Forest Service not sued on timber project

by

I couldn’t find the project files for the Gatton’s Park fuels treatment project in the Upper Mimbres Valley on the Gila National Forest, but it seemed like it has a lot of features that make it a good example of how to not get sued –

The Nature Conservancy received an initial Collaborative Forest Restoration Program grant for planning the project from 2012 through 2014; when the National Environmental Policy Act process was finished, the Grant Soil and Water Conservation District was awarded an additional grant and took over implementation of the plan beginning in January 2018.

In addition to local residents and logging businesses, the county government, the Forest Service, firefighters, conservationists and wildlife habitat advocates are also seeing the benefit of working together.

So far, thinning has reduced fuels from 50 tons per acre down to 15 tons in treated parts of the 1,500-acre project area and reduced fuels by half in other treated parts of the project area — something that will give residents on the edge of the Gila Forest in the Gatton’s Park development, in particular, a better chance of surviving a wildfire without catastrophic damage. The border of forest land and developed land is known as a “wildland urban interface.”

Partido emphasized the difference between a regular timber contract and the current project. Both attain forest management goals, especially in the area of fire prevention, but the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program is more efficient. “There hasn’t been a timber sale in these parts since the 1950s,” Partido said.

Part of the silvicultural prescription provided by the Forest Service — the tree plan — also takes into account habitats for the threatened Mexican spotted owls in the Gila. Trees over certain diameters are left in place — as are trees with holes where owls might nest.

What happens to the trees that are cut? The two contractors are either bringing the logs to sawmills and making poles and other products out of them or turning them into wood chips — piles of which are regularly offered to anyone who wants to come pick them up, for free. “Some of the ponderosa logs will be brought to the Celebration campground and other campgrounds for people to use,” Carver said.

Short-Sighted, Ineffective and Stupid: Michael Rains on Potential Job Corps Transfer

by


For those of you not familiar with the Forest Service Job Corps program, it’s a training program for at-risk youth to help them learn job skills.
For some reason (“efficiency?”), the Department of Agriculture apparently wants to close some and move the rest to the Department of Labor.

Here is a piece from Michael Rains on the Evergreen website that calls the idea “incredibly short-sighted, ineffective and stupid.” I’m with Michael, and I just don’t get why of all the important potential things to fix, Perdue et al. would find one that isn’t at all broken. Like I said, I get the idea of efficiency at some superficial level (the flip chart level of analysis), but there are plenty of voices that say the Job Corps is part of the heart and soul of the Forest Service, and those voices should be listened to. The Secretary may have poked the slumbering retiree giant. When an EA or a project is long done, the spark the FS will light in a youth may brighten families and communities, and ripple through generations.

NAFSR has ideas for how to raise our voices:

We have heard from many of our members that are concerned about this decision and asked what they could do.

We would like our members to send emails with your comments to the following people in the Department of Agriculture –

Jim Hubbard – [email protected]
Campbell Shuford – [email protected]

We would also like you to send your comments to your congressional delegation.

You can also leave a message for Secretary of Agriculture, Sonny Perdue, by clicking on this link – https://www.usda.gov/tellsonny

Here are some potential talking points:

* The importance of this program to many of the rural communities we serve.
* The long standing success of the Forest Service in not only carrying out the intent of the Job Corps program from its inception in 1964 but the importance of the “conservation centers” and the special locations and ability to connect with outdoors and involve students in conservation work including silviculture and fire management activities.
*Not recognizing the fact that this program and the Forest Service involvement is in fact a “classic” example of the vision espoused in the objective of “shared stewardship” and the Forest Service has been a leader in in this.
*The confidence that the Department of Interior placed in the Department of Agriculture in the recent past when eight of their Centers were transferred to the USDA Forest Service.
*The impact of the closing on 1,100 USDA employees who will lose their jobs or be displaced.
*The fact that many of our members have spent a good part of their careers working to make the Job Corps Conservation Centers successful through their leadership and expertise
*And lastly the manner in which this decision was made and the lack of transparency and inclusion of those impacted by the decision.

Here is a link to the NAFSR letter to Perdue.

Here is a piece by Bill Gabbert on the fire angle.

Here’s an article from Politico.

I’m also curious as to what about the FS you would improve if you were the Secretary, and interested in efficiency. I don’t think he has asked us yet 😉 but still… Mine would be to review R&D projects between NSF, EPA, Interior and Agriculture (all in-house and grants) for duplication and set in motion processes to avoid duplication in the future. Yours?

