The effect of recreation on wildlife is a topic that has come up a few times here. It has apparently reached the visibility of a “conference theme,” at least in Canada: “Responsible Recreation: Pathways, Practices and Possibilities.” This conference in May focused on the Columbia Mountains in southern B. C., but may be of broader interest. You can still sign up to see the recorded conference until the 16th, but the written proceedings are available from this website.
From the conference description:
Recreation and adventure tourism opportunities and activities are expanding globally, with the Columbia Mountains region being no exception. From hiking, mountain biking, snowmobiling, dirt biking, cross-country skiing, to motorized and non-motorized watercraft use, all activities can have an impact on wildlife and ecosystems. However, empirical measures of impacts are often difficult to obtain, with unknown thresholds that ultimately affect the viability of wildlife populations and ecosystems. This limits policy development and impact management. Furthermore, the cumulative effect of multiple overlapping recreational and industrial activities on the landscape are seldom considered or addressed.
It seems like adding access to public lands is something everyone agrees on, unless I suppose, you are neighbors and there are undesirable effects of “bad apples”. Or if you think more recreation means more negative environmental impacts. Well, anyway.. turns out that onX (a company that has apps for hikers, off-roaders and hunters) also contributes to efforts to gain more access to public lands.
A coalition of outdoor enthusiasts is stronger than divided groups. The various outdoor communities don’t always agree on how public lands should be managed. But the fact is, industrial development and suburban sprawl are larger threats to our ability to access public lands and waters, and every outdoor community is impacted, directly or indirectly. Efforts to preserve recreational access and keeping open land open will be more effective when outdoor enthusiasts work side-by-side, instead of focusing on our differences and fighting individual battles. By standing up for everyone’s right to access the outdoors, we’ll protect our own right to adventure.
This whole system is founded directly on Maine’s Landowner Liability Law, which is explained by the town of York, “If someone uses your land or passes through your premises for outdoor recreation or harvesting, you assume no responsibility and incur no liability for injuries to that person or that person’s property. You are protected whether or not you give permission to use the land.” This law has instilled good faith within landowners, primarily of large swaths such as timber company holdings, to allow recreational access of all kinds so that the general public can enjoy Maine’s treasured lands.
Well, why is land conservation so important right now in Maine if everything that isn’t posted is good to go? According to Maine Inland Fish and Wildlife, roughly 94% of the forested part of state is privately held. That means that most recreation that happens—whatever your vehicle, discipline, sport, or pastime—is likely going to happen on private land. When the state was mostly farmers and population density was low, that made it simple to know the neighbors across the stone wall. Now, increasing real estate sales, with smaller acreages, are resulting in a state increasingly segmented and, as previously mentioned, posted. This illustrates the importance that land trusts preserve public access, and keep the tradition alive.
In Colorado, we have something similar but perhaps not quite good enough as per this Colorado Sun story about 14ers..
Welcome to the woods. Please scan this code and swear you won’t sue.
After several months of closure, the Decalibron Loop trail accessing four 14ers in the Mosquito Range near Alma will reopen Friday to any hiker who scans and signs a liability waiver on their phones.
Landowner John Reiber is installing signs with a QR code on the road leading from Alma to Kite Lake, the starting point of the 7-mile Decalibron Loop trail that connects Mounts Democrat, Cameron, Lincoln and Bross. If hikers scan the code with their phones and e-sign the waiver, they will be able to legally access Reiber’s property along the Decalibron Loop. If they do not, they will be trespassing.
“This is not a true solution,” Reiber said. “This is a temporary Band-Aid to the problem. The true solution is for us to get the state law changed and fix the Colorado Recreational Use Statute. That is the ultimate fix not just for me but a lot of landowners.”
The owner of private property along the Decalibron Loop trail traversing 14ers in the Mosquito Range near Alma is opening his land to hikers who scan QR codes and sign a liability waiver. (Courtesy photo)
Reiber, who owns a patchwork of mining properties that lead to the summits of Mount Lincoln and Mount Democrat, is among a growing coalition of landowners worried they could be sued by recreational visitors on their land.
