Wildlands CPR's Blog

Quick details about the “Forest Jobs and Recreation Act of 2009”

Bethanie Walder — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 17:06:18 -0600

Senator Jon Tester has been taking a lot of heat during the past few weeks for not making the details of a land management/wilderness bill more public as he, his staff, and a select few constituents were working out the final kinks in the bill. Tester released the language today, and the full text can be found on a new website: www.tester.senate.gov/forest, along with maps, testimonials, and opportunities to get involved.

We took a few minutes to skim through the bill, which Senator Tester was very clear to say was NOT a “wilderness” bill, but instead a “forest jobs and stewardship bill.” Below is a very initial take on what we like and what we don’t like:

The Good Stuff
We had reviewed the initial Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership Proposal, and we had some very real concerns about how they described watershed restoration, the reliance on the temporary roads, and a failure to include any real “effectiveness monitoring.” We are pleased to see that the new bill has addressed several of these key concerns:

There is no mention of temporary roads anywhere in the bill. Instead, the bill introduces a new term on p. 7, “access roads,” which are roads used to implement the bill, but then reclaimed and revegetated or converted to a trail within 5 years from the date of construction. (Temporary roads, on the other hand, don’t have to be revegetated until 10 years after the final use of the road is finished.)
Restoration projects include, as a high priority, efforts to reduce road densities (p. 16) down to 1.5 miles per square mile of land (but they don’t seem to mandate that road densities are reduced to this level). Further, and perhaps more importantly, motorized trails are to be included with roads in the calculation of road density (p. 18) on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in particular. Few forests do this, but it’s critically important – we are very happy to see this in the bill language.
The bill includes monitoring requirements that explicitly address the effectiveness of the watershed restoration activities on ecological health (p. 37). In addition, the language regarding adaptive management addresses possible management changes that might be needed because of climate change. More often than not (and in the earlier draft), monitoring only addresses whether or not the actions were taken, regardless of whether they had the intended “benefits.”
The bill proposes designating more than half a million acres of wilderness, in various places throughout the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Kootenai and Lolo National Forests.

The Not-So-Good Stuff
We have a couple of primary concerns with the bill:

statements regarding forest health and catastrophic fire that do not seem ecologically justified.
expectations that stewardship contracting will provide enough funds for watershed restoration activities on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest
mandated timber targets
efforts to “permanently protect and enhance motorized recreation opportunities.”

Forest Health
Wildlands CPR doesn’t work directly on timber/forest structure/fire restoration issues. That said, the bill includes, as a primary purpose, the need to “reduce wildfire management costs by reestablishing natural fire regimes outside of a wildland-urban interface” (p. 2). This section goes on to state the need to, “reduce the size and severity of uncharacteristic fires on forest land” (p. 4). Many of the forests in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge are high-elevation lodgepole pine, which is a species that evolved with stand-replacing fire, including the fact that its cones won’t open to release their seeds without the heat generated from big fires. Such stand-replacing fires are exactly what occurred in Yellowstone National Park in 1988, and they are ecologically normal and necessary. The bill clearly distinguishes between the backcountry and the wildland/urban interface, but it seems to recommend some similar treatments.

Stewardship Contracting/Mandated Harvest
While we have few concerns about stewardship contracting in and of itself, it has rarely been able to generate the type of funds necessary to conduct all of the proposed restoration included in a project. This is even further exacerbated by the economic crisis we are facing, and the drop in wood products prices because of the home-construction slowdown. We were pleased to see that the Seeley Lake part of the project can be funded with direct appropriations, but we remain concerned that the proposed logging will be the primary thing that happens, and that the needed funding will not be available for the proposed restoration. The bill mandates a certain amount of logging each year, which will only tie the agency’s hands, as they try to determine the best way to manage their forests. Perhaps the most disconcerting thing we noticed is that the legislation sunsets at the end of 15 years, or at the end of the mandated logging, whichever comes later (p. 41). There doesn’t appear to be any similar language stating that the legislation won’t sunset until the proposed restoration occurs. While the introductory language of the bill appears to put watershed restoration and timber harvest on a similar playing field, the fine print makes it clear that watershed restoration remains a secondary objective at best.

