Public Lands Litigation – update through January 12, 2024

by

It was relatively quiet in court over the holidays (but interesting).  (What will the new year bring?)

FOREST SERVICE

Magistrate recommendations in Center for Biological Diversity v. Moore (D. New Mexico)

On November 17, the magistrate judge recommended dismissing this challenge to livestock grazing on the Sacramento Allotment on the Lincoln National Forest as moot.  Regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, the judge determined, “The new BiOp issued by FWS on or before December 31, 2023 … will moot Petitioners’ claims regarding the validity of the 2021 BiOp,” because it “will include substantive regulatory changes,” which respond to changed circumstances.  (No word on whether this actually happened.)

New lawsuit:  Gallatin Wildlife Association v. Erickson (D. Montana)

On December 4, plaintiffs in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (discussed here) agreed to avoid a preliminary injunction hearing when the Custer Gallatin NF agreed to not take further action on the South Plateau Project until summer.  On December 18, Gallatin Wildlife Association, Native Ecosystems Council, and WildEarth Guardians filed a lawsuit against the same project.  They allege violations of ESA and NEPA for the project, which would involve clearcutting 5,551 unspecified acres of forest, including mature trees; commercial thinning of 6,500 acres of forest; 2,500 acres of non-commercial thinning; 1,800 acres of fuels treatment; and up to 56.8 miles of temporary roads, based on an EA.  The project is in an area described by plaintiffs as a grizzly bear “sink,” where the population is struggling.  Plaintiffs question the science used to consider effects on grizzly bears, challenge the project’s “condition-based” management under NEPA, and also allege a violation of President Biden’s executive order that requires the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to conserve mature and old-growth forests.  (The article includes a link to the complaint.)

New lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (D. D.C.)

On January 10, six conservation organizations sued the Monongahela National Forest to protect the federally endangered candy darter (a fish) and two endangered bats from a commercial Forest Service road use permit to haul coal from the Rocky Run Mine on private land and to move mining equipment and supplies.  The plaintiffs claim that the Forest failed to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service or follow procedures to comply with NEPA.  Plaintiffs assert:  “Without the Forest Service’s authorization of the Permit, the Applicant would not be able to operate Rocky Run Mine. Surface coal mining operations, such as Rocky Run Mine, can cause significant environmental damage, including erosion, sedimentation, pollution of ground and surface waters, contamination of soils, loss of habitat, and loss of biodiversity.”  (The article includes a link to the complaint.)

New lawsuit:  Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Vilsack (D. Montana)

On January 11, five conservation groups filed a lawsuit against the Mud Creek Vegetation Management Project on the Bitterroot National Forest, which could take place over up to 20 years and would involve 13,700 acres of commercial logging, 26,000 acres of non-commercial logging, 40,000 acres of prescribed burns, and the building of around 40 miles of temporary and specified roads.  It is another challenge to “condition-based” NEPA (based on an EA):  “Rather than surveying the project area and analyzing site-specific information to determine which management activities are appropriate to which area before approving and finalizing a project, the Forest Service approved all logging and burning over large swaths of the Project area, leaving the actual decision of what is appropriate until after the project is finalized, when the public may no longer participate in the decision-making process.”  The complaint also challenges the continued use of project-specific amendments to the forest plan for road density and old growth, and failure to use the forest plan definition of old growth.  There are also ESA claims related to bull trout and whitebark pine.  (The article includes a link to the complaint.)

BLM/NPS

Amicus curiae briefs filed in American Forest Resource Council v. U.S.A. (Supreme Court)

On December 18, members of Congress and six organizations filed amicus curiae briefs in support of a petition for Supreme Court review of two circuit court decisions upholding the Obama-era expansion of the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument and the Bureau of Land Management’s 2016 Resource Management Plans for Western Oregon O&C lands.  In April, the 9th Circuit decided Murphy Company v. Biden (discussed here), and in July, the D. C. Circuit decided the AFRC case.  These courts held that the Antiquities Act could be used to designate a national monument that reduced the area of O&C lands where timber may be produced, and that the BLM can eliminate timber production on such lands.  (Links to the briefs are included.)

