conflict resolution

Black Hills ghost trails come alive

by

Two existing but unauthorized recreational trails will be considered for inclusion in the Black Hills National Forest’s official non-motorized trail system. But the trails were apparently blazed by users rather than Forest Service officials, and neither trail is considered part of the forest’s official trail system.

Just two years ago, the then-ranger of the Forest’s Mystic District, Ruth Esperance, threatened to criminally prosecute builders of unauthorized trails. The threat provoked a backlash among trail users, especially in the mountain-biking community, who accused forest officials of longstanding inaction on proposals for new trails.

In other words, they got tired of waiting and just decided to do it themselves, and the Forest Service is about to sanction that.  Meanwhile, four other proposed trails were set aside for now by Forest Service officials, who considered a total of six proposed trails as part of a new trail-proposal process that was created in August.  They were not approved because of unacceptable impacts.

Van Every identified numerous problems with the Storm Mountain and Victoria Lake trails. “Issues include routes through documented cultural sites, crossing private property, permitting bicycles on the historic Flume Trail where they are currently not authorized, crossing a major highway, fence crossings in the Foster Gulch area, lack of parking, and potential conflict with big game winter range,” Van Every wrote…  Furthermore, Van Every wrote, the Paha Sapa trail goes through the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, where trail miles are limited by the Black Hills National Forest’s management plan.

For the two trails that were advanced for further review, several more steps in the process remain, including environmental reviews in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.

Well, this kind of points out the problem with this approach – these trails are already there and impacts have already occurred.  The reason the Forest Service doesn’t “just do it” is because there are resources they are charged with protecting that they are required by law to consider BEFORE they decide to do it.  But here is a great way to shortcut the process, and ignore legal requirements; just look the other way. The users could have funded the environmental analysis needed to proceed, but instead extra-legal “self-help” is apparently being rewarded.

Maybe this new process of “build it, then ask for it” will become the model for other places where the Forest Service doesn’t act fast enough on trails or other developments (or maybe even where they’ve already said “no”).  Maybe national forest neighbors (or their governments) will start using this approach to cut down trees on public lands that they consider a fire risk, or maybe they’ll burn them.  (This actually reminds me of the “shovel brigade” that rebuilt a Forest Service road in Nevada after a flood, which damaged bull trout habitat, but there the Forest Service at least resisted it.)

 

A Picture is Worth at Least 1000 Words

by

“Natural Forest Regeneration”? (in the Eldorado National Forest.)

Sue and … keep suing

by

Search this site for previous lively discussions of “sue and settle.”  Here is the latest attempt to stop it.  In September, the Interior Department extended EPA’s recent restrictions on litigation settlement agreements to the rest of the Department.

Here’s someone’s perception of the problem. Basically, there is rampant secret collusion between environmental groups and the government, which leads to substantive regulatory changes that “cost the economy billions of dollars and thousands of jobs, without Congressional approval.” Actually it is the laws passed by Congress that say the regulations must be produced that would have any impact, not the lawsuit forcing compliance with the law.

And here is another fact:

A legal analysis published by lawyer Ben Tyson in the Virginia Law Review, for example, looked at 79 settlements brokered between environmental groups and the Obama administration, and found that all but four of the agreements involved setting deadlines for compliance.

According to this article (which also provides an example of how this policy has worked in one case):

The Trump administration says the new rules are necessary to prevent government agencies from colluding with environmental groups to reach settlements that favor their interests. But critics say these rules only delay the implementation of federal laws designed to protect the environment, leaving ecosystems and wildlife vulnerable while agencies drag their feet.”

Though regulated industries and administration officials denounce lawsuit-happy environmental groups, the rhetoric surrounding sue and settle typically disregards the fact that agencies choose to settle because, as Bernhardt puts it in his order, “the Department is likely to lose.” According to a letter from 60 former federal attorneys criticizing the new EPA policy, “It is EPA’s failure to comply with legal requirements that is the problem, not the people who sue EPA.”

I’ve not seen evidence of “colluding with environmental groups.” Unless that includes DOJ evaluating the case and admitting it’s a loser. (Focusing on environmental groups also ignores the fact that settlements also benefit the Pacific Legal Foundation when it sues over ESA DE-listing requirements, and then there’s those regulations that a new administration would rather settle out of than defend.)

I’m a big fan of transparency, and I’m not sure what would justify not disclosing the terms of a settlement. As for public comments, I doubt if there would be a lot of interest in whether a legal deadline was missed or not.

However, the actual intent may be for this to “prolong the settlement process,” and thereby reduce the number of lawsuits that budget-limited plaintiffs can afford to bring.  But it could just as likely mean that plaintiffs would rather avoid the new process and spend their time in court, and a judge will have to decide more cases, which will almost always be against the government, and the government will have to pay even more money in legal fees (there are also new incentives to litigate the legal fees, which could lead to even more of them).

Public meetings to draft a stewardship project proposal

by

I probably should pay more attention to how Forest Service projects are developed, and I had to do a double-take on this:

The U.S. Forest Service has announced it will host local public meetings to identify project restoration activities that improve water quality, soil productivity, watershed health and wildlife and fish habitat and meet local and rural community needs.

The Clinch Ranger District is developing a “stewardship project” proposal, according to a press release. Stewardship projects allow the forest service “to work with a partner or contractor to remove timber and use the proceeds from the timber sale to fund restoration projects,” it states. “Stewardship projects can provide local jobs and economic benefits from the timber sale and from implementing restoration projects.”

“I am excited to hear ideas from local community members that could be included in future projects,” stated District Ranger Michelle Davalos. “By starting with a clear understanding of community interests, we can focus future projects on activities that will meet both the goals laid out in the Jefferson National Forest Plan and the needs of local communities.”

I like the sound of this; is this how stewardship projects usually work?  I assume this includes asking where to log.  Do/could they do the same thing on projects that aren’t “logging funded?”  This is the kind of early involvement that would go a long ways towards avoiding disputes down the road.

Voting for/against Wilderness

by

Seriously.  Bonner County, Idaho is holding an advisory vote on whether its residents want the Scotchman Peaks area to be designated as Wilderness.  Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, has indicated he will follow the advisory vote result.

One one hand, this is a good way to get information about policy preferences that opinion polls and candidate elections may not.  But really, how much weight should one county’s vote carry in making decisions about national forests?

Here’s a detailed fact-check developed to help voters.  Importantly, this area has been recommended for Wilderness in the Idaho Panhandle and Kootenai revised forest plans.  Watch for the results of the referendum on the May 15 primary ballot.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on Conflict

by

Sure, Dr. King was concerned about the great issues of the day, war and peace and civil rights. But some of the things he said about peace also relate to environmental conflicts. Things to think about.

(This is a repost from 2011)
In honor of our holiday honoring Dr. King, I selected some quotes that may be worthy of our consideration with regard to our daily “environmental conflict” lives.

We will never have peace in the world until men everywhere recognize that ends are not cut off from means, because the means represent the ideal in the making, and the end in process. Ultimately, you can’t reach good ends through evil means, because the means represent the seed and the end represents the tree.

Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.

Rarely do we find men who willingly engage in hard, solid thinking. There is an almost universal quest for easy answers and half-baked solutions. Nothing pains some people more than having to think.

We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.

We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.

Thank you, Dr. King.

Idaho Collaboration: “Lawsuits and appeals are no longer what hold up timber projects. The problem instead is money”

by

A) A few excerpts from an 12/27/17 article describing a situation where local collaboration has, to date, prevailed over legal suits to stop the Pioneer Fire Salvage Plan. The battle isn’t over but the prospects look good.

1) “Loggers are racing wood-boring insects and decay to salvage as much timber as they can from the 190,000 acres that burned across the Boise National Forest in last year’s Pioneer Fire, before the wood loses its worth.

The U.S. Forest Service planned to harvest 70 million board feet of timber from about 7 percent of the area burned in the massive wildfire. But insects, fungi and rot have deteriorated the standing trees so much that it will be lucky if it can get 50 million to 60 million board feet”

2) “Under the banner of the Boise Forest Coalition, these groups helped the Forest Service write a restoration plan that will use the proceeds from the salvage logging to pay for a variety of projects. On the list are efforts to protect and restore water quality in the South Fork Payette River and area streams; limit erosion; and reopen trails, roads and campgrounds.

