2.1 millon acres gone - Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009

[Bill Beers]

...Zoom into the area between LaPine and Silver Lake...

In my own state and I didn't even know it!:

Now these are the logging roads I'm used to: Coast Range, about 5 miles from where I grew up:

-Bill

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

Thanks, Bill and Paul. Boy that's ugly. I'm trying to remember where I've driven that gave me the same impression.

 

[Haggis]

So the value for our tax dollars remains questionable at best. I haven't yet found any for a logged forest in completely flat terrain, but I wonder if those might not be closer to the grid I described.

Though having no experience with how things are done out west, I've had lots of experience building logging roads on public lands here in the east. Our company has built many miles of road for the PA Game Commission and the US Forest Service. Those roads were built on parcels that we won the bids to the harvesting rights and all of these roads were always built at our expense. It has always been the responsibility of the timber harvester to fund, build, maintain (while in use) and then reclaim and reseed the edges and berms of the roads for game food plots when the harvest is over. I'd be surprised that taxpayers are paying for the roads to be built, but different territory may lead to different approaches, though I'm doubtful. I've never seen a grid patterned logging road layout in any of my travels up and down the east coast, even in a planted pine plantations

Another thing to consider about greatly increasing the amount of public land is the effect of the loss of taxable lands. Paying no taxes, these goverment held lands provide no support to the local commuities that have goverment held acreage in their districts. As example Forest County here in NW PA has had a hard time meeting the ever increasing educational requirements of the state and federal goverment as the majority of it's acreage is held by goverment lands such as the PA Game Commisssion and the Alleghany National Forest. This gives them a vary small property tax pool to draw from and makes funding all the necessary programs difficult.

 

[paulj]

In the west there has been little, if any, increase in public land area since the individual states were formed. I'm pretty sure that any land that has been designated as Wilderness by Congress was already Federal land. Probably the last significant increase in Federal landownership occurred during WWII.

There have been some land swaps. As an incentive to build, trans continental railroad companies were given a checkerboard arrangement of land along prospective routes. That's resulted in a mix of public and private landownership in some forested areas. There have been attempts to reduce this fragmentation, though some complain that private landowners have usually gotten the better part of the deal (trading logged land for unlogged). There is also a large checkerboard pattern of landownership on the NM side of the Navajo Reservation.

The states were also given some land. In Washington it was something like one block in every 36. The use of that land was supposed to help fund schools. If you see reference to DNR land, that's what they are talking about. Again there have been swaps to consolidate holdings.

In states like Washington, the Forest Service has built and maintains are large network of roads. Loggers may build some spurs, but not the main roads.

In southern Oregon a large amount of land that was given to the Oregon and California RR ended up back in Federal hands, administered by BLM. See the Wiki article.

There is some sort of system where by the Federal government pays counties with large areas of government land to offset the loss of tax base. Some Oregon counties (e.g. Josephine, Currie) have come to depend heavily on these payments, to the extent of keeping their property tax rates artificially low. A couple of years ago these counties faced serious financial problems when congressmen from other states balked at continuing these programs. I haven't kept up on that issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_and_California_Railroad

http://www.blm.gov/or/rac/ctypaypayments.php

 

[paulj]

According to the Oregon BLM web site, one of the new Wilderness areas is a Badlands area east of Bend. It turns out they have a brochure on a Badlands Wilderness Study Area
http://www.blm.gov/or/districts/prineville/files/pdo_badlands_brochure_03_01_2007.pdf
The brochure says a study area is an temporary designation, pending decision by Congress whether to confirm the designation, or release it.

This is part of 1995 BLM plan that designates Soda Mtn as a W study area. It is now a Wilderness.
http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/wopr/exrmp/medford/wildernessstudy.html

The press releases for Eastern Sierra and Owyhee areas (that I found earlier) made mention of releasing various wilderness study areas.

That means that some, maybe most of the newly designated Wilderness had been under administrative motorized-travel restrictions for some time already. The Omnibus bill just completed the process, while releasing other parcels.

