NFS Litigation Weekly March 11, 2022

by

The Forest Service summary is here (ignore the date on the Summary):  Litigation Weekly March 11 2022 EMAIL (1)

Links are provided to court documents.

COURT DECISIONS

Friends of the Crazy Mountains v. Erickson (D. Mont.) – On February 18, 2022, a Magistrate Judge in the District Court of Montana recommended granting summary judgment to the Forest Service regarding its decision to relinquish claims to public access rights on trails on the Custer Gallatin National Forest and to reroute the trails.

BONUS:  The potential implications of allowing the agency to not enforce its rights as a result of this case have been brought up in Congress by Senator Martin Heinrich New Mexico: “These decisions affect access in every state in the nation. Why is the Forest Service and DOJ changing its position on public rights of access on that trail in particular, and what does that mean for trails everywhere in the U.S.?”

Grand Canyon Trust v. Provencio (9th Cir.) – On February 22, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s summary judgment that intervenor Energy Fuels held a valid existing right to operate the Canyon Mine to produce uranium on the Kaibab National Forest in an area near the Grand Canyon that had been withdrawn from new mining claims.  The issue of validity involved the costs used in determining profitability.  (The Havasupai Tribe was one of the plaintiffs, as mentioned here.)

Sawtooth Mountain Ranch LLC v. United States of America (D. Idaho) – On February 24, 2022, the District Court of Idaho upheld the construction of the Stanley Redfish Trail on a public trail easement across plaintiffs’ property to the Sawtooth National Forest and National Recreation Area.  Here is some additional background.  The opinion on the Quiet Title claims is here.

Cottonwood Environmental Law Center v. Gianforte (9th Cir.) — On March 2, 2022, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction sought against the Interagency Bison Management Plan for the area in and around Yellowstone National Park, including the Custer Gallatin National Forest, alleging the likelihood of increased tribal bison hunting and associated NEPA violations.

Friends of the Clearwater v. Petrick (D. Idaho) – On March 2, 2022, the District Court of Idaho found that the Fish and Wildlife Service did not provide an explanation for how it determined that grizzly bears were not “present” for the purpose of ESA consultation on the Brebner Flat project on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, but it did not vacate the decision while such explanation is being provided.

NEW CASES

Klamath Forest Alliance v. Vilsack (D. Oregon) – On February 3, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District of Oregon claiming the Forest Service violated NEPA when using a categorical exclusion to authorize the paving of Forest Service Roads 20, 20A, 40S30 and 40S30A on the Mt. Ashland/Siskiyou Peak Botanical Area on the Klamath National Forest.

BONUS:  As explained here, the Forest was surprised to discover that the roads had never been paved, which made the project ineligible for the funding it expected to use, and they have rescinded this paving decision.

Capital Trail Vehicle Association v. U.S. Forest Service (D. Montana) – On February 25, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court of Montana claiming the Divide Travel Plan on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest would close 144 miles of roads to all vehicle use without proper analysis of its environmental and social impacts.

OTHER AGENCY CASES

Komor v. United States (D. Arizona) ‐ On February 14, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of the Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution for actions resulting in the generation of greenhouse gasses.  The complaint specifically refers to the Department of Energy.

BONUS:  In other climate litigation, a case in Montana involving the state constitution’s right to “a clean and healthful environment” may be the first climate change case to go to trial (a year from now).

 

BLOGGER’S BONUS

Court decision in Board of County Commissioners of San Miguel v. United States BLM (D. Colo.) – On February 9, 2022, the district court found that the BLM had violated the Endangered Species Act when it failed to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service prior to approving oil and gas leases in southwest Colorado in habitat for the threatened Gunnison sage-grouse.  The court held that prior consultation on the resource management plan was insufficient because there was new information available for the leasing decision.  (The article includes a link to the opinion.)

Court decision in Defenders of Wildlife v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (N.D. Cal.) – On February 10, 2022, the district court restored Endangered Species Act protections to gray wolves in most of the lower 48 states.  The court found the government improperly relied on gray wolf recoveries in the Great Lakes and Northern Rocky Mountains to decide wolves across the contiguous U.S. no longer qualify for federal protection.  (The article includes a link to the opinion.)

New case:  Center for Biological Diversity v. Surface Transportation Board (D.C. Cir.) – On February 11, 2022, five environmental organizations petitioned the court of appeals for review of the Board’s authorization to construct and operate an approximately 85-mile rail line in the Uinta Basin, including portions of the Ashley National Forest, much of it in roadless areas.  (This news release includes a link to the complaint.)