I wonder whether private land liability is an issue elsewhere?
Here’s a very interesting story, which, for me, had an unexpected twist near the end. Or even in the tagline.. “Researchers find as more humans play outside, a smaller proportion are engaged in stewardship that can protect the lands from growing impacts.”
A black bear padding through the forest freezes. It looks up briefly, then something spurs it to turn and bolt in the other direction.
That something is the sound of hikers — a recording of women’s voices in conversation as they walk along a trail. It is emitted by one of many motion-triggered speakers scientists set up in the Bridger-Teton National Forest as part of a study on the impacts of outdoor recreation sounds on wildlife. And as this grainy game camera footage shows, even sounds that appear benign to us humans can disturb animals.
I wonder whether researchers need to put up signs that peoples’ conversations may be recorded?
It sets out to answer several questions, Zeller said, primarily: “Do mammals have increased stress or vigilance or other types of potentially negative behaviors when they hear recreation noise?”
They also want to know if birds avoid noisy areas, if animal communities change group behavior and what types of sounds are most impactful.
Ditmer and Zeller are only partway through data collection and haven’t quantified responses, but Zeller said they’ve seen many spooked animals — and one activity appears to be particularly startling.
“We’ve found that mountain biking with a large group size tended to result in a higher probability of wildlife fleeing a site compared with the other sound treatments,” Zeller said.
Those observations align with a 2016 study co-conducted by Courtney Larson, a Wyoming conservation scientist with The Nature Conservancy. Larson and her co-authors reviewed scientific literature regarding the impacts of non-motorized, non-consumptive recreation on wildlife. Some 93% of the nearly 300 studies that assessed recreation’s wildlife effects found at least one significant effect, most of which were negative, according to their findings.
Those effects can look like habitat fragmentation, or animals spending more time being vigilant and less time feeding, Larson said during a presentation in Laramie this spring. Awareness seems to be growing and people have good knowledge of times of year or places where wildlife are particularly vulnerable, she added. But questions remain on the varying sensitivity of species as well as how much recreation a landscape can hold.
*******************
Deteriorating experiences on public lands are on the rise, their study found. “So some of the biggest changes to our outdoor experiences are those caused by the very people that are enjoying the outdoors,” said Becky Marcelliano, onX stewardship marketing manager. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents cited overcrowding as negatively affecting their time in nature, for example. Outdoor recreation participation hit a record high nationwide in 2022, according to the 2023 participation trends report from Outdoor Industry Association.
Perhaps the biggest takeaway, she said, is a so-called “stewardship gap.” Though industry data shows 77% of outdoor enthusiasts make 12 or more outings a year, only 19% commit to a stewardship activity in that same timeframe, she said.
“Which means that less than one in five are doing the lion’s share of the work to protect and restore our public lands,” Marcelliano said.
At first I thought this was a little odd. Can’t people just enjoy themselves, and feel glad that their taxes are supporting public lands? If they’re federal, state or county lands, shouldn’t employees and our taxes be doing “the lion’s share”? On the other hand, people should behave as responsible human beings, including as they recreate outdoors. Seems like rules, and enforcement thereof, have a place as well.
Montana wildlife agents sometimes use drones to chase grizzly bears away from farms and ranches on the high plains. (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks)
Some of us have been working on the BLM Proposed Rule and the FS ANPR, so I thought a nice Friday roundup with people agreeing on stuff would be relaxing.
This is a long and comprehensive story, well worth reading. It’s interesting that bipartisan lawmakers agree, but not so much the FS and NPS.
For Hickenlooper, a longtime booster of outdoor recreation, it makes complete sense for Congress to step in and clear up any confusion or questions about whether fixed anchors can continue to be used across many types of federal land.
“We wanted to make sure there was absolute clarity that this is an essential part of wilderness areas as well as our National Parks,” Hickenlooper said.
