Climate Change, Water, and Population Growth in Colorado: Homestake Creek Geotechnical Proposal

by
Field scientist Delia Malone stands by a beaver pond near Homestake Creek, at the edge of Colorado’s Holy Cross Wilderness, on Friday, Aug. 21, 2020. (Daniel Brenner, Special to The Denver Post)

Here’s an interesting article from the Denver Post with the Forest Service in the middle of a larger issue. There is a tension between climate change adaptation (may need more water due to drought) and not building (and removing current) dams. There is a bit of a mantra that “leaving things alone is necessary to stave off the worst impacts of climate change” but examples such as this tell us it may not be that simple (and fuel treatments and prescribed burns, and probably a host of others).

A few things that might be misleading in the article.. thanks to the FS folks for helping me find more accurate information.

(1) Delia Malone is not working with or on behalf of the Forest Service as stated in the article. She’s a member of a local Sierra Club chapter.

(2) There is a categorical exclusion on the geotechnical proposal, which is available here Note: there aren’t “categorical exemptions.”

(3) There is currently no proposal for a dam or a reservoir, just the current proposal to investigate whether the site would be suitable geologically. The White River would, of course do an extensive NEPA analysis with multiple opportunities for public review if they were to receive a proposal for a reservoir.

Excerpts from the story..

Three decades after the federal government killed the proposed $1 billion Two Forks Dam project along the South Platte River southwest of Denver, Front Range cities again are taking first steps toward moving more water across mountains. Their reservoir partially inside the Holy Cross Wilderness, between Leadville and Minturn, would sacrifice natural processes for the purpose of sustaining population growth and a development boom — harnessing nature to slake human thirsts.

……

Over the past decade, the economy has shifted away from resources extraction toward high-tech innovation and a booming recreation and tourism industry — built by touting pristine unaltered nature.

Does this remind anyone of Governor Tom McCall’s comment about Oregon in 1971 (50 years ago now) “come to visit, but for heaven’s sakes don’t stay?”

Tapping wilderness water

When Congress in 1980 established the Holy Cross Wilderness, lawmakers included provisions allowing Colorado Springs, Aurora, the Climax Mine, Vail Resorts, Eagle Valley authorities and others in western Colorado to tap a total of 30,000 acre-feet of water a year. A first dam on Homestake Creek, built in 1968, already had reduced flows and natural fluctuations.

Now U.S. Forest Service officials must decide whether to grant a special-use permit allowing Aurora and Colorado Springs to conduct geologic testing along Homestake Creek — a first step, without the participation of Vail and Eagle Valley water suppliers. Forest managers decided against a full environmental review for this proposed testing, saying bore holes drilled in forests qualify for a “categorical exemption” of the sort frequently granted for fossil fuel drilling and road work in forests.

American Rivers and Trout Unlimited raised concerns about the lack of scrutiny.

“The Front Range municipalities need to realize that there’s no more reliable water supply available from the West Slope and Colorado River Basin. And that was true before the impacts on water from climate change were really incorporated in our thinking,” American Rivers’ Colorado projects director Ken Neubecker said. “A large new reservoir would be pretty devastating.”

Anyway, I’m agnostic on this particular dam (which may not be geologically feasible anyway) but it’s reflective of a water/climate/population conundrum.

North Versus Hanson

by

Experts Frustrated by Stalled Efforts to Counter Megafires

“Use every damn tool you’ve got,” he said. “If we could have beavers on crack out there I’d be donating to that process — anything that will speed up the pace and scale of this thing.”

Dr. Malcolm North

A Bite of Western Wolfy Science Controversies

by
from video of wolf pack observed in Colorado https://youtu.be/4xUVIs0ENXI

Appeals to “we need to follow the science” abound pretty much everywhere. But whose science exactly? Well, there’s nothing more contentious than wolves and wolf reintroduction, as we have seen on TSW previously. And so, as we’d expect there are different layers of science, approaches, modelling versus observation and so on. The fact that Colorado had a wolf reintroduction initiative on the 2020 ballot (that succeeded) caused much discussion within the state. Mostly I heard a simple claim that wolves will “restore balance.” But that’s more of a mystical idea than a scientific idea.