New lawsuit:  Blue Ribbon Coalition v. Bureau of Land Management (D. Utah)

On December 22, The BlueRibbon Coalition, Colorado Off-Road Trail Defenders and Patrick McKay, who is the vice president of the latter organization, filed a complaint in federal district court after the Interior Board of Land Appeals denied their stay request in that administrative hearing.  They are challenging the BLM’s travel management plan and EA for the Labyrinth Rims/Gemini Bridges Travel Management Area, which would close 317 miles of routes that were previously open to motorized use in the 300,000 acre area because vehicles posed a danger to sensitive habitats, riparian zones and cultural sites. The complaint alleges violations of NEPA, the APA, the Dingell Act, and the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.  (The article includes a link to the complaint, the IBLA appeal, and a map of the area.)

OTHER

In late December, two lawsuits were filed against the Federal Emergency Management Agency for failing to respond in a timely manner to claims from 24 of over a thousand victims of the largest fire in New Mexico history, started by the Forest Service in 2022

A federal judge in Oregon has rejected a U.S. Department of Justice request to dismiss a 2015 lawsuit brought by young people that alleges the federal government knew the dangers posed by carbon pollution but that it has continued through policies and subsidies to support the fossil fuel industry.

A man must pay $180,000 after federal officials said he started a wildfire in the Molino Basin target shooting area of the Coronado National Forest using a shotgun loaded with flaming, incendiary rounds of ammunition.

An adjacent landowner is facing criminal charges he illegally cut down at least 299 trees that were part of the Green Mountain National Forest and were designated for protection.  He said he had removed a USFS property boundary marking Carsonite post because he believed it was inaccurate. “The tree cutting was inconsistent with the guidelines contained in the GMNF Plan.”

On January 12, Great Old Broads for Wilderness, GreenLatinos, Sierra Club and Western Watersheds Project filed an amicus brief in the 10th Circuit proceedings involving trespass claims against hunters who used a ladder to cross between parcels of public land connected at the corner.  “The public — not just hunters but everyone — should have the same right of reasonable access to their lands as private landowners have,” said Erik Molvar, executive director with Western Watersheds Project, in a press release. (The article includes a link to the brief.  We have discussed this case previously here, and the district court decision here.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Four Questions Journalists Should Always Ask About Research Studies; and Saved From Disciplinary Encroachment by Western Watersheds

by
Thanks to Wyoming Public Media

 

These days, in several studies we’ve reviewed on The Smokey Wire, it appears that exploring mechanisms is an afterthought, perhaps left to unnamed parties.  What was a basic scientific principle- that correlation is not causation,  seems to be on the verge of being thrown out.   A wide variety of variables.. social and others.. are not found or explored, and thinks which are unlike are lumped together.  In fact, new research has emerged without direct connection to the traditionally involved disciplines.  I think that this is definitely a science “Situation That Shouts Watch Out”.   And I think what we have to be very aware of.. since most journalists are not (this post will helpfully encourage them to be more aware).. is what I call “disciplinary encroachment.”

Anyway, I think this is a great column to illustrate some of my concerns.

1) Framing.  First, look at the proposal and how it’s framed.  Does it seem like it would inform any decisions?  If not, read no further.

2) Data.  Does the data collected (or used without collecting) relate to the question directly? Is this relationship explained clearly? Do they discuss the weaknesses of using these data?

3) Disciplines.  If the study is touching on, say, economics or birds, are economists or bird scientists involved? If wildfire, are wildfire scientists involved?

4) Correlation is Not Causation. For the same reasons this has always been true. Correlations can be tested by designed experiments.  But those would tend to be carried out by experts in the field (see number 3).

Not to be an Old Person, but these were values upheld by fields in forest science at one time.  If we are changing those scientific community values, I think we should announce the fact, so the public can be clued in.

