Washington Proposed Winderness for the Northeast Washington area.

[Randy Nilles]

From the Spoksman Review on July 29th

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.

[Terrain Rider 4z]

Horseshit, this wasn't discussed with a broad sample of user-groups. I was at the PWA meetings with the USFS two years ago and the general consensus was that all but one or two small areas were not deemed feasible wilderness areas. There have been no meetings since that I have been aware of. I am wondering what Brazzell recommended from these meetings? I haven't even met or heard from the new superintendent.....wonder what is going on???? Brazzell was at least an upfront guy, now who is in charge?

[Rip Wheeler]

Camels nose under the tent. This is how it always goes, small bits all the time. This is happening everywhere, all the time. Not just federal land, but state land, private lands, all being locked up, either via wilderness, conservation etc, then add buffer zones, and you dont have much left. And land locked up as wilderness or conservation never come back, its gone indefinitely. See how they do it:

http://www.takingliberty.us/Narrations/northwest/player.html

(from takingliberty.us)

[cowboyona426]

r4sberg is right. There are no recent meetings that I'm aware of.

New forest sup is Laura Jo West.

[tod701]

It would be very helpful if those of you directly involved could post specific actions that other riders can take to address this issue.

I will help spread the word, by I am already spread too thin to do a good job gathering the needed info.

[Terrain Rider 4z]

Tod this was a TOTAL SURPRISE to all of us. As of two days ago none of us had heard squat since the Potential Wilderness Area meetings two years ago. We now have a new superintendent who has not involved us or informed us of any meetings. I am trying to come in contact with Russ Vaagen right now to figure out what he is thinking. Hopefully we will be able to set up a meeting sooooooon!

[cowboyona426]

It would be very helpful if those of you directly involved could post specific actions that other riders can take to address this issue.

I will help spread the word, by I am already spread too thin to do a good job gathering the needed info.

Best I can tell you right now is to call the Forest Sup or Ranger District office. As far as I know there hasn't been anything formal for public input, its still in the internal stage.

[Terrain Rider 4z]

It looks like Derrick Knowles (from Conservation Northwest) is the head of the recreation committee. Derrick has been at all the CNF meetings and is a strong opponent of motorized recreation. There are no singletrack riders on the committe list, only Barker and Nielsen. There last documented meeting is from 2007. I cannot open the PDFs on their site to view what is going on. I have a call into Derrick's cell phone.

It looks like Robert Whitaker is also on the committee. He is the head of the Quiet Communities Coalition that shut down the OHV ordinance in Republic.

Check out: http://www.newforestrycoalition.org/ to see how these guys operate.

[B Lamb]

Never trust the pro-wilderness crowd. During preliminary stages, they will promise to make concessions, and tell you what you want to hear. Things will progress nicely, and when the time comes for approval, they'll sneak up behind you and cut your throat. Make your opposition known early and often. Let other user groups know of the happenings, wilderness designation, closes the land to not only motorized use, but all mechanized use as well.

[Terrain Rider 4z]

Here is my return email from Russ Vaagen of Vaagen Bros. Lumber and affiliate of the Northeast Washington Forestry Coallition, which is really ran by Conservation Northwest. Note above where he stated that the motorized crew was "noticeably absent"!

Ryan,

I totally agree. We have been trying to get all stakeholders to the table, but it's been hard to get participation. There has been some talk about starting a recreation coalition like the forestry (NEWFC) one. I think that is the best way to coordinate all uses on the forest. I have been a strong advocate for expanded use for single track, but also for quads and side-by-sides. I hate seeing more quads on great single track trails because they have nowhere (or think they have nowhere) to go.

I would like to sit down and talk about these things and show you some of the areas we think we can get expanded funding for trail maintenance and new construction.

I would like to set up a meeting sometime to discuss what we're up to and what we want to accomplish. I know we can get more trails and areas available to ride. My experience is that if you leave this up to the Forest Service we'll keep loosing ground rather than even keeping what we want. The conservation groups are in a spot where they are willing to support motorized activity in certain areas (where it exists now, plus some new areas) and even help fund more trails if it means support for protection in others. They are also willing to sign agreements in order to add assurance that they will do what they say they will do.

At any rate, let's get together and talk about this.

