Recreation

Colorado Sun Article on E-Bike Controversy

by

This article by Jason Blevins is my favorite article so far, as it explains things clearly, shows a variety of nuanced perspectives, and even asks the BLM folks what they are doing, as well as having a link to the order itself.

In the order, Bernhardt cited a desire to reduce management burdens and clarify “regulatory uncertainty” around e-bike rules on public land. No one can argue with that. State and federal regulations governing e-bikes do not always align in Colorado.

e-bikes used to be considered off-road vehicles
Colorado lawmakers in 2017 embraced a national standard, establishing three-classes of pedal-equipped e-bikes, based on speed and how the rider engages an electric motor no larger than 750 watts, or roughly one horsepower.

Class 1 e-bikes engage only when the rider is pedaling and have a top speed of 20 mph.
Class 2 e-bikes engage with a throttle and have a top speed of 20 mph.
Class 3 e-bikes engage when pedaled and have a top speed of 28 mph.
The 2017 state law allows Class 1 and Class 2 e-bikes on paths where bikes are allowed to travel and gives local jurisdictions the ability to prohibit e-bikes.

Federal land managers have regulated e-bikes as motorized vehicles. The BLM, prior to Bernhardt’s order, classified e-bikes as “off-road vehicles.” The Forest Service in 2015 and again in 2017 defined e-bikes as “motorized bicycles.” Both those designations emphasized the motor in e-bikes and kept e-bikes off trails designated for nonmotorized activity.

……………..
Here’s what IMBA thinks..they seem pretty reasonable to me.

The Colorado-based International Mountain Bicycling Association, or IMBA, heard this summer that an e-bike rule for the BLM and NPS was pending.

What surprised the group was the lack of differentiation between the three classes of e-bikes, essentially lumping in throttle-charged bikes with bikes that deliver power only when pedaled.

IMBA has supported Class 1 e-bikes on trails, as long as local land managers and mountain bikers are involved in the process of reviewing and approving that access, said IMBA’s executive director and legendary mountain biker David Wiens.

But most important, Wiens said, “is we don’t want to see access threatened by the introduction of Class 1 bikes on trails. As soon as access becomes an issue, we are no longer supportive.”

IMBA, while supporting a public process for allowing pedal-assisted e-bikes on trails, thinks they should be officially designated differently than mountain bikes. So those signs with the icons for bikes, hikers, horses, motorbikes and Jeeps should include an e-bike icon.

“We don’t want to see traditional nonmotorized mountain bikes and Class 1 e-bikes combined into a single category,” Wiens said. “We want them to remain distinct. That gives land managers options to exclude them in some places.”

It seems like maybe IMBA is saying some might be OK, and the folks below are saying none are OK so new trails have to be developed, but I’m not really sure.

Juli Slivka, the conservation director for Carbondale’s Wilderness Workshop, said in a statement that while e-bikes are a “great form of transportation” and should have a place on public lands, her group opposes e-bikes on backcountry trails designed for hiking, horseback riding and mountain biking.

“We’ll be working with our recreation and conservation partners to ensure that motorized e-bikes are not permitted on nonmotorized trails and that appropriate trails for e-bikes are developed in a way that protects backcountry recreation experiences and public lands resources,” she said.

More pragmatically, it seems like Bernhardt’s order asks the agencies to develop rules. As rule-making veterans know, there are required opportunities for public comment in any rule-making process.

b) Within 30 days of the date of this Order, submit a report to the Secretary including:
i) A summary of the policy changes enacted in response to this Order;
ii) A summary of any laws or regulations that prohibit the full adoption of the policy described by this Order; and
iii) A timeline to seek public comment on changing any regulation described above.
c) Within 30 days of the date of this Order, provide appropriate public guidance regarding the use of e-bikes on public lands within units of the National Park System, National
Wildlife Refuge System, lands managed by BLM, and lands managed by BOR.

So it sounds like there will be public comment on the change, and that this is interim guidance until the completion of the rule-making (which, let’s face it may well drag along post-election). It will be interesting to see what BLM comes up with in 30 days, especially since…

BLM spokesman Jayson Barangan said the agency in Colorado “is waiting on further guidance and direction on how to implement the order on the ground.” He did not know when that guidance might come..

