By Mike Gervais
Register Staff

4-11-2009

Zero-hour is approaching for Forest Supervisor Jim Upchurch to make what is bound to be an unpopular decision that will create a designated system of routes and roads on the Inyo National Forest and the Board of Supervisors is still looking for information and answers from the agency.
The agenda for Tuesday’s Coordination meeting between the Forest Service and board included a discussion about the definition of “Roadless Areas” and any alternatives Upchurch may have in mind to prevent excluding the Roadless Areas from the Travel Management Plan.

Ultimately, Upchurch said, the Roadless Areas are protected by federal law, and he has no authority to overrule the federal designation.

“Essentially we have inventoried Roadless Areas that were drawn in the 1970s” for the TMP, Upchurch said, adding that any roads within the boundaries of the designated areas cannot be added to any of the six TMP alternatives being considered for approval.
“Roadless Areas have been contended all across the country and because of that contentiousness there was a Roadless Rule passed in 1991, that lasted until President Bush was in office,” Upchurch said.
Bush amended the Roadless Rule, creating his own version, and signed it into law.
“Both have been to court and the latest ruling says Roadless Areas in California are in Forest Service jurisdiction,” Upchurch said.
Addressing the TMP, Upchurch said routes located in the Roadless Areas are not roads. “The Roadless Rule does not allow us to add them to the system,” he said.
But Third District Supervisor and Board Chair Beverly Brown had a hard time understanding how anyone could have designated parts of the Inyo National Forest as “Roadless” if routes already existed there before the 1970s.
“I don’t understand how you can say this is a Roadless Area when there have been roads there since the 1800s,” she said.
Upchurch noted that the “intent” was to “preserve the character” of the areas that received the Roadless designation. “We asked ourselves ‘How could we try to put something in the system that makes sense?’” Upchurch said, noting that the Forest Service has gone to great lengths to designate Motorized Roadless Trails, “which are allowed in Roadless Areas.”
That move will allow for some access to the Roadless Areas once the TMP is complete, though it will be limited.
But the board said that excluding the Roadless Areas from the TMP will negatively impact recreation in those areas, which means the TMP conflicts with the county’s General Plan.
“I think what we have here compliments the county General Plan,” Upchurch said. “If it is in contradiction with the county General Plan, it’s only because there is no legal grounds to include routes that are in Roadless Areas. Those are the legal boundaries that we have to abide by.”
From there the discussion reverted to arguments about the definition of coordination. The board claims it is the Forest Service’s duty to keep the county involved in TMP matters, even outside of the coordination meetings.
Upchurch said that county staff has worked with the Forest Service regularly since the board began coordinating on the TMP.
The board members and Forest Supervisor Upchurch were visibly frustrated Tuesday as they argued the finer points and their expectations for the coordination process that mandates that the Forest Service work with the county on the TMP and other projects.
The supervisors, who invoked coordination, said they were disappointed and didn’t feel that Upchurch wanted to coordinate because he has not been forthcoming with information or invited county staff to help Forest Service staff review and address comments on the TMP Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
In return, Upchurch said he is frustrated that he has attended several coordination meetings, answered the board’s questions and taken its comments into consideration, but continues to be accused of failing to coordinate.
“What we’re here to do is to let you know what’s going on,” Upchurch told the board. “I’m trying to inform you of the rules, regulations and laws.”
But the board said it has a different definition for coordination, and would like to see the Forest Service actively seeking help and counsel from the county as it moves forward.
“We could get the same interaction in a letter,” said Second District Supervisor Susan Cash. “I’m not feeling like this is coordination, there is no meshing of the minds.”
The board said that it had hoped the Forest Service would invite the board to review the comments it received on the DEIS, but it hadn’t.
Taking that as a request from the board, Upchurch said he would review the National Environmental Policy Act and Federal Advisory Committee Act, which sets guidelines for the Forest Service project, to see if county staff can help review comments.
“I’m not trying to give you the impression that we’re trying to stonewall you,” Upchurch said. “We have had your staff come in and help us. Whatever I can legally do, if the county can be involved in the comments, I have to make sure that is legal.”