Pirate 4x4 banner

Fordyce Creek Trail - action alert!

2K views 32 replies 16 participants last post by  Crowdog 
#1 · (Edited)
:mad3::mad3::mad3:
The Nevada County Board of will consider a position of "support" for the Boxer wilderness bill on Tuesday, July 23 at the County Chambers, 950 Maidu Avenue, Nevada City. The agenda item (number 26) is scheduled to occur after the consent calendar items at 1:00 PM. We need to have a presence at the meeting to voice our opposition to this resolution. The map of the Grouse Lakes area brings the proposed boundary down right to the Fordyce Creek Trail (Sierra Trek), from just past the first stream crossing to Meadow Lake. This boundary currently averages 0.25-1.25 miles from the trail. Most disturbing in the package of accompanying documentation are various statements that all recreation groups now support this bill! We need to voice our opposition.

If you can make the meeting it is being held at:
Eric Rood Administrative Center
950 Maidu Avenue
Nevada City, CA 95959

If you can't make the meeting, the least you can do is express your opposition to Boxer's Wilderness bill. They need to be flooded with emails and phone calls on Monday & Tuesday!
Voice: (530) 265-1234
Fax: (530) 265-1480
Email address:
bdofsupervisors@co.nevada.ca.us,izzy@oro.net, bruce.conklin@co.nevada.ca.us, bgreen@gbis.com, peter@petervanzant.com, coclerk@nccn.net


Thanks for the help,

Jon
 
See less See more
#4 ·
without sounding to ignorant, whats the boxer bill or where can i find a copy of it to read. i understand it's about decreasing the amount of off highway vehicle access, but i wouldn't want to show up to the meeting and stand up and say " its bad, i dont know why, but it is!" :D
 
#5 ·
#6 · (Edited)
Here's the note I sent to them. Feel free to use it as a basis for yours if you'd like (I'm not the greatest writer though). Change it around a bit to make a better impact.

Nevada County Board of Supervisors:

I understand that you will be considering formally supporting Senator Boxer's Wilderness Bill on Tuesday.

I would like to ask that you please consider opposing the bill instead. Senator Boxer's bill would add 2.5 million acres to the already existing over 14 million acres (or about 14 %) of Wilderness in California. Under a Wilderness Area designation, numerous outdoor recreation enthusiasts would be shut out of some of their favorite places because of new restrictions on off-highway vehicle and mountain bike activities. By closing these public lands to large segments of the public, Senator Boxer would rob many people of opportunities to enjoy the wonders of nature. While able-bodied 30 year-olds would still be allowed to backpack into the wilderness, the elderly and disabled who rely on vehicle access to experience these sites would be excluded. While the proposed Wilderness area near the Grouse Lakes area does not specifically include the Fordyce Creek Trail, I am concerned that it comes within 1/4 mile of the trail in several areas.
I am also worried that wilderness designation will produce a greater threat of wildfires spreading out of control. The prohibition of motorized vehicle access severely limits firefighting capabilities and Senator Boxer's approach to this issue is simply unacceptable. Vehicular access to these areas for firefighting purposes should not be discretionary. Granting a Washington-based Secretary of Interior or Agriculture unilateral authority to decide what firefighting measures are necessary places a significant risk on rural communities.

Erecting a regulatory barbed wire fence around many of the most cherished areas in the Golden State favors the few, when our public lands are supposed to be open to all.

Jon Crowley, Jr.
5450 Milton Ranch Rd.
Shingle Springs, CA 95682

crowley9@pacbell.net
530-xxx-xxxx
 
#7 ·
I re-worked the e-mail and sent it. I like Crowdog's version better but didn't want to copy it exactly.

Here is my version:

Dear Nevada County Board of Supervisors:

I would like to ask that you please consider opposing Senator Boxer's Wilderness Bill on Tuesday.

Senator Boxer's bill would add 2.5 million acres to the already existing over 14 million acres (or about 14 %) of Wilderness in California. Under a Wilderness Area designation, numerous outdoor recreation enthusiasts would be shut out of some of their favorite places because of new restrictions on off-highway vehicle and mountain bike activities. By closing these public lands to large segments of the public, Senator Boxer would keep out the Elderly,Children, and Disabled who rely on vehicle access to experience the Wilderness. The "Wilderness" is supposed to be preserved FOR the people not FROM the people.
I am also worried that wilderness designation will produce a greater threat of wildfires spreading out of control. The prohibition of motorized vehicle access severely limits fire fighting capabilities and Senator Boxer's approach to this issue is simply unacceptable. Vehicular access to these areas for fire fighting purposes should not be discretionary. Granting a Washington-based Secretary of Interior or Agriculture unilateral authority to decide what fire fighting measures are necessary places a significant risk on rural communities.

