Diversity and species conservation

For Want of A Document?: More on the Bear Creek “Trail’n’Trout” Litigation

by
Cyclists take a break at an overlook along Trail 667 in North Cheyenne Canon Park. Seth Boster, The Gazette

Seth Boster of the Colorado Springs Gazette wrote this piece on another Cutthroat Trout/CBD Lawsuit story. What is really interesting to me is that he interviewed:
The District Ranger, the USFWS Biologist, the Plaintiff’s Attorney and the FS fish bio, who strike me as the main actors in the story thus far. I’m glad that the biologists and the Ranger were allowed to speak to the press and give their side of the story.

Bottom line: case seems to be currently based on FWS documentation. Similar to the Rio Grande cutthroat we’ve been discussing, but definitely at the micro scale.

Also: “there have been indications that maybe it wasn’t built up to the standard of some groups’ interest” hence the lawsuit. This seems to be an example of disagreements about design and location of a trail while protecting fish (originally introduced to that place by humans, but now having legal status). I like how Townsend says “we need to make sure the trail is situated in a safe way.” This makes clear that the lawsuit is a tool to achieve a specific on-the-ground outcome.

“They raised concerns with how Trail 667 came to be on the north side of Kineo Mountain. The plan previously was to build on the south side, before machines encountered blocks, as Pikes Peak District Ranger Oscar Martinez explained to stakeholders in an August 2016 meeting.

The center claims documentation is missing to show how the Forest Service coordinated the late change with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In reading the notice, “I was thinking that perhaps the Center for Biological Diversity may not have been aware that the reinitiation on the consultation had already occurred,” Leslie Ellwood, the Fish and Wildlife biologist assigned to Bear Creek, told The Gazette in a phone call. “It seemed like a reinitiation should happen, when in fact one already had happened quite a while ago.”

A letter would confirm this, she said — a response approving the Forest Service’s direction. A Gazette request for that letter had yet to be met on Thursday.

“The way I would characterize is, I think there’s a schism,” Martinez said late Wednesday at the roundtable meeting. “Did we consult (Fish and Wildlife)? The answer is yes.”

To attendees’ questions of how the Forest Service would respond to the center, Martinez hesitated.

“I’m not gonna lay out all my legal cards here,” he said. “Do I think we followed the process to do the right thing relative to those concerns? The answer is yes. Will we continue to work with them to address those concerns? The answer is yes.”

He said he expected the center would hear back from his office in two weeks.

“If we do see evidence of consultation, it may change the immediacy of us filing a lawsuit,” center attorney Margaret Townsend said. “But we need to make sure the trail is situated in a safe way, and there have been indications that maybe it wasn’t built up to the standard of some groups’ interest.”

She added: “There may be new information that the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife need to consider.”

Observers have criticized the sustainability of Trail 667, which they say is showing signs of wear and tear. One of them is Allyn Kratz, president of the local chapter of Trout Unlimited.

On Wednesday, he asked about “ravines” he said he had noticed along the trail, threatening to cause washouts in the stream.

“We did not observe any locations of concern along the trail,” said Janelle Valladaras, the Forest Service’s fisheries biologist. She said the team took “a critical eye” to 667 in early October after the center’s notice.

Townsend, based in Portland, Ore., said she was in the Springs this week to scout the site, but snow got in the way of those plans.

“We’re doing our due diligence to make sure we’re getting all the information and evidence necessary,” she said. “If all the evidence suggests the trail is safe and situated in such a way that the fish will thrive and folks can keep enjoying themselves as they have been, then there’s no reason to file a lawsuit.”

Modeling for Decisions IV. In Practice – Climate Change and the Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout (and Forest Planning)

by

It’s fortuitous that we have this recent example of how a court viewed a population model for an at-risk wildlife species that addresses climate change. The court included the usual caveat that, “Deference to the agency “is especially strong where the challenged decisions involve technical or scientific matters within the agency’s area of expertise.”

It is undisputed that the Service attempted to estimate the effects of climate change by using both “moderate” and “severe” predictions of expected effects, and that for the severe model, it “increased the risk function over time by 20 percent for the 2040 forecast and 40 percent for the 2080 forecast.” 79 Fed. Reg. at 59,147–48. The Plaintiffs take issue with the Service’s observation that the differences in results from the moderate and severe climate change models were “not particularly large.” Disbelieving that this could be a correct conclusion, the Plaintiffs thus suggest that the models “are driven by the Service’s assumption that climate change will have relatively little influence on the threats to individual Trout populations.” (# 76 at 26.)

