March-April 2021 public lands litigation news

by

FOREST SERVICE

  • South Fork Stillaguamish project (North Cascades Conservation Council v. U. S. Forest Service, W. D. Washington)

(Update.)  The North Cascades Conservation Council has a lawsuit pending against the South Fork Stillaguamish timber sale project, located on the Darrington Ranger District of the Mount-Baker Snoqualmie National Forest (which was apparently not picked up by the Forest Service litigation summarizer).  (This March 9 Order from the district court grants intervention to contractors, but it also provides some background on the case.)

  • Mt. St. Helens (Cascade Forest Conservancy v. U. S. Forest Service, D. Washington)

(New Lawsuit.)  Several research scientists and conservation groups sued the Gifford Pinchot National Forest on March 22 to require an EIS before building a road through the blast zone of the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument in order to repair the outlet from Spirit Lake.  (This article includes a link to the complaint.)

  • National oil and gas leasing ban (State of Wyoming v. U. S. Department of the Interior, D. Wyoming)

(New lawsuit.)  On March 23, the State of Wyoming challenged the Department of Interior’s moratorium on oil and gas leasing on federal lands.  According Governor Gordon, “The question is whether it will be produced under the environmental safeguards in place on federal lands in Wyoming, or overseas without equally stringent regulations.”  (This article includes a link to the complaint.)

BLM

  • Alton Coal Mine (Utah Physicians For A Healthy Environment v. US Bureau of Land Management, D. Utah)

(Court decision.)  On March 24, the district court remanded a BLM decision to authorize expansion of the Alton coal mine.  The court found that the BLM violated NEPA by failing to consider the adverse socio-economic impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in a manner commensurate with the economic benefits, and failing to consider cumulative effects of other reasonably foreseeable future GHG sources.  (The opinion is here.)

  • Colorado land exchange (Colorado Wild Public Lands, Inc. v. Shoop, D. Colorado)

(Court decision.)  On March 25, the district court upheld a land exchange that added land to a private ranch.  With regard to NEPA, the newly private land would be protected from environmental impacts by a conservation easement, and on the newly public land the effects of increased recreation did not need to be considered until a “future site-specific management plan” is developed for that area.  NEPA also did not apply to appraisals because they are not a “component of a physical environment and cannot be reasonably understood as encompassing of parity in the value of the parcels to be exchanged.”  (The court’s opinion is here.)

  • Grand Junction RMP (Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management, D. Colorado)

(Voluntary remand.)  On March 26, the district court approved a voluntary remand of the Grand Junction Resource Management Plan to the BLM in light of a decision by the court in a similar case for an adjacent plan that failed to adequately consider indirect emissions of oil and gas or to consider a reasonable range of alternatives.  (This news release includes a link to the Order.)

  • Mojave Desert

On March 23, the Center for Biological Diversity and two other organizations sued to stop BLM’s grant of a right-of-way to pump water from an underground aquifer under the Mojave Trails National Monument and near the Mojave National Preserve.  (Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management, C.D. California.)  On March 24, the Center and four other organizations filed a notice of intent to sue the BLM and Fish and Wildlife Service over the California Desert Conservation Area Plan Amendments and Approvals for the West Mojave Route Network Project and Travel Management Plans.

ESA

  • Spotted owl critical habitat

(New lawsuits.)  On March 5, the American Forest Resource Council along with the Association of O&C Counties, and counties in Oregon, Washington, and California challenged the Biden administration’s delay in implementing its decision to substantially reduce the critical habitat designated for the northern spotted owl.  On March 23, conservation groups challenged the Trump administration’s critical habitat decision by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s that is being delayed.  This article has a link to the complaint in the latter case (Audubon Society of Portland v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, (D. Oregon)), and this article may have a working link to the former.

  • Trump vs ESA

This article summarizes other recent lawsuits filed over Endangered Species Act decisions made by the Trump administration.  Several affect national forests.

On April 1, in the federal district court for the District of Columbia, the Center for Biological Diversity challenged the failure to list ten candidate species that the Fish and Wildlife Service found warranted for listing but precluded by species with higher priorities.  The species include the monarch butterfly, and the northern spotted owl, which was found warranted for relisting as endangered instead of threatened.  This article includes a link to the complaint in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. D.C.).

Multiple conservation groups sued the USFWS on March 25 over a decision to deny the north Oregon coast population of red tree voles protection under the Endangered Species Act.  This news release includes a link to the complaint in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Oregon).

