The District Recreation Survey Project

by
Green Mountain National Forest, Sherburne Trails Trailhead

Brian Hawthorne had an interesting idea for the Coronavirus Challenge.

In the February 17, 2020 post “Defining Recreation and Tourism Impacts on Federal Lands. I. The Outdoor Recreation Economy and Wilderness” Sharon proposed a series exploring
current trends in recreation and tourism and their impacts on federal lands.

As the post explained. and the comments proved, this is a wide ranging topic. That said, I believe there could be value in relatively narrow “hard look” at what the current trends are in
recreation on federally managed lands — and how those trends and the related impacts could be addressed via planning and management.

It would be possible to gather some highly useful information from a brief survey directed at a Forest level. A very rough draft is below for review. Please feel free to respond with thoughts
and suggested questions.

I propose it be sent to Colorado’s GMUG (Grand Mesa, Gunnison and Uncompahgre) National Forest. Only because it has the almost the full range of recreational uses and does a
decent job of leveraging volunteers and state/county agency/grant programs. If this effort is successful/useful — maybe then all of R2 and beyond?

The survey should be something that would take a rec person no more than 20-25 minutes to fill out. It should also be possible send the same survey to relevant state and county program leads.

Assuming USFS staff responds to the survey, a nominal baseline of trends could be determined. At least for that Forest.

Here are some very draft questions to consider:
1) Please list the top 4 rec activities occurring on your RD
2) What are the trends you see in rec activities occurring on your RD, specifically, of the 4 listed above, which are increasing, decreasing, changing?
3) What recreation activities would you describe as new?
4) What are the (4?) most significant problems with recreation in your RD?
5) Do you have any fee areas?
6) Do you leverage volunteer programs to assist in managing recreation?
7) Aside from agency funding, are there any funding sources you use to help manage
recreation.

Please respond with thoughts and suggested questions….

Some of my (Sharon’s) thoughts: this could be an example of co-production, co-design and co-analysis of research, if we could get permission for a Region-wide or national survey.

Another thought I have is perhaps there is a difference between scientific, or “understanding what’s going on” kinds of questions, and management questions. Those would be those designed to encourage and support people working in recreation, and listen to their own ideas for improvement and their own troubles and success stories. For example, a management question might be “what three things could be done internally by the Forest Service to make things better?” “what three things could the public do to make things better?” “Is there an idea you would try if you could?”

And perhaps more “sciency”: “what environmental impacts concern you the most about recreation? Is there research that you think needs to be done regarding some aspect of environmental impacts or other questions?”

For now let’s generate some ideas for questions. Again, the survey would be targeted at people working on a Ranger District in recreation.

FS Story of the Week: Remote But Not Remote Enough

by
I hope that this is the Sioux Ranger Station or someone will tell me if it’s not.

From James Keyser on the Data General.

From: James D. Keyser:R6/PNW

Date: ## 03/03/97 10:20 ##

I always liked the sign I saw (my FIRST month in the agency) at a VERY remote ranger station on the Custer NF in South Dakota (R1).

Above the ranger’s desk hung a sign that said: “Last Year was a GOOD year.  I saw the Forest Supervisor THREE times. He saw ME ONCE!”

And it was a Ranger District on which that REALLY could have happened

30 mile drive to it on dirt roads.  All the NFS land is sparsely forested mesa country from which you can see for miles.

You’ve probably heard it before- it may not even be original to the Forest Service but…it does convey the deep  value of decentralized decisionmaking (yes, and a certain mistrust of the next level up).  Decentralization is indeed an important value, but in this hyper-connected day and age, it can also be frustrating sometimes for employees and the public alike.

What’s Going On With Elk Populations in Your Neighborhood?

by
Photo of elk along the Dolores River by Jim Mimiaga.

For awhile I’ve been stockpiling elk stories from different areas. I know that many TSW readers have more direct experiences with elk than I do, so I am posting this hoping that you all will share insights from your part of the country.

Here’s one from High Country News about Northeast Oregon:

Historically, the ungulates of northeastern Oregon spent May through November up in the rugged Blue Mountains, which stretch through the Umatilla National Forest in northeastern Oregon into southeastern Washington. Only during the winter months would they travel to private lands at lower elevations. But over the past 30 years, their seasonal pattern has shifted. Now, ranchers like Green are seeing elk as early as August. Some are even reproducing on private lands, raising calves to become permanent residents. Because the state governs elk populations, landowners cannot simply go out and shoot them. Instead, they must abide by hunting laws and wildlife management objectives, which consider factors such as habitat availability and the animals’ value as game.