Thank You,
xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxx
 
#9 ·
Nevada County Board of Supervisors,


Please consider formally opposing (NOT approving) Senator Boxer's Wilderness Bill.

It would add 2.5 million acres to the already existing over 14 million acres of Wilderness in California, effectively shutting out numerous outdoor recreation enthusiasts. Classifying land as Wilderness keeps out all but the most-fit members of the populace who have days available to hike into the area. The disabled, the elderly, or folks like me who are just in poor shape -- we'll never get to enjoy these lands again, since we rely on vehicles to access anything more than a mile into the woods.

Many trails currently exist in the proposed Wilderness areas, in fact, some of my favorite places. If this bill passes, I won't be able to use my mountain bike, dirt bike, or 4x4 to get to these places that I have been going to for decades. By closing these public lands to large segments of the public, Senator Boxer would rob many people of opportunities to enjoy nature, historic mining relics, and scenic vistas. Able-bodied youngsters might occasionally be able to backpack to see parts of the wilderness, but nobody else would... think of the impact to fire control and drug enforcement. Prohibiting motorized vehicle access severely limits firefighting and enforcement capabilities -- something that the Washington-based Secretary of Interior has little concern for. As the government of a rural county, you should be incredibly concerned about ceding crime- and law-fighting control to a federal office that's based thousands of miles away from your input.

Formally opposing this bill will help you retain your ability to supervise the lands and policy within Nevada County, and it will cast a vote for keeping public lands available to the public, in keeping with the very history of pioneering and mining that have created Nevada County.

Thanks for your concern and service,

Randii
 
#11 ·
slorunner said:
Randii, Another good "letter" I should have paid more attention in English class.
Randii, great letter! I too wish that I was a better writer, but the important thing is just writing them. Short letters are fine. Just make sure you tell them that you are OPPOSED to more Wilderness Area designations.

Jon
 
#13 ·
My version:

I would like to take this moment to suggest to you to please consider formally OPPOSING Senator Boxer's Wilderness Bill!

This bill would add 2.5 million acres to the existing 14 million+ acres of Wilderness in California which is shutting out numerous outdoor enthusiasts. Classifying land as "Wilderness" keeps out all but the most-fit members of the society. The disabled, the elderly, and others will never get to enjoy these lands again, since we rely on vehicles to access anything more than a mile into the woods.

Many trails currently exist in the proposed Wilderness areas, in fact, some of my favorite places. If this bill passes, I won't be able to use my 4x4 to get to these places that I have been going to for the past decade. By closing these public lands to large segments of the public, Senator Boxer would rob many people of opportunities to enjoy nature, historic mining relics, and scenic vistas. Able-bodied youngsters might occasionally be able to backpack to see parts of the wilderness, but nobody else. The impact of fire control and drug enforcement could be devistating. Prohibiting motorized vehicle access severely limits firefighting and enforcement capabilities -- something that the Washington-based Secretary of Interior has little concern for.

Let's keep public land in Nevada County open TO the public, not FROM the public!

Regards,

Lance
 
#14 ·
Done. Hey I was driving through Auburn and I got a Auburn Journal and on the front page read "Boxer Bill loses support". Looks like supervisors Gaines and Santucci are changing their minds on the bill. Why? Probably because of a ton of E-mails and letters. Just pointing out that we all do make a difference and its extremely important to take action against these kind of things even if they don't affect us directly. Its kind of depressing to see something like "Another buggy on E-bay" get more views and replies than most of the land use issue posts. Always remember these Senators and Representatives could honestly give a crap about any of this. They support what they think they should to get votes how do they know what to support unless we speak up on these issues.
 
#15 · (Edited)
MOVEASIDE said:
Done. Hey I was driving through Auburn and I got a Auburn Journal and on the front page read "Boxer Bill loses support".
Boxer bill loses support

Supervisors Gaines and Santucci rethink stance on wilderness legislation

By Gus Thomson, Journal Staff Writer

Supervisors Ted Gaines and Bill Santucci have dropped out of a loosely knit coalition that saw all five Placer County supervisors write similar letters of support in May for U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer's Wilderness Designation Bill.

