Litigation

Compensating North Fork Fire Victims

by
Photo from Jefferson County

Here is a link to today’s article in the Denver Post, and below is an excerpt.

The commission also may make “compensatory recommendations” after hearing from victims of the fire, who were expected to testify in Conifer on Monday night.

“Realistically, we’re talking about many months, if not over years” before victims see special compensation from the state, said commission chairwoman state Sen. Ellen Roberts, R-Durango .

Mike Babler, fire programs manager for the Colorado chapter of the Nature Conservancy , said wildfires are becoming more frequent and more intense.

Babler said prescribed burns, which the state put an indefinite ban on after the Lower North Fork fire, are still important for fire management. But he listed a variety of other strategies, including defensive techniques such as cleaning up pine needles and other fuel around homes.

Another major factor has been the collapse of the timber industry, Babler said. With a depressed construction industry and foreign competition, mills have been shuttered, leaving forests thicker with fuel.

He also pointed to the growth of those living in the “urban wilderness interface,” where development creeps into forests. Two million people in Colorado now live in these areas, and studies say that could double in 20 years, he said.

In California on Monday, more than 825,000 rural residents received bills from the state of up to $150 for fire protection costs.

The controversial new fees are expected to raise $84 million to help balance the state budget.

Sharon’s questions: Does someone have a link to the California policy? Also, it’s still not clear to me why the taxpayers of Colorado (say, the person working at the 7-11) should be compensating these folks. Is it for something their insurance does not cover? Does the policy of “no prescribed burns” really make any practical sense? Is there really such a policy in the State (I haven’t been following this)? Finally, I wonder if the studies of the doubling of populations in the WUI takes into account the economy, and the distribution of wealth. If we can’t predict that, what can we predict? Sensitivity analysis might be useful.

Pingback to “Wrong Kind of Green” blog

by

One of the things I like about the internet is the ability to trace information flows.. This is a link on a blog called “the Wrong Kind of Green” to a piece we discussed here on this blog.

Reposting it this week was interesting because of the changed conditions since March.

Just this week, The Wilderness Society (TWS) and the Montana Wilderness Association filed a brief in favor of a 2,038-acre Climate Camo logging plan on the Lolo National Forest. The Alliance for the Wild Rockies, the WildWest Institute and two other real grassroots conservation groups had filed a lawsuit against the Colt Summit Timber Sale alleging that the logging would do grave harm to lynx, grizzly bears and bull trout.

Because actually their allegations have been found to not be valid. So… where does that leave us? And why has this one project attracted so much attention? Clearly there are 600 acre fuel treatment projects developed collaboratively around the country that don’t arouse the same degree of anti-collaboration. Colt Summit and er.. 4FRI? I get 4FRI-it’s big..

It seems like there are folks who have the agenda “we need to tell people that big green groups are screwed up”. It could be that individual FS projects are only fodder to make this case, and whether the project actually has negative environmental impacts, or what the judge thinks about the allegations, may be irrelevant. Just a hypothesis.

I also read the stuff in this piece about energy, in which all choices appear to be bad (unless I read it wrong).

The Club then took $50 million from the personal vault of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg; ostensibly for their Beyond Coal Campaign, meaning that now the Club has shifted gears from pimping gas to pimping “clean, efficient solar, wind and geothermal” – which, of course, are neither clean nor efficient (one E-LAW panel addresses the many pitfalls of Big Wind). Some of those millions should immediately go to the local Appalachian grassroots anti-mountain-top-removal coal extraction (MTR) groups who have nationalized the issue on great heart and shoestring budgets.

It sounds like when someone asks environmental groups “we know what you don’t like, what will you support?” some feel like they can’t say “nothing.” So they figure out what they think is best, and tell people. In the world of public policy, people have to come up with ideas to meet resource needs like energy. I can’t critique any group for trying to come up with something that is doable and makes sense.

Dousing the Claims: Extinguishing Republican Myths about Wildfire

by

Democrats on the House Resources Committee released a new report on Tuesday.  Phil Taylor, a reporter with E&E, has a story out about the report and subsequent hearing.  Unfortunately, E&E doesn’t have a free link to the entire story, so some snips from the story are below.