Sidenote:
What was interesting to me about this, is that according to the story, the current 125,000 came from an original 15 animals. At a casual glance, this does not seem to fit in with the concept that a population of at least 50 is necessary to prevent extinction, due to problems from inbreeding and genetic drift. Perhaps modelling populations quantitatively missed some goings-on in the genomes of these animals.

I also wondered why elk would want to go back to the mountains if there was plenty to eat, and otherwise favorable conditions, at lower elevations in the summer.

Here’s one from the AP about  New Mexico.

“Migration through our property is intense and is destroying our resources, water and improvements,” he said. “We estimate from past migration up to 1,000 elk.”

While the Game and Fish Department has no compensation program, spokeswoman Tristanna Bickford said Friday the agency tries to work with ranchers ahead of time in hopes of preventing damage by providing fencing to protect crops and hay stacks.

She also said that since 2018, the agency has increased the number of hunting permits by 67% for an area that includes a large swath of land from Taos Junction west to the Rio Chama and beyond.

The weather is believed to play a role in the movement of herds, according to department biologists. Elk tend to hang out in the high country during the summer and during the fall hunting season. If the mountains see heavy snowpack during the winter, they move into lower elevations where there is more private property.

Meanwhile in Colorado, in southern Colorado (not far from northern New Mexico), elk numbers are down, and people are studying why. Populations were reduced due to elk damage, similar to Oregon and New Mexico, but have yet to rebound. From a recent story  (Jan 2020) in the Durango Herald:

The decline has been attributed to high calf mortality: About half the elk calves born in Southwest Colorado die within six months, and an additional 15% die before they reach a year old.

In the absence of one clear cause such as disease – which was ruled out – wildlife officials don’t know what’s driving the deaths.

Weinmeister said CPW is trying to determine why calves have died at high rates in study areas around Montrose and Trinidad. But research has been slow because expandable radio collars put on the calves keep falling off.

“We’re getting a little better,” he said. “But it’s not happening as fast as we want.”

In the meantime, wildlife officials are looking at other possible causes of the decline.

Recently, CPW limited tags for archery hunters. Whereas tags used to be unlimited, Weinmeister now may lower or raise the number of hunting tags based on conditions on the ground.

Weinmeister said the new process reduces the number of elk killed each year by hunters and decreases the number of hunters who disrupt breeding habits.

Each year, about 13,000 hunters trek into the San Juan Mountains to hunt the Hermosa and San Juan units, which are home to an estimated 26,000 elk.

“From the hunters I talk to, most are willing to make that sacrifice,” Weinmeister said.

CPW also is looking for ways to offset the impact of habitat loss. As Colorado’s population grows and development reaches rural areas, elk lose areas to thrive. And on top of that, recreation is encroaching into the last wild places.

What’s happening with elk populations where you live?

Fighting Wildfires in the Season of the Coronavirus

by

Here’s an article on a topic I’ve been thinking about:

How will COVID-19 impact wildfire response?

“This presents a host of problems for wildfire response, said Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) commissioner Hilary Franz. The state will have to figure out how to keep firefighters from getting infected, how to secure enough incident management teams and rethink the way it attacks fires.”

I’d like to hear from folks with fire experience about how this might play out.

The Smokey Wire Coronavirus Challenge

by
Tree Friends

Many of us have more time on our hands. I’d like to ask folks in the TWS community to consider taking this opportunity to do something they wouldn’t normally have time to do. I’m speaking in particular to people who have not yet done a guest post, but really everyone. I’m thinking maybe you want to explore some topic in depth, interview someone and post it, just talk about something you know about, or bring a different perspective to some topic. It might be a time to submit a FOIA, plan a survey or original research, start a not-for-profit, or think grandly about something that needs to be done but hasn’t yet.

For the older of us, I encourage you to tell a story that highlights Forest Service culture or history. If you read the back and forth between Jim Furnish and me (perhaps the Upstairs-Downstairs of the Clinton administration in DC) you’ll see that we can all learn and enlarge our vision from hearing from each other.

