Santa Lucian • Nov./Dec. 2015 1 SANTA LUCIANSanta Lucian • Nov./Dec. 2015 1Protecting and Preserving the Central Coast SANTA LUCIAN I n s i d e Phillips 66: Not just fireballs

Santa Lucian • Nov./Dec. 2015 1

Protecting andPreserving theCentral Coast

SANTA LUCIAN

IIIII n s i d en s i d en s i d en s i d en s i d ePhillips 66: Not just fireballs 2

Global frackdown 4

Clean power, no nukes 7

Diablo’s evasive maneuvers 8

Classifieds 11

Outings 12

Please recycle

This newsletter printed on100% post-consumer recycled paper with

soy-based inks

Nov/Dec. 2015Volume 52 No. 10

Santa LucianSanta Lucia Chapter of the Sierra ClubP. O. Box 15755San Luis Obispo, CA 93406

NONPROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDPERMIT NO. 84

SAN LUIS OBISPOCA 93401

Don’t Miss:Global Climate March

in SLOSaturday, Nov. 28

Global Climate Festin Los Osos

Sunday, Nov. 29

T h e o f f i c i a l n e w s l e t t e r o f th e S a n ta L u c i a C h a p t e r o f t h e S i e r ra C l u b ~ Sa n L u i s O b i s p o Co u n t y, C a l i f o r n i a

- page 9

MarineSanctuaryMilestone

By Pat Veesart

Fall is finallyhere anddespite thewacky weather,the promise ofwinter rainsand coolerweather isbelievable andcomforting. The end of the year approaches and,if you are like me, your bleeding heartwill be bled dry by multiple requestsfor year-end donations to every goodcause under the sun. This request is alittle different. I’m asking you to beselfish; to make a donation to yourselfand your community. They say that“charity begins at home.” You can’t getmuch closer to home than the SantaLucia Chapter of the Sierra Club – ourown homegrown Sierra Club Chapter. Since 1968, the Santa Lucia Chapterhas been on the front lines of virtuallyevery major issue here in your homecounty. These are issues that directlyaffect you and your family in a per-sonal way; these are the places that you

know and love; these are yourfriends and neighbors. Like other NGOs, the Santa LuciaChapter depends upon donationsfrom its members and friends to paythe rent, keep the power on and staffpaid. For us, the sole member of thatlast category is our fabulous ChapterDirector, Andrew Christie. You may not know this, but it isunusual for a Sierra Club chapter assmall as ours to have a paid staff

person. This came to pass becausechapter leaders (who are all volunteers)back in 2004 had the foresight torecognize Andrew’s abilities at amoment in time when he was lookingto settle in SLO County. As they say,the rest is history. We are very lucky tohave Andrew and all of us who haveworked with him make it the highestpriority to retain him. Under Andrew’s tenure, our chapterhas really ramped up its involvement inour community. Andrew is a familiarface at the Board of Supervisors, plan-ning commissions and city councilsthroughout the county, and at meetingswith other NGOs and communitygroups. Always on point, always polite,but firm, Andrew has raised the bar andchanged the game. He writes well (bestSierra Club chapter newsletter inCalifornia), speaks well, plays nicewith others; I can’t say enough…. Wehave to find the money to keep thisgoing. This is where you come in. There are many ways to help. For atax-deductible donation, make yourcheck out to “Sierra Club Foundation,”and be sure to write “Santa LuciaChapter” on the memo line. Send it to:

Sierra ClubPO Box 15755San Luis Obispo, CA 93406

An annual donation of $240 or moremeans you will be joining your friendsin the Cal French Circle of Chapter

Support Your Local Sierra Club

On October 9, The National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration(NOAA) announced that the nomina-tion for a new Chumash HeritageNational Marine Sanctuary has beenaccepted. The acceptance recognizes our coastas deserving special status, and puts itofficially under consideration forprotection as part of the NationalMarine Sanctuary Program. Theproposed Chumash Heritage NationalMarine Sanctuary would be the first inthe national system to focus onindigenous culture and history as aprimary core value along with protec-tion of ocean habitat. “Many coastal Chumash people arevery interested in learning how theproposed sanctuary would affecttraditional cultural resources, bothnatural and archaeological,” saidRoberta Cordero, a member of theCoastal Band of the Chumash Nation.“They hope for a vigorous dialoguethroughout the process at all levels,including the possibility for consulta-tion at the tribal level with NOAA.” The nomination was submitted by theNorthern Chumash Tribal Council,which has been working on theinitiative with Central Coast environ-mental groups and Sierra ClubCalifornia for the last two years. Thearea proposed for the national marinesanctuary stretches from Santa RosaCreek in Cambria to Gaviota Creek inSanta Barbara, protecting marinehabitat along some 140 miles ofcoastline. As part of an effort to have more

SANCTUARY continued on page 5

SUPPORT continued on page 8

Nomination for Chumash HeritageNational Marine Sanctuary accepted

public involvement in nominating anddesignating national marinesanctuaries, NOAA revamped itsprocess in 2014 to encourage commu-nity-driven nominations, as comparedto its previous top-down approach.

“NOAA’s grassroots sanctuary nomi-nation process is about making itpossible for people in coastal com-munities to take a stand for special

NO

AA

2 Santa Lucian • Nov./Dec. 2015

Change of Address? Mail changes to:

or e-mail:[email protected]

Visit us onthe Web

wwwwwwwwwwwwwww.sierraclub.org.sierraclub.org.sierraclub.org.sierraclub.org.sierraclub.org/////santa-luciasanta-luciasanta-luciasanta-luciasanta-lucia

Outings, events, and more!

Andrew [email protected]

Printed by University Graphic SystemsCal Poly, San Luis Obispo. Mailingservices courtesy of Silver Streaks.

Office hours Monday-Friday,1 p.m. - 7 p.m., 974 Santa RosaStreet, San Luis Obispo

The Executive Committee meetsthe second Monday of every monthat 5:30 p.m. The ConservationCommittee meets the secondFriday at 1p.m. at the chapter office,located at 974 Santa Rosa St., SanLuis Obispo. All members arewelcome to attend.

Coordinator Kim Ramos, Admin and Development [email protected]

Santa Lucia ChapterP.O. Box 15755San Luis Obispo, CA 93406

Denny Mynatt PRINT MEDIA COORDINATOR

Sierra Club, PO Box 421041, Palm Coast, FL 32142-1041

2500

search: “Santa Lucia” and become our friend!

Now onFacebook

Sierra Club85 Second St., 2nd FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105-3441

Energy Task Force Karen Merriam

Intergenerational Task ForceVictoria Carranza [email protected]

Santa Lucian

EDITOR

Greg McMillanLindi DoudLinda SeeleySandy SimonEDITORIAL COMMITTEE

The Santa Lucian is published 10times a year. Articles, environmentalinformation and letters to the editor arewelcome. The deadline for each issueis the 13th of the prior month.

send to:Editor, Santa Lucianc/o Santa Lucia Chapter, Sierra ClubP.O. Box 15755San Luis Obispo, CA [email protected]

Santa Lucia Chapter

2015 Executive CommitteePatrick McGibney (12/17) CHAIRLinda Seeley (12/17) SECRETARYLindi Doud (12/17) MEMBERGreg McMillan (12/16) MEMBEREmily Miggins (12/15) MEMBERKaren Merriam (12/15) MEMBER

Greg McMillan COUNCIL OF CLUB LEADERSLindi Doud, Patrick McGibney TREASURERS

Committee ChairsPolitical David BouquinConservation Sue HarveyDevelopment Greg McMillanNuclear Power Task Force Rochelle Becker

Climate Change Task Force Heidi Harmon [email protected]

Other Leaders

CNRCC Delegates Linda Seeley, alt: Greg McMillan John Burdett

Calendar Sales Bonnie Walters 805-543-7051Outings Joe Morris [email protected]/Kayak openWebmaster Monica Tarzier [email protected] Guide Gary Felsman

Chapter Director Andrew Christie

[email protected] Linda Seeley [email protected]

Last April, facing retirement, Nipomo residentWill Amarillas did something most of us would noteven dream of: hiking the entire 2,650 miles of thePCT at the age of 69. Moreover, he completed it infour and a half months, gaining two shoe sizes andlosing 40 pounds in the effort. Tonight, Willie will recount his adventures,accompanied by slides of his journey.Conservation news will begin the evening.

Steynberg Gallery, 1531 Monterey St., SLO. Info: Joe Morris, 549-0355.

With Thanks~ Sue Harvey made a $200 donation in memory of Letty French

~ Marty Brown made a $100 donation in honor of Joan Carter’s son, Kent.

~ Myra Douglass made a $200 donation in honor of Elder Bill Denneen’s 90thbirthday.

~ Longtime Nipomo resident Evelyn Reagan has passed away at her home inOregon. She requested that friends make memorial gifts to the Santa LuciaChapter.

by Andrew Christie, Chapter Director

On both sides of the local andstatewide debate over the Phillips 66rail spur project that would facilitatethe transport and refining of tar sandscrude oil in SLO County, the prospectof fiery derailments and explosionstends to suck all the air out of theroom. That’s pretty much what one wouldexpect fiery explosions to do. But let’sset that prospect aside for a momentand take a look at the air that’s gettingsucked out of the room – specifically,the air youbreathe as theresident of acounty that mayor may notagree to permitthe five-times-a-week transportand refining ofthe world’sdirtiest crudeoil. First, let’slook at one ofthe favoritecanards ofproject proponents: The oil thatPhillips 66 is proposing to haulthrough the county is the same stuffthat is passing through the county now,two or three times a week, from theSan Ardo oil field in Monterey County. The next time you hear or see thatclaim in our local media, you shouldleap to your keyboard and point outthat 1) no it’s not, and 2) those SanArdo trains are indeed just passingthrough: They’re not stopping to off-load and off-gas at a local refineryswitching to tar sands crude feedstock. Let me briefly return to thoseexplosive fireballs (they’re hard to getaway from). It’s difficult to set SanArdo crude on fire. Tar sands crude,when mixed with diluent and pouredinto a tanker car, can ignite at anytemperature above zero degreesfahrenheit -- i.e. not at all hard to set

on fire. That tar sands crude is nothing likeSan Ardo crude has been pointed outmore than once in the local media byvarious folks, with no noticeableeffect on the reiteration of the same-as-San-Ardo claim by project sup-porters — the telltale sign that youare not having a debate with anindividual capable of changing his orher mind when confronted withcontrary or missing facts, but some-one who has been drafted to reiterate

p.r. talking points ina continuous loop.(Al Fonzi’s recentTribune op ed triedto support the“same stuff” claimwith comparativevapor pressureswhile staying silenton comparativeflash points, akahow easily does thisstuff catch fire?) But for Mr. Fonziand the other folkswho are urging our

local decision makers to spin theroulette wheel and dismiss thescenario of a derailment/spill/explosion/fire as a remote andunlikely possibility (and that case gotharder for those folks after the L.A.Times reported on the systemicproblem of track integrity failureunder the weight of oil trains, theheaviest freight on the rails), thereremain the intractable problems builtinto the project that are not a matterof chance, but of certainty. And oneof those problems is what willhappen to the quality of our air if theproject is permitted. In the Phillips 66 rail spur project’sEnvironmental Impact Report, nestledin the midst of Impact SummaryTables in a section labeled “CLASS I

FIREBALL continued on page 10

Aside from the Giant Fireball...