Environmental groups over the past three years have appealed less than 5 percent of projects on federal lands designed to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire, and, of those, less than one out of five involved endangered species issues, according to a new report from Democrats on the House Natural Resources Committee….

“Environmental laws, land management agencies, litigation, endangered species and even immigrants share the Republican blame for this year’s devastating wildfires,” Markey said. “These accusations are just a smokescreen.”

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management data obtained by committee Democrats seemed to back up his claim.

Out of 8,000 fuel reduction projects in federal forests over the last three, less than 1 percent of all of the work was affected by appeals, according to the Democrats’ report. Endangered Species Act challenges affected less than 0.05 percent of all hazardous fuels work on roughly 10 million acres of land, the report found.

“This report shows that political fact-checkers should create a new category called ‘pants on wildfire’ for the ill-informed Republican myths on forest fire prevention,” Markey said. “When climate change is baking the country in drought and actually increasing the risks of catastrophic wildfires, these half-baked ideas from Republicans do a disservice to the people who have suffered from wildfires.”….

Democrats said the findings are consistent with a Government Accountability Office report in 2010 that found less than 20 percent of the 1,191 fuel reduction projects on about 9 million acres from 2006 to 2008 were appealed. About 2 percent of all fuel reduction projects were litigated and those involved about 124,000 acres, the report says.

 

Colt Summit Lynx Cumulative Effects: Let’s Hear Both Sides

by

I think it would be interesting to investigate further exactly what the FS did right with the cumulative effects of other species, and apparently, according to Judge Molloy, did wrong with lynx.

It seems odd to me that the FS would do an adequate analysis for the other species, but not for lynx (look at past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions). Below is a quote from Judge Molloy’s decision (italics in both below quotes are mine) :

Once an agency detemines the geographical scope of its cumulative-effects

analysis, it must analyze the incremental impact of the proposed project when

added to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the selected

geographical area. Ctr for Envtl. Law & Policy, 655 F.3d at 1007; 40 C.F.R. §

1508.7. The plaintiffs in this case insist the Forest Service’s cumulative effects

Cumulative effects on lynx analysis for lynx is inadequate. On this point they are correct. On remand the

Forest Service must prepare a supplemental EA that adequately addresses the

cumulative effects for lynx, and if necessary after that review, an EIS.

“Consideration of cumulative impacts requires some quantified or detailed

information that results in a useful analysis, even when the agency is preparing an

EA and not an BIS.” Id. “An EA’s analysis of cumulative impacts ‘must give a

sufficiently detailed catalogue of past, present, and future projects, and provide

adequate analysis about how these projects, and differences between the projects,

are thought to have impacted the environment.'” Te-Moak Tribe ofW. Shoshone of

Nev. v. U.S. Dept. ofInt., 608 F.3d 592, 603 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Lands

Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1028 (9th Cir. 2004)). “An agency may,

however, characterize the cumulative effects ofpast actions in the aggregate

without enumerating every past project that has affected an area.” Ctr for Envtl.

Law & Policy, 655 F.3d at 1007.

When there is no BIS containing a cumulative effects analysis, “[T]he scope

of the required analysis in the EA is correspondingly increased.” Kern, 284 F.3d at

1077. “Without such information, neither the court nor the public … can be

assured that the [agency] provided the hard look that it is required to provide.” Te­

Moak Tribe ofW Shoshone ofNev. , 608 F.3d at 603 (citations and internal

Depending on what the cumulative effects analysis

shows, the Forest Service might be required to prepare an EIS for the Project. See

40 C.F.R. § 1508.27(b)(7).

Here, the Forest Service did not discuss or mention any past projects or

actions in its cumulative effects analysis for lynx. (See EA, A-I FS000066.) In the

EA, the Forest Service discusses how it recently acquired 640 acres ofland owned

by Plum Creek Timber Company. (fd.) It discusses the impact of snowmobile

activity in the area. (Id.) But there is no discussion of past projects or activities.

