collaboration and public involvement

It’s National Forest Week – so let’s think about forest planning for tribal areas

by

But we all knew that, right?  Here’s the National Forest Foundation link.

But here’s the rest of the story:

It’s National Forest Week, and members of the Crow Tribe are celebrating recognition of a special place in Montana.

In the U.S. Forest Service’s final draft of its Custer Gallatin National Forest plan released last week, the agency recognized the cultural and spiritual significance of the Crazy Mountains, designating it an “Area of Tribal Interest.”

The Custer Gallatin plan recognizes only the southern part of the Crazies. The Forest Service did not include the cultural significance of the northern part in its Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest plan from May.

Ideally, Doyle (a Crow tribal member) said, the tribe would like to see both sections recognized, but he noted that the region in the Custer Gallatin National Forest is most significant.

Why?  If there was one thing that everyone involved in developing planning regulations agreed on, it was that management direction should not change just because of an administrative boundary with a different staff member in charge.  And now this.  Two adjacent forest plan revisions, on roughly the same schedule, and different ideas about what?  Maybe there’s some legitimate resource reasons, but here’s the extent of the plan components for this area (and they don’t require much):

Desired Conditions (BC-DC-TRIBAL)

01 The Crazy Mountains embody a tribal cultural landscape significant to ongoing traditional cultural practices of the Crow Tribe.

02 Research, education, and interpretation of the Crazy Mountain tribal cultural landscape provides public benefits and enhances the understanding and appreciation of Crazy Mountain’s natural environment, precontact, contact, and Crow traditional cultural values.

Goals (BC-GO-TRIBAL)

01 The Custer Gallatin National Forest protects and honors Crow treaty obligations, sacred land and traditional use in the Crazy Mountains through continued consultation with the Crow Tribe.

This is not the only “area of tribal interest” on the Custer-Gallatin.  The Helena-Lewis and Clark plan has plan components for “areas of tribal importance,” but does not identify them (other than the Badger-Two Medicine area).  The plan dedicates one descriptive sentence to the tribal history in the Crazy Mountains.  So, again, how does the Forest Service explain the line they have drawn here?

(Related to the consistency idea, there was a lot of debate about whether plan decisions should be made by forest supervisors or regional foresters.  The Forest Service went with the former (I was told so the Chief wouldn’t be involved in objections), and this is the kind of problem they created.)

Collaborating on national forest exploitation – an oxymoron?

by
“Attendees engaged in fruitful conversations during the Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forests hosted Environmental Analysis and Decision Making collaboration summit. USDA Forest Service photo.”

“Before retiring, James Burchfield worked as a field forester for the Forest Service and served as dean of the W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation at the University of Montana.”  Where our careers overlapped, he was known for his support of and expertise in collaboration in national forest management.  We have argued on this blog about the proper role of collaboration (it flared up again in the Rim Fire recent example), but in this Missoulian column he points out what I think most would agree is an improper role (on his way to making another point about adequately funding the Forest Service).

In 2002, former Chief Dale Bosworth, who now resides in Missoula, reminded the agency of the concept of stewardship, where the focus is not what we take from the land but what we leave on the land. I fear we may be forgetting these vital lessons.

The June 12 visit to Missoula by Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue to announce his Secretarial Memorandum on new agency priorities reminds us how easily we may be lured in the wrong direction. His mandate to “increase America’s energy dominance” and “reduce regulatory burdens” comes on the heels of a June 4 Presidential Executive Order that orders federal agencies to set aside environmental impact requirements because of the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Certainly, the nation must take assertive measures to restore the economy, but a command to exploit complex ecological systems without appropriate environmental reviews, guaranteed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), abandons the sound principle of “look before you leap.” Further, forcing the Forest Service to meet production targets on a narrow range of resource benefits — those that can be commodified in the marketplace — discounts other critical resource values such as clean water, wildlife habitat and recreation opportunities that are well-recognized as central to Montana’s economic vitality.

Moreover, the Forest Service has learned its best outcomes emerge only after ongoing deliberations among partners and local residents to apply their nuanced knowledge and experience. This process actually happens in Montana via the decades of efforts by the 20-plus voluntary groups known as forest collaboratives that regularly engage with agency staff to improve project design, build understanding, and help get work done. These collaborative groups do not enter their deliberations with presupposed notions of resource exploitation. They want the best for the land.  

