National Forest Planning News

by

As Matthew just posted, the Rio Grande National Forest has reached the penultimate phase of forest planning – the courtroom.  Here’s a few other updates that address some things we have discussed here.

Helena-Lewis and Clark decision

The Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest has released its final revised forest plan after “a more than six year planning process.” This article provides highlights. In reference to travel planning, the forest supervisor indicated that since it had been completed in recent years, the Forest Service did not revisit those decisions in the forest plan (which doesn’t get the relationship quite right because travel plan designation decisions are not made in a forest plan, which I alluded to in a comment here).

Among the more controversial changes from the old forest plan are the replacement of elk hiding cover standards. According to the forest supervisor,

The standards became difficult and in some cases impossible to meet, Avey has said, due to changes on the ground such as high insect mortality in the forest.  The 2021 plan uses “security areas,” defined as blocks of habitat away from roads and guidelines, rather than standards, for tree cover. The changes provide the agency more flexibility as land use or ecology changes, he said. Wildlife advocates have pushed back for years on the shift from hiding cover standards to security areas, saying the standards are both scientifically proven and enforceable.

The Forest wants “flexibility” and the Montana Wildlife Federation wants the plan to be “enforceable.” “MWF is looking forward to addressing this glaring oversight with the Forest.”

Here is the forest supervisor’s take on the 2012 Planning Rule:

Drafting the plan fell under a 2012 Forest Service planning rule, which Avey believes made for a much improved finished product that takes a more holistic approach at the landscape. The rule directs the agency to define “desired conditions,” with subsequent decisions needing to move towards those goals.

“It’s much more powerful and easier to understand, I think, for the public and our staff,” he said. “It will also keep these plans fresher into the future as opposed to how dated our ’86 plans were.”

GMUG draft comments

The Outdoor Alliance has submitted comments on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests Draft Revised Forest Plan that focus on recreation issues that we have discussed.  One is high levels of dispersed recreation use, for which the Alliance has proposed designation of specific areas for high use “recreation emphasis.”  Another is the effect (or not) of dispersed recreation on wildlife, stating that “the research on the effect of non-motorized, trail-based recreation on wildlife populations remains inconclusive,” so the Forests should “reconsider the limits on non-motorized, trail-based recreation within Wildlife Management Areas.”

Black Hills initiates revision

We’ve discussed (such as here) the new information about timber inventories on the Black Hills National Forest, and they have officially initiated the revision of the forest plan, which should produce a definitive answer based on the best available scientific information that will make everyone happy.  To summarize:

Just after the last update was introduced in 2006, the Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic ravaged forest vegetation for over 10 years.  Jeff Tomac, Forest Supervisor of Black Hills National Forrest, discussed the impact this event had on the ecosystem.  “Timber sustainability on the Black Hills National Forest will be one of the assessments that we will be working through and a lot of interest top many people in and around the Black Hills,” he said.

It is interesting that, while many forest plans have never been revised (and are over 30 years old), a few are on their second revision (the Wayne is another).

 

Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill permanently authorizes Forest Service Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program, provides vital funding

by
A decommissioned road on the Olympic National Forest in Washington that has been turned into a hiking trail. Photo by WIldEarth Guardians.


Here’s a press release about inclusion of the Forest Service Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which passed both the House and Senate and now awaits President Biden’s signature. The legislation permanently authorizes the Forest Service Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program and provides $250 million in funding for five years. – mk

WASHINGTON, D.C.—With the passage of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, soon to be signed into law by President Biden, national forest roads and trails will finally get much needed attention. The legislation permanently authorizes the Forest Service Legacy Roads and Trails Remediation Program and provides vital funding.

Recognizing the need to protect and restore national forest lands and waters so they are more resilient to impacts from climate change, the Legacy Roads and Trails program addresses the impacts from the Forest Service’s immense and failing infrastructure.

The U.S. Forest Service manages twice as many road miles as the national highway system with only a small fraction of the budget. More than 370,000 miles of roads—many built half a century ago during the logging boom—require over $3.2 billion in unfulfilled maintenance needs. Hundreds of thousands of culverts, more than 13,000 bridges, and 159,000 miles of trails are all components of the agency’s dilapidated infrastructure that keep road engineers awake at night with worry.