Sierra Club General Meeting7 p.m., Wednesday, November 18th

From Mexico to Canada on the Pacific Crest Trail

PROTECTSLO.ORG


At the BeyondOil SummitLocal leaders engage in transitioningCalifornia to a clean fuel economy

By Devorah Ancel, staff attorneyEnvironmental Law Program

The Sierra Club’s 2015 MovingCalifornia Beyond Oil Summit, held inSan Jose on September 29, could nothave come at a more pivotal time. In the two weeks prior, Pope Francismade an urgent call to Congress to actaggressively on its moral obligation toaddress climate change, Hilary Clintonrolled out her energy and climatepolicy prioritizing the expansion of aclean energy economy, and Shell Oilannounced its withdrawal from Arcticoil drilling pursuits and its multi-billiondollar investment losses in exploringthat region. California also passed SB 350,requiring the state to achieve a 50percent increase in building energyefficiency and obtain 50 percent of thestate’s power from renewable energysources by 2030, thus securingCalifornia’s role as a leading player inthe fight against climate change. The Summit — co-hosted by theSierra Club, Communities for a BetterEnvironment, San Jose City CouncilMember Ash Kalra, Berkeley ViceMayor Linda Maio, and West Holly-wood Mayor Lindsay Horvath —convened mayors, other elected andagency officials, as well as cleanvehicle and transit industry stakehold-ers from across the state to address therole of local jurisdictions in combatingthe petroleum industry’s attempts tothwart our democracy, and to adoptmeasures to rapidly and equitablytransition California to a clean fueleconomy. The day began with two panelsaddressing the threats to California ofextreme crude oil, including frackingand urban oil drilling, as well as thetransport of volatile crude by rail inunsafe tank cars known to derail, spill,and explode, threatening our schools,local businesses, and water resources. With Bakken and tar sands crudeprocessed at polluting refineries in oururban areas and largely destined forexport to the world market, Californiacommunities bear the burden of toxicair emissions, water pollution, and thethreat of catastrophic accidents, whileBig Oil reaps the profits. Panelists such as San Luis ObispoMayor Jan Marx discussed how citiesand towns at the interface of the dirtyoil supply chain can halt the expansionof dangerous oil supply infrastructure.The health risks to people living nearwells are significant, and local jurisdic-tions, like San Benito County, are

Sierra Club California Releases2015 Legislative Report CardDon’t want to look like you’re bought? Don’t take oil money

JAN HEAD SHOT

Sierra Club California Meets at Rancho el Chorro

adopting fracking bans within theirborders and leveraging other tools tomitigate the public health and safetyimpacts of oil production. While California’s demand for oilhas decreased, our communities shouldno longer shoulder the burden of mil-lions of dollars in health care costs andthousands of deaths every yearassociated with the production andprocessing of dirty, extreme fuels. California’s Senate President ProTempore Kevin de Leon gave thelunchtime keynote address. Senator deLeon aptly refuted the fallacy of BigOil’s message that climate changelegislation that reduces our petroleumuse and improves energy efficiencywill lead to gas rationing and damageour economy. To the contrary, Califor-nia — which already has the world’smost progressive climate changepolicies, including AB 32, the LowCarbon Fuel Standard and now SB 350— maintains the eighth largest econ-omy in the world and has creatednearly half-a-million jobs as a result ofthe state’s commitment to bold policiesthat cut greenhouse gas emissions andreduce demand for carbon-intensivefossil fuels. Senator de Leon was unequivocal inhis message that clean fuel vehiclesand transit options must become realand tangible options for all communi-ties and individuals at every incomelevel in order to achieve a 100 percentclean fuel economy. State policies aremaking this happen with tax creditsand bundling options that provideincentives to individuals to get rid oftheir dirty clunkers and purchase low-or zero-emission vehicles for lowmonthly payments and little-to-no fuelcosts. One of the single most importantactions city officials and local jurisdic-tions can take to accelerate this tran-sition is to work closely with theirmunicipal and investor-owned utilitiesto ensure that long-term planninginvolves investments in clean fuelinfrastructure and technology innova-tion to make clean vehicles, transit, andenergy efficiency options accessible toall Californians. The afternoon panels focused onCalifornia’s clean transportationtransition, with experts from the transitand low-emission and electric vehiclesectors discussing how clean transpor-

BEYOND OIL continued on page 8

Stepping up SLO Mayor Jan Marx at theMitchell Park “Stop Oil Trains” rally last July.

Sierra Club California and the Club’sCalifornia-Nevada Regional Conserva-tion Committee (CNRCC) held their2015 convention at Rancho El Chorroin SLO over the weekend of October10. The event was an occasion toreview chapter initiatives statewide,report on the progress of Club cam-paigns, network, and elect next year’sexecutive committee for Sierra ClubCalifornia. Manuel Pastor, the author of Equity,Growth and Community, gave thekeynote address on California’schanging demographics and the wayforward for inclusion in the environ-mental movement. State Director Kathryn Phillips gavea rundown on a very good year for theenvironment in the state legislature(see “2015 Legislative Report Card,”

below). Even though we had a goodyear in the legislature, she said, it wasworth noting that “except for SB 350,the oil industry killed just abouteverything they didn’t like.” Sierra ClubCaliforniaAwards and theelection of the2016 ExecutiveCommitteerounded out theweekend, alongwith a conser-vation forumand workshopsheld by thePoliticalCommittee,Water Commit-tee, Energy andClimate Com-

It was a very good year State Director Kathryn Phillips delivered areport on how the Sierra Club fared in Sacramento in 2015.

Nearly twice as many CaliforniaSenators as Assembly Members scoreda 100 percent on Sierra Club Cali-fornia’s 2015 legislative report card. “When you look at the votes, it’spretty clear that many DemocraticAssembly members who might votewell on other environmental issues,held back on votes that would haverequired them to challenge the oilindustry to pollute less,” saidKathryn Phillips, director of SierraClub California. Ten bills were scored in each house.Several bills made it to floor votes ineach house and are included in the

report card for Assembly members andSenators. Some bills died in their houseof origin and are only included in thathouse’s score tally. Eight Assembly members received100 percent scores on the report card.That meant they voted with the Club’srecommendations on a list of prioritybills that would protect the environ-ment and public health. FourteenSenators received 100 percent. The Assembly members receiving100 percent scores are Richard Bloom,Susan Eggman, Marc Levine, Patty

REPORT CARD continued on page 9

At the October 11 meeting, the SantaLucia Chapter proposed a resolution toaffirm that the Club will seek to upholdenvironmental laws such as theEndangered Species Act (ESA),California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), and National EnvironmentalPolicy Act (NEPA) when engagingwith utility-scale renewable energyprojects. As California ramps up to meet thenew goal of 50% clean energy by2030, more utility-scale renewableenergy projects are likely to beproposed in unsuitable locations -- i.e.endangered species habitat. The SierraClub needs to be counted on to defendfragile habitat and imperiled wildlife inour deserts and grasslands, balancedagainst the need to ramp up renewableenergy. For years, Club activists aroundthe state have expressed theirfrustration with the unfortunatetendency of power companies topropose large solar powerprojects in critical habitat areasfor sensitive species that havealready seen their breeding andforaging range fragmented bydevelopment pressures. A studypublished on October 19 inthe Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences found

mittee, Population Committee, and aworkshop on management and fundingissues for protected lands.

Renewables task force formed

areas are effective when land usenearby does not obstruct corridor use,dispersion capabilities, nor facilitateinvasions of nonnative species throughhabitat loss, fragmentation, andisolation — including those caused byrenewable energy development.” Lindi Doud, Santa Lucia ChapterTreasurer, told the assembled delegatesthat our goal was to “collaborate andcraft a petition for policy change,” andto that end “we invite all interestedchapters to join us in crafting aresolution which we all feel willadequately address these concerns.” Delegates immediately suggested --and formed -- a Large ScaleRenewables Task Force, with tenmembers representing eight chapters inthe state. The task force will review the SierraClub’s existing policies and guidelineson the siting of utility-scale renewableenergy projects and make recommen-dations to the national board ofdirectors.

that most solar power installations inCalifornia have been located in“incompatible” areas, primarily definedas within six miles of protected lands.The researchers noted that “Protected

Equal time? The San Joaquin Kit Fox.


Love Nature? Live in Nature!Custom built, lovingly cared for home in Lopez Canyon. Rusticredwood exterior, elegant interior with lots of mahogany cabinetryand trim. 32 acres of California as it was with towering sycamores,magnificent oaks, lots of spring wildflowers, and lovely garden.Seasonal spring and stream. Plentiful private well-water. Backs intoNational Forest with Santa Lucia Wilderness and Lopez Lakenearby. Animals and birds galore. Hiking and riding trails abound.Nearest neighbors a quarter mile away. Yet only 25 minutes fromdowntown San Luis Obispo, Arroyo Grande, French Hospital, andthe SLO airport. Contact Byron Grant at Century 21 HometownRealty. (805)481-4297.