Designations/protections for motorized recreation
We repeatedly hear the argument that if Wilderness is going to be designated/permanently protected, then motorized recreation should be too. But it’s a false dichotomy. The only way to get Wilderness is through legislative action. Opportunities to drive around for fun or transport exist practically everywhere, there is no shortage or scarcity when it comes to motorized recreation. Once motorized recreation is mandated by legislation, land managers hands tend to be tied regarding the ecological impacts of the recreation. Interestingly, the bill is inconsistent regarding this particular topic. Apparently motorized routes can be closed in the West Pioneers (BDNF) and Otatsy (Lolo NF) Recreation Areas if they are causing safety problems or natural resource damage (p. 71 and 81). But the same is not true for the other special recreation areas that include motorized use that are proposed for designation, like the West Big Hole.

We know that there are numerous other good and bad things in this bill, but we tried to address those issues most related to our mission. Furthermore, we conducted this assessment very quickly. We’ll make changes and updates as we have time to review the bill language more closely.

Senator Tester clearly worked hard to try to make a lot of different interests happy with this bill. While there are some things that we like a lot in concept, we’re concerned about whether or not they will work in practice. In addition, there are quite a few things we just don’t like. For example, we know there are times when forests need to be thinned to reduce hazardous fuels, or to restore more natural structure that will be more resilient to drought, insects, climate change and other factors. But there are also places where thinning won't make things any better. In addition, there are also places where it’s more important to deal with the impacts of roads, weeds, grazing or dams as the primary restoration priority. In our ideal world, watershed restoration practices would be fiscally separated from resource extraction, and that’s what we’ve been working towards in our Legacy Roads campaign.

Restoring clean water and wildlife habitat on Florida's Ocala National Forest

Bethanie Walder — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 11:41:58 -0600

The Ocala National Forest just released an excellent summary of the results from their first year of Legacy Roads projects. While the National Forests in Florida received only a small portion of the overall 2008 Legacy Roads funding, it sounds like they were able to make extraordinary use of those funds.

The report opens by explaining that the purpose of Legacy Roads nationally, and in Florida is:

“to give back to nature thousands of miles of unneeded and non-designated roads and routes on the Ocala National Forest to protect and restore community water sources, ecosystems and wildlife habitats.”

The report estimates that the Ocala still has remnants of 2200 miles of unneeded, un-designated routes, with an additional 1800 miles of similarly unneeded routes estimated on the other two national forests in Florida.

Ocala National Forest biologist Carrie Sekerak explains that Florida’s national forests are particularly important for providing clean water in the state:

“There are not a lot of green places that can clear contaminants and the Ocala is one of the biggest landscapes that can provide that as water moves through the natural land process.”

The Ocala documents the following restoration accomplishments and benefits of their $150,000 Legacy Roads allocation in 2008:

“About 40 miles of user-made roads were decommissioned for habitat restoration: 6,000 trees and shrubs were planted and 90 acres in 60 areas were revitalized with groundcover to create hunting enhancements. Additionally, the project reduced sediments to streams and wetlands to improve water quality, restored threatened, endangered and rare species habitat and reduced fragmentation that impacted 43,000 acres of imperiled ecosystems.”

The report also discusses the plans for the $300,000 in Legacy Roads funds that the Forest just received for 2009. They will focus on two particular areas in order to improve public drinking water, alleviate erosion, and protect or enhance habitat for Florida manatees, sandhill cranes, and the striped newt. They expect to address an area with approximately 100 miles of unneeded roads in 2009.

According to Sekerak:

“Restoring Legacy Roads back to forests and prairies and conducting associated projects like watershed restoration is one of the most significant actions we can take toward rebuilding the ecological integrity of the Ocala National Forest,” she said. “Protecting watersheds, turning roads into forests, stopping erosion and providing clean water are goals made possible by the Legacy Roads program.”

