July 29, 2010 in Outdoors, Idaho

Proposal for Colville National Forest a collaborative effort

Plan keeps timber industry, environmental concerns in mind

• Print
• Email
• Share

A proposal to designate 215,000 acres of new wilderness areas in the Colville National Forest is drawing support from a broad coalition of forest users.

The plan would expand the existing Salmo-Priest Wilderness in Northeast Washington and create new wilderness along the Kettle Crest, protecting six peaks that are each over 7,000 feet tall. The acreage represents some of the most remote, untouched land left in the lower 48 states. It’s home to grizzly bears, lynx and woodland caribou. And it’s an important wildlife migration route that connects the Rocky Mountains to the Cascades, environmentalists say.

In an unusual move, the wilderness proposal doesn’t stop there. The plan also calls for stepping up logging activity on other parts of the Colville National Forest and building new trails for mountain bikers, motorcyclists and ATV riders, who would have to give up some of their existing trails if Congress approves the new wilderness.

Timber industry representatives, ranchers and recreational groups all worked on the plan.

“We’ve been involved in exhaustive discussions over the past four years,” said Tim Coleman, a director for Conservation Northwest. “This is as much about supporting working farms and ranches, jobs in the woods and new recreation opportunities as it is about wilderness.”

With 1.1 million acres, the Colville National Forest has room for all types of users, said Russ Vaagen, vice president of Vaagen Brothers Lumber Co. By working together, different groups can find appropriate places to harvest timber, graze cattle, ride four-wheelers and still support wilderness for solitude and wildlife habitat, he said.

“If we look at it in terms of abundance, we’ll all get more than we have right now,” Vaagen said. “If we look at it in terms of scarcity, of holding out, we’ll all get less.”

Conservation Northwest is working to gain political support for the wilderness proposal. Ideally, federal legislation would be introduced this fall or next spring, Coleman said. The proposal also includes new “national recreation areas,” which would trigger federal dollars for additional motorized loop trails, mountain bike routes and facilities such as warming huts and restrooms, he said.

But wilderness proposals often take years to win passage. The Wild Sky Wilderness, which protects 106,000 acres in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, was approved in 2008 after five years of congressional debate.

According to the 1964 Wilderness Act, wilderness designations are for forests that have kept their “primeval” character, showing little influence of human activity. Logging and mining are prohibited in wilderness areas, as are chain saws, motor vehicles and mountain bikes. Cattle can remain, but ranchers sometimes have to leave their trucks behind.

The Colville National Forest is currently evaluating whether 240,000 acres of inventoried roadless areas have wilderness potential through a forest plan update.

The collaborative effort that produced the wilderness proposal unveiled Wednesday grew out of the Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition, an 8-year-old effort by the timber industry and environmental groups to find common ground. Through the coalition’s work, environmental groups began supporting timber sales and commercial thinning in the Colville National Forest. In return, they wanted allies for their wilderness proposal.

Vaagen said his company’s two sawmills have benefited from the collaborative effort. The mills employ about 120 people and could hire more workers if the Colville National Forest’s timber sales increased.

The forest sells about 43 million board feet of timber annually.

“The industry wants 80 million board feet, and they are willing to support wilderness,” said Conservation Northwest’s Coleman. In return, environmental groups are willing to support the higher cut rate, which includes thinning dense stands of trees and other forest restoration projects.

“It’s acceptable to us to manage the forest to provide timber jobs,” Coleman said.

Vaagen said he hopes the coalition’s success will help bring other user groups to the negotiating table. Motorized recreation groups were noticeably absent from a press conference about the wilderness proposal. Designating new wilderness remains controversial with many ATV riders in northeast Washington, Vaagen said.

Ranchers have questions, too. John Dawson and his son, Jeff, graze about 400 head of cattle on the Colville National Forest. A portion of their allotment lies within a roadless area that could become part of the Salmo-Priest Wilderness Area.

The father-son team already does a lot of its work by horseback. That lessens the potential impact of a wilderness designation, Dawson said. But other local ranchers may need continued motorized access to check their herds or get work done on their federal grazing allotments, he said.

At the same time, Dawson said he and other ranchers support wilderness values.

“We like the solitude and quietness of nonroaded areas,” he said.

Five comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  Paul Yelk on August 02 at 1:22 p.m.

  While it appears all is well and there is general consensus, this is very far from reality!

  The first omission is the complete lack of references to the 4x4 community. The article mentions only ATVs and dirt bikes. Some of the proposed wilderness area contain the only 4x4 trails in the Colville National Forest. According to a survey I conducted with the 4x4 community in January 2010, 4x4 use in the Colville is a commonly occurring activity. On each trip from Spokane to the Colville, the typical expense totals around $200; that's a lot of lost economic opportunity if the 4x4 trails are closed.

  The second omission of facts is in the fall of 2008, the Colville NF hosted a series of collaboration meetings in order to hear forest users comments on what to do with the previously identified inventoried wilderness areas (IWA). Unfortunately after four collaboration meetings, no consensus could be reached!