Since 2012, the Global Frackdown –an international day of action initiatedby Food & Water Watch to banfracking – has helped connect activistsacross the globe and demonstrated thegrowing power of the movement tostop fracking, gas infrastructure, sandmining and other related extractionmethods. This movement is fueled byincreasing scientific evidence of theimpact of fracking on water, air, health,seismic stability, communities, and theclimate on which we all depend. While the Global Frackdown origi-nated as a single international day ofaction per year, in 2015 the GlobalFrackdown will occur during the entiremonth of November in the lead up tothe United Nations Conference onClimate Change in Paris. Last year, the Global Frackdown hadover 300 partner organizations. Thisyear, as we go to press, there are nearly900 groups already signed on, includ-ing Sierra Club, representing 56countries and 38 states in the UnitedStates. Our international letter to worldleaders in support of a ban on frackingand a renewable energy future (at right)will be delivered to governmentofficials who will be in Paris through-out November. A delivery in DC isplanned for November 3. The “Global Frackdown to Paris”will serve to highlight our growingmovement and build pressure onnational leaders to oppose fracking. The oil and gas industry has spentmillions of dollars on slick publicrelations campaigns and high-profile lobbying efforts to buy theability to extract fossil fuels from ourcommunities with as little governmentoversight as possible. Yet publicopinion continues to grow in opposi-tion to fracking. While the industry is working hard toprotect its profits and drown out theworldwide demand for clean, renew-able fuels, there is a tremendousmovement afoot around the world toprotect our global resources fromfracking.

2 November 2015

Dear Head of State/Parliamentarian:

As the Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change in Paris (COP 21) approaches, we implore you to take boldaction. This means not just setting emissions -reduction targets, but also byexplicitly addressing the fundamental, science-based need to keep fossil fuels inthe ground. Specifically, we call on you to reject hydraulic fracturing (fracking)and the use of acidization for oil and natural gas production and all of the relatedinfrastructure.

Instead you must take action to move aggressively to a 100% renewable energyfuture, which is necessary for remediating global warming and ensuring climatestability. Last December, Governor Cuomo of New York finalized a review of thehealth impacts of fracking and moved to ban the practice in his state. This movefollowed the lead of countries such as France and Bulgaria, which have alsobanned fracking. Such precaution is a response to mounting scientific evidenceconcerning the negative impacts of fracking, which include air and water pollu-tion, public health problems, and earthquakes, not to mention the significantimpacts that frac sand mining, pipelines, and other infrastructure projects have oncommunities, the environment, and public health.

With respect to climate impacts, it is true that burning natural gas produces lesscarbon dioxide than does burning coal or oil. For this reason, fracked gas hasbeen touted as having climate benefits and billed as a bridge fuel. However, thereality is that fracked gas is a bridge to climate chaos with no exit in sight. Thereare three basic reasons why.

First and foremost, increased natural gas use in the electricity sector does not justdisplace other fossil fuels, it also displaces cleaner solutions, such as solar, windand energy efficiency. These solutions are paramount to meeting the climatechallenge, yet fracking and an expanded energy infrastructure based on gas willcontinue to forestall their deployment. Second, more natural gas, and thus moreof the potent greenhouse gas methane, is leaking from well sites and pipelinesthan previously thought, and methane is a more powerful greenhouse gasthan previously understood. As a consequence, the increase in methane emissionsthat comes with using natural gas instead of other fossil fuels offsets, and mayoutpace, the decrease in carbon dioxide used to justify switching to naturalgas.Third, setting aside the industry’s problems with methane leaks and looking atcarbon dioxide alone, extracting and burning fracked gas threatens to releasesignificantly more carbon dioxide than the world can afford. To avoid theirreversible effects of climate change, almost all of the natural gas that could beextracted by fracking must actually stay underground, unburned. That is the caseeven if aggressive global action is taken to wind down the use of oil and coal.

To illustrate this final point, it is widely accepted that no more than one-third ofproven reserves of fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is tohave a better than 50-50 chance of avoiding 2 degrees Celsius of warming. Butthere are two ways in which this statistic understates the problem. First, it is onlybased on proven reserves — before accounting for most of the fracked gas,fracked oil, Arctic oil and tar sands oil now targeted. Almost all of this oil and gasmust stay underground. Second, the estimate of “unburnable” proven reservesderives from dated climate science, and the 2-degree threshold is too permissive.Now, climate science is clear that surpassing even 1.5 degrees of warming willlead to unacceptable impacts, particularly in the Global South.

Put simply, we cannot afford to continue down an energy path that relies on fossilfuels if we are to maintain the stability of our climate and the health of the planet.Despite this fact, vested interests have succeeded in convincing many govern-ments that fracking for shale gas is a harmless “bridge fuel” toward renewables.This is a dangerous and deeply flawed point of view.

The world is facing a climate crisis that has already brought devastating impactsthat will only escalate to catastrophic levels without swift action. Frackingamounts to inaction, and it is anathema to developing sustainable energy systemsavailable to all and premised on the efficient use of safe, abundant, affordable andrenewable energy resources, subject to regional conditions and constraints.At the Paris climate summit, it must be made clear that fracking for shale gas,tight gas, coalbed methane and tight oil, as well as other extreme fossil fuel

extraction methods, are incompatiblewith climate stability. We implore youto support a ban on fracking andrelated processes, both as nationalpolicy and toward internationalagreements, and to make explicit theneed to maximize the amount of fossilfuels to be kept underground andunburned.

Sincerely,

~ 900 organizations in 56 countrieswww.globalfrackdown .org/global-frackdown-endorsers

Global Frackdown: A Message to the World

Can WeConserve?Will the County conser-vation program work?

As we go to press, the County Boardof Supervisors is preparing to considerthe establishment of an ordinance toimplement a countywide waterconservation program at their October27 meeting. We assume that, barring a decision totable the ordinance for further review,as you read this, the program has beenestablished. We hope the County tookto heart our previously submittedcomments when the Planning Depart-ment completed its environmentalreview of the proposed program thissummer. In short, we hope the County passeda Water Conservation Ordinance at theend of October that’s a lot better thanwhat was on offer in the draft circu-lated this summer. At that time, the Chapter expressedconcern that the County was respond-ing to the severely deterioratingconditions of three local water basinswith a conservation ordinance whosemain purpose appears to be findingways to allow more development. Thisapproach denies the reality of theconditions of these basins (rapidlydeclining water tables and/or rapidlyadvancing seawater intrusion), madesignificantly worse by the worstdrought on record. The draft ordinance ignored thereality that people, businesses, anddependent environmental resourcesface devastating consequences if theseresources continue to deteriorate. Thedrought has likely reduced the rechargeof these basins by more than half overfour years. The full effects of thisdrought, especially on deep aquifers,will not be felt for years. These are not conditions that can besuccessfully addressed with a conser-vation ordinance that focuses ondevelopment in an attempt to maintainstatus quo. The State has recognizedthe Paso Robles and Los Osos basinsas “high-priority” basins requiringsustainable management, which meansthat the Level of Severity III designa-tion is not adequate, signifying onlythat water demand has reached orexceeded the yield of the Basin. InLos Osos, extractions have exceededsafe yield by over 30 % for more than35 years pulling seawater into theBasin more than a mile. The PasoBasin well levels have dropped 75 feetor more in some areas. These basinswill not be preserved by maintainingwater neutral development andminimal water waste programs. Given that authorities generallyrecognize conservation as the quickestand most cost-effective way to address

CONSERVE continued on next page


threatened water supplies—and the factthat the Sustainable Groundwater Plans(SGPs) for the Paso and NipomoBasins will not be in effect for fiveyears or more—the County has theopportunity to create a basin-wideconservation program that preservesand restores these vital water sourcesas the SGP’s are being developed. Asthe land use authority for these areas,the County must also limit develop-ment unless the County can show thereis ample water to sustainably supportthat development long term. The Countywide ConservationProgram as proposed in the EIR failsto protect and restore these Basins andprevent unsustainable development.We recommended improvements to theordinance via the EIR process andalternatives that addressed these issues.

Agricultural offset To improve Water Neutral NewDevelopment such that it has signifi-cant benefits on Paso Basin, wesupport a offset of water use at a 2:1ratio using conservation/water useefficiency measures, including recycledwater reuse and rainwater harvesting,dryland farming strategies, and otherpractices that substantially reducepotable water use. The programshould apply to onsite use as well asoffsite, i.e. to growers who sharetechnologies and techniques with othergrowers to achieve a measurablereduction in their water use. This program should not only beencouraged/ incentivized with thepotential of adding crop production,but also by an award/recognitionprogram that the County initiates tohonor growers achieving similar orgreater crop production with signifi-cantly less potable water use. We support the recommendations ofthe Upper Salinas-Las Tablas ResourceConservation District that mechanismsto quantify and verify offset credits arepart of the program, including ongoingmonitoring of all wells. Adoption ofBest Management Practices identifiedin the Conservation and Open SpaceElement should be mandatory forsending and receiving sites. The enforcement actions outlined arewholly inadequate. The fines aremerely the cost of doing business. Thepenalty for non-compliance should bemore stringent e.g., a misdemeanor. We support the conservation mea-sures recommended by the PacificInstitute, and the State Water Re-sources Control Board and Departmentof Water Resources.

Urban/rural residential offset In “high priority” basins, the firstpriority must be to stabilize and restorethe Basin by reducing potable wateruse as much as possible with strongconservation programs for the existingpopulation. Once Basin sustainabilityis established, more building can occur.This is consistent with County andState regulations, statutes and policesrequiring an ample water supply tosupport development. The unavoidableimpact from the urban/rural offset can’tbe addressed by greater offsets. Insteadit must be addressed by establishing asustainable water supply through avariety of programs and sustainablegroundwater management withverifiable benefits. The Urban/ruraloffset program should be eliminated on

the basis of its significant unavoidableimpacts.

