Indexed News on:

--the California "Mega-Park" Project

Tracking measurable success on preserving and connecting California's Parks & Wildlife Corridors

READ OUR EDITOR ON FACEBOOK: facebook.com/rex.frankel

Monday, April 21, 2008

-----
Settlement is Reached Over North Monterey County Sprawl

April 14, 2008

Why LandWatch Monterey County And The Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition Agree With The HYH/County Compromise on "Butterfly Village"

Something good happened last November, and another good thing happened recently. This memo explains those two good things -- but its bottom line message is that continued vigilance and public participation is vitally necessary!

Most recently, Monterey County and the HYH Corporation have agreed to settle a lawsuit brought by HYH against the County, in which HYH claimed that the County had treated it unfairly with respect to its proposed "Butterfly Village" development project. This settlement is likely to conclude a 20-year dispute over development in this area of the unincorporated county just north of the city of Salinas.

The announced settlement will require a major redesign of the proposed "Butterfly Village" project.

Both LandWatch Monterey County and the Rancho San Juan Opposition Coalition (RSJOC) have fought the inappropriate development of the Rancho San Juan area for years. Most notably, LandWatch and RSJOC have mounted two successful referendum campaigns against proposed developments in the Rancho San Juan area, to make sure that bad developments weren't allowed to go forward.

Both LandWatch and RSJOC agree that the recent County-HYH settlement is in the best interests of the community for TWO very important reasons:

  1. The overhaul and redesign of the project plan, as proposed in the settlement, make it a much better development; and
  1. Policies in the current draft County General Plan (GPU5), which is currently undergoing environmental review, accomplish the following:
    • Restrict further subdivision in the non-coastal north county planning area.
    • Restrict further subdivision in the "greater Rancho San Juan area," such that Butterfly Village will NOT be just the first phase of the larger Rancho San Juan project.
    • Prohibit the subdivision of agricultural land of statewide importance for other than agricultural purposes.

Both of these elements are critical. Together, the improvements in the project and the General Plan policy language that will prohibit irresponsible development in North County, and protect productive farmland, will ensure that the water and traffic impacts of the earlier project design are significantly reduced. From the beginning, impacts to water supply, water quality, and traffic have been at the heart of public opposition to this project.

Changes to the "Butterfly Village" project include:

  • Eliminating the golf course and replacing it with approximately 342 acres of combined public park and open space, which assures the project's net water savings and storm water detention on site;

  • Replacing the golf clubhouse, time share units and incorporating adjacent multi-family dwellings to provide a community health and wellness center with senior living facilities;

  • Providing a 10-acre elementary school site, which was not included in the previous plan;

  • Doubling the size of the neighborhood commercial area within the project to increase job opportunities and reduce the traffic in and out of the project; and

  • Increasing the affordable housing level to 32% from the 15% below market-rate housing requirement applicable to this project under the General Plan.
to read the rest of this story, click here: http://www.landwatch.org/pages/issuesactions/northcounty/041408hyh.html
-----
Avila Beach Oil Spill Restoration Complete


Environment Benefits from Over $1 Million

4-18-2008

The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County hosted the final meeting of the Avila I Trustee Council; the group responsible for administering settlement funds from the August 3, 1992, oil spill at Avila Beach. The Trustee Council includes representatives from California Department of Fish and Game, Office of Spill Prevention and Response, and United States Fish & Wildlife Service. The Council oversaw expenditure of more than $1 Million in settlement monies resulting from impacts to natural resources and recreational opportunities cause by the oil spill.

The Council was formed in 1996, following a settlement between State and Federal agencies and Unocal Corporation, the oil company responsible for the spill. In 1999, a Restoration Plan was completed and restoration efforts began in earnest. The Trustee Council selected The Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County to manage the restoration effort. Over the past decade, more than 1-Million dollars has been spent restoring San Luis Obispo Creek, and its tributaries, and educating the public about this natural resource.

Project highlights include:

· 11 fish passage improvement projects

· 12 acres of wetland restoration

· 5 stream bank repair/re-vegetation projects totaling one linear mile

· 6 educational interpretation signs

· 133 stands of invasive giant reed removed

· 4,000 drain markers installed with anti-pollution signage

A fish census of San Luis Obispo Creek and its tributaries was also conducted. The census estimates the total steelhead population at approximately 40,000. The census report also recommends a prioritized list of projects for future fisheries enhancement projects.

The Land Conservancy appreciates the assistance of many community partners including California Polytechnic State University, The California Conservation Corps, Specialty Construction, R. Burke Construction, and all the landowners that participated in projects on their land.


A final report, summarizing the restoration work, is available in hard copy by contacting The Land Conservancy (805-544-9096, 743 Pacific St. SLO). An electronic copy of the Final Report and the fish census is available on the Land Conservancy’s website (www.LCSLO.org) or by clicking

http://www.special-places.org/Library/PDF_Files/TLCavilareportFINAL-web.pdf.


-----
Oil Company Wrecks Conservation Easement in Wyoming; Could It Happen Here? Legal Advocates Get Ready for Other Attacks


http://www.lta.org/newsroom/npr_031108.htm?zbrandid=4120&zidType=CH&zid=182389&zsubscriberId=1002028473

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88038482

All Things Considered, March 11, 2008 · When people commit to conserving land, the commitment is often meant to last forever. This is true not only of national and state parks, but also of private land.

Private conservation agreements have protected millions of acres across America, but an unanswered question looms. If circumstances change, can "forever" be undone? That question is at the heart of a legal battle in Johnson County, Wyo.