Multiple conservation groups also sued the USFWS on March 24 for refusing to designate critical habitat for the endangered rusty patched bumblebee.  (This article includes a link to the complaint in Natural Resources Defense Council v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, D. D.C.)

On March 31, the Center for Biological Diversity also filed a notice of intent to sue the National Marine Fisheries Service to make a decision on whether the Oregon coast spring-run chinook salmon warrants protection.  (This article provides further background.

  • Roundtail chub listing (Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland, D. Arizona)

(Court decision.)  On March 31, the district court reversed the decision by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to withdraw its 2015 proposed listing of the lower Colorado River roundtail chub, which is found in Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico.  The court held that a recent determination that it is not a separate species did not relieve the FWS of responsibility to consider it as a distinct population segment of its species that could be listed.  The plaintiffs first petitioned the species for listing seventeen years ago.  (The court’s opinion is here.)

 

 

 

USDA Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry: Request for Comments

by

There is an request for comments from USDA that concerns topics of interest to TSW readers, specifically climate-smart forestry. The due date for comments is April 29, 2021. It’s part of Biden’s Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.

I like how comprehensive it is, and the broad range of topics, as well as the questions that directly address what tools and research are needed, and how we can all work together better. I’d be interested in getting guest posts (email me at email on donations link) or comments that describe your own ideas. Also if your organization has sent in a comment, please link below.

I already found some interesting responses in the Regulations.gov site, but it’s kind of a pain to click on every answer, read it, download the document, read it, go back to the site remembering the last name I looked at… If anyone has an easier way of reviewing comments (like tweaking it so it reads them directly into one giant pdf?). Any ideas on how to do this better
would be appreciated.

1. Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Questions

A. How should USDA utilize programs, funding and financing capacities, and other authorities, to encourage the voluntary adoption of climate-smart agricultural and forestry practices on working farms, ranches, and forest lands?

1. How can USDA leverage existing policies and programs to encourage voluntary adoption of agricultural practices that sequester carbon, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and ensure resiliency to climate change?

2. What new strategies should USDA explore to encourage voluntary adoption of climate-smart agriculture and forestry practices?

B. How can partners and stakeholders, including State, local and Tribal governments and the private sector, work with USDA in advancing climate-smart agricultural and forestry practices?

C. How can USDA help support emerging markets for carbon and greenhouse gases where agriculture and forestry can supply carbon benefits?

D. What data, tools, and research are needed for USDA to effectively carry out climate-smart agriculture and forestry strategies?

E. How can USDA encourage the voluntary adoption of climate-smart agricultural and forestry practices in an efficient way, where the benefits accrue to producers?

2. Biofuels, Wood and Other Bioproducts, and Renewable Energy Questions

A. How should USDA utilize programs, funding and financing capacities, and other authorities to encourage greater use of biofuels for transportation, sustainable bioproducts (including wood products), and renewable energy?

B. How can incorporating climate-smart agriculture and forestry into biofuel and bioproducts feedstock production systems support rural economies and green jobs?

C. How can USDA support adoption and production of other renewable energy technologies in rural America, such as renewable natural gas from livestock, biomass power, solar, and wind?

3. Addressing Catastrophic Wildfire Questions

A. How should USDA utilize programs, funding and financing capacities, and other authorities to decrease wildfire risk fueled by climate change?

B. How can the various USDA agencies work more cohesively across programs to advance climate-smart forestry practices and reduce the risk of wildfire on all lands?

C. What additional data, tools and research are needed for USDA to effectively reduce wildfire risk and manage Federal lands for carbon?

D. What role should partners and stakeholders play, including State, local and Tribal governments, related to addressing wildfires?

4. Environmental Justice and Disadvantaged Communities Questions

A. How can USDA ensure that programs, funding and financing capacities, and other authorities used to advance climate-smart agriculture and forestry practices are available to all landowners, producers, and communities?

B. How can USDA provide technical assistance, outreach, and other assistance necessary to ensure that all Start Printed Page 14404producers, landowners, and communities can participate in USDA programs, funding, and other authorities related to climate-smart agriculture and forestry practices?

C. How can USDA ensure that programs, funding and financing capabilities, and other authorities related to climate-smart agriculture and forestry practices are implemented equitably?

Please provide information including citations and/or contact details for the correspondent when submitting comments to Regulations.gov.

Seth Meyer,

Chief Economist, Office of the Chief Economist.

Agreement with USDA’s Wildlife Services curbs killing on federal public lands in New Mexico

by

We issued this press release today.


