Indexed News on:

--the California "Mega-Park" Project

Tracking measurable success on preserving and connecting California's Parks & Wildlife Corridors

READ OUR EDITOR ON FACEBOOK: facebook.com/rex.frankel
Showing posts with label inyo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label inyo. Show all posts

Saturday, December 25, 2010

Solar power plans for CA Desert from the feds and L.A....

Feds Target 1.7% of the land in California for Solar Power facilities (OK, 1.7 million acres), but say much less than that will be used



From the Fed's notice:
In California,  1,766,543 acres of land would be available under the solar energy development program alternative. Four SEZs would be identified: Imperial East (5,722 acres), Iron Mountain (106,522 acres), Pisgah (23,950 acres), and Riverside East (202,896 acres).

Public Comment on the Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIS):

The Draft Solar PEIS is now available for public review, as detailed in the “Notice of Availability for the PEIS” published in the Federal Register on December 17, 2010 (http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/docs/SolarDraftPEIS_NOA.pdf). The Notice provides information on dates, times, and locations of public meetings on the PEIS, and solicits public comments. Comments can be submitted using the Public Comment Form on the Solar PEIS website (http://solareis.anl.gov/involve/comments/index.cfm).

For More Information Information about the Solar PEIS is available on the Public Information website (http://solareis.anl.gov).

-------------------------

MORE ON THIS ISSUE:

http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Salazar-Chu-Announce-Next-Step-in-Nations-March-toward-Renewable-Energy-Future.cfm

This press release says "reasonably foreseeable solar energy development is anticipated on only about 214,000 acres of the suitable and appropriate BLM lands in 6 western states."


MAP OF CALIFORNIA LANDS: http://solareis.anl.gov/documents/dpeis/maps/alternatives/Solar_DPEIS_CA_Statewide.pdf

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/16/AR2010121604898.html

http://www.ca.blm.gov/tf5c
http://www.mydesert.com/article/20101217/BUSINESS/12160394/1006/news01/New%20program%20could%20fast-track%20solar%20projects
-------------------

http://www.ca.blm.gov/1f5c
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-16/u-s-selects-solar-power-zones-to-streamline-project-approval-process.html

12/16/2010--The Wilderness Society studied the 24 areas initially suggested by the BLM and this month and identified two that aren’t suitable for development, said Alex Daue, a spokesman for the society.
One is the 110,000-acre Iron Mountain zone in California, located between the Joshua Tree National Park and the Mojave Desert National Preserve.
“A couple of the zones are inappropriate for large-scale solar development,” Daue said in a telephone interview. “Iron Mountain should be taken off their map.”
The Wilderness Society plans to work with other environmental groups and the Interior Department to promote development at the solar zones it considers best suited for large-scale energy plants, Daue said. It will do so during a 90- day comment period that begins when the document is published in the federal register, he said.
“We support solar development on most of the zones and we want the BLM to ensure projects are built within those zones,” Daue said.


------------------------

Solar Project near Ridgecrest opposed by Fed's advisory committee:

http://www.ridgecrestca.com/news/x41610864/Steering-committee-opposes-solar-project
6/29/2010--Steering committee opposes solar project

Ridgecrest, Calif. —
The Bureau of Land Management Steering Committee, at its meeting Thursday, voted 12-1 to approve a letter stating its opposition to Solar Millennium's proposed solar-power-plant project. Committee Member Dave Matthews cast the dissenting vote.
…He said the committee members represent certain entities in the Indian Wells Valley. “We represent their beliefs of what they would like to see or what they wouldn't like to see.”
The committee's letter states the project would use approximately 600,000 gallons of water a day during construction, 200,000 gallons a day during operations and 191,000 gallons of propane a year.
The letter also stated a concern the project would disturb 2,000 acres of top soil known to contain spores that cause valley fever and the proximity of the disturbed soil to human population that includes children and the elderly.
…The committee's letter stated the draft EIS does not comply with CEQA and NEPA regarding full and frank discussion of alternative sites.
“Preference is to be given to land that has already had disturbance,” it said.
According to the letter, the Garlock alternative has such a disturbance and is not located nearly as close to communities and individuals as the proposed site.
“DEIS discussion of the site does not indicate it has the wildlife issues (ground squirrel, tortoise) that the RSPP has,” said the letter.
It also states the draft document does not comply with the state and national acts regarding full and frank discussion of alternative energy sources, and the southern project area sits squarely within the northern gateway to the El Paso Mountains — one of the most popular recreational destinations in the Desert District.