(My emphasis.)  I was always skeptical that including those with strictly monetary interests in collaborative efforts comported with this principle.  I assumed that there would have to be collaborative agreement with the desired outcome as step 1.  (This is also where forest plans should make an important contribution by defining the desired condition of the land.)  After Perdue’s announcement, it’s hard to see how any truly collaborative effort today could get past that step.

 

 

Range of variation webinar (and more)

by

This is a topic that at least Sharon and I like to debate (though for some reason she didn’t weigh in here).  The Western Environmental Law Center is offering this hour and half webinar on July 17.  As far as I know, it’s open to the public.

PNW Forest Collaboratives Workshop Series Part 3: Historical Range of Variability (HRV): Uses and Various Approaches
 
Range of Variability (ROV) concepts – including Natural (NRV), Historic (HRV), Current (CRV), and Future (FRV) – are frequently used by the US Forest Service to help define land management goals. Nathan Poage, Forest Service Ecologist, joins us to provide an introduction to ROV terminology and examples of how the Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests in the Blue Mountains have applied ROV concepts during project planning when addressing key requirements of the Eastside Screens. The discussion will include overviews of tools commonly used to conduct ROV analyses. Q&A will follow the presentation.
This webinar will be on Friday, July 17 from 10-11:30am Pacific Time.
Registration is required for this event. Register today by clicking this link.
Note that it also involves the Eastside Screens.  I don’t think I can make it, but I’d be interested in hearing about it.  I also wanted to point out that this is about how to apply these concepts to projects developed under antiquated forest plans that don’t include the concepts.  It was this kind of thinking that drove development of the requirement to do this instead as part of revising forest plans under the 2012 Planning Rule.  Natural Range of Variation (NRV) embraced by the Planning Rule is a required desired condition for ecosystems, which should not change over time, and therefore should not be redecided for each project.  I’d be interested in knowing how, once ROV is determined for a particular project here, it is then documented and used for future projects in the same ecosystem.
But maybe there would be more interest in this one:
PNW Forest Collaboratives Workshop Series Part 2: Collaborative Administrative and Judicial Review Opportunities
In this follow-up webinar to NEPA 101, WELC attorney Susan Jane Brown will give a presentation on and answer your questions about collaborative administrative and judicial review opportunities, and dig deeper into the administrative review process for the Forest Service, judicial review of agency decisions, and how collaborative groups can engage in these processes.
This webinar will be on Thursday, July 9 from 10-11:30am Pacific Time.
Registration is required for this event. Register today by clicking this link.

Trump’s latest marching orders on public lands

by
Trump – Nailed it

The Trump Administration declared the coronavirus pandemic to be a “national emergency” in March. On June 4, the president issued an executive order on “Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities.”  It has been characterized as “waiving environmental protections,” in particular the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, and would include actions taken on public lands. This has been condemned in the usual places.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out on federal lands, and whether it makes any difference.  Trump already has the pedal to the metal on development activities, so I wonder what more they could do – without actually violating a law.  Maybe we should expect more lawsuits.

Here’s some of the key language in the EO (with my emphasis):

Sec. 2.  Policy.  Agencies, including executive departments, should take all appropriate steps to use their lawful emergency authorities and other authorities to respond to the national emergency and to facilitate the Nation’s economic recovery.  (I assume that means other non-emergency authorities, and not other unlawful authorities 🙂 )

Sec. 5.  Expediting the Delivery of Infrastructure and Other Projects on Federal Lands

b)  To facilitate the Nation’s economic recovery, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Agriculture shall use all relevant emergency and other authorities to expedite work on, and completion of, all authorized and appropriated infrastructure, energy, environmental, and natural resources projects on Federal lands that are within the authority of each of the Secretaries to perform or to advance.

Sec. 6.  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Emergency Regulations and Emergency Procedures.

b)  To facilitate the Nation’s economic recovery, the heads of all agencies are directed to use, to the fullest extent possible and consistent with applicable law, emergency procedures, statutory exemptions, categorical exclusions, analyses that have already been completed, and concise and focused analyses, consistent with NEPA, CEQ’s NEPA regulations, and agencies’ NEPA procedures.

Sec. 7.  Endangered Species Act (ESA) Emergency Consultation Regulations.

(b)  The heads of all agencies are directed to use, to the fullest extent possible and consistent with applicable law, the ESA regulation on consultations in emergencies, to facilitate the Nation’s economic recovery.