NFS Litigation Weekly May 30, 2019

by

 

Forest Service summaries:  2019_05_30_Lit Weekly

 

NEW CASES

The complaint alleges unauthorized use of chainsaws in two wilderness areas on the San Juan and Rio Grande National Forests.  The case is being discussed on this blog, here and here. (D. Colo.)

Another lawsuit has been filed against the Rio Grande National Forest’s approval of access to private land that would allow development of the Village at Wolf Creek Ski area.  More on this dispute can be found here.  (D. Colo.)

 

BLOGGER’S BONUS (not included in the Forest Service summaries)

The district court denied a motion for injunction pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit of its decision to dissolve a prior injunction on the Miller West Fisher Project after the Kootenai National Forest had completed additional analysis.  That court decision was discussed here.  (D. Mont.)

The appeals court upheld a fire salvage and restoration project on the Modoc National Forest.  It found that the Forest adequately addressed effects on northern goshawks and Modoc suckers.  In relation to NFMA, it found that landscape conditions did not comply with the forest plan because of the fire rather than the proposed action, that required surveys were conducted, and other alleged requirements were discretionary guidelines.  (9th Cir.)

 

LATE BREAKING UPDATE (after the Forest Service summary was compiled)

A federal appeals court ordered a new hearing for environmental groups trying to ban the use of lead shot that they said poses a threat to endangered California condors in the Kaibab National Forest. The court held that the case is justiciable, and that because the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, it never had the chance to consider the questions pertaining to contributor liability under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in the factual context presented by this case.  (9th Cir.)

Chain-Saws in Wilderness: Special Case And/Or Slippery Slope?

by

This is not from the San Juan but illustrates a similar request from the Methow Valley RD in R6 in 2017.

Here’s a link an article on the Methow Valley Ranger District request.

Matthew posted this press release written by San Juan Citizen’s Alliance and Great Old Broads for Wilderness

Here’s the Forest Service side as reported in the Durango Herald. Some excerpts:

The ultimate decision, however, was left up to Brian Ferebee, the Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain regional forester. On May 7, Ferebee approved the request, but noted he was “concerned about the impacts to wilderness character” that chain saw work would have in the two wilderness areas.

As a result, Ferebee placed certain restrictions on the project, such as limiting work to no more than six weeks between June 1 and Aug. 17 and requiring a Forest Service staffer to supervise work.

“The magnitude of obstructed trails across these two wilderness areas, and the potential resource damage that will occur if we do not open these trails to wilderness visitors, warrants the rare and limited exception to allow chain saw use,” Ferebee wrote.

—-

In a previous interview, Jason Robertson, the Forest Service’s lead on the project, said chain saws have been used in wilderness areas in the past, but usually in circumstances after a major storm knocked down vast amounts of trees.

——

At the heart of the conservation groups’ complaint is the risk that allowing motorized use for trail work could chip away at the Wilderness Act and could be applied to other areas of the U.S. where bark beetles have ravaged forests.

The Forest Service’s Roberts said allowing chain saws into the Weminuche and South San Juan wilderness areas would not set a precedent for other Forest Service districts.

But Robertson’s statement appears to be contradicted by his supervisor’s own words in his letter approving the project. Ferebee said he wants a detailed report of how many trees were cut, total miles of trails cleared and summary of the project.

“Your reports will help determine if any future chain saw allowances are justified and needed to administer wilderness in the Rocky Mountain Region,” Ferebee wrote.

Note: Brian Ferebee is my former boss, so perhaps I am biased. But why would this one be setting a precedent any more than any other approvals of chain saws in Wilderness? There is a difference between collecting data for analysis and future decision making and “setting a precedent” in my mind. I don’t understand exactly what the reporter is thinking.

The FS had done a Minimum Requirements Analysis. Here’s a link to that process, and the FAQ’s, which are very helpful, are here.

In hunting for more information, I ran across a GAO report on this topic from 1970 (50 years ago!). Sometimes the internet is a wondrous thing. Here’s the link.

In GAO’s view, the construction and presence of trails, bridges, and other facilities in wilderness and similar areas, as well as the presence of litter left in the areas by the users, are basically inconslstent with the ideal wilderness concept. GAO believes that, once decisions have been made to construct such facilities and to dispose of accumulated litter, the factors of economy and convenience as well as others should be considered in determining whether the use of motorized equlpment is reasonable and desirable in the circumstances.

