Planning

Forest Service tries again on Blue Mountains plan revision

by

The revision of the three national forest plans encompassing the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon and Washington is becoming a poster child for failing to finish forest planning.

Northwest Regional Forester Glenn Casamassa announced in March 2019 the Forest Service was scrapping the proposed Blue Mountains Forest Plan Revision, which includes the Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman and Malheur. A final draft of the plans had been released in June 2018. It was not the first time the Blue Mountain Forest Plan had been paused.A draft version of the plans was completed in 2014, and received so much backlash that local forest supervisors decided to develop new plan alternatives.

So they’re trying something new:

The Blues Intergovernmental Council has been formed to help frame the process of developing a new methodology for forest planning for the Wallowa-Whitman, Malheur and Umatilla national forests. A series of meetings between county commissioners and key Forest Service personnel have been held across the Blue Mountain region over the past year to help kickstart a framework for cross-jurisdiction work.

“The underlying intent is to ensure that we can develop plans for the three national forests that would provide the opportunity for durable relationships with our communities and to make an important difference on the landscape for the long term,” said Eric Watrud, the forest supervisor on the Umatilla National Forest.  Watrud said the council includes state and county representatives in Oregon and Washington, four treaty tribes and regulatory agencies, in addition to the Forest Service.

“The attempt here is to create just a more open, inclusive approach where the Forest Service is working closely with our communities in order to make sure that we are developing a plan that is gonna stand the test of time,” he said. “We have the responsibility of stewarding the management of these three national forests, which are a national and local treasure. And so there’s a tremendous amount of interest, and our intent is to make sure that we’re incorporating that feedback, incorporating those ideas and local suggestions in order to make sure that we accomplish that goal.”

A better process for local input – that’s ok. But this is obviously “inclusive” of only “local” “communities.”  I assume this is only part of the story (as suggested by the forest supervisor’s careful reference to “a national and local treasure”), but I hope they aren’t (maybe again) setting up expectations that won’t be met.

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.)

Sharon’s All Time Favorite Post: Andy Stahl’s KISS Planning Rule

by

Brian Hawthorne raised the point here that the Forest Service spends too much time on planning, and not enough time on doing or implementing.  The Forest Service has tried to address this problem several times- I think the EADM process was initiated partially to make planning and NEPA more efficient.  During my time in DC on the NEPA staff, the problem was framed as “Process Predicament.” Various approaches have been tried to do this, both for “NEPA” projects and for “NFMA” plans.

What I like about Andy’s KISS rule is that it starts at the beginning, “What does NFMA call for?”  Here is KISS I from December 31, 2009 (remember NCFP was started to discuss and follow along with the development of the 2012 Rule). Check out the comments from thoughtful John and David.  I linked the various other KISSs in this post. It’s my favorite because it is radical (goes to the root of NFMA) and it is still relevant as per discussions of  forest plans, collaboration and the 1982 Rule Colville Plan.  As forests spend more time on planning, and being litigated, under the 2012 Rule (aka developing case law for the 2012), perhaps Andy’s post is even more relevant.

KISS Planning Rule

Contributed by Andy Stahl

Forest planning has been hijacked by a generation of planners who turned what should have been a narrowly-focused effort to constrain an out-of-control Forest Service logging program and turned it into a wasteful, endless, bureaucratic exercise with little merit.  Let’s review what the National Forest Management Act actually requires of plans and the planning regulations.  The reader can follow along here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/16/usc_sec_16_00001604—-000-.html

Here’s what a NFMA plan must contain:

1) the “planned timber sale program” including the “proportion of probable methods of timber harvest.”

That’s it.  There is no second item.

Now look at what NFMA requires of the planning regulations.  First, there must be guidelines

1) to identify the suitability of land for resource management;

2) for obtaining inventory data; and,

3) for identifying special conditions or situations involving hazards.

