“A number of environmental groups, including the Endangered Species Coalition, want to keep hunters who use packs of dogs out of public lands in Wisconsin, including the state’s national forests. The groups say the hunters and their dogs have made the public lands inhospitable, and they want the federal government to launch an investigation into the practice. Robert Williams is a Madison resident who frequently camps on public lands in northern Wisconsin. He says the packs of hunting dogs wreak havoc on the native wildlife.”
This brings to mind a similar situation in Louisiana. In 2012 the Forest Service amended the Kisatchie National Forest plan to prohibit the “age-old tradition” in Louisiana of hunting deer with dogs because of user conflicts. In Louisiana Sportsmen Alliance v. Vilsack, a federal district court upheld the forest plan amendment. It stated: “We are conscious of the fact that KNF is a National Forest, owned by the United States and to be utilized in the best interests of all. The law empowers the agency to make precisely the kinds of decisions made here.” (The Fifth Circuit then held that plaintiffs had not established standing to sue and dismissed the case.) If the agency has the authority to regulate recreation that impacts species listed under ESA, then its failure to do so in Wisconsin might violate the law. (However, under the 2012 Planning Rule, forest plans do not directly regulate users by themselves, and a separate closure order would be required.)
The project proposes to designate a trail system in the Ochocos specifically for off-highway vehicles. The trail would be open seasonally and it would be built using mostly existing roads and trails tied together by some currently open roads. It would be a system where motorcycles, quads, side-by- sides, and Jeeps could ride trails designed specifically for enjoyment and recreation. The trail system would be accessed at designated staging areas, parking areas, or trailheads.
The current Final Supplemental EIS has five alternatives for the trail system that range in distance from 124 miles (Alt 2) to 158 miles (Alt 4), and the No Action alternative (Alt 1).
The idea for this system originated in 2009 when the Ochoco National Forest conducted travel management planning. The 2005 Travel Management Rule required the forest to designate a system of roads, trails, and areas for motorized use and to prohibit cross-country travel. Under the motorized travel system adopted in 2011, recreational OHV users lost a lot of opportunity. More than 80 percent of the forest was made off-limits to OHV use and most of the roads still open to OHV driving lack connectivity and must be shared with cars and trucks. Through an engineering analysis, some system roads were also deemed unsafe for mixing non-street legal OHVs with
passenger vehicles and commercial traffic.
The Oregon Hunters Association, the state’s largest, pro-hunting organization made up of more than 10,000 members, filed the lawsuit in the Pendleton Division of the United States District Court on Aug. 31, arguing the decision to approve the trails is not supported by scientific wildlife research the Forest Service completed on the Starkey Experimental Forest in Northeast Oregon.
The hunters association argues the addition of trails and roads would increase use, which Forest Service scientists have shown adversely affects elk habitat, according to a news release from the hunters association Research on the Starkey Experimental Forest found the animals avoid areas within 1.1 miles of roads or motorized trails.
This idea of designating a motorized trail “system” as a distinct “project” seems kind of unusual to me (it’s not just a “travel plan”). The conflicts with wildlife are not, however. There’s also a claimed violation of NFMA. This lawsuit (“environmental extremists” abusing the legal system?) might get at some interesting questions about motorized recreation use on public lands.
And now, for something completely different. From the Colorado Springs Gazette here..
The Colorado Fourteeners Initiative on Friday released a follow-up to a first-of-its kind study from 2016, which estimated the state’s 54 tallest mountains experienced 260,000 hiker days a year. Now, the nonprofit stewarding the mountain trails says that figure is closer to 311,000. That kind of activity contributes $84 million to the state’s economy, the new study found.
And
Along with the counters, the study derives user estimates from posts on 14ers.com. The economic impact estimate is based on a 2009 Colorado State University report that found Quandary Peak climbers spent an average of $271 on various expenses including gas, food and equipment.