Forest planning for wildlife corridors

by

The 2012 Planning Rule requires that forest plan revisions address wildlife habitat connectivity. In fact it is one of the “dominant ecological characteristics” that must occur with the “natural range of variation” in order to meet the substantive regulatory requirement for “ecological integrity” and the NFMA statutory requirement for “plant and animal diversity.” The Rio Grande National Forest doesn’t seem to want to take this seriously in its revised forest plan, as recounted here:

“At the federal level, New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall and others have proposed a Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act to create more tools for protecting migration routes. Our neighbors in New Mexico passed a state wildlife corridors act earlier this year. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has emphasized the need to ratchet up awareness and protection of corridors. And even former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke issued an order to conserve big-game migration corridors and winter range.

“Hence, with all of this activity agitating for increased concern and elevated action to protect wildlife corridors, the new management plan just announced by the Rio Grande National Forest is astonishingly tone deaf. Our national forest neighbors to the east finalized their long-awaited 20-year vision and ignored widespread calls for action to elevate wildlife corridors.

“It’s a disappointing example of compartmentalization taken to the extreme. Immediately adjacent across the state line in New Mexico, the Carson National Forest unveiled its draft plan and highlighted extraordinary wildlife values there around San Antonio Mountain with a dedicated Wildlife Management Area.  But it’s as though an administrative wall exists at the state line.”

“Having the Interior Department and state wildlife agencies and elected officials and some national forests all calling for action to protect wildlife corridors isn’t enough if one critical player, like the Rio Grande National Forest, is missing in action.”

It only takes one bad actor to ruin a wildlife corridor. That is a reason why connectivity was given such a high profile in national forest planning for diversity (I was there). The Rio Grand is currently taking objections to its final revised plan, which will be reviewed by someone at the regional level to determine if the Forest is meeting its connectivity/diversity obligations.  However, this is a cross-regional problem (Region 2 and Region 3), which is why the national office of the Forest Service needs to look at why forests in two regions can’t get their acts together on what conditions are needed for connectivity.

Maybe they should also take a look at a recent example in Region 4. This is a case where a state-recognized wildlife corridor led to changes in a trail project on the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

“The now-scrapped trail could have interfered specifically with the Red Desert-to-Hoback mule deer migration corridor, which was the first route designated by the state of Wyoming. An estimated 4,000 to 5,000 deer pass through the narrow bottleneck at the Fremont Lake outflow, according to a 2016 assessment of the migration path.”

‘The “desired future conditions” — a U.S. Forest Service equivalent for zoning — for where the trail would have gone are “developed and administrative sites” and “special use/recreation.” Those classifications would have allowed for new trails, and the Bridger-Teton’s forest plan easily predates the discovery of the migration route, which wasn’t until 2013. Outside of those processes, the forest sought input before proceeding with the plans.”

It’s great that the project decision is considering this new information and the new state designation.  I hope the Forest also recognizes the implications for any future projects in this area where it looks like they have decided that the desired condition is now something else.  The discovery of the migration route should have led to another look at the forest plan desired condition, and a plan amendment if they are deciding that it is no longer appropriate based on this new information.

 

 

 

 

Mountain bikes – off the beaten path

by

Nobody bit on my late comment on the Tenmile South litigation (Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest):

One piece of this decision is new to me: “My decision also includes restricting bicycle travel to system roads and trails.” Prohibiting bikes off-trail seems obvious, but it was criticized, and I wondered if this is commonly being addressed in travel planning.

I know there’s some readers with opinions on this, so I’ll try again.  Here’s the same decision on the Arapahoe-Roosevelt National Forest, captured in this headline “New rule in Arapaho National Forest limits bikes to designated trails:”

On Monday, the Forest Service announced that bicycles will no longer be allowed off designated trails and roads in the Sulphur Ranger District, which covers the Arapaho National Forest. The restriction applies to all kinds of bikes in both the summer and winter.

“A key aspect of this project is to balance all these trail improvements with the conservation of wildlife habitat, watersheds and other natural resources we value,” Ranger Jon Morrissey said. “Part of finding that balance is curbing the proliferation of user-created routes and keeping the impacts to the trails system so that wildlife and other resources can thrive.”

Off-trail use is how user-created trails are created, right?   (And I’ll argue it takes a lot fewer bike users – like maybe one – to create a trail than foot users.)  And the impacts of user-created trails seem like they would be not wanted on public lands just about everywhere.  Yet there is no specific requirement for the Forest Service to address this problem like there are regulations for motorized use that require travel planning and designation of routes.  So while there are designated system trails, there is apparently no requirement for bikes to stay on them.  Should there be a national prohibition?  Should forest plans identify areas where off-trail use is a desired condition?

