The folks at Bark remind us that there’s not much time left if you want to comment on the OHV plan for the Mt. Hood National Forest.
The deadline is tomorrow (Wednesday) by 4:30 pm. Though it’s probably too late to mail a letter, you can email your thoughts to comments-pacificnorthwest-mthood@fs.fed.us.
I’ve covered this issue in detail. For a look at all my stories click on the Quiet Forests category. But to sum it up, the OHV plan would sharply limit where off road vehicles are allowed in the Mt. Hood National Forest. Officials want to set aside certain areas of the forest for OHV trails. They would be banned from the rest of the forest.
But how many areas, and how many miles of trails is still up for debate. Bark is asking everyone to support Alternative 4, the most restrictive of the four plans being proposed. It calls for three off road areas with 96 miles of trails. Bark says this one does the best job of protecting streams and wildlife habitat, as well as reduce conflicts between off roaders and quiet users such as hikers, anglers, mountain bikers and horse riders.
The Forest Service is leaning towards Alternative 2, which creates six OHV areas with 221 miles of trails.
For more information see the Mt. Hood Forest Projects and Plans website. You may have to scroll down to find the Off Highway Vehicle Travel Management Plan.
Saying it has to do something to meet the area’s growing demand for electricity, the Bonneville Power Administration is considering a new 500-kilovolt power line in Clark and Cowlitz counties of Washington.
The new line, roughly 70 miles long, would run from Castle Rock, Wash. to Troutdale, Ore. The actual length would depend on which route was chosen. One of the options follows an existing BPA transmission line. But the agency is also looking at several possible new routes, most of which cut through parts of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
BPA’s Michael Milstein says the area has become a bottleneck to moving power into the Portland-Vancouver region and along the I-5 corridor. He says BPA has taken several steps to increase capacity without a new power line, but adds, “The pipes are full.” He says building the line would also make it easier to integrate renewable energy from the massive wind farms of Eastern Oregon and Washington.
A BPA Fact Sheet on the project says that if the line isn’t built, increasing demand for electricity could tax the system and possibly lead to blackouts.
Without a specific proposal before us, it’s hard to say what kind of impact this new line could have on the region. Milstein says these kinds of transmission lines generally have a right-of-way about 150 feet wide. The towers are generally 80 to 150 feet tall. BPA has notified landowners in the area, but it’s still working on more detailed maps.
It’s important to note that we’re very early in the process. Starting Tuesday, BPA is holding a series of public meetings in the area. The meetings are part of what’s called the scoping process. This is where BPA figures out what issues need to be studied in an environmental review. Milstein says the earliest construction would start is 2012.
Just across the border, the Gifford Pinchot Task Force is fighting plans to thin about 2800 acres of national forest in Southwest Washington.
Forest thinning projects aren’t always controversial. But the GP Task Force is opposing this one because it’s in a remote area that requires the building of 11 miles of new roads and more than a dozen new stream crossings. The group says this will lead to erosion, landslides and “destruction of fish habitat in nearby streams.” This includes habitat of the Bull Trout, listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
The plan is known as the Wildcat Thin Timber sale. The area was clear cut in the 1960s and 1970s, then replanted. Since then, the Gifford Pinchot National Forest says the area has become overgrown and trees are dying from too much competition or suffering from stunted growth.
The U.S. Forest Service approved the plan in August. But the GP Task Force has filed an appeal, hoping to convince the agency to make it less damaging to fish and wildlife. The group notes that this is the first time in seven years that it has opposed a timber sale in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.
Big changes are coming to the Mt. Hood National Forest. Soon, the days of wide open access for OHV riders will be gone. For others, expect more quiet time in the forest with fewer noisy disruptions from off road vehicles.
These changes are outlined in a new off road travel plan that was just released by forest officials. If it goes through, off roading will be banned in most of the Mt. Hood National Forest, except for six areas that are scattered around the mountain.
Here’s a quick look at what’s being proposed:
Right Now:
Off roading is allowed on about 2500 miles of roads and trails.
Off roaders can drive off trails, officially known as cross country travel, on about 395,000 acres of the forest.
Under the new plan:
Off roading is allowed in six areas with about 221 miles of roads and trails.
Cross country travel is banned.
Courtesy NOAA
The history behind this goes back a little more than a decade. Starting in the late 1990′s, OHV use skyrocketed around the country. Forest officials became worried about the damage caused by off road vehicles that were getting bigger, faster and more powerful. In 2004, the U.S. Forest Service named unmanaged off roading as one of the four top threats to National Forests and Grasslands. The following year, it issued a new rule requiring all National Forests to draw up plans to control the use of OHVs. While recognizing off roading as a legitimate use of forests, federal officials said something had to be done to protect the natural resources.