Agricultural Water Waste This program currently involves onlyeducation/outreach for those whoexpress an interest in receiving it. Theprogram will not produce significant ormeasurable water savings. On theother hand, a program that involvesprogressive enforcement measuressimilar to the urban water wasteprogram can produce significantresults. We prefer positive incentivesrather than negative (e.g. fines), but werecognize that voluntary participationwill not produce the dramatic results

Conservecontinued from previous page

places,” said Kathryn Phillips, Directorof Sierra Club California. “Thisnomination is about taking action tomake sure the natural wonders ofCalifornia’s Central Coast will be herefor future generations.” In accepting the nomination, NOAAconfirmed that the proposed nationalmarine sanctuary has: natural resources or habitat withspecial ecological significance;maritime heritage resources withspecial historical, cultural and archaeo-logical significance;important economic uses liketourism, fishing, diving, and otherrecreational activities that dependon conservation and management ofthe resources; andlocal marine resources that facepotential threats and impacts, andexisting management andregulations that could help withsanctuary conservation efforts. “The area in the proposed nationalmarine sanctuary is one that is certainlyworthy of protection,” said Congress-woman Lois Capps. “The cultural sitesand marine wildlife there are a vitalpiece of the California coast’s livinglegacy.” NOAA also concluded that a marinesanctuary off the coast of San LuisObispo and northern Santa BarbaraCounties would present opportunitiesfor research, education, and localpartnerships. A study commissioned by the SierraClub of the potential economic impactsof a national marine sanctuary con-cluded that such a designation on theCentral Coast could add “at minimum23 million dollars per year to the localeconomy and create almost 600 newjobs.” “A national marine sanctuary wouldprovide new opportunities for localsand visitors to explore, learn andrecreate off our coast,” said San LuisObispo County Supervisor BruceGibson. “Such a designation would bea win for our communities and oureconomy.” Throughout the process leading up toacceptance of the nomination, variouscommentators offered up anecdotesand distortions of fact (including theabsurd and incredibly racist claim by afishing industry lobbyist that a sanctu-ary would mean that the Chumashwould take over the waters off thecentral coast and charge people to fish)in the local media. They all had onepurpose: To persuade NOAA to rejectthe nomination and terminate thepublic designation review processbefore it could begin. NOAA was rightly unpersuaded bycomments that had nothing to do withthe qualifications of the Central Coastfor national marine sanctuary status.Nor were opponents able to counter thebroad public support for the CHNMSproposal. Now is the time for all concernedcitizens to urge NOAA to commencethe designation process for theChumash Heritage National MarineSanctuary. When that process com-mences, sanctuary opponents willsurely be heard from, and will havethe opportunity to submit their argu-ments and attempt to support them withactual evidence. But the attempt to shut down theconversation before it can start hasfailed. Now all voices can be heard.

Sanctuarycontinued from page 1

Last August, the plan whereby the County might make a deal with PG&E toobtain desalinated water from the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant made itsformal public debut at a meeting of the Board of Supervisors, which gave staffpreliminary approval to move ahead and come back in January with a statusreport. In response to public criticism of the plan at the Supervisors’ August 25meeting, Supervisor Mecham said, “I don’t know what else we can do.” Fortunately, the County has a General Plan and it covers this subject. In an attachment to the 538-page report on the prospect of such a deal, Countystaff made note of the following policy from the General Plan, under the heading“Policy Conflicts:”

Policy WR1.3 New Water Supply. Development of new water supplies shouldfocus first on efficient use of our existing resources. Use of reclaimedwater, interagency cooperative projects, and groundwater recharge projectsshould be considered prior to using imported sources of water or seawaterdesalination. [Emphasis added.]

This is immediately followed in the General Plan, but not noted in the 538-pagestaff report, by a policy for the use of reclaimed water (proclaiming “The Countywill be a leader in the use of reclaimed water”) and four Implementation Strate-gies to that end. Also in the General Plan but not mentioned in the August staffreport is Policy WR 1.15 Desalination opportunities: Support the expansion ofdesalination opportunities only if other new water sources are not feasible (e.g.increased efficiency and conservation, taking full allotments of existing surfacewater projects such as the Nacimiento Water Project). Instead of acknowledging this policy reality, the August staff report followedup with a suggestion to the County Supervisors as to how they might get aroundthe clear directive and intent of the General Plan: “Reusing and re-purposingexisting infrastructure provides the benefit of a new source of water whilecapturing embedded capital and operating costs.” But, yes, they conceded, “Comparing the benefits and impacts of recycled waterprojects with desalination projects would be appropriate in further analysis.” Saidfurther analysis, will, of course, take place within the context of a study thepurpose of which is to advance a desalination project. Obviously, that “prior to” policy is sticking in some craws. But it’s there for areason. When the County drafted and approved that policy, the planners knew thatseawater desalination is the most expensive, energy-intensive, and potentiallymost environmentally destructive way to increase the water supply. Planners werealso aware of the history of desal in the U.S., which is littered with project costssignificantly in excess of estimates and water deliveries significantly belowpromises. In the case of the proposed project, we can add the prospect of an electric utilitymaking a bid to become a water wholesaler and switch the purpose of its desalplant from industrial use to municipal supply, and the necessity of expandingDiablo’s current desalination intake beyond its current permitted level, with an

attendant expansion of toxic brine dischargein the marine environment. The level andlikelihood of regulatory approval needed toclimb those two mountains – begging thequestion of whether they are mountains thatshould be climbed – further argues for theCounty sticking to the original plan. It’s a good plan, Supervisors. You canfind it under Policies WR 1.15 and WR 1.3in the Conservation and Open SpaceElement of our General Plan, which youreviewed, approved, and agreed to abide byin guiding the future of this county.

Rush to Desal

Afraid not Desal has issues.

CONSERVE continued on page 6

needed to protect these basins. Thus the ordinance should requirethat growers use a set of basic conser-vation practices and BMP’s, and itshould provide a series of appropriateincentives and consequences for notdoing so. In addition, the ordinanceshould require a targeted reduction inwater use and it should requiremetering and monitoring of all wateruse. Without metering and monitoring,the effectiveness of conservationprograms cannot be determined, whichmakes enforcement and continuousimprovement impossible.


Selden Prentice, a Sierra Clubvolunteer leader in Seattle, doesn’tmince words: ”When I learned aboutthe Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Ithrew myself into fighting this toxictrade deal,” she says. “Seattle pridesitself on having some of the highestlabor and environmental standards inthe world, but the TPP would enablecorporate polluters to undermine ourlaws and greatly expand exports offossil fuels from ports all along thePacific.” Here’s the current state of play on theTPP: Negotiations concluded October 5.The text is still being kept secret, butwe know the biggest threats in thefinalized agreement: It will include Investor-State disputesettlement -- i.e. corporations get to suecountries if their environmental orlabor laws stand in the way of profit. It will still require the U.S. to auto-matically approve any and all propos-als for the export of liquefied natural

Let’s Eliminate GMOProduce from LocalFarmers Marketsby Jesse Arnold

Why not just ask for labeling? We have already asked for labeling. The SLO Farmers Market board votedunanimously to not require labeling. The sale of unlabeled GMO corn at thismarket has been taking place for about ten years. There is no law in California requiring labeling, so the Market board can arguethey have no legal authority to require it. They do have the authority to decidewhat produce can be sold at the market and which vendors will be allowed to sell.It’s time to make a change and protect the public by banning the sale of GMOproduce at our farmers markets.

Isn’t banning GMOs anti-competition? Farmers Market is not a competitive environment. Only a limited number ofgrowers get to participate in the market. They don’t have to compete with all thegrowers not in the market. The Farmers Market board controls which produce canbe sold at the market. The manager has been known to limit how many vendorscan sell a particular item. Do you agree that GMO produce is an industrial product that has no place at aFarmers Market? Would you like the SLO Farmers Market to adopt a policy tobar GMO produce, such as genetically engineered Bt corn, from its markets? If so, you may make your views known to any or all of the following SLOFarmers Market board members: Mike Cirone, See Canyon Fruit Ranch Philip Langston, SLO Grown Produce Dave Righetti, Righetti Avocados or talk with Market Manager Peter Jankay

Aren’t GMOs safe to eat? We believe GMOs are inadequately tested for safety. The company whichdevelops a GMO does a feeding test on lab rats for 90 days. The company reportsits results to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA does not do anyindependent testing to verify the results. GMOs should be tested for at least a year by an agency which is free of theinfluence of biotech companies. (For information on just how much influencethose companies have on the scientific community, read the September 5 NewYork Times expose “Food Industry Enlisted Academics in GMO Lobbying War,Emails Show,” and “The Puppetmasters of Academia (or What the NY Times LeftOut”) at independentsciencenews.org.) For more information on GMO safety, see GMO Myths and Truths: An evi-dence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy ofgenetically modified crops (Earthopensource, June 2012).

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka has called forthe filing of 100 “Stop TPP” resolutions by Novem-ber 15 in local legislatures and municipalities. Sierra

Club’s Responsible Trade Program is joining in this push to show members ofCongress that local communities and political leadership oppose the TPP. Want to help? Contact Courtenay Lewis at courtenay.lewis@ sierraclub.org.

gas. Theenviron-mentalchapter istoo weakto be effective.

When President Obama formallyannounces to Congress his intention tosign the TPP, he has to wait at least 90days after giving notice before signingthe pact. Within that window, the textmust be made available to the publicfor at least 60 days before the pact issigned. After the President signs, he canintroduce the implementing legislationfor the TPP 30 days later (While theadministration could introduce theimplementing legislation sooner, thatwould be a major deviation fromprecedent), or he could wait anindefinite amount of time. If all parts of the above timeline arepushed to the max, Congress coulddeliberate in early 2016.

The TPP: WhereWe Are Now

Urban/Rural Water Waste This program should be extended toinclude a comprehensive set of indoorand outdoor water use efficiencymeasures, including grey water,rainwater, and recycled water reuse,with appropriate incentives andconsequences to ensure programeffectiveness. It should also includeper capita water use targets at achiev-able low levels -- e.g., 50 gallons percapita per day, gpcd, indoors andoutdoors -- and metering and monitor-ing of all wells. The significant unavoidable andunmitigated impacts from the proposedordinance alternative, in addition to thesevere adverse impacts that will resultfrom a program that does not doenough to preserve these basins, makea strong Countywide conservationprogram the least harmful feasiblealternative, as required by CEQA. Italso accomplishes the developmentobjective of the ordinance by provid-ing the quickest, surest, and mosteconomical way to allow sustainablegrowth to occur.