Even assuming there are no past projects or activities that would have a

cumulative effect when considered along with the Colt Summit Project, the Forest

Service must still “characterize the cumulative effects of past actions in the

aggregate.”

“neither the court nor the public … can be assured that the [agency] provided the

hard look that it is required to provide.” Te-Moak Tribe ofW. Shoshone ofNev. ,

608 F.3d at 603 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

etr for Envtl. Law & Policy, 655 F.3d at 1007.

I thought it would be interesting to compare the Judge’s statements to the US Attorneys’ on the point of cumulative effects on lynx, but don’t have a PACER account, nor would I know exactly what document to look for. To me, it would be illuminating to hear both sides. Can someone help locate this document, so we can hear the other side?

I could easily find the appeal response here (worth looking at to examine the kitchen-sinkery that the plaintiffs started with during the appeal).

Issue 32. The appellants allege the significance of the cumulative effects of habitat
fragmentation and reduction due to logging, road building, fire suppression, and other
management activities in regards to their effects on population levels or viability was not
disclosed.
Response: The Wildlife Report (PF, Doc. A-20, Table 5, pp. 14 to 15) indicates the project may
impact some individuals of some species, but there is no indication of project effects on
population levels or species viability of any threatened, sensitive, or management indicator
species.
Fragmentation is discussed in the Wildlife Report (PF, Doc. A-20, pp. 93 to 96). It concludes
that the proposed action would have “no impact” on fragmentation, corridors, or linkages
because the vegetation would not be altered beyond patterns that occur naturally from fire and
other disturbance, and open road density would not increase.
Cumulative effects discussions are covered in the Wildlife Report’s affected environment
sections (PF, Doc. A-20). Effects for connectivity, fragmentation, and linkages are discussed
where that issue has been raised: lynx (pp. 27 to 31); grizzly bear (pp. 35 to 45), fisher (pp. 49 to
52), wolverine (pp. 53 to 54), northern bog lemming (pp. 55 to 56), Townsend’s big-eared bat
(pp. 57 to 58), black-backed woodpecker (pp. 60 to 65), flammulated owl (pp. 67 to 70), boreal
(western) toad (pp. 70 to 72), northern goshawk (pp. 76 to 81), elk (pp. 81 to 85), and pileated
woodpecker (pp. 87 to 91).
The Biological Assessment for lynx and grizzly bear (PF, Doc. A-25) and subsequent letters of
concurrence (PF, Doc. K-14) indicate the USFWS concurred with the determinations for these
species (which include analyses on linkage and corridors). The record discusses effects of
habitat fragmentation on population levels and viability and is in compliance with NEPA,
NFMA, and ESA.

Excerpts from Judge Malloy’s Decision on Colt Summit

by

Guest post by Megan Birzell, The Wilderness Society.

A little more than a month after a leading opponent of the Colt-Summit forest restoration project on the Seeley Lake Ranger District publicly compared Forest Service employees and mill workers to Nazis – and the diverse group of Montanans working to promote forest restoration and much-needed jobs to Nazi sympathizers – Federal District Court Judge Donald Molloy has issued a decision that utterly dismantles the critics’ claims that Colt-Summit is harmful to fish and wildlife including bull trout, lynx and grizzly bears.

The Colt-Summit project, developed by the Forest Service in collaboration with the Lolo Restoration Committee of the Montana Forest Restoration Committee and funded, in part, through the Southwestern Crown of the Continent Collaborative (www.swcrown.org) is a proposal that will decommission 28 miles of roads, thin and burn 2,038 acres of forest suffering from a century of fire suppression, and re-route four miles of road away from a bull trout spawning stream. These activities will improve lynx, grizzly bear, and bull trout habitat, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire, and help restore more natural fire regimes to the area.

The project was appealed and then challenged in court last year by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and a few other groups. The initial appeal of the project included 152 allegations, all of which were rejected. The subsequent lawsuit included 12 allegations, 11 of which were rejected by Judge Molloy in his 46-page decision issued on July 11. The one claim that was upheld by Judge Molloy will likely result in the Forest Service preparing a brief supplement to their extensive analysis, seeking public comment and then moving forward with the project.

