DOCSLIB.ORG

Cultural Resources and Tribal and Native American Interests

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Cultural Resources and Tribal and Native American Interests Giant Sequoia National Monument Specialist Report Cultural Resources and Tribal and Native American Interests Signature: __________________________________________ Date: _______________________________________________ The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14 th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Giant Sequoia National Monument Specialist Report Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Current Management Direction ................................................................................................................. 1 Types of Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 3 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 5 Current Management Direction Tribal and Native American Interests ..................................................... 5 Description of Proposal ............................................................................................................................... 7 Need for Change: .................................................................................................................................... 7 Management Direction ........................................................................................................................... 7 Standards/Guidelines for No Action Alternative (A)............................................................................... 9 Standards/Guidelines for All Action Alternatives (B, C, D, E, F) ............................................................ 10 Alternative B ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Alternative C ......................................................................................................................................... 12 Alternative D ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Alternative E.......................................................................................................................................... 13 Alternative F .......................................................................................................................................... 13 Description of Proposal for Tribal and Native American Interests ........................................................... 14 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................................... 14 Prehistoric Background ......................................................................................................................... 15 Ethnography .......................................................................................................................................... 16 Subsistence and Material Culture ......................................................................................................... 19 Native Americans, Vegetation Manipulation, and Fire ........................................................................ 21 Social Organization ............................................................................................................................... 22 Historical Background ............................................................................................................................... 23 Contact, Missionization, and Mexican Rule .......................................................................................... 23 The Gold Rush and Native Decline ........................................................................................................ 24 Emergence of Timber and Grazing ....................................................................................................... 26 The Ghost Dance and the Reservation ................................................................................................. 27 Expansion and Monopolies ................................................................................................................... 28 Logging Converse Basin and Hume Lake ............................................................................................... 30 July 26, 2010 Cultural Resources and Tribal and Native American Interests i Giant Sequoia National Monument Specialist Report Tourism and Recreational Development .............................................................................................. 31 Hydroelectric Development .................................................................................................................. 33 Government Management: the Search for the Greatest Good, a Struggle of Utilitarian Conservation, Restoration and Preservation ................................................................................................................... 33 California’s Forest Conserved under Federal Control (1890-1904) ...................................................... 35 Rise and Early Development of National Forest System (1905-1911) .................................................. 37 California National Forest System Grows and Goes to War (1911-1918) ............................................ 39 Maturation of District 5 to Region 5 and the Great Depression (1919-1932) ...................................... 43 A New Deal for Region 5 (multiple-purpose and multiple-use management) (1933-1941) ................ 46 Region 5 at War (1941-1945) ................................................................................................................ 49 Golden State of Managing Growth and Multiple Use (1946-1954) ...................................................... 50 Programmed Multiple-Use Maximus (1955-1967) ............................................................................... 50 Tribal and Native American Interests ....................................................................................................... 51 Environmental Effects ............................................................................................................................... 53 Legal and Regulatory Compliance ......................................................................................................... 53 Analysis Assumptions and Methodology .............................................................................................. 53 Archaeological Resources ..................................................................................................................... 57 Ethnographic Resources ....................................................................................................................... 58 Cultural Landscape Resources, including Individually Significant Historic Sites and Structures .......... 59 Measures or Factors Used to Assess Environmental Consequences ........................................................ 60 Tribal and Native American Interests - Assumptions ............................................................................... 60 Direct Effects to Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................ 61 Direct Effects to Tribal and Native American Interests ............................................................................ 61 Indirect Effects on Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................... 61 Effects of Air Resources on Cultural Resources .................................................................................... 61 Effects of Wildlife Management on Cultural Resources ....................................................................... 61 Effects of the Protection of Geologic and Cave Management on Cultural Resources ......................... 62 Effects of Botanical Features Management including Invasive Non-native Species on Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................................. 62 Effects of Soil Resources Management on Cultural Resources ............................................................ 62 Effects of Vegetation Management on Cultural Resources .................................................................. 62 Effects of Hydrological Resources Management on Cultural Resources .............................................. 63 July 26, 2010 Cultural Resources and Tribal and Native American Interests
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 4.3 Water Resources 4.3 Water Resources
    4.3 WATER RESOURCES 4.3 WATER RESOURCES This section describes the existing hydrological setting for the County, including a discussion of water quality, based on published and unpublished reports and data compiled by regional agencies. Agencies contacted include the United States Geological Survey, the California Department of Water Resources, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. This section also identifies impacts that may result from the project. SETTING CLIMATE The local climate is considered warm desert receiving approximately six to eight inches of rainfall per year (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1986). Rainfall occurs primarily in the winter months, with lesser amounts falling in late summer and fall. Kings County would also be considered a dry climate since evaporation greatly exceeds precipitation.1 A common characteristic of dry climates, other than relatively small amounts of precipitation, is that the amount of precipitation received each year is highly variable. Generally, the lower the mean annual rainfall, the greater the year-to-year variability (Lutgens and Tarbuck, 1979). SURFACE WATER HYDROLOGY The County is part of a hydrologic system referred to as the Tulare Lake Basin (Figure 4.3- 1). The management of water resources within the Tulare Lake Basin is a complex activity and is critical to the region’s agricultural operations. The County can be divided into three main hydrologic subareas: the northern alluvial fan and basin area (in the vicinity of the Kings, Kaweah, and Tule rivers and their distributaries), the Tulare Lake Zone, and the southwestern uplands (including the areas west of the California Aqueduct and Highway 5) (Figure 4.3-2).
