Forest Service Sued for Giving in to Hostile Utah Ranchers

by

Here’s a press released from Western Watersheds Project:

Saint George, UTAH – Western Watersheds Project is suing the U.S. Forest Service in Utah for allowing ongoing overgrazing on Monroe Mountain by a handful of non-compliant permittees. The agency, faced with threats of armed resistance, has capitulated to rancher demands allowing excessive stocking rates, repeated trespass, and non-compliance with federal regulations.

“When the Forest Service tried to do the right thing and suspend these livestock grazing permits for multiple willful violations of the terms and conditions, the ranchers responded with threats of violence,” said John Persell, staff attorney with Western Watersheds Project. “That’s an ugly ultimatum, and it’s unfortunate that the Forest Service has to deal with these folks. But it’s unfair to the Americans who own these public lands to let them be continually degraded by scofflaws.”

The Forest Service has gone overboard in accommodating these bad actor permittees, working around the requirements for permit renewals by repeatedly offering “temporary” permits to the ranchers, unlawfully failing to respond to appeals of grazing decisions, ignoring requirements to incorporate sage-grouse protections into permits, and allowing increases in cattle numbers the agency never environmentally analyzed.

“When I visited these allotments last month with other members, we saw severe over-use of new aspen shoots and native bunchgrasses, as well as damage to riparian areas near springs,” said Laura Welp, an ecosystems specialist for Western Watersheds Project. “We could visibly see the degradation of these lands due to years of hands-off management by the Forest Service.”

In the spring of 2019, the agency’s Washington office intervened to order local Forest Service managers to waive basic permit terms requiring ear-tagging of cattle on public lands, and to allow the Monroe Mountain permittees onto the allotments despite ranchers’ attempts to re-write permit terms and conditions eliminating any land stewardship obligations.

“Allowing Cliven Bundy to get away with trespass grazing for over twenty years has surely sent a message to other fringe property rights ranchers that threats of violence work with federal agencies,” said John Persell. “However, the Forest Service is beholden to its own regulations and all of us as public land owners. This lawsuit will affirm the rule of law.”

A copy of the complaint can be found online here.

Here are some excerpts from the lawsuit:

Ranching, Open Space and Water Rights: Gunnison River Valley

by

Here’s a story about People Getting Along from the Crested Butte News.

Go to any mountain valley in Colorado with a nearby ski area and chances are you will see thousands of condominiums and hundreds of big second homes dotted everywhere within 10 or 15 miles of the resort.

But Crested Butte is different. If you stand on Brush Creek Road and look across the century-old ranch located basically below the Teocalli and East River ski lifts, the view in all directions is relatively unencumbered.

It’s not that there aren’t any impacts on the land that still looks pristine—booming recreation is encroaching and makes ranching more difficult, but the local ranching community has deliberately chosen to keep making a go of an agricultural way of life.

Ranches like this serve the Gunnison River Valley in many ways that are not visible to the casual eye, maintaining what many consider an important cultural and environmental balance beyond the economic aspect of producing beef. There is an element of the landscape that you see, the product of maintaining senior water rights and judicious irrigation to support native vegetation and ecosystems. There is noxious weed control, and managing cattle carefully to prevent resource damage.

There is also what you don’t see: the barren landscapes of other places that have opted to sell their water rights, or of commercial developments or residential subdivisions where ranches once operated and are now part of an unknown or forgotten history to future generations.

McPhail says one challenge facing ranchers is that they aren’t always known for their contributions to the valley. In a land of many uses, it is possible to lose sight of this part of our identity as we focus on adding more trails and events to spaces used by ranchers—and by wildlife.

“Many people don’t necessarily see any value in this way of life,” she says.

Ranchers can get a bad rap for their herds trampling land and damaging grasslands, but in some cases it is actually wildlife such as elk herds breaking their normal pattern of moving on to new areas each day. Increased urban interface and trail use, particularly by fast-moving, two-wheeled humans, can be confusing and unsettling for wildlife, and changes wildlife’s patterns of travel, according to McPhail.

“And where we used to have two annual bike events here, last year we had 14,” she points out.

A sign placed prominently along an entrance gate at the Brush Creek ranch property line tells a story of how cultural alignment is possible, if not always easy, between recreation and ranching. The sign says no trespassing or public access, as it is private property, but a Crested Butte Mountain Bike Association (CBMBA) logo has been printed at the top to show its solidarity with the ranch. It may help dispel an “us versus them” approach. McPhail suggests other ways to improve relations between those who do not understand ranching and the ranchers who own or lease the land. She says when trail users pass a ranch hand on public land who is moving aside to let them by, it would perhaps make a difference to say “thank you,” rather than complaining about cow manure.

