Diversity and species conservation

Court buys FS interpretation of viability for bighorn sheep

by

On July 31, the federal district court for Wyoming found that the revised Medicine Bow National Forest Plan met the requirement of the 1982 planning regulations to manage habitat “to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area.”  At issue was the meaning of additional language in the regulation that “habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area.”  The court determined that, “there is no requirement that the Forest Service manage habitat so as to maintain bighorn herds, at maximum potential, across the entire Forest, at all potential habitat locations…”

There are three reintroduced herds of bighorn sheep on the national forest.  The plan would only protect two of those from exposure to disease risks from domestic sheep, which is the major risk factor for bighorns, by eliminating domestic sheep grazing.  The small unprotected herd was stable but had never thrived, and was considered a low priority by the state of Wyoming.  The court found that the viability regulation was ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation in this case had changed during the administrative review.  Nevertheless it held that the record adequately explained the agency’s interpretation that protecting the two herds from domestic sheep and providing other plan direction that would benefit all three herds would meet the viability requirement:

“The Regional Forester made the determination, given all information available to him, that emphasizing domestic sheep grazing over the Encampment River herd in the Sierra Madre range, the Medicine Bow National Forest would still be able to manage the habitat of the Laramie Peak and Douglas Creek herds in order to achieve viability of bighorn sheep.”

The court found that this was determination was not arbitrary or capricious.  (Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. Jiron)

When the locals pay for national forest fuel reduction …

by

Everybody wins?

“So were Flagstaff officials prescient when they proposed what, at the time, was one of the first municipal partnerships with a national forest to have lands outside city boundaries thinned at city expense?”

“Hindsight is 20-20, but it sure looks that way to us. Armed with a $10 million budget, the Forest Service immediately went to work on an environmental study that mapped the most fireprone timber stands as well as nests of endangered Mexican spotted owls.  Steep slopes most prone to erosion were pegged for less-harmful cable logging, and some stands of old-growth ponderosas were declared off limits. Using collaborative tactics learned from 4FRI, the draft EIS containing a thinning plan was ready in near-record time and drew no lawsuits that would cause delay.”

Could that be because there’s no revenue or profit motive driving more destructive logging practices?

Forest Service wins A to Z

by

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court denial of a preliminary injunction for the North Fork Mill Creek A to Z Project on the Colville National Forest, which has been discussed here. Of note, the question of contractor-NEPA was not addressed, although the court said that the Forest Service “reviewed and approved” the EA, and “The Forest Service subsequently retracted and revised the EA to address concerns raised by the public.”

That’s right, an EA on a 13,000 acre logging project with some at-risk species. How could that be? The short answer is essentially full mitigation of effects. For pine marten and fisher, the plaintiffs agreed that goals in the forest plan would protect the habitat, and that the project was consistent with those goals by correctly identifying the habitat and leaving it alone. The legal arguments they made were more technical and weaker. So, while there are some differences here from the Colorado Tennessee project in lynx habitat, it appears that the Colville forest-wide conservation strategy for these species also simplified the project NEPA process. Full mitigation basically also occurred for sediment and open road density (It also probably didn’t hurt that, “The project was the result of a multi-year collaboration among elected officials, environmental organizations, Native American tribes, the timber industry, and community organizations.”  And maybe that had something to do with why the FS agreed to this degree of mitigation.)

The opinion includes an interpretation of the 2012 Planning Rule’s requirement for the use of the “best available scientific information in the forest planning process” (despite the fact that the new Planning Rule does not apply to either the existing plan or to any projects). Quoting a Ninth Circuit case: A party challenging the Forest Service’s scientific analysis cannot simply “cite studies that support a conclusion different from the one the Forest Service reached” and must instead provide “scientific studies that indicate the Forest Service’s analysis is outdated or flawed.”