Sec. 10.  General Provisions

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Of course an executive order can’t change the law or regulations, and this one explicitly refers to existing procedures that can be used in emergencies.  All I see Trump doing here is pointing out that there are existing authorities to expedite projects, and agencies should be using them.  But maybe the intent might be to expand the situations that are considered emergencies to include an economic recession.  I doubt that could be done “consistent with applicable law” related to emergency determinations.  Here is the language applicable to Forest Service NEPA (36 CFR §220.4):

The responsible official may take actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency and are urgently needed to mitigate harm to life, property, or important natural or cultural resources.

If there is a need to mitigate immediate harm to life, property or important resources, it would be consistent with applicable law to use the established emergency procedures.  There is either nothing new in the executive order, or if there is, we should expect it to be challenged.  (And then there is the question of why he waited three months to address this “emergency.”)

But these are dark days.  The Washington Post quoted an attorney at a large national law firm (Perkins Coie) that doesn’t usually represent environmental plaintiffs.  He noted that the National Environmental Policy Act was enacted 50 years ago partly to prevent arbitrary federal decisions such as building highways through parks and communities of color and that the current administration cannot simply set aside laws aimed at protecting vulnerable Americans or the environment. “I will not be surprised to see many observers comparing this move — declaring an emergency to shield agency decisions from the public — to the order to clear Lafayette Square on Monday evening,” Jensen said, referring to actions in a Washington park this week. “It’s just one more face of authoritarian ideology, with a clear link to issues of race and equality and government accountability.”

 

Forest planning for mechanized use in recommended wilderness

by

We’ve talked about whether mountain bikes should be allowed in areas recommended for wilderness designation by the Forest Service in a forest plan, for example, here.  Most of the angst has been related to a policy adopted by Region 1 that many interpret as excluding this use because allowing it would reduce the likelihood that an area would actually be designated.  Here’s an example from another region of how a forest plan would address this question.  This language is from the draft EIS for the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest revised plan (North Carolina). While this is written about the effects of wilderness designation, the DEIS also makes it clear what activities the Forest thinks would create a risk to future wilderness designation options.

Wilderness recommendation and designation would remove the potential to generate revenue from timber production, forest product sales, and other land uses which support surrounding development such as utility or transportation corridors. No new mineral claims would be filed, but valid existing claims would be allowed to operate.

Existing roads within recommended areas would either continue to be maintained as linear wildlife fields or decommissioned and allowed to return to a natural state. No new wildlife fields would be created nor any timber harvest activities allowed. Restoration activities where the outcomes protect wilderness characteristics would be allowed to continue, including monitoring, relocation of animals, habitat improvements such as removal of nonnative fish species and nonnative invasive plant species, stream improvements, and rehabilitation of recreation impacts.

Existing trails would continue to be maintained to allow for hiking and equestrian use per current trail-use designations, but mechanized transport such as bicycles or carts would be prohibited in all recommended areas (with exception of approved mobility devices for the impaired). Commercial collection of non-timber forest products such as galax or ginseng, would not be permitted; however, collection for non-commercial or tribal purposes would be allowed. Other commercial activities such as recreation special-use events would also be prohibited in areas recommended for wilderness designation.

The mountain bike decision by the Forest was the followed discussions with a public working group, which also included consideration of whether future wilderness recommendations could be conditioned on providing adequate mountain bike trails.  The location of the trails was potentially less important than the amount, but it is unknown at this time where additional trails might be and how that might affect wilderness boundaries.  Consequently, trails in a potential wilderness area could be managed to phase out the existing but unauthorized mechanized use gradually after providing other comparable opportunities, and when certain conditions were met, appropriate areas would be formally recommended, with the full support of both mountain bike and wilderness groups.  But the Forest ended up recommending the area for wilderness, which would exclude the use.
In effect, the Forest appears to have considered an alternative that would have not recommended an area, but committed to a process that would recommend some or all of it as wilderness in the future (presumably with a plan amendment) when certain objectives are achieved.  You don’t find this alternative mentioned in the DEIS, though, as one considered but eliminated from detailed study.
Back in R1, the Nez Perce-Clearwater draft revised plan includes a suitability designation regarding mechanized use in all areas recommended for wilderness designation in a particular alternative.  Of the four action alternatives, one has no recommended wilderness and one would allow mechanized use in the areas recommended.  (The DEIS does not say what the current direction for recommended wilderness is.)  There is no preferred alternative.