Easy Ways To Comment on E-Bike Policy

by

It seems like most TSW folks who have commented here are against the Interior electric bike order. It may be similar to the proposal to close FS Job Corps Centers, in that a reaction from the public can get the decision turned around. To that end, I’m posting what the Colorado Mountain Club sent out this AM in terms of how to comment. I’m sure most of you probably belong to groups that have this handy “contact everyone” button. If you aren’t on a mailing list for this easy mode of commenting, maybe other TSW folks will know a national or state group that has the same approach to easy commenting. I’m sure you don’t have to be a member of the organization. If not, there is always the approach of contacting each individual separately.

Here’s what the Colorado Mountain Club has:

On August 29, 2019, Department of the Interior Secretary Bernhardt released an order to allow electric bicycles (e-bikes) on non-motorized trails. While some front-range communities allow Class 1 e-bikes on trails, this policy includes full-throttle e-bikes and Class 3 pedal assisted bikes whose motors can engage while traveling as fast as 28 miles per hour. At a national scale, this sweeping policy will truly change the dynamic of trail experiences on federal public lands.

DOI Policy (08.29.2019): https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3376_-_increasing_recreational_opportunities_through_the_use_of_electric_bikes_-508_0.pdf
Wilderness Society Press Release: https://www.wilderness.org/articles/press-release/national-groups-blast-interior-dept-opening-non-motorized-trails-e-bikes

Talking points:
This policy would affect hundreds of miles of hiking trails on BLM lands throughout Colorado in communities like Salida, Fruita, Grand Junction, Ridgway, Del Norte, Canon City and many more.
By issuing a sweeping policy to allow e-bikes on non-motorized trails, the agency is blatantly ignoring existing travel management rules and regulations. This undermines the bedrock laws that protect human-powered recreation and the backcountry landscapes and natural resources we enjoy.
While e-bikes are a very appropriate mode of travel on public lands, they have a motor and should be regulated in accordance with existing travel management rules. There are thousands of miles of motorized trails and roads in Colorado that are already legally accessible to e-bikes.
If any non-motorized trails are to be considered for e-bike use, the agency should carefully analyze impacts to current users, wildlife and natural resources before allowing e-bike designation.
E-bikes tend to be ridden faster than regular bikes, resulting in more speed differential between them and other trail users. This amplifies conflict and danger.
E-bike access on backcountry non-motorized trails may create situations where mechanical breakdowns, accidents or other emergencies could be catastrophic and put added strain on search & rescue organizations.
Public comment is an essential part of the decision making process on federal lands and input should’ve been requested in advance of such a far-reaching policy change.

As you can see in the image above, you can just click on a few things, add some sentences and it sends the comments to a bunch of relevant individuals at once.

A new DOI policy states that “E-bikes shall be allowed where other types of bicycles are allowed” – including hundreds of miles of non-motorized trails on BLM and National Park lands in Colorado. The policy not only creates a huge potential for user conflict but sets a danger precedent for allowing motorized vehicles on non-motorized trails and dismantling the Travel Planning Rule.

Although a rule-making process and public comment period will commence in the future, we urge you to please take a moment now to share your concerns with your legislative representatives and DOI officials.
Check out the Background Info tab for details and talking points
Review the DOI E-Bike Policy
Craft your comments below with details about how this will affect your favorite recreation spots

Through this action alert you will be able to:
Send a letter to your federal legislators
Send a letter to top DOI, BLM and Park Service officials
Submit a letter to the editor of your local paper
Share the news on social media

Colorado Trail Explorer and Its Ilk: Unintended Consequences?

by

Som Sai brought up an interesting point here that I hadn’t heard before.

I think handheld GPSs and apps like Caltopo which can be used with the GPS on one’s phone have driven a lot of use also. Many people who would hesitate to use a trail without marks and signage now feel confident on simply following the little arrow on the screen.

That has happened to me with one of my hiking buddies with COTREX a great app for those in Colorado. Maybe other states have these? I am not naturally an off-the-trail kind of hiker (too lazy), but some other hikers told us about a trail that was not on the map, and we could have done it without GPS, but (she) certainly did use the GPS. I can’t look at my phone and walk at the same time without tripping, let alone hiking. There is clearly a psychological tendency that I don’t have, and others do, to seek out undesignated trails.