But the Plaintiffs’ argument begs its own question, assuming that the Service’s models are infected by false preexisting assumptions that climate change effects with be minimal. It is essential to note that the Plaintiffs have not gotten “under the hood” of the Service’s models and pointed out any methodological, programming, or data entry flaws with them. Rather, the Plaintiffs simply argue that the models must be flawed because they produced results with which the Plaintiffs disagree. It may be that the models are flawed, but it may also be that that Plaintiffs’ (and the Service’s as of 2008) expectations about climate change effects are misplaced. Ultimately, it is the Plaintiffs’ burden to demonstrate an error in the Service’s actions, and simply pointing out that two different methodological approaches to calculating the effects of climate change in the far future produced two different results, one of which the Plaintiffs disagree with, does not suffice to carry that burden.

The threatened inquiry takes a longer-term view, asking whether the species might become endangered in a more distant future. But the threatened inquiry is necessarily closed-ended; once the Court has reached the endpoint of the “foreseeable future” (a term found in ESA, and defined recently by regulation) — which the parties here agree is 2080 — the Court’s ability to prognosticate must also come to an end. After 2080, nothing can be foreseen, all is simply speculation. So it is meaningless to ask whether a species will be threatened as of 2080, because it is impossible in 2080 to engage in the long-term future examination that the threatened analysis requires. By 2080, a species must have either reached the level of endangered and be at immediate risk of extinction, or it never will.

As the Plaintiffs observe, it appears that the Trout is on a “slide towards extinction.” (# 76 at 35.) But if the Service’s models are correct — and in the absence of a challenge, the Court must assume that they are — that slide will not be completed as of or immediately following 2080. At that time, there will still be 50 populations of Trout remaining, a number that the Service believes (and the Plaintiffs have not disputed) is enough to ensure the species’ survival through some indeterminate point in the future. What might become of those 50 populations after 2080 is beyond our ability to foresee; the curtain has come down and the movie has ended. We could attempt to speculate about what might happen thereafter — the 50 populations could persist, they could perish, new populations could be discovered, old habitats could become viable again — but speculation is all it would be. Our ability to predict what might happen has come to an end.

This analysis and decision actually has some important implications for forest planning (from the 2013 Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Conservation Strategy).

Of the total 1,110 km (690 mi) of occupied habitat, 698 km (434 mi) (63 percent) are under Federal jurisdiction, with the majority (59 percent) occurring within National Forests (Alves et al. 2008).

Range-wide, a large proportion of the watershed conditions within the forests that have Rio Grande cutthroat trout are rated as “functioning at risk,” which means that they exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition (USFS 2011)

Land management activities are currently practiced according to the Carson, Santa Fe, and Rio Grande National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans, and BLM Resource Management Plans. During scheduled revisions, the forests and BLM field offices will evaluate the current Land and Resource Management Plans and update as necessary to provide adequate protection for Rio Grande cutthroat trout with current best management practices. Land management activities that would result in the loss of habitat or cause a reduction in long-term habitat quality will be avoided.

 

If the trout is a warranted for listing (even if precluded by higher priorities), it is a “candidate” species under ESA.   The Planning Rule requires that forest plan components conserve candidate species (which under ESA means the same thing as recover). Since this decision that listing is no longer warranted was reversed, that should mean the species is again a candidate species.

Of course, national forests where the trout is found have been revising their forest plans after 2014, when listing was no longer considered warranted. Consequently, the Rio Grande cutthroat was considered for inclusion as a species of conservation concern. The Rio Grande National Forest has identified the species as an SCC in its final plan (currently in the objection period). The requirement for forest plans for SCC is for plan components to maintain a viable population.

Logically, a species that is warranted for listing should warrant greater protection than one that is not. So it’s possible that the Rio Grande will need to reconsider plan components in areas that are important to this species, or to at least document why this change doesn’t make a difference.

Which could bring us back to the modeling question – how does the Forest Service show that it is meeting the NFMA requirement to provide ecological conditions necessary for this species?   If there is a working population model for a species, then those factors that may be influenced by national forest management should be examined to determine how they could change as a result of forest plan decisions, and whether or how that could affect the model results.

