Jon Haber

The latest multiple-use

by

Pop-up shops!  What is a pop-up shop?  They are defined by someone who provides them as “temporary retail spaces that sell merchandise of any kind … Pop-up shops are taking over the retail world and rethinking traditional brick-and-mortar and big-box stores…”    The National Forest Foundation apparently had to jump on this bandwagon with Busch beer.  So here you go …. ,  a pop-top pop-up shop, coming to a national forest near you.

Conservation lands in many places have been overrun by crowds attracted by social media.  This seems like it has the same potential.  It would be interesting to look at the NEPA analysis for these permits.  (Do you suppose it’s in grizzly bear habitat?)

Mark Twain to eliminate hunting at request of state

by

Source

Of feral hogs that is.  In kind of a turnabout from typical conflicts between states and feds, this is a disagreement between the state and counties (and the hog hunting segment of the public).  (There was some discussion of federal regulation of hunting on the Kisatchie National Forest here.)

The State of Missouri is undertaking a trapping program, which they say that hunting interferes with.  The Forest Service is proposing to use its federal land management authority to issue a closure order to prohibit hunting of feral hogs on the Mark Twain National Forest.  From the Forest Service website linked to this article:

Mark Twain National Forest is proposing a Forest Closure Order to support interagency efforts to eliminate feral swine (also known as feral hogs) in Missouri. The Forest Closure Order would prevent the taking, pursuing or releasing of all feral swine on the forest. The only exception would apply to feral swine elimination efforts conducted by the interagency task force.

The proposal is in response to a Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) request to make policies consistent across all public lands in Missouri to halt the spread of feral swine and the resulting damage they cause. The State of Missouri feral swine elimination program bans all taking, pursuing or releasing of feral swine on state lands. The State asked the Forest Service and National Park Service for support as part of the Missouri Feral Hog Partnership. The proposed closure order would align lands managed by the Forest Service with the efforts of Missouri and other federal agencies, including USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

On the Kisatchie, the Forest Service used a forest plan amendment to provide long-term direction.  Here, the forest plan is not mentioned, so presumably the closure is viewed as short-term – until the hogs are gone, but from what I hear, good luck with that.

Racism in government

by

I thought I would share a question from a friend:

I am a US citizen, an immigrant, and a federal employee. If my boss told me to go home to my birth country and fix things there before I speak out about reforms in my agency’s work, would that be OK? Or if the chief of the forest service said those words, or Sunny Perdue said those words – would there be consequences for them? Or is this sort of speech OK in the workplace?

Maybe some agency heads will answer it for us?

Good Fire

by

Forest Service file photo

Headline:  “Officials showcase site of Bacon Rind Fire 1 year later” (on the Custer Gallatin National Forest in Montana).

Their main message was that, despite the fire’s size, it was ecologically beneficial to the landscape, exposing bare soil and giving way to the forest’s regeneration.

It’s good that they are showcasing this, presumably as a way to sell wildfires as a potential management tool – still, even with climate change and no “mechanical preparation.”  It’s too bad that these kinds of fires don’t get the same kind of media coverage as the “bad fires.”   Someone might start to think that maybe fuels reduction shouldn’t show up as the purpose for every thinning/logging project everywhere.  And that forest plans should provide guidance for where it is or isn’t desirable (such as desired fuel loads).

 

 

NFS Litigation Weekly July 10, 2019

by

 

Forest Service summaries:  2019_07_10_Draftv1 for distribution

COURT DECISIONS

The District Court of Oregon denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against a ten-year grazing permit on the Antelope Allotment on the Fremont-Winema National Forest.  This case was previously discussed here.

NEW CASES

A complaint was filed in the District Court of Idaho concerning the Rowley Canyon Wildlife Enhancement Project on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.  Here’s the viewpoint of plaintiff Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

NOTICE OF INTENT

The Alliance of the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystem Council filed a Notice of Intent to Sue under the Endangered Species Act regarding the Willow Creek Vegetation Management Project on the Helena – Lewis and Clark National Forest.  A complaint addressing other issues was filed previously and included here.

OTHER AGENCIES

A complaint was filed in the District Court of Colorado concerning BLM’s decision to approve the West Elk Mine expansion underlying roadless lands in the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National Forests.  The Forest Summary includes a 2013 complaint for a “related case:”  000004_High Country Conservative Advocates et al v US FS et al_Region 2  .  More information is provided in this article.

 

BLOGGER’S BONUS

Plaintiffs in the Friends of the Crazy Mountains case have moved for a preliminary injunction against construction of a new trail.  This case was discussed here.