Offsets won’t cut it In September 2014, the CaliforniaCoastal Commission sent the County aletter noting that the EIR’s proposal toconserve water by offsetting water usevia retrofitting of buildings would be“essentially ineffective in situations ofsevere drought and severe water supplyshortages” due to “the finite number ofnon-retrofitted homes.” The Commis-sion wrote “We are concerned that thePrograms’ utility may by futile becausewater supply in [Level of Severity III]areas is already severely constrained.” The Coastal Commission recom-mended that amendments to theCounty’s Local Coastal Program (LCP)

“include language clarifying that wateroffsets do not in and of themselvesestablish adequacy of services anddevelopment entitlements,” and thatnew development be prohibited in LOSIII areas, stating “This way, newdevelopment in areas with existingwater supply constraints will notinappropriately be found consistentwith LCP provisions simply becausethey are not increasing water supplyinadequacy.” We share the Coastal Commission’sconcern, although we believe develop-ment should not be allowed in any“high-priority” Basins until it can beshown with conclusive evidence thatthe water supply can sustainablysupport that development. For thatreason, we are opposed to “conserve/retrofit-to-build” programs in high-priority Basins. Such programs willreduce water use initially, but theyultimately increase use by hardeningdemand at levels higher than previousconservation levels. We applaud the County for recogniz-ing that a Countywide ConservationOrdinance is needed, but it must beone that preserves and restores thesebasins—and water resources County-wide. Preserving the county’s waterresources, especially the three basinsthat are the focus of this ordinance,requires bold, dramatic action now todeal with the unprecedented threat.That’s why we strongly encouraged theBoard of Supervisors to take suchaction with improvements to the draftordinance. In view of the importance of theissues and the deficiencies in theprogram, we also requested thatlanguage be included in the ordinancethat will require a mandatory reviewand board hearing of the ordinance in12 to 18 months to amend, renew, orterminate the ordinance.

Conservecontinued from page 5

TAKE ACTION


In the q&a following the Cal Polyclean energy panel, the panelists wereimmediately set upon by irate nuclearboosters, scolding the panelists for nottouting their favorite radioactiveenergy source and dissing the non-deadly competition. Didn’t the panel-ists know about a new report from“two Google scientists” who haveopined that renewable energy cannot

supply the world’senergy needs? Didn’tthey know how high theprice of electricity is inDenmark due to its rashdecision to commit torenewables? Didn’t theyunderstand that globalwarming requires thereduction of greenhousegases by any means

necessary, and therefore we should allsupport the relicensing of the DiabloCanyon Nuclear Power Plant? And soon. Presumably the nuclear folks didn’tread the Tribune from the day before,reprinting L.A. Times columnistMichael Hiltzik’s trenchant commen-tary, “Why nuclear power is shrinkingin the U.S.” Nor did they see the news the daybefore that about the shuttering of thePilgrim Nuclear Power Station inMassachusetts. Perhaps the most telling stat of all:No nuclear power proponents weresitting on the clean energy panel.Instead, they were a rag-tag band,commandeering a public microphoneand angrily spouting bad stats. Last things first: In the Clean PowerRule it released last summer, the EPAdisqualified existing nuclear powerplants from claiming credit for future

reductions in greenhouse gas emissionsbecause existing plants are part of thecurrent baseline; hence they can donothing to “further lower CO2 emis-sions below current levels.” The persistent belief that renewableenergy has caused Denmark to havesky-high electricity prices misses thefact that the household price ofelectricity in Denmark consists mostlyof taxes, as would be expected in ahigh-tax country. Recent calculationshave shown that the basic electricityprice for most Danish companies islower than in the 28 EU countries. (Astatistic unmentioned by nuke-huggers:In 2014, Denmark’s energy use fell toits lowest point in forty years, due inlarge part to conservation and effi-ciency measures.) As for the opinion of the two Googlescientists: panelist Bill Toman – anuclear engineer — fielded that one,calmly replying to the fissile gentlemenin the audience that he looked forwardto reading the report, but its conclusionas they reported it was “at odds withthe preponderance of scientificopinion” on the matter of renewableenergy and global energy needs. Also at odds with the two Googlescientists: Denmark -- again -- whichlast July, found itself producing 116%of its national energy needs from windfarms. They sold the surplus toGermany, Norway and Sweden. Let’s give the last word to VickiLesley, a British filmmaker currentlydirecting a documentary in Europe onthe history of the atomic era, TheAtom: A Love Affair. “It’s fascinating to experience justhow totally settled the whole questionis there,” she says. “Nuclear power isdefinitively over, and even those wholike it basically accept that fact. Thefuture there is all about new, excitingdevelopments in renewables, effi-ciency, grid and storage developments,community energy etc., and the big,old vested interests of nuclear and coalare having to adapt to that changingreality.” Including, someday, San LuisObispo.

Energy Panel Followed by Nuclear TantrumDiablo die-hards make last stand for our friend the atom

Nuking on heaven’s door Tribune, 10/14.

Capps Convenes Clean Energy Forum On October 16, Representative LoisCapps hosted “Building a CleanEnergy Economy: Challenges andopportunities for the Central Coast,” apanel discussion with local cleanenergy experts from industry andacademia. Bill Toman, CalWave ProjectDirector through Cal Poly’s Institutefor Advanced Technology and PublicPolicy; Cal Poly Civil and Environ-mental Engineering Professor TrygLundquist; Dawn Legg of the Eco-nomic Vitality Corporation; and MitchSamuelian, Vice President of Opera-tions for NRG Renew, were thepanelists. The discussion examined theeconomic and environmental benefitsof shifting to a clean energy economyas well asthe chal-lenges thatneed to beovercometo fullytransitionaway fromfossil fuels. The panelwas one oftwo roundtables Capps hosted thatweek – the first at UCSB – to “bringtogether energy experts, scientists, andmembers of the community to discussthis exciting work and the challengesthat lay ahead.” Cal Poly and UCSBare conducting cutting edge research innew algae biofuels, solar and waveenergy, and LED technologies. Perhaps the most riveting presenta-tion was by Professor Lundquist, whois also a principal in the MicroBioEngineering Inc., and spoke on hisexperience with microalgae produc-tion, from laboratory studies to multi-ple-acre raceway ponds, for both thetreatment of municipal and agriculturalwastewater and the production ofbiofuel feedstock. Cal Poly’s pilotalgae ponding facility is a nationaltestbed site sponsored by the Depart-ment of Energy. “This is just some of the energyinnovation taking place right here inour own backyard,” said Capps. “It iscritically important that we continue tobuild support in our region for buildinga clean energy future.” After the Cal Poly panel, Cappswrote “The Plains oil spill at RefugioBeach last May serves as a starkreminder of the dangers of our contin-ued reliance upon fossil fuels. That iswhy I penned an op-ed to publicly

oppose the proposed Phillips 66 railproject.... Now, more than ever, weneed to dedicate ourselves to shiftingaway from fossil fuels and instead

focus on cultivating clean and renew-able energy technologies that producethe power we need while minimizingcarbon pollution.”

Stick ‘Em Up!PG&E wants higher fees imposedon all who choose cleaner energy

As we may have mentioned a time ortwo (see “The Long and Winding Roadto Community Choice Energy,” Oct-ober), the Pacific Gas & ElectricCompany is not fond of the idea ofcustomers and communities leavingtheir embrace and choosing the lowercosts, local control and cleaner energyavailable via a Community Choiceenergy program. PG&E is now proposing that MarinClean Energy (MCE) and SonomaClean Power customers should payeven more “exit” fees than they alreadydo to leave PG&E and join a Commu-nity Choice program. The proposed increase ranges from44% to 127% and would forceresidential customers, including low-income customers, to pay the highestrates associated with these fees. The California Public UtilitiesCommission (CPUC) currentlyauthorizes PG&E to impose exit feeson customers who choose to buy theirelectric generation from local Commu-nity Choice energy providers likeMarin Clean Energy or Sonoma CleanPower. Although these fees are in-cluded in cost comparisons, theyreduce the savings that MCE andSonoma Clean Power customersreceive and increase the cost ofchoosing a local provider over PG&E. PG&E’s exit fee is billed monthly,based on usage, and charged to fromcustomers who choose to buy energyfrom another provider. When a cus-tomer makes that choice, PG&E sellsthe excess electricity that they boughtfor that customer. Depending on market conditions,PG&E may earn or lose money whenthey sell the power. PG&E has accumulated more than$1 billion from money made on themarket when selling this excess power.If PG&E doesn’t earn money throughthe sale of the excess power, the exitfee is applied. This covers any lossesincurred by PG&E, forcing the cus-tomer to bear this burden and pay forenergy that they will never use. Along with their request to increaseexit fees, PG&E also requested toclose the account with over $1 billion. “What PG&E is proposing is out-rageous,” said Dawn Weisz, CEO ofMarin Clean Energy. “They’ve col-lected $1 billion from selling excesspower on the market but when theyaren’t able to make a profit, theycollect from our customers to avoidpulling funds from their billion-dollarstockpile. Those profits should beapplied against any losses, so that thehomes, schools, nonprofits andbusinesses in our communities are notburdened further.” This year, MCE estimates that itscustomers will be forced to pay PG&E$19.3 million in exit fees. If the CPUCapproves PG&E’s proposed increase,MCE customers would pay $30.6million to PG&E in 2016 alone, withresidential customers forced to paymore than half of that. PG&E is the only California utility toimpose these fees on low-incomecustomers. The CPUC is scheduled to make itsdetermination on the exit free increasein December.


tation options are becoming moreaccessible and how this expan-sion is creating thousands of jobsfor Californians. A representativefrom Southern California Edisonshared how the utility is integrat-ing electric vehicles and othertransportation electrificationinitiatives into its planning, aswell as efforts to make theseoptions available to low-incomecustomers. The San JoaquinRegional Transit District hasleveraged tens of millions ofdollars in public and privateresources to build out cleantransit infrastructure, such as zeroemission electric and hybridbuses, in partnership withcompanies like Proterra, Inc. thatare leading the transit sector inbuilding out clean transit infrastructure.Tapping into these public and privatepartnerships is a critical action thatmust be taken by cities across the state. Finally, Dr. Alberto Ayala, DeputyExecutive Officer of the California AirResources Board, who is in charge ofimplementing and monitoring thestate’s clean fuel policies such as thezero-emissions vehicles and low-carbon fuel standards, drove home themessage that California is leading thetransition to avoid climate catastrophewhile growing its economy. Since2000, the state’s GDP and populationhave steadily increased while makingsignificant cuts in greenhouse gasemissions (on an overall, per capita,and per GDP basis) and reducing oilconsumption. California can onlymaintain this progress with the support

of cities and local jurisdictions. Localofficials must seek participation inCalifornia Climate Investments andwork with agencies to leverageinvestments and support clean trans-portation infrastructure rollout,promote low-carbon transportation,and raise public awareness about zero-emission vehicles — and how to accessprograms that make them affordable toeveryone. Much of this effort beginswith local officials developing progres-sive, sustainable community strategies(pursuant to SB 375) that integratetransportation and emissions targetswith responsible land-use planning. The 2015 Moving California BeyondOil Summit was inspirational, and itexemplified the real power of local

Beyond Oilcontinued from page 3

supporters, but any amount is greatlyappreciated. Another easy way to support yourlocal Chapter is to go towww.sierraclub.org/santa-lucia/donate and choose either a monthlyautomatic donation or a one-timedonation. This will not be tax-deduct-ible, but will have a broader reach.While you’re on the website, check outAndrew’s blog and look for upcomingoutings and events. Personal checks to the “Santa LuciaChapter Sierra Club” are alwayswelcome, sent to the above address. Avery convenient way to contribute is toset up a monthly bill pay check fromyour bank for any amount you like.$20 or more per month will put you inthe Cal French Circle.