The plan proposed for Mt. Hood calls for six OHV areas, some of which are controversial with environmental groups.
Bear Creek, on the north side of the mountain near Laurence Lake, calls for building 39 miles of new trails for off road motorcycles and brings off roading to an area where it hasn’t been before.
La Dee Flats, an area near Estacada, has seen heavy OHV use in the past. Environmentalists object that one of the trails goes right between two wilderness areas.
Gibson Prairie straddles the Hood River/Wasco County line northeast of Mt. Hood. The area is shared by horse riders, mountain bikers and off roaders. Forest officials expected the shared use to continue.
McCubbins Gulch near the intersection of Highways 26 and 216 is another area that already gets heavy OHV use.
Peavine, located in southern Clackamas County, is somewhat remote and accessible via forest service roads.
Rock Creek, in the eastern part of the forest, is controversial because it’s near a residential area. Some neighbors welcome the idea of having OHV access nearby while others worry about the noise and pollution.
To learn more, see the DEIS for the Mt. Hood Off-highway Vehicle Travel Management Plan. It lists four alternatives, ranging from doing nothing (very unlikely) to reducing to OHV travel to 3 areas with 96 miles of roads and trails. Mt. Hood officials are calling for Alternative 2 to be approved.
Today’s announcement kicks off a 60-day period of public comment. See the Mt. Hood travel management webpage for information on where to send letters or e-mail.
Forest officials have also scheduled two public hearings.
September 15
University Place Hotel & Conference Center
310 SW Lincoln
Portland
September 16
Hood River Inn
1108 East Marine Way
Hood River
In the next few weeks, the Mt. Hood National Forest is expected to release a new plan that may dramatically change how many of us play in the woods.
It comes with the rather boring sounding title of “Travel Management Plan”. But it represents a major shift in thinking and management of the forest.
Like all National Forests, Mt. Hood must come up with a new travel plan that limits the areas where off-road vehicles are allowed to go. Under the old way of thinking, off-roaders can go pretty much everywhere, even if that means going blazing a new trail through a forest, a meadow, or across a stream. Some areas are closed to off-roaders, but for the large part the forest is wide open to them.
Under the new way of thinking, off-roaders will only be allowed on trails that are designated for that kind of activity. And no more going off the trail. That kind of recreation, officially called “cross country travel” won’t be okay any more. In other words, unless off-roaders have permission to be there, they have to stay out.
The change began in 2005 when the U.S. Forest Service ordered all National Forests to draw up plans to limit off-road travel. Back then, we were on the tail end of huge explosion in the numbers of off-roaders using the woods. Off-road machines were getting bigger, faster and stronger – making it easier for the drivers to do great harm to the environment. In 2004, the damage caused by off-road vehicles was officially named as one of the four top threats to the health of the National Forests and Grasslands.
What will happen on Mt. Hood?
It’s too early to say. In a preliminary plan, known as a Scoping Document, Mt. Hood officials propose creating six areas throughout the forest where off-roaders will be allowed.
The next step is the release of the Environmental Impact Statement, which is expected to come out this week or next. The EIS will have an updated version of the Travel Management Plan, plus some alternatives to consider. This will be a very influential point in the process, and will set the agenda for the debate that will play out in September and possibly into October.
At first, the change appears to be a slam dunk victory for environmentalists and quiet recreationists, a group that includes hikers, bird watchers, fishermen, horse riders, mountain bikers and hunters. Any new plan is expected to dramatically limit off-road travel. There are an estimated 3500-4000 miles of roads in the Mt. Hood National Forest. If the current plan was approved without any changes, off-roaders will be limited to about 224 miles of roads and trails.
But local environmental groups are concerned for a number of reasons. One of the proposed off-road areas, called LaDee Flats, is wedged up against two Wilderness areas, the Salmon Huckleberry Wilderness to the northeast and the newly created Roaring Fork River Wilderness to the southeast. An off-roader who doesn’t understand or won’t obey the new rules could easily stray into these wildernesses and do severe damage to environmentally sensitive areas.