Court decision in Friends of Animals v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (9th Cir.) – On March 4, 2022, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals approved permits for private logging companies to incidentally take spotted owls while killing barred owls on their lands to determine how that would benefit spotted owls. The panel found the government’s experiment would yield important information that would help it create a policy to better protect northern spotted owls, thus complying with the “net conservation benefit” requirement under the Endangered Species Act.  (The article includes a link to the opinion.)

A defendant pleaded guilty and was given a $2,000 fine and 3-year ban from being on the Bridger-Teton National Forest for use or occupancy of National Forest System lands for residential purposes.

Forest Service law enforcement has located and cited 3 individuals harvesting wood without a permit on the Six Rivers National Forest.

A California man was sentenced to 21 months in prison for burglarizing fee collection sites on the Coronado National Forest.  He also admitted breaking locks to commit 42 similar burglaries in multiple states.

Avoiding litigation:  In January, the Environmental Protection Agency announced will take a systematic approach to evaluating pesticides’ harmful effects instead of being forced to comply by lawsuits (particularly with regard to ESA).

The Energy Transition: Let’s Call Folks on “Unnecessary Moralizing”

by

 

A dip into the universe of moral philosophy re: the energy transformation.  (There, Anonymous, I know you like moral philosophy discussions!).  This new opportunity for peace-making and departisanizing of the transition reminded me of this Atlantic piece by an energy scholar named Daniel Yergin. He tells this story:

To appreciate the complexities of the competing demands between climate action and the continued need for energy, consider the story of an award—one that the recipient very much did not want and, indeed, did not bother to pick up.

It began when Innovex Downhole Solutions, a Texas-based company that provides technical services to the oil and gas industry, ordered 400 jackets from North Face with its corporate logo. But the iconic outdoor-clothing company refused to fulfill the order. North Face describes itself as a “politically aware” brand that will not share its logo with companies that are in “tobacco, sex (including gentlemen’s clubs) and pornography.” And as far as North Face is concerned, the oil and gas industry fell into that same category—providing jackets to a company in that industry would go against its values. Such a sale would, it said, be counter to its “goals and commitments surrounding sustainability and environmental protection,” which includes a plan to use increasing amounts of recycled and renewable materials in its garments in future years.

But, as it turns out, North Face’s business depends not only on people who like the outdoors, but also on oil and gas: At least 90 percent of the materials in its jackets are made from petrochemicals derived from oil and natural gas. Moreover, many of its jackets and the materials that go into them are made in countries such as China, Vietnam, and Bangladesh, and then shipped to the United States in vessels that are powered by oil. To muddy matters further, not long before North Face rejected the request, its corporate owner had built a new hangar at a Denver airport for its corporate jets, all of which run on jet fuel. To spotlight the obvious contradiction, the Colorado Oil and Gas Association presented its first ever Customer Appreciation Award to North Face for being “an extraordinary oil and gas customer.” That’s the award North Face spurned.

Northface customers, of course, as well as other outdoor recreation folks,  predominantly use fossil fuels to reach their recreational destinations. So there’s that.

He goes on to add:

The coming energy transition is meant to be totally different. Rather than an energy addition, it is supposed to be an almost complete switch from the energy basis of today’s $86 trillion world economy, which gets 80 percent of its energy from hydrocarbons. In its place is intended to be a net-carbon-free energy system, albeit one with carbon capture, for what could be a $185 trillion economy in 2050. To do that in less than 30 years—and accomplish much of the change in the next nine—is a very tall order.

Here is where the complexities become clear. Beyond outerwear, the degree to which the world depends on oil and gas is often not understood. It’s not just a matter of shifting from gasoline-powered cars to electric ones, which themselves, by the way, are about 20 percent plastic. It’s about shifting away from all the other ways we use plastics and other oil and gas derivatives. Plastics are used in wind towers and solar panels, and oil is necessary to lubricate wind turbines. The casing of your cellphone is plastic, and the frames of your glasses likely are too, as well as many of the tools in a hospital operating room. The air frames of the Boeing 787, Airbus A350, and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jet are all made out of high-strength, petroleum-derived carbon fiber. The number of passenger planes is expected to double in the next two decades. They are also unlikely to fly on batteries.

Oil products have been crucial for dealing with the pandemic too, from protective gear for emergency staff to the lipids that are part of the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. Have a headache? Acetaminophen—including such brands as Tylenol and Panadol—is a petroleum-derived product. In other words, oil and natural-gas products are deeply embedded throughout modern life.

And, of course, fire suppression and prescribed fire.