The implications of decaying infrastructure are severe. Crumbling roads bleed sediment into rivers, creeks, and wetlands, endangering fish and other aquatic wildlife. Failing and undersized culverts block fish—like threatened Chinook salmon and bull trout—from migrating to spawning grounds or reaching cold water refugia. Habitat sliced into small pieces by roads harms wildlife like grizzly bear and elk. As roads close due to storm damage and safety concerns, more people lose recreational access on public lands.

“One obvious key to climate change resiliency is to mend what ails national forests and that is driven by roads,” said Marlies Wierenga of WildEarth Guardians. “Shedding the costly excess of logging roads built over a half a century ago and putting people to work fixing the roads and trails we do need is a common-sense solution for wildlife, fish, clean water, and communities.”

The Legacy Roads and Trails program—established in 2008 and subsequently defunded in 2018—proved to be an effective, no-waste program with demonstrated results. With the passing of this legislation, this program can once again support projects such as fixing roads and trails to withstand more intense storms, decommissioning obsolete roads, and removing or improving culverts under roads to allow fish passage. The program has a proven track record of saving taxpayer money, improving habitat, creating jobs, and guaranteeing safer access for all.

“The Forest Service has a responsibility to protect clean water for the 3,400 communities that rely on national forests as drinking water sources. This program gives the Forest Service a real tool to meet this responsibility and we are grateful for its inclusion in the legislation,” added Wierenga.

“We are thrilled to have this authorization and investment in the Forest Service’s Legacy Roads and Trails Program,” said Thomas O’Keefe of American Whitewater. “For too long the transportation infrastructure on national forests has been neglected with crumbling roads limiting access for recreation and impacting water quality in streams. This program is especially important for climate resiliency and will improve river health while also ensuring access to public lands for all to enjoy.”

“Regular road maintenance improves access to the public lands and trails we love, and funding for trail maintenance keeps paths safer and more sustainable,” said Andrea Imler, Washington Trails Association. “The Legacy Roads and Trails program has proven it works. It reduces the backlog facing public lands and helps ensure trails are well maintained for the next generation of hikers. A future where trails are more accessible to everyone is closer to reality because of programs like Legacy Roads and Trails.”

“This program provides a model of achieving multiple benefits with a few targeted actions,” said Tom Uniack of Washington Wild. “Strategically focusing on road impacts leads to reconnected habitat for migrating wildlife and fish, protected clean water for communities, safer access in a changing climate while saving taxpayer dollars over the long run.”

“It’s a great day for fish and wildlife,” said Dave Werntz of Conservation Northwest, “and the skilled local workforce that will now remove obsolete roads and restore habitat across the country’s public lands.”

Conservation groups unite to protect threatened species in Colorado

by

Below is a press release that was issued today by a coalition of conservation groups in regards to to lawsuits filed against the Forest Service today over its newly revised land management plan for the Rio Grande National Forest in Colorado. – mk

DENVER—Today, Defenders of Wildlife, The Wilderness Society, the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, San Juan Citizens Alliance, WildEarth Guardians and the Western Environmental Law Center filed two lawsuits against the United States Forest Service over its newly revised land management plan for the Rio Grande National Forest. Over the past six years, conservation groups provided science-based recommendations and concrete solutions for protecting species and their diverse habitats in the Forest.  But in the face of these needed steps, the Forest Service’s plan slashes protections for the threatened Canada lynx and the endangered Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly in violation of the Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act and the Forest Service’s own regulations.

The lawsuit filed by Defenders of Wildlife challenges the rollback of critical protections for lynx habitat in the Rio Grande National Forest. The Canada lynx relies heavily on the Rio Grande National Forest in the Southern Rocky Mountains, which contains more than half the locations in Colorado where lynx are consistently found. But the population is in dire straits, and federal scientists predict that the lynx may disappear from Colorado altogether within a matter of decades. The Forest Service’s new plan has now opened the extremely important lynx habitat in the forest to logging, one of the biggest threats to the cat.

“Scientists are saying the Canada lynx population in the Rio Grande National Forest is in the ‘emergency room,’ but the Forest Service refuses to provide this species with the care it needs,” said Lauren McCain, senior policy analyst for Defenders of Wildlife. “It’s baffling that the Forest Service chose to weaken protections for lynx on the forest. They left us no option but to sue to help recover the species in the Southern Rockies.”

