Protecting natural systems, their habitat and biodiversity, is the best strategy we have of building a future society that continues prosperously in an uncertain global climate. Our single paradigm should focus on striking a balance between natural resource extraction and replenishment, between restoration and replenishment.


In the overtly politicized, toxic rhetoric of the business-first congressional stance against public land conservation, the next few years is going to be a tough-run for those of us who don’t want to see large chunks of our wilderness legacy turned over for private exploitation. A tough run, to be sure, but also a fight we are ready for. My friend Casey Schreiner, editor in chief at Modern Hiker, put together an eloquent and succinct review of some major legislation presently before congress — all of it designed to weaken our shared and cherished federal-land protections. I have posted here my printed notes of Casey’s writings and urge you to review his work and consider action, including calling the congressmen and women below, and expressing your respectful outrage at these audacious and careless laws that don’t look to any kind of truly prosperous future, but rather seem to only suggest the commodification of, and exploitation from, the natural world, completely bereft of land ethics.


Read the full text here




Read the Full Text Here



Read the Full Text Here



Bill not yet posted. 02/09/17





Stop the Cadiz Water Project

For those of us who consider ourselves Desert Defenders and seek to resist the exploitation and resource extraction at the hands of big business, the threats are legion. The desert is rich in many types of resources and those bent on making a fortune off of these resources have a long history of doing so with little regard for the living desert itself.  The modern fight to save the desert, or more specifically, the living ecologies of the desert, is at least a hundred years old. Every victory (like the designating of the Mojave Trail National Monument this year), is challenged again and again by those who forego consequence for profit.

The Cadiz Project is not about water for Orange County because the people need the water. The Cadiz Project is not about creating jobs and supporting an economy. The Cadiz Project is not about anything but for wasteful and destructive, for-profit resource extraction.

We are working with the National Parks Conservation Association to gather the signatures, letters and notes of professionals, concerned citizens and business owners and deliver them en masse, to the State Director of the Bureau of Land Management, and to the Orange County Water District to let them know how we feel about their ruthless plan to destroy the aquifer under the Cadiz. Please review this letter and fact sheet and let me know if we can add your voice to ours by send my an email


The letter-draft we would like to add your name to

Members of the Board
Orange County Water District
Or 18700 Ward Street
Fountain Valley, CA 92708

Jerome E. Perez, State Director
Bureau of Land Management
California State Office
2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-1623
Sacramento, CA

RE- Cadiz Project Concerns: Orange County Water District Cadiz Water Purchase and BLM’s Cadiz Railroad Right of Way Administrative Decision
Dear Director Perez:

We are businesses and artists from throughout the state of California who are gravely concerned about the impacts of the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Stewardship project on water resources and wildlife on our protected federal lands such as the newly created Mojave Trails National Monument and the Mojave National Preserve.

The Cadiz project would aggressively mine one to two million acre feet of water from a fragile Mojave Desert aquifer over a fifty year period, resulting in overdraft of that aquifer, and transferring the majority of it to urban and suburban water districts in Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside Counties to fuel unsustainable growth during the worst drought in California history.

As artists, we recognize that throughout the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries the California desert has inspired countless artists and works of art- from the landscape paintings of John Hilton to the sculptures of Simi Dabah to the rock n roll music of Keith Richards, the Eagles and Gram Parsons.  As business owners, we understand that the preservation and protection of our national parks and other protected federal lands- their wildlife, water resources and scenic vistas- are a sound economic investment that helps build the local and regional tourism based economy.

Due to the threat the Cadiz Project poses on water resources, federal lands and wildlife, the undersigned urge the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and the Bureau of Land Management to take the following actions related to the Cadiz Project:

  • Orange County Water District-

We urge the OCWD to avoid entering into any sort of water purchase agreement with the Cadiz Inc. due to the project’s exorbitant water cost per acre foot, harmful environmental impacts to water resources in the newly created Mojave Trails National Monument and adjacent Mojave National Preserve; the unsustainable nature of the project and the deeply flawed science associated with its environmental documents.  This action is particularly important because the Orange County Water District is a proven leader in innovative, safe and reliable sources of drinking water.

  • Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

BLM must maintain their Administrative Decision regarding the Cadiz Valley Water Conservation, Recovery and Storage Project’s use of the Arizona and California Railroad Right of Way for their 43 mile water conveyance pipeline and continue to require federal authorization and review of this project component.

Specifically, we argue that federal permission and federal review for the construction of the 43 mile, 7 foot diameter water conveyance pipeline that would connect the Cadiz pumps on private land with the Colorado River Aqueduct, requires federal agencies to take a hard look at this piece of infrastructure, as well as the entire Cadiz Project’s impact on public trust resources like water and wildlife in the newly created Mojave Trails National Monument and adjacent Mojave National Preserve.

We maintain that the Cadiz Project providing water and other improvements for the Arizona and California Railroad are really contrivances and do not fundamentally derive from nor further the railroad’s purpose as they are not related directly to railroad construction or operations.  In the coming months, there may be those who challenge the BLM’s administrative decision on this issue and we urge BLM to stand firm and serve the public interest.

Thank you for your time and consideration of these important issues!



Mojave riparian environments are home to hundreds of species of plants, mammals, reptiles, insects and birds

Cadiz Valley Water Project Fact Sheet

A private entrepreneur, the Cadiz, Inc., is proposing to pump 1 to 2 million acre feet of water from a fragile Mojave Desert aquifer over a period of 50 years and send the majority of that water to Los Angeles, Orange and Riverside County water districts. 
The project’s aggressive pumping could impact seeps and springs in the Mojave National Preserve and those in the newly created Mojave Trails National Monument, like Bonanza Spring.  Importantly, independent scientists argue that Cadiz’s science is all wet!  The company’s estimates of aquifer recharge rates and impacts are fundamentally unrealistic, are not sustainable and jeopardize the future of water resources.
Although the Cadiz Project isn’t a conservation project as it doesn’t save a drop for our children or grandchildren. The only thing green about it are the profits- Cadiz stands to make 1 to 2 billion dollars over 50 years, while exploiting public water that originates on federal land.

Cadiz’s Flawed Science

  • Cadiz Inc.’s aggressive pumping would remove an average of 50,000 acre feet over a 50 year period totaling between 1 and 2 million acre feet over the fifty year life of the project and claims that there will be absolutely no impacts to seeps, springs or other sensitive receptors. 
  • The National Park Service states that some of Mojave National Preserve springs are likely connected to the aquifer to be subject to Cadiz project pumping.
  • Other independent hydrologists point out that the cone of depression from the Cadiz project approaches Bonanza Spring in the newly created Mojave Trails National Monument and that in several scenarios the cone of depression continues to expand even when pumping stops, indicating a delayed response in the aquifer and that impacts could continue after the termination of the project.
  • Cadiz Inc. claims that the recharge rate of the target aquifer is 32,500-acre feet/year while independent scientists estimate recharge lies between 2,000 and 10,000-acre feet/year.  This means that Cadiz’s aggressive pumping will put the aquifer into significant overdraft conditions for the life of the project.
  • Removal of groundwater may have the same air quality effect as is currently present at Owens Lake in the Eastern Sierra (the largest source of PM10 in the U.S.).  2001 estimates for mitigation of Owens Lake was $60 million.  This private developer, Cadiz, has not provided resources or has the capability for mitigation in the event similar processes to the Eastern Sierra would be needed for Cadiz and Bristol Dry Lakes.

A Federal Review is Required
Despite the Cadiz Inc.’s claims, a comprehensive federal environmental review for the project’s use of the Arizona/California Railroad Right of Way for their 43 mile Cadiz Project water conveyance pipeline that would tie into the Colorado River Aqueduct is required.
But instead of following the letter of the law and conducting a comprehensive federal review as is required by any other developer on a federal Railroad Right of Way for their water conveyance pipeline, the company continues to argue that their 7 foot diameter water pipeline should be exempt from further scrutiny because it furthers the purpose of the railroad

  • In a 2014 decision, the BLM has stated that the Cadiz Inc. must go through a federal environmental review for use of the Arizona/California Railroad Right of Way for their 7 foot water conveyance pipeline that would transfer water to the Colorado River Aqueduct.
  • However, Cadiz has, and is trying to circumvent the law of the land by misinterpreting language in the 1875 Railroad Right of Way Act that states that projects that, “Further” a railroad purpose do not need to go through a federal review.  Cadiz contrived arguments that they are “Furthering” a railroad purpose include the following:
  • Providing water to wash dirty freight train cars.
  • Developing a tourist steam engine that uses water and will one day bring visitors into the undeveloped Cadiz Valley.
  • Placing fire hydrants along the Arizona/California Railroad, even though the Federal Railroad Administration states this action is not industry standard.

