Bighorn Sheep Rule Stirs Debate in West

By STEPHANIE SIMON
Wall Street Journal



A new federal policy regulating how bighorn sheep are transported across state lines has drawn criticism from state officials and environmentalists in the West. They say it threatens efforts to restore the wild sheep. Associated Press



A new policy issued by the Bush administration for managing fragile populations of bighorn sheep has angered Western environmentalists, hunters and state wildlife managers, who claim it is a move by the outgoing administration to reshape the Western landscape in favor of industry.

Federal officials say the policy -- set out in a Memorandum of Understanding with the Forest Service -- is intended to protect bighorns from disease. But critics say it threatens their decadeslong effort to restore the wild sheep population from near-extinction.

Mark Rey, undersecretary for natural resources with the Department of Agriculture, who helped write the bighorn policy, dismissed the complaints. Officials from several Western states have sent him letters denouncing the policy as an illegal usurpation of state authority. Mr. Rey is reviewing the comments but said he sees no reason to change course.

The new policy requires that all wild bighorn be quarantined and tested for disease by federal labs before they can be moved across state lines by relocation programs designed to protect their populations. Mr. Rey says the current protocol, which leaves testing up to the states, is "hit or miss" and thus not good for the bighorn. "If everything is fine," he said, "why do we see diseases cropping up hither, thither and yon?"

But state officials worry the new policy could slow their efforts to protect the sheep. The crux of the problem, they say, is that domestic sheep too often intrude on bighorn territory -- leading to encounters that, for reasons not fully understood, are often fatal to the wild sheep.

State wildlife workers have tried to protect bighorns by relocating them as needed. They believe holding them in quarantine while federal labs perform blood analysis would slow the process and endanger the animals' health. Wild sheep get stressed easily in captivity.

"It's absolutely unworkable," said Dale Toweill, the wildlife coordinator for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

The federal policy was welcomed by the ranching industry, which raises hundreds of thousands of domestic sheep for wool and meat.

Many ranching families have grazed their sheep on federal lands for generations. In recent years, however, the U.S. Forest Service has begun to revoke some of these grazing permits, out of fear the domestic sheep transmit fatal diseases to wild bighorn. Ranchers complain that there is no scientific proof their sheep are killing the bighorn. They hope the new policy will slow efforts to move wild sheep across habitats, leaving more land open for domestic producers.

"It's finally recognizing the other side," said Stan Boyd, executive director of the Idaho Wool Growers Association. "We think it'll help."

The sheep memo follows several decisions that have angered environmental interests in the West.

Those include regulations paving the way for oil-shale exploration and increased oil and gas leasing near national parks. Some of the decisions could be reversed by the incoming Obama administration. But Mr. Rey and his critics said they don't believe sheep-testing protocols would be a priority.

The Department of Agriculture hasn't written the bighorn-testing protocol, and Mr. Rey said all decisions, including the length of any quarantine, will be open to public comment.

"This is going to be done by people with Ph.D.s in veterinary science," Mr. Rey said. "I don't see it rising to the level of political involvement."

'Citizen of the Year' Bud Smith passes away

Obituary
Las Vegas Review Journal



MELVIN SMITH JR. - Melvin "Bud" L. Smith Jr., of Cima, Calif., passed away Sunday, Dec. 7, 2008, after a long battle with lung cancer. He was 76 years old.

Bud was born Nov. 18, 1932, in Canistota, S.D., to Melvin Leroy Smith and Francis Campbell. He married Marilyn A. Day Feb. 28, 1952, who passed away in 1995.

He served in the military forces during the Korean War, during which he was stationed in Puerto Rico. Bud was a Las Vegas business owner of an appliance delivery and antenna installation service. He retired to his home in the Mojave National Preserve, where he was a pillar of the community.

Bud was instrumental in saving his neighbors' homes during the Hackberry Complex wild fires in 2005. He was awarded "Citizen of the Year" for his efforts by the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department.

Bud's home was a favorite camp site for the Norco Mounted Posse's Annual Mohave Trail Ride for many years. He will be greatly missed by family and friends.

Bud was preceded in death by his wife, Marilyn; his parents, Melvin and Francis Smith; brothers, William and Eugene Smith; and sisters, Frances Stephenson and Barbara Sireci.

He is survived by his daughters, Peggy Goodnough, Rhonda Long, Patricia Jackson-Lemp, Jacqueline Smith and Shelley Smith; his son, Melvin Leroy Smith III, 13 grandchildren; 11 great-grandchildren; and his sister, Gloria Cowger.

Services will be at 2 p.m. Wednesday, Dec. 17, at Bunkers Memory Gardens, 7251 W. Lone Mountain Road, Las Vegas, NV 89129.

Endangered Species Act is modified

Bush administration changes could speed up projects and allow drilling in Alaska's polar bear habitat.

By Julie Cart
Los Angeles Times

The Bush administration on Thursday eliminated 35-year-old regulations in the Endangered Species Act that required an independent scientific review of proposed federal projects to determine whether they imperil protected plants and animals.

Instead, federal agencies undertaking projects like road and power plant construction or oil and gas drilling will make their own assessment. Without the independent reviews, such projects could be accelerated.

As part of the changes announced by Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne in the final days of the Bush administration, the department finalized an interim rule that allows oil and gas drilling in polar bear habitat off Alaska's coast. The rule change is designed to prevent the Endangered Species Act from being used to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, essentially making climate change policy.

Kempthorne, who characterized the new rules as a common-sense streamlining of bureaucratic processes, acknowledged that there was disagreement within the department regarding the rules, which take effect in 30 days.

Under current law, agencies must submit any plans that could harm species on the endangered list for review by scientists at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which enforces the Endangered Species Act. The process has been criticized by home builders groups and the oil and gas industry for delaying costly projects.

The consultation requirement was intended as more than just a check and balance.

Jamie Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife and director of Fish and Wildlife under President Clinton, said the consultation process resolved the problem of "mission conflict" between agencies. The Department of Defense, for example, might not understand why an endangered plant should be considered when expanding a bombing range.

"The problem is the agencies don't always properly consider, understand or protect species in their habitat because they are focused on the pursuit of their primary mission," Clark said. "It's hard for the biologists to satisfy their responsibility to protect species if the agency perceives it affects their primary mission."

President-elect Barack Obama said he would reverse the rule changes, as have some members of Congress. But that requires a lengthy rule-making process. In the House, members can invoke the rarely used Congressional Review Act to overturn the regulations.

"These changes are going to result in more species being put in jeopardy," Clark said. "But more importantly, we are not going to know what we don't know anymore."

Officials said agencies would still be held liable if they approved projects that harmed threatened or endangered species. Kempthorne also noted that any federal agency could choose to informally consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service at any time.

H. Dale Hall, director of Fish and Wildlife, said he had concerns about how fast the estimated 235,000 public comments were processed. Staff assigned to the job spent eight hours a day tabulating the comments. Working under strict time restraints, agency employees had nine seconds to read each letter, according to one calculation.

Officials said that more than 200,000 of the comments opposed the rule change.

Attempts to revise the Endangered Species Act have been rebuffed by Congress in recent years. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said Thursday's actions were another assault on the law.

"These midnight regulations are part of a continuing effort by the Bush administration to repeal our landmark environmental laws through the back door and weaken protections for our nation's endangered species," she said in a statement.

"I believe they are illegal, and if similar regulations had been in place, they would have undermined our ability to protect the bald eagle, the grizzly bear and the gray whale," Boxer said.

Environmental groups, which took the administration to court to force it to list the polar bear, vowed to continue the legal battle. Three groups, the Center for Biological Diversity, Greenpeace and Defenders of Wildlife, filed suit in San Francisco hours after the changes were announced, arguing that the regulations failed to follow the public review process.

"The Bush administration has repackaged the same old lump of coal as a holiday present for the polar bear, and once again handed its friends in the oil industry a huge gift," said Kassie Siegel, climate program director at the Center for Biological Diversity and lead author of the 2005 petition to list polar bears. "These regulations seem designed to drive the polar bear extinct."

The rule regarding polar bears comes seven months after that animal became the first to be placed on the Endangered Species List primarily because of global climate change.

The melting of sea ice is threatening the polar bear with extinction. This summer, scores of polar bears were observed swimming in open seas, far from land or ice floes.

But Kempthorne said that he wouldn't allow the 1973 law to be used as a "back door for implementing climate-change policy." To that end, he clarified regulations addressing threats to polar bear habitat: greenhouse emissions from automobiles, power plants and other human activities.