WildEarth Guardians scores big protections for wildlife in New Mexico

Agreement with USDA’s Wildlife Services curbs killing of cougars, bears, and other native species

SANTA FE, NM—In a major win for New Mexico’s wildlife, WildEarth Guardians settled its lawsuit against USDA’s Wildlife Services after the federal program agreed to stop its reckless slaughter of native carnivores such as black bears, cougars, and foxes on all federal public lands; cease killing all carnivores on specific protected federal lands; and end the use of cruel traps, snares, and poisons on public lands.

The settlement additionally requires public reporting of Wildlife Services’ activities in the state, including documenting non-lethal preventative measures employed by the program. These protections will remain in place pending the program’s completion of a detailed and public environmental review of its work.

The settlement agreement comes after WildEarth Guardians sued Wildlife Services in October 2020 over the program’s reliance on severely outdated environmental reviews of its work. The agreement, filed with the federal district court of New Mexico, ensures that Wildlife Services will no longer conduct any wildlife killing in New Mexico’s specially protected areas such as designated Wilderness, Areas of Critical Environmental Concern, and Wild & Scenic River corridors. The program will cease using sodium cyanide bombs (M44s) and other poisons on all public lands within the state. Additionally, the program will no longer kill beavers, which are increasingly seen as critical to mitigating the effects of widespread drought.

Notably, the agreement also mandates that a program district supervisor reviews all wolf depredation investigation reports before a livestock depredation determination is made in an effort to ensure appropriate safeguards for the endangered Mexican gray wolves that inhabit southwestern New Mexico.

“It’s past time for Wildlife Services to start grappling with 21st century science showing killing wildlife in hopes of preventing livestock losses doesn’t work, is often counterproductive, horribly inhumane, and robs native ecosystems of critically important apex carnivores,” said Jennifer Schwartz, staff attorney at WildEarth Guardians. “We’re glad our settlement kickstarts this process, while affording New Mexico’s wildlife some reprieve from the government’s archaic and cruel killing practices.”

The settlement agreement, finalized on March 11, 2021, includes multiple temporary provisions that will soon become permanent parts of New Mexico law as the result of the enactment of the Wildlife Conservation and Public Safety Act (“Roxy’s Law”) earlier this month. Roxy’s Law—championed by WildEarth Guardians and its allies in the TrapFree New Mexico coalition—bans the use of traps, snares, and poisons, on all public lands in the state of New Mexico. While Roxy’s Law is set to go into effect on April 1, 2022, the settlement agreement ensures that Wildlife Services refrains from using these devices on public lands immediately.

“The past several weeks have seen incredible wins for New Mexico’s native wildlife,” said Chris Smith, southern Rockies wildlife advocate for WildEarth Guardians. “With the climate crisis, drought, and human expansion all taking a toll on our state’s biodiversity, it’s time we stop seeing wildlife as something that needs to be killed and culled and instead see it as something that deserves protection and respect.”

Wildlife Services is culpable of killing thousands of animals in New Mexico each year including coyotes, cougars, prairie dogs, several varieties of fox, and even endangered Mexican gray wolves. Per federal law, Wildlife Services must use up-to-date studies and the best available science to analyze the environmental impact of their animal damage control program on New Mexico’s wildlife and native ecosystems. Under the agreement, Wildlife Services must provide an environmental analysis of the effects and risks of its wildlife-killing program in New Mexico by December 31, 2021.

The settlement agreement also requires Wildlife Services to significantly increase its overall transparency with the public by documenting and releasing—via its state website—detailed yearly reports of its wildlife “damage control” practices. This includes the number and type of animals captured and by which method, the number of requests for assistance and the reason given (livestock protection, health and safety, nuisance, etc.), and types of non-lethal preventative measures employed by Wildlife Services or the party requesting lethal control. This type of detailed information has previously only been available through formal Freedom of Information Act requests, which typically take many months, if not years, for USDA to fulfill.

“A public reporting requirement will compel Wildlife Services to be held accountable to the general public for its actions,” said Schwartz. “We hope that this motivates Wildlife Services to employ practices in line with the values of the public and embrace the use of scientifically verified non-lethal conflict prevention.”

Background
Wildlife Services is a multimillion-dollar federal program that uses painful leghold traps, strangulation snares, poisons and aerial gunning to kill wolves, coyotes, cougars, birds, and other wild animals. Most of the killing responds to requests from the agriculture industry.