While the article also addressing some vandalism they’ve experienced on restored sites, the Ocala is moving in the right direction, and we’re delighted to read about their fantastic accomplishments with Legacy Roads funding.

In June, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an appropriation bill that doubled Legacy Roads funds to $100 million for fiscal year 2010. The Senate passed a bill providing continued funding at $50 million. The final tally will be determined in conference committee - but it seems highly likely that the bare minimum for next year will be $50 million!

Forest Service District sees light of fiscal responsibility

Sarah Peters — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 09:31:37 -0600

The withdrawal of an ATV route expansion project was announced in today's Federal Register. District Ranger Scardina, on the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania, saw the light of fiscal responsibility and withdrew the district's proposal to add up to 43 miles of new trail to an already overburdened recreation system. He states:

"It is important to focus on the maintenance and improvement of the recreation facilities and trails that we currently have on the District and Forest. This is the message that we continue to hear from our visitors and that is made apparent from our recent Recreation Facilities Analysis and other data analyses. Some of our existing motorized and non-motorized trails and recreation facilities need significant amounts of work to be maintained to standard and provide quality recreational experiences for our visitors. I have determined that it is not a responsible use of public funds to add 24 to 43 miles of new trail, estimated to cost $40,000 per mile to build. Therefore, I recommend that this project be cancelled."

Maybe as more forests actually complete a fiscal analysis of their road and trail system they'll face this harsh reality and focus limited financial resources on repairing the ailing transportation system and removing unneeded and damaging routes.

Controversial MT wilderness/land management bill due out Friday

Bethanie Walder — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:38:31 -0600

This week’s High Country News features an article about the very controversial Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership, and a pending bill that Montana Senator Tester is likely to introduce soon.

Wildlands CPR has not been part of that partnership, but we reviewed their initial draft proposal very carefully and had both significant concerns about and some praise for the proposal. If the final bill looks a lot like the draft, however, then we’re not quite sure they’ll succeed with the restoration they propose.

Very few people know what the final legislation is going to look like, especially because Senator Tester’s office has been uncharacteristically tight-lipped about the final bill. In the latest news (today, July 14), Tester’s office explains that the legislation will be released on Friday, and that it is not simply a wilderness bill, but a land management bill. And that’s exactly what concerns us…

Way back in 2004, when lots of groups were starting to work on collaborative wilderness/land management bills, Wildlands CPR put together a special issue of our newsletter with a series of articles dedicated to that specific topic and our positions on it. We don’t think Congress should legislate Forest Plans – it doesn’t make sense to us because of how severely it ties the hands of land managers. We like the idea of legislating wilderness, especially because that’s the only way to get Wilderness designated. That said, we recognize that getting wilderness designated is hard and people were looking for new tools, so we tried to address ways you could look at more broad-based "wilderness" bills without compromising core principles. We got a lot of good feedback from our colleagues regarding our recommendations for approaching these land management/wilderness bills in 2004, and they still seem relevant today.

Tester’s office met with and heard from a lot of different people when trying to determine how to put this legislation together. We’re keeping our fingers crossed, though not necessarily holding our breath, that he considered and incorporated some of the very thoughtful critiques that groups like Wildlands CPR provided regarding problems with the initial Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership proposal. We certainly understand that he's trying to fix some ingrained land management challenges in Montana, and that there are no easy answers to that task.

According to the High Country News Article, the legislation incorporates the following concepts:

They want to "reduce gridlock and promote local cooperation and collaboration" in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. They want new wilderness designations for 571,000 acres in 15 sections of the forest, plus about 58,000 acres in four pieces of nearby BLM land. They want "landscape-scale restoration" in much of the rest of the forest through stewardship contracts, a special, fairly new method for funding such work.

Each stewardship contract would bundle timber with various restoration tasks, such as removing old roads, fixing culverts and reducing the risk of big fires; companies would bid for the contracts and do the restoration while cutting trees. They promise it would be logging-lite: No tree-cutting within 300 feet of streams, and all new roads would be temporary -- used for a few years, and then most traces removed.

