Treehuggers International

Pro Peninsula Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Festival

tommy — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:53:59 +0000

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

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.

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

Treehuggers International Heading to Sacramento for Parks Advocacy Day

tommy — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:13:45 +0000

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.

Federal Court Halts Timber Suit In Alaska’s Tongass National Forest

tommy — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:06:41 +0000

The impenetrable low-elevation interior of the Tongass National Forest.

In a region which has seen little positive news in the fight to save stands of old-growth forest on public land, some good news came today as a federal judge in Alaska threw out a lawsuit filed by a timber industry coalition which would have led to significant logging of ancient forest areas in the Tongass National Forest.

The Tongass is a 1,000-mile arc of temperate rainforest along Alaska’s southeast coast stretching from Ketchikan to Kodiak, containing some of the most intact, oxygen-generating and climate-regulating forest on the planet.

A black bear in the Tongass seizes lunch.

The largest National Forest in the U.S., the Tongass has long been the home to a prodigious timber industry, which has slowly nibbled inland from coves and inlets to a rich timber interior, and in some cases, has deforested whole islands just offshore or in bays and sounds along the mainland.

According to a Matthew Daly piece filed with the Associated Press on February 17th:

U.S. District Judge John Bates Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit filed by a timber group and an organization of Southeast Alaska civic and business leaders. The Southeast Conference and Alaska Forest Association had challenged a 2008 management plan for the Tongass developed by the Bush administration.

Environmental groups hailed the ruling as a small victory, saying the judge had prevented what they consider a bad forest plan from becoming even worse. Those groups say the Bush plan does not do enough to protect old-growth reserves and sites that are sacred to Alaska Native tribes.

The Associated Press piece goes on to quote Tom Waldo, an attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice, who described the manner in which industry groups were positioning their case so as to keep additional forest lands, including areas of old-growth, off-limits for protection.

“This was an attempt by the timber industry to take a bad forest plan and make it even worse,” Waldo said, adding that the judge’s ruling kept that from happening.

At more than 26,000 square miles, the Tongass is about the same size as West Virginia and is often labeled the “crown jewel” in the national forest system.

The Bush plan leaves about 3.4 million acres of the 17-million acre forest open to logging and other development, including about 2.4 million acres of backcountry areas that are remote and roadless. About 663,000 acres are in areas considered most valuable for timber production.

The lawsuit’s origins date back to a forest plan established for the Tongass during the Bush administration’s first term, which called for an increase in the volume of old-growth timber “harvests” to 1970s levels, an era which saw about 70% of the region’s old-growth forest logged.

However, it wasn’t the Bush administration, but the Obama administration which green-lighted a major old-growth timber harvest this past summer, when Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack approved a 381-acre clearcut in the largest stand of temperate rain forest in the U.S.

According to the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, this timber sale, and others like it over the past several years, was in part enabled by the Bush administration plan, which also called for significant amounts of subsidized logging, a practice often criticized in large Forest Service timber sales:

An appropriations bill rider [which] required all timber sales on the Tongass must be positive sales, meaning, no sales could be sold which undervalued the “stumpage” rate, or the value of trees as established by the marketplace. However, the Forest Service also conducts NEPA analyses, layout, and administrative operations to support these sales, and as such, the government does not make a profit overall.

Given the guaranteed low prices during contract days and the continued high cost of logging in Southeast Alaska today, one analysis concludes that, since 1980, the forest service has lost over a billion dollars in Tongass timber sales.

While we at Treehuggers International champion the preservation of ancient forests, we are not anti-logging or anti-timber. We recognize the clear necessity for paper and wood products and are aware of the obvious abundance of renewable North American forests. However, we take issue with reckless or wholesale clear-cutting of old-growth forest, especially on public lands in which taxpayers are entitled to a say, and ultimately, a “piece of the action” if our lands are to be destroyed or sold off for short-term financial gain, but leaving the public long-term clearcut scars and related environmental impacts.

The benefits of leaving old-growth areas “as is” for the purpose of good environmental health, clear air, and clean water are well-documented, and we feel there is far and away enough second and third generation forest currently on private and public lands suitable to fill the current demand for wood-related products.

