The Daniel Boone National Forest Response on Greenwood Vegetation Project

by
From the Daniel Boone stream buffer report.

 

I really appreciate the Daniel Boone National Forest for presenting “their side of the story” on the project discussed previously here.

 

The Daniel Boone National Forest wanted to follow up to your story on the Greenwood project published May 18, 2020.

We appreciate Kentucky Heartwood for their interest in forest management on the Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF) and welcomed the opportunity to review their April 27, 2020 report outlining logging concerns within the Greenwood Vegetation Management Project. After reviewing their report, the DBNF resurveyed areas and created two reports on their findings. The reports can be found on the Greenwood Project webpage under the “Post-Decision” tab: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44085

Kentucky Heartwood’s report highlighted two main concerns: 1. Streams were classified as ephemeral, but should be classified as intermittent, changing timber harvest areas; and 2. Too many trees per acre have been, or will be, harvested.

In response to item one, the DBNF forest hydrologist and district biologist reviewed the stands in question. Stream segment in stand 5062-40 appears to have some intermittent channel characteristics for about 250’ and would be better classified as intermittent rather than ephemeral for that section. Because of this change, the DBNF will remark the area so no trees within 50 feet on either side of this additional intermittent section will be harvested. Stream segments questioned in stand 5072-09 were accurately identified and properly marked. No change to the current prescribed treatment is necessary for this stand.

In response to item two, DBNF certified silviculturists and timber cruisers conducted a statistically valid random plot survey of the after-harvest basal area (BA) and found the surveyed units are within the parameters prescribed by the Greenwood project decision for retention of residual trees.  We have determined the timber identified for removal is consistent with the analysis conducted and the decision issued for this project.

Sharon’s note: on the project webpage you can also find the entire history, including details of the one objection by Heartwood and the response.

Study of “disturbance refugia”

by

This is a press release from Oregon State U. The referenced study is open access.

Areas of mature forest that serve as refugia for the northern spotted owl are “slowly being nibbled away by recent high-severity fires.” Do we increase and improve the management of these refugia to help them, and the species that depend on them, be resilient to the “increased frequency, severity and/or types of forest disturbances”? Or do we leave them largely alone? We’ve discussed this here numerous times over the years.

Refugia may be younger forest stands, too — even plantations.

“Developing a disturbance refugia framework that recognizes multiple types of forest disturbance under one banner is an important step for research and management of forest ecosystems that are changing as the planet warms.”

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

June 9, 2020

Nature’s ‘slow lanes’ offer hope for species feeling heat of climate change, other pressures

By Steve Lundeberg, 541-737-4039, [email protected]
Source: Meg Krawchuk, 541-737-1483, [email protected]

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Pockets of landscape less prone than adjacent areas to disturbances like fire and drought may hold the key for scientists, conservationists and land managers seeking to preserve vulnerable species in a changing climate.

These areas, categorized as “disturbance refugia,” are becoming a focal point for ecologists trying to learn why change doesn’t occur as quickly in some landscapes as it does in others nearby.

“In the Pacific Northwest, the iconic northern spotted owl relies on refugia in the form of old-growth forests,” said Oregon State University forest ecologist Meg Krawchuk. “These forests are refugia from previous stand-replacing disturbances – that’s how they got to be old – but they’re slowly being nibbled away by recent high-severity fires.”

Known informally as the “lifeboats” or “slow lanes” of biodiversity, refugia have spawned the new field of refugia science, which is the theme of the June issue of Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

Krawchuk, who contributed to the issue with a study of forest refugia in the combined context of fire, drought and insect outbreaks, says research shows that some locations have inherent characteristics – such as terrain, vegetation, proximity to bodies of water, and slope-face direction – that buffer them from disturbances in a predictable manner.

“Scientists and land managers working together on refugia science and implementation will help to conserve forest landscapes, and biodiversity, here in the Pacific Northwest and around the globe that are dear to our hearts,” Krawchuk said. “Some disturbances are important ecosystem processes that support biodiversity; however, there is increasing worry about the erosion of biodiversity due to the increased frequency, severity and/or types of forest disturbances, and how they overlap.”

Natural disturbances can create mosaics across a landscape that support biodiversity, but disturbances outside the historical range of frequency and severity can do short- and long-term ecosystem damage.

Recent studies of disturbance refugia in forest ecosystems have focused mainly on fire, Krawchuk said, but the wide range of disturbances in forests necessitates developing a broader understanding of refugia, particularly against the backdrop of climate change.

“With climate change, forest disturbances like wildfire, drought and insect outbreaks are expected to become more frequent or severe, changing the recipe of these natural disturbances that historically contributed important variety and flavor to ecosystems,” she said.

The study jointly led by Krawchuk and College of Forestry colleague Garrett Meigs shows how the overlap of disturbances generates a multitude of complex feedbacks, both positive and negative, that affect the structure of refugia and how they work.

“Detecting refugia in multiple places and at different times and understanding what’s behind their occurrence, persistence and value in sustaining biodiversity are important frontiers in science and land management,” Krawchuk said. “Developing a disturbance refugia framework that recognizes multiple types of forest disturbance under one banner is an important step for research and management of forest ecosystems that are changing as the planet warms.”

Thinking in terms of only two types of land categories – refugia and non-refugia – is tempting but an oversimplification that scientists and land managers should avoid, she said.

“The people who study forests and manage them need to recognize there are varying types and qualities of refugia, and the variance will only grow as climate and disturbance regimes continue to change,” Krawchuk said. “Considering a broad palette of disturbance refugia together will be critical to management strategies that create and protect refugia. And continued research is necessary to fill out the framework.”

Disturbance refugia figure to play an increasingly important role in the ability of climate change refugia to help save species from extinction, she said.

“Identifying disturbance refugia locations within climate change refugia spots would lead to a deeper understanding of refugia,” Krawchuk said. “In this era of rapid environmental change, disturbance refugia within mosaics of fire, drought and insect outbreaks will shape the patterns of persistence of forest biodiversity and ecosystem function around the world. There are many iconic and special forest landscapes being confronted with increasing disturbance pressures, including harvest and conversion to agriculture or other uses.”