In return, loggers would get more efficient analysis of environmental impacts and a guaranteed flow of timber. The analysis for the stewardship contracts would be done in big chunks -- 50,000 acres or more in one bureaucratic swoop, lumping many projects together. Loggers would get access to 7,000 acres per year for 10 years, compared to about 1,300 acres per year this decade, which has been eked out through plans and lawsuits, not by guarantees. Anderson expects the increased acreage to yield 35 million board-feet of lumber or more per year, as opposed to the 9 million board-feet harvested annually in recent years.

Some of those things sound okay to us, some of them don’t, both ecologically and economically. For example, we don’t think there’s enough money in the timber sales to pay for the restoration through stewardship contracting, so we’re worried that the restoration wouldn’t really happen, even though the logging would. We also have serious questions about thinning in lodgepole pine forests, which are dependent on stand-replacing (a.k.a. catastrophic) fire for regeneration. That said, we've heard that there's specific language about reducing road densities significantly, which would provide huge benefits to fish and wildlife.

But this is all speculative until we see the language. And the bill doesn't just cover the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, but incorporates two other areas in Montana as well. We’ll take a close look at the legislation when it’s released on Friday, July 17. Once we've had a chance to review it, we’ll post an update on our blog about what we think works and doesn’t work in the proposed bill – at least as it pertains to the Beaverhead Deerlodge part of the legislation.

Bulltrout and roads - critical habitat on the way

Bethanie Walder — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:54:35 -0600

Looks like the US Fish and Wildlife Service is going back to the drawing board to determine critical habitat for bulltrout in Montana and four other western states. Congratulations to the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Wild Swan for their legal victory compelling the agency to designate more habitat as critical for bulltrout survival.

According to an article in The Missoulian, lots of habitat will be affected by this process:

The 2002 draft plan would have put extra scrutiny on forest activity on 18,450 miles of streams and 532,700 acres of lakes in five states, including Montana.

The final result could have a significant impact on road management in the affected areas, as roads are one of the primary causes of both chronic and episodic stream sedimentation. Protecting roadless and lightly roaded areas from new road construction, and identifying problematic roads for reclamation are primary steps for securing and enhancing bulltrout habitat. Forest Service Legacy Roads funding can be used to implement these steps – both by upgrading culverts that are blocking fish passage, or by reclaiming some of those unneeded roads. Since Legacy Roads funds are partially targeted to threatened and endangered fish species, the designation of critical habitat for bulltrout will only make it easier for public land managers to address these habitat concerns.

Part of this lawsuit was apparently related to the fact that the amount of critical habitat recommended for designation dropped significantly between 2002 and 2004, with little scientific justification. The agency will apparently be reconsidering their 2002 plan:

Judge Jones said the 2002 Draft of Critical Habitat was “an excellent starting point.” He ordered FWS to have a final rule no later than Sept. 30, 2010.

We’ll keep you posted on the final results of this process.

Its the Wilderness, Stupid

cathy — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:22:30 -0600

Check out this article by Bill Schneider as he discusses "why we can't understand that wilderness should be a big part of our economic future?"

Quiet recreation pays for itself

Bethanie Walder — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:55:21 -0600

Central Oregon Research Services recently released a study on the economic benefits of quiet recreation in the Wallowa Whitman National Forest in eastern Oregon. The study was commissioned by Hells Canyon Preservation Council and The Wilderness Society and found that quiet recreation on the WWNF contributes significant economic benefits to adjacent communities. According to a recent newspaper article from the Wallowa County Chieftan:

Quiet recreation generates $2.9 to $5.4 million per year in labor-related income and supports 137 to 252 local jobs.

The study and article point out that quiet recreation is bringing economic benefits to many sectors of the economy, not just standard tourism jobs. In addition, the article makes the following comparison of quiet versus motorized recreation on the Wallowa-Whitman:

According to Forest Service data, the number of Wallowa-Whitman National Forest visitors whose main activity is riding off-road vehicles represents less than one percent of all forest recreation. Moreover, people whose main activity includes hiking, backpacking, fishing, horseback riding and bicycling outnumber off-roaders on the forest by a factor of over 32-1.

