Jon Haber

Fire Continuum Conference in Missoula last week

by

Here is coverage by the Missoulian’s Rob Chaney.  He’s good at getting at the important points, but if anyone else attended (I didn’t) and has some impressions, please share.

“Fire conference in Missoula attracts international experts”

“To effectively fight fires, Forest Service chief says agency must first fight harassment”

“Also in Monday’s plenary sessions, Forest Service program director Sara Brown put the problem in personal terms in her afternoon presentation. The Oregon-based researcher and former smokejumper recalled how she built a tough, masculine persona to fit in with her male firefighting colleagues, to the extent she froze out other women who she didn’t think measured up.”

“Science may overtake tradition in wildfire fighting”  

“A fire that spreads from federal land into state or private property suddenly complicates who gets the bill for the suppression efforts. That makes cost-control a strategic objective that sometimes gets in the way of tactical opportunities.”

“After the fire, scientists brace for climate change”

“Across North America, forests and grasslands spent millions of years evolving with fire as a tool to clean out dead plants, regrow new ones and maintain the things animals need. But, as several top researchers at the Fire Continuum Conference in Missoula pointed out on Thursday, the old patterns are getting pulled up by the roots.”

(The photo is from a recent prescribed burn and accompanied this editorial.  My interest in this comes partly from living at the bottom right of that ridge-line the smoke is behind.)

New lawsuit to protect red tree voles from logging project

by

(Complete story here.)

Three environmental groups are suing the U.S. Forest Service to stop an 847-acre logging project on the Umpqua National Forest in southern Oregon, about 22 miles southeast of Cottage Grove.

Red tree vole surveys were also conducted during the fall of 2016. According to the lawsuit, the Northwest Ecosystem Survey Team found 75 vole nests in the forests slated for logging, but the Forest Service decided to proceed with the project.

The North Oregon Coast population of voles is considered a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, from the Siuslaw River north to the Columbia River, due to habitat loss and fragmentation.

(A candidate species is warranted for listing, but precluded by higher priorities.)

But here’s the part I thought might be interesting:  “The Bureau of Land Management also lifted survey and management guidelines for the species in 2016.”  As things get worse off for a species everywhere else, the national forests will necessarily be under more pressure to provide regulatory mechanisms to protect the species, and conditions external to a national forest will make it harder and more important to provide conditions on the national forest that promote a viable population.  (Implications for revising the northwest forest plans?)

Idaho county votes down wilderness

by

Follow-up:                                   

Voters rejected the proposal for the Scotchman Peaks Wilderness, 5,672 to 4,831.  As a result, Senator Risch will not reintroduce his legislation to designate the area, and wilderness legislation has no chance of passing without local Congressional support.  So to a limited degree we have local control of a national forest, but as the article points out, management under the forest plan, which recommends the area as wilderness, won’t change.  (The article suggests that Congress couldn’t change the forest plan; of course it could, but I don’t think there is a precedent for it.)

The unfortunate thing is that the voters seem to have been misinformed (which is something I would hope a congressman would take into account).

“The philosophy with wilderness areas is let it burn,” said Bonner County Commissioner Dan McDonald.

And, perhaps most importantly, (Forest Service spokesperson) Cooper said Forest Service personnel can and do manage forest fires in both recommended and designated wilderness areas. “We still do manage wildfire,” she said.  In 2017, the Forest Service sent smokejumpers into the Salmo-Priest Wilderness area to fight a forest fire.

My own interpretation is that suppression response depends on the values at risk, and wilderness area values, aren’t lost when they burn (in fact probably the opposite) – like other areas managed primarily for conservation or recreation, which is how this area is being managed now. 

NFS Litigation Weekly May 11, 2018

by

Litigation Weekly May 11

Following its earlier denial of a TRO, the district court also denied a preliminary injunction for the North and South Pioneer salvage logging projects on the Boise National Forest. (D. Idaho) (See below also.)

(Notice of intent to sue under ESA.)  Plaintiffs claim failure by the Forest Service to include wolverines in their biological assessment, as required by ESA if they are present in the project area, for the North Hebgen Project on the Gallatin National Forest.

Blogger’s note:

The Boise case included a “Cottonwood” style claim that the project could not proceed until completion of the forest plan level consultation that is presently occurring on bull trout critical habitat.  The court held that that was not necessary in this case because project level consultation had concluded that the projects were not likely to adversely affect bull trout critical habitat, and the Fish and Wildlife Service did not base its conclusion on the forest plan.  Therefore these projects could not violate ESA §7(d)’s prohibition against going ahead with actions that had the potential to adversely modify critical habitat.

The mysterious disappearance of sensitive species – Flathead plan revision example

by

Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)

The Forest Service created through its directives (FSM 2670) a program to manage sensitive species, which it defined as species “identified by a regional forester for which population viability is a concern.” Sensitive species “must receive special management emphasis to ensure their viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in the need for federal listing.” Up until now, forest plans had to include direction for sensitive species “to ensure viable populations throughout their geographic ranges.” In addition, all plans and projects required a biological evaluation (BE) for each sensitive species “to ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability … or contribute to trends toward Federal listing.” The BE became an important tool for biologists to use at the project level.

The 2012 Planning Rule requires identification of Species of Conservation Concern (SCC). They are defined as those for which “the regional forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.” The plan must maintain viable populations of these species, but there are no requirements for future projects to address them; compliance with forest plan requirements for SCCs is presumed to meet the needs of these species. This elevates the importance of plan components for these species.