Even in my part of Colorado, trails are getting more crowded (yes, and the tourism industry is trying to attract even more people, plus the resident population is increasing) and people who don’t want to be in crowds may naturally seek out user-designated trails or make their own. It seems to me that the topography in some areas might be more welcoming to this activity than others. Does anyone know of any studies of this dynamic? Or more personal experiences? It seems like where communities are adjacent to National Forests might be places where this dynamic has already occurred, and lessons could be learned.

Without painting mountain bike users as “the bad guys,” they certainly can go further into the back country in the same period of time as hikers. It seems like any user groups impacts would be a function of (numbers) (wildlife annoying properties- say accompanying dogs) (going places others don’t go). Would many horses, say, 15 miles in, be as bothersome to wildlife as a few mountain bikers? Or because of the cost, are there just a lot more MBers than horse people? At the same time, hikers could be camping that far in- how disruptive is that?

How disruptive are the “every day after work” in the front country, compared to the weekend type in the backcountry? Perhaps the residents vs. tourists? Are tourists more seasonal? Is there even a real distinction between the front, mid and back country where you live?

Americans’ love of hiking has driven elk to the brink, scientists say: The Guardian

by

Elk stand in an open field in 2014 between the Eagle River and Interstate 70 just east of the town of Eagle, Colorado, near Vail, Colorado. Photograph: Richard Spitzer/The Guardian
The headline is seriously overstated, but that seems par for the course these days. Here’s the link. The same story is in High Country News.

Biologists used to count over 1,000 head of elk from the air near Vail, Colorado. The majestic brown animals, a symbol of the American west, dotted hundreds of square miles of slopes and valleys.

But when researchers flew the same area in February for an annual elk count, they saw only 53.

“Very few elk, not even many tracks,” their notes read. “Lots of backcountry skiing tracks.”

The surprising culprit isn’t expanding fossil-fuel development, herd mismanagement by state agencies or predators, wildlife managers say. It’s increasing numbers of outdoor recreationists – everything from hikers, mountain bikers and backcountry skiers to Jeep, all-terrain vehicle and motorcycle riders. Researchers are now starting to understand why.

Outdoor recreation has long been popular in Colorado, but trail use near Vail has more than doubled since 2009. Some trails host as many as 170,000 people in a year.

Recreation continues nearly 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, said Bill Andree, who retired as Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Vail district wildlife manager in 2018. Night trail use in some areas has also gone up 30% in the past decade. People are traveling even deeper into woods and higher up peaks in part because of improved technology, and in part to escape crowds.

The elk in unit 45, as it’s called, live between 7,000 and 11,000 feet on the pine, spruce and aspen-covered hillsides and peaks of the Colorado Rockies, about 100 miles from Denver. Their numbers have been dropping precipitously since the early 2010s.

Outdoor recreation has long been popular in Colorado, but trail use near Vail has more than doubled since 2009. Some trails host as many as 170,000 people in a year.

Recreation continues nearly 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, said Bill Andree, who retired as Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Vail district wildlife manager in 2018. Night trail use in some areas has also gone up 30% in the past decade. People are traveling even deeper into woods and higher up peaks in part because of improved technology, and in part to escape crowds.

The elk in unit 45, as it’s called, live between 7,000 and 11,000 feet on the pine, spruce and aspen-covered hillsides and peaks of the Colorado Rockies, about 100 miles from Denver. Their numbers have been dropping precipitously since the early 2010s.

To measure the impact on calves, he deliberately sent eight people hiking into calving areas until radio-collared elk showed signs of disturbance, such as standing up or walking away. The consequences were startling. About 30% of the elk calves died when their mothers were disturbed an average of seven times during calving. Models showed that if each cow elk was bothered 10 times during calving, all their calves would die.

When disturbances stopped, the number of calves bounced back.

Why, exactly, elk calves die after human activity as mellow as hiking is not entirely clear. Some likely perish because the mothers, startled by passing humans and their canine companions, run too far away for the calves to catch up, weakening the young and making them more susceptible to starvation or predation from lions or bears. Other times it may be that stress from passing recreationists results in the mother making less milk.

“If you’ve ever had a pregnant wife, and in the third trimester you chase her around the house in two feet of snow, you’ll get an idea of what she thinks about it,” Andree said.

Andree wrote a letter explaining the dire impact of constant recreation on elk. Even if certain trails were closed during calving season, he said, elk would still be disturbed because some people simply disregarded instructions for them to keep out.