Disturbance refugia science is broadly applicable, she added, because many disturbance processes are global – including pressure from climate change. And the ideas underpinning refugia science go beyond forests and disturbance refugia.

“We’re increasingly realizing that refugia science might provide theory and analysis of the critical role of refugia in social and ecological resilience,” Krawchuk said. “For example, as resistance to diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans, pandemics like COVID-19, political turmoil, violence and land use issues, particularly in the context of extreme events. Refugia are areas of resistance that contribute to system-level resilience.”

Collaborating with Krawchuk and Meigs were researchers from the University of Idaho, Portland State University, Western Colorado University, the United States Forest Service and the U.S. Geological Survey.

Supporting this research were the Forest Service, the USGS and the National Science Foundation.

-30-

NFS Litigation Weekly June 5, 2020

by

The “real thing” is back (with a vengeance).  This is why I try to not get too far ahead of the Forest Service.  This FS litigation “weekly” covers six of them, some of which I’ve already addressed, so I guess you’ll get them twice.  The full Forest Service summaries for all may be found here:

Litigation Weekly June 5_2020_EMAIL

I’m also just copying their shorter email summary here and providing links to the related documents provided by the Forest Service, as well as to any previous summaries and a few related articles.

COURT DECISIONS

On April 20, 2020, the District Court of Montana issued an order lifting the injunction on the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Fuels Reduction Project and the East Boulder Fuel Reduction Project on the Gallatin National Forest after the Forest Service adequately assessed the impacts of the Northern Rockies Lynx Amendment (Lynx Amendment) and the projects on the Canada Lynx and its critical habitat. The projects aimed to reduce the severity and collateral effects of wildfire by way of logging, thinning, and prescribed burns. Both projects were to take place in areas designated as critical habitat lynx.  (Previously summarized here.)

On April 21, 2020, the Eastern District Court of California issued an order dismissing the plaintiffs motions for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction concerning the use of disaster relief funds for clearcutting timber, and construction of new biomass power plant utilizing the timber as feedstock following the 2013 Rim Fire on the Stanislaus National Forest.  (Previously summarized here.)

On April 29, 2020, the District Court of Montana issued an order favorable to the Forest Service dismissing the plaintiff’s motion for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and Preliminary Injunction regarding the Darby Lumber Lands Project on the Bitterroot National Forest.  (Previously summarized here.)

On May 7, 2020, the District Court of Idaho issued an order that granted the Forest Service’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim that the Agency supplement the 1995 Environmental Assessment (EA) based on new information. However, the district denied the Forest Service’s and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim for reinitiating consultation based on taking of grizzly bear resulting from black-bear baiting for hunting in the Idaho Panhandle National Forest, Caribou-Targhee, Bridger-Teton, and Shoshone National Forests.  (Previously summarized here.)

On May 4, 2020, the District Court of Idaho issued a decision concerning the Kilgore Exploration Project on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest (a 5-year mining exploration project). The court vacated the August 20, 2018, decision notice (DN) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) and the environmental assessment (EA). The district court’s December 18, 2019 decision had permitted the project to proceed, minus the Dog Bone Ridge portion of the project.  (Previously summarized here.)

May 1, 2020, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Forest Service upholding the District Court of Oregon’s decision granting summary judgment for the Forest Service, concerning the plaintiffs’ challenge to the issuance of grazing authorizations between 2006 and 2015 on seven grazing allotments on the Malheur National Forest. The plaintiffs allege non-compliance with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), Administrative Procedures Act (APA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH).  (Previously summarized here.)

On May 8, 2020, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court for Eastern California’s favorable decision to the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concerning the Bagley Hazard Tree Abatement Project on the Trinity National Forest.  (Previously summarized here.)

On May 20, 2020, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court of Idaho’s favorable decision to the Forest Service, concerning the Windy Shingle Project on the Perce Clearwater National Forest. The project was approved with an insect and disease categorical exclusion (CE), under the 2014 amended Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA), sections 602 and 603. The Forest completed an extraordinary circumstances analysis and evaluated the cumulative impacts. The 9th Circuit found that the methods applied for determining old growth status were legitimate, and that adjusting the management areas was permitted by the Nez Perce Forest Plan.

On May 26, 2020, the District Court of Central California issued a decision favorable to the Forest Service concerning the Cuddy Valley Project on the Los Padres National Forest involving the use of a 36 C.F.R. § 220.6(e)(6) categorical exclusion (CE), for timber stand and wildlife habitat improvement. The plaintiffs asserted that approval of the project violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

On May 28, 2020, the Court of Federal Claims issued an order dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction in favor of the National Park Service and the Forest Service concerning continued allowance of the hunting of bison that have migrated out of the Yellowstone National Park and through Beattie Gulch on the Custer-Gallatin National Forest. Plaintiffs allege the hunting program has affected a temporary regulatory taking of plaintiffs’ property by creating an atmosphere of danger and decreasing the rental value of their property.

On May 28, 2020, the District Court of Eastern California issued a decision against the Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concerning the Pettijon Project (a fuel-reduction project) on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest regarding the Plaintiffs motion to supplement the administrative record.

On May 22, 2020, the District Court of Arizona issued an order in favor of the Forest Service concerning the remaining claim which challenged the Agency’s determination that Energy Fuels has “valid existing rights” (VER) at the Canyon Mine on the Kaibab National Forest. The Decision concerns the district court evaluation of Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) in determining prior existing rights based on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals order (December 19, 2019) vacating back to the lower court for review.  (More in this article.)

On May 26, 2020, the District Court of Montana issued a decision favorable to the Forest Service, concerning Robbins Gulch Road easement on the Bitterroot National Forest. The court granted the Agency’s motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The plaintiffs alleged that by allowing public access on Robbins Gulch Road, the Forest Service was exceeding the scope of its 1962 road easement, which plaintiffs argued was limited to Forest Service use only, such as for timber or grazing purposes, and was not intended to provide public access to National Forest System lands.  (More in this article.)

COURT UPDATE

On April 24, 2020, the District Court of Montana issued an order regarding a factual dispute between the Forest Service and the plaintiff, which must be addressed prior to summary judgement. The case concerns the Forest Service’s approval of Tenmile South-Helena Vegetation Project on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest. A factual dispute arose after the plaintiffs took photos and collected GPS information in the project area, which they believe strengthens their case.

