By John Monsen

The Bush Administration has proposed new rules for Forest Planning that would reduce scientific and public input into the process, reduce requirements for species viability, increase off-road vehicle access and logging, and toss out the process of considering management alternatives. The Forest Service would just present a final management plan for public comment. These proposed rules could severely limit our efforts to influence the Land and Resource Management plans for the four Southern California National Forests, among other negative impacts.

Now it is your turn to fight back: Please read the following article, select two paragraphs, rewrite them in your own words, and you will have a persuasive two paragraph letter that meets the Forest Service's criteria that comments be "original" and "substantive."

Send Letter Opposing Bush Efforts to Gut the National Forest Planning Process

The Forest Service has announced proposed changes to the regulations that implement the forest planning process mandated by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) in order to "streamline" (gut) the process. Forest plans are critical for ecosystem level protections, for maintenance of species viability, and to include public input and scientific analysis in the forest management process.

The proposed rules give broad discretion to planners and managers for how they will complete and carry out the plans while eliminating requirements for public and scientific involvement except at the final stages of the planning process. The proposed rules also exclude the forest planning process from provisions of the National Environmental Protection Act, which would eliminate the creation of management alternatives from the process and their attendant public and scientific input. The ultimate result will be to make the forest management process amenable to Bush Administration priorities, such as resource extraction in general and logging in particular. Comments Due: 6 March 2003

1) Address Envelope To:
    USDA FS Planning Rule
    Content Analysis Team
    PO Box 8359
    Missoula, MT 59807

OR FAX comments to 406-329-3556 or email to 215appeals@fs.fed.us

Note: The Forest Service now requires "original substantive comments" or the Content Analysis team will not record the input from your letter. So please alter the order of points, rewrite, add you own thoughts, and mention specific forests that you are concerned about.

The proposed regulations would make the national forests much more vulnerable to logging, mining, ORV use, and other environmentally damaging activities. They pose a threat to old-growth forests, roadless areas, and environmental quality throughout the 192 million-acre National Forest System. They also reduce public involvement in forest planning, thus increasing the influence of resource development interests in national forest management.

They would drastically change the national forest planning process by greatly reducing the amounts of environmental analysis, wildlife protection, and public involvement currently required in the development and revision of forest plans.

They would exclude the forest planning process from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).This exemption would allow the Forest Service to adopt, revise, or amend its management plans for the national forests without considering any alternatives or the environmental consequences to the forests.

The draft regulations would eliminate the single most important legal requirement for protecting wildlife in the national forests — the requirement to maintain viable populations of native species. This would undermine many important wildlife conservation plans, such as the Northwest Forest Plan and the Sierra Nevada Framework, and open the door to increased logging.

The draft rule would further reduce protection for roadless areas, reduce the priority given to ecological concerns, make national forests generally available for commodity development and off-road vehicle use, remove enforceable standards from forest plans, and eliminate public participation opportunities in forest plan amendments and appeals.

Clearly the most radical and controversial proposed change is the exemption of forest plans from the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is widely regarded as the nation's most basic environmental law. The NFMA requires the Forest Service to comply with NEPA in preparing plans and to provide regulatory direction on "when and for what plans" the agency must prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS).16 U.S.C. § 1604(g)(1).Both the initial NFMA regulations and the 2000 regulations required the Forest Service to prepare an EIS whenever it adopted, revised, or significantly amended a forest plan.

In stark contrast, the Forest Service essentially proposes to eliminate NEPA procedures from the forest planning process altogether. The draft regulations state, "A new plan, plan amendment, or plan revision may be categorically excluded from documentation in an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement as provided in agency NEPA procedures." Sec. 219.6(b), 67 Fed. Reg. 72797.The Federal Register notice acknowledges that the NEPA exemption is a "departure from the 2000 rule and the 1982 rule requiring an EIS for plan revisions, significant amendments, or new plans."67 Fed. Reg. 72779.

Indeed, categorically excluding forest plans from NEPA would have profound impacts on the planning process. For example, one important function of forest plans is to determine which roadless areas, if any, will be recommended and managed as wilderness. Ordinarily, the Forest Service evaluates several wilderness alternatives, ranging from none to all of the eligible areas. Under the draft regulations, however, the Forest Service would only present one alternative — their own. Without an EIS process, the public will only be able to review and comment on what the Forest Service thinks is best for the forest and society.

Also, under the proposed regulations there would be absolutely no analysis of environmental effects of the Forest Service's proposed plans. The Administration argues that there is no need to consider environmental effects of a forest plan because they are too speculative and are better evaluated through site-specific project planning (such as timber sales).This ignores the fact that forest plans make critically important choices about overall management direction and environmental safeguards. For instance, there are major differences between 100-foot and 200-foot stream buffers that the public and Forest Service decision-makers must understand in order to make an informed choice.

