Lawsuit, Day Use Fees and Campgrounds

by
National Park Service Long’s Peak Trailhead, just up the road from concessionaire managed Brainerd Lakes.

I looked for Forest Service “presence” at Brainerd that day (several years ago) and this is all I found, in not the most scenic spot..

At least Hooty made it to this site.

Oh, but this is why people actually go there.. some might argue that a site this beautiful should be acquired by the Park Service, who would end up charging..it’s all very complex. So this is a fairly unique post in that I don’t know as much about this topic as I do others.. so hoping others from the recreation world can help. If you are in the Forest Service and you know something that you think would help the discussion, please do, you can make up an alias in yahoo or google if you don’t want to use your name.

Off one of the trails from Brainerd Lakes.

Several years ago, I was intending to write a post for this blog, called “A Tale of Two Trailheads” comparing the management of Brainerd Lakes (concessionaire) and Long’s Peak (Park Service); never did, but here are the photos and the below article reminded me of it. Let’s just reflect on the two trailheads while we read the article.

The Denver Post had this article in the business section today, but I found it fairly confusing. Maybe some readers can help.

The first sentence is:

“A U.S. Forest Service push to privatize management of campgrounds is prompting a backlash from critics who oppose concessionaires charging day-use fees to access federal lands.”

Because before I retired we had the Mt. Evans case, which was about what I’ll call the “what for” question (WhatFor) “what services can you charge for?”, I thought that that was a separate question from “should concessionaires be allowed to run campgrounds?”, the concessionaire campgrounds (or ConCamp) question.

Why do we have to pay to go into public lands? The land belongs to the people, and the people should be able to use the land for free,” said 64-year-old Wimert, who began decrying day-access fees when he was charged entrance to pedal into Brainard Lake Recreation Area two years ago.

Somehow the Forest Service has lost its way. They are no longer caring for the land and serving the people. They are serving themselves,” he said.

Let’s compare Brainerd to Longs. Do we say if the Park Service charges to access Long’s, they have “lost their way” and are “serving themselves?”. No we’d probably say we are paying for the quality facilities they have there.

I don’t think the Forest Service is “serving themselves”. They didn’t have enough money to run these places, so partnerships seemed like 1) a way to provide public service 2) within the budget. Like everything, this had the unintended consequence of empowering a small vocal group to become active politically to get more goodies.

Now. one of my previous bosses would say something like “campgrounds are a chance for us to touch the public, to be there in uniform, to help members of the public be outdoors. Nothing can be more important than us to be there for them. The Park Service “gets it”, we need to “get it” also.” Even though he had a lot of passion and desire, and about as much power as someone is likely to get in the Forest Service, in my opinion, he couldn’t do anything because the bucks aren’t there (and now there is an entrenched political group supporting it). If you, as I do, think that this is important, I wish we could all work together to do something.. agitate for a separate budget line item for campgrounds, or ???

“The Forest Service is allowed under current federal law to keep all the money they bring in from a campground, so there are no efficiencies gained by contracting a private company,” she said.
In Colorado, seven national forests covering 14.5 million acres include 1,268 non-fee sites and 540 fee areas with 469 recreation sites operated by concessionaires. Nationally, half of all Forest Service camping sites — 82 percent of the reservable camping sites available under the National Recreation Reservation Service — are managed by concessionaires. Thirty years ago, the Forest Service primarily operated its own lands.
Concessionaire operations are a big money business. According to the Forest Service, a small campground concession with one to three developed sites can produce revenue ranging from $50,000 to $105,000. A larger campground with 10 to 12 sites can generate more than $1 million in annual revenue.
Total campground concessionaire revenue nationally is estimated at $35 million.

My understanding is something along the lines of “there is no money to hire someone to empty the toilets and do maintenance, and campground fees alone can’t pay for those people.”

Therefore, concessionaires seem like a good idea because it’s that or shutting them down. And of course concessionaires only want the best ones, so that leaves the Forest Service with the less popular ones that have fewer visitors. And of course, the FS has lots of rules and regulations and hiring and pay requirements, which maybe the concessionaires don’t have to follow, which I assume (???) is how they can make a profit.
The funds going back to the Forest don’t help if it’s a net loss.