(story-related weblinks to come, please check back)

Bald eagles are abundant in the Tongass rainforest.

David Edelson from the Wilderness Society

tommy — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 02:01:41 +0000

View from Mt. Baden-Powell into the drainage of the East Fork San Gabriel River.

The Regional Director for the California and Nevada office of the Wilderness Society, David Edelson joins us for a special edition of Treehuggers International.

An environmental attorney and public land conservation specialist, David previously served as lead attorney for the Sierra Forest Legacy, where he helped block the Bush Administration’s 2004 forest management plan. The plan called for a drastic increase in the commercial logging of large, old-growth, fire-resilient Ponderosa, Jeffrey Pine, and White fir in the Plumas National Forest, but was later found to be in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act by a federal court. David also worked at the Natural Resources Defense Council, where he led the NRDC’s efforts to improve management of national forests in the Sierra Nevada and Pacific Northwest.

Hedgehog Cactus in bloom, Mojave Desert.

The Wilderness Society has long been a champion of conservation and the environment, and specifically, setting aside the last remaining wild places on public lands in the U.S., including lands overseen by the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

In addition to wilderness advocacy, the Wilderness Society also works to ensure appropriate, responsible management of the nation’s public lands. Founded in 1935, the Wilderness Society led the way and was instrumental in the creation of the National Wilderness Preservation System and the passage of the 1964 Wilderness Act under President Johnson, which elegantly describes wilderness as “an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

Today, over 100 million acres of federal land have been set aside for all Americans as wilderness, and with the passage of the Omnibus Public Lands Act in March 2009, an additional two million acres in nine states have come under wilderness designation. Along with the economic benefits in the rise of tourism and outdoor recreation as a result of these special places, wilderness provides breathing room for watersheds, climate regulation, and biodiversity, but also provides room for humans to de-pressurize and re-connect with the ebb and flow of the natural cycles of the earth and the wild.

San Antonio Falls, San Gabriel Mountains.

With last year’s legislative successes in mind, wilderness advocates are hoping for success this year with several initiatives, most notably the Sen. Dianne Feinstein-sponsored California Desert Protection Act, which would create or expand five wilderness areas in the Mojave Desert and nearby portions of adjoining mountain ranges, and also create two new National Monuments: the Mojave Trails National Monument between Joshua Tree and the Mojave National Preserve, and the Sand to Snow National Monument, which would preserve adjoining areas of Joshua Tree National Park into high country in the nearby San Bernardino Mountains.

The act would also add expansions to Joshua Tree National Park, Death Valley National Park, and the Mojave National Preserve, with the new wilderness areas and National Monuments acting as buffers around the National Parks, thereby preserving wildlife corridors between the parks and across the Mojave at a variety of elevations.

Proposed additions to the Agua Tibia and Beauty Mountain Wilderness areas in northern San Diego County sponsored by Congressman Darrell Issa have also been a welcome development, and the proposed additions to the Cucamonga and Sheep Mountain Wilderness areas and Wild and Scenic River designation for the east and north forks of San Gabriel River, San Antonio Creek, and Lytle Creek in the San Gabriel Mountains near Los Angeles have also found a favorable response (and will be explored in upcoming shows).

Conservationists are also engaged in ongoing wilderness initiatives in California’s Sierra Nevada, the Carrizo Plain, and the Klamath Mountains in Northern California (which contains the largest network of roadless wilderness remaining in the Pacific Northwest), as well as in Colorado with the Hidden Gems and San Juan Mountains wilderness proposals, in Oregon with the Molalla River Wild and Scenic bill, and in Pennsylvania in the long-running campaign to create new wilderness areas in the Hickory Creek, Allegheny Front, and Tionesta wildlands of the Allegheny National Forest.

Spring wildflowers on the Carrizo Plain, San Luis Obispo County.

Development Arrives at the Door of Rancho Guejito

tommy — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 07:11:39 +0000

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.

Solar vs. Wilderness In Mojave Desert Protection Act

tommy — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:55:33 +0000

The Mojave Desert's last wild lands: Only appropriate for solar collection sites?