Second, the planning rules must

1) insure that economic and environmental matters are considered in the forest plan;

2) insure that plans provide for diversity of plant and animal communities;

3) insure plans address research and evaluation of management systems to prevent substantial and permanent impairment of land productivity;

4) permit increases in harvest levels based on growing trees faster;

5) ensure that timber will be harvested only where soil, slope or watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged, land is restocked within 5 years, protection is provided to water from detrimental changes, and harvest methods are not chosen based on greatest dollar return or unit output; and, finally,

6) ensure that even-aged cutting is used only where it is appropriate, natural appearing, not too big, and protective of other resources.

That’s it.  When read in the context of the times, i.e., the clearcutting scandals of the mid-1970s, it makes perfect sense that what Congress sought were timber sale programs for each national forest that ensured logging levels and methods were light-on-the-land and protected other resources.

In the 1980s, with national forest logging beyond 10 billion and up 12 billion board feet annually, that was no mean feat.  Today, with logging at or below 3 billion board feet, forest planning ought to be a snap.  But only if the Forest Service sets its cross-hairs only on the target Congress demanded.  Otherwise, it will continue to take 15 or more years to write 15-year plans that will make no decisions and be irrelevant in the real world the day they are signed.

Andy Stahl is the Executive Director of the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics

 

Stewardship contracts – a better tool for the job than a roadless rule?

by

I wouldn’t have thought that one is a substitute for the other, and maybe this suggests that Utah defined its problem wrong initially.  But they’re happy enough with the way their Shared Stewardship agreement is working that they have put their roadless rule proposal on a back burner.  At least some greens seem happy, too, and least those concerned about roadless areas.  Priority-setting, within the framework of a forest plan, is one thing that I think lends itself to collaboration.

Amid debate about state-specific exemptions to the Roadless Rule, Congress created the capacity to negotiate “stewardship contracts” ranging up to 20 years with states in the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Act.  It allows the Forest Service to rely on “state’s guidance for designing, implementing, and prioritizing projects geared toward reducing the risks of damaging wildfires and promoting forest health.”

 

Wilderness Society Senior Resource Analyst for National Forest Policy Mike Anderson said conservationists are encouraged by what Shared Stewardship agreements could foster in addressing critical needs.  “Working side-by-side to identify the major risks and implement projects that are actually going to make a difference on the land is something conservationists, I think, can generally can support,” he said. “We think it is good.”

 

(Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office lead counsel) Garfield said under the agreement, projects “can happen, and are occurring, within and without the roadless area, when necessary.”    ‘The existing rule provides a lot of exceptions that the Forest Service can use for forest restoration,” he said. “The Forest Service wasn’t using those” exceptions in many cases.  Garfield said PLPCO will be watching closely over the next four years to see if the Shared Stewardship agreement works out before withdrawing its petition. “I won’t say everything we hoped to accomplish under a state-specific Roadless Rule will be achieved under the Shared Stewardship agreement,” he said, “but a lot of progress is being made.”

(One error in this article – the Idaho and Colorado state roadless rules have been approved.)

Recovery planning for the Gunnison sage-grouse

by

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has released a draft recovery plan for the Gunnison sage-grouse in Colorado and Utah.  The Center for Biodiversity doesn’t like it, but more to the point, they like less how the BLM is managing Gunnison sage-grouse.  More to the point because recovery plans are not mandatory, while federal land management plans can be – and plan components must be mandatory to be considered “regulatory” enough to carry much weight in ESA listing and delisting decisions.  As the FWS said, “Establishing durable regulatory mechanisms that are binding and enforceable, such as revised land use planning amendments, will be important for recovery.”

CBD:

The recovery plan comes on the heels of BLM decisions not to designate any Areas of Critical Environmental Concern for Gunnison sage-grouse in the Tres Rios and Uncompahgre Resource management plans, and to adopt inadequate safeguards for the birds’ habitat in recent land-use plans. For example, although the draft recovery plan calls on federal land-management agencies to improve their resource management plans and protect suitable habitat within four miles of breeding sites, the BLM’s August 2019 proposed resource plan for its Uncompahgre Field Office protects only habitats within 0.6 miles of breeding sites. The BLM admits this would “fall short of minimum protection standards to maintain sage-grouse viability.”