Following months of inflammatory rhetoric, name-calling and inaccurate statements by opponents of collaborative forest restoration and the Colt-Summit project, a review of Judge Molloy’s decision is timely, relevant, and highly instructive. Excerpts from that ruling (attached) include the following.

On the National Forest Management Act, National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act:

“The plaintiffs suggest that the Forest Service’s analysis for the Colt summit Project violates NFMA, NEPA and ESA in several respects. By and large, though, the analysis is adequate and meets the requirements of the various acts.”

On lynx, streams and wetlands:

“The plaintiffs argue that the Project violates three Forest Service Standards—two related to lynx and one related to streamside and wetland buffers. The record shows the Project violates none of the lynx or streamside and wetland standards.”

On lynx and snowshoe hare:

“[The Forest Service] noted in addition that the Project will actually improve snowshoe hare and lynx habitat. The plaintiffs do not point to any contrary evidence. There is no record evidence that the Project will ‘reduce snowshoe hare habitat.’”

On Forest Service rules regarding vegetation management:

“The plaintiffs fail to meet their burden of proof…They have not shown the Forest Service made a ‘clear error of judgment…’”

On concerns regarding lynx habitat connectivity:

“

None of these arguments is viable in my view. The Forest Service did consider how the Project would impact lynx travel.”

“A more fundamental problem with the plaintiffs first argument is that the Project does not appear to be in a linkage area. The plaintiffs rely on a large-scale map from the Northern Rockies Lynx Management FEIS to show that the Project is within a linkage area…The map does not lend itself to a precise determination of where the linkage areas are located. As the Service explained, it is only a beginning point and is subject to refinement with additional data.”

“The most recent data from Dr. Squires’ research—which was relied on in the EA—show that lynx are not using the Project Area as a travel corridor…The most recent research shows…there are no linkage areas in the Project Area.”

“The plaintiffs second argument—that the Service applied the standard incorrectly, is also lacking.”

On wetlands and streamside buffer issues:

“Here, the plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service shrank buffers in the Project Area without first conducting the requisite analysis. They also claim that the Service plans to log timber directly within wetlands, in violation of the INFISH standards. The allegations are incorrect.”

“The plaintiffs similarly object that the Project violates INFISH because the record has no site-specific ‘analysis, data, or rationale for shrinking the INFISH buffers.’ Their argument is futile because the Forest Service explained why it shrank the buffers.”

“There is no showing how the Project, as amended in the EA Addendum, violates the INFISH standards for wetlands.”

“The plaintiffs assert the Forest Service plans to cut trees and conduct prescribed burns directly within wetlands…Yet, the plaintiffs claim, the Forest Service did not consider the Project’s impact on wetlands in the FONSI. They write that the FONSI ‘neglects to mention wetlands at all.’ A closer reading of the FONSI shows: ‘The modified proposed action will not impact…wetlands…’ As set forth in its briefs, the Service is not going to conduct any cutting or burning in wetlands. Furthermore, buffers will be created around the wetlands.”

On the Endangered Species Act, lynx, and grizzlies:

“The plaintiffs next insist the Forest Service violated Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act by inadequately analyzing the Project’s effects on lynx and grizzlies and by failing to include the Summit Salvage Project Area in its analysis. This concern also misses the mark.”

“Here the plaintiffs reason the Forest Service failed to comply with ESA Sec. 7(a)(2) because it did not analyze whether the Colt-Summit Project would adversely modify lynx critical habitat The assertion is belied by the record. The Forest Service went beyond its obligations under ESA Sec. 7(a)(2) in drafting both a biological assessment that addresses lynx and lynx critical habitat and in engaging in informal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service.”

“Both the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service found that the Project ‘is not likely to adversely affect’ lynx or lynx critical habitat.”

“The plaintiffs question at length the proposition that the Forest Service can use Forest Plan standards—such as the lynx standards—as a surrogate for the requirements under ESA Sec. 7(a)(2). While interesting, the thesis misses the point.”

“Neither the Forest Service nor the Fish and Wildlife Service ignored the effects that the Project might have on lynx or lynx critical habitat. There has been no showing of convincing argument or evidence that the agencies’ analysis is flawed.”

