Okay folks, from the same people that proposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge so we can have a few years of slightly lower gas prices... drum roll please... They're back with a revised proposal for funding rural schools in 2007. It is still a bad idea--selling off National Forest Land to fund a rural schools program for only 4 more years. Okay, then where do the schools get more money in 4 years? Maybe at that point we should sell the Statue of Liberty? It is a pretty desperate way to do business--selling public lands to pay the bills. If it is a program worthy of funding, then permanent funding should be secured--we shouldn't be playing games with our kids or our public lands.
It is very interesting to see what was dropped and what was added since the 2006 proposal (Click here to read my essay on the 2006 proposal.). Five National Forests in California were taken completely off the list: Cleveland, San Bernardino, Angeles, Los Padres, and Inyo. All Southern California forests with heavy recreation pressure and large nearby populations. And those forests make up over half of the ones I scrutinized in last year's analysis--I'd like to think the managers read my critique, had second thoughts, and pulled them from the list. One can only guess.
In hopes that my 2006 essay prompted this effective action, I've decided to give scrutiny to some of the Northern California forests that I left out and that are still in the sell-off proposal. Maybe they will read this and realize that it is bad news for their forests too.
Sequoia National Forest
The 2007 proposal is identical to last year's. We
still want to sell off creeks, mountains, springs, and endangered ecosystems.
Sierra National Forest
They made two minor changes. They reduced the acreage of the parcel for sale
surrounding the Rancheria Fire Station from 160 acres to 109 acres. And they
added a parcel of land that is not shown on the National Forest Map. Salt Spring is
still for sale, but this year they
added a new parcel in that same square mile, one not shown as public land on the
National Forest Map. The existence of this parcel in public ownership provides
even MORE habitat connectivity between Salt Spring and the nearby National
Forest. Who knows, maybe we even own the missing parcel in between and they
aren't telling us? Instead of
selling this new, hidden parcel off as well, they should be keeping both and
trying to acquire the parcel in the middle. Once Tioga Pass opens, I'm going to
drive over to the west side of Yosemite and take a look around... this spring intrigues me. I'll post
photos here.
Stanislaus National Forest
I didn't check all of the parcels in the list, but there are 3 less than last
year. Which ones were removed? Was it the 3 miles of the left bank of the North
Fork of the Mokelumne River, across from land that the Eldorado National Forest
wants to keep on the other side? The National Forest boundary runs down the
middle of the river. Maybe the Supervisor of the Eldorado NF called up the
Stanislaus NF Sup. and said, "Hey, what are you selling off the other side of
the river for?" Was it the South Fork of the Mokelumne River? Was it Dutch
Creek? Was it Hunter Creek? Was it the Middle Fork of the Mokelumne River? Was
it Big Creek? Well, that is more than 3 parcels, so we definitely aren't saving
them all--if any. I hate selling off creeks to pay the bills. Just like last
year, the Stanislaus National Forest is still the poster child of why this is a
really bad idea.
Eldorado National Forest
In 2007 they pulled 5 parcels from the sell-off list and changed two. Thankfully
the Truckee Marsh was pulled off the list--there are some sane bureaucrats in
the Forest Service! Lake Tahoe thanks you! One of the changed parcels was
reducing the acreage of a parcel for sale on Farnham Ridge from 240 acres to 80
acres. The other change appears to be fixing a 2006 typo in the legal
description of a parcel. I wonder if somebody fixes a typo after the law
passes... will they get to sell the correct parcel or do they have to sell the
wrong one? Now just wait until you see the typos I found in the Lassen area!
Okay, that is it for the forests I looked at last year. The following forests I took a look at this year for the first time. Too bad it is too late to make comments.
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest
Three parcels are for sale in California. Two 40+ acre parcels near Verdi Peak
in Truckee Canyon. And 80 acres just as you cross the state line north of Reno,
4 miles west of the highway on the back side of a hill in the Bald Mountain
Range. Your government is so broke that selling 170 acres of steep, remote land
is really going to help it out. Maybe we should have a bake sale too...
Plumas National Forest
I have to say, in addition to Stanislaus NF being a poster child of why this is
a bad idea, Plumas NF is also. The 92 parcels identified for sale in the Plumas
National Forest amounts to a very aggressive land disposal program. I didn't
look at all the parcels, but ended up looking at most after finding some
shocking things. The main idea seems to be selling off as much National Forest
Land as possible where the Feather River enters Lake Oroville Reservoir. One of
the main purposes of the National Forest System is to ensure a steady supply of
clean water. The Plumas NF seems to have forgotten that they are upstream of one
of the largest reservoirs in the state.
In addition to Oroville tributaries near the Feather Falls Scenic Area (Visitors, while visiting the scenic area please don't look in THAT direction!), we want to sell the Berry Creek watershed, areas near Challenge, tributaries to Sly Creek Reservoir (contiguous with the rest of the Forest), and a parcel within the Feather River Wild and Scenic Corridor! Yes, T22N,R13E,S10SWNW is actually within the Wild and Scenic River Corridor! Areas within WSR boundaries are not eligible for this program! Oops--the Bush Administration made a mistake! There is a parcel near Quincy adjacent to the WSR corridor, and one near Portola across the highway from the WSR corridor.
We don't just want to sell off a Wild and Scenic River, we also have on the chopping block nearby big chunks of forest contiguous with the rest of the National Forest near Portola--and 320 acres in a State Game Refuge! I guess the Smith Peak State Game Refuge might not be as much of a game refuge anymore. There is also land on either side of Portola that would seem like nice open space for residents of the small town. But if they want to sell it off so their town can grow, this isn't necessarily the best process to lump it into. There are legitimate processes that could be pursued for sensible land exchanges--and those processes could be improved as a completely separate program.