The act requires federal agencies to designate habitat critical to the creature's survival, then protect it by strict enforcement. Kempthorne said that according to his reading, court rulings require pinpointing a specific source of a threat to habitat -- something that he said was scientifically impossible. That interpretation of the courts' opinions gives the government few options to protect polar bear habitat.

Marine base expansion a 'threat' to Lucerne Valley residents

Lucerne Valley resident David Foster writes his comment at the scoping meeting Thursday. His main concerns with the expansion focus on the recreational areas that will be lost in Johnson Valley. Photo by Katherine Rosenberg



By KATHERINE ROSENBERG, Editor
Lucerne Valley Leader

VICTORVILLE - About 100 people, including Municipal Advisory Council members, last week attended a Marine Corps. hosted meeting regarding the expansion of the Twentynine Palms base expansion into Johnson Valley.

A similar meeting was hosted by the Bureau of Land Management at the same Hilton Garden Inn location a few months ago, but this meeting was put on by the Marines. It was an opportunity to present their plan to acquire as much as 100,000 acres of the currently protected Johnson Valley Offroad Recreation Area in order to better train their troops.

“It is imperative that Marines receive the most realistic training before deploying into a combat environment that demands split-second life or death decisions. The potential land parcel additions would allow Marines to ‘train as they fight’ as a large-scale Marine Air Ground Task Force, in particular a Marine Expeditionary Brigade,” said Gunnery Sgt. Chris W. Cox, the public affairs chief at the Marine Corps Air/Ground Combat Center.

The Leader first broke the story of the Marine expansion earlier this year, and now that the process of land withdrawal is at the point of scoping meetings — where stakeholders can present their opposition — residents from Lucerne Valley went to the meeting to express their concern over what the expansion would mean to the town and surrounding areas.

“I have concerns over the expansion and the impact it is going to have on recreation and the economic growth in Lucerne Valley,” said resident Roger Peterson. “There were probably 10,000 people camping in Johnson Valley over Thanksgiving weekend, and those people went to our gas stations, our restaurants and stores. And if that is lost, look at the economic impact.”

Peterson, like many others at the meeting said that they support the needs of the Marine Corps. first and foremost, but that they are hopeful that the expansion can go in a different direction.

The Marines Thursday revealed that they have a total of six possible expansion options, one of which is to abandon the project all together.

Peterson went on to say that he felt the Marines should look at the the communities of Victorville and Apple Valley and take a lesson from their growth.

"Lucerne Valley will eventually grow and this urban area is going to be bumping up against the Marines," Peterson said. "The recreational areas are already dwindling, and this would be one more impact on it."

Municipal Advisory Council members Tony Malone and Millie Rader were also at the second such meeting held in Victorville to request that the Marine Corps. come to Lucerne Valley so that local residents can have their opinions heard more easily.

Hard-rock miners gear up for new 1872 mining act fight

Industry fights economic woes, reform plans




The Associated Press
Las Vegas Review-Journal





A deepening recession has hurt the hard-rock mining industry, including the Gold Quarry Mine in Carlin, above. Companies are also worried about mining reform legisation in Congress. Photo by John Locher.


SPARKS — The boom days are over for much of the hard-rock mining industry.

Falling metal prices and rising production costs have squeezed profits in recent months, forcing many mine layoffs and putting some new mines on hold.

Now, the industry is gearing up for another fight over mining reform legislation with a Congress that has fewer mining supporters after November's elections that saw Democratic majorities increase in both houses.

"It'll be much more challenging for us now," acknowledged Laura Skaer, executive director of the Northwest Mining Association based in Spokane, Wash.

The industry's economic and political challenges were discussed during the group's annual meeting and trade show in Sparks. Billed as the second largest annual mining convention in the United States, the five-day gathering drew more than 2,200 people before it ended Friday.

Mining experts told attendees that the next Congress will revive a decades-old battle over proposals to scrap the 136-year-old law that governs the mining of so-called hard-rock minerals: gold, silver, copper and many other metals.

A mining reform measure passed the House 244-166 in 2007, but failed to make it out of a Senate committee. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., would have forced the hard-rock mining industry to pay royalties on minerals extracted from public lands and would have put new environmental controls on mining.

Reno mining attorney Jim Butler said he foresees House passage again of the Rahall measure and a likely rival bill emerging in the Senate. But he thinks the troubled economy will make mining reform a backburner issue and change terms of the debate.

"Mining jobs will have to be part" of the discussion, Butler said, because metals will be needed for the infrastructure and renewable energy projects that President-elect Barack Obama is pushing to help revive the economy.

James Cress, a natural resources attorney from Denver, urged miners to locate claims now because new claims may be subject to a federal royalty in the future.

"It's virtually certain that we're going to see a royalty and it's a good time to prepare for it," Cress said. "The only question is will it be ruinous or something reasonable."

Robert Comer, regional solicitor for the Interior Department based in Denver, said there will be renewed interest in a 1999 legal opinion that gave the Interior Department the right to veto any mining proposal that causes substantial environmental harm

The opinion rendered by John Leshy, the Interior Department's top lawyer during the Clinton administration, was later abandoned by the Bush administration.

Leshy, now a member of Obama's Interior Department transition team, based the opinion on his interpretation of a 1976 federal law that directed the Interior secretary to prevent "unnecessary or undue degradation" of the public lands from all activities, including hard-rock mining.

"It's an important standard that's been misapplied by the courts and the agencies, and there needs to be discipline in implementing the standard," Comer said.

Skaer said she thinks mining opponents will use the standard as a tool to stop mine projects over the next four years.

But she said the industry is banking again on support from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., a gold miner's son whose state is the fourth-highest gold producer in the world, after South Africa, Australia and China.

Skaer pointed out that both Reid and Obama opposed Rahall's 2007 bill as too extreme.

"But I'm still concerned because we don't have as many friends in Congress who truly understand the importance of the mining industry and where our stuff comes from," she said.

Skaer said the industry is not exempt from the recession and predicted a "very slow" 2009 for it.

"The industry went from a strong boom time to all of a sudden, bam, the lights are shut off overnight," she said. "But miners are cautiously optimistic because they've rebounded before."

Moderate earthquake rattles Calif. desert

Scientists blame delayed aftershock from 7.1-magnitude Hector Mine tremblor in 1999 that derailed the Amtrak Southwest Chief.



Associated Press
Los Angeles Times





LUDLOW, California - A moderate earthquake struck a sparsely populated area of California's Mojave Desert on Friday night. The shaking was felt from Los Angeles to San Diego, to the fringes of Nevada and Arizona, but there were no immediate reports of damage.

The 5.1-magnitude temblor struck at 8:18 p.m. just outside Ludlow on Interstate 40 in San Bernardino County, just east of Barstow and about 120 miles east of Los Angeles, the U.S. Geological Survey said. The initial reports measured the quake at 5.5 magnitude.

"The ground was rolling underneath but it was very light. Nothing," said Jeremy Chestnut, 20, who works at a Dairy Queen in Ludlow. "I was standing in front of an ice cream machine and it makes the ground shake, too."

The quake is the second one above a magnitude-5.0 to hit Southern California this year. In July, a magnitude-5.4 quake centered in the hills east of Los Angeles was the strongest to rattle a populated area of Southern California since the 1994 Northridge disaster.

'Vibration'
In the town of Yermo, about 20 miles from Ludlow, a dozen people in Lee's Tavern didn't seem too concerned when the bottles began to rattle.

"Everyone said, 'Oh, it's an earthquake,'" said Leon Lee, the bar's owner. "We didn't hardly feel anything, just some kind of vibration."

The quake struck 16 miles northwest of Ludlow, which has a population of 10, according to the 2000 U.S. Census.

The quake "is relatively shallow and if it were located in a more populated area it could be very damaging," USGS seismologist Richard Buckmaster said. "But it's out in the middle of the desert, in the middle of nowhere."

Across the Colorado River at the western Arizona border, Fort Mojave Tribal police dispatcher Jessica Hopkins said she felt a gentle rumbling.

Shaking was also felt in Las Vegas, said Scott Allison, a spokesman for the Clark County Fire Department in Nevada. He said there were no reports of injuries or damage.

"People were just calling 911 saying, 'Did I feel the earth move?'" Allison said.

The quake was just a few miles from where a 7.1-magnitude earthquake hit in 1999. USGS seismologist Lucy Jones said it was probably an aftershock of that shake. She said it's not uncommon for big earthquakes to spawn aftershocks years later.

Southern California on average feels about three moderate earthquakes a year, but the region has been unusually quiet since the Northridge quake, Jones said.