Another area, called Bear Creek, is on the north side of Mt. Hood. Deb Wachselblatt of the environmental group Bark says this is considered the “quiet” side of the mountain. “There’s no documented use of that area by motorized users and it’s adjacent to wilderness area,” she says. “It would really diminish that quality if there was motorized use there.” Forest officials propose adding 40 new miles of off-road, single-track, trails at Bear Creek. Mt. Hood’s Jennie O’Connor Card says the off-road community wanted an area where only motorcycles would be allowed, and the forest is trying to fill that niche for them.
Wachselblatt says with only a few law enforcement staffers on the payroll, Mt. Hood officials simply don’t have the resources to make sure the new rules are followed. “It may be the case of a few bad seeds that make rogue trails. But once those rogue trails are established I think other people will probably ride on them,” she says. “The Forest Service is still going to have a problem on their hands.”
O’Connor Card agrees that Mt. Hood has “limited” law enforcement staff, but adds the Forest also works cooperatively with other law enforcement agencies.
(NOTE: Deb has left Bark since our interview with her.)
What’s happening elsewhere in Oregon?
Probably the best person to answer that question is Randy Rasmussen, the West Coast representative for the American Hiking Society. Based in Corvallis, Rasmussen has worked with environmental groups around the state on Travel Management Plans.
Rasmussen says, so far, the results are mixed. For the most part, he likes the plans that have been approved for the Willamette and Siuslaw National Forests. On the other hand, he’s says the draft plan for the Rogue River-Siskiyou Forest is about as bad as it gets. Rasmussen says it converts hiking trails into off-road trails, gives official status to some rogue trails, adds trails in potential wilderness areas and in parts of the forest that are considered “sensitive botanical” areas.
He and Wachselblatt believe that quiet users of the forest have been outgunned in this debate by the off-road community. Rasmussen says quiet users have a big stake in these plans. “If you’re a quiet recreationist, you’re trying to get away from the sights and sounds and mechanized intrusions of modern society,” he says. “But it shouldn’t mean you have to go to wilderness to get that.” Rasmussen thinks it should be easier to find quiet forests that are closer to home.
“Quiet recreationists, by definition, seek out quiet opportunities and that’s becoming a limited resource in our national forests. There are fewer and fewer quiet places in large part because of off road vehicles.”
What happens next?
Once the Mt. Hood travel plan EIS is released, there will be a minimum 30-day period for public comments. Mt. Hood officials will also hold a series of public meetings, and one of them is expected to take place in Portland. A final decision is expected before the end of the year.
This is a Guest Editorial written by Rob Klavins, Roadless Wildlands Advocate for Oregon Wild.
Oregonians are rightfully celebrating the legislature’s recent decision to protect one of our natural treasures – the unspoiled lands along the Metolius River. Meanwhile, just 100 miles to the south, on the doorstep of the crown jewel of Oregon, a Bush-era logging plan is threatening to destroy thousands of acres of pristine forests and recreation areas. Despite President Obama’s much more environmentally-friendly attitude, and what ought to be the greenest Congress in decades, a logging project targeting roadless wildlands on the doorsteps of Crater Lake National Park continues to roll forward. Oregon’s leaders need to start paying attention, step up, and do what they can to stop it. A few have, but others are notable by their silence.
Courtesy National Park Service
The D-Bug Timber Sale is about as ugly as its name. The project area extends north from the border of Crater Lake National Park, extending 10 miles beyond Diamond Lake. East to west, it stretches from the edges of the Mt. Thielsen Wilderness to the backcountry around Mount Bailey. This one timber sale includes more logging in roadless areas than occurred across the entire country during the entire Bush administration. Adding insult to injury, it proposes to turn miles of hiking trails in the Cascade Recreation Area into logging roads, and the Umpqua National Forest is diverting federal stimulus dollars to help pay for it.
Oregon Wild strongly supports common-sense projects that appropriately address legitimate threats to health and human property, and a tiny portion of DBug does that. Thinning around Diamond Lake to protect cabins and structures makes sense. However, large-scale commercial logging in some of Oregon’s most pristine backcountry recreation areas does not.
Got a nail? I’ve got a hammer.
Trying to find the right tool to stop reckless developments near the Metolius was tricky. This shouldn’t be a problem with D-Bug. In 2001, then-President Bill Clinton enacted the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation rule, instructing the Forest Service that America’s remaining roadless wildlands should stay that way. Under the roadless rule, hunting, fishing, hiking, camping, rafting etc… are encouraged in our remaining roadless areas, as are projects to improve wildlife habitat and address legitimate fire risks. However, these areas were put off-limits to commercial logging, mining, and other destructive development.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration spent 8 years trying to repeal the 2001 Roadless Rule, despite the enormous support it enjoys from businesses in the outdoor recreation industry, scientists, conservationists, sportsmen, economists, religious leaders, and elected leaders across the country. Here in Oregon this year, the Rule has received support from Governor Kulongoski, former (and perhaps future) Governor Kitzhaber, Bill Bradbury, Les AuCoin, John Kroger, and many, many more.