 

The popularity of categorical exclusions

by

WildEarth Guardians noticed that the Forest Service is approving more and more vegetation management projects using categorical exclusions from NEPA procedures:  “a category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.”  They decided to do a little research, and found someone to report on it.

Rissien used Forest Service postings to tally all the logging and/or burning projects proposed for the past quarter – January through March – where forest managers had applied a “categorical exclusion” to avoid the public process normally required by law.

For just those three months, 58 national forests– that’s three-quarters of the forests in the West – proposed 175 projects that would affect around 4 million acres.

Rissien found, during the past quarter, USFS Region 4 – which covers southern Idaho, Nevada and Utah – proposed four projects that exceeded 100,000 acres each. One was 900,000 acres alone.

USFS Region 1, which includes Montana, northern Idaho and North Dakota, proposed 30 projects with CE’s last quarter, totaling more than 215,000 acres.

Logging projects intended to reduce insect or disease infestation or reduce hazardous fuels can be as large as 3,000 acres with some limitations. One CE created by the Forest Service for “timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement” has no acreage limit. Rissien found the Forest Service uses that for a majority of projects, and doesn’t even give a reason for others.

(There is also the “road maintenance” CE that has been the subject of litigation, including EPIC v. Carlson, here.)

There are some things to question in the article, but the slant of the article is not so much that what the Forest Service is doing is illegal, but that it is being done without much public information or awareness.  The article also points out that the Forest Service just seems to be following its marching orders from the president.  Tracking through the links gets you to this letter from the acting deputy chief, which says:

Consistent with this direction, Regional Foresters are to ensure that the Agency meet minimum statutory timeframes for completion of National Environmental Policy Act documentation and consultation with regulatory agencies. Categorical exclusions to complete this work should be the first choice and used whenever possible. I encourage you to explore creative methods and set clear expectations to realize this priority effort.

There’s a few points to make here.  I’m not aware of any “minimum statutory timeframes” for NEPA or consultation (the consulting agencies do have a deadline for providing a biological opinion).  I would translate “explore creative methods” into “take legal risks.”  Artificial deadlines aren’t creative, but they also result in legal risks.  Last is the implication that the use of categorical exclusions somehow avoids the need for an administrative record that shows that the use of the categorical exclusion isn’t arbitrary – that it fits the requirements of the category and does not have any extraordinary circumstances that could result in significant effects.  The lack of public review or an administrative objection process may save time, and it forces an opponent to sue, but it increases the risk of losing the case on an issue that could have been resolved before the decision.  (But if it gets points on the board during the game, does it matter what happens after?)  WEG said, “But we have to take their word for it since there is no supporting analysis we can review.”  If that’s what is really happening, it would eventually be a problem for the Forest Service in court.

Texas congressional delegation wants federal oil & gas leasing to fire up in the state

by

From the Forest Service scoping notice:

The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (NFGT) is initiating the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The EIS will analyze and disclose the effects of identifying areas as available or unavailable for new oil and gas leasing. The proposed action identifies the following elements: What lands will be made available for future oil and gas leasing; what stipulations will be applied to lands available for future oil and gas leasing, and if there would be any plan amendments to the 1996 NFGT Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan).

The Forest Service withdrew its consent to lease NFGT lands from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for oil and gas development in 2016. The reason for the withdrawal of consent was due to stakeholder concerns, including insufficient public notification, insufficient opportunity for public involvement, and insufficient environmental analysis. There is a need to analyze the impacts of new oil and gas development technologies on surface and subsurface water and geologic resources; air resources; fish and wildlife resources; fragile and rare ecosystems; threatened and endangered species; and invasive plant management. There is also a need to examine changed conditions since the Forest Plan was published.

These leasing availability decisions are forest plan decisions that were most recently made in 1996.  The action proposed by the Forest Service would result in changes in the stipulations and would therefore require a forest plan amendment.  The changes would shift about 11,000 acres from “controlled surface use” to “no surface occupancy,” and remove timing limitations from about 35,000 acres.

A letter from five Republican members of the delegation disagrees with the premise that the 1996 analysis was inadequate, and is unhappy with the pace of the amendment process.

The published timeline anticipated a Draft EIS in the winter of 2019 with the Final EIS expected in the fall of 2020. We are concerned that this timeline is no longer achievable given current pace of progress.

