Public Lands

Public Lands

• Historic View of U.S. Land Disposal

• Development of Agencies managing Federal Lands

• Development of Policies Governing Key Federal Agencies

• Alpine Lakes as a case Study

• Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Forest Plan as a case study

Key Questions to Consider Regarding Management of Public Lands

1. Whose interests should be considered? How? Local residents versus distant interested parties?

2. How to consider present values versus those of future generations?

3. Should “people” be polled? Or just volunteer their input?

4. Should planning be bottoms up or tops down?

Key Questions to Consider Regarding Management of Public Lands, continued

5. Should Congress step in even more, or has it gone too far in prescribing management?

6. Should lands be managed for cost-effectiveness or should non-economic values be the primary basis for management (e.g. an ecosystem perspective)?

7. How should irreversabilties be considered?

8? What other values should be considered?

Public Domain Relative to U.S. Land Area Historically

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

U.S. Public Domain Current PublicLands

Mil

lion

s of

Acr

es

Division of the Public Domain

0 20000 40000 60000 80000

Washington

Oregon

Idaho

Appropriated by1923

Reserved by1923

"Vacant" Area in1923

Thousands of Acres

Division of the Public Domain, Percentage by State

0% 50% 100%Washington

Oregon

Idaho

Appropriated by1923

Reserved by 1923

"Vacant" Area in1923

“Vacant” today is mostlymanaged by BLM

Appropriation of the Public Domain, to 1923Thousands of Acres

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000

Private Claims Prior to U.S. Dominion

Donation Land Act of 1850

Grants to States

Grants to Railroad Corporations

Homestead Act

Timber Culture Act

Desert Land Act

Timber and Stone Act

Other

Cash Sales

Washington

Oregon

Idaho

U.S. Public Land Withdrawls

Land Under Federal Management –p. 54

Non-federalLands

An Historic Perspective

• Closing of the Frontier

• The Teddy Roosevelt Era of Conservation

• Creation of the “National Systems:” USFS and NPS

• More modern concepts:–Wilderness– National Recreation Areas– National Scenic Areas– National Wild and Scenic Rivers

U.S. Forest Service: Key Management Directives

• Organic Act of 1897

• Multiple Use and Sustained Yield Act of 1960

• Resources Planning Act of 1974

• National Forest Timber Management Act of 1976

• Wilderness Act of 1964

• Clinton’s “Rule Making “ for Roadless Areas

Revising The Forest Planning Process

The Current Process to Revise Forest Planning

National Parks

• Separate mandate for each Park

• General concept: Visitor use AND preserve the values related to classification.

• Conflicts in management concept

• Current attempts by NPS to balance management goals w/visitor use

BLM Lands - Largely Idaho and Oregon

• Grazing by cattle & sheep a common use

• Timber found on some of these lands (Mostly O&C lands)

• Strong recreational values

• An agency reluctant to embrace Wilderness, ecosystem approaches.

The Wilderness Act of 1964• The result of pressures from environmentalists from

the 1930’s.

• Fought bitterly by agencies and industries

• Ordered reviews by federal agencies of lands suitable for Wilderness

• RARE I and RARE II

• Failure of Executive Branch Agencies to Propose Wilderness

• Omnibus Wilderness Bills for WA & OR; not yet for ID or MT

Source: Wilderness Society

Old Growth ForestIn Olympic NationalForest

1940

1988

Road Network Olympic National Forest 1988

Source: Wilderness Society

The Fight Over Old Growth Timberlands (Outside Wilderness)

• Environmental Group Anger over failure of USFS (primarily) to classify lands leads to suits resulting in the Dwyer decision

• The Clinton Forest Summit

• The Clinton Forest Plan• And Clinton’s “rule” for National Forest roadless land…lands not classified but still in the “roadless” inventory - Bush & other attempts to undo this “rule.” Reaffirmed by Obama Administration

