Lawsuit aims to protect threatened species, but fire scientist says management delays could be worse

From Jefferson Public Radio in southern Oregon….

A proposed lawsuit from Cascadia Wildlands, Center for Biological Diversity, Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center and Western Environmental Law Center seeks to protect the marbled murrelet and coastal marten, which are both threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

The BLM’s Integrated Vegetation Management forest management plan outlines 150,000 acres of prescribed fires, small diameter tree thinning, and commercial thinning in late successional reserves over the next ten years.

They argue the new decade-long forest management plan will be ineffective. The groups claim the proposed projects would make the old-growth forests less resilient to fire.

But Regional Fire Specialist Chris Adlam with Oregon State University says the BLM plan is a good approach and that the plan will help reintroduce beneficial fire.

“We wanna avoid these large areas of high-severity fire that tend to burn again and again at high severity, and prevent the forest from regenerating,” Adlam says.

He says, there’s a difference between low-intensity and high-intensity wildfires. Low-intensity fires — such as those happening naturally or in prescribed burns — can be beneficial. But high-intensity fires, like many wildfires we see now, can bring negative effects to the landscape and take longer for recovery.

Adlam says the 2020 Slater Fire wiped out huge portions of northern spotted owl habitat. That’s not the only time endangered species habitat has been threatened by high-intensity wildfire.

The last line:

Adlam warns that if government agencies and conservation groups don’t work together, they could waste time as future catastrophic wildfires put species at greater risk.

29 thoughts on “Lawsuit aims to protect threatened species, but fire scientist says management delays could be worse”

  1. The only time enviros and the forest service actually “work together” in a satisfactory way is when we file a lawsuit and the judge finds our concerns are valid and orders the USFS to modify their plan based on our valid scientific and legal concerns.

    Without that lawsuit and that judge, it’s same old anti-science stupidity and obstinance as if timber industry dogma is the only one allowed in the driver seat…

    Every since the first push back from enviros a half-century ago in Appalachia and the PNW, the braindead dismissiveness of our valid concerns have not change much and to this day we constantly have to disprove their plans in court as invalid because the judge is the only one who can say no to all the USFS’s misguided ambitions.

    Reply
    • First, small diameter thinning, I assume is….trees less than 10-12 inch DBH? Whether prescribed fire, lightning induced, or human caused accidents/arson, this *will* beneficially allow for better fire. Also, what is wrong with using the best available science and analysis, to hell with worrying over ‘planning’ and ‘forest plans’ that take too long, are almost immediately ‘invalid’ according to some, and quite frankly mean nothing in the real world?

      Now Deane – This is about the BLM, Deane. Tell me you didn’t read without telling me you didn’t read. Nowhere does it involve the USFS.

      Please back up all your claims with ALL forms of peer reviewed literature, not just your favorites from a couple well known agenda driven researchers, and cherry picked lines from 15-30 page long manuscripts.

      As has been pointed out time and time again, your language and attitude and obvious blind position on all things, detracts 1000% from all of your credibility. Wonder what it will be like to be on the wrong side of history in 30 years?

      Reply
      • Yeah that was an error that I’d of already fixed if I had edit access. But I don’t get the same opportunity to fix errors and typos on here after I comment, only people who post on here get to do that. But to your point, in general, BLM is even worse than USFS.

        As for “agenda driven researchers” that basically includes anyone and everyone who does NOT drink the Timber industry kool-aid and is focused on advancing the sciences of taxonomy, hydrology, geology, rhizopheric and canopy ecology, ornithology, entomology, ichthyology and wildlife biology. Because all those sciences aren’t advanced by getting the cut out. In fact suppressing advancements in these fields of study is essential to the industry continuing to trash our public lands in severe ways.

        And folks like you who cowardly won’t even use their own name and use “A” instead have a crazed delusional thought process that if the “science” doesn’t further the timber industry misinformation machine its nothing more than “agenda driven researchers” who don’t have any credibility. But if you look in the mirror you’ll find that much quicker than in an enviros comment in a comment section of an echo chamber blog for retired federal land managers.

        And as always if claims of only going after 10″ to 12″ DBH were found to be true, their wouldn’t be a lawsuit filed in the first place. Of course that’s probably something you’re unable to comprehend due to your diminished dogma-based intellectual capacity.