I ran across this op-ed from Mark Holyoak of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation in the Steamboat Pilot. It’s reply to another op-ed by Erik Molvar of Western Watersheds. It could present us with an opportunity to examine some of the research, which scientists/approaches count most, and where values and science intersect.

“He claims the initiative is science-based yet it circumvents the world’s foremost scientists on Colorado wildlife management at Colorado Parks and Wildlife and puts the decision into the hands of citizens unfamiliar with the issue’s intricacies. This “ballot box biology” flies in the face of nationwide professional scientific wildlife management practices.”

This is a very “whose science” and “who counts as a scientist” question.

Molvar claims wolves “provide a measure of defense against chronic wasting disease.” Absolutely untrue. Renowned wolf researcher David Mech warned against sanctifying the wolf and stated any claims wolves stop or slow the spread of CWD are merely speculation.

There are also approximately 30 wolf packs within 50 miles of the northwest Montana town of Libby where CWD was first detected in early 2019. By July, there were five confirmed samples. By January 2020, there were 64 CWD-positive samples, so despite the concentrated presence of wolves, CWD is spreading.

This is one of those things that has been stated in many news articles as if it were a proven fact, when many of claims were “thinking out loud by scientists”, with the criterion “it sounds plausible.”  CWD make ungulates sick. Wolves can more readily attack sick (or injured or pregnant or ??) ungulates, therefore they will keep CWD down.  It does sound plausible.  But what about Holyoak’s observation IRL?

Molvar claims wolves changed Yellowstone’s ecological landscape. Mech said, “…any such cascading effects of wolves found in National Parks would have little relevance to most of the wolf range.” 2010 research 
conducted at the same location as original trophic cascade studies refutes the theory. Arthur Middleton, UC Berkeley assistant professor of wildlife management and policy, said, “It’s
not true.” In addition, 2019 research  questions whether introducing predators has any effect whatsoever on ecosystems.

I guess we can imagine that introducing predators has some effects on some components of an ecosystem, and those effects interact with other effects, like human presence, livestock, roads and trails, size of herds and migration paths and so on. It doesn’t seem particularly predictable nor transferrable, and that’s what the Alston et al. 2019 paper says..
“Outcomes of apex predator reintroduction and removal are variable across systems, regardless of system complexity.”

Mexican wolf recovery scientists in Arizona/New Mexico fear a Colorado gray wolf introduction will lead to the genetic extinction of that species.

Here’s something from the abstract of Odell et al.

If Northwestern wolves come to occupy Mexican wolf recovery areas, these physically larger wolves are likely to dominate smaller Mexican wolves and quickly occupy breeding positions, as will their hybrid offspring. Hybrid population(s) thus derived will not contribute towards recovery because they will significantly threaten integrity of the listed entity.
Directing Mexican wolf recovery northward outside historical range threatens the genetic integrity and recovery of the subspecies, is inconsistent with the current 10(j) regulations under the ESA, is unnecessary because large tracts of suitable habitat exist within historical range, is inconsistent with the concepts of restoration ecology, and disregards unique characteristics for which the Mexican wolf remains listed.

Is there one scientific answer to the question of wolf reintroduction in Colorado? I don’t think so.

And we have come full cycle, as Odell works for Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

Fall forest planning news

by
Source: Glacier-Two Medicine Alliance

Not even a pandemic can stop forest planning.