When I was first hired on on the Fremont National Forest in 1979, we were often in the field for lunch. I learned a great deal about how to operate in the organization (OK, well some would say I never quite learned..but..) by the telling of stories. John Nesbitt, as I recall in particular, was a great story teller. Later, in the 90’s I wondered whether everyone had those kinds of opportunities and thought that a book of Forest Service stories would be helpful, so I set out to collect them. That never happened (it got stuck in the problem of ethics of publishing while I was an employee). Then after I retired, I tried to reach the authors to post the stories here but they didn’t reply to my emails, and it was otherwise difficult to track them down. I still have some that have withstood the challenges of formatting from Data General (and handwritten) to today, so I may post some along the way. All that is kind of a long aside for retirees. You may think of this time as a long session around the fire with our professional grandchildren and great-grandchildren. If they are humorous stories, then so much the better.

Anyway, back to the Challenge. Exploring a topic in depth, you can mostly do on the internet. Some scientific studies are behind a firewall. I’ve had luck going to Google Scholar and finding free versions, and if not I simply click on the first author and get an email address to request an electronic reprint. Most researchers are pleased that anyone is interested in their work and I have never had trouble with this approach.

Interviewing someone for a post. Personally I find this very difficult, as I want to use the person’s exact words and not put any of my own spin onto it. Professional journalists have assured me that it gets easier with practice. Here’s some background advice from Larry Parnass of the Berkshire Eagle about newswriting:

Do you know about the Poynter Institute’s NewsU platform? The institute is a highly regarded journalism nonprofit that runs the Tampa Bay Times and operates many in-person and online training programs. 

NewsU offers lots of free courses (as well as others with a fee). I don’t see a course specifically about newswriting, but there are others on interviewing and various aspects of newsgathering. As chief of The Smokey Wire, I think you’ll find courses of interest to YOU, if not to prospective writers.

There is this free course on journalism created by Eric Newton for the Knight Foundation, another NGO heavy-hitter in journalism. It is actually a text, but a lively one that’s animated with illustrations and links. I’ve used it in a course I teach. Newton’s goal is to reframe what people consider journalism, and public service, in the digital age. It isn’t a how-to on writing, but goes get you thinking about emerging forms of journalism.

I like this short article from The Guardian. It is a quick overview of do’s and don’ts in newswriting

Submitting a FOIA Learning at the Muckrock site was recommended at a session at the Society of Environmental Journalists last year. It’s just kind of interesting to prowl around, though.

Telling your own FS culture stories.. just do it!

If you need any help with any of these, please email me at the address on the widget to the right.

Climbing Management Challenges on the Bighorn

by

Photo by Louie Anderson.

The District Ranger of the Powder River Ranger District spoke at a Rocky Mountaineers (retirees) meeting about a climbing plan they had developed, and their hiring of a climbing ranger. Here’s a news story on what they were up to last summer from the Buffalo Bulletin.  What was interesting to me were the tensions between local and non-local, and or traditional and non-traditional climbers.

Inside the climbing community, there has been tension over the new development, which some local climbers believe has been ill-advised.

“Some of the more traditional climbers got upset (about new routes), and they posted a letter around February, with around 700 signatures, saying that they wanted heavily manufactured development to cease and desist. They also asked the Forest Service to respond,” Weaver said, adding that the seasonal hire and the establishment of a management plan is a part of the Forest Service’s response.

The Ten Sleep Canyon issue has been a topic of conversation for most climbers this season, Nick Flores, a guide with Bighorn Mountain Guides said.

“To put it simply, there have been a few developers (individuals who develop new rock climbing routes) in Ten Sleep Canyon who have gone too far with their development tactics,” he said. “For example (this includes) over-comforting climbing holds, increasing the size of a hold with a drill bit, hammer, screwdriver, and adding glue to pockets to make them feel less sharp and more comfortable.

“These development tactics are not deemed as best practice by most route developers. When a handful of Wyoming local climbers found out about this they were outraged — rightfully so,” Flores said.

A local nonprofit called the Bighorn Climbers’ Coalition was formed with a mission to preserve, protect and promote rock climbing throughout the Bighorn National Forest. The BCC has been working with both route developers and the concerned individuals about the situation in Ten Sleep Canyon, Flores said. The BCC held three meetings to discuss the concerns from the public with the route developers, and as of now, is working with the National Forest on the climbing management plan. The plan will help regulate route development, educate individuals on best practice for developing climbing routes on limestone, development/maintenance of climbing trails, scope out all climbing areas within the Bighorn National Forest and more.

