Forest Service and BLM Processes for Oil and Gas Development 101- 2- Further Questions Answered

by
This is in Wyoming.

Despite a general seeming lack of interest in this topic, I’m going to continue because this might be good basic information to have accessible when the next controversy comes up. Many thanks to a helpful individual in the Colorado BLM State Office for answers to these questions.

If there is no or little potential, as in the RFD, then why does it come to the FS in the first place (and make them do all that analysis)?
The Forest Service is responding to a lease nomination from the BLM.  Where does that come from? The BLM gets nominations from folks who are interested in getting leases.  BLM checks on some things,  including, if it is on Forest Service land, whether the area is leasable according to the Forest Service decisions, If it is, BLM forwards the lease nomination to the Forest Service. (Reasonable Foreseeable Development) RFDs do not always keep pace with changes in the industry. An area with low potential might become commercially viable due to changes in drilling and fracking technology, or the discovery of new reserves.
Note that an RFD is an analysis associated with a NEPA decision such as an RMP (Resource Management Plan), somewhat along the lines of a forest management plan.
Which leaves us necessarily with the question:
How often are RMP’s updated?
RMPs typically are in place for 20-30 years in between plan revisions. RMPs are updated from time to time to address maintenance actions or specific issues that were not adequately addressed in the plan.  (very similar to forest management plans).
Why would a company nominate a lease parcel and then not bid on it?
Nominations are anonymous until after the lease sale. Why a company would nominate a parcel and then not bid would be a question better answered by the private sector. (Maybe I can find someone from the industry to answer this, but if it takes a while to nominate, forward, analyze and put out the lease,  it could be changes to the nominators own conditions or analysis.)
How long does a no-leasing decision (such as the decision described for the Ruby Mountains) last?
 The Forest Service can decide to concur or not concur with a private sector nomination that is being handled by the BLM. If the Forest Service does not concur with leasing, the nomination in questions would not be offered. Unless the USFS changes the forest plan, that area is still open to leasing and future nominated parcels would still be processed by the BLM and potentially presented to the USFS for the concurrence.
What’s the overall timeframe for the nomination to be processed by the BLM and sent to the FS?
It can vary quite a bit based on BLM workload and the complexity of the parcel request. Anywhere from a few weeks to a few months.
What is the timeframe for the FS to make the leasing availability decision?  In the Ruby Mountains example, the nomination was received in 2017, they issued an EA in 2018 and the final decision was March 2019.
***********************************************************************
What were some things in the forest plan specifically about oil and gas leasing? (from the 2018 EA here).
Forest Plan Desired Conditions:
*The number of leases, permits and operating plans is expected to increase slightly throughout the life of
the plan. Withdrawals and legislative requirements will restrict mineral development on 356,888 acres.
*The Forest will expedite the processing of oil and gas lease applications and locatable mineral proposals.
*Leasable mineral/energy applications will be evaluated on an individual basis. The decision to lease and
site-specific stipulations will be determined on a site-by-site basis. Development activities will be
addressed by an interdisciplinary field analysis and environmental assessment.
Forest Plan Goals:
Goal #36- Administer the mineral resources of the Humboldt National Forest to provide for the needs of
the American people and to protect and conserve other resources.
Goal #38- Expedite oil/gas and geothermal activities.
Goal #39- Reduce the backlog of oil and gas lease applications.
Goal #40- Integrate the exploration and development of mineral and energy resources with the use and
protection of other resources. Use special stipulations identified in Appendix H (of the Forest Plan) for
mineral leases.
**************************************
Two years seems pretty, fast as FS NEPA analyses go, so it looks like the HT is following the forest plan.  As an observer of other NEPA processes, though, it seems that the nominator of the parcel gets much NEPA work done and then can simply not bid on the parcel with no loss to them, unlike examples of other kinds of proponents funding “third party NEPA.”  While it is understandable that technical and economic conditions can change, it seems like the FS has more skin in the game than the nominator or the BLM, analysis-work wise. Perhaps nominators should have to front a certain amount of the analysis money as their contribution?

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Northern Rocky Mountain Grotto Win BLM/Forest Service 2019 National Conservation Award

by

 

Thanks to Som Sai for this!

