NEPA

150,000 acre “project” on the Bitterroot

by

Well, not exactly, maybe.  This could be a good example of how to get the public involved early enough in the process for timber harvest decisions that the locations have not been determined yet.  But consider that the decision-maker is the same one who applied “condition-based” NEPA analysis to the Prince of Wales area of the Tongass, which has ended up in court.

Bitterroot National Forest Supervisor Matt Anderson has added a new “pre-pre-scoping” stage to the process, not part of the traditional process in which a set of options is presented to the public for review and analysis.

The new approach is meant to get the public involved prior to coming up with any specific actions being planned for any specific location.

That much I like the sound of.

“There is confusion,” said Anderson. “It’s hard for the public to get involved. We are asking ‘What do you want to see? What’s your vision?’” He said the agency was “starting at the foundational level, not any particular location.” He said it was important to get to those particulars but the way there was to first describe the “desired future condition that we want and then look at the various ways we can achieve it.”

Asked about the fact that the current Forest Plan describes a desired future condition for the Bitterroot Front that involves returning it to primarily a Ponderosa pine habitat with little understory, Anderson said that is in the current plan, but that the plan is about 30 years old. He said a lot has changed in that time on the ground. There have been lots of fires and areas where no fires have occurred, and the fuel load has gotten extremely high. He said current conditions need to be assessed and they were currently compiling all the maps and other information they need to get an accurate picture of what is on the ground today in the project area.

This should raise a concern about how this process relates to forest planning, since forest plans are where decisions about desired conditions are made.  However, old forest plans typically didn’t provide desired conditions that are specific enough for projects, so that step has occurred at the project level.  Under the 2012 planning rule, specific desired conditions are a requirement for forest plans, but the Bitterroot National Forest is not yet revising its plan. Whatever desired conditions they come up with should be intended as part of the forest plan, and the public should be made aware of this.  If the new decision is not consistent with “Ponderosa pine habitat with little understory,” they’ll need an amendment to be consistent with the current plan.  (I’d add that changes in the on-the-ground conditions over the last 30 years shouldn’t necessarily influence the long-term desired condition.)

“The Tongass is so different than the Bitterroot,” said Anderson. “There is not much similarity. I’m not trying to replicate that process here. It was a conditioned-based process up there. It’s like comparing apples to oranges.” In reference to conditioned-based projects, he said, “One difference with this project is that some of that will be pre-decision and some of that will be in implementation. We are trying to shift some of the workload to the implementation stage.”

He said they have a slew of options, from traditional NEPA, to programmatic NEPA to condition-based NEPA “and we are trying to figure it out.”

He insists that the NEPA process will be followed with the same chance for public comment and involvement on every specific project that is proposed in the area.

There’s some ambiguous and possibly inconsistent statements there.  Condition-based NEPA seeks to avoid a NEPA process “on every specific project.”  I could also interpret shifting workload to “pre-decision” and  “the implementation stage” is a way to take things out of the NEPA realm.

And then there’s this:

In response to the notion that the huge project is being driven by timber targets and not health prescriptions, Anderson said that the Regional Office had set some timber targets for different areas of the region, but that those targets were not driving the analysis. “This project has nothing to do with meeting any target,” said Anderson.

This feels a little like “There was no quid pro quo.”  Would timber harvested from this project not count towards the targets?  (I’d like to see  targets for achieving desired conditions.) All in all this project would be worth keeping an eye on.

(By the way, here’s the latest on Prince of Wales.)

Forest planning for “sustainable” recreation

by

A former Forest Service backcountry specialist talks about ecological integrity and increasing human recreation activities, and tries to answer the question of “what is sustainable recreation?”  The 2012 Planning Rule requires plan components “to provide for: (i) Sustainable recreation; including recreation settings, opportunities, and access; and scenic character.”

What is “Sustainable Recreation”? The Forest Service defines it as “the set of recreation settings and opportunities in the National Forest System that is ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable for present and future generations.”