Sammy Roth of the LA Times, one of my favorite reporter,  didn’t seem to notice that it might be odd for a post-doc economist at the University of Geneva to study birds in the US. Note that Sammy wrote this article as a “column” which I think might mean “opinion piece” and not an ordinary article.  My view is that when reporters write both op-eds and news articles on the same subjects, it does not lead to confidence in the objectivity of the products.  See the James Bennet piece on how this has become murky in some outlets.

Erik Katovich, an environmental economist and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Geneva, had been following all the news coverage of wind power and bird deaths, and he feared it was being “weaponized by those opposed to renewable energy.” A longtime birder himself — he grew up in Minnesota bird-watching with his dad — he wanted to know if the harm to avian life from wind energy development in California, Iowa and other states was getting blown out of proportion.

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

As even those of us non-ornithologist know who follow this, different species respond differently.  Avoiding sites and getting killed are different things..eagles, sage grouse are all different.

So like any good scholar, he ran the numbers.

Katovich turned to data from the National Audubon Society’s Christmas Bird Count, an annual effort dating back to 1900 during which tens of thousands of volunteers methodically record bird sightings at consistent locations around the world. Last winter’s count produced more than 36 million sightings of 671 bird species in the United States alone.

In a clever bit of science, Katovich compared the Christmas Bird Count numbers with data showing where wind turbines were built in America’s lower 48 states between 2000 and 2020. He did the same comparison for bird counts and new oil and gas extraction in shale fields — a process defined by the drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

His peer-reviewed study was published last month. The conclusions are fascinating.

Katovich found that wind energy development had no statistically significant effect on bird counts, or on the diversity of avian species within five kilometers of a Christmas Bird Count site. Fracking, on the other hand, did have an impact. The drilling of shale oil and gas wells “reduces the total number of birds counted in subsequent years by 15%,” Katovich wrote in the study.

But no one, as far as I know,  was concerned about bird counts, they were concerned about critters like eagles and sage grouse.  See how that works when the framing is not clear at the outset? Sleight of science. And get this conclusion:

In other words: Oil and gas drilling is worse for birds than wind power.

That’s a pretty grandiose conclusion from one study.  So let’s back up and go back to framing, which was apparently “is oil and gas drilling “worse” for birds than wind power?”.  I don’t think anyone has this as a choice, and in fact I’ve seen both turbines and oil and gas facilities in the same general area.  I don’t recall a single BLM EIS that compares those two alternatives.  Then.. there are a lot of bird species.  I don’t know of any eagles that have been shredded by oil and gas facilities, so which species count more? And what if wind needs new transmission lines?

Can you imagine a study that amalgamates.. say.. mammals?  A more useful question perhaps would be “how can O&G or wind have fewer impacts on different bird species?” Which, of course, bird scientists are “avi”dly studying..

Here’s what Sammy has to say:

But to my mind, his results are a sign that we pay too much attention to bird-related criticisms of wind energy — probably in part because those criticisms are trumpeted by right-wing provocateurs, including some funded by fossil fuel industry money.

This is where it gets kind of funny.  Fortunately, Roth checked with various National Audubon people.

They told me Katovich probably underestimated the harm to birds from wind energy, in part because he included all turbines within five kilometers of Audubon bird count locations. Prior research has found that wind farms are much more likely to kill or injure birds that spend time right near the turbines.

I don’t think anyone can argue that birds need to be close to turbines to be injured or killed by them.

Fortunately, Sammy happened to also ask Erik Molvar of Western Watersheds. If he hadn’t met Erik.. I guess we wouldn’t have gotten this (more accurate) side of the story.

Molvar, who leads a conservation group called the Western Watersheds Project, offered several criticisms of the new study.

For one thing, the Audubon bird counts are done by volunteers, meaning the data aren’t perfect. Also, Katovich didn’t analyze the number of birds of each species recorded at each location — a crucial measure of biodiversity, Molvar said via email.

“A bird count that records one cardinal gets exactly the same weight as a count that records 250 cardinals,” he wrote.

Molvar also pointed out that wind farms and fossil fuel extraction can affect birds in different ways. Wind farms are more likely to kill birds than displace them. And some birds are more sensitive to wind farms than others. “Extreme habitat specialists” such as sage grouse — the focus of my first meeting with Molvar — could suffer greatly even as other species get by fine.