Some ranchers throughout the northern and southern ends of the valley offer seasonal access through their property to beloved trails and fishing areas, as long as users are respectful of the property. Maybe this coexistence strategy is a more figurative way of laying down fences.

The Wilderness Visitor: Necessary Nuisance or Raison d’etre?

by
First slide of powerpoint

 

The attached Powerpoint Chojnacky–NWSA Wilderness Presentation 10-25-19  includes complete notes on the slides by the authors.  This post is longer than usual, as it involves original material. Many thanks to Cindy and Dave for posting here!

The PowerPoint and notes are a presentation we did October 25 at the National Wilderness Stewardship Association (NWSA) in Bend, OR—an ecletic mix of agency wilderness managers, researchers, volunteer stewards (such as “friends” groups interested in trail maintenance for a particular wilderness) and other non-government entities.

Our presentation was based on observations in hiking 60 wilderness areas (including a few other protected designations) in 11 states over past seven years. We found, oddly, that much wilderness is underutilized and unknown—while a few areas with good trails, good information or well-known features are overused and get the most management attention.

I  The Wilderness Act- Ends and Means

Policy analysis focused on “legislative intent”—what did Congress intend? Readers can follow my analysis of the Act’s STATEMENT OF POLICY SECTION 2 in more detail in the PowerPoint notes. In paraphrasing 2 (a)—the Act states an intent to “secure for the American people…the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness,” and to designate wilderness areas which “shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American people.” Therefore, the purpose for wilderness is people’s use and enjoyment—e.g. wilderness experience.

The task of management agencies is also spelled out: “these shall be administered in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as wilderness…” Unimpaired could be called wilderness quality. “In such manner” is the job of wilderness administration with wilderness quality the means for achieving the Act’s purpose or end: people’s use and enjoyment of wilderness (experience).  Much wilderness research, management and activism have focused on wilderness quality—and particular overused areas have received the most study and management concern. We concluded that focus only on wilderness quality—the means—if ignoring the overall purpose or end—wilderness experience—could  treat the wilderness visitor as a threat or nuisance.

The Act’s most repeated word is “use” (32x). SECTION 4 on USE OF WILDERNES AREAS starts with a long paragraph (a) aimed to ensure that wilderness management agencies retain their original mission and authorities along with the new task (b) of “preserving the wilderness character of the area.” This paragraph lists six “public purpose uses”: four we labeled experience (recreational, scenic, educational and historical) and two quality (scientific and conservation).

SECTION 4 (c) lists 10 PROHIBITED USES—probably well known to all—including commercial enterprise, roads, motorized equipment and mechanical transport. An exemption—”except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the administration of the area for the purpose of this Act”—might be the basis for Forest Service strict “minimum tool” regulations for wilderness management. For example, primitive tools such as cross-cut saws were probably appropriate for trail work in the first decades after the Act was passed because national forest wilderness included a vast legacy trail system that was built for transportation with stock that was still being regularly used for forest management. But today most Forest Service Guard Stations are closed; and long gone most stock and skilled field personnel that regularly cleared trails in course of duty. In addition, 1960-1990 was an era of relatively stable weather, small fires and minimal trail damage. Perhaps we should  relook at the Act’s exemption for select use of chainsaws in some areas where 21st century climate-related mega-fires, unprecedented avalanches, and other causes of tree mortality have blocked many trail miles with downfall—if public access is within the Act’s purpose.

Interestingly, the largest “use” word tally (12) is under SPECIAL PROVISIONS (d) is preexisting “prohibited” uses that may be exempted such as grazing, fly-in airstrips, commercial outfitter camps and so forth. The Wilderness Act appears to be a bold experiment in land use management to benefit the public with rather broad exemptions—not a mandate for rarely-visited, off-limits sanctuaries. Perhaps these are needed, but we will need a new law to do this.

II. Wilderness Experience Sample (many great photos of the authors’ experiences are in the Powerpoint)

Finally we attempted to quantify our own wilderness experience in 309 days of hiking about 3,339 miles in 60 wilderness areas in Eastern and Western states—spanning conifer forest, hardwood forest, desert and seashore. We identified six barriers to our experience and then evaluated each wilderness as to which barrier(s) severely impacted our experience—e.g. we would not repeat the trip for “enjoyment.” All but nine areas had at least one show-stopper barrier—most due to trail design or maintenance issues. We closed our presentation with a few ideas on shifting focus to visitor-focused management mainly in brainstorming mode.

