| Coalition for Public Accesse-ALERT (January 31, 2012) |
Dear CPA Subscriber,
It is important that you submit concerns that you have or support the concerns that CPA has raised. Your comments can be sent to the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners:
glynn@co.douglas.nv.us; lbonner@co.douglas.nv.us; nmcdermid@co.douglas.nv.us; molson@co.douglas.nv.us; djohnson@co.douglas.nv.us - Lee Bonner, Chairman; Nancy McDermid, Vice Chair; Doug Johnson; Greg Lynn; Michael Olson
CPA is very concerned that the wilderness related FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) on Douglas County's website are incorrect, incomplete and are misleading to the public. CPA recently submitted a letter to the Douglas County Commissioners, the body of that letter follows.
Dear [Commissioners]:
As you know CPA is opposed to the creation of the Burbank Canyons Wilderness Area as proposed by your Conservation Bill. We are committed to our belief that special interest groups should not unnecessarily restrict the use of public lands or create a condition that could lead to future restrictions. In this case, the creation of a wilderness area, to meet your special interests, is an action we will continue to oppose because we believe it will clearly result in immediate additional restrictions and set the stage for additional future restrictions around the Burbank Canyons WSA. We also oppose the wilderness designation because the BLM has reviewed this WSA four times (1985, 1991, 2001, and 2008) and each time concluded that the WSA was not suitable for wilderness designation. While it is clear that you wish to substitute your judgment for that of the BLM, you have not provided any evidence of how you evaluated conditions on the ground that drove you to a conclusion that is inconsistent with that of the BLM.
CPA has engaged with you over the past twenty eight (28) months believing that you would be responsive to our issues and concerns. While we believe that you have listened, it is unfortunate you have decided to dismiss our concerns by publishing wilderness related FAQs that range from completely wrong to incomplete and misleading to the public.
FAQs 19 (Will this land bill designate any wilderness?) & 22 (Will designation of the Burbank Canyons further restrict access?) – “Given that the Burbank Canyons have been managed as wilderness for the last 30 years…” “The Burbank Canyons Wilderness Study Area has been managed as wilderness for the last 31 years.” These statements completely disregard the facts and appear an attempt to justify the creation of wilderness by misrepresentation. The BLM is required to manage this, and all, WSAs using BLM Manual 8550 – Interim Management Policy And Guidelines For Lands Under Wilderness Review. This manual section clearly states that the management objective is to ensure non-impairment of any wilderness qualities that existed when the area was designated a WSA. This is a completely different standard than is used to manage wilderness areas. Wilderness areas are part of a National Wilderness Preservation System (NWPS) with specific policies, procedures and actions. WSA’s are specifically NOT included in the NWPS. WSA’s are included in the National Landscape Conservation System with a distinctly different set of policies, procedures and actions. The recent fuels reduction and firefighting activities in the Burbank Canyons WSA were carried out with a lesser degree of regulation than would have been necessary in a wilderness. While it is not determined what might have happen, it is clear that the mechanized methods employed last year to reduce fuels in the WSA and the immediate use of mechanized methods to fight the wildfire last October resulted in no loss of homes. Any additional procedural requirements that would have been imposed if it were a wilderness area may very well have resulted in the loss of homes.
FAQs 22 (Will designation of the Burbank Canyons further restrict access?) & 25 (Will designation of the Burbank Canyons further restrict access?) – “Rather, designation of this area as wilderness presents an opportunity to adjust the boundaries and release portions of the currently existing Wilderness Study Area.” “None, unless user groups engage in the process to release portions of the Wilderness Study Area.” Exactly what portions of the WSA are you proposing to release through your Conservation Bill? By reading the FAQs it would seem that you are not proposing any portion be released. And further to the point, CPA originally requested that you reduce the size of your recommendation to be 5,000 acres centered within the north and south WSA boundaries and at the top of the mountain. Our suggestion was never given serious study and now you have the incredulous audacity to suggest that there exists an opportunity for CPA (a user group) to engage in the process to adjust the boundaries and release portions of the WSA? You say that your Conservation Bill provides an opportunity but your actions have resulted in being unwilling to, in any meaningful way, alter the boundaries or returning any portion of the WSA back to multiple use designation.