The Land

The land in dispute is a ranch. It spans a thousand acres in a lush valley surrounded by sage and desert. Giant sprinklers irrigate fields of alfalfa and millet amid cottonwood groves.

"We named it Meadowood because we thought it fit the character of the landscape," says Paul Lowham. He and his wife owned the ranch in the early 1990s.

At the time, developers in many parts of Wyoming were buying up scenic ranches and carving them into home sites. The Lowhams wanted to keep their ranch intact — permanently — and they saw a way to do that.

The Promise

"We placed a conservation easement on the property," Lowham explains.

A conservation easement is a legal document that restricts development. It's an increasingly popular tool for protecting land from sprawl.

The Lowhams' easement said that their ranch could never be subdivided and could only be used for agriculture. Forever.

"Forever's a long time," Lowham says, "but certainly that was a commitment that our family made when we placed the easement on it."

They donated the easement to the county, and in return for this charitable gift, the Lowhams received a federal income tax deduction of more than $1 million. That was the estimated value of the development rights they gave away.

New Owners, New Circumstances

In 1999, the Lowhams sold the ranch to Fred and Linda Dowd. The Dowds understood that the land came with permanent restrictions.

"I didn't see that as a problem then," says Fred Dowd. "I do see it as a problem now, because I never thought about unforeseen circumstances coming up and making this a nightmare for us."

That "nightmare" started when an energy company showed up to explore for natural gas on the ranch.

In Wyoming, just because you own a piece of land doesn't mean you own the minerals beneath it, and the person who owned the minerals on the Dowds' ranch had every right to come on the property and drill. The conservation easement couldn't stop it.

So the Dowds watched while drilling rigs came on their land and poked holes in their fields. Workers laid pipelines, cut roads and spread weeds. Fred Dowd feared his land would soon be worthless for agriculture.

"If you nose around, you can find some ranches that have been ruined by mineral development," he says. "And if they had a conservation easement on it that says they can't do anything but farm, and it's ruined for farming, that will destroy them. It would destroy us."

An Agreement Undone

The Dowds approached Johnson County's elected officials.

"The Dowds didn't feel the conservation easement had any value at all if they could just be drilling wherever," says Tracy Rhodes, a county commissioner at the time. "They immediately wanted to know what the commissioners thought about dropping the agreement."

Marilyn Connolly was also a county commissioner. "There were discussions on how, how are we going to handle this, and how can you terminate something that was supposed to be forever?" she recalls. "But the thought of having those wells drilled and the extra roads ... didn't seem like it melded very well with what that easement was supposed to be doing. That's the reason I voted to terminate the easement."

The vote was unanimous. In 2002, just nine years after the land had been set aside forever, forever was rescinded.

Robb Hicks, owner of the local newspaper, the Buffalo Bulletin, was furious when he learned that the easement had been undone.

"With these perpetual easements, the two parties can't just get together and say, 'You know what, we changed our mind,'" he says. "I think forever means forever."

And his anger grew when he learned what happened next. The mineral development didn't ruin the ranch for farming, but now — with the easement removed — the Dowds did exactly what they had agreed never to do. They put part of the ranch up for sale as a new home site for $1.2 million.

"I don't have a problem with people profiting off of buying and selling property," Hicks says. "I do have a problem with people going to the county commission and saying, 'Oh, there's all this development on our property, and my goodness we've been so negatively impacted, and you need to remove all of this, and oh, by the way, afterward, we're going to make a lot of money off of it.' "

So he sued, and the lawsuit had broad implications.

A Dangerous Precedent?

Nationwide, conservation easements protect a vast amount of land — more than four times the area of Yellowstone National Park. This growing network of private conservation lands could be threatened if that word — "forever" — turns out not to have teeth.

"It could have some devastating consequences," says law professor Nancy McLaughlin of the University of Utah. "If the case stands and the easement is terminated, it would encourage speculators across the nation to try their hand at breaking these perpetual easements, because they're going to want to unlock the millions and millions of dollars that are inherent in the otherwise restricted development and use rights."

McLaughlin had hoped that Hicks would prevail in court and that the easement would be restored, but last year the Wyoming Supreme Court dismissed the lawsuit. Now, Wyoming's attorney general plans to take up the case. So the fight continues.

Meanwhile, the Dowds regret that they ever bought the ranch. They say they've spent $50,000 to defend themselves in court, and they've had to defend their reputations in public.

"We did not buy the ranch and say, 'Well, gee, if we can buy this property and get rid of the conservation easement, we can make a quick buck,' " Fred Dowd says. "That was not our intention at all."

In fact, the Dowds never did sell off a piece of the ranch. They've kept it intact, at least for now.

But in the future, this property and thousands of others that have supposedly been protected forever are sure to meet new challenges. Many people will be forced to ask, should a commitment made by others a decade ago — or a century ago — still be honored? And if not, who gets to decide when "forever" ends?

-----
Come Along on Big Sur Coast Hikes Hosted by the Friends of the River!


Here's a tempting invitation for a little spring excursion. Take a hike along the beautiful rivers of California's Big Sur Coast. Traipse along the Little Sur, the Carmel, the Arroyo Seco as the weather turns even more gorgeous. If you live in the area, you're very lucky. If you live elsewhere, make a weekend of it! Friends of the River and our allies in the Ventana Wild Rivers Campaign are leading hikes along the rivers we are trying to protect as Wild & Scenic. Learn about the rivers, the land around them, and the work we are doing on the Central Coast. Click here to learn about these day hikes and for links to weekend accommodations in the region. Go hiking!

The Big Sur Coast is known as one of the most scenic coastlines in the world, visited by thousands of people every year. Despite its reputation as one of the wildest, most breathtaking places left along the Pacific Coast, only one river in the entire region is currently protected.