Kelly Ghiloni, a spokeswoman with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, said she felt shaking for about 15 seconds but saw no major damage.

"There was some shaking, a little bit of rattling," Ghiloni said. "It was enough to wake you up and know there was an earthquake."

USGS geophysicist Rafael Abreu said the closest fault is the Lavic Lake Fault.

New rule lifts ban on firearms in national parks

By MATTHEW DALY
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — People will soon be able to carry concealed, loaded guns in most national parks and wildlife refuges.

The Bush administration said Friday it is overturning a 25-year-old federal rule that severely restricts loaded guns in national parks.

Under a rule to take effect in January, visitors will be able to carry a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge — but only if the person has a permit for a concealed weapon and if the state where the park or refuge is located also allows concealed firearms.

The new rule goes further than a draft proposal issued last spring and would allow concealed weapons even in parks located in states that explicitly ban the carrying of guns in state parks. Some states allow concealed weapons but also ban guns from parks.

"If you can carry (a gun) on Main Street, you are allowed to carry in a national park," said Chris Paolino. a spokesman for the Interior Department.

The Interior Department rule overturns a Reagan-era regulation that has restricted loaded guns in parks and wildlife refuges. The previous regulation required that firearms be unloaded and placed somewhere that is not easily accessible, such as in a car trunk.

Assistant Interior Secretary Lyle Laverty said the new rule respects a long tradition of states and the federal government working together on natural resource issues.

The regulation allows individuals to carry concealed firearms in federal parks and wildlife refuges to the same extent they can lawfully do so under state law, Laverty said, adding that the approach is in line with rules adopted by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Those agencies let visitors carry weapons consistent with applicable federal and state laws.

The National Rifle Association hailed the rule change, which will take effect next month before President-elect Barack Obama takes office.

"We are pleased that the Interior Department recognizes the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges," said Chris W. Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist.

The rule will restore the rights of law-abiding gun owners on federal lands and make federal law consistent with the state where the lands are located, Cox said. The NRA led efforts to change gun regulations they called inconsistent and unclear.

A group representing park rangers, retirees and conservation organizations said the rule change will lead to confusion for visitors, rangers and other law enforcement agencies.

"Once again, political leaders in the Bush administration have ignored the preferences of the American public by succumbing to political pressure, in this case generated by the National Rifle Association," said Bill Wade, president of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees.

"This regulation will put visitors, employees and precious resources of the National Park System at risk. We will do everything possible to overturn it and return to a commonsense approach to guns in national parks that has been working for decades," Wade said.

The park rule will be published in the Federal Register early next week and take effect 30 days later, well before Obama takes office Jan. 20. Overturning the rule could take months or even years, since it would require the new administration to restart the lengthy rule-making process.

Nick Shapiro, a spokesman for President-elect Barack Obama's transition team, said no decision had been made on the gun rule.

"President-elect Obama will review all eleventh-hour regulations and will address them once he is president," he said.

Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, hailed the new rule. Crapo and Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., had organized letters to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne complaining about the gun restrictions. The letters were signed by half the Senate — 41 Republicans and nine Democrats.

"I congratulate Secretary Kempthorne for taking this stand. The rule as it has come out is what we asked for with regard to handguns," Crapo said. "It's a very, very significant improvement."

Crapo called the current rule confusing and complex and said it "literally resulted in different standards as you traveled through the same state."

But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said the new rule was a mistake.

"The Reagan-era rules have stood the test of time and make our national parks safe for all who visit them," Feinstein said. "The Bush administration changes will make our national parks more dangerous and will upset the delicate balance that exists between park visitors and wildlife."

Interior spokesman Paolino said the rule would not affect a ban on guns in federal buildings. Guns will still be prohibited in national icons such as Independence Hall and the Statue of Liberty, he said. Guns also will be banned in visitor centers and other buildings at national parks.

Lancaster sees solar as salvation

The city and surrounding Antelope Valley have been hard hit by poverty, unemployment and foreclosures. The nearly complete eSolar facility could create jobs and restore a sense of pride.

Workers install mirrors at an eSolar demonstration plant in Lancaster. The city hopes the company will provide jobs for Antelope Valley residents.Brian Vander Brug / Los Angeles Times

By Scott Gold, Los Angeles Times
By Cassandra Sweet, Dow Jones Newswires

SAN FRANCISCO -(Dow Jones)- Plans to develop a large solar-thermal power plant in California moved a step closer Thursday after state regulators approved a contract between Edison International (EIX) unit Southern California Edison and plant developer eSolar.

In June, Edison signed a 20-year contract with eSolar Inc. to take the output from a series of concentrating solar power plants eSolar plans to build that would produce up to 245 megawatts of electricity. Approval by the California Public Utilities Commission allows Edison to recover the costs of the contract from its customers.

The solar facility, to be built in Kern County, Calif., will use concentrating solar power technology developed by eSolar. The technology has yet to generate electricity at a commercial scale, although eSolar is building a demonstration project. ESolar, a startup based in Pasadena, Calif., has secured the land needed for the project and lined up financing from Google.org, Idealab and Oak Investment Partners, according to the CPUC.

The price of the power from eSolar's facility is considered above-market, and Edison received commission approval to use special funds collected from utility customers to cover the extra amount.

The solar plant will interconnect with the Southern California grid at a new substation that Edison plans to build as part of the Tehachapi renewable transmission project.

Farmers target EPA report they say might tax cows

By BOB JOHNSON
Associated Press




MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — For farmers, this stinks: Belching and gaseous cows and hogs could start costing them money if the federal government decides to charge fees for air-polluting animals.

Farmers so far are turning their noses up at the notion, which they contend is a possible consequence of an Environmental Protection Agency report after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases from motor vehicles amounts to air pollution.

"This is one of the most ridiculous things the federal government has tried to do," said Alabama Agriculture Commissioner Ron Sparks, an outspoken opponent of the fees.

EPA officials insisted Friday that the lengthy, highly technical report, which mostly focuses on other sources of air pollution, does not include a proposal to tax livestock.

But the American Farm Bureau Federation said, based on federal agriculture department figures, it would require farms or ranches with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs to pay an annual fee of about $175 for each dairy cow, $87.50 per head of beef cattle and $20 for each hog.

The executive vice president of the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Ken Hamilton, estimated the fee would cost owners of a modest-sized cattle ranch $30,000 to $40,000 a year. He said he has talked to a number of livestock owners about the proposals, and "all have said if the fees were carried out, it would bankrupt them."

Sparks said Wednesday he's worried the fee could be extended to chickens and other farm animals and cause more meat to be imported.

"We'll let other countries put food on our tables like they are putting gas in our cars. Other countries don't have the health standards we have," Sparks said.

The farm groups say the fee would apply to farms with livestock operations that emit more than 100 tons of carbon emissions in a year and fall under federal Clean Air Act provisions.

EPA officials said the agency has not taken a position on any of the matters discussed in its response to the Supreme Court ruling. And John Millett, a spokesman for EPA's air and radiation division, said there has been an oversimplification of the EPA's document "to the point of distortion."

"EPA is not proposing any type of tax on livestock," he said.

The EPA briefly mentions "raising livestock" in its report on ways to regulate greehnouse gases under the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Paul Schlegel, director of public policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it determined the possible fees that could be imposed by using Agriculture Department statistics on the amount of greenhouse gases that come from livestock and applied it to the EPA's permitting rules.

Farmers from across the country have expressed outrage over the EPA report, both on Internet sites and in opinions sent to EPA during a public comment period that ended last week. Many call it a "cow tax" and say the EPA proposed it.

"It's something that really has a very big potential adverse impact for the livestock industry," said Rick Krause, the senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

The fee would cover the cost of a permit for the livestock operations. While farmers say it would drive them out of business, an organization supporting the proposal hopes it forces the farms and ranches to switch to healthier crops.

"It makes perfect sense if you are looking for ways to cut down on meat consumption and recoup environmental losses," said Bruce Friedrich, a spokesman in Washington for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

"We certainly support making factory farms pay their fair share," he said.

U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt, a Republican from Haleyville in northwest Alabama, said he has spoken with EPA officials and doesn't believe the cow tax is a serious proposal that will ever be adopted by the agency.

"Who comes up with this kind of stuff?" said Perry Mobley, director of the Alabama Farmers Federation's beef division. "It seems there is an ulterior motive, to destroy livestock farms. This would certainly put them out of business."

Marine expansion plans don't sit well with off-roaders

By DAVID DANELSKI
The Press-Enterprise

VICTORVILLE - Off-roading enthusiasts and military officials appeared to be on a collision course Thursday at a meeting hosted by the Marine Corps, which plans a major expansion of its training center at Twentynine Palms.