-------------------


Plus--L.A. Plans Solar "Ranch" in Owens Valley
FROM Eastern Sierra Land Trust-10/14/2010:

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power announces plans for 3000 acre Owens Valley "Solar Ranch"

LADWP is preparing an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Southern Owens Valley Solar Ranch, which would provide 200 megawatts of energy from photovoltaic solar panels. Two potential sites are being considered for this 3000 acre development. The northern site is located northeast of Lone Pine, east of the Owens River. The second site is just east of HWY 395 and north of Owens Lake. More info about the upcoming scoping meeting and where to send comments can be found here: Southern Owens Valley Solar Ranch.

http://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/cms/ladwp013701.jsp

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

one land trust's view of Eastern Sierra solar power

-
L.A. should agree to conservation easement on their Owen's Valley land empire in exchange for rights to build solar power "farms"

--says the Eastern Sierra Land Trust

Large-Scale Solar Development Plans Bring Potential Far-reaching Opportunities - If Done Right!

http://easternsierralandlines.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/dwps-solar-plans-for-owens-valley/

1/14/2010--Although ESLT has a focus of working only with willing landowners who want to preserve their land, when it comes to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) lands in the Eastern Sierra, we have always been vocal advocates for permanent conservation of their important lands. These lands - over 300,000 acres in Inyo and Mono Counties - are not only important as the pure water source for much of Los Angeles, but really represent the lifeblood of our region. Beautiful and productive farms and ranches that are also important to wildlife, clean water and wetlands, unique opens spaces that frame views of the high Sierra and majestic White Mountains - these lands are an unparalleled treasure to many residents and visitors.

Managed primarily for water export, these lands are also the heart of many ranching operations. Ranchers move the water and maintain the green valleys as they raise cattle, creating our beautiful rural landscapes and contributing to the local economy and way of life. By permanently preserving these lands, Los Angeles would provide security to the ranching community and to future generations of LA residents who depend on clean and cheap water.

As LADWP proposes large-scale solar development in the southern Owens Valley, we believe they should pursue a dual track of creating environmentally responsible renewable energy while permanently preserving the 95% of their lands that are not suitable for solar development. Through a binding but flexible land conservation agreement, LADWP could protect the interests of their constituents while allowing for modest growth around existing communities in the Eastern Sierra, in addition to the continuation of existing uses. If local ranchers and leaders can be at the table to design this landmark protection agreement, the benefits would extend far and wide, to future generations who would then have the chance to know the awe-inspiring Eastern Sierra as we do.

David Freeman, LADWP interim General Manager, said at the public meeting in Bishop the other night that there was a giant "not-for-sale" sign on LA's lands in the Eastern Sierra and that they would never be opened for development. Let's ask him to make that a real promise rather than a sound byte - let's create a binding, flexible, and permanent land conservation agreement!

Thank you all for your interest and support as we work to make this vision a reality. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and ideas.

Karen

Saturday, February 21, 2009

-
A New News-source for Saving Land in the Eastern Sierras


http://easternsierralandlines.wordpress.com/

Happy Birthday to the Eastern Sierra Land Trust community! This is a slightly belated birthday wish, as the ESLT was officially incorporated on January 29, 2001. It has been quite an eight-year journey that has taken us to some of the most beautiful places in the incredible Eastern Sierra, introduced us to amazing landowners, and given us the thrill of being integral to the permanent preservation of over 6000 acres in our region. Through this new blog, LandLines, I want to invite you to ride shotgun with us as our exciting journey continues. We’ll share our vision of a thriving and productive Eastern Sierra, with its beautiful working ranches, teeming wildlife areas, and the unmatched scenic vistas found in this “outback” of California. As we go, we’ll share news, interesting facts, epiphanies, and other tidbits from the daily life of a small-town nonprofit trying to make a difference.