That is why Friends of the River joined forces with the Ventana Wilderness Alliance and many other local groups, community leaders, and small businesses to form the Ventana Wild Rivers Campaign (VWRC). The VWRC has been working nonstop for two years to raise support for National Wild & Scenic designation for all of these remaining rivers and streams, and it looks like we may be close to our goal. Recently Rep. Sam Farr has shown interest in Wild & Scenic protection, and the VWRC is posed and ready to see it through.

Please help our effort. Send an email in support of these rivers or contact Central Coast Rivers Coordinator Hannah Schoenthal-Muse at hannah@friendsoftheriver.org to find out more ways to help us protect Big Sur’s celebrated rivers.

And we'll see you on a hike!

  • Saturday, April 19
    San Antonio Watershed & designated Milpitas Special Interest Area
  • Saturday, May 3
    Arroyo Seco River Indians to Tin Can Camp
  • Sunday, May 18
    Carmel River
  • Sunday, May 25
    Church Creek
  • Saturday, May 31
    Arroyo Seco River & the Santa Lucia Adobe
  • Saturday, June 7
    Little Sur River

Click here for details.

-----
Bohemian Grove--Private Men's Club Logging Rare Sonoma County Redwood Grove


54/4/08 from Bay Area Coalition for Headwaters
http://headwaterspreserve.org

You've probably heard of the Bohemian Grove. A place of much controversy because the redwood forest Shangri-la is host every year to its members, comprised principally of the ruling elite. The likes of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and heads of some of the largest most rapacious corporations-all male and nearly all white-cavort and discuss world domination for a couple weeks every summer at the 2,700-acre grove on the banks of the Russian River in Sonoma County.

But this time, the controversy is not the agenda of the billionaire boys club, but their logging agenda for the property. In 2006, the Bohemian Club submitted a logging plan for approval to the California Dept. of Forestry (CDF) to double the rate of logging in the grove to extract more than one million board feet per year. Unlike most logging plans, there is not a pressing need for profits, but the "fire safety" argument is being used to justify this high level of disturbance in a rare and fairly undisturbed refuge of redwood forestland that serves as habitat for many species, some of them endangered and threatened. The impact on nearby residents would also be extreme, affecting potentially unstable hillsides, drinking water, and will actually increase the fire danger. Moreover, the Bohemian Club tried to use a loophole in CDF regulations that allows for a long term logging plan with less scrutiny if the area is less than 2,500 acres. The property is 2,700 acres, and their plan didn't fly, so they are back with a re-worked plan, reducing the acreage by "giving" 160 acres as a conservation easement to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation of Montana (more good ol boys).

There is a public working session of state and federal agencies considering this issue next Thursday, April 10, at 10 am. Location is the offices of the Calif. Dept of Forestry, 13 Ridgeway Ave., Santa Rosa. (Call to confirm 707-576-2959)

---------------------
from Earth's Tree News: http://my-earth-log.blogspot.com/2008/04/ef-328-earths-tree-news.html

As UCLA biology professor Philip W. Rundel wrote last May in a
letter to CDF concerning the Bohemian Club's proposed logging plan
last year: "This is clearly a logging project, not a project to reduce
fire hazard. Old growth redwood forests have very low flammability. It
is only when these forests are thinned and light openings are present
in the canopy that flammable shrubs and tanbark oak can invade these
stands. As a result, fire intensity, the spread rate of fire, and
flame lengths will be much higher than if these stands were left in
their natural state. Once a cycle of thinning is established,
reduction of fire hazard inevitably involves heavy regular
applications of herbicides to reduce shrub establishment and prevent
the growth of ladder fuels with all the negative aspects of such
herbicide treatments."

The Bohemian Club began logging its property
commercially in the mid-1980s under the authority of some 18
consecutive timber harvesting plans. Since that time, more than 11
million board feet of redwood and fir (500,000 board feet per year)
have been sold from the Bohemian Grove. The net result of these
damaging two decades of logging has been, as admitted in the draft
timber management plan, an increase in fire hazard across the
property. The plan in question will double the rate of commercial
logging. How this dramatic increase will improve the situation has
never been made clear. In conclusion, the Bohemian Grove is not an
ordinary logging tract. It includes the largest remnant stands of old
growth redwood in Sonoma County, twice as big as the old growth
component of Armstrong State Reserve. Even the second growth component
of the forest is in the 100- to 110-year-old range and well on its way
to becoming reestablished as old growth habitat.

UC Berkeley wildlife management professor Reginald H. Barrett wrote in a September letter
to CDF: "Department of Fish and Game (DFG) concluded that the NTMP
could adversely affect a number of wildlife species, because it will
substantially reduce the stands of larger, older trees with dense
canopies . . . I agree with DFG's concerns about the plan's impacts on
wildlife, and I do not believe these impacts have been mitigated." We
urge all citizens of Sonoma County to speak out for protection of the
Bohemian Grove. It must be understood that fire hazard can be reduced
by removing hardwoods without jeopardizing one of our great forest
legacies. http://www1.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080416/NEWS/804160321/1307/OPINION05&template=kart
-----
Senator Feinstein introduces legislation to create funding for cleanup of abandoned mines


By Izzy Martin, The Sierra Fund, 4-17-2008

http://www.sierrafund.org/news/8-News/263-Feinstein%20AML%20cleanup

Last month, Senator Feinstein introduced S.2750, a bill that modifies the requirements applicable to mining activities minerals on public domain lands, and creates a funding stream for cleanup of abandoned mines. Currently, there is no source of revenue for the cleanup of abandoned hard rock mines. Among other things, this bill would impose a royalty payment on all mining products, like the one now imposed on coal mining. The fund will be used for the cleanup of sites that were mined for minerals like gold, silver, copper, lead and precious gems.

