process.

[The spokesperson] mumbled on about this being a complicated process, then I asked again my second request. No commitment on anything.

Obviously this is a developing story, and in addition to the links provided below, we invite you to listen to the discussion with Bruce Coons from the San Diego Save Our Heritage Organization (who first visited Rancho Guejito as part of a research trip in 1969), and Dan Silver from the Los Angeles-based Endangered Habitats League. Both Bruce and Dan talk about why it’s best to preserve all of Rancho Guejito, as is, often referred to as the “jewel of San Diego conservation.”

You can also read more about Rick Halsey’s efforts to raise awareness about Rancho Guejito at the California Chaparral Institute.

(program originally broadcast October 19, 2008; revision broadcast November 1, 2009)

Benjamin Coates prized the view from his home at Rancho Guejito.

More about this post at:

• California Chaparral Institute
• San Diego Save Our Heritage Organization, Bruce Coons-authored article on Rancho Guejito
• Endangered Habitats League
• Rancho Guejito’s Future A Hot Topic (San Diego Union-Tribune; 2/4/10)
• Many Questions, Few Answers On Rancho Guejito Development (North County Times; 2/3/10)
• Rancho Guejito Owner In Talks to Open Land to Public (North County Times; 11/8/09)
• Rancho’s Future: 10,000 Houses? (San Diego Union-Tribune; 10/28/09)
• Supervisor Seeks Federal Help to Buy Rancho Guejito (North County Times; 5/6/08)
• Horn Aims to Preserve Sprawling Geujito Ranch (North County Times; 3/24/08)
• Rancho Guejito Is Every San Diegan’s Legacy (North County Times; 3/2/08)
• Pristine Ranch Is A Saga of Money, Intentions (North County Times; 3/2/08)
• A Plot Both Wide and Thick (Los Angeles Times; 5/24/07)
• Rancho Guejito, photo gallery (Los Angeles Times; 5/24/07)
• Rancho’s Owner Expand Holdings (San Diego Union-Tribune; 1/31/07)
• The Last Rancho (San Diego Union-Tribune; 2/10/06)
• Rancho Guejito: Obstacles or Opportunities, op/ed by county supervisor Bill Horn
• Guejito: California’s Last Rancho, Valley Center History Museum
• Save Rancho Guejito
• Friends of Hellhole Canyon
• Rancho Guejito, Wikipeida entry
• Rancho Guejito, registration required
  

Will San Simeon State Park's future be tied to offshore oil drilling?

California Gov. Schwarzenegger tends to vascillate between being a constructive friend of the environment to annoying we conservationists and outdoors fans down to the soles of our hiking boots.  For all the good environmental sense Schwarzenegger has demonstrated leadership on, from demanding greater fuel efficiency to actively working to combat climate change to embracing solar and alternative energy solutions, he’s also racked up a bizarre track record of being on the wrong side of local conservation issues, from calling the proposed toll road through Trestles and San Onofre State Beach “essential,” to backing the Sunrise Powerlink’s route through Anza-Borrego wilderness areas, to his pathological habit of playing brinksmanship-style politics with California State Parks.

Last spring, Schwarzenegger took the state’s breath away by seriously proposing to close and mothball 220 of the state’s 279 state parks.  A revised budget approved by the Governor during the summer forced the early closure and haphazard staffing of state parks which continues today, and it’s not as it California State Parks is one of the budget-breakers of the state’s general fund.  The state park system which is justifiably the envy of the nation has been making due with little-to-less for much of the past 30 years. Today, it has been cut to the literal bone.

The latest madness involving California State Parks can be found in Gov. Schwarzenegger’s budget proposal for the 2010-11 fiscal year, which includes a scheme to fund all 279 state parks from oil revenues (!) collected from a long-delayed, highly-controversial offshore drilling plan along the Tranquillon Ridge in the Santa Barbara Channel.

Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park.

Never mind the plan has been shot down by the California Coastal Commission, twice, and never mind it was a catastrophic oil spill off the Santa Barbara coast in 1969 which gave rise to the current environmental movement and moratorium on offshore drilling in the Golden State, this is how Schwarzenegger proposes to fund the state park system, which not only operates 279 state parks, but also an effective law enforcement apparatus with less than one-tenth of one percent of the entire annual general fund.  A bargain.

To top it off, the Governor’s proposal was announced the same day supporters of a ballot initiative designed to secure regular, permanent funding for state parks via an annual $18 fee on license tab renewals (the average day-use fee at California State Parks is around $10) announced the launch of a signature-gathering campaign to qualify the initiative. Currently, about 700,000 signatures are needed to get the measure on the November ballot. Should it pass, all state residents will be able to use California State Parks for free, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

So why would Gov. Schwarzenegger tie the survival of the nation’s best state park system to fossil fuels and an offshore drilling plan which has already been denied permits twice, especially when such a constructive alternative is already in the signature-gathering stage? We at Treehuggers International were wondering if we’d missed something, and to better explain, Jerry Roberts with the Santa Barbara Independent wrote an outstanding op/ed dissection of the story in the paper’s January 14th edition:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last week released his latest budget plan, which posed a no-win dilemma for many environmentalists. Grabbing $140 million from the California State Parks system – about one-third of its $431 million budget – Schwarzenegger said he’s counting on approval of Santa Barbara’s controversial Tranquillon Ridge drilling project for the money to backfill the cut. In other words, if he doesn’t get his way on offshore oil, state parks will take the hit.