Forest plan revisions for the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon and Washington stalled again in March, 2019, when the Forest Service Washington Office responded to objections on the Umatilla, Malheur and Wallowa-Whitman revised forest plans by instructing the regional forester to withdraw the draft record of decision for “additional information.”  One of the reason given was, “The Revised Plans also did not fully account for the unique social and economic needs of local communities in the area.”  While not specifically citing these instructions, the Forest Service and the Eastern Oregon Counties Association have funded a research project that will help understand the impacts of forest management across the Blue Mountain region, including the potential impacts of new forest plans.  The Forest Service has always done social and economic analysis as part of forest planning, but according to Nils Christoffersen, director of Wallowa Resources …

“The desire was to create a system to get more localized analysis of what would be the impact of increasing or decreasing timber harvest on national forest land, (or) increasing or decreasing the grazing activities,” he said. “(It’s) trying to understand the relative economic importance of the national forest system land and their management to the economics of the Eastern Oregon counties.”

Blue Mountains revision page

 

The Manti-La Sal National Forest released a “draft forest plan” in October as part of its plan revision process.  The Forest cautions that they are not even to formal the scoping stage, which would initiate the EIS process, but they are looking for public comments on what I would characterize as a detailed proposed action.  They have scheduled several “virtual workshops” that address different plan revision topics.  (After today, one remains on “Watershed,” December 3.)  A coalition of conservation groups has already submitted a “conservation alternative” that, “emphasizes scientific data and recommends adapting forest use to climate change and population growth as well as prioritizing conservation of water, native species and ecosystems over commercial use, and pushing for greater inclusion of Indigenous groups in policy-making.”

Manti-La Sal revision page

 

In fiscal year 2020, the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest sold 84.5 million board feet of timber, the most since 1991.  An annual volume of 125-150 million board feet is included in the current draft of the revised forest plan.

Environmental groups are split over the uptick. Some, like Gary Macfarlane of the Moscow-based Friends of the Clearwater, say it is damaging water quality and habitat for salmon and steelhead. While others, like Brad Smith of the Idaho Conservation League, say current logging levels appear sustainable as long as the work is done with proper environmental review and robust public participation. The latter has participated in the Clearwater Collaborative, while the former hasn’t.

“If they maintain the current riparian buffers, if they don’t harvest old growth and they provide adequate wildlife habitat security, I think 125 million board feet (per year) is sustainable,” Smith said.

The Forest Service proudly proclaims,

“The more volume we produce, the more miles of roads we maintain, the more sediment we reduce and the more fish passage culverts we install — and the more wildlife habitat gets improved.”

A county commissioner has reservations about this, since the programs allowing the agency to reinvest proceeds of timber harvest into restoration cut the county out of its share.  (I have my own reservations about logging to raise money, especially if it is independent of ecological needs established in the forest plan, and how that is used in the NEPA process as discussed here.)

McFarlane doesn’t buy the agency’s contention that logging leads to improved environmental conditions.

“To conflate logging with restoration is one of the biggest hoaxes perpetrated on the American public,” he said. “There is no science that supports that — none.”

“They are always predicting an upward trend (in water quality) for all of the road decommissioning they are doing, but when they go back into the watershed (to monitor water quality) they are still not meeting forest plan objectives. That is why they want a new plan that removes those objectives.”

Nez Perce-Clearwater revision page

 

The Custer-Gallatin National Forest held its meeting with those who have objected to its final revised forest plan.  The issues revolve mostly around wilderness designations.  According to this article, most objectors argued the land designations proposed for these areas don’t sufficiently safeguard wildlife habitat from recreation-related fragmentation.  The objectors include the Gallatin Forest Partnership, which submitted its own set of recommendations for the plan to the Forest Service.  One of those recommendations for wilderness is supported by the Southwest Montana Mountain Bike Association.

Custer-Gallatin revision page

 

WaPo: Wildfires Had Big Greenhouse Gas Impact

by

The Post article says “the United States has been inadvertently pushed back on track to meet the commitments the Obama administration made at the Paris climate agreement…” But the US has been on track since 2005 to meet or beat those commitments, regardless of the pandemic.

