Jon Haber

Forest Service on the bandwagon to unprotect sage grouse

by

Time is running out to comment on the notice that initiated “the scoping process to solicit public comments on greater sage-grouse land management issues that could warrant land management plan amendments” on 15 national forests and grasslands.  (Comments are due Friday.)  The majority of sage grouse habitat is found on BLM lands (I think the Forest Service has 8%) and the Forest Service is following behind the Department of Interior’s lead to “consider” rolling back restrictions, especially those that interfere with oil and gas drilling.  Those restrictions were added to Forest Service and BLM plans in amendments that were adopted in 2015 pursuant to the 1982 planning regulations for species viability, and have been credited with avoiding the need to list sage grouse as threatened or endangered.  The Forest Service concedes that amendments it would propose would be likely to be “directly related” to, and therefore subject to, the new diversity and viability requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule.  More background from the Forest Service here.

Forest Service to revise NEPA procedures

by

The Forest Service is proposing to revise its NEPA procedures (including its regulations at 36 CFR part 220, Forest Service Manual 1950, and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15) with the goal of increasing efficiency of environmental analysis. The Forest Service’s NEPA procedures were last reviewed in 2008 when the Agency moved a subset of its NEPA procedures from the Forest Service Manual and Handbook to the Code of Federal Regulations. However, the Agency’s NEPA procedures still reflect in part the policies and practices established by the Agency’s 1992 NEPA Manual and Handbook.

The Agency is seeking public comment on the following:

  • Processes and analysis requirements that can be modified, reduced, or eliminated in order to reduce time and cost while maintaining science-based, high-quality analysis; public involvement; and honoring agency stewardship responsibilities.
  • Approaches to landscape-scale analysis and decision making under NEPA that facilitate restoration of National Forest System lands.
  • Classes of actions that are unlikely, either individually or cumulatively, to have significant impacts and therefore should be categorically excluded from NEPA’s environmental assessment and environmental impact statement requirements, such as integrated restoration projects; special use authorizations; and activities to maintain and manage Agency sites (including recreation sites), facilities, and associated infrastructure.
  • Ways the Agency might expand and enhance coordination of environmental review and authorization decisions with other Federal agencies, as well as State, Tribal, or local environmental reviews.

Bigger projects, more categorical exclusions, shorter timelines, but “The Agency will continue to hold true to its commitment to deliver scientifically based, high-quality analysis to decision makers that honors its environmental stewardship responsibilities while maintaining robust public participation.”

Shoshone forest plan lawsuit leads to negotiated solution on pack goats

by

The North American Packgoat Association’s lawsuit reversed a forest plan decision to restrict the use of goats for packing (because of risk of disease spreading to bighorn sheep) based on a procedural violation.  They then got together with the National Wild Sheep Foundation and other stakeholders to work out a new plan, which the Shoshone just adopted (presumably as a forest plan amendment, though the Forest website has no information about it).

The balance that was struck prohibits pack goats from territory used by core bighorn sheep herds in the Absaroka Range and Wind River Mountains. It was a concession the goat packers were willing to make, partially because of lack of use and the undesirable nature of the Absaroka as a goat packing destination.

“North of Whiskey Mountain is infested with grizzlies,” Jennings said. “Frankly I didn’t want to go in there anyway.”

Permits will required to bring the pack animals into the Shoshone in areas where they are allowed, which include the entire Washakie Ranger District and the southern reaches of the Wind River Ranger District. The Temple Peak Herd roams the area between the two pack-goat-friendly zones, but the Wyoming Game and Fish Department manage it as a lower-priority herd. The state agency agreed with the Shoshone that the Temple Peak sheep could be subject to a higher level of risk.

The Shoshone’s decision also calls for goat packers to abide by a strict set of rules, like stringing no more than three animals per person, leashing their goats and possessing proof of vaccinations.

Possibly in the background was the result of another lawsuit finding that extirpation of a “lower-priority” herd of bighorn sheep could be a violation of NFMA.

 

How “collaboratives” work in Idaho

by

They work well, according to this article, and here’s probably an important reason why:

“The collaboratives advance the process by removing features that are sure to invite challenges and delays — like proposing new roads in a roadless area.”

My impression has been that it is easier to reach agreement on protecting undeveloped areas (or not) in both project plans and forest plans than it is to agree on conservation strategies for wildlife (which are the basis of a lot of litigation).  Maybe the former is more political, which lends itself to negotiations, and the other is more scientific and/or legal, which does not?  (Or maybe I’m imagining this difference.)   Spending money to restore damaged streams also seems to work as a bargaining (for wood) chip.

FS preparing for more timber wars?

by

An interesting observation from an attendee at a meeting on the Medicine Bow National Forest (that may or may not have been “public”):

“During the meeting, the forest service representatives discussed a plan from Washington, D.C., to harvest more trees in national forests…”

Things do get lost in translation from meetings to attendees, to reporters, to print, but does anyone know anything more about this “plan from Washington, D. C.?”

Review of collaborative restoration initiatives

by

The Forest Service funded a study (2 page summary here) of the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program and the Joint Chiefs Landscape Restoration Partnership.  Of note (to me any way):

Findings:  “Strong majorities said they had increased the pace and scale of restoration, improved ecological conditions, and reduced the threat of fire to communities.”  “61% said they had decreased litigation.”

Implications:  “The agencies should continue to make changes to their business model to ensure that their organizations are oriented towards the success of priority projects. The agencies should ensure quality leaders and staff capacity follow priority investments. The agencies also could refine proposal evaluation processes to better identify places likely to be successful, or those that are in need of support and capacity building.”

(I assume that the project “priorities” are a result of collaboration, too.)

Headwaters: Lessons from the Timber Transition

by

 

Lessons from the Timber Transition

“Performance is shaped more by current challenges and opportunities in the regional economy affecting all types of communities than it is by changes in the timber industry alone.”

“Counties doing better than average leveraged natural amenities; took an active, collaborative approach to planning; embraced adaptability; and took advantage of access to metropolitan markets.”

Questions about FS national monument shrinkage

by

An excerpt from a letter to President Trump from two senators:

Because of the implications for USDA Forest Service land stemming from any future executive actions regarding national monuments, please promptly respond to the following questions:

Do you plan to recommend removal of Forest Service acres from the current boundary of the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah?

Do you plan to recommend removal of Forest Service acres from the current boundaries of any of the four California national monuments under review containing Forest Service acres?

If the answer to question one or two was yes, please explain why you plan to recommend removal of Forest Service acres where USDA did not recommend removal of Forest Service acres from these monuments.

Federal liability for fires it starts

by

This topic has come up a few times, and the Missoulian did a little legal research on it for us, but I think it’s incomplete.  In short, federal agencies are protected by sovereign immunity against claims of damages, and its employees are protected when performing their official duties – even if negligent.  What this article doesn’t make very clear is that the government has consented to be sued for negligence through the Federal Tort Claims Act:  “Under the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671-2680 , individuals who are injured or whose property is damaged by the wrongful or negligent act of a federal employee acting within his or her official duties may file a claim with the government for reimbursement for that injury or damage.”

In the Davis Fire example, the article says the court found that “the United States was immune from the litigation.”  But then it seems to address the question of negligence:  “In the government’s review of the Davis fire, it found that Forest Service officials had adequate training, followed proper protocols and ignited the fire within the prescription parameters of the burn plan.”  (I couldn’t find the actual opinion.)  So, while this story makes the FS look pretty bad, on another set of facts that show negligence, private landowners should be able to recover damages.