“Generally when you ask people to stay out of the area no matter what the reason is, 80-90% obey you,” Andree said. “But if you get 10% who don’t obey you, you haven’t done any good.”

The recreation community acknowledges its impact on wildlife as well as other development, said Ernest Saeger, the executive director of the mountain trails alliance. Many people don’t understand the significance of the closures. Others, he acknowledged, just don’t care.

So the group formed a trail ambassador program to post more informative signs at closures and even place volunteers at trailheads to explain why trails are closed. The scheme reduced closure violations in 2018, according to Forest Service numbers.

If trail building and closure violations in critical habitat continue, Devin Duval, Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s district wildlife manager in the area, anticipates the worst.

“It will be a biological desert,” he said.

Some thoughts: (1) Night trail use, I didn’t know about that, let alone it increasing. Maybe others can shed some light (so to speak) on that.
(2) Since most recreationists take gas powered vehicles to get to trail heads, perhaps there should be a moratorium on driving to outdoor recreation?
(3) How do these increasing numbers of people fit in with the “nature deficit” idea that still holds some sway?
(4) Are there better ways than harassing animals to study this problem?
(5) I’d be interested in how much is due to humans and how much to off-leash dogs (no, I am not suggesting a similar experiment with dogs).

Mountain Bikers and State Intervene in Ten Mile- South Helena Project

by
Helena District Ranger Heather DeGeest, center, talks about the use of existing roads in inventoried roadless areas to reduce fuels by logging and prescribed fire.
TOM KUGLIN, Independent Record

Lourenço Marques posted this as a comment:
He had seen this on FB.

Today the Montana Bicycle Guild, Inc., filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court brought by Helena Hunters & Anglers and Montana Wildlife Federation against the U.S. Forest Service. The MBG is intervening to support the Forest Service’s decision on the Ten Mile-South Helena Project and to protect the interests of mountain bikers.

“As part of the post-disturbance restoration for this project, the Forest Service adopted several long-established trails into the trail system inventory and also approved the construction of three new thoroughly vetted and needed trails.

“The lawsuit brought by Helena Hunters & Anglers and Montana Wildlife Federation challenges the incorporation of existing trails into the inventoried system. Their lawsuit also seeks to prevent two of the new trails in this area from being built. . . .

“This would end-run years of work and collaboration to impose a de facto ban of bicycles from every trail in this area targeted by their lawsuit. If the Helena Hunters & Anglers and Montana Wildlife Federation lawsuit is successful, the bicycling community would suffer a major loss and be banned from this entire area.

“This project doesn’t only impact bikers—every public land user would lose a couple of well-thought-out new trails that is the result of numerous people and groups working together for many years, including the MBG, to plan and collaborate with the Forest Service.”

Lourenço asks “Would any employees of or participants in the public-lands litigation factory care to explain how this lawsuit benefits the cause of conservation?”

It seems pretty much BAU to litigate fuel treatment projects in Montana. The interesting twist is about the trails. From this Independence Record story:

The project calls for logging, thinning and prescribed burning on 17,500 acres near Helena. Goals primarily focus on wildfire concerns, with the aim of creating safe places to insert firefighters and reducing a wildfire’s potential severity. A smaller aspect of the project includes trail designations and construction, which has drawn some criticism — and now lawsuits — over concerns of drawing mountain bikes into roadless areas.

The association and federation’s lawsuit was recently consolidated with a separate and much broader lawsuit filed by Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council. While the first lawsuit only challenges work in inventoried roadless areas, the second lawsuit challenges the entirety of the project and calls for it to be halted due to allegations of inadequate environmental analysis and impacts to wildlife.

The guild is challenging the trail portion of the lawsuit. The group contends that multiple trails in the project area have been used for decades by mountain bikers and notes that the project decision prohibits mountain bikes from leaving designated trails. The project officially designates two trails that have seen traditional bike use as well as construction of two multi-use trails in the Jericho and Lazyman Gulch inventoried roadless areas, the guild says.

Is this about kicking bikers off trails they currently use? But bike use is legal in roadless areas.. It’s all very confusing.

I also noted that the State is an intervenor as in this story from KTVH.

Finally, to make the whole project even more confusing, the project is currently underway while the lawsuits move forward according to this article that talks about the implementation (with good photos).

“Courts have not ruled on or temporarily halted the project as it hears the cases, however the Forest Service has agreed to suspend work in roadless areas until the court has ruled on the first lawsuit.”

