Wolves On The Rise in Germany: Prefer Military Training Areas to “Protected” Areas

Wolf pups in Neuhaus, Lower Saxony, on Saturday. Photo: DPA

New Scientist covered this story, which relates to the discussions we’ve been having about Wilderness Xtreme and Wilderness Lite. It also causes me to reflect on the distinction between “ideas about things” e.g. Wilderness in the US, and “things” e.g. wolves and their behavior, and the fact that creatures (including humans) don’t always behave as academics predict. It’s all pretty interesting, and I bolded the quotes I thought to be particularly relevant.

In the 1980s, wolves started returning Germany, mostly from Poland. “We were expecting that the large forest areas northeast of Berlin would be the first place settled by the wolves, because it is close to Poland and has dense forest,” says Ilka Reinhardt at Goethe-University Frankfurt.

But she and her colleagues have now analysed data from national surveys of wolf populations, and found that the first wolf colonies established themselves in Saxony, to the south of Berlin, on military training areas. This land isn’t open to the public, though there are no fences stopping people from entering.

With their dense forest cover and low density of roads, these military areas are a similar habitat to protected natural areas. But the team’s analysis suggests that the military land is in fact better for wolves – the animals died less often from human interactions in these places than they did in land specifically set aside for nature.

“Most of the dead wolves that we find have died in traffic accidents,” Reinhardt says. Though road density is similar in military areas, there may not be as much regular traffic there, she says.

The relative safety of these training areas seems to have helped wolves spread across Germany. Analysing data on wolf distribution collected between 2000 and 2015, the team found that wolves seem to be jumping from one area of military land to another, sometimes moving through and beyond other protected areas before establishing a territory.

Over 15 years, they found that wolves went from one established mating pair to 67 pairs across the whole country, with the population growing exponentially. By 2015, wolves had populated 62 per cent of the military training areas larger than 30 square kilometres, and only 14 per cent of similarly sized protected areas.

While it may seem like tanks and wolves make strange bedfellows, similar trends can be seen in other countries. “Something we see in our work in California is that lots of areas that have destructive processes happening, like logging, can be really important core habitats for large carnivores – here, it’s mountain lions,” says Justine Smith at the University of California Berkeley.

 

Many species are more afraid of humans than they are of our associated machinery like cars or even tanks, she adds. Recreational activities are often promoted on protected lands, while the public has very little access to military land.

“I think what might be going on is that in many parts of the world, protected areas are built in places that have a lot of people already. Or they can attract people to live near them because of the benefits they provide,” she says.

So the relative solitude of a military training ground may be what the wolves prefer. The routine of a military schedule could help as well. “There is some shooting, but it’s always in the same areas and it’s usually during the workday, so the animals can get used to it,” says Reinhardt.

Smith says conservationists could work with federal governments to optimise these lands even more by limiting light or noise pollution at night.

Here’s another news story about wolves in Germany.

Trump Designates Largest Wilderness Area in Oregon’s Coast Range

Today President Trump signed the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and
Recreation Act, which, among many other things, designates the Devil’s Staircase Wilderness. At over 30,000 acres, Devil’s Staircase now becomes the largest wilderness in Oregon’s Coast Range.

In the heart of timber country on the southern end of the Siuslaw national forest, the Smith and Umpqua Rivers define its boundaries. In the 1960s, the Forest Service imposed a moratorium on logging between these rivers pending completion of a soil erosion study. Although the study was inconclusive, the logging moratorium was lifted in 1980.

In 1984, when the Forest Service’s tried to resume logging, a federal district judge ruled the agency had violated the National Environmental Policy Act. The so-called “Mapleton” (named after the affected ranger district) injunction, stopping 700 million board feet of logging, was then the largest in U.S. history, surpassed only by the spotted owl lawsuit.

Speaking of spotted owls, Devil’s Staircase is home to the Coast Range’s highest numbers of these rare birds and the site of one of the decades-long spotted owl demographic studies. These studies provided much of the scientific foundation for the Northwest Forest Plan.