Mojave Trails National Monument underscores the need for a Federal Review
In February of 2016, President Barack Obama used the 1906 Antiquities Act to designate the 1.6 million acre Mojave Trails National Monument in order to protect its spectacular resources in perpetuity for the American people.  The Monument Proclamation specifically calls for the protection of groundwater resources, seeps and springs, underscoring why Cadiz should be required to conduct a full federal review. 
The complex network of groundwater underlying the Mojave Trails area has been the subject of past and ongoing hydrological study. Underground aquifers feed springs and seeps that are important for sensitive ecosystems and wildlife, though specific connections are not yet well understood.”
“The Secretary shall work with appropriate State officials to ensure the availability of water resources, including groundwater resources, needed for monument purposes.”
Moving Forward:

  • No groundwater pumping should occur, in excess of U. S. Geological Survey minimal recharge.
  • Cadiz must go through the proper federal environmental compliance and ROW processes.

For further information contact:
Seth Shteir, Program Manager
National Parks Conservation Association
Joshua Tree, CA

Relevant Media
The Chemehuevi Tribe opposes the Cadiz Project-

Los Angeles Times op-ed highlighting how the politically connected Cadiz Inc. has kept a fundamentally flawed project alive-

Renowned journalist Emily Green explains why the Cadiz Project should not move forward-

Two current environmental law professors and former solicitors at the Department of the Interior applaud the BLM decision requiring the Cadiz Inc. to go through a federal review for their use of a federal railroad right of way-

Protect Joshua Tree National Park: URGENT ACTION REQUESTED


Let’s tell the Bureau of Land Management to Protect Joshua Tree National Park by conducting a full Environmental Impact Study for the harmful Eagle Crest Transmission Line.


Jerome E. Perez, State Director
Bureau of Land Management
Sacramento, CA 95825

Dear Mr. Perez:

The undersigned individuals, businesses and organizations from throughout the State of California urge the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to conduct a full and comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Eagle Crest Transmission Line and Water Pipeline.

We care deeply about the California desert and Joshua Tree National Park, which is one of the key economic drivers of the desert region. We also recognize that there is a direct relationship between the protection of national park resources- its ecosystems, rich history and archaeology, night skies and air quality- and the further development of the regional tourism economy.

This year recreational visits to Joshua Tree National Park will probably surpass 2.5 million people from around the globe who come with the expectation that they will observe wildlife, rock climb, hike, stargaze or picnic in one of our most celebrated national treasures.

We have grave concerns about the proposed Eagle Crest Pumped Storage Project because it would deplete regional groundwater resources, result in an increase of ravens that prey on desert tortoise living within Joshua Tree National Park and impede a critical bighorn sheep wildlife corridor between the Coxcomb and Eagle Mountains within the park.  The associated Eagle Crest Transmission Line under consideration also has significant adverse impacts to desert tortoise and resident and migrating birds.

We strongly argue that the current transmission line environmental assessment (EA) should not be able to draw upon resource information from the hydroelectric project’s prior Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that contained scientific information related to natural resources that was more than 20 years old.

Therefore, for the project’s associated transmission line, we urge the BLM to take a “hard look” at the significant impacts of the proposed transmission line and water pipeline and develop a full and comprehensive EIS with adequate opportunities for citizen participation.




