Collaboration Example: Black Hills Travel Management with FACA Committee

If, as stated by many, collaboration is a tool of “industry”, what industry are we talking about here?
Here’s an example of how the recommendations and agency action interrelate on the draft Travel Management Plan.

Proposed Action
Early development of the proposed action involved extensive consultation with many individuals and groups. Some of this work was conducted by the National Forest Advisory Board. Other efforts were conducted by the Forest Service. The following section summarizes these efforts.
National Forest Advisory Board Efforts
The Forest conducted preliminary public involvement from April 2003 to November 2007 through the work of the Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board (NFAB). This board was chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in 2003. In March 2005, the Board established the Travel Management Subcommittee (the Subcommittee) to develop recommendations to the larger NFAB for travel management on the Forest. It was intended that advice provided by the NFAB would be used by the Forest Service to develop a proposed action or alternatives to be considered in the EIS. Members appointed to the Subcommittee represented a wide variety of interests, including both motorized and nonmotorized recreationists.
To assist their efforts in evaluating the potential for establishing a designated OHV trail system on the Forest, the Subcommittee distributed a User Needs Questionnaire to solicit input from both OHV and non-OHV users. By December 2005, some 559 responses had been received. To supplement the information received from this effort, the Subcommittee also conducted four public meetings in South Dakota and Wyoming in which they listened to ideas, suggestions and concerns from off-highway vehicle users, outdoor recreationists, interested stakeholders and community members.
NFAB Recommendations – Based on public input solicited and received, the Subcommittee issued a report on June 8, 2006 (Blair et al. 2006). The report contained eleven core recommendations regarding design and management of a designated system of roads, trails, and areas. The report made it clear that these recommendations “are intended to be general in nature.” The eleven recommendations offered by the Travel Subcommittee to the NFAB are incorporated by reference in this analysis, and are summarized as follows:
9
Black Hills National Forest Travel Management Plan
1. Our Setting/Niche – “The Subcommittee recognizes that motorized vehicle use including OHVs is an important part of the recreation experience on the Black Hills. The Subcommittee recommends that an OHV trail system be developed, within the context of overall motorized uses, which provides for a variety of opportunities but does not dominate or unreasonably interfere with other multiple uses on the Forest.”
2. Active or a Passive System? “The Subcommittee recommends an ‘active’ system versus a passive one. A passive system is similar to what we have today—routes and areas are designated as open or closed, and people use these routes/areas as desired. An active system is one that is specifically designed, maintained, and enforced to provide for specific uses. The Subcommittee recognizes that funding would play a large role in the size and nature of the system.” (Emphasis added.)
3. What are the economic and funding issues? “The Subcommittee recognizes that the size and nature of an OHV system will depend substantially on the funding sources available. The Subcommittee supports pursuing all possible funding options.”
4. What would be the role of the States and local communities in developing and managing an OHV trail system? “The Subcommittee recommends that OHV management on the Black Hills National Forest be a cooperative effort between the Forest Service, the States of South Dakota and Wyoming, and local counties. The Forest Service would have primary responsibility for an OHV trail system (as well as other transportation systems) on NFS lands.”
5. What should the system look like/consist of? “The group likes the concept of “Gateway Communities” or of at least connecting/tying in communities in some fashion. In general, the system should consist of a main arterial system extending throughout the Black Hills and a network of routes branching off the main system. The focus would be on multiple scale loops as opposed to dead-end spurs. Many of the routes would be shared by multiple users… The group recognizes that, for the most part, there are already an adequate number of routes on the Forest that could be developed into a system [and that] some current, non-system routes may need to be included in the system.” The Subcommittee stated that they did not envision that a large number of new routes would be developed, and that the development of new connections or “limited new routes…should be off-set by the removal of other existing routes. In the end, there should be less ‘tracks on the ground’ than currently exists.”
6. How do we address populated areas? “General consensus was that it is important to limit the amount of noise and potential conflicts adjacent to communities/ subdivisions, and that an OHV trail system should focus more on areas away from populated areas.” The Subcommittee recognized that concentrating motorized use near populated areas “can be a nuisance for some and cause conflicts” and that efforts should be made to reduce this nuisance and conflicts. The Subcommittee noted that providing motorized access from these areas while reducing conflicts could be “the most difficult aspect of the entire process.”
7. Game Retrieval – “The Subcommittee recommends that allowances be made for game retrieval as part of the motorized use designation process.” The Subcommittee recommended further that the program on the Forest should be consistent with other Federal and State agencies, notably Custer State Park, and that “No unacceptable 10
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
resource damage, as defined by the Forest Service, will occur as part of retrieval operations.”
8. Firewood Collecting – The Subcommittee recognized that many residents collect firewood on the Forest to heat their homes, and recommended “that motorized use to collect firewood:
a. Require a firewood permit.
b. Be limited to areas designated by the Forest Service which can be modified as needed.”
9. Dispersed Camping – “The Subcommittee recommends that dispersed camping using motorized vehicles off designated routes be allowed, but motorized vehicles be restricted to within 300 feet of an open, designated route using the most direct route to the camp site.”
10. Cross-Country Motorized OHV Use – “The Subcommittee recommends that cross-country motorized OHV travel be allowed only within designated areas. Exceptions to this would be for administrative and permitted uses, public safety, fire suppression, and search and rescue.” The Subcommittee offered no recommendation as to the size and nature of these designated areas.
11. Mud-Bogging – “The Subcommittee recommends that no mud-bogging be allowed on National Forest System lands,” noting the resource damage that accompanies such use.
Forest Service Efforts
The Forest Service also conducted work outside the framework of the NFAB. During this preliminary public involvement stage, Forest leadership met with Indian tribal leadership to consider the travel planning process. The Forest Service also sponsored and conducted workshops. The Forest, in cooperation with the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council (NOHVCC) conducted an OHV Route Designation Workshop in October 2006 for agency personnel and the public. The purpose of this workshop was to acquaint agency personnel and the public with the Travel Management Rule and its implementation. In November 2006, the Forest conducted four “Travelways” workshops. The purpose of these workshops was to gather public input and ideas for developing a proposed action. Individuals attending these workshops identified routes they felt should remain open for public use on Forest lands, and suggested changes or additions to the travel system. Participants at these workshops contributed site-specific information that was used to develop the proposed action.
The Forest then convened decisionmakers and resource specialists from the Supervisor’s Office and all four Ranger Districts, to design and display a motorized travel system that would follow the NFAB recommendations and meet public desires expressed up to that time. The aim was to develop a system that a system that would also reduce or minimize potential resource damage, and be practical to implement.