But the supervisor most vocal in his support for a bill that would designate 2.5 million acres of land as protected wilderness n Meadow Vista's Rex Bloomfield n said that his two colleagues' dual letter to Boxer doesn't signify that they want to see targeted areas within the county taken out of the plan.

"I think they were comfortable with Placer County," Bloomfield said. "We had a process with a variety of people and user groups. Ted and Bill were more concerned with the amount of acreage in California."

While the board never actually voted on whether to support the Wilderness Bill now being considered in Washington, D.C., their letters of support were used by the newly formed America River Wildlands groups to illustrate what it described as broad support in Placer County.

After the letters were made public in May, and Boxer moved forward with the bill, U.S. Rep. John Doolittle, R-Rocklin, state Sen. Rico Oller, R-San Andreas, and Assemblyman Tim Leslie, R-Tahoe City came out strongly against the bill.

In their letter to Boxer, Gaines and Santucci said that "after further review," they had decided to withdraw their "previously offered conditional support."

"While protecting the designated areas of Duncan Canyon, North Fork, Black Oak and Western Granite Chief Wilderness Additions deserves much considerations, it is implausible to support your bill in its entirety due to the substantial amount of land that is being proposed for designation," the two supervisors wrote.

The two said their initial consideration of the bill made them think it would provide an excellent opportunity to preserve pristine and unique wilderness areas in Placer County.

"Unfortunately, whatever benefits that Placer County may have seen in protecting land is truly offset by the safety, environmental and quality of life issues that a designation of this magnitude would bring to the state," they said.

Santucci's and Gaines' revised positions emphasize a balance growth with open space.

While Placer County has been "diligent" in bringing interest groups to the table on local concerns, other parts of the state haven't been given the same opportunity, they said.

"For issues related to local control, we do not support a bill that attempts to designate 2.5 million acres without the support of the impacted jurisdictions," the Santucci-Gaines letter stated.

Copies of the letter were also sent to Doolittle, Leslie and Oller.

Bloomfield said that the choices for designation in Placer County would boost total wilderness area in the Tahoe National Forest from about 4 percent to 6 or 7 percent.

"What we're doing is not trying to take over the whole forest," he said. "This will be for people who want the solitude, to be away from motorbikes and other noises."

http://www.auburnjournal.com/display/inn_news/NEWS2.TXT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perfect time to send an editorial opposing wilderness areas to the Auburn Journal:
Editorial (530) 887-1231 FAX
 
#17 ·
TOP
 
#21 · (Edited)
I plagarized and customized, thanks for the examples guys!

"Please consider formally opposing (NOT approving) Senator Boxer's Wilderness Bill.

As a 20 year former-resisdent of, and still a weekly visitor to Nevada County, I have grown to know and love the area, especially the beautiful outdoors. I wish to be able to continue to enjoy it.

This bill would add 2.5 million acres to the already existing over 14 million acres of Wilderness in California, effectively shutting out numerous outdoor recreation enthusiasts like myself. Classifying land as Wilderness keeps out all but the most-fit members of the populace who have days available to hike into the area. Small children, disabled, the elderly, or folks like me who are just in poor shape -- we'll never get to enjoy these lands again, since we generally rely on vehicles to access anything more than a short hike into the woods.

Many trails currently exist in the proposed Wilderness areas, in fact, some of my favorite places. If this bill passes, I won't be able to use my mountain bike, dirt bike, or 4x4 to get to these places that I have been going to for nearly 3 decades. By closing these public lands to large segments of the public, Senator Boxer would rob many people of opportunities to enjoy nature, historic mining relics, and scenic vistas. Able-bodied young people might occasionally be able to backpack to see parts of the wilderness, but many would be cut off...

Also consider the possible impact to fire control and drug enforcement. Prohibiting motorized vehicle access severely limits firefighting and enforcement capabilities -- something that the Washington-based Secretary of Interior has little concern for. As the government of a rural county, you should be incredibly concerned about ceding crime- and law-fighting control to a federal office that's based thousands of miles away from your input.

Formally opposing this bill will help you retain your ability to supervise the lands and policy within Nevada County, and it will cast a vote for keeping public lands available to the public, in keeping with the very history of pioneering and mining that have created Nevada County.