Without charging fees and getting into that can of worms, would it be possible to give climbers an opportunity to give something toward supporting and maintaining those areas. Certainly the Colorado Fourteeners Initiative does a terrific job, but if half the people donated the equivalent of 5% of their total expenses say, “$14 for 14ers” to the Forest Service, times half the estimated people climbing would be $2.177 mill. Unfortunately the trailheads probably don’t all have cell signal, otherwise it could just be a donation swipe and seemingly fairly easy to do. Personally, I’d like to have this available every time I hit a National Forest trail. Does anyone know of a place where collecting donations using any method is successful?
West Elk Wilderness, GMUG National Forest. Photo by Robert Tonsing.
As you all know, I’ve been interested in Forest Service recreation for some time. Recreation is the place where human lives are touched by the Forest Service, every day, all year, from the White Mountain to the Cleveland and from the El Yunque to the Chugach. Every age, ability, gender, race, nationality, are out there doing different things- mostly not in conflict with each other. And yet.. and yet Recreation does not seem to have the place of honor it deserves in the Forest Service program pantheon. One question is “what would it look like if it did?”
I volunteered to write an essay for Steve Wilent’s book .. the proposal was posted here.
The purpose of the book is not to criticize the agency, but to offer concrete proposals for how, ultimately, the agency’s operations might be made more efficient and effective and its land-management activities maintained, expanded, and improved. In short, the objective of the book is to examine paths toward a more healthy and resilient US Forest Service.
So I would like to hear from you, from your friends, from anyone. You (or anyone) can send me a post (with photo please) with your thoughts. If you don’t want to do a whole post, you can email me an idea or suggestion. Structure a post it how you want:- strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats. Top 10 Tweaks for Forest Service Recreation. Top Five Technologies to Bring FS Recreation into the 21st Century, or ? (since I retired I don’t know the current management buzzwords for Improving Things..)
You can craft a vision or a mundane tiny improvement (one of my friends suggested using texting to pay for payments and donations), or a strategy or a draft piece of legislation, or just about anything. If you work (or have retired from) a unit that has a new innovative approach to something large or small, or has done an experiment that worked, send it in!
And as Steve asked: “Rec is crucial to the USFS’s future, but it sounds like it’s losing control of this service. Or ceding? Or is this concomitant with the budget decline/fire spending/brain drain? I’d like to see you suggest how the agency might get back on top of recreation. What’s needed? More $, sure, but people and policies? ”
I think that this is the FS’s latest effort, it’s called A Framework for Sustainable Recreation (2010), so I think that’s what they’re pursuing now. FS recreation folks at all levels, current and retired, I’d really appreciate your perspective! So please tell us what you think. If you are hesitant to share your identity, you can send under a pen name and email.
Please send me your posts- terraveritas at gmail.com. Also feel free to send links to other articles and posts preferably sharing why you agree or disagree, and to share with others. I’m looking for an idea tent as big as we can make it. I’ll be posting them as they come in over the summer. We’ll have a chance to bring the highly diverse views and experiences of the internal FS and external readers of this blog to bear on the ideas, which should add a great deal in terms of vetting. And at the end of the summer, beyond the essay itself, we should have a compendium of ideas and suggestions to give to the incoming powers that be, as well as for our own groups to think about.
Yes, it looks like Forest Service employees should be concerned about how Trump might affect their careers. Here’s an example about offending private landowners who block access to national forests. (And, without any facts beyond earlier stories, I’ll suggest that you not think of these as long-term rural residents, but more likely some recent, possibly seasonal transplants, with money and political connections.)
Such cooperation, however, changed under the Obama administration as the Forest Service took a more strident approach in asserting claims to “traditional public access” routes. The dramatic change is reflected in a posting by Yellowstone District Ranger Alex Sienkiewicz who publicly advocated “NEVER ask permission to access the National Forest Service through a traditional route shown on our maps EVEN if that route crosses private land. NEVER ASK PERMISSION; NEVER SIGN IN. … By asking permission, one undermines public access rights and plays into their lawyers’ trap of establishing a history of permissive access.”