Here’s an op-ed on the Collaborative and how their opinions were used in the decision.

Here’s a link to the EIS and Matthew Garrity’s (AWR) objection letter

Some of his claims are interesting:

The purpose of the project according to the DROD is to: “Reduce the probability of high-severity wildfires and their associated detrimental watershed effects in the Tenmile Municipal Watershed and surrounding area.”
This is a violation of NEPA since the project will not do this and the purpose also violates NFMA and the APA since trying to fireproof a forest destroys a forest and makes an unhealthy watershed.

Croatan National Forest Still Recovering from Florence: Carolina Public Press Story

by

Botanist Andy Walker of US Forest Service discusses a failed road and culvert that remains impassable this summer in the Croatan National Forest following storm damage from Hurricane Florence last year. Jack Igelman / Carolina Public Press[/caption

Another great story by Jack Igelman of the Carolina Public Press- full of interesting information about what happened on the Croatan National Forest with Hurricane Florence and their response. Here are just a few excerpts. The whole piece is worth reading and there are additional photos.

Facilities

While much of the interior of the Croatan is remote and difficult to access, the heavily used recreational components of the forest along the Neuse River were crippled, including three recreation areas that have campgrounds and beaches that remain closed.

Among the hardest-hit areas was the beach and a retaining wall at Flanners Beach in the Neuse River Recreation Area, which was destroyed by waves and wind that battered the shoreline during the storm.

“We are working really hard to get the campgrounds and beaches up and running,” Hudson said. But he added that “the number one priority right now is public safety.”

The popular fee areas are also a source of funds the Forest Service relies on to maintain campground facilities.

Also impacted by the storm is an 18-mile portion of the 21-mile Neusiok Trail, a segment of the Mountains-to-Sea Trail, which remains closed until Forest Service fire crews can remove damaged trees.

Gene Huntsman, a retired ichthyologist, helped carve the first mile of the Neusiok Trail in 1973 and remains active in stewarding the footpath. Much of the trail, he said, is maintained by volunteer groups, including the Carteret County Wildlife Club and other recreational organizations in collaboration with the Forest Service.

“The trail got mommicked,” Huntsman said. “It is so jungly down here that when a tree comes down, you don’t just get a tree, you get all of the vines and stuff that come with it. It took many people many hours of chain sawing, clipping and hauling to clear the trail.”

Prescribed Burn Program

One of the direct impacts on forest management from Hurricane Florence was that Forest Service resources have been diverted from managed fire.

Since the hurricane, the Forest Service has not conducted any prescribed burns. Staff members hope to resume burning once damaged roads and firelines have been restored this fall.

According to Hudson, the Forest Service targets managed burns in a single location of the Croatan every two to five years to match the natural cycle of fire. The annual goal is to burn roughly 15,000 to 20,000 acres.

How a fire burns depends on a range of factors, such as wind, humidity, topography and fuel load. A forest understory that’s too thick, for example, can stoke flames that burn longer and hotter and can damage longleaf pines or burn out precious species.

Managing fire and smoke also become more difficult and costly, and may produce health and safety concerns in nearby communities.

Hudson and Walker agree that missing one season of fire is manageable, but they are concerned about other future threats that can slow the progress of regular burns, such as funding, increasing development in areas bordering the forest and future large storms with damage on the scale of Florence.

“Once we fall behind on burning, it makes it that much harder to get caught up. If we get too far behind, the effects could be felt for years. The heavier the fuel load, the more difficult and costly each successive burn,” Walker said.

Rare Species

Since woodpeckers choose aging trees that are often hollowed out by disease, the trees are prone to damage caused by high winds. Throughout the forest, 150 trees with woodpecker cavities were snapped in two or damaged by the storm, which accounts for roughly 10 percent of the forest’s confirmed woodpecker nests.

To make up for the lost nests, the Forest Service drilled cavities in trees and installed 116 inserts developed by the N.C. Division of Wildlife that resemble a natural cavity.

Despite the damage, Cobos said, the woodpecker population is stable and evidence of the resilience of nature.

In fact, some rare species in the Croatan, Walker said, may not only have survived the storm but also are thriving because of it, such as the Carolina gopher frog, which requires fishless bodies of water to breed that were in abundance in the wake of the storm.

Another example is the well-known bug-eating Venus flytrap, whose range is limited to just a few portions of the Carolinas and flourishes in open longleaf ecosystems.