Under federal regulations as it stands, anyone manufacturing or creating new routes with any type of permanent hardware or apparatus, including bolts, glue, manufactured hand holds, or modifying routes through chipping or hammering new or existing holds, will be subject to criminal fines that could be used as restitution to the impacted area.

The Bighorn is currently working on a Forest-wide climbing plan.

Here’s a text of a letter the Bighorn sent out last summer reminding folks of the CFR:

The USDA Forest Service reminds all Forest visitors that constructing new climbing routes or trails on the Bighorn National Forest, including Tensleep Canyon is prohibited.
If an individual or group is manufacturing or creating new routes with any type of permanent hardware or apparatus to include bolts, glue, manufactured hand holds; or modifying routes through chipping or hammering or drilling new or existing holds, they will be subject to criminal prosecution, to include restitution for the impacted area.
Pursuant to 16 USC 551; 36CFR§261.9(a) Damaging any natural feature or other property of the United States.
36CFR§261.10(a) Constructing, placing, or maintain any kind of road, trail, structure, fence, enclosure, communication equipment, or other improvement on National Forest system land or facilities without a special-use authorization, contract, or approved operating plan.
The Bighorn National Forest is in the process of developing a climbing management plan, with the purpose of helping protect from degradation the aesthetic of the canyon and the unique climbing attributes found here on the forest. There will be ample opportunities to participate and comment on this plan as it is developed.
Your cooperation will only enhance and protect the resources that are currently enjoyed, and ensure that Tensleep Canyon and the Bighorn National Forest will remain a special place for sport climbing into the future.

Updated: Digging into the Alaska FS-State Roadless Agreement – How Unusual Is It?

by

Administrative Order No. 299, signed September 6, 2018, established the Alaska Roadless Rule Citizen Advisory Committee. The Committee will consist of up to 13 voting members, representing federally recognized tribes in Alaska and Alaska Native regional corporations; environmental organizations; the timber, mining, tourism, energy, and commercial fishing industries; and state and local governments. The Committee will produce a report with recommendations to Governor Walker and State Forester by November 30,

The update is between the asterisks below.

Matthew posted this E&E news story about the Alaska agreements, and the Inspector General report requested by Congressfolk Grijalva and Stabenow. Now Coloradans may remember that Grijalva’s investigations don’t always turn out so well, as when he went after University of Colorado college professor/scientist, Roger Pielke, Jr. by writing to the university president Here’s a link.

My experience with Colorado Roadless was that it was a full-court press by many national environmental groups (I hadn’t worked on a project targeted by Pew before or since) and coverage in the media tended to be one-sided. I’ve still got some traplines out on some details, so will report back if something changes.

Let’s look at the agreement and let it speak for itself. Fortunately, this story provided a copy here.

The State and the Forest Service cooperatively shall:
Establish a State-Forest Service Executive Steering Committee to coordinate the various aspects of implementation of the rulemaking process and the State and Forest Service involvement in NEPA Interdisciplinary teams;
Establish and maintain clear lines of communication, working through the principal contacts;
Cooperate in the development of specific regulatory language for a proposed state-specific rule to establish management direction for Alaska roadless areas;
Jointly develop a detailed work plan that sets out required action steps, milestones, and time frames associated with all aspects of this rulemaking effort;
Cooperate in the preparation of analyses and documentation, development of the description of the proposed action and any alternatives, and the compilation of any required ecological, social, and economic resource information associated with this state-specific roadless rulemaking; and
Coordinate the development of the proposed state rule with the existing land management planning efforts in progress within the State of Alaska.

Again, I don’t know how Idaho did it, but in Colorado we had a memorandum of understanding but no challenge cost-share. My memory is that our state-led Task Force was funded by the State and the national advisory team (RACNAC) funded by the WO (meetings and travel). The FS paid the way of the State employees to attend RACNAC meetings. RACNAC disbanded after Idaho and Colorado, so the Alaska process has only the State advisory committee.

Let’s see how it’s characterized in the news story:

Alaskan officials have no right to waste taxpayer money weakening a rule that protects the Tongass and the public owners of the land,” Grijalva said in a statement. “Congressionally appropriated funds need to be used as they were intended, not to prop up efforts to open more of our national forests to extraction at public expense.”

So conceivably according to Grijalva, neither Colorado nor Idaho Roadless should have been funded (my memory is that they were planning dollars used).

But did they do anything different with the money than Idaho or Colorado? Let’s look at what they say in the agreement.