Giant Sequoia National Monument

by

With the general public becoming enraged about Giant Sequoia logging scenarios, here is a picture of some Bigtrees in what used to be the Sequoia National Forest. Chances are, the review will recommend keeping all groves within the Monument, adding some buffer zones and connectivity, then returning a large portion, including logging roads, skid trails, plantations and stumps, back to the National Forest.

The ‘Trumpspiracies’ abound on the Sierra Club’s Facebook fundraising content comments. They make up these elaborate and unlikely situations where the “logging companies” would come in and make wild profits off of cutting Giant Sequoias. Some think that they would be cut to burn for power. More were sure that oil wells and mining would happen once the trees were gone. One insisted that the wood could be exported, milled and made into tables, “destined for the Arabian Peninsula”. Many are comparing this National Monument review to the destruction of historical sites by radical Islam. If you’re going to oppose actual Trump era actions, maybe, just maybe, one should actually use facts?

With Sequoias being a rather sensitive issue, what shall we do, when very soon we will need to thin some of these Giant Sequoia plantations, scattered throughout the Sierra Nevada? Here’s a sample of one on the Eldorado.

Early seral wildlife species driving forest planning debate in the southeast

by

Here’s an in-depth article on the ongoing revision of the plan for the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina, featuring the extent to which the Forest should provide early seral habitat (ESH).

Many conservation advocates disagree over whether promoting this specific sort of habitat over others is desirable on a large scale. They also question whether aggressive advocacy for ESH stems more from a desire to conserve species or to boost game numbers and accessibility for the benefit of sportsmen.  

Fish and Wildlife Conservation Council:

The FWCC is a proponent of expanding active wildlife habitat management and restoration through, among other things, more timber harvesting and controlled fires. Central to their advocacy is forest restoration and increasing the amount of early successional habitat across the landscape, including grasses, shrubs and trees that provide food, cover and habitat for wildlife.  The FWCC believes that the future management of the National Forest should target a minimum of 12 percent of forest in an age class of 0-12 years. The need to improve game populations is a central argument of the FWCC and has been cited as a reason to oppose new additions to the wilderness base in several county resolutions.

The Nature Conservancy:

Warwick of TNC said that historically speaking there’s strong evidence that there was a much greater distribution of young forest and more grassy areas across the landscape prior to the 20th century. However, fire suppression has been a primary factor in abetting forest growth that is now lacking in young forest age classes and creating a canopy that is too dense. “Most of the species that are declining in the Southern Appalachian require ESH somewhere in their life cycle,” he said. “If we decide it is important to stem their decline, then there’s no (other) choice than to take an active management role. That means more fire and timber harvesting.”

Southern Environmental Law Center:

Sam Evans, an attorney with the Southern Environmental Law Center and member of the stakeholders forum agrees that ESH is underrepresented in the forest, especially if you look at those tracts in isolation.  Nobody who is actively participating in stakeholder discussions is objecting to increasing habitat diversity, including an increase in harvest for ESH,” said Evans in an email written to CPP. He said that the organizations he works with are “wildlife advocates.” “The truth is, I and other conservation voices are supporting precisely the same goal—restoration of ecological integrity in order to provide needed habitat for all the forest’s native species,” Evans said.

To borrow from the forestry professionals, “ecological integrity is the answer.”  According to the interpretation of NFMA in the 2012 Planning Regulations any way.  What’s muddied the waters in NC is the idea that wilderness designation is somehow contrary to ecological integrity (it limits tools, but the desired outcome is the same).  Not mentioned in the article are which species are or will be vulnerable because of a lack of ESH (this isn’t what the TNC quote said), and it doesn’t really address how the current and expected conditions of private lands should be accounted for.  It does point out that old-growth stands are also underrepresented on the Forest.