Back in Washington D.C., Hickenlooper got language that would allow the continued use of fixed anchors for rock climbing in wilderness areas added to a bill that is now awaiting a full senate vote.
Over in the House, a bipartisan pair of Western lawmakers, GOP Rep. John Curtis of Utah and Colorado Democrat Joe Neguse, is working to pass similar legislation. During a hearing on the PARC Act, Neugse said it’s simply about ensuring a clear standard for a practice that’s been going on for years.
“There are a number of national forests that have in effect changed the rules of the game, right? They’ve begun to treat these fixed anchor devices differently than they have been treated previously,” he said.
Curtis added it’s about “creating a predictable standard for the rock climbing community, who have been using wilderness areas since their inception, and, if I might say so, are among our most predictable caretakers of these wilderness areas and who care deeply about protecting them.”
The House version of the policy is also awaiting a full vote in the chamber.
But this idea may have a hard climb ahead of it. The National Forest Service and the National Park Service have both raised concerns, saying it would, in effect, be changing the Wilderness Act by allowing permanent installations in areas that are supposed to remain as pristine as possible.
And earlier this year, Chris French, Deputy Chief of the National Forest System, said in the hearing that the policy is also unnecessary, because they’re already working on guidance around the issue.
“I believe you’ll see that almost every issue that’s been brought forward in your bill will be addressed,” he assured the House committee members.
According to a spokesperson for the Forest Service, the agency is close to publishing the long awaited draft guidance, which would then be open for 60 days of comments. But they don’t have a set timeline for how soon that will be out.
I like this story about grizzlies from the Cowboy State Daily. Since on TSW we mostly hear that this or that FS project needs to analyze for grizzlies more, this is a nice break- farmers and ranchers seem to be dealing with grizzlies coming back to the plains – of course with lots of help from Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks folks..
*********************************
Managing Wyoming’s grizzly bears has come with its challenges, but Montana wildlife officials have a unique quandary – prairie grizzlies.
“People in the ‘gap areas’ (between the Yellowstone and Glacier park ecosystems) were already used to black bears” and so they’ve adjusted to grizzlies moving in, said Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks department spokeswoman Danielle Oyler.
“Whereas the folks out on the plains, they didn’t have black bears there. So having grizzlies show up has been a huge challenge,” Oyler told Cowboy State Daily.
Montana’s prairie grizzlies are an “unintended consequence” of the overall grizzly recovery program, FWP bear management specialist Wesley Sarmento told Cowboy State Daily.
“There’s a lot of folks uncomfortable with grizzlies being out here,” said Sarmento, who is based in Conrad, Montana, about 60 miles north of Great Falls. “They didn’t expect to have grizzlies out here. And in the original planning documents for grizzly recovery, there was no mention of grizzlies being out here.”
Home On The Range
Grizzly bears are well-adapted to life on the prairie. They evolved from brown bears on the wide-open steppes of Russia, and at one time occupied most of the Great Plains.
But in Montana, they’ve made a home on the range. Grizzlies have pushed well into northern prairie habitat around small communities such as Conrad and Augusta, Oyler said.
“They go well out into the prairies now. They are definitely out in prairie settings,” she said.
The land there is largely private, mostly vast grain farms and cattle ranches, Sarmento said. And adjusting to grizzlies has been tough for prairie folks.
“Kids used to able to run free in the summers and go down to the creeks and go fishing,” he said. “And that’s a lot harder to do right now because of the chance of a grizzly encounter.”
Even so, the grizzlies are probably there to stay, Sarmento said.
“There is a breeding population of grizzlies on the plains, and it’s more and more every year,” he said.
Bruins Making A Comeback
Grizzlies are popping up in many places across Montana where they haven’t been seen in decades, Oyler added. Even some larger communities, such as the state capital of Helena, have bruins nearby.
A grizzly was recently spotted roughly 30 miles south of Billings, as the crow flies, in the the Pryor Mountains. The Pryors extend into Wyoming and are adjacent to the Bighorn Mountains. It was the first verified sighting of a grizzly in the Pryor range since the 1800s.
