Death Valley Off-Road Adventures

Telephone carriers often bury cable on major thoroughfares. On a road like 127, there might be cable buried in the right of way that served the "residents" of the area or it might be carried on the poles and distributed underground.

That pedestal looks like it could hold a 50-100 pair. And if you look at the back of the circle, it also looks like their might have been some kind of building there. Maybe it was the minimum point of entry (MPOE) for the property? It might also be a point where the cables are spliced together and a load coil installed to help with signal quality.

Hard to know without seeing box up close. But I'm pretty sure it's something to do with telephony. In a prior company, I worked within the telephony group and though we didn't use pedestals, we did run a fair bit of underground cable around the campus--my knowledge is by no means expert but I do have a basic understand how things interconnect--mostly carrier class telephone switches and their "mini" remote cabinets.

BTW, a little north of the Evelyn site are a series of circles...

 

I went straight from reading your first sentence to thinking "hey, I know exactly who to ask!"

I joke a lot, and should probably be more embarrassed about this than I really am, but I can genuinely thank you for putting me in touch with an old friend today.

Now I'm planning a trip to visit him next month--You bastard!

Thank you! But you know who else would try to take us off-topic here?

That's right. Another point for the aliens!

Also I have to apologize for overlooking @sawbladeduller's contribution prior to the above tally. One point to "sawmill!"

And finally I will begrudgingly admit that, unlike @ian408, I have absolutely no knowledge of how telecom infrastructure works or even how it looks. So +1 to telecom! And thanks for sending me down a new rabbit hole in Wikipedia, in addition to another hour spent scouring the satellite maps! I don't see any more circles just north of Evelyn, but am deeply concerned by the growing and truly alarming number of unexplained circles I've found today. Please, for the love of god, don't bring any more to my attention.

However, aliens still keep the original point over the whole arrow vs. circle matter. Pretty sure I've known how shapes work since the second year of kindergarten.




I'm going to call it here, not that that I don't expect many more insightful contributions, but I don't want to totally derail the thread, nor overwhelm myself with the crushing responsibility of maintaining the narrative. Or even just the tally. Here's my final count:

- Modern Automakers: -1
- Asphalt trucks: 1
- Telecom: 1
- Sawmill: 1
- Pavement test site: 2
- Aliens: 8

I don't think we've yet gotten to the bottom of this. So maybe next time I'll bring a shovel.



Thanks y'all!

 

Going there last week didn't answer anything, if anything it just posed more questions... Like... why is there a small lockbox post there, with a US flag sticker?



No idea regarding the asphalt circles, but the lockbox looks more like a groundwater monitor well/piezometer monument with the concrete skirt. The well casing extends above the local ground level and the monument protects it. There are usually bollards to prevent collisions or impact though.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGlhMk1hEZw

 

Avi Kwa Ame National Monument

New National Monument to be designated today which will connect the eastern edge of Mojave National Preserve with the western edge of Lake Mead National Recreation Area. 450,000 acres covering the very southern tip of Nevada.

Not exactly DV news, but this thread sometimes covers MNP as well.

Brief overview article:

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...sustain-indigenous-culture-nature-and-economy

Paywalled more in depth article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environmnet/2022/11/30/avi-kwa-ame-monument-nevada/

Presumably this will get more coverage after the official announcement later today.

We are slowly building some extremely long continuous corridors of protected lands across the desert.

 

Yesterday’s NY Times said explicitly that it would NOT be designated as a National Monument. Did something change, in either direction? I don’t have access to the Post article.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/30/climate/biden-nevada-avi-kwa-ame.html

@dman100 You are right, that is interesting. I read the WaPo article the other day. Not sure what changed or why, other than the Administration *may* be trying to reserve the options for energy development...but that seems at odds with the overall support from the locals and agreement from the broad range of stakeholders.

 

Unfortunately, there is history of disconnect between locals and federal agencies in transactions like this.

 

The WP has at this point ham-fistedly revised the article (but none of the image captions which still say national monument everywhere) to indicate Biden said that the area would be protected in some way. When that happens and whether it ends up being a National Monument designation or something else appears to be an open question still.

 

..can't find news article, comment withdrawn

crud...keep forgetting what the subject is..it's the past 2021

 

I just attended a 2hr presentation on the new management plan for Red Rock Canyon State Park.
Put on by CORVA and Cal4Wheel. Very useful info.

