BURNING WITH ANGER

Victims of Mojave National Preserve fire say Park Service policies added to toll
Sandi McIntosh, left, and Jim Perry on Sept. 1 help remove debris from a home that was burned by a 70,000-acre fire that swept the Mojave National Preserve in June. Many homes on private land surrounded by the preserve, including Perry's, were destroyed. Photos by K.M. Cannon.

A fence at the driveway to a group of private homes shows the effects of a June fire that swept the Mojave National Preserve.
A burned ridgeline inside the Mojave National Preserve is shown Sept. 1. A fire swept through the 1.6 million-acre park in June.
A sign near the Mid Hills Campground in the Mojave National Preserve is shown burned. The campground was destroyed in a 70,000-acre fire that swept the park in June.
Bud Smith, 73, talks to a reporter on Sept. 1 at his home on private land inside the Mojave National Preserve. Refusing to evacuate during a lightning-sparked fire in June, Smith saved his home with the help of family and firefighters, then supplied water to helicopters and firetrucks.

By A.D. HOPKINS
Las Vegas Review-Journal

They hoped to spend a comfortable retirement in their rural retreats. Instead, they spent the summer picking through ashes to salvage surprisingly meager and melted mementos.

That's the aftermath of many fires, but most of those who lost homes when fire swept the Mojave National Preserve say their property was destroyed as much by bad policy as bad luck. And they blame the National Park Service for it.

"They can call it a preserve, but they haven't actually preserved anything here in the 10 years they've had it," exploded Sandi McIntosh, 61, who says her home and horses escaped mostly undamaged by a stroke of last-minute luck.

A lot of her neighbors weren't so lucky, which was why she stood the morning of Sept. 1 up to her ankles in ashes, helping Richard and Kathy MacPherson clean up the remains of their mobile home.

Sandi picked up a few settings of cutlery and brushed the ashes away, laying them on a table set up beside the ruins to receive any objects still usable.

It was nearly lunchtime, and the morning's work hadn't covered the table. One intact vase. Two antique flatirons. A little of this and that. The MacPhersons estimate their losses in excess of $200,000.

Other neighbors had comparable losses, he said, "But I think we may have been the only ones with any insurance."

In July, soon after the fire, the Park Service estimated the costs of suppression alone at $3.1 million and climbing but has not publicly estimated damages. A dollar value cannot be placed on some damage, loss of beautiful views, wildlife habitat and historical structures.

The fire raised questions about the wisdom of a new fire management plan, expected to go into effect shortly, which would no longer require the Park Service to immediately extinguish all fires in the park, as currently required.

The 1.6 million-acre Mojave Preserve lies entirely within San Bernardino County, Calif., and stretches from the Nevada border to Baker, Calif., and from Interstate 15 on the north to Interstate 40 on the south.

It was created by the California Desert Protection Act, federal legislation passed in 1994, over the bitter objections of elected officials in the county.

Scattered across the federal lands were tracts of private homesteads, including a number of cattle ranches. The Park Service discontinued grazing leases and bought out nearly all the ranches.

In a decade, those who had built vacation homes on the range found themselves surrounded by land either designated wilderness or managed as if it were.

Cattle were gone and wild burros were being removed. After the wettest winter in memory, grass this past spring grew deep with few grazing animals to eat it.

Deer herds shrunk under park management, so the underbrush they feed on also grew thicker. With the onset of hot weather, these fuels became tinder-dry.

On June 22, a spark of lightning in the Hackberry Mountains lit the tinder.

The preserve's small resident firefighting crew soon called for help, and an interagency fire suppression force that eventually included more than 1,100 people from several federal agencies and Southern California counties moved into the park, bringing four firefighting airplanes, four firefighting helicopters, 38 fire engines and dozens of water tender trucks.

There would have been more, but other major fires in California claimed resources.

In the meantime, at least three other fires started elsewhere in the preserve, some merging and some roaring simultaneously on their own courses, constituting an inferno that since has been named the Hackberry Complex.

The 1,100 were not fighting alone; private landowners did what they could to protect their own holdings.

On Cedar Canyon Road, 73-year-old Bud Smith prepared to fight or flee as the moment's circumstances dictated. The first fire started on a Wednesday.

"By Thursday morning I was all packed up and ready to get out of here, and the fire was coming up Black Canyon so fast it covered nine miles that day. I had stuff in the car and the car parked facing the road. We were supposed to be evacuated on Friday, but I didn't go. My kids came out from Las Vegas and helped me fight it. My son and one of his friends and my daughter. ... When they heard I hadn't left, two firetrucks came up and helped us."

Clearing grass and brush as far back from his buildings as time allowed, spraying water from the 11,000 gallons Smith keeps on hand for just that purpose, the small force stood toe-to-toe with the fire at 7 a.m. and fought it to a standstill.

According to neighbors, Smith's stubbornness saved not only his home of 35 years, but every home north of the road.

South of Cedar Canyon Road, however, fire had roared through Round Valley, taking the MacPherson home and the homes of their neighbors. The valiant efforts were not enough.

By June 27, the fires had burned more than 70,000 acres out of the heart of the park, taking at least 12 homes and several unoccupied historic structures.

Dennis Casebier, a historian who operates the East Mojave Heritage Center at a restored 91-year-old schoolhouse in Goffs, just outside the southeast edge of the preserve, railed at the events in his newsletter, the Mojave Road Report.

"It might be noted that the fire burned only 70,000 acres out of the 1,600,000-acre preserve. But that 70,000 acres likely included half or more of the piñon/juniper habitat. It was part of the crown that gave the high country of the East Mojave such great natural charm. For many of us, the East Mojave will never be the same. We are left with our memories and the photos on file in Goffs."

Casebier and others raised pointed questions about Park Service methods of preventing and controlling fires, and answers weren't immediately forthcoming.

As of Sept. 1, most residents believed the preserve firefighting staff had followed a draft fire management plan announced and discussed earlier this year.

That plan called for allowing "natural" fires caused by lightning in designated areas constituting as much as 22 percent of the park to burn at a leisurely pace. Most wondered aloud whether the Park Service lost control of the original Hackberry fire while attempting to do just that.

"That is absolutely false," said Chuck Heard, the preserve's fire management officer. "That fire management plan is not complete, so in the Mojave National Preserve the policy remains full suppression."

Even if a limited-suppression policy ever is approved, Heard continued, "In the heart of summer we would not let it burn in any case. There are very few places in the preserve we would ever allow it in the future. But we have never been allowed to do it."

Mary Martin, superintendent of the preserve, said, "This fire would not have been fought any differently if we had a fire management plan in place, because the area where it occurred would be full suppression in that plan."

The draft fire plan was dated Dec. 20, and the public comment period ended on Jan. 30. Martin said the plan was widely discussed at public meetings even before the draft was written.

"We did factor in the public comments," she said. She added she will consider the experience of this summer's fire in deciding whether to approve the plan as written.

The 84-page plan calls for allowing "fire to resume its natural role in wilderness where natural fire regimes are unaltered, provided that fire does not pose a threat to structures, historic mine sites, or tortoise habitat."

There were suggestions that the fire could have been fought more effectively if the Park Service hadn't habitually managed the preserve for an environmentalist agenda to the exclusion of all other interests.

Bill Postmus, San Bernardino County supervisor for the district containing the preserve, expressed that thought in an Aug. 7 op-ed piece for the Victorville/Barstow Press Dispatch.

In an effort to quiet park opponents, Postmus noted, the Park Service created an advisory commission to include local government representation.

"The commission had a 10-year life, which expired in 2004, but it never met during my tenure as a county supervisor, which began in late 2000," Postmus said. "One of the county's specific inputs was to retain the ranching infrastructure. ... Instead, (the Park Service) set about buying out and getting people off the land almost immediately.

"I suspect that if the ranching families were still in the region, much quicker actions could and would have been taken when the fire first broke out. Part of the obliteration of the ranching culture has also involved the dismantling of all of the range improvement and development projects including a vast system of wells. Their water could have helped fight the fire."

When the Park Service bought out ranchers, all agreed, the ranchers were allowed to remove pumps, pipes, and windmills that formerly replenished water in tanks that now stand empty across the preserve.

But Larry Whalon, acting director of the preserve, said, "We haven't turned off any. The ranchers have." He conceded, "There is no storage system for fighting fires. It would have to be large to make it worthwhile."

Gerald Hillier, now a consultant to San Bernardino County on public land issues but formerly manager of the area for the Bureau of Land Management, said there would be many more working water tanks if the Park Service had wanted them.

"They have actually paid ranchers to go in and salvage their own improvements," he said. "They have removed some that were indeed the property of the United States under the terms of the old BLM leases."

Smith let firefighters use his 11,000-gallon tank to fill pumpkins: portable, collapsible field tanks from which helicopters can quickly fetch water to drop on a fire. And they asked him if he could possibly replenish the supply still faster from his pumps.