RMEF has helped the BLM and Forest Service implement more than 4,300 wildlife habitat enhancement, land protection, and public access improvement projects. Such projects include aspen restoration, forest restoration thinning, prescribed fire, burned area restoration, planting, seeding, fence removal, and weed control to enhance more than firve million acres of wildlife habitat on federal public lands.

RMEF also facilitated BLM and Forest Service land and easement acquisitions through the nation’s Land and Water Conservation Fund to conserve wildlife habitat and improve public recreational access on federal lands. RMEF has directly contributed more than $36.6 million to both agencies to help fund wildlife and conservation projects. The combined total conservation value of the two agencies’ partnership with RMEF is estimated at more than $411 million.

The NRMG assists the Forest Service, BLM, and the State of Montana in cave inventory, monitoring, and management, with a focus on cave restoration, bat habitat monitoring, and preventing the spread of White Nose Syndrome, a deadly and highly infectious disease affecting bat populations across the U.S. NRMG is actively engaged in helping the agencies educate the public on bat conservation, including installing cave visitor register boxes, which provide information for cave visitors about clean caving practices, decontamination protocols, and reporting bat observations through the NRMG website. The organization also collaborates with Forest Service and BLM personnel and Bigfork High School Cave Club to establish cave climate monitoring, photo monitoring, and Visitor Impact Point monitoring across Montana.

“We are honored to receive this recognition for our conservation work that benefits elk and so many other wildlife species,” said Kyle Weaver, RMEF president and CEO. “We appreciate our federal agency partners with whom we’ve worked shoulder-to-shoulder for years now and look forward to many more joint projects that permanently protect and enhance wildlife habitat, open or improve public access and benefit hunters, anglers and so many others who cherish our wild landscapes.”

“We’ve really enjoyed working with the FS and BLM since 2011. As many agencies are stretched thin with resources, it is imperative that we learn to work more effectively to help manage the outdoor resources we all care so much about,” said Ian Chechet, NRMG Chairman.

Som notes that

It seems as if the RMEF is apolitical. I’ve never heard them seem to endorse one party over another, they also seem to work with whatever administration is in power at the time, and to seemingly get along well with them. I’ve never heard of the RMEF being in disagreement with policies of any federal agency, perhaps if there are disagreements they are voiced quietly and not in public. I think their methods are to get along with federal officials at agencies, and to work with them, not against them.

One Example
The RMEF strategy might be to “catch people doing something right”. For example these quotes from a recent Colorado Public Radio piece on considering recreation when selling public land.

Several hunting and conservation groups voiced support for the action, including the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies. But others said it appeared politically calculated to curry favor among lawmakers ahead of the hearing.

The critics pointed to drastic cuts in President Donald Trump’s proposed budget to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which supports conservation and outdoor recreation projects nationwide.

RMEF and State Fish and Wildlife Agencies simply say “this is a good thing”; NPCA “he’s only doing good things because his hearing is next week, and besides he works for the Trump administration and the proposed budget slashes the Congressionally popular LCWF.”

The Center For Western Priorities newsletter went even further..”Western Values Project Executive Director Chris Saeger went a step further, saying the order suggests that “under Bernhardt’s leadership, the sale or transfer of public lands is back on the table and appears to be a real possibility.”

MT state land timber ransom paid

by

Maybe this is one possible (small) advantage of state ownership (vs federal) of public lands in one state.  In Montana you (and I mean you, or any environmental group) can bid on a 25-year “conservation license” in lieu of a timber sale.  In what I believe may be a first in Montana, there was such a high bidder.  It’s maybe a fairly unique situation, where adjacent landowners could afford to pony up the $100ks for what appears to amount to a limited-term scenic easement.  This makes some sense for the state if the goal for land management is dollar returns.  Of course the actual timber bidder is protesting it.  Both sides have raised questions about what the statutory language for state lands means when it says: “secure the largest measure of legitimate and reasonable advantage to the state.”  Should it include the “benefits” of roads that would be built (but not the environmental costs); should it include the long-term economic value of being able to resell the same timber in 25 years?  (Is this a good idea for public lands?)

What’s Up With Forest Service Law Enforcement and Criminal Referrals?

by

This post is part of our effort to help journalists by providing expertise or links that may be difficult for them to easily find. This makes for better stories and a better informed public.

