The Grange standing Conservation and Environmental Committee has been expanded to include Policy and Procedure.

************************************************

Position Paper On Tolowa Dunes / Kellogg Beach Parks In Del Norte County

(Key Points)

Overview: The key issue underlying most if not all political action & interaction in Del Norte County (DN) today is land use.

• Private land rights to own free & clear, to use / manage for income, development & as a form of personal wealth. (V Amendment)
• County government and public involvement in the due processes for the use & control of public lands. (CEQA & NEPA)

Failure of the California State Parks and Recreation agency to follow proper Public Process when creating the Tolowa Dunes State Park (2001).

• Failure to follow proper public notification to the general public of possible adverse impacts to our uninterrupted historic recreational and commercial uses both after and before the creation of the Tolowa Dunes State Park in 2001.
• Failure of California State Parks to notify the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors that a new State Park was being created in the county in 2001.
• Also failure to notify the County Board of Supervisors of potential changes to the historic recreational and commercial uses at Kellogg Beach (Pt St George to the Mouth of the Smith River) after the new park was created.

To redress these as well as other related issues there is an immediate and compelling need to:

First - preserve of the uninterrupted historic public recreational and commercial uses at the "2001 designated Tolowa Dunes State Park" (TDSP).

• As stipulated in the April 1983 Interim Plan
• Acknowledgement that this plan and its tenets have never been supplanted and to date remains in force.
• This "ecological jewel" (TDSP) is a direct product of uninterrupted historical and commercial use for activities mentioned in the 1982 "Lake Earl Project Interim Plan for Land Use and Management of State Lands". Del Norte County government and public fully supports and intends to take a proactive role in the continuance of this state and view the Interim Plan as a starting point for managed diverse multi use of the TDSP.
• Review the failure by California State Parks to immediately implement the codes and regulations that could possibly adversely impact uninterrupted historic use in a timely fashion. An action that would have alerted the county government and it's residents to potential loss of our uninterrupted historic recreational and commercial interests.

Recently there were three announced meetings with CA State Parks and Del Norte County residents on the TDSP issue. One on 02 January 06  and another on 26 January 06 indicating a strong expressed desire by all with the intent to cooperate in the management of TDSP based on the Interim Plan. Only one meeting produced a document, one strongly indicating the desire for mutual cooperation. This intent was strongly outlined in the State Park's Agenda for the second meeting.

The second meeting was attended by Supervisor Blackburn from the Del Norte County Board of Supervisors and all other notable interest groups were invited. There was a strong showing by OHV, small beach related enterprises and handicapped. Other groups (i.e. Friends of Del Norte), though officially invited, didn't show.

State Parks presented their Agenda (a summery of notes made at the previous meeting), it was accepted by all; but then never stayed long enough to cover half the items "in their own agenda". One can only speculate that perhaps they had another, "hidden agenda".

They did, however; say there'd be another meeting. They (State Parks) had an idea that they would present to us all for discussion, a State Parks opinion / idea / suggested compromise (words they used)  at our next get together.

The expressed goal would be to hold a series of future meetings with a mutually acceptable neutral facilitator, involving all concerned parties.

The third meeting was held 03 February 06. It was billed as a "Workshop" with the idea of hearing all points of view either submitted to State Parks in writing prior to the meeting or in writing at the meeting. The results were to be compiled and announced shortly after - as of this writing (11 May 06) we are still waiting.

Your humble reporter has reviewed both prior submissions and those supplied at the "Workshop". The prior submissions were mostly in letter / e-mail form and were from representatives of a few local groups with a more significant proportion from well-funded, well-heeled large special interest national conservation organs. Needless to say; they vehemently opposed all open, free, cooperative, managed multi use of the TDSP recreational area.

On the other hand, the submissions at the 03 February meeting went 180 degrees in the other direction. The meeting was highly attended by our local residents who demonstrated overwhelmingly their support to cooperate in the open, free and managed multi use of TDSP (essentially The Interim Plan of 1983).

(Submitted by alt)

A post script note: Shortly after the the 03 Feb. meeting your LE Grange organized and collected over 400 signed form letters supporting managed OHV use of TDSP. These were then faxed to the State Parks office in Sacramento - to date - there has been no recognition, much less acceptance, of this Del Norte County petition to our state government. 

(For more Info On Public Usage Loss in Our Parks click here.) 

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 24, 2006; A03

Congress is on the verge of approving half a dozen bills that would protect as much as 1 million acres of wilderness areas across the West, but the move has infuriated environmentalists who charge that lawmakers are giving away too much pristine public land to real estate developers and local communities in the process.

If lawmakers finish work on the legislation before adjourning -- several bills have passed the House already and a Senate hearing is scheduled for Wednesday -- it would amount to the largest designation of new wilderness areas in a decade. But advocates and critics are in a bitter fight over the trade-offs, with opponents saying the public is paying too high a price.

One pending bill would protect a 273,000-acre stretch of California's northern coast to preserve steelhead and salmon habitat -- but it would also guarantee that off-road vehicles could use an area nearby. Another measure would create a 300,000-acre wilderness area in Idaho while handing over 4,000 acres to state and local authorities to develop or manage on their own.