Senator Dan Evanssponsored additionsto the Wilderness

system in Washingtonand Oregon in 1984

The Alpine Lakeswas the subject

of separate legislation in

1976

Tan – roadlessareas where roadscan be constructed

Brown – roadlessareas where roadscannot be built

Black – areasrecommendedfor Wildernessin Forest Plans

2014 Proposal by Rep. Kilmer

& Senator Murray

Note Small Share of BLM Wilderness vs. the size of its land-base

BLM’s December 2010 Announcement to inventory BLM Wildlands

An Example of The PoliticalTussle in The CongressAnd PublicLandManagement

The Clintonadministration’sattempt toresolve managementconflicts inNorthwestNational Forests

-Partially implemented-Still controversial

Public Lands: Generalized Allowable Uses

National Forests National ParksBLM Wilderness AreasDispersed Recreation x x x xDeveloped Recreation x x xTimber Harvest x xMining x xGrazing x x xWildlife Management x x x xHunting x x xWatershed Management x x xDams x xRoad Construction x x xTrail Construction x x x x

NationalParks

Special Cases: Where Congressional Mandates Break Down

• Two Directions: Judicial and Legislative

• Examples: (Results of Congressional Action)– Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area– Hells Canyon National Recreation Area with a

Wilderness Core– Alpine Lakes Management Act– North Cascades Complex: Ross Lake and Lake Chelan National Recreation Areas– Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area

Court Actions have usually led to Executive Actions or Legislation

Symbols of Changing Values towards Timber

• Federal Lands Programs

• State Lands Programs

• Regulations on Private Timberland Management & Purchases of Private Timberlands

• Ecosystem Concerns (Salmon; Interior Ecosystem Programs)

Conflicts over logging by USFS led to this study.

Study Team appointedby President KennedyIn 1963.

Composed of:Secretary of Interior,Secretary of Agriculture,Their Representatives,And a Fifth Member, Who EssentiallyArbitrated the Study.

It can be a symbol of changes in values towards timber.

From April 2010 DNR Strategic Plan

Changing Values Toward StateTrust Lands

Jointly fundedby State Legislature

andNorthwest Ecosystem

Alliance

Efforts to Acquire and Manage Private and Public Timberlands

February 2004 proposalBy CascadeLand ConservancyTo protect 600,000Acres of Cascade Foothills Timberland

Endorsed by CountyExecutives in earlyMarch 2004

The Shift from Extraction to Consumption

With spendingon goods andservices inrural communitiesto supportconsumptionof timberedlandscapes,especiallyon publiclands.

Followingslides are fromthis recent USFSdocument

Recreation Trends

Source: USFS RPA Assessment

Timber Production Trends

Capability to process trees by d.b.h. (diameter breast height)

Dramatic Change in growth vs. removals

Alaska: The Division of the Public Domain

• Statehood is recent: 1959

• History is very different in division of the public domain. Very little passed into private ownership prior (or after statehood)

• 375 million acres of land (only 150 thousand intensively settled); only 7 million considered good land for settlement by SCS

• Federal dominion over this land challenged at statehood

Alaska: History Left the North More or Less Alone

• Only 20 years separate 1846 boundary settlement in the NW w/ “Sewards folly.”• Same laws were applicable to Alaska in the 19th century for appropriation of Public Domain• Gold Rush of 1897• Fisheries development• World War II strategic development• Federal stewardship of Native groups• Statehood in 1959• Oil discoveries in the North

Congress Provides a Framework to Carve Up Alaska

• Statehood Act of 1959: Grants 104 million of 375 million acres to the state

• Constraints on state selection:

– “national interest” lands (80 million acres)

– native corporations (44 million acres)

• Massive opposition from Alaskan Congressmen to Constraints

• A ten-year timetable for classification

• Election of Ronald Reagan (opposed to classifications) pushes President Carter to create by presidential proclamation federal national interest lands.

• New Congress ratifies (mostly) Carter designations.

Alpine Lakes Case Study

• Our backyard Wilderness and Recreational Area

• Illustrates in ’s the complexities and contested nature of public lands.

• The bottom line from this case study:

The Fight Is Never Over• This case study paints a picture that is created, and recreated all over the Northwest, and the Nation.

