-
Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.
CA/NV Road Closure need to act by 2/17
- Thread starter karstic
- Start date
hologram
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- UTAH BABY! take it how you want.
My fax is sent!
From the Mammoth Times
News Briefs
By Wendilyn Grasseschi
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:41 AM PST
Times Staff Writer
Inyo Superintendents Weigh in on Furnace Creek
A tiny creek in the White Mountains and a short and primitive road up that creek have become a lightning rod for both public lands access rights activists and environmentalists over the past several months, with several meetings about the fate of the road attended by more than a hundred people at a time. Last week, the Inyo Board of Supervisors, who have no jurisdiction over the road as it is not within Inyo County, entered the fray and voted to endorse a management option that would allow part of the contested road to remain intact.
The creek called Furnace Creek (no connection to the identically named Furnace Creek in Death Valley), is located in on the remote east side of the already remote White Mountain range. A short road runs up the narrow creek drainage, accessible only by four-wheel drive vehicles, or non-motorized means. The two federal agencies responsible for its management, the Inyo National Forest and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) struggle to find a long-term solution for the contested primitive road that runs though the creek.
Last week, according to an audience member who asked to remain anonymous, the Inyo County Board of Supervisors quite probably ensured that the temperature over the issue got hotter, when they endorsed, 4-0, one of the federal agencies alternatives that allows the road to remain partially intact. This alternative, called Alternative 4 in the BLM and USFS joint draft Environmental Assessment (EA), would allow part of the current primitive road to remain intact, with a 50 inch wide trail allowed in the remainder of the route. Second District Supervisor Ted Williams abstained from the vote, saying that he believed that it would only make the already contentious issue worse by taking an official stand, particularly because the creek begins in Nevada and ends up in Mono County and is therefore, not an Inyo County issue. Mono County Supervisors have agreed not to take a stand on the issue.
This past week, the comment period for the Environmental Assessment (EA) on the two agencies combined road maintenance/closure proposals closed, but only after the two agencies were inundated with hundreds and hundreds of letters from both sides of the debate. Both agencies have indicated that they expect litigation no matter what their final decision, and that no decision will be forthcoming soon.
One of the only perennial creeks in the White Mountain range, the tiny creek became a battleground for the two opposing groups when the Forest Service decided the road should be closed last year. That statement drew much opposition from the factions of the Eastside community that are adamant that there are already enough areas in the Eastern Sierra closed to public vehicular access. The proposal to close the road drew just as much support from those that believe the tiny creek should be allowed to revert back to the coyotes, mountain lions and birds that still depend upon it, and over time, the issue has become even more polarized, with both sides apparently seeing the tiny creek and the short road as something of a symbolic loss or gain. The origins of the just over two mile primitive, four-wheel drive road part way up it - which splashes through the riparian vegetation before disintegrating - remain unknown, but it is believed that the road was originally (and informally) put in by a lease holder for grazing access.
Prior to the closing of the comment period, several meetings on the issue, including one in Bishop in early February that drew about 200 people, were held on the issue and the mood of the participants was not always amicable.
News Briefs
By Wendilyn Grasseschi
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 11:41 AM PST
Times Staff Writer
Inyo Superintendents Weigh in on Furnace Creek
A tiny creek in the White Mountains and a short and primitive road up that creek have become a lightning rod for both public lands access rights activists and environmentalists over the past several months, with several meetings about the fate of the road attended by more than a hundred people at a time. Last week, the Inyo Board of Supervisors, who have no jurisdiction over the road as it is not within Inyo County, entered the fray and voted to endorse a management option that would allow part of the contested road to remain intact.
The creek called Furnace Creek (no connection to the identically named Furnace Creek in Death Valley), is located in on the remote east side of the already remote White Mountain range. A short road runs up the narrow creek drainage, accessible only by four-wheel drive vehicles, or non-motorized means. The two federal agencies responsible for its management, the Inyo National Forest and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) struggle to find a long-term solution for the contested primitive road that runs though the creek.
Last week, according to an audience member who asked to remain anonymous, the Inyo County Board of Supervisors quite probably ensured that the temperature over the issue got hotter, when they endorsed, 4-0, one of the federal agencies alternatives that allows the road to remain partially intact. This alternative, called Alternative 4 in the BLM and USFS joint draft Environmental Assessment (EA), would allow part of the current primitive road to remain intact, with a 50 inch wide trail allowed in the remainder of the route. Second District Supervisor Ted Williams abstained from the vote, saying that he believed that it would only make the already contentious issue worse by taking an official stand, particularly because the creek begins in Nevada and ends up in Mono County and is therefore, not an Inyo County issue. Mono County Supervisors have agreed not to take a stand on the issue.
This past week, the comment period for the Environmental Assessment (EA) on the two agencies combined road maintenance/closure proposals closed, but only after the two agencies were inundated with hundreds and hundreds of letters from both sides of the debate. Both agencies have indicated that they expect litigation no matter what their final decision, and that no decision will be forthcoming soon.
One of the only perennial creeks in the White Mountain range, the tiny creek became a battleground for the two opposing groups when the Forest Service decided the road should be closed last year. That statement drew much opposition from the factions of the Eastside community that are adamant that there are already enough areas in the Eastern Sierra closed to public vehicular access. The proposal to close the road drew just as much support from those that believe the tiny creek should be allowed to revert back to the coyotes, mountain lions and birds that still depend upon it, and over time, the issue has become even more polarized, with both sides apparently seeing the tiny creek and the short road as something of a symbolic loss or gain. The origins of the just over two mile primitive, four-wheel drive road part way up it - which splashes through the riparian vegetation before disintegrating - remain unknown, but it is believed that the road was originally (and informally) put in by a lease holder for grazing access.
Prior to the closing of the comment period, several meetings on the issue, including one in Bishop in early February that drew about 200 people, were held on the issue and the mood of the participants was not always amicable.
Similar threads