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

When I ran those criticisms past Katovich, he responded gracefully, describing them as “thoughtful and informed” and agreeing that several issues he examined could use further research. He also noted that in the same way his study could be missing some of the damage to bird populations from wind energy, it could be underestimating the harm from oil and gas, too.

But why wouldn’t you ask bird scientists.. about birds and how to measure their populations and so on, what we know about how they respond to O&G and wind installations?  Certainly wind folks collect monitoring data.

As we shall see with other studies, disciplinary encroachment is not unusual.

Oh, but the funny part. If you circle back to “But to my mind, his results are a sign that we pay too much attention to bird-related criticisms of wind energy — probably in part because those criticisms are trumpeted by right-wing provocateurs, including some funded by fossil fuel industry money.”  And we have to wonder whether anyone thinks Western Watersheds are closet “right-wing provocateurs”  or closet right-wingers (just kidding!).

BLM Stories: Cassia County (Idaho) Flood of 1984 by Steve Ellis

by

 

Steve Ellis (middle back row) at the time.

Timeline: The 1984 drama at Lower Goose Creek Reservoir

Cassia County (Idaho) Flood of 1984

by Steve Ellis

As many of you know, I worked part of my career with the US Forest Service and part with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). It is much less uncommon these days for Forest Service
employees to have worked in other federal agencies during their careers. This water related story relates to one of my early career BLM Idaho duty assignments.

In the spring of 1984, I was working as forester/watershed specialist for the BLM in Burley Idaho, a town of maybe 8,000 people at the time. I spent much of my field seasons setting up
and administering timber sales in beetle infested lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir and going on occasional wildfire assignments. My winter work at that time primarily fell in the land use
planning and NEPA arenas. Cassia County had a usually wet winter and spring in 1984 which, along with warmer than normal April/May temperatures contributed to a heavier than normal
mountain snowpack and substantial runoff. The Oakley Dam (Lower Goose Creek Reservoir) south of Burley provided water storage for a canal system that fed potato and sugar beet fields in
the fertile Oakley Valley farmlands of the Snake River plain. The reservoir also served as a popular local recreation spot, especially for angling. Prior to the earth and concrete dam’s 1915
construction, Goose Creek freely carried water from the South Hills, northward into the Snake River. In the years following the dam’s construction, farm fields and development filled in the
more than 20-mile-long Goose Creek channel.

I recall getting called, along with my supervisor Marv Bagley to the county emergency services office one day in May and asked if we (BLM) could help in determining a route to get water
from Oakley dam northward to the Snake River. Time was of the essence. Due to the heavy runoff, the dam was at risk of topping out and action needed to be taken to manage the expected
spillway overflow. Otherwise, the most likely path for uncontrolled water to take would be across farm fields and quite possibly some residential neighborhoods of Burley, essentially the
historic course of Goose Creek. We agreed to help by surveying and flagging the centerline of a large portion of an approximately 17-mile channel across private land between Oakley and
Burley. As I recall, we had less than a week to get this accomplished. A State Office (Boise) survey engineer by the name of Russell Huskey and I were tasked with getting our portion of the
survey work done. Russ and I gathered up some current and old air photos, topographic maps, stakes, flagging, survey rod & level, and off we went!

After studying the topo maps and air photos we, in coordination with Cassia County officials decided to follow the old stream channel as much as practical, even though it looked like we
could occasionally be staking a path between people’s houses and outbuildings. I remember penciling our proposed route on the topo maps and using a stereoscope to look at the air photos
laid out on the hood of our vehicle. There were no iPads, laptops, cell phones, drones, or other such current day technology back then.

Russ worked the level and I the survey rod. We flagged the center line through farm fields, right over roads and in a few instances next to houses. As I remember, the US Army Corps of
Engineers had the lead on canal construction and essentially ran the heavy equipment show. I also remember the Idaho National Guard placing temporary bridges over select road crossings
once the waterway was dug.