Grizzlies need only the basics to reclaim habitat, Oyler said.
“What’s ideal for them is good food and availability of cover,” she said.
For cover on Montana’s northern plains, grizzlies have taken advantage of natural river bottoms as well as “shelter belts” of trees and shrubbery planted by humans for wind breaks, she said.
There are abundant natural food sources for grizzlies, depending upon the season, Sarmento said.
In the spring, grizzlies can feast on roots and fresh green prairie grass, he said. And they also might occasionally kill whitetail deer fawns.
During the summer, they switch to gorging on wild berries and chokecherries. In the fall they can finish off wounded deer that escaped human hunters or eat gut piles that hunters leave behind.
The trouble begins when they develop a taste for livestock, Sarmento and Oyler said. It might start with grizzlies raiding carcass dumps where ranchers leave piles of dead cattle.
“They get into ranchers’ ‘dead piles.’ And, unfortunately, they sometimes kill ranchers’ livestock,” she said.
Even when cattle carcasses have decayed, grizzlies can get ample calories and rich nutrients from the bones, Sarmento said. But FWP doesn’t like the bruins hanging around carcass piles, because it puts grizzlies in close proximity to people and livestock, upping the chances for conflicts.
“We’ve started a carcass clean-up program” to help mitigate such grizzly magnets, he said.
Piles of grain spilled during harvest can also draw grizzlies, because grain is an easy and calorie-packed meal for the bears, he added. So FWP also encourages farmers to be diligent about cleaning gain spills.
This grizzly was recently tranquilized and collared by Montana wildlife agents for guard dog research project testing to see if livestock guard dogs are effective at keeping bears away from farms with grain spills. (Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks)
‘Young, Dumb Bears’
Older, wiser bears have managed to adapt well to the northern plains without raising a ruckus, Sarmento said. But with juveniles trying to strike out on their own, it can be a different story.
“For the most part, the bears are pretty good at staying out of trouble. Most of the bears we’ve had trouble with are young, dumb bears,” he said.
Those are typically bears that have recently separated from their mothers and push “east, even farther out on to the prairie” in search of new territory, Sarmento said.
What’s more, they can be much younger than Wyoming sub-adult grizzlies, which usually separate from their mothers around age 2 or 3.
“This area is a system of relatively low risk and high resources for grizzlies. In these kinds of systems, we see young bears getting kicked out on their own by their mothers as yearlings, instead of the typical two-year-olds or three-year-olds,” he said. “And the yearlings can be really dumb.”
Hazing Usually Works
To help keep grizzlies — particularly the young, dumb ones — from getting crossways with farmers and ranchers, FWP has found that hazing is effective, Sarmento said.
“Most bears respond to hazing,” he said. “We use dogs, rubber bullets or cracker shells.”
Cracker shells fire a charge from shotguns. The charge explodes in mid-air, like a large firecracker.
FWP also uses drones to chase bears away from places they shouldn’t be, Sarmento added.
When hazing doesn’t work, FWP might trap bears and relocate them to mountain wilderness areas. There have been only a few cases in which wildlife agents have had to kill prairie grizzlies, he said.
FWP has also launched a guard dog program on some farms, he said.
“We’ve found that dogs are pretty good at scaring grizzlies away from farms where there have been gain spills,” Sarmento said.
***************
Please feel free to add any stories for discussion in the comments.
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — Smokey Bear said it best: “Only you can prevent wildfires.”
Following in the footsteps of their famous mascot, U.S. Forest Service managers in the drought-stricken Southwest are urging people to swap their fireworks this Fourth of July for glow sticks, noisemakers and cans of red, white and blue Silly String. Not so fast, say some environmentalists. While it’s worth encouraging folks not to use fireworks amid escalating wildfire danger, they say it’s kind of silly that federal land managers would suggest using aerosol cans of sticky party string out in nature.