"For a public interest movement to succeed, it has to be supported by the public and it has to move [forward]," said Rick Johnson, Idaho Conservation League executive director, who teamed up with Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) to craft the Central Idaho Economic Development and Recreation Act. "This is not the time to let the perfect be the enemy of the good."

But several environmental activists, including singer-songwriter and Idaho resident Carole King and Janine Blaeloch, director of the Seattle-based Western Lands Project, said the bills would set a dangerous precedent.

"With some environmental groups supporting these bills, we are entrenching this trend and we're making it more difficult for wilderness advocates in the future to gain uncompromised wilderness designations," Blaeloch said. "When you're in a hostile political environment that requires these kinds of trade-offs, you need to stop."

The new legislative approach reflects a simple political reality: Republican congressional leaders will accept new wilderness areas only if they come with these kinds of trade-offs. Wilderness designations have often been difficult to push through Congress because they are more restrictive than national forest or park designations, and bar man-made structures or roads within their confines.

As House Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-Calif.) said in an interview: "If I didn't want wilderness, I easily could have stopped all these bills."

Instead, Pombo let Simpson's bill and Rep. Mike Thompson's (D-Calif.) Northern California Coastal Wild Heritage Act pass his committee and the full House in late July after they made concessions to off-road vehicle buffs and local officials.

"By doing that, you've brought in groups who have been historically opposed and made them into supporters," Pombo said.

The battle over the Idaho bill, which would create the Boulder-White Clouds wilderness area northeast of Boise, is typical. The proposed site, which overlaps the Sawtooth National Recreation Area, includes trails that cut across boulder fields featuring gigantic granite rocks the size of railroad cars. The rocks were dragged by glaciers thousands of years ago and dropped into odd and seemingly precarious perches.

There are several emerald and turquoise alpine lakes in the area, as well as waterfalls that pour into local streams. In summer, the ground is a patchwork of brilliantly colored wildflowers -- including lupine, Indian paintbrush, columbines and lilies -- that grow in the sunny vales between patches of forest.

Simpson, who grew up visiting the area's Redfish Lake, calls Boulder-White Clouds "one of the most beautiful areas, and one of the most contentious areas," in his state. He has spent six years working on the issue, trying to reconcile environmentalists' priorities with those of ranchers embroiled in litigation over imperiled species, county officials who want to expand their tax bases and motorized-vehicle users.

"It's just something that needs to be done," he said, adding that when it comes to his bill, "wilderness is only one part of it."

That approach infuriates King, who has lived in Idaho for 29 years and owns a ranch and a condominium in the two counties affected by Simpson's bill. King estimates that she spends half her time lobbying to preserve the state's wild areas and has "probably met with a third of Congress at this point."

"I'm fighting for every possible area that can still be experienced as the Creator made it," she said in an interview. "You don't compromise what the Creator made."

Anticipating congressional action, a coalition of 80 environmental groups published an open letter to the conservation community this month urging their allies to reject wilderness bills that sell off public land.

Carl Pence, who served as the Sawtooth National Recreational Area's ranger between 1987 and 1993, criticized provisions of the bill that would designate trails for motorized vehicles, saying they run the risk of requiring federal officials to pay for relocating the routes if riders end up harassing wildlife.

"It's a second-class wilderness," Pence said.

But Johnson, of the Conservation League, called such complaints naive, saying off-road vehicle registrations in Idaho have tripled in the past three years and conservationists would be better off codifying the current trails in law to prevent them from encroaching elsewhere.

"People are buying these toys, and once they get into this country, it's hard to get them out," he said. "What we gain is a place that will be quiet forever."

Cliff Hansen, one of Custer County's three commissioners, said he decided to back the wilderness designation only when he became convinced that it would offer some revenue for the county and sufficient rights for off-road riders.

"Everybody's given a little, and I think it's a good bill," he said. "When it first came about, part of me thought we didn't need more wilderness in our area."

One of the most successful champions of these trade-offs has been Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.), who has written three bills in the past six years designating 2.1 million acres of wilderness in his state. To gain support, his two most recent bills -- both of which were co-sponsored by GOP Sen. John Ensign (Nev.) -- allowed Nevada authorities to pipe water to Las Vegas from hundreds of miles away and to auction off thousands of acres of federal land to the highest bidder.

"We've worked hard to tack on conservation components to what are essentially development bills," said John Wallin, director of the Nevada Wilderness Project.

Mike Matz, executive director of the Campaign for America's Wilderness, financed by the Pew Charitable Trusts and other foundations, said his group sees these proposals as the best way to add as much as 6 million acres of designated wilderness in the next six years. Other environmentalists "want to hold out for the whole enchilada, but the problem is Congress doesn't swallow the whole enchilada."

However, even Matz, along with many other environmentalists, balks at a bill being pushed by Sen. Robert F. Bennett (R) and Rep. Jim Matheson (D), both of Utah, that would sell as much as 40 square miles of federal land -- nearly twice the size of Manhattan -- and use the profits to pay for a water pipeline and other area projects.

Bennett, whose proposal would sell off as much as 25,000 acres of federal land in Utah's fast-growing Washington County while protecting other red-rock areas, said environmentalists would be wise to take the deal he is offering.

His advice to them, he said in an interview, is: "Take it and then keep arguing for more, that's your job. I don't object to you earning a salary for a hopeless cause."

Staff writer Rick Weiss contributed to this report from Idaho.