Hard rock mining companies are the only major mining sector not currently required to pay royalties to the federal government for the removal of minerals from public lands – even though the industry is experiencing near record high gold prices, around $900 per ounce. In 2000, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) estimates that $982 million in hard rock minerals were taken from public lands – and the industry paid no royalties for those minerals. By contrast, companies that extract coal, oil, and natural gas from public lands and waters pay royalties that range between 8 - 12.5 percent. This is because the federal laws that regulate gold and silver mining operations were established by the 1872 Mining Law – and they have not been updated since.

The bill would direct several sources of revenue for the cleanup fund, including reclamation fees for all new and existing hard rock mines – modeled after a similar program for the cleanup of abandoned coal mines. The bill would also impose royalty payments for new and existing hard rock mines on federal lands, as well as increase transaction and maintenance fees for hard rock mining operations.

This funding source would be used to help close the estimated 500,000 abandoned mines in the United States. As reported in The Sierra Fund's newly released report Mining's Toxic Legacy: An Initiative to Address Mining Toxins in the Sierra Nevada, there are over 47,000 abandoned mines in California. (Download a copy of the report here.)

According to Senator Feinstein, Abandoned mines in California and across the country pose a serious threat to public safety and health. Minerals from the mines have already begun to pollute our drinking water, crops and fish. And abandoned mine shafts endanger public safety. It’s clear that something must be done to clean up these hazardous mines. The problem is that we lack a reliable and steady stream of funding – and the scope of the cleanup effort is enormous. That’s why I’ve introduced a bill to create an abandoned mine cleanup fund. The bill establishes several sources of revenue to pay for the cleanup, including royalty payments and reclamation fees. We’ve seen that a similar program has helped to fund the cleanup of abandoned coal mines – and I believe that this is a sensible solution for the hard rock mining industry.”

The bill would reform the 1872 Mining Law in a number of ways, including:

Creating an Abandoned Mine Cleanup Fund to be used to clean up and restore land and water resources adversely affected by past hard rock mining activities, including habitat cleanup and restoration.

Establishing spending priorities for the cleanup fund, based on the severity of the risk to public health, public safety, and the impact on natural resources. These priorities are similar to those included in the House-approved mining legislation (see next article for details on the House bill).

Directing the Secretary of Interior to create an inventory of abandoned mines on all Federal, State, tribal, local and private land. Once the inventory is complete, the Secretary is instructed to provide cleanup funding according to the spending priorities listed above.

Establishing three sources of revenue for the Abandoned Mine Cleanup Fund, including a reclamation fee of 3% of on all hard rock mineral mining; a 4% royalty on existing operations and 8% royalty on new operations that extract minerals from federal lands, and increased maintenance fees.

According to a press release sent by the Senator, the measure is intended to be one part of the comprehensive mining reform debate expected to occur in the Senate later this year. It states that Senator Feinstein is also supportive of efforts to reform mining law more broadly.

The bill has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The full text of this bill can be found here.

Abandoned Mines in Sierra Nevada Conservancy service region
(compiled from information developed by CA Department of Conservation, Abandoned Mine Lands Unit)

County

Number of Abandoned Mines

Alpine

102

Amador

316

Butte

257

Calaveras

586

El Dorado

553

Fresno

605

Inyo

9,698

Kern

4,498

Lassen

434

Madera

213

Mariposa

973

Modoc

297

Mono

2,519

Nevada

366

Placer

747

Plumas

477

Shasta

637

Sierra

520

Tehama

121

Tulare

262

Tuolumne

697

Yuba

65

-----
Study backing more water exports to Southern California is nullified


A judge says the report failed to account for effects on endangered salmon and steelhead trout.

By Eric Bailey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 17, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-salmon17apr17,1,1938847.story

from http://earthjustice.org


SACRAMENTO -- A federal judge Wednesday invalidated a plan that justified boosted water exports from Northern California, ruling that it failed to account for the effects on endangered salmon and steelhead.

U.S. District Judge Oliver W. Wanger of Fresno found that a 2004 study by the National Marine Fisheries Service didn't adequately address global warming, the loss of habitat and other factors that could hurt the fish.

But the effect of his 151-page opinion on water exports for farms and Southern California cities won't be decided until further court hearings starting late this month.

"This decision should prove very big for the fish," said Michael Sherwood, an attorney with Earthjustice, a nonprofit law firm representing commercial and recreational fishermen, environmental groups and the Winnemem Wintu tribe of Mount Shasta.

Wanger's ruling is the second setback in the last year for federal biologists and California's water managers. In August, the judge ordered a shift in operations that could cut water exports from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta by 30%.

The decision comes days after federal regulators canceled the 2008 salmon fishing season because of a sharp decline in the Sacramento River's fall-run chinook salmon, the backbone of the commercial industry.

Wanger's decision addresses an ongoing crisis for two other chinook salmon species, the winter and spring runs, and Central Valley steelhead trout. Once collectively numbering in the millions, the three endangered fish have seen their populations plummet -- in the case of the winter-run chinooks to fewer than 200 returning adults in 1994. The fish have been hit hard by water pollution, predators and dams that have blocked spawning grounds and boosted river temperatures.

Though the judge's decision might further curb delta exports, a more likely result is operational changes 250 miles to the north at Shasta Dam, experts on both sides said.

