Sierra Wave: Local News for Mammoth Lakes, Bishop, and the Eastern Sierra

Mammoth Council Endorses Wilderness Bill

Written by Tom Woods

Thursday, 07 August 2008

In what was likely the most calm Wilderness discussion yet in the Eastern Sierra, Bob Haueter with Congressman Buck McKeon’s Office briefed the Mammoth Town Council Wednesday night on recent changes to the Boxer-McKeon Bill.

Stressing how local input influenced this Wilderness bill, Haueter explained the various changes that have been made since the bill was introduced to the Senate natural resources committee.

Roads have been cherry stemmed, Wilderness areas have been taken out near Mammoth and at McGee Mountain, and new areas in the White and Table Mountain have been added.

Hauter says that 40 amendments and changes have been made so far. Some smaller changes affect many popular forms of recreation in the Eastern Sierra. The Wilderness boundary was moved back in Pine Creek and Rock Creek due to rock climber concerns. A boundary was changed near Piute Crags and North Lake for the Pack Station there. Mountain bike trails were accommodated, snowmobiles were taken into consideration near the Sherwin Lakes, and hang glider take off access roads were left out as well.

With a topic that usually leaves partisans on both sides seeing red, Bob Haueter and other appeared surprised when no one from the audience got up to speak on this divisive issue.

The Council did decide to put a letter of support on their consent agenda at their next meeting. Perhaps tired of the hours of mudslinging that usually accompany wilderness discussions, this is the same tactic used by the Mono Supervisors. By putting the letter of support on the consent agenda, it can be voted on by the board or council without any public discussion.

Comments (3) add comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Christine Speed said:

Dear Mono County Board of Supervisors,

Before you vote your "consent" for the Wilderness Bill, please read sections 7 and 8---"the other purposes" of the bill.

Section 7(f) establishes a "Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail Crossing Area." What this means is that snowmobiles will be allowed to motor up and over the Sonora Pass and cross the Pacific Crest Trail. The problem is that the Forest Service, will be unable to prevent them from taking a right or a left turn onto the protected Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail. If they head North, they will immediately enter the Carson-Iceberg Wilderness. If they head South, they will immediately enter the Emigrant Wilderness. Section 7(f), if passed, will then directly violate the original Wilderness Act of 1964 prohibiting the use of any motorized or mechanical equipment in any area designated as Wilderness.

To mitigate this obvious violation, HR 6156/ S3069 tasks the Forest Service in 7(d) to make sure such trespassing, not to mention degradation of these lands, does not occur. This is pure disingenuousness. At the cold, high reaches of 9,000 feet in the winter, it will be impossible for the Forest Service to adequately monitor "The Crossing Area."

7d also requires the Forest Service to assure proper sanitation. Asking the Forest Service to empty latrines at that altitude is basically asking them to remove human waste by dog sled. To provide the amenities snowmobilers will need and to adequately monitor their activity and safety will require the Forest Service to install a significant amount of human oriented recreational infrastructure on Wilderness lands.

For example, to prevent snowmobiles from flying over huge granite boulders on the East side of the pass and breaking their necks, the Forest Service will have to create 'safety trail markers' all the way down the Eastern slope. But even so, that will not prevent deaths. Because snow mobilers will not keep to the marked hairpin turns. They will fly straight down, straight over the boulders. More infrastructure will be needed for search and rescue to haul the bodies and broken snow mobiles away.

Along the Eastern side of the pass, there are scads of summer camp grounds all with gorgeous trails leading into the Emigrant Wilderness that the snow mobiles will also be able to access. The policing of so much land in the dead of winter is simply unrealistic. So the Wilderness will be breached on the Eastern slopes as well.

And what about the wild animals? When the winter snows arrive, the animals return to reclaim the lands they left to humans during the summer. That pattern will be destroyed by the noise and fumes of the snowmobiles.

Despite the cynical mitigation provisions of HR 6156/ S3069, the true effect of Section 7 will be to allow motorized vehicles access to three designated Wilderness areas and to force the Forest Service to install recreation area infrastructure in these pristine Wilderness lands order to accommodate the snow mobiles and provide for their safety--all in direct contradiction of the Wilderness Act of 1964

Section 8 reserves 3,200 acres for snowmobile use in the same Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. But it doesn't specify where these acres are going to be. It just calls the reserved lands "Area X." This provision is also exceedingly threatening from an environmental point of view. What if the only lands that can be identified after the legislation is passed are right next to the Hoover Wilderness and there is no buffer zone? Then, the snowmobiles would be able to access the Hoover Wilderness as well. Such an open-ended legal commitment is imprudent and inferior lawmaking.

For a bill that claims to care about the wilderness, Hr 6156/ S3069 has an appalling way of dealing with acres in the Eastern Sierra as if they were generic units. By allowing snowmobiles to access three Wilderness areas in direct violation of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and then forcing the Forest Service to build infrastructure in the Wilderness to accommodate them, this bill makes a mockery of the original enabling wilderness legislation.

Please do not "consent" to this bill unless sections 7 and 8 are deleted in their entirety. They are narrow, election-driven special interest provisions that harm our true national interest in preserving wild lands. Because of sections 7 and 8, our wild lands are actually at greater risk of destruction and degradation with this legislation than without it.

Sincerely,

Christine Speed, Independence, CA

August 07, 2008

Jay Wheaton said:

People will always test laws and boundaries. I think you are forgetting the ground and boulders are covered in thick layers of snow that cushions everything it crosses. I have hiked in many areas that have been crossed by snowmobiles and I have yet to find damage to the land. The argument that the forest service will need to patrol due to sanitation is unwarranted, how many cross country skiers use the wild as their bathroom? Some of us are disabled and the only way to enjoy the sierras is by motorized travel why take that away. Should we keep everyone out it seems like the only way to really promote wilderness.

August 08, 2008

David Dills said:

Let's not let commentor Christine Speed be disingenuous.... just as she calls Sections 7 & 8 "narrow.... special interest driven provisions", her own views can simply be called the same. It is unfortunate that she paints ALL snowmobilers as lawbreakers, which of course they are not. And before anyone makes any assumptions, I'm too poor to snowmobile. My boots get me from point A to point B.

August 10, 2008

Write comment

Show/Hide comment form

[ Back ]

All News Items Bureaucrat Beat Local Weather 7 Day Forecast TV-33 Schedule Obituaries