We request that USFS end the informal comment period, issue a Draft EIS this spring and ultimately approve the Final EIS that reinstates BLM’s ability to offer public competitive leases of National Forest and Grasslands in Texas for oil and gas leases before the end of 2020. While USFS is required by law to respond to eligible comments received within the public comment window (CFR218.12), the Forest Supervisor also has the authority to declare the available science sound, conclude the public comment period, and proceed with the issuance of the scoping comments and alternative development workshops as the next steps ahead of a Draft EIS (CFR219.2.3, 219.3) (sic).

That last sentence got my attention as the kind of congressional attention to Forest Service decision-making that might cause them to cut a legal corner here or there (especially when there is an election coming).  I also noticed the absence of any reference to the new requirements for amendments, and maybe the delay could have something to do with this becoming evident to them as a result of scoping.  36 CFR §219.13(b)(6):

For an amendment to a plan developed or revised under a prior planning regulation, if species of conservation concern (SCC) have not been identified for the plan area and if scoping or NEPA effects analysis for the proposed amendment reveals substantial adverse impacts to a specific species, or if the proposed amendment would substantially lessen protections for a specific species, the responsible official must determine whether such species is a potential SCC, and if so, apply section §219.9(b) with respect to that species as if it were an SCC.

I found nothing in the EIS for the 1996 revision about effects of oil & gas development on at-risk wildlife species.  You’d think the new information since 1996 might have something to do with effects on climate change, too.

Supreme Court to look at science and politics

by

In my experience, there have been lots of controversies where the issue is about what scientific information was considered by an agency but was suppressed or ignored by an administrator, often for allegedly political reasons.  It’s not unusual for the results of litigation to turn on documents that show an agency decision being arbitrary and capricious (violating the Administrative Procedure Act) because it is not supported by the record.  But do those kinds of documents have to be available to the public, and what if they weren’t?  The Supreme Court will be addressing such questions in U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club.  The case involves the Freedom of Information Act, and its requirement to make government records available subject to exceptions that may cause harm, in particular protection of an agency’s “deliberative process.”  (This exception generally lines up with requirements for what must be in an agency’s administrative record for a decision.)

The dispute stems from the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2011 proposal to change how it regulates power plants’ cooling water intake structures, which can crush or boil fish and other aquatic creatures.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service advised the agency on how the plan would affect threatened and endangered species. The services crafted draft opinions that said the EPA’s proposal was likely to harm protected species, but they later changed their conclusion and issued a “no jeopardy” finding.

When the Sierra Club used FOIA to get records related to the consultation process, the agencies withheld the draft opinions. After years of litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2018 ordered the government to turn over the records.

The Trump administration in October asked the Supreme Court to step in, arguing that the circuit court ignored FOIA Exemption 5, which protects records from an agency’s “deliberative process.” The Sierra Club countered that the documents were labeled drafts but functioned as final opinions.

While this article doesn’t talk about it, the major federal environmental statutes have requirements to use the “best science,” including the Endangered Species Act involved in this case, but also NEPA and the Forest Service Planning Regulations.  Agencies must prove they have done this by “showing their work.”  This includes disclosing contrary science, and providing the rationale for not relying on it.  It seems to me that any changes in the use of science or how it is viewed would be relevant to this requirement and must be explained to the public.  This is probably why there are comments like these on this case:

Margaret Townsend, a Center for Biological Diversity attorney who focuses on government transparency, said her group will be watching the case closely, as the Supreme Court “has a crucial opportunity to tell agencies they can’t hide science at the expense of our endangered animals and plants.”

Brett Hartl, government affairs director for the center, noted that expanded use of FOIA’s “deliberative process” exemption could allow the EPA and others to block disclosure of critical documents that explain agency decisions.

Lewis and Clark Law School professor Daniel Rohlf said a win for the government at the Supreme Court could help agency leaders overrule their own scientists and other experts.

Here’s what the government would like us to believe (according to the apparently pro-government-secrecy advocates the Pacific Legal Foundation):

“And here the agencies decided that the draft should not be finalized because further consultation was necessary, and then actually engaged in more consultation before issuing a final opinion.”

Consultation with whom, I wonder.  Since the Supreme Court agreed to review the case, the assumption is they would like to reverse in favor of the government.  The Sierra Club may decide to fold, also because FOIA has been amended since this case was filed to restrict the use of this FOIA exemption and promote greater disclosure.