The lawsuit filed by The Wilderness Society, the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council, San Juan Citizens Alliance, WildEarth Guardians, and the Western Environmental Law Center challenges the forest plan’s failure to adequately protect habitat for species including the Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly, or to regulate recreational uses appropriately. The Rio Grande National Forest is also home to five of the 11 colonies of critically endangered Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly. The species can only be found fluttering above 12,000 feet and in just a small area of Colorado. Despite identifying threats to the species, including trampling by humans and livestock and climate change, the Rio Grande’s revised forest plan fails to do anything specific to protect this species,  much less contribute to its recovery.

In addition, the plan missed a key opportunity to connect important habitat areas so species can move from summer to winter habitat, and to assure that recreation avoids key habitat areas. Both of these factors are crucial to ecological and resource protection.

“This plan encourages a crisis-management response,” said Christine Canaly, director of the San Luis Valley Ecosystem Council. “After years of public meeting participation, providing substantive comments and reviewing hundreds of letters from concerned citizens – who clearly support the management of healthy forests, ecosystem services, and protection of critical habitat – the Final Forest Plan instead renders a hands-off approach, abdicating responsibility for providing upfront baseline analysis. Standards and guidelines have been removed, leading to less comprehensive, more reactive decision making.

“The Rio Grande Revised Forest Plan took a completely wrong turn by omitting protections for a range of imperiled species,” said Adam Rissien, ReWilding advocate with WildEarth Guardians. “We were hopeful the Forest Service would have reversed course, but this plan still fails to restore or maintain habitat, not only for Canada lynx, but also the Rio Grande cutthroat trout, river otter, western bumblebee, bighorn sheep and the endangered Uncompahgre fritillary butterfly.”

“The Rio Grande National Forest finalized an incredibly inadequate plan that fails to protect the values of the forest we all know and love, like important wildlife habitat and opportunities for people and families to enjoy our shared public lands,” says Jim Ramey, Colorado state director for The Wilderness Society. “Unfortunately, the Forest Service ignored years of community input and scientific analysis, resulting in a plan that doesn’t work hard enough for us to hand down a healthy forest for future Coloradans. We must hold the Forest Service to a higher standard for protecting critical wildlife corridors like Spruce Hole and Wolf Creek Pass. The Forest Service should prioritize locally-driven, conservation-focused plans to help us meet the national goal to protect 30% of lands and waters by 2030.”

“New Forest Service rules gave Rio Grande National Forest managers the chance to vastly improve how they oversee the many uses of these important public lands,” said John Mellgren, general counsel at the Western Environmental Law Center. “Rather than seizing the opportunity to restore ecological integrity to these lands, the Forest Service instead ignored unambiguous requirements for ensuring the sustainability of our national forests.”

“The Rio Grande National Forest incorporates much of Colorado’s most important wildlife habitat, and some of our state’s largest expanses of wild and undeveloped habitat,” said Mark Pearson, executive director at San Juan Citizens Alliance. “The public deserves a management plan for the next 20 years that we can count on for protecting the very essence of the Rio Grande National Forest.”

The Rio Grande National Forest is a 1.8-million-acre gem in the middle of southern Colorado and includes the headwaters of its namesake river. The forest boasts a diversity of ecosystems from lower-elevation sagebrush and grasslands to the dominant high-elevation spruce-fir forest and fragile alpine areas. Proper management of this expansive area is key to preserving critical habitat and biodiversity in the Southern Rockies and to buffering against the stresses our native wildlife are experiencing from climate change.

The U.S. Forest Service’s newly revised land management plan for the Rio Grande National Forest slashes protections for the threatened Canada lynx. Photo by Richard P. Reading.

Big Bucks for the Forest Service (and Interior) in the Infrastructure Bill Passed Friday: I Wildfire Risk Reduction.

by

Somewhere someone has analyzed this bill.. would appreciate links, because I’m sure I am missing a great deal. Or if you notice something interesting I missed, please put in in comments. Bill Gabbert of Wildfire Today has done a nice summary here and gives attention to the wildland firefighter changes.  There’s a lot in this bill about the Forest Service, so this is the first of possibly many posts. Here’s a link to the bill.

Note that usually the USDA gets half the total bucks for each effort. Which makes me wonder whether the Departments will get together to implement some of these efforts, and which ones.

USDA

$50 mill is for preplanning (specifically including PODs) but also training in other areas. with $250 mill for implementing PODs.

