Credit Esther Honig / Harvest Public Media Sawmills are more high-tech than they used to be. At Montrose (Colorado), working as efficiently as possible helps the facility compete directly with Canada.Let’s look at the idea of timber contract extensions due to Coronavirus. First, let’s look at the Rural Voices for Conservation Coalition.
I first ran across these folks when Tyson Bertone-Riggs spoke on a WGA panel, and since then I’ve been impressed by their work. This is from their April Newsletter.
Timber Markets
Another emerging issue is the risk that the slowdown of the timber market poses to our industry partners. Although the Department of Homeland Security considers the wood products industry “critical infrastructure” and is still allowed to operate, the reduced market for wood products is a threat to the financial stability of many logging companies and mills. While the Department of Agriculture has issued a Finding of Significant Overriding Interest to grant extensions to timber sale contracts, the same grace has not yet been granted to purchasers who hold stewardship contracting “integrated resource stewardship contracts” (IRSC). In a normal year one of the benefits of an IRSC is that it requires implementation on a faster timeline than a traditional timber sale contract, but such a requirement is not feasible under the current circumstances. RVCC has urged Department and agency leadership to extend the same contracting extensions to industry partners involved in stewardship contracts.
The second is an article by Bobby Magill of Bloomberg Press titled “More Logging in National Forests on Trump Anti-Virus Agenda.” Despite the headline, which sounds like it’s not really about the extension, it’s worth reading. One of the tags is “Environmentalists see move as a back-door approach to prop up industry.” I don’t know how “back-door” it is… Anyway, I think it might be an interesting media analysis experiment. I’d be interested in cases where environmental groups are interviewed about other Covid efforts to support industries. I haven’t seen it for the marijuana industry nor the recreation industry, and we don’t usually talk about “propping up” industries who are suffering right now. I thought we’d left the Darwinian capitalism model in the Covid dust.
Jim Furnish is quoted:
The contract extensions are “very unusual” but “innocuous,” said Jim Furnish, who served as Forest Service deputy chief in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.
Timber contracts have time limits when timber must be removed from national forests, or the contractor loses the right to cut trees, Furnish said. When circumstances occur beyond a timber company’s control, it’s the Forest Service’s responsibility to provide relief, he said.
“This is a concession to industry so as not to do further harm as related to their contractual obligations,” Furnish said.
But the administration is playing favorites, being generous to the timber industry while doing nothing yet to support other industries that rely on national forests, including recreation, said Josh Hicks, assistant director for policy and planning for the Wilderness Society.
“I would like to think that the administration would be trying to find ways to be supportive of all the different stakeholders and members of the public during the pandemic, not making sure that a single industry is being taken care of,” Hicks said.
I’m having trouble thinking what that would look like (the equivalent of timber sale extensions), since I don’t know the ins and outs of recreation permitting. Allowing more people per permit when outfitter-guiding opens back up? Concessionaires extending their permits or raising prices?
This photo is of Florida Forest Service (not the feds) training on March 8.Here’s an AP story about wildfire suppression folks and what they’re doing. It covers several different topics so it’s worth it to read the whole thing, but here’s a sample excerpt:
Wildfires have already broken out in Texas and Florida, and agencies are scrambling to finish plans for a new approach. They are considering waivers for some training requirements to previously-certified crew members, and moving some training online.
Other proposals include limiting fire engines to a driver and one passenger, requiring other crew members to ride in additional vehicles. They may scrap the normal campsite catering tents in favor of military-issue MREs, or “Meals Ready to Eat” to reduce touching serving utensils.
Federal resources for firefighting efforts may be more scarce, leaving states to deal with more fires.
In light of the “unprecedented challenge” of the pandemic, Forest Service resources will be used “only when there is a reasonable expectation of success in protecting life and critical property and infrastructure,” says Forest Service Chief Victoria Christiansen.
Meanwhile, here’s a link to a current press release by Region 2 that involves both recreation and fire safety (I just quoted the recreation safety, but here is a link to the entire press release).
“While we know that going outside provides forest and grassland visitors needed space, exercise and satisfaction, we are taking the risks presented by COVID-19 seriously,” said Eberlien. “We are providing some recreation opportunities where we can while protecting and keeping employees, the public and our communities safe from the virus, as well as protecting and keeping communities and natural and cultural resources safe from unwanted human-caused wildfires.”
