Frequently Asked Questions - H.R. 5149 – The Eastern Sierra Rural Heritage and Economic Enhancement Act

1. What does the bill do?
   
   The bill is intended to implement the locally negotiated Mono County agreement by adding approximately 40,000 acres of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest to the National Wilderness Preservation System.  Specifically, the bill designates a 39,680 acre addition to the existing Hoover Wilderness area, as well as a 640 acre addition to the existing Emigrant Wilderness area.  This ensures these areas are protected from future development and motorized access.  [NOTE: Pursuant to the Mono County agreement, the boundaries of these wilderness additions purposely exclude approximately 11,000 acres of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, including the Leavitt Bowl, so that motorized winter use (i.e. snowmobiles) may be allowed.  The Forest Service has already modified the Toiyabe Land Management Plan to allow snowmobile use in the Leavitt Bowl.]
   
   The bill also fulfills the recommendation of the Inyo County Board of Supervisors by adding approximately 24 miles of the Amargosa River, which is managed by the Bureau of Land Management (managed out of the Barstow field office), to the National Wild and Scenic River System.
   
   
2. What was the local public process used to draft the bill?
   
   In 2005 the Mono County Board of Supervisors facilitated an exhaustive 8 month long public process designed to resolve long-standing winter use conflicts between motorized and non-motorized recreationists on Forest Service lands within the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.  These Forest Service lands have been proposed by the agency for addition to the National Wilderness System and are known as the Proposed Hoover Wilderness Addition (West).
   
   Leaders on the Board convened a local stakeholders' meeting consisting of representatives from local conservation and off-road vehicle groups.  In subsequent months they solicited additional broad public input and helped facilitate public meetings, presentations and an official public hearing.
   
   During this process, individual Supervisors gave numerous presentations to local Chambers of Commerce, snowmobile clubs, conservation organizations, private citizens and others.  They received hundreds of calls and letters from local citizens and in August, 2005, the Board unanimously endorsed a proposal (now replicated in Mr. McKeon’s legislative proposal) that reflects this input and resolves, in a balanced way, this longstanding dispute.
   
   The public process for developing the Amargosa Wild and Scenic River proposal was spearheaded by community members in Inyo County.  Public workshops were held before the Inyo County Board of Supervisors in 2004 and 2006.  The Inyo County Board voted in support of the proposal both in 2004 and again in February, 2006.  Supervisor Bill Postmus of San Bernardino County has indicated his support for the portion of the proposed Amargosa Wild and Scenic River that lies within his District.
   
   
3. Is there local support for these designations?
   
   There is strong and diverse support for both designations.   The Mono and Inyo County Boards of Supervisors and San Bernardino County Supervisor Bill Postmus support the portions of the proposal within their respective jurisdictions.  Mr. McKeon's office has received hundreds of letters from elected and appointed leaders, large and small business owners and citizens throughout the two counties and the District in support of the designations, including: the majority of the Mammoth Town Council; Alpers Owens River Ranch; China Ranch; and nearly 100 other local businesses. 
   
   
4. What counties are affected by the legislation?  Do they support the legislation? 
   
   The Hoover and Emigrant Wilderness Additions are entirely within Mono County.  The Mono County Board of Supervisors unanimously supported the designations.
   
   The Amargosa Wild and Scenic River is approximately 60% in Inyo County and 40% in San Bernardino County.  The Inyo County Board of Supervisors supported, by a vote of 4-1, the designation.  San Bernardino County Supervisor Bill Postmus supports the designation; the San Bernardino County portion of the river is entirely in his Supervisorial District.
   
   
5. How do these proposals differ from the official agency recommendations?
   
   The Hoover (and Emigrant) Wilderness Addition in the proposed legislation has been reduced in size from the original agency recommendation, in order to accommodate snowmobiling in several areas (including the Leavitt Bowl).
   
   The BLM's Amargosa River eligibility determination has been modified (i.e. reduced) to address concerns raised by the Inyo County Road Department and California Department of Transportation, and to avoid two parcels of private property in the river corridor.
   
   
6. What are the economic impacts of the proposed legislation?
   
   Designation of the Hoover and Emigrant Wilderness Additions will resolve a long-standing dispute over the fate of the Hoover Wilderness Addition and will allow Mono County to promote the area's diverse recreational opportunities in both winter and summer.  The Agreement adopted by Mono County supports the promotion of approximately 11,000 acres of prime snowmobiling terrain, which will provide a much-needed boost to the winter economy of northern Mono County.  A portion of the agency-recommended area will become official wilderness, which will enhance the summer recreational opportunities available in northern Mono County. 
   
   Designation of the Amargosa Wild and Scenic River will greatly enhance the tourism-based economy of southeastern Inyo County and northern San Bernardino County.
   
   
7. How are issues other than wilderness being addressed? 
   
   The locally negotiated agreement in Mono County calls for approximately 40,000 acres of Forest Service land to be designated wilderness and for approximately 11,000 acres of previously closed Forest Service land, including the Leavitt Bowl, to be opened to snowmobile use.  The Forest Service has already updated the Humboldt-Toiyabe Land Management Plan to allow snowmobiling in the Leavitt Bowl, which represents the majority of the acreage intended to be opened for snowmobile use.  Mr. McKeon has prepared report language that will accompany the bill that directs the Forest Service to allow snowmobile use in the agreed upon 11,000 acres and manage these lands in a manner that is consistent with the Mono County Board of Supervisors’ resolution.  The legislation also authorizes the appropriation of $2 million to support management and enforcement in the new agreed-upon area of snowmobile use. 
   