"One guy said it was 3 1/2 hours to another water source," Smith said.

Whoever told Smith that was exaggerating the distance, said Norm Walker, the U.S. Forest Service fire chief who commanded the multiagency firefighting force.

"We eventually had enough, considering that we had to hire water tenders and haul it in, and set up pumpkins," Walker said.

The Blair Ranch, the last substantial cattle operation left in the area, allowed helicopters to dip directly from a cattle pond, and the tankers "just about drained" tanks maintained just south of the preserve by the California Department of Transportation for road construction, he said.

But later he added, "Obviously, the less time you wait for water the more efficient your attack is."

All affected complain they've had a hard time finding out exactly how it all happened.

Jim Walker, 64, who owned the historic Stott house and planned to retire there, lost that home and several other buildings. He said he asked both BLM and the Park Service for fire reports. "They told me I would have to request them under the Freedom of Information Act," he said.

Some of the homeowners said the fire reports are required by insurance companies to file claims.

Casebier wrote that the fire could have been stopped as it crossed the de facto firebreak that is Cedar Canyon Road, but firefighters took no stand there.

Others pointed out equipment was available that could have been used to widen the road as a better firebreak.

Chief Walker, however, said both suggestions were impractical.

"The fire did not just lazily cross the road," he said. "It was lying across the road. Imagine smoke and flames going horizontally at that point, across both lanes, and embers and flaming branches going twice as far as that. And to widen that firebreak enough to be effective would have taken days. Nobody had days."

Most Park Service ground rules didn't negatively affect this particular firefighting effort, he said.

"They didn't want us going off road, but we didn't want to because we would have buried our trucks," he said. "There is a good road system around the houses."

The Park Service generally didn't allow long-term fire retardant to be dropped in wilderness areas, so the aerial teams relied on foam, which is made by adding certain chemicals to water. The more effective retardant was allowed to protect homes and man-made structures.

"There were no restrictions placed on us when it came to protecting homes," he said. "Our limitations were other fires and how long it took to get equipment. We ran people far longer than we are supposed to; you're supposed to run no more than 16 hours on and eight off, but nobody came off; some people worked 36 hours straight."

Asked if the homes of residents were sacrificed to Park Service policy, Walker didn't hesitate to answer.

"I guess that might depend on whether you were talking about the overall management of the park or the way the fire was managed," Walker said.

"I can tell you that on the day of the fire, we gave it all we had."

Many deer hunting areas are closed

Outdoor Report by Tony Riley
Desert Dispatch - Barstow, CA

Hunters, if you have a deer tag for D-17 the fires this summer in the East Mojave National Preserve have forced the Department of Fish and Game and the Park Service to close many areas. The area is used by many hunters in D-17. They include Hole-in-the-Wall to Mid Hills, Wildhorse Mesa and Canyon, Gold and Round Valley, Table Top, Barnett Mine, Pinto Mountain and Basin, Fourth of July canyon and Hackberry Mountain. Hunters should contact the Department of Fish and Game at 909-484-0167 if they want a refund on their deer tags.

Right now Mid Hills Campground is closed due to a recent fire. Hole-in-the-Wall Campground is open. Mitchell Caverns is also open. Wild Horse Canyon Road is closed. The unpaved portion of Lanfair Road is open to 4-wheel drive traffic only. The Mojave Road through Lanfair Valley has been severely eroded. Use caution there.

Park Service moves ripped

Response to desert fire faulted

Megan Blaney
San Bernardino County Sun

As San Bernardino County joined the nation in recognizing National Disaster Preparedness Month, an ensuing discussion illuminated concerns about agency cooperation during an enormous fire in the Mojave Desert earlier this summer

County resident Jim Walker accused the National Park Service of carelessness and negligence in the wildfire that burned more than 70,000 acres in the Mojave National Preserve in June.

"You talk about public preparedness," Walker said Tuesday after the Board of Supervisors meeting. "Where was ours? Why did they let my ranch burn?"

The National Park Service has a history of tense relationships with landowners and ranchers, many of whom preceded the 1994 arrival of the federal agency. Before the land was designated a national preserve, it was under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.

Walker said he had planned to retire next year in one of the "inholdings" private land at the national preserve. The Park Service wants to rid the preserve of homes to enhance the area's tourism appeal, he said.

"They just wanted to get us out of their land," he said. "They decided to let (the fire) burn us out."

Park Ranger Linda Slater said every effort was made to contain the fires. When the ranger who responded to the fire realized the fire was too big, he called the Southern California Interagency Incident Management Team a group of city, county and state fire agencies that responds to disasters.

The dispatcher sent help from the Needles Fire Station immediately and sent more than 1,000 firefighters in the following days, Slater said.

"It wasn't a let-burn," Slater said. "They just don't have a leg to stand on to say the fire wasn't fought."

She said the National Park Service does not intentionally allow fires to burn out residents and taught an informational class on how to protect homes from fire in February.

Shortly after the fires, Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Postmus wrote a scathing review of what he saw as the Park Service's lack of cooperation with the county.

"One of the County's specific inputs was to retain the ranching infrastructure . . .," Postmus wrote. "Instead, NPS set about buying out and getting people off the land almost immediately."

He said the county was concerned with the Park Service's management decisions, including the removal of the ranching community which eliminated the grazing animals that kept vegetation trimmed low.

He also questioned the removal of the preserve's water infrastructure and the Park Service's regulatory control of county roads in the preserve.

Slater said she has heard of the benefits the ranching community could provide, but did not ascribe to them.

She said the land where cows had grazed was just as burned as the rest of the landscape and said the springs that used to constitute the water infrastructure now creates lush vegetation habitat for wildlife.

Park Service interim Superintendent Larry Whalon said that because of the fire's strength, the weather and an unexpected incident where the fire jumped a road that was expected to be a fire break, Walker's property couldn't be saved.

"Everything was done to try to minimize losses to park structures and facilities. There was never a command to any firefighter to let the fire burn," he said. "We did deploy the resources we had in strategic areas where we thought we could stop the fire."

Postmus hopes for cooperation from the Park Service and called for a partnership of the federal, state and local governments.

Walker said cooperation from the Park Service is crucial. "To the 14 people who lost their homes, it was as big a disaster as New Orleans," he said.

Board of Supervisors Chairman Bill Postmus criticized the National Park Service's management of the Mojave National Preserve in a letter written shortly after the June fires.

"San Bernardino County's concerns with the management of the Preserve go beyond the fire and the perceived lack of aggressiveness in preventing or suppressing it, including but not limited to:

▪ "The removal and obliteration of the ranching community within the Preserve;

▪ "The removal and obliteration of the water infrastructure that served both livestock and wildlife;

▪ "The regulatory control exerted by NPS over the use of County owned and maintained roads within the Preserve;

▪ "Strong-armed law-enforcement tactics exerted by NPS on neighboring private lands within the Preserve;

▪ "The dogged pursuit of reclaiming property with alleged non-conforming uses."

Man Who Threatened Rangers Sentenced to Jail

National Park News
Mojave National Preserve

A Newberry Springs man who admitted to pointing a loaded .30-caliber M-1 carbine at federal law enforcement officers who were investigating possibly unlawful digging in the park was sentenced on September 12th to eight months in federal prison.

Leo H. Spatziani, 62, had previously pleaded guilty to one felony count of assaulting, resisting, intimidating and impeding federal law enforcement officers during the confrontation, which occurred on February 12th.

In sentencing Spatziani and rejecting the defendant's plea for probation, the judge said that the high desert was "not the wild west" and all citizens have a responsibility to respect the law.

The judge, who also imposed a $2,000 fine, ordered Spatziani to begin serving his prison term within 30 days.

Spatziani is the friend of another man who owns a small parcel of private property within Mojave National Preserve. The friend had recently constructed a small cabin on National Park Service land near a desert spring, which was outside of his private property line.

In early February, the friend was observed operating a trenching machine at the spring. In addition to being on federal land, the area around the cabin is documented as containing archeological and cultural resources.

On February 12th, two uniformed NPS rangers contacted Spatziani and his friend regarding the trenching activity. While one of the rangers was photographing the trenching activity, Spatziani removed the M-1 carbine from a vehicle. He placed a magazine in the weapon and chambered a round. He then pointed the weapon at the ranger who was taking pictures and began advancing on him.

Despite repeated commands to drop the weapon, Spatziani continued to advance with his weapon in the ready firing position. The threatened officer was forced to take defensive cover behind one corner of the cabin and draw his service weapon.

During the ensuing stand-off, the rangers observed that the eight-year-old child of the private property owner was within the line-of-fire. Fearful for the safety of the child and the other individuals, including Spatziani, the two rangers decided to de-escalate the dangerous situation by slowly withdrawing to their marked patrol vehicle and leaving the area.