Structured Decision Making

FYI, a webinar of interest:

Structured Decision Making: An approach to solving problems in natural resources management
https://sfec.cfans.umn.edu/2019-webinar-mar

Structured decision making (SDM) is a flexible and robust approach to making difficult choices. It can be used by an individual or as the framework for collaborative decision making, and it can take as little as a few minutes or as much as many months. Most importantly, SDM yields decisions that are more likely to achieve your objectives and are more likely to be accepted by others. I will provide an overview of SDM, including the 5 main components of every decision, and examples of its application in managing natural resources, primarily wildlife. This presentation is designed for natural resource professionals in a variety of roles, from on the ground practitioners to higher level managers.

Date: March 19, 2019 from noon to 1pm
Speaker: Mike Larson, Supervisor & Decision Analyst, Forest Wildlife Research, MN DNR, Grand Rapids
Cost: $20 per webinar or $50 for the entire 2019 series (except for certain free locations in Minn.)

Trump’s USFS Budget

From E&E News today….

Disappointing, but not surprising, reduction: “Funding for wildfire suppression would decline, from $1.5 billion to $1 billion, although a new emergency fund of $2.25 billion would be available to tap if regular suppression funds are exhausted….”

 

Wildfire management draws budget focus

The Trump administration’s proposed budget for fiscal 2019 would put money behind officials’ promise to more intensively manage national forests — but doesn’t predict much more timber coming out of them.

That’s one takeaway from the administration’s budget proposal for agriculture and forestry, which would slash some programs popular with lawmakers while boosting other initiatives. Overall spending would decline from the current fiscal year.

The president’s budget calls for more hazardous fuels reduction in Forest Service-managed lands, reflecting officials’ position that those areas have become more at risk for fire because of dry conditions and lack of maintenance over the years.

At least 1.1 million acres of national forest land would be treated for wildfire risk, the Agriculture Department said in budget documents.

But the proposal would maintain the current goal of 3.7 billion board feet of timber sold, a slight increase from the 3.2 billion board feet sold in 2018.

Overall, the proposal represents a mixed picture for forest programs.

The $450 million proposed for hazardous fuels reduction would be about $20 million more than this year, and the $375 million for forest products around $9 million more — both representing record-high levels, the administration said.

But total discretionary funding for the Forest Service would fall from nearly $6 billion this year to $5.1 billion as part of the administration’s plan. Funding for wildfire suppression would decline, from $1.5 billion to $1 billion, although a new emergency fund of $2.25 billion would be available to tap if regular suppression funds are exhausted — an arrangement Congress enacted beginning next year to avert the raiding of non-fire-related accounts by the Forest Service.

State and private forestry programs, which cover a wide variety of areas, from state parks to big-city tree-planting programs, would take a big hit, from $337 million in this year’s omnibus spending bill to $182 million in the president’s budget.

Land acquisition accounts would be eliminated at the Forest Service, and spending on capital projects would fall slightly under the 2020 proposal.

Other programs at USDA are also targeted for cuts, including crop insurance that’s covered in part by the federal government and some conservation programs. The administration proposed cutting the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program by $40 million a year and would eliminate the Conservation Stewardship Program, which Congress renewed in the 2018 farm bill in December after extended House-Senate negotiations.

The proposal contains several revenue-raisers in a handful of USDA agencies, including a new user fee at the Forest Service to cover costs to streamline minerals permitting, the department said. That would generate $60 million in fiscal 2020, according to the budget.

An additional $130 million would come from retaining mineral receipts to pay for infrastructure projects, USDA said.

Virtual Campfire: Share Your Experience With Plan Revision Collaborative Groups

From time to time, The Smokey Wire community is called on to support journalists in their work. I think the best way we can do that is to add our voices of experience and tell our stories.  Even the simplest question has a variety of outcomes depending on where in the country we are (social, economic, biological and physical environment), who the people and groups involved are (academics would probably say “actors”), the kind of project or plan and so on.  This question is about collaborative groups.

Suppose a forest plan revision has a functioning collaborative group with broad representation that provides smart recommendations that are incorporated into the plan.

(1) Is there any evidence that it prevents future litigation around projects?

(2) Does it guarantee that forests will use the recommendations from collaborative groups to inform the best projects?

Since I don’t have any experience with forest plan revision collaborative groups, I’ll defer to other in the community.

(3) I’d also add a question: what has been your experience with collaborative groups post-revision giving feedback through time on projects?