The program reported killing more than 433,000 native animals nationwide in 2020. Nontarget animals, including pets and protected wildlife like wolves, grizzlies and eagles, are also at risk from the program’s indiscriminate methods.

Over the last five years, litigation by WildEarth Guardians and partners against Wildlife Services has resulted in settlement agreements and legal victories in Idaho, Montana, California, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico, all curbing the program’s slaughter of native wildlife and making the program accountable for its activities.

How we fool ourselves. Part II: Scientific consensus building

by

Excellent post by Judith Curry on her Climate, Etc. blog.

The objective of scientific research is to find out what is really true, not just verify our biases. If a community of scientists has a diversity of perspectives and different biases, then the checks and balances in the scientific process including peer review will eventually counter the biases of individuals. Sometimes this is true—but often this does not happen quickly or smoothly. Not only can poor data and wrong ideas survive, but good ideas can be suppressed.

However, when biases caused by motivated reasoning and career pressures become entrenched in the institutions that support science – the professional societies, scientific journals, universities and funding agencies – then that subfield of science may be led astray for decades.

Return the National Parks to the Tribes?

by

From The Atlantic:

Return the National Parks to the Tribes

The jewels of America’s landscape should belong to America’s original peoples.

Received this intro via email today….

By David Treuer

The national parks—sometimes called “America’s best idea”—were intended to be natural cathedrals, places of worship where visitors could seek spiritual refuge. But the story of their creation is far darker and bloodier than their serene vistas might suggest. The parks were founded on land that once belonged to Native Americans like me, and many were created only after we were forcibly removed by invading armies, or by treaties signed under duress.

Reparations for the losses that Native Americans have endured for centuries must take the shape of land. In my cover story for The Atlantic, I argue that the national parks should be returned to America’s original peoples—that all 85 million acres of federally protected land should be entrusted to a consortium of tribes.

Doing so would be a noble act. Despite America’s many sins, it still has the chance to make amends. Placing the national parks under collective Native control could be part of this reconciliation process, one that would benefit us all. This transfer isn’t just an opportunity for Native people to return to their ancestral lands. It is an opportunity for America to live up to its highest ideals—of dignity, honor, compassion—and to become a more perfect union.

 

Timber Wars Peace Breaking Out in John Day, Oregon: New York Times Op-ed

by

Thanks to Bob Sproul for finding this New York Times story about Susan Jane Brown and efforts to reach consensus around logging on the Malheur National Forest by Nichols Kristof. Since it’s so relevant, I’m posting the entire piece. I do like the idea that our humble forest work could “offer lessons for a divided country.” It’s also interesting that this is posted as an opinion, while other pieces, which seem similar to me (interviews with people supplemented by statistics), are counted as news stories. The comments are also interesting; I see some from three hours ago, but it says they are now closed. Susan Jane Brown, member of our own TSW community, plays a prominent (and dare I say heroic) role in the story.

April 10, 2021
JOHN DAY, Ore. — One of the most venomous battles in our polarized nation is the one that has unfolded between loggers and environmentalists in timber towns like this one in the snow-capped Blue Mountains of Eastern Oregon.

Yet, astonishingly, peace has broken out here. Loggers and tree-huggers who once loathed and feared each other have learned to hold their noses and cooperate — and this may have saved the town. It may also offer lessons for a divided country.

The timber industry, by far the biggest employer in John Day, survives here only because environmentalists led by Susan Jane Brown, a Portland lawyer, fought to save these workers’ jobs by keeping chain saws active. John Shelk, who owns the town’s sawmill, and might be expected to eat environmental lawyers for breakfast, says simply, “Susan Jane is my hero.”

This collaboration between environmentalists and loggers is often grumpy, incomplete and precarious, but it’s also inspiring. It offers America a model of a process to sit down with antagonists, seek common ground, register progress (punctuated with eye rolls and moans) and knit this country back together.

The timber peace process began in 2003 at a bitter meeting over forest policy. Loggers were furious at Brown for having halted logging in local national forests by suing to protect species like woodpeckers and redband trout and by tying the U.S. Forest Service in procedural knots — but they were also desperate to save their livelihoods. A delegation of burly woodsmen approached Brown, who is 5-foot-2, and invited her to go out into the forest with them.

“My life flashed before my eyes,” Brown told me. But she took a deep breath, overcame her fears and eventually spent three days with the loggers (she brought a very large friend as a bodyguard), visiting forests and arguing about whether trees should be cut.

“It was very tense,” she remembered. But while the two sides didn’t agree, each was surprised to find the other not entirely diabolical.