Supportcontinued from page 1

A Get-Together for the Cal French Circle

What: the Cal French Circle ThanksGiving PartyWhen: Sunday, November 22: 3:00 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.Where: A Chapter member’s home in the Edna Valley. (Directionswill be provided when you RSVP)Why: To thank our very generous, sustaining Chapter members fortheir ongoing financial support.

You will enjoy gourmet appetizers, wine, beer, juices, convivialcompany, and the Celtic harp stylings of Lindi Doud. We will sharestories of our successes in helping to protect, explore and enjoy theenvironmental resources of San Luis Obispo County.RSVP by November 16 to [email protected] or(805) 543-8717.

The world is kind of a scary placethese days. There is a lot going on.Sometimes it seems overwhelming.When I feel overwhelmed, I reflect thatwhat we must really do is take care ofour own gardens; our own community.This is our little corner of the worldand we are the stewards of this place.Here we have some power to controlwhat goes down. Do yourself a favor. Take a fewmoments out of your busy life to findyour check book or rummage around inthe sofa cushions to come up withsome money to send to the Santa LuciaChapter. I can’t think of nicer gift to giveyourself and your community. It’s justwhat you always wanted and it is theright thing to do.

PG&E has a special kind of relation-ship with the independent committeethat’s supposed to review its seismicstudies for Diablo Canyon. That relationship is outlined in abrief submitted to the California PublicUtilities Commission on October 9 bythe Alliance for Nuclear Responsibil-ity, which argued that the Pacific Gas& Electric Company should not begiven $4.56 million of ratepayermoney to compensate it for the costs ofseismic studies — the much bally-hooed most expensive seismic re-evaluation of a nuclear power plant inU.S. history — as required by theCalifornia legislature. The 32-page brief, filed by Allianceattorney and former California EnergyCommissioner John Geesman, presentsa compelling argument for nonpaymentbased on noncompliance with thestate’s directives, i.e. the way PG&Ewent about conducting those studies

Impede,Thwart,Omit &EvadePG&E has a method fordealing with Diablo’s seismicissues and prying eyes

DIABLO continued on page 10

Subscribing to the Sierra Club Radio free podcast allows you to automaticallydownload the latest episode of our radio program to your computer as an MP3file. Exactly when it does that depends on how you’ve configured your podcastprogram’s settings. The most popular software program that handles podcasts isApple’s iTunes, but you can use any program that lets you subscribe to a podcastfeed. Once the MP3 file is on your computer, you can listen to it even when you’renot online. You can also transfer the program to an iPod (iTunes can do thisautomatically) or any other portable MP3 player. You can then listen to SierraClub Radio anywhere you go. Listeners with an Apple device can subscribe directly to the podcast throughApple’s podcast app. All of the episodes will show up on the “feed” section of ourpodcast. For listeners without an Apple device (Android, Windows Devices, etc.) 1. Look through other app stores (such as Android’s or Amazon’s) for podcastapps. 2. Once you’re all set up with a podcast app, search for our podcast andsubscribe. (If it asks for a feed source, use http://www.sierraclub.org/radio/feed) 3. Download/stream and enjoy!

Get the Sierra Club Radio Podcast

Increasingly, these extreme extraction methods– blasting oil and gas out of rock, steaming oilout of tarlike dirt – are being used together, aswhen fracked natural gas is piped in to super-heat the water that melts the bitumen in the tarsands, to cite just one example from the energydeath spiral…. We are blasting the bedrock ofour continents, pumping our water with toxins,lopping off mountaintops, scraping off borealforests, endangering the deep ocean, and scram-bling to exploit the melting Arctic – all to get atthe last drops and the final rocks. Yes, somevery advanced technology is making this pos-sible, but it’s not innovation, it’s madness.

-Naomi Klein, This Changes Everything

government to stop Big Oil frompolluting our communities and dilutingour democracy, while leveragingresources and implementing localpolicies that will transition Californiainto a 100 percent clean fuel economywithout leaving any communitybehind. The Sierra Club is proud to partnerwith local and state leaders who arechampioning these efforts. Togetherwith our co-host, Communities for aBetter Environment, we look forwardto continuing to develop a powerfulnetwork of local and state officials,environmental justice organizations,and green industry partners who areallied in building a sustainable andequitable California.


Lopez, Adrin Nazarian, AnthonyRendon, Mark Stone, and Phil Ting.Other Assembly members who scored89% or above are Toni Atkins, RobBonta, Ed Chau, David Chiu, KansenChu, Matthew Dababneh, JimmyGomez, Rich Gordon, Reginald Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Kevin McCarty, KevinMullin, Bill Quirk, Miguel Santiago,Tony Thurmond and Jim Wood. Assembly member Das Williams, whowas absent from voting on the last twonights of the legislative session to attendto the birth of his daughter, missedvoting on three bills he co-authored thatwere priority environmental bills. Hadhe been there to vote, he would havescored a 90 percent on the report card. “Getting 89 percent or above in theAssembly is a good score this year,”said Phillips. “Anything lower than thatmeans your constituents are not gettingthe representation on the environmentand public health that virtually everypublic opinion survey indicates Califor-nians want.” The state Senators receiving 100percent scores are Ben Allen, MartyBlock, Kevin de Leon, Loni Hancock,Jerry Hill, Hannah-Beth Jackson, MarkLeno, Carol Liu, Mike McGuire, HollyMitchell, William Monning, FranPavley, Bob Wieckowski, and LoisWolk. “Generally, if you got less than a 100percent in the Senate, it was becauseyou took a walk or voted against theenvironment on at least one bill the oilindustry overtly worked to defeat,” saidPhillips. One of the things we looked at thisyear was campaign finance reports.Thanks to the new system online at theSecretary of State’s website, we couldquickly research who received oil

money in their last campaign andthrough the summer. It was disap-pointing—not surprising—to see howmany legislators who had low scoresreceived a lot of oil money. The lowest score among Demo-cratic Assembly members wasgarnered by Jim Frazier, Adam Gray,

Sebastian Ridley-Thomas and FreddieRodriguez, who each received a scoreof 46 percent. The highest scoreamong Assembly Republicans was 60percent, which was garnered by DavidHadley. Oil-soaked AssemblymanKatcho Achadjian scored 33 percent. “Anything below 60 percent wouldearn an F grade in most schools,”noted Phillips. In the Senate, the lowest scoreamong Democratic members wasearned by Cathleen Galgiani, whoscored 50 percent. The highest scoreamong Republican members was 30percent, earned by five members: JeffStone, Sharon Runner, Bob Huff,Anthony Canella, and Tom Berryhill. Sierra Club California is thelegislative and regulatory advocacyarm of the 13 Sierra Club chapters inCalifornia, representing more than380,000 members and supportersstatewide. The report card is available on theSierra Club California website atwww.sierraclubcalifornia.org.

Report Cardcontinued from page 3

MARCH:Saturday, November 28, 11:00 a.m.San Luis Obispo Court House, 1050 Monterey St., across from the Fremont.Hosted by Heidi Harmon SLO will join millions around the globe in marching to demand meaningfulaction on climate change at the start of the UN Climate Change Conference in

Paris. The weekendbefore the world’sleaders convene, allaround the worldpeople will be comingtogether in massiveglobal action that willmake sure the world’sheads of state knowthat the entire worldexpects them to takedramatic action tomove away from thefossil fuel industry andbuild the renewableenergy we need.

FLOAT:Sunday, November 29, 11:00 a.m. - sunset1391 2nd St, Los OsosHosted By Ted Emrick All are invited and welcome to the Baywood Climate Fest as we fill the daywith world music, inspired speakers, multi-cultural blessings, a back-bay peace-sign flotilla and as much positive action energy as possible. An aerial camerawill capture what we hope to be an abundant crowd gathered next to a giantflotilla of kayaks, SUPs and other boats forming a peace sign on the bay shore.This striking visual is meant to send a message to the world leaders as they begintheir summit meetings at the U.N. Climate Change Conference on November30th. The Baywood Climate Fest will be photographed, videotaped and documentedalong with all the other Global Climate March events throughout the world, andtogether, we will create an expansive and beautiful portrait of benevolentactivism and hope.11:00am - SunsetMUSIC – DANCE – SPEAKERS – POSITIVE MESSAGES IN A FESTIVALSETTING (Food, beer and wine available to purchase on site. This non-profitevent is free and organized by volunteers.) Show up early for the aerial camerashots capturing our gathering of people along the shore and Giant Peace SignFlotilla on the Back Bay in the gorgeous setting of Baywood Park. These photos/video will be posted on Avaaz.org, the world’s largest and most powerful onlineactivist network, and presented to world leaders at the Paris Conference. We’retargeting 300 boats (kayaks, canoes, small sailboats & powerboats, SUP, etc...)to all tie up into a peace sign formation. All are welcome. If you have a boat,let’s see it! Attendees on land are encouraged to bring greenheart signs and weargreen for this photo.

Event Schedule: 11:00 am – Peace Sign Flotilla On the Bay. Bring your kayak, SUP, canoe orwhatever floats you and help create the biggest Back Bay Flotilla in history!12:00 pm – Opening Ceremonies with Sound Bath with Handpan & CrystalBowls by Tim Costa & Justin Perkins, and also a Multi-Cultural Invocation.12:30 pm – The Cayucos Players - hot new combo from the Cayucos MiddleSchool Band1:15pm - Mama Tumba - 10-piece Afro/Latin/Funk Rhythm & Groove Band 2:00 pm – Speakers & Poets (Dian Sousa & Lisa Coffman)2:30 pm – Zongo All-Stars (Afro-Carribean Dance Music)4:30 pm – A Festive Musical March Through Baywood Streets! Musicians fromZongo All-Stars and Mama Tumba along with the other local drummers,musicians, and dancers will lead the crowd of event participants through thescenic streets of Baywood. The march will end at the Baywood Pier at sunset.All to be captured via aerial camera for the world (leaders) to see!