The increasing use of private concessionaires is riling some users just as a national program aimed at boosting private investment in federal recreation sites gains momentum. The Washington D.C.-based American Recreation Coalition soon will unveil a dozen pilot programs — at least one of which is in Colorado — that would forge public-private partnerships allowing for-profit concessionaires to invest in upgrades like on-site storage of boats at marinas and improved facilities at campgrounds.

I think all of us really need to look at this cautiously, but this is about ConCamp, it seems like, not what the lawsuit was about which is about WhatFor. It seems to me that NEPA provides for good discussion of projects, but not so much programs like this. I wonder what sort of public involvement has been done with broader topics like the role of concessionaires?

The lawsuit argues that the Forest Service’s permitted concessionaires charge fees “even when visitors do not use any facilities or services of the area, but simply wish to enter Forest Service lands to engage in undeveloped recreation.” The lawsuit also contends that issuing special permits without public involvement to concessionaires who charge fees does not meet the federal requirement for public notice of pricing changes.

In 2009, the Forest Service proposed cutting the camping fee discount for interagency passes like the Golden Age and Senior passes from 50 percent to 10 percent, citing concessionaire concerns over lost revenue. In 2010, the agency scuttled the reduced discount proposal. Still, concessionaires don’t have to accept the passes.

The first paragraph seems to me like it’s about the WhatFor question but whether concessionaires need to follow the same rules the FS does? The second paragraph seems to be about ConCamp- I don’t see why concessionaires wouldn’t have to follow the rules. After all, following the rules is one part of why it’s expensive for the FS to run them in the first place.

Finally, Derrick Crandall is quoted as saying:

“We are trying to broaden the use of public lands,” said coalition president Derrick Crandall, pointing to stagnant visitation to Forest Service campgrounds when compared to private campgrounds. “We are looking at ways to bring these worn-out, outmoded facilities up to levels we expect at ski areas. We really see this initiative as a win-win for everyone.

Now the other thing I’ve noticed about say, parts of the Med-bow and the Bighorn, is that few people are camped at the campgrounds, but many, many people are dispersed camping throughout the forest. First, you have to pay money, second you have to follow rules, third you are right next door to your neighbors, fourth you can’t make up configurations of RV’s, horse trailers and tents that fit your friends and family. I have been on different parts of both of these forests at times when all the likely dispersed camping spots have been filled and the campground is relatively empty. It seems that in spots (at least where I’ve seen a lot of dispersed camping), people don’t want FS campgrounds not because they’re not nice enough (State Parks, Park Service and KOA) but because they are too “nice.”

If the FS charged $10 a head for dispersed camping per season during deer and elk season (livestock and people) there might be enough that we wouldn’t need concessionaires. I wonder if we need a recreation policy FACA committee in DC?

Anyway, this is all very confusing to me, and I know we’ve had good discussion about this on this blog in the past, hoping we can do so again.

Bozeman’s water supply less vulnerable to fire

by

 

According to Cottonwood Environmental Law Center, all of the trees in this picture that are not painted orange would be cut down as part of the Bozeman Watershed logging project. Photo by Cottonwood Environmental Law Center.

The Gallatin National Forest’s Bozeman Watershed Logging Project has been the subject of much debate and commenting here at the blog.   Well, it appears as if the next chapter of the story has been written, as the Bozeman Daily Chronicle took another look at the issue in this morning’s paper.  Excerpts from the article are highlighted below [emphasis added]:

This summer’s Millie fire prompted renewed calls for thinning the forests south of Bozeman to protect the city’s water supply from fire. However, upgrades to the water plant are nullifying the argument that the water supply needs protection.  The Bozeman water plant’s antiquated filtration system, built in 1984, couldn’t filter much more sediment than what is carried by the streams on a normal day. Any increase in the amount of sediment in Bozeman or Hyalite creeks was a source of concern.

But that will change when a new $43 million system comes online in a little more than a year, said water treatment supervisor Rick Moroney. Construction started a year ago.  “It adds an important extra step – sedimentation – which makes it vastly superior,” Moroney said. “I can’t guarantee it could handle everything, but it will be able to handle the sediment from a fire.”

