Western Ranchers Defend Big Victory in Grazing Battle

Fairfield Sun Times

DENVER -- Two ranching organizations, an Arizona ranch, and an Arizona rancher at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today defended their victory from an Arizona federal district court that granted them summary judgment in a lawsuit by environmental groups demanding that grazing permits be revoked and subjected to lengthy federal environmental review.

The groups claim the U.S. Forest Service violated federal law when it reauthorized permits that allow ranchers to graze their livestock on nearby federal lands as they have done for generations by failing to conduct full environmental impact statements (EISs) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to reissuing the permits.

The Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association, the Public Lands Council, Orme Ranch, Inc., and Bert Teskey, all represented by Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF), maintain that Congress made clear that no EISs are required. After the two groups dropped challenges to seven Forest Service decisions, the matter was briefed and argued. The district court upheld the agency’s ruling as to seven of the eight decisions.

“The Forest Service complied with the law and the panel should uphold the district court’s ruling,” said William Perry Pendley, MSLF president.”

In fiscal years 2005 through 2007, the Forest Service, without conducting environmental reviews pursuant to NEPA, reauthorized several grazing permits on lands managed by the Forest Service. On August 15, 2011, the Western Watersheds Project and the Center For Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit alleging that 17 of the reauthorizations—seven in the Coconino National Forest in Arizona, three in the Kaibab National Forest in Arizona, six in the Prescott National Forest in Arizona, and one in the Coronado National Forest in New Mexico—violated NEPA. The lawsuit was filed despite the clear intent of Congress that the Forest Service is not required to do the reviews.

Beginning in 1995, Congress enacted legislation to address its concern that the inability of the Forest Service to complete NEPA analyses on expiring term grazing permits would delay renewal of the permits to the detriment of the western ranchers involved. Specifically, Congress sought to reduce the amount of documentation and expense required to conduct NEPA. In 2003, Congress strengthened these protections of ongoing livestock grazing by directing that term grazing permits shall remain in effect pending compliance with NEPA. Then, in 2005, Congress directed that reauthorization of grazing permits is “categorically excluded” from documentation under NEPA if the Forest Service makes certain determinations. The total number of allotments reauthorized under the provision may not exceed 900.

Mountain States Legal Foundation, created in 1977, is a nonprofit, public-interest legal foundation dedicated to individual liberty, the right to own and use property, limited and ethical government, and the free enterprise system. Its offices are in suburban Denver, Colorado.

Judge refuses to halt huge Nevada gold mine

Written by SCOTT SONNER
Native American Times






Cortez Hills plant, pit and exploration in northeast Nevada.


RENO, Nev. (AP) – A federal judge ruled Monday a massive gold mine project could proceed in northeast Nevada despite a bid by a Western tribe and conservationists to block it on religious and environmental grounds.

U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks ruled there’s not enough evidence to force Barrick Gold Corp. to postpone digging a 2,000-foot deep open pit at the Cortez Hills mine on Mount Tenabo 250 miles east of Reno until a trial is held on the merits of the project.

The Great Basin Resource Watch and the Western Shoshone claimed the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s review of the Toronto-based company’s proposed mine ignores some of the environmental effects and disregards tribal leaders’ concerns it will destroy a sacred landmark.

Hicks, who took more than a half hour to explain his ruling from the bench, said a preliminary injunction like the one the plaintiffs wanted is an “extraordinary remedy” taken only when there is a likelihood they will prevail at trial.

He said that while he might change his mind, so far mine opponents had failed to prove construction of the mine would violate the tribe’s religious freedoms or that the BLM violated any federal environmental laws in approving the mine under the Mining Act of 1872.

“The effect of the proposed mining project is on the plaintiffs’ subjective, emotional experience. It is offensive to their sensibilities and in the mind of some will desecrate a sacred mountain,” Hicks said.

“Nevertheless, the diminishment of that spirituality – as serious as it may be – under the Supreme Court’s holdings it is not a substantial burden on religious freedom,” he said.

Hicks said he also disagreed with the opponents’ claims that the BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act and Federal Land Management Policy Act by failing to adequately consider effects on groundwater and scenic values of the area.

He said an environmental study was very thorough.

“It is very clear it represents thousands and thousands of work hours by BLM,” Hicks said.

“The court is satisfied they met the laws that require the BLM to take a hard look at all of the issues that pertain to a project such as this one,” he said.

Louis Schack, manager of communications and community affairs for Barrick Gold of North America, said the company was glad Hicks agreed the project was “thoroughly reviewed and responsibly approved” by the BLM.

“This is the most studied and scrutiinized mining project in Nevada. It is also very important to the economic stability of rural Nevada,” Schack said.

Roger Flynn, a lawyer with the Western Mining Action Project representing the tribe and the Great Basin Resource Watch, said before the ruling was issued that the plaintiffs would consider appealing to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. He did not immediately return a telephone call or e-mail seeking comment after the ruling.

Lawyers for Barrick – the largest gold mining company in the world – said any delay in digging the mine would have caused an undue financial hardship on the company and its workers during tough economic times.

The company is prepared to spend $640,000 a day for the next 15 months, said Francis Wikstrom, a lawyer for Barrick. He said a lot of that money would remain in Nevada, a state that produces more gold than any other – trailing only South Africa, Australia and China internationally.

Thirty workers already have been laid off and 250 to 300 more would be out of work and unlikely to find other jobs if the project had been halted, he said.

“This is basically the only game in town in northern Nevada,” Wikstrom said. “People need to feed their families.”

Hicks said the case has “tremendous significance” to the tribe, the mining company and its workers.

“And it certainly has huge implications to the public at a time of severe economic difficulties throughout the nation, not just in Nevada,” he said.

