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

-----
State Assembly Debates Bill to "Identify" All Important Wildlife Migration Corridors

AB 2785, authored by Assembly Member Ira Ruskin (Redwood City), requires the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to identify all important wildlife corridors -- areas that connect important conservation lands for wildlife -- in California. This bill is important to help wildlife, like the San Joaquin kit fox, survive global warming.

from http://www.defenders.org/about_us/where_we_work/california_office.php

To read text of bill:

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_2751-2800/ab_2785_bill_20080222_introduced.html

Date of Hearing: April 16, 2008

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mark Leno, Chair

AB 2785 (Ruskin) - As Introduced: February 22, 2008

Policy Committee: Water, Parks &
Wildlife Vote: 9-4

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:

SUMMARY

This bill requires the Department of Fish and Game (DFG) to
identify what areas in the state are most essential as wildlife
corridors and habitat linkages and, as part of this process, to
develop and maintain a standardized system to develop and make
spatial data on vegetation and land cover available to the
public.

FISCAL EFFECT

1)Moderate one-time costs, in the range of $500,000 primarily in
2009-10, to DFG to identify essential areas for wildlife
corridors and habitat linkages. These costs are contingent
upon funding being made available. (GF or available
Proposition 84 bond proceeds.)

2)Moderate one-time costs, probably less than $200,000 primarily
in 2009-10, to the DFG to modify its Vegetation Classification
and Mapping Program to include information required by this
bill. (GF or available Proposition 84 bond proceeds.)

COMMENTS

1)Rationale . The author contends that areas essential as
wildlife corridors and habitat linkages need to be identified
and protected, especially in light of the state's focus on
infrastructure expansion and renewal and the continued
horizontal growth in the state's metropolitan and rural areas.
Information on wildlife corridors and habitat linkages would
be useful to both local and regional planners, and could
result in more effective project impact mitigation measures.


2)Wildlife Corridors . Habitat fragmentation is a leading cause
of collapse for some wildlife populations. Wildlife corridors
are linear geographical features whose primary wildlife
function is to connect at least two significant habitat areas.

These corridors help to reduce or moderate some of the adverse
effects of habitat fragmentation by facilitating dispersal of
individual animals and plants between substantive patches of
remaining habitat, allowing for long-term genetic interchange
and individuals to recolonize habitat patches.

3)Proposition 84 Funding . In August 2007, the Wildlife
Conservation Board provided a $3.9 million grant to DFG
for its Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program
(VegCAMP). This grant could support the work required by this
bill.

4)Prior Legislation . In 2007, AB 828 (Ruskin), a measure
substantially similar to this bill, was vetoed by the
governor, who believes this bill's requirements are redundant
with DFG's current mapping efforts. The governor also noted
that 2007 Budget Act trailer bill language also required DFG
to take specific actions related to its mapping program.

Analysis Prepared by : Steve Archibald / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
-----
Marine Corps Surveyors eye Johnson Valley to Expand Desert Combat Training


By KATHERINE ROSENBERG, Lucerne Valley Leader Editor

http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/valley_5771___article.html/lucerne_palms.html

April 8, 2008

TWENTYNINE PALMS — Bureau of Land Management and United States Marine Corps officials this week confirmed that permits have been issued to look into expanding the facility at Twentynine Palms — possibly by as much as 100,000 acres into Johnson Valley.


The land acquisition is part of an effort to become the nation’s premiere combat training facility, said Gunnery Sgt. Chris W. Cox, the public affairs chief at the Marine Corps Air/Ground Combat Center.


“The Marine Corps is looking at areas contiguous to the base, including the Johnson Valley, but no final decisions have been made regarding what alternatives will be pursued and analyzed,” Cox said in a prepared statement. “When the alternatives are finalized, we will inform the public.”


Permits were issued to conduct surveys of cultural and environmental impact, said BLM Chief of Resources, Mickey Quillman, who is based out of the Barstow office.


While both Quillman and Cox warned that the proposed project would be still be many years off, Quillman conceded there could be an impact on Lucerne Valley, in at least as much as noise levels are concerned.