Cradling the state's biggest reservoir, the dam traditionally releases most of its water down the Sacramento River and onward to the delta in late summer and fall. But environmentalists have pushed for more cold-water releases to help the struggling runs of salmon and steelhead.

Sherwood of Earthjustice said the ruling could mark "a turning point" in operations by the state and federal water projects, which redid the California landscape in the 20th century to move water from the wet north to farms and communities in the south.

Jeff McCracken, a spokesman for the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, which operates Shasta Dam as part of the federal water project, said it was too soon to decipher the decision's fallout.

"There will be no impacts until the judge tells us we have to do something differently," he said. "At this point we haven't gotten there."

Laura King Moon, assistant general manager of the nonprofit State Water Contractors, said the ruling underscored the importance of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, an effort underway in Sacramento to spotlight ways to heal the delta while fixing the water delivery system.

"We can't continue to have the water system of our state remain at the mercy of every individual endangered species," she said. "We need a comprehensive plan."

Lester Snow, state Department of Water Resources chief, agreed that the ruling was "further evidence that the delta is teetering on the brink of collapse," noting that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had proposed a slate of solutions.

Among the fixes being eyed is construction of the long-debated Peripheral Canal, which would divert water around the delta and onward to Southern California. The proposal has been condemned by environmentalists and others who say it would rob the delta of the water it needs for fish to survive.

This spring's dry weather has already cut state water reserves. The Metropolitan Water District, the state's largest, is calling on residents to step up conservation efforts such as not watering their lawns one day a week.
-----
2 stories:
Sprawl is closing the gap between cities and suburbs across Northern, Calif., putting a strain on the environment.

Growth Control Victories in the North SF Bay
--------------------

Creeping sprawl overtakes refugees from cities

By Rachel Gordon, San Francisco Chronicle, 4-18-2008

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/18/BA0GVRQLO.DTL&type=green

Fed up with the encroaching sprawl, Linda Jimenez fled Silicon Valley for Tracy in 1990 in search of more affordable housing and the small-town way of life of her Santa Clara County youth. Eventually, the sprawl caught up.

In 1990, Tracy, a friendly agricultural community separated from the Bay Area by the Altamont Pass, had fewer than 34,000 residents. Today, the mushrooming town, located at the western gateway to the Central Valley, has a population nearing 81,000.

The town sits as a symbol of the quest by working- and middle-class Bay Area residents to find housing they can afford - a pursuit that often draws them further from the traditional job centers in San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose.

The result: A swath of residential and retail development that reaches toward the Sierra foothills, into the agricultural heartland of the Central Valley and south toward Salinas on land once reserved for ranching, farming and recreation.

The migration comes at costs to the environment: loss of natural habitat, increased greenhouse gases and a growing strain on the watershed.

"Sprawl is an inefficient and unsustainable use of our land resources," said Elizabeth Adam, spokeswoman for the Bay Area Open Space Council. "It is often the default pattern of development that solves short-term problems but has very negative effects on communities over time."

Just drive along major highways between Richmond and Auburn (Placer County), between Dublin and Manteca (San Joaquin County), between San Jose and Salinas and between Sacramento and Stockton, and the change is evident, with strip malls, office parks and cookie-cutter housing projects dotting the landscape.

"The cities and suburbs of Northern California are increasingly growing together," Gabriel Metcalf and Egon Terplan noted last year in a San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association report on the development trend they wrote. "Growth has outstripped the traditional nine-county Bay Area and has leapt north, south and east, joining with Sacramento and its suburbs."

The Bay Area's population, now estimated at 7.2 million, is projected to grow to 8.7 million by 2030, according to the California Department of Finance. But the population growth in the Bay Area's 12 neighboring counties - among them San Joaquin, Sacramento, Stanislaus and Santa Cruz - is projected to add even more people. By 2030, according to the state forecast, they will have 6.6 million residents, an increase of 2.1 million.

One of the chief problems is that the jobs have not been keeping up with the trend, forcing more people to endure long commutes.

"Between 1980 and 2000, the number of commuters from 12 neighboring counties into the Bay Area's nine-county core nearly quadrupled from 30,000 to 117,000 daily," Metcalf and Terplan found. "Given that the vast majority of commuters were driving alone, nearly 90,000 new cars were added to already-congested roadways from trips alone."

Vehicle emissions account for half the greenhouse gas emissions in California.

Jimenez, who works for Cal State East Bay, spends more than 2 1/2 hours a day in her car, driving back and forth between her home in Tracy and her job in Hayward. For a while, she took public transit - a mixture of BART and buses to reduce her carbon footprint - but that nearly doubled her commute time. She switched back to driving, but bought a less environmentally damaging hybrid car.

Despite the long commutes, Jimenez, 57, doesn't regret her decision to leave the Bay Area.

When she purchased her first home in Tracy in 1990, she paid $154,000 for a spacious, three-bedroom, two-bathroom house. Fourteen years later she sold it for more than $400,000 and traded up for about $100,000 more to a five-bedroom, three-bath house with a large yard that she shares with her daughter, son in-law and grandchildren. Finding a house that size and at that price in the Bay Area, in a place as nice as Tracy, she said, would be difficult.

"I agree it's not the ideal situation, but we like the community and have established roots here," Jimenez said.

San Joaquin County, where Tracy is located, has undergone a major transformation in the past decade and a half. An estimated 115,196 acres of open space and agricultural land have been "urbanized," or developed for commercial and residential use, according data kept by the state Department of Conservation.

Statewide, an estimated 538,273 acres were developed between 1990 and 2004, or 38,448 annually. Nearly two-thirds of the development was on land once used for agriculture.