The new facility removes the urgency from one side’s argument in what is now a 2-year-old battle over a forest-thinning project.

In March 2010, the Gallatin National Forest published its Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project, a plan devised with the city to harvest, thin and burn 4,800 acres in the Hyalite and Bozeman creek watersheds.

The $2 million project had the stated objective of protecting the watersheds that provide 80 percent of the city’s summer water supply from being polluted after a severe fire. But wildfire doesn’t pose the only risk to water quality.

The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, the Montana Ecosystems Defense Council and the Native Ecosystems Council opposed the project because more than seven miles of new logging roads would be required, and such roads can add as much sediment to area streams as a fire….

Hydrologist Mark Story said decades of research show roads are responsible for 90 percent of the sediment produced during logging. The groups argued thinning wouldn’t prevent a wildfire, which would add still more sediment.  “There’s no science that will fireproof a watershed,” said Michael Garrity of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies. “We have no problem with thinning as long as they can do it without building roads that are just as bad for the watershed.”

 

Fire scientists continue debate in the comments section

by

Last week this blog featured a couple of recent news articles with fire scientists discussing their latest research and understanding of the role severe fire plays in some western landsacpes.  One of those articles I highlighted was Emily Guerin’s piece over at High Country News “Fire scientists fight over what Western forests should look like.”

As interesting as Guerin’s original article was, perhaps even just as interesting has been the discussion taking place in the comments section to the article – a discussion that includes some of the leading fire scientists themselves.  Below are some excerpts from the on-line comments section, but the entire comments section is certainly worth a read:

Richard Hutto
Sep 19, 2012 09:02 AM

Swetnam and Brown “…questioned how ponderosa pines could regenerate if Baker and Williams are correct about severe fires having scarred Western landscapes for generations.” They regenerate the same way most wingless pine seeds do–by animal dispersal. I have numerous photos of Clark’s nutcrackers and Mexican jays extracting seeds from cones on severely burned ponderosa pines (see photo evidence on our facebook page here: http://www.facebook.com/AvianScienceCenter). The more you learn about severe-fire ecology, the more it all makes sense–plant, beetle, and bird adaptations that are apparent even in many of our dry mixed-conifer forest types!

————

Chad Hanson
Sep 22, 2012 12:54 PM

In the artice Malcolm North incorrectly states that the General Land Office data used by Williams and Baker is a “very scant data set” that does not allow for extrapolation to the landscape scale. In fact, this GLO data comprises thousands of sites over entire landscapes. The data used by Williams and Baker, in fact, is by far the largest data set ever used to address the historic occurrence of high-severity fire in ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forests. As for the comments by Swetnam and Brown, who imply that ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forest does not naturally regenerate after high-severity fire, this assumption is contradicted by the scientific literature. Savage and Mast (2005) (Table 3) found hundreds of stems per hectare of natural regeneration following high-severity fire in Southwest ponderosa pine forest. Haire and McGarigal (2008) and Haire and McGarigal (2010) had similar findings, indicating substantial natural regeneration of ponderosa pine and other tree species even in large high-severity fire patches, especially within about 200 meters from the edge of high-severity fire patches (which accounts for most of the area experiencing high-severity fire), and lower but still significant levels (for the purposes of establishing new forest stands) even farther than 200 meters into high-severity fire patches. Similar results have been reported outside of the Southwest in mixed-conifer and ponderosa pine forests (Donato et al. 2006, Shatford et al. 2007, Donato et al. 2009, Collins et al. 2011 [Plumas Lassen Study 2010 Annual Report]). There are likely numerous mechanisms for this, including seed survival (which may occur more often that some assume), dispersal by animals, and dispersal by wind.

————

Peter Brown
Sep 25, 2012 02:34 PM

Hey, all I know is what the photo above shows: recent high severity fires in Front Range ponderosa pine forests are not coming back as dense even-aged stands of trees. Far from it, in fact. That photo was taken this past June, almost 10 yrs to the day after Hayman took out about 50,000 acres of forest with nary a living tree left. You could search for days for a seedling that was not planted by either FS and Denver Water (they’ve planted a few 1000s of acres, but still a lot of treeless landscape out there). Maybe those corvids are busy as bees somewhere, but they’re not having much luck with re-establishing those 50,000 acres very fast. And it’s not just Hayman; wander around in any recent fires in the Front Range and see how treeless those areas still are.