Take care,

Russ

[Terrain Rider 4z]

Reply to Russ:

Russ,

Thanks for the response. I will respectfully disagree that an effort was made to get all sides to the table as PANTRA is very involved in land-use issues. Being in this area I would have been more than happy to sit down with you guys and listen to what is going on. I talked with Derrick yesterday as he was listed as the head of the rec committee. Pretty much sounded like there isn't much of a rec committee and zero singletrack representation, yet he was very familiar with our group.

I am very worried about you guys going blind into endorsing 1/4 of the Colville as Wilderness, because that is what is being expressed all across the state. This story has hit it big in Seattle and the greenies are going to be pushing for it. I do not think there is a National Forest in this country pushing 25% Wilderness Area. Your main advisor is a true-blue conservationist, that is his job. There is definitely an agenda on his side and leaning that direction may seem to be the path of least resistance. Once wilderness is designated there is no going back! We discussed this at length at the PWA meetings and most had come to realize that only a couple of these areas had good wilderness potential, those being Abercrombie-Hooknose and Quartzite. There are other ways to manage lands and your immediate financial gain may look a lot different in the future.

Regardless, we are very interested in sitting down and have begun letter writing campaigns to our state government. We as a user group feel this is a one-sided effort at this point and are on the defensive right now. If we could have some information it may ease the pain, we are rather uninformed on this front.

Again, thank you for your time, and I would love to pursue a user/interest-group meeting.

Sincerely,

Ryan Forsberg

[cowboyona426]

Interesting reply from Mr. Vaagen...

[cowboyona426]

OK here's the short scoop:

Whatever Conservation NW is doing is all their own ideas, proposals, and desires. What they are saying/doing has not been reviewed, or even seen really by the FS. We have not been having public meetings about this since 08, the plan is to re-open the proposals for public comment late this year.

For now write your Congress people and Ranger District or Forest Supervisor offices to let them know your thoughts.

[Terrain Rider 4z]

I hadn't seen your response yet, but just got off the phone with Frank from Colville National Forest:

Frank was very surprised by this iniative also. It seems that Conservation NW is trying to hit congress before the CNF releases it's proposal (Forest Plan) to Congress for the PWA (Potential Wilderness Area/Inventoried Roadless Area) sites. Conservation NW was at the PWA meetings and seemed to be in agreement with the groups' recommendations and was playing along with the USFS and user-groups. Now, they are suggesting that all PWAs are recommended for Wilderness Designation, which does not align with the USFS forest plan. Their goal seems to be to sway members of Congress before the Forest Plan is released.

I thought the USFS recommendations would have already been released, but is still in the review stages. Currently there is an internal review occuring, next will be an external review, then a period for public comment which will likely occur in the spring of 2011.

Our best bet is to write our legislature and let them know that this is a special-interest proposal and does not represent the people. It would be nice to get ahold of the plan so that we can have some information to combat.

[B Lamb]

Told ya', they're sneaky bastards.

[tod701]

Our best bet is to write our legislature and let them know that this is a special-interest proposal and does not represent the people. .

Wouldn't it be better to contact our members of United States Congress rather than the Washington State Legislature?

[B Lamb]

Wouldn't it be better to contact our members of United States Congress rather than the Washington State Legislature?

Yes, it would. Do both though, the more opposition, the better.

[cowboyona426]

Wouldn't it be better to contact our members of United States Congress rather than the Washington State Legislature?

Do both. Conservation NW is trying to push their own agenda big time on this one. They even have a recommended "National Recreation Area" in NF Chewelah Creek, which is comical.

Conservation NW- A Proposal For the Future

Take a look, quite concerning.

Colville and Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forests Forest Plan Revision

All the pertinent info can be found here.

[tod701]

Yes, it would. Do both though, the more opposition, the better.

I guess that my point was to contact the people (Congress) that actually vote on federal Wilderness versus the members of the Wahington State Legislature that have no legal impact on Wilderness designation other than throwing drama fits that may or may not be considered signifigant by Congress.

My serious point is to fight smart, point your efforts where they will matter.

Hammer your United States House of Representatives member first, then your United States Senators next.

If your some of your Washington State Legislators (Senator or either of your two Reps) are on your side, they can help work the political backside, but don't they don't have any direct impact.

[Terrain Rider 4z]

Thanks for the advice Tod, I know you have been there and done that many times over and we appreciate the advice!