NEWS ROUNDUP

Column - Forest plans that do nothing Inevitably, many citizens' groups are going to protest the U.S. Forest Service's recent decision to not write draft and final environmental impact statements for its revisions of national forest plans. But the truth is that the forest planning process is a failure, and the best thing we can do is let it die a natural death. In the 1980s, the Forest Service spent well over $1 billion trying to write plans for each of the 120 or so national forests. The plans took so long to write that by the time they were done, they were obsolete. Some forests rewrote their draft plans as many as three different times in response to new events, such as a forest fire or the listing of the spotted owl as a threatened species. But before they were finished, something else would happen that would render the new plan useless. When forest managers finally got the plans, they quickly discovered they were worthless and pretty much ignored them. National forest management in the 1990s bore little resemblance to what the plans had said. Of course, environmental groups challenged some of the plans in court. After spending all this time and money, the Forest Service made the curious argument that the plans actually made no decisions, and so there was nothing to challenge. The Supreme Court agreed, and so we spent $1 billion and 10 years doing nothing. Unfortunately, no one bothered to tell Congress that the process was a failure. So, Congress did not change the law requiring that forest plans be revised every 10 to 15 years. Now the Forest Service has sensibly said, since the plans make no decisions, let's not waste more years and dollars writing environmental-impact statements for the revisions of those non-decisions....
Climate scientists feeling the heat Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world. Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming. Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand. Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s. In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far. "Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado....
Wilderness plan lacks agreement A land-use group has wrapped up discussions about wilderness for Doña Ana County, but it didn't reach the consensus federal lawmakers were hoping for. Time constraints kept the committee from reaching a single proposal for wilderness, said Las Cruces associate planner Carol McCall. "There's some agreement on some things," she said. "There's some disagreement on other things, and that's what we'll report." Two U.S. senators backing a wilderness bill in Congress last year had asked community members to reach a consensus by this month. Rather than a single proposal outlining how much land should be placed into wilderness and how much land should be developed, McCall said she'll compile a report with feedback from each of the eight stakeholder groups that have participated. She said she'll point out matters on which groups didn't reach a consensus....
Dexter couple chosen to manage Valles Caldera livestock program A Dexter couple has been chosen to manage a livestock program this summer on the Valles Caldera National Preserve. A proposal by Jack and Pat Hagelstein was chosen over three others submitted to the preserve's board of trustees. Trust officials said the Hagelstein's proposal did not offer the greatest profits or graze the largest number of cattle on the land, but was rated first in having a comprehensive, ecologically sound program that would guarantee a modest return to the trust. The Hagelsteins, who own and operate Comanche Hill Ranch, propose to spend most of the summer on the northern New Mexico preserve, managing 500 steers. When Congress purchased the former Baca Ranch in 2000 and formed the preserve, it mandated that the preserve remain a working ranch and become financially self-sustaining by 2015. The preserve includes mountain vistas, miles of trout waters and forest trails, elk herds and an ancient collapsed volcano known as the Valle Grande. The Hagelsteins will be assisted by Guy Glosson, who does workshops on low-stress animal handling techniques, and Craig Conley, who has expertise in planned grazing for ecological benefits and is assistant director of the Quivira Coalition. The grazing program also will support a coalition project to train and place professional range riders in northern New Mexico....
Prairie dog limits upheld on Pawnee grassland Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests supervisor Glenn Casamassa has upheld a controversial decision on the number of black-trailed prairie dogs that will be allowed on the Pawnee National Grassland northeast of Greeley. District Ranger Steve Currey made the original decision last October after environmental analysis and public involvement concerning the number of rodents that should be maintained on the 193,000-acre national grassland — a checkerboard of public and private lands in Weld County, the Forest Service reported in a release today. The decision was to manage for a minimum of 1,000 acres of black-tailed prairie dog colonies in a minimum of 30 towns, and a maximum of 8,500-acre prairie dog colonies with no upper limit on the number of towns. Various tools, including shooting, were included in the decision to conserve and control prairie dogs....