“Bringing the Gunnison sage-grouse back from the brink requires decisive and concerted action, but instead we have two federal agencies working against each other,” said Michael Saul, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Fish and Wildlife Service is urging federal land managers to improve protections for public-land habitat, but the BLM is moving in the opposite direction. This is a recipe for extinction for this beautiful bird. We’ll do everything possible to keep that from happening.”

The timing is also such that BLM plans were released prior to the draft recovery plan.  That means that the BLM should start taking another look at how their plans address this species and take into account the new information and recommended measures.  The same is true for the 10% of sage-grouse habitat that occurs on national forest lands. BLM is not subject to NFMA, so its obligation to maintain species viability to avoid listing under ESA is not as clear as for the Forest Service.  Forest Service plans must “contribute to recovery” of listed species, so failure to address elements of this recovery plan when it is final should raise serious questions.

In addition to specific conservation measures like the four-mile buffers for breeding leks, the draft recovery plan provides some specific desired conditions that could be included in land management plans:

2. Regulatory mechanisms or other conservation plans or programs, such as land-use management plans, reduce and ameliorate threats associated with habitat loss and degradation in all populations, such that:

A. Habitat in Dove Creek is improved and maintained at a quantity calculated to support a HMC of 30, although this criterion is not measured by achieving the target HMC.

B. Habitat in CSCSM is maintained at a quantity calculated to support a HMC of 7, although this criterion is not measured by achieving the target HMC.

C. Habitat is improved and maintained in Gunnison Basin, San Miguel, Piñon Mesa, Crawford, and Monticello at a quantity calculated to support the target HMCs as listed in Table 1.

At a minimum, the land management agencies will need to explain how these plans contribute to meeting their requirements under ESA to manage their programs to promote recovery of listed species, which should include how they are implementing the final recovery plan.

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.

Another Side of the Colville Revision Story: Comment from Russ Vaagen

by

Many thanks to Russ Vaagen for giving another perspective. It helps us understand the frustrations of the different parties, and also (as is often the case) how the FS is between a rock and a hard place. Here I’d like to especially highlight one point:

I just hope we don’t have to go through this process of Forest Planning again. It has no place in this modern era of collaboration and public involvement. If those efforts result in a need to alter the Forest Plan, the USFS should recognize it and alter the plan a step at a time rather than the whole thing.

This reminds me of the idea of some planners that plans should be more like a loose-leaf notebook of decisions. It also reminds me of the R-2 forests who didn’t want to get on the list for plan revisions because “it’s like opening up all the disagreements that we had settled, to what end?” Anyway here’s his whole comment, originally posted here.

As the President of NEWFC I would like to say that not everyone feels the same way that Tim does. I completely understand where he’s coming from and support his ability to speak for himself and his organization.

Tim and Kettle Range Conservation Group have been great members of our collaborative. The fact is, these forest planning processes are divisive. He’s right, we did collaborate for a long time to reach a consensus on the Forest Plan. However, due to the broad nature of the community involvement it attracted members of the public that weren’t as adept at the collaborative process and never got to the point where they dropped the positions and started talking about interests.

I don’t have the same opinion of Colville National Forest Supervisor Rodney Smolden. Because of this planning process he was put in a very difficult position. If he were to agree to press forward with Wilderness levels supported by NEWFC members, all 9 county commissioners in the three counties affected and a number of groups would have all been adamantly opposed. The fact is, most were opposed to any additional Wilderness. I’m not making a judgment call, I’m just saying when you hear somewhere between 120,000 and 200,000 acres from a local collaborative and then zero from other community leaders including elected officials, 60,000 was an attempt at a compromise. Unfortunately that’s not popular, and it doesn’t work for anyone.

