NEPA

A test of the 2014 insect and disease categorical exclusion

by

The Center for Biological diversity is suing the Tahoe National Forest for its decision on the Sunny South timber sale. The sale is designed to “reduce the extent and risk of insect infestations, as well as to reduce the negative effects of those infestations on forest health and resilience.” Plaintiffs allege, “Six (California spotted) owl territories are slated to be logged …, all of which are important contributors to the overall owl population given the high degree of successful owl reproduction in these old forested areas.”

Section 603 of the amended Healthy Forests Restoration Act establishes a categorical exclusion for qualifying insect and disease projects in designated areas on National Forest System lands. An insect and disease project that may be categorically excluded under this authority is a project that is designed to reduce the risk or extent of, or increase the resilience to, insect or disease infestation in the areas.  The project must be located in an area designated pursuant to a Governor’s request for areas in their State that are experiencing, or at risk of, an insect or disease epidemic. The project must also meet other criteria, including these rather subjective ones:

  • The project was developed through a collaborative process that includes multiple interested persons representing diverse interests and is transparent and non-exclusive.
  • The best available scientific information must be considered to maintain or restore ecological integrity, including maintaining or restoring the structure, function, composition and connectivity.

We might find out a little more about what these things mean from this court.

There used to be a sort of rule of thumb that if a project looked controversial, the Forest Service wouldn’t pursue a categorical exclusion (in part because they may be difficult to defend in court). The new agency policy appears to be to thumb its nose.

 

Science consistency review on the southern Sierra national forests

by

The draft revised Sierra, Sequoia and Inyo national forest plans include aggressive restoration programs across the forest, including logging areas of existing old forest structure to protect old forests and associated wildlife species.  The Forest Service has asked (unidentified) reviewers to look at the draft forest plans and draft EIS and address these questions in the first science consistency review conducted under the 2012 planning rule (it is an optional process under associated agency policy):

1. Has applicable and available scientific information been considered?

2. Is the scientific information interpreted reasonably and accurately?

3. Are the uncertainties associated with the scientific information acknowledged and documented?

4. Have the relevant management consequences, including risks and uncertainties, been identified and documented?

Here are some of the topics being addressed:

• Vegetation: Forest Resilience, Seral stage distribution, Effects of post-disturbance harvest, and Impacts on native vegetation.

• Fire and Fuels: Fuels management and community protection, Current fuel loading, Current and future wildfire trends, Effectiveness of treatments for fuel reduction.

• Wildlife and Habitat: Impacts to wildlife and their habitats, terrestrial and aquatic, Protection of old forest and associated species, Threatened and endangered species habitat requirements and availability, Species of Conservation Concern habitat requirements and availability.

• Climate Change: Current and projected trends, Effects on wildlife habitats and populations, Effects on carbon sequestration and carrying capacity

Given the debate on this blog surrounding these issues, the results should be interesting.  However there is no commitment here to any public release or discussion of the results.  The comment period on the draft EIS closes August 25th.  The results of this review were scheduled to be available in August.  “The technical experts (on the planning team) will review the report, consult and address any concerns from the review team, and incorporate any recommendations that would benefit the final EIS.” 

Given the debate on this blog surrounding these issues, the results should be interesting.  However there is no commitment here to any public release or discussion of the results.  The comment period on the draft EIS closes August 25th.  The results of this review where scheduled to be done in August.  “The technical experts (on the planning team) will review the report, consult and address any concerns from the review team, and incorporate any recommendations that would benefit the final EIS.”

Here is the revision website.

Court holds up mining project after fire affects sensitive plant

by

On July 11, the Idaho federal district court reversed a Forest Service decision to approve a mining exploration project on the Boise National Forest. The legal issues arose when the Grimes Fire burned habitat for the Sacajawea bitterroot (abbreviated “LESA”), in an area supporting the largest population of a plant designated as a sensitive species by the Forest Service. The court found that the analysis of changed conditions was inadequate, leading to violations of both NEPA and NFMA (Idaho Conservation League v. U. S. Forest Service):

“The Forest Service recognizes the baseline data needs to be re-established following the 2014 Grimes Fire but instead of compiling and analyzing that data up front, the Forest Service has incorporated those NEPA steps into the Project itself. The selected Alternative B anticipates conducting a new baseline study during the Project and then monitoring and mitigating to protect the LESA species. (CU080344-51.) This approach puts the cart before the horse by prematurely asking for approval of the Project before the necessary baseline data and analysis are conducted. NEPA demands that the Forest Service analyze a project’s impacts before it is approved; not as part of the Project itself.

