Jon Haber

Should the Forest Service intervene on the side of environmental groups?

by

“Public interest groups filed a lawsuit Thursday, Sept. 15, challenging the city of Highland’s approval of the high-density Harmony development. The development sits at the confluence of Mill Creek and the Santa Ana River and is directly adjacent to San Bernardino National Forest lands and will bring more than 3,600 houses to 1,657 acres of land acquired by Orange County Flood Control in the Seven Oaks Dam project that are currently home to numerous endangered species, rare habitats, wetlands and crucial wildlife connectivity corridors, according to the suit.”

“The lawsuit was brought by the Center for Biological Diversity, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society and the Greenspot Residents Association, who are represented by the law firm Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger. It argues the city of Highland’s City Council’s August approval of the project violates the California Environmental Quality Act.”

It sounds like potentially illegal local government actions could adversely affect national forest resources.  Shouldn’t the Forest Service be trying to protect those resources?  (Not to mention what this would add to fire management costs.)

http://www.highlandnews.net/news/political/lawsuit-challenges-high-density-harmony-housing-development/article_f36e5c3e-7cfd-11e6-845e-2bf853763e42.html

Do elk need trees?

by

For many years, it has been pretty much common knowledge, supported by science, that as the amount of hunting season open roads increases, there is more need for cover for elk to hide.  The Helena National forest plan (and others) have incorporated this relationship into standards for elk security.  (Full disclosure – I had something to do with this on the Helena 30 years ago.)   When the Helena National Forest developed its Divide travel plan, it found that it couldn’t meet its requirements for elk habitat because there were too many roads and not enough trees to provide security (trees in the area have been killed in large numbers by mountain pine beetles in recent years).  So it amended its forest plan elk standard to eliminate the role of tree cover in determining elk security (distance from roads replaces road density as a factor).

The rationale provided in the Record of Decision emphasizes the fact that elk have been doing well despite the fact that the existing forest plan standards have not been met in many places.

I have taken into account the fact that Montana Fish,Wildlife and Parks data indicate that elk populations in the Divide landscape are either at or near population objectives of the 2005 Montana Elk Plan and that elk management challenges are only partially related to access management according to that Plan. I have also taken into account the fact that, despite several miles of road closures, only one herd unit comes into compliance with standard 4a in the Travel Plan Decision. Given this, I have concluded that the existing standard 4a is not an accurate indicator of elk security and is insensitive to changing road densities. The methodology utilized for the new standard (based on the percentage of an elk herd unit occupied by elk security areas and/or intermittent refuge areas) indicates that overall elk security in the Divide landscape is adequate. This measure of security is sensitive to changes in open road configuration and will provide a way to determine where proposed management actions are effective or where management needs to improve to ensure adequate big game security. I believe the new standard will provide a more realistic means of guiding travel management and other future management activities in the Divide Travel Planning Area.

In essence, the Forest is using anecdotal evidence in place of long-established science (which the Forest now asserts is not relevant to this kind of forest).  Has the science just not caught up with reality, or is it possible that the high elk numbers are a result of unknown factors that, when they change, will render excessive road densities fatal to meeting elk harvest goals?  When the plan is revised under the 2012 planning rule (revision is ongoing), it will have to meet the requirement for using best available scientific information for its elk habitat management decisions.  (The amendment is using the 1982 planning process, but scientific integrity is still required.)

A court has been asked to weigh in on the amendment.

Interestingly, the lawsuit is by participants in a collaborative process.

Another payoff from standards in forest plans

by

This time mandatory standards ensure that a proposed pipeline project will protect water quality:

In Bath County, the Forest Service said an access road that impacts a wild brook trout stream, Laurel Run, “is unacceptable because it parallels the stream channel with the riparian corridor for much of its length and has numerous stream crossings.”

The letter says the access road is inconsistent with forest plan standards and best management practices concerning soil and water.

Why does the Forest Service want to get rid of standards when they revise their plans?  Do they think that some mealy-mouthed desired condition of “high quality water” in a forest plan would have the same effect?  That it would be legally sufficient to claim such vague, aspirational statements meet requirements to protect at-risk species?