The Marines shared five expansion scenarios for enlarging the center, but the one that works best for maneuvers and live-fire training takes in all or part of the Johnson Valley, a 189,000-acre mecca for off-roaders in the San Bernardino County desert southeast of Barstow.

The revelation didn't go over well with many of the 167 people, most of them off-roaders, who attended the meeting in a hotel conference room.

"Any alternative that takes in the Johnson Valley would be catastrophic for our community," said Jim Arbogast, a regional director of the California Off-Road Vehicle Association.

Arbogast, an Anaheim resident who likes to trek through Johnson Valley in his Ford Bronco, would prefer to see the military expand into wilderness areas on the more remote east side of the training center.

Others said they wanted no military expansion at all.

"We don't want to lose a grain of sand, nothing," said Rich Wohlers, a four-wheeling enthusiast from Apple Valley.

Lt. Col. James McArthur said final decisions are at least two years away. The military must still evaluate the expansion options to determine how well communications, logistics, intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and other criteria will work in each area, he said.

Officials determined the Johnson Valley is best for live-fire exercises and maneuvering because it provides a natural extension of training corridors on the base, McArthur said.

The military also must review environmental issues in a study expected to be ready for public review in 2010.

Meeting participants were asked to make their comments in writing at several tables or to speak to a court reporter, who would create a transcript.

Marie Brashear, a rock collector from Lucerne Valley, said the comment format was self-serving for the military.

"The only purpose is to defuse and disarm people who may be opposed to the expansion," she said.

Helen Baker, director of the Partnership for Johnson Valley, said she liked the format because it prevents a few vocal people from taking over.

The Marine Corps wants to expand the 932-square-mile Air Ground Combat Center at Twentynine Palms to handle new training.

Military officials want enough space for three battalions to maneuver simultaneously using live ammunition accompanied by air support. Each battalion would have about 1,000 Marines supported by other troops.

The expansion area covers almost 76,000 acres of private property and most of the Johnson Valley Off-Highway Vehicle Area, a 189,000-acre public playground for off-roaders. Environmentalists have said the expansion could take territory from wild animals and plants at a time when desert habitat elsewhere is being claimed for solar and wind projects.

A Navy research group looked at 11 other potential training sites in the nation, but only Twentynine Palms has sufficient airspace and land, according to the Navy's application to acquire public lands.

Grandson arrested in missing woman’s death

Vehicle found in Barstow




By ABBY SEWELL
Desert Dispatch




Arturo Hernandez


BARSTOW • The grandson of a missing woman who turned up dead in the Mojave Desert has been arrested on suspicion of murder.

Arturo Hernandez, 20, was arrested on suspicion of murder in connection with the death of his 58-year-old grandmother, Luisa Aguilar Ventura, on Thanksgiving Day. Despite inquiries on the status of the case, officials did not release the arrest information until Thursday.

They also did not previously release the fact that Ventura’s silver 2002 Toyota Tacoma had been found parked behind the Barstow Mall on East Main Street Nov. 20. Witnesses said the truck had been apparently abandoned there for about three days, according to a San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department report.

Sheriff’s department spokeswoman Jodi Miller said that investigators asked that the information be withheld until Thursday, out of fear of jeopardizing a sensitive investigation. She declined to elaborate on the reasons.

Family members in Pomona reported Ventura and Hernandez missing on Nov. 17, after they failed to return home from a trip to Las Vegas as expected. They had left a family member’s house in Las Vegas the day before.

Ventura’s body was found on Excelsior Mine Road, west of Interstate 15, on Nov. 25, according to the most recent sheriff’s report. The body had signs of trauma, Miller said, but a cause of death has not been determined, pending toxicology test results.

After Ventura’s body was found, family members told investigators that Hernandez was back in Southern California, Miller said. He was found at a bus stop in Rosemead by Temple City Sheriff’s Department personnel, who detained him and brought him to the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department central headquarters for questioning. He was arrested there.

Miller said there was no obvious motive for the killing.

“Apparently (Hernandez) has lived with his grandmother for the majority of his life, and there’s no indication of why this may have happened,” she said.

Hernandez was arraigned in Barstow on the murder charge Tuesday and pleaded not-guilty, according to court records. He is being held at the Central Detention Center in San Bernardino on $1 million bail, with his next hearing date set for Dec. 9.

Investigators are now trying to piece together what happened between the time when the pair left Las Vegas and when Hernandez was arrested. Anyone who recalls seeing Ventura, Hernandez or the truck is asked to call the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department homicide detail at 909-387-3589 or the 24-hour dispatch center at 909-387-8313. To remain anonymous, call WE-TIP at (800) 78-CRIME or leave information on the WeTip Web site at www.wetip.com.

Timeline:

• Nov. 16: Luisa Ventura, 58, and grandson Arturo Hernandez, 20, leave a family member’s house in Las Vegas to head home to Pomona.


• Nov. 17: Family members in Pomona report them missing when they fail to arrive home.


• Nov. 20: Ventura’s Toyota Tacoma is found behind the Barstow Mall, where witnesses say it was abandoned for about three days.


• Nov. 25: Ventura’s body is found in the Mojave Desert southwest of the California/Nevada border.


• Nov. 27: Hernandez is arrested in Rosemead.


• Dec. 4: Officials release the information that Hernandez has been arrested.

Feds halt plan to drill in scenic Utah canyons

Areas populated by big game still will be auctioned, environmentalists say

Utah's Monument Basin in Canyonlands National Park in 2007. Doug Pensinger / Getty Images file

Associated Press
msnbc.com

SALT LAKE CITY - A section of whitewater rapids tucked between high cliffs, little-changed since explorer John Wesley Powell boated through in 1896, and a canyon decorated with thousands of ancient rock art panels have been pulled off the auction block by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

For the second time in a week, the bureau announced late Tuesday that it was pulling auction parcels from an expanded oil-and-gas leasing program in Utah. The latest tracts include land inside Nine Mile Canyon and Desolation Canyon on the Green River.

The bureau didn't say why it was pulling the lease tracts, but the prospect of drilling near Utah's scenic treasures brought condemnation from conservation groups.

Together with previous deferrals, the BLM has pulled nearly 100,000 acres from an auction set for Dec. 19, leaving more than 276,000 acres up for bid.

Last week, the BLM pulled drilling leases that were located on and near the borders of Arches National Park, Dinosaur National Monument and Canyonlands National Park, all in Utah.

The additional deferrals were announced after business hours Tuesday. BLM spokeswoman Mary Wilson said the agency would remove lease parcels from the "canyon bottoms" in Desolation and Nine Mile canyons, while leaving for auction other parcels on bluffs overlooking those canyons.

The BLM never intended to allow drillers to set up rigs inside the canyons, she said. It would have required drillers to reach the parcels from another pad, using directional drilling, she said.

'Rush job'

A quick analysis by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance showed the BLM still planned to auction parcels atop plateaus populated by big game around Nine Mile Canyon, a tributary of the Green River.

Stephen Bloch, an attorney for the environmental group, said the BLM's second reversal in a week showed its original auction list was a "rush job." Bloch said his group still planned to file protests by a Thursday deadline.

The BLM also plans to auction 146,339 acres in Utah later this month for geothermal development.

The bureau made clear it was pulling lease parcels only for the time being and might later decide to auction off the parcels inside the canyons with restrictions on noise, lighting or surface occupancy.

Environmentally minded cowboys run a green ranch in Arizona

At two ranches near the Grand Canyon, they try to raise cattle in a way that doesn’t sully the sensitive southwestern landscape.

New horizons: Ethan Aumack, who oversees conservation science at the Kane and Two Mile ranches, looks out over the Vermilion Cliffs that act as a natural fence on part of the land. (Jina Moore)

By Jina Moore
The Christian Science Monitor

John Heyneman has a problem. It’s late January, and some of his cows are missing. They’re stuck on the Kaibab Plateau, a 9,000-foot high Ponderosa pine forest just north of the Grand Canyon. Most of his 400 cattle made it safely from the forest, their summer home, to the valley below, where they winter. But the stragglers wandered off on land that lacks a cowboy’s most important tool – fences – and now they’re lost, stranded knee-deep in snow.

Mr. Heyneman is the ranch manager at the Kane and Two Miles Ranches, which cover 850,000 acres of mostly public land on the North Rim of the Grand Canyon. That’s a lot of land across which to lose a cow. The aging fences have gaps in them, and passers-by often leave gates ajar. Up here, where the land rolls from rocky desert to lush forest to sandy cliffs, the most reliable resource in Heyneman’s work is the land. As an example, he gestures out the window of his white Dodge truck.