Hicks said that while there was no question Mount Tenabo was a very important mountain to the Western Shoshone, mining has been prevalent on the mountain since the 1860s – even before Nevada was a state.

Not so dead on arrival

The unlikely success of the Clinton Roadless Rule

by Rob Inglis
High Country News

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which Bill Clinton signed into law eight days before he left office, protected 58.5 million acres of national forest land from logging and energy development. It was one of the boldest conservation measures in the history of federal land management, but it seemed doomed to a very short lifespan. Because it was only an administrative rule, it could be overturned by the next administration, which strongly opposed it.

But nearly eight years later, the Clinton Roadless Rule remains in effect for 35.6 million acres of national forest in seven Western states. Idaho has adopted, and Colorado is about to adopt, state-specific roadless regulations that fall short of the Clinton rule but still provide protection for large swaths of land. (Roadless lands in Wyoming and Utah are currently unprotected.) The Clinton rule's survival still hangs on the outcome of two ongoing court cases, but even if it were to succumb, it is likely that Democrats in Washington would replace it with either a new administrative rule or legislative protection for roadless areas. Thanks to the incompetence of the Bush administration and the tenacity of some never-say-die environmental lawyers, the long-shot maneuver might have worked.

The Forest Service first inventoried its roadless areas in the 1970s, after the 1964 Wilderness Act directed it to determine which of its lands were eligible for wilderness protection. Some of this land was preserved in a piecemeal fashion, through state-specific bills. But much of it stayed unprotected. The goal of the Clinton Roadless Rule was to systematically protect these remaining road-free lands without going through the arduous wilderness-designation process. More than 1.5 million people commented on the proposed rule, and over 95 percent of them were in favor.

The Bush administration at first thought it could get rid of the rule quietly, simply by not defending it against lawsuits from timber companies. "They didn't go about it very directly, at least not at the outset," says Mike Anderson of The Wilderness Society. "It was more of a subterranean strategy of trying to get the courts to take down the rule." It wasn't until 2005 that the administration launched a frontal assault, issuing a weaker replacement rule that required governors to petition the Forest Service to protect their states' roadless land. But the administration had done only a cursory environmental assessment of the new rule, leaving it vulnerable to legal challenge. In 2006, 9th Circuit District Court Judge Elizabeth LaPorte ruled that the administration had violated the National Environmental Policy Act in establishing the new rule. She overturned it and reinstated the original Roadless Rule. Her reinstatement stood until August of this year, when 10th Circuit District Court Judge Clarence Brimmer issued an injunction against the 2001 rule, saying, as he had in a previous injunction, that it also violated NEPA.

This left the nation's roadless areas in a curious legal position, with one judge saying that the 2001 rule was the law of the land and another judge of equal rank, but in a different judicial circuit, saying that it wasn't. To ease this tension, LaPorte has reduced the scope of her 2006 decision, limiting it to the 9th Circuit plus New Mexico until a randomly selected panel of three appeals judges rules on the validity of the decision. The three judges are all Republican appointees -- two of them appointed by George W. Bush -- so they may well reverse LaPorte's decision and reinstate the Bush rule. Even if LaPorte's 2006 decision withstands the appeal, Judge Brimmer's latest decision -- which is currently being appealed to the 10th Circuit -- could still undo the Roadless Rule.

But even if the Clinton Roadless Rule ultimately goes down in the courts, it has effectively protected the nation's roadless areas -- in which only seven miles of new roads have been constructed -- for the past eight years. "The Bush administration has basically blown it," says Craig Allin, professor of political science at Cornell College. "They have spent eight years trying to abolish the rule, and they have been so incompetent in their efforts that it's going to be left for the next administration."

Obama, who has expressed support for roadless preservation, could craft another administrative rule protecting most or all of the nation's roadless areas. The more difficult -- but more permanent -- way to protect roadless lands is through legislation. Even with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, however, any bill would have to deal with the threat of filibuster. "If there are 60 votes in the Senate, a statute like that might very well pass," says Allin. "Without sixty votes, its chances are poor."

If such a bill does pass, the Clinton Roadless Rule will be remembered not just for buying time but also for changing the terms of the roadless debate. "It's completely changed the context of how we talk about these undeveloped areas," says Franz Matzner of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "Ten years ago, these places were just the places we were going to log next. Now, if someone wants to log a roadless area, they've got a fight on their hands, and they know it. People are recognizing that their forests have more to offer than just board feet."

Roadless rule is tossed out again

Western state set to rewrite rules on use of 9.3 million acres of public land

Associated Press

CHEYENNE, WYO. -- A federal judge in Wyoming has overturned a Clinton-era ban on road construction in nearly 60 million acres of national forest, extending a long-running dispute over U.S. Forest Service rules for large sections of undeveloped land.

U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer's ruling on Tuesday is the latest turn in a legal battle over the Clinton administration rule that limited logging and other development in roadless areas that make up nearly a third of national forest land.

Brimmer issued a permanent injunction against the so-called "roadless rule," saying that the ban was enacted in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness Act.

"The Forest Service, in an attempt to bolster an outgoing President's environmental legacy, rammed through an environmental agenda that itself violates the country's well-established environmental laws," Brimmer wrote.

The ruling reflects a similar decision Brimmer issued in 2003 in response to a lawsuit filed by Wyoming challenging the roadless rule. Brimmer's 2003 ruling was rendered moot when the Bush administration decided not to appeal and instead issued its own rules for roadless areas.

Conservation groups and attorneys general from Oregon, Washington, California and New Mexico later challenged the Bush policy, which required governors to petition the federal government to protect roadless areas in their states.

In 2006, U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Laporte in San Francisco reinstated the 2001 rule created by the Clinton administration. That prompted Wyoming to renew its complaint in federal district court.