$250,000 in personnel services to be utilized by DOF senior management proportionally to their involvement in the project.
$43,775 indirect charge on personnel services@ 17.51%.
$1,706,225 in contractual expenses to convene and facilitate a group with a diverse mix of state-specific interests to inform the State’s input as a cooperating agency in the rule making process.

If the State asked for info from industry, that might have come out of their half of the match (remember this kind of agreement requires a match, so the State put 2 mill in and so did the Feds).
As far as I know, in Colorado, we never paid the salaries of the many State officials, from wildlife biologist (who did a great deal of work) to the Director of Natural Resources (ditto), who spent time on the Rule. In our case, the State funded Meridian to help design the public involvement process and facilitate the FS meetings (one of the best investments possible IMHO).

Federal forestry grants are typically used to help reduce wildfire risks, to fight pests and diseases, and for similar purposes. Using the money to influence federal policymakers on a major forest management regulation is an unusual choice, critics said.

The Alaska Wilderness League’s legislative director, Leah Donahey, said directing funds typically used on wildfire measures to logging lobbyists is a “betrayal of the public trust.”

**********************UPDATE 3/18/202*****************
My latest information suggests that the $ did not come from from planning, but from state and private forestry $. Here’s a link to Coop Forestry, which is the bucket of money that seems to fit it most.

The unnamed critics cited in the article are apparently not familiar with the wide variety of grants and cooperative agreements that the FS supports. Still, I don’t think the $ were used to “lobby” -clearly they didn’t need to be, as it’s pretty clear where the Gov and the Congressfolk stood on this issue (exemption). Sidenote: previous Undersecretary for the Forest Service Jim Lyons was heard to say about Urban and Community Forestry grants  (part of Coop Forestry) that “the authorities were so broad you could drive a truck through them.”
*****************************************************

So there may be nothing to see here, really. In Colorado, we didn’t pay anyone to help us figure out what people wanted (coal, ski folks, etc.) , but then on the other hand it might not be as complicated or time-consuming to say “we want to extend the mine below the surface here” or “we wish you’d take out those acres within our ski area permit.” The way I look at it is they actually needed to know for the analysis how much is economic to log and where, because that is the most important reason why in some minds, the 2001 hasn’t worked for them. Reasonable people could disagree whether the Association should have donated the work, or the State should have paid them for it.

The news stories also seem to conflate “spending $ for analysis and meetings” with “determining the outcome.” That is indeed a separate process as we saw in the Governor speaks to the President story.

When is a plantation “industrial”?

by

This press release from Oregon State offers interesting information on a study of the effects of timber harvesting on stream flows. The first sentence mentions “industrial tree plantations.” The Journal of Hydrology paper also uses the term — “industrial plantation forests.”

I wonder about the choice of the word “industrial,” which in some circles is often used in a pejorative sense. The second sentence of the press release says that “Industrial” means “intensively managed plantations” — a phrase that is accurate and much less loaded with non-scientific meaning. Also, a plantation might be intensively managed, but in no way industrial — for example, an area replanted after a wildfire and thinned over time to move it toward older forest structure. This would have the same effect on water flows as an “industrial tree plantation.”

Was this simply a poor choice of words? Is “industrial” an appropriate term is a scientific paper?

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

March 17, 2020

Timber harvesting results in persistent deficits in summer streamflow

By Steve Lundeberg, 541-737-4039, [email protected]

Source: Catalina Segura, 541-737-6568, [email protected]

This news release is available online: https://beav.es/4qi

Photo of Needle Branch area of the Alsea River watershed: https://flic.kr/p/2iDGjzj

 

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Summer streamflow in industrial tree plantations harvested on 40- to 50-year rotations was 50% lower than in century-old forests, data from the long-term Alsea Watershed Study in the Oregon Coast Range showed.

The research, led by Oregon State University’s Catalina Segura, is an important step toward understanding how intensively managed plantations might influence water supplies originating in forests and downstream aquatic ecosystems, especially as the planet becomes warmer and drier.

“Industrial plantation forestry is expanding around the globe and that’s raising concerns about the long-term effects the plantations might be having on water, especially in dry years,” Segura said.

Findings were published in the Journal of Hydrology.

Running through southern Benton and Lincoln counties in Oregon, the Alsea River empties into the Pacific Ocean at Waldport and supports runs of chinook and coho salmon as well as steelhead and cutthroat trout.

