Chukar Flat Airstrip Closing

[SJ]

A C-180 pilot passed along this info about the John Day River Chukar Flat Airstrip

I am not a member of this list (C-180 guy) but I believe you would like
to know about The BLM attempting to close the Chukar Flat airstrip on
the lower John Day river in North Central Oregon. There is a new sign
saying motorized vec. (with a airplane crossed out) are not allowed and
a citation will be issued. This is a airstrip that has been used for a
long time and is used by a large number of SuperCubs.

Post this on your list or pass it on to your members in any way you can.

G Confer

[LANDSHORT]

I'm in Oregon and use Chuckar flat occasionally. My flying buds and I have been discussing this closure. Unfortunately, we have no organized group in Oregon I'm aware of, to pitch our case to the State or BLM, whichever is closing this strip. So without input from us they'll just close it.

Rumor has it there are a couple reasons for the closure;

1. some pilots were storing small amounts of fuel in the canyon and it was discovered by the authorities. If true, apparently they thought this was a big issue.

2. some planes that go in there are extremely noisy. so noisy on takeoff it hurts the ears of the many river rafters enjoying the John Day Canyon seclusion. These planes fly around at the elevated RPM's (breaking the sound barrier) of high pitch until they reach an altitude to exit the canyon.

As we all know, doesn't take to many complaints to rally the enviros/tree huggers against us.

That's what I've heard passed around. about this issue.

Scott

[stumpjumper]

How about the rest of the Canyon? Anyone know? I've landed in other area's along the John Day.

[Christina Young]

What is the Oregon Pilot's Assoc. or the R.A.F. doing about this? Or did the BLM just do this without notifying anyone? Is there a process for closing an airstrip they need to adhere to?

It was nationwide news when the USFS tried to close those 4 strips in Idaho, and a massive fight ensued. Nary a peep about this one.

[rplemmons]

What is the status of the Chukar Flats airstrip along the John Day River in Oregon? I did a float from Service Creek to Clarno last week and started thinking about the Chukar flats strip. I think it is down stream of the section I floated, but have not been there. Can someone provide the status and coordinates for Chukar Flats? Thanks, Ralph

[n4873a]

We need Oregon Pilots to take this on. Mark Hawkins in Arizona is taking on the Tuweep issue and almost has it wrapped up.

This is a copy of the latest email I received regarding Chukar Flats:

Gentleman,

I have taken the liberty of creating a list so that updates on the Chukar Flats issue can be seen by all who have an interest. If you do not want to be on this list, just let me know and I will remove your name. If you know of other interested pilots, especially Oregon pilots, have them send me their email addresses and I will include them on this update list.

What we think we know to date;

A little BLM marker has appeared at the strip making pilots fear that it is being closed.
The majority of the strip is on private land with perhaps one third of the upriver end on BLM (maybe).
The land owner will allow continued public use (at this time), but has had a veiled threat of closure of his part of the strip by a BLM employee so he does not want to make trouble
He has said that he wouldn't be opposed to a clean up of his part of the strip. We should proceed carefully.

What we need to do next;

Someone needs to go and measure and map the strip as closely as they can, with pictures...find the BLM line, etc. (my map shows that all of it is on private land)
Someone needs to visit the Gilliam Co. recorders office and get a copy of the recorded plat of the private land (usually $2.00 a copy)
Someone made the suggestion that Clyde's logs down at the strip be borrowed/photocopied and replaced, so that we don't lose the record of continuous use.

Once we know the actual situation on the ground, we should take our findings to either Ron Lane or Suzanne Wiley in the Lands and Realty section of the Prineville BLM Field Office, and look over their charts and maps, find out how their part (if there is one) was closed to pilots, and proceed with their advice. All past BLM work on this subject would be available to us through a Freedom Of Information Act request (FOIA), if we needed it.

If anyone has anything to add or correct, feel free--that is the purpose of this update.