Monday, February 16, 2009

-
New Map of Preserved Land in the Eastern Sierra Region




(click on map to enlarge)

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

-

Eastern Sierra Land Trust: Lots of Local “Victories”

http://mammothlakesvillage.com/blog/?p=530

7/8/2008

There have been lots of local “victories” for the Eastern Sierra Land Trust, and most recently the innovative non-profit organization secured a couple of conservation “landmarks.”

Adding to its list of accomplishments are the beautiful ranching and grazing lands of Bill Bramlette, a fourth generation landowner near Benton Hot Springs. The 900-acre ranch is now in a permanent conservation easement, forever keeping those grand landscape values protected. Bramlette will continue ranching, just like his family has for decades.

Along with the Bramlette success story are two properties in the Mono Basin. The Yednock and Crystol properties are now a part of the permanently gorgeous landscapes surrounding Mono Lake. The Yednock property (480 acres) was a real challenge, as it had really been let go for a long time, and once the 20 vehicles and other debris were removed-the property looks like a place where people will find wildlife habitat. The Crystol land (80 acres) was “purchased by the Wilderness Land Trust and donated to the BLM to be managed for the protection of its natural resources including undisturbed alkali dune scrub and scattered pine trees,” according to the ESLT’s Spring newsletter.

Total land recently put in trust for our collective heritage and enjoyment= 1,460 acres.

---------------------------------------

ESLT has been gaining momentum since its inception about seven years ago.

http://www.easternsierralandtrust.org/Pages/ComplProjects.htm

Crowley Hilltop Preserve — 33 Acres

Benton Hot Springs Valley Conservation Easement — 900 Acres

Yednock Conservation Easement — 480 acres

Cedar Hills Conservation Project— 3,748 acres

Montgomery Creek Ranch Conservation Easement — 818 acres

Big Hot Springs Ranch Conservation Easement — 75 acres

Lowery Conservation Easement — 37 acres

McAfee Conservation Easements — 15 acres

Ingram Conservation Easement — 20 acres

----------------------------

Map below shows Crowley Hilltop Preserve

Monday, November 17, 2008

-
Mining Company to Withdraw From Conglomerate Mesa in Inyo County on west boundary of Death Valley

11/13/2008: After more than 4,000 Center for Biological Diversity supporters responded to our action alert opposing the Conglomerate Mesa gold-mining proposal near Death Valley National Park, the company behind the proposal finally abandoned its plans for the site. Due to "significant uncertainty regarding the project's viability," last Friday the Timberline Resources Corporation announced it has withdrawn its application to the Bureau of Land Management for exploratory drilling at the mesa, and its lease agreement for the project is no more.

The project would have allowed Timberline to explore for low-grade gold ore as part of its plan to put a massive gold mine on California's scenic Conglomerate Mesa. The proposed open-pit mine would use a poisonous cyanide-leaching process and would destroy habitat, waste water, and increase pollution. It's a good thing Timberline's plans have bitten the dust -- and we're not talking gold dust.

Read about Timberline's announcement in Trading Markets http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/center/articles/2008/trading-markets-11-07-2008.html (skip to the sixth paragraph) and learn more about the Conglomerate Mesa project. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/public_lands_mining/conglomerate_mesa_project.html

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

-----
Judge dismisses case seeking roads in Death Valley

By NOAKI SCHWARTZ, Associated Press Writer
8/12/2008
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10179217

LOS ANGELES—A federal judge in Fresno largely dismissed a lawsuit that sought to open up roads through miles of remote desert canyons and valleys in Death Valley National Park.
In the lawsuit dismissed Monday, Inyo County sought to re-establish access to four roads near the Nevada border that park officials seized when the national park was established in 1994. The county filed its lawsuit against the federal government in 2006.

Six environmental groups filed legal papers in 2007 to join the National Park Service in fighting the lawsuit. The coalition argued that reopening the old mining roads that had been washed away would harm the park's fragile ecosystem, including a number of federally protected animals.

"It's a significant ruling and a big one for our team and for the park," said Ted Zukoski, an Earthjustice attorney representing the environmental groups.
The conservation groups saw the disputed area as remote canyons that the Bureau of Land Management deemed to be "roadless" years earlier. The county, however, saw the same area as 20 miles of established roadways that could one day be widened.