“Those rocks,” he says, pointing to the Vermilion Cliffs, one of the most famous landmarks in the Southwest, “are one of the few really effective fences we have.”

The ranches are a partnership between the Grand Canyon Trust and the Conservation Fund, which together spent $4.5 million for the land as an investment in conservation. But the parcels came with a controversial catch: cows. Yet here, the cattle have gone green. Or, if you prefer, the conservationists have gone cowboy. It’s an unlikely partnership between ranchers and environmentalists, two groups usually on opposite sides of the fence. Then again, those fences don’t usually come in 3,000-foot-high red rock.

•••

For decades, conservation groups have decried cattle grazing as an act of environmental destruction. Cows trample native plants and insects, leech scarce water, and aggravate soil erosion, environmentalists say. Heyneman has heard it all before, and he even agrees – to a certain extent.

“They are certainly people in the Southwest who really believe that cows are the great demise of the American West, and I’m not sure I’m willing to put that on their shoulders,” he says. “I don’t love cows. I don’t find them sacred. But I don’t find them diabolic either.”

Heyneman grew up in a Montana ranching family but never yearned to be a rancher himself. He went to college “back East in Minnesota,” where he studied science just long enough “to figure out that you could get whatever answer you wanted by changing what question you asked.” Itching with wanderlust after college, he worked for two years in Brazil, and later got a master’s degree in soil sciences.

He lives in Flagstaff, Ariz., and works in the Trust’s offices three days a week, then pulls out his Kevlar pants and pops in an audiobook for the two-hour commute to the ranches, where he spends the rest of his work week. His cowboys live up here.

Sometimes, they even stay at the ranch headquarters, a small stone building that once housed “Buffalo Bill” and a group of English aristocrats William Frederick Cody courted as investors for the hunting lodge he hoped to build here. Today, the stone house still lacks plumbing and power, and except for one week a month, Heyneman sleeps at his home in Flagstaff.

“I’m still a little more Alpine, I’m afraid,” he says. “I’ve got this affinity to running water that has not completely diminished.”

His counterpart in this operation is Ethan Aumack, a tall redhead in a fleece vest who oversees conservation science at the ranches. Mr. Aumack is a fifth-generation vegetarian who grew up in Flagstaff ditching school to go hiking in the Grand Canyon. In his office, he keeps a button that says “HELP PEOPLE.”

It’s from his grandmother, the third in a genealogical line of Norwegian immigrants who wouldn’t wear leather out of concern for cows. “There’s a lot of humor to be had about the vegetarian and the red meat rancher coming together on this project,” admits Aumack (who also confesses to eating beef from both ranches).

The project isn’t about nourishing cattle with ecofriendly feed or building wooden instead of barbed-wire fences. These cowboy-conservationists aren’t that kind of green. What they are doing, instead, is asking whether cattle ranching can be successful and environmental.

Actually, this may be the more revolutionary question. Environmental groups have been buying up land in the West to control the 80-year-old grazing permits it comes with. The idea is to retire the permits, and with them, the cows. That, eco-activists hope, will save the land.

The Trust didn’t have that option. If it retired its permits, Heyneman says, the government would just reallocate them. So if it wanted to preserve a quintessential American vista, it had to get in the cattle business. What began as an environmental initiative therefore became a ranching operation that defies the conventions of two sciences: ecology and economics.

Not many people who want to make money get into small-scale ranching in the Southwest. The businesses that have been turning a profit tend to be the big operations that own the land on which they graze their cows. Family-owned ranches often run their cattle on public lands and represent more of a hobby than a livelihood: One of Heyneman’s cowboys says his family and their neighbors all have day jobs and ranch on weekends, mostly as a way of spending time with each other and enjoying the landscape.

If the economics of small-scale ranching is dismal, the ecology is murky. Almost every aspect of ranching can inspire an ecological debate, and, sometimes, concessions. Heyneman was quick to prohibit his cowboys from a time-honored way of protecting cows – shooting coyotes or rattlesnakes. And, occasionally, his cows get a little cramped: The Trust sealed 10,000 acres off from the ranches to protect federal restoration activities, and it built fences of rough-hewn wood around a series of lakes that date back to a time the ocean covered the desert.

Other things are not as easy. If you let cattle drink from streams, for example, they might despoil riverbank habitat. Every source of water, then, is a potential source of tension. And not just between the cowboy and the conservationist. Earlier this year, one cowboy here said, ranch staff went to fix a spring and “near got in a fist fight” with neighbors who thought the water was theirs.

•••

Ultimately, the goal here is not to turn a profit from beef, but to preserve a unique American landscape. Through Aumack’s eyes, it is a wearied landscape, lurched out of its natural balance by a hundred years of human use. He’s trying to turn that around.

Aumack has led 550 volunteers in 47,000 hours of labor on the land since 2005. They’ve cleared tumbleweed from the fences, pulled water-sucking tamarisk from riverbeds, and counted the number of non-native plants across the ranches. The data they’ve gathered will help predict future brush fires, prioritize areas for protection, and offer guidance on better ways to graze cattle.

But there are things even science can’t prove, including the question at the heart of the operation: Are cows bad for the land? “The science doesn’t give us clear answers,” Aumack says. “It gives us some additional information to clarify the consequences of making different decisions, but it doesn’t necessarily decide what’s right or wrong.” Whether cows should graze on arid land in the American West is ultimately a matter of judgment – and politics.

Heyenman, on the other hand, knows one thing for sure: In the dead of winter, cows don’t belong in three feet of snow, and those stranded cattle on the Kaibab Plateau are in need of a rescue. Fortunately, the professional cowboy is also an amateur pilot. Heyneman will circle the pines in his plane until he finds the cows, and then lead them, one by one, back to the valley.

Judge scales back "Roadless Rule"

Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal magistrate judge ruled Tuesday that a Clinton-era ban against new road construction and development on millions of acres of national forest would apply only to 10 western states.

Two years ago, Judge Elizabeth Laporte invalidated a 2005 Bush administration rule that overturned the 2001 "Roadless Rule," which protected 58.5 million acres of federal land in about 40 states.

But in August, a federal judge in Wyoming invalidated President Bill Clinton's Roadless Rule, leading the Bush administration to request that the two judges modify their conflicting rulings.

In response, Laporte reduced the geographic scope of her 2006 ruling.

The move is only a temporary fix. Federal appeals courts in San Francisco and Denver are expected to rule on the case next year, and road construction rules also could change under President-elect Barack Obama's administration.

Environmental groups that challenged the Bush administration's repeal of the Roadless Rule urged the government Tuesday to not weaken protections for about 13.6 million acres of roadless forests in the states no longer covered by Laporte's 2006 ruling.

Forest Service officials in Washington did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Interview With Dennis Schramm

Superintendent of Mojave National Preserve

BY DAVID LAMFROM
The Desert Report

A Brief Introduction to Mojave National Preserve:
To millions of drivers en route to or returning from Sin City, the Mojave National Preserve is a large green or brown area on a map, a desolate, rugged, barren landscape to be traversed. To those who have come to know “the Preserve” it is a 1.6 million acre desert mountain wonderland, teeming with wildlife, wildflowers, and wilderness; a place containing singing sand dunes, sweeping vistas, and arguably the finest night sky viewing in Southern California. The Mojave Preserve is a significant reservoir of cultural history dating back 8,000 years or more and is a haven of wilderness within a developing world, allowing current and future generations the opportunity to experience the vastness and diversity of the Eastern Mojave Desert.

Introducing Mr. Dennis Schramm

Dennis Schramm has been the superintendent of Mojave National Preserve for almost three years. He is a professional botanist who grew up in the Mojave Desert and has witnessed firsthand the population boom that impacts desert wildlands. Dennis has worked for the NPS for 31 years and has worked in Alaska as well as Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. I have posed questionsto Dennis in order to share the work being done at Mojave National Preserve. The National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) would like to thank Dennis Schramm for taking the time to discuss the Mojave National Preserve with us.

David: Speaking to those who are unfamiliar with the Preserve, what is significant about Mojave Nnational Preserve?
Dennis: Well, from the perspective of the enabling legislation, it is the natural and scenic resources including transitional desert elements that all come together here; it is the human history and the resources associated with Native Americans and westward expansion; and it is the opportunity for compatible outdoor recreation and to promote understanding of the Mojave Desert. From my personal perspective I think the most significant thing is the preservation of 1.6 million acres of prime Mojave Desert ecosystem and the vast landscapes that are encompassed within the Preserve. Considering the developments being proposed today in the Mojave, it is so important that a large expanse of the Mojave Desert is permanently protected for future generations.