The question brought to us is “it has been documented that Forest Service law enforcement is not sending as many criminal referrals forward to the Department of Justice for prosecution since 2001, why would that be the case?” Law enforcement is one of the most important parts of the Forest Service organization, especially as lands get used more by growing populations.

I would ask if anyone has any ideas and/or evidence as to why this might be happening, please comment below.  If you don’t feel comfortable in an open forum, please email me at terraveritas at gmail.com.

From this link to the Forest Service website:

Special Agents are criminal investigators who plan and conduct investigations concerning possible violations of criminal and administrative provisions of the Forest Service and other statues (sic) under the U.S. Code. Special agents are normally plain clothes officers who carry concealed firearms, and other defensive equipment, make arrests, carry out complex criminal investigations, present cases for prosecution to U.S. Attorneys, and prepare investigative reports. Typically there is one special agent stationed in each geographic zone. All field agents are required to travel a great deal and usually maintain a case load often to fifteen ongoing criminal investigations at one time.

In addition, criminal investigators/special agents:

  • Work cooperatively with Federal, State, local and tribal law enforcement agencies
  • Conduct complex criminal and civil investigations involving Drug Trafficking Organizations, domestic terrorism and claims for or against the government
  • Conduct undercover and surveillance operations
  • Testify in court on behalf of the government

Some examples of criminal cases are:

  • Illegal outfitter and guiding
  • Theft of government property
  • Timber theft
  • Investigations of wildland fire origins
  • Manufacture and distribution of controlled substances
  • Assault of Federal employees or volunteers

Criminal investigators occasionally conduct internal and civil claim investigations.

From my own position of very little knowledge, the reasons could be a) there are fewer people in the past (harder to recruit, less funding?, b) they are collaborating with others in a different way so the prosecutions don’t go through the FS, c) wildfire investigations are using more time, d) illegal marijuana grows are using more time. A regional breakdown will be helpful in testing hypotheses, but we don’t have that yet.

Ideas?

Forest Service and BLM Processes for Oil and Gas Leasing 101

by
The Ruby Mountains – image – Tom Hilton/Flickr

We recently heard about the Humboldt- Toiyabe decision to not allow oil and gas leasing  in the Ruby Mountains.  One of the reasons was public opinion (which I would have to say, in my experience,  always runs numerically against oil and gas leasing). The other was that there is not expected to be oil and gas able to be profitably extracted there.  Jon asked “if there isn’t, why did they go to all this trouble?” The answer must lie in legal requirements and agency processes.

I reached out to the HT folks, and it turns out they explained the process very clearly in their EA. I still have a few questions I will run down and post later.

The purpose of this action is to determine what lands, as requested by the BLM and located on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest MCRJ Ranger District, would be available or not available for future oil and gas leasing conducted through lease sales by the BLM. For NFS lands made available, the Forest Service would provide consent to the BLM for leasing of lands, along with any stipulations/lease notices to protect surface resources. The need for action is to respond to the Nevada State BLM Office request asking for leasing concurrence and to satisfy the Forest Service’s respective statutory and policy mandates of responding to such requests for the environmentally responsible development of energy resources.

The BLM and Forest Service have shared responsibilities for oil and gas leasing on NFS lands. The BLM is responsible holding sales and issuing oil and gas leases on Federal lands, including NFS lands. The BLM cannot offer NFS lands and issue leases for oil and gas leasing without the Forest Service first providing a consent to lease decision.

Leasing is authorized under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended and modified by subsequent legislation, and Department of the Interior BLM regulations found at 43 CFR 3100. Oil and gas leasing is recognized as an acceptable use of public lands under the Federal Land Policy Management Act. The Nevada BLM conducts quarterly lease sales. Once a parcel is leased, the lessee has the ability to develop the lease by exploring, drilling, and producing all of the oil and gas within the lease boundaries extended vertically below the surface, subject to stipulations and notices attached to the lease (Title 43 CFR 3101.1–2).

Leases are issued for a 10-year period and continue as long as oil or gas is produced in paying quantities. Leasing availability decisions by the Forest Service and leasing issuance by the BLM do not approve any ground disturbing activities. Any future ground disturbing activities proposed following postleasing would require additional NEPA.”