9th Circuit takes out NFMA diversity requirement

by

In a 2-1 decision, which allowed the Big Thorne timber project to proceed on the Tongass National Forest, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court opinion that the Forest Service had complied with NFMA when it adopted forest plan direction related to managing old growth forest for deer to support viability of Alexander Archipelago wolves (an at-risk species).  The dissent pointed out that prior Ninth Circuit precedent had established that:

the forest plan must comply with substantive requirements of the [NFMA] designed to ensure continued diversity of plant and animal communities and the continued viability of wildlife in the forest . . . .” Idaho Sporting Cong., Inc. v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 957, 961–62 (9th Cir. 2002). Specifically, 36 C.F.R. § 219.19 requires that “[f]ish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area.” Our law is clear that an agency must abide by its own regulations.

The majority (both judges appointed by republican presidents) charted a new course, citing a a BLM case that had nothing to do with NFMA:

Instead, an agency need only supply “a rational connection between the facts found and the conclusions made.” Or. Nat. Res. Council Fund v. Brong, 492 F.3d 1120, 1131 (9th Cir. 2007).

Instead of recognizing the language of NFMA that requires plans to “provide for plant and animal diversity,” the majority opinion cites language that refers to the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act (contained in a case that was not about forest plans).  It concludes:

The NFMA gives the Forest Service flexibility because the Service has many different goals—conservation, commerce, recreation, and so on. See 16 U.S.C. § 1604(e)(2); McNair, 537 F.3d at 993–94. The statute reflects a congressional judgment that balancing these goals calls for policy judgments—judgments that often require trade-offs among worthy objectives, such as wolves and logging jobs.

In other words, NFMA did not take away any of the discretion provided by MUSYA.  This should be news to a lot of people, including the Forest Service.  This case would be a really good candidate for en banc review by the Ninth Circuit.

Here’s a local news story.

A conservation plan puts science ahead of politics

by

This story about the Pima County Arizona conservation planning effort isn’t directly about national forests, though there should have been (and probably was) coordination with the Coronado National Forest.  And my point here isn’t about the success of a conservation plan driven by the need to protect at-risk species (arguably an ESA success story).  It’s about the role of scientists in the process (Sharon).

“County leaders stated from the outset that their primary goal was to conserve biological diversity through a scientifically defendable process, not to come up with a plan that everybody could agree on,” wrote the late urban planning specialist Judith Layzer in her 2008 book Natural Experiments, which analyzed more than a half-dozen regional land-conservation efforts.

The scientists and county staff discussed the plan in public sessions, but county officials made it clear that their work would not be derailed by complaints from developers and other critics. The scientists established standards for identifying biologically valuable lands and used computer models, observation records and the judgment of local naturalists and recognized experts to come up with a biological preserve map.

In contrast, in other multi-species plans, scientists, politicians, agency staffers, developers and moderate conservationists collectively determined which lands to save, thus bringing political and economic considerations into the science.

Looking back this spring, Huckelberry, a former county transportation chief, says he was simply applying the best practices from his previous job, highway planning, to land conservation. Typically, both a technical committee and a citizens’ committee review big road projects, he says: “The whole purpose of a technical advisory committee is not to play with the numbers, not to slant the analysis. We felt the political side could potentially be used to manipulate the scientific side, and felt that would bias the entire process.”

After the science team created a map of the proposed preserve system, a separate steering committee of 84 people, including developers, environmentalists and neighborhood leaders, haggled over its details. By then, though, the plan’s broad vision was already solidly in place.

Bringing this back to the Forest Service, this is similar to how a team of biologists developed the Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy, which was then followed by forest plan amendments that “haggled over the details.”  The Forest Service doesn’t like some of things it can’t do, but there haven’t been challenges to the science.  The grizzly bear conservation strategies seem to be more like the alternative process, where what the land managers want is infused into the discussions of the science.  (The Yellowstone strategy was already voided by a court once because of scientific issues.)