 

Trump Administration sage-grouse plans stopped

by

The district court for Idaho has enjoined the Trump Administration’s attempt to cut back protection of sage-grouse on BLM lands in Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Nevada/Northeastern California, and Oregon from that provided by plan amendments in 2015. (A similar decision has been pending for national forest plans.) The changes made in the 2019 amendments to BLM land management plans can not be implemented, and the provisions in the 2015 amendments will apply (projects must be consistent with the 2015 amendments) until the case is decided on the merits.  (A link to the opinion is included with this news release.)

Moreover, the court telegraphed the merits pretty clearly:

“… the plaintiffs will likely succeed in showing that (1) the 2019 Plan Amendments contained substantial reductions in protections for the sage grouse (compared to the 2015 Plans) without justification; (2) The EISs failed to comply with NEPA’s requirement that reasonable alternatives be considered; (3) The EISs failed to contain a sufficient cumulative impacts analysis as required by NEPA; (4) The EISs failed to take the required “hard look” at the environmental consequences of the 2019 Plan Amendments; and (5) Supplemental Draft EISs should have been issued as required by NEPA when the BLM decided to eliminate mandatory compensatory mitigation.”

(1) “The stated purpose of the 2019 Plan Amendments was to enhance cooperation between the BLM and the States by modifying the BLM’s protections for sage grouse to better align with plans developed by the States. While this is a purpose well-within the agency’s discretion, the effect on the ground was to substantially reduce protections for sage grouse without any explanation that the reductions were justified by, say, changes in habitat, improvement in population numbers, or revisions to the best science contained in the NTT and CTO Reports.” The agencies did not fulfill their duty to explain why they are now making a different decision based on the same facts.

(2) The no-action alternative did not meet the purpose and need, and there was only one action alternative. “Common sense and this record demonstrate that mid-range alternatives were available that would contain more protections for sage grouse than this single proposal.”

(3) The BLM prepared six EISs based on state boundaries, but failed to provide the “robust” cumulative effects analysis this situation required. In particular, “connectivity of habitat – requires a large-scale analysis that transcends the boundaries of any single State.”

(4) “Certainly, the BLM is entitled to align its actions with the State plans, but when the BLM substantially reduces protections for sage grouse contrary to the best science and the concerns of other agencies, there must be some analysis and justification – a hard look – in the NEPA documents.” The court took particular note of the EPA comments that were ignored, and Fish and Wildlife Service endorsement of the 2015 amendments in deciding not to list the species under ESA because they adopted scientific recommendations (see below).

(5) Compensatory mitigation measures were eliminated after the draft EIS, which “appears to constitute both “substantial changes” to its proposed action and “significant new circumstances” requiring a supplemental EIS.

The case provides a good example of how science is considered by a court, which allowed declarations from outside experts to determine if relevant environmental consequences were ignored. The court relied heavily on earlier scientific reports that included normative “recommendations,” but the court focused on their scientific conclusions, such as “surface-disturbing energy or mineral development within priority sage-grouse habitats is not consistent with the goal to maintain or increase populations or distribution,” and “protecting even 75 to >80% of nesting hens would require a 4-mile radius buffer.” The Final EISs stated that there would be no measurable effects or they would be beneficial to sage-grouse, but the BLM either had no analysis or ignored this contrary information.

 

Mexican Spotted Owl Case: Monitoring, Biological Opinions, Firewood Cutting and Transparency

by

Matthew posted the WEG press release here..with links to other posts on the case.

Frankly, I have never really understood ESA litigation. Maybe Jon and others can help me understand via this case.

1. From what I’ve read, this case is about the FS (and FWS?) not monitoring/improving the status of the MSO. But some forests are exempt, because they have a 2012 biological opinion, and it will supposedly take a year for the other forests to get a biological opinion. But if those other forests have a biological opinion, and it says “don’t do these things because of the MSO” then couldn’t another solution be to adopt those restrictions until the new BO is completed? Could that have been the judge’s decision? Would the plaintiff then have to agree? If some forests are exempt from the order due to their BO’s, then is it really about monitoring, or really about having a recent BO? To get back to Jon’s point, does it make better sense to have something like the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment where a bunch of forest plans are amended at once?