Spatziani was arrested in Yermo on February 17th by NPS agents.

High Desert Man Who Threatened Park Rangers With Firearm Sentenced to Federal Prison

U.S. Department of Justice

Debra Wong Yang
United States Attorney
Central District of California

United States Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

PRESS RELEASE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 12, 2005

For Information, Contact Public Affairs
Thom Mrozek (213) 894-6947

HIGH DESERT MAN WHO THREATENED PARK RANGERS WITH FIREARM SENTENCED TO FEDERAL PRISON

Los Angeles, CA - A Newberry Springs who admitted pointing a loaded .30-caliber M-1 carbine at federal law enforcement officers who were investigating possibly unlawful digging on national parkland was sentenced this afternoon to eight months in federal prison.

Leo H. Spatziani, 62, was sentenced by United States District Judge R. Gary Klausner in federal court in Los Angeles. Spatziani previously pleaded guilty to one felony count of assaulting, resisting, intimidating and impeding federal law enforcement officers during an incident on February 12.

In sentencing Spatziani and rejecting the defendant's plea for probation, Judge Klausner said the high desert was "not the wild west" and all citizens have a responsibility to respect the law.

Judge Klausner, who also imposed a $2,000 fine, ordered Spatziani to begin serving his prison term within 30 days.

Spatziani is the friend of another man who owns a small parcel of private property within the Mojave National Preserve. The friend had recently constructed a small cabin on Park Service land near a desert spring, which was outside of his private property line. In early February, the friend was observed operating a trenching machine at the spring. In addition to being on federal land, the area around the cabin is documented as containing archeological and cultural resources.

On February 12, two uniformed National Park Service Rangers contacted Spatziani and his friend regarding the trenching activity. While one of the Rangers was photographing the trenching activity, Spatziani removed the M-1 carbine from a vehicle. He placed a magazine in the weapon and chambered a round. He then pointed the weapon at the Ranger who was taking pictures and began advancing on him. Despite repeated commands to drop the weapon, Spatziani continued to advance with his weapon in the ready firing position. The threatened officer was forced to take defensive cover behind one corner of the cabin and draw his service weapon.

During the ensuing stand-off, the rangers observed that the 8-year-old child of the private property owner was within the line-of-fire. Fearful of the safety of the child and the other individuals, including Spatziani, the two Rangers decided to de-escalate the dangerous situation by slowly withdrawing to their marked patrol vehicle and leaving the area.

Spatziani was arrested in Yermo on February 17 by agents with the United States National Park Service.

The case against Spatziani is the result of an investigation by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service.


#####

Release No. 05-129

Drought, natural erosion taint supply

Water woes halt construction in tiny Pioneertown, which can't afford fixes

Eblstan Lim / The Press-Enterprise
Scott Pasby, 47, of Pioneertown, had to install an expensive water filtering system after his dogs got sick and his skin started cracking from high levels of arsenic in the water from the town's wells.


By JOAN OSTERWALDER
The Press-Enterprise [Riverside, CA]

Soon after Scott Pasby moved to Pioneertown, his skin became scaly and his dogs got sick.

He learned that the water in the High Desert outpost has high levels of arsenic, so he promptly installed a filter system.

"The dogs are fine, the skin doesn't crack anymore," said Pasby, 47, as he petted one of his four pooches.

Pioneertown is awash in problems with its water, which is not only polluted, but also in short supply. A virtual building freeze is keeping the remote water district too small to finance expensive fixes, such as building a 5.5-mile pipeline to import water. Attempts to get money through grants so far have failed.

"We're caught in this Catch-22," said Jack Dugan, 58, president of the Pioneertown Property Owners Association.

It all started in the late 1990s. The town's wells dropped as much as 200 feet and tests showed that naturally occurring arsenic, a carcinogen, was above the recommended health levels, said Bill Stone, water operations manager for the San Bernardino County Water and Sanitation Division, which oversees Pioneertown.

The deeper the wells sink, the more concentrated the arsenic appears to be.

Stone and residents suspect the culprits are a prolonged drought and the 1992 Landers earthquake, which may have shifted rocks and changed the water flow.

Officials stopped hooking up new customers to the water system -- making it almost impossible to construct new homes -- and began mandating that residents conserve water.

Arsenic, a metal, is created through erosion. Exposure to it has been linked to skin abnormalities and, in the long term, cancer of the lungs, bladder, skin, liver and kidneys, according to the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

The state and federal limit for arsenic is 50 parts per billion. Two of Pioneertown's six wells exceed the maximum -- one has registered at more than twice the limit, Stone said.

Uranium also is a concern because its levels are borderline acceptable, he said.

The 110 households connected to the water system regularly receive letters that recommend using bottled water for cooking and drinking.

"Some of them are upset, and you can't blame them," Stone said.

Pasby is one of them. He said he wasn't told about the arsenic when he moved from Desert Hot Springs in 2002.

The artist still doesn't use his filtered water for everything. "If I boil Brussels sprouts, I use that," he said, pointing to the water cooler in his kitchen.

Not everyone in Pioneertown is so cautious. Jim McAlpine, 79, drinks the water straight from the tap because he says the arsenic concentration on the town's west side is low.

Come January, Pioneertown will have to get used to new standards for arsenic. Federal guidelines will set the level at 10 parts per billion, which the state is expected to follow or make even stricter, Stone said.

State and local regulatory agencies are taking a wait-and-see approach until the standards are official, said Joan Mulcare, program manager for the county Environmental Health Services Division.

"We'll have to do something," Mulcare said, adding that options could include hauling in water.

Water delivery is a lifeline for Jake and Carol Flowers. The couple had to find their own water source when they moved to Pioneertown five years ago. They installed two 4,000-gallon tanks for their home and their six horses.

"We've had quite a few times where we got down real low," Jake Flowers, 50, said. "You're scared to flush the toilet."

But he's optimistic that a pipeline will replace his tanks one day.

Previous efforts to find a solution frustrated officials. In 1997, a newly drilled well spouted little water and later contained high arsenic levels, Stone said. Drilling elsewhere in the area would not have produced enough water to replace the contaminated wells.

A treatment plant would be too costly and squander precious water in the process, he said.

Now officials are considering building the 5.5-mile pipeline from Landers to Pioneertown via the Yucca Valley area, said Lisa Manning, deputy chief of administration for the county Special Districts Department, which includes Pioneertown.

But the project's estimated $1.7 million cost would be too high to pass on to customers, she said. "Grant money is the only solution."

So far none has come through, but Pioneertown could know by year's end whether it qualifies for any new funding, Manning said. The pipeline would take about a year to construct, she said.

It may not be a cheap fix, said Bruce Davis, field representative to Supervisor Dennis Hansberger, whose district includes Pioneertown.

"It always gets down to the same thing, it's going to cost a lot of money for water in Pioneertown," Davis said.

Despite the quandary, residents appear not to have lost their sense of humor.

"There's a running joke in town," Pasby said, "'Everybody is a drunk because you can't drink the water.'"

A Hidden Agenda For the NPS

... to prevent Hoffman from overruling NPS biologists who said artificial watering systems should not be installed in the Mojave National Preserve in California ...

The Ledger - Lakeland, FL

The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees is a watchdog group of 410 former Park Service workers. The average member worked for the NPS for 30 years. Suffice it to say they have an abiding interest in seeing these national treasures protected.

Indeed, when the nation's park system was created in 1916, Congress declared the "fundamental purpose" was to "conserve the scenery and the national and historic objects and the wildlife therein and to provide for the enjoyment of same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

As longtime employees, coalition members were committed to that goal. As retirees, they are still devoted to it.

They are extremely disturbed about a proposed rewrite of NPS rules that has managed to grow to nearly 200 pages with no public input and little attention. The group uncovered it recently, and has sounded the alarm.

It is, said Bill Wade, former superintendent of the Shenandoah National Park and the coalition's executive council chairman, an "astonishing attempt to hijack the management of the 388 areas of our nation's park system and convert them into vastly diminished areas where almost anything goes."

Jerry Rogers, former associate director for cultural resources of the NPS, said the rewrite "stands nearly 100 years of national-park stewardship on its head."

Judging from the language in the draft document (available at www.npsretirees.org), their assessment of impending commercialization and exploitation are not without foundation.

Instead of having preservation as its "fundamental function," the NPS mission would become avoiding "impairment," which the document defines as permanent and irreversible damage. That basic shift opens the parks to all manner of development.

This sentence in the current rules now governs new activities for parks: "In cases of doubt as to the impacts of activities on park natural resources, the Service will decide in favor of protecting the natural resources." It is completely eliminated in the proposed rules. While current rules referred to parks as "classrooms of our heritage," the coalition notes the new ones see them as recreation opportunities.