$250 mill for prescribed fires.

$100 mill for collaboratives plus five years of funding of old CFLRPs plus some new CFLRPs.

$400 mill for

(i) conducting mechanical thinning and timber harvesting
in an ecologically appropriate manner that
maximizes the retention of large trees, as appropriate
for the forest type, to the extent that the trees promote
fire-resilient stands; or
(ii) precommercial thinning in young growth stands
for wildlife habitat benefits to provide subsistence
resources; and

$100 mill for locally- based organizations’ laborers to modify remove and use flammable vegetation.

$100 mill for post-fire restoration in first three years.

$20 mill for Joint Fire Science Program (research).

I  note that in 180 days the FS needs to publish an updated communities at risk map. This bill uses the HFRA definition of WUI.

************************

SEC. 40803. WILDFIRE RISK REDUCTION.
(a) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service,
for the activities described in subsection (c), $3,369,200,000 for
the period of fiscal years 2022 through 2026.
(b) TREATMENT.—Of the Federal land or Indian forest land
or rangeland that has been identified as having a very high wildfire
hazard potential, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary
of Agriculture, acting through the Chief of the Forest Service,
shall, by not later than September 30, 2027, conduct restoration
treatments and improve the Fire Regime Condition Class of
10,000,000 acres that are located in—
(1) the wildland-urban interface; or
(2) a public drinking water source area.

(c) ACTIVITIES.—Of the amounts made available under subsection
(a) for the period of fiscal years 2022 through 2026—
(1) $20,000,000 shall be made available for entering into
an agreement with the Administrator of the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration to establish and operate a
program that makes use of the Geostationary Operational
Environmental Satellite Program to rapidly detect and report
wildfire starts in all areas in which the Secretary of the Interior
or the Secretary of Agriculture has financial responsibility for
wildland fire protection and prevention, of which—
(A) $10,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of the Interior; and
(B) $10,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of Agriculture;

(2) $600,000,000 shall be made available for the salaries
and expenses of Federal wildland firefighters in accordance
with subsection (d), of which—
(A) $120,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of the Interior; and
(B) $480,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of Agriculture;
(3) $10,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of the Interior to acquire technology and infrastructure for
each Type I and Type II incident management team to maintain
interoperability with respect to the radio frequencies used by
any responding agency;
(4) $30,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of Agriculture to provide financial assistance to States, Indian
Tribes, and units of local government to establish and operate
Reverse-911 telecommunication systems;
(5) $50,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of the Interior to establish and implement a pilot program
to provide to local governments financial assistance for the
acquisition of slip-on tanker units to establish fleets of vehicles
that can be quickly converted to be operated as fire engines;
(6) $1,200,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of Agriculture, in coordination with the Secretary of the
Interior, to develop and publish, not later than 180 days after
the date of enactment of this Act, and every 5 years thereafter,
a map depicting at-risk communities (as defined in section
101 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C.
6511)), including Tribal at-risk communities;
(7) $100,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture—
(A) for—
(i) preplanning fire response workshops that
develop—
(I) potential operational delineations; and
(II) select potential control locations; and
(ii) workforce training for staff, non-Federal firefighters,
and Native village fire crews for—
(I) wildland firefighting; and
(II) increasing the pace and scale of vegetation
treatments, including training on how to prepare
and implement large landscape treatments; and
(B) of which—
(i) $50,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of the Interior; and
(ii) $50,000,000 shall be made available to the
Secretary of Agriculture;
(8) $20,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of Agriculture to enter into an agreement with a Southwest
Ecological Restoration Institute established under the Southwest
Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of 2004 (16
U.S.C. 6701 et seq.)—
(A) to compile and display existing data, including
geographic data, for hazardous fuel reduction or wildfire
prevention treatments undertaken by the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, including treatments
undertaken with funding provided under this title;