The Forest Service has sued the Durango and Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad for causing the 416 Fire and causing $25 million in damages to federal lands.  This article provides a good description of how these cases work.

Environmental plaintiffs followed through on their Notice of Intent to Sue the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to respond to their petition to list the Siskiyou Mountain salamander, found on federal lands in Oregon, which was discussed here.

The Center for Biological Diversity has sued the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to force it to update its recovery plan for grizzly bears and consider reintroducing them in additional areas of former habitat, as described here.

The Forest Service was providing summaries of the “climate kids” case, officially known as Juliana v. U. S.  A hearing was held before the Ninth Circuit in June in the latest move by the federal government to dismiss the case.  Here are two recent views of the case, one from one of my (notably libertarian) law professors, and another from “60 Minutes.”

NFS Litigation Weekly July 3, 2019

by

 

Forest Service summary:  2019_07_03_Litigation Weekly

LITIGATION UPDATE

The government is asking the Supreme Court to review the appeals court decision that the Forest Service may not grant a right-of-way across the Appalachian Trail for the Atlantic Coast Pipeline.  More on this and on the Mountain Valley Pipeline here.

NOTICE OF INTENT

The Notice of Intent to Sue under the Endangered Species Act involves the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service, and concerns the effects on wolverines of the North Bridger Forest Health Project on the Custer Gallatin Forest.

 

Flathead National Forest issues permits to run into grizzly bears

by

Photo credit: How to survive a bear encounter (and what to do if it all goes wrong)

“Do not run. You’re acting just like prey.”

For a long time, the best available science has shown that the worst thing for grizzly bears is to mix them with people.  That has led the Forest Service to restrict access and otherwise manage human activities in grizzly bear habitat.  Now the Flathead has decided that it is more important to get people into grizzly bear habitat, and it is issuing special use permits for long-distance running races and mountain biking shuttles.

Here’s the forest supervisor’s rationale:

“There’s a broad public out there with needs to be served and not just the needs of the few,” Weber said. “We think that greater good for the greatest number will be served. That fosters connectivity with wildlands and a united group of people that can support conservation. And the best conservation for bears is served by figuring out how to have these human activities in ways that are as safe as they can be, understanding you can never make anything perfectly safe.”

Here’s the opposing argument:

“Weber has set up a straw man here, as though this debate is about ending mountain biking or trail running on public lands,” Hammer said. “What it’s about is educating the public to act responsibly if they choose to engage in those activities. It’s not about letting the public do these activities if that’s what their choice is. It’s about sending the wrong message through special-use permits for risky behavior and the government endorses it.”

“It increases risk that results in bad public attitudes toward bears and increases risk of injury or death to people and bears,” Hammer said. “That’s not conservation. People are free to ignore the advice, but they shouldn’t be getting a special-use permit from the Forest Service that allows them to make money running 200 or 300 people through bear habitat, and using that commercial promotion to imply that’s safe and appropriate activity in bear habitat when the experts, including the supervisor’s own staff, have said this is not responsible behavior.”

A key question here seems to be whether a special use permit is viewed as an “endorsement.” In any case, this is the kind of hard decision forest supervisors get paid the big bucks for.  It’s unfortunate that this one misinterprets the opposition as being about “the needs of the few” (and also about “a narrowly focused, discriminatory and exclusionary agenda lacking in intellectual and philosophical integrity”).  This is actually about his duty under the Endangered Species Act to “carry out programs for the conservation of” listed species like grizzly bears, which according to Congress are of great value “to the Nation and its people.”   With his anti-bear bias, he is starting in the wrong place to make a well-reasoned decision.

NFS Litigation Weekly June 26, 2019

by

 

Forest Service summaries:  Litigation Weekly_June 26, 2019

COURT DECISIONS

The District Court of Idaho required the Forest Service to engage in formal consultation pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) concerning the effects of 23 surface water diversions and associated ditches and facilities located in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area and on the Sawtooth National Forest.  Here’s an article providing background.

The District Court of Oregon refused to enjoin the Forest Service’s Crystal Clear Restoration Project on the Mount Hood National Forest.  Additional background is here, and this case was brought up as example on this blog here.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Forest Service’s designation of at-risk forest lands under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, and its approval of the Sunny South Project on the Tahoe National Forest.

LITIGATION UPDATE

The 9th Circuit denied an emergency motion for injunction pending appeal by the plaintiffs for the Miller West Fisher Project on the Kootenai National Forest.  See Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Savage in last week’s summary.