How We Pay to Play: Funding Outdoor Recreation on Public Lands in the 21st Century

by


It’s a good time to think about this, when at least one Presidential candidate (sigh.. does the silly season have to start so early?) wants to make National Park visits free.  Another idea (not proposed by any candidates that I know of) would be to charge non-residents more, as they are not paying taxes for the parks (and to discourage plane travel and other carbon-using aspects of international tourism?).

Here’s a link to the report, authored by Tate Watkins of PERC. I think the basic point is that funds that are dependent on users are invariant to partisan bickering and suchlike, so are more dependable and also as visitation goes up, the relevant funding would go up directly.

For the Parks:

More recently, after nearly three decades of relatively flat visitation that began in the late 1980s, visits to the park system have surged since 2013, increasing by 16 percent in just five years. The uptick is likely due to various factors, including the park service’s centennial celebration in 2016 as well as the rise of outdoor recreation generally. In 2016 and 2017, systemwide visitation reached all-time highs of nearly 331 million visits, before falling to 318 million visits in 2018. Even with the overall decline last year, 28 individual sites set new visitation records.[14]

Not specifically mentioned in the report is increased international tourism to US Parks, discussed here . It’s a little confusing because sometimes they are talking about totals, and sometimes about percentages of international travelers who visit Parks and Monuments.

And about the Forest Service:

Forest Service

The Forest Service manages more than 190 million acres of land for multiple uses such as timber management, livestock grazing, wildlife and fish habitat, and recreation.[22] National forests provide ample outdoor recreation opportunities, from hiking, biking, and horseback riding to hunting, dirt biking, and camping. The Forest Service manages approximately 30,000 developed recreation sites nationwide.[23] The agency faces a deferred maintenance backlog of its own of nearly $5.5 billion, including $279 million in unfunded trail repairs.[24]

According to visitor surveys conducted by the agency, visitation to national forests has remained relatively steady over the past decade. In 2016, there were an estimated 148 million recreation visits to national forests.[25]

That (has remained relatively steady) does not match my observations. Maybe some places are going down in use, other places are increasing and the average is the same? Maybe NVUM is not accurate? What are you all’s observations?

(The return of the official) NFS Litigation Weekly May 22, 2019

by

I’ll return to my role of providing a brief summary and links to the Forest Service summary and documents (with occasional additions and comments).  Some of these cases below were recently discussed here.

Forest Service summaries:  Litigation Weekly_2019_05_15_22_Distributed

 

COURT DECISIONS

Flathead National Forest, Beaver Creek Project.

The Plaintiffs had sought to compel the Forest Service to repair a broken security light and place picnic tables at the facility on the DBNF under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA.  The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered parties to provide evidence about the designations of the facility.

Introduced mountain goats, Manti-La Sal National Forest.

The 9th Circuit upheld the Kaibab National Forest Travel Management Plan permitting motorized big game retrieval.  The district court decision was discussed here.

The District of Montana dismissed a complaint filed in 2015, concerning the allotment management plans on 7 domestic sheep allotments on the Beaverhead Deerlodge National Forest, and the revised forest plan.

 

NEW CASES

This complaint alleges violations of NFMA and NEPA on the Cooper Creek Project on the Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest.

Prince of Wales Landscape Level Analysis Project.

 

NOTICES OF INTENT

Western Watersheds Project states they plan to pursue litigation unless the FS initiates and completes new consultation with the USFWS over impacts from grazing to the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest.

This ESA NOI pertains to the second lawsuit against the Flathead National Forest revised forest plan.  A complaint was filed by the same plaintiffs on NFMA and NEPA issues on April 2.  The first lawsuit was discussed here.

  • Western Watersheds Project v. Schneider (no link)

Sage grouse plans.

 

OTHER AGENCIES

The Supreme Court ruled against the State of Wyoming on a case involving interpretation of an 1868 Treaty concerning hunting rights on “unoccupied lands of the United States ….”  This case was previously discussed here.

 

Rabbit Valley Recreation: The Dangers of Some Ruining it For All

by

Owl333’s comment here reminded me of the recent news stories about the BLM changing policies in Rabbit Valley, Colorado due to bad recreationist behavior.  I like how the author of this op-ed in the Grand Junction Sentinel, Jim Cagney, a retired BLMer,  characterized it as the need for an upgraded land ethic. a few excerpts:

The recent BLM proposal for revised management of the Rabbit Valley entails the construction of new campgrounds, with a prohibition on dispersed camping once the campgrounds are completed. Some people like to stay at campgrounds, but not me. I don’t want a requirement to pay to for a site that entails enduring other people’s raucous behavior, generators, music and lights when I’ve always been able to pick out my own spot, and use it for free. I never camp in the Rabbit Valley because it’s so close to home, but I enjoy dispersed camping, so it’s sad to see yet another area getting closed. Regardless, I’ll probably have to live with those new rules, because they’re a sign of the times.

