Condition-based project in Georgia

We’ve discussed “condition-based” NEPA analysis and its legal implications – mostly thinking about timber management.  Here’s the Foothills Landscape Project, affecting 157,000 acres on the Chatahoochee-Oconee National Forest.  It raises the usual concerns about  NEPA sufficiency (it’s an EA, which was a key factor in the Tongass case injunction).  Here’s how it works, according to the EA:

The locations and timing of treatments would continue to be selected and prioritized using a systematic process that evaluates restoration needs, determines appropriate treatments to address those needs (through use of decision matrices) and balances implementation of those activities with operational feasibility, agency capacity, and social considerations, to the extent possible.

But apparently no further consideration of environmental impacts.  Here’s a statement that caught my eye, because the whole point of NEPA (as stated in many court opinions) is to analyze effects before you take action, whereas it sure looks like their intent is to act and then see what the effects are:

If, as a result of monitoring, the effects of activities require management or maintenance treatments that fall outside of the treatment toolbox options assessed within this EA and the forthcoming decision, additional analyses could be warranted.

I’ve also got NFMA concerns if what they are doing is establishing new long-term management direction (which should be in a forest plan) without going through the forest planning process.  How are “project design” requirements different from forest plan standards?

But what was new to me was the application to developed recreation sites, as described here:

On the recreation side, the project looks to make strides to improve the visitors’ experiences by enhancing existing trails and campsites that are used heavily while closing those that are not rarely used and no longer sustainable.
“We don’t have any specific proposals in any specific campground, but we are going to look at the conditions in areas that make sense … “We don’t have a lot of hard proposals, but basically we just want to make investments in areas that have high resource protection and high visitors’ satisfaction,” Grambley said. “We’re proposing reroutes to properly layout trails because we realize that a lot of our trails go straight up a ridgeline and we don’t want that because it causes erosion and it’s not fun to hike quite honestly. So we want to make the trails more sustainable and more-friendly layouts.”

These sound like the kinds of priorities that a forest plan should establish.  But when we want to implement them?  Just trust us to know what “makes sense.”

 

33 thoughts on “Condition-based project in Georgia”

  1. I would be willing to “trust them” if Ineas confident that (a) monitoring will actually occur and (b) management actions will actually change based on evaluation of said monitoring. How many times has the FS promised monitoring only to have it be unfunded due to budget constraints? And yet, the action still moves forward. Several 10th circuit losses by the FS hinged on the lack of monitoring as promised.

    Reply
  2. Interesting.. I’d be more concerned about the public comment opps than any more environmental analysis. I think we generally know a lot about the impacts of restoration activities and rerouting trails. But I didn’t read the whole thing so don’t know if they have site specific public involvement opps.

    Reply
  3. I’m sure my friend Tony Erba can say that I’m bias, Since this project is my baby but some food for thought. Here in Ga we have been thoughtful about what condition base means and what the courts have said in the past. We are not just guessing and saying “trust me”. We are being specific and we are bounding our effects analysis. Here’s a couple of clips out of our Draft EA to consider….This “flexible toolbox approach” allows land managers to choose the appropriate management activity for each specific location from a suite of potential treatment activities, or “tools,” within the project area. The selected treatment activities have specified limitations, identified in the proposed action and project design features, and are only implemented if deemed appropriate upon evaluation of conditions on the ground. The units of measurement (i.e. number of acres, miles, and sites) for the various treatments represent the maximum amount proposed and analyzed to meet the purpose and need of the project. (page 10).
    Site characteristics would be assessed to determine existing baseline conditions and understand any underlying causes of ecologic degradation. Examples of site characteristics may be stand composition, structure, stand health, age, slope, hydrologic or soil conditions. The existing conditions of a site are also evaluated in the larger context of desired pattern, composition, and structure of the landscape ecosystem (FSH 2020.5). Decision matrices (Appendices E) would be used to validate that the actions taken are most appropriate, according to best available science, to achieve the desired conditions of each stand or site. All actions taken would be consistent with the revised Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (2004)(page 11)

    Reply
    • I would never say that, would I? 😉

      What you describe from the EA sounds appropriate and do-able. The potential conflict comes from whether you do all that work BEFORE making a fully informed decision (ie, authorizing the action) or AFTER authorizing the action knowing that there is more information gathering to be done before any actual action takes place? Is it as harmless as “to-may-to vs. to-mah-to”? I don’t know. But, a condition-based approach should be attempted at least once to see if the benefits of decision efficiency truly outweigh the work investment of fully informing the decision maker before a decision is made.