Multiple Interests in Shaping Public Land Management

• Environmental organizations• Industry groups

– Timber– Grazing– Mining– Other types of extractive uses

• Native Americans• State and local governments

“Environmental” Organizations

• They range from national groups (like the Sierra Club) to those focused on a specific area (like Midfork)

• They span a wide variety of interests, ranging from motorized recreation to wildlife protection (Audubon) to skiers to fishermen to hikers to …. You name it!

Examples of locally focused environmental organizations

• Alpine Lakes Protection Society

• North Cascades Conservation Council

• Olympic Park Associates

• Midfork

• Mountains to Sound Greenway

• Friends of Lincoln Park

The Key Role of the North Cascades Study Report of 1965

• Appointed by President Kennedy in 1963

• Assessed federal lands from Mt. Rainier to Canada, and made 20 recommendations for management change.

• Key were: establishment of North Cascades National Park, the Pasayten Wilderness, expanding Glacier Peak Wilderness, Wilderness in the Alpine Lakes, Mt. Aix Wilderness, and Wild and Scenic River Status for the Skagit River.

• In 1967 Congress passed legislation creating North Cascades National Park, expanding some Wilderness Areas (Glacier Peak), adding land to Olympic National Park, but omitted the Alpine Lakes in this legislation.

National ParkService:

Two National Parks,National RecreationArea, and ExpansionOf Mt. Rainier N.P.

Wilderness in Alpine LakesAnd Pasayten

U.S. ForestService:

No transfer of Jurisdiction toNational Park

Service

Wilderness in North Cascades,Alpine Lakes, Mt. Aix, and

Recreation Areas

Study TeamRecommendations:

North CascadesNational Park

Wilderness in Pasayten,

Alpine Lakes,Mt. Aix.

Mt. BakerRecreation

Area

(Most passed byCongress in 1967)

Alpine Lakes Chronology

1946 USFS Designates Alpine Lakes Limited Area

1963-65 North Cascades Study Team

1967 Alpine Lakes Protection Society Established

1968 Central Washington Cascades Study Team Established

1971-1973 USFS Alpine Lakes Land Use Study

1975-1976 Congressional Hearings on Legislation:

HR 3977 Environmental Group Proposal

HR 3978 Industry Proposal

HR 7792 USFS Proposal

July 12, 1976: President Ford Signs Legislation

1977-1981: USFS Prepares Management Plan

Environmental Groups

Timber Industry &Motorized Recreation

Parcels Disputed Between USFS & Environmental Organizations – 1976 Alpine Lakes Wilderness Battle

Red- High Timber ProductivityOrange – Medium Timber ProductivityYellow – Low Timber ProductivityGreen – Below threshold for timberland as commercial (20 cubic feet

per year per acre biomass accumulation)

Blue: Lands outside USFS

Alpine Lakes Chronology, cont.

1981-today: dealing with the checkerboard land ownership pattern

- The Cascade Checkerboard project

1991 - Wilderness overuse

1980’s to present: funding of recreation in the wake of timber sale revenue declines

1980’s to now: how to acquire inholdings

? Sustenance of interest by groups with an ax to grind re: these lands - timber, recreation, now residential development, relation to growth management, other environmental issues?

Recent Issues• Middle Fork Road Reconstruction• Kittitas County subdivisions & forest land rezoning• Pratt Trail• Wilderness Additions (Reichert & Murray)• ORV programs• New Forest Plans• Road and trail damage due to storms• Funding problems for USFS• Acquisition of Teanaway lands by the Trust for Public

Lands• Yakima Basin & Icicle Creek Water Development

Proposals

CascadeCheckerboardProject:Purchasing theNorthern PacificRailroad LandGrant

At a price infinitelyabove what theypaid for it!

Representative Reichert & Delbene’s 2013 Wilderness Proposal – Passed in 2014

Alpine Lakes Chronology, Cont.

The Fight is Never OverThe fight from the perspectives of all the multiple users of public lands.

The fight from the agency perspective

The fight from the perspectives of elected representatives.

The fight from new and unpredictable interests.

Coping in the new millennium?

Next slides

• Old slides left in for reference purposes

DNR’s Current Reassessment of Timber Harvest Levels

396 536 662 411 817 781 Harvest volume byalternative

DNR’s Current Reassessment of Timber Harvest Levels