  The third omission was any reference to the series of roundtable discussions organized by Senator Cantwell and Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers. After several months of meetings, it was determined the representatives to these roundtables could not come to any agreements!

  In her article, Becky mentions that “wilderness designations are for forests that have kept their 'primeval' character, showing little influence of human activity. Logging and mining are prohibited in wilderness areas, as are chain saws, motor vehicles”. A couple of the very well used 4x4 trails have been in existence since the early 1970s and maybe before then; no one seems to remember when they were created. One used to be an access road to a now removed forest service lookout tower and another in the same proposed wilderness area used to be an access trail to several mining claims. So in these cases, there is already evidence of human activity!

  Even the forest service does not support all the wilderness area that are being proposed!
  

• 

  Derrick Knowles on August 03 at 2:12 p.m.

  In response to Paul’s comment about omissions: As Becky Kramer pointed out in her article, and as wilderness supporters have been upfront about all along, motorized recreation groups are not on board with the current wilderness proposal. I wouldn’t expect most ORV riders to enthusiastically support wilderness any more than I would expect most human powered recreationists to lobby for more liberal motorized access on public lands, especially given the mounting cost to taxpayers to repair ORV damage to wetlands, rutted out hillsides, and destroyed public property like gates and fences that repeatedly get torn down.

  Paul is right that a couple of 4x4 trails in the Twin Sisters area would be affected by our proposal. What he and other motorized rec folks may not be aware of, since it wasn’t explained very thoroughly in the article, is that Twin Sisters is the only area proposed for wilderness that actually has any legal motorized trails. Paul and others should also note that we have proposed the Twin Sisters area, which sits right next to the Kettle Crest proposed wilderness, as a “Potential Wilderness Area”, that would give stakeholders time to work with Congress and the Forest Service to fund and build better, more technical 4x4 routes nearby to replace any motorized access in the Twin Sisters that might get designated wilderness.
  
  The real omission in the reporting on this issue so far is the illegal ORV abuses on the Colville National Forest that are increasing dramatically every year. I know that many organized motorized groups share our concern with ORV riders who continue damaging fish and wildlife habitat and ruining outdoor experiences for others, yet Forest Service enforcement and user group self policing have not been able to reign in the damage done by more than just a few bad apple renegades. For instance, just this spring I stumbled upon this YouTube video of an ORV club organized ride where 4x4s were riding off trail in the Twin Sisters area: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn7ZSd…

  ORV riders need a better, legal system of places to ride, just like wildlife and those of us who want to get away from the noise and disturbances of motorized vehicles to hike, hunt, or ride horses need more designated wilderness. It’s a fair approach, and we welcome Paul and others from the motorized community who are willing to put aside ideology to work with us towards practical, common ground solutions that meet both objectives.

  Derrick Knowles

• 

  ssh on August 19 at 12:04 p.m.

  as a wilderness user I love the solitude and peace that is offered by such places. I have spent as much time as I could in our wilderness areas. I have yet to cover half of them as I only get 21 days off a summer. I do frequent the area that is being considered and I feel it would be tragedy to list it as a wilderness area. there is already such limited access and great opportunities to “get away” in the area, that to me it would be selfish to steal another opportunity from the disabled and elderly that can currently access that area.

  when a wilderness area is enacted it prohibits mechanized devices, not just motorized.
  my own father who has logged countless hours in that area would never again be alowed to see it from the inside looking out again, because he is in a wheel chair…is that fair because some of us are too cheap to drive to the states current areas?

  we currently have nearly 5 million acres of wilderness here.

  Alpine Lakes Wilderness
  Boulder River Wilderness
  Buckhorn Wilderness
  Clearwater Wilderness
  Colonel Bob Wilderness
  Glacier Peak Wilderness
  Glacier View Wilderness
  Goat Rocks Wilderness
  Henry M. Jackson Wilderness
  Indian Heaven Wilderness
  Juniper Dunes Wilderness
  Lake Chelan-Sawtooth Wilderness
  Mount Adams Wilderness
  Mount Baker Wilderness
  Mount Rainier Wilderness
  Mount Skokomish Wilderness
  Noisy-Diobsud Wilderness
  Norse Peak Wilderness
  Olympic Wilderness
  Pasayten Wilderness
  Salmo-Priest Wilderness
  San Juan Wilderness
  Stephen Mather Wilderness
  Tatoosh Wilderness
  The Brothers Wilderness
  Trapper Creek Wilderness
  Washington Islands Wilderness
  Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness
  Wild Sky Wilderness
  William O. Douglas Wilderness
  Wonder Mountain Wilderness

  wilderness areas are wonderful for those who are wealthy and able or have no domestic responsibilites and can dissapear for a summer, but those who are physically not capeable or do not have the finacial support to allow a week to hike into a high lake to do some fishing are left in the cold.

  as my father was shot in battle to stand up for the rights of this country, I wonder if he ever thought the freedoms he fought for would be the very ones that stole his opportunity to view the world from the top of the mountains he grew up on……I hope not.

  how many wilderness promoters served for this country? I bet very few, as they have friends who walked into service and were wheeled out. should they just be left in the city?

  if you want to do something to help the NE forrests, enforce the no motorized rule on the kettle crest, find a way to stop bark beetles, plant a tree, but don't take away more land.
  

