Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Forest-road closure report never forwarded - Agency deputy objected to White River proposal
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...6%257E,00.html
Forest-road closure report never forwarded Agency deputy objected to White River proposal By Theo Stein Denver Post Environment Writer Sunday, March 16, 2003 - A report by state biologists urging the White River National Forest to close certain roads and trails was never forwarded to decisionmakers, prompting critics to complain that the Owens administration cares more for ATVs than wildlife. Ultimately, state Department of Natural Resources Director Greg Walcher told Forest Service officials that Colorado opposes any road closures in the White River National Forest, which sprawls from Dillon to Aspen across an area twice the size of Delaware. Environmentalists and retired wildlife agency staffers said it was the second time the Department of Natural Resources has ignored state biologists' concerns about motorized recreation in the forest. Walcher, Gov. Bill Owens' top environmental official, says he never saw the biologists' memo because their boss, Department of Wildlife Director Russ George, did not submit it. "There are dozens of federal actions happening at any time," Walcher said. "It's Russ George's job to decide which comments to file and which comments to let go." George says the agency was overwhelmed at the time by a new program to fight chronic wasting disease and that he asked his deputy, Bruce McCloskey, to handle the Forest Service comments. McCloskey, in turn, says he didn't forward the comments because he was not convinced the conclusions the biologists reached were accurate. Wildlife Division observers say top DNR officials knew the biologists' memo existed but made no effort to ensure George submitted it. They point out that Walcher's policy director, Tim Pollard, reviewed the 20-page document with an environmental group that asked to see it prior to Walcher submitting his comments on Nov. 13. Walcher said Pollard had no responsibility to ensure the biologists' concerns were reflected in the DNR's letter to the Forest Service because the comments were not official wildlife policy. "Greg (Walcher) has the prerogative to seek out whichever opinions he wants," said former division director John Mumma. "But is it appropriate for the official state position to be so strongly in favor of the off-road industry?" "This is standard operating procedure for Walcher's administration," added retired division biologist Tom Beck. "Let the underlings find out what you don't want known, then claim you never saw it." Ever since federal officials announced plans to revamp the White River National Forest management blueprint in 1999, the 2.5-million-acre playground has become an ideological battleground between development interests and conservationists. Three years ago, Walcher deleted division comments calling for restrictions on motorized recreation, prompting Mumma to retire early. Now, as the federal agency develops alternatives for managing motorcycles, ATVs, four-wheelers and snowmobiles, it is once again operating without the insight of division biologists and managers, who are charged by law with protecting wildlife on federal lands. "This just smells really rotten," said Rocky Smith of Colorado Wild, an environmental group focused on high-country issues. "You have to conclude the DNR is sandbagging the wildlife agency." McCloskey, who reviewed the biologists' memo, said that's not accurate. He said the memo wasn't forwarded in part because he disagreed with the biologists' conclusions. "This gets to the guts of this issue," said McCloskey, a former district wildlife manager. "Can our folks prove that road closures have this effect or that effect? There's different opinions on that; there's differences within our own organization." Critics say those differences are driven by political, rather than scientific, considerations. The wildlife agency's own studies show how ATV use in the fall drives elk off of the national forest and onto private land, they say. Environmentalists cite dozens of other studies that show off-road vehicles cause soil erosion, the spread of invasive plants, and disturb sensitive and endangered wildlife. "This is straight out of the off-road lobby's playbook," said Smith, forest coordinator with Colorado Wild. Division Director George acknowledged that he worries about his agency getting into a political fight over the forest. "There is no single right or wrong biological opinion about anything," George said. "And the more controversial an issue is, the more care has to be put into the division's official position. "This is a political issue more than a biological issue." The 19 biologists and area wildlife managers who contributed comments on the travel plan represent most of the agency staff concerned with White River National Forest lands. Many forest roads and trails, the memo said, are important for getting hunters to elk herds, which are significantly more numerous than the habitat can support. But some should be closed to vehicles during spring to avoid disturbing elk calving areas, they said. Others should be closed during the fall hunt, when division studies show ATV use drives game onto private land beyond the reach of most hunters. And they specifically asked the Forest Service to crack down on "non-system" roads - old logging roads not designed for sustained traffic or user-created routes. Forest Service managers have said repeatedly that unregulated- use routes in forests are one of their top challenges. But in his Nov. 13 letter to forest managers, Walcher said Colorado "opposes any road closure" in the forest. He said federal officials should grandfather illegal roads into the travel plan without further studies. Walcher said the state shares the Forest Service's concerns about the creation of new trails by people simply driving across country. "But what Colorado cannot accept is the White River National Forest wanting to use that as an excuse to close down roads that are historic and have been there for a long time." New roads should still go through the planning process, Walcher wrote. "But simply designating already existing roads and trails (as part of the plan) would intuitively require much less environmental analysis." "As if that were the point of the planning process," said Melissa Decker, an attorney with the Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, which filed an open records request to obtain the memo in October. "It's not even a matter of what's good resource management anymore," Beck said. "We feel the agency has been captured and muzzled." Senior division officials disagree. They say that the DNR has an obligation to reflect the interests of all the agencies under its umbrella, which include the state parks, forestry, energy and water development agencies. "We want to speak with one voice for the state, which means DNR has to coordinate the responses. That's not unique to this administration," McCloskey said. It is a change, though. Prior to the Owens administration, the Division of Wildlife routinely commented on national forest plans and travel plans. But since 2000, Walcher has insisted that his agency be the only voice representing Colorado interests in federal land decisions. "When I was there, we were told we will flat out not make significant comments without getting cleared by Walcher's office," said Randall Cote, a former division wildlife manager in the Aspen district who retired in 1999. Last month, Owens' chief of staff, Sean Duffy, emphasized that requirement during a meeting with DNR agency heads, saying the governor would aggressively pursue changes in state government during his second term and that department directors should personally "control" their agency's message. Beck, who took early retirement in part because of his frustration with Walcher, said the latest fight over the White River National Forest is indicative of how politics trumps science under Owens. "Our guys know they're one voice among many, and they're not going to win all the time," Beck said. "But they expect to be able to present their best case." McCloskey said more changes might be coming. "We need to sit down with DNR and make sure our process fits their needs," he said. "We need to be sure our field staff are limiting their comments to the biology at hand and aren't just spinning their wheels." |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Forwarded from Cal Native Plant Society List-Serve... | Plant Science | |||
Open Garden Invitation (forwarded) | North Carolina | |||
Whistleblower accuses agency of mismanaging Southern Appalachian forests | alt.forestry | |||
Road closure - logging style | alt.forestry |