One of the things that amazed me is that the heavy construction equipment started digging the emergency canal maybe a day after we initiated our surveying and flagging. They were
excavating out a waterway perhaps 35 feet either side of our marked center line. I could sometimes see the big yellow caterpillar earthmovers hastily working further back in our wake,
so to speak. I recall having the discussion with Russ that wow…guess we better get this correct! We did recognize that we were staking the centerline essentially downhill which is where the
reservoir water would flow.

In reflection, this was a successful community-wide effort. The dam did not breach, and water did not flood uncontrollably over farmlands and Burley proper. As I remember, the hastily made
canal to the Snake River was surveyed and built in perhaps a week. Many dozens of local volunteers worked to keep the raw canal banks from caving in as water traveled rapidly through
it from the spillway gates. By early June the ordeal was over, the canal was filled in, and I moved on to a new position in Boise. No public lands were involved and to my knowledge, no lawsuits
were ever filed. We (BLM) felt good about helping the Cassia County community as good neighbors in a time of need.

For me, an early federal career “take away” from this experience was that there are opinion leaders in communities, not necessarily elected to public office, who can be very helpful in
getting good things accomplished. Identifying and developing a suitable working relationships with such people is important to successful public lands management.  I also learned the value of
having a knowledge of local culture. During this event, I observed the helpful influence of local Mormon church leaders and noticed the effective role they played in getting volunteers, and
landowner cooperation as we surveyed the most practicable course for the waterway. During the remainder of my career whether the duty station was a small, rural western community or more
urban in nature, I remembered the importance of learning local culture, and building relationships with various influencers before problematic situations came about.  Maintaining Forest Service and BLM field office footprints in more rural communities is invaluable in this regard.

************************
At the time of the Cassia County flood, Steve was working as a Forester/Soil, Water & Air Specialist in Burley Idaho. During his 38-year BLM and Forest Service career, he worked duty stations in southern Illinois, Idaho, Alaska, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, DC. He holds a B.S. in Forestry and M.S. in Geographic and Atmospheric Science. He is a very experienced and skilled equestrian, and for many years, was a licensed private pilot. Currently he is the Chair of NAFSR, the National Association of Forest Service Retirees.

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

Here is a link to a Washington Post story on this. There are also many stories and photos on the Magic Valley website which is paywalled.

The role of Fire and Thinning – One More Time

by

In case you haven’t seen it yet, click on the photo to go to the article.  Nothing different from what I learned in undergraduate studies at Virginia Tech from 1963-1967 – Rated #1 in our field in the US the last that I saw.  I and many others have been trying to explain this well established and long validated science to many on this site who came here with their own emotionally driven faux science and without any interest in anything that didn’t support their pet suppositions or studies that haven’t been validated over a long time and varied places.  I haven’t checked in to the Smoky Wire for a long time, so I sincerely hope that things have changed for the better on this site.

No matter, it’s time to unite behind the validated science based on sound research rather than walks through the woods and statistically confounded studies.  If you really love forests, cleaner air and a healthier planet; get on board with what works instead of letting your ego carry you and everyone else down the path of increasingly greater catastrophic destruction.

Twenty-year study confirms forests are healthier when burned or thinned

Governor’s Task Force Arrives at Recommendations on Rock Springs RMP

by
In a breakout task force group to discuss the Rock Springs Area Resource Management Plan Revision, stockmen John Hay III, president of the Rock Springs Grazing Association, and T. Wright Dickinson of the Vermillion Ranch work on the Wyoming alternative. (Angus M. Thuermer Jr./WyoFile)

This is an interesting story from Wyofile on the Rock Springs RMP.  Turns out that the Governor got together a panel to review the draft.

Despite representing disparate interests, the 11 members of a governor-appointed task force reached consensus on more than 100 recommendations for the Bureau of Land Management’s controversial draft plan for managing some 3.6 million acres in southwestern Wyoming.

The guidance, released in a report late Wednesday, represents a cool-headed note in a public process defined by furor at the federal agency. Many of the packed meetings convened last fall to discuss the plan unfolded with anger and misinformation — including misinformation the BLM itself disseminated by mistake.