I believe that Senator Boxer's bill effectively keeps public lands FROM the public. I believe we need to work to keep these lands avaiable FOR the public with local plans for balanced recreation needs.

Thank you for your concern and service,

Erik Bibelheimer, and Family."



Also, here's a link to an article in the local paper 2 months ago:

http://www.theunion.com/apps/pbcs.d...0020515&Kategori=NEWS&Lopenr=105150011&Ref=AR
 
#22 ·
Here's an article that came out a few months ago that brings up some good points:

May 15, 2002

Boxer's wilderness plan has some worried


Zoom

Tim Omarzu

Sen. Barbara Boxer's plan to create another 2.5 million acres of federal wilderness areas in California is getting mixed reviews in Nevada County.

Boxer's bill proposes to create the county's first two wilderness areas on roughly 18,000 acres near Castle Peak, above Donner Summit north of Interstate 80; and another on 17,000 acres at Grouse Ridge, a popular non-motorized recreation area southeast of Bowman Lake. (The area is also known as Grouse Lakes.)

Don Rivenes, president of the Sierra Foothills Audubon Society, likes Boxer's bill, saying it will protect the Tahoe National Forest land for all time.

But Duane Strawser, president of Bicyclists of Nevada County, is opposed because the wilderness designation - which forbids mechanized equipment, including bicycles - would eliminate miles of biking trails.

Meanwhile, Les Nicholson, Nevada Irrigation District's hydro manager, is concerned wilderness designation could hamper NID's operations, including reaching high mountain reservoirs by helicopter for repairs or safety checks.

And Vivian Kee, TNF Nevada City district ranger, wrote a letter saying a user permit system would probably be necessary to reduce recreational use in Grouse Ridge, if it became wilderness.

"I think it's a good bill. I think it's balanced," Rivenes said. "Currently, Nevada County has no wilderness. We think it protects it for all time, for the future."

Strawser said mountain bikers would lose the Mount Lola trail if the Castle Peak wilderness was created. In Grouse Ridge, they'd lose the Beyers Lake trail, he said.

"I've been on the phone all day today (seeking) a face-to face meeting with (Sen. Dianne) Feinstein," Strawser said Monday, explaining he hopes to get support from Boxer's counterpart in the U.S. Senate.

NID uses a helicopter on Grouse Ridge to conduct snow surveys and inspect equipment at three of its reservoirs: French, Faucherie and Sawmill. The water agency also uses snowmobiles there.

Both would be prohibited, though helicopters can fly over wilderness areas as long as they stay at least 2,000 feet above the ground.

"I need to be unfettered in my work up there," said Nicholson, who said the reservoirs are so remote he would need a helicopter to fly in construction materials to repair dams.

Nicholson is concerned about the potential effect of a wilderness designation on Shotgun Lake, which is inside the proposed Grouse Ridge boundary. It isn't used now as an NID water supply but could be in the future, he said.

Kee sent a May 1 letter to the California Wilderness Coalition, a Davis-based group that's helping write Boxer's bill.

"We find the proposed boundaries totally unmanageable," Kee wrote. Among other things, she wrote, boundaries are drawn along section lines, the one-mile-square units that form townships.

"Boundaries should follow recognizable geographic features (drainage, ridge, etc.)," Kee wrote. Section lines are "an extremely difficult boundary to mark, maintain, follow, and the public has great difficulty knowing if they are in or out of a wilderness."

Tom Bohigian, Boxer's deputy state director, said the boundaries were dictated by TNF's land ownership, which is a "checkerboard" of one-square-mile sections of private and public land.

"We made ... enormous efforts to draw boundaries based on geography," he said.

When told Tuesday of Nicholson's concerns, Bohigian said he'd call Nicholson because "we do not want to have any effect on those operations."

Bohigian said there were regular meetings with mountain bikers as the bill was crafted and compromises were made, including alterations to Castle Peak and Grouse Ridge to save trails.

"Is it something that everybody's going to stand up and salute? Of course not. This is America," Bohigian said.

Boxer unveiled the bill Saturday at a ceremony at the Presidio in San Francisco. She plans to formally introduce the bill possibly this week, Bohigian said.