 

US greenhouse gas emissions set to drop to lowest level in three decades

The 9 percent fall has been partially offset by extreme forest fires

The Washington Post

November 19, 2020

Greenhouse gases generated by the U.S. economy will slide 9.2 percent this year, tumbling to the lowest level in at least three decades, a new BloombergNEF study says.

Battered by the coronavirus pandemic, the stalled economy is projected to have generated 5.9 billion metric tons of emissions, about the same level as 1983, according to the private research organization.

As a result, the United States has been inadvertently pushed back on track to meet the commitments the Obama administration made at the Paris climate agreement in December 2015, despite the fact the Trump administration pulled the country out of the pact. Before 2020, the United States had fallen badly behind its targets under the accord.

How Joe Biden aims to embed climate action across the government

Still, net emissions are expected to be 6.4 percent lower after taking into account the unusually extreme forest fires that swept the West Coast and Rocky Mountains earlier this year, pumping carbon dioxide and other pollution into the air and offsetting much of the drop in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. [emphasis added]

Linn County Files Lawsuit To Obtain Documents on Beachie Creek Fire

by

Beachie Creek Fire progression map

In one of my jobs with the Forest Service, I had the FOIA people working on my staff.  Through these folks, I gained some understanding, and experienced a some small amount of what it is to work in FOIA.  It’s a strange job in that you have a widely varying workload (with no upper bound) and required deadlines, but only so many knowledgeable people available to work. And it tends not to be glamorous or highly valued, with sometimes disrespectful folks in the public to work with. So here’s a shout out to them!

This story from Wildfire Today also reminded me of the gap between “doing” jobs (in this case, time was a factor) and “critiquing” jobs (at anyone’s leisure).  We need to introduce more fire into the landscape; but if people in hindsight are seen (in a courtroom) to have made “mistakes” in doing it.. well then. People are less willing to take chances, and so the idea of restoring fire to the landscape possibly becomes impossible.

A county in Oregon has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Forest Service that is related to the Beachie Creek Fire that burned over 193,000 acres east of Salem, Oregon in September.

The Davis Wright Tremain law firm in Portland submitted a request September 28 on behalf of Linn county, requesting records related to the fire. The request cited the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) which requires a federal agency to respond within 20 business days, unless there are “unusual circumstances,” or notify the party of at least the agency’s determination of which of the requested records it will release, which it will withhold.

About 12 percent of the Fire was in Linn County, with the rest in Marion and Clackamas Counties. The Linn-Marion county line is near Highway 22 close to the communities of Lyons, Mill City, Gates, Detroit, and Idanha where many structures were destroyed.

The Forest Service replied to the FOIA in a letter dated the next day, saying (and this is an exact quote):
“Please be advised your request is not perfected at this time and we will be reaching out to you to discuss clarification once it has been to thoroughly review.”
After not receiving the documents or apparently hearing nothing further from the Forest Service, the attorneys for Linn County filed a lawsuit November 2, 2020 in the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon.

Here’s (some of) what the FOIA asked for:

The information Linn County requested from the Forest Service was about the agency’s policy for managing fires, and the Beachie Creek Fire in particular. Some examples:

Contracts and documents relating to arrangements made with outside contractors for firefighting equipment and training in the Pacific Northwest;
Maps and records depicting all former “owl circles” and all locations of other endangered species habitat in the 2 years immediately preceding the Beachie Creek Fire;
Records declaring the Beachie Creek Fire a Prescribed natural Fire, a Management Ignited Fire or a Wildfire, and all records discussing or relating to that declaration;
Records illustrating the Suppression Response for the Beachie Creek Fire;
Records illustrating the Control Strategy for the Beachie Creek Fire;
Records relating to inputs to and outputs derived from the FLAME computer program or any other predictive computer analysis for the Beachie Creek fire for the period commencing on August 1, 2020, through the date records responsive to this request are provided;
All Social media posts discussing or describing the Beachie Creek Fire;
All current Forest Service Manuals in effect immediately preceding the Beachie Creek Fire and effective throughout the Fire Event.

