Table Mountain back in wilderness bill

By Mike Gervais
Inyo Register

With the Eastern Sierra/Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act scheduled to go to the Senate on Thursday, the bill’s co-authors have reincorporated Table Mountain into the mix.

At the request of the U.S. Forest Service, Table Mountain has been added back into the Wild Heritage Act by co-authors Senator Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Santa Clarita). The addition of Table Mountain, which was removed from the bill earlier this summer as part of a compromise that allowed for the 9,000-acre White Mountain proposed wilderness, has some on edge, as recent maps include several cabins in the proposed wilderness area.

The residents who lease property that includes nine cabins near Table Mountain worked feverishly Monday to contact local legislators and express their concerns about the inclusion of the cabins and the relatively short time-frame in which they had to submit comments.

That work paid off, with the Forest Service reporting Monday afternoon that it was in the process of re-drawing the wilderness map for Table Mountain.

Table Mountain was added to the Wild Heritage Act sometime around July 16, but maps were not made available to the public until the week of July 21 and the U.S. Forest Service, which leases the cabins to private individuals, did not receive the updated maps until last Thursday, leaving only three days for that entity to comment before the Sept. 8 comment deadline.

Those maps showed six or seven private-use cabins inside the wilderness designation. At least three of the cabins that are located inside the wilderness addition are only 50-150 feet from the boundary, which Bishop resident Bob Klug, who leases property and one of the cabins from the U.S. Forest Service, said didn’t follow any geographic or topographical line.

“A friend of mine who owns the pack station showed me the maps on Saturday,” Klug said. “The maps had been changed on the 25th of July, and none of the cabin owners who could be losing their cabins were notified.”

With comments regarding the Wild Heritage Act due Monday, Klug spent a busy weekend tracking down the lease-holders of the eight other cabins in the area to warn them of the comment deadline and encourage them to speak up on the issue.

He was able to speak with Boxer Legislative Aid Tom Bohigian, who said the inclusion of the cabins may have been an oversight. “He tried to reassure me that they have no intent of shutting down anyone’s cabins or any roads,” Klug said. But he added he won’t rest easy until he sees something in writing that protects his cabin.

Klug said that when he contacted McKeon’s staffers, he was told to submit any comments or questions via e-mail.

McKeon Press Secretary Lindsay Mask, however, told The Inyo Register that the inclusion of the cabins “was a mapping error. Mr. McKeon is 100 percent aware of it, and private land will not be included.”

“The remapping they’re having done right now excludes the cabins, the water systems and the electrical,” said U.S. Forest Service Public Information Officer Nancy Upham.

There has been much discussion regarding the inclusion or exclusion of Table Mountain since the Wild Heritage Act was proposed in June. The scenic area was initially proposed as an addition to the bill, then tabled in favor of 9,000 acres of wilderness in the White Mountains, then ultimately included in the wilderness in July at the behest of the U.S. Forest Service.

“During the meetings in Bishop (held in early July to gather citizen input about the Wild Heritage Act) they had dropped Table Mountain from the wilderness to appease the anti-wilderness people,” said Klug.

“Table Mountain was an area that was added in later on a Forest Service recommendation,” said Paul McFarland of the Friends of the Inyo. “We certainly didn’t push to have anyone’s cabin included in wilderness,” he added, speaking for the Friends.

McFarland said the inclusion of the cabins could have been an easy mistake to make.
“Things like this are going to come forward more and more, and they need to be changed,” said McFarland.

If the Wild Heritage Act was passed into law including the Table Mountain cabins, the dwellings would have most likely been taken over by the Forest Service.

“Historically, you cannot have a private dwelling in the Wilderness,” Klug said.

According to McFarland, “I don’t know if there are any leased cabins in wilderness, but I do know there are ranger cabins.”

Phone calls seeking comment from Boxer’s staffers and the Advocates for Access to Public Lands were not returned as of press time Monday.

Members of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors were unavailable for comment on Monday, as they were in budget hearing meetings.

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.

Furnace Creek Road revisited

By Ken Koerner
The Inyo Register




When it comes to public lands, few disagree with the premise that they belong to everyone; it’s how they’re accessed and used that causes the disagreements to pile up.

Even just a procedural announcement by the Bureau of Land Management’s Ridgecrest office last week drew comments of support and consternation from both sides concerned with off-highway vehicle access in the Furnace Creek area of the eastern White Mountains. The assessment will initiate a new review on whether to reopen a road into the area that is currently closed.

“Following some 180 protest comments related to Furnace Creek that were received in the BLM’s Washington, D.C. office,” said BLM’s Ridgecrest Field Manager Hector Villalobos, “staff back there reviewed our prior environmental assessment and determined there were a couple areas of weakness which should be reviewed before we move forward” with reopening the road.

OHV proponents, such as the Bishop-based Advocates for Access to Public Lands (AAPL), find no shortage of arguments to support the contention that OHV access to public lands on existing roads is appropriate. The Friends of the Inyo, however, have a different perspective.

Responding to the Jan. 29 announcement of BLM’s decision, Paul McFarland, executive director of Friends of the Inyo, remarked, “There are thousands of miles of road for people on diverse public lands. With massive federal budget shortfalls for public-land management, the BLM can make a better investment of its limited funds in places that benefit a majority of people recreating on public lands, while protecting rare places like Furnace Creek.”

“We’ve been fighting this battle for four years,” said Advocates for Access to Public Lands spokesman Dick Noles. “That road has been in use for 100 years and should remain open – and our AAPL members are equally dedicated to protecting the integrity of the riparian area of Furnace Creek … there are ways to do that and still have access for people that can’t walk up in there.”

“The fact that we’re pulling our environmental assessment,” said Villalobos, “means that as we revisit the document we will once again be opening up another period for public comment.”

The BLM’s timetable for additional public comment doesn’t have a date-certain at this point, but, Villalobos said, “Sometime in the spring of this year we will have that required public comment period opened. The public comments that are then received will be reviewed and reflected in the next environmental assessment on Furnace Creek that is released.”

The road that leads toward the Furnace Creek area has been behind a locked gate since 2003, as a result of a lawsuit filed by those with concerns about negative impacts that could accompany OHV access.

AAPL’s Noles said, “There’ve been a few mindless OHV users that have been up in the Furnace Creek area in years past and we intend to make sure that sort of activity is policed and prevented in the future.”

The Friends of the Inyo has played an active role of photographically documenting what it attests are the negative environmental impacts of OHV use along and within the Furnace Creek stream. According to information published on its website, there are fewer than 20 OHV users that visit the area annually.

Americans of all opinions on the matter of Furnace Creek’s potential access via wheeled vehicles will have the opportunity to take advantage of the public comment period to make their feelings known.

In the meantime, the road is closed and the exploration of the policy decision to be reached continues.

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.”