And this is in the exact same area we reconstructed fire history before the fire (published in 1999) that was the first fire history in a ponderosa ecosystem that provided concrete evidence of crown fire. But the crown fire patches we reconstructed were acres to 10s of acres in size, not the 1000s to 10000s of acres we’re seeing today.

And hence the crux of the question: what was the scale of crown fire relative to surface fire in the historical forest, and how has that changed today? No one disputes that *passive* crown fires occurred (where fire spread across the landscape was primarily through surface fuels, but occasional trees or patches or trees would crown), whereas current fires are dominated by *active* crown fires (with fire spread mainly through aerial fuels). One other point about the uncharacteristic nature of recent fires, at least Hayman: 400-600 yr old trees we sampled in our 1999 study that had recorded multiple fire scars (i.e., had experienced 6, 8, 10, 15 *surface fires* in their lifetimes) all died during Hayman. Hanson, I have to laugh every time I see your report on “the myth of catastrophic fire” [link here, added by MK] because in the cover photograph there is what looks to be a dead tree that takes up the entire left side of the photo, with what sure looks to be a catface with maybe 8-10 fire scars recorded in it. An incredibly unintended ironic comment on your entire thesis in that paper. Here’s a tree that experienced 8-10 surface fires in its lifetime, and then dies in a recent high-severity fire.

————

Richard Hutto
Sep 25, 2012 02:54 PM

The picture above is indeed instructive; it shows that there are no big ponderosa pines! Why? They were all harvested before or after the severe fire event…might that have something to do with the fact that there is little recruitment? The more unnatural treatment a forest gets, the more unnatural the result.

The fact that charcoal trees have fire-scars is also instructive. Of course fire-scarred trees eventually burn down…that’s the point! If they didn’t burn down every 300 years or so, on average, they’d live 4,000-5,000 years, just as the other tree species that REALLY have a history of avoiding severe fire do. A little more perspective from evolutionary ecology might help here.

Again, nobody is arguing that some dry PIPO forests are in an unnatural state, and getting unnatural results from recent fires…the BIG point is that the story applies to a small proportion of western forests, and to almost none of the mixed-conifer forest types.

Analysis of Angora Project 9th Circuit Appeal Decision

by

Below is an analysis of the Angora Opinion, and here is a link to the opinion. For those of you who think that litigation is about making the FS follow the law when it egregiously oversteps, check out what the judges had to say about the plaintiff’s points.. it’s not a long read but does show you the complexity of the legal framework (check out the discussion of MIS monitoring) and the nature of the plaintiffs’ arguments in general.

This is from the AFRC newsletter by Scott Horngren.

In a significant opinion issued on September 20, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that an environmental assessment (EA) is not subject to the same requirements as an environmental impact statement (EIS). The case, Earth Island Institute v. Forest Service, involved a challenge to the EA prepared to salvage and rehabilitate the area damaged by the Angora Fire near Lake Tahoe.

Previous Ninth Circuit opinions have indicated that the requirements for an EA are not similar to the requirements for an EIS. The Angora opinion builds on those cases and makes a definitive statement that where the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations impose an analytical requirement for an EIS, that requirement does not apply by implication to an EA. The Ninth Circuit explained that “a court should not impose upon the agency its own notion of which procedures are ‘best’ or most likely to further some vague, undefined public good.” Plaintiffs complained that the Forest Service had not responded to comments discussing black-backed woodpecker studies submitted by Dr. Chad Hansen. But the court held that “the duty to disclose and respond to responsible opposing viewpoints imposed by [the CEQ regulations] applies only to [EISs], not [EAs].”

The court also held that “an agency’s obligation to consider alternatives under an EA is a lesser one than under an EIS” and that an EA need only consider a no action alternative and a preferred alternative. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy (NEPA) by not considering an alternative that would limit removal of all snags greater than 16 inches in diameter. The court held that leaving these snags “weighing more than 1 ton per tree, would not achieve the Project objective of reducing the risk of severe wildfire.” When the purpose of the project is to reduce fire risk, “the Forest Service need not consider alternatives that would increase fire risk.”

