News and Views from the Desert Protective Council.

Sunrise Powerlink comment period deadline approaching

June 25th, 2010 Posted by Chris Clarke in Sunrise Powerlink | No Comments »

The official public comment period for the US Forest Service decision on the Sunrise Powerlink is June 29. Please send letters to:

Mail: William Metz, Forest Supervisor,
10845 Rancho Bernardo Road,
Suite 200, San Diego, CA
92127
ATTN: Sunrise Powerlink Comments

Fax: (858) 673-6192

E-mail: mailroom_r5_cleveland@fs.fed.us, with a subject line of “Sunrise Powerlink Comments”
Phone: (858) 673-6180

Points to include:

  • Thank the Forest Service for delaying the project but ask that they follow the law and prepare a full “Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement” and to distribute this for public review.
  • Ask for a public hearing during this 45-day comment period.
  • Oppose the Sunrise Powerlink because it’s not needed and would irreparably harm nature, communities, and property.
    Talk about your experiences in the Cleveland National Forest and how important this wild forest is to you and your family.
  • Express your concern that the Sunrise Powerlink would unnecessarily undermine existing forest plan goals to limit fire risk, protect scenic natural views, and to protect riparian and roadless areas.
  • Remind the Forest Service of its independent duty to protect the Cleveland National Forest and to consider smart, local, renewable energy alternatives to the powerlink. The Forest Service is not bound to the bad decisions and ignorance of other agencies.
  • Express that the Forest Service’s internal “supplemental information report” cannot replace a legitimate Supplement Environmental Impact Statement. Point out that the supplemental information report hasn’t even been made public and ask that this be made available for public review with another public comment period.

Desert Solar: an evenhanded view

June 10th, 2010 Posted by Chris Clarke in Uncategorized | Comments Off



Green Gold Rush from Vanessa Carr on Vimeo.

News Updates for 2010-05-24

May 24th, 2010 Posted by Chris Clarke in Twitter | Comments Off

News Updates for 2010-05-22

May 22nd, 2010 Posted by Chris Clarke in Twitter | Comments Off

DPC’s Testimony on the California Desert Protection Act of 2010

May 20th, 2010 Posted by Chris Clarke in Desert Politics, off-road vehicles, renewable energy, wilderness | Comments Off

Terry Weiner, Conservation and Projects Coordinator, Desert Protective Council
Testimony Before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee S. 2921, California Desert Protection Act of 2010
May 20, 2010

To Honorable Senators,

This testimony is submitted on behalf of the Desert Protective Council and its members. I request that these comments be placed in the record.

The Desert Protective Council (DPC) is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit membership organization founded in 1954. The DPC’s mission is to educate children and adults about the unique natural, cultural, historic, recreational and spiritual resources of the American southwest deserts in order to protect and preserve our desert heritage for present and future generations.

The Desert Protective Council thanks Senator Feinstein for introducing this important legislation. We generally support S 2921 but have concerns with several sections of the bill related to off-road vehicle recreation and to desert renewable energy development. Our support of the CDPA is qualified pending amendments to these sections of the bill.

Section 1603 The Vinagre Wash Special Management Area (SMA)

This section establishes a new designation, the SMA, to accommodate off highway vehicle travel in Imperial County, in the vicinity of the lower Colorado River within an area dense with Native American cultural history and sacred sites, including portions of an ancient foot trail extending from Pilot Knob, California to Spirit Mountain, Nevada.

  • The bill language does not include the requirement for a new management plan for this newly created designation. The DPC recommends that the establishment of the Vinagre Wash Special Management Area be treated carefully: there must be a new management plan developed for this new designation.
  • First of all, a thorough Native American cultural resources inventory of the area must be completed by archaeologists who have specialized in the archaeology in this part of the desert. The cultural resource surveys must be done in close consultation with Native American tribal cultural resource committees, in particular with the Quechan Tribe Cultural Committee and in consultation with the Quechan Historic Preservation Officer.
  • Based upon the results of the cultural resources inventory, a Cultural Resources Management plan should be developed.
  • Development of a system of appropriate routes of travel should be based on the results of the Cultural Resources surveys and Management Plan for the area. Routes of travel in the Vinagre Wash SMA must avoid the cultural sites and ancient foot-trail.
  • Travel on designated routes of travel in the Vinagre Wash SMA should be restricted to street-legal 4-wheel drive vehicles. This will provide ample and appropriate access to recreational opportunities in the Vinagre Wash Area. In order to protect the cultural and natural resources of this area, green-sticker vehicle use must be prohibited.
  • • The SMA Management Plan language must take into account the Presidential Executive Order mandating permanent or temporary closure of routes and areas of public lands that cannot be adequately managed and/or have been damaged by ORV recreation until and if they can be restored to healthy condition.