BLM asks, and the FS responds with a NEPA document and decision but after the lease sale if it is sold the actual drilling activities require another site-specific NEPA document. Of note to plan-watchers is the presence  of “NSO stipulations” in the Forest Plan for this area. NSO means “No Surface Occupancy”. The BLM can still lease without surface occupancy as explained here:

A NSO stipulation is restrictive to the surface and no surface drilling activity can occur where applied, however, NSO does not prohibit subsurface exploration and development beneath NFS lands accessed by directional drilling or well spacing from leases on adjacent lands. Oil and gas reserves may be tapped without disturbing the surface through directional drilling or well spacing. For example, where a lessee holds a lease without NSO stipulations on BLM/private lands and also holds a lease on adjacent NFS lands with NSO stipulations, the lessee has the right to extend directional drill legs from nearby leased lands beneath the surface of NFS leased lands with NSO stipulations. Types of activities that can still occur from adjacent leases and extend beneath leased NSO lands include horizontal or directional drilling legs and any of the stimulation or completion techniques (includes hydraulic fracturing) along those legs.

IMHO there’s a very clear description of the Responsible Official’s rationale on page 3 of the EA. We can see that the previous decision to impose NSO stips at the Forest Plan level (they can be included in a plan revision or done separately as an amendment) was a valuable exercise  in advance of this decision- it makes more sense to do at the forest spatial scale than one request at a time.

Creating habitat openings in the Cherokee National Forest

by

From the National Wild Turkey Federation. Interesting use the of Good Neighbor Authority. I don’t know if this is the scoping letter for the project, but if not it’s a similar one. Most folks would have no objection to openings for wildlife habitat; some would object is commercial timber harvesting were involved. This project includes “dropping trees to increase feathering of the edges” but apparently not commercial timber harvesting. Note that “Many spot openings were created by the expansion of log landings following timber harvest.”

The NWTF partnered with the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency and the Cherokee National Forest to create habitat openings for wildlife across 1,249 acres in the Tellico and Ocoee districts of the Cherokee National Forest. The NWTF provided tractor implements to achieve these openings.

“There’s a great partnership [with Cherokee National Forest] where the agency is helping manage a lot of linear openings and wildlife fields on the national forest,” said Chris Coxen, NWTF district biologist. “They’re using the Good Neighbor Authority to help get more habitat work accomplished on federal land … We’ve helped them get a lot more work done through the equipment we’ve provided.”

Clearing away overgrown woody plants has allowed more room in the habitat for grasses and other plants beneficial to wildlife to thrive. In addition, mowing has provided open area for wildlife to live and feed.

“They provide habitat for insects that turkeys eat, that deer browse and that other critters nest in,” Coxen said. “Maintaining these areas is good for brood cover, insect foraging and pollinators. It’s kind of a buffet in some of these areas … These linear corridors are some of the only permanent areas like that in some sections of the forest, so it’s important to keep them open.”

Northern Rockies Ecosystem Protection Act- Groundhog Day Stew with a Dash of Trump

by
Apologies, I couldn’t get the color explanations to print out.  Dark green is new wilderness and orange “wilderness recovery areas.”

I looked this Act up on Wikipedia and it turns out that the same (?) bill seems to have been introduced in 2011 (and dates back to 1993?) by the same folks with testimony by Carole King starting in 1994. Nevertheless, we are assured the New York Times writers, Mike Garrity of Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Carole King, of singing fame, of this op-ed that it’s particularly important to do it now because:

To be fair, the Obama administration also pursued some of those actions. But the current administration’s zealotry threatens the region’s wild landscape and rich biodiversity…

Of course, when the Times writes about the interior West, we can assume that we are dealing with the imperial gaze. There are a couple of interesting points I’d like to draw out, but would like to hear from people who know more about the bill and about the history (and the other Rocky Mountain Front Wilderness additions and how they fit together), and to link to our recent discussions, what are “Wilderness Recovery Areas?”

Big Gulps Mean Big Targets.  There is a reason that the FS and partners aren’t usually thrilled about “big gulp” projects or “landscape scale restoration via large projects”.  They mean big total numbers that can be used in media campaigns, and attract big attention from folks who are of a litigious bent.

In August, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit voted unanimously to halt a planned 125-square-mile logging and burning project in the Payette National Forest in western Idaho. The court concluded that parts of the project ran counter to the forest’s management plan.

Under that project, so many trees would have been cut that the forest would have no longer provided elk or deer with the cover they need. Forest streams would have been filled with sediment from bulldozers building miles of new logging roads — further damaging the native fisheries for which the Northern Rockies are internationally famous.