NEW CASES

On April 20, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court of Oregon against the Forest Service concerning the Black Mountain Vegetation Management Project on the Ochoco National Forest. Plaintiffs claim the project is inconsistent with the Ochoco NF Forest Plan as amended by Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH). The plaintiffs claim the Forest Service failed to take a hard look at direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the project.  (Introduced here.)

On April 20, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Forest Service concerning the Crow Creek Pipeline on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest and the Agency’s final decision and amendments to the 2003 Caribou-Targhee National Forest (CTNF) Forest Plan. The plaintiffs allege violations of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), Mineral Leasing (MLA), and National Trails System Act (NTSA).  (Introduced here.)

On April 20, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court of Wyoming against the Forest Service approval of the Alkali Creek, Forest Park, and Dell Creek feedgrounds on the Bridger-Teton National Forest. The plaintiffs challenge two feedground decisions by the Forest Service’s (1) five year approval of the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission request to resume feeding operations on the Alkali Creek Feedground without conducting the environmental analysis previously ordered by the district court (September 14, 2019 order; 17-0202, D. Wyo.); and (2) indefinite authorization of artificial feeding at Dell Creek and Forest Park feedgrounds without issuing the special uses permit under the Forest Service’s own regulations (36 CFR section 251.54(e)(1), or conducting environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  (Introduced here.)

April 27, 2020, the petitioner (YJ Guide Service, LLC dba Bungalow Outfitters) a hunting outfitter and guide, filed an application for Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) in the District Court of Idaho against the Forest Service regarding suspension of a special use permit for Outfitting and Guiding on the North Fork Ranger District of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest. No complaint has yet been filed. The petitioner’s application for the TRO is based on upon grounds that it believes it will suffer irreparable harm and injury if the TRO is not issued.

On April 24, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Eastern District of California against the Forest Service concerning the Crawford Vegetation Project on the Klamath National Forest. The plaintiffs claim the Forest Service failed to supplement their environmental analysis for the project in light of significant new information and changed circumstances regarding the impacts of the project on the northern spotted owl and Pacific fisher which have been found in the project area.

On May 6, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Forest Service concerning compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) when the BLM issued two hard-rock mining lease renewals to Twin Metals Minnesota in an area adjacent to the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (Boundary Waters) on the Superior National Forest.  (This latest lawsuit was introduced here.)

On May 7, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court of Idaho against the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) concerning their predator damage management actions in the State of Idaho, relying on inadequate and outdated environmental analysis in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The plaintiffs bring related claims against the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service, which authorized APHIS’s aerial gunning of coyotes and other wildlife on federal lands [through Annual Work Plans (AWPs)], without adequate environmental analysis in violation of NEPA.

On May 8, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a request for a preliminary injunction (PI) in the District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Forest Service concerning the Upper Green River Area Rangeland Project on the Bridger Teton National Forest, which plaintiffs allege unlawfully impacts the grizzly bear, and the Kendall Warm Springs dace. Plaintiffs challenge the FWS issuance of, and the Forest Service reliance on, a flawed Biological Opinion (BO) regarding the negative impacts to grizzly bears that arise from the Forest Service’s authorization of continued livestock grazing in prime grizzly bear habitat within the Forest, in violation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and impacts on the Kendall Warm Springs dace.  (Some prior history can be found here.)

On May 13, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court of Indiana against the Forest Service concerning the Forest Service Houston South Vegetation Management and Restoration Project on the Hoosier National Forest. The plaintiffs allege the project violates the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The plaintiff’s concerns are related to the impacts of the project on Lake Monroe watershed, which supplies drinking water for more than 145,000 people. The plaintiffs claim the Forest Service’s action fails to comport with the Agency’s own stated goal of protecting and restoring watershed health in its 2006 Hoosier NF Forest Plan. The project consists of commercial logging, including clear-cuts, shelterwood cuts, selective cuts, and thinning cuts, as well as road building, herbicide application, and prescribed burning activities.  (Introduced here.)

On May 20, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court of Idaho against the Forest Service for violations of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and Agency Wild and Scenic River regulations concerning the Brebner Flat Project on the Idaho Panhandle National Forest.

NOTICES OF INTENT

On April 15, 2020, (dated April 7, 2020), a 60-day Notice of Intent was received by the Friends of the Clearwater and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies (FOC/AWR) to sue the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the Forest Service concerning the approval of the Lolo Insect and Disease Project and 24 new culvert replacements on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest. The FOC/AWR state the Forest Service approved a decision permitting the Lolo Insect and Disease Project and 24 culvert replacements, and NMFS’s issued Biological Opinion (BO) and Incidental Take Statement (ITS) for the project on June 20, 2019, and a revised ITS on July 19, 2019, with a take limit of 79 Snake River Basin (SRB) steelhead. The complainants claim violations of Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA concerning the Snake River Basin Steelhead.

On April 1, 2020, Range 6-received a 60-day Notice of Intent by the WildEarth Guardians (WEG) to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Forest Service concerning ongoing Livestock Grazing, on the Cooper Mires, Lambert, and C.C. Mountain allotments on the Colville National Forest. The FWS and the Forest Service continue to violate the Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 consultation. Complainants claim four listed species and two critical habitats exists within the allotments: bull trout, woodland caribou and their critical habitats, grizzly bear, and Canada lynx. Also, suitable habitat for yellow-billed cuckoo (listed threatened species) and both wolverine and white bark pine are present (candidate species).

NOI-dated April 27, 2019, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council sent a 60-day Notice of Intent to Sue pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for alleged violations concerning the Stonewall Vegetation Project on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest. The Stonewall project was authorized 1,381 acres of vegetation treatments in a Record of Decision on December 19, 2019. This project was analyzed in a Supplemental EIS due to a fire that had burned through the project area.