Recreation Closures
Developed recreation sites are temporarily closed while dispersed camping, hiking and river uses are allowed, although discouraged. Closed developed recreation sites include campgrounds, day-use areas, picnic areas, and any other constructed facility amenities – such as potable water stations, fire rings/grills, picnic tables, restroom facilities with flush or vaulted toilets, and trashcans and trash collection services. Parking facilities, trails and trailheads remain open. Dispersed camping includes camping on a national forest or grassland where recreation facilities or services are not provided.
Forest and grassland visitors camping in dispersed recreation sites, hiking or embarking on river activities are
encouraged to adhere to the following safety and responsibility guidelines.
• Stay close to home to keep other communities safe.
• Stay 6 feet apart from others.
• Avoid crowding in parking lots, trails, scenic overlooks and other areas.
• Take CDC precautions to prevent illnesses like COVID-19.
• Prepare for limited or no services, such as restroom facilities and garbage collection.
• Prepare to pack out trash and human waste.
I wonder whether all Regions are taking the same approach? FWIW, the people I observed last week at an uncrowded Forest Service trail (all ten or so we saw in four hours) appeared to be following the precautions.
Thanks to Brian Hawthorne for this link to an E&E News story.
The proposed rules unveiled today by NPS, BLM, FWS and Reclamation come in response to an order Interior Secretary David Bernhardt signed last August directing the agencies to develop policies for e-bike usage as part of a strategy to increase access to public lands.
Bernhardt clarified his intent in a second order issued last fall that directed BLM, FWS and Reclamation to follow the National Park Service’s lead and allow e-bikes where appropriate (E&E News PM, Oct. 22, 2019).
The proposed rules unveiled today would not allow e-bikes where they are already prohibited, such as in wilderness areas.
BLM’s proposed rule would add e-bikes to its off-road vehicle regulations. Doing so would allow individual bureau land managers to authorize, or prohibit, the use of e-bikes on BLM lands.”We want all Americans to have a chance to create life-long memories exploring and enjoying the great outdoors,” BLM acting Director William Perry Pendley said in a statement.
The Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed rule would open the door to allowing e-bikes at the nearly 200 national wildlife refuges it manages that already allow non-motorized bicycling. The wildlife refuge managers would be required to determine that e-bikes are “a compatible use on roads or trails.””If approved, the rule will make it easier for visitors to explore these amazing places, with a bit of added assistance, if they need it,” FWS Director Aurelia Skipwith said in a statement.
The Bureau of Reclamation’s proposed rule would, like BLM’s proposal, add a definition of e-bikes to off-road regulations on Reclamation sites.”This is an important rule that will give more Americans access to lands that they may not have been able to access before,” Reclamation Commissioner Brenda Burman said in a statement.
NPS did not release a copy of its proposed rule, as the other three agencies did. But in a press release announcing the rule, the park service said the rule would “define the term ‘electric bicycle’ and allow superintendents to authorize e-bike use — generally “where traditional bicycles” are already allowed. That would include “public roads, parking areas, administrative roads and trails,” it said.
I looked at the BLM proposed regulation for an explanation of what it does and found this:
This proposed rule would not, on its own, change the existing allowances for ebike usage on BLM-administered public lands. In other words, no additional e-bike use would be allowed on BLM-administered public lands as a direct result of this proposed rule becoming effective. Rather, the proposed rule directs the BLM to specifically consider e-bike usage in future land use planning or implementation-level decisions. This new paragraph also provides the authorized officer with discretion to determine whether e-bike use generally, or the use of certain classes of e-bikes, would be inappropriate on certain roads or trails. While the BLM believes that increasing public access to public lands through the use of e-bikes would generally be appropriate on roads and trails upon which mechanized, non-motorized use is permitted, there are certain instances where that is not the case. For example, some trails may be particularly steep or narrow and the use of an e-bike at speeds higher than originally intended could present a danger to some users. In some situations, legislation or a presidential proclamation may restrict motorized use of a trail. Another example of where e-bike use might be limited is a non-motorized trail that originates on BLM public land and feeds into a trail system under the jurisdiction of another agency that does not allow e-bike use on that trail.
Proposed paragraph (d) of this section would allow the BLM the flexibility to utilize local knowledge and determine the propriety of e-bike use on site-specific basis.