The Pisgah-Nantahala Forest Plan- Reflections From the Newsmakers Forum

by

NC Rep. John Ager, D-Buncombe, asks the panel a question about the national forests during Carolina Public Press’ Feb. 19 forum at the University of North Carolina at Asheville.
Thanks to the Carolina Public Press for hosting the Newsmakers Forum on the Pisgah-Nantahala Forest Plan and making it available as a live broadcast with questions from those online. They deserve a shout-out, as does reporter Jack Igelman, for following the tedious (to many) twists and turns of the planning process. He has really dug into the details (where the Devil is thought to dwell) and tried to understand different points of view. If The Smokey Wire had a “Best Coverage of a Forest Plan” award, Jack would win hands down.

Here are some of my thoughts from the discussion. I know folks on The Smokey Wire (especially Sam Evans) have been very involved, so I’d appreciate any thoughts of your own and corrections.

1) While the history of pre-National Forest cultures and livelihoods on the land is generally better known and documented in the east, many of the issues discussed sound similar to parts of the West. They spoke of increasing/recreation, second homes and subdivisions, fire management, and vegetation management including commercial tree removal. Topics like sustainable recreation, increased pressure, and increased visitation are just as difficult in many places in the West.

2) One of the advantages of strategic planning or large landscape planning ideally is that people can work together to find common ground at a broader scale than “this project” or “that problem.” Based on the discussion, and comments by Sam Evans here, that generally seems to be how it is working. One person said that this collaboration might continue into implementing the plan. It did sound as if the forest plan perhaps provided a nexus for discussions and collaboration that otherwise would not have happened, as a “good forest planning process” ought. I am not sure how much of that is due to the Forest Service individuals, to collaborators, or to the unique culture, history and relationships on this land. Would be an interesting social science study to look at the the different forest planning efforts in about 10 more years.

Sidenote: I think we might disagree that, for example, a rancher from Burns, Oregon should have as much say about the Pisgah-Nantahala as someone in the collaborative group, and an insurance agent from Oklahoma who has never been there should have as much say as someone whose family has traditionally used the land for four generations. It’s interesting to think about “who cares about forests that are far away from their home” and why. I didn’t get the impression that this plan has major out-of-area interests, but I could be wrong.

3) Someone on the panel cited a book, Blue Ridge Commons, 2012 book by Kathryn Newfont. Here’s an excerpt from a blurb by University of Georgia:

In the late twentieth century, residents of the Blue Ridge mountains in western North Carolina fiercely resisted certain environmental efforts, even while launching aggressive initiatives of their own. Kathryn Newfont examines the environmental history of this region over the course of three hundred years, identifying what she calls commons environmentalism-a cultural strain of conservation in American history that has gone largely unexplored.

Efforts in the 1970s to expand federal wilderness areas in the Pisgah and Nantahala national forests generated strong opposition. For many mountain residents the idea of unspoiled wilderness seemed economically unsound, historically dishonest, and elitist. Newfont shows that local people’s sense of commons environmentalism required access to the forests that they viewed as semi-public places for hunting, fishing, and working. Policies that removed large tracts from use were perceived as “enclosure” and resisted.

These battles often pitted industrialists against environmentalists. Newfont argues that the side that most effectively hitched its cause to local residents’ commons culture usually won. A few perceptive activists realized that the same cultural ground that yielded wilderness opposition could also produce ambitious protection efforts, such as Blue Ridge residents’ opposition to petroleum exploration and clearcut timber harvesting.

I still don’t see Jane’s Sawmill as “industrial” but.. Perhaps there is an element of “keeping traditional people and uses out” that we also see in closing access in the West (outside of the Designated/Wilderness debate), although the argument is that it’s better for wildlife and the Forest Service can’t afford the upkeep on roads. But I have definitely heard a dislike for reduced access in comments on western forest plans (and travel management). Maybe east and west are not all that different.

Nez Perce-Clearwater plan revision alternatives

by

On a recent thread about getting land management decision “right,” I criticized an agency strategy of not identifying a preferred alternative in a draft EIS , using an example from BLM travel planning.  I said I was seeing more or this in land management planning, and here is an example from the Nez Perce-Clearwater forest plan revision.

A preferred alternative is not identified in the DEIS. Any individual component of any alternative analyzed in the DEIS may be combined into a preferred alternative. A preferred alternative will be identified with the release of the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Record of Decision in 2021.