NEW CASES

The Decision Memorandum and Categorical Exclusion for the Willow Creek Vegetation Management Project on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest violate NEPA.  The lawsuit is discussed in this article.  (D. Mont.)

The Tenmile South Helena Timber and Vegetation Management Project on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest violates NFMA, the 2001 Roadless Rule and NEPA.  This is the second lawsuit against this project and it is discussed in this article.   (D. Mont.)

In Wilderness Society v. US Department of Interior, the complaint alleges that the Government violated the Freedom of Information Act by failing to provide records requested regarding the cancellation of a proposed mineral withdrawal in the Superior National Forest near the Boundary Waters  Wilderness Area.  This article provides some background.  (D. D.C.)

 

 

 

 

 

NFS Litigation Weekly June 19, 2019

by

 

Forest Service summaries:  000000_2019_06_19_Litigation Weekly

COURT DECISIONS

The 9th Circuit denied an emergency motion for injunction pending appeal by the plaintiffs for the Miller West Fisher Project on the Kootenai National Forest.

The District Court of New Mexico denied the plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration concerning the requested placement of telecommunication equipment on Tesuque Peak in the Santa Fe National Forest.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Eastern District Court of California’s March 2, 2018 order lifting the injunction on the Smokey Project on the Mendocino National Forest.

The District Court of Alaska rejected the Forest Service interpretation of the scope of easements on the Tongass National Forest, pursuant to a 2005 statute. Here is an article with more details.

The District Court of Idaho denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent construction by the Forest Service of the Stanley to Redfish Trail on a private land conservation easement in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order denying the plaintiffs request for emergency motion for injunction pending appeal of the Seiad-Horse Risk Reduction Project in the Klamath National Forest.  Additional discussion of this case may be found here.

NEW CASES

The Forest Service policy allowing baiting black bears for hunting in grizzly bear habitat violates ESA and NEPA.  (D. Idaho)

The Forest Service’s decision memorandum and categorical exclusion for the North Bridger Forest Health Project on the Custer Gallatin National Forest violate NEPA.  (D. Mont.)

The Forest Service is failing to maintain public access on four trails in the Crazy Mountains on the Custer Gallatin National Forest.  This was discussed previously here.  (D. Mont.)

NOTICE OF INTENT

The decision to adopt the Warm Springs Spay Feasibility and On-Range Behavioral Outcome Assessment and Warm Springs Herd Management Area Population Management Plan in Oregon violate FLPMA and the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act.  (D. Or.)

 

BLOGGER’S ADDITIONS

The latest step in this long-lasting case was for the District Court of Montana to deny a stay request by the Forest Service while it considers new information: “Defendants are free to withdraw or amend their decisional documents at any time. But they cannot delay ongoing litigation to shore up the administrative record or search for post-hoc rationalizations based on new information. Unless and until the documents are withdrawn or amended, Defendants must defend against the existing allegations.”

The Nez Perce Tribe threatened to sue Midas Gold Corp. under the Clean Water Act for allegedly discharging arsenic and other heavy metals into the headwaters of the South Fork of the Salmon River on lands that include the Payette National Forest.

The District of Oregon granted a temporary restraining order that will prevent Hammond Ranches, Inc., of Burns, Oregon, from grazing in two BLM-administered allotments for the next 28 days.  This was summarized here.  (Pick your version of reality.)

Research: eastern forest old growth more resilient to climate change

by

“Analyzing large amounts of field data from 18,500 forest plots – from Minnesota to Maine, and Manitoba to Nova Scotia – the study identifies priority regions for forest climate adaption efforts.”

A study funded by the Forest Service found that older forests in eastern North America are less vulnerable to climate change than younger forests in terms of the sensitivity of carbon storage, timber volume and species richness.  From the abstract (linked to this news release):

We found the strongest association among the investigated ESB indicators (ecosystem services and biodiversity) in old forests (>170 years). These forests simultaneously support high levels of carbon storage, timber growth, and species richness. Older forests also exhibit low climate sensitivity of associations among ESB indicators as compared to younger forests. While regions with a currently low combined ESB performance benefitted from climate change, regions with a high ESB performance were particularly vulnerable to climate change. In particular, climate sensitivity was highest east and southeast of the Great Lakes, signaling potential priority areas for adaptive management. Our findings suggest that strategies aimed at enhancing the representation of older forest conditions at landscape scales will help sustain ESB in a changing world.

Some of this sounds a little contradictory (maybe someone with more expertise and/or who reads the full article could explain), and I wonder if it has any application at all to more fire-prone forests.  But it is a different way of looking at climate change adaptation that could be incorporated into forest planning.