According to Sienkiewicz and access advocates, traditional public access is sufficient to establish a legal right, known as a prescriptive easement, to cross private property. Centuries of legal practice, however, have required that individuals or agencies wanting to establish prescriptive easements must prove that access was continuous, open, notorious, and hostile to the owner. In other words, the access must be without expressed permission by the landowner, a burden of proof that has been difficult, to say the least.
This doesn’t sound like the complete story. The federal government does try to protect its existing legal interests, and that includes historic access that may not have been formalized, which it tries to negotiate. I doubt if it often pursues litigation, but does sometimes end up in court to defend public access, as in this case involving access to the Lee Metcalf Wilderness on the Indian Creek trail, cited by the author of the op-ed above as a good example of negotiation (at least until it apparently went bad). The Forest Service met its “difficult” burden of proof in this case. There is a risk that asking permission now could undo the historic rights that already exist, but I don’t think it’s large, and I am a little skeptical that the Forest Service would “post” statements like that above except in cases where a particular landowner had made it clear that they were declaring war on public access, such as in this example.
Recently, the U.S. Forest Service removed District Ranger Alex Sienkiewicz from his position in the Yellowstone Ranger District pending an internal investigation into his efforts to defend historical Forest Service trails and easements along the Crazy Mountains.
When legal access to public land does exist, I believe Montanans fully expect the Forest Service to defend and maintain that access for Montanans. As with so many of these issues involving political pressure on public agencies, a look behind the curtain reveals a very troubling story. According to media reports, U.S. Sen. Steve Daines, and Congressman Pete Sessions from Houston, Texas, both contacted Agricultural Secretary Sonny Perdue regarding Sienkiewicz’s efforts to protect legal, established accesses to landlocked public lands. According to Mary Erickson, forest supervisor, “the reassignment was made after allegations from an assortment of landowners in the Big Timber area were raised to the level of the Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, and Sen. Steve Daines.“
Blocking and posting no trespassing signs at the head of Trail 115/136 prompted Yellowstone District ranger Alex Sienkiewicz to organize a trail clearing and marking trip this past summer. Prior to that the agency traded letters with the Langhuses’ Livingston attorney, Joe Swindlehurst, who has denied there is an old forest trail at that location.
It’s not a stretch to see this as politicians ordering a personnel move to keep public lands from public hands. Dangerous on both counts.
I couldn’t ignore these two stories showing up the same day (but I didn’t look for a photo).
Deschutes and Willamette National Forests (OR) proposes limiting wilderness users: “Wilderness rangers reported coming across unburied human feces more than 1,000 times.”
White River National Forest (CO) proposes limiting overnight camping in wilderness: “During the 2016 summer season, Jerman added, Wilderness Rangers encountered 273 incidences of unburied human waste in the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness.”
Not my area of expertise, but does raise some management policy questions. Maybe the permit should require completion of some training.
In a previous post titled “The response of the forest to drought” the questions led to the opportunity to bring us up to date on the current state of elk and the role that sound forest management can play. Here are some quotes from various sources some of which contradict what we have heard on this site regarding the need for dense cover:
A) “Wildlife in Managed Forests” – Elk and Deer – 2013, Oregon Forest Resources Institute
1) Page 2 – “Preferred forest habitat age: All forest ages, but most heavily associated with young stands where food is most abundant.”
2) Page 10 – “These results suggest that current commercial forestry practices are compatible with maintenance of ungulate forage species.”
3) Page 11 – ““For land managers who are interested in increasing healthy elk populations, their focus would be better spent on providing forage opportunities rather than cover.””
4) Page 13 – “Forage quality in late spring and summer is key to successful reproduction.” … “Elk prefer and will select certain highly nutritious and palatable plant species when they can get them.