It appears to be a rule that defines the categories of e-bikes, and gives e-bikes their own definition outside of other motorized vehicles, generally encourages them where bikes are allowed, and leaves the ultimate discretion to the local official. There are four separate rules, NPS, BLM, FWS, and Bureau of Reclamation. It will be interesting to see if they come out differently. What do you think, is it better to a) have a rule like this that makes distinctions between classes of bike, and between them and other motorized vehicles and encourages local officials to incorporate them, b) have a rule like this (with definitions) that is neutral or discouraging, or c) not have a rule at all, like the Forest Service (I guess?). Not sure what FS policies are currently vis a vis e-bikes. I wonder if it would make sense to try to harmonize the FS somewhat with BLM, at least in western States. Here’s a Dec 19 story about e-bikes on the White Mountain in New Hampshire.
March 31, 2020 Colorado’s Mueller State ParkI’ve been trying to piece together coverage of the challenge to “get outside” but “stay at home,” including the specifics about the reasoning behind different State/Federal management of outdoor activities..
It’s hard to pick apart. There have been a variety of stories about why the National Parks should all be closed. Basically the story seems to be that the Interior Secretary should close them all, whereas the current policy appears to be decided locally (with some exceptions: for example, Rocky Mountain was closed early based on local concerns, Grand Canyon just a few days ago, despite the Secretary having been asked earlier).
Bill Gabbert in Wildfire Today had an explanation for why they should be closed:
Most of the NPS visitor centers are closed, but parks that are still open while entrance fees are suspended can still attract visitors to trails and viewpoints. Unless a park is physically closed by gates, park law enforcement officers still have to patrol in order to avoid the mayhem that occurred when employees were prevented from working during the government shutdown last year.
There has been much pushback to making Parks free during this time, but it does seem that would limit contact (not collecting fees). I would tend to think that some parks tend to have visitor problems and others not. I haven’t seen a report (yet, though it may be out there) of a park by park estimate of damage due to the government shutdown. As I said then, we have millions of acres of federal lands without regular law enforcement patrols on trails -FS and BLM- and I still wonder what it is about people who go to which National Parks and why they behave badly. With appropriate social science studies at the time, we might have learned more about this.
Outside Magazine ran this piece (which adheres to the same thinking as during the government shutdown):
Writing about all of this now is eerily reminiscent of writing about the shutdown’s impact on national parks last year. Then, we had reports of overcrowding and damage, followed by calls from various lawmakers and conservation organizations for a total closure. And then people started dying. Now, we have reports of social distancing measures not being followed, confusion over which services may or may not be available, and everyone from staff within the parks to lawmakers calling for a closure. At least people haven’t started dying in the parks, yet.
I’m not confused over whether services might be available.. I just look on the Park or Monument’s website. Again, are people who go to Parks less able to use the internet?
They argue that all should be closed for the safety of employees and gateway communities. And many, but not all, are closed. And many are big “destination” parks or monuments, but many are not. And some are close to communities. Two examples in Colorado are Florissant Fossil Beds and Colorado National Monument. So we might think it’s OK for locals to walk around (as long as they obey distancing guidelines) but not those from afar. But how far afar? And how would that be enforced?
Here’s what Florissant Fossil Beds says..
Give Some Space to Keep Safe
The trails at Florissant Fossil Beds are currently open. The park continues to monitor the COVID-19 situation and maintains high standards related to the health and wellness of staff and visitors. There is a pit toilet located in the visitor center parking lot which is currently the only restroom facility. It is being cleaned once a day M – F.
There’s the crowding concern (people not keeping their distance), the toilet concern (someone, employee or contractor, is cleaning them; people are going into them) and the travel concern. I think the idea is that people shouldn’t be traveling certain distances for fear of spreading or acquiring the virus at gas stations, bathrooms or other sites they otherwise wouldn’t go to. But suppose you have an electric car and don’t use inside toilets? Here’s a thought piece in High Country News about the ethics of getting outside.
Meanwhile, our Colorado State Parks are open:
Park visitor centers and CPW Area Offices also remain closed to the public at this time.
All Colorado State Parks non-campground outdoor areas of parks, including trails, boat ramps, marinas and shorelines remain open.
Please use cpwshop.com or the park’s self-service stations to purchase passes for day use.
Restrooms remain open and are regularly cleaned at this time.
Please bring your own hand sanitizer. There may be no running water available.
Are Colorado State employees calling for park shutdowns, but it’s not being reported?
Are people visiting Colorado’s state parks more well-behaved than people who go to National Parks?
