Outdoor Recreation Bill

Use this forum to post links to news stories from other websites - ones that other hikers might find interesting. This is not intended for original material or anecdotal information. You can reply to any news stories posted, but do not start a new thread without a link to a specific news story.
User avatar
Charley
Posts: 1834
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Milwaukie

Re: Outdoor Recreation Bill

Post by Charley » November 28th, 2021, 12:15 am

BigBear wrote:
November 27th, 2021, 11:21 am
I wasn't mentioning cell towers as a "scare tactic." If your goal is enhanced broadband services in the backcountry, it seems a no-brainer that the structures that send this connection must be prominently placed on remote mountaintops. One of the cell phone companies loves to show off their pink coverage bit the mountainous regions of the west are lacking this coverage. So how do they fill-in the rugged areas with service (a) build a 2nd tower in the metropolitan area or (b) build it somewhere it can reach the remote canyons and campsites currently free of such structures?

Looking at the wording of a legislative act may seem like it would supply all of the answers...but federal agencies love to spin the wording to their advantage. "May" becomes "must" and "up to" becomes "a minimum of."
You obviously have far more experience with Federal agencies and their interpretation of the law than I do. And I agree that original intent and later interpretation are slippery partners (why, hello, "well-regulated militia").

But the idea that the Forest Service would interpret this law as a direction to install cellphone towers in Wilderness areas is outlandish.

I have a longstanding beef with the FS's interpretation of the Wilderness Act... but in all the cases I can think of, they are far too strict and exclusionary with that regulation. The current experience of Central Oregon hikers is that the FS is reading the law in an extremely conservative way. So, for example, I'd guess there's a high chance that this bill would lead the FS to over-regulate climbing in Wilderness areas.

On the other hand, you're suggesting that, at the same time they are intentionally excluding hikers from Wilderness areas, they'd see fit to read this law extremely liberally, in order to permit cellphone towers on mountaintops.

That just sounds so unlikely as to be absurd!

You've suggested similar examples of poor legal interpretation: one concerns excluding groups from the CRGNSA (for unstated, but presumably preservationist reasons), and the other concerns putting financial barriers in front of hikers and other trailhead users (to raise funds, yes, but again we're talking about reducing use, not increasing it).

Do you have examples of the FS wildly re-interpreting interpreting the Wilderness Act in a liberal direction, as you suggest they'd do in the case of cellphone towers?
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.

User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: Outdoor Recreation Bill

Post by drm » November 29th, 2021, 8:04 am

Who said anything about putting this stuff in designated wilderness? Car campgrounds aren't in wilderness. A cell tower doesn't have to be on a mountain, it can be on top of a building or a small metal tower. of it's own. This isn't like TV transmission antenna.

johnspeth
Posts: 346
Joined: July 30th, 2013, 8:33 am

Re: Outdoor Recreation Bill

Post by johnspeth » November 29th, 2021, 8:36 am

drm wrote:
November 29th, 2021, 8:04 am
... A cell tower doesn't have to be on a mountain, it can be on top of a building or a small metal tower. of it's own. This isn't like TV transmission antenna.
Antennae don't have to be on a mountain but it's usually the best location for optimal service coverage, be it cell phone, TV, civil, government.

From a tech/business point of view, radio communications companies strive to locate cell antennae as high as possible. One well placed high elevation antenna can provide the same service of many antennae situated at lower elevations. Therefore, the service providers will work hard to get their coveted locations. "Work hard" means spend as much money as their business justification would support. And we all know the corrupting influence of money. Cell phone companies have boat loads of money and will use it liberally to get that coveted tower location, wilderness or not. That's my concern ("wilderness for sale").

Aimless
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: Outdoor Recreation Bill

Post by Aimless » November 29th, 2021, 10:41 am

I agree that "wilderness for sale" would be disastrous and I wouldn't put it past the 'business and profits above all else' members of Congress to try it, if they thought they could get away with it. If this bill contained any provision that nullified or overrode the stringent protections provided in the 1964 Wilderness Act, then there would be a better basis for that worry. As it is, the rather vague language in this bill doesn't provide any justification for ignoring the very clear language of the Wilderness Act regarding man-made structures in designated wilderness areas, which has frequently been cited to explain why the FS can't build more bridges or provide outhouses in wilderness, let alone cell towers.