He didn't want to give odds on the bill's chances, but a spokesman for Rep. George Radanovich, R-Fresno, was quoted as saying the bill will be "dead on arrival" at the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, which Radanovich chairs.

http://www.theunion.com/apps/pbcs.d...0020515&Kategori=NEWS&Lopenr=105150011&Ref=AR
 
#24 ·
Here's one you can use as a Mtn. Biker:

Nevada County Board of Supervisors:

I am writing to express my concern in regards to the effect of Senator Boxer's wilderness bill on Nevada County. I would hope that you would consider formally opposing the bill.

As a mountain bike enthusiast, I do not want to lose any more trails. It is my understanding that the if wilderness areas are approved in Nevada County, I would lose access to the Mount Lola trail in the Castle Peak area and Beyers Lake trail in the Grouse Ridge area.

Thank you for your consideration,

Name
Address
 
#25 ·
http://www.4x4wire.com/access/columns/editor/wilderness_twp.htm

The above link contains addition links to documents and concepts
presented below.


California Wild Heritage Wilderness and The Wildlands Project
by: John Stewart

The recently introduced wilderness legislation bears the title
"California Wild Heritage Wilderness Act". Coincidence or part of a
grand plan? You see, "Heritage" is a word used to describe areas
being pulled into the Wildlands Project and areas considered "key
habitat" and in need of protection to satisfy United Nations
agreements to protect "heritage" areas; areas of culture or
environmental significance.

So, what happens when "heritage" areas are designated? The short
answer is the land area becomes wilderness with full protection as
wilderness without respect to existing or historic uses or
activities. In other words, roads (or trails), paved, gravel, or
dirt, cease to be recognized as "roads". Okay, it has happened
before. Why is this "different"?

You see, a United Nations "Heritage Area" carries a special burden.
Not only is the land WITHIN the boundary subject to protection as
wilderness, a buffer zone AROUND the area is afforded that same
status BY DEFAULT. What you see as a line on a map defining a
"California Wild Heritage Wilderness Area" becomes the core habitat
area. What happens next is an unspecified amount of land adjacent to
the "heritage area" is identified buffer zone and becomes
"wilderness" with the full level of protection afforded the core area
defined on the map.

Within the wilderness proposal is an area called Grouse Lakes in the
Tahoe National Forest. Within the current proposed bill, the area is
listed as number 58 of 73 proposed wilderness areas. The area in
question is 17,280 acres. Maps provided by Senator Boxer's office
indicate a close proximity of the proposed Grouse Lakes Wilderness
Boundary to the Fordyce Creek Trail which is the premier trail used
by California Association of Four Wheel Drive Clubs for their annual
Sierra Trek.

Details of the boundary are not clear as the map provided is either a
1:126,720 or 1:100,000 scale that has been modified through shrinkage
to fit on smaller paper. Using a magnifying glass and some
assumptions, it appears as if the proposed boundary averages
0.25-1.25 miles from the Fordyce Creek Trail beginning just past the
first stream crossing to Meadow Lake.

Suppose that the Grouse Lakes Wilderness moved from "proposed
wilderness" to "official wilderness". Under the auspices of the UN
mandate to protect the core wilderness area, a buffer zone now
becomes a reality. Is a quarter of a mile a sufficient "buffer zone"
to "protect" the wilderness qualities of the Grouse Lakes area? At
what point will vehicle noise and dust pollution be acceptable?
The California Wilderness Coalition (CWC) has their answer reported
in their report: MISSING LINKAGES: RESTORING CONNECTIVITY TO THE
CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE. In this document, the area around Fordyce
Creek and Meadow Lake is high priority corridor linkage area between
core habitat areas west of Donner Lake and the mountains of Northern
California.

CWC is the primary environmental group drafted the California
Heritage Wilderness Act. Language within the Act echoes language
within the Missing Linkages Report. Grouse Lake as wilderness closes
Fordyce Creek Trail and brings an end to Sierra Trek.

In other areas of the state of California, the Missing Linkages
Report is being used to affect area closures. For over 60 years,
California hunters have been building and maintaining artificial
water sources in the the Southern California Desert. These projects
have been mitigation to provide a source of water for wildlife to
replace the desert springs that became unreliable as water was
siphoned off for urban and agriculture uses to support the growing
population of Southern California.

The National Park Service recently released their General Management
Plan for the Mojave National Preserve. A key element of that plan
calls for wild burro removal from the preserve as they are a
non-native species. Of interest is that no actions are warranted to
remove another non-native species from the preserve until genetics of
the population can be studied. The non-native species involved is
the Mule Deer.