On Tuesday, environmentalists vowed to appeal Brimmer's ruling to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, while also downplaying the scope of the decision.

Mike Anderson, an attorney with The Wilderness Society, said it was his opinion that the California decision was still in effect.

"It is not in any way overturned or compromised by Judge Brimmer's decision in Wyoming today," Anderson said. "What it does do is create two conflicting court decisions in different federal courts, different states, both issuing decisions with nationwide impact."

Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg praised Brimmer's ruling, saying the injunction was appropriate "in light of the potential harm the roadless rule poses to our national forests due to beetle infestation and forest fires."

"We anticipate an appeal by either the United States or one or more of the interveners," Salzburg said. "As such, we consider the matter still in litigation."

Attempts to reach the Forest Service for comment Tuesday evening were unsuccessful.

Observers said it was unclear whether Brimmer's ruling would have any effect on the two states -- Idaho and Colorado -- that are working their way through the Bush administration's policy for setting aside roadless areas. Neither state has completed the process.

"I would say it further clouds the legal background for those states' rule making," Anderson said.

In Idaho, federal officials said last month that they hoped to issue a final draft rule for the state's roadless backcountry in September and send it to President Bush for approval. Idaho is home to 9.3 million acres of roadless lands.

"My assumption is they will still proceed with rule making for Idaho," said Jonathan Oppenheimer, of the Boise-based Idaho Conservation League.

Wyoming Judge Again Blocks Roadless Area Conservation Rule

Environment News Service



WASHINGTON, DC (ENS) - The national nonprofit Wilderness Society said it will challenge Tuesday's decision by a federal judge in Wyoming to block the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule.

For the second time, U.S. District Judge Clarence Brimmer issued a permanent injunction against the Clinton era roadless rule, saying it violated the National Environmental Policy Act and the Wilderness Act.

The case was brought, for the second time, by the State of Wyoming against the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other federal agencies.

Environmentalists believe that Judge Brimmer's order conflicts with, but does not overturn, a 2006 decision by a California federal magistrate judge that upheld the Roadless Rule.

Judge Brimmer's injunction puts at risk 58.5 million acres of pristine national forest lands in 38 states that were protected from road building, logging and other development by a directive of President Bill Clinton to the U.S. Forest Service issued in 1999.

The public process initiated by that directive concluded with the promulgation of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule just eight days before the end of the Clinton administration.

More than two million public comments in favor of the roadless rule were received during the comment period, which included 187 public hearings across the country.

Yet, Judge Brimmer did not give weight to the 18 month-long public process and numerous public comments. He did give weight to then Wyoming Governor Jim Geringer's complaint that the public comment period was "extraordinarily short."

"The Forest Service, in an attempt to bolster an outgoing President's environmental legacy, rammed through an environmental agenda that itself violates the country's well-established environmental laws," Judge Brimmer wrote in his injunction order.

The judge wrote, "The Forest Service's preordained conception of what a roadless area would be, and its schedule for implementing the final rule, caused the Forest Service to drive the Roadless Rule through the administrative process without weighing the pros and cons of reasonable alternatives to the Roadless Rule. At no time did the Forest Service stop to consider whether Roadless Rule was the best idea for the greatest number of people."

Mike Anderson, an attorney with The Wilderness Society, said the group will appeal Judge Brimmer's order to the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

The Roadless Rule has been the subject of repeated lawsuits from both opponents and supporters.

• In July 2003, Judge Brimmer rejected the rule in a lawsuit brought by the state of Wyoming, which has about 3.5 million acres of national forests subject to protections set forth by the rule.


• In May 2005, the Bush administration replaced the Roadless Rule with the State Petitions Rule that required governors to petition the U.S. Department of Agriculture to protect national forests in their states.


• Environmentalists sued to reinstate the Roadless Rule. In September 2006, Judge Elizabeth Laporte, Magistrate for the U.S. District Court for Northern California, ruled that the administration had illegally repealed the roadless rule.


• The judge set aside 2005 State Petitions Rule and reinstated the Roadless Rule nationwide, except in Alaska's Tongass National Forest.


• On November 29, 2006, Judge Laporte issued an injunction halting all activities inconsistent with the Roadless Rule. In her injunction, Judge Laporte stated that because the 2001 rule had been repealed illegally, all projects in roadless areas inconsistent with that rule were also illegal and must be halted.


• On February 6, 2007 Judge Laporte issued a final injunction, clarifying that her November 2006 injunction extended to oil and gas drilling permits as well as leases issued since May 2005.

In his order issued Tuesday, Judge Brimmer wrote that Magistrate Judge Laporte's injunction had the effect of "surreptitiously" reinstituting the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule although he had previously decided it was illegal.

Anderson says he believes Laporte's decision is still in effect. "It is not in any way overturned or compromised by Judge Brimmer's decision in Wyoming today," Anderson told the Associated Press. "What it does do is create two conflicting court decisions in different federal courts, different states, both issuing decisions with nationwide impact."

Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg said the injunction was appropriate because roads might be needed in national forests to fight fires and insect infestations.

Conservation groups that intervened in the case in support of the federal agencies are the Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Defenders of Wildlife, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Pacific Rivers Council, Sierra Club, Wilderness Society and the Wyoming Outdoor Council.

Read Judge Brimmer's 102 page order issued on August 12, 2008

Read the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule

Free range

by B. Christine Hoekenga
High Country News ONLINE

Livestock foraging on 160 million acres of public lands could roam more freely than ever, thanks to a recent policy change at the Bureau of Land Management. On Aug. 14, the BLM granted eight new “categorical exclusions,” designed to speed up the approval process for a slew of activities on public lands, including grazing, logging, oil and gas drilling and recreational use.