Randy Keller, assistant county counsel, said the county was trying to re-establish local control over roads in an area where 98 percent of the land is owned by the state and federal government. Keller said the county is disappointed by the ruling and had not decided whether to appeal.

"It's really the prerogative of local government to maintain its roads," he said.

---------------------------
Judge Says No to Death Valley Road-building

In a victory for desert tortoises, bighorn sheep, and Death Valley archaeological sites, on Monday a federal judge tossed out a lawsuit by Inyo County, California to build roads through remote parts of Death Valley National Park. In the suit, filed against the National Park Service, the county was trying to use an ancient, repealed right-of-way law to get its hands on three routes -- currently little-used paths and canyon bottoms -- and make them into two-lane highways. Fortunately for Death Valley wildlife, the routes had been included in wilderness study areas back in the disco era. Because the county didn't take action within the 12-year statute of limitations, the court dismissed its demand for all of one route and almost all of the other two. Besides helping species, Monday's decision is a win for the Center for Biological Diversity and five allies, represented by Earthjustice, who intervened in the lawsuit on behalf of the Park Service. Get more from the San Bernardino Sun.
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/center/articles/2008/san-bernardino-sun-08-12-2008.html

-----
Cyanide-Leaching Gold Mine Proposed Between Owens Lake and Death Valley National Park

Dear California Wilderness Coalition Supporter,
One of California’s many unprotected wilderness areas is at risk of being bulldozed and mined. Please take action today to let the BLM know that the stunning Conglomerate Mesa is an important place for plants, animals, and people and deserves a full Environmental Impact Statement.

Click here to take action. http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2167/t/5243/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=2537

Background:

Conglomerate Mesa is located in the northern Mojave Desert, between the Inyo Mountains and the Malpais Mesa Wildernesses. Jutting up from the Joshua Tree covered valley floor is the 7,700 foot mesa topped with spectacular, ragged conglomerate formations, while the western slope includes amazing rolling, laminated badlands. The area also contains the remains of primitive shelters and old foot and mule trails from California’s mining past. Absolutely pristine, it is roadless and has never been settled, mined, grazed, or used by ORVs. From the top, visitors are treated to dramatic a 360 degree view of the Owens Valley and Mt. Whitney to the west and Telescope Peak to the east.

Conglomerate Mesa was identified in CWC’s 2001 Citizens’ Inventory as possessing outstanding wilderness qualities. Over the last few years volunteers and staff have been working to include it in proposals for wilderness protection. Now, the Idaho-based Timberline Resources Corporation wants to bulldoze roads and conduct exploratory drilling on this stunning and picturesque landscape. Their exploration could lead to open-pit cyanide heap-leach gold mining.
The BLM has just released their Environmental Analysis and we have until this Friday, August 29 to submit public comments in response. Please take a moment to let the BLM know that this area is important to the environmental community and deserves a full Environmental Impact Statement.

http://www.calwild.org/help/index.php

Friday, February 15, 2008

Owens River is Flowing Again

http://ovcweb.org

OWENS RIVER INTAKE, INYO COUNTY, CA--Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa let the
Lower Owens River sweep him off his feet Wednesday, February 13.

After presiding over a ceremony to celebrate the beginning of the first artificial
seasonal habitat flow since the river's official rewatering in December 2006, the mayor
climbed into a yellow canoe and rowed gently downstream. Many others joined him in a small
celebratory flotilla, including Mark Bagley, local Sierra Club representative, and David
Nahai, new DWP general manager, who sat elbow-to-elbow at the bow of a drift boat.

The Lower Owens River Project partly mitigates environmental damage from groundwater
pumping from 1970 to 1990. Yearly seasonal habitat flows--including this, the first for
the newly rewatered river--are meant to imitate natural flooding by redistributing muck
from the river bottom, helping to distribute and germinate seeds from riparian vegetation
such as willows and cottonwood, and recharging groundwater tables in the flood plain,
among other purposes.

Several speakers at the ceremony wryly acknowledged that mitigation projects for Los
Angeles' water exports from the Owens Valley have often been a labor of law more than a
labor of love.

"We recognize that Los Angeles was a desert before we came to the Owens Valley and
that the Owens Valley was an oasis," the mayor said. "....Today we say we're
going to share the prosperity....We're here to be the neighbors we should have been one
hundred years ago."