 

I planned to call in but I thought it was next month, and didn’t realize that it’s already December . I did read about 300 pages of the 550 page Park management plan. On the one hand, it’s a State Park not a State Recreation Area (let alone OHV Park) so motorized recreation is not in the charter. We have the same problem where I live advocating for mountain bike trails in the SP’s; yes, they tell us, bikes are allowed, but trails should be multi-use and not designed/built/maintained for the enjoyment of mountain bikers. We should be glad they don’t ban bikes, they say. Not really consistent with the fact that a lot of State Park facilities are there for the enjoyment of specific recreational user groups and not just public access to nature/culture.

On the other hand the General Plan has a lot of trail- and route-specific implementation detail which I believe is inappropriate for a General Plan. So it could be fought on that technicality.

 

SB-155 (2021) makes OHV a consideration for all state parks. Further, as RRCSP was originally BLM land and transferred to the state and the transfer agreement stipulates what was there should remain, it should have OHV components. The transfer agreement specifically names Nightmare Canyon which is currently under "temporary closure" and has been for 10 years.

If you read some of the "goals", they demonstrate bias which CEQA says are not supposed to be in the management plan of any state park. It may not change what the state decide to do but it does force the state to respond to substantive comments and it establishes standing.

I'm hoping to have links to the presentation that I can share.

 

Thanks for more detail. My understanding was that SB-155 applies to Parks & Rec as a whole but the breakdown of their units into Parks, Recreation Areas and SVRA’s with individual charters still makes the Parks (like RRCSP) less friendly to vehicular use purely for recreation vs access, than SRA’s or SVRA’s. But I’m far from an expert, though I’ll admit my bias to typically agreeing with that. On the other hand, I do support fighting for street-legal vehicle access on traditional routes. “Temporary” closures should be just that, temporary and if budget or resources are an issue, engage with volunteers. Regarding the CEQA bias you mention, I’ve read that is common in management plans (whether pro- or anti- a particular use) and is almost always successfully challenged. These are supposed to be general plans and should not propose let alone detail specific projects. Anyway, thanks for your involvement and the updates. I looked for the presentation on the CA4WD website but not there yet.

 

It probably will not be posted in Cal4’s website. Who knows. It may also take some time to write up the questions/answers.

RRCSP has a long history of OHV and it was the BLM’s wish that be maintained. But over the years these management plans have been worked on, more and more trail access falls off the plan-and for no reason. As it stands, the plan suffers from severe intentional bias. For example, the goal says “for all” but if you are a disabled American, you’re welcome in the parking lot, the toilets, and the visitor center but not the rest of the park.

 

Was Burro Schmitt's tunnel discussed?

 

No. The primary focus was RRCSP and how to write meaningful responses to requests for public comment. Sadly, the latter is not as easy as you might think.

Edit:

I learned that a thousand people writing in saying "I like option A as I am an avid off-roader" is no different than ONE person writing the same thing (I'm appalled that is the case but what can you do?). Instead, You would write something substantive. Like "I noticed on map 1-123, gardner gulch road to the park boundary is marked as "redundant". What makes this road redundant? It offers a unique view of ... and it connects with BLM road xyz." or something like that.

In my earlier example of ADA access, that comment is not substantive. Why? Because the Americans with Disability Act only applies to built facilities. Zero shits given if a disabled person cannot travel within the park.

A substantive comment is one that the entity MUST respond to. Errors or omissions are just as important--if a study is questionable and it is not questioned, it will be accepted as fact. A substantive comment gives you legal standing, a general comment ("I like to wheel there") does not.

If you have 10 substantive concerns, it is better to limit your letter to 1 per and write 10 letters.

Edit:

Important: If you have input, the deadline is December 16th.
Link to the Zoom Meeting.
Passcode for the meeting: bAL2@7!8

I have attached a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding between the BLM and State for the transfer and Nightmare Gulch.

 

Desert Magazine, January 1957

 

2021 breakfast views. need to drink coffee and skip the digital device.



crud..i'd need to have a permit to see this now

 

...Generally, when I visit Death Valley, my goal is to explore the more remote regions of the park. Long lost dirt roads, canyons that entail as much climbing as hiking, and days without seeing another soul (with the exception of @mrs.turbodb) - these are the places we spend our time. As such, exploration of Death Valley proper - largely along CA-190 - has been light. Sure, most of the major tourist attractions have been seen, but surely in a place this inhospitable, even CA-190 holds special places that are only infrequently visited. Remote despite their proximity to pavement.

With a little more than 36 hours, it was time to find out. What I'd discover - three fantastic destinations with no other footprints to be found - would get me thinking: what else have I overlooked in my adventures to Death Valley?...

Keep reading the rest here
A Loosely Planned Meetup | Highway Hikes #1​

​

​

​

​

​

Keep reading the rest here
A Loosely Planned Meetup | Highway Hikes #1





.​