Gary McFarlane sent the below as a comment, but since there are probably less than 50 people in the country who are interested in the details of How Roadlessness Works in Practice (as opposed to Grandiose Pronouncement about same), I thought it was worth posting here for maximal exposure to.. those happy (or not) few. Below is his comment and the other side of the Orogrande project that I’ve been able to piece together.
****************
Regarding the Idaho Roadless Rule, there has been little or no litigation brought to protect roadless areas under the rule itself. That isn’t because the rule is protective and working. Rather, it is because the rule is so weak and has many loopholes, there is little to be gained by litigation. That said, there is a history that my colleague, Katie Bilodeau, and I followed while we were on staff with Friends of the Clearwater that relates to the Idaho Roadless Rule and the National Roadless Rule.
About 10 years ago, Friends of the Clearwater brought litigation on the NEPA analysis (not the rule itself) on what the agency called the Orogrande Community Project on the Nez Perce and Clearwater National Forests. The Forest Service proposed roadbuilding according to the Decision Notice, 2.4 miles in the roadless area. In spite of recontouring, the road scar is still obvious. Clearcutting was alos approved, called a shelterwood but it turned out to be a couple hundred acre clearcut with a few leave tree clumps. The agency concluded in the Decision Notice the project would not harm roadless characteristics in the West Fork Crooked River Roadless Area, a chunk of wild country contiguous with the Gospel-Hump Wilderness. There were specialists reports that seemed to conflict with this narrative. Friends of the Clearwater disputed the charge that it would not harm roadless or wilderness characteristics. The court refused to grant a preliminary injunction and the sale went forward. The ostensible reason for the sale was to protect private land on patented mining claims in an area called Orogrande even though most of the logging in the roadless area was well beyond 40 meters of structures and private land, the maximum distance retired Forest Service Researcher, Dr. Jack Cohen, says is effective in preventing structural loss.
After the logging and roadbuilding, the Idaho Roadless Commission visited the area. The Commission agreed the logged area had lost its roadless and wilderness characteristics (they are essentially the same), contrary to what the agency alleged in the EA and in the litigation. Incidentally, the Commission and/or some of its representatives had tried to intervene on behalf of the Forest Service in the litigation. In addition, the Forest Service revealed on the field trip that the road that was built into the roadless area was only going to be partly rehabilitated, contrary to what the Decision Notice and the Idaho Roadless Rule required. Katie Bilodeau, an attorney and the Friends of the Clearwater representative on the field trip, pointed out the error. It took considerable effort and follow-up by the organization to force the Forest Service to comply with what it had promised to do and eventually the agency had to rehabilitate the road.
Furthermore, the “controlled” burn on the timber sale got out of hand and burned some of the leave tree clumps, threatening the private land. A year or two later a natural fire burned in the area. The agency spent millions of tax dollars trying to protect the private land the agency said was “safe” from fire because of the logging. Many private structures on the private land in the area did not follow Forest Service researcher Jack Cohen’s recommendations for making them more fire resistant by removing limbs or trees directly adjacent to buildings.
After this timber sale was completed, Katie Bilodeau and I prepared a report #https://www.friendsoftheclearwater.org/roadless-report/, based on the information that the Forest Service had supplied to the Idaho Roadless Commission and other information we had obtained from the agency through direct contact or through the Freedom of Information Act. We had both been following the roadless issue on national forests for many years, in my case dating back to RARE II. We wanted to see how well the roadless rules were working to protect roadless areas in Idaho and Montana. Here is a summary of what we found:
1. According to Forest Service data, the Idaho Roadless Rule and the National Roadless rule in Montana resulted in far more logging in roadless areas than either roadless EIS had projected.