And that leads to an interesting moral question. It seems like only producers, and not consumers are judged morally, at least by North Face. But then does that become a slippery slope? If oil and gas companies are bad, are oil refineries bad? OK, then, propane fuel deliverers? Gas station employees? Where exactly along the production/consumption chain would the moral responsibility start and stop?

Stone-casting (or what we might call, in the spirit of football, “unnecessary moralizing”) has been a facet of human culture perhaps as long as their were humans. Let she who does not use fossil fuels cast the first stone, indeed.

And of course,  similar arguments could be made about moralizing with regard to the forest products industry.  SPI bad, Home Depot/Lowes, not, me not.  And so on.

Does a longer rotation leads to more CO2 storage?

by

This blog post from Edie Sonne Hall of Three Trees Consulting is aimed at Washington State, but offers an informed look at proposals to lengthen harvest rotations on federal forests, or to set aside vast areas of forest with little or no management to boost carbon sequestration (the “Strategic Forest Reserves” proposed by OSU’s Law, et al, for example). Too long to post here, but worth a look.

Thoughts on the Longer Rotation Climate Solution for Washington State- Is it a Sure Bet?

I am constantly asked about whether it is better to let a tree grow or to use wood products. There is a perception that this is an either/or, but it is not. You can grow more trees and use more wood products. However, as with anything, the devil is in the details. Forests are complex and so is climate change. This post attempts to lay out some considerations to a question that is of particular importance to Washington State regarding the best strategy to help meet a net zero GHG target for our state’s greatest asset- our evergreen trees.

Putting the War Horses Out to Pasture: Tisha Schuller vs. Jane Fonda on the O&G Transition

by

 

 

The energy transition issue: we talked a little bit about this yesterday. I’d like to start with some thoughts by Tisha Schuller from her post this morning. She’s got a couple of peace-making suggestions from the industry side.

  • Embrace civic leadership. The third gamechanger from The Gamechanger’s Playbook is back! Like the early days of COVID-19 panic, the war in Ukraine presents an opportunity for oil and gas leaders to step in as civic leaders. Let’s put forward bold solutions that give us the opportunity to acknowledge the complexity of the energy system and energy transitions.
  • Even in this moment, put climate first. Especially in this moment. Climate will be front and center again, and we have an extraordinary opportunity to highlight the cleanest and most socially responsible oil and gas in the world.
  • Skip the lectures. The drumbeat of “wake-up call” and “failed policy” narratives coming out of old-school industry executives smacks of “I told you so” and wastes the moment.
  • Resist election-year politics. Playing politics is comforting but misses the opportunity to reframe. Let’s encourage our political allies to emphasize the climate and socially responsible focus of our industry, rather than suggesting that it no longer matters (or never did).

She adds:

Unfortunately, plenty of old-school oil and gas leaders are enjoying this moment — a little too much — by triumphantly doubling down on existing polarized and partisan talking points.

Schuller is suggesting.. not in so many words.. that this crisis is an opportunity to turn swords in plowshares.

Perhaps as Granholm says, the Admin means it:  “I’m here to extend a hand of partnership…because we’ll only be able to meet these challenges of oil and gas supply and climate change by working together.” But there well may be a trust problem. Is this a short-term alliance in light of the next election?  As a wise forest economist friend once said, “don’t watch what they say, watch what they do.” How will Admin actions match these words? Which harkens back to a a TSW theme, how can trust be built between groups currently in conflict?

At the same time, many of the Admin’s political allies may not agree with this peace-seeking approach.

For example,  Jane Fonda started a new (perhaps relatively ill-timed?) PAC on March 16 doubling down on swordliness:

It is for that reason that I started Jane Fonda Climate PAC, which is laser-focused on one goal: Do what it takes to defeat fossil fuel supporters and elect climate champions at all levels of government. 

I believe this is the most important thing I will do in my lifetime. 

The climate crisis poses unprecedented threats to our communities, our environment, our economy, and our security. It’s not too late to change our course. But it won’t happen as long as oil, gas, and coal companies maintain their stranglehold on American politics. 

In 2020, the fossil fuel industry poured $139 million into our elections. This money has real consequences. Major solutions are stopped cold: the Green New Deal, Build Back Better, clean energy investments, ending billions in tax subsidies to the fossil fuel industry — all because of politicians backed by Big Oil.

Fossil fuel lobbyists and their money control Congress. They block actions with huge donations to politicians from both parties. Jane Fonda Climate PAC will help elect leaders who will rise to the urgency of this moment and stand up to the fossil fuel industry.

Jane Fonda Climate PAC will leverage the donations of those who are climate concerned to counter the outsized influence the fossil fuel industry has on our government. We will make sure politicians who support oil and gas are as afraid for their jobs as we are about the impending climate disaster.