Here’s how it’s done:

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum can be used in forest planning to define a desired condition for management within each zone. Indicators and standards are meant to define the tipping point beyond which management action must be taken.
 If the standard for a backcountry area (called “semi-primitive non-motorized” in ROS jargon) is that no more than six other parties are encountered on a typical day, when the encounter rate exceeds that number some action is supposed to take place to return to the desired condition.
It’s a neat framework, but doesn’t always play out as intended on the ground. ROS doesn’t differentiate between a semi-primitive area in the back yard of a town like Jackson or Bozeman and one that’s two hours away.
That seems like a major shortcoming, especially if all areas with a SPNM designation must have the same desired level of semi-primitive non-motorized use.  However, the Planning Handbook encourages “new approaches,” including creating “desired recreation opportunity spectrum subclasses” §(23.23a).
The usual sequence of remedial actions begins with non-intrusive measures like visitor education. If the problem isn’t solved, additional actions are considered.
The Bridger-Teton forest plan is typical in its prescribed sequence of actions, this excerpt taken from its direction on wilderness. The following recreational strategies should be used, listed in descending order of preference:
First Action – Efforts are directed towards information and education programs and correction of visible resource damage.
Second Action – If the first action is unsuccessful, restrict activities by regulation (for example, set a minimum distance between a lakeshore and where people can camp).
Third Action – If the first and second actions fail, restrict numbers of visitors.
Fourth Action – If first, second, and third actions are not successful, a zone can be closed to all recreation use until the area is rehabilitated and restored to natural conditions.
In my experience, outside of designated wilderness and other special areas where specific laws apply, the Forest Service keeps circling around the first action, which isn’t a bad strategy given the continuing need for it in communities where resident turnover is high.  It’s an ongoing need regardless of the often unmet requirement to step up restrictions. But restrictions trigger blowback, as when the Shasta-Trinity National Forest tried to set encounter limits for the wilderness that includes Mt. Shasta.
People basically said they don’t care if it’s crowded—they just want to reach the summit, and a judge agreed with them. On the other hand, those who float the Selway River are happy to wait until they get a launch day shared by no one else. Since everyone is going the same direction at about the same speed, everyone can experience a bit of peace and quiet. So the application of sustainable recreation standards depends on who is using the forest and what they will accept.
And those are the questions that forest planning should be designed to answer.  (Note:  the Bridger-Teton plan has not been revised, so may not be the current state-of-the-art.  Also, I couldn’t find the court case referred to.)  And this must be done against the backdrop of a requirement for ecological integrity.
User-built trails and roads are often the opposite of sustainable. They develop incrementally and aren’t designed with soil type, grades and curve radii in mind, or the needs of resident wildlife. The trail system after adoption by the Forest Service usually gets reworked so it doesn’t turn into deep ruts or wash into the creek, but where is the analysis that determines that the trail location is right in the first place?  The trail itself becomes more sustainable, but where do the grouse and elk and owls go?
The adoption of forest plan of components for desired recreational use has effects that must be evaluated during the NEPA process, but rarely does the Forest Service devote much attention to this.
The author describes a common fallacious argument that the Forest Service likes to make about sustainability to avoid controversy:
While the planning rule makes clear that ecological integrity underlies compatible uses in a national forest, the ecological, economical, and social sustainability have since been referred to as a three-legged stool, with all three legs of equal importance.
But if you parse the actual language of the Planning Rule, it is apparent that the ecological leg needs to support more weight (driven by the substantive diversity requirement of NFMA) (my emphasis).
“Plans will guide management of NFS lands so that they ARE ecologically sustainable and CONTRIBUTE TO social and economic sustainability; CONSIST OF ecosystems and watersheds with ecological integrity and diverse plant and animal communities; and HAVE THE CAPACITY TO PROVIDE people and communities with ecosystem services and multiple uses that provide a range of social, economic, and ecological benefits for the present and into the future.

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.

 

Lawsuit drives proposed changes in elk feeding permit

by

 

The State of Wyoming has been feeding elk during the winter at several locations on the Bridger-Teton National Forest for decades.  Environmental plaintiffs challenged a 2016 decision to authorize the continued use of the Alkali Creek Feedground, and the court remanded the decision because of NEPA violations, as described here.

Rather than appealing or spending years studying the feedground’s impacts to address the judge’s concerns, the Forest Service and Wyoming wildlife managers came up with a plan that will allow emergency elk feeding on a smaller area for five years and then end the operation by 2024 (with a possible extension). That plan is now being “scoped” and is open for public comment.  The scoping letter is attached to this article.