Is the worry employees cleaning toilets, visitors exchanging germs in toilets, employees doing law enforcement, people behaving badly vis a vis social distancing or ?. Most FS trails where I am are not crowded and don’t have toilets, so it seems reasonable to keep them open. Of course, there is the pragmatic problem of how you would “close” a Forest and whether sending people out to enforce it is more unhealthy for employees than letting visitors infect each other. There are certainly many considerations that managers have not had the opportunity to consider before, many unknowns, and I for one would feel uncomfortable second-guessing local folks making the decisions.
What other public land entities in Colorado are doing:
State parks are not closed to hiking and boat ramps, the National Parks appear to be trying to figure it out community by community. Here’s a site that talks about the National Parks and Monuments in Colorado. Here’s an article about the more “destination” Parks, including Rocky Mountain National Park, which is a day trip from Denver. The community of Estes Park asked Secretary Bernhardt to close it. BLM is apparently implementing different approaches by State Office. For example, here is the Colorado State Office’s COVID page.
What Region 2 of the Forest Service is doing: note that Region 2 includes Kansas, Nebraska and parts of South Dakota and Wyoming as well as Colorado, so they’re not strictly comparable.
“Rocky Mountain Region officials are temporarily discouraging continued recreational use on the national forests and grasslands,” the U.S. Forest Service release reads. “While trails and roads may be open for use, facilities like visitor centers, entrance kiosks, restrooms and more will be closed. Currently, the guidance temporarily allows for the limited local day use of trails and rivers. The guidance is based on a risk assessment conducted by Forest Service officials to determine significant risks that would be difficult to mitigate given the demonstrated risk of COVID-19 exposure in large, concentrated gatherings of people.”
Asked how trails could remain open when trailheads are closed, U.S. Forest Service spokesman Lawrence Lujan sought to clarify the point.
“It varies across the landscape, but generally, if the trailhead is closed, the access to the trail is limited,” Lujan said. “Sometimes a trail has multiple arteries and can be accessed from various points.”
Decisions are being made at the ground level for Colorado’s 11 national forests, which typically have three to six districts each. Lujan recommended users consult individual forests and districts online to find out what is open or closed.
“Each individual forest will report on their units’ recreational status,” Lujan said. “Know before you go. Check local public health guidance and orders, and your local district, before heading out. Take the necessary actions to do your part to prevent or stop the spread of the virus.
While the Forest Service is recommending trailheads also close, local forest offices can choose to keep theirs open if they deem it safe.
The Forest Service is also discouraging hunting, fishing and trail use.
Based on a brief survey of Forest websites, it doesn’t seem all that easy to figure out what is closed. Maybe others know more? And based on some trailheads that get crowded, closing seems to lead to more people parking along the road nearby (as do fishers), rather than people going home.
What does your Forest’s distance traveled look like?
If you look at the Forest Service NVUM numbers (granted that there are issues with these numbers, but perhaps they are the best available if we want to understand Forest Service recreation) we see that we can tell how far away visitors come from to visit National Forests. I did this extract for the Bitterroot National Forest in Region 1 (it’s easy to do for your own forest by following the screens and generating your own report).
I think the Coronavirus has encouraged (or forced) us to think about these distinctions, at least in Colorado. Here’s a piece by Jason Blevins in the Colorado Sun:
More resorts are banning uphill traffic as skiers flock. And as a second snowy weekend approaches with the entire state now under stay-at-home orders, more health departments and sheriffs are following that lead with both orders and requests to limit outdoor activity by visitors from afar.
San Juan County Sheriff Bruce Conrad on Saturday took the closures an extra step. He limited access to 220,000 acres of federal land to the roughly 700 residents of the one-town county. He joins the Southeast Utah Health Department as the only two jurisdictions to close public lands to everyone except locals.
But there’s a snag in those protective orders prodded by health officials and intended to stop the spread of COVID-19 in — and to — rural areas where local hospitals could easily be overwhelmed: Federal land policy prohibits limiting access to a select few.
In times of an emergency or public safety issue, like a wildfire, high avalanche danger or an accident, local authorities can and do temporarily suspend all access to public lands.
“I don’t think anyone would have a problem with that type of closure. But this seems to be an effort that quite explicitly discriminates against people who are not from the local area,” said Mark Squillace, a professor of natural resources law at the University of Colorado Law School in Boulder.
