Planning

Extinction on the national forests

by

Larry Harrell asked recently (with a *smirk* no doubt) if any species have gone extinct on national forests.  Here’s a report (published in 2004) from the Center for Biological Diversity that documents 108 extinctions that occurred between the passage of the Endangered Species Act in 1973 and 1995.  Two are noted on national forests.  One was a mussel on the Carson National Forest.  Here’s the other:

The San Gabriel Mountains Blue butterfly (Plebejus saepiolus aureolus) was known only from a single wet meadow within the yellow pine forest near the Big Pines Ranger Station, San Gabriel Mountains, Angeles National Forest, California [14]. Its host plant was Trifolium wormskioldii. At a minimum it was seen in 1970, 1980, and 1985. It has not been seen since 1985 [14]. It was not found in a 1995 survey which was a very wet year that would have encouraged reproduction if the taxon still existed [97]. The meadow was still wet, but had been made smaller due to the diversion of some of the water from the natural spring feeding it. The diversion of the spring by the U.S. Forest Service has been suggested as the cause of the species extinction [189].

And it’s been another 20 years since then.  Another species that seems obvious, but its extinction probably pre-dates this study is the ivory-billed woodpecker, which ranged throughout the southeastern forests, and was killed off by logging. The Ocala National Forest in Florida was established in 1908, but ivory bills had apparently disappeared from there by 1940.  The last confirmed sighting was in 1944 in Louisiana.  One of the unconfirmed sightings after that was on the DeSoto National Forest in Mississippi.

It would be good to see more like this:

One rare desert plant has been removed from the endangered species list, and another has been “down-listed,” thanks to successful recovery efforts in Death Valley National Park.

National forest planning has been a contributing factor to the delisting of grizzly bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem, and will be part of the consideration if Canada lynx are proposed for delisting.

Getting recreational shooting off of national forests

by

That’s at least part of the solution in the Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest’s proposal to amend its forest plan to provide “new rules to govern recreational shooting on national forest land.”  The effort is being managed by the Northern Front Range Recreational Sport Shooting Management Partnership, a collaborative effort started in 2013 that also includes Colorado Parks and Wildlife and four counties.

The purpose, from the partnership website:

to develop possible management strategies for this activity on the Arapaho and Roosevelt National Forests. This includes not only identifying areas of the Forests that may or may not be suitable for recreational sport shooting, but also identifying locations that would be conducive to building developed shooting ranges open to the public on public lands.

Proposed closures would not apply to lawful hunting activities on National Forest System lands. In addition, proposed closures would likely not take effect until developed shooting ranges were constructed in the vicinity.

The forest supervisor said the partnership’s approach to the safety concerns is to have the counties build shooting ranges to give people more controlled places to shoot, in exchange for closures of Forest Service land.   One of the alternatives being considered is 100% closure of national forest lands.  One member of the public opined that it must be a joke, but I think it’s fair to consider whether recreational shooting is compatible with other uses of a national forest.  At least outside of areas designated for that use (and maybe areas designated for that use should be under a special use permit like other exclusive uses).

Previously discussed on this blog here.

Wyoming Public Lands Initiative and the Bridger-Teton National Forest

by

“In early 2016 the Wyoming County Commissioners Association (WCCA) organized the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative (WPLI).  The WPLI is a collaborative, county-led process intended to designate WSAs as wilderness, multiple use, or other management.  The result will be one state-wide legislative lands package that is broadly supported by public lands stakeholders in Wyoming.”

It always makes me a little nervous when a local “collaborative” (or local government) feels empowered to dictate federal land policies (especially where, as in this case, there is a county plan that purports to “guide … the management of public lands” – implicitly federal lands).  On the other hand, it’s always helpful to land managers if those with opposing views can work out and recommend something they all agree on.   With wilderness designation decisions there is the added layer of Congress having to take a national look before approving a decision.  In this case there are also national conservation groups represented in the collaborative, as well as local ones.  But there is also a lawsuit by other conservation groups, and apparently someone on the other side ran to the local Congresswoman who is meddling, so the county commissioners are asking for a “time-out.”  Here’s the latest.

Getting rid of the lynx problem

by

In case you missed this news a month ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service has decided to propose delisting Canada lynx.