    [Show full text]
  • Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks, However, Went Unnoticed
    • D -1:>K 1.2!;EQUOJA-KING$ Ci\NYON NATIONAL PARKS History of the Parks "''' Evaluation of Historic Resources Detennination of Effect, DCP Prepared by • A. Berle Clemensen DENVER SERVICE CENTER HISTORIC PRESERVATION TEA.'! NATIONAL PAP.K SERVICE UNITED STATES DEPAR'J'}fENT OF THE l~TERIOR DENVER, COLOR..\DO SEPTEffilER 1975 i i• Pl.EA5!: RETUl1" TO: B&WScans TEallillCAL INFORMAl!tll CfNIEil 0 ·l'i «coo,;- OOIVER Sf:RV!Gf Cf!fT£R llAT!ONAL PARK S.:.'Ma j , • BRIEF HISTORY OF SEQUOIA Spanish and Mexican Period The first white men, the Spanish, entered the San Joaquin Valley in 1772. They, however, only observed the Sierra Nevada mountains. None entered the high terrain where the giant Sequoia exist. Only one explorer came close to the Sierra Nevadas. In 1806 Ensign Gabriel Moraga, venturing into the foothills, crossed and named the Rio de la Santos Reyes (River of the Holy Kings) or Kings River. Americans in the San Joaquin Valley The first band of Americans entered the Valley in 1827 when Jedediah Smith and a group of fur traders traversed it from south to north. This journey ushered in the first American frontier as fifteen years of fur trapping followed. Still, none of these men reported sighting the giant trees. It was not until 1833 that members of the Joseph R. 1lalker expedition crossed the Sierra Nevadas and received credit as the first whites to See the Sequoia trees. These trees are presumed to form part of either the present M"rced or Tuolwnregroves. Others did not learn of their find since Walker's group failed to report their discovery.
    [Show full text]
  • From Yokuts to Tule River Indians: Re-Creation of the Tribal Identity On
    From Yokuts to Tule River Indians: Re-creation of the Tribal Identity on the Tule River Indian Reservation in California from Euroamerican Contact to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 By Kumiko Noguchi B.A. (University of the Sacred Heart) 2000 M.A. (Rikkyo University) 2003 Dissertation Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Native American Studies in the Office of Graduate Studies of the University of California Davis Approved Steven J. Crum Edward Valandra Jack D. Forbes Committee in Charge 2009 i UMI Number: 3385709 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 3385709 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Kumiko Noguchi September, 2009 Native American Studies From Yokuts to Tule River Indians: Re-creation of the Tribal Identity on the Tule River Indian Reservation in California from Euroamerican contact to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 Abstract The main purpose of this study is to show the path of tribal development on the Tule River Reservation from 1776 to 1936. It ends with the year of 1936 when the Tule River Reservation reorganized its tribal government pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934.