The March 16 order by the Southeast Utah Health Department closed restaurants, coffee shops and bars with prohibition of sit-down service in the tourist-reliant Carbon, Emery and Grand counties. It also closed theaters, venues and overnight lodging, noting that the three counties “are surrounded by virus activity.” In the section closing overnight and short-term lodging facilities, the order said only “primary residents” and “essential visitors” who were working in the counties “may utilize public lands for primitive camping purposes.”
If a county has shut down overnight lodging, and the only other lodging is on public land for primitive camping, does the county does not have the right to restrict that? Is that discrimination against outsiders or a necessary public health initiative? Do local public health concerns (life and death) ever trump the property rights of citizens from elsewhere to use their federal lands? It’s interesting that the ski areas, who presumably hold a federal permit, were told to shut down by the Governor. The many faces of federalism, at least as applied to federal lands, (and the federal government being a good neighbor) can be confusing.
Cheesman Reservoir yesterday.. almost 20 years since the Hayman fire (see background).Here are some pragmatic guidelines from the State of Colorado for outdoor activities during coronavirus. I’m wondering how similar these are to others.
*If you are sick, stay home. Follow CDC guidelines and avoid spreading the virus to others.
*Keep a social distance from others. Coloradans have access to 41 state parks that offer a variety of outdoor activities. CPW recommends activities done alone or with people that live in your home, such as walking, hiking, biking and fishing. These activities can be enjoyed while keeping you at a distance from others. CDC recommends six feet of distance from others.
*Avoid high-risk or remote activities. Accidents stemming from high-risk types of activities may require extensive resources. Colorado Search and Rescue teams are prepared and ready to respond, but could become overloaded if the number of calls increases and the number of available responders decreases. Being responsible outdoors can also help prevent additional burdens on our first responders and healthcare workers.
*Announce your presence to others. Help maintain the recommended six feet of social distance. Signal your presence with your voice or a bell when passing others.
*Stay regional. Front Range residents should avoid traveling to the high country or small mountain communities that are closed to visitors.
*Avoid times and places of high use. To avoid creating large crowds and groups at popular trails or outdoor areas, spread out to less popular spots, and avoid times of highest use if possible. If an outdoor area is more crowded than anticipated, do not hesitate to adjust plans. Use COTREX to discover and explore other local trails in your area to help disperse traffic.
*Practice good hand hygiene. Wash your hands, use hand sanitizer and cover coughs with your elbow.
Be kind, say hi. The risk of COVID-19 is not at all connected with race, ethnicity, or nationality. Blaming others will not help fight the illness. Do your part to be kind, say hi or wave hello, respect your fellow humans when you are out on the trail in these challenging times. Share smiles!
Green Mountain National Forest, Sherburne Trails Trailhead
Brian Hawthorne had an interesting idea for the Coronavirus Challenge.
In the February 17, 2020 post “Defining Recreation and Tourism Impacts on Federal Lands. I. The Outdoor Recreation Economy and Wilderness” Sharon proposed a series exploring
current trends in recreation and tourism and their impacts on federal lands.
As the post explained. and the comments proved, this is a wide ranging topic. That said, I believe there could be value in relatively narrow “hard look” at what the current trends are in
recreation on federally managed lands — and how those trends and the related impacts could be addressed via planning and management.
It would be possible to gather some highly useful information from a brief survey directed at a Forest level. A very rough draft is below for review. Please feel free to respond with thoughts
and suggested questions.
I propose it be sent to Colorado’s GMUG (Grand Mesa, Gunnison and Uncompahgre) National Forest. Only because it has the almost the full range of recreational uses and does a
decent job of leveraging volunteers and state/county agency/grant programs. If this effort is successful/useful — maybe then all of R2 and beyond?
The survey should be something that would take a rec person no more than 20-25 minutes to fill out. It should also be possible send the same survey to relevant state and county program leads.
Assuming USFS staff responds to the survey, a nominal baseline of trends could be determined. At least for that Forest.
Here are some very draft questions to consider:
1) Please list the top 4 rec activities occurring on your RD
2) What are the trends you see in rec activities occurring on your RD, specifically, of the 4 listed above, which are increasing, decreasing, changing?
3) What recreation activities would you describe as new?
4) What are the (4?) most significant problems with recreation in your RD?
5) Do you have any fee areas?
6) Do you leverage volunteer programs to assist in managing recreation?
7) Aside from agency funding, are there any funding sources you use to help manage
recreation.