Natural Range of Variation in the southern Sierra national forests

by

So what did the Sierra, Sequoia and Inyo do to apply this planning rule requirement to terrestrial ecosystems?  I’ve just reviewed the draft plan and DEIS, and I don’t think I’ve got a good answer.  They don’t directly say what NRV is or how they determined it (at least in the places I’ve looked).

The Bio-Regional Assessment says this (p. 39):  “NRV only was not used because at this time conditions are far removed from them in terms of fire regime, and even a modest shift toward that level of resiliency would benefit ecological integrity and is more feasible in a short period of time. The planning rule specifically provides for using ecological integrity based on measures other than NRV where this is the case.”

This view is supported by the Planning Handbook (1909.12 FSH 12.14b) (but again, the Handbook does not appear to be supported by the Planning Rule): “In some situations, there is not enough information to understand the natural range of variation under past disturbance regimes for selected key ecosystem characteristics or the system is no longer capable of sustaining key ecosystem characteristics identified as common in the past based upon likely future environmental conditions. In these cases, the Interdisciplinary Team should establish an alternative ecological reference model for context for assessing for integrity by identifying the conditions that would sustain these key ecosystem characteristics.”  However no “alternative ecological reference model” was documented.

For terrestrial vegetation the Bio-Regional Assessment then apparently ignores itself (p. 98):  “Under the 2012 Planning Rule, “natural range of variability” is a key means for gauging ecological integrity. Ecosystem sustainability is more likely if ecosystems are within the bounds of natural variation, rather than targeting fixed conditions from some point in the past (Wiens et al. 2012, Safford et al. 2012). Safford et al. (2013a) compiled comprehensive, scientific literature reviews on natural range of variability, and these are the primary basis for the summary below.”  The summaries conclude whether ecosystems are within or outside of NRV, but they don’t say what NRV is.

The Sierra Assessment says this (p. 17):  “Comprehensive, scientific literature reviews on natural range of variability were compiled. The following is an overview. Consistent with trends across the entire assessment area, terrestrial ecosystems in the Sierra NF are predominantly outside the natural range of variability (NRV) for key indicators of ecological function, structure, and composition. First, nearly half (44 percent) of the area of the Sierra NF dominated by woody vegetation (or 76 percent of montane coniferous forests) is in a highly departed condition with respect to the historic fire return interval, burning at frequencies that are significantly longer than pre-settlement fire regimes (Safford and van de Water 2013). The Sierra NF has missed an average of three to four fire return intervals across all vegetation types dominated by trees or shrubs (Safford and van de Water 2013). Subalpine forests are the exception, burning at intervals that within one or two fire return intervals.”

The Bio-Regional Assessment describes fire history on p. 33, and the Sierra Assessment appears to use historic fire intervals as a reference, but what are the vegetation conditions that would produce the desired fire intervals (which would be the NRV for vegetation)?  I didn’t find a document that says what what vegetation NRV is or how it was determined, or even what the “key indicators” are.  The draft plan does have desired conditions for vegetation, and the DEIS says those are or are based on NRV.  The quickest way to get a feel for these DC=NRV is Tables 1-7 in the draft revised forest plan.

What is NRV for vegetation characteristics?  Are they based on the best available science? Did they properly use historic reference conditions?  What was the reference period? Did they consider climate change?  Are these sustainable desired conditions?  Do they comply with the requirement for ecological integrity?   Do they provide conditions needed for at-risk species? You’d think the answers to these important questions would be easier to find, but I’m out of time.  Maybe someone else can find some answers on the revision website somewhere.

Remember the “Shovel Brigade?” Court unsettles settlement.

by

This was the Bundy gang of the 90s.  The Forest Service decided that it would not rebuild a washed out road along the Jarbridge River in Nevada to avoid impacting the now federally threatened bull trout.  The locals threatened to rebuild it themselves.  The issue in court became “who owns the road.”