      I hope your public interests allow you that opportunity.

      Reply
      • Tony- I think others have done condition-based decisions successfully (I remember CEQ encouraging one before I retired in 2012), so that might be a good question for others with experience. Anyone out there?

        Reply
        • Here’s a few I considered as I firmed up my approached….
          The Vegetation Control: Non-native Invasive Species and Shortleaf Pine Restoration Release project (2008) on the Chattooga River Ranger District used the toolbox approach. As did the Non-native Invasive Species Treatment project (2008) on the Blue Ridge and Conasauga Ranger Districts. The Stream Habitat Improvement project (2017) on the Chattooga River Ranger District used a version of this approach as well. Examples of this approach for vegetation management is the Southwest Jemez Mountains Restoration Project on the Santa Fe National Forest or the Landscape Vegetation Analysis project on the Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests. Thanks Sharon for asking this question….

          Reply
          • Betty, thanks for participating in this discussion. It helps to hear it directly from someone who knows, and as a retiree, my knowledge is limited in both time and space (like I don’t know much about Region 8).

            Reply
      • I would say most of the work we proposed we have done countless times and are pretty certain of the effects. We issue DN/FONSI all the time and do the actual arch survey, botanical survey after the decision but before we implement because we wrote a programmatic agreement and bounded the known effects analysis to the treatments we are proposing. This project is not different, it’s just larger in scale. To speak the NFMA comment and Forest Plan comment. WE are implementing our Forest Plan finally after being held up by years of nonsense from certain groups. We are taking a science based approached to really trying to move the restoration needle on some needed habitat work in North Georgia. This not Forest Plan revision stuff.

        Reply
  4. I think one could also say that insect salvage projects are, somewhat, “condition-based”. I worked on one project that covered 44,000 acres, adjusting to differing patterns of insect mortality. At the end of that summer, in 1989, we were clearcutting some slopes that had almost 100% mortality. We plucked out 25 million board feet, off that one insect salvage sale. Almost all of the rest of the Ranger District was under a salvage sale, or still under contract as a green timber sale (where the purchaser can cut the dead trees, by agreement).

    Reply
  5. Thank you, Betty – it’s always good to hear first-person reports. I would also like to see your response to Sharon’s concerns about future public involvement, assuming no future NEPA) when actual locations are determined and proposals are made. (The idea of “worst case” locations and effects for recreation developments is intriguing.)

    I agree that there is a lot be learned about condition-based analysis. It’s good that you have looked at other examples, though I know the LaVa project on the Medicine Bow-Route had to be redone, and I don’t think the rest have been tested in court. The one thing we know is that in the 9th Circuit, “bounding our effects analysis” isn’t good enough when the effects trigger an EIS. I’m skeptical that a 157,000 acre multi-purpose project doesn’t reach the threshold for significant effects under NEPA (but maybe that’s the norm in Georgia).

    Reply
    • Jon, we did talk about this project which has been to court.
      https://forestpolicypub.com/2017/07/31/tennessee-creek-project-in-colorado-successful-ea-for-large-project/
      https://forestpolicypub.com/2019/07/18/large-scale-nepa-and-specificity-tennessee-creek-project-litigation/
      I don’t know if there have been others. Note to FS/OGC people: I’m sure someone is tracking this and it would be nice for us to hear from you.

      Further, if the new NEPA regs come out with condition-based management, then that is another plus for future court decisions.

      Reply
    • I’m not sure why just because something is large it means it’s should cross the threshold of significant effects. I know the work we are proposing is work we have been doing for years with lots of science and monitoring behind it. It was just 5,000-10,000 acres (EA)at a time. As far as implementation, the pace and scale will be the same and public engagement will be strong post decision. We are trying to say that in our implementation plan. Our biggest challenge is some groups believe the only way to influence us is during the NEPA process and court. And this is after years of collaboration and what I thought was trust building. We will have to see what happens during the comment period and when I issue the FDN/FONSI and the NEPA rule change. I also understand no 2 projects are alike and we all learn from each other. I appreciate the debate.

      Reply
      • It is true that NEPA (and other laws) provides the most leverage at the point of a decision. It may also be important for someone to challenge a decision if they want to challenge how it is implemented. I’m reminded of a reason why I was not a fan of the “big gulp” approach when I was advising the Forest Service. If it goes down, it goes down big. You can stop a lot of things with one lawsuit.

        Reply
  6. https://www.onlineathens.com/news/20191231/forest-watchers-question-chattahoochee-forest-project

    *One shortcoming of the plan is that it doesn’t identify where the burns or logging will take place, so the public won’t have any say in those later decisions, Riddle said. “This is the biggest project in the history of the forest, and the Forest Service is changing the way it does this in a way that gives the public less voice,” he said.*

    One of the NEPA criteria requiring an EIS is “The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects …” This is unprecedented. The first time a forest does this, maybe it should do an EIS, with a harder look at the effects than just “bounding our analysis.”

    Reply
  7. A different timber sale project on the Chattahoochee has attracted litigation, and is addressed in this blog post. It illustrates the importance of knowing exactly where project activities would occur:

    *Fifteen years ago, thanks to the work of SELC and our partners, these areas were set aside from timber production because of their remarkable backcountry values. The popular Duncan Ridge Trail traverses these areas, winds through oak and white pine forests that are over 100 years old, and connects with both the Appalachian and Benton MacKaye Trails. Now, under increased pressure to meet timber quotas, the Forest Service is walking away from its commitment to protect what makes these places unique.*

    https://www.southernenvironment.org/news-and-press/news-feed/winter-news-2019

    Reply
    • Yes this project is the Cooper Creek Watershed project. It does propose limited timber harvesting in area that are identified in our FP as unsuitable for timber production. NFMA and our FP allows for timber harvesting to meet other multiple use objectives. We have explained that to SELC and others but they disagree. the point of the litigation is to prove we are violating NFMA by doing “timber production” in the areas identified as unsuitable for timber production. The Chatt-O FP has no Management Areas that are identified for timber production. Our whole plan is set up to improve forest conditions for game and non game species and recreational value. there’s a difference in timber production and timber harvesting.

      Reply
      • That’s interesting, Betty. I wonder whether that means that if the FS had dead lodgepole, say, on a ski area (and they were merchantable- unlikey) they couldn’t sell them because ski areas are not in the suitable base?

        Reply
        • Not sure there is much skiing in Georgia, but Betty is correct in saying that timber harvest may occur on unsuitable lands to meet other objectives; however, NFMA doesn’t address whether the timber may be sold.

          Table F-8 in the C-O forest plan shows that 367,000 + acres in 11 management areas are suitable for timber production. (ASQ and arguably “timber quotas” are based on these acres.) If harvest units are not in these management areas, the purpose must be found in the non-timber direction for the management area. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm9_028670.pdf

          Reply
          • Hey Jon, doesn’t the Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) come into play here? Seems the narrow focus on NFMA overlooks the applicability of HFRA to broader vegetation management and habitat management goals that can be met through silvicultural practices that involve timber harvest but not for timber production goals, much like Betty is saying.

            Here is the HFRA page that seems relevant :
            https://www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/field-guide/web/page03.php

            Reply
            • This seems to deal with the NEPA process so I didn’t read it in detail, but I note that it reiterates the NFMA requirement for consistency with the forest plan. Suitability is a forest plan decision that projects must be consistent with. I’m not saying timber harvest is precluded on unsuitable lands; only that producing lumber can’t be a reason for cutting the trees down. (This doesn’t otherwise mention NFMA, and HFRA could not be interpreted to override NFMA by implication only.)

              Reply
        • Sharon, that’s the point, SELC is trying to prove that I can’t sell timber in ” unsuitable” land, no matter the why i need to treat the lands. and to Jon’s point….The FP has are suitable and unsuitable for timber production. However, we do not have Management RX or Plan Objective is Timber Production.

          Reply
          • It does look like none of the lands that are suitable for timber production include timber production as an “emphasis” for the management area. That should mean that any timber harvest anywhere must have a purpose other than timber volume (derived from whatever the management area emphasis is). It should also mean that the desired conditions for the other resources have been factored into the timber volume projected from suitable lands being managed for other purposes.

            If the issue in this litigation is “doing “timber production” in the areas identified as unsuitable for timber production,” that would seem to revolve around whether there are other plan-based reasons for logging (and the type of logging being done is consistent with those reasons). If the plan says this area is to be managed for dispersed recreation, logging may be a hard case to make. (Or are plaintiffs disagreeing with the plan’s designation for this area?)

            Reply
            • so, if an area is managed for dispersed recreation (DR), DR in Ga includes hunting. And we work a lot with DNR to have healthy diverse forest for game and non game species. So, yes, there are times that timber harvest is needed to create early seral habitat. Of provide opening to allow sunlight onto the forest floor for the nice birdies people like to watch. Most of what SELC is fighting over is small in size (4%) and is really about not selling trees. Most of our forest is to be managed as mid to old forest types. yall should read our response to the lawsuit. if you can get it I can up load.

              Reply
  8. Back to the Foothills Landscape Project, here’s some more of the language that makes me nervous about the Forest Service’s understanding of NEPA:
    https://www.gpbnews.org/post/days-left-public-comment-massive-georgia-forest-management-plan

    *Hunter said. “It matters to people that hike on specific trails if they’re going to be logging besides those trails.”

    Foothills Landscape Project Team Leader Stephanie Israel said that level of description simply isn’t feasible and could mean the massive effort which in a best case could take as long as 15 years to see through never gets off the ground. “Doing either just commercial logging or just prescribed burning…. science shows that we’re going to have a better success rate by doing those things together, hand-in-hand,” Israel said. And in a flexible, as needed, case by case basis.*

    Again, NEPA says that the scope of the project determines the scope of analysis. Making a project bigger doesn’t excuse you from its NEPA requirements. If you can’t do the analysis, you need to reduce the scope of the project. Or accept that when you do know what you are actually planning to do, you’ll reevaluate the effects then (publicly). (Or perhaps disclose the effects now of logging beside ALL of the trails in the area.)

    Reply
    • I wonder if it would help in projects like this to distinguish between (a) the broader “tool” of vegetation management through silvicultural methods and (b) the narrower, more specific method of commercial logging. A professional laying out one of the approaches would apply really different design criteria than if doing the other.

      Seems that some of the fuel reduction work needed could occur without commercial logging, so the choice between prescribed burning or commercial logging is somewhat false and perhaps even inflammatory.

      Also, since part of the effects analysis problem is the lack of a meaningfully specific proposal, which is needed to take the required look for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, I wonder if a sufficiently specific proposal could be developed short of laying out a specific project on the ground, like with a programmatic assessment of some sort. Seems like an option for these types of projects.

      Reply
      • I think the FS thinks this condition-based NEPA process is “sufficiently specific.”
        I would argue that prescribed burning and logging may have very different effects, which means that it is a choice that should made using the NEPA process.

        Reply
  9. More on the Foothills Project: https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opinion/times/story/2020/jan/09/sohn-chattahoochee-national-forest-timbering-plan/512625/
    “Forest Service spokesman Steven Bekkerus in an email Thursday said there is no objective for any amount of wood volume harvest in the plan; “rather harvest volume is a by-product of management for other purposes.””

    That reminded me of another provision in the CEQ regulations that governs when in the project planning process that NEPA applies, and I’m wondering if they are even there yet in this project.

    40 CFR §1508.23. “Proposal” exists at that stage in the development of an action when an agency subject to the Act has a goal and is actively preparing to make a decision on one or more alternative means of accomplishing that goal and the effects can be meaningfully evaluated.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Betty Jewett Cancel reply