New wilderness proposals for Inyo

By Mike Gervais
Inyo Register

Senator Barbara Boxer and Congressman Buck McKeon, co-sponsors of the Wild Heritage Act, aren’t the only legislators who see the potential for additional wilderness in Inyo County, despite promises that the controversial wilderness designation would be the last requested within Inyo County.

Senator Dianne Feinstein is looking at several new wilderness designations in Southern Inyo that top officials are saying would hinder potential revenue sources, job opportunities and recreation in the area.

Feinstein’s office received a request by the California Wilderness Coalition seeking several new wilderness designations in Southern California, five of which are proposed for Inyo County’s Fifth District, including areas of Death Valley.

Feinstein’s staffers brought the proposals before Fifth District Supervisor Richard Cervantes, earlier this month.

The five new wilderness proposals include the Great Falls Basin Wilderness located near Trona on the southeast side of China Lake Naval Weapons Station, the Malpais Mesa proposed wilderness addition on the west side of Death Valley National Park, the Slate Range proposed wilderness just west of the Great Falls Basin proposal, and two wilderness additions within Death Valley National Park, one of which includes the area around the Ubehebe Crater, but does not include the crater itself.

The board decided Tuesday to review the wilderness proposals and draft a response to Feinstein. First District Supervisor Linda Arcularius said she was grateful that Feinstein’s staffers discussed the proposals with the board before drafting legislation.

“She has only been requested to do this, and she has not agreed to carry any legislation,” which gives the county the opportunity to work with the legislators to be sure the county’s needs are met before legislation is drafted.

Arcularius mentioned that the board did not have that opportunity with the Wild Heritage Act which aims to create the Eastern Sierra/ Northern San Gabriel Wilderness.

The board agreed to review the wilderness proposals and outline its concerns and send a response to Feinstein.

“Our first concern is that these proposals don’t fit the definition of wilderness” as defined in the 1964 Wilderness Act, said Fourth District Supervisor Jim Bilyeu. “The second is mining,” he said, adding that the areas described for the proposed wilderness are rich in mineral resources, have current mining claims on them and/or companies researching the possibility of opening mining claims.

Supervisor Cervantes brought up several concerns about mining in Inyo County and the negative effects the proposed wilderness could have on the industry. “This is about economic opportunities for Inyo County being locked up,” he said.

The proposed Malpais Mesa wilderness area includes an area where Timberline Resources is conducting an exploratory survey in hopes of opening a mine in the area “which would open up the potential for income for the county,” the Fifth District Supervisor said Tuesday.

There is also a study group conducting research in that same area in hopes of finding a location for a geothermal plant, Cervantes added.

If the wilderness designation is pushed through, the area would be off-limits to mining and industry of any kind, including a geothermal plant.

Cervantes called the latest onslaught of wilderness proposals a “nefarious plot” by environmentalists to outlaw mining in Inyo County’s mineral-rich areas.

Cervantes also mentioned that the Slate Range Wilderness Range near Panamint Valley is the site of the Briggs Mine and the Ratcliff mine.

He also said the Briggs Mine, which supports 120 jobs when it is operating, is completely out of sight of the public, and does not spoil the scenic desert views of Southern Inyo.

Cervantes said the same of the Great Basin proposed wilderness. “That particular area is a high mining area,” said Cervantes. He added that Feinstein’s staffers are also saying that the Great Falls Basin proposed wilderness area “would provide a buffer zone for the (China Lake) naval base. But everybody who’s been out there knows that you can’t wander onto the base without knowing about it, there are signs everywhere.”

“That buffer thing doesn’t hold water,” he added, and the other supervisors agreed.

Second District Supervisor Susan Cash noted that wilderness designations, according to the 1964 Wilderness Act, are not designed to provide “buffer” zones for military instillations, but to protect “unchanged and unspoiled” areas. She also said many of the areas don’t fit the description of “unchanged and unspoiled.”

“This has nothing to do with protection, it has everything to do with numbers,” said Third District Supervisor Beverly Brown, noting that the Ubehebe Crater is an area she could see being protected as wilderness, but not the surrounding desert area that is being considered for the protection.