Hearing: Forest Service Regulatory Roadblocks to Productive Land Use and Recreation: Proposed Planning Rule, Special-use Permits, and Travel Management

You can find the archived video, and written testimony here.

If you look at the “Truth in Testimony” forms, you can find out additional information on the backgrounds of the witnesses.

The Royal Forests- Congressman McClintock on the Forest Service

John of England signs Magna Carta. Illustration from Cassell's History of England (1902)

Disagreement, up to and including violence, around land ownership and use is part of our Homo sapiens heritage. In one sense that is encouraging- it’s not likely that if we were better at our work of land management, all the conflict would go away. And it’s definitely cheery that we have moved away from violence.

Yesterday when I read this comment from David Beebe here

The clearer path begins by understanding the corporatization of Congress and the agencies it funds, corporatization of the media, and corporatization of civil society in general puts the best interests of the commons and the commoners at a distinct disadvantage.

It reminded me of something I had recently read- Congressman McClintock’s views of the commoners, particularly, these comments on the Royal Forests in this letter from Congressman Mclintock to Chief Tidwell.

You can find out more about Congressman McClintock’s views here.

Combined, these actions evince an ideologically driven hostility to the public’s enjoyment of the public’s land – and a clear intention to deny the public the responsible and sustainable use of that land.

Most recently, the Forest Service has placed severe restrictions on vehicle access to the Plumas National Forest, despite volumes of public protests. Supervisor Bill Connelly, Chairman of the Butte County Board of Supervisors writes that “The restriction applies to such activities as: collecting firewood, retrieving game, loading or unloading horses or other livestock, and camping.” He writes, “The National Forests are part of the local fabric. The roads within the National Forests are used by thousands of residents and visitors for transportation and recreation. These activities generate revenue for our rural communities, which are critical for their survival.”

