Wilderness

Mountain bikes in existing wilderness (redux)

by

I try to not get too involved in the wilderness debates (there seem to be enough people there already).  But I follow planning, and this started out to be a post on the status of wilderness recommendations on the Salmon-Challis National Forest, as part of their forest plan revision process, but there was also this:

“Two places in particular really stand out,” he said. “One is the north side of the Pioneer Mountains. The southern half is in the Sawtooth National Forest and is already recommended for wilderness, and the area around Borah Peak in the Lost River Range. Those two areas we find to have exceptional wilderness character, a lot of scenic values, great wildlife habitat, opportunities for solitude and other things that fit the definition of wilderness character. These areas have been managed as wilderness areas since 1979.”

I wanted to find out what happened in 1979, because this suggests a policy of excluding mountain bikes to protect potential wilderness areas outside of Region 1 (the Salmon-Challis is in Region 4).  Instead I found a recent law review article discussing the bigger issue including a couple of questions that have been key in recent posts.  It includes the history of the Forest Service policy:

  • In 1966, the Forest Service wrote formal regulations to implement the Wilderness Act, and defined “mechanical transport” to mean a cart, sled, or other wheeled vehicle that is “powered by a non-living power source.

  • The Forest Service later reversed course by issuing a declaration banning bicycles in 1977…

  • The Forest Service flipped one last time in 1984, after various groups, including the Sierra Club and Wilderness Society, successfully convinced the agency to remove the reference to bicycles in the discretionary 1981 regulation.

There is also a good discussion of the legislative intent behind the term “mechanized transport.”  The author buys into the interpretation of a previous author liked by the Sustainable Trails Coalition, “Legislative history informs the mechanical transport issue and reveals that Congress “meant to prohibit mechanical transport, even if not motorized, that (1) required the installation of infrastructure like roads, rail tracks, or docks, or (2) was large enough to have a significant physical or visual impact on the Wilderness landscape.”  But she adds, “Even if the term “mechanical transport” in the Wilderness Act does not include bicycles as a matter of law, the management agencies have the discretion to ban them, as they explicitly have.”  (This includes BLM and the Park Service.)  She favors local discretion.

Wilderness decisions are acutely emotional and political, and what it feels like we’re witnessing is how emotions and politics shift over time, sometimes in response to technology.  I personally would rather not see mountain bikes in wilderness because it makes wilderness smaller by making more remote areas more full of people, which is not a wilderness value.  But maybe people like me are dying out.  But I’m not convinced that bikes (large numbers over time) don’t have “a significant physical or visible impact” either, on at least most trails.

So I don’t know why the Salmon-Challis potential wilderness areas may have excluded bikes since 1979.  But here is the status of planning for wilderness:

“There are groups out there like The Wilderness Society looking at us as the last best place to designate more wilderness area,” Mark said. “I’ve already got two-thirds of the forest as wilderness. I’ve got local folks, range permittees, outfitter guides and others asking ‘Well Chuck, how much more wilderness do you need?’ That’s a good question and I don’t necessarily have an answer.”

I don’t like the implication that he thinks 2/3 is necessarily a lot (especially if there are going to be more people using wilderness areas someday because they can ride their bikes there).

Double the Fun, Not: Recommended Wilderness and Wilderness Bills

by

Thanks to everyone for these discussions.  I would like to circle back to where I started.  Until this started in Montana (?,  I don’t know about what is happening with forest plans elsewhere), my view of how things were working was pretty much how Jim Furnish looked at it in his comment earlier.  People recommend areas for Wilderness usually that don’t have current uses not allowed in Wilderness, or the bill encompasses existing uses, so no “kicking people out.” According to this thought process, every likely area is probably already in an IRA, so is more or less protected.  We can discuss why IRA’s aren’t good enough,  since there are generally no timber sales or roads within one under the 2001, Colorado, or Idaho Roadless Rules.

Some people say, the problem is that they aren’t permanent.  As a person who worked on Colorado Roadless through D and R administrations at the State and the Feds, my view is that politically, they might as well be.  In the same way that I think the Bikes in Wilderness dog won’t hunt, I don’t think that there is a real chance of that happening.  Politicians just don’t care enough to spend the political capital when they are facing Big Environment’s lawsuits, potentially forever, over a situation that they have pretty much adapted to since 2001.