Among the major changes is a paring down of the renewal process for the roughly 18,000 grazing permits the agency administers. Previously, when a permit was up for renewal, the BLM was obliged to conduct a formal environmental assessment and call for public comments under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), giving the average citizen an open invitation to speak up.

Now, under the new guidelines, if a grazing allotment appears to be in good shape and the permit is being renewed for roughly the same use as before, the agency may approve the renewal without a rigorous environmental assessment – or formal public comment.

It’s this last part that has environmentalists worried. Bobby McEnaney, public-lands advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, is concerned about losing the eyes and ears of the public in the renewal process. “There have been a number of cases around the West where an individual citizen has pointed out a sage grouse lek or salmon habitat (on grazing lands), and the BLM has made a change,” he says. “The key fatal flaw is that public input will not be valued in this process.”

Others welcome the new procedures. Jeff Eisenberg, director of federal lands for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, believes that the changes will allow the under-funded BLM to be more efficient. Federal land management agencies have an enormous job and not enough resources, he says: “When they are scrambling around and can’t do their work adequately, that makes it hard for us.”

For several years, the cattlemen’s association has supported changes that would streamline grazing permit renewal. Resolutions in its annual policy books dating back to 2003 recommend that the BLM and Forest Service allow the public to have a say only in larger-scale decisions, not in the nitty-gritty of individual grazing permits.

And it appears that the association’s wish has been granted, at least partially. According to BLM estimates, approximately one-third of the roughly 2,300 permits that are renewed each year will be eligible for the new fast-tracked approval. Even so, a determined individual can still find ways to get involved in individual allotment decisions, according to Bob Bolton, a senior rangeland management specialist with the BLM. People can visit their local BLM offices to request information, express concerns or appeal a permit renewed under a categorical exclusion, he says. The agency will notify those who make this extra effort about decisions affecting the allotments in question.

It’s hard to tell whether the changes will ultimately harm public lands, says Sherman Swanson, a rangeland management extension specialist with the University of Nevada, Reno. As with other procedural changes issued by federal agencies, much depends on how the new rules are implemented. “If the opportunity to do a categorical exclusion allows them to go through another round (of permit renewals) without making changes where they need to,” he says, “then it is simply a pressure valve, and we haven’t accomplished much.”

Attack on 1872 Mining Act Flawed, Unfair to Miners

OPINION

By Mark R. Welch
Retired Mining Engineer
Albuquerque Journal

With reference to the article written by Oscar Simpson purporting to represent the New Mexico Wildlife Federation in the July 12 Journal titled "Wilson Can Save N.M.'s Outdoors Again," he made some seriously misleading statements regarding the 1872 Mining Act and mining on Federal lands.

Mr. Simpson stated that the act needed updating, but in fact, it has been indirectly updated through numerous regulations and laws over the years, especially with regards to environment considerations. The Act has served this nation very well, allowing the country to develop its mineral resources that are the basis, along with agriculture, of all of the wealth of the nation.

Then Mr. Simpson stated that mining companies pay $5 per acre to stake a claim of ownership on "our public lands." In the first place, the law applies to any citizen, not just mining companies.

Secondly, there is a recording fee and annual maintenance payment of $100 per claim that is required to be paid, but the $5 per acre fee he erroneously mentions pertains to the fee to be paid at the time a patent is issued to the claimant. However, due to a Congressional moratorium, no patents have been issued since 1994.

Further, by the time a patent is issued— if ever— the miner or mining company will have spent enormous sums of money to prove up the claim to the satisfaction of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. Mining companies routinely spend millions of dollars just to evaluate a mineral deposit, let alone develop it. When he states that public lands the size of Connecticut have been made private over the years, he fails to point out that most patents were issued in the 1800s and early 1900s at a time that the nation was growing.

Where he comes up with Congress granting a tax break of $823 million to mining companies is unknown, but it should be noted that companies or individuals who are successful in developing a mine— approximately one prospect out of 1,000 examined— pay all kinds of taxes, including income taxes, if the project is profitable, property taxes, sales taxes, employment taxes, fuel taxes, and so on.

Then Mr. Simpson makes his most disingenuous statement, where he said that "mining companies are not even responsible for subsequent cleanup of the site once the claim is exhausted" and "the taxpayer get stuck with the bill— billions of dollars."

Either Mr. Simpson did not do his homework or is intentionally misleading the reading public. Had he bothered to look at the laws and regulations pertaining to mining claims (see Title 43 CFR Parts 3700 and 3800 as well as information put out by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management), he would have noticed that there are numerous federal regulations and laws that require a miner to file a Plan of Operations with the U.S. Forest Service or USBLM, which must go into detailed information on environmental assessments or impact statements, detailed descriptions of mining operations, detailed information on protection of the environment, and, not least, detailed information on reclamation procedures.

In addition, the miner must comply with a host of laws such as the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, among others. If the applicant cannot meet the permitting requirements of the Federal agencies in accordance with all of the applicable laws and regulations, an operations permit will not be issued. It is as simple as that.

It is true that we have suffered from environmental degradation from mining operations conducted in the 1800s and into the 1900s, but today's mining company is most cognizant of its responsibilities to be a good citizen and do more than its share to mitigate any environmental damage caused by mining and exploration operations.

A typical mine takes somewhere between 10 and 15 years to develop— if it is a viable prospect— from the time it is discovered and many mines routinely cost in excess of $100 million to develop. Oftentimes, a mineral property will sit idle for decades awaiting new technologies or favorable mineral prices before it becomes possible to develop. It is hard, costly and demanding work and not for the faint of heart. The citizenry should bear that in mind when we lock up millions of acres from access to mining— wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, roadless areas, national monuments etc. I enjoy wild areas as much as anyone, and some areas are truly deserving of preservation. But, from a practical standpoint, we simply cannot develop a mine overnight if we really need the minerals during a national emergency.