“We thought, ‘Well, we haven’t killed each other, so maybe we should keep talking and let’s see what happens,’” she said. In 2006 they formalized the dialogue by naming it Blue Mountains Forest Partners.

The word “partners,” though, was mostly aspirational. The timber industry was collapsing, with a 90 percent plunge in the harvest from national forests in Oregon between the 1980s and the 2000s. Workers were losing well-paying jobs and in some places the human toll was catastrophic. I wrote recently about an Oregon friend of mine, Mike Stepp, whose life disintegrated into homelessness and early death when he couldn’t follow his dad into a good sawmill or factory job. Brown says that back when she started to talk with the loggers she didn’t really think of the human cost.

“My attitude was, ‘You deserved it,’” she said. “‘You cut down all the old growth.’”

John Day reciprocated the hostility. The area was already deeply conservative — it had voted overwhelmingly to withdraw from the United Nations — and the closure of two of its three sawmills left people fearful and furious.

Then, with almost no new logs coming in, Shelk announced that he would have to close the last sawmill, just as he had already closed his two other sawmills in Eastern Oregon. The entire town was teetering.

Yet this was also a crisis for environmentalists. In their meetings with the foresters, Brown and her colleagues had gradually been persuaded that some logging was necessary to make the forests healthy again.

That’s because nearby forests were dangerously overgrown. For thousands of years, fires had burned the forests every decade or so, clearing out the underbrush but not harming large trees. Decades of fire suppression had ended that natural balance, leaving the forests full of tinder just when climate change was also making them drier and hotter.

“This is not natural,” Pam Hardy, who works with Brown at the Western Environmental Law Center, told me as we walked through a national forest full of saplings and brush west of John Day. If a fire broke out in a place like this, she explained, there was so much fuel that the fire would burn hot and incinerate everything — destroying forests, rather than keeping them healthy.

The best hope to revive the forests, Hardy and Brown concluded, was to hire loggers to clear out small trees — and that meant there had to be a sawmill to take the logs. “I need the mill,” Brown explained.

So the environmentalists and loggers joined forces. With the help of Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, they won a 10-year stewardship contract to subsidize forest thinning and restoration of the traditional landscape, and this saved the mill and kept the town alive.

“Without her, we wouldn’t be,” said Mark Webb, a county commissioner. “It’s as simple as that.”

Yet this kind of cooperation is brutally difficult. Small logs are less profitable for the sawmill than large ones, and many people on all sides see those participating in the dialogue as sellouts.

Webb, who has a Ph.D in philosophy but was drawn to rural spaces, joined the forestry collaborative, as the process is called, but instead of being rewarded for saving the mill, he was defeated in his re-election bid. Hardy was nudged out of another environmental organization for her openness to logging to reduce fire danger. And Shelk, the owner of the mill and an active member of the collaborative, says, “I’m kind of an outcast in the timber industry.”

There are other forest collaboratives around Oregon that are also trying to sustain dialogue between loggers and environmentalists, with varying degrees of success and frustration. In John Day, the group is tussling over how much salvage logging to allow after forest fires, and how many roads should be allowed in the national forests. But members are making progress, and Brown has built a weekend home in John Day.

What advice do they offer for bridging hostilities and creating a peace process? A starting point is finding people from each side who are equipped with humility and empathy. Then when disputes arise, both sides need to agree to defer to science — and if the science doesn’t exist, then to conduct experiments to gather evidence. They say it doesn’t hurt if after meetings everyone relaxes over dinner together.

“It helps to have alcohol, and it helps to have food,” Brown said.

I normally cover people who are exchanging insults, occasionally gunfire. So there’s something exhilarating about being in Brown’s home in John Day, with loggers and environmental lawyers arguing amiably around a dinner table, antagonists who have also become friends.

They roll their eyes in fond exasperation at things the others say, and across town, because of them, the sawmill is still spitting out boards and keeping John Day humming. Maybe there’s something the rest of the country can learn from this handful of sellouts who saved a town.

February-March 2021 litigation news

by

The last Forest Service litigation summary I’ve received and posted was dated March 5.  Here are a few more things that were going on around that time.

FOREST SERVICE

(Update.)  In this case involving livestock grazing on the Prescott, Coconino, and Tonto National Forests (introduced here), the federal district court for Arizona on February 20, 2021 refused to dismiss the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service from the lawsuit because of this regulatory language, which (despite written FWS policy that says otherwise) requires both them and the action agency to reinitiate consultation:  “Reinitiation of consultation is required and shall be requested by the Federal agency or by the Service” (noting the absence of a comma after “required”).