So I was surprised when I found out that at least in Montana, people are being “kicked out” of areas they are already using to make more Wilderness.. not only when the Wilderness is created, but in recommended Wilderness developed via forest plans.  When I worked on Colorado Roadless we had a bit of the same thing.  We had an effort to remove acres that did not fit the Roadless criteria and replace them with other areas that did (actually adding more total acres). The State Department of Wildlife collaborated on the acreage identification effort.  They wanted to put in acres to CRAs that had had timber sales, at the same time saying that timber sales should not be allowed in CRAs. It doesn’t take a well-funded NGO to have some kind of internal target of “more acres=better,” these were State employees with that worldview.

If we call this kind of logic (as we see, not only held by Wilderness advocates) “re-wilding”, then the question is “where does it stop?”.  It becomes a very different playing field than what I perceive (and I could definitely be wrong about this) is the case with Wilderness bills (at least in Colorado).  Here we seem to work out the deals with the different groups, counties and so on, prior to introducing the bill. From this distance, it seems as if everyone needs to be on board before Congressionals spend the horsepower.

Right now I am thinking that having battles over recommended Wilderness in forest plans involves the same groups, and only protracts the battles that rightly should be fought, and deals made, at the political level.  Does deeper analysis really help?  Or is it about corralling groups in a room until they agree? Is this ultimately a political decision (yes) and is having a pre-controversy helping or hurting?  Double the hassle for everyone, zillions of comments to be read, and definitely not double the fun.  Yes, I realize it’s required, but things have changed since 1976, including many acres added to Wilderness.

The Place of Recreation in Wilderness, and Wilderness in Recreation: Exploring the Tension

by

From the 2015 Flathead National Forest NVUM Report. This shows perceptions of crowding by visitors in different forest areas.

Many thanks to everyone who commented on Monday’s post! You were full of information and (mostly) civil. I’ll build on some of the ideas from Monday in this post.

George Wuerthner said here “Wilderness is not about recreation. Therefore, if you are concerned about protecting wildlands and wildlife, you would support wilderness designation.” Others have commented on this.

There seems to be some disagreement about the relation of recreation to Wilderness. I wrote about this in an essay for the book “193 Million Acres: Toward a Healthier and More Resilient Forest Service” published by the Society of American Foresters and  edited by our own Steve Wilent (and with essays by other Smokey Wire contributors).  Since my essay was written, The Wilderness Society has changed its website to remove the “Why Wilderness” page I quoted from  below.

Here’s what I said in the essay:

“On its “Why Wilderness? web page, the Wilderness Society (TWS) states that “Wilderness is a haven from the pressures of our fast-paced society. It provides us with places where we can seek relief from the noise, haste and crowds that too often confine us. It is a place for us to enjoy with friends and families — strengthening our relationships and building lasting memories.”

However, NVUM numbers show that only .05 of national forest visits are in wilderness. And later, on the same webpage, TWS notes that: “Wild places are a great source of economic activity, especially in the rural communities that surround them. Outdoor recreation contributes more than $646 billion annually to the economy, supports 6.1 million jobs, and generates nearly $80 billion in federal, state, and local taxes.”

As part of its advocacy for increasing wilderness, TWS equates “wild areas,” where most people recreate, with legislated Wilderness. Since mountain bikes are not allowed in Wilderness, a push for more Wilderness necessarily reduces the diversity of recreation opportunities. As John Fisch comments in “Do Bikes Belong in Wilderness Areas?” in the December 20, 2017, edition of Sierra, the national magazine of the Sierra Club: “…bikes don’t belong in the backcountry… and all backcountry must become designated Wilderness. Ergo, the ultimate goal results in mountain bikes losing all backcountry access….”

It may be that increasing the numbers of acres in legislatively-designated wilderness areas and increasing access for the kinds of recreation that most visitors prefer (in NVUM data) are ultimately on a collision course.”

A couple more thoughts.  Many of those “recreation benefits” studies usually include all outdoor recreation, including skateboards, soccer balls, RV’s and OHV’s, so it’s difficult to argue for more Wilderness based on those benefits (if people are paying close attention).  Wisely, TWS has removed that. Are people in or out of Wilderness? Or only some people? Do we generally want to attract people to Wilderness, or try to keep them away, as George says, above. Perhaps it’s really the outdoor industry, not just MBers, and some Wilderness advocates that may come to a parting of the ways..

And if the idea is to keep people out, then the Som Sai proposes here, for Extreme Wilderness makes a lot of sense.  Let’s just convert all the current Wildernesses to Extreme (except where their Congressional designations allow grazing, motorboats, etc.).