NOI-dated May 20, 2020, Center For Biological Diversity, Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness and the Wilderness Society sent a 60-day Notice of Intent to Sue the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for alleged violations concerning BLM’s May 1, 2020 Decision approving Federal Hardrock Prospecting Permit Extensions for Twin Metals; and for the Forest Service and FWS failure to reinitiate and complete ESA consultation regarding ongoing impacts to Federally listed species and their critical habitat from the Prospecting Permits on the Superior National Forest (Region 9). The NOI states that the permits violate Sections 7 and 9 of the ESA based on new information concerning Canada lynx, gray wolf and their critical habitat, and the Northern long-eared bat.

Forest Service Stories: The Discovery and Identification of Lomatium ravenii ‑ a Test of Botanical Resolve

by

This is a Lomatium ravenii var. paiutense
by Gene Yates, then of the Malheur National Forest

Raven’s lomatium (Lomatium ravenii Mathias; Constance), a plant previously thought to be extirpated from Oregon, has been discovered growing in six locations on the Malheur National Forest.  Specimens collected on the Prairie City Ranger District were verified recently by Dr. Lincoln Constance, Professor Emeritus at University of California, Berkeley, a noted expert in North American Apiaceae.  According to the Oregon Natural Heritage Program, this plant, endemic to the northern Basin and Range in California and Nevada, was believed extinct in the Oregon portion of its historical range in Harney and Malheur counties.  The new discoveries are located in southern Grant county, well separated from the Nevada populations, growing in stiff sagebrush communities characterized by low plant cover and very shallow soils.

This noteworthy datum was not the result of a cavalier field identification during the course of an afternoon’s serendipitous botanizing.  In fact, the challenging taxonomy of Lomatium had concerned botanists fumbling with this plant’s identity for nearly four years.

In 1989, Greg Lind, botanist with the Malheur, observed this curious umbel growing in two locations on the Prairie City Ranger District.  The plant was collected, pressed, and labelled, for the moment, as “Lomatium sp.” to be dealt with more seriously later. (Greg later explained that the winter provided ample time for such challenges).

In 1990, I joined the Prairie City District staff and was the beneficiary of Greg’s vast knowledge and guidance while learning the flora of the Blue Mountains.  Greg had an insatiable appetite to know all the plants he encountered in the field and Lomatium was no exception.  One day that summer the mysterious lomatium (Lomatium x) was again collected and that evening we both took a crack at identifying it.  I had little success after repeatedly going through the floras.  In Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest, it would key fairly well to L. nevadense, but the description in the text did not match too close, nor did it bear much resemblance to what we had been calling
nevadense locally. Greg noted that if one could ignore the white color ofthe petals, the yellow‑flowered L. foeniculaceum was a decent fit.  Neither of us were comfortable with these identifications, though.  Despite numerous references, one stereomicroscope, and a hand‑honed micropoint tweezers, the identity of this plant still eluded us.  Perhaps better minds than ours could help.

The following winter, Greg sent specimens of Lomatium x to Oregon State University and Eastern Oregon State College.  Both replied that identification was difficult due to insufficiently mature fruits, an important character for distinguishing Lomatia.  However, the material was tentatively identified as L. nevadense, a morphologically variable species.  This we haughtily dismissed for reasons stated above.  Yet, we were no closer to the solution.

The 1991 field season was lost to me to pursue this question further as the fickle nature of Forest Service budgets had me working a nonetheless memorable summer for the Deschutes NF in Bend, Oregon.  But, the following autumn, I was back on board the Malheur and I had not forgotten this plant.

At this point, I should state that some of our frustration with this plant’s identity could be traced to the tools we employed to pry it from the ground. Our small “dandelion weeders,” which offered light weight, portability, and reasonable utility, proved less capable in the shallow, stony soil where Lomatium x is found.  Root material is generally favored when collecting
botanical specimens, and we had been gathering, as best we could, what seemed a representative portion of an apparently slender taproot with our mysterious umbel.

Enter Dr. Dale McNeal, Professor of Botany at the University of Pacific, Stockton, CA.  In May of 1992, Dr. McNeal was passing through eastern Oregon forests collecting wild onions (Allium sp.) to help resolve taxonomic confusion in the genus for the Forest Service.  I was fortunate to guide Dr. McNeal to collection sites on the Malheur.  I took him to one area that also happened to harbor the mysterious Lomatium x.  Dr. McNeal was not a timid plant collector; he carried with him oversize plastic bags that would accommodate a sizable volume of material, and to help fill these bags, a large (some 30 inches long) pick‑like implement, which he affectionately referred to as “The Terminator.”

Dr. McNeal presented quite a formidable image wielding The Terminator in one arm above his head as he poised his 6’‑4″ frame over the unwitting onions.

Opportunity is seldom a lengthy visitor.  “Would Dr. McNeal kindly liberate some specimens of that curious little umbel yonder?”  Obliging, Dr. McNeal set to work.  When the debris settled, I beheld an astonishing sight; deeper in the substrate below the “taproot,” Lomatium x was equipped with tubers!

Now, for those readers unaccustomed to navigating the fog‑shrouded seas of Lomatium taxonomy, the morphology of the underground portions is one character used to distinguish groups of species in dichotomous keys.  Some species have a slender taproot, as I thought to be the case in Lomatium x, while others have variously thickened, shapeless or globose, fleshy “tubers.”  I had been
following, erroneously, the “taprooted” leads in the keys.

Armed with this essential new datum, fresh material, and envigorated resolve, I dashed back to the arsenal of floras at home.  Following the “tuberous” leads in the key, then, led me to a small group of species, none of which, unfortunately, bore any resemblance whatsoever to the material at hand.  I was shipwrecked on the damn genus’ reef of seeming taxonomic futility.

“A salmon,

Green‑black, mottled white,

Hook‑jawed, and eyes pecked out,

Lay washed up onto a riverbank

Lapped by the waters of the wrong stream.”

Once my attitude was again sailing the clear blue waters of optimism, I reasoned that my plant [I was becoming quite possessive (obsessive?) by now] might not be included in Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest, that perhaps it was a Basin and Range species that had sloshed up onto the slopes of the adjacent southern Blue Mountains.  The Intermountain Flora had not yet published the volume dealing with the Apiaceae, the plant family containing Lomatium, and I had no other references that dealt with southeast Oregon.  So on a recommendation, I mailed some material to Dr. Lincoln Constance at Berkeley.