The advice began to pop up in recent weeks, with regional forest officials and the New Mexico State Forestry Division pumping out public service announcements offering alternatives aimed at curbing human-sparked blazes.They used a template that echoed similar advice from the National Fire Protection Association and even American Red Cross chapters in other states.
“These are alternatives for children and young people to do in lieu of fireworks in their neighborhood or on their property. That way we’d like to keep things contained to your property and your neighborhood,” said George Ducker, a spokesman for the State Forestry Division. “We’re certainly not advocating folks go out into the forest and, you know, shoot off Silly String.”
But if they do, the Forest Service has one request: Leave no trace.
However people choose to celebrate, the rules and regulations need to be followed if they are on national forest land no matter if it’s July Fourth or any other day, said John Winn, a spokesman for the federal agency.
“That includes but is not limited to the restricted use of fireworks, properly disposing of garbage in garbage bins, maintaining quiet hours and cleaning up after camping or day-use activities,” he said.
Cleaning up spray streamers fits in that category, he added.
While the spray can party favors have been around since the 1970s, manufacturers keep their recipes under wraps. In general, the string is made of a polymer resin, a substance that makes the resin foam up, a solvent, some coloring and the propellant that forces the chemicals out of the can.
Authorities in Los Angeles decided to ban aerosol party streamers in 2004 on Hollywood Boulevard every Halloween because partygoers were using the empty cans as projectiles and many were left littering the streets and clogging gutters.
Towns in Massachusetts and Alabama also have adopted ordinances restricting the use of the string, pointing to problems during special events. In one New York town, firefighters who participated in a parade complained that the string was damaging the paint on their trucks.
Rebecca Sobel with the group WildEarth Guardians said party string is just one of the hundreds of seemingly benign products that pervade daily life.
“We have to be more vigilant about the chemicals in ‘everyday’ things,” she said. “Maybe the Forest Service should have known better, but it’s also hard to know what chemicals some products contain.”
She pointed to recent headlines about ‘forever chemicals’ found in firefighting foam and other common products, saying consumers have a responsibility to be aware of threats but they can’t do that if regulatory agencies aren’t being transparent or reading labels themselves.Some consumer product sites say party string is not biodegradable. While many cans are labeled as non-toxic, the string can damage vinyl surfaces or the clear coat on vehicles.
The labels also suggest that if ingested, medical attention might be in order. That goes for humans and pets, as some of the ingredients can contain gastrointestinal irritants.
“All of this makes it inappropriate for use at our national forest recreation sites,” says Madeleine Carey, WildEarth Guardians’ Southwest conservation manager. “Many seemingly fun party products like Silly String are extremely harmful to our forests and wildlife. Mylar balloons, noisemakers and glitter are also on the list.”
I’m not sure if you pack out noisemakers why they would be on the list?
The bottom line for state and federal forest managers is to prevent human-caused wildfires, Ducker said.
We have discussed “corner crossings” and other barriers to public land access resulting from land ownership patterns. Overlaying this is another barrier – availability of information about the extent of public access that does exist. It turns out there is a lot more existing public access than meets the eye, and some technology and legislation is making more information about it available to public land users.
… the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership teamed up with onX to quantify the scope of the landlocked public lands problem and offer solutions that would open access to these acres. Since 2018, the team has found a staggering 16.43 million acres of inaccessible public land across 22 states. … With $27 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund dedicated to increasing public land access each year, there is an incredible opportunity to address the landlocked public lands problem through strategic land acquisitions and access easements.
We soon learned that the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service held roughly 90,000 such access easements—where permanent access to public land has already been secured—but 50,000 were only recorded on paper, stored away in the dusty filing cabinets of local agency offices. Neither the agencies, nor the public, have ever had a complete digital picture of where there is legal access to our public land. Seeing a clear need for a solution, TRCP experts began talking with lawmakers, which led to introduction of federal legislation called the Modernizing Access to Our Public Land Act.