The Alsea watershed has a rich research history dating back six decades; in the 1960s, it was the site of one of the first comprehensive studies of the effects of forest harvesting on water quality and fish habitat in the nation.

Those research results provided evidence for standards included in the landmark 1971 Oregon Forest Practices Act, among the first such laws in the United States to set rules to protect streams from the impacts of timber harvesting.

In the current study, Segura and collaborators looked at 27 years of streamflow data to compare the effects of historic and contemporary forestry practices on summer streamflow in three sites within the Alsea watershed: Flynn Creek, Deer Creek and Needle Branch.

Flynn Creek, 210 hectares in size, was designated a U.S. Forest Service Research Natural Area in 1975 and has been left undisturbed; 60% to 70% of its canopy is red alder and big-leaf maple, and the rest is Douglas-fir that regenerated following a 19th century fire.

Deer Creek is 311 hectares and has been historically used to study how road building and extensive forest management affect water quality. Three 25-hectare areas (25% of the total watershed area) in the Deer Creek watershed were clear-cut in 1966 (buffer areas near streams were left uncut). Over the last 30 years the watershed has been harvested again via intermittent thinning and clear-cutting.

Needle Branch, 75 hectares, has been used for examining how watersheds are affected by contemporary logging practices compared to historical practices – the 1960s and earlier. The entire watershed was clear-cut between 1956 and 1966. Eighty-two percent of that happened in 1966, with no trees left along the stream. It was 100% harvested again from 2009 to 2014 using contemporary methods, including retention of riparian vegetation near the stream.

Together, streamflow data from Needle Branch, Deer Creek and Flynn Creek enabled the scientists to determine forestry practices’ effects on how much water was flowing in the streams.

After the mature forests were harvested in 1966, streamflow increased for seven years, then began to decline as the Douglas-fir seedlings grew, eventually falling below pre-harvest streamflow levels.

Compared to mature forests, daily streamflow from 40- to 53-year-old plantations was 25% lower overall and 50% lower during summer months, when there is minimal precipitation in the Coast Range.

The harvesting of the plantations didn’t lead to much of an increase in streamflow. The likely reason: high evapotranspiration from replanted Douglas-firs and other rapidly regenerating vegetation, and from the vegetation in the riparian buffer.

Evapotranspiration is the sum of the water that reaches the atmosphere through evaporation and transpiration – the process that moves water throughout a plant from its roots to its leaves.

“Results of this study indicated that 40- to 50-year rotations of Douglas-fir plantations can produce persistent, large, summer low-flow deficits,” Segura said. “While the clear-cutting of these plantations, with retention of riparian buffers, increased daily streamflow slightly, streamflow did not return to where it was before the harvesting of those mature forests, which apparently do not use as much water.”

The findings, together with other regional studies, indicate that the magnitude of summer streamflow deficits is related to the proportion of watershed area in young (30- to 50-year-old) plantations, Segura said. Comparatively little is known, she added, about the specifics regarding how evapotranspiration levels change as a tree ages or how much it varies with changes in forest structure as the forest matures.

“We need to improve our understanding of tree water use at the stand or forest level and how that changes as forests age,” she said. “We also need to continue to maintain our long-term studies as much as we can. The only way we found out what we learned here is because we had the long-term data.”

The National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, the Oregon Forest and Industries Council, Plum Creek Timber Company (now Weyerhaeuser Company), the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and the National Science Foundation supported this research.

Collaborators included Kevin Bladon and Jeff Hatten of the OSU College of Forestry; Julia Jones of the OSU College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences; V. Cody Hale of Nutter and Associates; and George Ice of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.

 

-30-

An Alaska Roadless Story: To Be Confirmed or Corrected

by

I’ve tried to put together this story from a variety of off-the-record sources. Unfortunately, I don’t have the connections to get the story corroborated by someone on the record. And I’ve spoken to some journalists who need corroboration to write the story. So I am telling this story with the intention that perhaps someone in the TSW community could verify or knows someone who might. You can always email me if you have this information.

Now, here is the story the way I heard it. It is similar to the WaPo story here from last summer with regard to the effect of Trump but I’d like to highlight the part (which the Post mentions) that the exemption decision was that of the President. (note the WaPo story says that the 2001 Rule “does not allow roads except when the Forest Service approves specific projects. It bars commercial logging.”