Dr. Constance’s prompt, friendly reply was very encouraging, if not entirely conclusive.  He offered two possibilities: Lomatium ravenii or an undescribed relative in the L. foeniculaceum‑L. nevadense group.  A new species! Wow! What a development that would be.  When my pulse slowed I researched the former alternative.  L. ravenii was not recorded in Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest, nor was it mentioned in Peck’s A Manual of the Higher Plants of Oregon, nor Abrams’s Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States.  Out of curiosity, I looked into the Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon to see if it was a species of concern tracked by the Oregon Natural Heritage Program.  To my astonishment, it was listed as possibly extirpated from the state, having once occupied sites in Harney and Malheur counties.  To discover an “extirpated” species seemed nearly as thrilling.  But the final answer would have to wait.  Dr. Constance’s uncertainty was the result (again) of immature fruits.  It was September and I wouldn’t be able to collect properly‑fruited material until the following summer.  Imagine the winter‑long suspense.

With the utmost conviction, excellent material was gathered this past June and sent to Dr. Constance with the results announced at the outset of this article.  For several days, Dr. Constance thought he might be handling a new species before settling on Lomatium ravenii.  In the end, he could not distinguish my plant when compared to L. ravenii material from locations other than the type.  Of note, he found the tuberous habit of L. ravenii more interesting than what “just another Lomatium” find might have been.  Dr. Constance remarked that both the describers and Mark Schlessman, the monographer of the tuberous Lomatia, had overlooked this character of the plant’s subterranean nature.

What lesson, then, can be learned from this story?  Don’t let the curious and unknown slip through any cracks in your botanical integrity, even when confronted with chronic taxonomic setbacks; and, when concerning Lomatium, perhaps it is best to “speak softly and carry a big pick.”

Note from Sharon: any randomness in italicizing should be attributed to me, not the author; while hunting for a photo I ran across a more recent paper on the taxonomy here.

Make forest plans great again (for wildlife)

by

 

I often point out how the Forest Service is shirking its responsibility to adopt forest plans that provide ecological conditions needed for diversity and viability of at-risk species.  Most recently, I listed some examples from the recently released Rio Grande revised forest plan.  Here is one guideline (there weren’t really any relevant standards):

EPC-G-1: To avoid or minimize adverse effects to listed species and their habitat, management actions should be designed with attention to threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species and their habitats. 

This says essentially nothing.

An important purpose of identifying and planning for at-risk species is to reduce the chance that they would need to be listed under the Endangered Species Act.  If this were a private landowner, conservation measures for at-risk (but not yet listed) species would be discretionary.  However, they could choose to sign a Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (CCAA) with the listing agency to adopt conservation measures that would reduce the likelihood of listing in exchange for a commitment that the listing agency would not require anything more if the species did become listed.

Here is an example of one such enhancement of survival permit for Chinook Forest Partners, LLC Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances for Fisher in Oregon (until recently, a candidate for listing).  From the NEPA document (CE):

Activities that are covered by this CCAA and the associated section 10(a)(1)(A) permit are on-going and commonly practiced forest land management activities. These include timber harvest and hauling, site preparation and reforestation, and road maintenance and construction. Additionally, there may be some collection of minor forest products, fire suppression, and recreation (including legal hunting and trapping).

Goals and objectives for fisher include: improving our understanding of fisher distribution, densities, and habitat use, especially on non-federal lands where information is more lacking; conserving active fisher den sites to increase the survival of young; increasing public participation and support for fisher recovery and reintroduction by providing long-term assurances; and, monitoring potential future reintroduced fishers as they disperse from their release sites to determine success rates and provide information for improving success rates.

And here is what the private landowner committed to do in the CCAA to achieve those objectives for fisher (note: some are saying that this still isn’t good enough).  Given that the Forest Service is obligated by NFMA to provided ecological conditions for a viable population of at-risk species on national forests, why shouldn’t they be making at least this kind of commitment in their forest plans for public lands?  (This could make them adequate regulatory mechanisms to reduce the likelihood of listing under the ESA criteria.)

  • Specifically, CFP/CFM shall not conduct or authorize any of the activities described in the forest management activities in Section 4 (including but not limited to timber felling, pre-commercial thinning, reforestation, salvage of trees, prescribed burning, and brush control) within 0.25 miles of a den site, because those activities could result in disturbance or harm to denning fishers. CFM shall not authorize helicopter or fixed wing application of herbicide or fertilizer within 0.25 miles of an occupied den site between 15 March and 30 September until CFM is informed by USFWS or its agent the denning female has vacated the den site.
  • Provide protection of denning female fishers by restricting trapping and nuisance animal control activities on enrolled lands within 2.5 miles of den sites.
  • Report to USFWS, and ODFW or mutually agreed upon designated agents, within 48 hours upon finding any potentially occupied den sites or any dead, sick, or captured fishers on enrolled lands.
  • Cover all man-made structures on enrolled lands that pose an entrapment risk to fishers (e.g. large water troughs, old rail cars, or other containers from which fishers cannot escape) or place a device within the structure (e.g., wooden pole to allow fishers to climb out) to prevent mortality of fishers from drowning, starvation or dehydration
  • Where suitable habitat exists and where agreed upon by CFP and USFWS, allow the release of translocated fishers on enrolled lands
  • CFP will seek to have all of its timberlands third party certified to the Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI),
  • CFP will take fisher habitat characteristics into consideration when assessing parcels for transfer or sale into permanent or semi-permanent conservation status.
  • Subject to safety, operability, fire hazard considerations, and salvage of timber following fire, windthrow or other natural or man-caused casualty, CFM will conserve existing and future standing deadwood, and, where available, focus leave tree retention on damaged, decayed, or deformed trees that are likely to provide or promote decay processes and structures beneficial to fisher or their prey.
  • CFM meets or exceeds the Forest Practices Act (FPA) live tree and snag retention, and down woody debris. For clearcut harvests greater than 25 acres, FPA requires that at least 2 snags or 2 green trees 30 feet tall and at least 11 inches DBH, at least 50% are conifer, plus at least 2 down logs or down trees at least 50% of which must be conifers that are at 6 least 6 feet long with a total volume of 10 cubic feet must be retained. CFM commits to retaining a minimum of 3 snags or green trees per acre on clearcuts larger than 25 acres, and these trees/snags will be retained for the life of the CCAA.
  • Trees >32” DBH will be retained the greatest extent possible, provided they do not pose safety hazards
  • CFM will instruct logging contractor to avoid whenever possible, driving machinery over, or otherwise damaging large down woody debris, thereby maintaining the integrity of stumps and logs that may be used by fishers and their prey.
  • CFM will seek to leave down woody debris and other structures important to fishers and their prey distributed throughout the unit instead of piling them into slash piles, will attempt to avoid mechanical damage or disturbance, and will locate skid trails around them where safety and operability considerations permit.
  • For slash piles documented as being used by fishers for denning on the enrolled lands, CFM shall not burn or otherwise mechanically alter such slash piles for a period of 5 years after the last year of known occupancy and use by a denning fisher.
  • CFM will avoid the use of rodenticides on lands enrolled in the permit area.
  • CFM will prohibit lessees from recreational trapping.