Under the Bush Administration, the Forest Service agreed to not challenge the county’s ownership – a substantive concession that a federal district court has just reversed.  The judge said, “Without evidence that Elko County owns the right-of-way, the consent decree gives land of the United States to Elko County without following proper procedural requirements.”

This is how the discretion of federal agencies to settle lawsuits may be limited.

On the question of whether a “road” existed prior to establishment of a national forest, the court required “a demonstration of more than random or merely occasional use.”

Science consistency review on the southern Sierra national forests

by

The draft revised Sierra, Sequoia and Inyo national forest plans include aggressive restoration programs across the forest, including logging areas of existing old forest structure to protect old forests and associated wildlife species.  The Forest Service has asked (unidentified) reviewers to look at the draft forest plans and draft EIS and address these questions in the first science consistency review conducted under the 2012 planning rule (it is an optional process under associated agency policy):

1. Has applicable and available scientific information been considered?

2. Is the scientific information interpreted reasonably and accurately?

3. Are the uncertainties associated with the scientific information acknowledged and documented?

4. Have the relevant management consequences, including risks and uncertainties, been identified and documented?

Here are some of the topics being addressed:

• Vegetation: Forest Resilience, Seral stage distribution, Effects of post-disturbance harvest, and Impacts on native vegetation.

• Fire and Fuels: Fuels management and community protection, Current fuel loading, Current and future wildfire trends, Effectiveness of treatments for fuel reduction.

• Wildlife and Habitat: Impacts to wildlife and their habitats, terrestrial and aquatic, Protection of old forest and associated species, Threatened and endangered species habitat requirements and availability, Species of Conservation Concern habitat requirements and availability.

• Climate Change: Current and projected trends, Effects on wildlife habitats and populations, Effects on carbon sequestration and carrying capacity

Given the debate on this blog surrounding these issues, the results should be interesting.  However there is no commitment here to any public release or discussion of the results.  The comment period on the draft EIS closes August 25th.  The results of this review were scheduled to be available in August.  “The technical experts (on the planning team) will review the report, consult and address any concerns from the review team, and incorporate any recommendations that would benefit the final EIS.” 

Given the debate on this blog surrounding these issues, the results should be interesting.  However there is no commitment here to any public release or discussion of the results.  The comment period on the draft EIS closes August 25th.  The results of this review where scheduled to be done in August.  “The technical experts (on the planning team) will review the report, consult and address any concerns from the review team, and incorporate any recommendations that would benefit the final EIS.”

Here is the revision website.

Utah to sue to get federal lands

by

Or at least they’ve set aside the money to pay for it (the lawsuit, not the land).  So what are they waiting for?  Maybe they are hoping a Trump administration would make it unnecessary?

(Some of you would probably also like Heartland’s take on forest fires.  “But now, the Department of the Interior misinforms us, ‘climate change is making it worse. Wildfire seasons are now hotter, drier and longer than in the past.’ Sure they are. Wanna buy a bridge?”)

Timber numbers in revised forest plans

by

If there is one thing the Forest Service should have learned from the last round of forest planning, it is that they should put realistic projections of timber volume in their forest plans.  These numbers are going to create expectations for the timber industry and Congress that will translate into pressure to produce that amount.  It’s when they try to plan timber programs and sales that are more intensive than are appropriate for other resources (i.e. wildlife) that they often end up in litigation.

Unfortunately, what I’ve seen in the few revised plans that have gotten this far looks like a continuing tendency to declare as many acres as possible to be suitable for timber management (defined as growing a regulated crop of trees), and to be evasive about how much future volumes would be reduced because of the presence of at-risk wildlife species (and the standards and guidelines required to provide their habitat).

In addition, there is a greater emphasis on the role of agency in budgets in determining the amount of timber that will be produced, to the point that forest plan alternatives may differ as much in their assumed budgets as they do in actual management direction.  This is despite the fact that forest plans do not make budget decisions.

I get the feeling that there is a lack of transparency developing about the real tradeoffs involved in national forest management so that the Forest Service can once again promise everything for everyone, and then give itself the most flexibility to find timber sales on the largest possible suitable land base.

Here is an article on how the Flathead National Forest is addressing these questions in its plan revision.