These species, mostly in the forage classes of grasses, sedges, annual forbs and deciduous shrubs, provide a more concentrated source of energy than the less-preferred ferns, evergreen shrubs and conifers”
5) Page 14 – “Limited timber harvest on USFS lands since the implementation of the NW Forest Plan and social, political and legal mandates associated with late successional species have resulted in less early seral habitat on large contiguous tracts of USFS lands.”
6) Page 15 – “Where the objective is to provide landscapes with mosaics of early and advanced seral stages for elk, the effort will have to be ongoing in perpetuity and thus will be most effective if integrated in long-term management plans where habitat needs of elk are tied to forest manipulations”
7) “Land managers whose objectives include providing habitat and forage for deer and elk may want to consider the following silvicultural treatments:
• Where thinning is prescribed, thin timber stands to or below 50 percent crown closure to allow sufficient sunlight to reach the ground surface for early seral vegetation to become established.
• Retain any natural meadows and openings and remove encroaching conifers from these open areas. Note that power-line easements make great openings and often provide habitat for deer and elk.
• In thinned stands, create gaps of 1 to 5 acres on sites with east, south or west solar aspect and slopes less than 30 percent and away from open roads.
• In created gaps, plant a few native shrubs that provide fruit, nuts, berries or browse for wildlife.
• Seed all disturbed soil including skid trails, yarding corridors, landings and decommissioned roads with a seed mix of native grass and forb species that will provide high forage value for deer, elk and other species. These management prescriptions may not make sense for all landowners or all landscapes, but they will work in some areas to help provide habitat for deer and elk.”
B) From the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation we have 13 Bizarre Elk Facts That Most Hunters Don’t Know:
• “old trees are actually hurting elk populations.
“Our forest lands, whether on public or private land, are overstuffed with trees,” he told me over the phone. “The American public just loves trees, but in the forest where the elk live, too many trees block sunlight from getting to the forest floor. We’re not growing grasses and forbs, which are key to elk nutrition.”
What is needed are young forests, also known as early-successional habitats, that allow elk herds to thrive. Opening up tree-choked landscapes promotes the growth of low-lying vegetation, which are beneficial to elk and other wildlife.
“We’d like to see a lot more biodiversity out there so we’re really trying to encourage more thinning and more prescribed burning,” Tom said. “It’s not just for elk. There are a wide variety of bird species, small animal species, and big game animals that really benefit from the habitat work we do for elk.””
C) From the Forestry Source by Steve Wilent – Page 2 May 2014 “Embracing the Young Forest”:
1) “The Northwest Forest Plan’s was to secure late successional stands for the spotted owl … Now the battle is being waged … for … the inhabitants of the youngest forests.”
2) “In the Northeast and upper Midwest we documented 65 species … that were declining because of the loss of young forest habitat.”
To conclude this post let me repeat, one more time, that Single Species Management such as for the NSO and the 14 million acres set aside to “preserve” its habitat is having a far ranging negative impact on countless other species including elk. Single Species Management isn’t even working for the NSO as mentioned many times before (more details to come at a later date in response to a question from Jon Haber in a previous discussion thread on this blog site). Contrary to the opinion expressed by some on this blog site, sound forest management in the form of more small (~40 to ~200 acres) early seral regeneration openings and thinnings with included similar sized patches of stands near the maximum target density more evenly distributed throughout the forest would improve forage while providing cover from prey. Extensive contiguous acreages of dense conifers are counter productive to increasing or sustaining elk populations. Which is to say that those who focus on single species management and especially on late successional habitat (i.e. old growth) have forgotten about the importance of edge effect in wildlife management and the importance of maintaining a balanced age distribution of stands to replace the old growth which, no matter how hard you try, can’t be “preserved” in its current state over the long term. Heterogeneity/diversity is preferable to large contiguous acreages of homogeneity for all species in the long run.