Trump’s latest marching orders on public lands

by
Trump – Nailed it

The Trump Administration declared the coronavirus pandemic to be a “national emergency” in March. On June 4, the president issued an executive order on “Accelerating the Nation’s Economic Recovery from the COVID-19 Emergency by Expediting Infrastructure Investments and Other Activities.”  It has been characterized as “waiving environmental protections,” in particular the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, and would include actions taken on public lands. This has been condemned in the usual places.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out on federal lands, and whether it makes any difference.  Trump already has the pedal to the metal on development activities, so I wonder what more they could do – without actually violating a law.  Maybe we should expect more lawsuits.

Here’s some of the key language in the EO (with my emphasis):

Sec. 2.  Policy.  Agencies, including executive departments, should take all appropriate steps to use their lawful emergency authorities and other authorities to respond to the national emergency and to facilitate the Nation’s economic recovery.  (I assume that means other non-emergency authorities, and not other unlawful authorities 🙂 )

Sec. 5.  Expediting the Delivery of Infrastructure and Other Projects on Federal Lands

b)  To facilitate the Nation’s economic recovery, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Agriculture shall use all relevant emergency and other authorities to expedite work on, and completion of, all authorized and appropriated infrastructure, energy, environmental, and natural resources projects on Federal lands that are within the authority of each of the Secretaries to perform or to advance.

Sec. 6.  National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Emergency Regulations and Emergency Procedures.

b)  To facilitate the Nation’s economic recovery, the heads of all agencies are directed to use, to the fullest extent possible and consistent with applicable law, emergency procedures, statutory exemptions, categorical exclusions, analyses that have already been completed, and concise and focused analyses, consistent with NEPA, CEQ’s NEPA regulations, and agencies’ NEPA procedures.

Sec. 7.  Endangered Species Act (ESA) Emergency Consultation Regulations.

(b)  The heads of all agencies are directed to use, to the fullest extent possible and consistent with applicable law, the ESA regulation on consultations in emergencies, to facilitate the Nation’s economic recovery.

Sec. 10.  General Provisions

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

Of course an executive order can’t change the law or regulations, and this one explicitly refers to existing procedures that can be used in emergencies.  All I see Trump doing here is pointing out that there are existing authorities to expedite projects, and agencies should be using them.  But maybe the intent might be to expand the situations that are considered emergencies to include an economic recession.  I doubt that could be done “consistent with applicable law” related to emergency determinations.  Here is the language applicable to Forest Service NEPA (36 CFR §220.4):

The responsible official may take actions necessary to control the immediate impacts of the emergency and are urgently needed to mitigate harm to life, property, or important natural or cultural resources.

If there is a need to mitigate immediate harm to life, property or important resources, it would be consistent with applicable law to use the established emergency procedures.  There is either nothing new in the executive order, or if there is, we should expect it to be challenged.  (And then there is the question of why he waited three months to address this “emergency.”)

But these are dark days.  The Washington Post quoted an attorney at a large national law firm (Perkins Coie) that doesn’t usually represent environmental plaintiffs.  He noted that the National Environmental Policy Act was enacted 50 years ago partly to prevent arbitrary federal decisions such as building highways through parks and communities of color and that the current administration cannot simply set aside laws aimed at protecting vulnerable Americans or the environment. “I will not be surprised to see many observers comparing this move — declaring an emergency to shield agency decisions from the public — to the order to clear Lafayette Square on Monday evening,” Jensen said, referring to actions in a Washington park this week. “It’s just one more face of authoritarian ideology, with a clear link to issues of race and equality and government accountability.”

 

Black Woman in Green: Gloria Brown and the Unmarked Trail to Forest Service Leadership

by

 

 

Steve Wilent was kind enough to let me review this book for the Forestry Source. I’ve edited it a bit for TSW. Note that TSW welcomes book reviews.

Black Woman in Green: Gloria Brown and the Unmarked Trail to Forest Service Leadership
Authors: Gloria D. Brown and Donna L. Sinclair
Foreword by Laurie Mercier.
Published by Oregon State University Press, 2020. Paperback, ISBN 978-0-87071-001-8.
$19.95. E-book, ISBN 978-0-87071-005-6, $11.99. Available at tinyurl.com/ych94z7t.

Black Woman in Green: Gloria Brown and the Unmarked Trail to Forest Service Leadership is an autobiography of Gloria Brown, covering her early life and her career in the Forest Service.
Brown was one of the first black women in the Forest Service, in a time when the agency employed few women professionals and few African Americans. She also was the agency’s first
female African American forest supervisor. Brown had to prove herself over and over, and in addition to racism and sexism, she had two more Forest Service cultural handicaps. She had gotten her start not on a ranger district, but in the Washington Office (at the time, it was thought that everyone should start on a ranger district). Her first job was as a GS-4 dictating machine transcriber; she later worked in the Forest Service Office of Information and Education (she began in the “wrong” series, and only received a natural resources degree later). In those days, being accepted meant having certain characteristics and following a certain path. Brown survived, thrived, and was highly successful, in spite of not being very different from the tradition of the time, through her own determination, hard work, smarts, and a network of relationships. If you wonder, “How did she pull that off?” or think, “Maybe I could learn something,” then this book is for you.

