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.

Bill seeks to add thousands of acres of wilderness

California Desert and Mountain Heritage Act


By JENNIFER BOWLES
The Press-Enterprise



William Wilson Lewis III / The Press-Enterprise
John Garner's favorite spot to go hiking with his dog Daisy, along the south fork of the San Jacinto River, could become a federally designated wilderness area as part of a bill pending in Congress to protect 191,000 acres throughout Riverside County.

John Garner and Daisy, his German shepherd, hike a dirt trail above Hemet most mornings before he heads to work.

The five-mile trail hugs the side of a chaparral-studded canyon in the San Jacinto Mountains, then veers down to a tranquil river valley festooned with cottonwoods, willows and oaks where the only signs of modern civilization are jet contrails overhead.

"It's really quiet, peaceful," said Garner, 41, who owns Jag Pest Control in Hemet.

Garner said that although he was unaware his favorite hiking spot -- 21,670 acres with the south fork of the San Jacinto River at its heart -- may become a federally designated wilderness, he'd support the move.

This spring, Congress is likely to consider it in legislation by Rep. Mary Bono Mack, R-Palm Springs, and Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., that would protect 191,000 acres across Riverside County.

But the quest to garner the nation's highest form of land protection for a region prone to wildfires and heavily recreated has required compromises that allow the boundaries to be drawn in a way that permits normally banned activities in wilderness. Federal wilderness areas prohibit the use of mechanized equipment -- fire equipment, off-road vehicles and even mountain bikes.

And there could still be more compromises as Bono Mack faces fellow lawmakers who believe such concessions undermine the intent of the 1964 Wilderness Act. The act defines those areas as "where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."

"They think we're spoiling the wilderness designation," Bono Mack said of some of her colleagues. "It's hard to explain to people what Southern California wildfires are ... and it's precedent-setting that we're trying to take into consideration fire caution.

"I do worry and I think often about risking people's property or certainly lives with legislation like this," if it bans firefighting trucks and equipment, she said. "We're trying to be very, very careful. We're in uncharted territory here."

For instance, a fire road that snakes down the middle of the proposed South Fork San Jacinto Wilderness was left outside of the boundaries. The road, known as Rouse Ridge, is also used by off-roaders and mountain bikers as a link to Thomas Mountain.

"We wanted that bisect to be maintained," said Tom Ward, policy advisor for the International Mountain Bicycling Association-California. He said his group helped craft the compromises with the California Wilderness Coalition.

Mike Dietrich, fire chief for the San Bernardino National Forest, said Rouse Ridge, although quite bumpy, is a well-established fire road that provides good access to help douse fires in the rugged terrain.

Some in the environmental community support the compromises.

"I think that it's very important especially in Southern California to ensure we have all the tools we need to fight fire and protect our communities," said Shane Walton, of Palm Springs, with Friends of the River, which is pushing for the bill's passage.

The South Fork wilderness proposal is a few miles from the town of Mountain Center, just south of Idyllwild.

The Bill

Boxer, after testifying Tuesday for the bill during a hearing of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forest, dismissed the notion that the bill has been watered down.

"What we're doing is we are making sure that if there's a fire, it can be put out ..." she said. "And we're not changing or weakening the rules here. We're just explicitly stating them so people know."

The bill would create four new wilderness areas across Riverside County in Joshua Tree National Park, the San Bernardino National Forest and open desert; increase the amount of land in six existing wilderness areas; add 31 miles of rivers to the National Wild and Scenic River System; and expand the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument by about 8,000 acres.

Bono Mack suspects the language in the 1964 Wilderness Act was based on circumstances happening then. For instance, areas weren't as populated, and the term wildland-urban interface -- the places where residences back up against wildland -- wasn't even thought of. And some say mountain biking wasn't yet invented.

Jenn Dice, with the international mountain biking group in Boulder, Colo., said biking trails recently have been included in wilderness areas across the nation but the issue often pits "old-school" wilderness advocates against recreationists who also oppose large-scale development.

"We believe our core values are the same as environmentalists'," she said. "We want clean water, clean air and healthy ecosystems. But it gets dicey when you're talking about wilderness and nothing else."

Both Dice and Ward said the real threat to wildlands is development.

Making the Compromise

Bill Dart, of the Off-Road Business Association, asked to downgrade the wilderness designations in Bono Mack's bill to a so-called "backcountry" -- meaning it would ban future development but allow recreation -- when he testified in November before a House subcommittee.

The off-roading group came around and now supports the bill after negotiating with Bono Mack's office, Dart said.