Gov. Mark Gordon held the recommendations up as an example of how Wyoming knowledge can inform a better Rock Springs land management plan.

“This particular effort was initiated out of necessity,” he said in a statement. “It was critical we amplified the public’s involvement in this important BLM planning document, and shared with BLM how Wyoming, through collaboration, creates durable and quality land management policy.”

The final recommendations include conserving landscapes around the prized hunting grounds of the Greater Little Mountain Area, protecting development of the trona assets contained within the Known Sodium Leasing Area as well as proposals for managing the “checkerboard” area of the field office that recognize access needs and wildlife migration. They support continued motorized use and continued grazing. They also urge protections for key cultural features and natural resources, but advise special designations in just a few limited areas.

***********

Though many Wyoming denizens came out forcefully against the agency’s preferred alternative, which prioritizes conservation and gives large zones new designations of “areas of critical environmental concern,” Stone-Manning stands by the draft.

“The BLM believes there are a lot of shared values and goals in this plan that strike a balance with conservation and multiple uses,” Stone-Manning said.

*********

“We look forward to carefully considering [the task force’s] thoughts and the public’s comments as we finalize the plan,” Stone-Manning said.

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

Critics decried the closure of large acreage to energy leasing, the roughly 2.5 million acres that would be excluded for new right-of-way consideration and the transference of lands into “areas of critical environmental concern,” a designation used to protect important historic, cultural and scenic values. Designated ACECs would swell from current acreage of 286,000 to more than 1.5 million acres under B.

Conservationists, however, have championed the vision outlined in the preferred alternative, saying the area is ecologically valuable enough to warrant a conservation-forward approach.

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

One major source of consternation spawned from a typo. The BLM mistakenly left in a provision saying it would close 4,505 miles of routes and eliminate another 10,006 miles of undesignated, illegal routes under Alternative B. BLM officials assured that mistake would be fixed.

But claims of the agency shutting down traditional activities like hunting, camping and recreating were unfounded, agency officials maintain.

“For whatever reason, people latched on very quickly that any ACEC designation was going to automatically restrict public use,” Rock Springs Field Office Manager Kimberlee Foster told WyoFile during a September open house. “And none of that is true.”

*********

The agency has battled misinformation through the process, Stone-Manning said. “One significant area of misinformation has revolved around access to our public lands,” she said in the email. “For example, there have been rumors about no longer being able to walk your dog on public lands, roads closing, and hunting no longer being allowed. None of this is true and we are taking every opportunity to separate fact from fiction. Public lands are open to the public and there are no decisions to open or close roads being made as part of updating this resource management plan.”

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

Not to be unnecessarily skeptical (not being a BLM expert), but is this a case of carefully worded “sleight of planning”?  Decisions to restrict access would  not be in the plan itself, but the plan would set the context for follow-on decisions.  I note the qualifiers “automatically” restrict public use, “no decisions.. being made as part of updating.”

I also wonder if Director Stone-Manning meant this:

The BLM’s approach to defusing the hot situation, Stone-Manning said, is to start with what’s universally important about the land. “One starting place for us is always that clean water, abundant wildlife and the sustainable use of natural resources on our public lands is something that everyone cares about,” Stone-Manning said. “From this place, we are working to engage in grounded conversations and dialogue on how alternatives and details in the plan support and balance that.”

Perhaps they could have not developed the “hot situation” in the first place by talking to local folks and elected officials; or rather talking to them and following through on what they said.  If the Biden Admin is carefully watching its two land management agencies (which I don’t think it is.. but still) it might notice that many forest plan revisions have stakeholder groups that work together to develop recommendations.  Why does this RMP effort seem so relatively top-down in comparison? My BLM retiree friends would probably tell me its because FLPMA has political appointees as leading the agency.  Whether this is good governance or unnecessarily drama and ill-will-provoking is another question.

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

Here’s a note I received from Pew today: (Take Action Now!). The RMP has the potential to “chart a new course for public lands management here and across the country.” Why Rock Springs though, of all places?  And the “best possible policy for the region’s wildlife and people.” Because those people..who live there.. don’t actually know what’s best for them, I guess.