(B) to compile and display existing data, including
geographic data, for large wildfires, as defined by the
National Wildfire Coordinating Group, that occur in the
United States;
(C) to facilitate coordination and use of existing and
future interagency fuel treatment data, including
geographic data, for the purposes of—
(i) assessing and planning cross-boundary fuel
treatments; and
(ii) monitoring the effects of treatments on wildfire
outcomes and ecosystem restoration services, using the
data compiled under subparagraphs (A) and (B);
(D) to publish a report every 5 years showing the
extent to which treatments described in subparagraph (A)
and previous wildfires affect the boundaries of wildfires,
categorized by—
(i) Federal land management agency;
(ii) region of the United States; and
(iii) treatment type; and
(E) to carry out other related activities of a Southwest
Ecological Restoration Institute, as authorized by the
Southwest Forest Health and Wildfire Prevention Act of
2004 (16 U.S.C. 6701 et seq.);
(9) $20,000,000 shall be available for activities conducted
under the Joint Fire Science Program, of which—
(A) $10,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of the Interior; and
(B) $10,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of Agriculture;
(10) $100,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of Agriculture for collaboration and collaboration-based activities,
including facilitation, certification of collaboratives, and
planning and implementing projects under the Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration Program established under section
4003 of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of
2009 (16 U.S.C. 7303) in accordance with subsection (e);
(11) $500,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture—
(A) for—
(i) conducting mechanical thinning and timber harvesting
in an ecologically appropriate manner that
maximizes the retention of large trees, as appropriate
for the forest type, to the extent that the trees promote
fire-resilient stands; or
(ii) precommercial thinning in young growth stands
for wildlife habitat benefits to provide subsistence
resources; and
(B) of which—
(i) $100,000,000 shall be made available to the
Secretary of the Interior; and
(ii) $400,000,000 shall be made available to the
Secretary of Agriculture;
(12) $500,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of Agriculture, in cooperation with States, to award community
wildfire defense grants to at-risk communities in accordance
with subsection (f);

(13) $500,000,000 shall be made available for planning
and conducting prescribed fires and related activities, of
which—
(A) $250,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of the Interior; and
(B) $250,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of Agriculture;
(14) $500,000,000 shall be made available for developing
or improving potential control locations, in accordance with
paragraph (7)(A)(i)(II), including installing fuelbreaks
(including fuelbreaks studied under subsection (i)), with a focus
on shaded fuelbreaks when ecologically appropriate, of which—
(A) $250,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of the Interior; and
(B) $250,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of Agriculture;
(15) $200,000,000 shall be made available for contracting
or employing crews of laborers to modify and remove flammable
vegetation on Federal land and for using materials from treatments,
to the extent practicable, to produce biochar and other
innovative wood products, including through the use of existing
locally based organizations that engage young adults, Native
youth, and veterans in service projects, such as youth and
conservation corps, of which—
(A) $100,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of the Interior; and
(B) $100,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of Agriculture;
(16) $200,000,000 shall be made available for post-fire restoration
activities that are implemented not later than 3 years
after the date that a wildland fire is contained, of which—
(A) $100,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of the Interior; and
(B) $100,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of Agriculture;
(17) $8,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary
of Agriculture—
(A) to provide feedstock to firewood banks; and

(B) to provide financial assistance for the operation
of firewood banks; an

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sec. 40801 Legacy Roads and Trails

When I was doing the review of environmental groups’ views, this is one of the rare programs that everyone from AFRC to WEG supported.  Lots of specifics I’m not posting. We’ve been discussing transportation planning and I thought that this was an interesting take:

‘‘(d) IMPLEMENTATION.—In implementing the Program, the Secretary
shall ensure that—
‘‘(1) the system of roads and trails on the applicable unit
of the National Forest System—
‘‘(A) is adequate to meet any increasing demands for
timber, recreation, and other uses;
‘‘(B) provides for intensive use, protection, development,
and management of the land under principles of
multiple use and sustained yield of products and services;
‘‘(C) does not damage, degrade, or impair adjacent
resources, including aquatic and wildlife resources, to the
extent practicable;
‘‘(D) reflects long-term funding expectations; and
‘‘(E) is adequate for supporting emergency operations,
such as evacuation routes during wildfires, floods, and
other natural disasters; and
‘‘(2) all projects funded under the Program are consistent
with any applicable forest plan or travel management plan.
*************

AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized
to be appropriated to the Secretary of Agriculture to carry out
section 8 of Public Law 88–657 (commonly known as the ‘‘Forest
Roads and Trails Act’’) $250,000,000 for the period of fiscal years
2022 through 2026.

NFS Litigation Weekly November 5, 2021

by

The Forest Services says, “Nothing to Report.”

So here’s some loose ends from in or around October.