  • Middle Henrys project (Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. U.S. Forest Service)

(Settlement.) The Caribou-Targhee National Forest has withdrawn its decision on the Middle Henrys Aspen Enhancement Project after the lawsuit (and Notice of Intent to Sue under ESA) described here was filed.  The Forest Service declined to discuss the forest’s rationale for withdrawing the project other than saying “We couldn’t reach any kind of an agreement about some of their points.”

  • Castle Mountains project

(New lawsuit.)  The Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council filed a lawsuit to halt the Castle Mountains logging and burning project on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest, and associated road construction.  This article provides more information about the project, and plaintiffs’ “complaints” are here.

(Court decision.)  The “ongoing saga” of the Village of Wolf Creek continued with litigation about a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act.  On March 4, 2021, the federal district court for Colorado upheld the Forest Service’s choices of employees to contact, search terms used, locations searched, dates searched and its application of four FOIA exemptions.

  • Wayne fracking (Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service)

(Court decision.)  On March 13, 2020, the federal district court for the Southern District of Ohio held that the Forest Service and BLM violated NEPA when the Wayne National Forest granted fracking leases based largely on analysis done for the 2006 forest plan (posted here). As discussed here, the remedy now granted to plaintiffs is to prohibit new drilling permits and surface disturbance on existing leases and water withdrawal for any drilling that’s already occurring, but not rescind existing leases.  (The Forest Service has initiated revision of the Wayne forest plan.)

OTHER AGENCIES

(Court decision.)  The Forest Service was a cooperating agency in a decision by USDA Wildlife Services for predator control in Colorado.  The federal court for the District of Colorado found that an EIS was unnecessary.

(Court decision.)  On January 28, 2020 the federal district court for the District of Columbia remanded the decision by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list the northern long-eared bat as threatened rather than endangered (see this litigation summary).  As described here, on March 1, 2021, the court imposed a deadline of 18 months after completion of a species status assessment expected to done in May, 2021.  The species is found on 15 eastern national forests (this document includes a range map on p. 4).

  • Eastern hellbender

(Notice of Intent.)  On March 4, 2021, five conservation groups notified the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service of their intent to litigate the decision to not list the eastern hellbender as threatened or endangered.  It is found on eastern national forests, including the Nantahala-Pisgah, Sumter, Daniel Boone, Monongahela, and Allegheny.

 

Practice of Science Friday: Getting to Co-Design and Co-Production of Climate Models

by
From Meadow et al.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/wcas/7/2/wcas-d-14-00050_1.xml

We’ve been discussing the RCP 8.5 issue in climate modeling, this week and earlier, which reminded me of this story. A few years ago, I attended a reunion (my class’s 40th) at the Yale School of Forestry (cl and Environmental Studies (now School of the Environment). Jerry Melillo, of Woods Hole, gave a talk about climate modelling.

Jerry showed a slide of “protected areas,” and of course, having worked on the Colorado Roadless Rule for years, I could see from the map that I might not agree with the boundaries. At least not in terms of physically meaningful differences for input into climate models. Imagine how hard it would be to take the non-Wilderness parts of your neighboring forest and make assumptions about what they would or would not contribute to climate change in the next fifty years or more? My question to Jerry was “forest management is a sliding scale, from planting trees after fires and leaving them alone thereafter, to intensive forest management as practiced in the southeastern US with loblolly pine. It’s a dial not a toggle, so how do models of future land use reflect that?” His answer was that IUCN had made the determination of what was protected, and he was using their numbers. Of course, determining something is a toggle when it is a dial is a value judgment, not a scientific finding. And folks might choose toggle due to computational convenience, not proximity to validity.

Roger Pielke, Jr. and Justin Ritchie wrote a comprehensive historical account of the development and use of RCP’s, including definitions of the relevant jargon. From a history of science/sociology of science perspective. It has been the best guide I’ve found to try to understand “is our work (land-use) an input, output or both?” There are even flowcharts! Roger and Justin have a few suggestions (these are only some):

*Despite the presence of thousands of IAM scenarios in the community, and the motivation to proceed with ‘one model one vote’ dynamics where all models are assessed equally with no explicit probability statements, more regular attention needs to be given to a much simplified set of near-term, policy relevant scenarios, similar to how IEA issues three scenarios on an annual basis: a Current Policies Scenario (high), a Stated Policies Scenario (baseline) and a Sustainable Development (policy) scenario.