As the Wallowa-Whitman and other national forests work through their travel planning processes, they must consider both the ecological and the economic impacts of motorized route designations. Too often motorized use is dispersed throughout a forest, making it difficult for quiet users to find anywhere to go. We often talk about wildlife being displaced by humans, but it turns out humans are also displaced by other humans. In addition to the ecological and recreational impacts we regularly talk about when this happens, it's helpful to also understand the signfiicant economic impacts of transoprtation planning decisions as well. This new report provides an excellent case study of those impacts.

ORV Damage in the Pioneers

Adam Rissien — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:51:12 -0600

As the December 2009 deadline approaches for the Forest Service to complete travel management plannnig, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest has yet to even begin their process. However, that is not keeping Montanans for Quiet Recreation from gathering important information through their monitoring program, and this past week they shared some findings.

Keep in mind that the new Beaverhead-Deerlodge Forest Plan leaves the West Pioneer Wilderness Study Area (WSA) unprotected. Also, motorized use is prohibted in the Torry Mt. Recomended Wilderness Area.

Sheep Creek Trail #2216 leads into the East Pioneers outside the Torrey Recommended Wilderness:

Here the Pioneer Loop National Recreation Trail #2750 (Lacy Creek area) leads into the West Pioneer WSA:

Lambrecht Creek Trail #2226 begins inside the West Pionner WSA:

Starting at the Mono Cr. trailhead Jacobsen Creek #1002 leads into the Torrey Mt Recommended Wilderess:

The David Creek Trail #2086 starts inside the Torrey Mt. Recommended Wilderness when it splits from Jacobsen Creek #1002; it ends at Torrey Lake. Here you can actually see water running along the trail:

All photos were taken by MQR Recreation Coordinator, Phil Knight. Volunteers are still needed! For more information on available trips contact Phil at pknight@montana.net or call 406-209-4727.

New Report: National Assessment on Travel Planning Released

Adam Rissien — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:58:39 -0600

Last year the Forest Service worked with the US Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (USIECR) who in turn tapped the University of Virginia’s Institute for Environmental Negotiation (IEN) to conduct an assessment of the agency's Travel Management Planning process in order to provide recommendations that will improve ongoing efforts and convey lessons learned from those already completed. Findings and recommendations were released July 1st in a report titled, National Assessment of Travel Management Planning: Challenges, Recommendations, and Best Practices for Public Involvement.

The impetus for this report came partially from Wildlands CPR’s work with the Region One office and a westwide series of workshops we organized in 2006 with IEN titled, Effective Collaboration for Travel Management. Also, in October 2007, Region One Social Scientist Cynthia Manning and I organized a meeting with conservationists and agency officials to talk about perspectives on the travel planning process. From these efforts it became clear that there was a need for a larger discussion that would address concerns all parties had with travel planning, and Cynthia began exploring ways to address this need within the agency. Eventually this led to the Forest Service turing to the USIECR who selected IEN to conduct a national assessment.

The report itself is based on interviews with 51 leaders in travel management planning as well as input provided through an online survey from 40 of those leaders and 27 others, for a total of 78 participants. Those involved primarily include agency officials, quiet recreationists, motorized users, and conservationists. While there are some statements in the report that we do not necessarily agree with, we do recognize their importance because they represent viewpoints that help shape travel planning.

Most of the report (part 3) is organized into challenges with recommendations on how to overcome them; some of which have minor inaccuracies, but overall they are beneficial. One prominent admission that we were delighted to see is the recognition that ““Travel management planning is about designing an ecologically sustainable transportation system that can be monitored and enforced; it’s not about just designating routes for motorized vehicles,” (p. 7). Also, the report recognizes conflict during the process is not something to be avoided, that some people will not be satisfied, and collaboration is not always the solution. This is especially true as it pertains to addressing problems with the Travel Management Rule (TMR) itself.

