The expectation by Los Padres Forest Council of the redirect of Forest Watch, is that they will continue to oppose the Lake Piru landswap and seek withdrawal or defeat of the proposed land swap/OHVroute/wilderness extension bill

Back to home page
The next item on our agenda is the proposed Wilderness Bill. The first red light for us was why? Why has a Congressman who has a 0, that is zero,  record on environmental issues proposed hundreds of thousands of acres of new wilderness within the Los Padres Forest when he has signed on to a bill which will release tens of millions of acres of proposed wilderness throughout the United States to development. Something doesn't smell right.

A little research brings us to the proposed Lake Piru landswap. For at least a decade Congressman Elton Gallegly, (R) of Ventura and rural Santa Barbara County has attempted to swap land held by the Forest Service for land owned by the local water district. They have been opposed by Forest Watch   and the Sierra Club.

United Water Conservation Board wants the Forest Service land, as without federal land along the Lake, their environmental review for any project is much less, more freedom, less cost, worse for the environment. So, Congressman Gallegly wondered if the Los Padres Forest Watch could be bought, well, it turns out it can be. The proposed wilderness extensions are in the land swap bill. The acquiescence of Forest Watch to the land swap was bought for a few "shekels of silver".

"They were against it, before they were for it".

The Bill which was introduced on February 29 to the House of Representatives, contains approximately 63,576 acres of new wilderness lands of no special qualities and as I understand roughly 30 miles of existing trail. The bill states that heavy equipment used may not be restricted in case of fire.  There were ac couple of surprises in the bill as presented to Congress, The bill contains roughly 70 miles of new OHV routes which will consist of opening certain forest roads that have been gated and locked and only used for administrative uses for decades.  These roads dissect or border existing wilderness lands. There is also some miles of new 50” wide OHV trail. 50 inches wide allows for AYV/quad use. The bill creates two designated OHV operating areas, that at 65,833 acres is larger than the wilderness extensions.

 One of the roads is the currently gated and locked Mckinley Santa Cruz route which extends from Cachuma Saddle all the way to Santa Cruz Guard Station.  This road borders the San Rafael Wilderness on the ridge line, and is a popular hiking and horseman route. The sound of vehicles, motorcycles etc will penetrate deeply into the wilderness seriously negatively impacting wilderness qualities.

Forest Watch is now faced with a hydra of their own making. By assisting Congressman Gallegly in drafting the wilderness side of this three part bill while pretending the other parts did not exist, they are now faced with that hydra. Do they continue to support the bill and accept the new OHV trails and the land swap which they have opposed for so many years, or do they oppose the bill, the land swap, the OHV routes and the wilderness extensions?

The OHV routes and operating areas which are actually larger than the sum of the proposed wilderness extensions present an interesting conundrum. No mention of these routes being part of the bill has been made by anyone I am aware of, and that includes the Gallegly staffers I have spoken with.  Was Congressman Gallegly in discussions with OHV groups separate from other groups?  Were those discussions secret, and only put into the final drafts of the bill in order to keep Forest Watch on board until the Hobson's choice was presented to them? Or was Forest Watch a  secret party to those discussions?

I do not know the answers to those questions. They need to be addressed by Forest Watch

The proposed wilderness extensions, the proposed OHV routes, and the proposed OHV operating areas are found on this map, courtesy of Forest Watch, we thank them.

Map of proposed wilderness extensions and OHV areas

them Our conclusion; Congressman Gallegly wants the landswap for the water district. He offered the wilderness extensions to buy off Forest Watch opposition. He offered the OHV areas and trails to buy off OHV users  opposition to the wilderness extensions. I betcha that he  would trade away any of that for the land swap.

 



Page 8, The comments at the bottom of page 8, show that Forest Watch is unfamiliar with trail maintenance on the Los Padres. We suggest that they begin participating in Wilderness Trail Maintenance. Forest Watch comments on trail maintenance on page 9 again show that Forest Watch is unfamiliar with trail maintenance.  As of 2012 They have taken the advice of the Los Padres Forest Council and have begun assisting in trail work to a limited extent

Page 9, The statement of Forest Watch, that was presented verbally at the Ojai Sierra Club meeting that, "no wilderness trails have been abandoned in the Sespe, Chumash, or Matilija wilderness areas since 1992, is again disengenous.  Little notice should be given this statement given that no mention of the San Rafael Wilderness made with its many miles of lost and abandoned trails. Now, I am not as familiar with the eastern wildernesses, but I have personal knowledge of at least two nearly impenetrable trails in the eastern wilderness areas. It is also possible that Jeff Kuyper was parsing the law with that statement. The Forest Service undoubtedly has not legally abandoned any trails, but, in our brush country a few years without brush and tread work and a trail is ipso facto, abandoned, as it is hard to locate and harder to travel.


Here is a letter written to Congressman Gallegly,


July 5, 2011
The Honorable Elton Gallegly 5051 Verdugo Way, Suite 120 Camarillo, CA 93012
Dear Representative Gallegly:
I understand that you may be considering a proposal to extend the protections of the Wilderness Act to approximately 200,000 additional acres of the Los Padres National Forest.
As a frequent forest visitor who leads non-profit community outings in our forest, I urge you to include in your Wilderness proclamation boundary legal description a 10- foot buffer centered on each U.S. Forest Service trail currently inventoried within the expansion areas. Much like the wider buffers that are often centered on existing motorways traversing proposed wilderness areas, these trail corridors would allow for safe, efficient, mechanized clearing and maintenance.
Safe recreational use of our national forest lands – as well as safe and efficient fire protection and law enforcement – require that forest trails be routinely cleared of hazards and debris. Unfortunately, however, the Wilderness Act limits trail maintenance to use of non-motorized hand tools, which is prohibitively expensive and labor-intensive. Neither volunteer organizations nor state and federal agencies have proven able to meet the vast trail maintenance needs within the existing Wilderness areas of the Los Padres, so it would seem irresponsible to commit even more trails to primitive maintenance requirements. Wilderness designation elsewhere in the Los Padres has often resulted in the decay and abandonment of important trails once easily traversed. Poorly-maintained trails mean less safe recreation by law-abiding visitors, more expensive and dangerous efforts to rescue lost and injured forest visitors, and probably more undetected use of the forest by illegal drug growers, who pose enormous threats to forest visitors and forest resources alike.
Thank you for taking time to consider my concerns.
Sincerely, Christopher J. DiMaggio

Back to Home Page