Between 1849 - the start of the Gold Rush - and 1990, an average of 20,052 undeveloped acres were urbanized annually.

Unless restrictions are placed on new development, an estimated 2.1 million acres in California, much of it supporting crops and grazing, is at risk of sprawl development, according to the American Farmland Trust, a national preservation group.

The loss of open space has altered California's economy and ecosystem.

"We're losing migration corridors for animals and compromising our watersheds and paving over productive farmland," said Amanda Brown-Stevens, field director for Greenbelt Alliance, a Bay Area land conservation and urban planning organization.

The challenge, she said, is getting people to value long-term sustainability more than short-term profit. If they won't do it on their own, then land-use laws can be enacted to prevent landowners and builders from developing open space.

Across the country, local jurisdictions have adopted urban-growth boundaries aimed at curtailing sprawl. In the Bay Area, such limits have been enacted in approximately three dozen cities and counties, from Morgan Hill to St. Helena. Vacaville, as part of a legal settlement with conservationists, was the latest to limit growth.

Greenbelt Alliance (http://greenbelt.org) has calculated that 401,500 acres of open space lands in the Bay Area could be developed in the next 30 years, with the growth hot spots centered along Interstate 80 in Solano County, eastern Contra Costa County, the East Bay's Tri-Valley area, Coyote Valley in southern Santa Clara County and Highway 101 in the North Bay through Sonoma County.

Brown-Stevens said the demands of population growth and the search for affordable housing can't be ignored. However, she said, there are development options that are less harmful to the environment than building on remote open lands.

One such option, she said, is the construction of compact residential developments with a mix of condos, single-family homes and apartments in cities. Ideally, they would be near stores and job centers and have easy access to public transit to make it more convenient for people to get around without driving.

But convincing people that the American Dream can be found in an urban neighborhood where sometimes the only open space is the back stoop or the neighborhood playground won't be easy.

Still, Brown-Stevens suggested that the time is right to make the argument.

"I think people are sick of traffic," she said, "and they do care about the issue of global warming, and they do want to spend more time with their families and spend less time in their cars."

----------------

Victory: Pittsburg City Council rejects flawed hillside ordinance!
On Monday April 8, Pittsburg's City Council rejected a flawed hillside ordinance and sent it back to the city planning staff to completely redo. Greenbelt Alliance and local residents have been working for a full year to get the Planning Commission to create an ordinance that truly protects the hills instead of opening them up for grading and sprawl development. This is a major victory and an important opportunity to protect these iconic East Bay hills.


Success: Vacaville adopts urban growth boundary!
On Tuesday March 25, the City Council in Vacaville, one of Solano County's fastest-growing cities, unanimously adopted an urban growth boundary! The petition for the boundary was signed by 10,000 Vacaville residents (more than voted in the last election). The boundary defines where growth should and should not occur, and will protect thousands of acres of farmlands and hills around the city.

-----
Fate of California Condor in The Balance


The clock is ticking down to April 25, the deadline set by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for comments from the public regarding what should be included in the analysis of Tejon Ranch Company's request for an "incidental take permit" to kill or harass the California condor and 33 other endangered and threatened species.

By Lynn Stafford

the Frazier Mountain Enterprise, April 18, 2008

http://mountainenterprise.com/atf.php?sid=2758&current_edition=2008-04-18


David Clendenen spoke in a dynamic and sobering program this month, telling about his fifteen years with the Condor Recovery Program as a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Clendenen is resource specialist at The Wildlands Conservancy's nearby Wind Wolves Preserve, but he spoke for himself at the event hosted April 5 by the Condor Group of the Sierra Club.

Eloquently and precisely, he discussed the history of the California Condor, its current status and future challenges. His exceptional photographs helped provide an overview exploring the uncertain future for this great but imperiled creature, the largest flying land birds in North America.

Condors are huge scavengers with nine and a half foot wingspans, roaming great distances in search of food. They live long lives, up to 75 years, have traditional ways and complex social structures passed from generation to generation.

They breed slowly, an average of one chick every two years. They are intelligent, curious, able to learn quickly, and are more flexible in behavior than hawks and other raptors. Yet by 1982, there were only twenty-two of these magnificent birds left on earth.

The factors that have brought them to the brink of extinction are all directly related to the activities of people.

First was the development of ranch lands in the West. The large carcass-producing hoofed animals like deer and elk that roamed through California were replaced by domesticated cattle. Predators, such as grizzly bears, coyotes and mountain lions were killed using poisoned bait, which also poisoned condors and other scavengers during the late 1800s and early 1900s. The practice was made illegal in the mid-1900s. But loss of habitat, direct shooting and lead poisoning combined with the condors' slow reproductive cycle, starting the downward spiral.

During the 1980s lead poisoning from hunters' bullets was documented as a source of mortality in condors. It had undoubtedly been a serious cause of mortality ever since Europeans arrived with guns and began hunting large animals. Fragments of bullets are ingested as condors feed on the carcass of an animal that has been shot. Lead is a powerful toxin that causes neurological damage and often death. It only takes a piece the size of a fingernail clipping to kill a condor. Less than that can cause neurologic damage that affects the big birds' ability to navigate in the air.

In the 1980s, the wild population was dwindling dangerously low. Zoos had learned how to raise young at an accelerated rate. So the last few wild birds were captured and brought into zoo programs to build their populations up. Slowly, captive-reared birds began to be reintroduced during the 1990s into Southern California and northwestern Arizona. They are tagged, monitored and partially fed with lead-free carcasses of still-born dairy calves.