It’s an interesting view..the reason we use oil and gas is … not because it’s needed during the transition.. but because bad politicians are corrupted by money. And BBB was not defeated by common sense people who had many concerns (including me and many others) but by “politicians backed by big oil” (not by small oil, apparently).  And $139 mill is a drop in the bucket compared to Wall Street, which according to this story reported that “individuals and entities in the financial sector reported making individuals and entities associated with the financial sector reported making $1,964,240,861 in contributions to federal candidates for office during this election cycle (2019–20 for House and Senate candidates, plus the presidential election) through December 31, 2020 (as reported by February 17, 2021).

If many Admin supporters are that comfortable demonizing the industry, how will the Admin thread that needle? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

What’s Up With the 9.000 Approved Permits?: The Oil and Gas Industry, the Biden Admin, and Secretary Granholm’s Speech

by

President Biden campaigned on stopping oil and gas leasing on Federal land. Many decisions of the Biden Administration have created the impression that the oil and gas industry is not an appreciated partner in the energy transition. So what would it take to… make peace between the Admin and the industry and outline a role for the oil and gas industry during the transition. Secretary Granholm in her talk (see below) is moving in that direction, but what would it take to make “we need you at least for a while” into policy?

Perhaps a bipartisan commission? Where climate, national security, international relations, and considerations of people in the US are all incorporated? With a reality check for practicality, with practitioners from the entire energy supply chain involved? Of course, plenty of academics, especially energy experts. Also a look at the environmental and health impacts of alternatives at scale. We can imagine all the expertise that could be brought to bear to develop a roadmap. And the roadmap could encourage investment in oil and gas production within the framework. So all the climate policies across numerous agencies (e.g. climate and the SEC) would be following the same roadmap. Can you imagine? President Biden also talked about uniting, and such an effort would move in that direction. Representatives of Native Americans also called for an “all of the above” strategy when the DOI folks asked for their input on federal leasing. So it seems like there’s a tremendous zone of agreement.

Anyway, we’ve heard from Jen Psaki at the White House, as well as Energy Secretary Granholm (and many media and ENGO sources) something along the lines of “the industry has 9,000 permits (onshore, federal) while calling for more drilling”. So why does industry say those permits are currently unused?

Here’s the industry (independent, non-major) letter to the President, from their point of view on what it takes at the ground level.

Now, it is true that there are also about 9,173 outstanding approved permits, but there are factors that cause companies to wait to drill those wells:

• Because of the uncertainty of operating on federal lands, companies must build up a sufficient inventory of permits before rigs can be contracted to ensure the permits stay ahead of the rigs. Companies drill wells in a matter of days and rigs are very expensive, so it’s a delicate balancing act.

• The federal permit to drill is not the only government approval required. Rights of Way (ROW) can take years to acquire before companies can access their leases and put in natural gas gathering systems. With the pressure not to flare from regulators and investors, most companies cannot drill before gathering lines are in place. Timely approvals of ROWs would enable companies to develop sooner.

• Your administration has worked with anti-oil-and-gas activists to stop or slow pipeline infrastructure. Without pipelines to move the oil and natural gas produced, wells cannot be developed.

• Capital must be acquired. Activist investors, encouraged by an administration intent on expanding its financial regulatory powers, have worked to de-bank and de-capitalize the industry. Many companies, particularly the small independents who drill the majority of federal wells, are having difficulty acquiring the credit and capital necessary to develop. By ending bureaucratic efforts to deny financing to the industry, you would be sending a powerful signal to the U.S. and world markets that investments in oil and natural gas in the U.S. are safe and new production should move forward.

Other interesting points in the letter..

Leases
There are about 37,496 onshore leases in effect and actually 12,068 nonproducing leases, a 66% utilization rate, which is quite high. But there are many reasons not all leases will be used.

• Many leases are held up in litigation by environmental groups. For example, Western Energy Alliance is in court defending over 2,200 leases, most of which cannot be developed while those cases are ongoing.
• Companies must put together a complete leasehold before moving forward, particularly with the long horizontal wells that can cut across multiple leases. Sometimes a new lease is needed to combine with existing leases to make a full unit. Since the leasing ban remains in effect with no onshore lease sales held since 2020, some leases are held up, waiting for new leases or for the government to combine them into a formal unit.
• Before allowing development on leases, the government conducts environmental analysis under NEPA (the National Environmental Policy Act), which often takes years to complete. Many leases can be hung up by NEPA or awaiting other government approvals.
• Finally, not all leases will be developed because, after conducting exploratory work, companies may determine there are not sufficient quantities of oil and natural gas on them.