Brown traveled many of the same paths and met many of the same people as I did in my career.  FS graduates like me will take particular enjoyment from Brown’s take on familiar people
and issues, whether we agree or not. For that reason, I found the book hard to put down. It’s only 175 pages, and I read most of it in one sitting, wanting to see what happened next. There are also
handy footnotes and an index.

For current employees, there are lessons that may well be as relevant today as when Brown learned them. Lessons from her early days: her own perspective on racism in the workforce and in the community, and how that affected her and her family.  We learn what kind of support made a difference to her in trying times.  Brown includes her insights into how anyone can thrive in the Forest Service. For example, she learned to find people to work for who had a track record of hiring people who then went on to better positions. She discovered the power of intent coupled with strategy. She also learned—the hard way—about not going over people’s heads.

Along the way, Brown developed an amazing network of supporters. She relentlessly went after new positions and promotions, all the way to her ultimate goal of forest supervisor; she served in that role on both the Siuslaw and Los Padres National Forests. Brown dealt with budget crises and low morale after agency downsizing. She describes these in enough detail that it’s a bit like listening to stories from a mentor.

What Forest Service observers from outside the agency might find interesting are how the Forest Service dealt with one of the first black female leaders- how aspects of the culture worked for her and against her.  Observers might also be interested in the “behind the scenes” looks at how employees work together to produce decisions, and the role of line officers or deciding officials. When Brown moved to a new position, she learned to make decisions after first discussing the issues with her staff and listing to the concerns of the public. She gives some examples of how she found solutions that respected different points of view, including those of different politicians, communities, and other stakeholders, and how she developed positive working relationships with groups and individuals outside of the Forest Service and the BLM.

While much of the book describes her experiences during the “timber wars” in western Oregon, she also describes a Bureau of Land Management job in DC, her time working for the BLM in
eastern Oregon, and working as manager of the Mount St. Helen’s National Monument in Washington State.

Throughout the book, Brown shares her own experiences as a girl growing up, a wife, and a mother, and explains how she wove her personal and professional lives together to make a complete life. Her experience as one of the “firsts” was challenging and difficult, and she shares the joys and sorrows of her journey.

From the epilogue:
The song “Time of My Life” sums up my career with the Forest Service. Forest Service took my heart and soul and turned me into someone I could have never imagined. I am grateful for that.
Working for the Forest Service was never easy, but it was challenging, rewarding, and, more often than not, a lot of fun! I would say to anyone—woman, person of color, person identifying
as LGBTQ, or person with physical challenges—join the Forest Service and splash into a career unlike anything you can imagine. That’s what I did.

Thank you for your service, Gloria Brown!

 

 

GAO Report on Chetco Bar Fire

by

I’ll be interested in comments on the report from folks who know more about the fire than I do….

What GAO Found
The Chetco Bar Fire was first reported in July 2017, burning in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest in Oregon. Because of the remote, steep terrain, initial Forest Service attempts to fight the fire at close range were unsuccessful. The fire grew slowly over the next month. Firefighters, directed by the Forest Service, responded in various ways, such as by constructing “firelines”—clearing vegetation—in an effort to stop the fire’s spread. In mid-August, strong, hot winds caused the fire to expand rapidly, from 8,500 acres to more than 90,000 acres over several days, threatening thousands of homes. Firefighters continued constructing firelines and dropped water and retardant on the fire to try to contain it. In September, the weather changed and cooler days and rain moderated the fire. Firefighers fully contained the fire in November (see figure).

Forest Service officials and stakeholders raised a number of key concerns about the Forest Service’s response to the Chetco Bar Fire. For example, some said that if the Forest Service’s response had been more aggressive, it might have kept the fire from growing and threatening homes. Forest Service officials said that in making firefighting decisions, they prioritized firefighter safety and considered the likelihood that a particular response would be successful. The agency has taken steps to improve decision-making for future wildfires, such as developing a tradeoff analysis tool to help decision makers assess firefighting options.

Forest Service officials, stakeholders, and documents identifed various effects of the fire. Some of these sources cited negative effects including destruction of six homes, damage to roads and trails, and damage to habitat for the northern spotted owl. However, the fire likely improved habitat for some species, such as woodpeckers that eat beetles that feed on burned trees, according to officials.

Phasing Out Oil and Gas Production: Pros and Cons for California (and Federal Lands?)

by

 

I think it’s always interesting when you find yourself agreeing with someone whose background seems quite different from your own.  I ran across this piece from a law professor at U.C Berkeley named Ethan Elkind (it was posted to an information source called Legal Planet,  which I intermittently read) . What’s interesting to me is that he raises some of the same points on phasing out oil and gas production in California that are similar to phasing out on federal lands, as per Candidate Biden.

What I think is interesting about Elkind’s piece is that it echoes similar complexities of stopping production of anything, anywhere as long as the demand continues.  This isn’t really rocket science to anyone who remembers the Timber Wars. Have we stopped using wood.. well…er.. no. We just get it from somewhere else.  Which in the case of wood, appears to be working out just fine. Thank you, Canadians!

So here’s that argument from him (1) You’ ll Get it from somewhere if you have demand:

The challenge is that demand for fossil fuels in the state will remain for the foreseeable future, even if local production ceases. If we stop producing oil here, we’ll start importing more from elsewhere.

While California’s oil demand is already decreasing due to market and policy factors, until consumers completely transition to zero-emission vehicles and find alternatives to petroleum-based products like plastic and asphalt — and until refineries in the state stop exporting to markets around the Pacific — the supply will still find its way to the state. If that oil comes from out-of-state sources, the carbon footprint may even be higher than if California produced it domestically, due to shipping emissions.

(2) Here’s the economic argument:

However, economic theory indicates that a decrease in California production will mean some decrease in consumption, as global prices will rise slightly from reduced overall supply. One study indicated it could lead to global emission reductions of 8 to 24 million tons of CO2 per year. And any oil left in the ground is oil not burned in the long run, meeting one of the highest priorities of climate activists. So a California phase-out could help avoid some emissions, though the rate is unclear.

How is demand reduced in this case? Via higher prices. Since buying gasoline, heating oil, and natural gas is necessary for folks, it seems like this price rise could have unintended consequences of falling unfairly on poorer people who can’t afford to buy new electric cars and appliances, and who have to drive to work and heat their homes.