This is an example of how litigation may lead to a better decision (after the appropriate public review process).  It appears to have made the State take a closer look at whether it really needed this feedground.  However, plaintiffs don’t appear to have been involved in the new proposal yet.  It’s also interesting that the original decision was based on an EIS/ROD, which the court found to be inadequate, but this is being proposed as a categorical exclusion (so maybe the Forest has an idea that they are not going to be challenged on it?).

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.)

Proposed NEPA Regs III. How To Comment – Comment Period Extended To August 26th!

by

It’s easy to comment. Go to the webpage and click on the “comment now!”
Let’s review what the Proposed Rule document said about comments on the ANPR (Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) said about those comments.

The Agency published an ANPR on January 3, 2018 (83 FR 302). The Agency received 34,674 comments in response to the ANPR, of which 1,229 were unique. Most of the unique comments expressed support for the Agency’s effort to identify efficiencies in the NEPA process. The unique comments in support of the ANPR all generally acknowledged that there is room for increased efficiency in the Agency’s NEPA process. Some of these comments expressed unqualified support for increasing efficiency; other comments supported the Agency’s goals, but included caveats that these gains should not come at a cost to public involvement or conservation of natural resources.

There were three form letter campaigns in response to the ANPR. Approximately 33,000 form letter comments came from two form letter campaigns, which urged the Forest Service to reject any proposal to weaken the Agency’s NEPA process. The Forest Service received about 600 comments from a third form letter campaign in favor of the Agency’s efficiency goals as stated in the ANPR. The Agency will not regard form letters as ‘‘votes’’ as to whether the proposed rule should go forward.

1200 unique letters may sound like a lot, but my experience with content analysis is that it does provide an opportunity to get your ideas before the people making the decision. The way this usually works is that some group analyzes comments by what they’re about (which part of the proposed regulation), and then staff go in to brief the decision maker, who is likely to consult with interest groups of various kinds, and then makes the calls. If lots of unique letters suggest a change, that is data that may well go to the decision maker.

The more general “don’t cut the public out” “don’t weaken NEPA” are probably not as helpful as recommendations for specific changes. Even people who don’t want category 26 for example, based on wanting more public involvement or analysis, could ask for exactly what about public involvement or analysis they think is missing, and how to bump it up (notice and comment? require the appeal regs apply?). That’s what I tried to do for category 26. Asking the agency to drop the proposal is probably not as helpful.

Here is the link to submit your comments. They are due August 26th, so we have time for more discussion and suggestions. It’s really simple to do, they could listen to you and make a better decision from our comments. I encourage you all to consider doing it, at least for one or two issues of concern or support. One more thing, re: any vitriol about the Forest Service or the Administration. The human being reading the comments doesn’t have any power either and the people with the power generally won’t be reading the comments directly (as opposed to summaries). If you don’t find the argument “don’t say mean things” compelling, remember that taxpayers share in paying for federal employees’ stress as part of their health benefits.

Finally, if you find an interesting idea in other comments you see, again, feel free to post it below.

Proposed NEPA Regs: II More Things We Might Agree On and More Ideas For Comment Letters

by

Many of you know I worked on developing category 12 when I worked in NEPA in DC. So let me say that the background papers that describe the rationale for the new categories,were really well done, and I think the people who wrote them did a terrific job. much better than we did 15 years or so ago.

(2) Category 17. However, an associate noted that the same degree of background was not given for Category 17 (Approval of a Surface Use Plan of Operations). The way the “adjacency” is written also seems to open the category up for possible CE abuse. Finally, my colleague pointed out that BLM does not have this category. I’d recommend dropping this category.

(3) Better SOPAs and contact capabilities. We discussed this before, but stakeholders and the Forest Service, in this day and age, ought to be able to design something an app (Zillow like?) so that Forest Service folks wouldn’t have to try to guess what the best outreach methods are when some people don’t read newspapers, some don’t have internet, and so on.

(4) Public accountability, transparency and access to information about NEPA efficiency. To get better public support, we all need to work off an open source of information (not FOIAs). I’d recommend that the FS implements a tracking mechanism that summarizes projects, including initiation,types of NEPA documents used, Forest/Region, objections, litigation, and ultimately when the project is completed with links to monitoring. This is not a glamorous or partisan idea (it’s definitely more work than giving the public access to PALs) but maybe if many commenters suggested it?

