Author: Dan Pitman

From Fish, Wildlife & Parks

Many hunters use their OHV’s as tools to aid in their quests. Here are a few things you can do to help maintain hunter relationships and good trail conditions.

• Know the vehicle use regulations where you hunt. Contact the land managing agency responsible for the area. Respect road, trail and area closures. Do not operate an ATV or UTV on single track trails.   

• Access your hunting area before shooting hours and then hunt on foot to increase your chances of success and decrease the disturbance of other hunters.

• Stay on legal roads or trails. For game retrieval, park your machine in a safe location on the side of the nearest designated road or trail and during the middle of the day to reduce conflicts with other hunters.  Bring your harvested game to the road/trail, then load it on your OHV.

• Avoid wet areas. Even though the lighter weight and low-pressure tires reduce impacts, OHV’s can still do serious damage to wet areas.

• Respect other hunters and recreationists. Slow down or stop your OHV when you approach others on the trail. When meeting equestrians, approach slowly, pull over and stop. Turn off your engine, remove your helmet, and ask how to best proceed.

• Reduce emissions and sound. Keep your OHV properly tuned and muffled.

• Limit OHV use in or near campgrounds. Be respectful of other campers’ desires for quiet and minimal disruption.

• Off-trail use on most Montana public lands is illegal, even for game retrieval. Illegal cross-country travel on OHV’s can cause soil erosion, damage to fish and wildlife habitat, and threatens the future of ethical OHV recreation.

• Operation of an OHV in areas closed to use is illegal and causes hunter conflicts. Illegal travel by OHV’s often leads to more restrictive regulations.

From: Montana Untamed

A federal government analysis of outdoor recreation’s economic impact reaffirms what many conservation groups have said for decades: Outdoor recreation is a big business.  For the first time the U.S. Department of Commerce looked specifically at the economic impact of outdoor recreation.

The analysis found that outdoor recreation contributed $373.7 billion to the nation’s Gross Domestic Product in 2016, comprising 2 percent of GDP. In fact, the outdoor recreation industry’s contribution to GDP was larger than that of all mining, including the extraction of oil and gas.  And the industry is expanding. In 2016, it grew 3.8 percent compared to the overall economy’s growth of 2.8 percent.

The report was released by U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis on Feb. 14.  “The public will no doubt be surprised at the economic importance of this industry as we release prototype statistics measuring the impact of activities like boating, fishing, RVing, hunting, camping, hiking, and more,” said U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross in a news release.

Unlike other reports analyzing the outdoor recreation industry’s economic footprint, this is the first one not conducted by a private industry group such as the Outdoor Industry Association.

According to the Department of Commerce report, motorized vehicles accounted for $59.4 billion of gross output. Of that, recreational vehicles accounted for $30 billion.

Boating and fishing activities were second at $38.2 billion followed by hunting, shooting and trapping at $15.4 billion. Of that, hunting accounted for 60 percent of the output, according to the analysis. The equestrian industry accounted for roughly $12 billion.

Finally, backpacking, climbing and other outdoor activities accounted for $10 billion.

In Montana, the OIA estimated in 2017 that outdoor recreation generates $7.1 billion annually in consumer spending, creates 71,000 jobs and contributes $286 million in state and local tax revenue.  A 2017 legislative bill that would have authorized an interim study of the economic impact of outdoor recreation on Montana died in committee.

The Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office commissioned and published its own economic study in 2016.  That analysis found that outdoor recreation resulted in $21.6 billion dollars in annual expenditures in Washington and created roughly 200,000 jobs. The Washington study was the first of its kind in the state.  “Now we know it’s a huge driver to our economy as well,” said Kaleen Cottingham, the director of the Recreation and Conservation Office. “We have known that intuitively. But we didn’t have the data to back that up.”

That information can be useful when advocating for conservation or trying to change policy, Cottingham said.  Although the Department of Commerce analysis was more narrowly focused, Cottingham said the federal findings aligned with the state report.

The Recreation and Conservation Office is in charge of distributing and making grants. Having economic data “helps to justify our investments as part of the bigger economic engine,” Cottingham said.

Similarly, Sam Mace, the Inland Northwest director for Save Our Wild Salmon, said the potential economic benefit of conservation has long been a key plank in Save Our Wild Salmon’s platform and something they’ve considered and highlighted on the Lower Snake River.  “Often that is the bottom line way you can protect these resources, by showing the economic driver that they are,” she said.

The federal report will be a useful advocacy tool, said Katherine Hollis the conservation and advocacy director for the Mountaineers.  “It’s definitely in line with how we approach conservation work,” she said. “There is intrinsic value in these places. But also the outdoor recreation industry is growing. Period. Across the board.”  The Mountaineers are based in Seattle and have 13,000 members, most of whom are in Washington.  The yearly basic alpine course has a wait list of more than 200 people, she said.  “They put the recreation economy at 2 percent of the GDP,” she said. “That’s a lot. That says something about the importance of these landscapes and how we engage these landscapes.”

The Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation found that Idaho’s state parks contributed $184 million to the state’s economy in 2016, according to a study published earlier this month.

The Department of Commerce study didn’t look at outdoor recreation retail manufacturing revenue occurring outside of the U.S. Additionally, the BEA report didn’t include money spent on recreation trips less than 50 miles from a person’s home.

OVERVIEW OF THE
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT (NEPA)

BACKGROUND

NEPA documents are required for nearly every action that multiple-use recreationists are involved in ranging from trail improvement to travel management projects. A better understanding of the NEPA process will allow multiple-use recreationists to be more effective NEPA participants.

