Jon Haber

Good news for wildlife on two national forests

by

Here are two different kinds of success stories about restoring wildlife species that have been missing from national forests.

 

 

Grizzly bears – Lolo National Forest.

Current efforts on the Lolo National Forest demonstrate one way that forest plans can improve conditions for at-risk species; in this case the plan is contributing to conservation of the federally threatened grizzly bear. Grizzly bears have been sighted in recent years in this part of the Forest, but none are females or considered to be residents.

In 2011, the forest plan was amended to include what is commonly referred to as the Access Amendment (similar amendments also applied to the Kootenai and Idaho Panhandle national forests, prior to the revision of their forest plans).  The amendment established “standards” for motorized road and trail density in grizzly bear management units (BMUs, there is one on the Lolo).  In many cases, the current conditions did not meet these standards, so in the terminology of the 2012 Planning Rule, these would be desired conditions or objectives to be achieved.  In addition, their achievement was assumed in the biological opinion on the effects of the forest plan on grizzly bears prepared by the Fish and Wildlife Service, and failure to achieve them would likely trigger the need to reinitiate consultation on the forest plan (which had happened on the Flathead National Forest).  So there is a little added incentive, but here is what they are doing now.

The Forest has completed the “BMU 22 Compliance Environmental Assessment.”  In it they have proposed to formally close some roads that are effectively closed already and 21 trail miles currently open to motorized use.  In response to public comments, they are also considering an alternative that would close fewer trails, and instead close some roads currently open to motorized use.  In addition to other closures included with some prior vegetation management projects both alternatives “would bring the Forest into compliance with the Forest Plan motorized access management standards for the Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear recovery zone.”

Brown-headed nuthatch – Mark Twain National Forest

The nuthatch is not at-risk range-wide, but they have not been found in Missouri for at least a century.  The species requires shortleaf pine and oak woodland forests, which have been greatly reduced from historic levels.  The loss of these forests has prompted an ecosystem restoration effort across Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma (notably using the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program).  Restoration of such forests is a desired outcome of the Mark Twain forest plan.  Curiously, there is no mention of the brown-headed nuthatch in the 2005 forest plan, although it does address other species using the same habitat:

Objective 1.4a Improve open woodland conditions on at least 10,500 acres to provide habitat for summer tanager, northern bobwhite, Bachman’s sparrow, and eastern red bat.

The EIS states that the nuthatch is a Management Indicator Species for forest plan monitoring, but that doesn’t seem to be in the plan itself.  Of course, a species that is absent from a national forest would not make a good MIS.  In any case, it looks like there was no interest by the Mark Twain in reestablishing a species that was not present on the forest under that rules applicable to forest planning in 2005.

However, Forest Service, state and university researchers came to the rescue of the species, determining that sufficient woodlands now exist in Missouri to support a population of Brown-headed Nuthatches, that populations in Arkansas were robust enough to supply birds to Missouri, but that nuthatches are not likely to make the return on their own because of the distance and habitat fragmentation.  The Mark Twain National Forest site was chosen for the release of 100 birds because it is the largest area of open pine woodlands in the state.

Under the 2012 Planning Rule, the Forest Service would probably argue that this species is not “known to occur” in the plan area, so the requirement to provide ecological conditions for it (as a species of conservation concern) would not apply.  However, the separate requirement for ecological integrity requires “species composition and diversity” to occur within the natural range of variation.  That should make the Forest Service more proactive in reestablishing species that historically occurred there.  (The forest plan also omits the listed red-cockaded woodpecker, which also uses these habitats, is also absent, but must be conserved and recovered.)

(For a look at how the natural range of variation might work under the 2012 Planning Rule see Table A-2, “Desired conditions for natural community types.”)

Rim Fire, logging and spotted owls

by

Here is some timely recent research on what happens to spotted owls after a fire, in particular the Rim Fire which comes up often on this blog (thank you, Larry).  That discussion has often dealt with the effects of post-fire salvage logging, such as the discussion here.  This research discusses the effect of the condition of the forest before the fire on its value to owls after the fire.