By the way, Connecticut has an area of 3 million acres. The USBLM administers in excess of 260 million acres subject to mining claims in 19 states, primarily in the western U.S., and the U.S. Forest Service manages another 193 million acres. Assuming Mr. Simpson is correct in his numbers, the total land historically transferred as patented claims amounts to 7/10ths of 1 percent of the USBLM/USFS-managed public lands. This is about the same as the floor of an average two-car garage being superimposed on a football field. This is not very much considering the tremendous national wealth that has been generated by mining on public lands.

Finally, the public is encouraged to visit mining operations today and see for themselves how operations are conducted, and then, if they so choose, go prospecting and stake their own claims if they find a locatable mineral deposit.

It is their right as a citizen of the United States.

Mark Welch is the former Chief Executive Officer of Nord Pacific Ltd., a New Mexico-based mining company. He retired after more than 35 years in the mining industry, both as a mining engineer and executive.

Power Lines and Pipelines Draw Closer to Parklands

Under orders from Congress to move quickly, the Department of Energy and Bureau of Land Management will approve thousands of miles of new power line and pipeline corridors on federal lands across the West in the next 14 months.



By Janet Wilson, Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times

Under orders from Congress to move quickly, the Department of Energy and Bureau of Land Management will approve thousands of miles of new power line and pipeline corridors on federal lands across the West in the next 14 months. The energy easements are likely to cross national parks, forests and military bases as well as other public land.

Environmentalists and land managers worry about the risk of pipeline explosions and permanent scarring of habitat and scenery from pylons and trenches. Military officials have expressed concern that the installations could interfere with training.

But industry lobbyists and congressional policymakers said expedited approvals for new corridors were vital to ensuring that adequate power from coal beds, oil fields and wind farms in Wyoming, Montana and Idaho reached the booming population centers of the Southwest.

In California alone, officials predict they will need an additional 14,000 megawatts of electricity per year, over the current 57,000 megawatts, to serve an expected 13 million more people by 2014.

ExxonMobil, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric and others have proposed corridors in the state across Death Valley, Joshua Tree and Lassen Volcanic national parks as well as the Mojave National Preserve, several military bases, Anza-Borrego Desert State Park and seven national forests.

Elsewhere, routes near Moab, Utah, the Cascades and Rocky Mountains have been proposed, some up to five miles wide and 2,000 miles long.

"We are concerned about our lands," said Lee Dickinson, head of the National Park Service's special uses division, who is on a joint federal agency task force designed to resolve conflicting needs. "They know that we are not thrilled."

Department of Energy officials declined to provide an internal working map of which corridors were under consideration, saying it would be released only after environmental review. At that point, a map will be released showing possible routes, including those recommended by the department, and the public will have a chance to comment.

"We don't want to confuse the public," said David Meyer of the department's Office of Electricity Deliverability and Energy Reliability.

Not all routes being considered will be approved, and attempts are being made to avoid sensitive areas "unless there's a dire need," said Julia Souder, who is managing the project for the department.

Acting at the behest of the nation's largest utilities, Congress in its 2005 Energy Policy Act gave federal agencies until August 2007 to review and adopt major energy corridors across 11 states.

"That's warp speed," Scott Powers, a BLM official, said at a planning session last winter.

The legislation was designed to fast-track construction by requiring a single, overarching environmental review of the effect of dozens of energy corridors across federal land. The aim is to avoid time-consuming project-by-project reviews. Federal energy regulators were also given authority to designate power lines in the "national interest," which would allow them to overrule federal agencies or states or counties that withheld approval for segments of projects.

"They've taken away our sovereignty," said John Geesman, who sits on the California Energy Commission. "We're looking down the barrel of a gun."

Geesman said state officials were partly to blame for not designating more corridors sooner. But he said the law Congress passed went too far. As challenging as it is to find room for long corridors, Geesman said, they should not cross sensitive public lands.

Hotly contested proposals such as those across Anza-Borrego and the Cleveland and San Bernardino national forests could now be approved by federal officials if California said no.

Environmentalists say existing energy corridors on public land, most of them authorized before laws such as the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act were passed, present a cautionary tale. Fuel pipelines have exploded or leaked because of sabotage or natural disaster, said Bill Corcoran of the Angeles Chapter of the Sierra Club. In March 2005, a landslide in the Angeles National Forest broke a crude oil pipeline, dumping 126,000 gallons into Pyramid Lake, which supplies drinking water to Los Angeles.

Environmentalists and some federal scientists say the huge number of potential new corridors and accelerated timeline are a recipe for ecological devastation. They note that the government's hurried environmental review of the proposed corridors, to be completed by year's end, will miss key breeding seasons of affected fauna.

"That is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. They want to get by with a lot of sloppy, dirty work," said Howard Wilshire, a retired U.S. Geological Survey scientist who for 20 years studied human effects on public lands.

He said that with an environmental study of the arid Southwest scheduled for the hot summer months, many species would not be documented because plants will have died back and animals will be underground. Wilshire said his studies and others on the effects of roads, power lines and other linear development across the Mojave found that endangered species such as the desert tortoise were killed during construction, and that the projects permanently fragmented and eroded critical habitat.

Although power lines appear to sail through the air, every 160-foot-tall pylon is built on a concrete pad with a spur road connecting to a longer maintenance road, creating an artificial barrier across the fragile desert floor. Wilshire said bulldozing trenches for pipelines had similar effects.

"We're talking about millennia, if ever, for recovery of an ecosystem," he said.

Heath Nero of the Wilderness Society said that although it was good to study cumulative impacts, each project should also be examined.