Title I of S 2921 creates five permanent National OHV Recreation Areas in the Mojave Desert.

The Desert Protective Council does not support this permanent consignment of tens of thousands of acres of public land to destructive off-road recreation.

  • This permanent designation would set a very bad national precedent, establishing a quid pro quo trade-off between protection of some public lands for intensification of use on others.
  • Apart from the quid pro quo precedent, the DPC believes that to purposely plan to permanently sacrifice vast areas or public land to destruction would demonstrate a deplorable lack of consideration of all of the other demands being made on the California Desert.
  • The codification of OHV use as the primary land use of an area effectively excludes all other types of recreation. While the OHV industry lobby is loud and well funded, it is a fact that citizens who prefer other modes of recreation vastly outnumber California ORV recreationists. The California Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Division of State Parks estimates the percentage of California citizens whose primary form of recreation is driving off-road vehicles at about 14%.
  • To permanently enshrine these five National OHV Recreation Areas would demonstrate a remarkable lack of vision for the future of the California Desert, given the current threats to the integrity of the desert ecosystem from climate change, from proposed solar, wind and geothermal development projects, from military expansion, from invasion of non-native plant species and consequent increasing wild fires.
  • These five proposed National OHV Recreation Areas are all within San Bernardino County, California, a county in EPA non-attainment for particulate pollution. ORV recreation obliterates the desert microbiological soil crusts, creating an additional burden of air-borne dust.
  • The establishment of National OHV Recreation Areas should be considered in separate legislation from legislation establishing wilderness and national monuments.

Title I-Regarding the Establishment of Two New National Monuments

The Desert Protective Council applauds the creation of these new national monuments. These new designations will help protect important wildlife travel corridors and linkages from high to low elevations while providing for enjoyment by the public. We do have concerns with Sections 1304S 2921(a)(1) and 1404S 2921(a)(1) of TitleS 2921I. The current language is somewhat ambiguous and could be interpreted to require all existing ORV use to continue. We would like to see clear designation of routes of travel within the National Monument Planning Process for travel by street-legal vehicles only. There is no need for travel by green-sticker vehicles within these new national monuments.

Chairman Bingaman and members of the Committee, thank you for your work and for consideration of our comments. The DPC reserves the privilege of submitting further testimony on other sections of S 2921 during the ten-day testimony window.

We look forward to working with you and with Senator Feinstein to improve and pass the California Desert Protection Act 2010.

Sincerely,

Terry Weiner
Imperial County Projects and Conservation Coordinator
Desert Protective Council
P.O. Box 3635
San Diego CA. 92163

Help shape the future of Joshua Tree NP

May 11th, 2010 Posted by Chris Clarke in Uncategorized | Comments Off

pintovalley.jpg

[Sent along by Seth Shteir of NPCA.]

Come to a Joshua Tree National Park General Management Plan Open House!

You are invited to participate in a process that will help guide the management of Joshua Tree National Park for the next 15 to 20 years. We are beginning the development of a new park management plan and we welcome your involvement. Come and meet the planning team, learn more about the general management plan and planning process, and most importantly, discuss your ideas and concerns for the future of Joshua Tree National Park. Please attend one or more of these open houses. We look forward to seeing and hearing from you!

Monday May 17, 6-8 p.m.
Mizell Senior Center
480 South Sunrise Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262-7641

Tuesday May 18, 6-8 p.m.
University of California, Riverside,
Palm Desert Campus
75080 Frank Sinatra Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92211-5202

Wednesday May 19, 6-8 p.m.
Onaga Elementary School
58001 Onaga
Yucca Valley, CA 92284

Thursday May 20, 6-8 p.m.
Twentynine Palms Community Center
74325 Joe Davis Drive
Twentynine Palms, CA 92277

Friday May 21, 6-8 p.m.
Joshua Tree Community Center
6171 Sunburst Street
Joshua Tree, CA 92252-21477

For more information on the General Management Plan Process, please go to http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkId=310&projectId=31449&documentID=33640. At the bottom of the page, you’ll see the “JOTR, GMP/EIS Scoping Newsletter 1, – April 2010″

DPC visits the Solar Two site

April 26th, 2010 Posted by Chris Clarke in Endangered Species, renewable energy | 5 Comments »

Horned lizard, photo by Tom Budlong
Horned lizard in the Yuha Desert near Plaster City. Tom Budlong photo.