 

[Jonathan Hanson]

That means that some, maybe most of the newly designated Wilderness had been under administrative motorized-travel restrictions for some time already. The Omnibus bill just completed the process, while releasing other parcels.

I haven't yet found any of the individual wilderness bills included in the omnibus package that were drafted specifically for that package. All I have read about had been under consideration for some time, casting doubt on the idea that they were somehow suddenly ramrodded into existence. Certainly a significant majority of the areas had been identified as potential wilderness well before the package was assembled.

With that said, I'll repeat that I don't like having failed bills tacked onto other, bigger bills to gain passage. The omnibus package only failed by two votes, I think. Surely they could have tried again on its own merits. I'm happy it passed, but those who were against it have a valid point when they complain about its gestation.

 

[teotwaki]

.........snip--------That means that some, maybe most of the newly designated Wilderness had been under administrative motorized-travel restrictions for some time already. The Omnibus bill just completed the process, while releasing other parcels.

Timeline; Death Valley was proclaimed a national monument by President Hoover on February 11, 1933. Passage of the Desert Protection Act of October 31, 1994, Death Valley grew by 1,200,000 acres, designated a national park. Today Death Valley National Park is made up of 3,336,000 acres and contains more than 3,000,000 acres of wilderness.

Slowly boiling the frog rather than microwaving (overnight grabs) is the typical technique for removing access. There are routes in the Inyos bordering Death Valley that were really cool mining roads to 4wheel on. Then the border of Death Valley was moved outward. Basically the roads were gone within 10 or 15 years. I still have all of my old BLM maps from before 1994 showing what used to be open for travel.

The OPLMA may have "just completed the process" but it really means 2.1 million acres (of access) is gone as there are no more avenues to utilize to reopen any of the roads.

 

[paulj]

. I still have all of my old BLM maps from before 1994 showing what used to be open for travel.

The Death Valley National Park Wilderness at 3,100,000 acres is the largest named area of wilderness in the continental United States and includes 93% of the Park. These wilderness lands are parceled into numerous smaller units by an extensive network of highways and primitive dirt roads.

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkId=297&projectId=23311

There are 785 miles of paved, high-clearance, and 4X4 roads in the park, and they are open to all licensed vehicles.

Elsewhere they break it down:

There are more than 300 miles of paved roads, 300 miles of improved dirt roads and several hundred miles of unmaintained 4x4 roads in Death Valley National Park.

More on Death Valley drives
http://www.desertusa.com/dv/du_dvptodo.html#Anchor back

This is what affects me more - in nearly all National Parks, and even California State Parks (my emphasis):

Can I bring my dog to the park?​

Yes, but we don't recommend it. It may sound like a good idea to take your pet to a national park but there is little you can do with them while you are here. Pets must always by on a leash or confined. They may not be left unattended in the campgrounds. They must remain on roads or in developed areas, so no hiking with them on trails or cross country. The good news is you can walk them (on leash, of course) on backcountry roads. Interesting ones to try are Twenty Mule Team Canyon Road and Titus Canyon Road into the narrows.​

 

[FLYFISHEXPERT]

Idaho Sen Crapo was the sponsor of the Owyhee portion of the Omnibus.

http://crapo.senate.gov/issues/owyhee_initiative.cfm

There is a link to S.2833 which he introduced in the Seanate a year ago.

http://www.owyheeinitiative.org/ is also a good source of information on this area
The list of supporters is here
http://www.owyheeinitiative.org/supporters.htm
http://www.owyheeinitiative.org/agreement.htm
Search this for 'cherrystem' to see what is intended regarding wilderness roads.


One area of conflict in this county was travel across private land. Some public land access routes cross private land, and people traveling off-road on public land often cross over onto private land.

Although everything is hard to swallow, I applaud everybody's work in making a sensible decision with regard to the Owyhee Initiative. I am sure the same problems were faced when the Frank Church and Sellway wilderness areas were designated, but after floating through the Frank Church this past fall, I can tell you I am glad it is protected. Yes it is harder to get people in and out, and yes some of the rules could only have come from somebody sitting in DC, but we still fished and hunted and had a great time.