Knowing how many bills are poorly written, but get passed into law anyway, I would hope this one gets a very thorough vetting by environmental groups' lawyers. The general intention of lessening the reliance of rural towns on resource extraction and substituting recreation seems like a good idea. Tourism can be sold over and over again without diminishing the resource, and it gives those communities a motivation to protect what attracts the tourists. This strategy has been used successfully to protect wildlife preserves in Africa. Seems worth a try.

User avatar
BigBear
Posts: 1836
Joined: October 1st, 2009, 11:54 am

Re: Outdoor Recreation Bill

Post by BigBear » November 29th, 2021, 5:13 pm

First of all, not all wilderness is managed by USFG. BLM manages the Table Rock Wilderness to the SE of Molalla and during the Clinton administration, all back-country national park land was considered de facto wilderness. The most obvious example of ignoring the wilderness act in national parks are the sightseeing helicopters that fly into the wilderness areas. The most-obvious USFS violation of wilderness that comes immediately to mind are clear-cuts which cross wilderness boundaries with fines that amount to only a fraction of the timber cut (the Timberline Trail to McNeil Point back in the mid-nineties which has resulted in so much blowdown there at the wilderness boundary when the stands of trees suddenly became exposed to wind). USFS is also aware that snowmobiles travel into the Three Sisters and up to the rim of Mt St Helens but look the other way.

The most obvious violation of recreation is the strange interpretation that "no" means "yes" when it comes to charging fees which earned them the "unambiguously prohibited" finding by two federal courts, but a denial the court cases apply to them - them, the defendant.

Can I show you an example of USFS already installing cell phone towers in the wilderness years ahead of this bill that has yet to be passed? No. As others have pointed out, you do have to wonder how this increased broadband service in the backcountry is going to happen without the cell towers being prominently located without wilderness boundaries. Mt. Hood Wilderness is so tiny, I don't expect to see one atop Mt. Hood. However, the Pasayten in Washington or the biggies: Frank Church/River of No Return, Bitterroot and Bob Marshall would present issues of cell coverage. Then there are the Alaskan wildernesses which would have no hope of coverage without something being set up inside them.

But the more likely scenarios would be a tower (or several) on the Rim of the Grand Canyon to get signals inside, or on Mt. Washburn for Yellowstone, etc. Its these more mountainous (or canyon) type parks where the broadband is most lacking and thus the most likely to get towers. And if helicopters get to fly over Glacier NP's Garden Wall and Ptarmigan Wall for sightseeing fun, I don't see how NPS could say no to a quiet cell tower. (And those damn helicopters are noisy).

User avatar
Charley
Posts: 1834
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Milwaukie

Re: Outdoor Recreation Bill

Post by Charley » November 29th, 2021, 10:48 pm

drm wrote:
November 29th, 2021, 8:04 am
Who said anything about putting this stuff in designated wilderness?
As far as I can tell, BigBear is the only person who is saying anything about putting cellphone towers in wilderness.
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.

User avatar
Charley
Posts: 1834
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Milwaukie

Re: Outdoor Recreation Bill

Post by Charley » November 29th, 2021, 11:07 pm

BigBear wrote:
November 29th, 2021, 5:13 pm
As others have pointed out, you do have to wonder how this increased broadband service in the backcountry is going to happen without the cell towers being prominently located without wilderness boundaries. Mt. Hood Wilderness is so tiny, I don't expect to see one atop Mt. Hood. However, the Pasayten in Washington or the biggies: Frank Church/River of No Return, Bitterroot and Bob Marshall would present issues of cell coverage. Then there are the Alaskan wildernesses which would have no hope of coverage without something being set up inside them.
Again, I'll copy the act's text verbatim (below). You can judge for yourself if the text intends that there be broadband access in the Bob Marshall or Pasayten. In fact, neither the words "backcountry" nor "wilderness" appear in the bill's text. You, alone, have supplied that idea.

The relevant section refers to...

"highest priority recreation sites on Federal land that lack broadband internet"

When I read that, I immediately think of a place like the Johnston Ridge Observatory (I don't know if it has broadband access, but that's the kind of site that has the "high seasonal or daily visitation levels" that are mentioned just a few lines later). The Pasayten?

You'd have to be reading the text in a particular way, and then be reading as hard as humanly possible, to interpret this to mean cellphone accessible broadband in the middle of the lower 48's largest wilderness areas. The suggestion strains credulity.

The text itself also refers to "an estimate of the cost to equip each of those sites with broadband internet infrastructure."
That implies that the FS would have to pay for these installations, right? So it's even more laughable that the FS would pick a fight with the environmental lobby, in order to pay huge amounts of money to airlift cellphone infrastructure and construction crews into the middle of a wilderness, just in the interest of getting long-distance backpackers online.