The proposed rules also would require the NPS to obtain approval from state agencies in areas where the NPS now has the sole responsibility of acting on behalf of all U.S. citizens. The revised rules instruct the NPS to "cooperate" with towns and cities rather than to merely seek "collaboration."

Officials of the coalition for the park retirees said the proposed regulations are mainly the product of Paul Hoffman, a deputy assistant secretary at the Interior Department who oversees the Park Service. He was Wyoming state director for Vice President Dick Cheney from 1985 to 1989 when Cheney was in the U.S. House of Representatives. Hoffman then served as director of the Cody, Wyo., Chamber of Commerce until early 2002, when he was appointed to the deputy assistant's post.

This spring, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Center for Biological Diversity filed suit to prevent Hoffman from overruling NPS biologists who said artificial watering systems should not be installed in the Mojave National Preserve in California.

The Park Service is apparently trying to distance itself from Hoffman's proposals now that they've become public. David Barna, NPS spokesman, told the Casper (Wyo.) Star-Tribune that Hoffman was "playing devil's advocate" with the proposed rules and "had some initial suggestions and prompted us." Those suggestions are now being revised, he said.

Craig Obey, vice president for governmental affairs with the National Parks Conservation Association, a nonpartisan parks-protection organization, said it's difficult to believe Hoffman's ideas formed in a vacuum: "I would find it surprising that someone would put something like this together as a think piece. Documents like this are put together with a purpose."

Obey's association, along with the Friends of the Earth, Natural Resources Defense Council, and The Wilderness Society released a joint statement criticizing the proposal.

It ended: "As watchdog organizations, we share the concerns expressed by park professionals that these policy revisions depart radically from the fundamental stewardship ethic that has preserved our national parks from their beginning. We urge the Department of Interior to immediately abandon this rewrite, heeding the advice of National Park Service professionals who have effectively managed our heritage for decades."

Immediately, if not sooner.

Management of Mojave preserve draws concern

From Staff Reports
Victorville Daily Press

SAN BERNARDINO — The Mojave National Preserve fires have been put out. But concerns associated with the National Park Service's management of the region are just heating up.

San Bernardino County's concerns with the management of the preserve go beyond the fire and the perceived lack of aggressiveness in preventing or suppressing, according to First District Supervisor Bill Postmus. He's concerned about the removal and obliteration of the ranching community within the preserve as well as the removal and obliteration of the water guzzlers that served both livestock and wildlife. Postmus said in a prepared statement he's also alarmed at the regulatory control exerted by parks service over the use of County owned and maintained roads within the preserve.

Other concerns include what he termed "strong-armed law-enforcement tactics" exerted by NPS on neighboring private lands within the preserve; the dogged pursuit of reclaiming property with alleged non-conforming uses.

The Mojave National Preserve was created in 1994 by the California Desert Protection Act. That law also created vast areas of congressionally designated wilderness, which previously had roads and had allowed access, but for which Congress and environmentalists wanted protection.

San Bernardino County actively opposed the creation of the Mojave preserve. In one effort to quiet opponents, the Park Service created an Advisory Commission to include local government representation. But Postmus said his predecessor sat on the commission and provided input — but was ignored. The Commission never met since Postmus was elected 2000.

National Parks Service officials did not comment Monday.

Concerning June's Hackberry Complex Fire that burned 70,636 acres in the east Mojave said that hat if the ranching families were still in the region, much quicker action could and would have been taken when the fire first broke out.

Prior to the Desert Protection Act there was a plan for desert management that contained a degree of wilderness designation on truly roadless areas. That plan was ignored. This resulted in many necessary back country roads being closed — even limiting access by fire trucks, the supervisor said.

Nothing can undo the damage that has been done by the recent fire to the landscape or to the private homes and property in the area. But there are repairs that can be accomplished.

"The anticipated appointment of a new superintendent of the Mojave National Preserve is a great opportunity to demonstrate leadership and to restore order from the top in an administration that is less agenda-driven than the previous administration," Postmus said.

Controversy Over Plans for Changes in U.S. Parks

By Julie Cart, Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times

A series of proposed revisions of National Park policy has created a furor among present and former park officials who believe the changes would weaken protections of natural resources and wildlife while allowing an increase in commercial activity, snowmobiles and off-road vehicles.

National Park Service employees warn that the changes, which were proposed by the Department of the Interior and are undergoing a Park Service review, would fundamentally alter the agency's primary mission.

"They are changing the whole nature of who we are and what we have been," said J.T. Reynolds, superintendent of Death Valley National Park. "I hope the public understands that this is a threat to their heritage. It threatens the past, the present and the future. It's painful to see this."

The potential changes would allow cellphone towers and low-flying tour planes and would liberalize rules that prohibited mining, according to Bill Wade, former superintendent at Shenandoah National Park in Virginia.

Larry Whalon, chief of resource management at Mojave National Preserve, said the changes would take away managers' ability to use laws such as the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act to oppose new developments in parks.

Although Interior and the Park Service are free to change the service's management polices at any time, they have been amended only twice. The last time was in 2001.

Officials at the Park Service's Washington headquarters downplayed the significance of the proposed revisions, saying they were less a reflection of policy than an attempt to start a dialogue.

The changes are the brainchild of Paul Hoffman, who oversees the Park Service and was appointed deputy assistant secretary of the Interior in January 2002.

Hoffman came to the Park Service after serving as director of the Chamber of Commerce in Cody, Wyo. He had previously served as Wyoming state director for then-U.S. Rep. Dick Cheney from 1985 to 1989.

"Paul Hoffman had some initial suggestions and prompted us," said David Barna, a Park Service spokesman. "Paul Hoffman was playing devil's advocate. He was saying, 'Show us, the political appointees who make policy, why do you do things the way you do?' It was a starting point. We're a long way from that now. They have drafted a new raw draft."

The proposed changes, which have been in the drafting stage for two years, were leaked this week. About the same time, a group of 400 retired Park Service employees scheduled a news conference for today to announce a campaign to block the changes from taking effect.

Members of the group said they were particularly concerned about policy changes that would allow snowmobiles to travel over any paved road in any national park in the winter; elevate certain activities already occurring in some parks, such as grazing and mining, to "park purposes" — which would ensure their continuation; and change the acceptable level of air quality from "natural background" to air that has been altered by human presence.

Park Service management policies are based on congressional intent, case law and the 1916 Organic Act, and have afforded parks the highest level of natural resource protection of any federally managed land. The policies instruct Park Service officials to balance visitor use with wildlife needs, resource protection and historic preservation, generally holding protection and preservation as their highest goals.

The Interior Department's proposed changes hinge on what Park Service employees say is a revision of what they have been taught is one of the highest priorities: to do no harm to the park.

Since its inception in 1916, the Park Service has been charged with maintaining parks "unimpaired" for future generations to enjoy. According to current policies, when park officials determine an activity may lead to impairment, officials are authorized to ban the activity.

The proposed changes would alter the definition of impairment from "an impact to any park resource or value [that] may constitute an impairment" to one that can be proved to "permanently and irreversibly adversely [affect] a resource or value." Critics say the new definition would set a standard that is impossibly high.

The policy changes were presented to Park Service officials in July. The Department of Interior sent a copy of the revisions to Park Service headquarters in Washington, which forwarded it to its seven regional directors. The directors responded by sending a searing memo to Park Service Director Fran Mainella, criticizing the revisions.

The agency convened a working group of 16 longtime employees Aug. 3 in Santa Fe, N.M.. The group met for three days to try to settle on a compromise version of Hoffman's proposal.

"I was profoundly shocked at how far it went," said a participant in the workshop. He said the group continued to work on the rewrite but was not sure if its watered-down version would be acceptable to Interior officials.

A Park Service supervisor participating in redrafting the policy said a new version was not ready. He rejected the assertion that Hoffman's version was intended only as a provocative idea-generator.

POSTMUS PERSPECTIVE: MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE COOPERATION LONG OVERDUE

By Supervisor Bill Postmus

From "Postmus Notes", a periodic electronic newsletter from the office of Bill Postmus, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors for the County of San Bernardino

The Mojave National Preserve fires have been put out. But concerns associated with the National Park Service’s management of the region are just heating up.

San Bernardino County’s concerns with the management of the Preserve go beyond the fire and the perceived lack of aggressiveness in preventing or suppressing it, including, but not limited to:

• The removal and obliteration of the ranching community within the Preserve;


• The removal and obliteration of the water infrastructure that served both livestock and wildlife;


• The regulatory control exerted by NPS over the use of County owned and maintained roads within the Preserve;


• Strong-armed law-enforcement tactics exerted by NPS on neighboring private lands within the Preserve;


• The dogged pursuit of reclaiming property with alleged non-conforming uses.

The Mojave National Preserve was created in 1994 by the California Desert Protection Act (CDPA). That law also created vast areas of congressionally designated wilderness, which previously had roads and had allowed access, but for which the Congress and environmental activists wanted "protection".