No rule changes for now Members of the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission voted unanimously to deny three petitions to change elk-ranching rules for the state. The consensus was that the issues surrounding the commercial ranching of elk need more discussion before such petitions could be considered. "We are fortunate in Oregon to have clean wild and farmed populations as far as elk are concerned," said Zane Smith, a commission member from Springfield. "There are a number of issues that I feel need more consideration before we trigger rule-making." The seven members asked biologists and other officials with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to come back at the February commission meeting with recommendations. Among the issues they were told to consider are the affects of any rule changes, the groups affected by any changes, and a time frame for them to draft and present any recommended rules. Those who commented about the petitions at the January commission meeting in Salem ranged from elk ranchers, who filed a last-minute petition of their own, to members of the group that submitted the two positions opposed to elk ranching. That group, the MAD-Elk Coalition, includes Oregon Hunters Association, Humane Society U.S., and Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation....
Wyoming group argues to keep Sylvan Pass open Wyoming brought out its firepower Monday against a proposal to shut down Sylvan Pass in Yellowstone National Park during the winter. State legislators, congressional representatives, county commissioners, a tourism chief, a governor's representative and others spent more than two hours trying to persuade the National Park Service to drop the idea. Those who live and work outside Yellowstone's East Entrance near Cody, Wyo., depend on winter business to drive the economy, they said. But in recent years, uncertainties over snowmobile use, court decisions and policy changes have nearly eliminated winter business into the park from that entrance, they said. Closing Sylvan Pass in the winter, they said, would be a devastating blow and one they vowed to fight....
Shield for raptors stirs rancor The U.S. Forest Service aims to limit access to four well-known hiking and rock-climbing areas in San Diego County's backcountry in an effort to restore dwindling populations of golden eagles and prairie falcons. It proposes to ban such activities in Corte Madera, Rock Mountain and Eagle Peak during the birds' nesting season, which lasts from December to May. These areas are parts of the Cleveland National Forest. The agency also is encouraging landowners at El Cajon Mountain to adopt similar access restrictions. The plan is drawing fire from recreation enthusiasts locally and nationally, who contend the agency is going overboard to safeguard species that aren't imperiled....
Forest Service Wins RAT Appeal The Forest Service’s aggressive fee-charging policy, called the Recreation Access Tax (RAT), was threatened last September by a judge in Tucson, Arizona. The judge ruled that the FS was illegally implementing the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) by charging for entering the Mount Lemmon area and for roadside parking, but the federal agency immediately appealed the case, and continued to charge the fee in question during the appeal. On January 16, FS has won its appeal, and the RAT is back in force. But fee opponents insist the legal battle is far from over. In September 2005, a Forest Service employee issued Christine Wallace two citations for parking along the Catalina Highway and going for day hikes in the Coronado National Forest near Tucson. She refused to pay the tickets, and the FS took her to court. “The judge totally disregarded the language in the FLREA, saying it was difficult to enforce,” notes Robert Funkhouser, president of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition. “FLREA clearly prohibits the FS from charging for disbursed backcountry use, but the agency wants to charge for everything. We contend that the agency is still operating outside of the law.”....Go here to read the opinion.
Court rules in favor of forest service employee in lawsuit The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of the federal government and a U.S. Forest Service employee sued for allegedly influencing a contractor to fire one of its workers. In a 6-3 decision, the court upheld the transfer of the lawsuit from state court in Kentucky to the federal courts and the substitution of the U.S. government in place of the forest service employee as the defendant. Pat Osborn, a fired employee working for a private contractor to the forest service, sued forest service employee Barry Haley in Trigg County, Ky., Circuit Court, alleging Haley influenced Osborn's company to fire her. The U.S. attorney general certified that Haley had acted within the scope of his employment and therefore had absolute immunity under the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act, known as the Westfall Act. Haley denied having any advance of knowledge of Osborn's dismissal and said he did not try to influence the contractor to fire Osborn. In her majority opinion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the United States must remain the defendant unless the federal court determines that the forest service employee engaged in conduct beyond the scope of his employment....Go here(pdf) to read the opinion.
Judge revisits land-use plan suit The federal government and environmental groups got a do-over Monday in their bid to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Kane and Garfield counties that seeks to overturn the Grand Stair- case-Escalante National Monument's land-use plan. U.S. District Judge Ted Stewart originally heard arguments to dismiss the suit last fall, then recused himself. Judge Bruce Jenkins replaced Stewart, and opted to hear the arguments for a second time at the Moss Courthouse in downtown Salt Lake City. But where Stewart seemed skeptical of the government's contention that the counties could show no harm from the monument plan - and thus had no standing to bring the suit - Jenkins appeared dubious that the counties could make their claims stick without laying out more specifics. Jenkins also challenged the counties' argument that they have been permanently tied to the decisions made by the Bureau of Land Management in 1999 that regulated travel, water diversions and other land uses in the monument....