As to solitude, let’s look at the graphs for the Flathead on the 2015 NVUM  above.  The NVUM has a great deal of information and is easy to access, including gender, socioeconomic status, distance traveled and so on.  I have heard criticism of these data, and this might be a good time to bring this up, since MBers are paying attention and some of the critiques were from that community. Nevertheless kudos to the Forest Service for doing this! I wish other information were as easy to access! Folks are encouraged to look at the NVUMs from their neighboring forests and share observations. Here is the link.

Why Not Go For Wilderness Lite: A Designation That Includes Mountain Bikes?

by
Wilderness or Wilderness LIte?

 

First of all, let me restate that I think that we don’t need mountain bikes in Wilderness. As others have said here, IMHO it’s not a battle worth fighting, nor one that is likely to be won in court.  I would propose a Wilderness Timeout for sides to reorganize.  Rather than arguing about what should go on in Wilderness, we should take another look at the idea of Wilderness, Roadless, and Backcountry and make up a new designation (or use an old one that fits)- because it seems to me that what we are really talking about is the need to realign based on our own needs and interests.

For those purposes, we all have to admit that mountain bikers are not part of the Wilderness deal.  So why should mountain bikers support land designations from which they are excluded? If bikes were never there, I could easily see that.  But we have crossed a line recently, in that areas are being recommended for Wilderness such that biking will not be allowed where it already is going on. If Wilderness advocates really believe that bikes are more environmentally destructive, then building trails for them elsewhere will potentially be equally environmentally destructive elsewhere. And there is the whole question of trust- if bikers do a deal with Wilderness advocates (Wa’s)- will Wa’s support the new trails financially? Or will at some future date, the area with the new trails will also be on the list to be designated? Is there ever an end to the “need” for more Wilderness? Can you imagine Wilderness Watch (just picking a name, I don’t know all the groups) saying “OK, we’re done, there are now x million acres, distributed throughout the US, we’re now going to work on removing OHVs from Roadless Areas, or on to some other target. ”  And have the large heavily funded groups such as Sierra Club and TWS staked out positions on this (where do bikes fit in what we are advocating?).

Mountain bikers may be entering the time (perhaps calling for a Wilderness Timeout while they think about it)  in which their interests diverge from other Wilderness advocates. I can understand that that would be frustrating, and bikers may be offended by feeling that you are now not quite as OK in terms of environmental purity as you were when you were on the same team. And I know that there are far smarter people than I in the Wilderness advocate world who have done the math, and think that it’s worth it to pursue more Wilderness and remove you (a strong network of possible supporters) from it.

Again my problem is not with Wilderness, but rather, if there were another land designation, say Wilderness Lite, that includes mountain bikers, why not switch to “Wilderness is fine, but where mountain bikers exist, it’s OK to have Wilderness Lite”  which has chain saws and mountain bikes, but not OHV’s (perhaps), and otherwise strictly recreation. I think there is grazing in some Wildernesses so that might be OK.  Like I said, I know someone, somewhere seems to have made that calculation, and decided to stick to advocating for more “pure” Wilderness, but I am not really clear why.  I am interested in understanding why someone would want Wilderness rather than Wilderness Lite in those situations.

If Areas Have Uses That Aren’t Allowed in Wilderness, Do They Have Still Have Wilderness Potential?

by

I find the objection process under the 2012 Planning Rule to be quite interesting. Some folks say that it’s turned out like “another comment period.”  The idea was (which was also incorporated in the 2005 Rule) was that people would focus on specific concrete things in the plan, and not so much “you violated ESA” or “you did not consider the full range of alternatives.”

I’ve looked at some of the objection letters for the Colville National Forest Plan and found a number of interesting ones. Today I’d like to focus on this section of one on recommended Wilderness, part of a 20 page letter by the Northeast Washington Forest Coalition.

RWAs should be managed as wilderness. Pg 150 of LRMP – MA-STD-RW-02: allows mountain bikes & chainsaws in recommended wilderness. This management is inconsistent with recommended wilderness standards on other National Forests. Current levels of existing activities (such as mountain biking and use of chainsaws) will continue to occur until Congress moves to designate these areas as wilderness.

The 2006 USFS Handbook provides that “[a]ny inventoried roadless area recommended for wilderness … is not available for any use that may reduce the wilderness potential of an area. Activities currently permitted may continue, pending designation, if the activities do not compromise wilderness values of the area.” (2006 USFS Manual § 1923.03(1)).

However, the existing use of chainsaws, mountain bikes, and other mechanized vehicles is impacting the wilderness potential, including impacts on soils, wildlife, and aesthetics. Standards and guidelines are at the heart of a forest plan and serve as the basis for future decisions. Maintaining wilderness values is a responsibility the agency has under the Wilderness Act and is not discretionary.