Eagle Crest Pumped Storage Project Fact Sheet

Joshua Tree National Park

  • Joshua Tree National Park was created with passage of the 1994 California Desert Protection Act which raised its status from a national monument to a national park.
  • The park protects the convergence of three distinct and diverse ecosystems: the Colorado Desert, Mojave Desert and the high elevation Little San Bernardino Mountains.
  • These ecosystems create the perfect conditions for a unique assemblage of plants and animals that call the park home including a herd of approximately 250 bighorn sheep, 250 species of migratory and resident birds and numerous insects and reptiles. The park is also botanically diverse and has a rich history and culture.
  • JTNP is almost 800,000 acres of which 84% of Joshua Tree is federally designated wilderness and includes areas on three sides of the Eagle Crest Pumped Storage Project. Wilderness is the highest, most protective designation of land in our country.
  • Joshua Tree National Park is a powerful economic engine. Today the park is visited by over 2 million people from all over the world who spend over $96 million in the communities surrounding the park and support over 1000 full and part time jobs, making it a powerful economic engine.

Eagle Crest Pumped Storage Project

  • Would be located less than 2 miles from the national park border.
  • The National Park Service (NPS) has stated that, “Eagle Crest’s Project threatens to adversely impact Park resources, resulting in both immediate and long term negative consequences for the preservation and management of the Park.”
  • The Eagle Crest Project would use 9 billion gallons of groundwater over 4 years pumped from the aquifer beneath the Chuckwalla Valley just to fill the project’s two reservoirs.
  • Evaporative losses alone from the project are greater than 1500 acre feet/year (1 acre foot is 325,000 gallons!)
  • Over the 50 year life of the project, it stands to use 100,000 acre feet of groundwater, including evaporative losses pumped from the aquifer beneath the Chuckwalla Valley.
  • The aquifer beneath the Chuckwalla Valley is hydraulically connected to some of those that lie beneath Joshua Tree National Park, as well as the Colorado River, and the impacts of the aggressive pumping from the Eagle Crest Project and other numerous renewable energy projects in the area, are a gamble with one of our national treasures.
  • The Eagle Crest Pumped Storage Project failed to obtain adequate baseline data and surveys of resources in the project area; threatens bighorn sheep by disrupting connectivity between the Eagle and Coxcomb Mountains, fails to address the effects of the project’s brine ponds on birds; and would produce acid mine drainage that could threaten groundwater resources. 

joshua tree

Transmission Line Right of Way

  • The Eagle Crest Energy Company has obtained a license from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to operate, but still needs and has applied for a right-of-way (ROW) grant to construct, operate, maintain and decommission a 500 kilovolt [kV) generation interconnect [gen-tie) line and a water pipeline. The gen-tie line would transmit electricity generated by Eagle Crest’s pumped storage facility to the Southern California Edison’s Red Bluff sub-station located on BLM lands in Riverside County, California. The water line would draw water from private land, traverse BLM land, and fill the reservoirs at the pumped storage facility.
  • The proposed transmission line EA should be changed to a full, comprehensive EIS that evaluates the cumulative impacts of the proposed Eagle Crest Project and current, foreseeable and future projects within the area in regard to groundwater use; impact on sensitive, threatened and endangered species; birds, impacts to wilderness, DRECP National Conservation Lands and the lands identified as the project study area for the Joshua Tree National Park Eagle Mountain Boundary Study.
  • The new Eagle Crest Transmission Line EIS should incorporate the resource findings related to the Joshua Tree National Park Eagle Mountain Boundary Study, which is currently underway, and is evaluating natural and cultural resources within the Eagle Mountain area.
  • It is highly inappropriate for the BLM to develop an Environmental Assessment that uses the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s 2014 Eagle Crest Pumped Storage Project Final Environmental Impact Statement as the Department of the Interior, on behalf of the National Park Service challenged that document on its insufficient, inaccurate and inadequate data.
  • The proposed project and the entire Eagle Crest Pumped Storage Project are highly controversial. Thousands of stakeholders throughout the desert and the nation have written letters and e-mails to the Department of Interior and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) stating that they oppose the Eagle Crest Pumped Storage Project and want the Eagle Mountain area protected in perpetuity for the American people.




The Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan


The Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan #DRECP


map and paintings by Obi Kaufmann, @coyotethunder on instagram, @obikaufmann on twitter, #trailpaintings #fieldatlas

  1. Basin and Range designated Ecoregion Subarea
  2. Panamint Valley Conservation Area
  3. The Mojave Solar Project
  4. West Desert and Eastern Slopes designated Ecoregion Subarea
  5. Pinto Lucerne Valley and Eastern Slopes designated Ecoregion Subarea
  6. Coachella Valley designated Ecoregion Subarea
  7. Lake Cahuilla designated Ecoregion Subarea
  8. Amargosa River Conservation Area
  9. Kingston Amargosa designated Ecoregion Subarea
  10. Mojave and Silurian Valley designated Ecoregion Subarea
  11. South Mojave-Amboy designated Ecoregion Subarea
  12. Piute Valley and Sacramento Mountains designated Ecoregion Subarea
  13. South Amboy Area of Critical Environmental Concern
  14. Solar One and Solar Two Thermal Power Plant
  15. Chemehuevi Solar development lands
  16. Colorado Desert designated Ecoregion Subarea

The Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan (DRECP), written into law in 2016 is a major component of California’s renewable energy planning efforts and helps to provide effective protection and conservation of desert ecosystems while allowing for the appropriate development of renewable energy projects.

The DRECP is focused on 22.5 million acres in the desert regions and adjacent lands of seven California counties – Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego.

Land designation 1: BLM; The Bureau of Land Management manages four different types of reserved land types within this connective network.

  1. Conservation Designations: 4.2 million acres of public lands managed by the BLM are designated as California Desert National Conservation Lands, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, wildlife allocations, and National Scenic and Historic Trail management corridors to conserve biological, cultural and other values.
  2. Recreation Designations: 3.5 million acres of public lands managed by the BLM are designated as Special Recreation Management Areas and Extensive Recreation Management Areas to recognize a range of recreational across the desert lands of Southern California.
  3. Variance Designations: 40,000 acres of public lands managed by the BLM are potentially available for renewable energy development.
  4. General Public Lands: 400,000 acres of public lands managed by the BLM are not covered by any of the above designations, although the DRECP creates new management prescriptions for these lands.

Land designation 2: NPS; Major Parks, Monuments and Reserves managed by the National Park Service in the desert include Death Valley National Park, Mojave National Preserve and Joshua Tree National Park. The newly designated Sand to Snow National Monument, Mojave Trails National Monument and the Castle Mountains National Monument are managed by the BLM.

Land designation 3: Military; China Lake Naval Weapons Station, Fort Irwin Training Center, 29 Palms Marine Reserve, Edwards Air Force Base and Chocolate Mountains Artillery Range remain with slight augmentation to China Lake in the Coso Valley.

Land designation 4: Protected; Legislatively and legally protected areas include of 70 designated areas, among them Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, Conservation Areas and the largest single designation by land area: Federal Wilderness.

Land designation 5: Energy; the DRECP budgets for the reservation of 388,000 dedicated acres of public lands available for solar, wind, and geothermal development.


gila woodpecker by Obi Kaufmann

California in 100 years

California in the 22nd century. A vision and a plan for Sustainability and Surplus.

09.13 001

After the successful progression past petrol-based energy and with the new ability to desalinate ocean water on an industrial scale, Californians begin to reestablish long-broken habitat systems, creating food sheds of wild resources that support a population of over 80 million people.

01. Yontocket. In a post-national-park-service California, when all the dams have been destroyed, local control is turned over to councils that identify as native, whose aim is to feed future generations with surplus.

02. Siskiyou. One of the most prolific sites of Salmon harvesting in the world, taking advantage of populations that quickly rebound at the end of the 21st century.

03. Marble Mountains

04. Trinity Wilderness

05. Yolla Bolly. With the successful introduction of Roosevelt Elk to this part of the wilderness. This area becomes a meat store of great success and sustainability.

06. Six Rivers

07. Shasta

08. Lava Lands

09. Modoc Mountains. Reclaimed from the Warner Mountains.

10. Sacramento Headwaters. After the removal of the Shasta Dam, the Fir and Cedar forests north of Redding become a land abundent in game, both fish and elk. The area becomes a major food shed.