“My position is that I don’t support any additional wilderness designation unless it fits the 1960s definition,” which says the designated land must be “unspoiled,” Bilyeu said.

Phone calls to Senator Feinstein’s office seeking comments on the proposed wilderness designations were not returned.

Inyo County supervisors slam wilderness bill

By Mike Gervais
Inyo Register

Elected officials from Inyo County responded to the controversial Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act by declaring that the newly introduced legislation does not, in fact, contain any notable compromise.

The five members of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors all agreed Tuesday that some crucial language in the Eastern Sierra Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act, which intends to designate 400,000-plus acres of Eastern Sierra lands as wilderness, must be changed to protect the rights of property owners and commercial business owners.

The board is also seeking to gather input from residents, and has scheduled two tentative public meetings with representatives of both Congressman Buck McKeon and Senator Barbara Boxer, the act’s sponsors, in attendance. The board also expressed hopes of having a representative from Senator Dianne Feinstein’s office on hand as well.

The first meeting is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, July 1 at the American Legion Hall in Independence and the second for Wednesday, July 2 at the Tri-County Fairgrounds in Bishop. Both are scheduled to take place at 4 p.m.

Prior to scheduling the public meetings, the supervisors took the opportunity to air their grievances, and share some unflattering words for McKeon and Boxer’s legislation.

Fifth District Supervisor Richard Cervantes called the new wilderness bill “short-sighted at the least and irresponsible at worst.”

According to Fourth District Supervisor Jim Bilyeu, the legislation, which is being hailed by conservationists and its supporters as a triumphant compromise, “There is very little compromise in this bill, which I think is the downfall. I personally feel it was underhanded.”

McKeon (R-Santa Clarita) is the sponsor of House Resolution No. 6156, with a companion wilderness bill in the U.S. Senate being introduced by Boxer (D-California). The two legislators had been working on their respective bills in unison of late, in an effort to gain bipartisan support for their passage in both Houses of Congress.

The two bills seek permanent wilderness status for tracts identified as the White Mountain Wilderness, Hoover Wilderness Additions, the Granite Mountain Wilderness, John Muir Wilderness Additions, the Owens River Headwaters Wilderness, the Pleasant View Ridge Wilderness, the Magic Mountain Wilderness, as well as waterway protection status for the Amargosa Wild & Scenic River, the Owens Headwaters Wild & Scenic River, and the Piru Creek Wild & Scenic River.

First District Supervisor Linda Arcularius drafted a lengthy letter to Congressman McKeon explaining her concerns regarding the wilderness legislation.

The other board members commended Arcularius for her letter, and Supervisor Bilyeu even requested that in addition to it being sent with Arcularius’ signature, the board make a couple amendments to it, and send that copy to McKeon “under the full authority” of the Board of Supervisors with the county letterhead and signatures from all five board members.

Among the supervisors’ grievances is the possibility that the areas omitted from the legislation, as part of the “compromise” for multiple-use advocates, are not protected from future wilderness designations.

“The lands that have not been designated wilderness have gained no protection for their current uses,” the letter from Arcularius states. “Those lands that were not designated have no permanent protection. They have only escaped this round of wilderness designation.”

“There is no protection for these other lands,” no guarantee that they will remain open to the public, Bilyeu said.

According to Arcularius, state representatives also have an obligation to rethink provisions in the legislation that prohibit new claims or mining.

Cervantes commented that, with the rising cost of metals and minerals, Inyo County could possibly cash in on new mining claims, as areas of the White Mountains are rich in such minerals, but the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Wild Heritage Act has the potential to limit that.

Arcularius’ letter further states that “the strength of this nation is in the ground. Our natural resources have provided for the ability of our nation to grow and prosper since our nation’s founding. They have contributed to our wealth, self-reliance and sustainability as a nation.”

The board also discussed how the new legislation could potentially steer would-be recreators away from Inyo County.