Please respond with thoughts and suggested questions….
Some of my (Sharon’s) thoughts: this could be an example of co-production, co-design and co-analysis of research, if we could get permission for a Region-wide or national survey.
Another thought I have is perhaps there is a difference between scientific, or “understanding what’s going on” kinds of questions, and management questions. Those would be those designed to encourage and support people working in recreation, and listen to their own ideas for improvement and their own troubles and success stories. For example, a management question might be “what three things could be done internally by the Forest Service to make things better?” “what three things could the public do to make things better?” “Is there an idea you would try if you could?”
And perhaps more “sciency”: “what environmental impacts concern you the most about recreation? Is there research that you think needs to be done regarding some aspect of environmental impacts or other questions?”
For now let’s generate some ideas for questions. Again, the survey would be targeted at people working on a Ranger District in recreation.
The District Ranger of the Powder River Ranger District spoke at a Rocky Mountaineers (retirees) meeting about a climbing plan they had developed, and their hiring of a climbing ranger. Here’s a news story on what they were up to last summer from the Buffalo Bulletin. What was interesting to me were the tensions between local and non-local, and or traditional and non-traditional climbers.
Inside the climbing community, there has been tension over the new development, which some local climbers believe has been ill-advised.
“Some of the more traditional climbers got upset (about new routes), and they posted a letter around February, with around 700 signatures, saying that they wanted heavily manufactured development to cease and desist. They also asked the Forest Service to respond,” Weaver said, adding that the seasonal hire and the establishment of a management plan is a part of the Forest Service’s response.
The Ten Sleep Canyon issue has been a topic of conversation for most climbers this season, Nick Flores, a guide with Bighorn Mountain Guides said.
“To put it simply, there have been a few developers (individuals who develop new rock climbing routes) in Ten Sleep Canyon who have gone too far with their development tactics,” he said. “For example (this includes) over-comforting climbing holds, increasing the size of a hold with a drill bit, hammer, screwdriver, and adding glue to pockets to make them feel less sharp and more comfortable.
“These development tactics are not deemed as best practice by most route developers. When a handful of Wyoming local climbers found out about this they were outraged — rightfully so,” Flores said.
A local nonprofit called the Bighorn Climbers’ Coalition was formed with a mission to preserve, protect and promote rock climbing throughout the Bighorn National Forest. The BCC has been working with both route developers and the concerned individuals about the situation in Ten Sleep Canyon, Flores said. The BCC held three meetings to discuss the concerns from the public with the route developers, and as of now, is working with the National Forest on the climbing management plan. The plan will help regulate route development, educate individuals on best practice for developing climbing routes on limestone, development/maintenance of climbing trails, scope out all climbing areas within the Bighorn National Forest and more.
Under federal regulations as it stands, anyone manufacturing or creating new routes with any type of permanent hardware or apparatus, including bolts, glue, manufactured hand holds, or modifying routes through chipping or hammering new or existing holds, will be subject to criminal fines that could be used as restitution to the impacted area.
The Bighorn is currently working on a Forest-wide climbing plan.
Here’s a text of a letter the Bighorn sent out last summer reminding folks of the CFR:
The USDA Forest Service reminds all Forest visitors that constructing new climbing routes or trails on the Bighorn National Forest, including Tensleep Canyon is prohibited.
If an individual or group is manufacturing or creating new routes with any type of permanent hardware or apparatus to include bolts, glue, manufactured hand holds; or modifying routes through chipping or hammering or drilling new or existing holds, they will be subject to criminal prosecution, to include restitution for the impacted area.
Pursuant to 16 USC 551; 36CFR§261.9(a) Damaging any natural feature or other property of the United States.
36CFR§261.10(a) Constructing, placing, or maintain any kind of road, trail, structure, fence, enclosure, communication equipment, or other improvement on National Forest system land or facilities without a special-use authorization, contract, or approved operating plan.
The Bighorn National Forest is in the process of developing a climbing management plan, with the purpose of helping protect from degradation the aesthetic of the canyon and the unique climbing attributes found here on the forest. There will be ample opportunities to participate and comment on this plan as it is developed.
Your cooperation will only enhance and protect the resources that are currently enjoyed, and ensure that Tensleep Canyon and the Bighorn National Forest will remain a special place for sport climbing into the future.