“The Defendants’ reliance on the Project’s design features, monitoring, and mitigation measures does not cure the failure to re-evaluate and analyze the Project’s impact on LESA following the Grimes Fire.  Without accurate baseline data before the Project begins, it is impossible to know whether and to what extent the Project’s activities will impact LESA even with the proposed design features, monitoring, and mitigation features. As thorough as these features of the Project appear to be, the Forest Service’s failure to re-evaluate LESA’s current baseline leaves too much unknown for the Forest Service to have concluded that the Project will not have a significant impact on the LESA population.

“Additionally, the Complaint alleges the Forest Service violated NFMA by failing to follow Guideline BTGU01 which requires it to conduct up-to-date surveys of Sacajawea’s bitterroot habitat and plant presence. (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 77.)  Consistent with its ruling on the NEPA claim, however, the Court finds the Forest Service failed to re-evaluate the baseline data for LESA following the Grimes Fire prior to approving the Project. Without an accurate baseline, the Project’s monitoring and mitigation measures will not be effective or accurate. Failing to obtain the necessary baseline is contrary to Guideline BTGU01 because the Forest Service did not determine the existing suitable habitat for and presence of LESA within or near the project area. (CU053833.) For these reasons, the Court finds the Forest Service was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of NFMA.”

Another way that fires make life hard for the Forest Service, and another example of how short-cutting the NEPA process makes it harder.  A “trust us” approach doesn’t sell well under NEPA or NFMA.

Fracking on the Wayne National Forest – no significant impact

by

This story got me to look closer at planning for fracking on national forests.  The reason the BLM can say this in their EA is arguably because a lease does not “authorize surface disturbing activities.”  Here’s the way it works.

“The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to lease up to approximately 40,000 federally-owned minerals located in the Wayne National Forest, Athens Ranger District, Marietta Unit in Monroe, Noble, and Washington Counties in Ohio. This approximate acreage figure represents the total amount of federally-owned minerals that could be nominated and potentially be made available for leasing on the Marietta Unit. Industry uses the BLM Expression of Interest (EOI) process to nominate federal minerals for leasing. To date, industry has submitted over fifty EOIs for parcels located on the Marietta Unit totaling approximately 18,000 acres.”

“The proposed leases would provide the lessee(s) exclusive rights to explore and develop oil and gas reserves on the leases but do not authorize surface disturbing activities. Although there would be no surface disturbance from the action of leasing, the Environmental Assessment (EA) analyzes a reasonably foreseeable development scenario (RFDS) to address the anticipated environmental effects from potential future oil and gas development. Before a lessee or operator conducts any surface disturbing activities related to the development of these leases, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) must first approve an application for permit to drill (APD) as specified in 43 CFR 3162. In an APD, an applicant proposes to drill the well subject to the terms and conditions of the lease. Upon receipt of an APD, the BLM conducts an onsite inspection with the applicant and the landowner. The Forest Service and BLM would also conduct additional site-specific analysis in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the appropriate consultations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) prior to approving the APD.”

So for example, here are the effects of the proposal on “Recreation, Land Use and Noise:”  “No direct impacts from leasing. Minor, short- and longterm changes to land use from reasonably foreseeable development activities due to conversion of undeveloped areas to areas that support oil and gas development. Future reasonably foreseeable effects minimized by stipulations and other Forest Service measures for protecting recreation resources. Noise levels would lessen during the production phase.” Another example – effects on air resources would be mitigated by “Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), best management practices (BMPs) and conditions of approval (COAs) at time of drilling.”

Where I come from, NEPA requires accounting for “reasonably foreseeable effects,” and I think that is what is being described here.  And I think they meet the significance criteria in NEPA to require an EIS.  I don’t see how BLM can rely on mitigating effects through “stipulations and other Forest Service measures” – unless they are known, in-place mandatory forest plan standards, or if they have been incorporated into the terms of the lease. The EA cites these requirements:  “The following notifications and stipulations implement the standards and guidelines of the Wayne National Forest’s 2006 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). These are in addition to the standard lease terms for oil and gas leases (BLM Form 3100-11).”  All other sources of potential mitigation would have to be considered speculative.