Bilyeu noted that it is illegal to stock non-native fish in wilderness areas. He also said that in some cases, streams, creeks and other waters flowing out of designated wilderness are off-limits for stocking, as the non-native fish may swim up-stream into the wilderness area.

According to Cervantes, many of the areas designated as wilderness in the Wild Heritage Act don’t technically qualify as wilderness. The supervisors explained that wilderness designations were originally designed to protect “unspoiled” areas never before used by humans.

“Not by the wildest stretch of imagination does this fit the definition of wilderness,” Cervantes said, noting that humans have used the areas outlined in the legislation for years for recreation.

“By designating wilderness that does not meet the true meaning of the definition of wilderness, the truly unique and special characteristics that set wilderness apart from our other public lands is diminished,” the letter from Arcularius states.

While the Inyo County Board of Supervisors was discussing the Wild Heritage Act on Tuesday, its counterpart in Mono County hosted a public hearing in Lee Vining with representatives from Feinstein, McKeon and Boxer’s offices.

The Inyo County supervisors are hoping to bring all those people to the table again in Inyo so the representatives can hear the concerns of constituents here.

“A public meeting to address this is important and imperative,” Arcularius said.

Boxer yields to opposition

Land near Sugarloaf will not be claimed as wilderness area

San Bernardino Sun
Joe Nelson, Staff Writer

BIG BEAR LAKE - Facing opposition from city and fire officials, Sen. Barbara Boxer, has decided against designating 6,336 acres of land near Sugarloaf a wilderness area.

As part of their California Wild Heritage Act of 2007, Boxer and Rep. Hilda Solis, both state Democrats, planned to designate as wilderness area the patch of land in Big Bear Lake and 17,920 acres in the San Gorgonio Wilderness. The designations would pose certain restrictions to the areas and prevent roads and commercial enterprises from being built.

But city and fire officials opposed the Sugarloaf area wilderness designation, concerned it would thwart firefighters' ability to access the area should a wildfire erupt.

"We all love the environment we live in. Protecting the forest is critical, but doing so at the possible expense of lives and property because of lack of access or authority could be dangerous," Bill Jahn, mayor of Big Bear Lake, said in a written statement Monday. "We are grateful to Senator Boxer and her staff for the time they took to listen and address our community's concerns."

In April, the Big Bear Lake City Council approved a resolution opposing the designation and subsequently notified Boxer's office.

Tom Bohigian, state director for Boxer, subsequently met with city officials to hear their concerns, then reported back to Boxer.

"The senator took their concerns about fire very seriously. She decided this was the right thing to do," Bohigian said.

Last week, Bohigian informed city officials that the bill would be reintroduced in 2009, sans the Sugarloaf designation.

The original bill called for the designation of 2.4 million acres of wilderness and segments of wild and scenic rivers throughout the state. It would have allowed the secretary of agriculture to authorize federal, state and local authorities to take appropriate measures to fight wildland fires should they break out in designated wilderness areas.

Despite that provision, Big Bear Lake fire Chief John Morley said he was concerned that if firefighters were delayed from accessing the area because they had to wait for federal approval, it would jeopardize public safety.

Wilderness bill raises storm

Big Bear Lake officials say it would hurt fire-suppression efforts

San Bernardino Sun
Joe Nelson, Staff Writer

BIG BEAR LAKE - Sen. Barbara Boxer and Rep. Hilda Solis want to have a 6,000-plus acre patch of forest on Sugarloaf Mountain declared wilderness area.

But city, fire and water officials are fighting that effort, concerned that such a designation would thwart firefighting and forest-thinning efforts and quell the possible future expansion of a water- treatment plant near the proposed wilderness area.

The proposal by Boxer, D-Calif., and Solis, is part of their California Wild Heritage Act of 2007, introduced Feb. 6 in the House of Representatives. It aims to designate 2.4 million acres of wilderness and segments of wild and scenic rivers throughout the state and calls for, among other things, 6,336 acres of designated wilderness land on Sugarloaf Mountain and about 17,920 acres in the San Gorgonio Wilderness.