Forest Follies
As with so many other issues, when it came to roadless policy, the administration inherited a mess. During the campaign, President Obama said he would “be proud to support and defend [the Rule]”. On May 28th, he took a major step by issuing an interim directive providing the Secretary of Agriculture final decision-making authority over all roadless projects. The goal of the directive was to “provide consistency and clarity that will help our National Forests until a long-term roadless policy reflecting President Obama’s commitment is developed”. Many cheered the news and dubbed it a “roadless timeout”.
This was wishful thinking. Just last week, the Secretary approved a 381-acre roadless clearcut in America’s largest rainforest. Unfortunately, perhaps emboldened by mixed signals from the administration, Umpqua National Forest Manager Clifford Dils isn’t taking the hint, and continues to spend scarce federal tax dollars to advance his D-Bug sale by pointing to “uncertainty” over whether or not roadless areas will be protected in the future.
This isn’t a jobs vs. the environment debate. Roadless area protection has long enjoyed enormous support from the outdoor recreation industry. In January, a coalition of over 90 outdoor recreation businesses, including well-known brands like JanSport, Kelty, Filson, Sierra Designs, Montrail, Scott Fly Rods, and Cascade Designs, sent a letter to Obama urging him to support the 2001 Roadless Rule. They’ve since been joined by dozens more. Few Americans enjoy hiking through clear cuts or fishing in a river buried by a mudslide. Protecting our remaining pristine roadless areas is one way to preserve both Oregon’s tourism and recreation economy and our quality of life.
Where does Oregon fit in?
Oregon’s outdoor businesses, elected officials, and citizens have long led the charge in trying to protect roadless wild areas. Clinton’s 2001 Roadless Rule came out of the most extensive public involvement process in federal rule-making history. On a per-capita basis, Oregonians submitted more public comment than any other state (over 90% were in favor). In 2006, Governor Kulongoski joined with state leaders in Washington, California, and New Mexico to sue the Bush administration to stop its repeal of the Rule. Also in 2006, Representatives Blumenauer, DeFazio, Hooley, and Wu cosponsored legislation to make the Roadless Rule permanent. Oregon businesses, from Keen Footwear to Clackacraft drift boats, also support protection for roadless areas.
The plan to log on the doorstep of Crater Lake has made it frighteningly clear how important it is that protection for our remaining pristine roadless wildlands not be subject to the whim of changing administrations. As we speak, Representatives and Senators are signing on to co-sponsor the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2009. So far, Senator Merkley and Congressmen Blumenauer, DeFazio, and Wu have stepped up and joined nearly 100 other conservation champions in doing so.
When the Metolius was threatened by shortsighted development interests, pressure was brought to bear on our leaders in Salem, and ultimately they did the right thing. Now that wildlands around Crater Lake are being threatened, Oregon’s Congressional leaders must do the same.
As chair of the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Ron Wyden is in the perfect position to help protect the wildlands around Crater Lake, and roadless areas across the country. Put simply, his opinion matters when it comes to forest issues. A good first step would be taking a public position against logging pristine roadless areas around Crater Lake. By doing so he can help put the brakes on the project.
Senator Wyden should join with Senator Cantwell, Senator Merkley, and over a dozen other Senators and support legislation to permanently protect America’s remaining unspoiled roadless areas. Click below to find out how you can join with hundreds of other Oregonians urging Senator Wyden to support roadless area protection.
As far as Oregon is concerned, this may be the biggest blow yet to Bush-era environmental policies. And local green groups couldn’t be happier.
Today, the Interior Department says it’s killing a plan that would greatly increase logging on about 2.6 million acres of federal forests in Western Oregon. The plan, known as the Western Oregon Plan Revisions (WOPR), was approved in the final weeks of the Bush Administration.
A Western Oregon Old Growth Forest. Courtesy BLM.
Why the change in direction? Two reasons.
First, Interior says WOPR was approved too soon and that the Bush Administration failed to follow all the steps required by the Endangered Species law. As a result, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says the plan is “legally indefensible” and “cannot stand up in court.”