Based on external observations, I would say that having a collaborative group doesn’t even prevent future litigation around the plan itself, let alone projects. What I have seen is that the litigators are often members of groups not involved in the collaborative process (I have even seen disagreements about national and local chapters of the same organization).  The law is a tool used to obtain certain objectives that a group has chosen to pursue.  This is true of those on both “sides” of the issue, although it seems the most common litigation is by Certain Legally Inclined Environmental Groups (CLIEGS).  I don’t know how groups decide to litigate, but there are certainly those in our community who do. Some judges may tip their hats to collaboration in their decisions and others not.

As to 2) I think that forests would use recommendations from collaborative groups to prioritize and design projects, if the FS put them in the forest plan, the plan being the guiding document. However, the FS operates under other constraints, such as budget line items (or whatever they’re called nowadays), or getting $ from partners, or “all lands” state/federal projects,  that may impact priorities.  Conceivably, if the forest plans have standards and guidelines, they will be followed.  I have heard from some partners that they are discouraged about the follow through, though, that what can be in the project planning documents may not show up on the ground.

Anyway, I’d like to hear from you and your own experiences, good and bad, and what about them made them good or bad, in your opinion. Think of this as a virtual campfire with a brewski or two. Collaborators, Forest Service employees, retirees, collaborators, litigators, academics and observers are welcome to weigh in.

Colorado Wilderness and the CORE Act: Hearing From Those Left Out of the “Consensus” Corrected Version

The Lost Lake Road and trailhead near Vail would be adjacent to one of the proposed wilderness areas under the CORE Act.

Thanks to Patrick McKay for this guest post. Note that this post has been updated as of 3/11/19, thanks to Patrick getting more information from Conservation Colorado. Thanks to Patrick and Conservation Colorado![/caption]

Lately I have been seeing a steady stream of articles and editorials in publications around Colorado advocating for Senator Bennet’s Colorado Outdoor Recreation and Economy (CORE) Act, based on the fiction that there is a strong consensus among stakeholders in favor of this bill. There is no such consensus. The CORE Act is simply a combination of failed wilderness bills that were each too unpopular to pass on their own. Those who support multiple-use of federal lands for all forms of recreation, rather than locking them up for the exclusive use of a single user group, unequivocally oppose it.

The motorized recreation community especially opposes the bill, because it would convert thousands of acres of land currently open to motorized use into wilderness. Almost every area of proposed wilderness is either currently open to motorized use or is considered a motorized expansion area under current Forest Service travel planning.

This bill will be devastating to snowmobilers, dirt bikers, Jeepers, and mountain bikers, who will all either immediately lose access to existing recreational opportunities or potentially lose opportunities in the future as a result of the bill. Snowmobiles would be hurt the most, as vast tracts of land that are currently open to that activity would be closed. In one of the most callous corporate land grabs imaginable, the popular Sheep Mountain area near Silverton would be closed to mountain biking and snowmobiling (which has been allowed since 1983) but would remain open to a private heliskiing operation.

This comes amidst an ongoing feud between local snowmobilers and the outfitter, which has long sought to secure exclusive first-tracks usage of the area for its clients. The CORE Act picks a firm winner in that conflict, favoring corporate interests over the public (including quiet use) in giving the company the exclusive right to mechanized access. Members of the public would be forbidden to even fly toy drones in the area, but a corporation would still be allowed to land noisy helicopters in what would otherwise be managed as a wilderness.

While it will not close them directly, the bill threatens several important Jeep trails including Imogene Pass between Ouray and Telluride (a Jeep Badge of Honor Trail), and other routes that would be “cherry-stemmed” by the bill. The wilderness boundaries would be placed within 50 feet of the edges of these roads, making future trail maintenance or re-routing impossible. Requests by the motorized community for larger buffers surrounding existing trails have been rebuffed.

These boundaries are based on the Forest Service Motor Vehicle Use Maps, which are frequently inaccurate regarding the actual locations of roads on the ground. With so little buffer, any mapping errors could result in the permanent closure of some of the best off-road routes in Colorado. Moreover, there are no additional protections in the bill ensuring cherry-stemmed routes will remain open in the future, which is a significant concern given that roads cherry-stemmed by past wilderness legislation have frequently faced immense pressure for closure in subsequent travel planning due to conflicts with the surrounding wilderness areas.

Even where this bill does not directly close trails, permanent wilderness status will preclude any future expansions of existing trail systems. It will also deprive the Forest Service of much-needed flexibility in caring for forests already suffering from poor health, beetle infestations, and wildfires.