Sincerely,
Karl Spielman
Public Lands Director
Recreational Aviation Foundation
www.recreationalaviationfoundation.org
206-365-2564

and one other:

From: Karl Spielman
To: Duane and Jean Francis
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: Chucker flats


Hi Duane,

I will be happy to add your address to the update list. Its good to have
local pilots like yourself involved. Others you may know are Mark Clark, Gary Confer,
John Chlopek, John McAleer, and Don Wilfong. Oregon has one of the top
inventories of backcountry airstrips in the west, but doesn't have a
dedicated group within OPA to help legitimize them. Here is a thumbnail of
what has transpired so far.

The sign went in at the airstrip alerting us to a policy shift. We
contacted BLM and found one person (a woman in the Recreation section) to be
anti-airplane, and one person, (a woman in the Lands and Realty section)
that was pro-airplane. Her husband flies a Rans based in Prineville. Then
it was established by visiting the county seat, who actually owned the strip
and this fellow was contacted. It turns out that the strip has been there
since 1964, is 1400 feet long with about 1000 feet on private property. The
BLM has since created both a Wild and Scenic River corridor and a Wilderness
Study Area (WSA) around it. The private owner is willing to allow continued
use, but asked the pilot community to stay very low profile because he is
worried about an eminent domain action against his land. RAF is reviewing
the situation about getting the BLM to adjust the "cherry-stem" to include
the remainder of the strip. When existing features, like airstrips, are
inventoried in the WSA process, a little line is drawn around them called
"Cherry-stemming". This reserves their traditional use while Congress
"studies" whether they should become full wilderness. This wasn't done
correctly in the case of Chukar Flats. Things are quiet right now. We'll
keep you posted.

Karl Spielman
Recreational Aviation Foundation
http://www.recreationalaviationfoundation.org/

----- Original Message -----
From: Duane and Jean Francis
To: karlspielman@frontiernet.net
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 4:55 PM
Subject: Chucker flats


Hey Karl, Would you add me to the list of pilots you are making contact with? I have been into chuckar flats and would hate to see it go away.

Duane Francis
Bend, Oregon

[n4873a]

So....having looked that stuff over, is there a willing pilot in Oregon with the desire to take this project on?

[T.J.]

Not my rice bowl but, sounds like you guys need a real mean lawyer.

[harneymaki]

T.J.

I've posted in the morning and stated that I found something so funny I spit out my coffee. I just saw your new signature and I spit out my Black Velvet and water. Life is good. ( As funny as I found it, I hate to waste good whisky) I've never met S2D or you, but I sure look forward to the day.

Paul

[T.J.]

Paul:
Thanks, I knew S2D was plagiarising my disclaimer, and although I spent several highdollar MECHANIC minutes composing it, I figured what the heck, the price of coyote pelts is pretty low, so he probably couldn't pay me for it anyway. :D
I will however, expect a small stipend from him, the next time I'm in Montana. I work for COORS!

[harneymaki]

O.K.

I said I spit out my velvet water, now I'm about to piss my pants.

Paul

[harneymaki]

Next time your in MN it's all the Coors you want, steaks on my grill and a roof over you head.

Paul

[T.J.]

Thanks Paul, preciate that. Schmidts is the beer of choice up there isn't it? When I was poor and couldn't afford Coors, I drank lots of Schmidts. One added benefit to Schmidts is, you save money on Ex-Lax. Regularity is not a problem.

[diggler]

I delete

[harneymaki]

It tends to be too sweet for my liking.


Paul

[Christina Young]

...he is
worried about an eminent domain action against his land. ...

It is really, really unbelievable and outrageous how much the Constitution is being trashed. Now we have unelected bureaucrats making unilateral decisions in secret about shutting down facilities used by the public, and making threats against people to confiscate their property if they don't bow to their personal desires on how they want the owner to use his land.

It is sad that we have to worry about whether this or that govt employee is "pro-airplane" or "anti-airplane". These BLM people were not elected! Where is the rule of law? Where is the due process??? How does eminent domain against the private property owner comply with the "public use" requirement? Apparently a BLM employee wants to remove "public use".

Looks to me like here we have slid back to the rule of men, not the rule of law, something we got away from in 1776!