        And most definitely, the funniest thing in your comment is pretending like I’m here to earn your approval/credibility. Do you really think my friends and I have spent more than a few decades dragging your pathetic dishonest management plans into court because we’re genuinely interested in boosting each others credibility via well researched peer reviewed references?

        Reply
        • Deane-O,
          I’m not a coward, first, I just don’t trust *you* due to your proclivity in the past on this and other platform to essentially cyber-stalk people and their personal lives, and even make outlandishly false claims (like a year or two back when you tried to dig up a commenters ancestors from multiple generations back to paint them as “evil”).
          On the flip side, isn’t it exactly the same that so many environmental NGO groups and certain researchers *always* have the same take on *all* forms of management, that is is bad and evil, and they always use the same claims to push the “Donate Now” button? So…you say beholden to timber industry, I say beholden to untaxed non-profit donations, same thing.
          Perhaps if you opened your eyes to all forms of research, you could see there are some incredible advances to all of the above fields you mentioned, and they do not always advocate to “get out the cut”.

          But, since you decided to speak out of line without looking, here are some of the facts for the 10 year project:
          Commercial, 4000 ac/year; 20,000 acres max in 10 years
          Small Diameter, 6,500 ac/year; 60,000 acres max in 10 years; generally trees <=8", up to <=12".

          The commercial aspect also has explicit sideboards prohibiting any activity that in any way can harm Northern Spotted Owls.
          This is all from actually reading and researching the documents provided by the BLM (as you did not even bother to read, and thought this was the USFS).

          https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/123406/200316524/20055301/250061483/Integrated%20Vegetation%20Management%20Overview.pdf

          https://eplanning.blm.gov/public_projects/123406/200316524/20055339/250061521/Decision%20Record.pdf

          Lastly, my comment was not meant to be funny. The thing is, I don't need to give you approval, and I'm not here to give you credibility. The scientific community as a whole has already proven your ilk lack integrity or credibility. Words like "dragging your pathetic dishonest management plans into court because we’re genuinely interested in boosting each others credibility via well researched peer reviewed references?" when you know nothing about me, and *you* have never authored a single peer reviewed manuscript or done any kind of objective science, along with all the combative, unethical, crude, discriminatory, personal, assumed-pejorative language and accusations you throw out constantly, shows you have zero good intentions to this forum, discussion, or the scientific process as a whole.

          I'm as sure there will now be another redundant, personal attack, refusal to look at the science and policy response form you, I consider this conversation done (I can use that part of your playbook, too). Again, enjoy being on the wrong side of history.

          Reply
    • Deane, some enviro groups are cooperators more than they are litigators. The Nature Conservancy, the National Wild Turkey Federation, and others. I don’t always agree with The Nature Conservancy, but I admire and respect them for on-the-ground collaboration. The White Mountain Stewardship Project is an excellent example.
      https://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/apache.html

      Reply
      • The entire purpose for the founding of Earth First! was because this compromise of which you speak, with some rare exceptions, has failed our forest ecosystems and led to further degradation in the name of fake “cooperation” that has more to do with generating NGO revenue than protecting what’s left of mother earth.

        And I’ve helped save plenty of ancient forests that were given away by mainstream enviros because we didn’t back down and the mainstream enviro lapdogs of the timber industry were forced to support our efforts because we didn’t give them any other
        option.

        As for the Nature Conservancy, the timber industry took over the Board of Directors in the early 2000’s because they realized they could keep logging their forests with near the exact same harvest volume while suckering everyone into thinking their non-profit donations were supporting conservation rather than exploitation. I mean why would big timber not want to get in on a scam like that? Big timber never says no to these kinds of dishonest corruption schemes!

        Reply
    • As a bit of a CFLRP aficionado, I beg to differ. The Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative (KVRI) has been successfully working with Idaho Conservation League for a decade now. The IPNF North Zone hasn’t been litigated since the Mission/Brush project litigation in 2008 that predated KVRI’s approval by four years. Credit to Brad Andrews — he works his a$$ off getting in early and identifying points of contention to iron out during collaboration meetings. Also credit the local USFS NEPA/ologist crew that has been highly flexible to environmental demands. And get this, that crew has stuck together. Many Rangers have come and gone while the forester, silviculturalist, biologist, hydro, fuels planner, etc have been working as finely tuned machine for close to two decades. Proud to be a close associate and friend to all of them — including the ICL members.