There is another NEPA process at the permitting stage where these effects may be addressed.  The EA states, “The lessee is hereby made aware that all post lease operations will be subject to appropriate environmental review and may be limited or denied by no surface occupancy stipulations.”   In reality, once a lease is signed, what discretion does the Forest Service have to deny or severely restrict a permit?  Maybe someone could refresh my memory on how this has all been sorted out in court.

Nez Perce Clearwater salvage project enjoined

by

The Idaho District Court enjoined the Johnson Bar Salvage Project on May 12, finding  violations of NEPA and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.  During the time between the release of the DEIS in March of 2015, and the publication of the FEIS in October of 2015, timber harvesting activities on burned state and private lands had occurred or were underway, and additional wildfires had burned or continued to burn, near the project area.

The court found that the Forest had failed to take a hard look at the effects of these events on sediment and visual quality, and should have prepared a supplemental EIS to address the new information.  The main flaw was failing to undertake a quantitative effects analysis of the new sediment sources comparable to what had been done for the original baseline.  There were also conflicting statements in the fisheries evaluation, and evidence that road decommissioning would not reduce sediment as claimed.  There was no support in the record for conclusory statements in the ROD about a lack of cumulative effects.  The urgency of the salvage harvest was not given great weight in the balancing of interests that supported the injunction because the project was scheduled over five years.

This sounds like a case where shortcuts were taken to try to complete a project that was overtaken by events.  Haste makes waste.

The Wild and Scenic River holding involved an out-of-date river plan, but may have some implications for vaguely written forest plans (in relation to rivers, diversity or other requirements):

The Forest Service cannot effectively analyze, nor can the public and Court crosscheck, the Forest Service’s analysis, without a River Plan that delineates objective standards, or predetermined criteria, for describing, assessing, and protecting the Wild and Scenic values of the Rivers. Without objective, predetermined criteria, the public is left to trust the Forest Service’s “word” that it considered all relevant factors necessary to protecting the Middle Fork Clearwater and Selway Rivers’ Wild and Scenic values and that the Project will not affect or have minimal impact upon the Wild and Scenic values.”

Even the 9th Circuit piles onto plaintiffs

by

On May 6, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Montana district court’s opinion in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Weber.  The Flathead National Forest Precommercial Thinning Project would thin about 500 acres a year in bull trout grizzly bear and arguably lynx habitat, and the decision was based on a categorical exclusion.  This looks like one of those cases where the judges tried to make the law match what they saw as the facts – The Ninth Circuit took three days to decide and quoted the district judge: “[t]his Project is the most innocuous logging project to be challenged in this court to date.”  The district judge also said, “Plaintiffs’ complaints are solely based on relatively insignificant alleged procedural missteps by the Forest Service, and they point to no actual or even reasonably potential harm the Project will cause to any of the relevant species.”

I think the judge played a little loose with the law (NFMA and NEPA) failed to appreciate the importance of one “procedural misstep.”  Specific locations of the thinning activities were not identified.  With regard to treatments in riparian areas (and bull trout habitat), decisions are said to be left to the future judgment of a “fisheries biologist.” With regard to meeting a forest plan requirement for maximum distance to cover, the decision document is apparently silent, but the court accepts an ambiguous statement in the biological assessment as assuring compliance with the forest plan. Where environmental effects or compliance with plan direction may be different depending upon project layout, then that layout should be part of the decision reviewed by the public and signed by the decision maker.

The judge also incorrectly stated that the forest plan’s 300-foot riparian buffer standard did not apply.  He should have said that it did, but that the requirements applicable to it were met.

Project complies with spotted owl recovery plan requirement in Shasta-Trinity forest plan

by

The Eastern California district court upheld the Harris Project on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest on Feb. 26. The project would treat about 2800 acres in northern spotted owl habitat. The Forest Service determined that the project would be “not likely to adversely affect” spotted owls, and the Fish and Wildlife Service concurred. The court found that spotted owls would be able to continue to feed, shelter, or disperse within the 17 acres of treated area in foraging habitat, and therefore the determination and concurrence complied with ESA. It also found that incomplete surveys were the best available science for determining owl presence.

