Index - April 2007

A Victory for the Sacred

Bush Official Proposes New Regulation for Management of National Parks

California's New Town: Centennial

Environmental Defense v. Duke

First Peoples Earth Day Celebration at Panhe

High Court Rules Against Bush Administration in Sweeping Victory in Fight Against Global Warming

Nature Knowledge Workshop

Park Agencies to Take Possession of SOKA in June

Sierra Sage Presents the 8th Annual Starr Ranch Barbeque

The New York Times Asks the Wrong Question

US Supreme Court Victory for Global Warming

Wiping Out America the Beautiful

Environmental Resolutions (Passed by ExComm March 25, 2007)

 

Useful Information
Chapter Conservation Committees Calendar
Chapter Conservation Management Committee
Chapter Conservation Grants Committee
Chapter Conservation Committee Preliminary Agenda
Orange County Conservation Committee Preliminary Agenda

 

On a Ranch the Size of Rhode Island Will Live 70,000 Citizens of California's New Town: Centennial

Tejon Ranch is "so large that many things that need to get from Northern California to Southern California — natural gas, drinking water, electricity, fiber-optic cables, the cars on I-5 — pass through it. The ranch is home to about 14,000 head of cattle, and its agricultural fields yield almonds, pistachios and wine grapes." Located within an hour's drive of Los Angeles, the master-planned community to be located on 11,700 acres of this ranch has just begun to move through the Los Angeles County environmental-review process. Randy Jackson, whose firm Planning Center created the initial master plan for Centennial, explains that the town will look similar to Irvine, CA, or Stapleton, CO. In addition to selling some acreage to developers, the owner of Tejon offered to donate 100,000 acres to a land conservancy, but environmentalists are asking for 245,000 acres"

Park Agencies to Take Possession of SOKA in June

Several years ago former Task Force Co-Chair Margot Feuer made a comment about the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area that, “There’s no ‘there’ there,” meaning that there was no central focal point or destination for visitors to the Park that would give the Park an identity in the public mind the way Yosemite Valley creates an identity, a focal point, and a destination for Yosemite National Park.

 

In the 27 years of its existence the Santa Monica Mountains NRA has had to compete with developers for land, while watching that land escalate in value while public funds became increasingly scarce, resulting in incomplete, scattered units of protected land interspersed with subdivisions, ugly mansions, and horse ranches in what the media still often refers to as the “Malibu Hills” or the “Hollywood Hills.” Meanwhile, properties deemed essential to the Park have been lost to development.

 

About all that was left for a “there” was the beautiful rural valley occupied by SOKA, and for years SOKA stoutly resisted offers of purchase and proceeded with plans to develop a major institution on the site.

 

Two years ago SOKA was finally persuaded to sell, and by herculean efforts, the $35 million asking price was put together. Part of the purchase agreement was that SOKA could lease back the property until December, 2007 in return for knocking $2 million off the purchase price.

 

Last Friday SOKA notified the park agencies that it would be vacating the property on June 27, six months ahead of schedule. Then, as the ribbons are cut and the speeches are made, we will finally have our “there” — a combined park headquarters, visitor center, interpretive center, and staging area for the entire Santa Monica Mountains park system set in a beautiful, unspoiled valley surrounded by the rugged peaks of the Santa Monica Mountains and filled with 4000 oak trees.

 

On June 27 the MRCA — the management arm of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy — plans to take possession of the “campus” portion of the former SOKA property that has been under lease to SOKA and open it to the public. The National Park Service will move their headquarters and visitor center from its current location in Thousand Oaks, but that move will not take place until sometime in the Spring of 2008. State Parks will also move in SOKA at some point, creating a “one-stop” headquarters and visitor center and moving the “center of gravity” of the Santa Monica Mountains park system that much closer to Los Angeles, where most of the people are.

 

As soon as the park agencies move into the buildings that SOKA “University” is vacating, we can expect them to start work on their master plan for the 588 acre property. Information on the interagency planning process is posted on MRCA website, where people can sign up for the updates (http://smmc.ca.gov/KGRPindex.html).

 

A Victory for the Sacred
Wednesday, March 14, 2007

 

Flagstaff AZ — The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that a ski resort which has leased sacred Native American land from the Forest Service cannot dump treated sewage on the land as part of its snow making operations. The ruling, in a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club and thirteen Native American tribes for whom the San Francisco Peaks are sacred land, established a strong new precedent of respect for the religious rights of indigenous people.