Sunday was a pleasant, cool day in the Yuha Desert between Ocotillo and El Centro. The air temperature didn’t even break 100 degrees. DPC staff and a few others set out to explore and catalog some of the living things now inhabiting the site of Tessera’s proposed Solar Two project near Plaster City. Terry Weiner and yours truly, along with desert defenders Helena Quintana, Edie Harmon, Tom Budlong, Donna Tisdale, and Annette Rojas spent the morning and early afternoon finding treasure after treasure in this allegedly “barren” desert landscape.

We’d driven only a little way onto the site along an established dirt road when all of us suddenly gasped. We stopped our caravan and rushed out to get a better look at the bristly gilia that formed a sporadic carpet over acres of desert pavement:

20100425-IMG_8601.JPG
Langloisia setosissima


Carpeting the desert. Terry Weiner photo.

We split up into smaller groups to cover more ground. Tom and Donna encountered the horned lizard whose photo is atop this post. Evidence of other small animals, burrows beneath creosote bushes and small sand washes littered with tracks, were abundant. Helena and Edie, both of whom are skilled in spotting artifacts, found a number of stones that had been worked by unknown hands long ago.

Helena photographs a 'scratch stone'

We weren’t the only people out there. The Plaster City area is an ORV users’ hangout, and we watched a few of them raise large clouds of dust to settle on the land.

ATV dust

We were also met by an armed BLM law enforcement ranger. He’d been concerned that we were out on the land illegally collecting things, and when he found out what we were there for, he turned out to be quite friendly.

We took a few more photos of the local flora, including a blooming desert five-spot (Eremalche rotundifolia):

Desert five-spot

and a lot of desert stars (Monoptilon bellidiforme), ground-hugging “bellyflowers” with heads smaller than a dime:

Monoptilon bellidiforme

and shrubs in colorful bloom including Pima rhatany (Krameria erecta)

Krameria

and indigobush (Psorothamnus schottii) covered in blossoms far too vibrant for a digital camera to capture:

indigo bush in bloom

After a couple hours on site, we regrouped and headed over to the east edge of the site, where we wandered among washes forested with centuries-old creosote and smoketrees. To get a sense of the size of this creosote, likely a thousand years old, it’s worth noting that Tom — standing next to the shrub — is six foot one.

Tom and Helena look at a very old creosote

The smoketrees may have been just as old.


Tom Budlong photo.

Ancient shells littered the washes, reminders that ancestral Lake Cahuilla once lapped at a shoreline not far from here, at around 100 feet above sea level — about 325 feet higher than the shore of the present-day Salton Sea.

If the Tessera corporation has its way, as many as 36,000 30,000 [Tom Budlong kindly corrected me after publication] solar collectors will be built here in the so-called “Solar Two” project. The collectors will use mirrors to focus sunlight on Stirling engines. The power generated would be sold to San Diego Gas and Electric. The full project will require the construction of the infamous Sunrise Powerlink. The landscape we walked on Sunday would be bulldozed, the desert pavement broken and dust clouds loosed. After a decade the mirrors will likely have been sandblasted beyond use. The desert will have been damaged beyond repair.

Walk out here on your own, and a BLM ranger hurries to make sure you’re leaving each rock, each bloom or artifact where it was. Come on site with a fleet of bulldozers, however, and for some reason each small piece of this landscape is no longer deemed precious.

(Photos not otherwise credited are by Chris Clarke)

There’s No Such Thing as “Desertification”

April 20th, 2010 Posted by Chris Clarke in Desert Living, Nature Matters, desert plants | 4 Comments »

If you want evidence that environmentalists as a whole really don’t care about arid environments, it’s instructive to look at a bit of jargon in use over the last few decades.

The jargon is used to describe this process: People abuse a piece of land. They overgraze it. They build houses and cut down trees and pump water from wells, drawing down the water table. They use that water to irrigate crops, poisoning the land with accumulating dissolved salts. They start fires, by accident or on purpose, and the fires rage across the countryside. The soil’s protective coat of humus blows away. Animals die. The leaves that are green turn to brown.

In the jargon to which I refer, this process is called “desertification.”

