Jon Haber

Another collaboration case study

by

The Lolo’s Marshall Woods project.

A common thread through many of these stories seems to be unmet expectations.  That begs the question of what expectations the Forest Service sets up before collaboration occurs.  It would be interesting to hear from those who have “collaborated” what the Forest Service says it will do with their collaborative products.  Does anyone ever document these expectations?

I suspect there is a “catch 22” here.  The Forest Service must remain accountable for it decisions and its decision-making process under existing laws, and therefore it must be free to disregard collaborative input.  But if this is made clear to potential collaborators, won’t they be less likely to invest the efforts needed to produce something useful?  Is the Forest Service clear about this?

Now we have discussions about changing laws to make the Forest Service less accountable.  Assuming we could get the necessary national consensus to give greater weight to local collaboration, does anyone think the Forest Service would be willing to contract away its authority to manage national forests by making substantive commitments to collaborators?

 

 

Lane County the next Harney County?

by

Lane County, Oregon commissioners are planning to sue the BLM when it releases its revised plan for western Oregon lands.  One of them couldn’t help bringing up the Malheur occupation, but I’m not sure what exactly his point was in doing that:

Leiken mentioned the ongoing occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Eastern Oregon by armed protesters, saying federal land policies are hurting rural workers and could drive them to extreme measures such as the refuge takeover.

“The last thing we need happening is another incident like they had in Harney County,” Leiken said.

I have a little trouble with fear being a reason for logging.  Maybe it’s a good reason for the justice system to fully prosecute this kind of crime.

You be the forest supervisor

by

This a quote from the Lolo National Forest Supervisor included in his decision on an administrative objection to a timber project near Missoula.  It’s not an obvious case of fuel treatments in the front country vs backcountry, but rarely does the Forest Service state its priorities more clearly:

In his Nov. 9 letter, Garcia wrote “I recognize the value of treating (national forest) lands adjacent to private property, however the primary intent of the Marshall Woods project is forest restoration.”

It’s been kind of an academic question before now, but I happen to live within range of a fire that might burn through this area.  On the other hand, I don’t like arguments based on “my back yard.”  But should it be the policy of the Forest Service to risk a little private property (and maybe a life or two) to meet its (presumably ecological) restoration targets?  How would you choose and why?

It seems to me that this is a question that every forest plan should be designed to help you answer.  And the public should probably demand the opportunity to influence that in the forest plan because the decision of “where to go” is typically made before a project decision, and is likely considered by the Forest Service to be outside the scope of the project decision (and therefore outside the scope of public comments and objections).  (Which I think is what this objection decision is really saying.)

Tales of two trees

by

Whitebark pine is a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act (meaning that listing is warranted).  The U. S. Fish and Wildlife (and tree) Service has recently downgraded its priority for listing from 2nd priority to 8th.

The primary threat to the species is from disease in the form of the nonnative white pine blister rust and its interaction with other threats…  However, the overall magnitude of threat to whitebark pine is somewhat diminished given the current absence of epidemic levels of mountain pine beetle, and because of this, individuals with genetic resistance to white pine blister rust likely have a higher probability of survival… Overall, the threats to the species are ongoing, and therefore imminent, and are now moderate in magnitude.

White ash is not a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act.  However, it is threatened with extinction as result of the introduced emerald ash borer.  The Forest Service is applying euthanasia treatments to the Allegheny National Forest.

The Emerald Ash Borer Remediation project would regenerate stands that have been or will be affected by non-native invasive insects. The purpose of this project is to manage the proposed treatment areas on the Bradford Ranger District to achieve a diversity of desired forest trees, a healthy and resilient ecosystem, and diminish the risks and consequences of forest health threats.

Desired tree seedling species do not develop in sufficient quantities on the Allegheny National Forest without intensive forest management. Interfering understory vegetation generally outcompetes tree seedlings. It is a result of decades of selective deer browsing (Horsley, Stout, deCalesta 2003). Unless management actions create suitable conditions for the establishment and development of desired tree seedlings, important ecological structure, function and processes will not be maintained in stands where white ash, American beech and Eastern hemlock individually or collectively make up the majority of the community.

Managing and regenerating declining stands now will promote natural regeneration of desired trees. It will sustain healthy, well-stocked forested stands over the long-term. This project is designed to address project area forest health concerns by regenerating stands before natural regeneration opportunities are lost.

Projected mortality is 99% of the affected trees without treatment (presumably it’s 100% with the treatment).  They don’t say what “desired trees” they are regenerating, and I can’t make much sense out of “natural regeneration” from the trees that would be “lost” (since they will be logged).  It looks to me like they are making sure there are no survivors, and if this is practiced across the range of the white ash, it would obviously become a candidate for listing.  Is there a better way?  Especially in the two old growth management areas where some of this project would occur, where making money off of timber harvest is not part of the purpose?  (Maybe killing deer would help – how about reintroducing wolves?)

Here’s the story that got my attention.  It mentions the need for a forest plan amendment, but the Forest Service documents do not mention this (and it would have to be part of the scoping package).

California spotted owl plans

by

One of the hottest topics on this site recently has involved the effects of salvage logging on California spotted owls. Sometime soon, the three southern Sierra national forests will release their draft revised plans and EIS, which will describe how they intend to resolve this management question, and what the effects of their proposed management would be. I thought it would be worth a quick look at how they have approached the question so far in the planning process.