The MAPLand Act requires federal land management agencies to digitize their paper easements, information about roads and trails and vehicle type on federal land, and the boundaries of areas with federal rules concerning weapon type and shooting. The ultimate goal is to make all of this information readily available to the public. In April 2022, the MAPLand Act was signed into law. This means that complete and consistent mapping data about road, trail, and shooting access will be digitally available to hunters and anglers wanting to use their public lands.
Of course funding this in a deficit-reducing environment may not happen as fast as we’d like.
On June 9th, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal in a lawsuit against its revised forest plan. The appeal involved questions about ESA consultation on the plan’s effects on grizzly bears, and the proper environmental baseline for the amount of roads used in the consultation process. After the district court opinion found flaws in the analysis conducted for consultation, the Forest reinitiated consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, which has now been completed. The 9th Circuit held that the new biological opinion made that issue moot. (A new lawsuit was filed against the new biological opinion, discussed here.)
However, Kurt Steele won’t be overseeing the Flathead Forest Management Plan. As of Friday, USFS Region 1 press officer Dan Hottle said Steele “was offered and accepted” a new post as deputy director at the regional office that involves “environmental planning,” according to the Flathead Beacon. It is unknown who will be Steele’s replacement.
This was also announced on June 9th, but I assume there is no connection between the Flathead Forest Plan and Steele’s move to the regional office forest planning staff (he wasn’t hired by the Flathead until after the plan was done). However, there may be a connection to his work on Holland Lake (discussed most recently here), since it’s hard to imagine that a forest supervisor would consider a deputy position on a regional office planning staff to be a great career move. That connection is denied by the Forest Service.
“There’s no correlation with this (personnel change) and Holland Lake,” Hottle said. However, he said he did not know whether Steele had initiated applying for the position or if the Forest Service offered it to him first. Hottle characterized the change in position as a “lateral move” with a salary that should stay the same.
This is interesting to me because the regional planning staff didn’t have a deputy director position when I left, and the current agency directory does not show that there is such a position to apply for. It’s not unheard of for the agency to create a position to place someone where they will be out of the way, and I’ve observed that planning staffs tend to be seen as places to put people who need putting (and of course, anyone can be a planner). Or maybe there is some kind of vindication going on because he will nominally be overseeing the revision of the Lolo National Forest Plan, and the Lolo is where a lot of the same people who oppose the Holland Lake development like to hang out.
Thanks to an alert TSW reader who forwarded this link to the Flathead Q&A’s about the Holland Lake Special Use Permit. The process is complicated enough, and specific enough to recreation special uses, that there are plentiful opportunities for misunderstandings. For one thing, the application for a new permit with the new company is still under review and hasn’t been approved.
I think the FAQs clarify what Anonymous said here.
“Those are the terms stated right on the face of the Holland Lake Lodge permit. The Forest Service ignored those terms and let the parties attempt to expand and upgrade by submitting an MDP and telling the public their preliminary decision would be to approve it as a categorical exclusion. The Forest Service accepted that MDP in April, 2022 but didn’t put it out for public comments until September, 2022, long after the permit had
been terminated. ”
It seems that there are three things that could easily be confused.
The FS reviews a new permit (to a new party) for an existing site.
The FS accepts an MDP.
The FS makes a “NEPA decision” to allow a specific kind of expansion or change to the existing site.
So if we go back to Anonymous’s comment.
Those are the terms stated right on the face of the Holland Lake Lodge permit. The Forest Service ignored those terms and let the parties attempt to expand and upgrade by submitting an MDP and telling the public their preliminary decision would be to approve it as a categorical exclusion. The Forest Service accepted that MDP in April, 2022 but didn’t put it out for public comments until September, 2022, long after the permit had been terminated.
