Wilderness Meeting Gets Ugly

Written by Tom Woods
Sierra Wave.net

Advocates for Access to Public Lands hands out signs during Wednesday’s public hearing on the Wild Heritage Act. Hundreds of residents and visitors from both sides of the issue went on record with their feelings about the controversial legislation. Photo by Debbie Murphy.

Emotions ran high at the Charles Brown Auditorium in Bishop Wednesday night, as about 900 people (county estimate) gathered to comment on the proposed Boxer McKeon Wilderness Bill that would place 430,000 acres in the Eastern Sierra under designated Wilderness. 370,000 of the acres lie in Mono County and about 60,782 in Inyo.

While there were real points made from both sides of issueat the meeting, the first hour of this public forum was marred by loutish behavior, catcalls, and disrespect.

Representatives from Senator Barbara Boxer’s office did not show up so Bob Haueter with Congressman Buck McKeon’s office led off the discussion. Haueter described how Boxer’s office had wanted 800,000 acres, but the number had been whittled down to 470,000 acres, which includes the 430,000 in the Eastern Sierra and another 40,000 in LA.

Motorized Access Advocate Dick Noles spoke first. He said the bill was not in the spirit of the 1964 Wilderness Act and that the bill was going to be a big mistake. Loud applause followed. After that, civility at the meeting degenerated and the first hour could be described as ugly.

Despite requests for calm by Supervisor Linda Arcularius, those who stood in front of the crowd to speak in favor were met with boos and heckling. One Bishop resident, speaking in favor of the bill, mentioned that she had seen a lot of disrespect for the land. A loud "B-S-" came from the back of the room. It appeared that one corner of the room was especially intent on embarrassing themselves, but after an hour or so most of that crowd left.

Emotions on this subject continued to run high throughout the night, but for the most part the remainder of the crowd respected the time limit allowed for speakers to take the microphone.

The main points made by those in favor of the bill included preservation of the land in question, roads that people use are left out of the bill, and that the pristine lands are what drives the tourist industry.

Burned by the Desert Protection Act, those in opposition named roads and motorized access.

While there was much blanket opposition to all new wilderness, most of the specific complaints revolved around the proposed Wilderness in the White Mountains. There was also a fear of yet another layer of bureaucracy, a feeling that the damage to the land was exaggerated and didn’t need the restrictive protection of wilderness, as well as fear that roads would be closed. More than one speaker asked for stronger language in the bill to guarantee that the roads cherry stemmed into the Wilderness areas would stay open.

There were rumors that wilderness supporters were “bused in,” from out of the area. Perhaps they carpooled. Of those who spoke in favor of the bill, eight were from outside of the Eastern Sierra, including one woman who brought a letter from the Mayor of Santa Clarita supporting the bill. Three speakers opposing the bill were from outside of the area as well.

With those numbers in consideration, the speakers were close to dead even in support vs. the opposition. Roughly 55 spoke against the bill, while despite the openly hostile crowd, roughly 58 spoke in favor of the bill. Judging by the applause after the opposition, one could conclude either that they were the not silent majority or that the opposition was simply louder.

One thing is certain, designated wilderness and recreation on public lands is an issue about which the community feels strongly.

BLM offers divergent view of controversial mountain road

Descriptions and comments from environmental groups ‘misleading,’ say agency and advocacy group

Inyo Register
By Jon Klusmire

A dry creekbed that occasionally carries water from higher up on Furnace Creek and Furnace Creek Road at one of six locations where the road and creek cross on BLM land. Photo courtesy BLM

Repairing and opening a short section of Furnace Creek Road won’t be expensive, will maintain a historic vehicular access route in the White Mountains and will fulfill the multiple use mandate on Bureau of Land Management lands, according to the BLM.

The Bishop-based Advocates for Access to Public Lands applauded the BLM’s decision. The group also said its volunteers were more than ready to help complete any necessary work to get the road open.

And in the ongoing war of words about roads and access, the AAPL members said overheated rhetoric and factual errors about Furnace Creek and the decision to re-open the road distorted what was really happening on the ground and distorted what was a simple, common-sense decision by the BLM.