III. Studying, Monitoring and Managing Wilderness Experience

Our analysis of words and wilderness experience are somewhat subjective because we began this project with a sense that our wilderness experience had been declining in recent years but were not sure why (furthermore, attempts to fund systematic studies of emerging enviromental issues in wilderness were met with disinterest; so we decided to just “go to the wilderness”). We’d love to see more systematic study of wilderness experience over the entire National Wilderness Preservation System. But, as one speaker pointed out at the NWSA meeting: much funding is spent on getting more wilderness acreage while only “pennies” are spent, relatively, on wilderness stewardship—let alone evaluating the wilderness experience.

Ironically, in the same sentence on wilderness in the 1964 Act SECTION 2. (a) that mandates “the preservation of their wilderness character” is also a mandate for “gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and enjoyment as wilderness”—a type of report we have never seen. Instead “wilderness character monitoring” seems to be sole emphasis of agencies’ wilderness reporting—even though the Act does not mandate such a report. Nor is the science of wilderness character monitoring developed to the point where consistent indicators (and electronic protocol) would allow scaling up information to evaluate the National Wilderness Preservation System.                                      

What Do People Mean When They Say “Clearcut”?: Colville Example

by
I think we could all agree that this is a “traditional” clearcut.. CanWel, Fernie, BC

Maybe the term “clearcutting” means so many things to so many different people, that it’s not helpful in understanding people’s specific concerns with forest practices.  Let’s go to a case we’ve discussed recently on the Colville. Here’s a statement in the KRCG press release that Matthew posted here:

The plan signals a significant increase in logging – including a large areas of clearcutting – as much as 25,000 acres per year across the 1.1 million acre Colville Forest and above prior recommendations.

Now, if we assume that the Colville will clearcut in the same proportions it currently does, FACTS  shows (if my extraction is correct) about  90 acres of clearcuts since 2000. Those are in ski areas, rights of way and a rock pit.  Those are not actually clearcuts in the timber harvesting sense, although timber was probably harvested.  So we don’t know exactly what KRCG considers a “clearcut”.  For example, clearing rights of way could be considered clearcutting because all trees are removed.  But it is not clearcutting in the regeneration sense.  The word clearcutting has a long association with timber harvesting and not with clearing land for other purposes.  That’s how it’s defined in the Dictionary of Forestry (Helms).  That’s also what the famous clearcutting controversies were about, which lead to NFMA, which lead to planning rules and plans and so on. The Forest History Society has a brief history of those clearcutting controversies by Jerry Williams.   I know some readers lived through those years, I’d be interested in your perspectives on that history.

When I worked in south-central Oregon in the 80’s, I remember a field trip with Weyerhaeuser and a professor from OSU about how we should make our clearcuts larger, as that was more efficient.  That was the “latest science” of the time.  We had just stopped doing selection (“pick and pluck” and Keen’s classification of ponderosa pine) and were not too inclined toward  the whole clearcutting idea, which originally came from the Wet West Side.  But we got into it, and then came along some people now saying you should make clearcuts smaller for apparently good reasons.  Then Jerry Franklin came up with “big messy clearcuts,” for more good reasons.  These, I think, were bigger than the previous small ones, and perhaps bigger than the original large ones, but they had more different kinds of material left.  Anyway,  all these clearcutting trends were always about timber, not clearing for rights-of-way nor subdivisions or whatever else. The alternatives were always shelterwoods or uneven-aged management- other silvicultural choices.  I’m also not sure that “small clearcuts” had a defined size that distinguished them from group shelterwoods or group selection, or “wildlife openings” or…  The idea of all these different choices seemed to be making sure the right conditions were present for regeneration to be successful. Perhaps the way the word is used today, it means something else. But what exactly? Is a clearcut in the eye of the beholder?

Given all that history, when Jim Coleman says in this comment:

“clearcutting is happening now and this year 5-60 acre clearcuts have gouged out of the Sherman Pass area up to 5,500′ elevation – and in full view of the Pacific NW National Scenic Trail and adjacent a Forest Service Scenic Byway.”

And yet the EA for the Sherman Pass Project says (in response to one of Dick Artley’s voluminous comments on the project).  (The FS had 50 pages of responses to his comments out of a 238 page EA).

“Silviculture: No clearcuts are planned for this project. While the purpose and need for this project is to protect the highway and powerlines from wildfire impacts, visual quality objectives have been considered. “

What are we to make of it?  I don’t think of hazard tree removal along roads or powerlines as “linear clearcuts” because of my history with the term. But perhaps some people do.  Or maybe it depends on the size of the opening, either relative to tree height or not, or the size of the trees that remain.   How do you think about the term?