Ravell Call, Deseret News San Juan ATV Safari riders navigate the Piute Pass trail south of Hanksville and west of Blanding, Utah. Two weeks too late…
I think that this is a sad story. I understand both sides of “not wanting more ATV trails” and “wanting to connect existing trails” and especially “getting ATV’s off other roads.” I get that “if there are hundreds of miles already within the monument, what’s six more?” and “if there are already hundreds of miles, why do you need six more?”. In short, I get how people can disagree about this specific trail. But really, they’ve been working on this six miles for 12 years and they missed the window by two weeks? Can federal land management get any sillier? If it were up to me, I would take existing projects and have a separate process for determining whether to “grandfather” them in or not. This article by Amy Joi O’Donoghue of the Deseret News is worth a read in its entirety..be ready to laugh, cry or both.
The new Bears Ears National Monument is already impacting land use in the region after a judge said an 12-year-old proposal to build an off-road trail is contrary to the presidential proclamation.
A judge with the Interior Board of Land Appeals ruled this week that no work can begin on the 6.4 mile ATV loop the Bureau of Land Management approved for the Indian Creek area until an appeal brought by environmental groups is settled.
The loop, sought by San Juan County since 2005, was approved by the BLM in December, just a little under two weeks before then-President Barack Obama made the 1.35 million-acre monument designation in southeast Utah.
Judge Silvia M. Riechel noted the proclamation states that any additional roads or trails designated for motorized use are restricted to those necessary for public safety or protection of objects covered by the proclamation.
Even though the BLM approved the trail prior to the monument designation, Riechel said the agency’s decision was not yet in effect because of an automatic 30-day appeal period.
“This is an exciting victory for wilderness, and is the first time an administrative body or court has addressed the legal effect of the Bears Ears National Monument proclamation, which calls for careful consideration and analysis when managing the spectacular and irreplaceable resources within its boundaries,” wrote Kya Marienfeld in a blog posted by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance.
Apparently there’s a 30 day wait period for ordinary BLM decisions, but not for extraordinary decisions like Monument designations.
Nobody knows at this point what kind of restrictions are actually going to be employed on the monument. It’s all up in the air,” Rampton said.
He added that the delay, too, marks another setback in what has been a long, drawn out battle.
“The plaintiffs in the case, the environmental groups, just don’t want ATVs anywhere. They certainly don’t want ATVs in any area that has wilderness characteristics. That is what their primary objective is, to keep ATVs out of the public lands to the greatest degree possible. They are very dogged and determined, and they are having some success,” Rampton said.
The environmental groups successfully argued that granting a delay in the construction of the trail prevents unnecessary environmental degradation to lands that would remain damaged long after the appeal is resolved.
The decision concluded that public interest was best served by preventing environmental degradation and preserving the status quo.
The BLM had argued that the 65-inch wide trail did serve a public safety purpose by routing ATVs off an existing trail frequently traveled by full-sized vehicles.
It’s also interesting that “the BLM argued” and apparently the BLM was on the side of the trail.. yet the BLM supported the Monument designation also. Perhaps the court case was unable to shift gears that fast? It would certainly appear that elements of the BLM (and the Justice Department) did in fact support something (at least until mid-December) that was contrary to the designation.
Al Hartmann | The Salt Lake Tribune Bears Ears buttes sit high over the surrounding canyon country in San Juan County. The formations are at the heart of the proposed Bears Ears National Monument.
This opinion piece by Jim Stiles was published in the Denver Post on Sunday April 9th. But when I went back to the DP couldn’t pull it so when to High Country News.
There are some interesting themes related to our recent discussion about wilderness, environmental impacts of recreation and marketing tools.
In this case, environmental groups seem to be saying that Monument designation will protect from things that are not really threats (to this parcel, in this physical/legal universe. But this seems particularly interesting about the Native Americans:
Finally, environmentalists ballyhooed that “the proclamation elevates the voices of the Native Americans.” Leaders of Diné Bikeyah had expected that they “would actively co-manage these lands side-by-side with federal agencies.” But the proclamation reveals otherwise. It is the secretaries of Agriculture and Interior who “shall manage the monument through the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management.” A Bears Ears Commission “will provide guidance and recommendations on the development and implementation of management plans.” Another advisory panel.