Here’s Bill Gabbert’s take:

The Forest Service is notorious for flagrantly violating the law in regards to the mandatory standards for providing information requested with a FOIA. They have been known to stall for years, or have simply refused to comply. Not every citizen seeking information from their government has a petty cash account with $400 for the filing fee, or the tens of thousands of dollars it could take to pay attorneys for a FOIA lawsuit. Our citizens deserve transparency. However, it also seems unusual to file a lawsuit approximately 26 business days, as Linn County did, after initially submitting the FOIA — just 6 days over the 20-day requirement.

(I’m not sure what the $400 would be for.)

The comments and references to other fires are also interesting. Especially related to size of fires, and changes in suppression strategies over time.

PERC Policy Series, “How to Care For Our Public Lands”

by

The Property and Environment Research Center, “The home of free market environmentalism,” has three new policy briefs, according to an email from them today:

How to Care For Our Public Lands: New PERC Policy Briefs
Our public lands need our help, and now is the time to make a difference. Between maintenance needs, local management challenges, and funding insecurities, getting the incentives right for public lands conservation is crucial. Recent efforts, such as the Great American Outdoors Act, have been a start, but there’s much more to do. The good news is we now have the opportunity to make changes that will help solve these problems.

In our new series of policy briefs authored by PERC research fellow Tate Watkins, we look ahead to the future of our public lands. The series explores the challenges that remain and offers creative solutions to ensure sustainable, secure funding so that our public lands will be taken care of for generations to come.

A Better Way to Fund Conservation and Recreation
Federal oil and gas revenues have generated funding for the great outdoors for decades, but the model warrants reconsideration.

Enhancing the Public Lands Recreation Fee System
Visitors are already helping public lands flourish by contributing revenues that support recreation. Reforms could improve management and benefit visitors even more.

Fixing National Park Maintenance for the Long Haul
Addressing overdue maintenance is vital, but the root of the problem is a lack of attention to routine maintenance.

 

The Great American Outdoors Act Selection Process for the Forest Service (and Why They Were Late).

by

 

This is related from a conversation with an individual who was involved.   Any inaccuracies are due to my not taking good enough notes, and/ or my own lack of understanding of the complexities. Anyone knowledgeable is invited to correct this post.

The Story

A month before the GAOA was passed the Forest Service started pulling together a team and went through a regional/national selection process, with public input, to arrive at a finalized lists. TThe FS was finished in time to report to Congress.

OMB held them up during clearance, apparently because Interior wasn’t ready. Why was that? Possible causes 1) Interior was slow for whatever reason and USDA had to wait for the slower department for Interior not to look bad, 2) political people decided to mess with (or check on?) Interior’s choices, 3) wanted to check for coordination between Interior and USDA (is there already a process for this for LWCF?) or ????

Anyway, there are two pieces of GAOA funding: LWCF (land conservation) and DM (deferred maintenance).

OMB gave the FS a smaller share of LWCF than originally planned, so more could go to Interior. The Forest Service gets 15% of infrastructure $, so it appears that can’t be changed due to Administration preferences.

Here’s a list from the FS website of the 2021 infrastructure projects.

Here’s the list of 2021 LWC Projects

Note that there are no $ attached, that’s what’s being held up at OMB, but USDA is apparently putting pressure on them to get the figures out. These could be released at any time.

Here are the processes for LWC projects:

For the SPF Forest Legacy program, the agency selected projects through the following process and criteria:

  • The Forest Legacy Program works in partnership with State lead agencies.
  • Projects are selected through a two-part competitive process – state-level and then national.
  • The state level process ensures each project has local support and aligns with state priorities as identified in the State Forest Action Plans and Shared Stewardship agreements.
  • The national level process considers defined environmental and economic benefits, strategic contribution to other conservation initiatives on the landscape, and likelihood of conversion to non-forest uses.
  • Program funding is provided to states through grants to support program administration and project implementation.
  • All lands protected through this program are held and managed by the state through conservation easements or land purchases.