It’s also interesting from the political science point of view. Thanks to the NAFSR twitter feed for this link to a story in the Las Cruces Sun News.

U.S. Sens. Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich, and U.S. Reps. Ben Ray Lujan, Deb Haaland and Xochitl Torres Small — all Democrats — signed the letter, asking Christiansen to “resolve a variety of issues, including, but not limited to, traditional firewood gathering, tribal cultural activities, and forest restoration and fire mitigation projects.”

The affected people and their elected officials can only ask the Forest Service to negotiate. If I remember correctly, it was also an ESA case in Region 3 about which Chief Jack Ward Thomas said:
“In my opinion, and those of my legal advisers, the proposed agreement contained three real clunkers to which we strenuously objected. The Department of Justice is, in my opinion, almost always too eager to settle legal actions, particularly when plaintiffs are of the environmental persuasion. It was a shock to my system to find that the Department of Justice does not consider the Forest Service a client. They have little concerns as to the desires of the Forest Service or any other agency. They set their own course and in doing so are de facto setters of policy. Somehow that seems to be a serious flaw in the system. But for now, at least, it is the system.”

So we don’t know if that situation has changed since JWT’s time, nor how much influence the FS actually has in negotiation.

Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in that court case — the Santa Fe-based environmental group WildEarth Guardians — are asking the judge to exclude firewood permits from his order on Thursday.

“It was never our intention to affect firewood cutting,” said Executive Director John Horning, who claimed Forest Service personnel have been telling people to call WildEarth for the permits.

“That was the U.S. Forest Service … inciting fear in all sorts of ways and frankly scapegoating us,” he said. “It’s unprofessional for a federal agency that has broken the law and been held accountable by a judge to direct people to our organization.”

3. Note that in this news story, WEG is saying that they are asking the judge to exclude firewood permits from the order. To me, this implies the judge developed the order without the plaintiff’s desired sideboards. Is that a natural consequence of taking something to court.. the decision can be what neither party wants?

4. If WEG took the FS to court, and the judge makes a ruling, doesn’t WEG share some responsibility for that? Is WEG accountable for that decision going to court, even if the results are not what they intended? Not that it wouldn’t be unprofessional, in some sense, if the Forest Service directed them to call WEG. What would it look like, though, for people to hold groups accountable for actions that affect their activities. Note that these folks (say, people who want fuels projects done) can’t force the FS to monitor either.

5. Wouldn’t it be terrific if all of the ongoing communication between the attorneys (DOJ and plantiffs’) and the judge were available to the public? Then we would know who was being reasonable, if anyone.

2016 election consequences for Colorado federal lands

by

The Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management over the last several years have been developing long-term Resource Management Plans for more than 3 million acres of BLM lands in Eastern Colorado and the Uncompahgre Plateau and in the Rio Grande National Forest.  According to this article, the state and local communities are not happy.

The Trump-driven shift toward more oil and gas development on public lands worries Colorado politicians and conservation groups that are steering the state toward increased protections. Agencies within the same department seem in conflict. Long-studied plans are changing between between draft and final reports, with proposed protections fading away and opportunities for extraction growing…

“What we are seeing is the full effect — in proposed actions — of the 2016 election at the local level,” Ouray County Commissioner Ben Tisdel said.

The article goes into detail about the effects on the Uncompahgre Field Office’s proposed plan:

County commissioners from Gunnison, Ouray and San Miguel counties have filed protests with the BLM over the Uncompahgre Field Office’s proposed plan. The counties have been involved with the planning for eight years. In 2016, the counties submitted comments on the plan outlining concerns for the Gunnison sage grouse and listing parcels the agency should protect and retain as federal lands.

“Alternative E proposed doing all the things we specifically asked them not to do,” said Tisdel, the Ouray County commissioner, adding that lands his county wanted protected were listed in the 2019 plan for possible disposal by the agency. “We thought we had a pretty good product in 2016 and now we have this new alternative, Alternative E, that goes way beyond anything we had seen before and is awful in ways we never thought of before.”

With regard to the Rio Grande National Forest revised forest plan:

The move from that September 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Statement to the final version released in August has riled conservationists and sportsmen. Goals established for air quality, designated trails, fisheries management, fire management, wildlife connectivity and habitat were scaled back in between the draft and final versions.