“The Forest Service did not explain why it included the Summit Salvage area from its analysis. But it did not have to. It does not need to explain why it excludes every imaginable area subject to possible analysis. It only needs to explain why it selected the units of analysis that it chose. In this case it did so with respect to both lynx and grizzlies.”

“The plaintiffs argue, only in passing, that the Project will have the potential to adversely affect grizzly bears. They make no specific argument as to how the Forest Service’s analysis about grizzlies somehow violates ESA Sec. 7(a)(2). Instead, they make sparse, blanket allegations that grizzly bears will be harmed. The record is binding and it shows the Forest Service’s analysis of grizzly bear impact does not violate ESA Sec. 7(a)(2).”

“The plaintiffs argue that the Forest Service did not adequately consider the impact of the Project on lynx critical habitat or the lynxes’ use of the Project Area as a corridor for travel between the Bob Marshall and Mission Mountains…the Forest Service did, in fact, discuss the impacts that the Project would have on lynx crucial habitat. The Service offered a long discussion of the impacts but it concluded that the Project will not have any significant impacts…The plaintiffs do not offer any reasoned explanation for why the Forest Service’s analysis is inadequate and they have not explained how the project would have a ‘significant effect’ on the lynx critical habitat.”

“Critical habitat aside, the plaintiffs maintain that lynx use the Project Area as a travel corridor and that the Forest Service did not consider the impacts that the Project would have on that corridor….The Forest Service, however, argues that the Project Area is not a corridor for lynx travel and that there is therefore no need to consider how the Project will impact lynx travel. The Forest Service has the better argument.”

“The Forest Service relies on GPS tracking data from Dr. Squires which shows detailed information about how lynx use the area. Dr. Squires’ data tends to show that lynx do not use the Project Area as a corridor to travel between the Bob Marshall and Mission Mountains. What the data tends to show is that lynx cross Highway 83 south of the Project Area. This means the Project Area is probably not an ‘ecologically critical area’ based on its use by the lynx as a linkage corridor. Moreover, the Forest Service explained in the EA why the Project would not have any impact on corridors or linkages for grizzly bears, gray wolves, and lynx.”

“As discussed above, the Service adequately considered the impacts on lynx, lynx habitat and grizzlies.”

On the National Environmental Policy Act:

“The plaintiffs next argue the Forest Service violated in several respects…all but one of these arguments fail.”

“Here, the plaintiffs claim that the Forest Service predetermined that the EA would result in a FONSI…In this case, there was no predetermination to issue a FONSI.”

On bull trout:

“As to bull trout, the only part of the project that will have an impact is culvert removal and decommissioning of Road 646. Both the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service recognize that the culvert removal and road decommissioning will have a short-term impact on bull trout. But, in its Biological Opinion, the Fish and Wildlife Service explained that those actions will ‘reduce long-term sediment delivery by 77 percent’ and ‘improve access to spawning and rearing habitat and thermal refugia.’ As a result, the Fish and Wildlife Service determined the actions will help ‘restore’ the Upper Clearwater sub-watershed. The plaintiffs have apparently abandoned their argument regarding bull trout as they did not offer any response to the Forest Service’s discussion of bull trout and the Biological Opinion in their reply brief.”

“For all the reasons stated, the Forest Service adequately considered the Project’s impacts on listed species and critical habitat.”

Opinion on Colt Summit Published

by
Here are the actual acreages and treatments from the Colt Summit documentation.

Judge Molloy’s opinion on Colt Summit link here.

Article in Missoulian here.

Here’s an excerpt:

“The plaintiffs in this case insist the Forest Service’s cumulative effects analysis for lynx is inadequate. On this point they are correct. On remand the Forest Service must prepare a supplemental (environmental assessment) that adequately addresses the cumulative effects for lynx, and if necessary after that review, an (environmental impact statement).”

The project was heralded earlier this year as the model for a new kind of collaborative forest management, where lumber mills and conservation groups work in concert with the U.S. Forest Service on tasks everyone agrees are needed.