11. Achomawi. Pit River healing lands.

12. Smoke Creek Basin

13. Lassen

14. Kings Coast

15. Tuleyome. Along with Sacramento Headwaters, Tuleyome become a major source of wild food in the early 22nd century. This former National Monument has rebounded after 100 years of protection and nearly 50 species have been removed from the endangered species list.

16. Tehama Ishi

17. Sierra Nevada Ecological Area. No longer divided, the Sierra Nevada is a singular unit of wildlife remediation.

18. Sierra Valley Wetlands. After cattle are removed as a major food source for Californians, the Sierra Valley flourishes as an exotic hunting ground for the harvesting of abundant fowl that reclaim this extensive watershed.

19. Wine Lands. Major agricultural area.

20. Russian River

21. Wine Lands Agricultural Area

22. Sutter Buttes Biodiversity Reserve

23. Tahoe Basin

24. Tamalpais Coastal Prairie Elk Lands

25. Grizzly Bay Wet Lands

26. Delta Lands

27. Chawse Oak Gardens

28. South Bay Water Gardens

29. Big Basin

30. Ohlone Oak Wilderness

31. Salinas Farm Lands. Up and down the California Coast, massive soil-less and water-less sea lettuce farms produce enough food to feed not only all of California’s 80 million people, but the world population, which crosses 10 billion.

32. Panoche Tule Herd Lands

33. Fresno Bee Lands

34. Inyo Bristlecone Reserve

35. Pimkolam Coastal Ranges

36. Condor Reserve

37. Tule Juniper Herd Lands

38. Cholame

39. Carrizo

40. Chumash

41. Sisquoc

42. Iwihinmu (Mount Pinos)

43. Tehachapi

44. Owens Lake Recovery Site

45. Amargosa. Death Valley National Park doubles in size as a desert ecology reserve of six million acres.

46. Antelope Valley herd reserve lands. Wildharvesting recovered herd of Antelope and Tule Elk with traditional hunting techniques becomes the primary source of meat as every family is licensed with an acceptable take of one, two or three head depending on need.

47. Victor Valley. With the advent of desalinated water, Victor Valley yields agricultural production equivalent to the Great Valley in the 20th century.

48. Santa Monica Mountains

49. Mojave Desert Ecology and Military Reserve Complex

50. San Gabriel Mountain Reserves

51. San Gorgonio Bighorn Lands

52. Joshua Tree

53. Cahuilla Mountains

54. Jacinto Sage Forests

55. Chemhuevi Farm Lands.

56. Palomar

57. Anza Low Desert

58. Imperial Agricultural Lands

001 09.13

A Map of California’s Forests Reimagined

Everywhere across California, there are forests. Forests of all variety: across the oak-dotted Great Valley, along the Rugged Coast, and even of course across the High Sierra where there is no soil at all but the compact remains of ancient forests carpeting the granite peaks, themselves having somehow figured out how to grow in extreme austerity. Forest Cell hand final editI’ve composed a naming system for the forest cells of California. A forest is defined here as the sum components of all biotic and abiotic resources in any number of assembled ecosystems across a given region. A cell is a grouping of forests across a large, named landscape irrespective of but surely influenced by watersheds, mountain ranges, elevations, and plant systems. The forest cells presented here are a short cut to identifying the character of a wild place, including climatography and intact habitat with special deference to wildlife endemism. Endemism occurs in isolation and isolation is the engine of diversity and speciation. This Forest Cell Type naming system is a 21st century tool to document the woodland profile of wild places that are increasing stressed by ever encroaching human activity. The vision of nurturing and maintaining viable bridges and reducing debilitating ecotones between the cells is key to the emergingly popular Rewilding ethos. The naming convention is (most of the time) two-part: the first being an exemplary single instance of the Forest Cell apotheosis, and the second being the larger region defining the reach of the cell or the predominant plant-type found.