Colorado’s governor has weighed in on the BLM plan (in language consistent with the Western Governors Association policies):

The resource management plan’s “failure to adopt commitments consistent with the state plans, policies and agreements hinders Colorado’s ability to meet its own goals and objectives for wildlife in the planning area,” Polis wrote.

The BLM had an interesting response:

“There is room to adjust within the RMP, which has a built-in adaptive management strategy,” he said. “We are ready to respond as the state’s plans are complete.”

So they plan to do whatever the state wants them to do later?  “Room to adjust within the RMP” appears to mean that they don’t have to go through a plan amendment process with the public, which seems unlikely to be legal for the kinds of changes the state appears to want.  (It definitely wouldn’t work for national forest plans.)

The Western Energy Alliance blames the governor for being late to the game:

It doesn’t get a complete do-over just because something new happens, like Gov. Polis issues a new order.”

But it does apparently get a complete do-over because a new federal government administration says so.  There may still be some legal process (e.g. NEPA) questions this raises.

Midwest timber wars revisited

by

For the first time in nearly three decades, the Shawnee National Forest in Illinois has proposed a commercial timber harvest of mostly native oaks and hickories. And environmental activists whose high-profile fight against logging in the 1990s led to a 17-year moratorium are once again raising alarms.

Lisa Helmig, acting forest supervisor with the Shawnee National Forest, said the plan is rooted in the best available science about how to maintain the keystone oak ecosystem that is native to the Shawnee foothills.  “The oak ecosystem has been in place here in the central hardwood region for 5,000 years,” she said. But Helmig said the ecosystem is at risk due to a lack of natural or man-made disturbances, such as fire, storms and, yes, even logging. Without these disturbances, non-native, shade-tolerant sugar maple and beech trees sprout up and fill in the forest’s midstory, she said.

The activists have filed an objection, based largely on their past experience with timber harvest on the Forest.

The trees that have grown up to replace the harvested oaks and hickories are mostly 28-year-old stands of “undesirable” beeches and maples.  “When you think about how many oaks were here, it’s heart-wrenching,” Wallace said “Had they not cut the oaks, we’d have oaks here,” Stearns added. In addition to the Farview site, in their letter they write that we also returned to the North End Ecological Restoration project logged in Pope County in the late 1990s. “Little to no oak and hickory have been visibly restored.” They cited other examples, as well.

This is the root of their concern: What the Shawnee National Forest’s leadership claims is happening isn’t.

Asked about their concerns, Helmig said that her “gut reaction” is that the Forest Service likely didn’t follow through with what should be a multiphase treatment. Helmig said she’s confident that the Forest Service is committed to seeing (this) project through… “We have a wonderful silviculturist on staff now,” Helmig said. “He’s been here five years and is absolutely fantastic.”

Hopefully we can assume that there has been a science-based determination that ecological integrity requires regenerating some young oaks and hickories.  But implementation unfortunately still boils down to “trust us,” and “we’re different now.”   (But then the Forest evicted the media from the objection meeting, wrongly according to the Washington Office.)

Forest planning for wildlife corridors

by

The 2012 Planning Rule requires that forest plan revisions address wildlife habitat connectivity. In fact it is one of the “dominant ecological characteristics” that must occur with the “natural range of variation” in order to meet the substantive regulatory requirement for “ecological integrity” and the NFMA statutory requirement for “plant and animal diversity.” The Rio Grande National Forest doesn’t seem to want to take this seriously in its revised forest plan, as recounted here:

“At the federal level, New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall and others have proposed a Wildlife Corridors Conservation Act to create more tools for protecting migration routes. Our neighbors in New Mexico passed a state wildlife corridors act earlier this year. Colorado Parks and Wildlife has emphasized the need to ratchet up awareness and protection of corridors. And even former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke issued an order to conserve big-game migration corridors and winter range.

“Hence, with all of this activity agitating for increased concern and elevated action to protect wildlife corridors, the new management plan just announced by the Rio Grande National Forest is astonishingly tone deaf. Our national forest neighbors to the east finalized their long-awaited 20-year vision and ignored widespread calls for action to elevate wildlife corridors.

“It’s a disappointing example of compartmentalization taken to the extreme. Immediately adjacent across the state line in New Mexico, the Carson National Forest unveiled its draft plan and highlighted extraordinary wildlife values there around San Antonio Mountain with a dedicated Wildlife Management Area.  But it’s as though an administrative wall exists at the state line.”