“It would be used for military training — a combination of live fire and force on force training,” Quillman said.


Cox said that there is currently no training facility in the nation that can support the training requirements proposed by the Marine Corps, and that Twentynine Palms has been tasked with rectifying that.


“It is imperative that Marines receive the most realistic training before deploying into a combat environment that demands split-second life or death decisions. The potential land parcel additions would allow Marines to ‘train as they fight’ as a large-scale Marine Air Ground Task Force, in particular a Marine Expeditionary Brigade,” Cox said.


Quillman said that while the surveys are taking place, the process will require Notice of Intent — which will open the discussion to the public, through scoping meetings — and the proposal of alternative locations. Right now, he said it is unclear which direction the base will eventually decide on expanding into.


“This process of simply figuring out what land the base might actually need to meet the Marine Corps training requirements and how it affects other interests could take anywhere from three to five years” said Jim Ricker, assistant chief of staff for the G-5 training center.


That process, Cox said, “will involve a great deal of input from the local community and the wide range of stakeholders.” Quillman added that of particular concern are the off-road vehicle community and proposed solar projects.


At the most recent LVEDA meeting, Quillman said the base planned to take 100,000 acres of Johnson Valley, but amended his statement when speaking to Leader staff.


“It’s misleading to say the Marines are going to take 100,000 acres of Johnson Valley … we are looking at a number of locations,” Quillman said. “In a perfect world I don’t see anything happening for at least five years — we’ve just opened a dialogue.”

-----
East Sacramento County: Spring Wildflower and Vernal Pool Guided Public Tours at Rancho Seco Howard Ranch Trail


The Nature Conservancy’s free tours provide the public with an opportunity to view the region’s most spectacular landscapes with knowledgeable and entertaining guides

Sacramento, California — March 7, 2008 — The Nature Conservancy is hosting a series of Vernal Pool Walks at the Rancho Seco Howard Ranch Trail led by trained naturalists from the Cosumnes River Preserve. Walks will begin at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday March 22nd, April 5th, April 19th and May 3rd.

The 7-mile Rancho Seco Howard Ranch Trail is a hiker’s paradise. The trail begins by winding around the north end of Rancho Seco Lake along willow scrub and riparian marsh habitat. As the trail leaves the waters edge, it travels up onto a flat terrace supporting a mosaic of vernal pools and grassland habitat. This terrace also offers dramatic views of extensive blue oak woodlands in the foothills and the far-off peaks of the Sierra Nevada mountain range.

When filled with water, vernal pools are crucial to the short life cycle of federally listed threatened and endangered species, such as the California Tiger Salamander, fairy shrimp, tadpole shrimp, and Western spadefoot toad. In the spring, masses of flowering plants carpet the basins of these pools creating a sight not to be missed.

No reservations are necessary. Participants will meet at the trailhead at 9 a.m., at the North Dam parking lot in Rancho Seco Recreation Area off Highway 104. For more information call (916) 684-2816 or visit http://www.cosumnes.org/.

-----
Stock Speculator's Report says Tejon Ranch's Value Increasing

270,000 Acre Ranch Could Either Be the Sprawl that Connects L.A. to the Central Valley or a New National Park

Posted Fri Apr 11,
http://www.zacks.com/blog/post_detail.html?t=12313

Posted By: Steven Ralston, CFA
Management is pursuing the real estate development of the 270,000-acre Tejon Ranch Company