I’ve always found some Wilderness discussions confusing, as they are part preservation of historic landscapes and uses (kind of a historic park idea) and sometimes protecting nature from humans, and sometimes touted as sources of recreation economic spending (obviously assuming that there is lots of human use). Sometimes the distinctions feel more ideological than other land designations, which are simply “you can do this and you can’t do that.”

What I don’t get about the chainsaw and mountain bikes, is that if those two things are bad for wilderness values, then if they are going on now, should the area not be recommended wilderness because these values have already impacted the wilderness potential?

I guess it’s just confusing to me that areas can become recommended for Wilderness with these ongoing activities, but the same activities between time t=(when recommended) to t=(when designated) would have such an impact that the potential would be reduced. I could even see putting a cap on chainsawed stumps per year, but how many chainsawed stumps would it take to “reduce wilderness potential?”

I disagree FWIW that the use of chainsaws has impacts on soils, wildlife and aesthetics. It seems to me that if you have a chainsaw going you get done quicker, get out of the area and leave the wildlife alone for a greater period of time. If aesthetics, couldn’t a chainsaw have a “handsaw emulation attachment”?

Maybe someone can help me understand these distinctions between actions which occur pre Recommended, and Recommended to Designated?

Collaborative flops

by
Salmo-Priest Wilderness, Colville National Forest.

The Colville National Forest released a draft Record of Decision for its revised forest plan on September 8. During the planning process, a collaborative group, the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition submitted a proposal to designate more than 200,000 acres of new wilderness, to be offset by increased logging on other parts of the Forest and building new trails for mountain bikers, motorcyclists and ATV riders, who would lose access to some trails if Congress approved new wilderness. The revised plan proposed by the Forest includes only 60,000 acres of wilderness recommendations.

I guess that’s good news if you think that local collaboratives have too much influence on national forest decisions and/or if you are a proponent of logging. But wait!  It turns out that the most influence was wielded by the local governments, and the local timber company isn’t happy about that.

Russ Vaagen, vice president of Vaagen Brothers Lumber Co. and NEWFC board president, formally objected to the draft plan in a Nov. 6 letter. In the letter, he said the Forest Service’s decision was “skewed” by special interest groups. “The Colville National Forest belongs to all citizens of Washington and the United States,” he wrote. “Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille county commissioners represent just a tiny fraction of these citizens.” Later in the letter he said it’s unavoidable that locals will have “personal, financial interests” in what happens to federal land, but that those interests should “have no bearing on federal land management issues.”

This sort of left my head spinning. Maybe it’s because they didn’t get the increased logging either (I don’t know if that’s true)? Or maybe it’s that the “collaborative” part should win out over merely “local.” Or did the “local” actually use an end-run to obtain a top-down approach from an administration hostile to new wilderness?

I’ll go out on a limb here and suggest that since decisions to designate wilderness are inherently and legally political, this may legitimize and enhance the value of a local collaborative approach. Of course all is not lost on the Colville; the collaborative approach could count for something when the collaborative makes an end-run around the Forest Service to obtain wilderness legislation, since it can undercut an agency position that the Forest Service is doing what the public wants.

In another wilderness squabble involving an end-run by local governments to reduce wilderness protection, three counties in Wyoming have chosen to bypass a statewide collaborative process and support federal legislation that would eliminate wilderness study areas without designating any new wilderness.

Titled the “Restoring Public Input and Access to Public Lands Act of 2018,” HR 6939 would remove wilderness study designation and associated protections from approximately 400,000 federal acres in Lincoln, Big Horn and Sweetwater counties (see the bill below). The three counties declined to participate in a years-long consensus-based investigation of the wildlands. Saying the wilderness-study designation “prevents access, locks up land and resources, restricts grazing rights, and hinders good rangeland and resource management,” Cheney introduced her measure Sept. 27. It marked the third time she bypassed the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative sponsored by the Wyoming County Commissioners Association. Across the state, 777,766 acres of BLM and Forest Service property are protected by wilderness study designation. WPLI sought a single statewide wilderness bill to resolve study-area status. A majority of commissioners in the three counties, however, responded to Cheney’s early 2018 call for legislation before the WPLI process played out.

I’m cheering for the collaboratives here, too.