“Having the Interior Department and state wildlife agencies and elected officials and some national forests all calling for action to protect wildlife corridors isn’t enough if one critical player, like the Rio Grande National Forest, is missing in action.”

It only takes one bad actor to ruin a wildlife corridor. That is a reason why connectivity was given such a high profile in national forest planning for diversity (I was there). The Rio Grand is currently taking objections to its final revised plan, which will be reviewed by someone at the regional level to determine if the Forest is meeting its connectivity/diversity obligations.  However, this is a cross-regional problem (Region 2 and Region 3), which is why the national office of the Forest Service needs to look at why forests in two regions can’t get their acts together on what conditions are needed for connectivity.

Maybe they should also take a look at a recent example in Region 4. This is a case where a state-recognized wildlife corridor led to changes in a trail project on the Bridger-Teton National Forest.

“The now-scrapped trail could have interfered specifically with the Red Desert-to-Hoback mule deer migration corridor, which was the first route designated by the state of Wyoming. An estimated 4,000 to 5,000 deer pass through the narrow bottleneck at the Fremont Lake outflow, according to a 2016 assessment of the migration path.”

‘The “desired future conditions” — a U.S. Forest Service equivalent for zoning — for where the trail would have gone are “developed and administrative sites” and “special use/recreation.” Those classifications would have allowed for new trails, and the Bridger-Teton’s forest plan easily predates the discovery of the migration route, which wasn’t until 2013. Outside of those processes, the forest sought input before proceeding with the plans.”

It’s great that the project decision is considering this new information and the new state designation.  I hope the Forest also recognizes the implications for any future projects in this area where it looks like they have decided that the desired condition is now something else.  The discovery of the migration route should have led to another look at the forest plan desired condition, and a plan amendment if they are deciding that it is no longer appropriate based on this new information.

 

 

 

 

Forest Plan Revision Update

by

Since planning is where this blog started, and is arguably where most of the things discussed here should be addressed and resolved at a national forest level, and is what I did in the Forest Service, I would be remiss if I didn’t provide an occasional status update, especially because three national forest are at key points in their plan revisions (below).  Here is the the summary provided by the Forest Service in March.

Most of the interest going forward is in how the 2012 Planning Rule would be implemented, and there are three national forests that have completed their revisions under that regulation:  Francis Marion, Flathead and El Yunque.  The Flathead has two pending lawsuits.

The Inyo has completed is objection process and the Forest is completing the assignments from the reviewing officer.  Here is the reviewing officer response to the objections.  The wildlife section illustrates what I think is a problem with the objection process – where the reviewing officer identifies a problem there is no follow-up to determine if what a forest says or does actually fixes the problem; even though the record is inadequate, the regional forester basically trusts the forest supervisor.  Examples:

Finding: The ROD states that the plan components meet the diversity requirement, but it does
not appear to meet the planning rule requirement to provide an explanation of how the plan
meets the diversity requirements of 36 CFR § 219.9.

Instruction: Include a summary in the ROD that provides an explanation of how the plan
components meet the diversity requirements.

What if the explanation reveals that the plan doesn’t actually meet the diversity requirements?

Finding: The record lacks scientific rationale for why 3 years of surveys are sufficient to determine that PACs are no longer occupied (SPEC-CSO-GDL 02).

Instruction: Clarify the record related to removing PACs.

Finding: Much of the management direction from the lengthy Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Land Management Plan Amendment related to sage grouse are reflected in the Revised Inyo Plan, but several standards and guidelines were not brought forward into the Revised Plan. While the record states that the revised plan is consistent with the Humboldt-Toiyabe Amendment regarding sage grouse, some Humboldt-Toiyabe Amendment plan components were not included, and there is a lack of rationale for which plan components were and were not included.

Instruction: Clarify in the record how the sage grouse related plan components from the Humboldt-Toiyabe Amendment were incorporated, or were not incorporated, and why.

What if the rationale is arbitrary, and the plan components are wrong?

Sometimes the Forest could actually change a decision, with apparently no recourse for the public but to sue:

Finding: It is not clear in the project record why the Destination Recreation Area is exempt from the California Spotted Owl plan components.

Instruction: Unless a clear rationale can be provided, remove the Destination Recreation Area exemption language.