On September 29, the Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project persuaded the district court to enjoin 78 acres of a logging project adjacent to the Walton Lake Recreation Area on the Ochoco National Forest.  The Forest Service had failed to adequately consider site-specific impacts.  (This case was introduced here.)

  • Griffin Half Moon timber sale

Attorneys for plaintiffs in Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management have announced that the district court for the District of Oregon has enjoined the Griffin Half Moon timber sale in southwest Oregon because of the BLM’s failure to properly analyze the effects of the project on the great gray owl.  The BLM had argued that, because it tiered to the 2016 FEIS for its resource management plan (RMP), it was therefore entitled under NEPA to not prepare further analysis regarding the owls.  Having not seen the opinion from the district court, I don’t know whether the district judge adopted all of the magistrate’s specific reasoning, but the magistrate judge had concluded in January that:

“In sum, while the 2016 RMP allocates a large network of reserve lands for great gray owls and predicts a long-term increase in species habitat, it-fails to contain a site-specific Project area analysis of effects on great gray owls… Although the Project implements a timber management plan directed under the 2016 RMP and FEIS, the BLM’s approach to assessing effects on the great gray owl – within the REA (project EA) and through tiering – is not supported under NEPA”.

WildEarth Guardians, Western Watersheds Project, and Rocky Mountain Wild are suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service over their management of endangered black-footed ferrets in Wyoming as a “nonessential experimental population.”  Lack of reintroductions, coupled with the proposed rollback of protections for a previously reintroduced population in Thunder Basin National Grassland, motivated the group to challenge Wyoming’s arrangement with the Fish and Wildlife Service.

On October 29, the parties in Friends of the Wild Swan v. Haaland adopted a settlement agreement which halted efforts by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the Canada lynx based on shortening the time span for considering climate change threats, from 2100 to 2050, because of what officials said were uncertainties in long-term climate models.  Instead, the FWS will prepare a recovery plan by December 2024.  (This news release includes a link to the agreement.)

  • Canada lynx trapping

The Center for Biological Diversity has filed a 60-day notice of intent to sue USDA’s Animal Services division over the inadequate analysis of the risks to lynx as a result of the agency’s wolf-trapping program in Minnesota.

In Montana, after legislation promoting trapping of wolves, the state has agreed to abide by a previous settlement whereby it managed two lynx protection zones covering occupied lynx habitat in northwest Montana and the Greater Yellowstone area where special trapping regulations were designed to protect lynx, and indirectly, grizzlies.

On October 25, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the coastal distinct population segment of Pacific marten on 1,413,305 acres of land in northwestern California and southwestern Oregon.  (The article includes a link to the proposed rule.)

On September 28, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to list the Penasco least chipmunk as an endangered species, and proposed critical habitat in New Mexico.  The species is found on the Lincoln National Forest, almost exclusively in designated wilderness.

A snowboarding social media prankster who has repeatedly sparked the ire of the National Forest Service, including one incident in which he was photographed purportedly defecating in the waters of the off-limits Maroon Lake near Aspen, was found guilty Monday of breaking into a closed area and snapping pictures of himself doing jumps on a snowmobile to promote his ski-gear company.  The magistrate judge found him guilty of taking photos on National Forest Service lands to sell merchandise without getting a permit.”   (Apparently no first amendment problems with these photos.)

In October the federal court in Jackson, Wyoming found convicted an individual of three misdemeanor citations: residing on forest lands, leaving a campfire unattended and leaving a campsite in unsanitary conditions on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.

Kellogg’s may be in a jam after a $5 million class-action lawsuit was filed over the alleged lack of the berry in the company’s frosted strawberry-flavored Pop-Tarts. The complaint filed in August claimed that Kelloggs gives “consumers the impression the fruit filling contains a greater relative and absolute amount of strawberries than it does” because “its filling contains a relatively significant amount of nonstrawberry fruit ingredients – pears and apples – shown on the ingredient list.”

 

Affordable Housing and Short-Term Rentals in Colorado Mountain Resort Communities

by

This is a bit off our standard topics (yet federal employees need housing as well and many of these resort communities are neighbors to National Forests), but it is a really thorough and comprehensive post-election review by reporter Jason Blevins in the Colorado Sun of a variety of policy tweaks that different communities are trying to deal with the affordable housing problem and short-term rentals.

“What we learned … is that the animosity — the us-versus-them, winner-take-all philosophy — that does not work,” Minardi said. “Communities across Colorado are trying to experiment with different solutions and ultimately the answers will come through consensus.”