Finally, the court explained that, under the 1982 viability planning rule as amended by the 2000 interpretative rule, the species viability requirements apply only to the extent that they are incorporated into the relevant forest plan. The court found that the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) Forest Plan did not incorporate any species monitoring requirements for viability at the project level. Therefore, population monitoring was only required at the forest level under the LTBMU plan. Significantly, the court also held that, at the project level, the Forest Service need not assess the habitat quality and quantity for species if there is no population monitoring requirement at the project level. Additionally, the court held that since the Forest Service was not required to monitor populations at the project level, it also did not have to determine the quantity and quality of habitat needed for viability at the project level, given that the analysis of habitat quality and quantity for a species is in effect a proxy for population monitoring. Therefore, an absence of detailed information about the habitat quality and quantity to “maintain viability” of the blacked-backed woodpecker at the project level did not violate the National Forest Management Act (NFMA).

This case is a significant victory for common sense in NEPA and NFMA compliance by the Forest Service in the Ninth Circuit. Its implementation by the agency should free up resources that can be better used to improve the health of our federal forests and the infrastructure that depends upon them.

Salamanders under fire: Burning forests among threats as feds contemplate endangered status

by

Jemez mountains salamander
Thanks to Terry Seyden for this link.

Well, we’ve been discussing a woodpecker who likes fires and specifically post-fire habitat.

In this story we find an animal that apparently doesn’t like them so much and appears to be also rare. I wonder how a pattern of burning for woodpecker habitat in the Sierra would affect their local salamanders?

Here’s the link, and below is an excerpt.

One of the chief threats facing the lung-less amphibian is the combination of an overgrown forest and the likelihood of severe wildfire, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
While the salamander has evolved over centuries with low-intensity fire, the waves of fast-moving, intense fires that have charred tens of millions of acres in the West over the last decade is a problem.
Biologists say that between 1995 and 2010, severe fires have burned more than one-third of known salamander habitat on national forest lands.

In 2011, the Las Conchas Fire burned nearly 18,000 acres of salamander habitat.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service points to fire restoration, logging, grazing, roads, trails and recreation as other threats to the salamander.

Aside from the proposed listing, the agency is suggesting setting aside more than 140 square miles in three New Mexico counties as critical habitat for the salamander.
The agency will make a final decision on the salamander after a 60-day comment period.
Environmentalists have been pushing for salamander protections for more than two decades.

Hmm. I hope if they figure it’s hard to stop fires, they won’t shut instead stop “fire restoration,” logging, grazing, roads, trails and recreation instead…

Angora Project Appeal Denied

by
Here’s a photo of a tour from 2008 of the area.

We have discussed the Angora project before on this blog.

Here’s the link to a Sacramento Bee article.

Here’s an excerpt:

In a published opinion issued Thursday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the Lake Tahoe Forest Plan did not require the Forest Service to demonstrate that the Angora project would maintain viable population levels of certain species, including the black-backed woodpecker.
The panel concluded that the Forest Service ensured the scientific integrity of the final environmental assessment, properly responded to dissenting scientific opinion, properly considered proposed alternatives to the environmental assessment, and took the requisite “hard look” at the impacts of the project.
Thus, the panel found, the Forest Service’s analysis of the environmental effects “was not arbitrary and capricious,” as that phrase is defined in federal law.
The opinion was authored by Circuit Judge N. Randy Smith, with the concurrences of Circuit Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Richard R. Clifton.
The Angora fire, determined to be human-caused, destroyed 254 homes and scorched more than 3,100 acres, including approximately 2,700 acres of national forest land.
In 2010, the Forest Service approved the restoration project to “reduce the amount of dead and downed trees” in order “to reduce long-term fuel (accumulation) to reduce future fire severity.”
The thinning project called for the removal of both live and dead trees. Twelve zones were “retained as habitat for a diverse set of species,” including the black-backed woodpecker. Most of the trees “will be hauled … for disposal at … biomass energy facilities.”
The Forest Service was free to proceed with the project once Burrell ruled. Both he and the circuit panel denied the environmentalists’ requests for an injunction halting implementation of the project pending appeal.