I reviewed the map of the areas (http://crapo.senate.gov/images/issues/oi/id_OI_vicinity_map_032508.pdf) it shows the main Owyhee Backcountry Byway skirting the edges of the wilderness areas!!!

 

[teotwaki]

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkId=297&projectId=23311
Elsewhere they break it down:

More on Death Valley drives
http://www.desertusa.com/dv/du_dvptodo.html#Anchor back

This is what affects me more - in nearly all National Parks, and even California State Parks (my emphasis):

The comment period is actaully open about 2 more months and will be important for input on preventing the closure of more roads. There does not seem to be a solid accounting of how many miles were there before the park took over the land. I do know that along the the Inyos between Cerro Gordo and the Burgess Mine that a lot of the side roads are closed.

Comment Period: 03/26/2009 - 05/31/2009

Topic Questions Instructions:
We prefer comments via the electronic public comment form on the NPS Planning, Environment and Public Comment System at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/deva, or by email to DEVAplanning@nps.gov. You may also submit comments in writing to: Superintendent Death Valley NP - Wilderness Plan, P.O. Box 579, Death Valley, CA 92328.

Bummer on the dog angle. A well trained pooch is quite a joy and probably inflicts less damage than a lot of the human visitors.

 

[teotwaki]

------SNIP------------

To Teotwaki: I'm sorry you think I've somehow misconstrued your stance; however, every single reference of yours I can go back and find is harshly critical of even the current acreage of wilderness in the country. You continuously use phrases such as "that HUGE amount," the "tiny, tiny, TINY" percentage of users, the "where are the bills to reduce that . . ." If you think the current acreage of wilderness in the country is wonderful, and would fight to preserve it, why haven't you said so? Have I missed something? Even this grudging statement:


. . . contains the factual error regarding the "tiny minority." See results of poll, already posted. Many people in our country are willing to support wilderness for its true value, even if they don't go there. Did I mention how highly that speaks of them?------snip------

Yes, I really am convinced that you are misconstruing my stance but I do thank you for the apology. Even again though you have taken things out of context to further skew interpretation.

Look above when you supposedly quoted me as "where are the bills to reduce that . . ." (post # what?) as if I was asking for bills to reduce wilderness. I have pointed out that nobody is offering a bill to reduce wilderness but we now have passed a bill that will reduce access via vehicles, mtn bikes, etc. The correct quote from me that you seemed to have mis-phrased is "There is no bill before Congress to diminish that huge number, is there?" (Post#91) speaking to the fact that no one is trying to reduce the 5 to 6% of designated wilderness. Mentioning how often I am in the backcountry seems to have no merit with you unless I have some sort of Earth First! tatoo on my plumber's crack. :Wow1:

Okay, here goes: "tiny-tiny" defined mathematically just for you

According to the latest NPS published figures (NPS Public Use Statistics Office) for 2008 there were a total of 274,852,949 recreation "visits" of which 1,797,912 were backcountry overnighters. Please don't nitpick about what "visits" means, just come up with an NPS definition that would affect the math.

0.65%

So an incredibly small number of people out of those who actually go to a National Park are the only ones who get back into the wilderness. Note that I say nothing about reducing wilderness, just that when it comes to people seeing wilderness then it is really about physical access. As you increase wilderness you do not automatically increase the number of visitors. The restrictions of wilderness do reduce access for those who go further than paved roads.

As for your oft-cited "majority" of Americans Zogby poll.....

The current population of the US (US Census Bureau today) 04/07/09 at 20:41 GMT (EST+5) is 306,169,421 of which the voting age population is (Wiki) 230,917,360 and somewhere around 169 million were actually registered and supposedly 58% voted, so leave it at 98 million. Now Zogby couches their number in the phrase "likely voters" so we'll divide 1,039 by 98 million to see how many Americans actually might side with your arguments according to the number that you embrace.