Colt-Summit’s backers included Pyramid Mountain Lumber, the Wilderness Society, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and two retired chiefs of the U.S. Forest Service.

Molloy’s decision blocked the 2,000 acres of logging and 17 miles of roadwork, but Megan Birzell of the Wilderness Society, a supporter of the plan, told the Missoulian last month that the judge’s finding was not a major setback because of his concurrent finding that the project passed muster under the Endangered Species Act.

“The judge said it won’t have an impact on lynx, but the Forest Service needs to beef up their analysis to better document that,” she said.

The plaintiffs argued that the project area serves as a corridor for lynx that move between the Bob Marshall Wilderness and the Mission Mountains. Molloy said this does not appear to be the case.

The Forest Service relies on GPS tracking data that show lynx do not use the project area as a corridor to travel between the Bob Marshall and Mission Mountains, he wrote, but instead cross Highway 83 south of the project.

“This means the project area is probably not an ‘ecologically critical area’ based on its use by the lynx as a linkage corridor,” according to his opinion.

The Forest Service now must prepare a supplemental environmental assessment, and is enjoined from implementing the Colt Summit project while the assessment is pending.


Note from Sharon: I’m going to take a look at the decision because it should be interesting exactly what kind of more cumulative impacts the judge is looking for.

This article says there are 2,000 acres of “logging”; again I have posted above the table that shows the acres. 1200 are “understory slashing with underburning”. Now it’s true I’m not from Montana but usually, where I’m from, “understory” is not merchantable, hence not “logging” as defined in the dictionary. Commercial thinning (selective logging) seems to be on about 600 acres.

One piece of evidence that this is confusing is that the reporter said:

The National Environmental Policy Act has been a regular stumbling block for Forest Service timber projects. It requires a variety of scientific reviews to ensure a project doesn’t hurt the environment.

This isn’t really clear that NEPA “allows” the project to hurt the environment; ESA here is the statute that protects the environment. NEPA requires documentation that you have considered the impacts; it’s a procedural statute. That’s what’s confusing, yet illuminating, about this decision (it seems to be saying, “you have made the case you’re not in violations of any environmental statutes but you haven’t documented as much as NEPA requires”).

It could be that the plaintiffs are hoping that the FS will provide additional documentation so that they can make the case that there is really an ESA violation. Because it seems like it raises the question “is this about not following ESA, or about making people do more documentation, and to what end?”

U.S. FWS Director: Lawsuits not hurting Endangered Species Act

by

I don’t have a link to the story, but the following article comes from Greenwire. I’m posting it here as a sort of companion piece to the ESA piece Sharon just posted regarding the House Resources Committee Hearing.

Lawsuits not hurting Endangered Species Act – FWS director
By Laura Petersen, E&E Reporter

The House GOP’s campaign against environmental groups that sue the federal government over endangered species management is not the way to improve the Endangered Species Act, according to Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dan Ashe.

“On the scale of the challenges that we face implementing the Endangered Species Act, litigation doesn’t even show up on the radar screen,” Ashe said in an interview this week marking his one-year anniversary as director.

Invasive species, habitat fragmentation, water scarcity, climate change and availability of reliable scientific information are all much more pressing issues than lawsuits, Ashe said.

In an effort to overhaul the Endangered Species Act, House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) has focused particularly on the high number of lawsuits brought against the government under the law’s provision that allows citizens to sue if they disagree with a listing decision or a delayed decisionmaking process and have their legal fees paid for if they win.

Hastings has characterized the environmental groups that file suits regularly as “lawsuit-happy organizations that make a living off of suing the federal government” and called litigation costs “one of the greatest weaknesses” of the Endangered Species Act (E&E Daily, June 20).

Ashe dismissed the attacks as a “good sound bite,” noting that the amount of money the agency has paid out in legal fees is a small fraction of the $200 million a year it spends to implement the ESA and hardly enough to support entire nonprofit organizations.

“Can I get frustrated at [Center for Biological Diversity] and WildEarth Guardians, or my good friend Jamie Clark at Defenders [of Wildlife] when they decide to sue us? Yeah, I can,” Ashe said. “But on balance, I think it’s a strength for the Endangered Species Act, and not a weakness.”