Dear Wilderness Supporter,

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is deciding how to conserve migration corridors and habitat for more than 350 wildlife species while preserving cultural sites and sacred landscapes across a wide swath of public land in Wyoming. When finalized, the Resource Management Plan (RMP) will dictate conservation and management of this breathtaking landscape for the next 20 years or more, and the BLM needs to hear from you in order to make the best possible policy for the region’s wildlife and people.

The Wyoming Red Desert, at the heart of this management plan, is a wild place. It is one of only a handful of vast landscapes that host such an intact assemblage of wildlife, ranging from a one-of-a-kind resident population of desert elk, the world’s longest migration corridor for mule deer, and pronghorn antelope and prairie dog colonies as far as the eye can see. Further, significant Indigenous petroglyph sites and ancient trails crisscross the landscape. At the same time, oil and gas rigs encroach on the important habitat here, as do other proposals for developing the land.

Help shape the future of our public lands by lending your voice for wildlife and wild places.

The BLM issued a draft management plan that favors a strong conservation approach, proposing to limit additional energy development while ensuring that many of the undeveloped areas and cultural resource sites remain undisturbed. With several important changes, especially for migration corridors, the Rock Springs management plan has the potential to chart a new course for public lands management here and across the country. Don’t miss your opportunity to weigh in on this critical plan and help ensure that its final version is the best it can be for wildlife and wild places!

Thanks to TSW Supporters, A Few The Smokey Wire Tidbits and Volunteer Requests

by
Contribute to The Smokey Wire.
Receive bear hug.

 

A special thanks to all of those who make TSW possible, via funding and other contributions!  We wouldn’t be here without you.

First point, we did not really get 20K in donations, as the current widget says.. it turns out that scammers steal credit card info and try to figure out if they are real by attempting to donate online.  Aren’t people creative?  Needless to say, I have to go back in and check hundreds of quasi-donations for reality.  Last guess, prior to the influx of fake donations,  was that we didn’t make our goal of $1000 last year.  I didn’t want to bug people at the end of the year when they are doing their pre-tax donations, but when you get around to it, please consider a donation.  Note that we are not a 501c3 so donations aren’t tax deductible.

In addition to paying various WordPress charges, and our amazing folks at Cloud Nine Web Support, I subscribe to various news outlets (WaPo, NY Times, LA Times) and Substacks, and even recently paid Twitter to get fewer obnoxious ads.  These are all going up, and I’m expecting 2024 to require at least $1500 to keep us going.

We also have two potential volunteer opportunities.

(1) Analyzing PALS extract of CEs.  It seems to me it would be fun for different people to look at these data and see what they make of it.  What I’ve got is totals by Region and category for two five-year periods, simply asking the question “is the FS using more CE’s over time? If so, which Regions are using which ones?” I looked at the data and thought “this would an opportunity for open  analysis and peer review” and asked a couple of university folks. They old me that they couldn’t do it (or have it be a grad student project) without funding.  And I could write a pre-proposal to write a proposal.  If that $20K were real…  Anyway, anyone, students, retirees, those currently working, who are interested, please let me know and we can collaborate on this analysis.

(2) Virtual fencing post (that’s a post about fencing, not a fence post).  Turns out that the Santa Fe is working with virtual fencing as a pilot with partners and offered to answer questions. This would be a fun post to write for someone interested in learning about this.  Maybe a field trip and photos or video?

And if you want to volunteer to write posts on other topics, or have other ideas, please email me (sharon) at forestpolicypub.com.

Northwest Forest Plan Amendment Comment Period Correction & Upcoming Webinars

by

FYI… USFS PR today….

A correction has been issued to extend the comment period to February 2, 2024, for the USDA Forest Service published Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement on the proposal to amend the 17 land management plans of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) that provides direction for the management of those national forests and grasslands.   The Federal Register notice with the correction can be found here.