Your favorite destination in the Preserve?
Wow, that’s kind of hard. There are so many different landscapes and vegetation types to explore. But I would have to say that the hike into the Castle Peaks is definitely one of the tops on my list.

In your lifetime, how has the Mojave Desert changed?
Population growth and the way people use the desert have changed a lot. Of course Las Vegas has grown substantially since I went to school and college there in the 60’s and 70’s. This surge of people has caused unprecedented development in the Vegas valley and the Victor Valley/Lancaster areas.

Have attitudes towards the Mojave changed?
I’m not sure if attitudes overall have changed, but a lot more people seem to be interested in motorized recreation, whether it is jet skis on Lake Mead and the Colorado River, or four wheel drive vehicles in OHV areas. There is still a core population of folks who prefer a more intimate experience with the desert, but their voices don’t seem as loud as in the 60’s.

In your tenure, what do you consider to be the greatest victories or achievements attained?
Well, I have to include in my tenure my first seven years here as the planner and management assistant. Of course, my first major accomplishment was completion of the General Management Plan in 2001. During those first years we also removed 4,000 feral burros and around 8,000 cattle (all with donated funds!). Restoration of the Kelso Depot and opening it as our main visitor center has been a significant achievement and remains a tremendous opportunity for visitor contact. Mojave achieved a 99% visitor satisfaction rate last year and a lot has to do with the Kelso Depot and staff that work there. I’m also proud of the work we are doing to reduce our impact on the environment. We now have eleven solar systems operating around the Preserve and this year will eliminate the last diesel generator from the Preserve. This year we also converted all our maintenance equipment to bio-based fluids and greatly expanded our recycling program. Finally I would have to say that the staff we have hired are among the best around and we accomplish a great many things each year due to their hard work and dedication.

What do you consider to be the greatest threats to Mojave Preserve?
I think most of our threats today are originating outside the Preserve, some from sources that you wouldn’t have suspected. Obviously, the proposed Southern Nevada Supplement Airport just north of Primm poses major threats to the natural quiet of the Preserve if it is built. Then there are the hundreds of solar and wind energy applications filed all over the desert. Mojave has nine proposals surrounding it in California. The Ivanpah Solar is moving rapidly through the permitting process. It lies on the bajada just east of Clark Mountain. They propose to clear nearly 9,000 acres for solar energy development, the majority of which is wet solar. They would heat water to produce steam by pointing mirrors at several 450 foot tall towers. Then they would burn natural gas at night to keep the water warm. We’ve learned recently that some of the projects are proposing new utility rights of way through the Preserve to connect with grid.

Why? How can these challenges be best addressed?
The public needs to speak up at the hearings for these projects. As a federal agency we can only do so much. We raise our concerns at every opportunity, but we are also thinking ahead to mitigation if the projects do get built. It is important for the public to learn the details about these proposals and know how these projects will affect the future of the Mojave Desert.

Looking forward, what are your goals and priorities for improving Mojave Preserve?
This could go on for a while! There are several areas that we have identified for the future. One obvious opportunity is the National Park Service Centennial Celebration in 2016. A major initiative is already underway to get the parks ready for this milestone event. 1Mojave has identified a number of proposals, and we will continue to refine our thinking in conversations with the public. One major initiative that needs to be supported is the relevancy of parks to future generations. This means connecting kids with parks and with the outdoors in general. We are working on this initiative with several of our sister parks. Restoration of disturbed lands and ensuring safe visits for the public at all of our abandoned mine lands is a priority for us, and for all the desert parks. Reducing our carbon footprint is a major priority for all of us. We will be looking for opportunities to implement meaningful actions that contribute to this goal. This is just one aspect of dealing with climate change. Protecting Mojave from invasive species rates high as well. Surprisingly, given the long grazing history, Mojave has few issues with the major weed species. After the Hackberry Fire I would have expected lots of exotics to invade the area, and that has not happened. It is important to guard against these invasives making inroads into the Preserve. I also think it is important that we get some wayside exhibits with short accessible trails at four or five key areas along the main paved roads through the Preserve. Providing opportunities for the public to experience areas like the lava beds and cinder cones, the diverse Mojave scrub vegetation in Granite Pass, and the Joshua Tree community on Cima Dome are important to helping people connect first hand with the resources and not just have a drive through experience. Finally, we are anxious to move forward with a tortoise headstart facility in Ivanpah Valley. This facility will help us and other land managers learn more about juvenile tortoise survival and to jumpstart the population recovery with reproductive age tortoises that have been protected from predation. Getting more juveniles to reproductive age in the population is critical to tortoise recovery.

What opportunities exist for the conservation community and the local community to support the efforts of Mojave Nnational Preserve?
Opportunities are almost endless. Obviously volunteers and donations are very important to our operation, and these tend to come from the local communities and members of conservation groups. Being an active voice for National Parks and being a participant in the public review of development proposals that are threatening to further fragment the desert. Teach the children to love the outdoors!

I would like to offer you the last word, is there anything you would like to impart to those reading this article?
Mojave National Preserve is a very special part of the Mojave Desert. Many people worked very hard to create the Preserve and it is up to all of us to ensure that future generations can enjoy this place as we do. Most of all, get out and enjoy the quiet, enjoy the dark night skies, enjoy the smells after a desert rain, and enjoy the vast open spaces and spectacular landscapes. This is your national park!

David Lamfrom is the Cal Desert Field Rep for NPCA’s Cal Desert Field Office. David is a relative newcomer to the Cal Desert and pursues his passions of conservation, wildlife photography, hiking, and herpetology throughout the Mojave.

Environmentalist group seeks Pickens' wife's help to remove cattle from rangeland

By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN
Associated Press

Wild horses are seen on the at the Pryor Mountain National Wild Horse Range in south-central Montana. (AP Photo/Bureau of Land Management, Ann Boucher)

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — Conservationists are looking to the wife of Texas oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens to help push for federal reforms that they say will help thousands of wild horses and save rangeland in the West.

Madeleine Pickens recently announced plans to create a refuge for wild horses. She came up with the idea after hearing that the U.S. Bureau of Land Management was considering euthanizing some of the animals to control the herds and protect the range.

WildEarth Guardians wants to take Pickens' plan further by proposing a solution the group believes would resolve public land grazing conflicts that have resulted in the horses needing a home.

"Our proposal will not only benefit these animals where they currently live, but also enhance wildlife and watershed protection on federal public land," the group told Pickens in a letter sent Wednesday.

Pickens, who is negotiating the purchase of the land for her refuge, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

WildEarth Guardians is advocating congressional legislation that would allow ranchers who have grazing permits on federal public land to relinquish the permits in exchange for compensation. The idea is that livestock would be removed from the allotment, leaving a refuge for wild horses and other native animals and plants.

Mark Salvo, director of WildEarth Guardians' campaign to protect the West's sagebrush landscape, said he believes voluntary grazing permit buyouts are catching on with ranchers.

"Public land grazing is a challenging business pursuit," he said. "It's really difficult to raise livestock profitably on arid Western public land, particularly when you're competing against not only feedlots in Kansas, Nebraska and Florida, but also in Brazil and Japan and Argentina. These are changing times on our Western public land, and livestock grazing is a fading economic activity."

"If we drive food production out locally,
we're going to be depending on foreign food..."
Caren Cowan, executive director of the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association, disagrees. She noted that agriculture, including ranching, is among the top economic drivers for New Mexico and that outsourcing food production by pushing ranchers from the land could have dangerous consequences.

"If we drive food production out locally, we're going to be depending on foreign food," she said.

Cowan said one concern surrounding the retirement of grazing permits is that wildlife would no longer have access to the supplemental feed and water that ranchers provide for their livestock on public land.

Another concern, she said, is that private land surrounding public grazing allotments would not be protected from development without ranchers who maintain the land for their agricultural operations.

Cowan said conservationists have pushed for years for permit buyout legislation. This time, she said, they are trying to ride a publicity wave created by Pickens' interest in the wild horses.

WildEarth Guardians maintains that voluntary permit buyouts would be "economically rational" and "ecologically imperative."

"It's also politically pragmatic," Salvo said. "It's a way to resolve grazing conflicts in a way that everybody can agree."

He said support by Pickens and other wild horse advocates would be invaluable to any effort to create a national permit buyout program.

The BLM estimates that 33,000 wild horses and burros roam the open range in 10 Western states. The agency wants that population to be about 27,000 to protect the herd, the range and other foraging animals.