Visit our Facebook page for more info and join the event:www.facebook.com/events/907661865992888

Taking your investment dollars out ofdirty fuels is a good idea, and one that’sgaining steam. In fact, Shell Oil’sformer chairman calls divesting fromfossil fuels a “rational response” to theindustry’s head-in-the-sand approach toclimate change. A just-released report from ArabellaAdvisors makes it clear that leaders ofseveral of the largest institutions aroundthe world are creating a tidal wave ofenthusiasm for divestment. Ultimatelyfor these investors and institutions,investing in fossil fuels is not morallyjustifiable, and it’s not good forbusiness. For the ethical argument, we can turnto Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who said,“Just as we argued in the 1980s thatthose who conducted business withapartheid South Africa were aiding andabetting an immoral system, we can saythat nobody should profit from therising temperatures, seas, and humansuffering caused by the burning of fossilfuels.” The growing list of financial reasonsnot to invest in fossil fuels is perhaps aneven greater factor for divesting. TheArabella Advisors report points out that“Climate risk to investment portfolios ishelping drive the exponential growth ofdivestment....”

Meanwhile, a coalition of the world’slargest companies have come togetherto announce that they will power theirbusinesses entirely with clean energy. Several years ago, The Sierra ClubFoundation was a founding member ofthe Divest-Invest philanthropyinitiative. Back then, there were 17foundations, with a little more than onebillion dollars in total assets undermanagement. Today, 436 institutionsand 2,040 individuals across 43countries and representing $2.6trillion in assets have committed todivest from fossil fuel companies. But we realize divestment isn’tenough. That’s why earlier this year wecommitted to invest 20 percent of ourendowment in climate solutions — andthe White House took notice. We have an unsurpassed opportunityto confront the climate challenge andcreate a cleaner, more prosperous, andmore just society. But it’s going to takeall the tools that we have: toughnegotiations in Paris, a strong CleanPower Plan here at home, and hun-dreds of thousands of people taking tothe streets at the local level. Investors,too, must heed the call and put theircapital to work to create the world thatwe all want — and that is within ourreach.

Global ClimateMarch & FlotillaSend a message to the Paris climate talks

By Peter Martin, Executive Director, The Sierra Club FoundationFrom The Planet, abridged

Divesting From Dirty Fuels Now a Massive Movement


Impacts – Rail Spur Project: ImpactsThat May Not Be Fully Mitigated ToLess Than Significant Levels,” youwill find this:

AQ-5: Operational activities of trainsalong the mainline rail route associ-ated with the Rail Spur Project wouldgenerate toxic emissions that exceedthresholds.

This is one of eleven significant“impacts that must be addressed in a‘statement of overriding consideration’if the project is approved.” That meansthe County Planning Commission and/or Board of Supervisors must make alegal finding of fact that the benefitswhich the project will bestow upon thepeople of San Luis Obispo County aresomehow so great, they outweigh itsthreshold-exceeding toxic emissions,as well as the risk of oil spills, explo-sions and fires that can be so hot and

vs. the existing refinery’s emissions.Existing emissions are not emissionsfrom refining tar sand crude oil, whichis loaded with lead, copper, vanadium,and volatile organic compounds —another way in which it differs signifi-cantly from San Ardo crude. In a tablepurporting to represent “Properties ofCurrent and Potential Crude Oils at theSanta Maria Refinery,” the EIR doesnot even include comparative amountsof lead between the refinery’s current“typical crude blend” and tar sandscrude. (Hint: there’s a lot of lead in tarsands oil.) Nor will you find acknowl-edgment or analysis of the wholechemical cocktail of vaporizingelements, not just (extremely toxic)hydrogen sulfide. Nor is there anyacknowledgment or analysis of the factthat the reassuring “one percent byweight” statistic represents 20,000gallons per train, five times a week,vaporizing and out-gassing as eachtrain rolls through your town en routeto the Nipomo Mesa. The NRDC hascalculated that a day’s worth ofvaporizing leakage from a 100-car oiltrain traveling 260 miles throughCalifornia roughly equates to nine tonsof reactive organic gasses (ROG)released into the air. This phenomenon, known in thetrade as “crude shrinkage” or “settlingin transit,” is absent from the EIR,which does not include these emissionsin its emission calculations. Breathing a cumulative dose ofpoisons and carcinogens in your dailyair supply can make you just as dead asa rapidly expanding fireball. It will justtake longer. Which means if this project gets apermit, it won’t just be a potentialproblem for everyone living in theevacuation zone within one mile of thetracks. It will be a daily, chronicproblem for millions of Californians.We will all find out what it feels like tolive in an industrial sacrifice zone. In other words, the fireball is a risk,something project supporters want tobet won’t happen here. Threshold-exceeding toxic emissions – at a leveleven worse than what the project’sEnvironmental Impact Report iswilling to admit to — are a sure thing.

Fireballcontinued from page 2

uncontrollable they must be left to burnthemselves out over several days. But it’s not just a matter of debatebetween those who think that thealleged benefits of the Phillips 66project would somehow make it worthliving in a place with “toxic emissionsthat exceed thresholds.” There’s aproblem — actually a number ofproblems — with the EnvironmentalImpact Report on which our decisionmakers must base that decision. Thispassage reveals much about the sleight-of-hand tendencies of the EIR:

Emissions of fugitive hydrocarbonsfrom the Rail Spur Project would besubstantially less than that from theexisting refinery (1tons/yr versus 33tons/year). The Applicant indicates theexpected [hydrogen sulfide] content ofthe crude oil vapor could be about onepercent by weight.

Take note: No mention of thedifference in the kind of emissionsrepresented by the Rail Spur Project

But Speaking of Fireballs....

On October 21, emergency respond-ers from multiple County agenciesconverged at the California MensColony for an oil train disaster drill. Per the Lompoc Record, the drillsimulated an emergency responsescenario for a “4 a.m. derailment of 32cars from an 82-car train directly be-hind the prison, involving a unit with500 inmates and four staff members. Italso entailed an oil spill intothe nearby creek, ensuingwildland fire, overturnedemergency vehicles, structurecollapse, structure fire andmultiple casualties.” Not mentioned in the presscoverage: The standardresponse of firefighters to anoil train fire is to pull farback, put up a safety cordon,and let the fire burn itself out,as there is no safe way to

fight such a fire and no degree ofpreparedness can change that fact. Thus, it should now be burned intoeveryone’s minds that “This couldrealistically happen in this county,” inthe words of Cal Fire engineer BennetMilloy. It should be equally clear that for thiskind of disaster, prevention — notpreparation — is the best medicine.

Prepping for avoidable disaster

After a hearing packed with 100upset neighbors (see “Oil vs.Aquifer,” October) and two CountyPlanning Commission hearings doggedby protestors -- now continued to a

third -- it’s safe to say thatFreeport McMoRan and theDivision of Oil, Gas and Geo-thermal Resources are not getting

an easy ride in their bid to both expandthe Price Canyon oil field and legalizedumping of the wastewater wherethey’re currently dumping it. Thanks to all who submitted com-ments to the Planning Commissionexpressing concerns about ground-water contamination. The commission-ers are listening. Answers are promisedfor the Nov. 12 hearing.

Diablocontinued from page 8

and the utility’s extreme non-coopera-tion with the state-appointed commit-tee tasked with overseeing that work. The brief paints a vivid picture of autility earnestly trying to jigger studiesin order to come to the conclusiondesired: Diablo is safe. It also goes into detail in describingall the ways that PG&E has sought toevade review by that state-appointedcommittee, the Independent PeerReview Panel (IPRP), made up ofrepresentatives from the CaliforniaGeological Survey, Seismic SafetyCommission, Energy Commission,Office of Energy Services, San LuisObispo County, and the CaliforniaCoastal Commission. The Alliancebrief notes that PG&E “intensified thestonewalling strategy it had deployedafter the IPRP’s unsparing mid-2013criticisms of PG&E’s ground motionassumptions” (which included: “Com-pared to traditional approaches, thePG&E method resulted in lowerground motion hazard estimates,”whereas “in typical, state-of-the-practice seismic hazard analysis,” thedata would result in “estimated groundmotion hazards beyond the originaldesign level” of the plant). The utility spent only $230,000 outof $950,000 approved by the CPUC tosupport the activities of the peer reviewpanel. PG&E didn’t share a draft of itsseismic report with the IPRP prior tocompletion and submittal to theNuclear Regulatory Commission. TheIPRP asked for six months for a post-submittal review. The utility gave them30 days. The brief outlines all the waysin which PG&E effectively ran out theclock, assuring that the panel’s after-the-fact review would have “nomeaningful impact” on the process. Issues identified by Geesman and theAlliance that “should have receivedthoughtful consideration from the IPRPrather than be determined by unilateraldecisions from PG&E” include atheoretical model, backed by almost nodata, based on the assumption thatlarge earthquakes on the faults closestto the plant would have no greatereffect or magnitude than a fault ruptureat a greater distance. In the “show yourwork” department that your highschool math teacher was so keen on,the final report is opaque. Geesmannotes Dr. Sam Blakeslee’s observationon the striking paucity of the data onground motion – heavy on the theoreti-cal and light on hard data from test

wells — on which PG&E based itsconclusions: “Given the relative easeand low cost, it’s not clear why morewells aren’t simply drilled so that thevelocity question, which is so impor-tant to the final shakingpredictions, can be resolvedonce and for all through directmeasurements.” PG&E Geosciences DirectorRichard Klimczak wrote anextensive analysis of a possiblejoint rupture – an earthquakescenario in which a rupture inone fault triggers ruptures inconnecting faults. PG&E didnot include his analysis in itsfinal report, substituting a greatlyreduced two-fault joint rupturescenario instead of Klimczak’smultiple fault analysis, reducing thepotential magnitude of the resultingquake from what Kimczak found – M8to 8.5 – to a level the plant wasdesigned to withstand. The utility ignored the state’sdirective to study potential seismicimpacts on Diablo’s non-safety relatedsystems, structures and components,

focusing only on the power block,claiming they were justified in doing sobased on an outdated 2010 analysisthat was issued four years before thecurrent level of seismic hazards around

tioning his compensation arrangementwith PG&E” in the course of seekingto, in the words of PG&E TechnicalServices Director Jearl Strickland, “layout a strategy to have third parties thathave been involved in the seismicstudies weigh in to the Trib.” The brief concludes that “PG&E hasseverely undermined the value of alarge ratepayer investment in theseismic re-evaluation of DiabloCanyon,” both in its conduct of theseismic studies and its attempts toshield them from the gaze and critiqueof the Independent Peer Review Panel. Bad news for the big utility: Therecent passage of Assembly Bill 361means that the Independent PeerReview Panel, which had been set toexpire early next year, will instead besticking around until the end of theplant’s license period in 2025. Geesman pointed out that AB 361“received a unanimous vote in everycommittee and on the floors of bothlegislative houses” before it was signedby the Governor, reaffirming “thepriority of subjecting PG&E’s seismicevaluations to rigorous scrutiny.”