And what if a “clear rationale” is not provided in the other examples where the instructions were to “clarify the record?”

And then there’s this “suggestion for the responsible official.”  “Consider including the list of species of conservation concern in the plan.”  Since the monitoring plan program must be explicitly tied to SCC (36 CFR §219.12(a)(5)(iv)), how could the plan not mention the relevant species?

The next forest expected to complete its revision is the Rio Grande.  It has released its final EIS and draft ROD and is in its 60-day objection period.  Here’s some more about that.

The plan also altered the Southern Rockies Lynx Amendment to include the dead tree habitat. “The original amendment only included green, healthy forest habitat, so we modified it to include our dead tree habitat which allowed for better management strategies,” said Perez.

The “original amendment” was also based on the best available scientific information about lynx and their habitat.

The Sierra and Sequoia national forests have issued a revised draft EIS and its public comment period closes September 26.  Maybe they have addressed the “burning” issues we’ve discussed on this blog?

 

The Sage Grouse Story:III. Lessons Learned From Collaboration

by


Aspects of the sage grouse story are fairly commonly observed at a more local scale. This is one topic on which I hope Peter Williams will lend his wisdom.

What happens when you establish a task force, get it going, support it, and then change the ultimate decision? Is there a “trust envelope” that political decisions can exceed? Personally, I can see both sides. Elected officials have the authority to make decisions. So they can’t just hand over decision-making authority to another group. At the same time, why would people spend years working on something just to have some higher-level people change it or change the “must-haves”? What happens when key decision makers change positions (in this case it was Secretary Salazar, but it could be your local district ranger).

This Lessons Learned From the Greater Sage-Grouse Collaboration was well done (with great photos) and talks about some of the same themes we’ve discussed for smaller collaborative efforts.

Ironically, many of the limitations mentioned by respondents were also the same things that made the sage-grouse collaborative response so unique in the first place. Time was mentioned by most as the biggest limitation – the fact that there was a firm deadline for appreciable action, the number of hours required for meetings and planning, the time required to establish relationships and trust – all of these elements played in to the challenges faced during the collaborative efforts. In addition, the challenge of the scale and the variety of perspectives was seen as a limitation while also being essential for the collaboration to work.

Beyond these broad themes, other specific limitations mentioned include:
• Adequate technical capacity to provide services to landowners.
• Maintaining consistency across states with disparate challenges faced in different states; associated with this was expectations of “one size fits all” requirements when using federal funds for conservation projects.
• Maintaining agency staff continuity for work on the landscape and in planning negotiations.
• Regulatory process required through the National Environmental Policy Act (for implementation of restoration projects).
• Endangered Species Act interpretation that had typically focused on regulatory limitations, but lacked a way to measure voluntary conservation partnerships
• Politics (between states and federal agencies; between Washington DC leadership and field staff, etc.) and egos that impacted negotiations and undermined trust.
• Last minute changes and lack of transparency that undermined long-term negotiations because they were not part of the discussion throughout the process. As one person mentioned, 11th hour “gotta haves” will prevent durable long-term solutions in a collaborative process.
• Reverting to top down decision-making and not listening to comments and recommendations from the collaborative teams that had worked together to develop solutions

Two quotes from the Lessons Learned paper:

“I’ve learned to recognize that there is a wide spectrum of collaborative processes. What I’ve experienced and witnessed these past twenty-plus years is a process of creating deeper more meaningful communication by cultivating respectful listening, which leads to respect and trust among participants. It’s a deep human need to be listened to, valued and to feel a sense of purpose and belonging. Collaboration creates community in a larger context, it can bring people together and give them the opportunity to build the trust that is required to hone durable solutions for resource issues. It is an example for the broader world.”

–Robin Boies, Stewardship Alliance for Northeast Elko

“Maintain transparency and work on trust every day – that’s easy to say but it takes a lot of energy. Benefits are collaborative outcomes that are durable. Top down solutions are only good as long as you’re there to enforce them. Solutions that are collaborative and durable are supported by the communities that have to live with those outcomes long after decision makers are gone.”

–Tim Murphy, Bureau of Land Management Idaho State Director (retired

So decision makers who ask for collaborative efforts have a problem. How best can they negotiate ever-changing political currents, with ever-changing personnel at all levels, while maintaining trust? I’m hoping TWS readers will have examples of collaborative leaders and decision-makers successfully at doing this, and perhaps we could contact them and ask them their thoughts.