Summit County Commissioner Tamara Pogue told the task force last week that while her county’s tourism economy is dependent on the nearly $80 million impact of short-term rentals, “the burden on our infrastructure is unfathomable.”

Carol Kresge manages the 13-bedroom Little Mountain Lodge in Breckenridge. She fears “broad-brush” regulation of short-term rentals in the town will impact the resort town’s economy. (Hugh Carey, The Colorado Sun)

“We have entire neighborhoods in Summit that have gone from being owned primarily by locals to being owned by people who do not designate their primary residence as Summit County,” said Pogue, whose county is building workforce housing, leasing hotels for local workers and offering up to $24,000 to owners of short-term rental homes who ink year-long leases with locals. “As a county we simply do not have the tools to mitigate the financial impacts. We can’t keep up with building at the pace that it would take to mitigate the impact on our workforce housing that short-term rentals have created for us.”

Mendocino Forest-Wide Prescribed Fire and Fuels EA

by

Apparently 89% of the Mendocino National Forest has been burned over in recent fires. This struck me as a pretty impressive statistic.

They have come up with a forest-wide condition-based management approach to prescribed fire and fuel treatment via an EA (outside of Wilderness).  What I think is interesting is that the proposed alternative seems to neatly avoid  issues around “logging” and whether fuel treatments are really about timber production.. by simply not selling or moving any material offsite as part of using this EA. Seems pretty innovative to me.. what do you all think?

Here’s the description of alternative 2, the proposed alternative.

Hand Thinning & Limbing Trees to Raise Canopy Base Height
In areas where specialists determine that fuel loading and/or stand structure is such that prescribed fire behavior might exceed acceptable thresholds and pose a risk to prescriptive objectives and/or WUI and highly valued resources, prescribed fire alone will not be the sole source of treatment. In these situations, hand thinning and limbing trees using chainsaws or other tools may occur prior to prescribed burning, to reduce ladder fuels and associated potential for crown fire initiation and spread. Resulting slash may be scattered or left in place to assist understory fire spread. When prescribed fire is unlikely to consume most residual slash or would result in undesired fire effects, some or all thinned vegetation may be piled and burned on site.

Prescribed Fire Control Lines
Existing features such as roads, trails, rock outcrops, or existing fuelbreaks will be used for fire control lines where possible. Where existing control lines are absent, firelines will be constructed to facilitate broadcast burning and hand piling burning operations. Fireline construction will also be used for the protection of cultural sites, sensitive resources, administrative sites, infrastructure or private property, and other features as needed. Firelines will be constructed by hand. If ground disturbing mechanical methods are necessary, additional National Environmental Policy Act analysis may be required. The amount of fireline construction will vary depending on the size of the burn area and existing conditions.

They also have an alternative 3:

Prescribed Fire and Mechanical Treatments Alternative
In addition to the Proposed Action, the MNF would like to consider an alternative that utilizes both the use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments to reduce fuel loads and modify fuel structure. In some places and under some conditions it may be too difficult to safely use prescribed burning and inefficient to hand-thin dense stands of small trees. This is where the mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels can be a valuable tool. Similar to hand thinning in the Proposed Action, mechanical treatments would be used to mulch or remove trees less than 14 inches in diameter, and understory shrubs. The resulting mulch could either be used as a pre-treatment for prescribed fire or left alone where conditions meet the purpose and need.
Mechanical treatments would include but not be limited to the use of equipment such as masticators and feller-bunchers. Equipment is generally limited to slopes less than 45% and would operate on top of generated slash and mulch without the need of skid trails. Material could be removed off-site for biomass operations if existing landings and roads provide adequate access.
No roads or landings would be constructed as part of this alternative.

Here’s a link.

SAF Forest Policy Position Open

by

We don’t usually have position advertisements here, but there aren’t that many positions specifically in forest policy, either.  It’s an entry level position so please forward widely to the appropriate folks you know.  Check it out here.

The Specialist, Natural Resources Policy is responsible for supporting SAF’s efforts to educate and engage policymakers, partner organizations, and SAF members on policy issues impacting public and private forested landscapes across urban and rural settings. Through organizing educational events and crafting messages for diverse communication channels, this position helps advance policies and partnerships that promote sustainable forest management and empower forestry and natural resources professionals.

The Specialist, Natural Resources Policy will report to the Director of Policy & Public Affairs.

The position would be a terrific learning experience working for the talented and amazing Danielle Watson. No better way to learn how the DC advocacy business works.

Forest Service Capacity: Or Not? And NAFSR Recommendations

by

Several folks in our Reconciliation Bill discussion have brought up the Forest Service capacity issue.  So this is probably a good time to highlight the NAFSR (National Association of Forest Service Retirees) recent report (2019).  Feel free to read it and let us know what you think.  I thought I’d pull out the results of field interviews. Again, apologies for the length. This was in 2019, so I wonder how Covid has affected these findings.  Current employees?

*************************

Leadership, Culture and Direction
Working Well
Morale is fairly good
People like their jobs
Local support is mixed across the country
Quality of new personnel is good if adequate leadership is provided
Processes are improving and becoming more efficient
Concerns
Units are below critical mass in terms of people and skills and cannot meet expectations
Administrative requirements are deeply affecting the productivity of all field personnel
New personnel are inexperienced, affecting decisions and results
Districts are responsible for results, but lack the authority necessary to achieve them
Priorities are clear but units are not confident they can be achieved
Technical training is lacking in timber, engineering, wildlife and fisheries
Many zoned personnel are spread so thin they can’t successfully complete priority work.

Workforce Capacity
Working Well
Fire organization
Concerns
Administrative processes and centralized services are not user friendly
The most “broken” administrative practice is the hiring process, which takes too long to complete
and removes many approvals and decisions from the affected field units. This applies to both
seasonal and permanent hiring procedures.
Following the “process” often appears to be more important than achieving desired results
With the exception of fire, all programs are suffering due to a lack of skills, personnel and funding
Those providing centralized services do not seem to understand or care about customers in the field
The perceived focus appears to be national data needs, not achieving work on the ground

Consolidation and Zoning
Working Well:
It is estimated that 15–50% of the work is performed by partners, volunteers and community groups
Concerns:
Some units believe they are zoned to the point of failure
Large land bases, increased travel times, and lack of connection with communities is rendering many zoned units ineffective as they are not able to complete critical work and maintain essential
relationships
To increase the pace and scale of work, units will require a commensurate increase in critical skills including heritage, timber, engineering, soils, NEPA leadership, non–fire forestry technicians,
contracting officer representatives, wildlife biologists and local partnership coordinators
There is broad agreement that the Forest Service is abdicating its land stewardship responsibilities in the program areas of recreation, trails and special use program management.
Forest supervisors and district rangers are very concerned about the continued erosion of funding and skills in the above–listed programs


On the Ground Management
Working Well
The Environmental Analysis and Decision Making (EADM) initiative is positive, and units have high expectations it will bring about needed change
o The level of understanding about and status of the current effort varies widely
o It would be a monumental disaster to morale if this effort failed

Concerns

The necessary skill sets and funding are simply not available to get the work done
The recreation program funding has dropped extensively for a very long time and the Forest Service cannot provide for the needs and expectations of the booming tourism market
Process and administrative burdens exist in hiring, contracting, procurement and grants and agreements
There is a strong disconnect between those leaders who want to get work done and those leaders who are responsible for the administrative functions necessary to get that work done. This is a universal frustration in the field.

Partnerships
Working Well
Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) is a valuable asset and helpful tool in some locations. Its use depends on the individual state’s interest, capacity and funding.
Concerns
Overall, the GNA program is limited by funding and certain authorities not being granted to the states
The limiting factor to expansion of GNA, or shared stewardship, is people, skills and funding to do the job
Field units do not have a clear understanding of what approach is planned without additional funding for the counties or states to fully participate

 

Sage Hen Integrated Restoration Project

by

Nick Smith has a link in his Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities news roundup about a lawsuit filed against the Sage Hen Integrated Restoration Project on the Boise National Forest in Idaho. The project would include timber harvests on up to 19,900 acres and 11,200 acres of fuels reduction and non-commercial thinning in a 67,800-acre project area over 20 years.

The plaintiff’s petition is here. The forest’s planning docs are here. A Dec. 2020 Letter of Objection from the Boise Forest Coalition is here.

This project involves a topic we’re discussed here on Smokey Wire: Whether an EA is adequate or if an EIS is needed. In this case, the Boise Forest Coalition says an EIS is needed.