What the Admin could do to help:

Permits
There are 4,621 permits to drill awaiting approval by the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management. Your appointees could approve these permits now, enabling companies to forward with development.
So, yes Mr. President, your administration is “holding the industry back” in direct contradiction to your statements last week when you said your administration was not. The most recent example: according to published reports this week, the US Bureau of Land Management approved 95 permits to drill in January 2022, compared with 643 in April 2021 – the height of the pandemic.
If you want to truly be helpful, pick up the phone and direct Secretary Haaland to approve the permits immediately. We stand ready to assist in any way possible.

Energy Secretary Granholm gave this interesting talk at CERAweek 2022 in Houston on March 9.

Bravo to BP, Exxon, Shell and others in the private sector who are withdrawing from Russian operations. But there’s more to do. There are more battles.

Putin’s actions have sent the oil market reeling. I don’t have to tell you that when oil is $109 a barrel, and $4.25 at the pump, the impacts are severe and real for people who buy your product—regular working folks, from Uber drivers to teachers to farmers.

So, what else can we do in this fight? We are on a war footing—an emergency—and we have to responsibly increase short-term supply where we can right now to stabilize the market and to minimize harm to American families.

That means releases from strategic reserves across the world, like we’ve done. And that means you producing more right now, where and if you can.

..

That means we have to deploy clean technologies as fast as possible—but we’re under no illusion that every American will get an EV or a heat pump tomorrow or next month or next year.

It is a transition…and we’re pragmatic about what it means. We know it won’t happen overnight.

And we’re serious about decarbonizing while providing reliable energy that doesn’t depend on foreign adversaries.

That means we’ll walk and chew gum at the same time. So yes, right now, we need oil and gas production to rise to meet current demand.

Forest Service rejects timber group’s challenge on Black Hills: Greenwire

by
An area that was logged in recent years is seen in the Black Hills National Forest in July 2021, near Custer, S.D. Matthew Brown/AP Photo

 

Here’s a link to the story by Marc Heller.

 

Excerpt below:

Among other responses, the Forest Service rejected the association’s complaint that it had ignored years of data on sawtimber growth rates. The agency also countered the association’s assertion that it had wrongly excluded white spruce trees from harvest projections, saying the Forest Service research team’s task was to estimate the predominant timber on the forest, which is ponderosa pine.

In all, the agency’s 29-page response addressed six requests for corrections, plus additional points within those requests. The Black Hills Forest Resource Association could appeal and is looking into further legal action, said Ben Wudtke, the group’s executive director.

The timber association had filed the challenge under the federal Data Quality Act, sometimes called the Information Quality Act. It had said the Forest Service overlooked information provided by the industry that would contradict agency researchers (Greenwire, Nov. 24, 2021).

The technical report by the Rocky Mountain Research Station, released last March, recommended reducing the annual timber harvest goal from 18.1 million cubic feet to between 7.24 million and 9.05 million cubic feet, allowing the forest to regenerate so that timber goals could again be raised.

More information on the challenge and the Data Quality Act can be found in this story from last fall, also by Marc Heller.

Forest Health Reporting Survey

by

Folk, I received this today….

 

Hi everyone,

On Thursday at the National Forest Health Monitoring workshop, we launched the Forest Health Reporting survey. We have talked numerous times in the forest health* community about what kind of reporting and data delivery would be best in future and have concluded we don’t know what people use or want. So…

HERE IT IS!

At THIS LINK HERE.

A chance to weigh in.

Please take this survey and also forward it to the current or potential users you know: local forest health specialists, researchers, land managers, planners, media specialists, leadership, community organizations – all you think are or should be consumers of forest health monitoring information.

*mostly dealing with non-fire disturbance from insect & disease, other biotic, and non-fire abiotic causes. If you are or are potentially a consumer of this type of information, we are interested in how you prefer information and data delivery.

Average time to complete is about 15 minutes.

Thank you, everyone!

 

 

Kayanna Warren (pronouns: she/her)
Ecologist, Forest Health Monitoring
Forest Service

State & Private Forestry, Pacific Southwest Region

p: 707-562-8691 

c: 707-980-5059
[email protected]

1323 Club Drive
Vallejo, CA 94592
www.fs.fed.us
Caring for the land and serving people

Grazing News

by

Two items of note involving grazing on federal lands, via the Public Lands Council:

Grazing permits: Voluntary Grazing Permit Retirement Act threatens land use, Wyoming Livestock Roundup – On March 3, Reps. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and Jared Huffman (D-Calf.) released statements following the proposed bill of the Voluntary Grazing Permit Retirement Act. The bill gives grazing permit holders the option to waive their grazing permits on federal lands in return for compensation. The bill was first introduced in the House of Representatives on Jan. 30, 2020. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources by the House of Representatives and then referred to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public lands on Feb. 3, 2020.