No amount of "follow the money" would allow this to make sense in the real world. I don't care what your price is, I'm not buying a word of it.
SEC. 201. BROADBAND INTERNET CONNECTIVITY AT 18 RECREATION SITES.
19 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary and the Chief of 20 the Forest Service shall enter into an agreement with the
21 Administrator of the Rural Utilities Service to install or
22 construct broadband internet infrastructure at recreation
23 sites on Federal land to establish broadband internet
24 connectivity— 16 FLO21C71 RXC S.L.C.
1 (1) subject to the availability of appropriations;
2 and
3 (2) consistent with applicable law.
4 (b) IDENTIFICATION.—Not later than 1 year after
5 the date of enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter,
6 the Secretary and the Chief of the Forest Service, in co
7 ordination with States, shall make publically available—
8 (1) a list of the highest priority recreation sites
9 on Federal land that lack broadband internet; and
10 (2) an estimate of the cost to equip each of
11 those sites with broadband internet infrastructure.
12 (c) PRIORITIES.—In selecting recreation sites for the
13 list described in subsection (b)(1), the Secretary and the
14 Chief of the Forest Service shall give priority to recreation
15 sites—
16 (1) at which broadband internet infrastructure
17 has not been constructed by traditional utilities due
18 to—
19 (A) geographic challenges; or
20 (B) the location having an insufficient
21 number of permanent residents, despite high
22 seasonal or daily visitation levels; or
23 (2) that are located in an economically dis
24 tressed county that could benefit significantly from 17 FLO21C71 RXC S.L.C. 1 developing the outdoor recreation economy of the 2 county.
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.

User avatar
Charley
Posts: 1834
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: Milwaukie

Re: Outdoor Recreation Bill

Post by Charley » November 29th, 2021, 11:15 pm

Aimless wrote:
November 29th, 2021, 10:41 am
As it is, the rather vague language in this bill doesn't provide any justification for ignoring the very clear language of the Wilderness Act regarding man-made structures in designated wilderness areas, which has frequently been cited to explain why the FS can't build more bridges or provide outhouses in wilderness, let alone cell towers.
Agreed.
Aimless wrote:
November 29th, 2021, 10:41 am
Knowing how many bills are poorly written, but get passed into law anyway, I would hope this one gets a very thorough vetting by environmental groups' lawyers.
I agree. Seeing as I don't have the requisite legal background, I wouldn't be able to judge the legal questions for myself. Luckily, I have read through the list of supporters, and I have seen some familiar names, including the Access Fund, REI, Winter Wildlands Alliance, and the Outdoor Alliance. These organizations do have the expertise required to judge the bill and that their values are generally aligned with my values. Their support gives me some comfort that the bill is, in fact, good.
Believe it or not, I barely ever ride a mountain bike.

User avatar
drm
Posts: 6133
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Location: The Dalles, OR
Contact:

Re: Outdoor Recreation Bill

Post by drm » November 30th, 2021, 7:31 am

The phrase "recreation site" always refers to a location with developed facilities that are accessible by car. The best signal for such a facility would be on a building at that site, not on top of a distant mountain. If there is a cluster of sites, they might want to use a high spot for all of them, but that would still not be wilderness.

User avatar
BigBear
Posts: 1836
Joined: October 1st, 2009, 11:54 am

Re: Outdoor Recreation Bill

Post by BigBear » November 30th, 2021, 11:50 am

The interesting thing is that a cell phone tower doesn't even have to be built in a wilderness for my concern to be justified. A wilderness location on federal land just hast to be put on the table. 4 to 5 years after this bill is passed, you will see the first round of locations under consideration. We do know that the areas under consideration are the ones not colored pink on T-Mobiles little map they like to flash on TV for our viewing pleasure and that its those uncovered areas that are the focus of the bill.

There's a lot of attention placed on the wording of the rather vague bill. If the wording was absolute and followed as absolute, the government (it's agencies) wouldn't be sued for not following the wording. And somehow they are? Over and over and over. Hmmm. I guess the exact wording isn't all that important when it comes to bureaucratic behavior.

Let's hope you're right and goodness and ethics somehow win out. (sorry, can't help but to laugh aloud as I type this). By the way, how's the current government working out for you? Yeah, "the wording" that's what they'll follow...not the money. ;)

Post Reply