Here is pretty much the extent of the information in the Sierra NF Assessment (January 2014):

While lightening caused fires are part of the natural ecosystem, suppression of them has led to conditions that can result in large areas of high severity effects that may be detrimental to old forest species such as the fisher or California spotted owl. There is some uncertainty about the effects of fire severity on these species (Keane 2013 and Zielinski 2013)… In addition, California spotted owls may occupy burned forest landscapes for breeding but primarily following low to moderate severity fires (p. 26)

It is unknown how fisher, marten, California spotted owl and goshawk respond to restoration treatments. (p. 38)

The updated “need for change” document (June 2014) states:

Consider new information (e.g., PSW GTR 220/237, California Spotted Owl Conservation Assessment, and the Science Synthesis) in developing or updating forest plan components to improve ecological conditions for the California spotted owl.

This document is supposed to explain what changes are needed in the existing plan based on the assessment.  GTR-PSW-237 is a 2012 document updating GTR-PSW-220 from 2009; the assessment does not cite these existing documents in its discussion of spotted owls.  The ongoing Conservation Assessment was intended to be complete for use in developing the draft revised plan, but is now not scheduled for completion until fall 2016 (well after the draft plan and EIS).  This doesn’t give me a good feeling about a decision informed by the best available scientific information with full public participation.  It doesn’t seem like they have made much of a case yet for compatibility of spotted owls and salvage logging.

(The current status of the new conservation assessment can be followed here.  There was a webinar on December 8.)

An ‘assist’ with collaboration on the Blue Mtns. revision

by

From an Oregon state representative:

“The overreaching heavy hand of government continues to pursue its stranglehold on the rural parts of the state, our way of life and our pursuit of happiness.”

Nothing helps like a politician inciting the mob.

http://www.eastoregonian.com/eo/local-news/20151211/forest-plan-could-be-finalized-by-september

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission invokes forest plan in locating pipeline

by

Another example of how forest planning can influence major permitting decisions.  (It’s especially nice to see the role of forest plans acknowledged by FERC.)

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has asked developers of the planned Atlantic Coast Pipeline to consider an alternative route through the Monongahela National Forest that would veer southward from the currently proposed route, to avoid environmentally sensitive areas, including the Cheat, Back Allegheny and Shenandoah mountains, and use existing utility right-of-way corridors whenever practicable.

“Please note that we will not be able to consider construction and operation of any proposed action or alternative unless it complies with the National Forest’s LRMP, or Atlantic has documented that the U.S. Forest Service would amend a respective LRMP for activities deemed inconsistent with the LRMP,” wrote Kevin Bowman, environmental project manager for the commission, in the commission’s request for environmental information.

Bowman wrote that after commission officials consulted with Forest Service personnel and reviewed the Monongahela National Forest’s long-range management plan, “we have determined that alternative routes to the south of the currently proposed Atlantic Coast Pipeline route may offer environmental advantages over the currently proposed route.”

“It’s a very exciting development that FERC is concerned about impacts to one of the most ecologically sensitive sections of the Monongahela National Forest that is home to the protected West Virginia northern flying squirrel and the Cheat Mountain salamander,” said Judy Rodd, executive director of the Friends of Blackwater, part of a coalition of conservation groups monitoring the pipeline project. “It shows that FERC is paying attention to national forest issues and doesn’t want to make the national forests rewrite their management plans to accommodate the pipeline.”

(The part about committing to amend the plan makes me a little nervous, though.)

Settlement: opening roads to motorized use requires NEPA (take 2)

by

It’s the Pike-San Isabel this time.  The issue appears to be “unauthorized and unanalyzed” routes.  It’s not clear whether those are two different things, but I think the point is that when a Motor Vehicle Use Map allows motorized use on user-created (“unauthorized?”) roads, the map becomes an authorization that triggers NEPA, ESA, NFMA consistency and travel plan “minimization” requirements.  The MVUM is not just displaying an open road system that was authorized in a previous travel planning and NEPA process (as was envisioned by the Travel Management Rule).

Thanks to WildEarth Guardians, we can look at the settlement agreement.  In it the Forest Service agrees to conduct travel planning using the proper procedures (I’ll bet that was a hard thing for them to accept …), agrees to some specific aspects of the process, and will undertake some interim protection measures in specified areas.  That’s a pretty standard formula, I think – do/re-do the process, and meanwhile don’t take some actions (in this case that means interim closing and “unopening” some roads).

What I need someone to explain to me is this.  Some motorized user groups intervened as defendants, but their signature is not on the settlement agreement.  I thought intervention allowed the parties to contest a settlement in some way.  Can we assume that they didn’t in this case?

More forest plan non-collaborators

by

On the Blue Mountain forest plan revisions:

Several of those who testified said even if access is restricted, it doesn’t mean they’ll stop from using the forests.

“There’s more of us than there are of them, and we won’t comply,” one man commented. “If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.”

Another person voiced the opinion that the Forest Service doesn’t have the authority to restrict access.

“We don’t have to listen to them,” he said.

I wonder if these folks would be talking the same way (about trespassing) if this land had been privatized by their compatriots during the sage brush rebellion.

(Why is it that environmentalists who try to enforce the law are called “extremists,” and people who threaten to break the law are called “patriots?”)