The Canada lynx was listed as threatened in 2000 largely due to a lack of regulatory mechanisms on federal public lands, which is where a majority of the habitat for Canada lynx was believed to be located in the lower 48 states. Since receiving ESA protection, federal land managers throughout the lynx’s range have formally amended their management plans and implemented conservation measures to conserve the species. For example, all U.S. Forest Service land management plans in the Rocky Mountain region have been amended to include conservation measures for the Canada lynx.

The recommendation was informed by a recently completed, peer-reviewed Species Status Assessment for the lynx, which compiled and evaluated the best available scientific information on the historical, current and possible future conditions for the Canada lynx. Over a two-year process, the Service worked closely with federal, state and academic subject matter experts to evaluate relevant scientific information on snowshoe hare population dynamics, climate change, forest ecology and other issues. Although climate change remains an important factor for the conservation of the Canada lynx, neither the Service nor the experts we consulted conclude that the lynx is at risk of extinction from climate change within the foreseeable future.

That last sentence may be the most important.  The Trump Administration has been revisiting and redefining what “foreseeable future” means.  They basically seem to be saying that the main thing that has changed is that they no longer think extinction is predictable enough to worry about yet.  There is also this motivation:

Given the outcome of this analysis, the Service will not at this time be completing a recovery plan for the Canada lynx.

Which was due in January.  Here and here are some other concerns.  I wouldn’t be surprised if it took another 18 years to get this through court, but by then extinction may be close enough to count.  And much as the Forest Service would like it to, delisting doesn’t mean they could remove the regulatory mechanisms that contributed to delisting.  If delisting happens, it would be worth recognizing this as a payoff for good forest planning, and as a model for future plans involving listed or potentially listed species.

Has “energy dominance” lost a battle?

by

Opponents of fracking on the Wayne National Forest filed a lawsuit last spring alleging the failure of the BLM and Forest Service to comply with NEPA and the Endangered Species Act in authorizing oil and gas leasing.  They argued that when the forest plan was revised in 2006 it didn’t address the effects of fracking.  Plaintiffs suggest that is the reason why the Forest has now decided to again revise it forest plan.   (Which would make it one of a very few forests to re-revise, so it is noteworthy that the Wayne was put in the queue ahead of many forests that have not been revised at all.)

The Forest says this:

For years, the USDA Forest Service, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), and USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) have been innovating ways to collaborate in the restoration of southeast Ohio’s oak and hickory forest ecosystems. The next step to realizing that objective is having compatible long-term management plans that allow the organizations to work together more efficiently. With ODNR’s intention of revising their State Action Plan by 2020, the Wayne National Forest decided the time is right to revise its Land Management Plan, to facilitate collaborative work efforts with the State.

That’s a worthy goal, but not one I would have expected to get it to the top of the Forest Service’s priority list for plan revisions.  Let’s see if they argue in court that starting revision would moot the lawsuit.  Regardless, “The public can now demand a plan that bans fracking in the Wayne.”

California national monuments pay off, and are intact so far, but not DRECP

by

Here’s some anecdotal evidence supporting the economic arguments for national monument designation.

Two years ago today, President Barack Obama created three new national monuments in the California desert: called Mojave Trails, Sand to Snow and Castle Mountains. Supporters held a community event to celebrate, noting that tourism to the area has increased significantly, as people come to see Joshua Tree National Park and then, go on to explore the new monuments.

Then there’s the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan.

Under Zinke, the Bureau of Land Management recently filed a notice of intent to reopen the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, which sets aside land for conservation, recreation and energy development.  “Lands that were set aside for conservation may now be open to inappropriate uses like mining and renewable-energy development, when there was already a consensus on areas where those sorts of uses would be appropriate,”

Another example of Trumpling the interests of locals in favor of reducing the “burdens on all domestic energy development.”  Another case where the recreation industry (and others) will have to battle the resources of the energy industry (instead of working with the industry as they did in DRECP).  Who is your money on?

Flathead forest plan revision nears finish line

by

I’ve been looking at the second final forest plan and EIS prepared under the 2012 Planning Rule, the Flathead. I want to commend them for some of the things they’ve done.