The provision has been especially beneficial during presidential administrations that “did not have a friendly view” of implementing the law and protecting imperiled plants and animals, he said.

Last year, FWS struck a massive settlement agreement with environmental groups that set a six-year timeline for the agency to make decisions on 251 candidate species and initial findings on hundreds of other species. In exchange, the groups promised to not file more lawsuits.

The settlement has been “quite a success,” with both sides being “faithful” to the bargain, Ashe said.

Asked how he would reform the Endangered Species Act, Ashe said “reform is too strong of a word.”

However, he said the law can be better. The biggest improvement he would like to make is to increase financial incentives for endangered species conservation.

House Natural Resource Committee Examines ESA Litigation

by



Millions of Taxpayer Dollars Spent on Endangered Species Act Litigation and Attorney Fees

Here’s the link.
WASHINGTON, D.C., June 19, 2012 – According to data recently obtained from the Department of Justice (DOJ) in response to document requests, the federal government has defended more than 570 Endangered Species Act (ESA)-related lawsuits costing U.S. taxpayers more than $15 million in attorney fees – in just the past four years. This data provides further evidence that the ESA has become litigation driven, where money and resources are spent addressing endless, frivolous lawsuits instead of species recovery.

Environmental groups are filing the vast majority of litigation, with the Center for Biological Diversity and the WildEarth Guardians leading the charge.

These groups, and their lawyers, are making millions of taxpayer dollars in profit by suing the federal government. According to DOJ, some attorneys are reimbursed up to $500 an hour and two lawyers have each received over $2 million in attorney fees from ESA cases.

The hearing can be found here:

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON:

“Taxpayer-Funded Litigation: Benefitting Lawyers and Harming Species, Jobs and Schools

This hearing follows a number of transparency request letters (3/19/12) and (5/31/12) sent by Chairman Hastings to help determine the cost and impact of taxpayer-funded attorneys fees and time spent on Endangered Species Act (ESA) litigation. The goal of the ESA is to conserve key domestic species, yet it’s increasingly being used by special interest groups to file lawsuits – or file petitions threatening lawsuits – to drive federal agencies to make agenda-driven decisions not based on verifiable data or sound science or priority, but to block economic and job-creating activities. With a one percent recovery rate, and hundreds of more species being forced onto the ESA list, federal taxpayers and existing endangered species deserve better. Transparency and accountability are helping shed light on how ESA is being abused by litigation and the facts distorted by advocacy groups.

Spruce, Spruce Beetle, Fire and Goshawk

by
Dead trees dot Skyline Drive in the Manti-LaSal National Forest.
Ray Boren, for the Deseret Morning News

Terry Seyden sent this piece from the Salt Lake Tribune.

Here’s an excerpt:

Last month’s Lost Lake Fire, blackening thousands of acres near Teasdale, shows the need to step up forest treatments, Chappell believes.

“We just had a fire down here that should’ve opened a few eyes about logging and thinning.”

Utah Environmental Congress Program Director Kevin Mueller said leaving the trees alone won’t invite an unnatural fire. The spruce forest naturally burns at long intervals — once every 300 years — so the last century’s fire-suppression efforts that get blamed for creating dangerously thick forests haven’t had any effect on these areas. They grew thick naturally.

“We strongly believe the Forest Service shouldn’t be logging old-growth spruce,” he said, “partly because so much of the spruce has been hit by the spruce beetle.”

If trees are dead from spruce beetle, are they still good habitat? And if not, how can a test for the forest’s projects be :

The groups say goshawks need 6,000 acres to roam, and at least a third of that must be dense old-growth spruce that keeps out less-agile predators that compete with them. Where 68 pairs of the birds roamed Dixie when the Forest Service wrote its 1982 forest plan, only 30 remained last decade. As long as that’s the case, they say, the Forest Service can’t mess with habitat.

If they really need 2000 acres of dense spruce and that spruce is dying from spruce beetle it sounds like there is a problem that keeping the forest from doing treatments through litigation is not going to solve.

Hoping someone on the blog understands more about this than I and can explain.