Without looking at the EIS, I think “the forest no longer providing elk and deer the cover they need” is probably an overstatement.

Forest streams “full of sediment”? Doesn’t the State of Idaho have water quality requirements? Yes, they do, in fact they have audits and a continuous improvement program. I did not get the “full of sediment” feeling from reading the 2016 audit found here.

All Roadless to Wilderness
Under the 2001 Rule, the only things you would be kicking out to change to Wilderness are pre-existing oil and gas leases (before 2001 RR or possibly gap when 2001 RR was enjoined), OHV’s and bikes. But that’s based on reading the Maloney summary linked in the op-ed here and not the whole bill.

  • Designate all of the inventoried roadless areas in the Northern Rockies as wilderness, protecting 23 million acres of land that is home to vital ecosystems and watersheds

  • Establish a system to connect biological corridors, ensuring the continued existence of native plants and animals

  • Keep water available for ranchers and farmers downstream until later in the season when it is most needed

  • Allow for historic uses such as hunting, fishing and firewood gathering

  • Protect forest canopies that absorb greenhouse gases

I don’t know many folks who gather firewood in wilderness, nor in roadless areas… because they gather firewood near roads to get it home.

Et tu Wikipedia?
The entry in Wikipedia says under Opposition to the Legislation here:

Opponents to the NREPA state that there will be a loss of extraction jobs in the northern Rockies; mining, logging, and oil/gas production as a whole account for many of the jobs in the five affected states. [5

But if they’re already Roadless, then how much mining, oil and gas, and logging is going on? This is all very confusing. It would be great if every Wilderness bill or RWA or any special designation, for that matter, would simply have a table of “what’s currently allowed in terms of plans/rules/designations currently” “what will not be allowed under the new designation” “what existing users (actually on site, not potential) will not be allowed to continue their uses” and “what do we know about where those people will go.” IMHO,so much drama and needless carbon -impacting electrons could be saved by a standard Change Of Use Table for every potential change in designations!It also directly would acknowledge that the kicked out folks will go somewhere else and perhaps introduce opportunities and resources for helping them transition as part of the designation process.

February-March litigation and such

by

For those who have been missing this (click links for more) …

Atlantic Coast Pipeline

Update: The energy companies wanting to build the Atlantic Coast Pipeline across the George Washington and Monongahela National Forests are appealing a reversal of that decision to the U. S. Supreme Court. The 4th Circuit Court of appeals held that the Forest Service improperly amended their forest plans to allow it (discussed here).

Rock Creek Mine (no link)

New lawsuit: Ksanka Kupaqa XaʾⱠȼin v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In the latest case in long-running litigation against the Rock Creek copper and silver mine on the Kootenai National Forest, Plaintiffs challenge failure to reinitiate ESA consultation regarding the mine’s impacts on grizzly bears. Plaintiffs also challenge the legality of FWS’s 2017 bull trout biological opinion and the Forest Service’s authorization for the first phase of the project in reliance on the challenged FWS decisions.

Beaverhead-Deerlodge forest plan

Update: The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest has decided not to issue any new decisions on timber or vegetation projects until it has completed consultation on the effects of its 2009 revised forest plan on Canada lynx, a species that was found on the forest after previous consultation on the revised plan occurred. This is the result of the NEC v. Krueger lawsuit on the Fleecer Mountains Project discussed here and here.

Flathead Glacier Loon project

Update: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has enjoined the Glacier Loon Project on the Flathead National Forest pending resolution of an appeal from a district court that upheld the Project. Plaintiffs say the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service didn’t properly analyze the project’s potential harm to threatened grizzly bears and Canada lynx and wolverines that are proposed for listing, including cumulative effects of the adjacent Beaver Creek project (also being litigated).

Elkhorn Mountains BLM

New decision: The Montana Federal District Court has enjoined a logging and prescribed burning project on BLM land in the Elkhorn Mountains, which are jointly managed with the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest. A supplemental environmental analysis is being required to consider cumulative effects.

