Jon Haber

Owls/logging/fire debate in ongoing “collaboration” in Arizona

by

This story seems to deal with some substantive and procedural questions that are popular on this blog.  Environmental groups are offering alternatives that the Forest Service doesn’t seem interested in.

Elson, the Flagstaff District Ranger, acknowledged that some parts of the FWPP plan do fly in the face of the Mexican spotted owl recovery plan’s recommendations. But overall, the plan is in the best interest of the species, he said.

“The recovery plan would say we generally don’t want to disturb the owls during breeding season, but that is the necessary price to achieve reduced wildfire risk,” which poses the greatest threat to the birds, he said.

For example, doing thinning or prescribed burning in owl habitat areas during the spring and summer months, which overlap with breeding season, will allow that work to happen two to three times faster, Elson said. And that means a reduced wildfire risk in the area will happen sooner, he said.

Why does the Forest Service get to decide that NOT following the recovery plan is in the best interest of the species – that wildfire poses the greatest threat?  How “necessary” is it really to do a treatment “faster?”  (Doesn’t that just mean that resources could instead be used to treat other areas?)

When forest planning is a matter of life and death

by

“In July, Glenn Martin was tragically killed by a stray bullet while camping at Rainbow Falls in the Pike National Forest. Martin was roasting marshmallows with his grandkids when a bullet hit him.”  The Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest has responded to increasing conflicts caused by urban sprawl and more shooters by proposing a forest plan amendment.

From the Arapaho-Roosevelt NF website:

Currently, the 1997 Forest Plan does not provide direction on how rec. sport shooting (RSS) should be managed. Due to increasing residential development, increased public participation in RSS and associated health and safety issues; the FS is considering amending the Forest Plan to include direction for managing RSS. This direction may include: (1)Developing Forest Plan goals, objectives, or desired conditions for RSS; (2) Identifying areas that are appropriate for dispersed recreational shooting; (3) Identifying areas suitable as designated shooting areas; and (4) Identifying areas where RSS would be prohibited for health and safety reasons. Lawful hunting activities would not be impacted.

I don’t remember this coming up in forest plans anywhere before, and the Forest should be commended for recognizing it as a land allocation issue.  Other national forests should take note when revising their plans.  (And/or is this yet another reason the Forest Service must “participate in planning efforts of … local governments” (36 CFR 219.4(a)(1)(iv) to discourage housing in inappropriate areas?)

 

Forest Service actions lead to delisting threatened species

by

The Daniel Boone National Forest is being credited with securing recovery of the white-haired goldenrod.  Here is what the forest plan says:

1.C-Goal 2. Bring about the delisting of white-haired goldenrod.
1.C-Objective 2.A. Complete recovery plan recommendations relating to white-haired
goldenrod sites.
1.C-Objective 2.B. Participate in the delisting procedure for white-haired goldenrod.

That’s pretty simple, but it does incorporate the requirements of the recovery plan as objectives (plan standards couldn’t have controlled recreational users causing the impacts).   This then led to projects to protect the species from the human activities that threatened it.  The results drew kudos from the Center for Biological Diversity, saying that the Endangered Species Act works (but failing to note that so does the National Forest Management Act).

This article also discusses the Kentucky arrow darter, a fish species that is part of the settlement agreement with CBD requiring a listing decision to be made.

The darter’s habitat has been “severely degraded” by pollution, siltation and loss of tree cover from surface mining, oil and gas exploration, logging, agricultural run-off and poor sewage disposal, according to the agency.  The conservation plan for the fish will include replacing some culverts on federal land that impede the movement of the fish and setting up a monitoring plan, officials said.

Delisting of the goldenrod is possible because results have been achieved on the ground.  That is usually not possible for pending listings because species are usually on a downward trend at that point.  A “conservation plan” incorporated into a forest plan by the Forest Service may contribute to avoiding listing as a regulatory mechanism if it protects the species against the threats identified in the listing process.

Forest plans may prevent listings under ESA

by

Succinctly put by WildEarth Guardians:  “If the plans fall short of halting population declines and habitat destruction, then clearly the Endangered Species Act will be needed.”

This story is about sage grouse, but the principle applies whenever public land management is an important contributor to an at risk species’ habitat.  That’s because one of the five factors that must be considered in listing a species is “the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.”  Thus far courts have recognized only mandatory forest plan standards as being sufficiently regulatory in nature to address this ESA factor for federal lands.