This is important because of the argument by some that fires are bigger threat to the owls than cutting down trees to reduce fire risk.  I’ve only looked at this overview and the linked abstract, but it seemed like enough to generate some discussion.  In particular, it contrasts the pre-fire management of Yosemite National Park and the adjacent Stanislaus National Forest.

From the abstract:

Spotted owls persisted and nested within the fire perimeter throughout the four post-fire years of our study at rates similar to what we observed in areas of Yosemite that were unaffected by the fire…  Prior to the fire, spotted owls selected for areas of high canopy cover relative to the rest of the landscape; after the fire, even though territory centers shifted substantially from pre-fire locations, pre-fire canopy cover remained a stronger predictor of spotted owl presence than post-fire canopy cover, or any other pre- or post-fire habitat variables we assessed.

So removing canopy cover, which seems to be one of the goals of fuel reduction, would not benefit the owls even if it reduces fire risk, and it would adversely affect them whether there is a fire or not.

From the lead author:

California Spotted Owls can tolerate forest fire, but Schofield cautions that not all fires are created equal. Yosemite’s forests have not been commercially logged since the early 1900s and fire suppression efforts since the 1970s have been kept to a minimum. This results in a forest structure and fire regime that is distinct from what is found outside of the park.

“In Yosemite there is a diversity of forest habitat” explains Schofield, “This means the Rim Fire burned with a diversity of severities creating a range of post-fire habitat for owls to choose from.” The study notes that in portions of the adjacent Stanislaus National Forest that were also burned by the Rim Fire, burn severity was more homogenous likely due to the contrasting logging and fire management regime on the National Forest.

 

 

NFS Litigation Weekly August 29, 2020

by

The Forest Service summaries are here:  Litigation Weekly August 21_28 2020 Email Final

Related court documents are included as a link below.

COURT DECISIONS

Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. USFS (D. Idaho)- On August 11, 2020, the district court ruled against the Forest Service on the Lost Creek-Boulder Creek Landscape Restoration Project on the Payette National Forest.  The court held that the Forest failed to explain how changing the desired conditions (without amending the forest plan) would achieve the existing desired condition and therefore it violated the forest plan.  (Plaintiffs version of the story is here.  We had a long discussion of the Ninth Circuit’s decision on the original project here.)

  • (No linked court documents)

United States of America v. Robertson (D. Montana) – On August 7, 2020, the district court of Montana found defendant liable for trespass and damages associated with the White Pine patented mining claim on the Beaverhead-Deer Lodge National Forest.

Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. Grantham (E.D. Cal.) — On August 12, 2020, the district court issued a Stipulation for Dismissal without Prejudice regarding the Crawford Vegetation Project on the Klamath National Forest because the Forest Service withdrew the decision.  (We discussed the issues in this case here.)

Los Padres Forest Watch v. U.S. Forest Service (C.D. Cal.) – On August 20, 2020, the district court upheld the Tecuya Ridge Shaded Fuelbreak Project on the Los Padres National Forest, which used the categorical exclusion for “timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities.”  (We had an even longer discussion of this case here.)

NEW CASES

Center for Biological Diversity v. Leverete (D. D.C.) — On August 5, 2020 the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service concerning the 4-year extension of 13 prospecting permits on the Superior National Forest to Twin Metals Minnesota LLC, for proposed sulfide-ore copper mine at the edge of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.  (This is the latest of many lawsuits related to mining there, including this one (Campaign to Save the Boundary Waters) and this one (Wilderness Society.  This article includes a map.)

Round v. USDA (D. Colo.)- On July 17, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint claiming property rights in grazing allotments and improvements on the Pike and San Isabel National Forest, Cimarron and Comanche National Grasslands.