Photo courtesy of Kurt Krueger – Western Montana Climbers Coalition
I was reading Sharon’s post about good and bad businesses and realized the same polarization is now occurring with recreation., and it seems the Bitterroot National Forest is ground zero for this new conflict. The BNF was the only Region One forest to ban bikes in both Recommended Wilderness and now it is instituting a forest-wide moratorium on sport climbing route development.
“With the sport of rock climbing growing dramatically across the West, the challenge on how best to manage all those new enthusiasts to protect the resource is an issue other national forests are beginning to ponder.
The controversy over the increase in rock climbing on the Bitterroot Forest has been a decade or more in the making.
It mostly centered on a popular climbing area in the Mill Creek area where climbers used rock drills to put in hundreds of permanent anchors to create popular sport climbing routes on what climbers called the Tick Wall.
With the sport of rock climbing growing dramatically across the West, the challenge on how best to manage all those new enthusiasts to protect the resource is an issue other national forests are beginning to ponder.
“Protect the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and WSAs from unlawful and unauthorized bolted climbing routes!
Recently, officials at the Bitterroot National Forest (BNF) took steps to protect the national forest, including the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and two congressionally designated Wilderness Study Areas, from a massive influx of climbing use that is damaging resources and elevating social conflicts.
The BNF issued a news release reminding climbers that it is unlawful for visitors to develop new climbing routes or trails or install “permanent hardware or apparatus such as bolts, glue, manufactured hand holds; or modifying routes through chipping, cleaning, hammering, or drilling new or existing holds,” on climbing routes while work proceeds on a forest-wide Climbing Management Plan (CMP). It’s a common-sense “time-out” approach that allows climbing to continue while minimizing further damage until a comprehensive climbing plan can be developed with public input and environmental review.
Sadly, a local climbing organization and the national Access Fund have launched a campaign urging the Forest Service to remove the protections, arguing that—get this— the agency shouldn’t take any action to stop the escalating damage until after the environmental review process has been done!”
“The ban was issued as an official order by Forest Supervisor Matt Anderson, and it declares all new route development (first ascents) after the date of the order illegal. The order does not include any allowances for emergencies, fixed anchors that protect natural resources, bolt replacement, first ascents with no fixed hardware, hand-drilled fixed anchors on new routes in Wilderness, or slings for descent. Of further concern, the Supervisor’s Order “reminds” climbers that new fixed anchors are banned—incorrectly implying that fixed anchors were illegal in the past. This implication is at odds with well- established U.S. Forest Service plans across the country, which acknowledge fixed anchors as critical tools for climbing.
“We haven’t seen a U.S. Forest Service decision as egregious and far-reaching as this in 25 years,” says Access Fund Policy Director Erik Murdock. “This Supervisor’s Order overrides a successful, existing agreement between the climbing community and the forest, ignores any public process, and sets a dangerous precedent for all national forests.”
Access Fund is working with Western Montana Climbers Coalition (WMTCC) to push back on this unsubstantiated ban and remind Bitterroot National Forest that fixed anchors are legal in national forests. Perhaps more importantly, we’ll be reminding the supervisor that a significant management decision like this, on our public lands, deserves public process and science-based decision-making. Learn more about this issue and past work with Bitterroot National Forest.”
The reference to science-based decision-making made me think of an opinion piece in the Missoulian here on the evils of collaboration,
“Collaboration is not about right and wrong or about intrinsic values. It’s a cop-out on the part of environmental groups that sully their reason for existence in order to be politically correct.
Ultimately, it’s a process that gives validity to those whose activities are either illegal, incompatible or so damaging to public resources that they have been or are being restricted for that very reason. Within normal data- and science-driven decision-making processes of land management agencies — the goal thereof, anyway — these peoples’ views lack substance and shouldn’t be incorporated into management…
Thus comes “collaboration” to justify misuse of the landscape. Best management practices, using science and best available data, don’t allow high-impact users the unlimited access they desire to meet self-centered, short-term recreation desires…
A Montana example of how wrong this now-popular approach to addressing land management via collaboration is exemplified by the Gallatin Forest Partnership. The Gallatin Range, adjacent to Yellowstone National Park, is a keystone of the Yellowstone ecosystem, the last essentially intact temperate ecosystem on our earth. There is nothing more short-sighted than to undermine environmental protections on an integral part of one of the original dozen World Heritage Sites to please users who have no appreciable respect for the global importance of this ecosystem or the future of what little remains of our natural heritage”.