Idaho county votes down wilderness

by

Follow-up:                                   

Voters rejected the proposal for the Scotchman Peaks Wilderness, 5,672 to 4,831.  As a result, Senator Risch will not reintroduce his legislation to designate the area, and wilderness legislation has no chance of passing without local Congressional support.  So to a limited degree we have local control of a national forest, but as the article points out, management under the forest plan, which recommends the area as wilderness, won’t change.  (The article suggests that Congress couldn’t change the forest plan; of course it could, but I don’t think there is a precedent for it.)

The unfortunate thing is that the voters seem to have been misinformed (which is something I would hope a congressman would take into account).

“The philosophy with wilderness areas is let it burn,” said Bonner County Commissioner Dan McDonald.

And, perhaps most importantly, (Forest Service spokesperson) Cooper said Forest Service personnel can and do manage forest fires in both recommended and designated wilderness areas. “We still do manage wildfire,” she said.  In 2017, the Forest Service sent smokejumpers into the Salmo-Priest Wilderness area to fight a forest fire.

My own interpretation is that suppression response depends on the values at risk, and wilderness area values, aren’t lost when they burn (in fact probably the opposite) – like other areas managed primarily for conservation or recreation, which is how this area is being managed now. 

Wyoming Public Lands Initiative and WSA’s

by

The differences between Montana and adjacent states are always interesting to note. Jon reminded me of that with his post about the WSA poll here. In Wyoming, the next state to the south, the state initiated what is known as the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative.

Here’s a link:

A voluntary, collaborative, county-led process intended to result in one, multi-county legislative lands package that is broadly supported by public lands stakeholders in Wyoming. The ultimate goal is a new federal law that governs the designation and management of Wyoming’s Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs); and, where possible, addresses and pursues other public land management issues and opportunities affecting Wyoming’s landscape.

I first heard of this by reading articles in the Wyoming Livestock Roundup on the Sublette County Advisory Committee. What struck me about the discussions was the scale of knowledge that the participants had, and the knowledge of the country and specifics of concerns. What also struck me was how little was about timber management and oil and gas, and how much was about different forms of recreation. Really, a lot less controversy in terms of management and more in terms of words (wilderness or not?).
Somehow it look as if someone’s marketing has a dual switch Wilderness or Destruction.

Here’s an example…

Smitherman said we are close on Lake Mountain, but we need to look at the West Lake Management area, the language of forest management practice. The biggest issues are in Shoal and Scab. We started with 42 thousand acres well protected. Conservation gets five percent of that. He said he can’t sell it, and he represents 15 groups.
Smutko (he is one of the facilitators, from the Ruckleshaus Institute at UWyo.) asked if Smitherman could offer a suggestion, concrete proposal.
Smitherman responded Scab as wilderness, and an addition in Shoal. Landers said this is where we butt heads, that neither of them can sell it. Lanning said
initially he had no problem with Scab for wilderness, but the committee ought to be looking more objectively at strong management rather than the title. With the o
objectives under the NCA you get all the protections you get under wilderness, but it allows for trail to be maintained easier.
On the north end, where there is cheatgrass, it can be sprayed by aerial means. That aerial treatment is not ongoing, it is only needed until vegetation can out compete cheat grass . Once achieved spraying is no longer necessary.

It’s from the April 12 2018 Sublette meeting summary, but you could look at probably any of the meeting notes from any of the groups, and see the same degree of specificity. Here’s another one:
Recommendations from the Fortification Creek Study Group.

Due to Public Comment and additional discussion by Committee Members, the following recommendation was agreed on.
Hard Release from Wilderness Designation (meaning the area could not be reconsidered for Wilderness designation again), with a permanent designation entitled “Fortification Creek Management Area”. The management intentions for this area follow:
1. Inclusion of a Map of the present Fortification Creek Wilderness Study Area showing the exterior boundary.
2. Management area represents only federal lands within this boundary.
3. No new surface disturbance unless needed for fire suppression.
4. No new permanent roads.
5. Maintain existing characteristics.
6. Existing uses continued such as grazing, hunting, and recreation.
7. No motorized or mechanized vehicles allowed other than reasonable fire suppression, weed and pest control, wildlife and stock water, or emergency needs.

It sounds like some folks start with management restrictions and then find a designation (National Conservation Areas, National Recreation Areas, Management Areas) but others are attached to big W Wilderness. There are two ideas here (which restrictions) and (how permanent). Permanency can be addressed via other legislative land designations besides Wilderness.

Even the Wilderness Society does not say that success is the greatest number of acres in Wilderness. At least not in this presentation by Paul Spitler here where he describes a variety of legislative land deals involving wilderness and other transfers, designations and so on, including two in Montana as successful.