Forest Service and BLM slightly lose sage grouse lawsuit in Nevada

by

The state of Nevada, nine counties, three mining companies, and a private ranch challenged the adoption of greater sage grouse conservation measures in Forest Service and BLM land management plans.  Most of the agency actions were upheld in Western Exploration v. USDI (D. Nevada), including compliance with FLPMA requirements of BLM for multiple use and consistency “to the extent practical” with local plans, and compliance with NFMA.  Here’s the court’s language on Forest Service multiple-use:

“Plaintiffs contend that the SFA (mineral) withdrawal zones, travel restrictions on 16 million acres of land, and grazing restrictions violate the multiple-use mandate of NFMA. They also challenge that the FEIS violates multiple-use principles because it closes millions of acres of land to important uses, replaces “no unmitigated loss” with a requirement for “net conservation gain,” and creates uniform lek buffers that are “no-go zones.”

“The Court’s review of whether the Forest Service Plan violates NFMA’s multiple use mandate is necessarily narrow, and it may consider only whether the Forest Service contemplated all relevant factors in making its determination. First, it is unclear to the Court how travel and grazing restrictions manifest the Forest Service’s failure to consider multiple use. To the contrary, the restrictions demonstrate a balance between conservation of greater-sage grouse habitat and sustainable human use of natural resources. Second, the Court fails to see how multiple use mandates that any particular parcel of land be available for any particular use.  While Plaintiffs point out certain land closures in the USFS Plan, such as complete exclusion of new solar and wind energy projects (on SFA, PHMA, and GHMA), the Plan does not exclude all possible human uses on those lands. Finally, Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate how the “net conservation gain” and lek buffer zones preclude multiple use or demonstrate a failure on the part of the Forest Service to consider all relevant factors. In fact, the move from “no unmitigated loss” in the DEIS to “net conservation gain” in the FEIS demonstrates that the Forest Service reconsidered whether their initial standard consistently balanced sustainable human use with adequate habitat conservation.”

The court did not uphold compliance with NEPA. Plaintiffs had identified several changes between the draft and final EIS, and the court agreed that, “the designation of 2.8 million acres as Focal Areas in Nevada amounts to a substantial change relevant to environmental concerns, requiring the Agencies to prepare an SEIS.  The court focused on the fact that these lands included the town of Eureka, Eureka County’s landfill, power lines, subdivisions of homes, farms with alfalfa fields and irrigation systems, hay barns, and important portions of the Diamond Valley area, and there would be a “spillover” effect from the changes in adjacent federal land management that warranted additional analysis and opportunity to comment.  Because of risk of harm to sage grouse, the court did not enjoin the plan amendments pending completion of the new analysis.

9th Circuit upholds EA for Shasta-Trinity logging project

by

The mantra I always use to hear was don’t use an EA if you might get sued.  Maybe things are different now?  Or maybe this was just one of those EAs that looked a lot like an EIS.

  • The Project’s proposed treatment methods will retain all existing snags greater than 15 inches in diameter, “unless deemed a safety hazard by the purchaser, or in the case of a need to meet coarse woody debris (CWD) requirements.” Because the Project only removes snags in two limited circumstances, it was reasonable for USFS to conclude that treatment methods will not reduce snag numbers below Forest Plan standards.
  • The Project’s Environmental Analysis considered a total of fourteen alternatives, five of which were discussed in detail.  The USFS reasonably concluded that not treating 17% of the Project area would thwart the major purposes of the Project.
  • USFS properly analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Project.  The Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) Handbook does not require USFS to use the owl’s “natal dispersal” distance in its analysis.
  • While the uncertain effect of fires in spotted owl foraging areas may cast doubt on some aspects of the Project, the Project’s anticipated effects as a whole are not highly uncertain and do not trigger the need for an EIS.  Also, logging in designated critical habitat will be limited to areas that support lower-quality owl habitat—and no forest treatment will occur in nesting and roosting habitat.  “We think USFS has provided a ‘convincing statement of reasons’ to explain why [the Project’s] impacts are insignificant.”

Conservation Congress v. U. S. Forest Service.  March 31, 2017.