Bill Would Require No Net Loss of Access for DNR and WDFW Lands

[bigtex]

Senate Bill 5907 would require a no net loss for DNR and WDFW lands. Essentially when DNR/WDFW closes X acres of land, they must then open X acres of land. So if they close 50 acres of land in say Chelan County, they must then open 50 acres of land somewhere else in the state. The bill has strong bipartisan support.

(1) The legislature finds that the concept of no net loss has been applied in environmental regulatory processes in Washington state, such as the state's shoreline management and hydraulic project regulatory processes. For example, the state's shoreline management system establishes a standard of no net loss of shoreline ecological functions from the implementation of local shoreline master programs, including impacts to shoreline ecological functions resulting from new development. This no net loss standard is also used by the state's hydraulic project approval program, which applies a no net loss standard of protection for fish habitat.
(2) The legislature further finds that the citizens of Washington state will benefit from the application of the no net loss standard to recreational opportunities on state lands. Maintaining access to the state's public lands is vital to preserving the many recreational and health benefits those lands provide to the citizens of the state. State lands provide an innumerable number of valuable recreational opportunities including, but not limited to, hunting, fishing, hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, off-road vehicle use, and wildlife viewing. In turn, these recreational opportunities generate economic opportunities for the communities surrounding those lands.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 43.30 RCW (DNR) to read as follows:
(1) The department must ensure no net loss of public recreational opportunities on department-managed lands. Prior to or upon closing an area or access to an area that supports recreational opportunities, the department must open, reopen, or provide additional access to an area that supports a reasonably equivalent level of recreational opportunities.
(2) Nothing in this section affects the trust management obligations of the department.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 77.12 RCW (WDFW) to read as follows:
The department must ensure no net loss of public recreational opportunities on department-managed lands. Prior to or upon closing an area or access to an area that supports recreational opportunities, the department must open, reopen, or provide additional access to an area that supports a reasonably equivalent level of recreational opportunities.

http://dlr.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/default.aspx?Bill=5907&year=2013

[bigtex]

There are already some issues with the bill.

1- Does this include winter closures?
2- What about emergency closures such as fire closures?

Now most likely these things would be exempt, however as the bill is written if WDFW closes an area for a winter closure they must then open some other areas. However there really isn't any areas that WDFW has closed. Definitely a technical error in the bill.

[bobcat]

What's the definition of "closed to access?" If there's a locked gate does it qualify as being closed to access? Even though walking in is still allowed?

[bigtex]

What's the definition of "closed to access?" If there's a locked gate does it qualify as being closed to access? Even though walking in is still allowed?

And that is the other problem. There is no definition. Is a closure a complete closure, like no trespassing, or is it simply walk-in only?

Bill has great intentions but there are a lot of technical issues with it.

[bobcat]

I can think of very little DNR land that is actually closed. Gated, sure, lots of that. But it's pretty much all open for recreational use.

So I'm assuming the author of this bill is considering gated areas to be "closed." But if that's the case, the bill needs to clarify that issue.

[bigtex]

I can think of very little DNR land that is actually closed. Gated, sure, lots of that. But it's pretty much all open for recreational use.

So I'm assuming the author of this bill is considering gated areas to be "closed." But if that's the case, the bill needs to clarify that issue.

 

[dreamunelk]

I think this may have more to do with the Natural area preserves that were created several years ago.  DNR it supposedly writing the management plans for these.  Currently many have signs that efectively say no public access.  However there is no RCW or WAC that makes it enforceable. 

If it means opening areas that are gated to motorized access then hunters should be against this.  There are several good closures that are operated under a cooperative agreement with wdfw that increase the survival of mature bulls.  Opening these up would be bad news for elk.

[bigtex]

I think this may have more to do with the Natural area preserves that were created several years ago.  DNR it supposedly writing the management plans for these.  Currently many have signs that efectively say no public access.  However there is no RCW or WAC that makes it enforceable. 

If it means opening areas that are gated to motorized access then hunters should be against this.  There are several good closures that are operated under a cooperative agreement with wdfw that increase the survival of mature bulls.  Opening these up would be bad news for elk.

Ya I was thinking along the lines of NAP's too.

I think the bill has good intentions but is too vague.

[fireweed]

Thanks for posting this.  I would like to see "landlocked" public lands addressed better, and the acquisition of easements and Right-of-ways made a priority for the DNR/WDFW.  These areas are essentially closed (unless you can fly there!).  The entire 35,000 acre Toutle DNR Block, and Mitchell Peak are landlocked.   When private owners close or lock gates that access public lands or waters then that should be considered a "loss of access".

[Knocker of rocks]

Sounds like someone needs to go back to the drawing board

[buckfvr]

Thanks for posting this.  I would like to see "landlocked" public lands addressed better, and the acquisition of easements and Right-of-ways made a priority for the DNR/WDFW.  These areas are essentially closed (unless you can fly there!).  The entire 35,000 acre Toutle DNR Block, and Mitchell Peak are landlocked.   When private owners close or lock gates that access public lands or waters then that should be considered a "loss of access".

I would love to see all the DNR private hunting reserves  taken away.  Those who landlock them use them as their own.  WDFW hunt by permission program is largely abused.  If surrounding ownership does not allow access, they should be kept out as well.  Either its open to all, or open to none.     

[winshooter88]

Gentlemen, this is not about NARs and nothing in this bill would allow DNR or WDFW to force access across private lands to open landlocked parcels. This is about preventing these agencies from closing road access even for wildlife management reasons. This bill would accomplish statewide what SB 5034 will do to Grant Kittitas and Yakima counties. It is never a good idea to have legislators making wildlife decisions. IMHO