We have had numerous posts on this appeal and litigation. You can search on “Angora” in the search box to review the history.

We started with this post which I called “Much Ado about relatively little”. Check the comments out for a conversation between Dave Iverson and me on different aspects of the project and the assertions made.

So here we are, years and hundreds of thousands of dollars later. I wonder about the quantity of taxpayer funds have been spent on the original litigation and the appeal of the original decision, by the unit, the regional office, the OGC and by DOJ? It might be interesting to take a few cases at the beginning of litigation and just keep track of the tasks involved and who gets paid what, just so the public has a better idea of the investments they are making. Hopefully this is the end of the story for this 1411 acre project..

Here are the details as I found several documents ago.. those knowledgeable please let me know if this has changed.

Alternative 2, as modified, includes the following activities:
Fuel removal of standing dead and downed wood and thinning of live trees on
approximately 1,411 acres.
Within the 1,411 acres:
o 6 acres of conifer removal for aspen stand enhancement;
o approximately 77 acres of treatment proposed in wildlife snag zones (39 acres in
SEZ; 38 ac Subdivision);
o 13 acres of conifer removal for meadow restoration/aspen enhancement in the
Gardner Mountain meadow.

A ground-based logging system on up to 964 acres (including 13 acres of Cut-to-Length
mechanical thinning in Gardner Mountain Meadow) located in areas with slopes under
30%.
New construction of new roads (up to 7.7 miles) and landings to facilitate fuel removal.
Reconstruction or opening of existing roads, trails, and landings to facilitate fuel removal.
Decommissioning/restoring 1.9 miles of road and 16.7 miles of trail.
Existing and new landings and staging areas would be utilized to facilitate removal of
fuels for ground-based operations.
Reconstruction of 1,200 feet of Angora Creek.
Treatment of the following noxious weeds: bull thistle, field bindweed, St. John‘s wort,
tall whitetop, and oxeye daisy.

Introducing “Catching People Doing Something Right”

by
Lena, the mule, of the Region 2 Packstring at the Retiree Rendezvous

Listening to folks at the Retiree Rendezvous in Vail last week, and having spent the last three years or so on this blog, I noticed some similarities between their concerns and the public’s concerns. Because they were retirees, and we had all been to the same management training, some of the discussion was couched in management talk we had learned.

It’s all about how you treat others (current FS employees) when you deal with them.

The first concept we talked about was “affirm in public, counsel in private”. Retirees have gone on record as being against something in the press, apparently without talking to the current FS folks and getting their side of the story (sound familiar?). People need a chance to hear each others’ side of the story. If you still disagree so be it. But it’s more likely that you will think of the person you spoke with as a human being, and not a faceless member of some stereotyped group (those clueless young whippersnappers, or evil minions of the timber industry, or rabid environmentalists).

The second concept was the well-known “catch people doing something right.” To that end, I’m going to establish a sidebar on this blog where folks can post where they caught the FS (or others) doing “something right.” A problem with this might be that people disagree on what “something right” is…but we’ll see how this develops. It can be as mundane as “clean bathrooms at x site” or “district employees unlocked the gate to the campground so that we could get in late at night.” It could also be “person y, of x environmental group was great to work with on the z project because…”.

I would hope that thinking about things this way will help us open a window on the future that is more positive than many of the debates we have. I know our debates are illuminating, but I’d also like to try various approaches to building trust, and imagining and possibly building towards a mutual future that is less polarized.

We older and hopefully wiser folks, I think, have a call to do that so the many vibrant young people who are working today will have a more positive environment to work in. To that end, and also because I’m retired, you will also see more posts about internal FS issues. I think it will help the people not currently in the organization understand better some of the dynamics that they observe from the outside.

More on futuring and internal issues in future posts- I am trying to locate videos of discussions at the Public Lands Symposium and the Retiree Rendezvous that we could use as a springboard for that discussion.

Anyway, when you catch someone doing something right (local or state or federal agencies, groups, elected officials, environmentalists) please send to me at [email protected] and tell us:
who you are talking about, your story of what happened and why you think it is “something right” and a photo if you have one. Finally, if something good happened with the FS and you don’t know actually who is responsible, that’s OK, tell me anyway and I can do some detective work and find out.