At first, the condors' intelligence and natural curiosity was a problem. They learned to identify with people, and appeared to be attracted to them and their settlements as a potential source of food, as residents of Pine Mountain remember from a few years ago.

Since then, rearing and release techniques have improved. Released birds are acting more like wild animals.

A new problem, dubbed "microtrash," has emerged since the reintroduction of captive- reared condors began in the 1990s.

Condors are curious. They are attracted to small bits of trash such as pop tops, bottle caps and various broken bits of glass and plastic. Historically, parent condors feed small pieces of bone to their chicks. The minerals are useful to the chicks' growth. It is thought that microtrash is given mistakenly as bone. Scientists have confirmed that this has led to the deaths of several chicks while still in the nest.

The wild population of this ancient creature is now just 155 birds in three different populations in California, Arizona and the northern peninsula of Baja, Mexico. Progress is being made to bring the species back from the edge of extinction. Chicks are being successfully hatched and raised in the wild. The species is not yet fully-independent with self-sustaining populations in the wild, but the threat of extinction is no longer an eminent danger. Great strides have been made to treat this species as a national treasure.

Continuing problems with diminishing habitat, reduced food supplies, the presence of lead, other toxins and microtrash persist. An excellent example of the future uncertainty for the condor is right here in our own region's Tejon Ranch. Tejon Ranch Company (TRC) is a real estate development and management company that controls 272,000 acres. The land's developers often identify it as "the largest contiguous holding of private property in California." The area also contains some of the best traditional foraging habitat for the California condor.

It is good news that TRC recently banned lead bullets from its hunting programs. Bravo! However, TRC is currently firming up plans for at least three large-scale housing and commercial developments, including a sprawling upscale ranchette-type community to be called Tejon Mountain Village. This plan will greatly impact the condor, which for thousands of years has used the warm updrafts from the slopes which are part of the proposed development to launch its long glides across the valleys, watching for food.

At the present, a Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan for the Tehachapi Uplands is being developed by Tejon Ranch Company. Though the title speaks of conservation, the document is a required preliminary in TRC's petition for the grant of an Incidental Take permit for the condor. This kind of permit to incidentally kill a condor in the course of TRC's future developments has never been granted.

Such a permit would be a very dangerous precedent for endangered species in the United States. At least one condor, a matriarch mother dubbed "AC8" by the scientists in the recovery program, has already been shot by a hunter on a Tejon commercial hunt. This bird, about 40 years old, was one of the last of those wild survivors brought into the recovery program during the 1980s.

She hatched several chicks, then was released back into the wild. Her deep knowledge of the roosting and foraging areas of this region was especially important to be transferred to the juvenile condors for their survival in the wild. Her death was a profound loss to the California condor recovery program.

---------------------
Center for Biological Diversity: Tejon Ranch Seeks License to Kill California Condors
Development Would Destroy Proposed National Park

By: Center for Biological Diversity

http://yubanet.com/california/CA-Op-Ed-Center-for-Biological-Diversity-Tejon-Ranch-Seeks-License-to-Kill-California-Condors.php

Los Angeles, March 26, 2008 - The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a proposal today to allow the Tejon Ranch Company to kill and harass the iconic and extremely endangered California condor. The condor's last bastion of wild habitat is threatened by mega-developments in northern Los Angeles and southern Kern counties, planned by the Tejon Ranch Company, a publicly traded company heavily invested in by New York-based funds. Tejon Ranch Company is also seeking a permit to kill and harass 33 other rare species, including our national icon, the bald eagle.

"No corporation should ever request, no government agency should ever consider, and no person should ever approve a permit like the one proposed today," said Adam Keats, director of the Urban Wildlands Program of the Center for Biological Diversity. "This ‘license to kill' would be a knife to the heart of the California condor and would destroy California's rich natural heritage by enabling more urban sprawl to be dumped in southern California's most valuable remaining wild areas."

Conservation groups have a different vision for Tejon Ranch: Tejon-Tehachapi Park. "Tejon Ranch is a true gem of California and can never be replaced," said Ileene Anderson, staff biologist at the Center. "Once these cities are built, there will be no way wildlife can move up and down the state anymore. Coupled with the hit that condor and the other rare plants and animals will take, this would be one of the greatest environmental travesties California will ever face."

Tejon Ranch covers over 270,000 acres of wilderness at the crossroads of northern and southern California. The Mojave desert, the southern Sierra Nevada mountains, the great central valley and the southern forests all converge on Tejon Ranch - the only place in California where four ecoregions come together. The diversity of plants and animals that occur on the Tejon Ranch is exceptional. Several of the rare plants and animals that Tejon Ranch Company is seeking permission to harm are only known from Tejon Ranch, and have no where else to live.

Besides the California condor, Tejon Ranch is a refuge for a host of wildlife and plants threatened by the proposal, including five other species declared by the state of California to be "fully protected": the bald eagle, American peregrine falcon, golden eagle, white-tailed kite, and ringtail (the condor is also fully protected). Other species in the permit request include the least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, western yellow-billed cuckoo, Tehachapi slender salamander, little willow flycatcher, tricolored blackbird, California spotted owl, Tehachapi pocket mouse, burrowing owl, yellow-blotched salamander, western spadefoot, purple martin, northern goshawk, coast horned lizard, Cooper's hawk, yellow-breasted chat, prairie falcon, northern harrier, long-eared owl, two-striped garter snake, round-leaved filaree, Fort Tejon woolly sunflower, Kusche's sandwort, Tehachapi buckwheat, American badger, striped adobe lily, and Tejon poppy.

