WASHINGTON, D.C. - Conservation groups are giving a lukewarm reception to the proposed planning rule that guides U.S. Forest Service policy and will affect much of Oregon when it becomes final.

The agency held a forum on Thursday in the nation's capital to discuss a draft of the rule, which some say lacks enough "teeth" to protect water quality and wildlife. Concerns were also voiced about whether the focus on monitoring and adaptive management of public land can work for an agency that has been chronically underfunded. Chris Frissell, director of science and conservation for the Pacific Rivers Council, attended the forum.

"The Pacific Northwest, under the Northwest Forest Plan, is somewhat of an exception. But prior to that, and then pretty much everywhere else, the Forest Service has had great difficulty getting any sustained monitoring program off the ground and has not been able to keep it funded. Congress just hasn't put money into those things."

Watershed management is another concern, Frissell says, because the rule does not include buffer zones to limit some activities along streams and lakes. The current rule has been in place since 1982, and has been controversial over the years. If there's one word for the new proposal, Frissell says, it's "cautious" - and people interested in the various issues affected are taking note.

"It's pretty much the full slate of issues - everything from restoration to forest fuels treatment and fire management, to timber. And in fact, a lot of the interest groups around that whole table had the same concerns, about uncertainty and vagueness in the rule and what the rule delivers for their interests."

The draft planning rule is open for public comment until mid-May, and comments can be made online. Two forums will also be held March 25 in Portland to discuss the rule, both at the Sheraton Airport Hotel.

The draft rule, including comment instructions and a related Forest Service blog, are online at www.fs.usda.gov/planningrule.


get more stories like this via email

The Nevada hunting and fishing community is sharing its top 10 conservation priorities for 2023 with Gov. Joe Lombardo's office, as they seek to "ensure the continued conservation," of species and diverse habitats in the state.

The priorities range from supporting science based management techniques to conserving big game corridors and seasonal habitats.

Larry Johnson, president of the Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife, said wildfires present "the greatest adverse impacts," to wildlife populations in Nevada. He added in a bad wildfire year, the state can burn over a million acres.

"Unfortunately, at our lower elevations and everything but our very high elevations, those wildfires, we destroy the native vegetation, and it is taken over by invasive species such as cheatgrass," Johnson explained.

Johnson pointed out cheatgrass is not only poor wildlife forage, it is fuel for wildfires.

According to Johnson's group and the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, nearly one quarter of the approximately 20 million acres of priority and greater sage-grouse habitat in Nevada has burned in the last 30 years. Greater sage-grouse numbers have also significantly dropped by almost 80% in the Great Basin since 1960.

Johnson argued most human activity has an effect on wildlife. His group supports developing a statewide plan for siting energy projects. He added both traditional and renewable energy projects, transmission lines and other energy infrastructure can have negative effects on wildlife if not located and operated responsibly.

Johnson emphasized highways and fences pose negative impacts to big game. Despite the challenges, Johnson remains optimistic policymakers will listen.

"Things need to be done very carefully with our existing wildlife resources in mind," Johnson contended. "And it can be done. We just have to be smart about it, that is all."

Johnson hopes the priorities will be heard and considered as people are relocating to Nevada for its vast public lands and traditional love for the sporting heritage.


get more stories like this via email

This Saturday, June 3, thousands of Californians will be among hundreds of thousands of Americans heading into the great outdoors to celebrate National Trails Day.

Thousands of events are planned nationwide from hikes to cleanup events and more.

Alanna Smith, parks program associate for the nonprofit Save the Redwoods League, noted most trails cross the unceded ancestral homelands of native nations, adding the holiday is a good time to give back.

"Thinking about how these trails are created, and ways that we can help maintain them, that's a big part of National Trails Day," Smith explained. "Any way that we can give back is really a great way to celebrate National Trails Day, also."

This year is special, because it's the 30th anniversary of the first National Trails Day. The original was held on June 5, 1993, sponsored by the American Hiking Society. You can enter your ZIP code on their website, AmericanHiking.org to find an event or service project near you.

Smith added getting out on the trails has many benefits, both to physical and mental health.

"You also don't have to be out doing some strenuous activity," Smith pointed out. "You don't have to be trail running or mountain biking in order to reap those benefits. You know, just the act of being on the trail. It helps to promote calm, it lessens stress, it helps us to regulate negative emotions."

Organizers also encouraged people to consider other ways to make use of the trails this weekend from biking or bird-watching, to geocaching and nature photography.

The national system of recreation, scenic and historic trails was created in October 1968, when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the National Trails System Act into law.

The nonprofit Trust for Public Land has published its annual ParkScore rankings, and some area cities are high on the list.

Washington, D.C., took the top spot for the third year in a row, ranked as the nation's best big-city park system, with 24% of the District's land devoted to parks. The rankings are based on five metrics including park access, which calculates the percentage of residents living within a 10-minute walk of a park as well as park equity, which compares access in communities of color to white communities and low versus high income levels. Other metrics include park acreage, investment and amenities.

Baltimore moved up one spot this year to 29th in the nation, with 87% of residents living within a 10-minute walk of a park, much higher than the national average of 55%.

The Trust for Public Land also released a report on the power of parks to promote public health. In addition to offering people space for physical activity, contact with nature and social connectedness, Dr. Howard Frumkin, senior vice president and director for the trust's Land and People Lab, said parks offer additional benefits in urban settings.

"Lowering the temperature in the neighborhood, which helps people withstand heat waves. Lowering noise levels, noise being a very common urban stressor. Providing climate resilience through managing stormwater," he said. "So lots of pathways through which parks advance public health."

Rounding out the top five cities, Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, ranked second and third, followed by Irvine, California, and nearby Arlington, Virginia.

In many places, researchers found, park planning and programs are catering to underserved groups or people needing improved accessibility. Linda Hwang, senior director for strategy and innovation at the Land and People Lab, said needs for innovation and creativity vary among different park agencies.

"We're seeing people with different types of mobility issues, can we really be thinking about all-inclusive design, for example, and even just trying to really cater to some of the emerging mental-health challenges," she said. "So that custom programming, custom design is something that we didn't expect to find. And so it's just been a really nice surprise for us to see that."

The report found that among some large cities including New York and Chicago, investments in parks have declined, but Hwang said the increased park investment seen in some mid-sized cities is a positive sign.

"I think one of the significant challenges is around investments, so that is one of the categories that we track in the park score index," she said. "And when we look across the trends across the 100 largest cities, we are happy that, in general, we see some rebounding from the COVID era cuts that we saw across city agencies. "

The report calculated Baltimore's park spending to be above average at $142 per capita.


get more stories like this via email