 

Here's an excerpt from an Arizona Republic report on the ruling:

 

Lower courts had refused to block snow-making using treated sewage, but as Judge Willie Fletcher wrote in the unanimous opinion, "it may be useful to imagine the effect on Christian beliefs and practices — and the imposition that Christians would experience — if the government were to require that baptisms be carried out with 'reclaimed water.' "

 

Andy Bessler, a Sierra Club representative, said the ruling will have "national repercussions."

 

"I just think justice has been served," Bessler said. "The tribes have said this was a problem, and the court agreed. The reclaimed water would have polluted the peaks."

Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, director of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, called the decision "a humble victory." "I think all the Hopi people have a vested interest in the sanctity of the peaks," he said.

1. Eliminate the basic goal of the act: recovery of endangered species;
2. Allow projects to proceed that have been determined to threaten species with extinction;
3. Allow destruction of all restored habitat within critical habitat areas;
4. Prevent critical habitat areas protecting species against disturbance, pesticides, exotic species, and disease;
5. Severely limit the listing of new endangered species;
6. Allow states to veto endangered species introductions.

So secretive is Kempthorne about the plan that drafts were numbered, so that the source of any leak could be identified. "An e-mail sent in March from an assistant regional director at the Fish and Wildlife Service to agency staff, asking for comments on and corrections to the first draft, underscored the concern with secrecy: "Please keep close hold for now. Dale [Hall, director of the US Fish and Wildlife Service] does not want this stuff leaking out to stir up discontent based on speculation." Reading a document now counts as speculation.

 

Now the cover has been blown. The documents are hard to decipher but obviously reflect Kempthorne's long-standing hostility towards the notion of protecting wildlife. (For example, he commented while serving as the Governor of Idaho that he was opposed to reintroducing grizzly bears to his state because they were "large carnivores." The irony of one large carnivore chastising the dietary habits of another was seemingly lost on him. And in fact the average Homo sapiens in Idaho relies on meat for more of his diet than a grizzly does.)

 

Only a few days ago Kempthorne proposed to de-list the Yellowstone population of grizzlies — but clearly that move was simply the opening round of a proposed mass slaughter of legal protections for American wildlife. The bison on the Department of the Interior's official seal should be galloping off in a panic as I write. Congress, however, may have something to say about this. Stay tuned.

 

The New York Times Asks the Wrong Question
by Carl Pope

Tuesday, March 13, 2007, New York — This morning's New York Times featured an article which the Drudge Report hyped as “NY TIMES PLANS HIT ON GORE, NEWSROOM SOURCES TELL DRUDGE”

 

The story, by senior science writer William Broad, claims that there is consternation in the science community about Gore's "alarmism." But reading the article carefully, there's nothing here — because what the scientists are saying is simply that there is a lot of uncertainty, not about global warming's reality, not about its being caused by human green-house pollution, and not about it having serious consequences. The scientists are simply saying that they believe there is a lot of uncertainty about the details — a fact that Gore freely and frequently concedes.

 

And this is not a new story for the Times. Andrew Revkin wrote a similar, although much more careful piece, in February.

 

The problem is with quoting scientists as saying that, given uncertainty, Gore is being an alarmist. Uncertainty about the details of global warming shouldn't make us feel less alarmed — the more uncertainty there is about our climactic future the more alarmed we should become, exactly as Gore is urging us. The less we understand the precise consequences of messing with the concentrations of greenhouse gasses, the more careful we should be to minimize such changes. If we knew exactly what the weather would be like in 50 years, maybe we could get ready for it — but not knowing anything except that the weather will be less predictable is what's really scary.

 

Peter Schwartz of the Global Business Network makes exactly this point in his new study for the military, "Impacts of Climate Change." Schwartz points out that it is the unpredictable and non-linear impact of climate change that will "push systems everywhere towards their tipping point." Schwartz's piece is one of the very best I've seen at explaining how policy makers and the public need to respond to the scientific reality. Every public official should have to read it.

 

Climate scientists might not understand this because they study the climate, not human societies. Gore does understand it, which is why he is alarmed — and why we should be ferociously intent on changing our course before we hit the tipping point, precisely because it is hidden in a fog of uncertainty.