    [Show full text]
  • René Voss – Attorney at Law 15 Alderney Road San Anselmo, CA 94960 Tel: 415-446-9027 [email protected] ______
    René Voss – Attorney at Law 15 Alderney Road San Anselmo, CA 94960 Tel: 415-446-9027 [email protected] ______________________________________________________________________________ March 22, 2013 Sent to: [email protected] and [email protected] Penelope Shibley, District Planner cc: Ara Marderosian Kern River Ranger District Georgette Theotig P.O. Box 9, 105 Whitney Road Kernville, CA 93238 Subject: Lower Kern Canyon and Greenhorn Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Restoration Project EA Comments for Sequoia ForestKeeper & Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club Ms. Shibley, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Lower Kern Canyon and Greenhorn Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Restoration Project EA. Sequoia ForestKeeper (SFK) and the Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club (SC) are generally supportive of efforts to close or restore areas damaged by OHVs to avert erosion, to deter illegal uses, to protect natural resources, and to reduce user conflict with non-motorized uses. Purpose and Scope of the Project The Lower Kern Canyon and Greenhorn Mountains Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Restoration Project would implement the closure and restoration of non-system routes within four recreation sites, relocate and restore campsites located within a recreation site (Evans Flat), and reroute portions of two OHV trails; one mile of the Woodward Peak Trail (Trail #32E53) and two miles of the Kern Canyon Trail (Trail #31E75). Three of the four recreation sites (Black Gulch North, Black Gulch South and China Garden) and one of the OHV trails (Kern Canyon Trail #31E75) are located in the Lower Kern Canyon. The fourth recreation site and the second OHV trail (Woodward Peak Trail #32E53) are located within the Greenhorn Mountains near Evans Flat Campground.
    [Show full text]
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan 2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Sequoia National Forest
    United States Department of Agriculture Giant Sequoia Forest Service Sequoia National Monument National Forest August 2012 Record of Decision The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan 2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Sequoia National Forest Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Responsible Official: Randy Moore Regional Forester Pacific Southwest Region Recommending Official: Kevin B. Elliott Forest Supervisor Sequoia National Forest California Counties Include: Fresno, Tulare, Kern This document presents the decision regarding the the basis for the Giant Sequoia National Monument selection of a management plan for the Giant Sequoia Management Plan (Monument Plan), which will be National Monument (Monument) that will amend the followed for the next 10 to 15 years. The long-term 1988 Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource environmental consequences contained in the Final Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the portion of the Environmental Impact Statement are considered in national forest that is in the Monument.
    [Show full text]
  • Frontispiece the 1864 Field Party of the California Geological Survey
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEOLOGIC ROAD GUIDE TO KINGS CANYON AND SEQUOIA NATIONAL PARKS, CENTRAL SIERRA NEVADA, CALIFORNIA By James G. Moore, Warren J. Nokleberg, and Thomas W. Sisson* Open-File Report 94-650 This report is preliminary and has not been reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey editorial standards or with the North American Stratigraphic Code. Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. * Menlo Park, CA 94025 Frontispiece The 1864 field party of the California Geological Survey. From left to right: James T. Gardiner, Richard D. Cotter, William H. Brewer, and Clarence King. INTRODUCTION This field trip guide includes road logs for the three principal roadways on the west slope of the Sierra Nevada that are adjacent to, or pass through, parts of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (Figs. 1,2, 3). The roads include State Route 180 from Fresno to Cedar Grove in Kings Canyon Park (the Kings Canyon Highway), State Route 198 from Visalia to Sequoia Park ending near Grant Grove (the Generals Highway) and the Mineral King road (county route 375) from State Route 198 near Three Rivers to Mineral King. These roads provide a good overview of this part of the Sierra Nevada which lies in the middle of a 250 km span over which no roads completely cross the range. The Kings Canyon highway penetrates about three-quarters of the distance across the range and the State Route 198~Mineral King road traverses about one-half the distance (Figs.