They have done a very good job of describing desired conditions for many vegetation characteristics based on their natural range of variation. I can tell you that this is the kind of “specific” desired conditions the drafters of the Planning Rule had in mind for providing ecological integrity. They also conducted an analysis of how vegetation conditions would change over time as a result of the plan, while factoring in expected fire regimes, and they were able to use this for some of their analysis of effects on viability of wildlife species that are closely tied to vegetation. I pretty much only looked at the wildlife parts of the EIS, but I thought the terrestrial part was well organized, and included some thoughtful discussion of what plan components actually do. One of my interests is habitat connectivity, and they have given it a more serious look than most, including actually considering and identifying specific areas to be managed for connectivity.

I was looking for problems related to at-risk species, and there are some. Regarding fire, even though they don’t call the wildland-urban interface a “management area,” it is one because a lot of plan components apply differently there.

I’ve also seen how big of a job it is to review and understand something this massive within 60 days, even with only a limited focus – and I’m someone with probably as much experience at this as anyone. It helped to have followed this process off and on from the beginning, but I have some sympathy for organizations trying to promote changes at this point in the process.   (There’s much more time to prepare for forest plan litigation.)

Next up? The Inyo is on track for “this spring.”

What if forest plans were a blank check?

by

There’s an interesting observation in this opinion piece about the process for amending the Allegheny forest plan to allow construction of the Atlantic Coast Pipeline. It required replacing standards in the forest plan for this “project” – here’s one of them:

“Standard SW06: Severe rutting resulting from management activities shall be confined to less than 5 percent of an activity area with the exception of the construction of Atlantic Coast Pipeline, where the applicable mitigation measures identified in the COM (Construction Operations & Maintenance) Plan and SUP (Special Use Permit) must be implemented.”

The problem this author points out is that the COM was written by the permittee and it wasn’t written when the public NEPA process was going on. The result was the Forest essentially writing a blank check for plan components that the Forest did not evaluate the effects of and the public did not get a chance to comment on. I think there’s some (legal) problems here.

This story got my attention because I’ve been looking at a lot of plan components being proposed for forest plans being revised under the 2012 Planning Rule.  One common theme is to not make any commitments in a forest plan, often using language that says essentially, “we’ll figure it out later,” often project-by-project.  It’s kind of hard to evaluate the effects of that forest plan decision. Sometimes it’s kind of like this example – where the forest plan defers to someone else, for example the states to tell them how to manage for wildlife. But there’s an even bigger problem when there are legal requirements that a forest plan must meet, particularly those related to plant and animal diversity.  A plan component that writes a blank check for a future decision does not demonstrate legal compliance.

Forest planning heats up on the Custer-Gallatin

by

It looks like the Forest has at least two alternatives now for wilderness recommendations, with competing proposals from a local wilderness group and a “partnership” that includes a state wilderness group.  (What should count more, local or collaborative?).  An interesting comment from the local group:

“I recently met with the Custer/Gallatin National Forest supervisor regarding the forest plan revision available for public comment. She cautioned me to limit my comments to science-based concerns rather than value-based.  I have a problem with that.”

That disagreement sounds like one we have discussed before.

Then you’ve got bison (and protesters).  It’s a pretty unique situation, but triggers the standard requirement for the Forest to determine if there is substantial concern about their persistence in the plan area, which would require them to be formally treated as a species of conservation concern and maintain habitat for a viable population.  They can’t just say they’ll do whatever the state wants, or whatever the Park Service wants, or assume that those other parties would ensure that the species persists on the Forest.

New mountain top radio tower causes static

by

The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest has gone a century (or however long it’s been since they invented radios) without radio service on some of its lands, but has decided that it needs it now, and that it requires the use of a mountain top with no development on it yet, and that there is no impact on the environment of doing that.  They say it technically fits a categorical exclusion because it involves less than 5 acres of land, and there are no extraordinary circumstances.  But it’s on the top of a pristine scenic mountain, and there is apparently an alternative location that is already developed?  And it sounds like it might require a forest plan amendment (meaning they told the public they intended to keep the mountain top pristine).  No wonder people are complaining.  It sounds like the kind of tone-deaf action that makes the agency look bad.  Do the EA; consider alternatives.