conflict resolution

Who gets to be “in the room”

by

Discussion about the unfair access of litigants to decision-makers ignores the privileged position of local governments and economic interests during the planning process.  That is illustrated by this account of a meeting between the Forest Service, ESA regulatory agencies and northeast Oregon ranchers and county commissioners concerning revision of the Blue Mountains forest plans and changes in grazing requirements.  It sounded good up through the point where a forest supervisor said, “It was a productive meeting.  People said we need to do this more often — get around the table and share our thoughts in a respectful way.”

But here’s what the local public is taking home from the meeting (I’ve added the italics):

One of the major bones of contention with the plan among ranchers was something referred to as Watershed Condition Framework, which would require ranchers to leave taller grass stubble after grazing.  “We got buy-in from the Forest Service that Watershed Condition Framework is out the door,” Nash said.  (WCF is actually a national requirement.)

Matt McElligott of North Powder was asked to attend the meeting as a representative of the cattle industry. He said the county commissioners and the ranchers asked that the Forest Service use grazing guidelines and not standards. The commissioners also asked that those guidelines be assessed allotment by allotment rather than across the more than 5 million acres on the three forests.  “When we left the meeting the other day, we got close to all the points the commissioners wanted,” McElligott said.

Those in attendance methodically went over each point step by step, hashed out the terminology and agreed to the items proposed for inclusion in the Pacific Northwest Regional Forester’s Record of Decision due early next year, McElligott said.

This seems to me to create a lose-lose situation.  Either the attendees get what they want and the Forest Service and regulatory agencies look like they are making backroom deals, or they don’t and they feel betrayed (and might sue).  A reason why such “collaboration” is not a substitute for public involvement and NEPA – or for litigation.

Enjoined timber sale “renegotiated”

by

The Johnson Bar Salvage Sale on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest has been approved by the Forest Service and the litigants.  (Johnson Bar has been previously discussed here in several posts.)

Following the injunction, Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest Supervisor Cheryl Probert pulled the project and committed to a rewrite that was completed earlier this year. The environmental groups filed objections to the new logging plan, but those objections were resolved through negotiations between the agency, the environmental groups and timber companies.

“Nobody got 100 percent of what they wanted in this effort. But they have been really good about working through the process and understanding it’s in all of our best interests to get something done out there,” Probert said.

Bill Higgins of the Idaho Forest Group — one of the timber companies that successfully bid on the sale — estimated it will produce 25 percent to 40 percent of the original volume

“It’s not the best outcome,” he said. “The original project implementation on the schedule they were on was the desired outcome. This is making the best of kind of a bad situation.”

The project eliminates logging in areas that are visible from the river and places the groups feared were prone to erosion and landslides or areas that could degrade steelhead spawning habitat.

What’s not to like about this?  Maybe only that they could have done this without the litigation step, but apparently the litigation step was needed to convince the Forest Service that it couldn’t just do what it wanted without a fight.  (Anticipating Sharon’s argument, let’s assume that the timber purchasers and local governments were not formally “at the table,” but they were free to advise the Forest Service on what they wanted.)

IN SEARCH OF COMMON GROUND

by

It seems like an exercise in futility for the “New Century of Forest Planning” group to be discussing and cussing forest planning &/ policy when we haven’t even agreed to the scientific fundamentals that serve as the cornerstone and foundation for any such discussions.

Below, I have developed a tentative outline of the high level fundamentals which any Forest Plan or Policy must incorporate in order to have a reasonable chance of meeting the desired goals. Until we can come up with a version of these “Forestry Fundamentals” that we generally agree to, we are pushing on a rope and wasting each other’s time unless our objective here is simply to snap our suspenders and vent on each other.

In your comments, please note the outline Item that you are responding to. Maybe we can revise my initial effort and come to some common ground. In doing so we would perform a service and make a step forward that would be useful outside of this circle instead of just chasing our tails. Coming to such an agreement would be a step towards developing a priority hierarchy and eliminating the internal conflicts which make current federal forest policy and law ambiguous and self-contradictory. Until we reach common ground, the current obviously unworkable policies will continue to doom our forests to poor health and consequentially increase the risk of catastrophic loss of those forests and the species that depend on them for survival.

– FORESTRY FUNDAMENTALS – 1st Draft 12/15/16

ESTABLISHED SCIENCE WHICH MUST BE INCORPORATED IN PLANNING FOR

THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FOREST DEPENDENT SPECIES

I) The Fundamental Laws of Forest Science which have been repeatedly validated over time, location, and species. They include:
— A) plant physiology dictating the impact of competition on plant health,
— B) fire science dictating the physics of ignition and spread of fire and
— C) insects and pathogens and their propensity to target based on proximity and their probability of success being inversely proportional to the health of the target.

— D) Species suitability for a specific site is based on the interaction between the following items, those listed above and others not mentioned:

— — 1) hydrology, the underlying geology and availability of nutrients in the soil.

— — 2) latitude, longitude, elevation, aspect and adjacent geography.

— — 3) weather including local &/ global pattern changes.