Desertification. The transformation of useful, pleasant, healthy land – an agreed good – into desert, which is assumed to be bad.

What happens to a land that’s been “desertified”? Fairly often, long-lived plants tend to die out and annual weeds, and their short-lived perennial associates, take over. Weeds are opportunists: they’ll grow in a hurry when moisture is available, set abundant seed, then die. They leave behind dry cellulose: fuel. Fuel feeds fires. Fires kill the remaining long-lived plants, the trees and rhizomatous herbs and such, clearing the soil for a new generation of weed seedlings.

Erosion gets ramped up as well. Water, when and where it makes an appearance, tends to gouge gullies in the landscape. Where a day-long gentle rain would have quietly soaked into the root-bound earth before “desertification,” now there’s nothing to hold it. The topography colects the gentle rain and turns it into flash floods. When the rain ebbs, wind carries away loose soil.

“Desertification” is a global problem, the official environmentalists tell us. It decreases the food security of the world’s most vulnerable people. “Desertification” is an important factor in the crisis in Darfur, in the collapse of the Mexican economy and consequent mass migration of displaced farmers, and a host of other global social crises.

Here’s a photo of “desertified” land.

desertified land in Australia

Here’s another:

desertified land in Central Asia

And another:

desertified land in Darfur

Pretty bleak stuff.

Way bleaker than most actual deserts. Here’s a desert landscape:

Arthur J. Ripley Desert Woodland State Park

Here’s another:

Christmas Tree Pass 7

And another:

Tucson Mountain Park

There is a difference between land that has been “desertified” and an actual desert.

You may point out that I’ve deliberately sought out beautiful, lush photos to represent deserts, to contrast them unfairly with the trashed land currently referred to as “desertified.” Fair enough. Here’s a lush, beautiful photo of some bonafide “desertified” land, in the long-overgrazed Rio Puerco drainage in Arizona:

prongy

Gorgeous, lush compared to some actual desert landscapes, nice pronghorn ready for his close-up. And “desertified” rather than a desert. The Rio Puerco basin gets enough precipitation to be considered steppe rather than desert, and yet look at the monoculture of invasive grass there. There is no diversity to speak of in this shot, except for the pronghorn who can trot off to a more diverse landscape 50 miles away and get there in an hour.

Some people working on “desertification” are beginning to point out this difference between “desertified” lands and deserts, pointing out that deserts are actually diverse and more or less stable habitats with their own values to wildlife and to people, but those same activists tend to call deserts something other than deserts. “Drylands” is common. The fact is, it’s “desertification” that should be called something else. Badlandification. Dustification. Parkinglotification. Burningmanification. If we could actually turn land into desert, there’d be a lot less argument over the sites of things like massive corporate solar concentrating facilities in creosote-tortoise habitat. I’d be thrilled if we could truly desertify some of the land around Bakersfield, for instance, to take the worn-out, selenium-poisoned, groundwater overdrafted subsidized cotton fields there and grow cryptobiotic soil crusts on them, get some rabbitbrush growing and some barrel cacti and some Mojave ground squirrels established.

The problem is that actual deserts are the lands most threatened by what environmentalists call “desertification”: invasive weeds are raging through the deserts like the wildfires they spawn, water diversions cause subsidence and old tree death, and dust storms are more common in the Mojave now than they were during the Dust Bowl. To call this sterilizing of land “desertification” is to reinforce the notion that deserts are worthless, damaged things to be avoided, mended or improved upon, and certainly not places worth preserving when the alternative is cozying up to Big Green Energy.

Most chillingly, the remedy for “desertified” lands is usually referred to as “reclamation.” “Reclaiming the desert,” they call it.

Here is a photo of a reclaimed desert landscape:

waterskiier on Lake Powell

Here’s another:

Phoenix, Arizona

And another:

Bellagio and Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas, Nevada

(This article was originally published at Coyote Crossing.)

Lawsuit Launched to Protect Sage Grouse, Vanishing Nevada Bird

March 29th, 2010 Posted by Chris Clarke in Uncategorized | Comments Off

LAS VEGAS— The Center for Biological Diversity, Desert Survivors, and Western Watersheds Project took the first step in a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for unlawfully delaying protection under the Endangered Species Act of both the bi-state population of greater sage grouse and greater sage grouse as a whole by filing a formal notice of intent to sue.

“The sage grouse’s desperate need for Endangered Species Act protection is no longer in dispute,” said Rob Mrowka, an ecologist at the Center. “More bureaucratic delay is sure to drive it extinct.”