Forest Cell 001

01. Waukell Creek Siskiyou
02. Miracle Mile Klamath Knot
03. Prairie Creek Coastal Redwood
04. Ycatapom Trinity Glaciation
05. Cantata Ney Shasta
06. Tule Lake Modoc Plateau
07. Warner Range Alpine
08. Chanchelulla Slope
09. Lost Coast Mixed
10. Six Rivers Backcountry
11. Yolla Bolly Shelf
12. Battle Creek North Valley
13. Lassen Volcanic
14. Madeline Basin
15. Plumas North Sierra
16. Ishi Acorn Forest
17. Tuleyome Chaparral
18. Mendocino Coastal Cypress
19. Sonoma Mountain Shrub
20. Cache Creek Gray Pine
21. Bear Creek Lowland
22. Yuba Cedar
23. Sierra Valley Grassland
24. North Bay Fire Forest
25. Solano Wetland
26. Sutter Buttes Drainage
27. El Dorado Foothills
28. Placer Ponderosa
29. Tahoe Basin
30. Montara Ridge
31. Alhambra Oak
32. The Delta Reaches
33. Chawse Oak
34. Mokelumne Sierra
35. Walker Washes
36. Tuolumne High Sierra
37. Low Yosemite Glacier
38. Yokut Confluences
39. Santa Clara Highlands
40. Big Basin Redwoods
41. Monterey Coast
42. Gabilan Condor Forests
43. Fresno Beefields
44. Minarets Wilderness
45. Mono Basin
46. Esalen Cone Complex
47. Salinas Valley
48. Pacheco Juniper
49. White Mountain Old Pines
50. Muir’s High Sierra
51. Kaweah Staircase
52. Tulare Sink
53. Atascadero Country
54. Santa Maria Coast
55. Carrizo Soda Shrub
56. Sisquoc Valley
57. Chumash Peninsula
58. Kern Canyon
59. Santa Ynez Ridge
60. Sespe Drylands
61. Santa Monica Wilds
62. Iwihinmu Evergreen
63. Tehachapi Chaparral
64. Owens Basin
65. Panamint Range
66. Armagosa Watershed
67. Inyo Barrens
68. Kingston Peaks
69. Avawatz Salt
70. Antelope Valley Slope
71. Los Angeles Basin
72. San Gabriel Highland
73. Riverside Upland
74. San Gorgonio Crest
75. Bristol Mojave
76. New York Woodlands
77. Piute Dry Lands
78. Chemhueve Colorado
79. Joshua Rock
80. Santa Ana Rise
81. San Jacinto Vestige Peak Forests
82. San Mateo Canyon Lands
83. Pendleton Coast Scrub
84. Santa Rosa Sage Forest
85. Palomar Cloud Forest
86. Torrey Coast Pine
87. Otay Washes
88. Pine Creek Conifer Desert
89. Anza Low Desert
90. Salton Basin
91. Chocolate Barrens
92. Turtle Mountain Desert
93. Whipple Mojave
94. Big Maria Wilds
95. Kofa Refuge
96. Imperial Valley Lowlands


Conserving National Forests in California

04.05a Inyo Sequoia Proposed Wilderness_map

There is a lot more going on than just a presidential campaign. In California,  we are deliberating many wilderness policy directions that demand considerate attention. The above map and the key below describe Alternative C of the Forest Service’s New Forest Management Plan for both the Inyo and the Sequoia National Forests. All told, this plan secures over 940,000 acres of new wilderness and over 77 miles of Wild & Scenic river designations. Deadline for public input is August 25th. Here is the Link to the Forest Service’s information Page. After the Key below, I’ve added the text for two different emails that I encourage you to copy and paste into the body of the email and send to both Kevin Elliot, Supervisor of the Sequoia National Forest, and Ed Armenta, Supervisor of the Inyo National Forest, respectively. The emails were written by Thank you, This, we can protect. This, we can do.


Map Key

01. Deep Springs North Proposed New Wilderness
02. Glass Mountains Proposed New Wilderness
03. Ansel Adams Wilderness
04. Dexter Mountains Proposed New Wilderness
05. White Mountains Wilderness
06. Piper Mountain Wilderness
07. Excelsior Mountain Proposed New Wilderness
08. Inyo Mountains Wilderness
09. Jennie Lakes Wilderness
10. Monarch Wilderness
11. Durwood Proposed Wild & Scenic River
12. South Sierra Wilderness
13. Golden Trout Wilderness
14. Long Canyon Proposed New Wilderness
15. Slate Mountain Proposed New Wilderness
16. Boundary of Golden Trout Wilderness
17. Cannell Peak Proposed New Wilderness
18. Hatchet Creek Proposed New Wilderness
19. Rattlesnake Creek Proposed Wild & Scenic River
20. Domelands Wilderness
21. Stormy Canyon Proposed New Wilderness


To: Sequoia National Forest Supervisor Kevin Elliot


Adopt Alternative C for the Sequoia National Forest Plan Revisions!