Oil vs. Aquifer, Round III

the plant was identified and upgraded. The brief notes PG&E’s distinctpreference for review by its “Participa-tory Review Panel,” stocked withscientists who have longstanding closeties with the utility, including thefinancial variety, and the energetic usemade of them by PG&E’s media de-partment, putting one such panelist intouch with a reporter “without men-

Not buying it Geesman


ClassifiedsNext issue deadline is December 2. To get a ratesheet or submit your ad and payment, contact:Sierra Club - Santa Lucia ChapterP.O. Box 15755San Luis Obispo, CA [email protected]

CYNTHIA HAWLEYATTORNEY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONLAND USE

CIVIL LITIGATION

P.O. Box 29 Cambria California 93428Phone 805-927-5102 Fax 805-927-5220

Current Crop - Grass Fed BeefEstate Grown Extra Virgin Olive Oil

Available Now-Delivery AvailablePlease Get in Touch For More Information

Greg and Linda McMillan

805-238-4820 [email protected]


Outings and Activities CalendarSeller of travel registration information: CST 2087766-40. Registration as a seller of travel does not constitute approval by the State of California.

This is a partial listing of Outingsoffered by our chapter.

Please check the web pagewww.santalucia.sierraclub.org for

the most up-to-date listing ofactivities.

All our hikes and activities are open to all Club members and the general public. Please bring drinking water toall outings and optionally a lunch. Sturdy footwear is recommended. All phone numbers listed are within areacode 805 unless otherwise noted. Pets are generally not allowed. A parent or responsible adult must accompanychildren under the age of 18. If you have any suggestions for hikes or outdoor activities, questions about theChapter’s outing policies, or would like to be an outings leader, call Outings Chair Joe Morris, 549-0355. Forinformation on a specific outing, please call the listed outing leader.

Now taking orders for the

2016Sierra ClubCalendar

Accept no substitutes. Yourdesk will thank you. Your wallwill thank you. Your friendsand family will thank you. Andwhen you buy direct from theChapter, you support the SierraClub’s conservation work inSan Luis Obispo County. Wethank you.

10% off!wall calendar: $13.50desk calendar: $14.505 or more: 15% off!

To order, call:805-543-7051

Sun., Nov. 1st, 8:30 am, (notechange to Standard Time), Montañade Oro SP This outing features a lookat the northern half of MDO St. Park.Meet at the turn off to the HorseCamp, a dirt road on the left side ofthe main road (Pecho Valley Road)about 100 yards from the entrance tothe park. We will hike to the EastBoundary Trail, to the Hazard PeakTrail, to the Hiedra Trail, to theBloody Nose Trail, to the East CableTrail, and back to the parking area.This is a moderately strenuous hike of8 miles, a total elevation gain of 2000ft., (some of which is in sand), with atotal hiking time of 4 hours. Make sureto bring water, snacks or lunch. Sturdyshoes, sunscreen, hats, and jackets arerecommended. No RSVP needed. Thelocal plants and animals will bediscussed during the hike. Raincancels. For more information,contact Bill Waycott (805) 459-2103,[email protected].

Tues., Nov. 10th, 10 a.m. Los OsosOak Reserve Walk A one and a halfmile walk through a series of scenicloop trails in a unique, ancient oakforest, a great recreational or condi-tioning one-hour walk. Meet at OakReserve parking lot on Los OsosValley Rd. soon after entering LosOsos, across from Eto Rd. Leader:Vicki Marchenko, 528-5567 [email protected].

Sat., Nov. 14th, 8:30 a.m.Cruikshank to Alder Creek CampModerately strenuous, eleven-milehike, 2400 ft. gain, in Silver PeakWilderness. Probably some trail-sidepoison oak. You may go part waysince we will return on the same trail.Bring lunch, water, and hiking shoes.

Meet at Washburn Day Use Area inSan Simeon State Park, one mile northof Cambria on Hwy 1. Rain willpostpone hike to a later date. Leader:Carlos Diaz-Saavedra, 546-0317.

Sun., Nov. 15th, 10 a.m. Quarry HillTrekking-Pole Hike Two-mile,400 ft. gain, hike to demonstrate theeffective use of trekking poles. Meet atthe trailhead for Quarry Hill, off SouthBay Blvd. in Morro Bay. Rain cancels.Leader: David Georgi, 458-5575 orhiking [email protected] .

Thur.-Sun., Nov. 19th-21st. DeathValley Wilderness Service Trip Helprestore wilderness values in thisstunning desert national park. Projectmay be eliminating a marijuana growsite or helping with cabin cleanup inthe Panamints—or maybe somethingelse entirely. Meet Thursday afternoon, place to be decided and work Thurs-day afternoon and Friday. Potluckeither Thursday or Friday night.Leader: Kate Allen, [email protected] or 661-944-4056 CNRCCDesert Committee.

Sat., Nov. 21st, 8:30 a.m., La PanzaRange to Castle Crags Hike Strenu-ous, nine-mile, 2000 ft. gain, hike toexplore eastern SLO County on roadwalk into Machesna Wilderness toCastle Crags for great views and lunchstop. Bring lunch, water, hiking shoes,and dress for the weather. Meet atPacific Beverage Co. in Santa Marga-rita for one-hour drive to trailhead.Leader: Gary Felsman, 473-3694.

Thur.-Sun., Nov. 26th-29th, Basinand Range Thanksgiving CampoutPrimitive camping (no amenities) inour newest national monument, Basin

and Range National Monument, insouthern Nevada, with dry, dustyvalleys and rocky, wooded ridges,archaeological sites. We will tour thearea mostly by vehicle, with somehiking. Bring all supplies needed,including water. Leader: David vonSeggern, [email protected] or775-303-8461 Toiyabe Chapter.

Sat., Dec. 5th, 9 a.m. Cerro AltoAnniversary Hike Moderate, seven-mile, 1700 ft. gain, loop hike throughforest to cable road and summit, withexcellent views of morros and coast-line. Meet at Cerro Alto campground,on Hwy 41, about 12 miles west ofAtascadero or 8 miles east of MorroBay. $5 day use fee. Some trailsidepoison oak. Bring lunch or snacks,water, and dress for weather. Lunchstop at Taco Temple for those inter-ested. Leader: Chuck Tribbey, 441-7597.

Thurs., Dec. 10th, 10 a.m. HazardPeak Hike in Montana de Oro StatePark. Five-mile, 1000 ft. elevationgain, hike up to summit for stunningviews of mountains and coastline.Meet at Hazard Canyon parking lot,1.6 miles from park entrance. Leader:Vicki Marchenko, 528-5567 [email protected].

Sat., Dec. 12th, 8:30 a.m., TroutCreek to Buckeye Camp HikeModerate, eight-mile, 1000 ft. gain,hike on remote trail in Garcia Wilder-ness. Poison oak likely trailside. Needhigh-clearance vehicle to drive on HiMountain Rd., a dirt road, to trailhead.Meet in front of Pacific Beverage Co.in Santa Margarita. Rain will postponehike to another weekend. Leader:Carlos Diaz-Saavedra, 546-0317.

Sun., Dec. 13th, 8:30 a.m., MorroBay State Park Traverse. Moderate,five-mile hike, 300 ft. gain, along LiveOak, Park Ridge, Chumash, Crespi,and other trails, with option to ascendCerro Cabrillo. Duration about 3hrs. Bring water, snacks, lunch, sturdyhiking shoes, hat, jacket. Localplants and animals will be discussed.No RSVP needed. Rain cancels. Meetat Quarry Ridge trailhead on SouthBay Blvd., 1.4 mile south of Hwy 1.Leader: Bill Waycott, 459-2103 or

[email protected] .

Sun., Dec. 13th, 10 a.m., Islay HillTrekking-Pole Hike Two-mile, 400ft. gain, hike to demonstrate effectiveuse of trekking poles in area withspectacular views of Edna Valley tosouth and morros to north. FromBroad St. in SLO, go east on TankFarm Rd., turn right on Wavertree, lefton Spanish Oaks, and veer right ontoSweet Bay, parking near the cul-de-sac. Rain cancels. Leader: DavidGeorgi, [email protected] or458-5575.

Sun. Dec. 13th, 5 p.m., VictorianChristmas City Walk in San LuisObispo. Easy, guided stroll past 15holiday-lit, Victorian houses in the OldTown to learn of the festive Christmascustoms, events, and locales of the1890s. Duration about 1 1/2 hrs.Flashlight recommended. Meet infront of St. Stephen’s Church, corner ofNipomo and Pismo Sts. Leader: JoeMorris, 549-0355.

Sat., Nov. 14th, 1 - 3 p.m. Condors: Back from the Brink at SLO BotanicalGarden The largest birds in North America were reintroduced into the wild in1991 after being on the brink of extinction. Now there are hundreds of condorsfound in the western U.S., but their struggle isn’t over yet. Join Dave Clendenen,lead biologist of the Condor Recovery Team, as he shares his story of workingwith the condors, what is being done and what can be done to make sure condorsstay a permanent feature of California. $5 Garden members / $10 public. Moreinfo at slobg.org/condor. San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden, 3450 Dairy CreekRd., SLO. 805.541.1400 x304. www.slobg.org.

Activities sponsored by other organizations

Documents

Santa Lucian • Nov./Dec. 2015 1 SANTA LUCIANSanta Lucian • Nov./Dec. 2015 1Protecting and Preserving the Central Coast SANTA LUCIAN I n s i d e Phillips 66: Not just fireballs