(I see this as fewer but more realistic options, done more frequently to reflect changes and course-correct assumptions, some of the same preferences we would have for any planning effort.)

*More work is needed to reconcile long-term narrative pathways based on an idealized year 2100 end-point with what policy makers need to know about the next few years and decades. While there are an increasing number of scenarios focused on the role of Paris Agreement NDCs through 2030, there is a significant gap in the literature for scenarios that address developments before 2050 in the context of today’s policy environment. This gap is created by an excessive focus on long-run, full century scenarios, driven in large part by the needs of the physical science modeling community.

There seems to be a need for policy folks to say “nope, that solution isn’t working for us, how about trying …?” Not sure that there is the direct connection among groups for this discussion to take place. Remember the idea of “co-designed, co-produced research” with stakeholders and policy makers?

* Climate research and assessment would benefit from a more ecumenical and expansive view on relevant knowledge. The IPCC scenario process has been led by a small group of academics for more than a decade, and decisions made by this small community have profoundly shaped the scientific literature and correspondingly, how the media and policy communities interpret the issue of climate change. The dominant role of this small community might be challenged in order to legitimize a broader perspective of views, approaches and methods.

It would be handy IMHO if that were to be a role of (at least some of) the new climate $ in the President’s budget proposal. I can imagine a multi-stakeholder group at the regional level asking questions like “what do we want from climate models to help us plan mitigation and adaptation strategies?”. How can we use our local and regional knowledge as input into the process? What have scientists learned that can be helpful to us, and what else do we need to know?

As it turns out there is quite a bit of literature on co-design and co-production of climate science. You can go into Google Scholar and search on “climate science co-production.” That’s how I found the Alison et al. paper that yielded the Table 2 above.

Covid-Enhanced Recreation Overwhelm Search and Rescue Volunteers: NY Times

by

h/t TTSAR – Assisting Fremont County Search and Rescue
Covid seems to have enhanced two existing trends in the Western US, through what we might call “Covid-Enhanced Recreation” and “Covid- Enhanced Migration”. The two trends are certainly related, as in-migrants often move for better access to outdoor recreation opportunities.

This NY Times article focuses on the Search and Rescue folks dealing with CER.

It is exactly the sort of place to which locked-down Americans have flocked during the coronavirus pandemic. In a trend reflective of wilderness areas across the West, out-of-staters have pushed deep into remote areas like Sublette County and the Winds, searching for a chance to get outside their homes while still social distancing. With offices embracing remote work, treks to remote areas seem more viable.

The influx has accelerated a trend that search-and-rescue professionals say was already underway in places like the Winds. Garmin inReach devices — satellite-powered beacons that can ping emergency dispatchers in the event of problems — have grown popular, and have given many aspiring hikers false senses of security. And social media posts and location tags have made remote areas of the backcountry appear easy to reach.

“They think, ‘All I’ve got to do is hit this button and help is going to be there immediately,’” said Milford Lockwood, a Tip Top volunteer who helps lead helicopter rescues. “They see too many television shows that glamorize it, that’s like, ‘Oh yeah, we’ll be there in a minute.’”

If you’d like details of some of the rescues, there’s a local piece here.

The evidence of inexperience is there, in ways big and small: Discarded trash that out-of-town hikers do not pack out; emergency beacons pressed accidentally; piles of human excrement along trails, improperly buried. Kari Hull, a resident of the area and an avid hiker, said she had to constantly watch her young children on the trails to ensure they do not stumble on used toilet paper or other waste.

“It’s a double-edged sword,” she said, acknowledging that the crowds have made it safer to hike alone. But, she added, “I don’t want to feel like I’m in a Target toy aisle in December.”

The 2020 ‘Blowdown’
It was 11:47 p.m. on Labor Day last year when the calls started coming in to Tip Top, first a trickle, then dozens. The holiday weekend had sent throngs of newcomers into the Winds to camp — and around midnight, a spectacular wind storm swept across the range, downing a staggering number of trees and sending temperatures plummeting.

Over the course of the week, Tip Top went on eight separate missions to help 23 people, Ms. Tanner said. The calls came in one after another: lost hikers, injured hikers, hikers unsure how to find the trail, hikers without cold weather gear. It would be the busiest week in the group’s history.

Tip Top volunteers say it is a miracle that no one was killed during the incident that has come to be referred to as “The Blowdown.” Volunteers visited trailhead parking lots every morning to record license plates and find out who had not yet returned from the backcountry; it took nearly a week before every hiker had been accounted for.