Roberts goes on to say:

As a political matter, the governor’s third attempt to push through a new state lease, on behalf of the Houston-based PXP oil company, considerably raises the stakes on the issue. The oil versus parks formulation is one of several key changes Schwarzenegger made in earlier versions of the twice-defeated project; the move is aimed in part at undercutting an ad hoc coalition of more than 100 environmental group that oppose his oil plan.

The project has caused a bitter family feud between the coalition and Santa Barbara’s Environmental Defense Center. The EDC last year reached a confidential agreement with PXP, which the group claims includes conditions that will lead, within 15 years, to the end of much of the drilling off the county coast. Foes say, however, the project sets a dangerous precedent for breaching the California Sanctuary Act, and sends a political message that drill-baby-drill advocates will use to support their pro-oil position.

Last week, hours after Schwarzenegger released his proposal, EDC “expressed its appreciation” to him for his new push for the T-Ridge proposal: “We look forward to the opportunity to have this project reconsidered by the State Lands Commission,” said Linda Krop, EDC’s chief counsel.

You can read the rest of the Santa Barbara Independent story HERE, and to send a letter to Gov. Schwarzenegger with the help of the California State Parks Foundation, click HERE.

Mitchell Caverns State Park: should expanded offshore oil drilling fund these caves?

More about this post at:

• California State Parks Foundation
• Oil On the Beach / Not the Answer, Surfrider advocacy website
• Initiative Seeks Long-Term Funding for Cash-Strapped State (San Diego Newsroom; 1/8/10)
• Governor Seeks to Use Oil Money to Save State Parks (San Francisco Chronicle; 1/9/10)
• Oil for Parks Plan Derided As Blackmail (San Diego Union-Tribune; 1/22/10)
• On the Money: Oil Drilling Controversy (KOVR-TV Sacramento; 1/15/10)
• Enviros Blast Arnold’s Oil for Parks Plan (Contra Costa Times; 1/8/10)
• Schwarzenegger: Fund State Parks Via Offshore Oil Money (LAist; 1/8/10)

Boundary of John Muir Wilderness, Inyo National Forest

While Congress and the Obama administration designated thousands of acres’ worth of new wilderness areas shortly after the new administration came into office, many of  those wilderness areas were pulled together from proposals and plans drawn up by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management years, if not decades earlier. Why the wait?

As we know, the Bush administration had little interest in doing anything with federal land beyond selling access to the highest bidder, and even on the campaign trail in 2000 demonstrated a marked hostility to environmental and conservation interests, which quickly came to pass upon the administration’s ascension to power. Wilderness plans and the 2001 Roadless Rule were both shelved in an effort to let dust collect on the plans and to enable the administration to let logging, mining, oil, natural gas, and other interests have first crack at these locales already determined to be of wilderness caliber by the very agencies which oversee them.  A recent New York Times editorial describes it this way:

[Secretary of the Interior Gail] Norton disavowed her department’s longstanding authority to identify, study and recommend new areas for wilderness protection.

This “no more wilderness” policy, as it came to be known, exposed huge swaths of federal land throughout the Rocky Mountain West to oil and gas drilling and other commercial uses.

The New York Times piece also points out the “no more wilderness” policy remains officially in place, even though the administration seems to be beyond it:

Under the law, only Congress can designate permanent wilderness — areas where all commercial activity is prohibited. But Congress also authorized the Interior Department to periodically inventory federal lands to identify those with “wilderness characteristics” and to give them interim protections until Congress can make the final decision. These areas are known as wilderness study areas.

It is this authority that Ms. Norton said she did not want and that Mr. Salazar should promptly reclaim.

Let’s hope the Secretary of the Interior does so.

Letters always work best. Laser-printed computer-generated letters are fine, as long as they’re given a genuine signature, but hand-written letters go even further. Write the Secretary of the Interior and ask him to formally end Secretary Norton’s “no more wilderness” policy:

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
Department of the Interior
1849 C Street N.W.
Washington DC 20240

While we continue to applaud the administration’s tentative moves back to an environmental middle ground and making an effort to again consider areas for wilderness desgination (Salazar’s brother with Colorado’s Congressional delegation is weighing such an option with the proposed Hidden Gems Wilderness in the White River National Forest), formally ending the Bush administration’s disdainful policy of willful ignorance regarding wilderness proposals, while trying to engineer deals with energy interests in secret over the same land, would be a positive step forward and another wise move to restore the pre-2001 mission and balance of the Interior Department.

More about this post at:

• Obama Signs Sweeping Land Reform Legislation (CNN; 3/30/09)
• Clinton Halts Road Work In U.S. Forests (New York Times; 1/6/01)
• Bush Delays Clinton’s Forest Plan (ABC News; 2/5/01)