LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old 16-03-2003, 02:56 PM
Donald L Ferrt
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Forwarded from Cal Native Plant Society List-Serve... A. Pismo Clam Plant Science 0 15-05-2006 06:01 AM
Open Garden Invitation (forwarded) Marcy Hege North Carolina 1 04-06-2004 02:02 PM
Whistleblower accuses agency of mismanaging Southern Appalachian forests Aozotorp alt.forestry 0 19-06-2003 01:44 AM
Road closure - logging style Larry Harrell alt.forestry 3 27-10-2002 09:10 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017