The absence of such regulatory mechanisms in forest plans was a key factor in listing the Canada lynx, for example.   The addition of regulatory standards to forest plans is viewed as being necessary to de-list grizzly bears.  So what to make of the idea of reducing regulatory mechanisms in the Northwest Forest Plan?

Also what to make of state objections to plan amendments for sage grouse?  It’s politically more difficult to get adequate regulatory mechanisms in place for private land, so I would think the states would be asking the feds to do whatever it takes to avoid listing.  Here’s another concise summary from a more objective source:  “A “not warranted” decision by the Service is possible — but they have made clear that it will only be possible if states, federal agencies, and private landowners put strong conservation measures in place.  (Neil Kornze, director of the Bureau of Land Management.)

Sierra Club article on “What do we owe … workers?”

by

This is about the coal industry and climate disruption, but it reminded me of the changing policies on national forest lands and their effects.  Not the same, but some common threads.

One is the idea that is hard to talk about solutions when there is still hope that the problem will go away.  Forest planning has an important role to play in establishing common, reasonable expectations.  I think it could do better than it’s done.

Should federal lands bear the brunt of ESA conservation obligations?

by

Sage grouse are putting that question out there.  BLM and the Forest Service are amending plans to adopt strategies for federal lands that are more ‘strict’ than what states would do.  States don’t like this; do you?

A related question – how important is it to have a consistent conservation strategy across jurisdictions?

I am disappointed by the many proposed differences between BLM’s Montana’s RMPs and the Montana Sage Grouse Habitat Conservation Program,” Bullock wrote in a 12-page letter to Jamie Connell, the BLM director for the state. “The difference between the Wyoming and Montana state plans and the Montana RMPs reflect inconsistencies that simply do not make sense when serving for a consistent approach to sage grouse conservation across significant and interconnected working landscapes.” 

Tongass roadless rule exemption: facts matter

by

The Ninth Circuit has reversed the exemption of Alaska from the Roadless Area Conservation Rule.  The case highlights some limits on the role of politics in agency decision-making.

While the dissent correctly asserts that “elections have consequences,” so do facts.  While Congress may choose to ignore them, the administrative and judicial branches may not.  The Ninth Circuit en banc review found that the Forest Service failed to explain why it ignored factual findings it had made under the previous Administration.

“Thus, contrary to the contentions of both Alaska and dissenting colleagues, this is not a case in which the Department—or a new Executive—merely decided that it valued socioeconomic concerns more highly than environmental protection. Rather, the 2003 ROD rests on the express finding that the Tongass Forest Plan poses only “minor” risks to roadless values; this is a direct, and entirely unexplained, contradiction of the Department’s finding in the 2001 ROD that continued forest management under precisely the same plan was unacceptable because it posed a high risk to the “extraordinary ecological values of the Tongass.” 66 Fed. Reg. at 3254. The Tongass Exemption thus plainly “rests upon factual findings that contradict those which underlay its prior policy.” Fox, 556 U.S. at 515. The Department was required to provide a “reasoned explanation . . . for disregarding” the “facts and circumstances” that underlay its previous decision. Id. at 516; Perez, 135 S. Ct. at 1209. It did not.

“The 2003 ROD does not explain why an action that it found posed a prohibitive risk to the Tongass environment only two years before now poses merely a “minor” one. The absence of a reasoned explanation for disregarding previous factual findings violates the APA. “An agency cannot simply disregard contrary or inconvenient factual determinations that it made in the past, any more than it can ignore inconvenient facts when it writes on a blank slate.” Fox, 556 U.S. at 537 (Kennedy, J., concurring).”

An agency has some explaining to do when it changes its mind, and that is going to be problematic if the underlying facts haven’t changed.  The Forest Service should think about that when it contemplates finding (under the new planning rule) that species it had classified as sensitive because of risks to their viability do not qualify as species of conservation concern because of lack of concern for their viability.

Some better things coming from the Blues (Mtns.)

by

Since I criticized the FS there in a couple of previous posts, here’s a couple of things I think they’ve done right.

It’s important that the public understand the relationship between forest planning and travel management planning, and this explanation from the Wallowa-Whitman is reasonably clear.  I think it should work about as well as it can if the Subpart A (roads analysis) precedes forest plan revision, and Subpart B (designation of roads open to motorized vehicles) follows it.

A little further back, I faulted the FS for not being honest about the legality of the local ordinance that sought to regulate the federal government.  That came up again at this Malheur meeting, and the FS set the record straight: “Our attorneys do not believe the Grant County ordinance is legal,” Beverlin said.