Here’s what the FAQ says about accepting an MDP:
A master development plan (MDP) is a conceptual guide encompassing the entire operation presently envisioned for potential long-term development in connection with use authorized by the permit. Upon acceptance by the authorized officer, the master development plan shall become a part of the permit. There is no public process for acceptance of the master development plan because this is a conceptual plan only and does not authorize any action. No proposal for changes to existing authorized use at the resort, including development or construction of improvements, will be authorized without the requisite environmental analysis and documentation needed to support that additional construction or development under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Acceptance of the MDP does not constitute approval of its contents or provide any assurance that any item in the MDP will be authorized by the Forest Service or constructed by the holder. No rights or obligations of the holder or the Forest Service are determined by the authorized officer’s acceptance of the original or revised MDP, including the legal requirement to conduct environmental analysis under NEPA. Screening criteria are applied and if accepted as an application, subsequent NEPA analysis will occur when a proposal is brought forward for consideration.
(my bold).
It’s confusing because the “what is to be done” under the MDP may be similar, or identical, to a specific FS proposed action. An MDP is a “might could” in the current regs between the FS and the permit holder. The proposed action is a proposal for something to be done on the ground with environmental impacts, with all the public involvement and analysis requirements that need to be followed.
For those of us more used to the ski industry, an MDP is a strategic document that outlines what might happen and what direction the Permittee wants to go. Here’s an example of some coverage and here is a link to the Breckenridge 2022 MPD.
Here is a link to the Breckenridge 5-Chair Environmental Review, which uses similar language in terms of “it is anticipated but we are looking at scoping comments and further analysis.” Shout out to Dillon Ranger District for their story map.
Categorical Exclusion
Based on resource information gathered to date, it is anticipated that the Proposed Action falls within a Forest Service category of actions under 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) § 220.6 that may be excluded from documentation in either an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement, and that no extraordinary circumstances exist that would preclude its use. Scoping comments along with a complete resource analysis will determine whether this project can be categorically excluded.
The proposed project is consistent with category 36 CFR § 220.6(e)(22): “Construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, or disposal of buildings, infrastructure, or improvements at an existing recreation site, including infrastructure or improvements that are adjacent or connected to an existing recreation site and provide access or utilities for that site.” Activities within this category include but are not limited to “Replacing a chair lift at a ski area.”
(my bold)
Anyway, back to the Flathead FAQ’s.
What is the process if a new expansion proposal is submitted?
The permit holder must submit a proposal from the accepted MDP. The proposal will be reviewed under the screening process criteria (Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, section 251.54). If formally accepted, the proposal will be processed as an application and analyzed through the NEPA process as a proposed action. If rejected the proposal will be returned to the proponent.
OK, so what about the old permit and the new permit?
What is the Forest Service’s authority when a business changes control or ownership?
While the Forest Service does not regulate or otherwise control privately owned improvements, it authorizes and regulates use of National Forest System lands in accordance with applicable federal laws and regulations.
Any transfer of title to the improvements covered by a Special Use Permit or a change in controlling interest triggers termination of the permit. When private improvements change ownership or a change in the controlling business entity takes place, it is Forest Service policy to issue a new special use authorization to the new owner/controlling business entity. The acquiring party or entity must submit an application for a new permit.
Has the existing permit been terminated due to change in control?
The Forest Service was formally informed of the change of control and an application for a new permit was submitted. Acquisition of a controlling interest in Holland Lake Lodge, INC. triggered termination of the existing permit; however, termination is not effective until/unless a new permit is issued.
*******************
So there seems to be a question, brought up by the letter by Save Holland Lake, CBD and AWR as to whether the FS should authorize a new permit. But to me, the permit and specific construction in any proposal are separate.
In their letter, they say they “demanded it comply with mandatory regulations when determining whether to issue Utah ski giant POWDR a new term special use permit to triple the size of the lodge on the pristine mountain lake.” But a permit by itself wouldn’t authorize any of those actions without a further NEPA decision. So I’m still confused about that.
Madaleine Sorkin, one of the world’s top big wall climbers, climbed the Hallucinogen Wall in the Black Canyon of the Gunnison in a single day in April 2022 after replacing old bolts on one of the nation’s most celebrated big wall routes. (Henna Taylor, Special to The Colorado Sun)
And now climbers say the Forest Service and National Park Service are ready to propose a national prohibition on bolts and a review of all fixed anchors in the wilderness. The classification of bolts as permanent installations that are largely banned in the 1964 Wilderness Act, or require lengthy federal review, has galvanized the climbing community anew.