While I agree that wilderness areas are important and I enjoy hiking and backpacking in them myself, Colorado has plenty of wildernesses already. The CORE Act claims to promote recreation in Colorado while in fact decreasing existing opportunities for recreation. This site has previously covered the issue of manufacturing wilderness by kicking out existing users, and that is exactly what is occurring here.

If new wildernesses are to be designated, that should be done without closing areas currently open to other incompatible forms of recreation. If not, wilderness proponents should at least be honest about the fact that they are deliberately sacrificing certain forms of recreation in order to promote others, abandoning any pretense that they are anything other than a majority steamrolling a disfavored minority. Consensus, that is not.

Correction: An earlier version of this article stated that this bill would directly close motorized trails in the Spraddle Creek and Tenderfoot Mountain areas near Vail and Dillon, and would put wilderness boundaries next to the Holy Cross City trail near Leadville. After a discussion with one of the proponents of the bill, I discovered these statements were incorrect, and were based on inaccurate information in my source material as well as low-fidelity maps that made it difficult to determine the precise boundaries of proposed wilderness relative to nearby motorized routes. I apologize for these errors.

The Region 1 Recommended Wilderness Policy

Region 1 forests are adjacent to those in Regions 2, 4 and 6.

Folks have been kind enough to send the text of the Region 1 Wilderness Policy document we have recently been discussing. Here it is Region 1 RWA Policy.  I don’t have any particular expertise in the World of Wilderness (other than experienti

(1) When does the FS find a need to standardize? This is one of the greatest mysteries of my FS career.  It has seemed to me that culturally the local level tends to hang on to its autonomy as much as possible.  But the argument that Chief Tom Tidwell (then Regional Forester, and/or his then-staff) makes in the letter is that:

“Some areas are managed by more than one unit and the units have different management approaches, particularly for motorized recreation. This results in public confusion and can result in encroachments of illegal activities on to the adjacent forest.” Of course, the argument could potentially be made for the WO to issue a national policy, as Regions may also have neighboring (although perhaps not adjoining) Recommended Wilderness areas. And national groups could easily raise the question “if it’s OK to centralize the approach at the Regional level, why isn’t it OK to centralize at the National level- wouldn’t that would be even less confusing?” I guess I can understand if each Forest makes up its own approach, because that shows up in an EIS and can be questioned, objected to, etc. But that leads to exactly the kinds of problems that the Region 1 letter was intended to solve.

2) The other impression I get is that these decisions seem to be highly technical. In a way, the question of whether it’s suitable or not is ultimately a judgment call.  It is not any less a judgment call because there is an elaborate analytical process, but the very elaborateness and complexity can confuse the public (at least it confused me).

After the 2005 letter, along came the 2012 Rule.  Perhaps others know this, but weren’t the Directives put out for public comment? And wouldn’t the procedures for Recommended Wilderness be part of the Directives? Here’s a piece of the letter:

The three tests of capability, availability, and need will be used to determine suitability as set forth in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.12, Chapter 2, 72. . In addition to the inherent wilderness quality an IRA might possess, the area must provide opportunities and experiences that are dependent upon and enhanced by a wilderness environment. The area and boundaries must allow the area to be managed as wilderness.

Capability is defined in FSH 1909.12, Chapter 72 as the degree to which the area contains the basic characteristics that make it suitable for wilderness designation without regard to its availability for or need as wilderness. Availability determination is conditioned on the value of and need for the wilderness resource compared to the value of and need of the area for other resources. Need is the determination that the area should be designated as wilderness through an analysis of the degree that the area contributes to the local and national distribution of wilderness.

I also wondered where it was in statute or regulation that wilderness needs to be “locally and nationally distributed.” There are few or no Grassland Wildernesses that I know of, so perhaps they should be on the top of the list?

From a letter signed by then Regional Forester Tidwell to Sandra Mitchell in 2007.

I hope you will see that the process is very rigorous and intended to eliminate from consideration those areas that are really best suited for uses that are not compatible with wilderness designation. The final decision on which areas to recommend is done through a thorough and open public involvement process.