Elkhorn Mountains Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest

Also in the Elkhorn Mountains (and who knows, maybe a future lawsuit), the Strawberry Butte Front Country Trail Management Project calls for adding 39 miles of hiking and biking trails to the U.S. Forest Service trail system within a uniquely designated wildlife management unit. The system would designate 28 miles of trail that currently exists but is not recognized by the Forest Service, as well as 11 miles of new trail construction. One complaint during the public comment period: “inviting bike enthusiast from all over the country to the north Elkhorns.”

Kaibab travel plan

New decision: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a travel plan decision and environmental analysis by the Kaibab National Forest to allow hunters to drive up to a mile off certain routes to pick up big game. According to the State of Arizona the decision was needed to help cull oversized herds of bison that roam areas of the forest near Grand Canyon National Park. Plaintiffs cited potential danger to the habitat of Mexican spotted owls and the black-footed ferret, both endangered species.

Visitor fees

New decision: The Colorado U.S. District Court upheld the Aspen-Sopris Ranger District’s right to charge $10 per vehicle to visit the Maroon Bells Scenic Area. The judge ruled that it didn’t matter if a person doesn’t use the services offered. The plaintiff’s attorney filed a notice of appeal in the 10th Circuit Court; the Recreation Enhancement Act forbids the Forest Service from charging a fee “solely for parking” or for general access to public lands, she said in an email.

Wolf Creek Ski Area inholding

Update: Rio Grande National Forest Supervisor Dan Dallas on Wednesday announced a new decision to provide reasonable access to a 288-acre private property parcel adjacent to Wolf Creek Ski Area. The property owner plans to construct a year-round resort known as the Village at Wolf Creek. Previous litigation was discussed here. Coincidentally, a U.S. magistrate judge has ordered the Forest Service to release documents asked for in the FOIA request that sought information about political intervention in the Wolf Creek decision. The law required the release of the documents by last August.

Nestle bottled water

Update: In another FOIA case, the Forest Service was able to withhold records pertaining to Nestle’s special use permit and water diversion and transmission facilities at Strawberry Creek in the San Bernardino National Forest pursuant to the “trade secrets” exemption.

Bi-state sage-grouse

Update:   Four environmental groups have intervened on the side of the Forest Service to defend its decision in the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Plan to protect the listed population of bi-state sage-grouse from motorized users. “The Forest Service did the right thing by strengthening sage-grouse protections under the Humboldt-Toiyabe plan,” said Taylor Jones, endangered species advocate for WildEarth Guardians.

Greater sage-grouse

Future litigation: As for the greater sage-grouse, which was not listed under ESA because the Forest Service and BLM amended their land use plans to include a species conservation strategy, the BLM has changed their plans again to remove key protective measures that would have avoided development in the areas most important to sage-grouse. The Forest Service is likely to follow (although their website is still touting the benefits of their existing conservation measures).

Humboldt-Toiyabe oil and gas leases

No action alternative selected: Also on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, the Forest Service probably avoided another lawsuit by deciding to not allow oil and gas leases on almost 53,000 acres of the Ruby Mountains in Nevada. The Forest Supervisor said his decision was based on overwhelming opposition to the idea and “unfavorable geologic conditions” that suggest there is little to no oil and gas potential in the area.   On that latter point, maybe he could have figured it out a little earlier and avoided a little work? And now they have to allow an objection?

Blue Mountains forest plan revisions

No action alternative selected: The Forest Service has decided to not revise the forest plans for the Blue Mountains of eastern Oregon and Washington, apparently in response to local complaints that they could not accept any of the action alternatives because of the social and economic impacts. (This was prophesied here.)  “For now, the forests will be managed under a previous plan, with a few minor changes.” There is no mention of an objection process for this decision (including the “minor changes”).

Monongahela hydroelectric project

No action proposed: Unlike their decision on the Atlantic Coast Pipeline, the Monongahela National Forest successfully used its forest plan to block a proposal to build a water-powered electrical facility. The Forest Supervisor wrote that the project would adversely affect parts of the Forest, including species and vegetation. “In addition to denying the SUP proposal because the proposed licensing studies are inconsistent with the Forest Plan, the project itself would be antithetical to the Forest Plan,” he wrote. This rejection is not subject to administrative appeal.  As with the Pipeline, the politicians are now being asked to help.