The Sage Grouse Story, A More Complete View: II. No Enemies Here: One Source’s Perspective

by
Credits clockwise from top: Jeremy Roberts, Conservation Media, courtesy of Sage Grouse Initiative (SGI); Jeremy Maestas, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service/SGI; Tom Koerner, courtesy of the USFWS, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0; courtesy of Intermountain West Joint Venture (IWJV); Michael Brown, Capacity Coordinator for SGI, courtesy of SGI; Jonathan Moor, courtesy of the BLM; Mick Thompson, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/; courtesy of IWJV. Cover: courtesy of IWJV

For this part of the story, I am basically quoting my source. Any errors are due to my misunderstanding of what my source told me.

Back when the Obama administration came in, they settled litigation for making listing decisions and developed a schedule.

Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, Governora Mead (WY), Hickenlooper (CO), Gary Herbert (UT) and Sandoval (NV) at the Western Governors’ Association sat down with ID and MT (Schweitzer). They agreed to get a plan together to keep the sage grouse from being listed. They formed the Sage Grouse Task Force, which included representatives from BLM, FWS, USGS and state agencies.

Salazar told us that 95% right was going to be good enough, they were not going to go for perfect.

Note: Secretary Salazar had been a DNR Director in Colorado, Senator, and Attorney General in Colorado. and grew up in a ranching community. He had a background of being able to work with others to get compromises made, had relationships and knew the people and how things work, both federally and at the state level.

In the process, two tech teams (science) informed the Conservation Objectives Team, which included the State Wildlife Agencies, so people who really knew those areas and those birds.. Then each State developed a separate plan. Some of the differences among states are that in the Great Plains, for example, they have a four-mile radius around the lek. In Wyoming, grouse can be in hilly terrain so that oil rigs in the draw may not affect them. The groups also identified grassland fire as a problem.

The States turned in their plans to the Fish and Wildlife Service. They included incentives for land conservation and conservation easements, but individuals within the US Fish and Wildlife Service questioned the legal status of conservation easements as regulatory mechanisms, even though those are legal agreements.

So there were all these State plans, and Sarah Greenberger, Jim Lyons (whom FS people may remember from the Clinton Administration), and Dan Ashe had to try to “roll them up”- to write up something coherent for why the diverse landscapes and approaches would add up to a successful national strategy. As part of that effort, some new additional ideas were added to the mix.

Folks from Garfield County, CO did a FOIA and found out that the changes were associated in time with meetings with various environmental organizations, including Pew. One particular idea added during these last changes was the idea of “focal areas”. The States went ballistic.

The Governors sat down with Secretary Jewell and tried to negotiate.

Some continued to feel wronged. Remember, at that time, no one thought that the Republicans would win the Presidency. So when there came to a new administration, some states sent Zinke a letter asking for it to be re-opened. So Zinke announced a review, and a chance to change the plans.

Bernhardt got it right away and we worked with him. After a year and a half of meetings, Colorado decided to weigh in and make a proposal.

So a couple of thoughts..(1) if the politicals hadn’t added new ideas to the collaborative work, folks wouldn’t have “gone ballistic” and ultimately made the changes that are included. I wondered if Ashe, Lyons, and Greenberger might have rethought doing that, in retrospect. I wrote Dan Ashe and Jim Lyons to get their perspectives, but didn’t get replies.
(2) Would Salazar have been more hesitant to add things to the collaborative efforts because of his level of knowledge and trust with the States?
(3) Elected officials and their appointees do get to decide at the end of the day. Some media seem suddenly surprised and horrified that it works that way. As Gov. Freudenthal once said, in some administrations it’s environmental groups influencing, in others it may be the oil and gas folks. Many of us westerners (including Freudenthal) don’t really like the federal abrupt pendulum shifts.
(4) Most importantly, many people you’ve never hear of have been doing the tedious ground work on grouse conservation all these years. At that level, they are the unsung heroes in the background, who try to keep working together and arrive at conclusions that everyone, including the species, can live with. All of us who care about species owe those folks a great debt of gratitude. Note my source’s tone.. there are no enemies, only people and governments to work with for the common good.

Final note: my source said he had given interviews to the WaPo and other major outlets and they never used what he gave them. The stories ended up being all about Trump.