The Forest Service issued an internal letter to regional foresters on June 6, 2016 explaining that it would phase out the sensitive species designation. It recognized that, “As noted in the preamble to the 2012 planning rule, “[Regional Forester Sensitive Species] are…similar to species of conservation concern.”   It also stated that, “Applying both systems on the same administrative unit would be redundant.” Consequently, “Once a revised plan is in effect, the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list no longer applies to that unit.” The letter acknowledges that a biological evaluation must still be prepared for a revised forest plan. (Interestingly, the letter had only a planning file code, so it did not necessarily go to biologists.)

The Forest Service is thus implementing a substantial change in wildlife policy, with no prior public involvement, through individual forest plan revisions. This should mean that the forest planning process would include a clear explanation for the public that some species are no longer sensitive, and that no species will be evaluated for future projects (outside of any effects analysis NEPA might require). In particular, there needs to be a reasoned explanation of what facts have changed for those species where viability was a concern, but isn’t any more. The forest plan EIS must also consider the effects on sensitive species of removing the existing requirements to evaluate and maintain their viability at the project level (in comparison to the no-action alternative).

Instead, the Flathead has mostly hidden any information about sensitive species. Most existing sensitive species (17 animal species) are not designated as SCC (3 animal species), but there is no list of sensitive species in any of the Forest documents (though they can be identified from a list of all species included in an EIS appendix). There is no biological evaluation as required by the Forest Service Manual and the 2016 letter. There is a summary of “biological determinations” for sensitive species, but it is not listed among the planning documents on the website. It cites the forest plan EIS as the basis for its one- or two-sentence summaries. The EIS does not mention sensitive species at all, but it includes effects analysis for species that are/were sensitive.

While it is therefore possible to find some information on sensitive species, the Forest does not explain the significant implications of that information. It does not disclose the changes in scientific information that provide the rationale for declassifying them as at-risk species, and it does not explain how the sensitive species policy changes will affect future management of this Forest. These seem like fatal (arbitrary) omissions.

Voting for/against Wilderness

by

Seriously.  Bonner County, Idaho is holding an advisory vote on whether its residents want the Scotchman Peaks area to be designated as Wilderness.  Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, has indicated he will follow the advisory vote result.

One one hand, this is a good way to get information about policy preferences that opinion polls and candidate elections may not.  But really, how much weight should one county’s vote carry in making decisions about national forests?

Here’s a detailed fact-check developed to help voters.  Importantly, this area has been recommended for Wilderness in the Idaho Panhandle and Kootenai revised forest plans.  Watch for the results of the referendum on the May 15 primary ballot.

Montanans like their Wilderness Study Areas

by

But their elected representatives don’t.

The results of a new poll show that a majority — 57 percent — of Montanans wanted WSAs to continue to be protected, and another 24 percent said they wanted a more case-by-case review of how the areas should be used.

Sen. Steve Daines and Rep. Greg Gianforte, both Republicans, have introduced bills in Congress to open up areas now protected as WSAs.

The University of Montana’s Crown of the Continent and Greater Yellowstone Initiative commissioned the poll of 500 Montana voters and hired both Republican and Democratic firms to conduct the survey. It found that only 11 percent of those polled favored Gianforte’s proposal to eliminate protections for 29 WSAs.

“They were opting for something other than what’s proposed in Congress,” said pollster Lori Weigel, who led the Republican half of the bipartisan polling team.

Daines and Gianforte discounted the poll, noting they had the support of local county commissions for their legislation.

Obviously the county commissions did not get this support from their constituents, and they have been accused of selective listening.

Daines’ staff challenged the validity of the poll.

David Parker, a Montana State University political science professor, said after reviewing the survey questions, “I object to the notion it’s a push poll. It’s pretty innocuous the way it’s worded.”

Parker said the UM poll appeared consistent with other regional surveys showing strong bipartisan support for public land protection.

I guess this is what happens when a popular issue is not a high priority for voters.  You look the other way on the environment and vote for someone who’ll give you your tax cut.

Here’s a summary of some of the other findings of the survey – including:

When asked by the pollsters if they would support or oppose dedicating additional, existing public lands as wilderness areas in Montana, 57 percent expressed support and 35 percent said they would be opposed.

Oregon to look again at western forest habitat conservation plan

by

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Oregon Department of Forestry have received a $750,000 federal grant to explore the possibility of a habitat conservation plan for state-owned forests west of the Cascades.  HCPs are authorized by §10 of ESA, and they allow the state to obtain an incidental take permit to kill or injure listed species if that happens in accordance with the plan.   The plan would consider species including the spotted owl and marbled murrelet and set guidelines for timber harvesting and recreational use.  A previous attempt to create a plan ended in 2008 without new guidelines being adopted. Without the HCP and permit, harming listed species is illegal for anyone.  “Harm” is defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation which “actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including, breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding or sheltering” (50 C.F.R. § 222.102).

 

 

NFS Litigation Weekly May 4, 2018

by

Litigation Weekly May 4

In a 2-page opinion, the circuit court upheld the decision by the Plumas National Forest to designate only 234 of 1107 miles of user-created routes as open for motorized travel, including the process of cooperating and coordinating with the local counties who wanted more.  (9th Cir.)

(New case.)  Plaintiffs claim that closure of a road to a site where a protesters are obstructing tree clearing for a pipeline across Washington and Jefferson National Forest lands is a violation of their First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly.  (W.D. Va.)

(New cases.)  Both cases claim violations of the 2015 Sage-Grouse Amendments to BLM land management plans in Montana and Idaho in relation to specific oil and gas lease sales and other policy changes.  (D. Mont, and D. Idaho)