At this point let me start winding my way back to the issue of good and bad recreation. The Gallatin Forest Partnership that so raised the hackles on the above writer was a collaborative agreement between non-motorized recreation groups and conservation organizations for management of the Gallatin National Forest in and around the Hyalite- Porcupine-Buffalo Horn Wilderness Study Areas. The issue the writer most likely has issue with, but only obliquely referenced,”high-impact users the unlimited access they desire to meet self-centered, short-term recreation desires“ was continued mountain bike use in areas where it is already established and recommending the remainder for wilderness designation rather that recommending the entire area for wilderness designation.
Although the writer says this is about science and not about values, he sure makes a lot of value judgments about the recreational users he opposes. They are self-centered.
Their views lack substance. Their use is incompatible with public resources. Furthermore they, presumably mountain bikers, have no “appreciable respect for the global importance of this ecosystem.” As far as the science, I’m not sure there is any evidence the wilderness designation is superior to Inventoried Roadless Areas, Recreational Areas, or Wildlife Management Areas. Most of what I have read references the need for roadless areas. As far as wildlife, there is some evidence that mountain bikes may cause more stress on elk than hikers in certain situations. It does not necessarily indicate that bikes are more impactful than supposedly low-impact and approved uses such as hunting or outfitters. What about economic impacts? Should the economic benefits of outdoor recreation be ignored? What about the mental and physical health benefits of getting outside in nature and having fun? The evidence is clear that it is beneficial for the individuals. Should this science be ignored? If these area are closed to recreation, will be people drive somewhere else, increasing their carbon footprint, or will they change activities and still be out in the forest still causing an impact? I think most studies have shown people will drive somewhere else to engage in their preferred activity.
Before I finally get back to the Bitterroot, one more quote from Wilderness Watch in opposition to the imposition of fees in Oregon Wilderness Areas,
““There is something amiss when an American citizen has to pay a fee to hike on their lands, which are really our birthright, not a commodity to be ‘sold,’” said George Nickus, executive director of Wilderness Watch.”
So this brings us back to the Bitterroot and good and bad recreation. First, a little information on the Bitterroot National Forest. Currently half of Ravalli County is National Forest and half of the BNF is designated Wilderness, mostly the Selway/Bitterroot, but also portions of Welcome Creek and the Anaconda/Pintlers. To the best of my knowledge, there no demand for bolting or the development of sport climbing routes in either the Blue Joint or Sapphire WSAs. I confirmed this with climbers coalition. Blue Joint is over 50 miles away from the area of contention in Mill Creek and the Sapphires are in a separate mountain range. The main climbing area is one mile for the trailhead, and despite the hysteria, it will not be confused with the lines in Eldorado Canyon waiting to climb the Bastile.
It seems everyone wants decisions to be science-based, but it becomes clear fairly quickly that science will not give us the answers. There is also not much room for compromise when one side is accusing the other of unlawful and unauthorized behavior. What baffles me somewhat is why the Bitterroot? Any day of the week the trails and lands around Bozeman, Missoula, Whitefish, Jackson are far more packed with people. Last year I saw more people on one backcountry ski tour outside Big Sky than I have seen in a year of biking and backcountry skiing here. Maybe it is because it still relatively quiet. Maybe it is because Stewart Brandborg who lived here in the valley espoused a no compromise ethos later in his life. Is the demographics: young vs. old, or newcomers vs. old timers? Is it because the valley is still rural and mostly conservative? My theory is, it’s the political non-viability of major wilderness designations. Occasionally you can get a wilderness for no-brainer areas like the Rocky Mountain Front, but the odds of ever getting a wilderness designation for the WSA or any significant portion of the recommend wilderness makes these designations life or death decisions for many people in the wilderness community. No one has attempted to get the WSAs in the Bitterroot congressionally designated wilderness since around 1990. (Tester did proposed some additional wilderness in the Beaverhead portion of the Sapphire WSA, but that bill died.) Same thing for any the recommended wilderness along the Bitterroot Front. As the possibilities for congressional support have dimmed, the desire, or depending on one’s point of view, the necessity, of getting the Forest Service to do what Congress won’t has become non-negotiable and any potential threats to the creation of de facto wilderness needs to be fought with all possible means.
Lance Bysher is a skier, biker, boater, hiker, rusty climber, all around lover of outdoor recreation and current president of the Bitterroot Backcountry Cyclists.