The recent decision to open about 3.75 miles of the road drew a vociferous and vehement response from environmental groups which had sued to close the road and force an environmental study of the impacts created by the use of the road.

If the decision stands, Furnace Creek Road would be re-opened from where it is currently gated to the border between BLM and Forest Service land. The road originates in Nevada and then crosses into California and Mono County.

Some of the comments were incorrect, said Dave Sjaastad, the BLM Ridgecrest Office team leader for Furnace Creek.

First off, Furnace Creek is not a “perennial” creek, he said, it is an “ephemeral” stream. That means water does not run down the full length of the streambed all year-round.

The Friends of the Inyo, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics all made statements in press releases or in interviews that said Furnace Creek was “a rare perennial desert stream,” to quote the Center for Biological Diversity.

While Furnace Creek does have water in it year-round at its higher reaches, such as where it moves through Forest Service Land, Sjaastad said only seasonal flows reach the BLM-managed portion of land. And, he noted, those flows only come during wet winter years.

Even after the record winter of 2005-06, five of the six stream and road intersections on BLM land were completely dry, Sjaastad said. Plus, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board classifies Furnace Creek as “an ephemeral stream,” he noted, meaning it does not run year-round for its full length.

“It’s a seasonal stream, at best,” said Dick Noles of AAPL, and for the environmental groups to say otherwise is “misleading.”

Another bit of mis-information corrected by Noles and AAPL member Dave Mattovich was that Furnace Creek is not in a Wilderness Study Area. Instead, the section of creek in the Forest Service land is “cherry stemmed,” meaning the WSA boundary goes around the creek and road, but does not include it.

The 2002 lawsuit by the Center for Biological Diversity temporarily closed the road until the BLM could conduct an Environmental Assessment. That assessment showed “really there was no significant impact to reopen the road,” said Sjaastad. “It was a pretty straightforward decision.”

The road has been in use for about 100 years, said Mattovich, and that “historic use” played into the BLM’s decision, noted Sjaastad. Not only had the road been used for a long time, keeping the road open provided access to BLM and Forest Service lands, and “promotes the multiple use mission of the BLM,” he added.

As for the places where the road crosses the streambed, Sjaastad noted that virtually all of the six stream crossings rarely have water in the road and stream at the same time.

The work to “harden” those crossings will involve putting rocks in the streambed/road, noted Greg Weirick, of AAPL, and some other well-known techniques to protect the stream and keep the road from washing out.

There are “thousands” of instances where roads cross dry streambeds in the region governed by the BLM Ridgecrest Office, noted Sjaastad, so the Furnace Creek situation is not unusual or unique.

The BLM will consider the work on the crossings as “routine maintenance,” he noted. “There will be no major construction.”

And the BLM is counting on the volunteers from AAPL to help do the work. “It won’t cost BLM a thing,” promised Noles, who said the group was ready and able to work with BLM on the job.

Sjaastad said the decision to open up the drier portions of the road on BLM land makes sense for several reasons. First, the length of road provides access through the somewhat barren, arid section of the canyon to the higher, greener areas of Furnace Creek.

“It just seems like a natural border” between the BLM lands and the Forest Service lands, he said.

Noles concurred that “the Forest Service part is wet.” The debate over that part of the road is completely different, he noted, with one plan being to construct a trail alongside the stream, but not allow a road.

The Forest Service has not presented a timelime for its final decision about the future of the road or possibly a trail on its portion of Furnace Creek. The BLM’s decision should not be construed as an endorsement of opening the road on Forest Service land, Sjaastad noted.

Noles stressed the BLM decision had nothing to do with the remaining stretch of road on the Forest Service land, even though the environmental groups made it sound like the whole road was now being prepared to be opened.

There is a reason, according to Noles, the environmental groups are trying to make the BLM decision spill over onto the Forest Service section of Furnace Creek: “They have an agenda to close the road so they can say this should be a Wilderness Area.”