The first reported challenge is interpreting the TMR and the wide latitude afforded land managers in applying it. This section has some great discussion and good recommendations overall. For example, in regards to the minimum road system, the report states, “Clarification is needed on whether and when Forests need to identify a minimum necessary road system to serve as a baseline for travel management planning,” (pp. 11-12). In January 2009, the Forest Service released final directives on how to implement the TMR that provided exemptions for identifying the minimum road system that could potentially result in the task never being accomplished. Clarification is needed for land managers so they know this is not optional, but rather an integral part of travel planning. Another recommendation reads, “Clarification is needed on whether the default presumption should be for the Forest Service to err on the side of the resource needs rather than on the side of meeting recreational needs,” (p. 12). Again, we agree and feel that Executive Order 11644 as amended already provides this clarification by unambiguously placing watersheds, soils, wildlife and other recreation above motorized use by requiring minimization of potential conflicts.

Perhaps the weakest section is in regards to enforcement since the focus was just on collaboration and signing. While these are definitely useful and needed, they hardly represent all the tools such as increased penalties, using new technology, designating routes that can be enforced, and increasing law enforcement capacity. On the plus side, the report did reference Wildlands CPR’s report titled Six Strategies for Success: Effective enforcement of off-road vehicle use on public lands.

Overall, the report is definitely worth reading and Wildlands CPR supports many of its recommendations. To download a copy simply follow the link here to our resources page and click related links in the shaded box.

ATV Sales Continue Decline

Adam Rissien — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:42:57 -0600

For years proponents of motorized recreation have claimed that the “explosive growth” in the sale of All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) and other off-road vehicles (ORVs) supports their demand that public land managers designate extensive motorized trail networks. They point to ATV sales statistics from the 1990s while claiming that these trends are expected to continue.* Yet they omit statistics by ATV manufacturers that clearly demonstrate the sale of ATVs nationwide peaked in 2003 and has taken a substantial downturn the past two years.

The Specialty Vehicle Institute of America (SVIA) used to issue quarterly press releases via its website (www.svia.org) that trumpeted expanding ATV and motorcycle sales. Not since 2002, however, has the SVIA website included announcements of increasing ATV sales. The Powersports Business website (www.powersportsbusiness.com/) produces an annual Market Data Book that describes the trend in the sale of ATVs and other ORVs. Its report for 2006 included the headline “Traditional U.S. ATV Market Slows” and cited data compiled by the Motorcycle Industry Council that claimed the “sales of new ATVs in the United States dipped in 2005 for the first time in years” while “the rate of growth in sales of new ATVs had dipped for six consecutive years.”

Powersports Business press releases reveal a current trend of rapidly declining ORV sales. This prompted Yamaha Motor Corp., USA, in May 2009 to declare that “the industry as a whole saw ATV sales decline 33 percent in the first quarter (of 2009) and motorcycle sales fall 30.5 percent.” Other relevant statistics from the Powersports Business website include:

Honda’s North American sales of its motorcycles, ATVs and PWCs [Personal Watercraft] in its most recent quarter fell 52 percent compared to the year-ago period, the company reported (May 12, 2009).

Yamaha said U.S. retail sales of its motorcycles totaled 21,000, a 30 percent dip from the year-ago period. U.S. retail sales of its ATVs fell to 17,000, a 26 percent decline, and its side-by-side [i.e., UTVs] retail sales dropped to 4,000 from 9,000 a year ago (May 12, 2009).

Suzuki’s North America sales for motorcycles and ATVs fell to 88,000 units for its recent quarter that ended April 1. That is a nearly 34 percent decrease from the prior-year period (May 13, 2009).

Kawasaki Heavy Industries’ consumer products and machinery division, which includes powersports vehicles, reported a 22 percent decrease in sales for its recent fiscal year (May 1, 2009).

*Undated SVIA news release claiming “The booming popularity of ATVs is further demonstrated in a five-fold sales increase since 1993 and there is no slowdown in sight.” Data more recent than 2002 is not cited. See also current SVIA InfoSheet posted on website regarding the ATV Industry at a Glance that cites these same outdated statistics.

This information was provided by American Hiking Society's Randy Rasumssen.