San Bernardino County actively opposed the creation of the Mojave Preserve. In one effort to quiet opponents, the Park Service created an Advisory Commission to include local government representation. My predecessor sat on the commission, provided input, and was ignored. The Commission had a 10-year life, which expired in 2004, but it never met during my tenure as a County Supervisor, which began in late 2000.

From early on, the Park Service had marching orders to manage the Preserve as a National Park, and to manage it according to Clinton-era Washington-directed criteria. One of the County's specific inputs was to retain the ranching infrastructure, and to keep committed stewardship on the ground. Instead, NPS set about buying out and getting people off the land almost immediately.

With respect to the fire, I suspect that if the ranching families were still in the region, much quicker action could and would have been taken when the fire first broke out. Part of the obliteration of the ranching culture has also involved the dismantling of all of the range improvement and development projects, including a vast system of wells. Their water could have helped fight the fire. There is a new fight brewing over whether the wells can even continue to be used to siphon a trickle of water for the remaining wildlife.

Prior to the Desert Protection Act there was a plan for desert management that contained a degree of wilderness designation on truly roadless areas. That plan was ignored. This resulted in many necessary back country roads being closed (even limiting access by fire trucks).

Going beyond the fire issues, when the Preserve was created, the Park Service immediately installed regulatory road signs (“No Commercial Vehicles”, etc.) on our roads in the region. The Service did not consult with the County.

Now, after ten years, we are embarking upon negotiations with the Park Service on the management and cost-effective maintenance of this system. I assure residents and property owners of my commitment to maintain this link to San Bernardino County government within the Preserve.

We have been forced to accept a management and culture that is foreign to our way of life that includes private stewardship. This culture prefers to manage resources in the name of "protection" and "preservation."

We can't restore the livestock industry in the region, but we can, perhaps with some creative management, keep a group of committed private residents and landowners in the area to provide stewardship of the land. These kinds of interests should be welcomed by the Park Service, not viewed as "inholders" to be dealt with.

Nothing can undo the damage that has been done by the recent fire to the landscape or to the private homes and property in the area. But there are repairs that can be accomplished.

The anticipated appointment of a new Superintendent of the Mojave National Preserve is a great opportunity to demonstrate leadership and to restore order from the top in an Administration that is less agenda-driven than the previous Administration.

This recent devastating fire doesn't have to be just another sad chapter in the history of the Mojave Preserve. It could serve as an example of the need for a partnership between the federal, state and local governments for the good of not only the natural resources, but also for the people of the area.

Train Burglary Arrests

National Park News
Mojave National Preserve

On August 5th, a Budget rental box truck was observed parked two miles from the Union Pacific Railroad tracks near Cima, California, within the park. Rangers Kirk Gebicke and Joe Spillane contacted the two men, Alejandrio Zamudio and Alfredo Cienfugo-Benitez, seated in the truck.

They determined that the men had been drinking and that their reasons for being parked in the area did not add up. The two men gave the rangers permission to search the vehicle, which proved to be empty.

While a computer check was being run on the pair, ranger Wayne Dingman found a bindle of cocaine four feet from the point where Cienfugo-Benitez had thrown it into the roadside grass. Both men were arrested.

The rangers consulted with Union Pacific special agents and found that the duo had possibly been involved in thefts from trains and were in the park to collect stolen property.

The two men were turned over to Union Pacific police for follow-up interviews, then taken to jail.

A ground and aerial search of the railroad tracks the next day led to the discovery of 75 stolen television sets that had been thrown from a train. The estimated value is in excess of $225,000.

Rangers and UP special agents watched the property throughout the night to see if other gang members would return for the property, but without results.

On Indian land, a twist on church vs. state

As US agencies and courts declare sites as holy ground, critics charge the government is establishing religion.

TWO CASES: A federal court decision declared Rainbow Bridge in Utah (left) a protected site because of its spiritual value to Southwestern native Americans. Another federal decision allowed scientists to proceed with examining 'Kennewick Man' (model shown, right), the 9,300-year-old human remains that Washington native groups claim as an ancestor. SARA E. RICHARDS/AP; KEVIN P. CASEY/AP

By Brad Knickerbocker - Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

ASHLAND, ORE. – The relationship between government and religion has been a complicated issue ever since the architects of the new American republic made it the lead item in the First Amendment to the US Constitution and Thomas Jefferson argued for "a wall of separation between church and state."

It remains a difficult legal and political issue, as witness the US Supreme Court's recent split decisions on public displays of the Ten Commandments. It may be even more complex involving claims by native Americans, whose spiritual and religious practices are so connected to what they see as holy ground.

A series of court cases and federal agency policy decisions have attempted to thread subtle differences between the constitutional protection of the "free exercise" of religion and the equally important prohibition against the "establishment" of religion.

As with the Supreme Court's two-way decisions on the Ten Commandments, federal courts seem to have moved in conflicting directions.

Holy monuments vs. sacred ground

In one case, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against an 8-foot cross that had stood since 1934 on a hill in the Mojave National Preserve in California commemorating US soldiers lost in World War I. Yet another panel of judges from that same appellate court ruled that the owner of property in Arizona could not extract sand and gravel for commercial concrete from his land because Hopi, Navajo, and Zuni tribes considered it to be sacred.

Critics say that declarations of hallowed ground by the federal government - just as in cases involving Christmas crèches and other religious displays - go against the First Amendment. "That's a clear establishment clause violation," says William Perry Pendley, president of the Mountain States Legal Foundation. He reads the court decisions as "no to Christianity, yes to pantheism."

Ruling in the Arizona case, brought by gravel pit owner Dale McKinnon, three Ninth Circuit judges saw things differently. "Because of the unique status of Native American societies in North American history, protecting Native American shrines and other culturally important sites has historical value for the nation as a whole, much like Greece's preservation of the Parthenon," wrote Judge Betty Fletcher.

"The Establishment Clause does not require governments to ignore the historical value of religious sites," Judge Fletcher wrote. "Native American sacred sites of historical value are entitled to the same protection as the many Judeo-Christian religious sites ... including the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C.; the Touro Synagogue, America's oldest standing synagogue, dedicated in 1763; and numerous churches that played a pivotal role in the Civil Rights Movement, including the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala."

Among the more well-known sites at least partially protected because of their religious and cultural importance to native Americans are Medicine Wheel and Devil's Tower in Wyoming, Rainbow Bridge in Utah, and Cave Rock on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe.

The US Forest Service has closed Cave Rock to climbing, a move that is being challenged in federal court by the Access Fund, a 1.6-million member group that represents recreational climbers. Some observers predict that the case could end up in the US Supreme Court.

Related to such cases is the history of "Kennewick Man," the 9,300-year-old skeleton found on federal land in central Washington State in 1996.

Defining 'native' American

Indian tribes in the area claimed the "Ancient One," as they called him, as their own to bury. The federal government agreed, citing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990, which provides for the return of sacred items, human remains, and other things to lineal descendants and "culturally affiliated" Indian tribes. No further excavation was allowed at the site.

But a group of eight scientists - asserting that the remains may be more nearly related to the prehistoric Jomon people of Japan, Polynesians, or even Caucasians - sued for the right to conduct detailed study. The scientists won that case in federal court, and they recently spent 10 days examining Kennewick Man at the University of Washington in Seattle.

That has led to a push in Congress to amend NAGPRA so that it applies to the remains and artifacts of any indigenous American people whether or not they have any proven cultural affiliation to present-day tribes.

"Everyone who worked on the [original] bill, including myself, logically assumed that all pre-Columbian remains indigenous to the United States are 'native American' and would be covered by the act regardless of their age or whether they can be culturally affiliated," Walter Echo-Hawk, an attorney with Native American Rights Fund, told a Senate hearing last week.

But archeologists, anthropologists, and others argue against such a change.

"If the proposed amendment is accepted, NAGPRA will be expanded far beyond the boundaries of what is reasonable, and you will have removed from the national patrimony ancient cultures and heritages that should be a source of pride for all Americans," Paula Barran, an attorney representing the scientists, told the Senate hearing. "Such actions will impoverish future generations and seriously harm education in this country."

What lawmakers, judges, and government agencies continue to look for here are ways to balance the needs of science, cultural heritage, and the demands of the US Constitution regarding religion.

In any case, says Mr. Pendley, "This is an issue that's not going to go away."

The Great Mojave National Preserve Fire

22-27 June 2005

Between 22 and 27 June 2005 a fire that will change the crown of the East Mojave forever destroyed more than 70,000 acres. Before it was over, more than 1,100 fire fighters and associated equipment, aircraft, and support vehicles were involved. It is always difficult to estimate the cost of something like this, but the authorities involved are already admitting over $4,000,000 just to "fight" the fire ... and then there'll be rehabilitation and restoration costs.