And finally, before we leave the beautiful Plumas National Forest, home of the Quincy Library Group, let us say goodbye to Moonlight Creek east of Lake Almanor, a parcel totally contiguous with the rest of the National Forest. It is hard to swallow the line that these "isolated" parcels are hard to manage.
Lassen National Forest
We don't actually leave the Plumas, because the two forests overlap a bit in
jurisdiction. The Plumas starts selling off the Oroville watershed, and the
Lassen finishes the job, between the two of them eliminating all National Forest
land from the big bend upstream of Oroville.
The 58 parcels we don't want anymore in the Lassen National Forest include lands surrounding Crain Memorial Park, giving new meaning to the word "memorial". We can also say goodbye to the shoreline of Paradise Lake (reservoir). And we really don't want the Paradise Lake Picnic Area to be public anymore. No more free lunches!
As long as we are selling recreation sites, lets get rid of Polk Springs Campground, just outside the Ishi Wilderness. And Soda Springs Campground too. Maybe a private company can extract more bucks out of those campers than the federal government could. We'll put a stop to those freeloaders! Make 'em pay!
Okay, now for the typos. Both typos are just one township to the south of where they should be. So thanks to one mistake (T28N,R12E,S35,S2SE), we are selling 75 acres in the middle of the forest near Honey Lake! Yay, more problematic inholdings! And the other one (T30N,R10E,S35,E2SE) is 75 acres that as far as I can tell should be south of Susanville near the City Dump and Peter Lassen's Grave.
Klamath National Forest
The Klamath is proposing to dispose of land as liberally as the Plumas, with 95
parcels on the chopping block, many of them entire square-mile sections of land
at a time. It is heartbreaking to think this could happen to our public lands.
And if it can happen here, it can happen in your backyard too.
Where the Salmon Mountains meet the Marble Mountains, less than 1 mile from the Russian Wilderness (and contiguous to Forest land adjoining it), we want to dispose of land we (and plants and wildlife) really don't need anymore. Let's also get rid of Collins Spring and Hutton Creek in the Siskiyou Mountains.
Just northwest of Mount Shasta, we are getting rid of a lot of land--one parcel even contains a cave in a lava tube area. I want that one. Juniper Flat is for sale, which would make it no longer an important boundary for the private irrigated lands adjacent to it. And almost an entire square mile containing Whitney Creek, which drains the Whitney Glacier on Mt. Shasta, is for sale just as it crosses under Hwy 97 north of Weed. I wouldn't want to have a building there when Mt. Shasta erupts. We also want to sell entire square-mile sections in the Grass Lake area.
We also are getting rid of public lands adjoining the Deadwood Conservation Camp (what will be left to conserve?), and areas on Baldy Mountain, Piney Mountain, and Russel Peak near Yreka.
In the Little Shasta River drainage, we want to keep Bull Meadow and Fox Flat but sell off the surrounding parcels that connect it to the rest of the National Forest. That makes a lot of sense. We also want to sell the parcel where Cold Creek meets Bogus Creek in Black Rock Canyon. Big Spring too. These are big, 640-acre chunks alternating every opposite square mile, totally changing the makeup of land ownership and use in the area. While we are at it, let's get rid of everything just west of Henley.
Perhaps most disturbing is what is proposed for Butte Valley. We want to sell Ikes Creek where it enters the Butte Valley Wildlife Area (the wildlife shouldn't miss it). In the nearby Butte Valley National Grassland (the only NG I know of in California), we are selling one square mile but keeping the one next to it. Maybe we'll save that one and sell it when we need a few extra bucks to pay for national defense. This grassland is surrounded by irrigated agriculture in the Klamath Basin, near the Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge, and the last thing we need is more water extraction to irrigate newly private land. Keeping the land public would be a smart thing in this area.
Of course, we don't want to let the public keep their view of all this newly developed land, so we are selling McGavin Peak, Bear Wallow Spring, and Panther Canyon, all of which overlook the Butte Valley Wildlife Area and Butte Valley National Grassland.
Last, but not least, we should exclude the public forever from accessing the currently public lands around Secret Spring and along Rock Creek, and along the Klamath Rim, all overlooking the Klamath River as it crosses from Oregon into California.
Some of the parcels the Forest Service wants to sell may be appropriate for disposal or trade. As an example, isolated parcels near Eagle Lake appear to have some merit. But this is not about consolidating holdings or ease of management--this is about selling land to raise money. Granted, they are proposing that half the funds go toward National Forest purposes such as land acquisition. But already about 84,000 acres is added to the National Forest System each year. There are better ways to do things than a national program to sell off land with little or no scrutiny, public input, or environmental analysis.
The USFS isn't taking comments anymore (they got over 100,000 by March 2006). At this point only advisory committees have input. There will be no environmental analysis, no EA, no EIS. The only avenue left for public input is the political process through our elected representatives in congress. Click on the proposal to find out more and here for an informative Q&A.
We shouldn't be surprised. Bush comes from a state that has only 1.3% public land. He has no public lands heritage, unlike California (45% public) or Nevada (83% public).
If each American paid $1 per year, this program would be fully funded and we wouldn't need to sell off our public lands. I'd be willing to pay that. I'd much rather have my taxes pay for rural schools than an expensive, unnecessary war on the other side of the world.
HOME
Copyright © 1998-2008
Gregory J. Reis