 

The court also found that the agencies followed the recommendations in the spotted owl recovery plan. The recovery plan encouraged long-term improvements in habitat even if there were some short-term adverse effects, and, “Defendants weighed the short-term impacts against the long-term benefits and concluded that the Harris Project would ultimately help protect and increase northern spotted owl habitat. The court deferred to the agencies’ judgments that this project complied with this strategy. (The highlighted terms suggest that there would in fact be adverse effects that should have required a finding of adverse effects and triggered formal consultation to comply with ESA. Offsetting beneficial effects do not negate this ESA consultation requirement.)

 

As result the court also held that the project complied with NFMA because it was consistent with the Shasta-Trinity forest plan that required the Forest to, “maintain and/or enhance habitat for” threatened, endangered, and sensitive “species consistent with individual species recovery plans.”

 

The court also upheld the Forest Service NEPA process. It adequately addressed the effects on spotted owls of promoting ponderosa pine, and properly concluded that other treatments would lead to overall effects that would be beneficial. The court also found that a new report on reducing fire risk (Lydersen) did not contradict information used by the Forest Service, and therefore an SEIS was not needed to address it.

Wish you were on the Dixie?

by

The Utah federal district court upheld the Dixie National Forest decision on the Iron Springs Project (argued at a hearing in July 2014) in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Bulletts. The Project involves a range of vegetation management activities including intermediate harvest treatments, salvage of timber killed by or dying as a result of beetle infestation, regeneration of aspen, and reforestation of previously harvested areas. Commercial logging would occur on 3,603 acres of spruce/fir.

 

Most of the plaintiff’s claims were based on NEPA. The court found that an EIS was not necessary, focusing on the fact that the project affected only 0.5% of the national forest. It found the analysis of effects on old growth species and other at-risk species (including threatened Utah prairie dogs) to be adequate. There were also no unique characteristics of the area, and no controversy about the effects of the project on several wildlife species.

 

The court was a little creative (or inexperienced) in brushing off potential controversy about using timber harvest to address beetle kill. It concluded that, “Even if the efficacy of timber harvest for the purpose of addressing beetle kill is highly controversial, addressing beetle kill is only one of six stated reasons for the Project.”   This suggests that adding non-controversial purposes to a project can somehow offset any other controversy that exists – a dubious NEPA proposition.

 

Plaintiffs also pointed out that a goshawk amendment to the forest plan had been in place for a decade longer than intended, based only on an EA. However, they did not challenge the forest plan, and the court found that the project was consistent with the forest plan, and that a 2012 scientific review of the amendment validated the best available science for goshawks. The court also upheld viability analysis of management indicator species, which showed that the project area would continue to support sufficient numbers of flickers and three-toed woodpeckers.

Another classic settlement

by

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

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

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

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

Settlement: opening roads to motorized use requires NEPA (take 2)

by

It’s the Pike-San Isabel this time.  The issue appears to be “unauthorized and unanalyzed” routes.  It’s not clear whether those are two different things, but I think the point is that when a Motor Vehicle Use Map allows motorized use on user-created (“unauthorized?”) roads, the map becomes an authorization that triggers NEPA, ESA, NFMA consistency and travel plan “minimization” requirements.  The MVUM is not just displaying an open road system that was authorized in a previous travel planning and NEPA process (as was envisioned by the Travel Management Rule).

Thanks to WildEarth Guardians, we can look at the settlement agreement.  In it the Forest Service agrees to conduct travel planning using the proper procedures (I’ll bet that was a hard thing for them to accept …), agrees to some specific aspects of the process, and will undertake some interim protection measures in specified areas.  That’s a pretty standard formula, I think – do/re-do the process, and meanwhile don’t take some actions (in this case that means interim closing and “unopening” some roads).

What I need someone to explain to me is this.  Some motorized user groups intervened as defendants, but their signature is not on the settlement agreement.  I thought intervention allowed the parties to contest a settlement in some way.  Can we assume that they didn’t in this case?