Strengthening Energy Supplies and Security At the same time, American energy production and its infrastructure are hamstrung by federal policies that consciously limit access to known energy resources. Such restrictions have had a chilling effect on developing, production, exploration and infrastructure and foster uncertainty among investors. Even the most severe critics of these anti-energy policies were aghast to learn the full extent of our self-inflicted wounds. Last month, the federal Bureau of Land Management released its much-anticipated inventory of oil and natural gas deposits on federal lands. The report estimates that Uncle Sam’s onshore holdings amount to an astounding 187 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 21 billion barrels of oil. But our energy inventory doesn’t stop at the shoreline. A companion federal study calculates that an additional 83 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 19.1 billion barrels of oil lie beneath federally-controlled territorial waters. But experts note that, because estimates of offshore energy deposits are notoriously low and tend to increase significantly over time, our real energy inventory is likely much larger. Unfortunately, the government goes on to note, regulatory constraints make it next to impossible to recover the overwhelming majority of these sorely-needed resources. Just 3% of onshore federal oil and 13% of onshore federal gas are accessible under standard leasing terms. Debilitating restrictions, such as a ban on surface occupancy, tie up 46% of the onshore federal oil and 60% of the onshore federal gas. The rest -- 51% of the oil and 27% of the gas -- are completely off-limits to development....
World Bank Close To Approving Amazon Beef, Other Projects The International Financial Corporation, the private lending arm of the World Bank, is close to making a final decision on a $90 million loan that would help one of Brazil’s top beef exporters double beef production capacity at its facilities in the Amazon region of Para state. For the IFC, this is a controversial and unprecedented investment, according to the bank’s own assessment. The loan, if approved, would go to the Bertin Group, Brazil’s second-largest meat exporter behind competitor, Friboi. In 2006, Bertin sold $2.2 billion worth of beef and cattle byproducts domestically and internationally such as leather and animal fat for biodiesel production. Exports totaled $505 million, most of it paid for by European Union and U.S. meat importers. Bertin will invest over $140 million in upgrades in 2007, and has been expanding and modernizing over the last three years to compete in Brazil’s lucrative beef export market. Brazil is the world’s No. 1 beef exporter, shipping over $3 billion worth of beef in 2006....
With ranch tool, artist creates a style At first, it looks like finger-painting - raw, swift swirls of yellow and green. Zipping and curling across the 8-by-10-inch canvas. Or splotching and stabbing the remaining blank space to give it a rough colorful texture. A big letter "C" slightly off-center. Then the first childlike strokes evolve into something more sophisticated, but more emotional than intellectual. The artwork sort of flows from Kelly Apgar's hands and heart, not her brain, as her fingers grasp a cattle marker - think of a crayon on steroids - that smoothly improvises whatever vibe she feels. It doesn't matter what Apgar may or may not have in mind. What matters is what a viewer's mind and heart sees and feels. Cattle markers are used to draw numbers on cattle. They're maybe 4 or 5 inches long, maybe an inch thick. They come in several colors, of which Apgar uses 13. The ingredients are pigments and linseed oil, essentially creating a type of thickish oil paint. "It's like painting with a tube of lipstick" Apgar said....
On the Edge of Common Sense: 'Offset' detriments with cash Why do the names "The Conservation Fund" and "Natural Resource Defense Council" send a chill down my spine? I guess because they routinely seem to be against drilling our own oil, cutting our own trees and raising our own beef. I've always contended that if they wanted to reduce pollution, save endangered species and regenerate wetlands, they should start in their own backyard - in the middle of New York City, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. "What!" you say? Why, they'd be laughed out of the Kingdom if they sued to prevent the rebuilding of the Twin Towers because it used to be duck habitat. Suburbia, I suspect, is the biggest source of their donations; they wouldn't dare offend their donors. The biggest new hypocrisy on the horizon is their "carbon offsets," if you have three cars, two homes, your own espresso maker, weed trimmer, pool heater, electric blanket, child with wire braces, redwood deck, Evinrude motor, or fly to Minneapolis regularly to visit your folks (i.e., consume lots of "carbon-based" electricity, gas, oil, coal, cement, diamonds, wood or plastic), you can "offset" their negative effect on the planet by - guess how? That's right. Send them money. They will plant trees....