Those horses that too old or considered unadoptable are sent to long-term holding facilities, and the BLM has said the cost of keeping animals in the facilities has caused them to consider euthanasia as a last resort.

Drought deepens strain on a dwindling Colorado

Flows falling: California first in line as Utah, other states fight for water.

By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune

The Colorado Basin states have been anxious about their shares of the Colorado River as early as the 1900s. The signing of the Colorado River Compact in 1922 was an important milestone in the management of the Colorado River and became the foundation for the law of the river. This compact included the seven Colorado River Basin states, and apportioned water from the Colorado River between the Upper and Lower Basin states.

The drought gripping Utah, Southern California and the rest of the Southwest this century shows no sign of ending. Scientists see it as a permanent condition that, despite year-to-year weather variations, will deepen as temperatures rise, snows dwindle, soils bake and fires burn.

That's grim news for all of us in the West, perhaps most especially for the 10 million residents along the northern stretch of the Colorado River -- Utah, New Mexico, Wyoming and Colorado -- whose water rights are newer, and therefore junior, to those in Southern California, Nevada and Arizona.

Making matters worse, the Colorado -- the 1,450-mile-long lifeline that sustains more than 30 million souls and 3.5 million acres of farmland in seven states, 34 tribal nations and Mexico -- is in decline, scientists warn.

Even so, demand for the Colorado's water echoes from city leaders, industry giants, oil drillers, farmers, fishers, ranchers, boaters, bikers and hikers -- along with silent pleas from wildlife and the ecosystem. Trend analyses by federal scientists, probably conservative, predict the population dependent on the river will reach at least 38 million during the coming decade.

Right now, California, with the most senior rights and the largest share of the Colorado under a 1922 law, is struggling with a statewide water shortage. Not enough rain has fallen in the southland, as weathercasters like to call it, home to 18 million people, roughly half the state's population.

California already uses all of its Colorado River allocation. As the drought has worsened, Southern California water bosses have labored to keep the taps running through a host of conservation schemes. Meanwhile, water managers in Utah and the Upper Basin are working to get all of their water rights in use, even as their cities and counties register some of the highest per-capita consumption in the nation.

Demand is up. Flows are down. Something has to give. And when it does, Utah could be in trouble if it doesn't change its wasteful ways -- just as 19th-century explorer Maj. John Wesley Powell predicted.

The West lacks water, he wrote in his 1879 Report on the Lands of the Arid Region of the United States, With a More Detailed Account of the Lands of Utah. "Disastrous droughts will be frequent."

Law of the River

The 1922 Colorado River Compact may have given California water rights senior to the other six states, but the Metropolitan Water District (Met), which supplies up to 60 percent of the water for 19 million people spread across six Los Angeles-area counties, made its claims after the state's allocation already had been divvied up. That means the most populous part of California is last in line among its peers when water runs low.

"If California ever did take a shortage," said Assistant General Manager Roger Patterson, "Met would take the hit."

That's already happened.

In 2003, California had to curtail its Colorado River use to its 1922 allocation of 4.4 million acre-feet per year, enough water for about 8 million households. Previously, under water-sharing deals with Arizona, the Golden State had been funneling about 5.2 million acre-feet.

Because of its junior standing, Met had to eat about half the total shortage. No one else in the state had to cut supplies, Patterson said.

In February, Met agreed to a rationing plan for most of Southern California, including Los Angeles and San Diego. It expects to add 5 million residents during the next five years. Since the Pacific Ocean blocks growth to the west, the district is pushing eastward, where it's hotter.

A federal judge has ordered California water managers to leave 30 percent more water in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in Northern California to stave off fish kills and keep the massive estuary healthy. More for the environment means less for Los Angeles.

Other populous regions of California also have taken steps to ensure a good water supply.

• Developers in Riverside, Kern, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties must guarantee a 20-year water supply before they build.


• The state has brought back a water bank, last used 17 years ago, in which Southern California cities can buy water from willing Sacramento Valley farmers. However, given the high prices farmers can get for their crops, especially rice, willing sellers might be hard to find.


• Orange County residents are drinking recycled sewer water.


• In San Diego County, the Coastal Commission greenlighted a $300 million desalination plant adjacent to a state beach. The operation still has to meet lots of conditions -- which probably will make the plant more costly to build and run -- but even if completed would supply no more than 9 percent of San Diego's current needs.

Met residents have cut back to about 185 gallons of water per person per day. Residents of Long Beach are down to 115 gallons.

"If Long Beach can do this," said Kevin Wattier, the city water department's general manager, "so can every other city in Southern California."

Splish, splash

Upstream, Utahns on average use 291 gallons of water per person per day, a rate second only to Nevada. In Salt Lake County, it's 255 gallons; Washington County, 350 gallons; Kane County, a bloated 430 gallons.

Sixty percent of Utah's water goes for outdoor use, including landscaping and agriculture. In California, agriculture consumers about 85 percent. California, however, is the fifth-largest farm economy in the world. By comparison, Utah's agriculture profile is nearly nonexistent, contributing less than 1 percent to the state's economy.

The system might seem out of balance. Yet no state, not even Nevada, which has the measliest Colorado allocation, wants to reopen the 1922 Colorado River Compact that divided the water. Each fears getting an even worse deal. Nor does anyone know what soon-to-be-settled Navajo claims on the river will mean to both basins.

There is, however, a growing sense that the Colorado Basin states are all in this together.

"Everybody ought to share in the reality of the river," said former Utah Attorney General Paul Van Dam, now director of Washington County-based Citizens for Dixie's Future. "And there ought to be great flexibility in how we use it without losing it."

Dozens of scientific studies issued since 2004 have documented the Colorado's decline.

The river's annual flow has averaged 11.7 million acre-feet this decade, according to federal records. In 2002, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation measured only 6.2 million acre-feet passing Lee's Ferry below Glen Canyon Dam, the lowest flow of the decade. Even after this year's above-average precipitation, Lake Powell and Lake Mead combined are at 57 percent capacity.

A 2007 U.S. Geological Survey report found that, by 2050, rising temperatures in the Southwest could rival those of the nation's fabled droughts, including the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. Hotter weather is expected to reduce Colorado River runoff by at least 30 percent during the 21st century.

If the USGS is correct, and if this century's trend persists, average annual flow in the Colorado could fall to 8.2 million acre-feet per year.

Imagine that. The Law of the River requires 9 million acre-feet to pass Lee's Ferry on the way to the Lower Basin and Mexico. Under a strict interpretation of the law, the Upper Basin could be left with nothing.

A far more likely scenario would have the states banding together to rework the river allocations. But when Arizona Sen. John McCain suggested just that during his failed presidential campaign, the shrieks emanating from Colorado's halls of power were enough to prompt the Republican nominee to back down.

Pipeline dream

Dennis Strong, director of the Utah Division of Water Resources, in October told the state Water Development Commission that the state is using about 1 million acre-feet of its yearly 1.4 million acre-foot allotment from the Colorado.

Tribal water settlements yet to be signed would take up about 186,000 acre-feet, he said. New agricultural uses, mostly dedicated to controlling the salinity of the water that flows back to the Colorado, would take 35,000 acre-feet. Municipal and industrial uses along the river corridor would account for 5,000 acre-feet, and the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline would need 100,000 acre-feet, leaving about 74,000 acre-feet unused, theoretically.

Utah water managers are pushing the $1 billion-plus pipeline, which would lavish more water on a Dixie desert region likely to feel the full brunt of global climate disruption and permanent drought within the next 40 years.

The state hasn't actually secured rights to the 100,000 acre-feet for the pipeline. Strong said that would have to be nailed down by 2010, when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is expected to issue the license necessary to start building it. He's confident the water will come.

By 2040, the pipeline's water would be entirely committed to a regional population of about 400,000, Strong said.

Given current scientific warnings about the shrinking Colorado, that prospect looks shaky.

But Strong isn't worried. He's skeptical about global warming, though he "sees evidence" of it.

"Water managers," he said, "have been dealing with drought forever."

Sharing -- by the numbers

The 1922 Colorado River Compact divided the river during a wet cycle that assumed an average annual flow of 16.5 million acre-feet.

The law requires that 9 million acre-feet per year pass Lee's Ferry below Glen Canyon Dam every year to serve the Lower Basin states and Mexico. That leaves 7.5 million acre-feet for the Upper Basin.

An acre-foot is about 326,000 gallons, enough to supply one or two Western households a year.