"From a fire-suppression standpoint, fire suppression efforts will be limited," said John Morley, chief of the Big Bear Lake Fire Department. "Generally, the (fire) equipment isn't allowed in a wilderness area. You're not supposed to take dozers in there. You're not supposed to take engines in there, and you're not allowed to take chain saws in there."

Approval to access a wilderness area during a wildland fire is possible, but it generally has to be approved by federal officials in Washington, Morley said.

"When you have a fire going on and are trying to get approvals from someone outside this area, I don't think it's in the best interest of public safety," Morley said.

In a prepared statement Friday, Boxer said, "Under my wilderness bill, federal officials have been given full authority to act in every way they deem necessary to prevent and extinguish fires.

"Most Californians want to see these God-given wilderness areas protected for future generations. But if this community is so united against this potential designation, I certainly will take that into account as the bill moves forward."

According to Section 102(d) of the proposed legislation, the agriculture secretary may take appropriate measures to control and prevent fire through federal, state or local agencies and jurisdictions. Such measures include the use of mechanized and motorized equipment for fire suppression, including aircraft for fire retardant and water drops.

Early last week, the Big Bear Lake City Council approved a resolution opposing the designation of the wilderness area, and will send it to Boxer's and Solis' offices, city planner Sandra Molina said.
"We'll also send it to other representatives in the Senate and (House), and we're also going to be asking the local boards to join us in opposing the designations," she said.

In 1964, Congress enacted the Wilderness Act to protect designated federal lands from being encroached upon by humans and to retain their "primeval character and influence." The act prohibits, with certain exceptions, commercial enterprises and permanent roads from being built on the land.

In the last six years, the San Bernardino Mountains have been vexed with drought and a bark-beetle infestation that have combined to destroy more than 1million trees. In October 2003, the Old Fire cut an eastward path across the mountains from Waterman Canyon to Highland, destroying hundreds of homes.

The threat of fire still weighs heavily on the minds of those living both in the mountain communities and the valleys below.

"We don't want some overlay of that land that's going to inhibit the ability for people to go and do fuels work," Morley said. "I think clearly that everybody who lives in this valley is here for a reason, and we enjoy the environment, but I think sometimes things can be done to the environment that can pose a danger to citizens in this valley, and that's what we're concerned about."

Public land-use issues discussed at meeting

By CHUCK MUELLER, Staff Writer
San Bernardino Sun

VICTORVILLE - Acknowledging that federal and local interests are often at odds over use of public lands, the Bureau of Land Management's top administrator called Tuesday for working in harmony toward mutual goals.

"California is intense and complex, with new demands and impacts," said bureau director Kathleen Clarke. "Government is best when it's open, and the best ideas frequently come from business leaders.

"These lands belong to all the people and we need to manage them so we can enhance our lives," she told a group of civic leaders here. "I think we can work in harmony toward a common ground."

Clarke stopped here on the second day of a High Desert tour of public lands with Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon, R-Santa Clarita.

The congressman focused on a number of issues involving public lands, including the Endangered Species Act and the proposed California Wild Heritage Act.

"Many of us in Congress would like to see changes in the Endangered Species Act, but I don't think we have the necessary votes," McKeon said.

He said he sees little likelihood of passage of the Wild Heritage Act, reintroduced last year by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., to conserve up to 9 million acres of wild lands in the state.

"If people can come together with something smaller, I would help work with them. But (this) acreage on top of what we already have set aside is too much."

Meanwhile, Clarke envisions some changes in the Endangered Species Act that "would ease the process."

She added, "We support the act, but are looking at ways it is applied."

Attention then shifted to the controversial West Mojave Plan, the nation's largest habitat conservation proposal. Now in in its final stages, the plan is designed to protect endangered species like the desert tortoise while streamlining procedures to develop land in the vast western Mojave Desert.

Twenty-eight entities including federal, state and county governments, and various cities and special interest groups have worked jointly for a decade to find ways to protect sensitive species from urban encroachment while allowing other uses, such as mining and off-road vehicle activities, to continue.