This is not a small matter. The Forest Service now controls 193 million acres within our nation – a land area equivalent to the size of Texas.

During the despotic eras of Norman and Plantagenet England, the Crown declared one third of the land area of Southern England to be the royal forest, the exclusive preserve of the monarch, his forestry officials and his favored aristocrats. The people of Britain were forbidden access to and enjoyment of these forests under harsh penalties. This exclusionary system became so despised by the people that in 1215, five clauses of the Magna Carta were devoted to redress of grievances that are hauntingly similar to those that are now flooding my office.

Mr. Speaker, the attitude that now permeates the U.S. Forest Service from top to bottom is becoming far more reminiscent of the management of the royal forests during the autocracy of King John than of an agency that is supposed to encourage, welcome, facilitate and maximize the public’s use of the public’s land in a nation of free men and women.

After all, that was the vision for the Forest Service set forth by its legendary founder, Gifford Pinchot in 1905: “to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people in the long run.”

One Controversy at a Time, Please

Ahh. Echoes of Ed Abbey (he wrote One Life at a Time, Please). If Roadless is contoversial, and travel management is controversial, if we have roadless travel management do we get more than 2x the controversy? Here’s a news story on a lawsuit on a travel management plan.

It seems like Mrowka and Hawthorne disagree on some facts. Are these trails already used or not?

That’s what I find discouraging about the state of the press these days. Seems like sometimes they just quote two different opinions and leave it at that. That’s OK, except when there are fairly readily accessible facts. I’m not blaming press folks- I understand- because I have family members in the newspaper industry. But it seems like we in the public are left to our own devices if we want to delve further to find out facts.

Travel Management on the W-W

Richard Cockle/The Oregonian Randy James, operator of an Enterprise ATV and motorcycle shop, and ex-logger Larry Cribbs of La Grande repair a damaged sign that takes issue with a forthcoming travel management plan expected to prohibit motorized vehicles on much of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

This article from the Oregonian is full of interesting observations.. travel management is a big workload in the FS administrative appeals department right now and there may be more controversy as implementation of the travel management rule moves forward.  So  I added a new blog category for travel management.

Anyway, here are a couple of observations of interest.

Once in place, the plan will require forest users to consult a free map before setting off, Christensen said. Roads designated off-limits won’t be gated or marked, but straying onto a closed road could mean a $5,000 fine, she said.

“It is going to be a change in mindset for people to learn that when you are on the national forest these are the rules you’ve got to play by,” Christensen said.

The following two statements appear to be a bit in conflict

On the Wallowa-Whitman, fewer than 1 percent of visitors ride OHVs, said Randy Rasmussen of Corvallis, spokesman for the American Hiking Society. While their numbers are few, more control and management of them would help establish the Wallowa-Whitman as a preferred destination for hikers, equestrians, bird watchers and hunters — the ” so-called “quiet recreationists,” he said.

And

People widely use Wallowa-Whitman forest roads for sightseeing, cruising on ATVs, hunting deer, elk, chukar partridges and grouse, gathering winter firewood, huckleberrying and picking mushrooms.

Unless there are people, who, when taken together, compose less than 1% of total visitors, but those individuals widely use the forest roads? It seems confusing.

This one was of particular interest to me, as recently I attended a meeting with interest groups where one of the major topics was to make sure that NEPA did not form an obstacle to collaboration in landscape scale planning efforts. But we did not talk about consultation specifically at our meeting.

Early in the process, the Forest Service and public enjoyed “wide open and constant communication,” he said, but that’s changed with the entry of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Excluding the public isn’t unusual when federal agencies meet, said Judy Wing , a Forest Service spokeswoman in Baker City. “Consultation is not a public process,” she said.

That may be, but as with clearance of rules, I think agencies with opinions should document them and provide for public comment and discussion on their opinions. Speaking as a scientist, I think it would be a great opportunity for real- world science education if the dialogue among scientists and practitioners in the different agencies could be made public. I think it would be hard to achieve the kind of collaboration we all would prefer when there are periodic information blackouts.