Long years ago, when I first started working for the Bureau of Land Management, a veteran warden from the Wyoming Fish & Game offered me some profound insight. He said the freedom to utilize natural resources is divisible by the number of people attempting to use those resources. If I were the only person hunting, all the rules associated with modern game management would be pointless.

….

Meanwhile, increasing use and a lack of land-use ethic, associated with the more remote dispersed camping I prefer, carries a nasty progression these days. The landscape is dotted with big fire rings full of ash, broken glass and half burned garbage. Wishing to avoid the soot, trash, and ring of toilet paper on the perimeter, the next group builds another campsite nearby, creating a new route if necessary. Route proliferation causes erosion, loss of wildlife habitat, and degradation of legally protected cultural sites. Soil disturbance in desert environments causes dust-on-snow issues that reduce our water supply. No doubt the BLM is acting on the premise that outdoor recreation is a core economic driver for the Grand Valley, so we can’t afford to let our key attractions deteriorate.

I’m with Cagney on the preference for dispersed camping, and the hope that the behavior of some doesn’t ruin it for the rest of us. There’s also concern about the environmental impacts of the new recreation economy, including the carbon emissions from folks driving out to recreate. But who would want to try to keep people recreating on our public lands? And should people pay something for dispersed camping?

Bark Beetle Epidemic in Calaveras County

by

 

The bark beetles started their invasion when I used to live there, in Mark Twain’s famous Calaveras County. Now it looks like it has reached epidemic levels, requiring emergency action, from multiple agencies.

http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/news/article_fbc896b8-7d6f-11e9-94ea-7b4b381822a0.html

Even with recent wet winters, tree mortality will remain a pressing issue as long as bark beetle infestations and drought conditions continue, said Brady McElroy, a hazard tree specialist in the Calaveras Ranger District of the Stanislaus National Forest.

“By no means is the issue going away,” McElroy said. “What the Forest Service has to focus on are the high priority areas, the immediate hazards to homes, roads and highways.”

In the long-term, McElroy said the Forest Service hopes to increase the pace and scale of thinning projects to restore overstocked forests that have been allowed for by a century of fire suppression.

“Our forests are overstocked, which increases competition (and) stressors on the trees, (and consequently) their ability to defend against bark beetle,” McElroy said. “The ongoing goal is to thin forests to a healthy kind of pre-European settlement stand to where they’re a little more resilient. We’re focusing on high-priority areas in the wildland-urban interface … We know what happens when these overstocked forests catch fire – we lose them.”

Diana Fredlund, a public affairs officer with the Stanislaus National Forest, said that although federal budget decreases have impacted the scale of the work for the Forest Service, the agency has been able to collaborate with private, county, state and other federal agencies and contractors for tree removal projects.

“We do what we can with what we have,” Fredlund said.

The Forest Service offers its own tree mortality program for homeowners with properties adjacent to Forest Service land. Property owners can fill out a Hazard Tree Evaluation Request Form to be considered for hazard tree abatement.

Idaho Fish and Game Agreement with Timber Companies on Fee-less Recreation

by

If timber companies and a state agency can agree on making access to 867,000 acres of private timberland free to the public, maybe there’s a template for doing the same for federal lands.

Also included: “The access/depredation fund also pays for continued public access to 2.3 million acres of Idaho Department of Lands state endowment lands for hunting, fish, trapping and other recreation, which includes about $300,000 annually to the Department of Lands and Fish and Game providing law-enforcement services on endowment lands.”

This kind of arrangement would free the USFS and BLM from collecting fees, such as for picnic areas, which I suspect costs more than it takes in.

Idaho Fish and Game press release:

Timber companies and F&G agree to leases for public access to private timber lands 

By Roger Phillips, Public Information Supervisor

Friday, May 17, 2019 – 3:42 PM MDT
Two lease agreements will provide public access to about 867,000 acres of private timberlands in Panhandle and Clearwater regions

A new partnership between Idaho Fish and Game and PotlatchDeltic will provide and preserve public access for hunting, fishing and trapping on 567,002 acres of private land in Benewah, Clearwater, Idaho, Latah and Shoshone counties through a lease agreement.