 

And as I said in my analysis of Revkin's earlier piece, the seeming inability of the American media to get this point is, at this moment, perhaps the biggest threat to our future climate security.

 

Environmental Defense v. Duke

The second decision issue today, also in an environmental case, upheld EPA's view that changes in power plants that may contribute to air pollution must be done only with a permit if there is an annual increase in emissions. The Court rejected the Fourth Circuit Court's view that the permit requirement applied only if there is an hourly increase in emissions. The case was Environmental Defense Fund v. Duke Energy Corp (05-848). The decision was written by Justice Souter. The vote was unanimous, although Justice Clarence Thomas filed a separate concurring opinion.

Nature Knowledge Workshop
Friday-Sunday, June 15-17

Join the Natural Science Section for a weekend of discovery and enjoyment as you learn about the natural wonders that surround you. Enhance your knowledge about our precious natural resources from professional naturalists who share their expertise in bird and bat identification, reptile, plant, geology and insect studies. From our streamside camp accommodations in the San Bernardino Mountains, we'll explore 3 habitats: chaparral, forest and riparian via easy guided walks led by our naturalists. There will be a program Friday night and special interest and hands-on workshops Saturday afternoon and evening. All this and hot showers too! LTC credit available.

 

Fee includes 2 nights lodging in dormitory cabins (bring own sleeping bag), 6 full-course meals and instruction. (Tent or car camping available). Reservation deadline June 1. Send check made out to "Sierra Club/NSS" along with 2 SASE (or Email address), H&W phones, names of all participants, $138 with SC# / $158 non-member to Reservationist: Monica Donley (5551 Mammoth Avenue, Sherman Oaks CA 91401; 818-988-7192; monica5551@yahoo.com). Visit our website www.angeleschapter.org/nss/ for reservation form. Participants must be 13 years or older (under 18 must be accompanied by adult). Leader: Liana Argento (310-370-2950; lianaargento@hotmail.com). Asst Leaders: Cliff & Gabi McLean.

 

High Court Rules Against Bush Administration in Sweeping Victory in Fight Against Global Warming

5-4 Ruling Stops EPA from Putting Politics Ahead of Science

 

Washington DC — In a huge victory in the fight against global warming the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Massachusetts v. EPA decisively rejecting the Bush administration's inaction on global warming. In a 5-4 vote, the High Court sided with the Sierra Club, 12 states, 3 cities, and the other petitioners in the case by agreeing that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants can be regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Additionally, in a separate 5-4 ruling, the Justices wrote that the EPA cannot refuse to regulate these pollutants for political reasons. The Court gave its overwhelming stamp of approval to states that are taking action to fight global warming. At a time when automakers are suing states for taking this step forward, the Supreme Court stated clearly that states have the right to protect their citizens and the environment. It also provides momentum for efforts in Congress to reduce vehicle emissions.

 

"This ruling is a watershed moment in the fight against global warming," said Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. "The ruling is a total rejection of the Bush administration's refusal to use its existing authority to meet the challenge posed by global warming. It also sends a clear signal to the markets that the future lies not in the dirty, outdated technologies of yesterday, but in the clean energy solutions that will fuel the economy of tomorrow. It also vindicates the leadership that California and other states have taken on this issue."

 

In the majority opinion, the Court ruled that carbon dioxide and other global warming pollutants meet the definition of "air pollutant[s]" under the plain language of the CAA. This ruling, in and of itself, does not compel EPA to issue regulations limiting the emissions of global warming pollutants. However, the CAA states that EPA "shall regulate" any air pollutant "reasonably anticipated" to endanger "public health or welfare," which includes effects upon "climate or weather." Since EPA incorrectly argued that carbon dioxide was not an air pollutant under the CAA, it refused to even issue an endangerment determination. This ruling compels EPA to issue such a determination.

 

"It's unfortunate — but not surprising — that it took a Supreme Court case to clarify the meaning of words such as 'pollutant,' 'endanger,' 'weather,' and 'climate' for the Bush administration," commented David Bookbinder, Sierra Club's Director of Climate Litigation. "The only way EPA can continue to refuse to do its job and not regulate global warming pollutants is by claiming that the effects of global warming pose no danger to the public. Bush's EPA may try do so, but I suspect they'd be laughed out of court."