"Barely 100 condors fly free in California, and only about 50 near Tejon, the historical heart of their range," said Keats. "They simply cannot withstand a single death, nor can they withstand the loss of habitat that this permit would enable. As the condor goes, so goes what makes California special. It's simple: the ranch cannot be developed - not one shovel should touch dirt, not one McMansion should be built. Anything less will be a failure that will be mourned by generations to come."

Preserving Tejon Ranch as a new national or state park would protect a bounty of native plant and animal communities, cultural and historic features, and scenic vistas.

See http://www.savetejonranch.org.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

-----
Two Court Battles Over the Headwaters Forest:
Judge orders mediation in Pacific Lumber case

The Eureka Times-Standard
4/19/2008

http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_8982517?source=rss


The U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge overseeing the Pacific Lumber Co. case ordered Friday that key creditors should go through mediation to resolve their differences over how the company should be restructured.
Corpus Christi, Texas, Judge Richard Schmidt ordered two days of mediation just prior to hearings that -- if the parties cannot strike a deal -- would determine which of two plans would go forward. The timber noteholders, backed by a bid by Beal Bank, are competing with a plan by Marathon Structured Finance Fund and the Mendocino Redwood Co.

Schmidt directed the trustee for the noteholders, Beal Bank, Marathon and Mendocino Redwood to participate in talks under a mediator, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur. Papers outlining the different positions should be in to Isgur by April 23, and the mediation is set for April 25 and 26.

Palco's own plans for reorganization have effectively been sidelined.

The noteholders want to put Palco subsidiary Scotia Pacific's 210,000 acres up for auction, and Beal Bank has put forward an offer of $603 million. A representative of Beal on Thursday said he did not want to go through mediation, and would rather direct talks with other creditors.

Mendocino Redwood believes the timberlands are worth less than that, and are putting up $500 million -- but it is also planning to run the Scotia mill. Schmidt wants the two parties to work out an agreement.

-------------------------

California Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Pacific Lumber Logging Plan on May 5th

Oral argument in the Headwaters litigation is scheduled before the California Supreme Court on Thursday, May 8 at 9:00 a.m. at the State Building, located at 350 McAllister Street San Francisco in thecourtroom on the 4th floor. The 1999 Headwaters Deal, while promisingto ensure sustainable forest practices and protection of fish andwildlife resources, did just the opposite. Since the deal was inked, EPIC and the Sierra Club have pursued litigation challenging its state approvals, including the Sustained Yield Plan, a state Incidental Take Permit, and a Streambed Alteration Agreement. We won in the trial court, and are now asking the California Supreme Court to uphold that decision. Meanwhile, Pacific Lumber's unsustainable practices have forced it to bankruptcy. This case is critically important to how forestry is practiced in California, for protection of California's timber, water and wildlife resources, and to require agencies to maintain their obligations under the law. This is true no matter what happens in the Pacific Lumber's bankruptcy. We are the first case on the calendar for that day. Generally it is a good idea to get there atleast a half hour early, as you have to go through separate securitybefore entering the court room, and the courtroom may be crowded.

scott@wildcalifornia.org

http://my-earth-log.blogspot.com/2008/04/ef-329-earths-tree-news.html

-------------------------------

Forest Defense Camp set for May 2 - May 9

http://arcatareporter.blogspot.com/2008/04/forest-defense-camp-set-for-may-2-may-9.html

-----------------

Pacific Lumber Timber Plan Threatens State Park
http://www.wildcalifornia.org/actions/number-67

In a slick move to liquidate Redwoods along the South Fork of the Eel River, Pacific Lumber is moving quickly to get approval for a huge Timber Harvest Plan (THP) immediately adjacent to Humboldt Redwoods State Park. The Railcar THP 1-08-008 Hum would liquidate mature forests along the park border, just above the Avenue of the Giants. This area, encompassing the middle portion of the Bridge Creek watershed, has been proposed as a park addition in the proposal that The Nature Conservancy and Save-the-Redwoods League have put forward to resolve the Pacific Lumber bankruptcy.

-------------------------

Charles Hurwitz Expresses Sadness Over His Purchase of Pacific Lumber:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/4494014.html

Article titled: "It seems like Charles Hurwitz just can't catch a break"

"For his part, Hurwitz has paid a hefty price for his ownership of Palco.

"This is the root of all evil for us," he said. "Everything that's bad in my business life has come out of this.""

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/steffy/5685563.html
Factor in the recent housing slump and Palco is in bad shape. So is Maxxam. Palco was Maxxam's biggest operating unit, and with the bankruptcy, Maxxam's revenue fell to $96 million from $292 million last year. All three of its businesses — lumber, real estate and race tracks — lost money on an operating basis.

------------------------------------

Remembering the old Pacific Lumber Co.

http://www.times-standard.com/opinion/ci_9023647

...The Maxxam saga is ending, like the world in T.S. Eliot's “Hollow Men,” not with a bang but with a whimper.
Those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. Of course, in the case of Pacific Lumber's history, a repeat is impossible, at least for the next two or three millennia, as the trees are gone, together with the $4 billion that Hurwitz took from Humboldt.
But we must not forget this history, or the magnitude of our loss. The Maxxam years are a tragedy without a single beam of light in their blackness. Its lesson is paradigmatic as a fairy tale, and promises to be crucial for our survival in the 21st century.
Hurwitz never pretended to be anything other than a predator. His opening salvo to theassembled workers -- “There's a little story about the golden rule. Those who have the gold, rule” -- was a direct attack on civilization, and a naked cry of “en garde” to its defenders. ...

LA meetuphikes.org

E-Mail the editor:

rexfrankel at yahoo.com

Blog Archive

Quick-Search of Subjects on the Site