Will wilderness-worthy legislation rain on big solar’s prarade? There are a zillion places in Southern California where solar farms can be developed other than areas proposed for wilderness designation, like the roof of every massive warehouse and industrial park from the Inland Empire to the Coachella Valley and beyond, or the tens of thousands of acres of desert outside of cities and recreation, conservation, and military areas.

Roofs of warehouses and industrial parks in the Southland already constitute significant wasted space and limtless opportunity for solar collection. If such spaces were used effectively for giant solar collector “farms” (instead of reflecting the solar energy back into the sky), the energy collected would already be in accessible urban areas, thereby undoing the need to construct colossal, eyesore power lines to bring electricity from the backcountry into cities.

Southern California should be leading the world in the development and use of solar technology, and yet, pay a visit to housing tracts in Indio or El Centro and what do you find? Households with summertime electricity bills exceeding $800 dollars a month, all to power air conditioning with electricity generated by either coal or fossil fuel-burning plants, or the one element more scarce in the southwest than anything else: water, in the form of dam-powered hydroelectricity.

Desert Couple

Treehuggers International can’t believe we’re the only ones who find this counter-intuitive. An editorial in the January 25th San Francisco Chronicle editorial seems to agree:

It’s an environmental catch-22. California needs to meet its aggressive goals for renewable-energy production, but solar and wind farms require lots of space. The farms’ land gobbling can conflict with one of Californians’ most cherished values: the preservation of pristine wilderness and animal habitat. As the state gets serious about increasing its renewable-energy portfolio, there’s going to be tension.

The territorial flare-up is the result of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s recently introduced legislation for the California Desert Protection Act of 2010.

If passed, the act will protect over one million acres of the Mojave Desert’s last wild, staggeringly scenic, resource-heavy areas, with the creation of the Mojave Trails National Monument on former railroad lands adjoining historic U.S. Rt. 66, and the Sand-to-Snow National Monument, which would include land from the desert floor in the Coachella Valley to the top of 11,400 ft. Mt. San Gorgonio in the San Bernardino Mountains, and extend full environmental protection to Big Morongo Canyon and Whitewater Canyon.

Five new wilderness areas are also slated to come into being with the bill, mostly on land currently managed by the BLM, and the bill will add additional, adjacent lands to Joshua Tree and Death Valley National Parks and the Mojave National Preserve.

We at Treehuggers International are thrilled with the legislation. If passed, the California Desert Protection Act of 2010 will set aside significant, wilderness-worthy areas long under consideration for greater levels of protection by a variety of agencies and community leaders. The fact the sun also happens to regularly shine in these areas, however, should not and does not preclude them from any other type of use, including wilderness. With few exceptions, the sun shines equally bright in San Bernardino, Banning Pass, and Palm Springs as it does in these locations. Why then make these special places the only locale in Southern California where solar farms can be erected?

There’s still more than enough developable desert available. California has more than 20 million acres of desert. The California Energy Commission estimates that we’ll only need between 100,000 and 160,000 acres of desert to meet our goal of having 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. Of course, if California wants to be a leader in this field, we’ll develop far more than that for export to other states – but even then, the well is hardly going dry.

So while Feinstein will need to make adjustments to her bill, she’s still on the right track. There is a way to balance conservation and renewable energy production, and we’re discovering it right now.

Learn more about the California Desert Protection Act of 2010 and the two new National Monuments and five wilderness areas it would create at the links below, or click HERE to voice your support for the measure with Senator Feinstein’s office.

Also, stay tuned for a new, upcoming episode of Treehuggers International with David Edelson, the Executive Director of the Wilderness Society’s California / Nevada office. We’ll not only talk about the California Desert Protection Act of 2010, we’ll also discuss additional wilderness areas under consideration in California, including Congressman Darrell Issa’s bill which would add on to and extend the Agua Tibia and Beauty Mountain Wilderness areas into northern San Diego County.

California State Parks Held Hostage By Big Oil

tommy — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 17:53:09 +0000

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?