FAQ 31 (Does the wilderness designation prevent all forms of motorized travel?) – “The law permits motorized travel where necessary to ensure the health and safety of people…” According to the BLM, “The Wilderness Act generally prohibits the use of motor vehicles in wilderness. The law contains special provisions for motor vehicle use when required in emergencies or as necessary for the administration of the area.” “Bicycles and other forms of mechanical transport are not allowed in Wilderness Areas, since they are prohibited by the Wilderness Act.” The only reference to the potentially allowable use for the health and safety of people is for search and rescue. “Search and rescue occurs within wilderness, normally without on-the-ground vehicles. Vehicles may be used when required in an emergency.” CPA is unable to find any reference in BLM documentation that could be interpreted as you have stated in the FAQ and, in fact, finds documentation to the exact opposite.
The other wilderness related FAQs, while having an element of factual basis in law, really don’t address the reality of how the BLM or Forest Service responds to White House and Congressional prerogatives, the interpretation and application of law by the courts and the influence that various environmental groups have on the management of public lands. CPA believes you would not argue that motorized recreation, grazing, mining and other commercial pursuits on public lands have been reduced over the past several years and perhaps more significantly reduced in wilderness areas. Yet, your FAQs state that “nothing will change” which is not an accurate representation of the potential for real changes. One of the directive requirements for the BLM is to evaluate and consider the cumulative effects of allowable uses and to adjust their Resource Management Plan accordingly. It would be imprudent to conclude that nothing will change. CPA believes it is improper to make erroneous and incomplete statements to the public as a method to garner support for the Conservation Bill or to create a sense of protection or safety (“nothing will change”). CPA requests that you stop the process and provide the public a balanced assessment of the impacts of this bill and answers that are factually correct.
Senator Reid’s office states that a Lands Bill needs to have “balance” and it is true that many Lands Bills designate wilderness areas as an offset to the lands that are removed from the public lands system. Neither Senators Reid or Heller, or Representative Amodei say that they are telling you that wilderness is required. CPA believes that Senator Reid’s requirement to have “balance” doesn’t necessarily mean wilderness. A strong argument can be made that much of the land was already identified for disposal and the BLM doesn’t create wilderness as a byproduct of disposal actions. A strong argument can be made that this Conservation Bill calls for the transfer or disposal of non-environmentally sensitive public lands to ensure preservation of environmentally sensitive lands, albeit private lands. A strong argument can be made that this Conservation Bill transfers public lands to the BIA or Washoe Tribe to preserve cultural and otherwise tribal sensitive lands. A strong argument can be made that the projects that result from this Conservation Bill such as flood attenuation and enhanced recreational trails, trailheads and staging areas are all about conservation and the protection of the environment.
All these arguments can be packaged such that the need for a wilderness area is unnecessary. That is, a balance of objectives exists without the creation of a wilderness. This would completely mitigate the concerns surrounding the creation of wilderness, in both the near-term and long-term. CPA requests you take a “timeout” and work with the congressional delegation to reassess the perceived need to create a wilderness area to achieve “balance”. The significant positive environmental benefits the public receives from the proposed transfer and disposal of public lands should be sufficient to demonstrate that there is something for everyone – a win-win Conservation Bill.
<End of letter>
The Douglas County Board of County Commissioners will be addressing their Conservation Bill proposal on Thursday, February 2, 2012. Public comment will be heard on the item, but no action will be taken. Public comment will also be taken at their meeting on Thursday, February 16, 2012, meeting at which time the Board may consider taking action. Meeting place and time can be found at http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us/agendas.asp
Again, it is important that you submit concerns that you have or support the concerns that CPA has raised. Your comments can be sent to the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners:
glynn@co.douglas.nv.us; lbonner@co.douglas.nv.us; nmcdermid@co.douglas.nv.us; molson@co.douglas.nv.us; djohnson@co.douglas.nv.us - Lee Bonner, Chairman; Nancy McDermid, Vice Chair; Doug Johnson; Greg Lynn; Michael Olson
Thank you,
Board of Directors, Coalition for Public Access