"There potentially is greatness to this if we can get them to keep the corridors relatively narrow and placed in appropriate areas, which … are along already disturbed areas like freeways," he said. "There's two things that could go wrong…. One is to inappropriately site them in national parks…. Problem No. 2 is the categorical exclusion of specific projects from full environmental review."

Military officials have different concerns.

"Although I have yet to see a full map, the small-scale map I did see appeared to show the corridors running through military training grounds," wrote Army official Stephen Hart of Ft. Lewis, Wash., in public comments to energy task force staff.

Project staffers said they were trying to bundle most projected lines near existing power lines and freeways, and said they would use data from agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and BLM to protect species and habitat. Energy officials did not return calls for comment about military concerns.

Dickinson of the National Park Service said energy officials were trying to address her agency's concerns and that Lassen, Death Valley and Joshua Tree had been spared "at this moment." The Mojave preserve is still on the map, she said, as are Canyonlands National Park in Utah and Lake Mead National Recreation Area near Las Vegas. Corridors may also be designated on federal land next to parks that would affect visitors' views, she said.

Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer, who wants corridors built in his state, said he didn't like the federal government usurping state authority. He said western states had worked for years to map future lines.

He said he would sue if necessary, depending on which corridors were picked.

"I'd rather not have to get to lawyering, but we may have to," he said. "Washington, D.C., is seldom helpful for those of us who live in the West, and this is another example…. The good news is their reach is so inefficient, they may never get it done."

But energy lobbyists and policymakers said that because the White House and Congress imposed a tight deadline, federal agencies were moving with unprecedented speed.

A bipartisan majority headed by Sens. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved the power corridor legislation.

"We're very encouraged," said Meg Hunt, lobbyist for the Edison Electric Institute, which represents utilities in the U.S. serving 71% of all consumers. She said designating corridors regionally had been in the works for 20 years but had repeatedly stalled when field staff in federal or state agencies didn't like particular projects.

"Shortly after President George W. Bush came into office, there was a renewed recognition that there was going to need to be a major build-out in transmission infrastructure to meet western needs," she said. "I do think the time constraint Congress imposed was the genesis."

California state parks officials are separately considering dozens of development proposals of all kinds, including toll roads and power lines.

Geesman said it was unclear who would ultimately pay for the new utility lines, and the public might have to pay the tab, through construction subsidies or bill increases. Utilities prefer public land because access across it is free or cheap, requiring modest lease payments at most, and poses fewer problems than securing rights from multiple private properties, he said.

Marny Funk, spokeswoman for Republicans on the Senate energy committee, noted that three-quarters of some western states were public land.

Corridor width is also an issue. Southern California Edison wants a mile-wide corridor across the Mojave, for example. Hunt of the Edison Electric Institute said bundling many lines close together could jeopardize safety and reliability. But she said energy companies would be willing to share corridors if exempted from full environmental review on specific projects.

Funk of the Senate energy committee, which oversaw the bill, said that was one of the law's main thrusts.

"Environmentalists use these reviews as a way to stall projects for years to keep them from ever being built," she said.

Others said that although it was difficult to balance competing needs on increasingly scarce public land, that was no excuse for shortcuts.

"It's a rushed process with little opportunity for the public to comment on or even know what highly public lands are at risk for development," said Corcoran of the Sierra Club. "The federal government should not make our public lands legacy a dumping ground for industry."

Once the western lands project is complete, Congress ordered it to be replicated across the rest of the contiguous U.S. by 2009.

PARK SERVICE RESCINDS APPROVAL OF MOJAVE “GUZZLERS”

Facing a Lawsuit, Agency Withdraws Its Okay for Artificial Watering in Desert Park

Press Release:
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) & Center For Biological Diversity

Washington, DC — The National Park Service has abruptly reversed course and blocked installation of artificial water systems in California’s Mojave National Preserve, according to a letter from the park superintendent released today by Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Center for Biological Diversity. Last month the two groups filed a federal lawsuit to stop the artificial watering plan on the grounds that it harmed native wildlife and violated Park Service policy.

Yesterday, on April 5, 2005, Mary Martin, Superintendent of the Mojave National Preserve, sent a letter to the California Department of Fish and Game, which stated:

“[T]he National Park Service is withdrawing the approval, set forth in our letter of January 21, 2005, for the California Department of Fish and Game to convert four ranching well developments in Mojave National Preserve into wildlife watering devices…Upon further review, the National Park Service has determined that additional NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act] compliance is desirable before a decision is made…”

Ironically, the position taken by Martin this week reflects the same stance that she had communicated in a June 17, 2002 memo to Paul Hoffman, a former Dick Cheney aide serving as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Interior for Fish, Wildlife and Parks. Hoffman, however, disregarded Martin’s concerns and ordered her to set up artificial water sources (called “guzzlers”) in order to enhance “coyote and varmint hunting,” according to an email he sent to a sportsmen’s group.

“This is a classic example of a Bush Administration appointee inappropriately intervening to countermand wildlife professionals for political reasons,” stated PEER Board member Frank Buono, the former assistant superintendent at Mojave NP, noting that Hoffman, a former Dick Cheney aide, has no biological training. “Paul Hoffman should be fired for incompetence.”

The Mojave National Preserve covers 1.6 million acres of desert and is home to more than 2,500 native species of which approximately 100 are considered imperiled. The two groups pointed to the opinions of more than 50 wildlife experts that the guzzlers would threaten desert wildlife, particularly the desert tortoise, the flagship species of the Mojave Preserve.

“Superintendent Martin did the right thing to follow the law and involve the public,” said Daniel R. Patterson, Desert Ecologist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “More guzzlers would harm native desert wildlife, and violate an agreement Interior made to keep these wells capped. There are already many natural waters and guzzlers on the Mojave National Preserve, which should be managed as a natural area, not a game farm.”