Sixty years ago, recognizing the danger of promising too much, the states amended Upper Basin allocations: Colorado would get 51.75 percent; Utah, 23 percent; Wyoming, 14 percent; and New Mexico, 11.25 percent.

More recently, the Upper Basin states acknowledged the drought and agreed that they will base their percentage allotments on 6 million acre-feet per year rather than the 7.5 million acre-feet assumed in the Colorado Compact.

"Nature acts, people argue." -- Voltaire

Based on analysis of many recent climate-model simulations, the preponderance of scientific evidence suggests that warmer future temperatures will reduce future Colorado River flows and water supplies. Reduced flow also would contribute to increasing severity, frequency and duration of future droughts.

Steadily rising population and urban water demands in the Colorado River region will inevitably result in increasingly costly, controversial and unavoidable trade-offs to be made by water managers, politicians and their constituents. These increasing demands also are impeding the region's ability to cope with droughts and water shortages. --National Academy of Sciences

"I wish to make it clear to you, there is not sufficient water to irrigate all the lands which could be irrigated, and only a small portion can be irrigated. I tell you, gentlemen, you are piling up a heritage of conflict." -- Maj. John Wesley Powell, 1893

Navajo water a wild card in river's future

Old rights: 1908 decision gave tribe part of the river

By Patty Henetz
The Salt Lake Tribune

The commission that created the 1922 Colorado River Compact knew that Mexico, the Navajo and other tribes had rights to the river, but when it divvied up the presumed 15 million acre-feet annual flow, it didn't define the claims.

In 1944, the United States and Mexico agreed that Mexico would get 1.5 million acre-feet per year, resetting the assumed baseline river flow at 16.5 million acre-feet. Four years later, the commission set the Upper Basin states' shares on a percentage basis rather than an absolute allocation.

Still no mention of Indian tribes, even though an 1850 treaty with the Navajo Nation, reinforced by a 1908 Supreme Court ruling, guaranteed water rights necessary for a permanent homeland.

In 2003, the Navajo Nation sued the Interior Department, seeking to force the U.S. government to, at last, quantify the tribe's rights.

Some Navajos say a strict interpretation of the treaty and the 1908 ruling in Winters v. United States shows the tribe's rights trump all others because they were affirmed before the 1922 Colorado Compact.

Navajo leaders, however, are pursuing negotiations rather than going back to the Supreme Court. That's because they realize the justices could wipe out the earlier Winters ruling.

The approach has polarized Navajos, with some alleging the tribe's attorney, Stanley Pollack, a white man, isn't fighting hard enough.

Political science professor Dan McCool, who heads the University of Utah's American West Center and has written books about Indian water rights, praises Pollack.

"What his critics don't understand is the Winters decision is just judge-made law. It's never been in statute," McCool said. "Both sides realize if they go to the Supreme Court, they could win big or they could lose big. That's why so many cities and counties and states want to negotiate with the tribe."

The Navajo Nation could claim up to 100,000 acre-feet of water in Utah and up to 800,000 acre-feet in total. That prospect should have an impact on planning for the Lake Powell Pipeline, McCool said. "Navajo claims make it even more risky."

No one believes the Navajo would use all the water to irrigate corn and potatoes in the desert. But the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has estimated more than 30 percent of Navajos on the reservation have no plumbing.

The bureau calculated the lack of running water costs the equivalent of nearly $113 per thousand gallons because tribal members must pay to have water hauled or go to water vendors and truck it themselves.

McCool said negotiations could result in an agreement that would allow tribes to lease their rights. "Some of the people downstream and upstream are going to be paying rent to the Navajo, which actually isn't a bad idea."

Missing woman's body found in Mojave National Preserve

Luisa Aguilar Ventura, 58, was reported missing Nov. 17. Her grandson, Arturo Hernandez, 18, and his pickup truck are being sought.

Luisa Aguilar Ventura

By Esmeralda Bermudez
Los Angeles Times
and
Stacia Glenn
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin

The body of a 58-year-old woman missing since last week was found in the Mojave National Preserve on Tuesday morning.

Luisa Aguilar Ventura was reported missing by relatives in Pomona on Nov. 17 after she failed to arrive in Madera, Calif., north of Fresno, with her 18-year-old grandson, Arturo Hernandez. She and her grandson, Arturo Hernandez, 18, were heading from Las Vegas to Madera. Ventura last spoke to her family when the two left Las Vegas at 6 p.m. on Nov. 16.

The incident is being investigated by homicide detectives, but so far has not been ruled a homicide, said Arden Wiltshire, spokeswoman with the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. Authorities are searching for Hernandez.

"We don't even know if he's aware that she died," Wiltshire said about Ventura's grandson, adding that there were no signs of trauma on Ventura's body. The coroner's report has not been released. "We need to talk to him," she said.

A passing truck driver discovered Ventura's body near the Nevada and California state line in Cima and about 100 yards from Cima Road, south of the 15 Freeway. Ventura and Hernandez were traveling in a gray 2002 Toyota Tacoma, license plate 6Y27079. Authorities are searching for the truck.

Anyone with information is asked to call the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department homicide detail at (909) 387-3589.

‘I’m Shocked, Shocked To Discover Land Use Going On Here’

by Vin Suprynowicz
Las Vegas Review-Journal

Once you’ve passed through the entrance gate to one of America’s magnificent national parks or monuments, what do you see?

Nothin’.

In most cases, mile upon mile of nothin’.

The sweeping grandeur of the Grand Canyon is not visible from any common entrance point to the national park of that name. Expect to drive several miles before you see the first signs directing you to various hotels and overlooks. (Entering from the north, LOTS of miles.)

Florida’s Everglades area the same way. Yes, the historic wetlands have been shrunken by unwise water projects further north, but many a child has gazed out upon the sweep of mostly dry grasslands after passing the “now entering” sign, asking, “Where’s the swamp? Where’s the gators?”

The traveler does not come upon these scenic wonders immediately, because those who planned these vast impoundments understood the concept of a “buffer zone.” With few exceptions, the scenic vistas are surrounded by five to 10 miles – or more – of empty space. This was done so that those enjoying the scenery would not have to gaze upon carnivals and trailer parks and used car graveyards teetering at the edge of Bryce Canyon or Yosemite Falls.

Outside the parks and monuments, the federal government may control even vaster acreage. But those lands are turned over to the U.S. Bureau of land Management, which has a different mission, seeing that those less sensitive lands are used in ways that benefit the nation.

Yet listen now to the green extremists, complaining that mining or tree-cutting or grazing is “allowed, only one valley away” or “once ridge line away” from a national park or monument.

On Nov. 4, the BLM announced that on Dec. 19 they will auction off the rights to drill for oil or gas on more than 50,000 acres of BLM land close to or adjoining three national parks in Utah: Arches, Dinosaur, and Canyonlands.

“This is a fire sale,” shrills Stephen Bloch, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, “the Bush administration’s last great gift to the oil and gas industry.”

“We find it shocking and disturbing,” says Cordell Troy, chief National Park Service administrator in Utah. “That’s 40 tracts within four miles of these parks.”

Read it again. Four miles outside the parks’ existing buffer zones.

Franklin Seal, spokesman for the environmental group Wildland CPR, contends “If you’re standing at Delicate Arch, like thousands of people do every year, and you’re looking through the arch, you could see drill pads on the hillside behind it. That’s how ridiculous this proposed lease sale is.”

See people earning an honest wage, working to heat our homes and fill our gas tanks … by using binoculars, perhaps?

In an era when economically struggling Americans actually celebrate when gasoline prices fall below three dollars a gallon – when this nation needs to develop all its domestic resources to reduce its dependence on foreign oil – there’s nothing “silly” about creating wealth and real jobs by allowing entrepreneurs to risk their own capital developing our own resources.

If the borders of the Arches National Park were not properly drawn to create an adequate buffer, it’s odd no one noticed this before. In such specific cases, the BLM might certainly compromise on a parcel or two.

But these protests are like complaining someone “almost broke” the 65 mph speed limit by driving 63 mph, or that they “almost violated” the drinking age by serving beer to a 23-year-old.

“I’m puzzled the park Service has been as upset as they are,” Selma Sierra, BLM director for the state of Utah, tells The Associated Press. “There are already many parcels leased around the parks.”

Details, details. What does that matter, when there’s serious posturing to be done?

Soon we’ll be hearing about unsightly land uses “within a hundred miles of a national park!” Since many national parks sit in closer proximity to each other than that, here in the West, such an “exclusionary zone” would bar millions of acres of deserts scrub from any productive use.

Which, one begins to suspect, is precisely what the green extreme has in mind.

Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal.