timber

Cut and Sold Report: Waiting For Update

by

On 11/29 there was a news story in E&E news about the 2023 Forest Service cut and sold report.

The administration’s 10-year wildfire strategy rests in part on harvesting but also puts new emphasis on prescribed fire.
Altogether, the agency said it exceeded its goal of reducing hazardous wildfire fuel on 4 million acres in the fiscal year and used fire on a record 1.9 million acres. “I’m pleased to report that we have made significant progress in implementing this daring and critical strategy,” Forest Service Chief Randy Moore said on the agency’s website.
The American Forest Resource Council, representing the wood products industry, called the cut-and-sold annual report encouraging in that the agency reversed declines from the two previous years. Harvests were the greatest since 1999. “We hope that this trajectory of growth in new offerings continues in future years at a rate that can keep up with the growth of demand for wood products illustrated by the increase in last year’s harvest levels,” said the Portland, Oregon, group’s public affairs director, Nick Smith.
In the report, the Forest Service valued the cut timber at about $163 million. A total of 113,577 sales generated $155.4 million, according to the agency.
And while certain forests, such as the nearly 17-million-acre Tongass National Forest in Alaska, generate many of the headlines on timber versus forest preservation, other, smaller national forests are the engines of timber production.

While the Forest Service cut 18.1 million board feet on the Tongass, that pales in comparison to the 321 million board feet reported cut on the 708,000-acre Daniel Boone National Forest in Kentucky, 87 million board feet on the Colville National Forest in Washington state and 86 million board feet cut on the Mark Twain National Forest in Missouri, for instance. Oregon is a top state for timber harvesting, with 333.3 million board feet cut for the fiscal year, which ended Sept. 30. So is California, with 223.3 million board feet.

The annual report also shows disparities from one region to another.
Region 1, covering Montana, northern Idaho and part of Washington state, saw a decline of 16 percent in volume sold from fiscal 2022, which Smith attributed to ever-present litigation on proposed projects. Region 5, in California, had a 1 percent increase but has been held back by wildfires that reduce the value of timber that can be salvaged, Smith said. On the other hand, Region 6, covering Oregon and most of Washington state, reported a 17.3 percent increase in volume sold.

Personal Use Firewood?

The report came with a side note that’s important, said Bill Imbergamo, executive director of the Federal Forest Resource Coalition, representing companies that harvest from federal lands. The sales figures include wood cut for personal firewood, which the Forest Service allows through permits. Those permits aren’t reflected in the data for volume cut, however. Imbergamo said his organization supports permits for cutting of personal firewood but doesn’t believe they should be counted as timber achievements, since firewood-cutting projects aren’t subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and aren’t competitively bid in the way commercial timber is.

I wonder what the sales figures for personal use firewood are?

To environmental groups, the Forest Service striving to boost the numbers puts the Biden administration’s carbon-reducing goals at risk, as healthy forests are a major carbon sink. Many say the federal government should stop logging old growth and scale back cutting of mature forests on land it manages.

I can safely say, given my review of comments on the Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry request for comments by USDA, that not all environmental groups feel that way. Even large ENGO’s like TNC and EDF would not agree with that. For example EDF, here, and most people are aware that TNC has a ginormous contract to help the FS with fuel treatments of various kinds, including mechanical thinning.  It would be helpful if folks would mention which environmental groups they spoke with more specifically. Otherwise it seemingly gives some environmental groups’ views legitimacy at the expense of others. As far as I know there isn’t an organization of ENGO’s that determines the Official ENGO Party Line on issues.

**************

Anyway, eagle-eyed Andy Stahl pointed out that the Daniel Boone’s was certainly off as it was usually in the neighborhood of 2-10 mmbf, not 321.  Apparently the FS is correcting this, and we will post the update when we receive it.

DxP

by

 

Indianapolis Indiana Dead Tree Removal 317-783-2518

One of the threads of this discussion went off on a topic of how much discretion loggers should have in deciding what trees to cut down.  “Tricky Dick” offered that, “The USFS in its office attired lazyness doesn’t want to have to cruise the forest landscape piece by piece and thru honest Forestry discretion , uninhibited by profit motives, mark the bigger trees as ” leave or cut…”  Larry replied with regard to marked trees, but what if they are not marked?  I think there’s a name for that – “designation by prescription,” or DxP.  Here is how the Colville National Forest explains it (2020):

The Colville National Forest in Washington began using Designation by Prescription (DxP) in 2009 in order to become more efficient in timber sale preparation. Marking individual trees with paint in a sale area can be a time-consuming and costly process. DxP saves time preparing a timber sale and money spent on paint by allowing the logger to select which trees to harvest based on a timber stand prescription, which defines the desired condition after harvest.

With DxP, the operator may need to know tree species, how to measure tree diameters, forest health indicators, or how to achieve desired stocking level. This has the potential to initially slow operations. However, the flexibility that DxP provides (the contractor needs only to meet the prescription and that outcome can be accomplished in different ways) can create efficiencies for both the USDA Forest Service and the contractor

Is Tricky right?  But wouldn’t “allowing a logger to select which trees to harvest” allow them to do whatever they want within the broad confines of a “desired condition” in the “timber stand prescription?”  I have lots of questions about this.  How common is this?  Is the “timber stand prescription” part of the NEPA disclosure process in a way that all possible effects of the loggers’ decisions are accounted for?  If they only have to achieve the desired condition, could they do that in a way that is inconsistent with standards or guidelines in a forest plan?  Those aren’t included in the Colville’s “need to know” list above.

Asking for a friend.  Thanks.

Sierra At Tahoe Ski Area Re-opens

by

After the Caldor Fire seriously impacted the ski area, Sierra At Tahoe is open again. As you can see, it was a high intensity portion of the fire, with the previous forest being highly flammable and loaded with decades of heavy dead fuels. After several droughts, the area did not have any salvage operations. The area is also known to have nesting pairs of goshawks around.

As you can see, snow sports people will be enjoying a new experience of skiing and boarding, without so many trees ‘hindering their personal snow freedoms’. *smirk*

A California Assembly Bill, Canadian Lumber, NRDC and Indigenous Rights

by
Roughly 30% of the lumber consumed in the U.S. last year was imported, and more than 85% of the imports came from Canada.

I found this Saanich News story interesting (thanks to Nick Smith!).

A poll showing most Canadians believe their governments aren’t doing enough to protect forests from logging is being coordinated with efforts to block purchases of Canadian forest products in the U.S., the president of the Forest Products Association of Canada says.

Derek Nighbor describes a news release and poll out this week from Nature Canada as “disingenuous,” implying unregulated destruction of forests across the country, including B.C., which has been targeted by anti-logging protesters for decades. The survey refers to Canada’s boreal forest, but does not disclose that more than half of Canada’s vast forests have no industrial activity at all. Of the 48 per cent that does, half of that is under conservation measures that are not counted as protection, Nighbor said in an interview Monday (March 28). He said Canada is responsible for 40 per cent of the environmentally certified forests in the world.

Nature Canada lists among its biggest donors some of the U.S. foundations that backed the creation of B.C.’s Great Bear Rainforest preservation area in 2007, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. Nighbor notes that Nature Canada’s “champions circle” of donors, contributing $100,000 a year or more, also lists Parks Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada.

Nighbor said he has contacted those federal departments to ask why they are helping to finance an organization that is providing misleading information about Canada’s forest practices and is also lobbying the U.S. states of California and New York to stop buying Canadian forest products.

Now, if true, that would be fairly weird, but not impossible. A federal government (country A) paying a group that lobbies (in country B) against imports from their own country (A)? When there’s probably another government agency promoting exports from A to B? I don’t think any long-term federal employee would be surprised that this could happen, if it did.

So I looked into it a little deeper and found this from the National Observer from last June. It has to do with California’s Assembly Bill 416. Perhaps there could (have been?) an amendment to require state contractors to only use California wood products, which might have remediated the supporters’ concerns with Indigenous Rights. I don’t know how California rates on UNDRIP.

You might wonder.. “don’t we import many things from China, and how are they doing on UNDRIP?” Well, it turns out they have no indigenous people, according to the way they think about it. Anyway,

It would require contractors working for the state to prove that products coming from boreal and tropical regions respect the rights of Indigenous people and aren’t linked to forest destruction. In its text, advanced by the state assembly earlier this month, lawmakers noted that deforestation plays a role in fuelling the climate crisis and is often intermingled with the violation of Indigenous consent.

The Observer article gives both the NRDC side of the story and the Canadian government’s side of the story.
The other side:

In an April 21 letter, Yakabuski asked state legislators to remove references to the boreal forest from the bill and said it could affect 25,000 Ontario jobs and $2.8 billion in gross domestic product. In a statement to National Observer, Ryan Ferizovic, a spokesperson for Yakabuski, said leaders in more than 40 Indigenous communities have also taken issue with the bill. He also said Ontario’s regime has “strict” regulatory requirements and “thoughtful management” that ensures logging sites aren’t degraded.

…
If Yakabuski’s statement is true, it makes me wonder..do the affected Indigenous People decide themselves what is good for them, or do others?. If so, whom?

There’s also this..

It’s not clear exactly how much product from Canada’s boreal forest is exported to California. But in a letter to California legislators, Canada’s Consulate General said California imported US$949 million ($1.17 trillion) in building materials and other forestry-related goods in 2020.

“This bill is trying to guarantee and make sure that California is not itself implicated in these violations of internationally recognized Indigenous rights,” Skene (of NRDC) said.

Ferizovic said Ontario’s logging regime is globally recognized for its high standards, and includes consultation with Indigenous and Métis communities.

Perhaps only economists understand when it’s legally OK to prefer/not prefer/not allow imports by other governments.

And who is pushing it..?

The push has been backed by environmentalists on both sides of the border and a group of investors representing US$1.6 trillion in assets.

Now if you look at the list of investors, it’s a fascinating group, including the investment arms of several religious institutions. I’m sure that their motives are for the good; I’m just not sure that goodness, in this case, is as clear as they might think it is. I’ll try to find out how such groups decide to sign on to letters like this.

Forest Service rejects timber group’s challenge on Black Hills: Greenwire

by
An area that was logged in recent years is seen in the Black Hills National Forest in July 2021, near Custer, S.D. Matthew Brown/AP Photo

 

Here’s a link to the story by Marc Heller.

 

Excerpt below:

Among other responses, the Forest Service rejected the association’s complaint that it had ignored years of data on sawtimber growth rates. The agency also countered the association’s assertion that it had wrongly excluded white spruce trees from harvest projections, saying the Forest Service research team’s task was to estimate the predominant timber on the forest, which is ponderosa pine.

In all, the agency’s 29-page response addressed six requests for corrections, plus additional points within those requests. The Black Hills Forest Resource Association could appeal and is looking into further legal action, said Ben Wudtke, the group’s executive director.

The timber association had filed the challenge under the federal Data Quality Act, sometimes called the Information Quality Act. It had said the Forest Service overlooked information provided by the industry that would contradict agency researchers (Greenwire, Nov. 24, 2021).

The technical report by the Rocky Mountain Research Station, released last March, recommended reducing the annual timber harvest goal from 18.1 million cubic feet to between 7.24 million and 9.05 million cubic feet, allowing the forest to regenerate so that timber goals could again be raised.

More information on the challenge and the Data Quality Act can be found in this story from last fall, also by Marc Heller.

Timber sustained-yield requirements for forest plans

by

In our recent discussion of the Nantahala-Pisgah forest plan revision, Sharon said, “Jon, that raises a question, how is sustained yield considered in the 2012 Rule and regulations?”  Nicholas Holshauser did a pretty good job at answering there, but I want to provide a little more context because it’s a really good question with a complicated answer. I’ve highlighted terms to keep an eye on to help understand this.

Here are the relevant sections of NFMA:

  • 1604(e)

In developing, maintaining, and revising plans for units of the National Forest System pursuant to this section, the Secretary shall assure that such plans—

(2) determine forest management systems, harvesting levels, and procedures in the light of all of the uses set forth in subsection (c)(1) of this section, the definition of the terms ‘‘multiple use’’ and ‘‘sustained yield’’ as provided in the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, and the availability of lands and their suitability for resource management.

  • 1611(a)

The Secretary of Agriculture shall limit the sale of timber from each national forest to a quantity equal to or less than a quantity which can be removed from such forest annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis: Provided, That, in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives, the Secretary may establish an allowable sale quantity for any decade which departs from the projected long-term average sale quantity that would otherwise be established…  Provided further, That any such planned departure must be consistent with the multiple-use management objectives of the land management plan. Plans for variations in the allowable sale quantity must be made with public participation as required by section 1604(d) of this title (procedures for plan revisions).

The law does not define sustained yield, and other language used here is not self-explanatory.  That is most likely because it merely codifies the historic practice of the agency in its timber management planning, which was thoroughly understood by everyone at the time.  Wilkinson and Anderson take this view in their contemporaneous examination of NFMA where they state:  “The Forest Service has always placed a ceiling on each national forest’s annual timber sales from the suitable land base to insure a perpetual yield of timber” (p. 122), and, “the NFMA requires the Forest Service to follow NDEF policy (see below), with some exceptions.”   That historical understanding was reflected in the 1982 planning regulations, and is still included in the Forest Service timber management planning handbook (§2409.13, Chapter 30).

Thus, sustained yield was always, and would be under NFMA, determined by identifying the land that would be used for timber production (suitable acres) and the volume per acre that would be yielded over time (including any reductions to accommodate other uses), and projecting the maximum harvest that could be achieved per decade over time without declining between any two decades (perpetually).  Sustained yield thus required non-declining even flow of timber volume (NDEF), which was characterized as the “base sale schedule” for a forest plan.  A declining flow would be referred to as a “departure” from this schedule and from non-declining flow.  Because the parameters determining timber volume (acreage and competing uses) would change for each forest plan alternative, the sustained yield would also be different.

The 2012 Planning Rule states:

  • 219.11(d)(6)

“The quantity of timber that may be sold from the national forest is limited to an amount equal to or less than that which can be removed from such forest annually in perpetuity on a sustained yield basis. This limit may be measured on a decadal basis. The plan may provide for departures from this limit as provided by the NFMA when departure would be consistent with the plan’s desired conditions and objectives. Exceptions for departure from this limit on the quantity sold may be made only after a public review and comment period of at least 90 days. The Chief must include in the Forest Service Directive System procedures for estimating the quantity of timber that can be removed annually in perpetuity on a sustained-yield basis, and exceptions, consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1611.

Planning Handbook now states

  • (§63.41)

 “The Responsible Official shall determine of the sustained yield limit as the amount of timber that could be produced on all lands that may be suitable for timber production, assuming all of these lands were managed to produce timber without considering other multiple uses or fiscal or organizational capability.

This new “sustained-yield limit” is obviously an entirely different beast.  The acreage used includes lands that are not suitable for timber management, and the projected volume does not reflect other multiple-use decisions made in a forest plan (including such NFMA requirements as plant and animal diversity).  The SYL does not vary by alternative, and would obviously be much higher than under existing forest plans.  And since the replacements for ASQ (PTSQ and PWSQ) are supposed to be based on expected resource conflicts and financial constraints, volume targets based on these figures could never exceed that “capacity.”

The sustained yield “limit” is not actually a limit, and does not serve the purpose intended by NFMA of sustainable harvest volumes through its non-declining flow requirement.  In fact, the Rule (despite requiring consistency with NFMA language) refers to “departures from this limit” instead of departures from NDEF.  While the sustained yield “limit” may be non-declining, there is no determination that the actual harvest volume (PTSQ/PWSQ) could be sustained (unlike the former ASQ).  Consequently, harvest levels (over time) have not been determined for the plan based on all multiple uses or based on NDEF, as required by NFMA.  This seems especially problematic on the Nantahala-Pisgah, where they admit they calculated the sustained yield based on lands suitable for timber production that they claim will never be harvested; that’s an inherent contradiction.  Until someone does the correct analysis, it’s hard to say how these changes affect this plan’s timber volume or whether there is a departure from NDEF that they should have disclosed to the public.

While there was some public involvement in developing the Planning Handbook (much less than for the 2012 Planning Rule), this radical break from tradition (and possibly from NFMA), was not made apparent to the public.  It was only acknowledged in comments when the final Handbook was published.  The Administrative Procedure Act requires effective public notice when an agency changes its procedures to this degree.  There are therefore both substantive and procedural questions about this change in how timber management is being addressed in this and other forest plans.

It has always looked to me like this was a search for the “holy grail” of having their trees and logging them, too.  More to the point, a national forest would have a much expanded land base relative to their expected timber volume targets, so they have a much easier job finding where to meet them.

 

 

 

Oregon legislation to define “climate-smart” forestry?

by

I’ve been keeping my eyes open for how anyone is defining the management practices or outcomes that should qualify as contributions to carbon sequestration.  They usually seem to stop short of that level of detail.  This does, too.  However, it sounds like they are going to try to get there.  This is a 1/11/22 draft of LC 240, to be addressed at the legislative session beginning now. We would have an answer “no later than April 30, 2023.”

(2) The Institute for Natural Resources, in coordination with the Oregon Global Warming Commission, shall jointly with the State Forestry Department, the State Department of Agriculture, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, the Department of State Lands and the Department of Land Conservation and Development, and in consultation with federal land management partners, develop:

(b) Recommendations for activity-based impact metrics …

(3) Activity-based metrics must be designed to evaluate progress toward increasing carbon sequestration in natural and working lands and waters, as measured against the 2010 to 2019 carbon sequestration baseline. Activity-based metrics may include, but need not be limited to, acres of lands or waters for which certain management practices have been adopted or acres of lands or waters that represent an increase in natural and working lands and waters.

SECTION 8. (1) As used in this section: (a) “Climate-smart agriculture, forestry and conservation practices” means practices that protect and restore resilient carbon stocks in native ecosystems and increase resilient carbon stocks in vegetation and soils in natural and working lands and waters.

Possible Salvage Strategy for Dixie and Caldor Fires

by

Since a battle for salvage projects is brewing, I think the Forest Service and the timber industry should consider my idea to get the work done, as soon as possible, under the rules, laws and policies, currently in force. It would be a good thing to ‘preempt’ the expected litigation before it goes to Appeals Court.

 

The Forest Service should quickly get their plans together, making sure that the project will survive the lower court battles. It is likely that such plans that were upheld by lower courts, in the past, would survive the inevitable lower court battles. Once the lower court allows the project(s), the timber industry should get all the fallers they can find, and get every snag designated for harvest on the ground. Don’t worry too much about skidding until the felling gets done. That way, when the case is appealed, most of Chad Hanson’s issues would now be rendered ‘moot’. It sure seems like the Hanson folks’ entire case is dependent on having standing snags. If this idea is successful, I’m sure that Hanson will try to block the skidding and transport of logs to the mill. The Appeals Court would have to decide if skidding operations and log hauling are harmful to spotted owls and black-backed woodpeckers.

 

It seems worth a try, to thin out snags over HUGE areas, while minimizing the legal wranglings.

Do NFMA Timber Analysis Requirements and Terminology Get In the Way of Public Understanding and Support?

by
FS planning photo 1989.

Jon linked to this news article that mentioned the Commissioners’ letter about the GMUG plan revision.  As Andy Stahl has pointed out, NFMA was very timber focused (1976 is almost 50 years ago?) and to follow the law, perhaps the FS is stuck with out-of-date terms that are fairly arcane to most of us on a daily basis. But what if you’re a stakeholder who only interacts with these terms every thirty years during the NFMA planning cycle?  I wonder if there would be a way to simplify all this within the law.  Because if we are trying to change the pace and scale of restoration/fuel treatments and commercial harvest is nested within that,  the old ways and talk and the new ways may not fit -and indeed lead to more confusion and perhaps unnecessary bad feelings.

For example,  here’s what the Commissioners had to say about timber in the draft plan :

3. “A significant increase in suitable timber, which is a designation that interferes with consideration of responsible management of the forests that allow uses other than timber production” (my bold) .

I’m thinking here that the Commissioners simply don’t understand the suitable timber designation. Most of us can’t tell, when we’re recreating on the National Forests, or doing an APD, or applying for an easement, whether the map shows we’re in the suitable timber base or not.  It’s hard to imagine in practice how that could be.  In fact, we might be influenced in our uses by an actual timber sale (that is, staying out while equipment is working; looking out for log trucks on the road) but not by land being in a suitable timber base.

Conveniently, the GMUG clarified what the “timber-y” terms meant in this FAQ document .

Why does timber have a suitability decision?
No other resources seem to have this.
• The 2012 planning rule implements the National Forest Management Act and is used to write a forest plan. Both require the identification of lands suitable for timber production and the 2012
planning rule directs this process.
• Aside from coal suitability decisions required for forests with coal production, timber suitability is the only required suitability decision.
• Other resources are mapped and allocated, such as recreation and scenery, even though they are not specifically allocated as “suitable”.

Does the increase in lands suitable for timber production mean that other resources “lose” those corresponding acres?
• Lands suitable for timber production do not exclude other uses or resources. It does not mean that the area’s primary purpose is timber production. Production areas remain valuable wildlife habitat, popular recreation destinations, healthy watersheds and more.

Why do the acres of lands suitable for timber production increase between the former plan (1991) and the draft alternatives?
• The primary reason for the increase in acreage is the current policy does not require the exclusion of areas that may be uneconomical to harvest. (I asked the Forest and they said the new policy was the 2012 Planning Rule directives).
• Some of the area proposed as suitable for timber production likely will not be viable for commercial harvest, whether due to distance from existing roads, steep slopes, smaller diameter trees or dead stands. The economics and site particulars need to come together to make a viable and sustainable commercial timber sale. But we are unable to project where those will and won’t align, so the current approach is inclusive.
• Each future timber sale is analyzed in subsequent NEPA, and subject to public review.
• Commercial timber harvest is also allowed outside of lands suitable for timber production. Timber harvest in these cases may be for fuel reduction risk, wildlife habitat improvement, safety, salvage, disease or insect sanitation, or other reasons.

*******************************

So what happens is:

(1) NFMA requires timber analysis perhaps currently of dubious value.

Forests do it.  Then they’re accused of focusing excessively on timber, despite all the other analysis that’s done.

and/or

(2) Forests will be asked to do more landscape scale restoration/fuel treatments.  But they don’t know how much of that will be commercial, either what we currently call commercial or what might be commercial in the future. I think the point of the analysis, and others more knowledgeable about the history can help me out, was to keep the forest from cutting too much .. so there were concepts like sustained yield and non-declining even flow and so on.  How relevant are these concepts and calculations today?

Since these future projects are wholly dependent on a) unknown future budgets and b) unknown economic factors, as well as c) unknown opportunities to/desire to salvage, what should a forest put under “timber volume” ? Here’s the GMUG explanation for the numbers in their plan.

Why does timber volume seem to be increasing in the draft forest plan?
• Current production is 60,000 CCF annually. The draft plan proposes as much as 55,000 CCF annually, so the plan would not increase production.
• Timber production on the GMUG has been higher the last few years, reaching over 90,000 CCF per year in 2018 and 2019. We’ve salvage-harvested more due to the spruce-beetle epidemic and lodgepole pine mortality. Timber production in 2020 was 75,000 CCF, and is anticipated to be 60,000 CCF in 2021.
• Harvest is expected to drop over time to approximately 30,000 CCF to 55,000 CCF due to the decline in salvage harvest.
• Because of the emphasis in alternatives B and C to do active vegetation management and more fuels reduction, those alternatives used the higher projection of 55,000 CCF. The other alternatives suggest approximately 30,000 CCF to showcase the lower end of the range in what we might produce.

********************************

Recent forest plan litigation

by

Litigation about the validity of a forest plan doesn’t happen very often, but two revised forest plans have been in the news for that lately.

Flathead court decision

The Montana District Court has decided the first case reviewing a forest plan revised under the 2012 Planning Rule, and it rejected decisions made in the Flathead plan related to roads because of the Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service had not adequately analyzed the effects of roads on grizzly bears and bull trout.  The court held that the process of revising the forest plan violated the Endangered Species Act; plaintiffs did not challenge compliance with NFMA or the Planning Rule. The court found no violations of NEPA and travel planning requirements.  The revised plan remains in effect pending additional analysis, but additional analysis will also be required for ongoing projects.  I haven’t read the opinion yet, and it’s not clear to me why these projects should not also be required to comply with the old plan direction for roads, which would have limited road construction, unless/until the revised plan complies with ESA.

This article quotes the judge on the crux of the case regarding grizzly bears:

“The mere fact that the (NCDE) population was increasing from 2004-2011 does not justify moving away from the existing management requirements of Amendment 19. In effect, by recognizing that Amendment 19 laid the foundation for recovery of the NCDE population and then using that recovery as justification for getting rid of the existing access conditions, the Fish and Wildlife Service eschews Amendment 19 precisely because it was working. This action is arbitrary and capricious,” Molloy wrote.

Additionally, the article continues:

Molloy agreed the choice of conditions in 2011 was arbitrary. Even had the choice been acceptable, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should have analyzed whether the new Forest Plan would have exceeded the 2011 baseline, which was a reflection of conditions existing while Amendment 19 influenced the plan. But the agency didn’t do that.

The USFWS also didn’t explain why it didn’t recommend culvert removal as part of road abandonment to aid bull trout survival. Molloy pointed out that the agency’s 2015 Bull Trout Recovery Plan emphasizes the importance of culvert removal and road decommissioning. But then the agency backed off, saying culvert removal wasn’t necessary in its 2017 biological opinion on the Flathead National Forest plan. Molloy acknowledged that part of the reasoning is because the roads aren’t being accessed, but evidence showed that at least two-thirds are being used.

Finally, Molloy said the Fish and Wildlife Service had failed to analyze how the new plan would harm grizzly bears on Forest Service land outside of the NDCE core area. So the biological opinion is flawed, as is the agency’s calculation of bears killed or affected by the plan, and the Flathead National Forest erred in basing its plan on a flawed opinion, Molloy wrote.

A key factor in the decision was apparently evidence presented by plaintiffs that requirements for road closures in the forest plan would actually result in continued public use of the closed roads.

This article quotes timber industry intervenors:

“It’s a pretty thorough and nuanced opinion,” said Lawson Fite, an American Forest Resource Council attorney representing the Montana Logging Association.

Colville new lawsuit

There may be more legal action ahead involving NFMA in new litigation filed on the recently revised Colville Forest Plan, which was summarized here (this plan was revised using the 1982 planning regulations). Most of the attention is probably on the Sanpoil Project, where plaintiffs raise issues related to the site-specificity of the analysis (see condition-based NEPA). They also make a NEPA claim related to our many discussions of historic/natural variability (versus an alternative that “was actually focused on maximizing timber revenue”); more on the forest plan aspects of that below.

One of the forest plan issues is old growth – specifically the elimination of the Eastside Screens which imposed a diameter limit on trees harvested, and whether the revised plan direction adequately provides for viability of old growth species in accordance with the provisions of the 1982 planning regulations, which require that old growth be “well-distributed.”  The revised plan also eliminated pileated woodpeckers and American marten as management indicator species for old growth and did not replace them with anything.

The Forest prepared an “issue paper” on old growth as part of the objection process, which I will highlight below (you might want to keep in mind our recent HRV vs NRV discussions, though this is not an explicit requirement of the 1982 regulations):

The proposed Forest Plan replaces Eastside Screens with a series of desired HRV conditions (described in FEIS, Vol. 1, pp. 92-94, 99-132) but allows cutting of individual large trees when needed to meet desired conditions for structural stages, along with several other exceptions (FEIS, Vol. I, pp. 28-30). It provides a desired condition for forest structure (FW-DC-VEG-03) that provides for a diversity in forage and wildlife habitat. Additionally, forest-wide desired condition (FW-DC-WL-03 and FW-DC-WL-13) state that habitat conditions should be consistent with the historical range of variability.

Instead of fixed reserves in the current Forest Plan the proposed Forest Plan would have late structure contained throughout the landscape and all actions that affect forest vegetation would be assessed and compared to HRV, with the goal of moving the overall landscape toward HRV.

The proposed Forest Plan will result in approximately 780,592 acres of late forest structure in 100 years, which is slightly less than the current Forest Plan (810,583 acres). The proposed Forest Plan would, however, allow structure classes to shift around the landscape in response to disturbance and may result in more resilient forest landscapes.

The effects analysis described in the FEIS shows that maintaining a 21″ diameter limit reduces the ability to attain the desired future condition of having a majority of most vegetation types in late structure.

It’s great that they actually projected the amount of late forest structure.  Based on the planned/expected reduction, I would have to conclude that their assessment told them they had too much of this compared to historic conditions.  I think that would be fairly unique and create a burden to demonstrate that using best available science (which plaintiffs seem to be disputing).  The last two paragraphs are a little hard to reconcile since the current plan would produce more old growth, but maybe there is too much of some old growth vegetation types and not enough of others?

The forest structure desired condition (FW-DC-VEG-03) includes an evaluation of the historical range of variability (HRV) and vegetation treatments at the project level will need to show movement toward this desired condition. This means that until the desired condition is reached, existing late structure would need to be maintained on the landscape.

This is an important interpretation of what they think their forest plan requires.  Hopefully it says something close to this in the plan itself, but regardless, their EIS effects analysis would have been based on it and they should be held to it when project consistency is evaluated.