      Now, don’t believe for a second this neighborhood is just an overlooked backwater avoiding attention. The North Zone is the last bastion in the lower 48 in which every species continues to be represented. Endangered species, you say? Oh yeah. Nearby heavy hitting environmental groups? Oh, yes. Sandwiched between Missoula and Spokane. Jeff Juel is well aware of what goes on up here — he brought the Mission/Brush litigation when he was with the Lands Council, and is now just down the road at Friends of the Clearwater in Moscow. Alliance is currently bringing suit just across the border on the Kootenai National Forest.

      So, yeah. It doesn’t have to be this way. Keep the teams together, let them get to know the land and the significant players, and they CAN work together to the benefit of all involved.

      Reply
      • Eric- OK I know I can be a picky-with-words person, but when you say…
        “Also credit the local USFS NEPA/ologist crew that has been highly flexible to environmental demands.”
        Perhaps the word “demand” is excessively offputting.. but would you consider writing a post that talks about (1) “what kinds of agreements in terms of acres/trees/wildlife parameters” you all agreed to (what the “zone of agreement” was/is)? and (2) you say you’re a CFLRP fan.. what exactly did CFLRP do (bring $ to the table or ??) that makes CFLRP work better than non-CFLRP in your view?

        Reply
    • Apologies. Brad Smith is the Northern Director of ICL.
      Brad “Andrews” is Bar counsel for the Idaho State Bar. I was on the phone earlier today with Mr. Andrews in regard to an ethical conflict of interest question and apparently still had his name on my mind. Ooops. My bad.

      Reply
  2. “Adlam warns that if government agencies and conservation groups don’t work together, they could waste time as future catastrophic wildfires put species at greater risk.”

    The environmental groups don’t care about endangered species.

    They proved it with the Spotted Owl, which is headed for extinction. Once they achieved their objective of stopping management on the public lands. They lost interest. The ESA no longer mattered.

    The problem is that people like Adlam really believes the environmental talk about saving ESA species. That is NOT the objective of environmental community. It is their faith in the “deep ecology” principles, that motivates them.

    As with Spotted Owls, salmon recovery, and now Giant Sequoia’s the environmental movement today is fixated with “deep ecology” principals.

    Nothing else matters, not even endangered species.

    For me, I am still with Aldo…..you don’t want to throw away the pieces of functioning ecosystems.

    Reply
    • Hi Vladimir, it seems that if you’re going to conflate the advancement of ecological science with religious terms like “faith” that you really don’t have the slightest clue what enviros care about.

      And what do they say about sociopaths gaslighting their victims and getting them to think that they’ve lost their mind and their concerns are irrational and the only thing causing damage? Or maybe you can elaborate, because that’s the only sense I can make of your false claim that we don’t care about the spotted owl. You’re literally saying we’re the exact opposite of who we really are?

      And I’m sure Aldo is turning over in his grave at your dishonesty when you say you “don’t want to throw away the pieces of functioning ecosystems,” when that’s the entire basis upon which deep ecology and the advancements of the sciences of taxonomy, hydrology, geology, rhizopheric and canopy ecology, ornithology, entomology, ichthyology and wildlife biology is based on. It’s quite clear the point you’re trying to make is that when it comes to resource extraction all this science advancement is in the way and none of it matters.

      Reply
      • “Hi Vladimir, it seems that if you’re going to conflate the advancement of ecological science with religious terms like “faith” that you really don’t have the slightest clue what enviros care about.

        And what do they say about sociopaths gaslighting their victims and getting them to think that they’ve lost their mind and their concerns are irrational and the only thing causing damage? Or maybe you can elaborate, because that’s the only sense I can make of your false claim that we don’t care about the spotted owl. You’re literally saying we’re the exact opposite of who we really are?

        And I’m sure Aldo is turning over in his grave at your dishonesty when you say you “don’t want to throw away the pieces of functioning ecosystems,” when that’s the entire basis upon which deep ecology and the advancements of the sciences of taxonomy, hydrology, geology, rhizopheric and canopy ecology, ornithology, entomology, ichthyology and wildlife biology is based on. It’s quite clear the point you’re trying to make is that when it comes to resource extraction all this science advancement is in the way and none of it matters.”

        Right. The Spotted Owl is headed for extinction and the environmental community is silent.

        We lost 20% of the Giant Sequoia’s over six feet in diameter in THREE fires. And the environmental community thinks that we need to do NOTHING to protect the groves.

        I would like to know what the environmental community cares about…..it is NOT Spotted Owl’s or Giant Sequoia’s. We are burning down TEN TIMES the volume that we harvest off our National Forests, converting vast areas to National Brushfields. NET GROWTH on the National Forests is probably NEGATIVE for the first time in history. Not that it is a appropriate measure, but it gives you a clue as to the devastation of our National Forests.

        It is NOT about resource extraction. I really don’t understand why the environmental community thinks that resource management is about resource extraction??

        I remember during the Spotted Owl crises having environmental folks make that accusation to me. I told, that the Spotted Owl decision is one for the American people to make. Whatever, the decision the Forest Service would still be there. I think the true achievement of the Clinton Forest Plan is that he destroyed the public lands timber industry and the Spotted Owl is headed for extinction.

        A two-fer. REALLY, we could have done better flipping a coin and choosing one or the other.

        Nope, I don’t think Aldo is turning over in his grave over MY dishonesty. However, he might have concerns about the dishonesty of today’s environmental movement.

        Remember the Sand County Almanac is about restoring devasted lands and restoring them to ecological sustainability.

        Today’s environmental movement is destroying the National Forests through its policies.

        Yeah, I could NOT say that when I was working for the Forest Service, National Park Service or the BLM, but now that I am retired I don’t have my comments “rewritten” for political considerations.

        BTW….the long-haired forester from the Class of 72, UC Berkeley have had enough of watching our national treasures being destroyed.

        https://californiasaf.org/2022/03/24/western-wildfire-position-paper-camp-70/

        Reply
    • Vladimir and Bob,

      I don’t think it’s helpful to lump environmental groups together. That would be like putting TNC and Earthfirst! in the same box. Or RMEF and Oregon Wild. I think some are more pragmatic than others and some care more about the needs of people than others. And yes, some litigate (in annoying and less annoying ways), some have employees who attend meetings on a cloud of self-righteousness and proceed to lecture everyone else (actually academics can do this too), some have employees who don’t seem to negotiate in good faith. Or have back door meetings with politicals and come up with questionable ideas that career folks have to carry out.

      And I’m sure that individuals in the Forest Service can be irritating to outsiders as well as ourselves and that the Forest Service can do annoying things.
      But I think we’d all do better on focusing on the specific annoying things (maybe the people not so much) and we’d get a much better view of the landscape. After all, we all care about the environment or we would never have gotten into this line of work. So in some sense, we are all environmentalists here.

      Reply
  3. Sometimes it seems nothing will change or be accomplished without the cooperation of the environmental community. But they seem to have no interest in finding middle ground. It seems their goal is to stop all management of our forests. With a 30 year old record that this type of management leads to catastrophic lost of our forest we might want to do something different.
    If we don’t our Western forests will soon be lost to history.

    Reply
    • To quote an old Norwegian fishing friend: “Uff Da … .”
      Please see my comment above. This just isn’t true and it’s counterproductive.
      I think we all need to take a deep breath, count to ten, and begin shifting focus to places where groups are successfully working together as models for the places where they aren’t.

      Reply
      • Hi Eric: I read your Comments and still think Bob’s statement is true and supported by significant documentation. Why is the truth “counterproductive?” Or are we just talking about differing opinions?

        I have looked at some of these collaborative efforts and still agree with Bob. They aren’t working, our forests are still burning, people are still unemployed, our air is polluted, and wildlife is being killed by the millions. But somewhere a small group of people are having Happy Meals together and think they have the answers. I disagree.

        If we want to “save” or “preserve” our forests and wildlife, we do need to do something different — and my thought is that a starting point is more active management and fewer adversarial lawsuits.

        Reply
        • Did you read my comment above Bob? Mr. Sproul is speaking in “absolutes” and I provided a concrete example of why his absolute statement is absolutely wrong.
          He says ” … they seem to have no interest in finding middle ground.” Who is they? Certainly not Idaho Conservation League. “They” work hand in glove with the USFS all the time and the end result of the NEPA projects benefit from the insight.

          And, it’s fine that you’ve “looked at ‘some’ of these collaborations.” I guarantee you I’ve looked at more because I wrote my MS thesis on collaborations in R1 and R6. Did you look at KVRI? What I said above, and what I said to Mr. Sproul is that, essentially, more focus needs to be paid to the places where it IS working. KVRI and ICL provide those examples.
          I don’t how I could be more clear.

          Reply
        • And perhaps the most salient point in my comment above is that the players on the ground, both USFS and NGOs, have been on the ground working together for a LONG time. They all know the land. They all know one another. I’m pretty sure THAT is the answer to achieving “more active management and fewer adversarial lawsuits.”

          And it’s a no brainer: THAT can’t be achieved without people collaborating. Or, gutting NEPA and the ESA. I think history demonstrates that probably not a good idea.

          Reply
          • Thanks, Eric: I appreciate the attention to detail. Not sure about your Idaho success, but guessing key participants can be counted on fingers and toes. I am also not sure I follow your reference to the “history of gutting NEPA and ESA,” though I’m pretty sure that has never happened — and also personally think a detailed reevaluation of these programs is long overdue, however defined. My opinions.

            Reply
          • Hi Eric: Part 2. How long, exactly, is a LONG time? In Oregon, we usually (or used to) measure that in generations. And that usually involved land ownership at some level, and usually for a number of generations. How come it is only USFS and NGOs that have been having these LONG time forest planning get-togethers? Why no prominent local landowners or generational local families? Or just an oversight on your part?

            Reply
            • Good morning, Bob.
              See the article here: https://bonnercountydailybee.com/news/2021/mar/31/kvri-has-long-and-strong-history-success/

              Yes, there is full buy in from the community. Boundary County is nothing if not a “Good ol’ boys” club. And trust me … they want nothing more than to “get the cut out.” But, because of the multi-stakeholder nature of the collaboration, and the trust that has been built between them and the participant NGOs, they seem to be able to find common ground.

              Now, as I asked before, check it out yourself. And please stop wasting my time with inane comments until you do so. Then, we’ll be able to have a productive conversation.

              Reply
              • Sorry, Eric: If you think my perspective can be characterized as “inane comments,” it seems unlikely we can ever have a “productive conversation,” however you might define that phrase. I would say that your limiting bias comes through loud and clear with your characterizations of the “Good ol’ boys” of Boundary County. Hard to “trust” your assertions and blanket statements and opinions regarding “full buy in” with those kinds of “insights.” I’ll follow the link, though, but don’t expect to become a convert — my bias, based on experience.

                Reply
                • Eric: Part 2, again. Yup, a small group of people that has been meeting for 20 years to discuss Global Warming, defensible space, grizzly bears, etc., with occasional presentations by agency “experts.” Been there, done that. The reporter does say, though, that this group has been a “great success,” as you assert, but no real indication of “full buy in” by local residents or long-time landowners. Looks like they’d enjoy greater participation and influence — their annual budget and sources of operating funds would be revealing.

                  Reply
      • My comments are based up my observations of the litigators listed at the beginning of the article over the pass 30 years here in southwestern Oregon. They would basically like to turn out federal forests into wilderness. They are responsible for billion of snags that are on our federal forests here in southwestern Oregon. They are against most Active management.

        Reply
  4. It is Saturday, July 9th, 2022 at 17:48 hours.

    I am watching the National Weather Service satellite image of the Washburn Fire put up a column.

    I don’t know if the Mariposa Grove is going to survive. I guess we will find out tomorrow.

    My first professional job was overseeing the mapping and inventory of of the Giant Sequoia groves south of Mineral King road in Sequoia National Park. Several of the groves have been TOTALLY destroyed. Others have been severely burned over and we will see the outcome.

    I blame the environmental lawsuits, the federal judges, and the politicians for destroying our National treasures, the Giant Sequoia Groves of the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains.

    I am livid. The thought of losing the Mariposa Grove is heartbreaking.

    I do know who to blame.

    Vladimir

    Reply
    • Vladimir: I share your sentiments, only for the forests of western Oregon in my world, and share concerns for how to save the rest. This isn’t working. The ones pointing to “climate change” or “endangered species” have the three fingers pointing to themselves. Their taxpayer-funded lawsuits have been an insult to common sense. This was predicted, and it was avoidable. How to fix?

      Reply
    • We all know who to blame don’t we? We discount the facts we don’t like (all the other reasons the forests are burning) so we can blame the people we already don’t like and make us feel better about ourselves.

      Reply
      • Jon: I think we can reasonably blame the organizations featured in this post. I — and many others — have pointed out that the passive management and delayed actions resulting from the never-ending lawsuits from these folks have predictably ended in flames. And dead — not “protected” — animals. These actions, concerns, and events are all a matter of public record.

        I don’t think any “facts are being discounted,” and it seems like some kind of personal projection when you assume these are “people we don’t like” and that it makes “us feel better about ourselves” for criticizing them. I don’t even know these people, I just don’t like the counter-productive legal racket (as I see it) being practiced in our rural communities and public forests. Not sure how that feeling is supposed to make me feel better about myself, though.

        Reply
  5. [I just posted this in a more recent discussion, but it is probably more fitting here].

    Here is how this racket works, who pays, and who benefits (and guess why they are going before a federal judge in order to make even more money):

    Wildlife Org. Attys Seek $1.2M Fees In Marbled Murrelet Fight
    By Faith Williams · Listen to article

    Law360 (July 12, 2022, 5:42 PM EDT) — Counsel who represented two Oregon wildlife organizations in a suit seeking to stop a timber company from cutting down trees in the habitat of a threatened seabird on Tuesday asked a federal judge to award them $1.2 million in attorney fees.

    According to the motion filed in Oregon federal court, Cascadia Wildlands, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Audubon Society of Portland accumulated about $1.2 million in costs and fees based on detailed records from seven attorneys over an eight-year period.

    However, the attorneys asked the court not to make a decision on the motion at this time, as the parties are continuing settlement discussions.

    In June, U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken ruled in favor of the wildlife organizations, saying Scott Timber Co.’s “Benson Snake” logging operation would harm the marbled murrelet, a threatened species since 1992, and would constitute an unlawful “take.” The organizations’ lead counsel, Daniel Kruse of Kruse & Saint Marie Attorneys at Law, has an hourly rate of $485.

    Supporting counsel Charles Tebbutt of the Law Offices of Charles M. Tebbutt PC has an hourly rate of $650, while Daniel Snyder and Parker Jones of the same office have hourly rates of $425 and $250, respectively.

    Meanwhile, Nicholas Cady, Cascadia Wildlands in-house counsel, receives $425 an hour. Tanya Sanerib of the Center for Biological Diversity’s hourly rate is $500, and Brian Segee of the same office receives $515 an hour.

    The motion says the organizations’ attorneys spent around 2,600 hours on the case including submitting required paperwork, preparing for trial and successfully litigating the case.

    Judge Aiken said in his ruling the plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs.

    According to the motion, the court is to adjust hourly rates based on inflation, which would increase each hourly rate by $50 to $100. Environmental litigation has also been recognized in Oregon federal court as a practice that requires specific knowledge, justifying increased rates.

    Kruse has 16 years of experience as an environmental litigator and specific experience in suits pertaining to the conservation of marbled murrelets, the motion said.

    Counsel for the environmental groups did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

    Scott Timber Co. is represented by Dominic M. Carollo of Yockim Carollo LLP.

    The case is Cascadia Wildlands et al. v. Scott Timber Co. et al., case number 6:16-cv-01710, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.

    –Editing by Philip Shea.

    [Here is what I have written on the topic: http://nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Articles/Magazines/Oregon_Fish_&_Wildlife_Journal/20180923_Murrelets/Zybach_20180923.pdf%5D

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Bob Zybach Cancel reply