    [Show full text]
  • Sequoia & Kings Canyon-Volume 1
    Draft National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior General Management Plan and Sequoia and Kings Canyon Comprehensive River Management Plan / National Parks Middle and South Forks of the Environmental Impact Statement Kings River and North Fork of the Kern River Tulare and Fresno Counties California Volume 1: Purpose of and Need for Action / The Alternatives / Index Page intentionally left blank SEQUOIA AND KINGS CANYON NATIONAL PARKS and MIDDLE AND SOUTH FORKS OF THE KINGS RIVER AND NORTH FORK OF THE KERN RIVER Tulare and Fresno Counties • California DRAFT GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Volume 1: Purpose of and Need for Action / The Alternatives / Index This document presents five alternatives that are being considered for the management and use of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks over the next 15–20 years. The purpose of the Draft General Management Plan is to establish a vision for what Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks should be, including desired future conditions for natural and cultural resources, as well as for visitor experiences. The no-action alternative would continue current management direction, and it is the baseline for comparing the other alternatives (it was originally alternative B when the alternatives were first presented to the public in the winter of 2000). The preferred alternative is the National Park Service’s proposed action, and it would accommodate sustainable growth and visitor enjoyment, protect ecosystem diversity, and preserve basic character while adapting to changing user groups. Alternative A would emphasize natural ecosystems and biodiversity, with reduced use and development; alternative C would preserve the parks’ traditional character and retain the feel of yesteryear, with guided growth; and alternative D would preserve the basic character and adapt to changing user groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Salinity Impared Water Bodies and Numerical Limits
    Surface Water Bodies Listed as Impaired by Salinity or Electrical Conductivity on the 303(d) List1 Salinity Del Puerto Creek Hospital Creek Ingram Creek Kellogg Creek Knights Landing Ridge Cut Mountain House Creek Newman Wasteway Old River Pit River, South Fork Ramona Lake Salado Creek Sand Creek Spring Creek Tom Paine Slough Tule Canal Electrical Conductivity Delta Waterways (export area) Delta Waterways (northwestern portion) Delta Waterways (southern portion) Delta Waterways (western portion) Grassland Marshes Lower Kings River Mud Slough North Salt Slough San Joaquin River Temple Creek 1 List adopted by the Central Valley Water Board in June 2009. This list has not been approved by the State Water Board or U.S. EPA. Central Valley Water Bodies With Numerical Objectives for Electrical Conductivity or Total Dissolved Solids SURFACE WATERS GROUNDWATER Sacramento River Basin Tulare Lake Basin Hydrographic Units Sacramento River Westside Feather River Kings River American River Tulare Lake and Kaweah River Folsom Lake Tule River and Poso Goose Lake Kern River San Joaquin River Basin San Joaquin River Tulare Lake Basin Kings River Kaweah River Tule River Kern River Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Sacramento River San Joaquin River So. Fork Mokelumne River Old River West Canal All surface waters and groundwaters Delta-Mendota Canal designated as municipal and domestic Montezuma Slough (MUN) water supplies must meet the Chadbourne Slough numerical secondary maximum Cordelia Slough contaminant levels for salinity in Title Goodyear Slough 22 of the California Code of Intakes on Van Sickle and Chipps Regulations. Islands .
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Inventory
    Form No. 10-306 (Rev. 10-74) A v ; n Wii UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM FOR FEDERAL PROPERTIES SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS ____________TYPE ALL ENTRIES - COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS______ NAME HISTORIC GENERALS' HIGHWAY STONE BRIDGES AND/OR COMMON CLOVER CREEK BRIDGE, MARBLE FORK (LODGEPOLE) BRIDGE LOCATION STREET & NUMBER N/A AT ,• /' \ —NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY, TOWN JVi .-.-••-.' •'" "• - . CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Sequoia National Park JL VICINITY OF Lodge-pole 17th STATE CODE COUNTY California 06 Tulare CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE X.D I STRICT ^PUBLIC —OCCUPIED _AGRICULTURE. _MUSEUM _BUILDING(S) —PRIVATE —UNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL —PARK —STRUCTURE _BOTH __WORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL _PRIVATE RESIDENCE _SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS —OBJECT —IN PROCESS —YES: RESTRICTED —GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED X YES: UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL X-TRANSPORTATION _NO —MILITARY —OTHER: AGENCY REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS. (If applicable) National Park Service, Western Regional Office STREET & NUMBER 450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36063 CITY. TOWN STATE San Francisco VICINITY OF California LOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE, REGISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC. Tulare County Courthouse STREET& NUMBER Mineral King and Mooney Boulevards CITY. TOWN STATE Visalia California REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE None DATE —FEDERAL —STATE —COUNTY —LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS CITY. TOWN STATE DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE ^EXCELLENT —DETERIORATED ^UNALTERED ^ORIGINAL SITE _GOOD _RUINS —ALTERED —MOVED DATE_______ —FAIR _UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE The Generals Highway Stone Bridges Historic District contains two stone and concrete highway bridges erected in 1930-1931. The bridges, which cross the Marble Fork of the Kaweah River and Clover Creek, are both a part of the grade of the Generals' Highway.