State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game v. Federal Subsistence Board (D. Alaska) —  The Forest Service and BLM were included in this complaint filed on August 10, 2020 involving the operation and decisions of the Board regarding native and non-native hunting rights on federal lands.

Nez Perce Tribe v. Midas Gold Corp (D. Idaho) — On August 18, 2020 Midas Gold (defendant) in this case, filed a proposed Third Party motion against the Forest Service to join this case, or in the alternate, to consolidate this case with the action Midas Gold Idaho, Inc. v. United States, concerning the Stibnite Gold Project on the Payette and Boise National Forests and alleged violations of the Clean Water Act by the Forest Service.

OTHER CASES

  • (No linked court documents, but the complaint is here.)

Citizens for a Healthy Community v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. Colo.) – On August 19, 2020 the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the BLM, concerning the agency’s approval of a revised Resource Management Plan for BLM’s Uncompahgre Field Office (UFO) in southwestern Colorado, which opens 871,810 acres of BLM, other federal lands and private mineral rights to oil and gas leases.  (Here is some local coverage.)

 

BLOGGER’S BONUS

(New case.)  The Cottonwood Environmental Law Center has sued the Custer-Gallatin National Forest for failing to reconsider its 1987 forest plan direction based on new scientific information about the ineffectiveness of fuel treatments on wildfire prior to implementing these projects. (The forest plan is currently being revised.)

(Other agency court decision.)  NRDC v. U. S. Department of the Interior – On August 11, 2020, a federal district court in New York ruled that the unintentional or incidental “take” of migratory birds is a crime under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.  The law is best known for its use in fining those responsible for large oil spills, with the money being used for restoration purposes, but it can come up in Forest Service litigation.  The Forest Service has an MOU with the Fish and Wildlife Service obligating it to “address the conservation of migratory bird habitat and populations when developing, amending, or revising management plans for national forests and grasslands…”

National forests in the presidential campaign

by

I found two articles in my newsfeed this morning from sources I have rarely or never heard from, and on both sides of the political canyon.  Both are related to the respective campaigns.

People for the American Way used a Forest Service case to make their point about the risk of more conservative judges being nominated by a Republican administration.  Here’s the headline: “Trump Judge Tries to Permit Forest Service to Proceed with Commercial Logging of Trees Without Assessing Environmental Impact: Confirmed Judges Confirmed Fears.”  They provide a reasonable summary of EPIC v. Carlson (which we reported here), but attack the dissent written by the Trump appointee, saying, “If it had been up to Trump judge Lee, however, that would not be the case, risking significant environmental injury.”

I’m not sure there is anything particularly unusual about this case – traditionally conservative judges seem to be more willing to defer to agency expertise (though Trump refers to agency expertise as “the swamp”).  I do think it is unusual for a national forest lawsuit to be dragged into a presidential campaign.

Then there was the logger who spoke at the Republican National Convention, and was featured in Breitbart.

“Under Obama-Biden, radical environmentalists were allowed to kill the forests,” Dane said.

“Under President Trump, we’ve seen a new recognition of the value of forest management in reducing wildfires,” Dane said. “And we’ve seen new support for our way of life—where a strong back and a strong work ethic can build a strong middle class.”

“We want to build families where we’re raised and stand by communities that have stood by us,” Dane said. “We want that way of life available for the next generation, and we want our forests there too.”

The debates about the “value of forest management in reducing wildfires” of course haven’t been settled.  But I’m more interested here in the idea that it should be the role of government to perpetuate anyone’s industry, job, hometown or “way of life,” logging in particular.  (I always thought Republicans wanted to limit the role of government.)

BLM apparently leaderless

by

 

Speaking of “politicals” making decisions, here is the latest on one of them, following the announcement that BLM’s acting director would not be nominated for the position.

The Trump administration’s method of keeping the controversial acting head of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in power even after his nomination is withdrawn is likely not legal, according to experts who have reviewed the orders.

But Pendley is still running the agency because of succession orders dictating that the acting chief will lead the department if the director role remains unfilled.

Legal experts say the succession orders are dubious because the officials whose tenure has been questioned are the ones assigning themselves their new positions. The order was written and signed by Pendley, essentially giving himself the authority to act as director.

That runs afoul of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act and allegedly the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.  This law limits temporary appointments to 210 days.  Not mentioned in this article is the consequence of such an illegal appointment, which is  – (Congressional Research Report, citing 5 U.S.C. § 3348(d)):

Unless an acting officer is serving in compliance with the Vacancies Act, any attempt to perform the functions and duties of that office will have no force or effect.

The most direct means to enforce the Vacancies Act is through private suits in which courts may nullify noncompliant agency actions…  The Vacancies Act renders noncompliant actions “void ab initio,” meaning that they were “null from the beginning,” by providing that such actions have “no force or effect.”

Do you suppose anyone might sue to void any of Pendley’s illegal political decisions?

NFS Litigation Weekly August 14, 2020

by

The Forest Service summaries are here:  Litigation Weekly August 14 2020 Email

(There were no cases summarized last week.)

Related court documents are linked to each summary below.

COURT DECISION

In Environmental Protection Information Center v. Carlson, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction of the Ranch Fire Roadside Hazard Tree Project on the Mendocino National Forest.  The court held that under no reasonable interpretation of the language of 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(d)(4) did the project come within the CE for “repair and maintenance” of roads.  (A similar issue was addressed in Earth Island Institute v. Elliott, discussed here.)

Blogger’s note:  The court made an interesting observation in weighing the interests for and against an injunction:

As Forest Supervisor Carlson points out in her declaration, revenue from the Project will allow the Forest Service to pay for the felling of such trees. This is a valid and important point, but we note the obvious: A budgetary system that requires the authorization of commercial salvage logging operations in order to finance work necessary for public safety can put the Forest Service in an awkward and conflicted position in deciding whether, and under what conditions, to authorize such operations.

I guess the point is that the Forest Service set up this system so they are responsible for any harm associated with it.

NOTICE OF INTENT

The Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) received a 60-day Notice of Intent by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Friends of the Bitterroot to sue the agencies regarding the Gold Butterfly Project on the Bitterroot National Forest, stating that the project area is within the habitat of the grizzly bear, wolverine, and bull trout.  (A complaint has already been filed regarding non-ESA issues, as described here for Friends of the Bitterroot v. Anderson.)

NFS Litigation Weekly July 10 to July 24, 2020

by

Forest Service summaries are found here:  Litigation Weekly July 24 2020 Email

Links to court documents are provided for each case below.

COURT DECISIONS

Helena Hunters and Anglers Association v. Marten.  On July 1, 2020, the District Court for Montana issued an order against the Forest Service regarding the Tenmile South Project on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest. The court determined that the Forest Service  violated the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and NEPA, and also ESA regarding the effect of new recreational trails on grizzly bears.  This case was also included here.

Sawtooth Mountain Ranch LLC v. United States Forest Service. On June 30, 2020, the District Court for Idaho denied the plaintiff’s second motion for preliminary injunction seeking to halt construction on the Stanley to Redfish Trail Project on the Sawtooth National Forest.

Sierra Trail Dogs Motorcycle and Recreation Club v. U.S. Forest Service. (On July 6, 2020, the District Court of Nevada issued a decision favorable to the Forest Service regarding the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest’s Greater Sage-grouse Bi-State Distinct Population Segment Forest Plan Amendment, concerning an off-highway vehicle use standard.  This case was also referenced here.

Friends of the Clearwater v. Higgins. On July 13, 2020, the District Court of Idaho denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction concerning the Brebner Flat Project on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest. The court determined that the plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the merits on their Endangered Species Act claims concerning the project’s potential impacts on the grizzly bear and Canada lynx, but not the irreparable harm needed for an injunction.

NEW CASES

Friends of the Clearwater v. Christiansen. On June 26, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court of Idaho against the Forest Service and National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the Record of Decision that was signed on July 1, 2019, and the Biological Opinion and Incidental Take Statements related to listed steelhead, authorizing the Lolo Insect and Disease Project on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests.  This case was also included here.

Friends of the Bitterroot v. Anderson.  On July 10, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court of Montana against the Forest Service regarding the Gold Butterfly Project on the Bitterroot National Forest, and a project-specific forest plan amendment for standards relating to elk habitat effectiveness and elk habitat objectives.  On July 2, plaintiffs also sent the Forest Service a 60-day Notice of Intent to sue over the project’s potential effects on grizzly bears, wolverines and bull trout.  More background is provided here.

Board of County Commissioners of the County of Pitkin Colorado, v. Rock Creek Association.  On July 1, 2020, the plaintiff filed a complaint in the District Court of Colorado against the Forest Service and Rock Creek Association concerning public access to the Wild Rose Ranch Subdivision through a right-of-way in Pitkin County on the White River National Forest.

 

BLOGGER’S BONUS

On July 6, 2020, a U.S. magistrate judge recommended that a Bureau of Land Management prescribed burning project in the Elkhorn Mountains, Iron Mask, be halted as a court case proceeds.

California v. Bernhardt.  On July 15, 2020, the Northern District of California federal district court vacated the BLM’s 2018 rule regulating methane waste, which had rescinded a more restrictive 2016 rule.

“The Court details herein the myriad inadequacies upon which the Rescission is based. First, the Court provides the factual and procedural background and the legal framework for its decision. (Sections I and II.) In Section III, the Court analyzes the statutory mandate of the Mineral Leasing Act and BLM’s attempt to narrow the same by employing a new economic definition of “waste” which the Court finds to have been arbitrary. Section IV then explains how BLM’s actions in the rulemaking process failed to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act. Section V focuses on BLM’s failure to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”). Finally, in Section VI, the Court explains how, given the circumstances, no reason exists to depart from the standard remedy of vacatur.”

The Center for Biological Diversity sued the Trump administration on July 21 for failing to release public records on the termination of a program to restore grizzly bears to the North Cascades in Washington (a lawsuit against the decision was noted here). The Center filed its initial Freedom of Information Act request in December 2017.

Public lands litigation news, early July, 2020

by

While we (maybe) await further news of what the Forest Service thinks is news, here’s some of what I’ve seen.  Some others we’ve looked at already:

Bi-state sage-grouse

Mexican spotted owl

North Cascades grizzly bears  (see comments)

FOREST SERVICE

In a case that has been discussed here a number of times (such as here) The Montana federal district court found that the Forest Service had acted in “bad faith” on the Ten Mile-South Helena project on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, finding that it would require reconstruction of old roads in an area protected by the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.   The judge refused to defer to the agency:

“The matter is not one that involves specialized or expert knowledge,” Christensen wrote. “The problem is basic geometry. A vehicle with a wheelbase 9 to 11 feet wide requires a road similarly wide. The Lazyman area does not contain a network of preexisting roads 9 to 11 feet wide. Therefore, bringing this equipment into the area will require the Forest Service to widen the roads.”

The judge also held that the project would require additional NEPA analysis after changing it to allow mechanized logging equipment, and the Forest would need to consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the impacts to grizzly bears of proposed trails that would allow mountain bikes.  Plaintiffs’ takes on the opinion are here and here.

The first week of July, the Friends of the Clearwater and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies filed a lawsuit against the Lolo Insect and Disease Project on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest, which calls for logging across 3,380 acres in 30 harvest units.  The Plaintiffs’ perspective, focusing on the threatened Snake River Basin steelhead, is here (the National Marine Fisheries Service is a co-defendant).

Remember that pipeline that the Supreme Court just said could be built on national forest lands and under the Appalachian Trail (in Cowpasture River Preservation Association v. U. S. Forest Service)?  On July 5, developers of the Atlantic Coast natural gas pipeline announced they are canceling the project, blaming legal setbacks and economic uncertainty.

OTHER AGENCIES

On June 29, the Center for Biological Diversity and Healthy Gulf filed a notice of intent to sue the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to develop recovery plans for the endangered reticulated and frosted flatwoods salamanders.  (The lack of a recovery plan for the latter was an issue during the Francis Marion National Forest’s forest plan revision, and arguably influenced its ability to contribute to recovery.)

On July 1, WildEarth Guardians and Wilderness Workshop sued the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service over its failure to take any action in response to a 2016 court order striking down the agency’s exclusion of Canada lynx habitat in the species’ entire southern Rocky Mountain range from designation as critical habitat.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on July 9 in McGirt v. Oklahoma that much of Oklahoma’s tribal lands had never been rescinded, and that the state had no criminal jurisdiction over those lands. However, some Indian law experts believe the ruling may lead to more civil and regulatory oversight by tribal governments on land within historic reservation boundaries.  This article cites an example of Mt. Graham, now part of the Coronado National Forest.

On July 14, conservation and landowner groups filed a new lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s approval of the Keystone XL tar-sands pipeline to be constructed on federal BLM lands in Montana. The complaint asserts that the reviews by the BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service under the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act are riddled with the same errors and omissions as earlier versions deemed insufficient by a federal court in 2018.

Stanislaus spotted owl plan amendment

by
Photo of female and juvenile California spotted owl courtesy of University of California Cooperative Extension (http://ucanr.org/sites/spottedowl/).

We recently looked at the Biological Assessment of Northwest Forests, and the options for proceeding with revising forest plans currently governed by the Northwest Forest Plan. Some of those options involved amendments to existing plans prior to plan revision. I voiced support for amendments that would provide the ecological conditions needed for at-risk species. I thought this might be an example to look at for how that might go.

The Stanislaus National Forest is not in the area covered by this assessment. Its forest plan was originally completed in 1991, but it was amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (or Framework) in 2004, which is roughly analogous to the Northwest Forest Plan in that it had its origins in the work done to protect the California spotted owl (it has its own complicated political and legal history). Now the Stanislaus is proposing an amendment for a part of the Forest in conjunction with what it calls the Social and Ecological Resilience Across the Landscape (SERAL) project.

The Forest has identified a need to change the forest plan based on new information about the California spotted owl, as published in 2019 by the Forest Service in the “Conservation Strategy for the California Spotted Owl in the Sierra Nevada.”

In order to fully adopt and implement the management direction described in the Conservation Strategy and increase landscape resiliency as guided by NRV the Stanislaus National Forest’s forest LRMP must be amended. The proposed forest plan amendments would allow the SERAL project’s proposed landscape restoration treatments to best meet the purpose and need of the project and implement the guiding principles of the 2019 California Spotted Owl Conservation Strategy. The proposed amendments include standards and guidelines which will provide some immediate stability for individual owls while allowing forest management the ability to conduct treatments designed to help develop resilient habitat conditions that provide CSO conservation in the long term.

Unfortunately, the CSO Conservation Strategy was apparently written for a narrower purpose than its name implies:

The California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) Conservation Strategy is a strategic framework for active conservation of the California spotted owl on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada.

It appears to be something less than a scientific strategy. By limiting the focus to “active conservation” it has failed to address the central debate about managing spotted owl habitat regarding when active management should even be used. Passive management is one obvious alternative to this amendment that the Forest is going to have to address in its amendment process. But I looked at some of the proposed changes in the forest plan.

The current plan designates spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) as management areas in the forest plan (which could be changed only by amending the forest plan). This proposed amendment would replace current management areas with guidelines to designate PACs later “in advance of any management activities that would reduce CSO nesting and roosting habitat quality.” The guidelines include criteria for delineating and changing PAC boundaries.

My opinion: This is not a coarse filter management strategy based on vegetation because it depends on actual owl presence based on surveys, or one might call it “condition-based.”  If owl presence is the kind of thing that changes frequently, this may be a reason to not designate permanent management areas at the plan level.  However, this creates the risk of cutting the public out of the part of the process that actually determines the locations for management.  The plan is no longer saying, “here is where we’ll manage for owls,” but instead, “we’ll manage for owls where we think we need to manage for owls, trust us.”  The criteria must be explicit and objective enough to fully evaluate at the plan level, and the decisions about whether and how to apply them at the project level must include the public. Given the importance that surveying would take on, there is no excuse for these being guidelines rather than standards. It seems to me that the certainty of owl protection, and therefore the viability of the species, is going to be reduced.

There are a lot of new plan components in the amendment, and the CSO Conservation Strategy is page-referenced for most of them. That’s how any conservation strategy should be used, so maybe this is a good example of that. Except that it strikes me that this “conservation strategy” may have actually been written as a “drop-in” amendment to be used this way (which makes that kind of cross-referencing a lot easier). This is similar to what would happen if plan amendments were developed that could be later “dropped in” to forest plan revisions. The problem is that if the “conservation strategy” is already a management-influenced document and not a science document, there would still need to be a reference to the actual scientific basis for these conservation recommendations that are being adopted.

Anyway, this project/amendment will be worth watching as it applies the 2012 Planning Rule diversity requirements to California spotted owls. And it may be setting some precedents for what could happen regarding how to plan for management of spotted owl habitat on other national forests.

It’s National Forest Week – so let’s think about forest planning for tribal areas

by

But we all knew that, right?  Here’s the National Forest Foundation link.

But here’s the rest of the story:

It’s National Forest Week, and members of the Crow Tribe are celebrating recognition of a special place in Montana.

In the U.S. Forest Service’s final draft of its Custer Gallatin National Forest plan released last week, the agency recognized the cultural and spiritual significance of the Crazy Mountains, designating it an “Area of Tribal Interest.”

The Custer Gallatin plan recognizes only the southern part of the Crazies. The Forest Service did not include the cultural significance of the northern part in its Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest plan from May.

Ideally, Doyle (a Crow tribal member) said, the tribe would like to see both sections recognized, but he noted that the region in the Custer Gallatin National Forest is most significant.

Why?  If there was one thing that everyone involved in developing planning regulations agreed on, it was that management direction should not change just because of an administrative boundary with a different staff member in charge.  And now this.  Two adjacent forest plan revisions, on roughly the same schedule, and different ideas about what?  Maybe there’s some legitimate resource reasons, but here’s the extent of the plan components for this area (and they don’t require much):

Desired Conditions (BC-DC-TRIBAL)

01 The Crazy Mountains embody a tribal cultural landscape significant to ongoing traditional cultural practices of the Crow Tribe.

02 Research, education, and interpretation of the Crazy Mountain tribal cultural landscape provides public benefits and enhances the understanding and appreciation of Crazy Mountain’s natural environment, precontact, contact, and Crow traditional cultural values.

Goals (BC-GO-TRIBAL)

01 The Custer Gallatin National Forest protects and honors Crow treaty obligations, sacred land and traditional use in the Crazy Mountains through continued consultation with the Crow Tribe.

This is not the only “area of tribal interest” on the Custer-Gallatin.  The Helena-Lewis and Clark plan has plan components for “areas of tribal importance,” but does not identify them (other than the Badger-Two Medicine area).  The plan dedicates one descriptive sentence to the tribal history in the Crazy Mountains.  So, again, how does the Forest Service explain the line they have drawn here?

(Related to the consistency idea, there was a lot of debate about whether plan decisions should be made by forest supervisors or regional foresters.  The Forest Service went with the former (I was told so the Chief wouldn’t be involved in objections), and this is the kind of problem they created.)