"We've done this together," said David Nahai, who served on the Los Angeles
Board of Water and Power Commissioners before becoming LADWP's new general manager in
December 2007. "....While the past is immutable, the future is there for anyone to
change."

That future is still written in water. Although the Lower Owens River Project partly
mitigates groundwater pumping damage from 1970-1990, damage to the Owens Valley from
ongoing groundwater pumping is still a source of conflict. In spite of joint groundwater
management agreements, Los Angeles' average yearly groundwater pumping exceeded
sustainable levels until 2005, when a court order temporarily reduced Los Angeles'
groundwater pumping in the Owens Valley until minimum flows in the river were well
established.

Inyo County and Los Angeles are still negotiating the terms by which groundwater pumping
in the Owens Valley will be managed to avoid additional environmental impacts.
Desertification and damage to the valley's groundwater-dependent meadows are a deep and
ongoing concern. And, as Owens Valley Committee president Carla Scheidlinger noted during
the habitat flow ceremony, the Lower Owens River Project's degree of success will rest on
an as-yet-to-be-determined monitoring and adaptive management plan for the river.

Habitat flows to the Lower Owens will be ramped up slowly during a seven-day period from
the river's base flow of 40 cubic feet per second to approximately 200 cubic feet per
second at the Aqueduct Intake by about February 20. A peak flow of 200 cubic feet per
second will be maintained for 24 hours, and then flows will slowly drop again by about 20
percent per day to the 40 cubic feet per second base flow. Increased flows will take
approximately two weeks to travel down the river to the Alabama Gates area, where flows
will then be supplemented to maintain a 200 cfs flow for several days in the Lower Owens
River below the Alabama Spill Gate.

Friday, January 4, 2008

-----
Final Appeals Court ruling blocks housing project near California's Mount Whitney; strengthen's legal requirement to analyze alternatives to developer's projects

12/20/2007

A SUMMARY OF WHAT THE COURT'S RULING MEANS: What the Court ruled was that anytime a development will result in significant unmitigated environmental impacts, a list of alternative projects that would attain most of the basic objectives of the developer must also be studied in the project's environmental impact report. In order for the government to approve the developer's proposal, it must prove that all the alternatives are "infeasible" either legally or economically. Just because the developer refuses to accept any different project does not actually make it "infeasible". The claim of "infeasiblity" must be supported by facts and studies, not just conclusory statements that are not backed up by facts. If the government cannot declare the alternatives infeasible, it cannot approve the developer's proposal.

-Rex Frankel

------------------------------

http://www.srva.net/cms/

http://www.sierrawatch.org/


Conservationists throughout California look to the proposed project as a dangerous precedent for leapfrog development in the fragile Eastern Sierra landscape. “This is an important victory for the entire Sierra Nevada,” said Tom Mooers, executive director of Sierra Watch. “It’s another great example of how people are standing up to defend the Sierra landscape – from Mount Whitney in the south to Dyer Mountain in Lassen County.”

Now conservationists will seek to work with the landowner to reach a collaborative resolution to the contentious issue. “Our goal was never simply to win a lawsuit,” said Fenton. “Our goal is to reach a win-win agreement that protects the land and encourages responsible development. We look forward to taking that next step.”

----------------------

San Francisco Chronicle, 12/20/07

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/12/20/state/n163400S09.DTL


A state appeals court in Riverside has blocked a plan to create a 27-parcel housing development near the base of Mount Whitney, the highest peak in the contiguous 48 states.

A three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal ruled this week that the project's environmental impact report failed to adequately evaluate a possible trade of the developer's 74 acres for approximately 100 acres owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Both sites are near Lone Pine on the eastern side of the Sierra Nevada.

"There may be physical, hydrological or other features of the BLM parcel, as well as environmental and economic considerations, that would render development on that land infeasible," Associate Justice Jeffrey King wrote in a unanimous opinion.

"However, this EIR includes only the barest of facts regarding the BLM parcel, vague and unsupported conclusions about aesthetics, views and economic objectives, and no independent analysis whatsoever of relevant considerations."

Through the environmental review process, government officials are required to consider potentially less-damaging alternatives to a proposed project.