    [Show full text]
  • The Creative Society Environmental Policymaking in California,1967
    The Creative Society Environmental Policymaking in California,1967-1974 Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Robert Denning Graduate Program in History The Ohio State University 2011 Dissertation Committee: Dr. Paula M. Baker, Advisor Dr. William R. Childs Dr. Mansel Blackford Copyright By Robert Denning 2011 Abstract California took the lead on environmental protection and regulation during Ronald Reagan‟s years as governor (1967-1974). Drawing on over a century of experience with conserving natural resources, environmentally friendly legislators and Governor Reagan enacted the strongest air and water pollution control programs in the nation, imposed stringent regulations on land use around threatened areas like Lake Tahoe and the San Francisco Bay, expanded the size and number of state parks, and required developers to take environmental considerations into account when planning new projects. This project explains why and how California became the national leader on environmental issues. It did so because of popular anger toward the environmental degradation that accompanied the state‟s rapid and uncontrolled expansion after World War II, the election of a governor and legislators who were willing to set environmental standards that went beyond what industry and business believed was technically feasible, and an activist citizenry that pursued new regulations through lawsuits and ballot measures when they believed the state government failed. The environment had a broad constituency in California during the Reagan years. Republicans, Democrats, students, bureaucrats, scientists, and many businessmen tackled the environmental problems that ii threatened the California way of life.
    [Show full text]
  • Gazetteer of Surface Waters of California
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTI8 SMITH, DIEECTOE WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 296 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS OF CALIFORNIA PART II. SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASIN PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OP JOHN C. HOYT BY B. D. WOOD In cooperation with the State Water Commission and the Conservation Commission of the State of California WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1912 NOTE. A complete list of the gaging stations maintained in the San Joaquin River basin from 1888 to July 1, 1912, is presented on pages 100-102. 2 GAZETTEER OF SURFACE WATERS IN SAN JOAQUIN RIYER BASIN, CALIFORNIA. By B. D. WOOD. INTRODUCTION. This gazetteer is the second of a series of reports on the* surf ace waters of California prepared by the United States Geological Survey under cooperative agreement with the State of California as repre­ sented by the State Conservation Commission, George C. Pardee, chairman; Francis Cuttle; and J. P. Baumgartner, and by the State Water Commission, Hiram W. Johnson, governor; Charles D. Marx, chairman; S. C. Graham; Harold T. Powers; and W. F. McClure. Louis R. Glavis is secretary of both commissions. The reports are to be published as Water-Supply Papers 295 to 300 and will bear the fol­ lowing titles: 295. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part I, Sacramento River basin. 296. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part II, San Joaquin River basin. 297. Gazetteer of surface waters of California, Part III, Great Basin and Pacific coast streams. 298. Water resources of California, Part I, Stream measurements in the Sacramento River basin.
    [Show full text]
  • PRESERVING the WILD Toxic Chemicals
    HIGHLIGHTS OF EARTHJUSTICE’S WORK PRESERVING THE WILD Toxic Chemicals. Thanks to Earthjustice litigation, the EPA must impose new safety standards to protect families From our earliest days, Earthjustice has fought to protect against neurotoxic lead-based paint and lead dust. Now we wildlands, wildlife, and oceans, which sustain the web of life. are fighting to strengthen rules governing how the agency Wildlands. Our very first victory helped save the majestic will evaluate the health risks posed by more than 80,000 Mineral King Valley in California’s Sierra Nevada mountains chemicals in the marketplace. from being turned into a ski resort and set a crucial legal precedent by confirming the right of citizens to take ADVANCING CLEAN ENERGY environmental disputes to court. Now we are in court To rein in climate change, we must make a swift and fighting the president’s decision slashing Utah’s spectacular equitable transition from fossil fuels to 100 percent clean Bears Ears and Grand Staircase–Escalante national energy. Earthjustice has built the largest bench of public- monuments. interest energy litigators in the world to help catalyze this Wildlife. Our successful litigation to obtain and enforce essential transformation. Endangered Species Act protections for the northern Clean Energy. Our attorneys are litigating before public spotted owl led to landmark federal protection for the Pacific utility commissions in more than 20 states, where we are Northwest’s old-growth forests where the owl lives. Today fighting discriminatory rules that favor fossil fuels, defending we are defending on appeal our court victory that reinstated rooftop solar from utility attacks, and helping to secure ESA protections for grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone visionary grid and utility rate reforms that pave the way for Ecosystem, safeguarding them from trophy hunts.
    [Show full text]