Groups halt grazing in Elkhorn Mountains, Daily Montanan – Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council successfully halt grazing and sagebrush-juniper burning in the Elkhorn Mountains Wildlife Management Area. A federal district court ruled in favor of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council in a lawsuit to force the Bureau of Land Management to conduct an adequate environmental analysis before grazing and burning in the Iron Mask Acquisition area of the Elkhorn Mountains. The court’s March 14 order mandates additional analysis, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, and requires the agency to analyze if existing agency-installed fences and water developments for cattle grazing should be removed.

Forest Restoration: Old-Growth Management

by

The following map and photos are from a research project I completed a little more than 10 years ago. Management of old-growth trees for their preservation begins with their definition and location. Competition and crown fires are among the greatest apparent threats: http://www.orww.org/Osbornes_Project/Rivers/Umpqua/South/Upper_Headwaters_Project/ca_1800_Forest_Zones/

The 2010 “Upper South Umpqua Headwaters Precontact Reference Conditions Study” was authorized by the Douglas County Board of Commissioners, in cooperation with the USDA Umpqua National Forest and the Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians. Research focus was to determine approximate forest conditions for the study area during the 1800 to 1825 time period. Primary sources of information included General Land Office original land survey notes and maps from 1857 to 1938, historical photos from 1899 to 1944, historical maps from 1900 to 1970, Osborne fire lookout panoramas from 1932 to 1938, aerial photos from 1939 to 1945, and nearly 3000 comprehensive documentary photographs in 2010. From these sources a series of GIS maps were constructed by the Douglas County Surveyors Office and developed into likely vegetation and trail maps for the ca. 1800 to 1825 time period.

Through this process it was determined that four basic types, or “zones,” of vegetation existed prior to white contact and decimation of local communities by introduced diseases. These four types can be delineated by elevation and corroborated by the existence of old-growth trees and other persistent vegetation patterns in excess of 200 years of age. In each of the following photographs, research assistant Nana Lapham serves as a human scale to an old-growth representative of an earlier forest condition. The Oak Zone photo features a lower elevation 200+ year old black oak in a former oak and pine savannah; the Pine Zone photo shows an old-growth sugar pine, likewise in a former savannah, at a higher elevation; the Douglas Fir Zone photo shows the transition from lower elevation pine to higher elevation Douglas fir, and indicates the much lower density of trees 200 years ago; and the Subalpine Zone photo shows old-growth cedar and young true fir saplings in the highest areas of the study area.

Oak Zone   This photo shows old-growth relict pine and oak with invasive Douglas fir on Pickett Butte in 2010. Relatively young white oak, black oak, and pine savannahs, extensive grassland meadows and prairies, and patches of similarly much younger Douglas fir, redcedar, and pine typified much of the western and lower elevation (below 2,400 feet) portions of the study area 200 years ago. The presence and arrangements of these plants, as well as widespread populations of camas, cat’s ears, fawn lilies, iris, tarweed, yampah, and hazel, indicate regular systematic use of the landscape by people – most likely mostly Takelman-speakers — at that time. The average number of trees larger than saplings per acre was probably ten or less. Human occupation of this zone was likely year-round, with relatively large seasonal villages and campgrounds near the mouth of Jackson Creek and at South Umpqua Falls: two locations that (according to historical reports) were heavily used during times of anadromous salmonid and lamprey eel runs.

Pine Zone This photo shows an old-growth sugar pine, with invasive Douglas fir, pine, and madrone, in a former savannah near Squaw Flat in 2010. The presence of ponderosa pine and sugar pine, with few understory or directly competitive trees, typified much of the mid-slope (2,400 to 3,800 foot elevation) forest in the study area 200 years ago. The pine zone was typically open and park-like with large — though much younger than present — widely spaced pines; patches of oak, chinquapin, serviceberry, and hazel; scattered stands of Douglas fir; and grassy meadows and berry patches. The average number of 8-inch diameter and larger trees per acre was likely less than 20. The location and age of remnant old-growth trees indicate regular seasonal use of the pine forestlands by Takelmans from lower elevations and southern Molalla from higher elevations. The harvesting of ponderosa pine cambium in the spring and sugar pine, hazel, and chinquapin nuts in the fall may have been times of most intensive occupation of this zone. Hunting for game animals with dogs by Molallans likely occurred on a year-round basis, depending on the daily and seasonal movements of deer, bear, and elk.