0.00106%

I think that if you cannot come up with actual numbers that contradict the 0.65% you'll need to give up on the tiny-tiny bashing as you are the one building a tortured case when claiming that a sample size of 0.00106% is somehow "..a majority of the American people.." (post#98). At least the number of people who the NPS says got into the backcountry are folks who don't sit around on the phone talking to Zogby.

My apologies if I slipped any decimal points. The basic numbers are there for re-computation. I'm gonna go ride my mountain bike on the trail I helped to rebuild.

 

[paulj]

According to the latest NPS published figures (NPS Public Use Statistics Office) for 2008 there were a total of 274,852,949 recreation "visits" of which 1,797,912 were backcountry overnighters....

So an incredibly small number of people out of those who actually go to a National Park are the only ones who get back into the wilderness...

Of that 274 M visits, only 61M are in NParks (as opposed to parkways, memorials, rec areas, etc)

How would these figures change if the park service changed the backcountry access rules? For one thing, how much backcountry area is closed to wheeled transport purely on administrative grounds, as opposed to area which does not have any roads?

Looking at the 2007 visitor statistics I see that the top ranked parks are:
Blue Ridge PKWY (6%) - that is a road, no backcountry
Golden Gate NRA (5%) - that is an urban rec area. Are bikes allowed there?
Great Smoky Mtns (3%) - an old park
...
Lake Mead NRA (3%) - again a rec area; access rules are much looser
...
Grand Canyon NP (1.6%) - are there good backcountry camping areas with closed roads?
...
Yosemite NP (1.3%) - again, an old park; have any roads been closed? Most visitors never leave the Valley
...
Yellowstone NP (1.1%) - most visitors drive the paved loops, stopping to look at the verious geysers and animals. Winter access via snowmobile has been a major bone of contention. But aren't most of the snow mobile trips, day trips out of W Yellowstone?
Olympic NP (1%) - again an old one; there are a limited number of access roads; none go through the park; I'm not aware of any being closed in the last couple of decades.
Rocky Mtn NP - again an old established one; most visitors stick to the paved ridge road, and day trips out of Estes.

Zion, Gand Teton, Acadia, Glacier - none of these have been known for 4x4 or backcountry driving

Joshua Tree, ranked 56th, is the first that I seen in the list where park growth may have restricted backcountry driving.

Death Valley, rank 90, 0.26%, 700,000 visitors. Allowing more backcountry driving here would not change the statistics very much.

Backcountry camping has had its ups and downs. At a peak around 1980, a low around 1990, back up in the late 1990s, lower now (though not as low as 1990). I doubt if those numbers can be tied to changes in wilderness designation.

 

[nwoods]

I do know that along the the Inyos between Cerro Gordo and the Burgess Mine that a lot of the side roads are closed.

Yes, there are a lot of closed roads in SoCal, and that, more than anything else, is what prompted me to make my post title that Jonathan was offended by. I do apologize for offending him, and anyone else who feels that the road should be closed. I just simply do not agree.

I feel as if these areas are being stolen from me and my children. I am not going to hike across Saline Valley, Death Valley, nor all the way across Joshua Tree either. The only way I was able to fully immerse myself into these areas was by vehicle. I did no harm. The roads were there, they've been there for generations, and my family was able to partake in the beauty of the area in a practical manner befitting us urbanites. Now ever more of these beautiful, remote sights and landmarks are being erased from many people's lives who will not otherwise enjoy them. I am all for wilderness. Preserve what we have, including the roads. Keep the lands open for recreation, not closed. No fires? fine. No human waste? fine, No new roads? great! I'm up for all that, but don't erase what's been there for over 100 years.

In the past two years, this trail is now a memory:

So is this one:

This trail is on the closure list:

 

[silverscout]

This trail is on the closure list:

Gorgeous.

 

[paulj]

Sounds like your real beef is with the California Desert Protection Act of 1994, not with Wilderness legislation in general. Apart from the issue of backroads access, how have these areas fared in the past 15 years? Some articles (from a fews ago) mention ongoing development pressures around the edges of these the major units setup by this act. Any substance to that? or is the only point of contention the 4x4 trails?