Coincidentally, the preserve and surrounding BLM lands are designated
as prime corridors to connect the southern California coastal ranges
with the Colorado River ranges for the reintroduction proposed under
the South Coast Wildlands Project of mountain lions, coyotes, and
bobcats to their historic ranges.

Again, we are back to the CWC and the Missing Linkages Report.
Remember, the Missing Linkages Report is the core document for the
California Wild Heritage Wilderness Act.

Once again, connecting corridors are involved in land and wildlife
management decisions. Burros and artificial waters sources are being
removed from the Mojave Preserve and surrounding BLM lands. The
burros are direct competition with mule deer and big horn sheep for
limited water and forage. The mule deer are a primary food source
for the mountain lion. It is estimated that it takes one deer a week
to feed a mountain lion. Lions are noted for killing more than they
will eat.

An emerging issue with respect to the debate about wilderness and the
Wildlands project is water rights. To date, the subject of water has
not received much attention other than wilderness is needed to ensure
watershed protection for a "safe" drinking water source.

The pending San Diego-Imperial County water transfer proposal is
being debated. Under terms of the water transfer from the
agriculture of Imperial County to the urban needs of San Diego,
fields well be left fallow, eliminating the need for water to grow
crops. This proposal is also designed to "protect" the Salton Sea.

Again, we are back to the CWC and the Missing Linkages Report. Once
again, connecting corridors are involved in land and wildlife
management decisions. By fallowing the agriculture fields, natural
vegetation will begin to grow. The fallow fields now serve as the
wildlife corridors that will connect the coastal mountains and the
Colorado River mountains with high priority wildlife corridors as
defined in the Missing Linkages Report.

Coincidental, these corridors extend through the southern sections of
the Glamis Dunes, also know as the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation
Area. Under the South Coast Wildlands Project, these wildlife
corridors will become defacto wilderness areas which exclude
motorized recreation.

Still skeptical about the Wildlands Project? The Missing Linkages
Report states that urbanization and roads are the primary factors
that obstruct the necessary corridors. These corridors include
interstate highways as well as state highways. The Donner Lake to
Grouse Lakes corridor crosses Interstate 80. The Mojave area
corridor crosses Interstate 15 and the Imperial County area corridor
includes Interstate 8. The California Transportation Department
participated in developing the Missing Linkages Report. They have
approved plans to remove interstate exits and replace them with
wildlife crossing points.

But it will cost millions; even billions. Yes, your gas tax revenue
and your Green Sticker Funds are helping to pay the bill.
--
John Stewart
KF6ZPL
Webmaster, Tierra del Sol 4x4: http://www.tds4x4.com
Webmaster, Jeep-L: http://www.jeep-l.net
Recreation Access and Conservation Editor, http://www.4x4wire.com
 
#26 ·
No more Sierra Trek? No more Fordyce Trail?

Let me nutshell the above quote -- it is a LOT of reading...good stuff, tho!
http://www.4x4wire.com/access/columns/editor/wilderness_twp.htm

The recently introduced wilderness legislation bears the title
"California Wild Heritage Wilderness Act". 'Heritage' is a word that the greenies use to describe lands they classify under United Nations definitions. The catch to this is that these lands are classified as wilderness (with no respect to existing or historic uses or activities -- such as roads) AND they get a yet-to-be-defined buffer zone wrapped around them. That should make you nervous because of the lack of specificity AND because the proposed Grouse Lake Wilderness area lies as little as a quarter of a mile from the Forydce trail. Whattayabet their buffer area is thicker than that?

The California Wilderness Coalition (CWC - another anti-access org) has a report: MISSING LINKAGES: RESTORING CONNECTIVITY TO THE CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE calling out the Fordyce Creek and Meadow Lake area as a high-priority corridor linkage area between core habitat areas west of Donner Lake and Northern California mountains.... and CWC is the primary environmental group behind the California Heritage Wilderness Act.

Classifying Grouse Lake as wilderness CLOSES FORDYCE TRAIL and ENDS CA4WDA's SIERRA TREK.

CWC is using the Missing Linkages Report to close areas all over the state (SoCal Desert, Glamis, Imperial Dunes, South Coast Wildlands Project, and the California Wild Heritage Wilderness Act, you see these names again and again.)

Read the full thing to understand the dollar cost -- but that's the nutshell.

Randii
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top