 

The Court's secondary ruling compels EPA to follow the CAA provision that states that EPA "shall regulate" any air pollutant that it determines is reasonably anticipated to pose a danger to public health or welfare. EPA had made a wide variety of specious arguments claiming why, even if they had the authority to regulate global warming pollutants, it could simply choose not to do so. This ruling compels EPA to adhere to the unambiguous language found in the CAA. The CAA already affords the agency wide latitude in its rulemaking process — specifically stating that any potential regulations must meet tests for economic and technological feasibility. "EPA pursued a kitchen sink strategy by throwing a variety of arguments at the Court about why it could simply choose to ignore the law and come up with its own political criteria for deciding what is a pollutant and whether or not to regulate it," said Bookbinder. "This ruling simply sets into motion the process to establish the kind of regulations for global warming pollutants that have successfully regulated other pollutants for decades without the kind of dire economic effects predicted by industry."

 

This decision will impact numerous other cases currently working their way through the courts. It will most directly affect the Coke Oven Task Force v. EPA case currently pending in the Federal Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Both that case and Mass. v. EPA hinge on the same question of EPA's authority under the CAA. The ruling will also affect challenges brought by the auto industry against the Clean Car Laws enacted by California and 13 other states. California and the other states derive their authority to enact stricter standards from the same passage of the Clean Air Act at issue in Mass. v. EPA, so the High Court's ruling should strengthen the states' hand in cases pending in California and Vermont.

 

"Cities and states have been taking the lead on global warming action for the past years," said Carl Pope, Sierra Club Executive Director. "This decision will help protect those hard-fought victories from spurious attacks by polluters and other special interests."

 

This ruling does not affect the ability of Congress to address global warming through new legislation. Congress remains free to amend the Clean Air Act or pursue alternative legislation to limit global warming emissions.

 

"Considering the often glacial pace of rulemaking at EPA and the Bush administration's long-professed opposition to mandatory carbon limits, any new regulation coming out of EPA is likely to be years in the making unless the administration moves quickly to establish a weak regulation favorable to the biggest polluters," said Bookbinder. "The next administration will probably be largely responsible for implementing the Court's decision.

 

Bush Official Proposes New Regulation for Management
of National Parks

Current guidelines for the management of our national parks provide that "conservation of park resources" shall have top priority. A Bush official would change that so that "park use" and "conservation" would share equal importance. A new focus on visitor use could pressure park directors to allow off road vehicle use, swimming on beaches that are now closed, or boating on park waters. Many park directors fear that what is being proposed would favor "visitor use" over "conservation". "We've all been trained that we err on the side of resource protection, and that if there is a use that might impair protection. We mitigate it, eliminate it, or don't allow it," said J. T. Reynolds, a 36-year park service employee now in charge of Death Valley National Park in California

Environmental Resolutions Passed by ExComm (March 25, 2007)

• The Angeles Chapter will sponsor a Water Policy Conference in the month of July, 2007.
• The Angeles Chapter is establishing a South Bay/Open Spaces Task Forces. The Co-Chairs are Joan Davidson and Bill Brand.
• The grants proposals were approved unamaniously.
• A resolution was passed calling for the removal of dams on the Snake River.

Save the Date - Sunday, April 22
Two Great Earth Day Events to Benefit San Onofre!

Sierra Sage Presents the 8th Annual Starr Ranch Barbeque — 1 pm - 5 pm

Celebrate Earth Day at the magnificent 4,000-acre Audubon Starr Ranch Wildlife Sanctuary. Enjoy an old-fashioned BBQ and Country/Bluegrass entertainment by Chuck Buck's Saddle Mountain Band, guided hikes and bird and wildflower walks. A portion of the proceeds will benefit the Sierra Club's efforts to protect San Onofre State Beach and the Donna O'Neill Land Conservancy from the proposed Foothill-South Toll Road. Tickets must be purchased in advance, and are likely to sell out. Order yours today! Adults $30, Children under 12 years $15. For tickets and a map, send checks payable to "Sierra Sage" and include a self-addressed, stamped envelope to: M. Griffith, 3238 Paseo Gallita, San Clemente, CA 92672. Call Mike or Patty Sappingfield for further information (949) 768-3610.