The 1960’s in America brought about an increased public awareness of the environment and concern for the pressure that human activity was placing on the condition of the sensitive ecological system. In response to this, Congress passed and President Richard Nixon signed into law, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Act, considered the basic “National Charter” for protection of the environment, was developed to meet three major goals:

1. NEPA sets a national environmental policy for protection of our natural and human resources. Several amendments to the original law have been enacted. Additional background on NEPA laws can be found at:
   http://es.epa.gov/oeca/ofa/nepa.html
   http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm
   http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nepa/nepa.htm
   http://www.fs.fed.us/forum/nepa/
2. NEPA establishes the processes for environmental analyses and decision-making for all proposed actions. All proposed actions now require an appropriate NEPA analysis and decision.
3. NEPA created the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The Council on Environmental Quality coordinates federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and other White House offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives. CEQ reports annually to the President on the state of the environment; oversees federal agency implementation of the environmental impact assessment process; and acts as a referee when agencies disagree over the adequacy of such assessments. CEQ has developed over a dozen documents since 1969 to guide the implementation of the NEPA process. More information on CEQ can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/index.html and http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/guidance.html .

The intent of NEPA when it was created in the late 1960’s was to better incorporate environmental concerns into proposed actions while still meeting the needs of the public. Up until that time, consideration of the natural environment was not always required and impacts to the natural environmental were not always adequately considered. A significant correction has been made since then.

Several important requirements of NEPA that are not always fully considered in actions involving multiple-use recreationists include:

• One of the basic requirements of NEPA is to “achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities” (Public Law 91-190, Title I, Section 101 (b) (5)).
• NEPA requires that agencies “Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives….” [40 CFR 1502.14(a)].
• A NEPA document is to be a disclosure document and “It shall provide full and fair discussion of significant environmental impacts and shall inform decisionmakers and the public of the reasonable alternatives which would avoid or minimize adverse impacts or enhance the quality of the human environment.” ….” [40 CFR 1502.1 Purpose].

IMPLEMENTATION OF A PROPOSED ACTION OF NEPA

Proposed actions require an appropriate NEPA process. Refer to the NEPA Flow Chart for an overview of the process. There are three choices:

1. A categorical exclusion (CATEX) can be used when no significant impact on the natural or human environment can be easily demonstrated without the use of detailed analyses.
2. An environmental assessment (EA) which can used when analyses are required to demonstrate that the proposed action will not produce a significant impact on the natural or human environment. A finding of no significant impact (FONSI) is the final decision-making document.
3. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be used when the proposed action will produce a significant impact on the natural or human environment. The final decision-making document for an EIS is a record of decision (ROD).

NEPA PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PROCESS

The public has the opportunity to provide input on proposed actions through two procedures; (1) the public scoping process, and (2) public review of the draft and final EA or EIS document. It is extremely important that the multiple-use public participate in both the scoping and review processes because; (1) public input and comments received must be considered in the analysis, document and decision and, (2) an appeal of the decision cannot be filed unless you or your group participated in the public involvement process. Additionally, CEQ guidelines require that NEPA documents be driven by issues brought forward during the public involvement process. Therefore, the public involvement process is the time to get all of the issues on the table for consideration and getting our issues considered early in the process is an advantage.

NEPA APPEAL PROCESS UNDER THE FOREST SERVICE

NEPA decisions (FONSI or ROD) under Forest Service actions can be sent to a higher authority for administrative review of a decision by using the appeals process. Additional information on appeals can be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/forum/nepa/appealsoverview.htm. Forest Service appeals are governed by 36 CFR Part 215 which can be found at  http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_00/36cfr215_00.html .

An appellant is a person or organization filing a notice of appeal. Usually, all administrative (appeal) processes established by the Secretary or required by law must be exhausted before a person may bring a court action associated with resource management decisions.

The content of an appeal is specified by 36CFR § 215.14 Content of an appeal:

(a) It is the appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient written evidence and rationale to show why the Responsible Official’s decision should be remanded or reversed.

(b) An appeal submitted to the Appeal Deciding Officer becomes a part of the appeal record. An appeal must meet the following requirements:

1. State that the document is an appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR part 215;
2. List the name and address of the appellant and, if possible, a telephone number;
3. Identify the decision document by title and subject, date of the decision, and name and title of the Responsible Official;
4. Identify the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks or portion of the decision to which the appellant objects;
5. State how the Responsible Official’s decision fails to consider comments previously provided, either before or during the comment period specified in § 215.6 and, if applicable, how the appellant believes the decision violates law, regulation, or policy.

Therefore, filing an appeal is not that difficult and does not require legal expense. The appeal itself could simply be comments made during the EA or EIS process that were not adequately addressed along with several paragraphs in the beginning addressing the points listed above.

The appeal then goes to an Appeals Officer in the Regional Forest Office (Missoula for Region 1) who reviews the points in the appeal versus the EA or EIS and FONSI or ROD. Therefore, filing an appeal will force a review of forest level decisions by regional Forest Service management. Additionally, the Forest Service must review each appeal independently. Therefore, if every individual in an organization files an individual appeal, then the Appeals Officer will be required to review each appeal. This will give the proposed action a considerable amount of attention and will generate a considerable amount of support for the appeal and a revised decision.

If the basis of the appeal is supported by the Appeals Officer, then the Appeals Officer will overturn the decision made by the local forest and the action will be sent back (remanded) to the local forest for additional analysis or revisions to the proposed action with the intent of adequately addressing the concerns expressed in the appeal. If the Appeals Officer rejects the appeal, then legal action may be the only recourse.