In response to a petition and lawsuit from the Center and other environmental and faith-based groups, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a finding on March 13 that the bi-state population of the greater sage grouse found in the Mono Basin of California and Nevada, as well as the general population of greater sage grouse, warranted protection under the Endangered Species Act, but that such protection is precluded by higher priority listings of species.

Under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service can only delay protection of species if it is making “expeditious progress” in the listing of the other priority species. In recent years, however, the agency has been listing few species. During its first year, for example, the Obama administration only listed two species, which was the lowest first-year total since Reagan’s presidency. There are currently 251 species waiting for protection under the Endangered Species Act. In many cases, these species, on the brink of disappearing, have been awaiting protection for decades.

“Delay of protection for the sage grouse is an abuse of discretion that is a recipe for extinction for these magnificent birds,” said Mrowka. “We had hoped the Obama administration would move quickly to reduce the backlog of species waiting for protection, but instead it’s adding to the backlog.”

The bi-state or Mono Basin area population of sage grouse is the southwestern-most population of the greater sage grouse and is geographically isolated from other sage grouse populations. It is found in Storey, Lyon, Carson, Douglas, Mineral, and Esmeralda counties in Nevada and in Mono, Alpine, and Inyo counties in California.

“Because the Mono Basin population of sage grouse exists at the periphery of the sage grouse range and is genetically unique, it contains characteristics that may well be critically important to the survival of the species as a whole, particularly in light of climate change,” said Mrowka.

Primary threats to Mono Basin sage grouse include degradation of habitat by livestock grazing and invasive noxious weeds, fragmentation of habitat caused by development, roads and transmission lines, ORV use, and climate change. In response to these threats, populations have declined up to 70 percent.

Like other sage grouse, Mono Basin sage grouse are noted for their elaborate spring courtship rituals and displays. Males and females gather on traditional display areas called leks. Males strut, fan their tail feathers, and produce a haunting sound from air sacs located on the sides of their necks to attract willing females. An average of six to seven eggs are laid and incubated for around 30 days.

Sage grouse listing “warranted but precluded”

March 5th, 2010 Posted by Chris Clarke in Endangered Species, desert wildlife | Comments Off

From the Center for Biological Diversity:

LAS VEGAS— In response to a petition and lawsuit from the Center for Biological Diversity and other environmental and faith-based groups, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today that a population of the greater sage grouse found in the Mono Basin of California and Nevada warrants protection under the Endangered Species Act, but that such protection is precluded due to lack of resources.

“Continued delay of protection for the Mono Basin population of sage grouse is a recipe for extinction,” said Rob Mrowka, an ecologist at the Center. “To date, the Obama administration has not improved on the Bush administration’s progress in providing protection to the nation’s most endangered species.”

During his eight-year tenure, Bush protected a mere 62 species, for a rate of fewer than eight species per year. This compares to 522 protected under Clinton, or 65 species per year, and 231 species protected under George H.W. Bush, or 58 species per year. With only two species listed so far, the Obama administration appears to have flatlined on listing. Under the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Service can only delay protection of species if it is making expeditious progress listing other species considered a higher priority for listing.

“Delaying protection for Mono Basin sage grouse is clearly illegal and irresponsible,” said Mrowka.

The Mono Basin area population of sage grouse is the southwestern-most population of the greater sage grouse and is geographically isolated from other sage grouse populations. It is found in Storey, Carson, Douglas, Mineral, and Esmeralda counties in Nevada and in Mono, Alpine, and Inyo counties in California. “Because the Mono Basin population of sage grouse exists at the periphery of the sage grouse range and is genetically unique, it contains characteristics that may well be critically important to the survival of the species as a whole, particularly in light of climate change,” said Mrowka.

Primary threats to Mono Basin sage grouse include degradation of habitat by livestock grazing and invasive noxious weeds, fragmentation of habitat caused by development, roads and transmission lines, ORV use, drought, and loss of sagebrush due to the encroachment of junipers. Sage grouse are also still hunted in Nevada and California. Populations have declined up to 70 percent.

Like other sage grouse, Mono Basin sage grouse are noted for their elaborate spring courtship rituals and displays. Males and females gather on traditional display areas called leks. Males strut, fan their tail feathers, and produce a haunting sound from air sacs located on the sides of their necks to attract willing females. An average of six to seven eggs are laid and incubated for around 30 days.