By exempting forest plans from NEPA, the Bush Administration's proposed forest planning regulations would deprive citizens of their right to understand and comment knowledgeably on forest plan alternatives and their environmental consequences. People often are much more interested in the forest plans' overall environmental standards and land-use allocations than they are in site-specific projects.

Species Viability Made Voluntary

The draft rule eliminates the requirement to maintain viable populations of native wildlife species. Instead, the draft rule offers two options for public comment. The first option is similar to the existing viability provision, except that it makes compliance discretionary instead of mandatory and legally enforceable by substituting the word "should" in place of "must." The second option drops the viability concept entirely, in favor of much vaguer direction; for example, "Plan decisions, to the extent feasible, should foster the maintenance or restoration of biological diversity in the plan area…."

The viability requirement is the most important legal safeguard of national forest wildlife habitat, including the old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. For example, the Northwest Forest Plan and Sierra Nevada Framework are both based on the objective of assuring the survival of all native wildlife species. The proposed changes to the viability regulation would undermine the legal basis for these conservation plans and could result in much more logging of old-growth and mature forests.

The draft NFMA rule eliminates requirements in the 2000 regulations to evaluate and protect the ecological values of roadless areas. The 2000 regulations required planners to "identify and evaluate inventoried roadless areas and unroaded areas based on the information, analyses and requirements in [the sustainability sections of the regulations]" and to "determine which inventoried roadless areas and unroaded areas warrant additional protection and the level of protection to be afforded."36 CFR § 219.9(b)(8). These comprehensive requirements were added to the NFMA regulations in order to provide protection from damaging activities, such as off-road vehicle use, in addition to the national prohibitions on road building and logging provided by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

The draft rule downgrades the importance of ecological sustainability by giving equal consideration to logging and other economic activities.

The draft regulations would generally open up national forest lands to environmentally damaging activities such as logging, mining, oil and gas drilling, and off-road vehicle use. The regulations declare that "National Forest System lands are generally available for a variety of uses such as outdoor recreation, livestock grazing, timber harvest, energy resource development, mining activities, watershed restoration, cultural and heritage interpretation, and other uses. Rather than determine the suitability of all lands for all uses, a plan should assume that all lands are potentially suitable for a variety of uses except when specific areas are identified and determined not to be suited for one or more uses."Sec. 219.4(a)(4) (emphasis added), 67 Fed. Reg. 72796.Thus, the regulations would create a presumption that all national forest lands are suitable and available for commodity development and other uses that have caused widespread environmental damage.

This regulatory presumption could have far-reaching implications for national forest management. For example, many national forests in Colorado, the Midwest, and elsewhere currently have a "closed unless designated open" policy regarding management of off-road vehicles—meaning that ORVs are only allowed on specifically designated routes. This policy has usually been adopted to prevent soil damage and wildlife harassment caused by ORVs. However, under the proposed regulations, planners would likely have to reverse that policy and make national forest lands generally open to ORV use.

In addition, the draft regulations would allow logging even in forests determined to be environmentally or economically unsuitable as timberlands. The proposed regulations state, "Designation of lands as unsuitable for timber production does not preclude the harvest of trees for other multiple use values."Sec. 219.16(c), 67 Fed. Reg. 72803 Potential reasons to log on unsuitable lands include fuel reduction, wildlife openings, and salvage of dead or dying trees.

Besides giving timber and mining companies greater access to national forest lands and resources, the draft regulations also would loosen the environmental standards governing their activities. Forest plan standards are important because they limit environmental impacts of development activities. For example, plans often set thresholds for allowable soil compaction, road densities, and old-growth forests in order to protect soil productivity, water quality, and wildlife habitat. Standards are the main way that citizens can hold the Forest Service accountable and ensure that the agency is managing the forest in accordance with the plans.

The Forest Service proposes to increase its flexibility and reduce its accountability by making forest plan standards more discretionary. The draft regulations state, "Standards generally should be adaptable and assess performance measures." Sec. 219.4(a)(3), 67 Fed. Reg. 72796.In other words, forest plans would have few, if any, strict environmental standards; instead, the standards would be riddled with "adaptable" loopholes and escape clauses that would make it practically impossible to hold the agency accountable to its forest plans.

The NFMA requires the Forest Service to involve the public whenever it amends a forest plan.16 USC § 1604(f)(4).However, the draft regulations would circumvent public involvement by allowing the Forest Service to adopt "interim" amendments with no public notice or opportunity for administrative appeal. Sec. 219.7(f), 67 Fed. Reg. 72797.These "interim" amendments could remain in place for up to 4years before the agency would have to provide any public notice that the forest plan had been amended.

The draft rule reduces public participation at both ends of the planning process. Not only does it weaken the role of NEPA and public involvement in formulating and amending the plan, but it also takes away the opportunity to appeal the agency's final plan. The draft rule would replace the existing administrative appeals process with a perfunctory "pre-decisional objection" process. Sec. 219.19, 67 Fed. Reg. 72803-04. Anyone could file an "objection" to a proposed plan revision or amendment (except an "interim" amendment). However, only "original substantive comments" would be accepted as objections; public comments containing copied materials would be tossed out as invalid objections. Sec. 219.19(d).Also, there would be no opportunity to request administrative review of the final plan, even if the forest supervisor changes the proposed plan in response to objections. The likely result will be more lawsuits challenging forest plan revisions and amendments.

Sign your letter with your address and send it. Copy wildernessjfm@aol.com on your efforts. Thanks!

Note: Materials adapted from the Wilderness Society.

Return to Index 

By Bill Corcoran, Southern California Regional Representative

What are big and tall and get no respect? The giant sequoias managed by the US Forest Service.

For years Sierra Club activists fought to protect the giant sequoia ecosystem from logging and road-building on Sequoia National Forest, home to nearly half of the world¹s remaining sequoia groves. Three years ago, then-President Clinton stood in the shade of a giant sequoia grove and signed a proclamation creating Giant Sequoia National Monument, carving it out of Sequoia National Forest. Activists knew that they weren’t out of the log yard yet but felt that they had made a significant step forward in protecting the ecosystem and restoring the natural processes that had created this beautiful place.

Clinton's proclamation assigned the management of the monument to the Forest Service and charged the agency with developing a management plan with clear restrictions on logging.

Folks figured that the Forest Service would try to sneak some logging back onto the monument, but what the Forest Service has done with the blessing of the Bush administration has surprised even the most hardened activists.

The Forest Service plan would put logging center stage. In fact, they want to log more large trees on the monument than they¹re allowed to on the surrounding forest, up to 10 million board feet a year. They even want to log giant sequoias. All of this is based on the theory that if these trees aren’t logged, catastrophic fires will destroy the monument.

Yes, it's true. They haven't gotten the message that it's their logging that has imperiled the forest.

More quietly, buried deep in their environmental documentation, they admit to wanting to save an object of interest unmentioned in Clinton's proclamation write, "might make the difference between continued operation and closure of the one mill available to serve the Monument" (emphasis added).

Kent Dawson, the general manager of that mill, is a big fan of the Bush administration "Monument to Logging" plan. He told the Bakersfield Californian, "I think the Forest Service is on target. My only question is are we going far enough to hopefully prevent catastrophic fire."

In other words, if the loggers and the Forest Service keep exaggerating the risk of fire they can keep the mill open for a long time. Never mind that there's nothing stopping the Forest Service from thinning the forest near houses and businesses. Never mind that in meetings with Sierra Club activists forest officials have acknowledged that giant sequoia groves are not at risk for catastrophic fire. And forget about pointing out that much of last year's fire on Sequoia National Forest burned brush, not trees.

In the same Californian article, George Woodwell, who served on the science advisory panel appointed to guide the Forest Service in developing its plan, pointed out that the only way the scientists were allowed to provide input was by responding to questions from the Forest Service. Woodwell, founder and director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts, said, "I have a personal view, which is that the [Bush] administration is advocating more roads and more timber cutting. That's not a sensible policy and certainly not necessarily in the public interest."

The impacts of this logging, not just to the giant sequoia old growth forest but also to wildlife, are potentially severe. Pacific fisher, California spotted owl, and many other ancient forest dependent species are barely surviving in the Southern Sierra. The return to the bad old days of logging may be the final blow to their viability.

Visitors to the monument can check out the George Bush giant sequoia, named after the elder Bush, who made a campaign stop a decade ago and made a toothless proclamation to protect the giant sequoias. But, then again, at least he felt like he had to make the gesture. His son's administration seems to have foregone even that.

Take Action!!!

Contact the Forest Service at GSNM_Public@fs.fed.us or Jim Whitfield, Team Leader, Giant Sequoia National Monument, 900 West Grand Avenue, Porterville, CA 93257.Let the Forest Service know that their preferred alternative (Alternative 6) is the worst they could have chosen and outrageously inconsistent with the presidential proclamation creating the monument. Its reliance on logging undermines the purposes of the monument and must be rejected. While flawed, Alternative 4 is much closer to the ecosystem restoration and recreational use articulated in the proclamation.

Please send a copy of your letter to your US Senators and Representative at the following addresses:

Senator (Barbara Boxer) (Dianne Feinstein)
US Senate
Washington DC 20510

Rep. __________
US House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515

Finally, send a letter to the editor of your local newspaper! Most have a website where you can easily email in your letter to the letters page.

The Sierra Club is working hard to protect Giant Sequoia National Monument and to hold the Bush administration accountable for putting it at risk. To find out more about how you can help protect our national monument, contact Bill Corcoran at bill.corcoran@sierraclub.org or 213-387-6528 x208.

Return to Index 

On Wednesday, January 15, 2003, Barham Ranch finally has been sold to Orange County.

Escrow closed at 4:40. It will become part of Santiago Oaks Regional Park. It has taken us nearly five years and thousands of dollars, but it is now complete. The threat of 600 homes, golf courses, urban sprawl is no longer. We accomplished our goal!

Thanks to all those that supported this effort and had faith in us.

Contracting Out the Parks

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has learned that the Bush plan to contract out the national parks is in full swing. With a renewed vengeance, Bush’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has placed the NPS on notice that it is to be the poster child for the Department of the Interior. The contracting out project is not aimed at reducing government costs. It is aimed at removing the professional underpinnings that now protect the parks, even if the ultimate cost to the National Park Service (NPS) budget is high.

Beginning in September 2001, the Norton Interior Department (DOI) identified 11,807 jobs in the National Park Service (NPS) that are not "governmental" in nature. It is these jobs that the NPS is expected to contract out to the lowest bidder over the next ten years. What are these non-governmental jobs? They are the maintenance folks, the biologists, the archeologists, the environmental specialists, interpreters. In short, everyone but the law enforcement rangers and the park managers. DOI classifies these 11,807 jobs as "commercial" in nature that should be considered for privatization.

On September 14, 2002, the NPS awarded a blanket purchase order to the Denver-based engineering/management firm CH2MHill to study each position at a cost to the taxpayer and NPS operating funds of a now estimated $3,000 per job. The NPS did not put this lucrative purchase order out for bid, did not solicit alternative sources, and did not consider performing the evaluations with its own staff. Moreover, the contractor is not neutral. CH2M Hill conducts a multi-billion dollar business in operating and maintaining military and Federal facilities. Nothing in the purchase order precludes CH2MHILL from bidding on the jobs it recommends be privatized. It is a sweetheart deal. Money is no obstacle. The open-ended Blanket Purchase Order was originally capped at $5,000,000. On November 2, 2002, the NPS "selected" CH2MHILL to begin the A-76 review process the Denver Service Center, the Natchez Trace Parkway and National Capital Parks-Central. The NPS has already paid CH2MHILL $1,044,000 during Fiscal Year 2002. In addition, the NPS spent many dollars of park operating funds for the salary, time and travel expenses of multiple oversight and steering committees to guide the contracting-out process. The NPS goal is to send $2,000,000 more to CH2MHILL in Fiscal Year 2003.

Where is money coming from? It is not coming from an appropriation by Congress. Rather, the NPS is scavenging other funded programs and seeking to divert monies from repair and rehabilitation projects for park buildings. This is the agency that has screamed "maintenance backlog" for decades and now is trying to divert monies from maintenance. The next milestone is February 15 when the NPS must submit its plan to the Interior Department, listing the parks and occupations that will be on the auction block. There has been no consultation with unions or other employee groups. This ideologically driven privatization project does not care whether a private contractor will cost more than government employees will. OMB is now revising it’s a-76 procedures to give the benefit of the doubt to some private contractors even where no cost savings at all will materialize to the taxpayer. No comparisons required! The professional conduct and dedication of its employees has long been a hallmark of the NPS. The Bush plan is more than disconcerting to those employees whose dedication is essential to the protection and wise management of the nation’s natural and cultural patrimony. PEER, in its role as defender of the national park system employees and their park protection responsibilities, will try to keep track of developments

Return to Index 

Puente-Chino Hills Task Force of the Sierra Club

The Sierra Club has approved the formation of this new volunteer-run Task Force that will augment our efforts. An organizational meeting was held February 2. If you are interested in this activist type organization, please contact me, Claire Schlotterbeck, 714-996-1572. The Task Force will have access to funding, and the help of the Sierra Club professional staff.

The next meeting will take place Sunday February 23 from 3:30 - 5:30 at 170 Copa De Oro in Brea.

Public Lands, Including Parks and Wilderness Areas, at Risk

A new Bush Administration policy could lead to the construction of thousands of miles of new roads in protected areas across the American West. Under an obscure provision of an 1866 mining law titled RS 2477, the Bureau of Land Management enacted a new rule today preparing to hand over some of our most cherished public lands to private special interests. RS 2477 was originally created in 1866 with the narrow goal of granting rights-of-way to pioneers and miners on public lands. Though Congress repealed the Act in 1976, it included a mechanism by which private individuals and local governments could continue to assert legitimate road  claims made before that date. The Bush Administration, however, is abusing this minor exception to allow National Parks, Forests, and Wilderness Areas to be carved up for the profit of its corporate allies.

In California, thousands of miles of jeep trails, cowpaths, washes, and hiking trails are being claimed by municipal government and off-road recreation groups as "public highways" across fragile wildlands. The scope of these claims is frightening—there are 2,500 miles of proposed roads in the Mojave National Preserve alone. Other Western states are facing similar threats. In Utah, the state government intends to assert 10,000 claims to paths running across Zion and Canyonlands National Parks and proposed wilderness. In Alaska, the claims could affect 900,000 miles of section lines and title to the beds of 22,000 lakes, rivers, and streams. In Colorado, county officials have claimed routes across Dinosaur National Monument, Browns Park National Wildlife Refuge, and over 300,000 acres of land managed as Wilderness.

The impact of these roads on our wild West would be devastating. Roads damage watersheds and erode soil while giving access to noisy vehicles that pollute the air. Roads would destroy the wilderness character of remote public lands, disturbing wildlife and hikers alike. The construction of roads would also facilitate new logging, mining and drilling on our public lands. We must protect our nation's natural heritage by resisting this potentially devastating attack on our public lands.

WHAT YOU CAN DO

Please contact Senator Dianne Feinstein, Senator Barbara Boxer, and your Congressional representative urging them to challenge this rule.

Return to Index 

Parks in Peril

By Robin Ives

State parks, Los Angeles County parks and Los Angeles city parks are all in trouble. They are threatened with losses of funding for maintenance and program. They are targets for those who see them as free public land that can be used for a wide variety of other projects: highways, auditoriums, schools, public and private museums, memorials, police training facilities, etc. The Angeles Chapter’s Central Group and the City-wide Coalition to Save and Protect our City and County Parks sponsored a meeting on January 27 to address these problems.

The Central Group reached out to the neighbors of many of the troubled parks: Lincoln Park, South Park, Belvedere Park, MacArthur Park, Elysian Park, and Griffith Park. Manuel Mollinedo, the general manager of the Recreation and Park Department of the City of Los Angeles was there, as was Russ Guiney, the deputy director of the Parks and Recreation of Los Angeles County.

Manuel Mollinedo said that money is available only for new parks, especially along the Los Angeles River. Proposition 40 was written so that no park bond money can be used to maintain or operate existing parks. For example, he has only 45 rangers to serve and protect all the parks in the City of Los Angeles. He stated that the Los Angeles Recreation and Parks Commission is considering a proposal from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) that the LAPD would take over the policing of all Los Angeles city parks. This would free up the 45 rangers to perform other duties

Russ Guiney sees a need for more parks in Los Angeles County and the preservation of parks that are already there.

Neighbors of various City parks spoke out about the threats that confront their own parks.

Aids activists want to take an acre from LINCOLN PARK and build a memorial wall on it with names of victims of Aids.

The Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) wants to build a high school on 3.2 acres of County owned land at the northwest corner of Mednick and Cesar Chavez Boulevard, adjacent to BELVEDERE PARK. A previous version of LAUSD’s plan for this high school would have taken over a significant portion of Belvedere Park with a 99-year lease for a fenced football stadium with five thousand seats. The Central Group and a neighborhood Save Belvedere Park Committee defeated this proposal, but as it turned out, only temporarily. The LAUSD, which has spent a million dollars on site design, is apparently enticed by the availability of existing bond money, and is again proposing a school adjacent to Belvedere Park. They have not yet stated what they would want from Belvedere Park for the new school.

A proposal exists to continue fencing for a single use base ball field in ELYSIAN PARK and to construct new high lights on a ridge near a wild area of the park.

A proposal for MACARTHUR PARK would establish a non-profit private group that would manage the park and raise private funds to do so.

LAUSD wants to take over more than half of SOUTH PARK and the adjacent Victorian homes in order to build a school there.

GRIFFITH PARK is threatened by proposals for more roads and more buildings.

The meeting and the pointed questions at the end demonstrated that there is a great deal of neighborhood passion to protect these parks. The Central Group plans to build on this momentum with more neighborhood organization and a further public meeting in the spring.

Return to Index 

This Land is Your Land, Los Angeles!

Owens Lake

Spread the Water and They Will Come

By Michael Prather

Many species of birds visit Owens Lake during migration, much as they visit Mono Lake to the north and the Salton Sea to the south. Some, such as the greater yellowlegs and black-necked stilt are pickers. Their bills are chopstick-like as they hunt for food. Others such as the white-faced ibis and long-billed curlew are probers that stab into the substrate looking deeper for sustenance. Still others, such as the American avocet slash in scythe-like fashion through the water hoping to capture food. Various lengths and shapes of bills allow clear division of the food source without competition. Longer, shorter, straight and curved. Deep water, shallow water or damp mud flat.

But feeding is a risk unless one eye is on the food source and one on the sky where predators fly looking for easy kills. Three hundred avocets scattered along the a half mile of shore become a small shoulder to shoulder mass when a peregrine falcon or northern harrier passes over; safety is in numbers. Odds count on the other individual to be the one that is picked off for the predator’s next feed. Several other raptors can be seen at the lake such as the golden eagle, prairie falcon, American kestrel and merlin. Many of these hunters of shorebirds follow the migration. Explosions of feathers at your feet as you bird the lake tell this story.

It was these large numbers of migrating shorebirds that allowed Owens Lake to be designated a Nationally Significant Important Bird Area (IBA) by the National Audubon Society. In addition, the Owens Lake IBA occurred because the lake is one of the largest inland nesting sites in California for the snowy plover. The lake has also become part of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.

Owens Lake is not a lost cause or a hopeless case that reminds us of tragedy in the past inflicted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP). Owens Lake is thoroughly alive and should remind us that there is work still left to do here in the Eastern Sierra to repair as much of the past’s damage as possible. LADWP is currently shallow flooding 13.5 square miles of the lake’s surface, not out of kindness or sense of justice, but as a possible cure for the 10 parts per million dust problem that the federal EPA has ordered must be dealt with. Shorebirds use these areas in significant numbers. Once again as in the past increasing flocks of sandpipers appear during fall and spring migration.

However, there is no guarantee that newly created habitats resulting from shallow flooding for dust control will remain for wildlife over time. LADWP may convert the shallow flood to native salt grass, as they are presently doing elsewhere on the lake’s surface. Under existing requirements for dust control they are allowed to do this. It is critical at this time that everyone interested in wildlife restoration should demand that a final and just solution at Owens Lake must provide water not only for dust control, but also for wildlife. With the shallow flood already in place pressure is needed on Los Angeles and the California State Lands Commission to permit the water to serve this dual purpose. Californian’s lost their wildlife public trust values at Owens Lake when Los Angeles diverted the entire flow of the Owens River drainage into its aqueduct. Now it is time to return a fair measure of that wildife value to all of California for the benefit of the migrating thousands, but also for the people who love to witness the spectacle each spring and fall.

For field trips and programs for Owens Lake contact:
    Owens Valley Committee www.ocvweb.org
    Drawer D
    Lone Pine, CA 93545
    760-876-1845

Return to Index 

Buyout Program for Grazing Rights

The Sierra Club is herding around a plan with ranchers for a buyout program that would compensate ranchers who relinquish their federal grazing leases. The plan, created by the National Public Lands Grazing Campaign, would benefit ranchers, taxpayers, and our public lands. It would allow struggling ranchers to get out of public lands grazing without serious economic consequences and help heal the degraded public lands.

The Sierra Club and more than 120 conservation groups have endorsed the proposal, the next step is for Congress to put their best hoof forward and pass such a program.

 Sinews of Civilization

Water, Power and Transportation—A California Perspective

Dr. Bruce J. Nelson ‘74 Distinguished Speaker Series # Spring 2003 # Harvey Mudd College

Harvey Mudd College is presenting a series of lectures and panel discussions this winter and spring on important environmental and public policy issues. All will be held in Galileo Hall on the Harvey Mudd College campus, 301 East 12th Street, Claremont, California. Galileo Hall is entered from the lower patio in front of the Library.

The lectures are free and open to the public. All lectures will be followed by a dessert reception. For more information, call 909-607-7924 or 909-607-9298 or visit the series web site at http://www.NelsonSeries.hmc.edu

    Thursday, February 20, 7 pm
        Leasing the Rain
        Bill Finnegan, Journalist
        The New Yorker

    Thursday, March 13, 7 pm
        Panel: Growth and Transportation—Which Way to LA?
        Warren Olney, Host, Which Way LA? and To the Point, NPR Station KCRW
        Bill Fulton, Author, The Reluctant Metropolis
        Brian Taylor, Professor of Urban Planning, UCLA

    Thursday, April 10, 7 pm
        Three Case Studies in California Water and Power
        Donald J. Pisani, Professor of History
        University of Oklahoma

    Thursday, April 17, 7 pm
        Panel: Growing Population, Growing Crops—Where Will the Water Go?
        Larry Mantle, Host, Air Talk, NPR Station KPCC
        Edward Osann, President, Potomac Resources, Inc.
        Brenda Johns Southwick, Managing Counsel, California Farm Bureau Federation

    Thursday, April 24, 7 pm
        Energy & Climate: Sustainable Future or Global Demise?
        Richard Wolfson, Professor of Physics and Environmental Studies, Middlebury College

    Wednesday, May 7, 7 pm
        Landscape and Possibility: The Future in California
        Isabelle Greene, ALA, Landscape Architect, Isabelle Greene & Associates

Return to Index 

Action Directory

Sierra Club Legislative Hotline: 202-675-2394
Sierra Club National Office: 415-977-5500
Sierra Club Sacramento Legislative Office: 916-557-1100; fax 916-227-9669
Sierra Club WorldWideWeb: http://www.sierraclub.org

White House: 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington DC 20500; 202-456-2461(fax); 202-456-1111 (Comment Line);
Bush's e-mail: president@whitehouse.gov; Cheney's e-mail: vice-president@whitehouse.gov

Legislative Addresses:
      US Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
      House Office Bldg, Washington DC 20515
      Senate Office Bldg, Washington DC 20510
      California Capitol: 916-322-9900

Return to Index

E-mail Discussion Lists

There are two important discussion lists for Angeles environmental activists:
      the Angeles Chapter Conservation list <angeles-conservation@lists.sierraclub.org>and
      the California/Nevada <calif-activists@lists.sierraclub.org>

To subscribe to a list, send an email message to <listsserve@lists.sierraclub.org>
      with the message “subscribe angeles-conservation”  or “subscribe calif-activists”.

To leave a list, send an e-mail listserv@lists.sierraclub.org and, in the text of your message (not the subject line), write:
    “signoff calif-activists” or “signoff angeles-conservation”

The Angeles Chapter’s website is www.angeles.sierraclub.org

Return to Index

Sierra Club Committee Contacts

Air Committee, Bob Palzer bob.palzer@sierraclub.org
Wetlands Working Group, Robin Mann robin.mann@sierraclub.org
Water Committee, Albert Ettinger aettinger@elpc.org
Environmental Justice Committee, Phaedra Pezzullo phaedra@email.unc.edu
Genetic Engineering Committee, Laurel Hopwood laurel.hopwood@sierraclub.org
Waste Committee, Jim Mays jmays@ulster.net
Sprawl Committee, Tim Frank tim.frank@sierraclub.org
CAFO/Clean Water Committee, Hank Graddy hank.graddy@sierraclub.org
Community Health Committee, Michael McCally michael.mccally@mssm.edu
Workplace Environment Committee, Les Reid lesreid@frazmtn.com
ECL/End Commercial Logging on Federal Public Lands Cmte, Connie Hanson chcccpn@aol.com

Return to Index

Chapter Sponsorship of Azusa Area Open Space Study
The Executive Committee of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club authorizes Chapter sponsorship of a study of open space enhancement, including trail and wildlife connectivity, in the Azusa area.  The study will be performed by Studio 606, of California Polytechnic University, Pomona.  The Chapter pledges up to $8,000 from Chapter reserve funds, with an objective, as was done in the San Gabriel Confluence Park Study, to raise these funds through external pledges and grants.

Restoration of Conservation Funds to Three Chapter Campaigns
The Executive Committee of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club authorizes restoration from the Chapter Conservation Budget of $500 each for the Friends of the Foothills TF, Forest TF, and San Gabriel Valley TF

Sponsorship of Legislation on High-Speed Roads Through State Parks
The Executive Committee of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club authorizes the Angeles Chapter to take an active role in generating grassroots support for State legislation to prohibit construction of high-speed roads through State Parks, and further authorizes, subject to approval of an appropriate campaign plan, that the Chapter authorize 501(c)(4) funds to promote the grassroots support of this legislation.

Environmental Resolutions Passed by Angeles Chapter ExComm
(1/26/2003)

Letter in Support of Vedanta Society Lawsuit

The Executive Committee of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club authorizes the allocation of up to $500 for attorneys at Shute, Mahaley and Weinberg to prepare a detailed friend of the court letter opposing the Appeals Court decision to deny cost recovery in the Vedanta Society CEQA lawsuit.

Participation in Lawsuit against Ahmanson Ranch Development

The Executive Committee of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club authorizes participation by the Angeles Chapter in a lawsuit challenging Ventura County’s approval of the development of Ahmanson Ranch and that a cap of $5,000 be placed on the Angeles Chapter’s financial obligation in the suit.

Conversion of 5% of the Conservation Budget to (c)(4) Funds

The Executive Committee of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club authorizes the conversion of 5%of the Conservation Budget to 501(c)(4) funds. This conversion is necessary to allow money to be spent on administration, training, and fundraising projects within conservation projects. These expenditures can not be made with 501(c)(4) money.

An Amicus Brief in Support of the Department of Parks and Recreation’s Plans to Close the El Morro Mobile Home Park in Crystal Cove State Park

The Executive Committee of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club seeks the approval of the National Sierra Club Legal Committee to participate in the filing of an amicus brief with local environmental organizations. The amicus brief will support the Department of Parks and Recreation’s (DPR)’s plans to close El Morro Mobile Home Park in Crystal Cove State Park and to convert the area to public uses against a suit brought by the residents of the mobile home park challenging the adequacy of DPR’s Environmental Impact Report for the closure and conversion. Only incidental costs of preparing and filing the brief will be incurred. The Chapter’s share of these costs will be no more than $200, and will be born by the Crystal Cove Task Force out of its current budget.

Return to Index 

Angeles Chapter Conservation Management/Grants Committee (2002)

Gordon LaBedz/Chair, Bonnie Sharpe/Vice Chair, Jay Matchett/Treasurer, Jeff Yann/Secretary, Robin Ives/Newsletter,
Judy Anderson, John Monsen, Lynne Plambeck, Rudy Vietmeier
*Lori Ives, Publisher/Circulation; *Johanna Zetterberg and *Rachel Myers, Conservation Coordinators
*Non-voting

Parking at the Chapter Office

Visitors must park inside the building weekdays and week-nights. The outside lot is reserved for monthly parking and requires a keycard entry through a gate. There is no attendant. Gates are closed 24 hours a day during the week.
Weeknights: You may park free inside the building after 5:30 pm. Be prepared to show your membership card or one of our parking passes, available at the front desk in the Chapter office. Take a ticket when you enter through the gate; present it at the parking office near the elevators, and sign it. The ticket machine at the front gate may be turned off after 7 pm. If so, buzz the attendant and say you are going to a Sierra Club meeting. There is no entry after 8 pm. The outside gate is up after 8 pm.
Weekends: No parking inside the building.
Saturday: Attendant is expected to be on duty from 8 am to 3 pm. You may park free, showing Sierra Club affiliation as above. Tickets may be validated at the Chapter office. Outside gates are down all day.
Sunday: Outside gates are up; there is no attendant.
Linda Hoyer

Return to Index

Motions should be submitted in advance, together with objective background material and supporting and opposing arguments, both to the Committee Chair and Newsletter Editor, for distribution with the agenda. Other motions will be postponed for action at a later meeting unless the motion is submitted in writing and unless the Committee votes an exception to ordinary procedure. Motions needing further action by the Angeles Chapter ExComm or some higher level of the Sierra Club should start out: “The Angeles Chapter Conservation Committee recommends that the Sierra Club...”

Angeles Chapter Conservation Committee

Angeles Chapter Office, The Equitable Building, 3435 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 320, Los Angeles CA 90010-1904
Gordon LaBedz, Chair, 562-494-6368 GlaBedzMD@aol.com

Agenda — February 19, 2003

7:30 pm (sharp) Conservation Staff Report

7:45 pm Feedback Requested:
             Land Use Committees/Task Forces that are entirely in Group Jurisdictions
             Sierra Club Lawsuits-funding/procedures
             Proposed Activist Training (Orange County. Others?)
             Decision to reallocate San Gabriel River Literature outreach to video outreach.
             Grants Process Handbook

8:15 pm Resolution: Trabuco Canyon CEQA suit

8:30 pm Santa Clara River Campaign Reallocation: Urban Water Management Plan Lawsuit Appeal

8:45 pm Grants Approval, first cycle

9:00 pm Announcements; adjourn

Return to Index

Orange County Conservation Committee

Gail Prothero, Chair 949-347-1255 gprothero@cox.net

Agenda —  February 18, 2003

Greetings Orange County Conservation Committee. Here is the Agenda for our February 18 meeting. We have some special guests and one resolution. If your task force is not on the Agenda, please send me a brief e-mail update. Remember to send me any announcements you may have for March & April. Hope to see you there!

Location: Inn at the Park in Irvine
From the north, come down 405 to 73 and off at University. Turn left and pass Campus and turn right on Harvard. Follow Harvard as it bends; look for Marquette. The Inn is at 10 Marquette, on the corner of Harvard and Marquette behind a steel fence.
From the south, get off 405 at Culver and go left. Follow Culver past Michelson and University and turn right on Harvard.
Take Harvard to Marquette. It's on your right.

7:00    Welcome, Introductions, Approval of Agenda/Minutes

7:20    Announcements/Old Business/March 1 & 16 Activist Training
           Workshops/ Schedule of Activities  (see Calendar)

7:30    Representative/Assemblymember Lou Correa — Legislative proposal for state Santa Ana River Conservancy

7:45    Virgil Shields, Chair, Angeles Chapter

7:55    Save Coyote Hills Task Force (Connie Spenger)

8:05    OC Native American Sacred Sites Task Force (Rebecca Robles)

8:10    Save Hobo Aliso Ridge Task Force (Penny Elia)

8:20    Santa Ana Mountains Task Force (Paul Carlton)

8:25    Friends of the Foothills (Bill Holmes)

8:30    Saddleback Canyons TF (Gloria Sefton) SEE RESOLUTION

8:40    Saddleback Meadows (Will Divine)

8:50    Staff Reports (Rachel Oshry Myers/Chris Koontz/Brittany McKee)

9:00    Adjourn

Next Meeting is March 18

Return to Index

Conservation Committee Calendar

PLEASE! Send correction or additions about your calendar dates to the editor, preferably by email: ivesico@earthlink.net

Return to Index

OC Native American Sacred Sites TF 2nd Monday Feb, May, Aug, Nov Contact chair, Rebecca Robles 949-369-0361