A second agreement expected to be finalized by early June is with a group of forestland owners and managers, including Stimson Lumber Co., Hancock Forest Management and Molpus Woodlands Group, to allow public access to more than 300,000 acres in Bonner, Boundary, Benewah, Shoshone and Kootenai counties.

Fish and Game will pay $1 per acre annually for the access, which includes hunting, fishing, trapping, wildlife viewing, hiking and recreational travel limited to motor vehicle travel on roads open to full-sized vehicles. Restrictions on camping and ATV use may apply depending on the landowner’s rules.

“These agreements demonstrate Fish and Game’s continued commitment to putting money from the access/depredation fee to good use and provide hunters, anglers and trappers with access to private lands while compensating landowners for their support of those activities,” said Sal Palazzolo, F&G’s Private Lands/ Farm Bill Program Coordinator.

“PotlatchDeltic is pleased to partner with Idaho Fish and Game on this public access agreement. As the largest private timberland owner in Idaho, we recognize the importance of public access for recreational activities and the benefits for sportspersons and outdoor enthusiasts,” said Darin Ball, Vice President Resource, PotlatchDeltic.

The agreements came through Fish and Game’s new “large tracts” land lease program that targets multi-year access to parcels 50,000 acres or larger.

Lease agreements with all the companies will automatically renew for at least three years. Money for the leases comes from House Bill 230, which in 2017 established Fish and Game’s access/depredation fee that requires a $5 surcharge for residents and a $10 surcharge for nonresidents when they buy their first annual license of the year.

The access/depredation fund also pays for continued public access to 2.3 million acres of Idaho Department of Lands state endowment lands for hunting, fish, trapping and other recreation, which includes about $300,000 annually to the Department of Lands and Fish and Game providing law-enforcement services on endowment lands.

Fish and Game’s sportsman’s access programs also includes Access Yes!, which pays landowners to allow the public on, or through, their lands, and parcels accepted into that program go through an annual competitive bid process.

People with questions about the specifics of the PotlatchDeltic agreement can contact Fish and Game’s Private Lands/ Farm Bill Program Coordinator Sal Palazzolo at [email protected], or call (208) 287-2752.

April-May litigation update

by

 

Mountain goat removal (new decision)

Utah Native Plant Society v. U. S. Forest Service (10th Circuit)

The circuit affirmed the district court dismissal of an attempt to force the Manti-La Sal National Forest to remove mountain goats that the state of Utah had introduced to prevent them from harming a research natural area. It held that neither laws or regulations gave the Forest Service authority to prohibit the state action to introduce the goats on nearby state lands or to require a permit. It also held that, while the Forest Service had the authority to remove the mountain goats, it had not made a final decision on whether to do so, or to take other possible actions to protect the RNA, and therefore could not be sued.  This case was discussed previously here and here.

 

Hells Canyon grazing (new decision)

Greater Hells Canyon Council v. Stein (D. Or.)

Magistrate Judge Patricia Sullivan released her findings on a lawsuit (previously discussed here) brought by the Greater Hells Canyon Council claiming cattle grazing on the Hells Canyon allotments were imperiling the Spalding’s catchfly, a rare wildflower found only in the inland Northwest and listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. In her findings, Sullivan disagreed with the plaintiff’s assertions that the Forest Service lacked sufficient baseline monitoring data for the catchfly and that the agency was required to consider an alternative that would eliminate grazing in all areas where catchfly grow. Sullivan’s findings also denied the plaintiff’s claim that the Forest Service violated the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area Act.

 

Target shooting (settlement)

Los Padres ForestWatch v. U.S. Forest Service

The lawsuit alleged violations by the U.S. Forest Service of the National Forest Management Act and the Endangered Species Act from unregulated target shooting in the Los Padres National Forest (discussed here). A ban on unmanaged target shooting in the forest was approved as part of the forest plan in 2005, making it consistent with the three nearby national forests, but it was never implemented.  Under an agreement approved in U.S. District Court, the Forest Service will extend a temporary ban on target shooting outside of designated sites, and prepare studies and consult with federal wildlife agencies to assess and reduce the impacts of target shooting on rare and endangered plants and animals including the California condor, California red-legged frog, southern mountain buckwheat, and Kern mallow. A report also noted that target shooting has caused at least 53 wildfires in the Los Padres National Forest during the past 25 years.