IMHO if uses are currently there, then to determine that land is “best suited” for being without those uses, is a difficult philosophical question. Because if you are a Wilderness aficionado, then everything could be argued to be best suited for Wilderness, if all you have to do is remove mountain bikes, OHVs, snowmobiles, fire suppression, roads, fuel treatments, and so on. I think the Region 1 twist seems to be that there are some uses like mountain bikes that never should have been allowed in certain areas, and they occupy a less legitimate position than other longer uses.

This whole discussion has given me much sympathy for both the FS and the public who deal with these analyses.

Forest Planning update – Custer Gallatin releases draft

There might be a few folks who signed onto this list because they wanted to follow the “new century of forest planning.”  Forest plan revisions are finally/still happening.  The Custer Gallatin became I believe the 7th forest plan to reach the draft stage under the 2012 Planning Rule.  (It’s got some wilderness issues!)  The Forest Service revision schedule hasn’t been updated since last June, but here it is. The Chugach National Forest was the 6th draft.  There are a number of draft plans that were expected to be out about now, but I haven’t seen anything.  Two revised plans are complete.  There’s been a noticeable slowdown in forest planning recently: there was only 1 new start in 2018, and 2 in 2017.

Shared Vision, Shattered Trust and the Building Thereof: OCFR and Somes Bar Projects

Klamath Justice Coalition activists gather to create a road blockade in efforts to protect the spiritual trails that were at risk during the implementation of the OCFR Project. Credit: Craig Tucker

Thanks to Susan Jane Brown for sharing the link to the Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network. It is a joint effort by TNC and the Watershed Center.  There are many interesting posts there, (and it’s great that there’s a whole section of Fantastic Failures), and I thought I’d highlight this one that tells a story about building trust between the Karuk Tribe and the Forest Service, by Bill Tripp.  Trust is something that people in communities can develop- perhaps it’s harder for national groups or for national elected officials.  Perhaps the exercise of trust-building is not honored as it should be. I’m thinking of a national FS award nominated by externals, with a chunk of change for projects associated with it. This story depicts how a negative interaction, plus continued willingness to work together for mutual interests, are leading to a better future.  Kudos to the collaborators for not giving up, and the Forest Service for fixing what went wrong.

“Can we have a meeting with the contractor?” I asked.

“They tell me I can’t even go to the project site without permission from the contracting officer in Redding” replied the new forest ranger.

We worked diligently to find solutions, but the contracting regulations created barriers at every turn. We couldn’t find resolution and landed in court, the last place any of us wanted to be.

Our stories were told, and it was determined that there was a violation of the National Historic Preservation Act in failing to follow through with the identified protection measures. The judge asked me, “Do you want this project to go away?”

I sighed. “We agreed in the beginning that something needs to get done … we just need to do it right,” I said.

With that, we settled on a remedial plan that was partially negotiated, and partially prescribed by the judge.

The project resumed, but now with Tribal and local Forest Service staff on-site during much of the implementation. Many of the timber units were logged, some of the hand treatment work was done, yet follow-up burning still hasn’t happened. To this day, there are cut trees on the ground and units left untreated. The contractor stopped coming back, presumably due to low timber values, long-haul costs and a bitter taste in his mouth over the delays.

….

A failure? For the most part, I would say yes. However, and oddly enough, relationships among those initially collaborating improved, understanding was gained, and a foundation for building trust was established. Collaboration didn’t stop, it grew stronger. 

The Nature Conservancy’s Fire Learning Network offered facilitated dialogue. We began to access the Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network’s communication channels and peer network. We participated in the formulation of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. We strengthened our relationships with the state of California. We increased our capacity through hosting Prescribed Fire Training Exchange (TREX) and participating in the TREX coaches network. We helped spawn the Indigenous Peoples Burning Network. This local, state and national work renewed our vigor in community-based action and allowed us to connect again with local partners in the co-design of the Somes Bar Integrated Wildland Fire Management Project (“Somes Bar”).

Although Somes Bar is about twice the size of the OCFR project, we have learned from our past mistakes and feel ready for the challenge. We started differently where things went wrong before. We have seen consistency within the USDA Forest Service despite staff turnover. We have created a more inclusive process and established a shared identity through the Western Klamath Restoration Partnership (WKRP). We settled on a planning area of 1.2 million acres. We are using stewardship agreement authorities that enable our collaborative group to stay engaged during all of the phases — planning, implementation, monitoring and adaptive management. And we have begun to look back at the OCFR project to see how we can bring it back to life under its original intent.