Climbers and their influential groups have supported major wilderness legislation in Colorado for decades. Longtime U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette has included language that specifically protects rock climbing and fixed anchors in her Colorado Wilderness Act, which she has proposed every year since 1999 to protect more than 700,000 acres as wilderness. The CORE Act also specifically mentions climbing.
“Imposing an unnecessary prohibition on climbing in the wilderness not only harms local economies and recreational experience and safety, it perhaps most importantly creates a serious obstacle to wilderness advocacy,” Murdock said. “A prohibition on fixed anchors in wilderness will make it very difficult for the climbing community to deliver full-throated support for wilderness initiatives. This is an existential question. A small minority of bureaucrats in D.C. are not understanding the far reaching implications and fast-acting repercussions of this type of policy.”
Colorado’s U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse, a Democrat, has joined Utah’s U.S. Rep. John Curtis, a Republican, with a bill that will fix the fixed-anchor debate. The lawmakers’ Protect America’s Rock Climbing Act, introduced in early March, directs the heads of the Forest Service and Interior Department to create a uniform policy and issue guidance for all of the country’s federal wilderness areas that allows “the placement, use and maintenance of fixed anchors” for climbing.
“By requiring additional agency guidance on climbing management, we are taking steps to protect our climbers and the spaces in which they recreate,” Neguse said in a statement.
*************
This is not the first time federal land managers have considered a nationwide ban of fixed anchors in wilderness. The Forest Service in the late 1990s decided to prohibit the use of new bolts in about 40 of its roughly 400 wilderness areas.
Climbers protested that decision too, alongside a wilderness group that argued all fixed anchors should be removed. In 1999, the Forest Service gathered the 23-member Fixed Anchors in Wilderness Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory Committee. The group met four times and agreed that climbs with lots of anchors did not belong in wilderness but climbing management plans can allow “a small number of bolts.”
But the committee was unable to, ahem, fix the fixed-anchor row. The result has been an array of management policies, with some public land managers prohibiting bolts and some allowing limited use, with many management plans concentrating anchors near roads and campgrounds.
This sounds really interesting but I have a conflict. Please contact me if you would like to attend and report on it for TSW, TSW will pay registration. Even if you go in person :). Here’s the link to register.
On Tuesday, April 18th, the Andrus Center will host an in person environmental conference focused on recreation and public lands with an eye towards resolving tensions and furthering best practices. Public lands act as anchoring institutions for surrounding communities. This conference, Re-creating Public Land Recreation, will celebrate the popularity of outdoor recreation on public lands and convene a dialogue over how to improve policies and funding, and collaborating across shared recreation spaces.
The conference is scheduled as a 7:30 am to 5 pm in person event and will be followed by a white paper. Due to the capacity of the venue, a virtual attendance option will be available.
Conference speakers will represent Federal and Tribal land managers, State and Local governments, and NGO and business leaders with expertise in recreation. Panel discussions will center on three themes:
Collaboration, especially working across jurisdictional proximities;
Funding, especially to overcome infrastructure and operational shortfalls;
Policy, especially shortfalls of current laws and policies.
Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Tracy-Stone Manning will deliver the lunch keynote address and will discuss ideas about what we can do together–with industry, partners, and land management agencies–to meet the challenges ahead. Former Montana Governor and Chair of the Foundation for America’s Public Lands (the charitable partner of the Bureau of Land Management, the new BLM foundation), Steve Bullock will address the emerging role of foundations and philanthropy to fill gaps and catalyze action. The remaining speaker lineup will be posted soon!
Registration for the full-day in person event is $85 and discounted student tickets are available thanks to the generosity of sponsors. There will also be registration for online viewing of the event for $20.
If you’re interested in representing us and reporting, please contact me.