 

Sage grouse plans (update)

Western Watersheds v. Schneider (D. Idaho)

The plaintiffs challenge 15 different Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) and their associated land use plans issued in 2015 that govern land covering ten western states. The EISs were issued as part of a National Planning Strategy by the BLM and Forest Service to update protections for sage grouse. This lawsuit was stayed for a lengthy period as the parties pursued settlement. But more recently, the BLM has issued amendments (referred to as the 2019 Amendments) to the 2015 Plans.  (The Forest Service has completed a DEIS for similar amendments.)  The court has granted plaintiffs’ motion to supplement their complaint to challenge the amendments as well as part of the ongoing case.

 

Rosemont copper mine (update)

A motion for a preliminary injunction was filed on May 15 pertaining to five lawsuits filed over the last two years against a proposed copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains on the Coronado National Forest. A long article on what is involved and what has happened is here.

 

Idaho sheep experiment station (unsettlement/new case)

A previous case involving the experiment station on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest was discussed here (the settlement was discussed in a comment). In the prior settlement, the federal government agreed to prohibit grazing until a study was completed assessing the risk of domestic sheep transmitting diseases to bighorn sheep. The USDA completed an environmental analysis last summer and said last fall that it intended to resume grazing this year. A new lawsuit was filed in February to protect bighorns, grizzly bears, sage grouse and other wildlife.

 

Fremont-Winema grazing (new case)

The complaint filed by Concerned Friends of the Winema and four other groups marks the fourth case in about a decade alleging violations of federal statutes in the Antelope allotment. This lawsuit accuses the U.S. Forest Service of unlawfully approving a 10-year grazing permit for the allotment despite “irreparable harm” to the threatened Oregon spotted frog and wetland plants and mollusks.  An injunction was dissolved earlier this year in a previous lawsuit (discussed here).

 

Hammond brothers grazing permit (new case)

Conservation groups filed suit challenging former Interior secretary Ryan Zinke’s order to renew grazing permits for Oregon ranchers Dwight and Steven Hammond after BLM had cancelled them in 2014 when the agency determined they didn’t qualify for a renewal based on a lack of “satisfactory record of performance” (which purportedly precipitated the standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge with the Bundy Gang). The lawsuit says that Zinke misinterpreted the effect of the presidential pardon of the Hammonds for setting a series of fires on federal lands without authorization and interfering with firefighters, and that there are no legal grounds for renewing the permit without a public environmental review.

 

White River logging project (new case)

Twenty-one residents of the Upper Fryingpan Valley are asking the Colorado federal district court to stop the Upper Fryingpan Vegetation Management Project on the White River National Forest. The complaint challenges the failure to prepare an environmental impact statement to address Canada lynx habitat, increased carbon emissions (from biomass used in energy production) and impacts to tourism and recreation.

 

Trail on a conservation easement (new case)

The Sawtooth National Forest holds a conservation easement across a private ranch and has proposed a 4.4-mile trail across 1.5 miles of the easement for pedestrians, cyclists, horseback riders and snowmobilers between the resort town of Stanley and Redfish Lake. The owner of the ranch has filed a lawsuit claiming “numerous flaws and illegalities,” including failing to do a study on the environmental impacts of the trail.

 

Geothermal leases (new case)

Pit River Tribe v. Bureau of Land Management

The Pit River Tribe of northern California has filed suit to force the cancellation of a 1982 contract to explore geothermal energy on 2,560 acres of national forest lands where the Modoc, Klamath, and Shasta-Trinity National Forests meet. The Tribe alleges that Calpine Corporation failed to meet lease renewal requirements by making “diligent efforts” to produce geothermal power as required by the Geothermal Steam Act.

 

Grizzly bear recovery (Notice of Intent to Sue)

The Center for Biological Diversity has notified the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service that it will sue them over its plans for recovery of grizzly bears. Specifically, they allege failure to prepare a new recovery plan that adequately addresses the need for recovery of the species in additional areas, which the Service recognized the need for in its 2011 status review of the species. The additional areas where recovery should be considered include “historic habitat in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, California, Nevada, Oregon, and southern Washington (mountain ranges in the western U.S.)” (likely primarily on national forest lands).  Federal legislation has also been introduced to eliminate hunting of grizzly bears.

 

Other recent litigation news discussed in other threads:

Flathead timber sale (new decision)

Tongass timber plans (new case)

Chainsaws in wilderness (new case)