Thank you for soliciting public comments in response to the Sequoia National Forest draft plan. I’m disappointed that the Forest Service’s preferred Alternative B recommends no additional wilderness on the Sequoia Forest. Protecting wild places and rivers ensures that present and future generations may enjoy them; helps boost the local economy; provides important refuge for fish, wildlife, and plants; and protects important sources of clean water and air. Because it provides a more balanced approach, I urge you to adopt an improved Alternative C for the final management plan.

I support Alternative C’s recommendation for more than 206,904 acres of additional wilderness. In particular, I support the recommended additions to the Domeland, Golden Trout, South Sierra, Monarch, and Jennie Lake Wilderness areas, as well as the recommended new areas, including Stormy Canyon, Cannell Peak, Hatchet Peak, Slate Mountain, Long Canyon, and Dennison Peak. Wilderness protection of these areas will protect the water quality and the biotic integrity of existing and eligible Wild & Scenic Rivers.

Unfortunately, Alt. C does not include the Rattlesnake and Durwood Creek watersheds, perhaps the most important potential addition to the Golden Trout Wilderness. At least the lower portion of these watersheds should be recommended for addition to the Golden Trout Wilderness.

I support the Forest Service’s affirmation of previously determined eligible Wild & Scenic Rivers on the Sequoia Forest, including segments of the Kings, lower Kern, Little Kern, and Tule Rivers. However, I am disappointed that no new eligible streams were identified, including segments of Trout, Salmon, Rattlesnake, Durwood, Brushy, Dry Meadow, and Mill Flat Creeks. Many of these streams provide critical aquatic refuge for at risk fish and amphibian species, provide outstanding whitewater recreation, and preserve the biotic integrity of existing Wild & Scenic Rivers. They deserve protection as eligible Wild & Scenic Rivers and I urge that they be included in the final plan.

I urge that Alternative C be improved with standards and guidelines that better protect wildlife species at risk, old growth and complex early seral forests, and aquatic and riparian ecosystems. The final alternative chosen should also increase the use of prescribed and managed fire for ecosystem improvements and ensure that actual metrics are used to maintain a wide range of recreational and visitor use.

Please inform me when you adopt a final plan for the Sequoia National Forest.



To: Inyo National Forest Supervisor Ed Armenta


Adopt Alternative C for the Inyo National Forest Plan Revisions!

Dear Supervisor Armenta:

Thank you for soliciting public comments in response to the Inyo National Forest draft plan. I urge you to adopt an improved Alternative C for the final management plan.

I’m disappointed that the Forest Service’s preferred Alternative B recommends only 37,000 acres of wilderness. I support Alternative C’s recommendation for more than 744,000 acres of wilderness. Alternative C proposes to protect important additions to the Ansel Adams, White Mountains, Inyo Mountains, Piper Mountain, South Sierra, and Golden Trout Wilderness. It also protects new wilderness areas such as the Glass Mountains, Dexter Canyon, Excelsior, and Deep Springs North.

I also support the Forest Service’s identification of more than 160 miles of free flowing rivers and streams with outstanding natural and cultural values as eligible for wild & scenic river protection. I urge the Forest Service to consider Dexter Canyon eligible as well.

Conserving these wild places ensures that present and future generations may enjoy them; helps boost the local economy; provides important refuge for fish, wildlife, and plants; and protects important sources of clean water and air.

I urge that Alternative C be improved with standards and guidelines that better protect wildlife species at risk, old growth and complex early seral forests, and aquatic and riparian ecosystems, as well as increase the use of prescribed and managed fire for ecosystem improvements.

Please inform me when you adopt a final plan for the Inyo National Forest.