2. The Forest Service’s discourse has changed over the years regarding logging and roadbuilding in roadless areas. Prior to the roadless rules, the Forest Service recognized in various NEPA documents (usually EISs) that logging and roadbuilding removed areas affected from the roadless base and wilderness consideration. Case law states in the 9th Circuit states that logging and roadbuilding are irretrievable commitments of resources in roadless areas. Since the roadless rules have been in place, the agency now sees roadless logging and roadbuilding as neutral or even beneficial to roadless or wilderness characteristics
That is until it is time to do the wilderness review under a forest plan revision. In spite of the fact that the Forest Service alleged in the litigation and the EA for the Orogrande Community Project that no harm would come to roadless characteristics, the agency refused to include any portion of the West Fork Crooked River under any alternative as recommended wilderness in the 2025 EIS for the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests Plan. Friends of the Clearwater provided maps and rationale to drop the acreage affected by the roadless logging and roadbuilding, but include the majority of the area as an addition to the Gospel Hump Wilderness. This is not the only case where this disingenuous bait and switch has occurred in (the former?) Region I.
3. The weak Idaho Roadless Rule and even the National Roadless Rule lead the public to believe the wilder parts of the National Forest System are protected. This is due in part to major segments of the conservation community overselling the roadless rules. Further, the term roadless, originally meant to apply to areas that could be designated as Wilderness, now refers to an essentially static set of lands that include land that is not roadless or undeveloped. Separate inventories are now done under Chapter 70 of the Handbook in forest plan revisions to review lands for wilderness recommendation. Whether by chance or design, this bifurcation obfuscates the on-the-ground reality of an important segment of the National Forest System.
The upshot is, it is not a question of whether the Idaho Roadless Rule is working to protect roadless areas. It was not designed to protect the majority of the roadless national forest acreage in Idaho. And, the question of whether the Roadless Commission has any real power in devolving administration of the National Forest System away from an entity formerly accountable to the entire American public is academic under the current regime.
Gary Macfarlane
[email protected]
****************
To be fair to the Orogrande Community Project folks.. here’s their side..
February 17, 2017: A decision by the State of Idaho to intervene on behalf of the Forest Service in a lawsuit challenging the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest’s Orogrande Community Protection Project is being hailed as a very positive development by the Clearwater Basin Collaborative.
The Clearwater Basin Collaborative, or CBC, is a diverse group of individuals who work collaboratively to enhance and protect the ecological and economic health of the forests, rivers and communities within the Clearwater Basin by working across a diversity of interests. The group provided information and feedback throughout the development of the Orogrande project.
“The Orogrande Community Protection Project decision is definitely a collaborative product that thoughtfully responded to ideas and concerns expressed by the CBC as well as individuals, agencies and organizations who participated in the process,” CBC co-chairs Alex Irby and Dale Harris stated. “We commend Forest Supervisor Cheryl Probert for her effort to find the right type and mix of fuel reduction treatments to create a fire break around the small community of Orogrande and its access routes.”
The Forest Service initiated the Orogrande Community Protection Project in response to Idaho County’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan which designates Orogrande, a small community located approximately 15 miles south of Elk City, “a community at risk from wildfire.” The rural area is heavily forested and experiences frequent lightning-caused fires. Residents were subject to evacuation orders during the fire seasons of 2012 and 2015.
Due to threats posed by recent fires, many residents have taken actions reduce fuels on their property and create defensible space around buildings. They strongly urged the Forest Service to do likewise, and worked with the agency throughout the development of the project.
..
Probert’s decision included treatment of nearly 3,500 acres with harvest, thinning, hand pruning, and prescribed fire to reduce fuels and improve forest health. Of those acres identified for treatment, more than 70% will be treated with prescribed fire only.
Only 300 acres (less than ten percent of the area) are identified for treatment with selective timber harvest, with roughly two hundred of those acres located within the 9500-acre West Fork Crooked River Roadless Area located immediately adjacent to and southwest of the community of Orogrande.
***********
Sadly, I couldn’t figure out how to add the Roadless boundaries to the map. Apparently the 200 acres with shelterwood/selective harvest were in the Roadless Area “immediately adjacent” to the community?