Northern Region Regional Forester talks about bikes in recommended wilderness

I’ve excerpted the portion of the Regional Forester’s objection decision on the revised forest plan that addresses this issue, dated August 15, 2018 (p. 46).  It upholds the Flathead Forest Supervisor’s decision to designate recommended wilderness as not suitable for mountain bikes.  I’ve highlighted the language in the regulation that addresses the question about whether the only concern should be physical impacts.  The objection decision also indicates that the decision to recommend wilderness or not took into account existing mountain biking.  It also addresses the alleged bias towards this solution in the Northern Region.  This probably pretty much summarizes the current state of the debate from the Forest Service perspective.

Some objectors requested that bicycle use (mechanized transport) be allowed in recommended wilderness, along with chainsaws (motorized equipment) for the development and maintenance of trails, as long as these uses do not preclude wilderness designation.

The areas recommended as additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System are allocated to management area 1b. This management area has plan direction in the form of desired conditions, standards, guidelines, and suitability to “provide for…management of areas recommended for wilderness designation to protect and maintain the ecological and social characteristics that provide the basis for their suitability for wilderness designation” as required at 36 CFR 219.10(b)(iv).

The suitability component MA1b-SUIT-06 indicates, “Mechanized transport and motorized use are not suitable in recommended wilderness areas” as a constraint on these uses to help achieve desired condition MA1b-DC-1 that states, “Recommended wilderness areas preserve opportunities for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The Forest maintains and protects the ecological and social characteristics that provide the basis for wilderness recommendation” (revised plan, p. 9).

As one of the key issues identified from the public scoping comments, the draft EIS analyzed a range of alternatives for managing mechanized transport and motorized use in recommended areas. Alternative C included the suitability component MA1b-SUIT-06 and alternative B did not. The intent of varying the direction was to assess how this plan component would help the Forest achieve the desired conditions for recommended wilderness. After considering the analysis and the public comment on the draft EIS, Forest Supervisor Weber found the MA1b-SUIT-06 component analyzed in alternative C was the appropriate first step in ensuring the protection and maintenance of the areas he decided to recommend in the draft decision (draft ROD p. 19).Therefore, he modified alternative B to include MA1b-SUIT-06.

The intent of suitability component MA1b-SUIT-06 is to not establish or authorize continued uses that would affect the wilderness characteristics of these areas over time (draft ROD pp. 18-19). By deliberate design, the areas being recommended for wilderness in alternative B modified do not currently have significant mechanized transport use occurring. Per public comment on the draft EIS, boundary adjustments were made in the final EIS to remove areas from recommended wilderness that currently allow mechanized transport and over-snow motorized vehicle use (FEIS, pp. 27-28). As there is some over-snow motor vehicle use allowed in one recommended wilderness area (Slippery Bill-Puzzle) (FEIS, section 3.15.3; appendix 8, p. 8-261), Forest Supervisor Weber has endeavored to accommodate this desired recreation opportunity by changing the desired recreation opportunity spectrum in another area of the forest for potential site-specific designation of additional snowmobile areas 2. With these changes between draft and final EIS, the decision maker found that the eight areas recommended represent high-quality areas on the Forest capable of maintaining their unique social and ecological characteristics, while considering the tradeoffs regarding public desires for other uses of the land.

At the resolution meeting, some expressed a concern regarding an “unwritten rule” in the Northern Region that precluded Forest Supervisor Weber from exercising his discretion to choose the appropriate management of recommended wilderness on the Forest. Although previous Northern Region staff drafted guidance for management of recommended wilderness during land management planning, this was prior to the 2012 planning rule and associated implementing directives. I would like to assure objectors and interested parties that I allowed and encouraged Forest Supervisor Weber the discretion to determine management direction for the Forest per the forest-specific conditions, public engagement, law, regulation, policy, and the direction in FSH 1909.12, chapter 70. As a result, per the discretion described in the Agency’s direction at FSH 1909.12 chapter 74.1, option 2, Forest Supervisor Weber did analyze allowing existing uses to continue (DEIS, p. 26). However, as indicated in the draft ROD, he found the best strategy to protect the wilderness characteristics was to eliminate existing uses per chapter 74.1, option 4.