• 

  Mirasole on August 21 at 5:11 p.m.

  As an active backcountry lover I am in full support of the areas being added to the wilderness act. As an ATV owner I'm still in full support, and as a Veteran I still fully support the wilderness act.

  The use of a wheel chair is in fact legal in wilderness areas. The wilderness Act of 1964 prohbits the use of mechanized devices. If you would take alook at Americans with Disabilities Act Title V, section 507c you will find that congress reaffirms that nothing in the wilderness act prohibits wheelchair use in a wilderness area by an individual whose disability requires its use.
  Asking for the Wilderness Act for these lands isn't taking the lands away, it's still public land. Is it unfair to ask for the land to remain untouched by industry? To keep the land how it is so your great grandchildren can stand on the same mountain tops as your father did and it will still be that untouched countryside.

  I understand your it takes time to move in the backcountry, walking in is slow but having places like the Kettle Crest put into the Wilderness Act isn't going to change how much time it takes to get to the high mountain lakes, and if you enjoy the solitude and peace of that area you should be supportive know that the peace and solitude will always be there.

  Please tell your father thank you for serving our country.
  Joe Mirasole
  

• 

  Paul Yelk on August 29 at 1:15 p.m.

  I'm puzzled by Derrick's statement “motorized recreation groups are not on board with the current wilderness proposal”. The latest proposal is definitely not in agreement with the fall 2008 wilderness proposals!

  While Derrick agrees there are a couple of 4x4 trails in the Twin Sisters proposed wilderness area, 3 recognized 4x4 trails exist in the Twin Sisters proposed wilderness area. These trails are used not only by the 4x4 community, but non-4x4 owners. So Derrick's statement “Twin Sisters is the only area proposed for wilderness that actually has any legal motorized trails” is incorrect. I challenge that Derrick knows where all the recognized 4x4 trails are located? My guess is no and he's probably never been on any of them!

  He also mentions Twin Sisters is a “Potential Wilderness Area”; a designation allowing stakeholders time to work with Congress and the Forest Service to fund and build better, more technical 4x4 routes nearby. Derrick must live in a fantasy world! When's the last time he saw the Forest Service, let along Congress, provide funds for NEW 4x4 trails? With current budget shortfalls, the practicality is this won't happen anytime soon. If by some miracle it does occur, he should recognize that once the concept is approved, years of environmental assessments ensue to get the trails built. Would Conservation Northwest support the relocation of these trails all the way through the process - from concept to opening? If so, where does he expect to get these funds from? Certainly the Forest Service and Congress won't provide them!

  In his response, Derrick mentions stumbling upon a YouTube video of an ORV club riding off trail in the Twin Sisters area. On Aug 15th, I traveled the Twin Sisters trail. I just completed a review of that supposed Twin Sisters area trail video and am unable to substantiate: (1) The video actually took place in the Twin Sisters area; and (2) there was any illegal off-roading. I did see some places where they are not driving on an actual trail. There are places on the Twin Sisters trail where you are physically driving across grassy/rocky areas. A search of YouTube revealed this video was taken in the Colville, but nothing in the text accompanying the video states it was in the Twin Sisters area.

  I challenge Derrick to prove this in fact did occur in the Twin Sisters area and that any off-trail driving actually occurred! Many places on the Twin Sisters trail it's impossible to drive off the trail due to the density of the adjacent trees.

  Derrick's response discusses illegal ORV use. I won't dispute illegal ORV use is a problem, but I don't see how that issue impacts wilderness proposals. If you close down existing ORV trails without ensuring equally technical 4x4 trails available elsewhere, you actually contribute to illegal ORV problem. The users just go elsewhere!

  Derrick wants the motorized community to “put aside ideology to work with us toward practical, common ground solutions that meet both objectives.” It would be great to see the environmental community put down their unsubstantiated statements and use practical processes to obtain consensus. I wouldn't mind seeing the trails relocated, but in a practical world, funds for NEW 4x4 trails is not practical. You can't even get funds for trail maintenance!

  One additional point - Derrick didn't mention whether they were successful or not successful in the fall 2008 and early 2010 collaborations. It appears they were not successful in any of those collaborations and as such, they have decided to end-run those processes - which are still in progress - and go directly to Congress in an effort to get their way. I don't remember seeing any proposal at the fall 2008 that even closely mirrors what Conservation Northwest is now proposing. Even the latest maps from the Forest Service do not recommend the Twin Sisters area as wilderness (the exact wording on the Forest Service maps is “Issues favor non-Wilderness”).