Missoula Forest Collaboration Roundtable

by

Montana Public Radio collected some interesting perspectives.

What collaboration looks like to what some would consider a “far-right politician:”

“We were thrilled to have the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation with us today, that is exclusively focused on habitat restoration for elk and sportsmen. We want to continue to have all voices at the table,” Gianforte said…  I think all voices needed to be at the table in these collaboratives, but you have to participate in good faith,” he said. “There have been instances here in Montana where a collaborative worked literally for years to put a project together, and yet people who were at the table still sued. We have to prevent that sort of bad behavior.”

Is it “collaboration” when your participation means you can’t sue over the outcome?

What this idea of collaboration looks like to what some would consider an “extreme environmental group” (Alliance for the Wild Rockies):

“He wants to have all voices that agree with him at the table,” Michael Garrity says.  Garrity says he had no advance notice about Thursday’s roundtable. The Alliance is frequently at odds with — and in court fighting against — timber interests over forest policy.  Garrity said Friday that not only did he not receive an invitation, no one from what he called the environmental community got one either. And without that perspective, he says this week’s roundtable was simply an echo chamber. “It’s not going to be a good dialog unless they invite groups that oppose some logging by the Forest Service.”

My emphasis, especially on the “some,” not all logging.  (The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation does not oppose logging, though some elk hunters and groups do.)

What collaboration and litigation look like to the Forest Service:

“Different people see it in different ways; including different courts,” (USDA Undersecretary) Hubbard said. “The idea is for us to come together and agree on what kind of treatments make some sense, what satisfies most of the interest out there in one way or another, and then be able to implement that and have the courts support that with some consistent rulings.”

(My emphasis.)  The implication is that courts are just another form of public opinion.  And that it’s ok to exclude some of the interest out there, like “groups that oppose some logging.”  (And my usual gripe – the scope of project collaboration should include not just the “kind of treatments,” but which areas should be treated.)

(And there’s some discussion of categorical exclusions and the Good Neighbor Authority, too.)

Sharon’s All Time Favorite Post: Andy Stahl’s KISS Planning Rule

by

Brian Hawthorne raised the point here that the Forest Service spends too much time on planning, and not enough time on doing or implementing.  The Forest Service has tried to address this problem several times- I think the EADM process was initiated partially to make planning and NEPA more efficient.  During my time in DC on the NEPA staff, the problem was framed as “Process Predicament.” Various approaches have been tried to do this, both for “NEPA” projects and for “NFMA” plans.

What I like about Andy’s KISS rule is that it starts at the beginning, “What does NFMA call for?”  Here is KISS I from December 31, 2009 (remember NCFP was started to discuss and follow along with the development of the 2012 Rule). Check out the comments from thoughtful John and David.  I linked the various other KISSs in this post. It’s my favorite because it is radical (goes to the root of NFMA) and it is still relevant as per discussions of  forest plans, collaboration and the 1982 Rule Colville Plan.  As forests spend more time on planning, and being litigated, under the 2012 Rule (aka developing case law for the 2012), perhaps Andy’s post is even more relevant.

KISS Planning Rule

Contributed by Andy Stahl

Forest planning has been hijacked by a generation of planners who turned what should have been a narrowly-focused effort to constrain an out-of-control Forest Service logging program and turned it into a wasteful, endless, bureaucratic exercise with little merit.  Let’s review what the National Forest Management Act actually requires of plans and the planning regulations.  The reader can follow along here:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/16/usc_sec_16_00001604—-000-.html

Here’s what a NFMA plan must contain:

1) the “planned timber sale program” including the “proportion of probable methods of timber harvest.”

That’s it.  There is no second item.

Now look at what NFMA requires of the planning regulations.  First, there must be guidelines

1) to identify the suitability of land for resource management;

2) for obtaining inventory data; and,

3) for identifying special conditions or situations involving hazards.

Second, the planning rules must

1) insure that economic and environmental matters are considered in the forest plan;

2) insure that plans provide for diversity of plant and animal communities;

3) insure plans address research and evaluation of management systems to prevent substantial and permanent impairment of land productivity;

4) permit increases in harvest levels based on growing trees faster;

5) ensure that timber will be harvested only where soil, slope or watershed conditions will not be irreversibly damaged, land is restocked within 5 years, protection is provided to water from detrimental changes, and harvest methods are not chosen based on greatest dollar return or unit output; and, finally,

6) ensure that even-aged cutting is used only where it is appropriate, natural appearing, not too big, and protective of other resources.