Forest Service prosecutions:

Helena-Lewis and Clark mining

Umatilla mining

Sequoia marijuana grow

Tahoe archaeological sites

When Do Old Forest Plans “Need” To Be Revised?

by

 

The Circle of Life- Plan Revision Style without the Litigation Loop

Recently I was asked to speak to students at neighboring Colorado College, a liberal arts school in Colorado Springs. They asked me questions about why a neighboring forest was still operating with a 1984 plan and is only now starting plan revision. I agree with Susan Jane Brown that “you can’t live with an outdated plan forever”  comment here. That is true, but where should we be between 15 years, 35 years and forever.  I notice that no ecosystems have unraveled the PSICC with its 1984 plan, that is 35 years old now.  If we think about the 2012 Rule, and that this is now 2019, and relatively few plans have actually finished being revised (Flathead? El Yunque? Francis Marion?), perhaps the plan revision process has gotten so cumbersome that it is even more unlikely that forests will revise every 15 years.  And if we use the “latest science” in project decisions, it’s a bit awkward to be roped into keeping plan decisions for 20-30 years. That was the idea behind the concept of a forest plan as a loose-leaf notebook of the most current decisions,  rather than a process that is so lengthy that conditions change while the process is ongoing.

The Smokey Wire was originally started to have public conversations when the 2012 Rule was being developed, and Andy Stahl presented the KISS rule linked here. Clearly you can make plan revision more or less complicated (the Rule and Directives are a certain level of complicated, and then forests can do their own processes on top of that). Then ultimately case law will come about that may require even more complicated analysis.

The following is only my opinion, so I welcome discussion and others’ views.

What do current NFMA plans do? They develop desired conditions, objectives, standards and guidelines, and management areas.  Desired conditions IMHO tend to be either rainbows and unicorns, or detailed vegetation conditions designed to replicate the past with the idea of “natural range of variation.”  Objectives are always a function of budget and over 15 years tend to change, but they may be useful guidance. Still, wouldn’t it be better for the Forest to sit down with their program of work and budget through time and involve stakeholders?  Management areas- tends to be about making more areas Wilderness,  and as we’ve discussed before, that is essentially a political decision- except for how you manage them in the interim. I’ve been at public meetings about plan revisions in which this is basically all people care about.. who in the recreation sector is allowed to continue doing what where.  Many members of the public could care less about DCs, objectives, standards and guidelines.

If there is a specific reason that the “old plan” isn’t working, you can amendment it surgically and remove that reason.  Transportation planning? New endangered species? Oil and gas leasing decision? Wildland fire use? New standards?

So here are my reasons not to revise, or at least not to get in line early on a new Rule.

  1. There is not a pressing reason. No one is knocking on your door. You don’t have enough $$ in your budget to do what is crying out to be done.
  2. It’s a lot of work and uses much time that could be used for other potentially more useful/important to stakeholder activities (although planning is funded separately, it tends to draw in everyone else to the effort, and many of those dragged in lack enthusiasm for planning.)
  3. The 82 Rule had so much case law behind it that you could be relatively sure of what you were doing.  Do you want to be the forest that is in litigation for years while case law is being made? And do you want to go back and redo that EIS two or more times?
  4. Some Forests used some energy on the 2005 Rule, and found that opening the can of worms of revision (e.g., some groups say you need to analyze an alternative that takes all the cattle off the grassland and get a free roaming herd of bison- will a judge agree that that’s reasonable?) only got (some) stakeholders excited about shutting down activities, and others dismayed by the first groups efforts to shut down their activities (you can think about mountain bikes here). There is lots of emotions released on both sides and to what end? You are most likely to end up somewhere in the middle and the groups may have made some serious enemies of each other in the meantime. If you are basically at some kind of equilibrium, why disrupt it?  What situation would be bad enough to require disruption?
  5. Related to #4, no matter what you do, some people are going to hate it.  If you are a big contentious forest, you will have threats of litigation.  You’ll attract media attention. Of course, part of that is the cost of doing business, but do you have to do it ( a plan)? After all that, will the forest, the employees or the stakeholders be better off in any way?

Report: Forest Restoration Contributes to Jobs, Economy

by

A report from a nonprofit institute says forest restoration initiatives generated $150 million dollars for northern Arizona’s economy in 2017. The study was conducted to meet a Congressional requirement for monitoring the results of large-scale restoration projects.

The link goes to a short article with a link to the report by the Conservation Economics Institute. Another report there looks worth reading:

“Forest Density Preferences of WUI Homebuyers”