Next, it point to problems with Bush Administration changes to the recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. Those changes, made in 2008, were used to help write the WOPR. But an Inspector General’s report says the process was potentially jeopardized by a former Bush official using “improper political influence”.
U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service will take a new look at the recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl.
As a result, Interior is asking a federal judge to toss out the Bush spotted owl plan and is directing the Fish and Wildlife Service to start work on a new one.
Among the Northwest environmental groups praising today’s news is Oregon Wild. The group’s Doug Heiken says, “President Obama has pulled the plug on the most cynical attack on Oregon’s old growth forests in decades.”
Oregon Wild has been critical of the WOPR because it believes the plan allows too much logging on forests more than 80 years old. These “mature forests” include old growth areas, and play vital roles in providing habitat for spotted owls, marbeled murrelets, and clean, cold streams for salmon.
Chuck Willer, Executive Director of the Coast Range Association, believes the decision will save the “best remaining native forest” in Oregon’s Coast Range. “This is a gift to tomorrow’s children for a region in short supply of old growth forest and quality salmon habitat.”
No one expects a halt to logging in Western Oregon. In fact, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar used today’s announcement to praise Governor Kulongoski, Senators Wyden and Merkley, and Congressman DeFazio for their work to build a consensus on how to move forward. “There is broadening agreement that it is time to reevaluate the logging of old growth forests on BLM lands,” says Salazar. “There is also agreement that logging should not occur in areas that would put water quality at risk, and we should fully consider advances in forestry and increased knowledge of species’ needs over the last two decades.”
In the ongoing dispute between OHV riders, and the so-called “quiet” users of National Forests, the advocates of “quiet recreation” have a new argument to support their cause.
Hikers, fishermen, bikers, wildlife watchers and other “quiet” forms of recreation aren’t just easier on the environment. They play a much bigger role in supporting the local economies surrounding the forests.
A worker cuts down a tree to block an unauthorized ATV trail in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. Courtesy U.S. Forest Service.
That conclusion is based on a study of visitors to the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in Northeast Oregon. The vast majority of visitors, about 97%, came to enjoy quiet recreation, while only about 3% were OHV riders.
That huge difference in numbers means “quiet” visitors have a much larger impact on the economy of Northeast Oregon than do OHV riders. The study says non-motorized visits generate nearly $19 million in economic activity for the region. More importantly, it says quiet recreation directly supports $2.9 million to $5.4 million in local salaries, representing 137 to 252 jobs.
The study was conducted by Dr. Kreg Lindberg, a Forestry professor at OSU’s Cascades Campus in Central Oregon.
The timing of the report is important because it comes as National Forests across Oregon are developing Travel Management Plans. These plans will determine where OHV riders will be allowed to go in the forest, and just as important, where they won’t be allowed.
Randy Rasmussen with the American Hiking Society says forest managers need to consider the economic as well as environmental impacts of these plans. He points to growing evidence that quiet users won’t return to an area if they’ve had a bad experience because of OHV use. “The noise, the exhaust, the smoke. They came to get away from all that,” says Rasmussen. If they don’t come back, it could have a greater impact on the local economy than restricting OHV access.
Greg Dyson, with the Hells Canyon Preservation Council, hopes that elected officials get the message too. He says that in some counties, OHV riders have greater political influence than quiet users of national forests. Dyson thinks the report sends a message to county officials to “Step back and look at all the facts” before they advocate for greater OHV access.
In the study, “quiet recreation” includes a wide variety of activities including, hiking, biking, fishing and picnicking. It also includes hunters who don’t use ATV’s to get around the forest.
Take Action:
The Wallowa-Whitman National Forest is expected to release it’s Draft Travel Management Plan on June 19. That will be followed by a period of public comment and Dyson expects a final decision towards the end of the year.
Meanwhile, the environmental group Bark is organizing a rally to raise awareness about the Travel Management Plan for the Mt. Hood National Forest. The draft plan will be released in August. Mt. Hood is looking at creating six OHV “play areas” totaling 50,000 acres. Bark is calling the event “Quiet Riot”. It’ll be held Saturday, June 27th. See the group’s website for details.
For more information about our reporting on this topic, see our Quiet Forests category in the left side panel.
Like all National Forests, Mt. Hood must come up with a new travel plan that limits the areas where off-road vehicles are allowed to go. Under the old way of thinking, off-roaders can go pretty much everywhere, even if that means going blazing a new trail through a forest, a meadow, or across a stream. Some areas are closed to off-roaders, but for the large part the forest is wide open to them.