Bono Mack said it took a telephone call from her to an off-roading leader and assurances that the Bradshaw trail around the Orocopia and Chuckwalla mountains in eastern Riverside County wouldn't be affected.

"It was never clear, and we gave them certainty on it," she said.

Bono Mack has experience trying to hatch compromises in the name of land protection. She spearheaded creation of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument above the Coachella Valley eight years ago when President Clinton created more than a dozen in the West when he signed an executive order.

Bono Mack said it has been a similar experience this time.

"It's always been about bringing as many concerned people to the table to discuss the issues," she said.

Walton has a more ethereal reason for wanting the land protected, he said while sitting on the grass in a meadow near the San Jacinto River in the proposed wilderness.

"It's good for my spirits," he said of hiking. "... It leaves me feeling good for the whole day."

Off-roaders back in driver's seat?

Reshaped commission a win for riders, say conservationists

Michael Gardner
San Diego Union-Tribune
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

SACRAMENTO – Off-road riders have scored a major victory in their quest to reshape a state commission they have said has grown hostile to their sport.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed legislation that will strip the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Commission of its authority over most funding and also hand the governor a majority of the appointments to the board.

The law could lead to the commission's return to favoring off-roaders, some environmentalists say. Over the past few years, the panel's majority, appointed by Democratic leaders in the Legislature, had tended to line up behind environmentalists.

The commission favored spending money on environmental projects over maintaining off-road areas – a bitter point of contention because a large portion of the money was raised through fees on off-road vehicles.

Some environmentalists supported the legislation, albeit reluctantly, as a compromise.

“It's definitely a tough issue for conservationists,” said Brent Schoradt, of the California Wilderness Coalition, which wound up endorsing the bill. “Off-road vehicles are causing increased damage to California's wilderness, waterways and wildlife. However, this is starting to move us in the right direction.”

In return, riders accepted a sharp increase in registration fees, fines on those caught in off-limits territory and some concessions on environmental priorities.

It's a balanced bill,” said off-road lobbyist Pete Conaty.

Schwarzenegger and lawmakers were under pressure to strike a deal, with the statutory authority and funding for the program due to expire at the end of the year. Seven off-road parks were in danger of shutting down.

“It was a come-together or no-program situation,” said Sen. Darrell Steinberg, an environmentally leaning Sacramento Democrat who introduced the compromise, SB 742. The law takes effect Jan. 1.

Steinberg disagreed with critics who say the measure rolls over for the off-road community. Higher fees and clear funding guidelines will provide resources for law enforcement, maintenance and environmental restoration, he said.

Ed Stovin, president of the San Diego Off-Road Coalition, said: “We're not cheering wildly and having a parade. But we're happy with the bill.”

Stovin said just $365,000 went to maintain off-road areas out of $18 million in available grants this year. Under the new rules, half of that grant money must be set aside for operations and maintenance of off-road parks and trails, he said.

The commission will have little say, if any, over grants; nor will it control spending on capital improvement projects. Those decisions will be made by a separate division within the Department of Parks and Recreation.

Off-roading is a fast-growing sport, both at state parks specifically set aside for the activity, as well as on hundreds of miles of other public land. About 4 million riders annually use state-run off-road parks, and countless more journey to national forests and other getaways.

The sport's growth has spurred controversy, however. Riders are often branded as uncaring, cutting across pristine forests and through streams. Older vehicles are noisy and pollute, critics say.

Disputes have exploded at the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Commission, a seven-member panel that oversees off-roading in California. Most of the discontent involved funding, with off-roaders angry that their priorities were being shortchanged.

“Ugly personal and political battles don't make sense,” said Terry McHale, who represented the off-road community during marathon talks that produced the legislation.

McHale said the pendulum of off-road spending will swing back to the middle. Without clear spending guidelines, funding would remain up to the whims and ideology of the commission majority at the time, either pro-rider or pro-environment.

“The old days of either side picking each other's pocket are gone,” McHale said.

Under the law, about 25 percent of the funds each year will be dedicated to environmental programs. Some of that money will now become available to improve dirt roads to provide access for nonmotorized uses, such as hiking trails or fishing spots. Most of the remaining funds will go toward law enforcement.

That did little to mollify some critics.

“It's definitely a victory for the off-highway vehicle lobby,” said Terry Weiner, conservation coordinator for the Desert Protective Council. “It's not a good trade-off. In fact, it's a step backward.”

A key concession secured by environmentalists establishes that federal agencies, with a few exemptions, cannot obtain state grants for off-road programs in areas that were once designated roadless but have since been opened to vehicles.