“Mojave National Preserve must obey the long-established policies of the National Park Service which mandate that artificial water sources for wildlife may be provided only in extreme conditions; conditions hardly evident at Mojave,” Buono concluded.

Response to "Water Fight in the Mojave"

Attention:
Letters to the Los Angeles Times editor
For the Record editor

Julie Cart's story, "Water Fight in the Mojave," in Friday's California section is a classic example of how The Times only gets half the story and only half right. It is filled with incorrect and mis-information reported without a lick of attribution.

The first mistake is the assumption that the "needs of game animals" are somehow at odds with the needs of "federally protected wildlife," and that hunters' interests are somehow different than other conservationists. It seems to me that hunters are interested in diverse healthy wildlife populations and show that by funding massive programs around the world that benefit all wildlife, not just hunted species. Good management of resources and wild systems benefits all wildlife in that system.

Then we come to the first error of fact: "...man-made water holes draw predators that prey on the threatened California desert tortoise." There has never been a single definitive study that shows this is true, and obviously no one who wanted to be quoted saying this was the case. There has been speculation by some biologists this happens, but that speculation is without any correlative science, and certainly without definitive work. In fact, most of the science would tend to suggest that additional water sources would tend to distribute predators at more places, lessening the likelihood that a tortoise would be potential prey.

Then the next paragraph has the next glaring error of fact: "...reverse a long-standing water policy in the 1.6-million-acre Mojave National Preserve." There is no policy. It is not stated in the Mojave's management plan. It is not in NEPA or even CEQA. In fact, by agreeing to the permanent capping of wells with the National Park Service Foundation, and moving ahead with those plans, the National Park Service violated its own management plan for the Preserve and NEPA. Both the plan and NEPA require that the NPS evaluate the impacts the removal of water -- in this case over 125 cattle watering sources -- would have on the preserve's wildlife BEFORE the water was removed. The NPS did NOT do that. It did no baseline surveys on wildlife populations around this man-made water and completed no study on impacts water removal would have, good or bad. There was only speculation that it would be a good thing. The NPS was in violation of the law and its own policy when it encouraged the removal of the cattle watering sources in the first place. This has probably led to a dramatic decline in dozens and dozens of different wildlife species, not just hunted species, on the preserve. But it was only the hunter-conservation groups like Safari Club who were concerned about this and immediately filed a protest. If the Times had bothered to ask Center for Biological Diversity lawyers about this, they would have told the papers' reporters that the NPS was in violation for allowing the removal of the wells, pipelines, and stock tanks in the first place before meeting the requirements of NEPA and its own management plan. Safari Club was trying to get the preserve staff to restore only 12 wells out of 125 water sources removed, and trying to do this quickly without a lawsuit to cut wildlife losses.

The next error in fact is about the claim by the 57 scientists who contend that because of groundwater pumping 90 percent of the preserves springs and seeps had been diminished on the preserve. There is no scientific documentation this is true. Only speculation by these 57 scientists. It is just as likely, if we can speculate, that groundwater pumping for human developments in Needles and Newberry Springs, drought, or global warming was the cause for any historic change, and not the modest pumping that supplied cattle (and wildlife) with water. In fact, it is speculative there has been a 90 percent change at all. This is NOT documented by science, it is their seat-of-the-pants belief. Show me the science.

These same scientists bemoan the added water as a huge detriment to wildlife. There are thousands of scientists in all of the Western states who will tell you the opposite, that water added in deserts is a huge boon to all wildlife. They have good science and examples to back up their beliefs, however, not speculation. One of the best examples of how added water has benefited wildlife is -- ironically -- on the Mojave National Preserve. The work was done before it was preserve, of course. The Old Dad Peak/Kelso Mountains complex on the far Western edge of the preserve historically held only a few wandering bighorn sheep. Never more than a dozen according to surveys done through the middle part of the last century. The Department of Fish and Game, working with the Bureau of Land Management, and one of those onerous hunter-conservation groups, the Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep, put in several man-made water sources. They did this, by the way, before hunting of bighorn sheep was allowed in the state. Today, it is the largest herd of desert bighorns in the state, numbering over 200 animals. This once threatened species (just like the desert tortoise) was brought back by the addition of water. By hunters before there was hunting for sheep. Amazing, huh?.

Now come the big factual errors in the story:

1) There is no direct evidence that capping any wells has rejuvenated the preserves natural water sites. This is speculation. And the statement is made without attribution in the story. We could speculate that the wetter seasons this year and last year are responsible for any increase in spring flow over the short term, too. And in fact, that has far more credibility.

2) There is no evidence of a deer herd increase. The NPS did no population surveys before the water was removed and none after the water was removed. They were supposed to do this before removing the 125 water sources, but they didn't. The "increase" is interpolated from the Department of Fish and Game's deer harvest figures over the past several hunting seasons. Survey hunters and they will all tell you they are seeing fewer deer in fewer places, but that they have become more successful because the deer have fewer places to water. Like any smart predator, hunters are focusing their efforts around those remaining water sources and killing more deer.

3) Of the 133 small game guzzlers and six big game guzzlers, over 3/4s are out of desert tortoise habitat. Of the 1/4 that are in desert tortoise habitat, tortoise remains have been found in 1/3 of those. That is a far smaller number than quoted in the LA Times story, which makes them all sound like death traps. Also, the implication that because remains are found in a guzzler that the guzzler is somehow the reason for the tortoises death is, at best, speculative. Correlation is not causation. Department of Fish and Game research, actual science, suggests very few of the tortoises in guzzlers died as a result of the guzzler. Just as DFG research suggests that tortoise shells found with bullet holes were almost never killed by those bullets. The shells were shot postmortem, long after the tortoises were dead. But there are "scientists" that continue to insist that shooting is a major cause of tortoise deaths. This is a lie.