I’m hoping this will be more about human to human interactions and less about our usual policy issues. but like this blog, it’s a grand experiment.

Indian Valley Meadow Restoration

by

Indian Valley, part of the Amador Ranger District, Eldorado National Forest, is being restored as a high elevation meadow, after decades of misuse. Grazing has ceased but, its impacts still linger. In the past, willows were removed and water was channeled away, causing increased erosion of these shallow and fragile soils. The water table has been lowered and the meadow hasn’t been able to support the vegetation that it used to.

Concentrating runoff by channeling the water causes increased erosion, especially when we have rain on snow events. There were significant impacts from the winter of 1996. This project aims to get the water to spread out, linger, and re-charge the water-holding capacity of up to 500 acres.

A system of catchment ponds, compacted soil plugs, and native plant re-vegetation will cause snowmelt runoff to spread out and slow the erosive power of concentrated water. This project has a history of being de-funded and handed off but, all things came together when Coca Cola offered up some cash, which led to some additional matching funds and collaboration. The Ranger District had to jump through all the NEPA hoops, as surveys had to be completed for endangered willow flycatchers, frogs and toads. The one impact they could not remedy is a historic road, which travels across the meadow. Relocation was made impossible, due to archaeological sites. Removal or closure would be politically impossible.

The willows have made a great comeback, since grazing ended. However, you can clearly see that the foreground vegetation is quite sparse. Raising the water table a few feet will lead to meadow restoration. The numerous braided side channels would re-charge the water table. There appears to be one of the historic man-made channels in this picture.

Here is what appears to be one of the natural side channels, which no longer is supplied with water, due to lowered water table, erosion, and channeling of the water. This restoration project appears to be a win-win situation for everyone.

Here is a non-Forest Service link to the project:

http://www.americanrivers.org/newsroom/blog/lhunt-20120920-indian-valley-meadow-restoration.html

Denver Post on Making Land Management Decisions in the Courtroom : Rocky Mountain Park Elk

by
National Park Service photo

Various folks, from former Chief of the Forest Service and elk biologist Jack Ward Thomas, have questioned the idea of making land management decisions in the courtroom. This is apparently also apparent to members of the Denver Post editorial board. In Colorado, we have commissions, task forces and a variety of other mechanisms of interested and knowledgeable parties getting together to solve tough issues (e.g. oil and gas regulation). So perhaps it seems more obvious here that an appeals court is suboptimal. Given our discussion of “nit-picking” this week, I also italicized a relevant sentence. Another note: it’s obviously not just the Forest Service who deals with this.

Here’s the link, and below is an excerpt.

Yet not everyone is happy. Some environmentalists objected to the plan from the outset because it rejected the option of introducing wolves to reduce the number of elk. And just this week, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard an appeal from WildEarth Guardians of a lower-court decision that upheld the Park Service’s plan.

We hope the appeals court supports the lower-court decision. It would be a shame — indeed a travesty — if the professional judgment of the Park Service on behalf of the health of the park was second-guessed in this fashion.

It’s not that we have anything against wolves. The reintroduction of gray wolves in the mid-1990s from Canada to Montana, Idaho and Wyoming must be judged a conservation triumph. They reproduced and thrived — so much so that the Fish and Wildlife Service concluded they could even be removed from the endangered species list.

Moreover, in Yellowstone the wolves scattered elk herds just as predicted, thereby allowing the recovery of willow and other battered species.

But reintroducing wolves is not something to be undertaken lightly or in haste. While Rocky Mountain National Park, at 415 square miles, is huge, wolf packs can range even farther. Wolves would inevitably encroach onto private property and even into lightly populated areas.

As we noted back in 2006, any plan to import wolves into the park would therefore provoke a lengthy political and legal battle — even if wolves might turn out to be part of the long-term solution for elk control.

The Park Service didn’t have the luxury of years to wait for a solution to its elk problem — not if it wanted to be a responsible steward of Rocky Mountain park.

Like so many environmental court cases, this one is based upon claims that federal officials failed to dot every “i” and cross every “t” of the law in reaching their decision.