For the NFS Lands Acquisition program, the agency selected projects through the following process and criteria:

  • The National Forest System Lands Program works with our regional offices and partners to develop projects supporting the needs of local communities.

  • Projects are selected through a two-part competitive process – regional-level and then national.

  • The regional level process ensures each project has local support and aligns with National Forest System and partner priorities.

  • The national level process considers local needs for recreation access, urgency of the acquisition, the level of local support for the acquisition, and other criteria.

It’s interesting that there has been a kerfuffle in the usual places about a soon-to-be-short-lived Secretarial Order by Bernhardt for a required buy-off by counties and states, meanwhile as we see above determining local and state support is just a standard part of the FS process.  

  • Philosophical question: is there always more drama in Interior due to a) a higher proportion of political appointees, b) force of habit by outsiders (not career employees), c) more scrutiny by environmental journalists d) more interest by environmental organizations  or ?  Seemingly if something is needlessly partisanized, it could also be unpartisanized.

If I were on the Interior transition team (unlikely, as I’m not a lawyer) I’d start a public comment process, and meet with the Western Govs, on suggestion for how best to dial back the drama.

Does It Even Matter If Agencies Are Late?

This money should go out as part of an Appropriations bill says Congress, OMB says (hopes) that it can go out any old time (like before a change in Administrations, I expect).  Experts on the topic might  know whether a Continuing Resolution for less than a year would be “good enough” to let the $ out, or whether it needs to be an actual Appropriations bill.

The new Administration may generate a new list. Would such a list be more or less “political” for DOI and not for the FS? Will the new Administration give the FS its original share of the LWCF? Time will tell.

Regardless of the details, looking at the lists and the dollars, GAOA is IMHO a Very Good Thing.

 

Hundreds of Giant Sequoias Considered Dead From Wildfires

by

It appears that rumors of ‘natural and beneficial’ wildfires in the southern Sierra Nevada have been ‘greatly exaggerated’. Even the Alder Creek grove, which was recently bought by Save the Redwoods, was decimated. Of course, this eventuality has been long-predicted.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2020-11-16/sierra-nevada-giant-sequoias-killed-castle-fire

Does Anyone Know?: Is the Forest Service Late with List of GAOA Projects and Why?

by

The Center for Western Priorities  had this in its news this morning…

“Under Interior Secretary Bernhardt, the department has attempted to reject the Land and Water Conservation Fund whenever possible. Before receiving permanent funding through the Great American Outdoors Act, the Trump administration attempted to effectively zero out the program in its yearly budget. After using the bill to greenwash the administration’s environmental record, the Interior Department and the Forest Service missed a key deadline earlier this month to nominate projects for funding through the program. “

I think it’s hard to argue that GAOA is a bad thing (but possible, because the wrong kind of people worked to get it through Congress (Rs), and it relies on money from the wrong kind of activities (fossil fuels)). Still it’s hard for me to imagine, after asking the Regions where they want to spend the bucks, that missing a deadline had anything to do with … not wanting the money?  for partisan reasons?

And groups like the Center  seem mostly focused on “bad things Interior does when R’s are in charge,” and the FS tends not to be as prominent.  Certainly Jim Hubbard is not David Bernhardt in terms of vitriol attraction possibilities.

Still, does anyone know…was the Forest Service also late? And if so, why?

This is the CWP…

Quote of the day
This administration can’t resist the urge to break the law, and this order is a perfect example of why they can’t be trusted to protect our environment. They have no interest in conservation; even with clear direction and guidance from Congress they are doing their best to sabotage the Land and Water Conservation Fund. They’re just trying to smash and grab whatever they can on their way out the door when they should focus on working with the Biden transition team.”
—Chairman Raúl Grijalva, The Hill

If the FS is late, I would not tend to assume, with Mr. Grijalva, that the reason would be “sabotage of the LWCF.”  But I could be wrong…