The storm is spoken of in Sublette County with a sort of reverence. It underscored just how wild and unpredictable the Winds can be, and how serious inexperience can become.

“If people are going to do this, then they’ve got to prepare themselves and we’ve got to do more public education to try to prepare these people,” Ms. Tanner said.

No one expects the eventual end of the pandemic to stem the flood of newcomers to the Winds, which people grudgingly admit have been discovered. Property values continue to soar in Sublette County, and even this winter, locals say out-of-state plates were more common than Wyoming plates in trailhead parking lots.

“You can’t stop it,” said Chris Hayes, who works at an outdoor retailer in Pinedale and also runs a fishing guide service. “There’s no secret place anymore. They’re all gone.”

E-Bike 101 Including Some Research

by

Battery of e-bike. Photo by Jerilee Bennett, the Gazette.
The Colorado Springs Gazette had an article on E-bikes here. It’s pretty comprehensive. Note that Boulder and Jefferson County (Colorado) both did studies which led to different policies. I bolded the research results. Are you aware of other studies? If so please link in the comments below.

What’s all the fuss?
For every “supporting theme,” there’s an opposing theme. Speed, damage to trails and conflicts on trails were among top concerns drawn from that local survey.

At a meeting about e-bikes in the Springs last fall, one equestrian, Eleanore Blacketer, worried about “the ability for a bike to have higher speeds than what we might normally see.” The horse could perceive a threat, she said, and the consequences could be “catastrophic.”

While the promise of profit is there, Crandall at Old Town Bike Shop said he’s been “cautious” about growing e-bike inventory. The anecdotes he hears about are of “some people riding e-bikes that don’t know the etiquette, don’t have the knowledge of history and don’t have the skills to be going the speed they’re going on trails,” he said.

Crandall added: “There’s going to have to be some creative legislation, and maybe some money for enforcement to keep it from becoming a crazy world.”

He envisioned e-bikers traveling farther afield than they should, “having a lot more power than they do skill,” and requiring search and rescue crews. That was a shared fear in the survey.

Those are exaggerations, proponents say.

Kent Drummond, a longtime hiker in the region who has racked up 3,350 miles on his e-bike, said fellow enthusiasts weren’t as interested in the backcountry as opponents popularly believed. E-bike-riding El Paso County Sheriff Bill Elder agreed: “I think for the most part, people who are avid e-bike riders stay mostly to the urban (commuter) trails.”

But Medicine Wheel Trail Advocates, the local mountain bike advocacy group, has brought attention to the technology still developing, the capabilities still expanding along with the type of people wanting to ride.

In a statement, Medicine Wheel advised e-bikes “be regulated separately from human powered bikes” and warned “they bring the potential to significantly change the trail experience.”

A reality check was needed, Drummond said. “If there’s more traffic on trails, it’s not e-bikes. It’s bicycles in general. … E-bikes aren’t ruining anything.”

He and other e-cyclists report taking harsh, vocal scorn from other riders they pass.

“Some riders feel that riding a bicycle with pedal assist is cheating,” Wiens said. “But not everyone wants their experience to be a feat of endurance and fitness. They may just want to have some fun.”

Are they faster than standard mountain bikes?
The popular answer: Depends on who is riding.

“Typically, eMTBs are slower going downhill than traditional mountain bikes,” said Wiens, whose international organization supports e-bikes as long as access for other bikes is unaffected. “The majority of eMTB riders aren’t riding any faster than traditional mountain bikers, but of course there are always exceptions.”

Granting caveats, analyses by Jefferson and Boulder counties determined traditional mountain bikers traveled slightly faster on average.

But research is still early, and the answer to the question might vary across locales. A Portland State University study, combining data from Boulder, Tennessee and Sweden, determined “e-bikes are indeed faster on average than conventional bicycles.”

Chinese researchers published a study last year that showed human correlations with the machine. One conclusion: “As e-bike riding skill increases, the riding speed continuously increases and is constantly expanding.”
\

Are they damaging to trails?

Concluded a 2015 study in Oregon: “soil displacement and tread disturbance from Class 1 eMTBs and traditional mountain bikes were not significantly different.”

Again, Jefferson and Boulder counties found no increased harm in their assessments.

And again, because of the lack of it, research cannot be called conclusive. Some contend the weight of e-bikes, commonly 20 pounds more than traditional mountain bikes, pose greater risks to erosion, along with the motorized churning of a wheel.