Houston Chronicle Endorses Big Bend Wilderness Designation

daley — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:17:41 +0000

Casa Grande in Big Bend National Park.

Good to see the Houston Chronicle stepping up in support of wilderness designation for Big Bend National Park. Established in 1944, Big Bend is one of the nation’s largest national parks outside Alaska at over 800,000 acres, encompassing mountains, desert, and a southern boundary which makes it particualrly unique: following the sinuous course of the Rio Grande along the nation’s border with Mexico:

These days, of course, there aren’t many wild places left, and the ones that remain have to be protected. Much of Big Bend, thankfully, is already managed as if it were an official federal wilderness. Human activities are restricted: You can backpack or ride a horse or conduct scientific research. But you can’t drive a motorized vehicle or even ride a bicycle. (In the wrong places, bikes can cause erosion and other environmental damage.) Roads, power lines and other trappings of civilization are strictly forbidden.

Unfortunately, “managed as if it were an official federal wilderness area” isn’t the same as being an official federal wilderness area.

As things now stand, the National Park Service could quickly change the way it manages Big Bend without consulting anyone.

That’s not an immediate danger. But we agree with the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club that Big Bend’s wildness needs to be protected forever.

Good to see a major U.S. newspaper like the Chronicle taking a stand with their local Sierra Club chapter is support of one of the true crown jewels of the Lone Star State. It’s also worth pointing out Houston is about as far away from Big Bend as one can be in Texas while still keeping both feet planted in the state.

National Parks Photographer Ian Shive

tommy — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 23:01:08 +0000

The iconic vista of the Teton Range and the Snake River is the cover of Ian Shive's new book.

Fresh from giving a presentation to lawmakers at the Capitol in Washington D.C. and meeting with newly-confirmed National Park Service chief John Jarvis, conservationist and outdoor photographer Ian Shive talks about his new book The National Parks Our American Landscape.

Merced River in Yosemite Valley.

After years of assignments and photography work with the National Parks Conservation Association and other environmental outlets, Ian’s book pulls together some four years of photography work and travel around the country, along with essays by the editors of the NPCA’s National Parks magazine, who detail their experiences collaborating with Ian Shive in their Washington offices and in the field.

While Ian discusses his photography technique and connection to the outdoors, he and Tommy also talk about the effect of climate change on National Parks and America’s special places, the fear-based culture of the outdoors which has grown out of extreme sports and irresponsible media, the work Ian’s new multimedia center Wild Collective is doing to spread the word about parks and conservation on the web, his Wild Exposure show on Al Gore’s Current TV, and Ian’s meetings with lawmakers and park officials.

While it’s hard to imagine we’ll be returning to the days where presidents camp with conservationists, as President Theodore Roosevelt did with John Muir at Yosemite 100 years ago, the good news is after years of neglect, slashed budgets, and a growing backlog of urgent projects and maintenance, our nation’s National Parks are finally on the receiving end of urgently-needed funds. As our nation begins to re-invest in our National Parks, public awareness about the value of National Parks has also increased over the past year, thanks in no small part to the recent Ken Burns series The National Parks: America’s Best Idea on PBS.

A lonely tent on the brilliantly-lit slopes of Mt. McKinley in Alaska's Denali National Park.

Time to End Interior’s ‘No More Wilderness’ Policy

tommy — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:49:32 +0000

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.

Treehuggers International

Pro Peninsula Wild and Scenic Environmental Film Festival

More about this post at:

Treehuggers International Heading to Sacramento for Parks Advocacy Day

More about this post at:

Federal Court Halts Timber Suit In Alaska’s Tongass National Forest

David Edelson from the Wilderness Society

More about this post at:

Development Arrives at the Door of Rancho Guejito

More about this post at:

Solar vs. Wilderness In Mojave Desert Protection Act

More about this post at:

California State Parks Held Hostage By Big Oil

More about this post at:

Houston Chronicle Endorses Big Bend Wilderness Designation

National Parks Photographer Ian Shive

More about this post at:

Time to End Interior’s ‘No More Wilderness’ Policy

More about this post at: