Jon Haber

Public land developers getting financial pushback

by

An interesting observation from the Washington Post.  As investors become more enlightened about the financial risks caused by climate change they are starting to hold corporations accountable.  That includes their operations on public lands – and litigation is part of the risk.

A dozen-and-a-half senators wrote letters to 11 of the largest U.S. banks asking them to back down from financing any oil and gas activity in an unspoiled expanse of Arctic wilderness.

“The scale of your banks’ assets individually, let alone together, give you the ability to drive change in protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in shifting towards a U.S. financial sector that effectively analyzes and plans for climate risks,” the group of a senators, led by Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), told Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and six other banks in a letter sent last Thursday.

Democrats hope these banks follow the lead of one key peer: In December, Goldman Sachs said it is ruling out financing new drilling or oil exploration in the entire Arctic.

The world’s largest asset management firm, BlackRock, said last month it would divest from coal burned in power plants and make climate change a “defining factor” of its investing strategy.

And just last week, a group of investors representing nearly $113 billion in assets under management issued a similar letter to energy, mining and timber companies. Their warning: Don’t invest in certain federally controlled areas once protected but now open to development by the Trump administration.

These areas include not only the oil-rich Arctic refuge but also Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, the largest intact temperate rainforest where the U.S. Forest Service wants to allow new logging, (discussed here) and Minnesota’s Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (the Twin Metals mine litigation is discussed here), a popular lake-pocked forest near where the administration wants to allow a copper and nickel mining operation.

The institutional investors, which include several religious funds as well as a fund established by the late oil heir David Rockefeller, warned companies that many of the administration’s rollbacks of public land protections are legally precarious, and may be struck down by the courts or the next presidential administration. The letter went out to ExxonMobil, the timber company Weyerhaeuser and 56 other firms, according to Reuters.

“Many of these projects are mired in litigation,” the letter stated, “challenging the legality of any current or future industrial activity initiated in these regions and providing evidence of the risks associated with conducting commercial development on lands that the American public has deemed valuable for protection.”

The institutional investor letter also mentioned other areas, including protected sage grouse habitat (litigation discussed here) and the national monuments that have been reduced in size by the Trump Administration that are also under litigation (discussed here).  Here’s the latest on that.

January 2020 Litigation, Part 2

by

(Court decision/update)  The Northern District of California District Court has denied plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction (and removed a temporary restraining order) for Ranch Fire salvage projects on the Mendocino National Forest using the road maintenance categorical exclusion addressed previously here.  An appeal has been filed with the 9th Circuit.

  • Atlantic Coast Pipeline

(Update)  The hearing in the Supreme Court is scheduled for February 24. At issue is the green light that the U.S. Forest Service gave the Atlantic Coast Pipeline to cross the Appalachian Trail within the George Washington National Forest.  The key question is whether the Appalachian Trail comprises “lands in the National Park System,” which would preclude the Forest Service from making this decision because of language in the Mineral Leasing Act.  The pipeline is also being blocked by failure to comply with ESA for the rusty patched bumblebee, and a draft recovery plan has just been released.

(Update) This case involving the Caribou-Targhee National Forest was filed last summer, and briefing in the District Court of Idaho is scheduled this spring. The plaintiffs believe the vegetation treatments scheduled for this summer to improve forage would come at the expense of wildlife, especially sharp-tailed grouse, and that a categorical exclusion is improper due to the area’s “wilderness value and roadless value.”  Plaintiffs say this is one of the first cases where the Forest Service is trying to test the Idaho Roadless Rule.

(Update)  The BLM in Colorado has dropped some of the parcels from its planned leases because they are not available under the 2015 sage grouse amendments to its land use plan.  They were made available by the 2019 changes to the amendments, but those were enjoined in October in Western Watersheds v. Schneider.  They have also deferred other parcels as a result of an October lawsuit against the BLM Grand Junction Field Office’s new resources management plan.  (There’s a picture of the new BLM Headquarters.)

(Settlement)  Plaintiffs have settled a lawsuit filed in a California state court against Placer County’s approval of a gondola connecting two ski resorts on the Tahoe National Forest.   The agreement was finalized as part of the Forest Service’s final approval of the gondola that will skirt the Granite Chief Wilderness Area, which is home to the endangered Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog.  The proponents agreed to permanently protect 27 acres of frog habitat and contribute about $500,000 over the next decade toward land purchases and other protection efforts.

Tahoe plan amendment for use of wildfires

by

 

(Not in the American Planning Association context of this publication, but in the NFMA context of national forests.)

I was alerted to the Tahoe situation by this supportive opinion piece in a local paper, which includes a link to the project record for the proposed plan amendment.  It provides an opportunity for a look at how fire management, and in particular wildfire management for resource benefits, should be addressed in national forest planning.  Fire and planning have had a rocky relationship in the Forest Service over the years, but here’s some current guidance.

Guidance for Implementation of Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (February 2009) includes this:

Management response to a wildland fire on federal land is based on objectives established in the applicable Land/ Resource Management Plan and/or the Fire Management Plan.

Fire Management Plans, programs, and activities support land and resource management plans and their implementation.

The L/RMP will define and identify fire’s role in the ecosystem. The response to an ignition is guided by the strategies and objectives outlined in the L/RMP and/or the Fire Management Plan.

Values to be protected from and/or enhanced by wildland fire are defined in the L/RMP and/or the Fire Management Plan.

Wildland fire will be used to protect, maintain, and enhance resources and, as nearly as possible, be allowed to function in its natural ecological role. Use of fire will be based on L/RMP and associated Fire Management Plans and will follow specific prescriptions contained in operational plans.

Fire Management Plans are strategic plans that define a program to manage wildland fires based on the area’s approved land management plan.

The 2014 National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy required by the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act of 2009 (FLAME Act), includes as a priority, “increasing use of wildland fire.”  Figure 3.4 shows a national map: “Spatial pattern of counties where options for managing wildfires
for resource objectives and ecological purposes might prove useful.”

The Forest Service Planning Handbook advises (among other things, §23.11c):

Standards or guidelines.  The plan may include standards or guidelines related to basic smoke management practices, non-fire fuels treatments, post-fire rehabilitation, prescribed fire treatments, and wildland fire responses.  A guideline or standard may provide guidance on when or how a specific tool is appropriate.

Here is the language from the current Tahoe forest plan (a standard):

Fire suppression strategy is control (with fast, aggressive initial attack) except where the contain strategy is authorized for specific management areas at fire intensity levels described under the practice description. Strength of attack will be based on hazard rating, fire weather, and values at risk.

The exceptions:

The Forest Plan allows Fire Managers to utilize fire for resource benefits in only a few limited areas of the Forest and only if the fire can be contained within an isolated fuelbed of 5 acres or less, a situation rarely encountered and at a scale too small to achieve meaningful ecological restoration or other resource benefits.

Here is the comparable language proposed for the amendment (a guideline):

Use naturally- (lightning-) caused wildfire ignitions to meet multiple resource objectives when and where conditions permit and risk is within acceptable limits. Multiple resource objectives include: re-introducing fire as a necessary ecological process; enhancing plant and wildlife habitat, including critical habitat for threatened and endangered species; improving forest health, conserving ecosystem services; managing smoke emissions; reducing fuel loading; and/or protecting communities and infrastructure.

So this all sounds like an improvement, but nowhere in the proposal or the discussion of the proposal does the Forest mention the role of the forest plan.  The “multiple resource objectives” should come from there.  They list 14 factors, and the only one that indirectly implicates the forest plan is “cultural and natural values at risk.”  A simple fix to the proposed guideline would be to use such ignitions to “achieve the desired conditions and objectives of the forest plan,” and add to the factor “… values at risk based on the forest plan.”  That should go without saying, but by failing to mention the plan, it suggests that decisions about prescribed wildfires could be made without reference to that document.  The forest plan may not be the first thing that comes to mind when a fire starts, but management of a fire, like everything else a national forest does, must be consistent with the applicable forest plan.

I do like the direct approach the Tahoe is taking with the smoke issue.

While the amendment could have short-term adverse effects on certain resources, for example, air quality, its effects would be largely beneficial by restoring the ecological role of fire and protecting forests and communities from the significant adverse effects of large-scale, uncharacteristic wildfire.

The proposed amendment is aimed at restoring air quality (36 CFR 219.8(a)(2)(i) by serving to offset smoke emissions from large, uncharacteristic wildfires

 

When forest plans are revised, a more comprehensive approach should be taken.  This will give you an idea what the Inyo has done.

 

Trump Administration takes on BLM planning

by

An internal BLM document (linked below) may be the first step in revising the agency’s planning regulations (Planning 3.0?).  The proposal to remove NEPA requirements for land management plans is getting some attention.

The BLM may propose a land use planning rule that will “remove NEPA requirements from the planning regulations,” referring to the National Environmental Policy Act, according to the document on possible changes to such rules that was shared with states and former BLM officials.

The U.S. Forest Service similarly attempted to exempt national forest plans from NEPA during the George W. Bush administration, but a federal court struck down that effort in Citizens for Better Forestry v. USDA in 2007 because it violated NEPA and other federal laws.

“If the BLM proceed with this proposal, it will certainly be challenged, and I suspect that, like the FS [Forest Service], the BLM will lose,” Mark Squillace, a natural resources law professor at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said.

But it looks good to try, I guess. Current BLM regulations require an EIS for its plans, and the Forest Service explicitly required an EIS for forest plan revisions in its 2012 Planning Rule after its earlier rules were struck down for trying to avoid NEPA compliance.  This effort by BLM is in addition to the recent proposed changes in the CEQ NEPA regulations discussed here.

Here’s a little background on BLM planning requirements:

Dec. 12, 2016 BLM publishes its Planning 2.0 Rule, which updates land use planning procedures.

Feb. 7, 2017 The House of Representatives passes a resolution to repeal the rule under the Congressional Review Act (CRA).

March 7, 2017 The Senate passes a resolution to repeal the rule under the CRA.

March 28, 2017 President Trump signs the resolution disapproving the rule. Under the CRA, BLM may not promulgate a rule that is “substantially the same.”

(Maybe we’ll get to see lawsuits about what “substantially the same” means.)

January 2020 Litigation, Part 1

by

Court decision:  The 9th Circuit held that the Olympic National Forest decision to grant a special use permit to the Navy for electronic warfare training was consistent with the forest plan, after allowing documents outside of the administrative record that showed they had considered the availability of private land.

Court decision:  The 9th Circuit upheld the Lostine Project on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.  The use of a categorical exclusion was proper under HFRA, the project met its requirements for collaboration, and it was consistent with the forest plan.  (The court did not review the facts of the case, but they were discussed here.)

  • Oil & gas fracking

New lawsuit:  The State of California and several environmental groups have filed lawsuits against a BLM decision that removed a moratorium on fracking on lands in central California, including some adjacent to national forests.  (The second link includes a map.)

New lawsuit:  Environmental groups have challenged  EPA’s failure to complete plans to address smog related to fracking in 11 states.  “Sensitive tree species at risk from ozone pollution include black cherry, quaking aspen, cottonwood and ponderosa pine, which provides critical habitat for threatened species such as the Mexican spotted owl and Pawnee montane skipper.”

Settlement implementation:  The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has formally announced a 5-year review of the status of grizzly bears, as agreed to in a partial settlement of litigation mentioned here.  This is part of a lawsuit which “ultimately aims to build a plan to eventually bring grizzly bears to more places, including the Sierra Nevada” according to this article.

Notice of Intent:  The Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Yellowstone to Uintas Connection sent a required 60-day notice to sue to the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  They argue that 18 miles of pipeline on national forest land may affect grizzly bears and other listed species.  The application of the Idaho Roadless Rule is also involved.

Update:  The D. C. Court of Appeals heard arguments in a lawsuit filed by Solenex LLC to reverse its lease cancellation on the Lewis and Clark National Forest.  Environmental groups and the Blackfeet Nation have appealed on the side of the government.

Update:  The Quiet Title Act claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because there is insufficient evidence that the Forest Service has asserted ownership in plaintiff’s land adjacent to the Sawtooth National Recreation Area as part of constructing a trail on an easement across plaintiff’s land.  (Other claims remain pending.)

 

 

Bats and bighorns and bears (oh my?)

by

Two of these were originally posted as comments related to other posts and the third I would have, but Sharon intimated that they might not get noticed there, so here they are at the top end of a post.

BATS

We were discussing how the wolverine is most affected by climate change, and yet ESA requires mitigation of other less harmful activities that we have more control over. The effect of an introduced disease on bats also came up there.  A federal judge has just overturned a decision by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect northern long-eared bats as threatened rather than endangered under the Endangered Species Act.  Here’s the Center for Biodiversity’s read-out of the judge’s opinion (there’s a link to the opinion, but I haven’t read it):

The Service argued that since the species was primarily threatened by disease, there was no need to protect its habitat.  But the court rightly noted that, in combination with disease, habitat destruction and other threats can cumulatively affect the bats, and thus are cause for concern.

It’s a point of contention these days whether climate change should be a factor in listing decisions when there is little likelihood of reducing its effects, but the law says it’s important to address and potentially mitigate other actions that may harm the species.

BIGHORNS

The Bridger-Teton National Forest is considering a restocking request for returning domestic sheep to two vacated allotments in the Wyoming Range.  It hinges on changing the forest plan to deemphasize protections for the Darby Mountain bighorn sheep herd. This would purportedly be consistent with the State of Wyoming’s bighorn plans.  The Forest is proposing to do a “focused amendment” to their forest plan,  but …

Bighorn advocates and conservationists who have watchdogged the restocking conversations wanted the Forest Service to instead deal with the issue in its forest plan (revision). The years-long revision process was supposedly coming up, though O’Connor said it’s now indefinitely on hold. Wyoming Wild Sheep Foundation Director Steve Kilpatrick said the Darby Mountain Herd deserves the longer, closer look.

I’m not sure the Forest is going to be able to do a “focused amendment” for this issue, since bighorn sheep should be a species of conservation concern under the 2012 Planning Rule, which warrants greater attention. Maybe this is a case where the inability to revise a forest plan is going to cause some problems. Then there is the question of why these allotments were vacant. The permittees were “bought out” through the efforts of the National Wildlife Federation (to protect bighorns?). Would they need to be paid back?

GRIZZLY BEARS

The discussion of reintroducing wolves to Colorado brought up the experience with grizzly bears in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in Montana and Idaho.  A reintroduction proposal was rejected in 2001, but at least two bears have been documented there in recent years.  Here is the recent news about that.  The Fish and Wildlife Service has written to the Forest Service that bears that have made it there are fully protected by the Endangered Species Act (not an experimental population). All four of these forests are revising or will soon revise their forest plans and will have to provide conditions to support grizzly bear recovery.  The Nez Perce-Clearwater is farthest along but has been avoiding doing that.

Carbon pollution and solution

by

I’ve said I try to stay out of climate change debates, but I’m trying to learn more.  I’m taking a retired-person class from a retired person well-known in climate change circles, Steven Running (google him), and I thought I’d share a couple of his many slides that I think say a lot about the role of forests in saving the planet from dangerously unpredictable climate changes.

For any doubters, the first slide shows the the role of human activities in raising the world’s temperature.  It’s basically all about us, and CO2 is the biggest problem.  The second slide shows the role of land  in CO2 emissions and sequestration.  The point is that when the atmosphere and the ocean must absorb the new emissions it causes the serious problems we are starting to see today.  That means we have to attack the three parts of this equation we have control over, the human sources of emissions and land-based carbon sequestration.  I suspect the answer is mostly “reduce the use of carbon fuels,” but maximizing the carbon content of land is going to be important, too.  Regarding forests, he has already said that planting trees can’t be done at the necessary scale, and cultivated biofuels are a net carbon source (though converting organic residue to energy would help).

Grand Canyon development proposal resurfaces on the Kaibab

by

We’ve discussed the use of land exchanges that would facilitate the growth of urban areas by giving them more private land in logical growth areas using the example of Las Vegas.  At a different scale, the town of Tusayan appears to be an inholding in the Kaibab National Forest, which limits its growth opportunities.  They have been looking at a proposal to develop a nearby separate inholding (which the town owns a part of).   It would require a special use permit to for roads and utilities to cross national forest lands.  It has been controversial (attracting unwanted attention according to the town; the 2nd Twitter link works), and the town has just approved a revised proposal, which will be submitted to the Forest Service.  The Kaibab National Forest rejected the last proposal in 2016 as inconsistent with the requirements for a special use permit.  Here is a part of the rationale that relates to the forest plan:

CFR 251.54(e)(l)(ii) requires that the proposed use must be consistent, or can be made consistent, with the Kaibab Forest Plan. The Forest Plan envisions management at a landscape­ scale by taking an “all-lands approach,” and specifies strategies to achieve the desired conditions and objectives in the Plan, including working closely with partners and across administrative boundaries to meet common objectives. The development that would be enabled by authorization of the proposed use of NFS lands could substantially and adversely affect Tribal lands and the Grand Canyon National Park.

36 CFR 251.54(e)(l)(v) provides that the proposed use must not unreasonably interfere with the use of adjacent non-National Forest System lands. The FS received written comments from the National Park Service (NPS) through the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Fish Wildlife and Parks which pointed out that potential impacts to the Outstanding Universal Value of the Grand Canyon National Park (GCNP), either from the roads that would be authorized by easement or the reasonably foreseeable development on the two private properties that would be enabled by the roads and other facilities, are of concern. The GCNP also raised concerns in a meeting regarding impacts on infrastructure that they share with the Town of Tusayan. The NPS was concerned that any activity that would result in significant increases in visitation or occupation near the Park would affect the Park’s capacity to absorb the additional use.

The first rationale is an interesting “all-lands” interpretation of its forest plan to encompass the objectives of the National Park Service and tribal lands.  The second rationale stands on its own, but it also explains what those interests are.  It’s not obvious that the recent modifications in the proposal are going to address these concerns, so I expect we’ll be seeing more about this.  (Here is the CBD take on the original proposal.)

Helena project clears the 9th Circuit, except for some “WUI”

by

Fine specimen of a real antique Morse code telegraph machine.Copyright: Photowitch | Dreamstime.com

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the Telegraph Vegetation Project on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, except for one question about the location of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI).  The case was previously described on this blog here.  That description included this allegation by plaintiffs:

Agency used non-federal definition of the Wildland Urban Interface 


“While the lynx amendment allows logging in the Wildland Urban Interface, it also defines the Wildlife Urban Interface to be within one mile of communities,” Garrity explained. “But the Forest Service used a new definition provided by local counties and then remapped the Wildland Urban Interface to include areas over five miles away from communities.”

The court remanded the decision for 50 acres of the 5000-acre plus area to be treated, and left the record of decision in place while the Forest Service completes its reevaluation:

“The Forest Service has acknowledged that it erred in calculating the wildland-urban interface for the project area. The Forest Service estimates that, once it has corrected its error, 50 acres of forest that it had planned to treat may no longer be eligible for treatment. If that estimate proves correct, the Forest Service represents that it will not treat those 50 acres. We grant the government’s request for a voluntary remand to allow the Forest Service to undertake the necessary reevaluation.”

I have been interested in how WUI is identified, by whom, and using what process under what authority – especially the role of non-federal parties.  WUI is generally  identified based on the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA).  Areas identified using that process qualify for streamlined projects in accordance with HFRA, and may be eligible for particular funding.  However (in accordance with HFRA), WUI projects are still subject to requirements of the governing forest plan.  Management direction for lynx is part of the forest plan, and this article (like plaintiffs) suggests it imposes greater restrictions on part of this project:

“In the second portion of the court’s order, the Forest Service proposed logging and thinning in areas defined as the “wildland-urban interface,” which is where houses or cabins meet the forest. Regulations related to lynx allow the removal of some trees and vegetation in lynx habitat if it falls within the wildland-urban interface and if the agency shows it is part of a wildfire mitigation project. The alliance inspected the area and reported only a handful of houses. The Forest Service conceded in court documents that it erred in calculating the size of the wild-land urban interface based on discrepancies between what qualifies.”

However, this actually indicates that the problem was in the definition of “community” (based the on number of houses), rather than the distance from one.  In fact, the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction refers to WUI “as defined by HFRA.”  Those definitions and criteria for “WUI” and “at risk community” are summarized by the Forest Service here.  Although which communities are to be included (they can self-identify) are mostly listed in the Federal Register, that doesn’t address their boundaries.  The district court opinion upheld the Forest Service WUI designation, stating that, “The Powell County Plan does not begin with the HFRA definition; it creates its own, “and “the Court is not persuaded by Council’s attempt to discredit the map provided by the Forest Service in the Telegraph Project EIS” based on that county plan. Yet it sounds like the map may have been wrong in this case.  This all reminds me of my take-home from my Forest Service days that “WUIs are fuzzy.”

Here’s why this might be important to planning.  I agree with the idea that forest plans (like the lynx direction) should identify areas with differences in long-term management that result from a wildland-urban influence.  However, if the WUI definition refers to another source (HFRA and a local plan), instead of being specifically defined in the plan itself through criteria and/or a map, there may be confusion about where and how the plan applies (as seems to be the case here).  (Yes I’m criticizing the lynx strategy for doing that; they didn’t take my advice.)  In addition, if external decisions about WUI locations change, the Forest Service may have to publicly consider whether to adopt that change in its forest plan (that situation wasn’t addressed in this case).  I’m also contrasting “decisions” with new “information” that affects how an existing decision applies (e.g. someone building a new house), which must be considered in a planning context but doesn’t necessarily trigger a plan amendment.  (A court has held that even changes in something like criteria for maps of lynx habitat must be considered in a public planning process when forest plan direction is tied to it.)

(The other issue addressed by the 9th Circuit in its short opinion was the ESA consultation process for grizzly bears.  The court approved a consultation process that tiered to forest plan decisions and consultation, which lead to streamlined project consultation.  The value of forest plan consultation has been questioned, but that value is evident here.)

 

Litigation news that didn’t make the NFS Litigation Weekly

by

 

COURT DECISIONS

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said EPA has failed to develop temperature limits as required under the Clean Water Act for the Pacific Northwest’s Columbia and Snake rivers to help endangered salmon and steelhead.  It directly affects Washington and Oregon, but could affect public land management in other states that do not have temperature limits, and especially with a warming climate.

UPDATES

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., heard oral arguments in a lawsuit that could determine the fate of the highly controversial copper-nickel mine that would be built near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness in the Superior National Forest.  The case centers on the terms of the Twin Metals leases, which were first issued in 1966 and renewed twice before the Obama Administration denied them and then the Trump Administration reinstated them.  A good summary and map.  Also, legislation has been introduced to prevent future mine proposals.

Congress passed a fiscal year 2020 spending bill that includes prohibiting the U.S. Forest Service from euthanizing healthy wild horses and burros and selling them for slaughter.   This is a direct response to the Forest Service’s plan to sell California wild horses captured in the Modoc National Forest without limitation on slaughter, which resulted in two lawsuits introduced here.

The parties have filed briefs in this case filed by local residents against a logging project on the White River National Forest.

A lawsuit against the BLM involving the entire range of the Tiehm’s buckwheat (described here) was settled when the mining proponent ceased exploration at the site, and the BLM subsequently terminated its formal exploration notices. The company also said it wouldn’t seek such approval again without notifying the conservation group

  • Fire liability

Two more settlements in a lawsuit arising from a 2013 prescribed burn on the Dakota Prairie National Grasslands that became a wildfire have taken the cost to the federal government to nearly $900,000. It burned 3,519 acres of private lands.  But in Colorado, a judge has recommended that the federal government be allowed to pursue its case against the Durango & Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad for its $25 million cost of fighting the 416 Fire, which started along the train’s tracks and burned more than 54,000 acres of mostly national forest lands in 2018.

OTHER LITIGATION

This is a Canadian case that pits a windfarm developer against a government that allegedly wants to discourage wind energy and used harm to bats as its reason for rejecting the proposal.  It is interesting because conservationists are supporting the developer. “We can have bats and green energy co-exist,” Dr. Baerwald said, arguing climate change, not wind power, is the greatest threat.

Three lawsuits have been filed against the state of Washington’s new timber plan, which a reduces timber harvest levels.  Lawsuits have been filed by the county, the forest industry and environmentalists.  The latter two are also challenging a related plan to conserve marbled murrelets, including consideration of climate change.