4) There is no scientific evidence that water sources attract more ravens, increasing desert tortoise deaths. None. In fact, other scientists speculate that the more water sources you have, the less impacts predators have on wildlife. The problem is that there are about 100 times more ravens now than there were just 25 years ago. That is attributed to desert communities that provide food (garbage) in great quantities. Ravens also eat baby tortoises, and 100 times more eat 100 times more babies. You do the math. A lot of scientists believe ravens are the crux of the tortoise decline. Bulldozing all desert communities from Barstow to Yucca Valley to Lancaster would probably alleviate the raven increase.

Most of the 21-page complaint talks about the supposed impacts of man-made water on desert tortoises. The reality is that all 12 of the wells proposed for retrofitting are above the elevations inhabited by tortoises on the preserve. Isn't this whole argument is moot? Why didn't the Times reporter, ask this question?

The NPS staff could indeed suggest that it needs to remove all of the cattle water and the guzzlers on the preserve because this is "unnatural manipulation" of the habitat -- and that is not their charge. But the staff IS required by law and their own preserve policy to document the impacts water removal would have on the preserve's existing wildlife resources. They did not do that -- and that was ILLEGAL.

Conversely, the NPS is ALSO required to protect and enhance the cultural heritage on the preserve. Cattle ranching and guzzlers have been a huge part of the preserve for 100 years or more, and the historic windmills and cattle troughs are wonderful symbols of that history. The fact that they also help wildlife is a bonus. Yet, the NPS wants to rip them all out. Couldn't the NPS recognize the wildlife benefits and direct visitors to these cultural heritage sites to see desert wildlife? The small game guzzlers are ideal places to watch wildlife in the spring and summer, when there is no hunting on the preserve, and many of us believe the guzzlers should be preserved for their historic AND wildlife values. The NPS staff has never considered that a valid argument.

The impact removing 125-plus water sources has had on preserve wildlife is profound. The cultural loss is significant. It is more than quail and deer and hunters that have suffered.

Instead of portraying Paul Hoffman as another of the Bush-administration bad guy who's trying to destroy American's wildlife heritage, the reality the LA Times couldn't or refused to see is that Hoffman is trying to compensate for a NPS staff that hates the fact that hunting is allowed in the Mojave Preserve and was willing to violate the law and destroy wildlife to try to make the preserve less appealing to hunters. Hoffman was trying to avert a Safari Club lawsuit and protect desert wildlife. And he's the villain?

I realize this is far too long for you to run as a letter, but I hope you will at least research and correct the factual errors.

Sincerely,

Jim Matthews
San Bernardino, Calif.

Groups file suit to stop well project

by Jim Matthews
San Bernardino Sun

This is utterly baffling. Two highly respected environmental groups apparently have been duped into filing a lawsuit to stop the restoration and conversion of four water wells in the Mojave National Preserve to wildlife drinkers.

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) announced the lawsuit Tuesday. The 21-page complaint and the press release, however, are riddled with factual errors.

John Buse, the lead attorney on the lawsuit in CDBs Chicago office, said "the desert tortoise is certainly the largest concern we had' in filing the lawsuit. The complaint argues that restoring the four wells would endanger desert tortoises and violates both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the preserve's own management plan.

The problem is simply this: First, the four wells are situated at elevations well above desert tortoise habitat. Tortoises never have been documented in the area around the four wells. That is why these locations were chosen by the hunter-conservation groups that fought to have them restored.

Second, the National Park Service, specifically park superintendent Mary Martin, violated NEPA and the preserve's management guidelines by directing the private land owners who were forced off the preserve to remove the wells. The preserve's management plan said that the staff was required to document any impacts on the area's wildlife before the wells could be removed. Martin illegally avoided this requirement by saying that the private owners wanted to remove their private windmills and stock tanks.

Buse and local CDB attorney Brendan Cummings admitted that the National Park Service violated NEPA and its own management plan when it allowed the wells to be removed, and CDB is contending it is now violating the same rules again by trying to restore them.

Why didn't CDB file a lawsuit when the NPS removed over 125 cattle water sources the first time around? My call is they were duped. Or it is about anti-hunting bias.

The PEER press release riles against Paul Hoffman as a Bush Administration bad guy who went over the preserve staff's head to allow the well restoration, saying it was Hoffman who was forcing the park service to violate the law.

Interestingly, the PEER mouthpiece on this issue is Paul Buono, a former deputy superintendent at the preserve, who is part of a small clique of park service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service employees who are resentful the Mojave was not made into a national park, where hunting is banned, instead of a national preserve, where hunting is allowed.

The anti-hunting bias is pervasive within this small group, and they also form the core of a tiny minority of scientists who believe that wildlife drinkers are detrimental to wildlife, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

One of the most dramatic examples of how the addition of water into a desert ecosystem can benefit wildlife is on the Mojave National Preserve.

Before the area was a preserve, the Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Bureau of Land Management, and Society for the Conservation of Bighorn Sheep did surveys on Old Dad Peak. At most it had a dozen sheep. The problem? There were no permanent water sources. The DFG added big-game drinkers, and now that herd numbers more than 200 animals.

Hoffman is no villain. He's the hero in this episode; a hero who was trying to avert a lawsuit from the hunter-conservation community over the illegal NPS' removal of 125 cattle water sources.

It's pathetic that CBD and PEER were conned into filing this lawsuit, a lawsuit that is about anti-hunting bias and not science or environmental law.

Jim Matthews is a freelance writer.