“Their seeds are like little tiny cannonballs that are dispersed by raindrops and may have been carried by floods,” Walker said. “We may find flytraps in places we haven’t found them before.”

The latest multiple-use

by

Pop-up shops!  What is a pop-up shop?  They are defined by someone who provides them as “temporary retail spaces that sell merchandise of any kind … Pop-up shops are taking over the retail world and rethinking traditional brick-and-mortar and big-box stores…”    The National Forest Foundation apparently had to jump on this bandwagon with Busch beer.  So here you go …. ,  a pop-top pop-up shop, coming to a national forest near you.

Conservation lands in many places have been overrun by crowds attracted by social media.  This seems like it has the same potential.  It would be interesting to look at the NEPA analysis for these permits.  (Do you suppose it’s in grizzly bear habitat?)

Reflections on Chip Weber’s Piece on Recreation and Risk

by

Colorado Avalanche Deaths By Year 1951 to 2016
In Jon’s post on grizzlies and recreation, there was a link to Forest Supervisor Chip Weber’s (I thought) thoughtful piece on recreation and risk and the role of the Forest Service. Of course it was in the context of the grizzly bear issue, but I thought it was worth relating it to the kind of recreation risks people have in other places. Frankly, I also liked the idea of a Forest Supervisor opening a discussion and telling us what he thinks.

How does the risk you are exposed to in these activities compare to other recreational activities that occur on the national forests?
What about rafting, boating, swimming, or fishing? Each of these activities has broad acceptance to occur on national forests, often in very wild and remote settings. From 2005-2014, there were an average of 3,536 fatal accidental drownings (non-boating related) annually in the
United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 332 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents. We do many things to try to promote water safety, but we don’t tell folks to stay away from the water.

Non-Montana perspective: This year there were six avalanche deaths in two months in Colorado. See here. And six so far this year on rivers, see Westword article here.

In “How to Survive (and Enjoy) Potentially Dangerous Rafting Season,” Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s Jason Clay underscored the risks involved in recreating on the state’s rivers amid runoff from a snowpack more than 600 percent above the median. That story was published early June 20.

By the end of the next day, three more people had died in separate river accidents. And now, the body of Colorado Springs’s Roberta Sophia Rodriguez, who fell into the Rio Grande River earlier this month, has been recovered, bringing the fatality total for the season to six.

Back to Weber’s piece:

So why such a different reaction to the much lower risks from wildlife encounters? These are low probability, high consequence events. Deaths from grizzly attacks are horrific. We have a visceral response to that imagery that makes the probability of it happening seem much higher than it is. Activities like driving account for many more deaths, still, driving for pleasure is the number one recreational activity in the country. We normalize risks from these activities because accidents and deaths occur so much more frequently. For a more familiar example, people feel safer driving (fairly high risk) than flying (very low risk).

I would suggest that we consider these different activities on an equal basis in the context of their relative risks when promoting recreation on national forests and other wildlands. All of that said, I think this conversation needs to address an entirely different aspect of risk, namely, who gets to decide what risks anyone takes in their recreational pursuits. I like to make those choices for myself and I want you to be able to do so as well.

Thrill seekers enjoy activities like whitewater rafting and kayaking, rock climbing, hang gliding, downhill and backcountry skiing, and riding challenging trails. The joy of these experiences provides great quality of life for both locals and visitors. The economic benefits from this are
expressed directly in local communities and indirectly by making this a desirable place to live. How will we, as a society, decide these questions? Do we want our decisions to reflect a narrow range of values, where only a certain, few, “approved” uses of public lands may occur? As bears
expand their territories, do we want to increasingly put more and more public lands off limits to recreation that comes with risks? We have a forest plan that seeks to provide the “greatest good for the greatest number”, valuing all of these uses and providing places for awesome frontcountry uses like biking and running as well as amazing, quiet and solitude in world class wilderness. I hope we will continue to value it all.

When I think of the array of avalanches, mountain lion, grizzlies, rafting and so on, I think of two other questions that perhaps Weber did not call out.
1. Before we keep people out, have we exhausted our technological safety possibilities?
2. To what extent is it even possible to keep people out? Of course, you can not permit group or commercial activities. But in many cases, that would not keep people out. It is possible that people (say rafters with commercial permits) are much safer than non-commercial people with boats.

Again, I think it’s a good thing that Weber put all this on the table.