Environmentalists supported the land trade, saying the BLM property was closer to existing developments and would have less of a visual impact on the area. But the owner of the 74 acres, Jim Walters, rejected it. He said it would take years and an act of Congress to complete the swap.

The appellate justices ordered the Inyo County Board of Supervisors to reverse its approval of the project. They also required supervisors to avoid taking any steps to reauthorize it before they prepare a "legally adequate" environmental evaluation of the land exchange.

Environmentalists also challenged the project on the grounds that the environmental report failed to adequately address the impact on threatened species and the area's majestic views. They further objected by saying the owners of the project's 2.5-acre parcels could build up to two residences on their property.

The court rejected those arguments.

The proposed development is "clearly an unacceptable threat to the Mount Whitney area and the Owens Valley," said Jennifer Fenton, a spokeswoman for the environmental group that filed a lawsuit challenging the project, SRVA Advocates for Smart Growth.

Walters, a professor of medical ethics at Loma Linda University, said Thursday that he was "disappointed but not surprised" by the decision. He said a revised environmental report was being drafted to address the court's objections.

"I don't see myself despoiling the beautiful area," he said. "In order for small towns like Lone Pine to survive, it needs to have an adequate tax base. And only 1.8 percent of the property in Inyo County is private (and taxable)."

___

The case is Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo et al, E041364.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

----------------------------------
COURT ISSUES INITIAL RULING TO HALT
MOUNT WHITNEY DEVELOPMENT

8/31/07

DECISION POINTS WAY FOR LAND SWAP

http://srva.net/cms/

In an initial ruling released August 27 2007, the California Court of Appeals sided with Sierra Nevada conservationists and concluded that development approvals in the Mount Whitney Portal area violate state law.

The ruling clearly states, “The County failed to proceed in the manner required by law.” Once finalized, the Court action would overturn Inyo County approvals of the “Whitney Portal Preserve” project, a remote subdivision of 27 luxury homes along Whitney Portal Road , the sole paved access route for the tallest mountain in the continental United States .

SRVA Advocates for Smart Growth, the plaintiffs in the case, have long advocated for a better blueprint for development in the region. They argued that Inyo County decision-makers should have considered the possibility of a land swap, whereby the threatened landscape could be protected and growth could be focused closer to existing development.

The panel of judges agreed. “We agree with SRVA that the analysis of the land exchange alternative is legally insufficient and reverse on that ground," according to the initial decision.

“The proposed development was clearly an unacceptable threat to the Mount Whitney area and the Owens Valley ,” said Jennifer Fenton of the grassroots SRVA Advocates for Smart Growth. “We look forward to working with public agencies, private developers, and local residents to open a meaningful dialog and work on a resolution that honors the values of the region and protects the resources of the Sierra Nevada .”

State law requires that environmental review provide decision-makers with adequate information to assess the impacts of a proposed project, including alternatives to the proposal. But, according to the initial ruling, environmental review "…includes only the barest of facts…, vague and unsupported conclusions about aesthetics, views, and economic objectives, and no independent analysis whatsoever of relevant considerations.”

The decision is another important example of citizen action to stop illegal approvals of Sierra development. “We are delighted with this tentative ruling," said Tamara Galanter of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, counsel for SRVA. "The 45 page decision reflects a careful analysis of the applicable law and recognizes the importance of considering alternatives as part of the environmental review process"

Conservationists throughout California look to the proposed project as a dangerous precedent for leapfrog development in the fragile Eastern Sierra landscape. “This is an important victory for the entire Sierra Nevada ,” said Tom Mooers, executive director of Sierra Watch. “It’s another great example of how people are standing up to defend the Sierra landscape – from Mount Whitney in the south to Dyer Mountain in Lassen County .”

Now conservationists will seek to work with the landowner to reach a collaborative resolution to the contentious issue. “Our goal was never simply to win a lawsuit,” said Fenton. “Our goal is to reach a win-win agreement that protects the land and encourages responsible development. We look forward to taking that next step.”


SRVA Advocates for Smart Growth is a non-profit organization working to promote sustainable development in the Eastern Sierra region. For more information, call (559)658-8189 or visit http://srva.net/cms/.

LA meetuphikes.org

E-Mail the editor:

rexfrankel at yahoo.com

Blog Archive

Quick-Search of Subjects on the Site