Starting out with the good news (or "best" news I guess since none of it is good), I consider it remarkable they were able to contain the Hackberry Fire to the mountain range of that name. I was concerned the fire would get into Lanfair Valley. It didn't. Of course we have the rest of the fire season to be concerned about.

The fire destroyed at least 50% of the piñon & juniper habitat in the East Mojave. Included were historic piñons that were hundreds of years old that were used by Indians in prehistoric times as a source of pine nuts. In that sense these trees were more than simply part of the botanical landscape. And it must be understood that these trees will not be back in my lifetime, or in the lifetime of my children, or my children's children's lifetime. It might be noted that the fire burned only 70,000 acres out of the 1,600,000 acre preserve. But that 70,000 acres likely included half or more of the piñon/juniper habitat. It was part of the crown that gave the high country of the East Mojave such great natural charm. For many of us, the East Mojave will never be the same. We are left with our memories and the photos on file in Goffs.

The fire also consumed innumerable priceless historical sites. And when I say "consumed" I mean they are gone - not even much in the way of ashes. These include Bob Hollimon's home site, Pettit's Well, the Stotts Stamp Mill site, part of the Government Holes Corrals, Barnett Mine, up to a hundred other mine sites, and much more. These things are gone. They will never come back. When you combine these losses with the losses of cultural resources deliberately destroyed through the action of the National Park Service, it can be seen the preserve that started out so rich in that regard will soon be destitute of historical sites. I used to think the information and photographs we are collecting here at Goffs would serve as an interpretive adjunct to the historical sites themselves. Instead, our information and photographs will, in many cases, be all there is.

Residences were consumed by the fire in Round Valley. The fire entered the valley from the S and SW. I have no way of knowing whether that phase of the fire could have been prevented. The destruction is too complete and of course MNP NPS filters and spins any facts that come out. Anyway, a number of residences were completely and utterly destroyed. The landscape was completely changed from one of a lush piñon/juniper region to something that looks like it is on the moon. Many use the word "moonscape."

Mid Hills Campground was mostly destroyed. As I understand it (the way in is blocked by MNP NPS so I haven't actually seen it), only one tier of camp sites remains. Mid Hills represents 50% of the camp grounds in the MNP and the most popular one, especially by experienced desert campers. I imagine some grand new plan will be needed to make up the difference.

Hardly a thing can be found in the more intensely burned areas. Jo Ann and I noted three weeks after the burn a complete absence of lizards and even insects while walking across a badly burned area in Round Valley. The charred remains of rabbits and smaller rodents that couldn't get out of the way are encountered here and there. More agile critters likely fared better.

To exacerbate the situation, on Friday 22 July and again on Sunday 24 July heavy rains fell in the Round Valley/Gold Valley region. The rain served to soften the bleak black coloration of the countryside, but the black slurry rushed down the hill sides forming raging torrents that washed the road out through the narrows in Black Canyon and did other damage. We can expect that to continue. The rain extended out some into Lanfair Valley which might help with the dryness there. (Later note: rains have continued in this area up to the time of writing - 3 August 2005.)

As we leave this fire behind us, we must worry about what lies ahead. We are maybe a month into the fire season with two or more months ahead. There's much yet to burn in the East Mojave. My most urgent worries would be Lanfair Valley and Cima Dome. Keep your fingers crossed on these. It has already been demonstrated that the force and will available to confront fires in the East Mojave is not sufficient to stop them.

As to the Mojave Desert Heritage & Cultural Association and its properties in the East Mojave, none were burned. President Chris Ervin and Executive Director Dennis Casebier each have personal property in Round Valley that was very badly burned - or, the phrase is, "the land is toast." Several of our long-time members and close friends lost their residences in this fire.

Mojave National Preserve is attempting to come out of this looking like it was not a failure and making it appear they have a grip on things. On Saturday 23 July 2005 they hosted a get-together amongst their "neighbors" to "share information about the recent fire, discuss concerns, and learn how to prepare for future fires and other emergencies." Although I do not commonly attend affairs like this, considering them to be mainly a waste of time, I decided to go to this one for two reasons: (1) Because I wasn't invited and yet I own four pieces of land in the preserve and the Goffs Cultural Center shares a border with the preserve, and, (2) I had a house guest who wanted to attend because he, too, owns land in the preserve.

Park Service is putting as good a face on this as they can. Comments like "we did all that was humanly possible," "it was an act of God," "it was the wettest winter on record and hence the undergrowth expanded to an unusual extent," "there was too much dead material on the ground and it needed to be burned." Every once in awhile MNP NPS tries the approach of "the fire was started naturally so it is OK" but that doesn't fly, especially with people who really care about the East Mojave and those who lost their homes or cabins. This meeting was definitely a propaganda and posturing affair.

As it turned out a large number of people were there and we all did get to visit with many of our acquaintances. You could get along OK at this meeting unless you made the slightest suggestion that the response to the fire was less than perfect. Yet there was an undercurrent from the "neighbors" pointing to poor management practices and other bungling that permitted the fire to become much larger than it might have been. For example the things I heard at this meeting included: (1) There were arguments among the various factions in the command center at various points as whether to fight the fire or to just let it burn - valuable time was lost in the discussions. (2) Fire fighting units were held back because of uncertainties about whether they were supposed to drive in wilderness. (3) At the onset it was thought water would be available in the big tank at the mouth of Carruthers Canyon, but it was dry - as were many other potential water reserves around Lanfair Valley (this because MNP NPS has cut off all the waters previously maintained by ranchers). They had to wait up to five hours for water to be hauled in. (4) Communications between various elements of the huge fire-fighting force were poor. (5) The formal fire plan drawn up last year by MNP NPS was a waste of time. (6) There were major errors in certain of the multi-colored maps MNP NPS had drawn up, but when "neighbors" attempted to comment on that (or anything else for that matter) the MNP NPS people became very defensive. (7) While the fire was raging there was government equipment including a front loader with a blade being used to tear out corrals and fence lines only a few miles from the fire but this equipment was not brought into play. (8) Someone had heard from a fire fighter that certain properties were to be protected at all costs, while others received little or no attention. (9) A critical group of fire fighters were not informed there were residences in 4th of July Canyon which placed the residents at risk. We'll likely never know the truth about these things because of the standard NPS practice of withholding data (just make a formal request for something sometime and you'll find out what stonewalling and the shell game really are).

However, the data provided by MNP NPS (just for show and tell, you couldn't take it home) made one scenario clear that might well have gone another way. I'll try to explain.

The fire came into Round Valley from the south. It went down both sides of the valley and was an inferno along Black Canyon Road. It was heading for Cedar Canyon Road which was a natural fire break to prevent it from going farther north into the southern end of the New York Mountains. As the fire approached the northern end of the valley and Cedar Canyon Road, it slacked off - that is, the inferno died down as the fire approached the natural barrier of Cedar Canyon Road. That was the place to make the stand. But that was not done. By the time the fire reached Cedar Canyon Road there were just two small relatively harmless fingers to stop, one just east of Black Canyon Road and the other over near Rock Spring. But the fire was permitted to go on.

Having been over that ground several times since then, it can be seen the fire might have been stopped there. There are places in that area where the fire was stopped naturally by a small two-tracker desert backroad. And most of that area didn't burn at all. It is still green. Anyone who wants to, can go out and see that. Or you can see it on the special multi-colored maps MNP NPS has prepared. Why a stand wasn't made here is a question for the people who have all the data (including command structures &c) and we all know MNP NPS are reluctant to share data with us lay people. My guess would be it was an error on the part of those in direct charge and that when the inferno that had been experienced in the southern part of the valley started to fade, just at that moment when a decision should have been made to make a stand, someone faltered.

As a comparison, we can take a look at the same Cedar Canyon Road a little to the west. The fire burned hard from the south right up to Cedar Canyon Road and was stopped there, thus clearly showing the Cedar Canyon Road had the potential as a fire break to stop the fire. Instead, a little to the east in Cedar Canyon, it was permitted to cross the road and continue around Pinto Valley and into the New York Mountains sacrificing additional tens of thousands of acres of piñon/juniper habitat. I asked one fire fighter why, if they felt Cedar Canyon Road itself wasn't enough of a fire break, they didn't use a blade (like bulldozers or front loaders) to widen the fire break and he said the use of such blades for this purpose was against "park" policy. He quickly reversed himself saying there weren't any available anyway, although we all have knowledge that there is a perfectly good front loader nearby being used to destroy fence lines and corrals.