That’s it.  When read in the context of the times, i.e., the clearcutting scandals of the mid-1970s, it makes perfect sense that what Congress sought were timber sale programs for each national forest that ensured logging levels and methods were light-on-the-land and protected other resources.

In the 1980s, with national forest logging beyond 10 billion and up 12 billion board feet annually, that was no mean feat.  Today, with logging at or below 3 billion board feet, forest planning ought to be a snap.  But only if the Forest Service sets its cross-hairs only on the target Congress demanded.  Otherwise, it will continue to take 15 or more years to write 15-year plans that will make no decisions and be irrelevant in the real world the day they are signed.

Andy Stahl is the Executive Director of the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics

 

Ancient Wood Art

by

Who knows what kind of history this former tree has seen? What caused the wood to grow like that? I love finding art in nature.

Enjoy!

 

#LarryHarrellFotoware

@larryharrellfotoware on Instagram

www.facebook.com/larryharrellfotoware

How Long Should Rec Planning Take?

by

This Reno newspaper story, “Tahoe-area snow enthusiasts on edge over possible changes to snowmobile access,” describes conflict between motorized and non-motorized recreation. But what caught my attention was that the recreation plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin “has been in the works since 2011.” 8 years, so far, to produce a plan? It might be 10 before it is finalized. How might the process be shortened?

Fed up with Forest Service cuts, some California towns are plotting a recreation takeover

by

Excerpt from an LA Times article reprinted here:

Fed up with Forest Service cuts, some California towns are plotting a recreation takeover

“Something has to change,” Mammoth Lakes Councilman John Wentworth said. “The Forest Service is overwhelmed,” he said, by 21st-century challenges its founders could never have imagined: climate change, budget cuts, electric mountain bikes.

Called the Eastern Sierra Sustainable Recreation Partnership, the project would establish a new economic alliance among the Forest Service and the communities of Mammoth Lakes and Bishop and three counties — Inyo, Mono and Alpine. Local government agencies would take the lead in developing water systems and sewers, roads, campground services, restrooms, trails and signage in some of the Sierra’s most heavily visited corners.

The idea is popular in mountain towns that have struggled with economic development, but it worries some conservationists and local officials who want the region to retain its wild spaces and rustic personality.

“This big idea seems to be driven by commerce rather than science,” said Sam Roberts, president of the nonprofit Friends of the Inyo and a lifelong wildlife photographer and rock climber in the Sierra. “At stake is the character of the wilderness experience.”

Chris Lizza, a Mono County planning commissioner and owner of a grocery store in the Mono Basin community of Lee Vining, contends the proposal “would empower the Forest Service to continue neglecting its responsibility to maintain our national forests.”

Southwest Collaborative Forest Restoration Program 2020 Annual Workshop

by

FYI, Smokies….

The Southwestern Region of the US Forest Service is hosting the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program (CFRP) 2020 Annual Workshop on December 17-18, 2019 in Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The workshop will be held at Hotel Albuquerque, 800 Rio Grande Blvd, NW Albuquerque, NM 87104, 1-505-428-1000.  The workshop is open to the public and there is no charge for attending.

Click here to register for the workshop.

The CFRP Annual Workshop brings together CFRP grant recipients, their partners and other stakeholders to share their experiences and discuss accomplishments, challenges, and strategies to overcome barriers to the implementation of collaborative forest restoration projects.  The workshop also provides an opportunity to explore ideas for future CFRP projects. CFRP grants can be used for forest restoration and small diameter tree utilization projects on or on any combination of federal, tribal, state, county and municipal and land grant lands in New Mexico.  To be eligible, grant applicants must use a collaborative process that includes a diverse and balanced group of stakeholders and appropriate government representatives to design, implement and monitor their project.  The 2020 CFRP Request for Applications and the agenda for the December 17-18, 2019 Annual Workshop will be posted on the CFRP website in mid-November at http://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/r3/cfrp.

Rooms have been set aside on December 16th and 17th, 2019 at the rate of $96.00 plus taxes per night (single/double occupancy) at Hotel Albuquerque 1-866-505-7829. To receive the group rate, guests must state that they would like to be placed within the “US Forest Service” block of rooms, or they may refer to the Block Code 1912USFS. Below is a link for online bookings.  The link may be used over the actual room block dates only and the date of arrival and departure should be selected.

 USFS 1912USFS

Please note the reservation cut-off date will be:  November 18, 2019.  After this date, any remaining rooms within the block will be released into the hotel’s general inventory.

For more information on the 2020 Collaborative Forest Restoration Program Annual Workshop, please contact Ian Fox at 505-842-3425.