Riders also will increase the amount of money available by doubling their “green sticker” registration fees to $50 every other year instead of $25. The program also receives some funding from the gas tax. Fines for illegal riding are set at $50 for the first offense, plus court-imposed costs to repair any damage.

Despite the changes, the commission could still sway with the political wind depending on who is governor, at least on policy decisions if not funding.

The seven-member panel will be expanded to nine and Schwarzenegger, a Republican with some environmental credentials, might be able to appoint a five-member majority once some terms expire. Currently, a governor only appoints three.

“This is a power grab,” said Karen Schambach of the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

She criticized the measure as a giveaway to off-roaders angry that preservation is getting its due.

“This was the first commission in the program's history that really cared about balancing environmental protection with user opportunity,” Schambach said.

Norton leaving office with controversial rule

Interior secretary fuels debate over roads on public land in West

Associated Press

DENVER - A new federal policy addressing one of the toughest issues in the West — who owns thousands of miles of roads crisscrossing public land — is producing warnings of more conflicts, lawsuits, and trails in national parks and wilderness morphing into motorways.

Interior Secretary Gale Norton, who's leaving office in a week, has directed her agencies to apply a 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling nationwide when deciding whether local governments or individuals have valid claims to roadways across federal land.

The policy announced Wednesday is intended to help agencies manage existing nonfederal roads on federal land, said Dan Domenico, special assistant to the Interior Department's solicitor.

Norton has said the decision by the Denver-based appeals court made clear that only courts can determine ownership, using laws in individual states as a guide. But federal agencies can develop an administrative process to analyze claims.

"It's still going to be contentious on roads where there's disagreement on historic and current use (of roads)," Domenico said.

Critics see that as an understatement.

"It's a prescription for more litigation. It will not result in a final solution," said Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., who has offered legislation since 2003 to come up with a uniform process for settling disputes.

Udall also questioned whether the guidelines are an end-run around Congress. He said he is concerned about new roads being carved in federally protected lands.

National parks not exempted

One of the biggest problems with the policy is that it doesn't exempt national parks, monuments and wildlife refuges and wilderness areas, environmentalists say. Heidi McIntosh, a lawyer with the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, said there is fear that off-road-vehicle groups will push to turn paths and trails in protected areas into roadways.

Domenico said there's "no principled way under the law" to exempt those lands.
"But that doesn't mean we're opening up parks to a lot of roads that aren't there now," he said.

That's the catch, said Mary Wells, executive director of the California Wilderness Coalition. She wondered if the new policy will change the status of the hundreds of miles of roads and paths that San Bernardino County claims as county roads in the Mojave National Preserve.

"Many of the roads they call roads are old Jeep tracks and literally goat trails," Wells said.

At the core of the conflict is an 1866 mining law, known as Revised Statute 2477, that allowed local governments to claim rights of way across federal land. When the law was repealed in 1976, Congress allowed states and counties to keep using traditional highways.

Left unresolved were disagreements over whether thousands of miles of dirt paths and trails qualify as roads. In 1997, Congress, wrangling over changes to the law, imposed a moratorium on approval of claims.

Policy has backers, critics

That left places like Moffat County in northwestern Colorado with no recourse when federal agencies closed roads traveled since the 1880s by ranchers and others, said Jeff Comstock, the county's natural resources director.

"We've been accused of wanting to turn cow paths into super interstates across pristine national park land," Comstock said. "That's not true. We live, work and play on those lands."

Moffat and other counties in the region with pending claims were heartened when Norton and former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt signed an agreement in 2003 that settled thousands of road claims in that state. Environmentalists criticized it as a back-room deal that would allow dirt trails to be paved in pristine areas.

The new guidelines supersede that agreement. They apply to Interior Department agencies, which include the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and manage 507 million acres, or one out of every five acres nationwide.

Critics are again assailing Norton for a policy they feel was drafted behind closed doors.

"This is being done without the public input that we were promised we would have," said Dorothea Farris, a commissioner with Colorado's Pitkin County.

What happens on public land is important to the county, which includes Aspen, because it's in the middle of three federal wilderness areas and the White River National Forest, Farris said.

The same tenet applies to Moffat County, much of it federal land, Comstock said. Until now, he said, the federal government has refused to recognize roads that are crucial to ranchers moving cattle from summer to winter pasture or to hunters accessing public land.

"It finally opens the door so we can talk about these," Comstock said.

AJ Chamberlain, who lives in the mountains west of Boulder, said she feels the door has been slammed shut on resolving the problems of private property owners facing rights of way claims across their yards or driveways. She said the guidelines do nothing to help her and property owners across the West.

"From Wyoming to Alaska to California, it's happening," Chamberlain said. "If I had known this, I never would have bought mountain property."