   
8. How might existing management of these areas change with a wilderness designation?
   
   There would be no change since the entire area is currently managed as wilderness and has been managed as such since the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan was adopted in 1986.  Standard wilderness regulations are currently in place, and thus management of the area will not change with a formal wilderness designation.
   
   A forest order is in place prohibiting motorized and mechanized use in the proposed wilderness per standard wilderness regulations.  Motorized and mechanized use is also already prohibited along the Pacific Crest Trail (See National Trails System Act, 1968).
   
   
9. Will grazing be affected?
   
   No. There are two active grazing allotments that lie partially within the proposed Hoover Wilderness Addition.  Management for these allotments would remain unaffected by this bill, as they have been managed as "wilderness" allotments since the Forest Service recommended the area for wilderness in 1986.  Both allotments are managed according to the Congressional Wilderness Grazing Guidelines; these guidelines are incorporated into the bill (See Section 4(h)).  A third allotment has been vacant for many years and the agency plans to retire the allotment at some point (Bob Vaught, Forest Supervisor, pers. comment).  The bill also includes language that reiterates that new wilderness will not affect existing grazing.  Relevant bill language: Grazing of livestock and the maintenance of existing facilities related to grazing in wilderness areas designated by this Act, where established before the date of enactment of this Act, shall be permitted to continue.
   
   
10. Will horse-packing be affected?
    
    No. The pack station at Leavitt Meadows has been managed to conform to wilderness regulations since 1986, per the direction contained in the Forest Plan.  The local packer supports the wilderness designation.
    
    
11. Does the Forest Service have any plans to do fuels reduction in the proposed Wilderness Additions? 
    
    No. The Forest Service has no plans to do fuels reduction in the Hoover Wilderness Addition (Bob Vaught, H-T Forest Supervisor, 3/28/06).  According to the Forest Supervisor "this area is high elevation, and it doesn't have the fuels issues that lower elevations do.  I am not real concerned about the fuels issue in that area." (3/28/06).  In addition, as in the Wilderness Act of 1964, the bill includes language that specifies that fuels reduction will be allowed in these wilderness areas.  Relevant bill language: The Secretary may take such measures in the wilderness areas designated by this Act as are necessary for the control and prevention of fire, insects, and diseases.
    
    
12. Is there any private land in the proposed wilderness areas? 
    
    No. There are no private parcels within the proposed wilderness area. 
    
    
13. Are there any structures within the proposed wilderness? 
    
    Yes. There is one structure, the historic Piute Ranger Cabin which lies eleven miles inside the Hoover Wilderness Addition.  There is special language in the bill to assure the protection of this historic structure.  Relevant bill language: the designation shall not preclude operation and maintenance of the existing historic Piute Cabin.
    
    
14. Are there any private parcels in or adjacent to the proposed wilderness areas whose access would be affected?
    
    No. There are no private parcels within or adjacent to the proposed wilderness. Neither of the two private parcels that lie within a mile of the proposal is accessed via the proposed wilderness areas.
    
    
15. Will the training activities of the U.S. Marine Corps be affected?
    
    No.  The U.S. Marine Corps utilizes the Leavitt Bowl area in winter.  This area is not being recommended for wilderness.  The bill contains standard language recognizing the Marines' use of adjacent lands for training purposes. Relevant bill language: the designation is not intended to restrict the ongoing activities of the adjacent United States Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center.
    
    
16. Would Wild and Scenic River designation for the Amargosa River affect any private property?
    
    No.  The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act applies only to publicly-owned lands.  BLM had included the Wild and Scenic overlay on two parcels of private property along the river corridor; the bill has modified the BLM's recommendation to eliminate the overlay so that there is no confusion.
    
    
17. Would Wild and Scenic River designation for the Amargosa River affect existing access?
    
    No.  There is an established 4 wheel drive trail in the recreational section of the River that runs along the river corridor between Sperry Wash and Dumont Dunes.  Access to this area will not be affected. 
    
    
18. Would Wild and Scenic River designation for the Amargosa River affect existing water rights?
    
    This is unlikely to have any effect on existing water rights.  There is a federal reserved water right that would be granted with Wild and Scenic River designation; however, it is a junior water right and it is not automatically granted.  The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act specifically states that water rights fall under the jurisdiction of the respective states.  As a result, the BLM would have to apply for a water right under California state regulations before the Wild and Scenic designation could lead to new rights.  No federal agency in California has ever pursued such a claim as the result of a Wild and Scenic designation. 
    
    
19. Are any Wilderness Study Areas being released?
    
    No.  Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) only exist on BLM lands and the wilderness agreement focused on wilderness designation and snowmobile use on Forest Service lands (i.e. there are no WSAs to be released). The wilderness boundaries, as designated by this bill, purposefully exclude Forest Service lands that had previously been proposed by the Forest Service for wilderness designation.  These areas were excluded so that snowmobiling could occur.
    
    There are no BLM lands being considered for either designation as wilderness or for release in either the Mono or Inyo local agreements or in Mr. McKeon’s proposed legislation.