Douglas Fir Zone This photo shows an old-growth ponderosa pine and an old-growth Douglas fir, with invasive pine and Douglas fir, on the cusp between the Pine Zone and the Douglas Fir Zone above French Creek, in the Black Rock Fork subbasin in 2010. Although Douglas fir of a wide range of ages was present in almost every type of environment in the study area 200 years ago, it existed in nearly pure stands from 3,800 to 5,000 feet elevation, separating the lower elevation pine stands from the higher elevation subalpine vegetation types. Due to generally steep slopes, isolated location, seasonal snow, and relative lack of food plants, accessible water, and animals, this zone likely experienced the least amount of daily or seasonal use and occupation by people. Although the densest stands of trees in the study area occurred in this zone, they were still often open and park-like with only 20 to 30 trees per acre 200 years ago. Grassy meadows and fern brakes also existed throughout this zone, indicating likely human use and maintenance on a fairly regular basis. Established seasonal ridgeline and streamside trails were used by both game animals and people to reach lower and upper elevations, where food and freshwater were more available. Ridgeline trail networks that crisscrossed this zone were regularly burned to promote grassy meadows, bracken fern, beargrass, serviceberry and other useful food and fiber plants.

Subalpine Zone This photo shows old-growth cedar and an historical cabin at Mud Lake on the perimeter of French Junction prairie in 2010. The highest elevations of the study area (above 5,000 feet) formed an international network of foot trails in precontact time that connected Tribes of the South Umpqua with Indian nations in Rogue River, Klamath Falls, Deschutes River, Willamette Valley, Columbia River, and beyond. This seasonal “travel zone” was covered in snow much of the year, but contained extensive fields of shrubs, forbs, and grasses: huckleberries, manzanita, camas, beargrass, and other berries, fruits, nuts, bulbs, edible roots, fuels, and fibers that were readily available in the summer and early fall. The existence of numerous year-round springs, likely “vision quest” sites, flats, benches, and gently sloping ridgelines add further evidence of intensive year-round and seasonal use; more particularly by southern Molallan hunters, who used dogs and snowshoes to hunt elk and other prized game animals throughout the study area and had ready access to the extensive fields of huckleberries and international trade routes. Other Tribes undoubtedly visited these lands to hunt, harvest or trade for elk hides, huckleberries, and beargrass, and to move trade goods along the landscape. Latgawans and other Takelman speakers from lower elevations likely gathered at Huckleberry Lake, Quartz Mountain, and Pup Prairie areas as well. Klamaths likely moved slaves and other trade goods along the eastern ridgelines, following the Klamath Trail to campgrounds in the Black Rock and French Junction areas, before heading north along Camas Creek into the North Umpqua Basin, or south into the Rogue River basin. It is also possible that Paiutes from the east, southern Molallans from the north, and Kalapuyan-speaking Yoncallans from the northwest also entered this area at these times; also possibly for reasons of hunting, trade, harvesting of favored crops, spirit quests, or simply visiting friends and relatives. Much of this area could be characterized by the ridgeline trails and extensive fields of prized huckleberries, which also contained scattered trees: principally redcedar, Douglas fir, and Shasta red fir.

 

 

E&E News on Fact-Checking Claims about Federal Oil and Gas Leasing, Court Cases and Permit Approvals

by

 

A drilling rig stands out from the sagebrush in 2012 in Converse County north of Douglas. Wyoming’s energy industry continued to limp along in September with price, production and employment indexes trailing far behind last year, a new report published by Wyoming’s Economic Analysis Division shows.
Alan Rogers/AP

I’m always interested in parallels between the forest products industry and the oil and gas industry, which are so different and yet.. so enemized by some (of the same) folks.  Here’s a case where according to some politicians, O&G is bad if they drill (we’ve been hearing about that for years) but now we are told that they are equally bad for …  not drilling, as political winds and international events have shifted.  It doesn’t seem altogether rational.  In my FS career, I found that when people aren’t logical.. there’s usually politics involved.  Of course, I’m sitting here on computer (powered by coal and natural gas), heated by propane, hoping for a snowplow (no electrical ones yet available) to run by.. The transition to low carbon energy will be at least ten years, and also adaptation may well  call for the increased of fossil fuels, say in fire suppression- airplanes, trucks and so on.

Are we planning to demonize the oil and gas industry from now until then? Because that seems like not a good use of our time and emotional energy, let alone the impacts on my neighbors and colleagues producing energy for which I, for one, am grateful.   Perhaps it’s easier to vilify industries if you don’t know the folks involved in producing it. Real people doing real things that we really use every day.  I think you can be for appropriate regulation without the good guy/bad guy rhetoric. I think there’s something else at work here, in this kind of industry-hate, but I don’t know what.

Anyway, I think E&E News had a good article on “fact-checking five claims in the Russian energy debate”.  As far as I can tell it’s open for non-subscribers.  Here’s what the reporters pieced together.  The Admin is apparently approving APD’s but not leasing.  Perhaps one of our legal friends can help us understand the difference between onshore and offshore litigation here.  Based on this story.. onshore leasing litigation led to court-induced stoppage, but the courts also struck down a freeze on offshore leasing.   Does offshore use a different social cost of GHG? Or wasn’t there an offshore lawsuit on that? Somewhat puzzling to observers.

 

When it comes to onshore leasing, a decision last month from a federal judge blocking the administration’s use of the social cost of greenhouse gas emissions has resulted in further delays for Biden’s planned auctions.

While the administration has continued to approve permits to drill new oil wells, it has yet to conduct onshore auctions for new leases, which are normally held four times a year across multiple states (Climatewire, Feb. 22).

But some industry advocates have dismissed the Interior Department’s excuses regarding climate litigation. They recall that candidate Biden ran on a plan to ban oil on federal lands.

And even though the courts have ruled against a leasing moratorium, Western Energy Alliance President Kathleen Sgamma argued a ban remains “in effect because no leases have been offered for sale. Period.”

Only recently has the president reversed course and urged oil companies to drill after he banned imports from Russia (Greenwire, March 9).

When it comes to offshore leasing, a judge last year struck down the early Biden freeze, and the Gulf’s largest offshore lease sale was held in November.

But conservation groups sued, and a judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia vacated the sale. The administration opted not to appeal the decision. The fate of an additional Gulf sale scheduled for later this year is unclear.

Industry advocates lamented the disruption of future oil and gas on those leases, which would have lasted for at least 10 years.

More broadly, industry players expressed concern the administration does not appear on track to release a lease schedule when the current one expires in June.

“Uncertainty around the future of the U.S. federal offshore leasing program may only strengthen the geopolitical influence of higher emitting — and adversarial — nations, such as Russia,” said Erik Milito, president of National Ocean Industries Association.

The U.S. hasn’t had an offshore lease sale since November 2020, but experts said general uncertainties about future plans are likely causing more trepidation.

“I don’t think you can just discount it,” Book said of Biden’s early signaling to industry on drilling. “It’s part of the story and it depends from company to company and project to project. But being told, ‘No more leasing’ is not nothing. It doesn’t mean that it stops production tomorrow, but it may discourage investment for years to come.”

And while the Biden administration approved more oil and gas permits on public lands in his first year than President Trump, in recent months the increase has tapered off (Energywire, March 14).

I could easily see a rush to get your APD approved.. if you think it’s only a matter of time until the Admin figures out a legal way to slow or stop those as well.  And..below is a big issue for those who follow NGO’s like the Center for Western Priorities..

In response to Republican attacks on the leasing ban, Biden and other Democrats note that oil and gas companies already hold thousands of approved permits on federal lands.

“They have 9,000 permits to drill now,” Biden said last week. “They could be drilling right now, yesterday, last week, last year.”

That number is correct, with the Bureau of Land Management reporting 9,173 onshore permits available to drill at the end of last year. But industry sources and observers said there are myriad reasons why a given company might not drill a permit right away — including that it might not have much oil.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki has also suggested reporters should be asking executives why they are sitting on their hands.

“Do you think the oil companies don’t have enough money to drill on the places that have been preapproved?” she asked.

The industry rejects that line of argument as a red herring, and experts generally said the White House is oversimplifying. Drilling programs are dictated by the rise and fall of the price of oil but also the amount of free cash to drill and investor support for that spending.

Companies with footprints in different oil and gas regions are weighing all their drilling opportunities against each other, for the best place to expend capital at any given time.

That said, experts expect drilling to pick up following a post-pandemic lag caused by companies shifting cash back to investors rather than in new projects.

Book also noted that companies are already going through their inventories of “drilled but uncompleted” wells, or DUCs, which have been drilled but not yet fracked.

“It’s not like not using a permit is a business strategy. If they’ve decided not to use a permit, it probably reflects conditions economically and to some degree their expectations for what they think the market future looks like,” Book said. “There’s a little latency built into this, but right about now I’d expect to see some more permits being used.”