There is no question on my part about the quality of these fire fighters. Likely they are the best that can be had. They worked hard, faced some danger, went without sleep, did a good job as they were told, and made a lot of money in five days. But as with a military engagement (and I wouldn't make this analogy except a MNP NPS person did at the open house) you can have the best soldiers in the world and lose the battle if they are not given the right orders at the right time. The ability to sense out what the right order is at the right moment is what leads to success and makes a brilliant field commander. Anyway, the two fingers of fire coming down the central part of Round Valley were permitted to cross Cedar Canyon Road with the loss of more piñon/juniper habitat and creating a major threat to 4th of July Canyon (which was mostly saved by the fire fighters).

On 21 April 2005, almost two months to the day before the MNP Fire started, MNP Superintendent Mary Martin was here for a meeting. I asked her a question: "What do you plan to do when the big fire starts?" With a great show of confidence, she replied: "We have a plan, we'll implement the plan - do you want a copy?" I said "yes" and she subsequently sent me one. Through the days of the great fire, I wondered how many people were sitting around thumbing through this tome - none I hope. To face up to a great challenge like this fire, you don't need a detailed plan. You need to know what to do and you need to have the courage to do it - truly great people win. Others fall by the wayside studying their plans. Following are just a couple of paragraphs from that plan:

MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE - FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN

B. WILDLAND FIRE USE

Opportunities for Wildland Fire Use

Fire is not thought to play as significant a role historically in the Mojave Desert as it does in other western ecosystems, most notably the southern chaparral or Sierran mixed conifer zones. Within the true Mojave Desert vegetation types, small infrequent fires characteristic of the historic fire regime are a function of the low fuel loads and wide spacing that characterizes the Mojave Desert flora. Within the Mojave Preserve, however, a number of vegetative communities reflect a transition between Mojave and Sonoran or Great Basin desert types. These communities do support fire and their historic fire regimes and characteristic fire adaptations differ from true Mojave plant communities. Lightning ignitions do occur and resulting fires are a natural, albeit relatively infrequent, disturbance regime.

The objective for wildland fire use within the Mojave National Preserve is to allow the natural process of fire to occur with minimal interference, thus fostering landscape and biotic diversity. Acceptable results include the creation of vegetative mosaics and edges, removal of decadent shrubs and grasses to encourage growth of new and vigorous individuals, promotion of nutrient cycling, and creation of improved short and long-term foraging opportunities for certain species of animals.

Fires from natural ignitions will be allowed to burn within given areas and under specific circumstances where there are minimal values at risk. Approximately 342,927 acres are zoned for fire use, including portions of all Fire Management Units except the Cima Unit. In all cases, fire use zones are coincident with designated wilderness. In these areas, a timely suppression response would be unlikely or has the potential to result in adverse impact to wilderness values. Natural ignitions in these areas are expected to be infrequent and isolated with fire spread contained by natural barriers. Fire use will only be implemented where the current spot weather forecasts indicate no wind events that could cause spread of spotting that would pose a risk to life, property, or sensitive resources. A number of pre-determining factors would also be weighed, including natural preparedness levels, air quality restrictions, and current local resource availability. Maximum manageable area per wildland fire use incident will not exceed 200 acres. In all cases, wildland fire use incidents will be monitored by fire personnel. The fire management strategy will transition from fire use to suppression when a) conditions change, b) the fire threatens to exceed the maximum manageable area, c) or the fire poses a threat to other values.


It can be seen from these words that MNP NPS doesn't (or didn't) really understand the power of a wildfire. Their tremendously exaggerated opinion of themselves and their abilities, precludes them from seeing the truth. Then apparently the National Park Service heritage prevents them from speaking the truth when things go wrong. (I believe it is a bigger problem than just our local Mojave National Preserve.)

The two paragraphs quoted above raise many questions. One question that comes to my mind from my own experience that reflects a misguided policy on the part of MNP NPS has to do with the prohibition against burning "dead and down" in campfires. If you want a campfire in the MNP, you must bring in your own wood and fire pan. Maybe in other parks that makes some sense. I've been camping in the East Mojave for over forty years and frequently I have used the same camping spot many times. Just as a matter of course and concern about the possibility of fire, I would clean up around my camp site. I even got to bringing along a small rake so I could get the weeds from under larger bushes. This undergrowth facilitates the spread of a wildfire in the desert and it serves to ignite the larger bushes. Over a period of time my camping areas would be neat and tidy for some distance around. I always had open camp fires and never had a problem. Under NPS management (and we've had ten years of that now) that isn't permitted. In fact, if you even looked like you wanted to gather a piece of dead and down wood for a fire you'd be approached by Big Brother armed to the teeth and ready to haul you off to jail. So they would prefer to burn 70,000 acres at a time?

Early in the fire, I guess before MNP NPS people realized the wildfire was out of control, you'd hear words from NPS people like: "It is a natural event so we will let it burn." Or that no fire suppression efforts would take place until it was out of wilderness. In the early stages, it was not necessarily viewed as a bad thing. One MNP NPS person spoke in very defensive words about the naturalness of the fire and went on to swoon: "I am thrilled (not my word) to be part of such a dramatic event." The word "thrilled" stuck in my mind. How about being "appalled?" or how about feeling remorse or even guilt?

I don't especially mean to say that if MNP NPS had permitted burning of "dead and down" the outcome of this fire would have been any different. How could I know? But it does point up how inappropriate many of the regulations they bring with them from other parks have no application in the desert. And, from the very beginning, MNP NPS has steadfastly refused to listen to any desert expert or resident. They still seem not to understand that there are many people out here (permanent residents and visitors) that know a lot more about this place than they do.

Another inflammatory issue is to suggest in the presence of MNP NPS people that the removal of cattle and burros from the East Mojave made any difference. The point is that if cattle had been present they would have eaten much of the grass and other fuel making it more difficult for the fire to spread. This of course reflects on another disaster MNP NPS is responsible for, i.e., removal of cattle from the East Mojave. There are, however, cattle yet on the 7IL Ranch, so MNP NPS is quick to point out that fires burned in areas where cattle are yet grazing. And that is true. Yet you don't have to be a rocket scientist to deduce that if cattle have grazed an area, that area will be less susceptible to fire. But, with characteristic behavior, MNP NPS seems to be totally unable to be objective about any issue that reflects upon them in any way. If you carry that thinking another step, then it is safe to say there is no scientific basis for anything they say or do since objectivity is the essence of science. And I believe that to be the case. There is no person involved in this trained in science that is free to speak the truth.

Now that the fire is over, MNP NPS is busy making reports of all the damage. They are even compiling lists of cultural resources. This isn't because they care about those resources, it is because they can now apply for funds for restoration. Funds that would be outside their normal budget process. I'd be surprised if this doesn't amount to another four million. And what good will it do? You cannot replace things that are priceless.

Thus ends the first decade of National Park Service management of the East Mojave. And this fire is just one more in a long ten-year list of disasters out here. I don't know if we can stand another ten years. And yet NPS guardianship is touted as the highest level of protection the nation can provide.

Life could be so much nicer for MNP NPS, and everyone around them, if they could just kick back and accept the reality of their situation in the East Mojave. If they could accept that they are the Johnny-come-latelys here. That nothing is gained by their deceit ... their unwillingness to be honest and straightforward ... their difficulty with accepting and respecting the multitude of people who have vested interests here.

One bottom line that seems clear to many who understand the East Mojave is that this area should never have been put under the management of the National Park Service. The area was doing just fine under BLM management and it should be changed back. Senator Dianne Feinstein and her colleagues, the vast majority of the news media, and the multitude of Dark Ages People (Enviros) were all wrong. And to prove that point we are privileged to watch the destruction of the East Mojave before our very eyes with no way to stop it.

Final note. I've agonized over this report for more than a week. That has given me an opportunity to show it to others, including people who were involved in the fire in official capacities. There is general concurrence of the major points described here, including failures in coordination and management and especially in the confusion contributed by faltering leadership on the part of MNP NPS. An investigation by an unbiased third party is in order.

Dennis G. Casebier
Goffs Schoolhouse
37198 Lanfair Road G-15
Essex, California 92332

STRATEGIES ADDRESSED FOR LIMITING DANGER, DESTRUCTION OF WILDFIRE

Needles Desert Star, Needles, CA

MOJAVE NATIONAL PRESERVE - Fire professionals and scientists with the National Park Service are still sorting out the aftermath of the Hackberry Complex Fires, a lightning-ignited conflagration that consumed 70,736 acres of the Mojave National Preserve just west of Needles, Calif. in late June.

Raging through pinyon and juniper country at approximately four to six-thousand feet elevation the fires, traced to seven separate starting points, fed on high fuel loads grown from the past winter's generous rains then dried to tinder under a brutal summer sun.

Most of the popular Mid Hills Campground was wiped out. Hole-in-the-Wall Campground and Mitchell Caverns, a state-owned attraction surrounded by the federally-run preserve, were spared and remain open.