(TRC) located in Southern California. The company’s three major development projects are the Tejon Industrial Complex, Tejon Mountain Village, and Centennial. As commercial, industrial, and residential entitlements are pursued, the stock’s valuation ought to expand significantly. The Buy rating is maintained. Since Tejon Ranch is in the early stages of developing 270,000 acres of largely undeveloped land, traditional valuation methods based on P/E, cash flow, or a dividend discount model are not appropriate. In addition, book value is distorted, making price-to-book inaccurate. The land is being held on the balance sheet at cost or $7.9 million ($29 per acre), since the land was acquired through Mexican grants in the 1840s. Despite the facts that Tejon’s three development projects comprise less than 10% of Tejon Ranch and approximately 130,000 acres may be set aside for environmental conservation and good stewardship, the stock should be valued on a price/acre basis. The stock’s valuation has moved up on a stair-step basis as development projects are being successfully pursued. Between 2000 and 2001, the stock traded between $1,400 and $900 per acre. Over the next two years, the valuation zone increased to $2,200 and $1,200. Over the last three years, the valuation range again increased to $3,800 and $2,300 per acre. Our target price is $65 per share based on a valuation of $3,800 per acre. We expect the value of land to significantly increase as further entitlement processes are completed, which involve state and county approval along with the expected subsequent law suits by environmental groups. As management succeeds in its vision of developing Tejon Ranch over the next 25 years, the valuation per acre should dramatically increase. Over the next few years, we expect the valuation to increase to $6,000 per acre as progress is made towards entitlements for Tejon Mountain Village and Centennial and as the Foreign Trade Zone area is expanded.

-----
In Riverside County's Palm Springs: Army Corps revokes Shadowrock permit


(4-11-2008 from http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/ Shadowrock -- a "luxury" development that would have ruined much of California's Chino Canyon -- was stopped dead in its tracks this week when the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers revoked its permit. The move came just in time to prevent the bulldozing of the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep's protected critical habitat area and the home of the endangered least Bell's vireo. The permit was yanked due to a lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity, which forced the Army Corps to re-examine the impact of the project on the sheep and vireo.)

Developers say they will still build Shadowrock, but foes hope it's dead
Other issues remain


Stefanie Frith • The Desert Sun • April 4, 2008

http://www.mydesert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008804040312

Opponents might call it the end of Shadowrock, but the folks behind the luxury hotel project in the Chino Canyon say a recent withdrawal of permits doesn't affect them one bit.

This week, the city of Palm Springs received a letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers stating the permits it suspended last year for the controversial hillside project were revoked. However, the developer said Thursday the project is still on track.

Last year, citizens overturned the city's approval of a 10-year development agreement with Shadowrock in a referendum called Measure C. Shadowrock would be a hotel and golf course development with luxury homes under the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway.

"We hope the revocation of the Army Corps authorization will be the final nail in the coffin of this ill-conceived project," said Ileene Anderson, staff biologist with the Center for Biological Diversity.

Concerned about Peninsular bighorn sheep that they say use the Chino Canyon, the center filed a lawsuit last year after the Army Corps issued a permit allowing grading to begin. Afterward, the Army Corps suspended its permit.

In a letter dated March 25 to the city and former Shadowrock developer Mark Bragg, the Army Corps states the permit is now revoked.

"They just cleaned up their record," Palm Springs City Attorney Doug Holland said Thursday.

The Army Corps' decision doesn't affect the project as it stands now, developer Stan Castleton said Thursday.

The area where the permit is needed would no longer be developed upon, Castleton said. "(The project) is very different."

Castleton said his team is redesigning Shadowrock. It will be several months before anything is submitted to the city. He wasn't sure when it would be.

In the Army Corps' letter, regulatory division chief David Castanon said he couldn't reissue the permit because several groups, including the city, the applicant and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service still don't have a "legally enforceable agreement."

Castanon also wrote he is still concerned about the small amount of fountaingrass Shadowrock proposed to remove. He said he couldn't agree with Shadowrock's claims that this would make more water available for the other species it planned to plant.

Castleton said the landscaping plans are being redesigned and less water would be used in the new project.

While the new developers are not concerned about the Army Corps' revocation permits, there is still another issue with which to contend.

A lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity says the city and Shadowrock did not properly invoke force majeure - a clause that excuses parties from being responsible for the terms in their contract because of things like war and disaster. A trial to look at how that clause was applied could start this year.

Meanwhile, Castleton and his award-winning design teams can continue crafting a new development agreement and project that works within the city's stricter Chino Canyon guidelines that were approved two years ago, Holland said.

"In this economic climate, we may not be seeing something in the near future," Holland said.

-----
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

LA meetuphikes.org

E-Mail the editor:

rexfrankel at yahoo.com

Blog Archive

Quick-Search of Subjects on the Site