(5) Determinations of NEPA adequacy. You may like them or not (BLM uses them) but the second sentence “new project and activity decisions made in reliance on a DNA shall be subject to all applicable notice, comment, and administrative review processes.” It isn’t clear to me whether “applicable” refers to the original decision. If it is an EIS, you would have to do all the notice, comment and appeal required for an EIS. I’m not sure where that all leads. I prefer what the BLM says in their Handbook, that if the new project was not discussed in the previous proposed action, more public involvement is necessary at the discretion of the decision-maker.

(6) Mileage limits for including roads. I liked the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation’s “RMEF asks USFS to consider inclusion of appropriate mileage maximums (limits) for conversion of unauthorized trails (e)(23) and unauthorized roads (e)(25), as is proposed in CE(e)(24).” (from their comments).

(7) New outfitter guide permits should have case file and decision memo? There are “categories of actions for which a project or case file and decision memo are not required (but may be prepared).” Most of there are purely administrative or clerical changes with no new or different environmental effects. However (12) says “issuance of a new authorization or amendment of an existing authorization” for activities”on existing roads and trails.. or in areas where activities are consistent with the applicable land management plan.” Examples include outfitting and guiding permits for mountain biking, and back country skiing. It seems to me that new uses like these should instead fall under (e) categories of actions for which a project or case file and decision memo are required.

(8) Clarify “non-commercial timber harvest”. OK, I get that it is in “old” category 14, but still, commercialness is not an environmental factor. If the issue is dragging the tree-parts offsite, then say “tree cutting with or without removal from the site.” Coming from an area where many trees are not commercial, calling tree removal a “harvest” when they may be removed and burned in piles, seems like it doesn’t accurately portray what’s going on.

Others are welcome to add ideas of their own, or from other comments or additions or critiques of the above. Please don’t include the whole comment letters, just ideas that you think are helpful.

Proposed NEPA Regs: Things We Might All Agree On? I. More Public Involvement Requirements For Some Categories

by

In this post, we talked about the FS reducing public involvement with the new regulations. But then as we explored the actual current NEPA regs in this post, we found out that removing the scoping requirement appears to mean that the change to the regs goes from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/220.4

(e)Scoping (40 CFR 1501.7).

“(1) Scoping is required for all Forest Service proposed actions, including those that would appear to be categorically excluded from further analysis and documentation in an EA or an EIS (§ 220.6).

(2) Scoping shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 1501.7. Because the nature and complexity of a proposed action determine the scope and intensity of analysis, no single scoping technique is required or prescribed.

(3) The SOPA shall not to be used as the sole scoping mechanism for a proposed action.”

I’ll call the old regs, notification = SOPA plus one.

(d) Scoping and public notice. Minimum requirements for scoping and public notice are listed below, except where specified by applicable statutes or regulations (for example, 36 CFR part
218). Additional public involvement is at the discretion of the local responsible official.
(1) The Forest Service will publish to the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) all proposed actions that will be documented with a decision memo, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement. The local responsible official shall ensure the SOPA is updated and notify the public of the availability of the SOPA.
(2) Scoping is required for all Forest Service environmental impact statements (40 CFR 1501.7)

The new regs are Notification=SOPA

This doesn’t actually answer any questions about changes to “public involvement”. A minimalist might still not do enough notification under the previous reg (SOPA plus one) if they pick the a suboptimal “plus one,” say, a newspaper people don’t read, or a homeowner’s association Facebook page.

Now if changing projects that otherwise would be EA’s to CE’s gets rid of the notice, comment and appeal requirements for EA’s and that’s the problem, that’s indeed a different kettle of fish. But that is only relevant to the new categories.

As Sam Evans says in his op-ed “Under current law, new roads and all but the smallest and least consequential timber sales require, at a minimum, advance public notice and the opportunity for the public to comment and suggest improvements.” He seems to be saying that categories 12, 13 and 14 are OK (well, they were also litigated at the time), but 4200 is a bridge too far. The legislative CE’s require collaboration, and the case law for what that means is being established.

I would argue that if that is the concern, write in and say “I think that new categories 24, 26 (and others) should have required public notice (SOPA plus one as old regs), plus a minimum 30 day comment period on a proposed action defined in enough detail for reasonable public comment.” (I’m sure there are more appropriate legal terms).

Next post: Other comments we might agree on.