 

II) The Fundamental Laws controlling the success of endangered, threatened and other species dependent on niche forest types (ecosystems):

— A) Nesting habitat availability.

— B) Foraging habitat availability.

— C) Competition management.

— D) Sustainability depends on maintaining a fairly uniform continuum of the necessary niches which, in turn, requires a balanced mix of age classes within each forest type to avoid species extinguishing gaps.

— E) Risk of catastrophic loss must be reduced where possible in order to minimize the chance of creating species extinguishing gaps in the stages of succession.

 

III) The role of Economics:

— A) Growing existing markets and developing new markets in order to provide revenue to more efficiently maintain healthy forests and thence their dependent species.

— B) Wise investment in the resources necessary to accomplish the goals.

— C) Efficient allocation of existing resources.

 

IV) The role of Forest Management:

— A) Convert the desires/goals of the controlling parties into objectives and thence into the actionable plans necessary to achieve the desired objectives.

— B) Properly execute the plans in accordance with the intent of: governing laws/regulations and best management practices considering any economies.

— C) Acquire independent third party audits and make adjustments in management practices where dictated in order to provide continuous improvement in the means used to achieve goals.

— D) Adjust plans as required by changes: in the goals, as required by the forces of nature and as indicated by on the ground results.

— E) Use GIS software to maintain the spatial and associated temporal data necessary for Scheduling software to find and project feasible alternatives and recommend the “best” alternative to meet the goals set by the controlling parties.

What did I miss, what is wrong, what is right, what would improve this list of Forest Fundamentals?

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.

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.”

Another classic settlement

by

A follow up to an earlier post on ATV litigation on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.

“Under the settlement, the Forest Service agreed not to authorize public use to all-terrain vehicles without first completing an assessment of environmental effects. The agency also agreed to re-survey routes and remove any remaining signs authorizing ATV use.”

“The federal agency denied the groups’ allegations but agreed to pay their attorney’s fees as part of the settlement.”

This telegraphs something important that the Forest Service gets out of settlements. They don’t get a judicial precedent, and that gives them more flexibility to use the same disputed approach in future actions (and better protects other past actions that used this approach, at least for awhile).

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?

Forest Service Must Re-initiate Consultation With USFWS on Lynx

by

This looks to have far-reaching effects on those National Forests within the “core habitats”. This looks like a forced settlement situation, where the Forest Service will probably pay dearly for their loss in court.

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2015/06/17/13-35624.pdf

Interesting:

Although the court granted summary judgment to Cottonwood and ordered reinitiation of consultation, it declined to enjoin any specific project.

Sleeping With the Enemy?

by

high-intensity-burn-web

Timber industry people who don’t trust forest collaboration believe that those of us who participate in collaboratives are sleeping with the enemy. Environmentalists who would rather sue than participate in collaboratives think that environmentalists who collaborate with us are sleeping with the enemy. So it’s unanimous. We’re sleeping with our enemies. I don’t care what our critics think. Collaborative groups, ours included, are solving political problems that should never have become political problems, and those problems are the reason why our forests are dying and burning before our very eyes. So if you really want to know what collaboration is all about, it’s about protecting forests from the ravages of nature, not just for our benefit, but also for the benefit of future generations.

Duane Vaagen, Chief Executive Officer
Vaagen Brothers Lumber Company, Colville, Washington

http://www.evergreenmagazine.com/forest-collaboration-in-northeast-washington-part-1-duane-vaagen/

Larry’s note: Sent to me from a reader, this points out the, maybe, necessary mistrust at this part of the collaborative journey. We need all sides to embrace full transparency, so that the public at-large can more accurately form a better-educated opinion of the compromises that might work, for those site-specific conditions. I do think that the tables are turning, in favor of more active management and stewardship. I do think this summer’s fire season might convince a few more people, too.

The Rim Fire Salvage Seems Done

by

My last expedition included another trip to Yosemite, and the Rim Fire. I DO think that there are enough dead trees for the owls to “enjoy” in their respite from breeding. Then again, maybe this new “Circle of Life” will provide more food, in the form of baby owls, to larger predators?

P9036671-web

You might also notice the ongoing beetle kills, which will increase when spring and summer come into play. This next picture shows the little bit of harvesting that was done along Highway 120. You can see the drainage where the Highway sits, and you can also see how wide the hazard tree units are. The barren area in the foreground is/was chaparral.

P9036665-web

I am glad that the Forest Service “took my advice” about getting the work done before there was any chance to appeal to a more liberal….errr….. higher court. However, is THIS what we want our salvaged wildfires to look like? This area should be ready for re-burn in a few short years. Also, be reminded that two of the plantation salvage projects did not sell, despite the prompt action by the Forest Service. My guess is that SPI was low-balling the Forest Service to get those smaller trees at less than “base rates”. That means that the prices remain the same (rock bottom) but, some of the non-commercial treatments would be dropped. It appears that the Forest Service wasn’t willing to go as low as SPI wanted. So, those perfectly good salvage trees will be left, “for wildlife”, it appears.