For example, WildEarth Guardians maintains that culling the herd with trained volunteers is tantamount to hunting, which is banned in the park. But this is legal word play. No one considers killing elk for ecological reasons to be a form of sport — and hunters do not benefit from it.

The future of the wolf in Colorado is a fascinating topic worthy of serious debate. But it shouldn’t be decided by an appeals court.

Danger: “Scientification” of Local Decisions

by

So here I am at Vail, on the White River National Forest and what do I see in the media?

In the Aspen Daily News here:

When science is confronted by emotional reaction to a decision that is not popular, science often takes a back seat. Take the Forest Service’s decision to not allow camping on top of Independence Pass to prevent damage to the fragile tundra ecosystem during the USA

Eric Grindstaff, from Columbus, Ohio, cheers on a cyclist prior to the summit of Independence Pass near Aspen, Colo., during the fourth stage of the USA Pro Cycling Challenge, Thursday, Aug. 23, 2012. (AP Photo/The Aspen Daily News, Chris Council)
Pro Cycling Challenge race.

Were alternative camping sites available? Yes, but they were too inconvenient for some. As a matter of fact, space was available at developed campsites along the route Wednesday night.

Those of us involved in resource management decisions love our jobs and take them seriou

Eric Grindstaff, from Columbus, Ohio, cheers on a cyclist prior to the summit of Independence Pass near Aspen, Colo., during the fourth stage of the USA Pro Cycling Challenge, Thursday, Aug. 23, 2012. (AP Photo/The Aspen Daily News, Chris Council)
sly but we also have a sense of humor. That’s why we got a good laugh at the T-shirts that poked fun with “trt” (for tundra response team) and a little tundra figure’s hands in the air.

Sometimes baseless accusations are hurtled at the agency and a cub reporter may find it easy to interview a few disgruntled spectators. Our desire is to get as much information as possible to the public through the media in a transparent manner so people understand why and how we arrive at decisions.

The United States Forest Service mission is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forest and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations.

“Caring for the land and serving people,” best captures that mission.

Those words fit well with the choice I made, along with many of my generation, to pursue a career in the management of America’s public lands. My decision was influenced by reading Wallace Stegner’s “Beyond the Hundredth Meridian.” At that time, if a word had to be picked to describe what I would become by pursuing such a dream it would be “conservationist.”

Conservation laws were passed mandating how to best care for the land and serve people. In the Forest Service we also have regulations, executive direction and congressional intent to guide our decisions.

Decisions are made taking into account 13 guiding principles that help realize our mission. One of those principles state that, “We recognize and accept that some conflict is natural and we strive to deal with it professionally.”

Many of the complex problems faced by the White River National Forest decision makers involve multiple conflicting objectives. Conflict handled professionally often leads to better collaborative decisions.

If decisions are made by caring for the land and serving people then they are appropriate. However, balancing both these priorities is not easy. Popularity is not part of the equation.

Conflict in today’s land management arena centers primarily on recreational use of public land. The focus is often narrowly reduced to “my use, my way.” Instead of “re-creating” their outdoor experience by renewing their spirit, many people become vehemently entrenched into what becomes a siege mentality that leaves no way for reason.

It becomes “my right to do as I please wherever I want to whenever I can” with no regard for any long-term caring for the land. What is missing is a willingness to modify behavior for what is appropriate to consider in making good land management decisions. Being inconvenienced trumps conserving resources.

Two of the other guiding principles that the Forest Service uses are: we use an ecological approach to the multiple-use management of the National Forests and grasslands, and we use the best scientific knowledge in making decisions and select the most appropriate technologies in the management of resources.

The Pro Cycling Challenge wasn’t our first rodeo. When we get thrown off the bronco, or in this case thrown under the bus, we smile, get up and dust ourselves off, ready to meet the challenges facing present and future generations.

Bill Kight is the public affairs officer of the White River National Forest.

Sharon’s take:
Guess what, Bill, whether we allow or do not allow camping, it is a “values” decisions- it is not a “scientific” decision. I happen to agree with this decision, but I don’t know how you can call it “scientific.” Please leave science, and scientists out of the rationalization for whomever’s appropriately value-based decision.