(3) The “leadership” argument:

What about the political implications of phasing out oil and gas consumption for climate policy? One argument is that a phase-out here might inspire other jurisdictions to follow suit. As most climate models indicate that some percentage of fossil fuels will have to remain untapped as an imperative for avoiding the worst impacts of climate change, why not start in California, a state committed to climate action? It might be hard to imagine that top oil-producing countries like Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran (or other U.S. states) would be so inspired, but perhaps places like Norway or Colorado might be more politically open to it. And if the oil industry in California phased out, its lobbying power might also wane, allowing the state to pursue more aggressive policies on the demand side.

I don’t think this applies to federal lands. And FWIW, I’m not a political writer, but from where I sit, wanting to be “more like California” is not likely to be a winning slogan in Colorado.

(4) Reducing supply: potentially enriching the “bad guys”. These include corporations and countries of questionable dependability or friendliness. This is generally thought of as an international security issue. Gas lines from the 70’s are fading from public memory, but older people remember.

The economic impacts of a phase-out for climate policy are also complicated. As Severin Borenstein at UC Berkeley Energy Institute at Haas blogged in 2018, a phase-out in California would mean slightly higher worldwide oil prices, which would in turn enrich the major oil producing companies and countries who are still providing supply. As he summarized:

One could think of this as similar to a very small worldwide carbon tax, except in this case the revenue is not rebated to the population as a whole or used to reduce other taxes, but rather handed to those who own and control the world’s oil production.

(5) Oil and gas wells don’t belong in close proximity to communities.

But there is one clear benefit from phasing out in-state oil and gas production in California: improved health and safety of surrounding communities. Scientists have linked drilling for oil and gas to numerous public health challenges, including increased rates of asthma, cancer, and other health threats. And much of the drilling in California occurs in or near residents of disadvantaged communities, adding to the urgency.Also

(Note: in Colorado this has been studied extensively, and the health impacts are not that straightforward. It’s also not clear how much in Colorado is near residents of disadvantaged communities.  Also, if you switch from oil and gas rigs to wind turbines, there can be health impacts on neighbors as well, but more than likely, they are not the same neighbors.)

So if we read through all this, a person could come to the conclusion that oil and gas drilling should be kept away from communities. What place better, then,  than federal lands?

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

What I think Elkind may have missed.

(6) this piece doesn’t mention the impacts of California losing direct and indirect taxes and royalties from O&G production. Perhaps they are such a big, rich state it doesn’t matter. For example, New Mexico is the 50th poorest state (according to Wikipedia). The state gets half of federal O&G royalties. According to this handy BLM website that shows disbursements, New Mexico received $1,165,963,636 in 2019.

(7) Jobs I’m agnostic on how this will work out. The idea is for O&G workers to transition neatly into renewable energy jobs, but we don’t have any idea how that would work in practice. I’m willing to think it could be done (have the same number of the same-paying jobs), but it seems to me that this would depend on the job market and economy as a whole.  On the other hand, O&G has always been a volatile industry, and in fact people are getting laid off now due to prices. In fact that’s how former Governor Hickenlooper (currently a Senate candidate) started out, as a petroleum geologist and the craft beer industry and Colorado would be poorer if he hadn’t transitioned.  On the third hand, different people and different social classes may have different levels of resilience.

(8)  Environmental pros and cons of getting it from elsewhere (as in, is their production more environmentally friendly, with regard to methane emissions or ??) other than the transportation-related emissions, which he did mention.

These are all very thoughtful arguments, so thank you Professor Elkind for rounding these up!

 

Litigation update – early May, 2020

by

(Court decision)  In Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Marten, the Montana federal district court has lifted the injunctions against the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Fuels Reduction Project and the East Boulder Fuel Reduction Project on the Custer-Gallatin National Forest because they have properly consulted on critical habitat for Canada lynx for both the forest plan and the projects, and no supplemental EIS was required.  This was discussed most recently here.

(Court decision)  In Conservation Congress v. U. S. Forest Service, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the district court and upheld the Bagley Hazard Tree Abatement Project on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest against ESA and NEPA claims related to northern spotted owls.  A report on the hearing is here.  (And here is some discussion on this blog from 2013.)

(Court decision)  In Pacific Rivers v. BLM, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court and the BLM and upheld the 2016 amendments to its western Oregon resource management plans against ESA and NEPA claims related to listed fish species.  (They’re not calling it WOPR any more, but I think this was what happened after BLM lost in court on the first try, discussed here.)

(Settlement)  In response to a lawsuit, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement agreed to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to review the impacts of coal mining across the country on endangered species.  While plaintiffs seem most interested in West Virginia, active coal mining occurs on national forests in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and Kentucky.

(New lawsuit)  Monroe County (IN) and two environmental groups filed a lawsuit to stop the Houston South Vegetation Management and Restoration Project on the Hoosier National Forest, which they believe will pollute Lake Monroe, a major drinking water source for the area, and harm the endangered Indiana bat.

(New lawsuit)  Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Western Watersheds Project have sued the Trump Administration for illegally filling the positions of the directors of the BLM and National Park Service with temporary, non-confirmed appointments.

 

In other Endangered Species Act news:

(Update)  A federal judge has agreed that 17 states may be harmed by Trump Administration changes in the Endangered Species Act regulations, so their lawsuit against these changes may proceed.  However, he found that was not the case for environmental and animal-rights groups and dismissed their complaints.

Following litigation, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed the southern Sierra Pacific fisher for listing as endangered, but denied a similar petition for the northern California/southern Oregon population, where “threats were mitigated by fuel reduction projects aimed at reducing wildfire severity and partnerships with timber companies to limit logging in Oregon.”

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed designation of critical habitat in Arizona and New Mexico riparian areas for the narrow-headed garter snake and the northern Mexican garter snake.  While it excluded private lands with conservation agreements and other public lands with adequate protective measures in place, a study had concluded that generally, the Forest Service does a poor job of enforcing existing restrictions on grazing leases.

The last two cases suggest that improved conservation measures for national forest lands might have made a difference and avoided these designations.