The link is to the DEIS Executive Summary, and here is their range of alternatives:

Four action alternatives were developed based on internal and external input, including collaboration on alternative development. All alternatives analyzed in the draft environmental impact statement met a minimum bar of being ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable per the 2012 planning rule. Furthermore, each alternative contributes to rural prosperity and other Department of Agriculture Strategic Goals. Alternative themes and the thought process behind their development are described below:

Alternative W

Resources and land allocation on the Nez Perce-Clearwater are not mutually exclusive. It may be possible to have high levels of timber harvest; sustain rural economies; recover fish and wildlife species listed within the Endangered Species Act; provide clean air and clean water; and provide habitat for viable populations of wildlife species all at the same time. For instance, areas evaluated for recommended wilderness are independent from most areas that provide for timber harvest due to the Idaho Roadless Rule. As such, it is possible to recommend all or nearly all Idaho Roadless Rule areas for recommended wilderness and have a very high level of timber outputs. Alternative W is a “have it most” alternative. The intent is to couple items that may otherwise be viewed as being mutually exclusive. This alternative has higher levels of recommended wilderness coupled with a higher timber output and a faster rate of movement towards forest vegetation desired conditions. Forest vegetation desired conditions would be minimally met within thirty years. Areas not selected as recommended wilderness allow for motorized use, including within Idaho Roadless Rule areas. Wild and Scenic Rivers found suitable stem from a collaborative approach that looks at rivers outside the wilderness.

Alternative X

Alternative X responds to a number of state and local plans, which call for few or no areas of recommended wilderness fewer or no suitable wild and scenic rivers and higher timber outputs. In this alternative zero areas are recommended as wilderness. The Comprehensive Water Plan is used as a surrogate to continue to protect key tributaries to the North and South Fork Clearwater Rivers while not pursuing Wild and Scenic River Suitable status on any river. Forest vegetation would be within the lower bound of the desired conditions within twenty years. Alternative X has the highest timber output, including a departure from the Sustained Yield Limit (SYL) for a period of two decades at 241-261 million board feet annually.

Alternative Y

Alternative Y provides for intermediate level of recommended wilderness and moves towards forest vegetative desired conditions in fifty years. Historic snowmobiling areas in the Great Burn are removed from consideration as recommended wilderness resulting in a boundary change, but within the areas moving forward as recommended wilderness we do not authorize any uses that may preclude designation as wilderness in the future. This alternative also looks at the major rivers not designated in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as suitable for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic River system. The major rivers not designated include the North Fork Clearwater and South Fork Clearwater.

Alternative Z

Alternative Z responds to requests to have an alternative in which natural processes dominate over anthropogenic influence. In this alternative a proposal for recommended wilderness that was brought forward by a group of national and state wilderness advocacy groups was mostly carried forward. Additionally, rivers were viewed as part of a larger system and major tributaries to the Nez PerceClearwater’s largest rivers will be analyzed as being suitable for inclusion in the wild and scenic rivers system. Areas in Idaho Roadless Rule Areas will not be opened up for additional motorized use and most current motorized use would not be impacted. Reliance on natural process would warrant a slower movement towards forest vegetation desired conditions within an anticipated one-hundred-years or longer. Timber outputs would also be lower and near a lower threshold needed to provide for economic sustainability and sustain rural economies. Additional plan components related to snag guidelines, live tree retention, fisher habitat, and elk security are included that limit uncertainty regarding how and where these features will be located on the landscape.

According to the forest supervisor in this article, “Emphasized in this planning process is the alternatives were put together as building blocks, Probert said, so pieces could potentially be mixed and matched to provide better combinations.”

My question is does it facilitate public comments, or more generally facilitate the process, to not identify a preferred alternative? This range of alternatives seems reasonable.  It is based primarily on varying how “designated areas” would be identified and recommended (wilderness and wild and scenic rivers) and managed (inventoried roadless areas, including addressing motorized and mechanized recreation), and how actively or passively the vegetation would be managed.  I’ve suggested something along these lines, and maybe if all the alternatives are truly reasonable and focused on the most relevant issues, it would be possible for an agency to not have a preferred alternative.   But is it a problem that the final preferred alternative doesn’t look much like any of the alternatives offered for public comments?  Still, I’m skeptical that the Nez Perce-Clearwater doesn’t care, and if they do, the law requires that they tell the public.