[mvivion]

There's a letter from BLM about this subject on another site, but I'm not smart enough to cut and paste it. Course, it'd help if I could remember where I saw it, too :oops: .

The gist of the BLM letter was that they feel that the original airstrip was all on private lands, but that it has been "extended" onto public lands by pilots landing short/long, or ??

Anyway, the surrounding area of public lands is under study for wilderness status, so the likihood that BLM will allow "motorized vehicle" use, ie: aircraft, is near zero, since it's prohibited by Congress on wilderness study areas.

Logically, the path suggested above is a good one: First, find out who owns what. Then, if the private landowner is willing to continue allowing aircraft access on his land, AND the existing strip remaining on private lands is sufficient for safe operations, just mark the strip, and ensure that pilots know that they can't use the end of the "strip" on public lands. That way, you've completely defused BLM's arguements since they can't regulate use on private inholdings.

But, if there really is tresspass on public lands that are under study for wilderness inclusion, you are going to see a lot of heat from BLM.

Best to stay on private lands, document use, and keep it as polite as possible.

From BLM's letter that I read, they aren't sounding crazy about this whole thing, but they don't have the authority within the agency to ignore a trespass, if its really occuring. Sounds like all they've done is posted the boundary of public lands, and said stay off them with motor vehicle. That's within their charge, and they have the legal authority to enforce that IF they have the boundary located accurately.

Important here is to fight the battles you can win, and fight them armed with all the information you can muster, and do so professionally and courteously.

All it takes is one hot head with an attitude to escalate these things into something that is a lot harder to sort out.

MTV

[Christina Young]

Mike, your assertions are contrary to what the RAF gentlemen wrote:


...The land owner will allow continued public use (at this time), but has had a veiled threat of closure of his part of the strip by a BLM employee so he does not want to make trouble...

This shows that the BLM is clearly not interested in letting this private inholder use his land the way he wants, which is also a legal use (as an airstrip).



....When existing features, like airstrips, are
inventoried in the WSA process, a little line is drawn around them called
"Cherry-stemming". This reserves their traditional use while Congress
"studies" whether they should become full wilderness. This wasn't done
correctly in the case of Chukar Flats....

This shows that the BLM violated the law, if the airstrip in fact was established at all on the public land. Doesn't the fact that they posted an "airstrip closed" sign show that the BLM officials believed this was the case? This strip has been in use since what, 1964?

[T.J.]

delete

[mvivion]

TJ,

No offense, and believe me, I don't always agree with some of the determinations, or actions that agencies take. I was simply trying to interject perspective into this deal.

Christina, the point I was making is that if the airstrip has illegally encroached onto public lands over the years, that doesn't mean a thing. Under federal law, regular use means nothing. You can't tresspass on federal land for fifty years, then claim a right to use the land. At least that's what the courts say. Now, Congress may say something else.

Anyway, my point was, before you go ballistic, learn the specifics, find out what is federal land, and what's not. As to BLM "threatening" the private landowner, that's easy to deal with, if it really happened. On the other hand, maybe the private inholder really isn't all that crazy about establishing a pattern of airstrip use on his private property, eh? Cause the concept of eminent domain DOES apply to his land. If he permits a use for a number of years, he is going to have a hard time prohibiting that use in future. Maybe he's thinking about resale value in ten years?

The point is, there are a lot of issues here. Your point regarding how long Congress takes to make a decision on wilderness designation is totally moot. There's no language in the statute that requires them to take any action EVER, but there is language that prohibits an agency from doing anything to preclude wilderness designation in future. That said, this administration isn't friendly towards wilderness, so a determination might be forthcoming, IF the right legislator were to become involved.

Lawyers, bad dog or otherwise, are useless in this type of discussion, and in fact, they may be counter productive. Lawmakers, on the other hand, can have some influence.

TJ, I'm sure part of your reference is toward the Chickaloon Flats. That area has been closed for YEARS. That said, I don't know why. I don't work for the Kenai, and I don't know what their reasons may be. I'd take it up with them. But, don't worry about offending me. I have nothing to do with that end of the world.

MTV