This approach put loggers and conservation groups like the Idaho Conservation League on the same side as they helped the cash-strapped agency write up a plan that would meet environmental laws. So when other environmental groups like Wildlands Defense, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and the Native Ecosystems Council sued to halt the project, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill allowed the logging to continue, noting in November the coalition’s approval of the project.

“We all want to see a healthy forest and clean water and appreciate that the court agreed that the project should move forward,” said Alan Ward, chairman of the Boise County Commission and a member of the coalition.”

3) “Statewide, four timber projects endorsed by collaborative groups over the past two years have later been challenged in court, and all four held up. Fuels treatment in Idaho rose from 53,000 acres in 2016 to 79,000 acres in 2017.

Part of the reason for success has been the use of “Good Neighbor” authority by the state of Idaho. Using a state fund, state foresters prepare timber sales after the Forest Service completes environmental reviews. This has increased how many projects can be offered even as federal staffs become smaller.”

B) A few excerpts from the background story from May 6, 2017

1) “Even before fall snow put the fire out last year, Peterson and John Kidd, his counterpart in the Lowman District, were overseeing rehabilitation projects to prevent landslides, mud flows and severe erosion. Such events can take out the roads that are major recreation arteries into the places Treasure Valley residents go to camp, collect mushrooms, hike, hunt, fish or ride off-road vehicles.”

2) ““It also gives us the ability to have some funding for the reforestation and other things, like culvert replacement,” said Kidd. “If we didn’t do this salvage right away, we would probably be dealing with this for the next 20 years. (Restoration) takes manpower and that takes funding, which we might not have down the road.””

3) “Many of the trees to be harvested are near roads and trails and are considered a hazard to the traveling and recreating public. If not cut now, those hazards might last 10 years.

Morris Huffman, a forest consultant who served on the Boise Forest Coalition, said uncut burned trees could fall and close corridors like Clear Creek Road for years. Clear Creek provides access to Bear Valley Creek, one of the headwaters of the Middle Fork of the Salmon River popular with campers, hunters and anglers.”

4) “In addition to logging and tree planting, the projects include decommissioning and removing unneeded roads; thinning overgrown forests; trail work; spraying to control noxious weeds; road maintenance; and water quality-improvement projects such as culverts and water bars.”

5) “Not everyone is eager to see such aggressive action following the fire. There is ecological value in leaving the forest alone after a burn. The Northwest forest ecosystem evolved in fire, and bird species like black-backed woodpeckers, for example, rely heavily on snag trees left standing after a burn.

Jeff Juel, an environmental consultant from Missoula, Mont., who works for environmental groups that oppose salvage sales, argues that the less done after a fire, the more resilient the area is to future disturbances. He opposes the agency’s emergency declarations justified by the need to sell timber to help the local mill and workers. He wants a full environmental review instead of the shortened one the Forest Service is doing.

Jonathan Oppenheimer, government relations director for the Idaho Conservation League, agrees with Juel on the overall benefits of allowing natural renewal following a fire. But he’s a member of the Boise Forest Coalition and worked closely with partners like Roberts and the Forest Service to “make sure that those high-quality and sensitive resources are protected.””

How “collaboratives” work in Idaho

by

They work well, according to this article, and here’s probably an important reason why:

“The collaboratives advance the process by removing features that are sure to invite challenges and delays — like proposing new roads in a roadless area.”

My impression has been that it is easier to reach agreement on protecting undeveloped areas (or not) in both project plans and forest plans than it is to agree on conservation strategies for wildlife (which are the basis of a lot of litigation).  Maybe the former is more political, which lends itself to negotiations, and the other is more scientific and/or legal, which does not?  (Or maybe I’m imagining this difference.)   Spending money to restore damaged streams also seems to work as a bargaining (for wood) chip.

Review of collaborative restoration initiatives

by

The Forest Service funded a study (2 page summary here) of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program and the Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership.  Of note (to me any way):

Findings:  “Strong majorities said they had increased the pace and scale of restoration, improved ecological conditions, and reduced the threat of fire to communities.”  “61% said they had decreased litigation.”

Implications:  “The agencies should continue to make changes to their business model to ensure that their organizations are oriented towards the success of priority projects. The agencies should ensure quality leaders and staff capacity follow priority investments. The agencies also could refine proposal evaluation processes to better identify places likely to be successful, or those that are in need of support and capacity building.”

(I assume that the project “priorities” are a result of collaboration, too.)

In Search of Common Ground II – It Takes Two: Forest Management and Social Management

by

Here are two current articles that get some things wrong but if we ignore those items and focus on the big picture that they present rather than on the details, I believe that we will find that we have more in common than we thought.

Between the two articles we see the full picture for PRIORITIZED actions to begin the long battle ahead to recover from national ashtrays, lost lives, lost homes and infrastructure, significantly decreased health of both humans and forests. It is a two pronged battle that includes both sound forest management and social management.

A) Using Forests to Fight Climate Change – California takes a small step in the right direction.

“The state’s proposed Forest Carbon Plan aims to double efforts to thin out young trees and clear brush in parts of the forest, including by controlled burning. This temporarily lowers carbon-carrying capacity. But the remaining trees draw a greater share of the available moisture, so they grow and thrive, restoring the forest’s capacity to pull carbon from the air. Healthy trees are also better able to fend off bark beetles. The landscape is rendered less combustible. Even in the event of a fire, fewer trees are consumed.

The need for such planning is increasingly urgent. Already, since 2010, drought and beetles have killed more than 100 million trees in California, most of them in 2016 alone, and wildfires have scorched hundreds of thousands of acres.

California’s plan envisions treating 35,000 acres of forest a year by 2020, and 60,000 by 2030 — financed from the proceeds of the state’s emissions-permit auctions. That’s only a small share of the total acreage that could benefit, an estimated half a million acres in all, so it will be important to prioritize areas at greatest risk of fire or drought.

The strategy also aims to ensure that carbon in woody material removed from the forests is locked away in the form of solid lumber, burned as biofuel in vehicles that would otherwise run on fossil fuels, or used in compost or animal feed.”

B) Why are California’s homes burning? It isn’t natural disaster it’s bad planning

This Op-ed by Richard Halsey (director of the California Chaparral Institute who sometimes posts on NCFP) is well written and, though I would disagree on some statements in his post, I present those that I do agree on in an attempt to show that there are specific components that are middle ground that we all should be able to agree on and focus on rather than focusing on what won’t work. Once we change our emphasis, hostility between opposing sides should decrease and progress should increase.

“Large, high-intensity wildfires are an inevitable and natural part of life in California. The destruction of our communities is not. But many of the political leaders we elect and planning agencies we depend upon to create safe communities have failed us. They have allowed developers to build in harm’s way, and left firefighters holding the bag. ”

“others blame firefighters for creating dense stands of chaparral in fire suppression efforts—when that’s the only way chaparral naturally grows, dense and impenetrable.”

“”we need to recognize that fire disasters aren’t natural, they’re social. And they require social solutions.”” (quote from University of Colorado geographer Gregory Simon)
–> Pay attention to the statement “fire disasters aren’t natural, they’re social”. My first reaction was “not true” but in the context of the Op Ed, I think that the author is making an appropriate distinction between the words “Catastrophic” and “Disaster” by reserving “Disaster” for those situations where the catastrophe falls mainly on humans.

“We also need to examine the best practices of other fire-prone regions. Communities in Australia often install external, under-eave/rooftop sprinklers, which have proven quite effective in protecting structures during wildfires. (Australians understand that wet homes do not ignite.) Such systems should be standard in all new developments in high fire hazard zones. It is likely they would have protected many of the homes consumed in Ventura’s Thomas fire this week.”

“As we do with earthquakes and floods, our goal should be to reduce the damage when wildfires arrive, not pretend we can prevent them from happening at all. That mindset starts at the planning department, not the fire station.”

C) Relevant Prior Posts with included references:

1) Finding Common Ground
IN SEARCH OF COMMON GROUND
Frustration: Will It Lead to Change?

2) Wildfire
Fuels management can be a big help in dealing with wildfires
Air Pollution from Wildfires compared to that from Prescribed burns
Inside the Firestorm
The Impact of Sound Forest Management Practices on Wildfire Smoke and Human Health
Humans sparked 84 percent of US wildfires, increased fire season over two decades
More on Wildfire and Sound Forest Management
Scientific Basis for Changing Forest Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity
Articles of Interest on Fire
The Role of Sound Forest Management in Reducing Wildfire Risk
15 Minute TED Talk: “Forest Service ecologist proposes ways to help curb rising ‘Era of Megafires’”