The government added, “The (BLM) and Forest Service will retain ultimate authority over the monument.” It’s impossible to recount all the broken promises made by the U.S. government to Native Americans — going back centuries — but this sounds like yet another deception. Native Americans have no legal authority to implement their preferences for the monument’s management.
…
Runaway tourism was once a serious concern to environmentalists, but the issue was dropped to pursue alliances with the recreation industry. The tourism nightmare that now defines Moab still doesn’t raise the ire of Utah environmentalists. Last year, when overflow crowds lined the highway and forced Arches National Park to close its entrance station, most green groups failed to comment.
SUWA recently asked its members: “Which threats to the Red Rock worry you the most? The choices were “Utah’s land grab?” “Mining and drilling?” “Off-road vehicle abuse?” “Road proliferation?” The impacts from industrial tourism were not even listed as an option.
Do the remaining wildlands of southeast Utah deserve protection? Yes, absolutely. Are there other options to do the job besides the creation of a national monument? Consider these:
*Strictly enforce the archaeological protection law. A monument might generate more funding for increased staff, but only if it experiences massive increases in visitation and damage. So instead of building extravagant visitor centers and costly “improvements,” create an ”ARPA Protection Unit” of trained rangers from the Inter-Tribal Coalition, the BLM and Forest Service. The new rangers could target the areas most vulnerable to vandalism and protect Native American practices and rituals.
*Seek honest and enforceable ways to empower Native Americans. Toothless advisory panels are an insult.
*Withdraw all oil and gas leases that are commercially marginal within the monument boundaries. End a pointless argument.
*Demand that Utah environmentalists sever their ties to the relentless recreation economy. Tourism can be as devastating to natural values as energy development, and both must be scrutinized. Be consistent.
Unless environmentalists address these issues, we may someday discover — too late — that monument designation has helped to destroy the very qualities its supporters want to protect. Protecting the Bears Ears region is an absolute necessity. Turning it into a marketing tool to be packaged and sold is a sacrilege. Bear Ears deserves better.
The Forest Service turned back a challenge on the Manti-La Sal National Forest to its management of a research natural area in Utah Native Plant Society v. U. S. Forest Service. The state of Utah had introduced mountain goats outside of the national forest boundary, over the objections of the Forest Service that they could adversely affect the plants being protected by the RNA. Plaintiffs challenged the Forest Service for allowing the reintroduction, and failing to remove the goats after they were introduced. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims because there was no requirement for a special use permit for actions beyond national forest boundaries or for “migrating wildlife,” and the Forest had not yet determined the effects of the introduction nor decided to take any action on the mountain goats that could be challenged. The court did indicate that this was not the end of the story:
“Indeed, it would be nonsensical if an administrative agency could kick the proverbial can down the road by merely stating that more research must be conducted before acting. Eventually, after further research, the Forest Service will need to take a position.”
In Granat v. USDA a federal district court in California upheld the travel management plan for the Plumas National Forest against a NEPA challenge from counties and motorized user groups. It refused to require the Forest to conduct field surveys to support its environmental analysis because plaintiffs did not explain how that would have changed the outcome of the analysis conducted by the Forest. The court found that the Forest had considered an adequate range of alternatives, that the prohibition of non-highway legal vehicles on maintenance level three roads was reasonable, and that the Forest properly coordinated with local governments. The EIS also adequately considered economic and recreation impacts and the Forest adequately responded to public comments. A cumulative effects analysis beyond the Forest boundaries was not necessary. Changes between the draft and final EIS were not “substantial” and did not require a supplemental EIS. The court also upheld compliance with requirements of the Travel Management Rule.