The Park Service will hold an open house at Hole-in-the-Wall on Saturday, July 23, from 2 to 4 p.m. The fire and its aftermath will be discussed. The public is encouraged to attend, ask questions and visit with service personnel. From Needles take Interstate 40 west to the Essex Road exit, travel 20 miles north to the Hole-in-the-Wall fire center. Linda Slater, public information officer with the service, stressed the importance of maintaining what emergency responders call "defensible space:" a clear area around homes and outbuildings that would discourage the spread of flames and give firefighters space in which to work.

"The biggest thing would be for people to clear around cabins," Slater said in a July 15 telephone interview. "That's a critical item. We clear around park buildings for that very reason. There's no fire department to protect homes; people need to take the initiative."

"It's a shame to see all the beautiful vegetation lost," Slater allowed, "but another big factor is the private homes and cabins. That's a greater loss for a lot of people."

Advice, including printed resource materials, will be dispensed at the open house. Slater also recommended a Web site: www.firewise.com

"I think it's pretty important to note that we're at the beginning of the fire season, not at the end of it," Slater pointed out. "We have a lot of hot weather ahead, a lot of lightning strikes."

While debate continues about cause and effects, so far service officials seem to feel not much can be done in the way of prevention.

Jim Andre, director of the Granite Mountains Research Center, was quoted in a NPS mailing on the fire as saying: "Fire is very likely a part of the east Mojave. In the pinyon zone, looking at about 30 fires over the last 100 years indicates that it's somewhat frequent. This was a natural ignition, it was a heavy fuel year ... regardless of weeds, regardless of fire suppression history, regardless of grazing, there would have been fuel to burn and we would have had a fire."

Grazing is the point of a lot of controversy since the preserve's creation. Post fire, proponents are pointing out that cows do a pretty fair job of creating defensible space by cropping potential fuel.

Park officials are quick to point out that some of the ignition locations of the Hackberry Complex Fires are within areas where grazing occurs.

Rob and Kate Blair of the 7IL Ranch were among the first to battle the blaze. Between them, the Blairs and park service fire fighters built a half-mile of fire line to keep the fire north of the ranch. They're reported to have stayed up all night putting out flare-ups, and hosted eight "hotshot" crews for several days.

Said Slater: "Several fires did start on areas being grazed. Those areas burned. The idea that grazing over the whole preserve could have prevented the fire is not true."

"There were seven different starts," she continued. "The rangers were out there immediately. There are not many folks in the area. It took awhile to ramp up and get all the resources needed out there to get a handle on it."

Those resources: a reported 1,133 firefighters, five helicopters, 15 engine crews, four air-tankers and two small planes, came with a price tag of $4.5 million and rising.

A bright spot: there was only one lost-time injury. Another: the desert critters seem to have done a good job of surviving the fire; even those too slow to get out of the way.

Slater reported a biologist's evaluation was begun shortly after the fire, mostly because of the threatened desert tortoise.

"Most of the fire burned at higher elevation," Slater said, "but it did kind of finger down into (tortoise) habitat."

"They found live tortoises that came out of their burrows after the fire."

"Another critter is deer, and some bighorn (sheep). We flew over the area after the fire and didn't see any deer carcasses. There was not direct mortality that we're aware of."

It's too soon, she continued, to determine how post-fire regrowth might affect the ungulate population.

It's also too soon to make predictions about erosion, always a concern following a fire. "Right after the fire ended a team came out, looked it over and created a plan," Slater said.

That plan is an inch thick and will continue to develop over the course of the next couple of years. The team did undertake immediate stabilization efforts for things like fire lines, which create pathways for erosion.

Count on controversy, whatever the course chosen in the East Mojave. As Slater put it, "It's amazing how quickly an act of nature, an act of God, becomes a tool for people to use in political battles."

ANTHEM OF THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

This "anthem" was found on a faded piece of paper blowing around the East Mojave.

Composed for the NPS by we the members of the California Chapter of People for a Perfect World in Grateful Recognition of Services Rendered.

MELODY: THIS LAND IS YOUR LAND WITH APOLOGIES TO WOODY GUTHRIE

This land was your land but now it's our land
Controlled with a heavy hand, give in to our demand
Or please just stay away and we'll collect our pay
Like we would anyway while doing things our way

From the 15 freeway down to the 40
This is our property for all prosperity
We don't like cars and trucks, we don't like people much
Cause this is our own land and we have our own plan

Chorus
We are the NPS and sure that we know best
You're warned not to transgress or you will face arrest

Like a band of jackals we removed the cattle
What does it matter? We won the battle
The burros are now gone and some think we did wrong
This land to us belongs just kindly move along

We turned the water off and let the land go dry
It's just too damn bad the wildlife had to die
There are a few who think us cruel
But this land was made for us to rule

Chorus
We are the NPS and sure that we know best
You're warned to not transgress or you will face arrest

Let's make it very clear there are no crosses here
We made one disappear because we have no fear
We have a higher law and we expect your awe
We are the NPS and God can find no flaw

This land was your land but now it's our land
With an overactive gland Dianne had it planned
Unlike Disneyland, all fun here is banned
If you don't like it here why don't you go pound sand!

Chorus
We are the NPS and sure that we know best
You're warned to not transgress or you will face arrest

Property Ruling Strikes Nerve in House

Reacting to high court decision, lawmakers pass amendment that would ban use of federal funds for some seizures of private land.

THE NATION
By Maura Reynolds and David G. Savage, Staff Writers
Los Angeles Times

WASHINGTON — Angry over a recent Supreme Court decision, the House on Thursday began a legislative drive to roll back the power of local governments to seize homes and other private property for economic development projects.

By a vote of 231 to 189, the House approved an amendment forbidding the administration from spending money on local projects that seize private property for business development.

"What all of us who wish to see this legislation enacted into law want to make sure happens is that the federal government's money isn't used to finance taking someone's property from them to build a strip mall," said Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.).

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California was among those who voted against the amendment, saying she opposed withholding federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."

The vote was loosely along party lines: 192 Republicans and 39 Democrats voted to approve; 157 Democrats, 31 Republicans and one Independent were opposed.

In a ruling that has touched a public nerve, the high court in a 5-4 decision last week upheld the power of cities to condemn private property for redevelopment projects. The ruling was a victory for the city of New London, Conn., which had condemned a number of homes in its old waterfront district to clear the way for offices and a hotel.

The city said it wanted to create new jobs and raise more tax revenue. The homeowners who fought the seizure said the city should not be allowed to take their property to give it to private developers.

The ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London sparked outrage, and a number of lawmakers said they wanted to repudiate the high court.

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) said the court had failed to "defend the liberties and freedoms our forefathers so desperately envisioned when they established our great nation."

Although the federal government does not initiate such projects, its money may play a crucial role in some of them, he said. "The practical effect this amendment will have is that it will prohibit federal funds from improving or constructing infrastructure support on lands acquired involuntarily, through the use of eminent domain, for private development," said Garrett, the amendment's chief sponsor.

The vote on the amendment came as separate bills were introduced in the House and Senate that would deprive state and local governments of federal funds for any development project that relied on eminent domain to seize private property.

The Garrett amendment, added to the annual spending bill that funds the departments of Housing and Urban Development, and Transportation, would be in effect just for the coming fiscal year, which starts Oct 1 and lasts to Sept. 30, 2006. By contrast, if either of the two standalone bills were to pass, they would be more sweeping and permanent.

"The Supreme Court voted last week to undo private property rights and to empower governments to kick people out of their homes and give them to someone else because they feel like it," said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas).

DeLay and other conservatives in Congress accused the Supreme Court of "judicial overreach" and expanding the rights of government at the expense of private property.

"The only silver lining to the cloud of this decision is the possibility that this time the court has finally gone too far and that the American people are ready to reassert their constitutional authority," DeLay said.

The House bill introduced Thursday was sponsored by Sensenbrenner and Democrat John Conyers Jr. of Michigan. The Senate bill was introduced Monday by Republican John Cornyn of Texas.

"This [court] decision, in my opinion, has the potential of becoming the Dred Scott decision of the 21st century," Sensenbrenner said, referring to the 1857 court ruling that upheld slavery.

"We had a civil war as a result of the mistake that the Supreme Court made in the 1850s."

Usually, conservatives criticize the court for "judicial activism." In this instance, they criticized the court for failing to act to block the initiatives of a city council.

In their opinion, the justices noted that state legislatures are free to pass laws that bar officials from condemning property for private development. California and at least eight other states have laws on the books that forbid the use of the eminent domain power to condemn private property for economic development, except in "blighted" areas.

In the House on Thursday, Democrats in the California delegation voting for the Garrett amendment were Loretta Sanchez of Anaheim, Ellen O. Tauscher of Walnut Creek, Maxine Waters of Los Angeles and Lynn C. Woolsey of Petaluma; Republicans voting against were Jerry Lewis of Redlands and Bill Thomas of Bakersfield.