As the Alaska Roadless Rule was in development, the FS and State held meetings, analyzed public comment, and all that, and were ready to go with an “in the middle” Rule, as we have discussed previously here. I never heard which one, or whether it was a combination of different ones.

Secretary of Agriculture Perdue and the Forest Service supported this one, and the story goes it went so far as the Secretary told folks at the National Wildlife Federation that he was good to go with one in the middle. Their preferred rule was written and sent to OMB for clearance.

The way this story goes is that President Trump stopped over on an air trip and spoke with the Governor of Alaska, who convinced him to change the preferred to granting an exemption from the Rule (one of the alternatives in the DEIS). And so that is what is currently being cleared over at OMB.

Why I think this is important: if it is true, the FS and the Department negotiated in good faith, but were Trumped by a higher political authority. In a recent thread here, Jim Furnish mentioned that he thought FS leaders should speak out if they make changes themselves, or they come from higher up. My view is that it is not their role to tell us directly, but rather our own work as observers to read between the lines and figure it out, if it is that important. Which I think this one is.

At the end of the day, I think any State Roadless Rulemaking will get litigated (based on a sample size of two) and it’s frustrating for the Forest Service people to do things that make the Rule less defensible, as well as possibly blowing current and future collaborative efforts, and sowing much (unnecessary) bad feeling. That is why I’ve posted the story, even though it hasn’t been corroborated by anyone yet on the record. I would appreciate any info related to this.

Texas congressional delegation wants federal oil & gas leasing to fire up in the state

by

From the Forest Service scoping notice:

The National Forests and Grasslands in Texas (NFGT) is initiating the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The EIS will analyze and disclose the effects of identifying areas as available or unavailable for new oil and gas leasing. The proposed action identifies the following elements: What lands will be made available for future oil and gas leasing; what stipulations will be applied to lands available for future oil and gas leasing, and if there would be any plan amendments to the 1996 NFGT Revised Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan).

The Forest Service withdrew its consent to lease NFGT lands from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for oil and gas development in 2016. The reason for the withdrawal of consent was due to stakeholder concerns, including insufficient public notification, insufficient opportunity for public involvement, and insufficient environmental analysis. There is a need to analyze the impacts of new oil and gas development technologies on surface and subsurface water and geologic resources; air resources; fish and wildlife resources; fragile and rare ecosystems; threatened and endangered species; and invasive plant management. There is also a need to examine changed conditions since the Forest Plan was published.

These leasing availability decisions are forest plan decisions that were most recently made in 1996.  The action proposed by the Forest Service would result in changes in the stipulations and would therefore require a forest plan amendment.  The changes would shift about 11,000 acres from “controlled surface use” to “no surface occupancy,” and remove timing limitations from about 35,000 acres.

A letter from five Republican members of the delegation disagrees with the premise that the 1996 analysis was inadequate, and is unhappy with the pace of the amendment process.

The published timeline anticipated a Draft EIS in the winter of 2019 with the Final EIS expected in the fall of 2020. We are concerned that this timeline is no longer achievable given current pace of progress.

We request that USFS end the informal comment period, issue a Draft EIS this spring and ultimately approve the Final EIS that reinstates BLM’s ability to offer public competitive leases of National Forest and Grasslands in Texas for oil and gas leases before the end of 2020. While USFS is required by law to respond to eligible comments received within the public comment window (CFR218.12), the Forest Supervisor also has the authority to declare the available science sound, conclude the public comment period, and proceed with the issuance of the scoping comments and alternative development workshops as the next steps ahead of a Draft EIS (CFR219.2.3, 219.3) (sic).

That last sentence got my attention as the kind of congressional attention to Forest Service decision-making that might cause them to cut a legal corner here or there (especially when there is an election coming).  I also noticed the absence of any reference to the new requirements for amendments, and maybe the delay could have something to do with this becoming evident to them as a result of scoping.  36 CFR §219.13(b)(6):

For an amendment to a plan developed or revised under a prior planning regulation, if species of conservation concern (SCC) have not been identified for the plan area and if scoping or NEPA effects analysis for the proposed amendment reveals substantial adverse impacts to a specific species, or if the proposed amendment would substantially lessen protections for a specific species, the responsible official must determine whether such species is a potential SCC, and if so, apply section §219.9(b) with respect to that species as if it were an SCC.

I found nothing in the EIS for the 1996 revision about effects of oil & gas development on at-risk wildlife species.  You’d think the new information since 1996 might have something to do with effects on climate change, too.