If we are to be giving collaboration its due, we need to adjust this Forest Planning Process. It goes against collaboration and the collaborative process. It’s a disaster.

I know we can agree to more Wilderness on the Colville, but more importantly we can agree to other designations that achieve the interests of conservation and other interested parties. The forest industry participants have already sent a signed letter to the Colville National Forest urging the agency NOT to pursue any projects that would involve logging in Inventoried Roadless Areas. This is a big win for Conservation. Since the letter, no projects have taken place in an IRA on the CNF. When the previous Forest Supervisor suggested some management of an IRA, it was immediately met with opposition from the Forest Industry participants.

I’d also like to address the clear cutting. Tim is right, no one in NEWFC has been asking for Clear Cutting. It’s my opinion that the Forest Service has taken some liberties with some openings by making them too large and subsequently unsightly. I think it was a mistake on their part and these issues have been addressed. I’m hopeful that any future openings will be smaller and mimic natural disturbances. The VAST MAJORITY of the treatments on the CNF are restorative. That means that it’s dominated by thinning.

The Forest Service leadership on the Colville NF and others need to continually revisit expectations of the members of the collaborative groups to ensure that they don’t take things too far. The social license to manage these forests can easily be revoked if the projects don’t consistently match the expectations of the collaborative groups.

I’d also like to address the 25,000 acres of annual treatment. These acres are restorative in design. Over 20 years, that’s 500,000 acres of the 1.1 million acre Colville NF. That almost directly matches up with our collaborative plan to restore and manage about 491,000 acres (if memory serves) that have roads and have been managed in the past. There’s another layer of land between the front country or actively managed lands and potential Wilderness that may or may not need treatment. Therefore, the acreage of treatment isn’t surprising, so long as it’s completed in a way that meets public acceptance.

Tim is a member in good standing with NEWFC and his disappointment is palpable. We’ve all done incredible work on the CNF. The fact that there’s a new Forest Plan now, signed by the Regional Forester, won’t change the fact that we will continue to collaborate. Collaboration has shaped the way we manage the forest and will continue to. That same collaboration will lead to solutions which I believe will include a completed Wilderness Bill and further solutions that will enhance conservation, recreation, and the economics of the forest. I just hope we don’t have to go through this process of Forest Planning again. It has no place in this modern era of collaboration and public involvement. If those efforts result in a need to alter the Forest Plan, the USFS should recognize it and alter the plan a step at a time rather than the whole thing.

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.

 

Tongass transition to young-growth – are we there yet?

by

The Tongass National Forest is being managed under a 2016 amendment to its 2008 forest plan that addresses the Forest’s transition away from old-growth timber harvesting.  The amendment accelerated the transition in the plan from 32 years to 16 years, but there has been continuing controversy over how long that process should take.   Here’s the latest in an extended article from E&E News:

A new complication in the debate over the young-growth transition comes from Catherine Mater, a forest products engineer from Oregon who recently completed an inventory of 43 areas within the Tongass under a contract with the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station. There’s enough young growth coming online to provide around 55 million board feet of timber annually for decades, she said, or more than double the total timber volume the service reported cut there in fiscal 2018. Mater found 138,760 acres of young growth — between 55 and 80 years old — suitable for harvest. All of it was within 800 feet of Forest Service roads and away from steep slopes and other environmentally sensitive areas.

Of course there’s still pushback from the “timber companies and industry-friendly politicians, who want more thinning and bigger clear cuts.”

What caught my attention though was these comments from the Tongass spokeswoman:

Forest Service managers stand by their estimates that the young-growth transition won’t be complete before 2033, Fenster said. “If, once the analysis is complete, it shows the projections in the forest plan were not valid, then the Forest Service would have to consider alternatives to incorporating new information into the forest plan estimates,” Fenster said.

The projected volume of young growth was a fundamental assumption in the 2016 amendment, so I don’t think the Forest has the option of ignoring how it could affect the decisions it made in the forest plan.