The Notice of Intent identifies changed conditions that are driving the need to amend the plan. The Forest Service is focusing on five key areas:  wildfire resilience, climate change adaptation, tribal inclusion, sustainable communities, and conservation of old growth ecosystems and related biodiversity. Amending or otherwise strengthening the effectiveness of the Northwest Forest Plan can incorporate the latest science and help forests adapt to social, economic, cultural, and ecological changes. The Forest Service intends to preserve the elements of the plan that are working well.

Upcoming webinars have been planned to share more information about the Northwest Forest Plan and the Notice of Intent.  Please join us this month for one of our Informational Winter Webinars scheduled for you to learn more about the Northwest Forest Plan, the current amendment effort and how to provide comments to the Forest Service.  All webinars will provide the same presentation but offer a choice of different days and times to accommodate schedules. There will be limited time for questions and unofficial feedback.  We anticipate principally being able to respond to basic questions about the commenting process.  Feedback shared at these webinars will not be considered official comments for purposes of standing to file objections. Formal comments must be submitted electronically via our comment page by February 2, 2024. While we strongly prefer submission to our comment page, hard copy letters may be also be submitted to the following address: Regional Forester, Region 6, U.S. Forest Service, Attn: Northwest Forest Plan Comments, 1220 SW 3rd Ave., Portland, OR, 97204.

An additional official comment period will also follow the draft Environmental Impact Statement, currently estimated to be available by summer of 2024.

Note: Because the NWFP is a landscape-scale plan covering 24 million acres, the amendment and webinars will not be addressing things such recreation, hunting, grazing or permits or other forest-specific uses.   Select the webinar that works best for you to register for the access link.

January Informational Winter Webinars:

February’s Virtual Open House will provide an additional opportunity to learn about the Northwest Forest Plan Amendment and offer more time for questions of a panel of agency staff working on the amendment.

February Virtual Open House: Thurs, Feb 8, 5-7pm, Join Feb 8 Open House

 

Continue to stay updated on the progress and additional information about the Northwest Forest Plan Amendment: https://www.fs.usda.gov/goto/r6/nwfp

The Northwest Forest Plan covers 24.5 million acres of federally managed lands in western Oregon and Washington, and northwestern California. It was established in 1994 to address threats to threatened and endangered species while also contributing to social and economic sustainability in the region. After nearly 30 years, the Northwest Forest Plan needs to be updated to accommodate changed ecological and social conditions.

Let’s Compare: Concerns About Offshore vs. Onshore Wind and the Save Long Beach Island Report

by
from this https://www.nature.com/articles/s44183-022-00003-5 open access review article

One  interesting thing about this to me is that Eastern coastal people with concerns about offshore wind seem to be as easily dismissed by (some) media folks as our own incipient-Bundy interior westerners.  I also “met” an interesting fellow, Bob Stern, involved in this issue in, of all places, a CEQ webinar on the proposed NEPA Phase II regs.   Bob sent it to me as a media representative, so let’s see how other outlets will cover it.

But first, let’s check out the Society of Environmental Journalists backgrounder on offshore wind. This isn’t very objective..it basically says if you’re against offshore wind in your area, you must be a Republican, a fisher, and/or a NIMBY. An obvious problem with this interpretation is that the northeastern States involved are traditionally not Republican.  I’m really not sure why the go-to explanation for disagreements seems to be partisan politics, at least in some quarters. I understand that political reporters would filter information through that lens, but environmental journalists?

The politics of offshore wind farms

On the political front, many Democrats and climate hawks are trying to support offshore wind because they see it as a key renewable energy source to replace carbon-spewing fossil fuel power plants.

Some utilities — NextEra Energy, Dominion Energy and ClearWay Energy — like it because it’s cheaper and is geographically suited.

Certainly, the Biden administration supports offshore wind enthusiastically. For instance, the Inflation Reduction Act had money for it, mostly in the form of tax breaks.

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law also had money for it. But because such legislation requires compromise, and because West Virginia’s Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin (who is fossil fuel-friendly) is needed for many deals, there is a catch.

The federal government, via the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, cannot issue a lease for offshore wind development unless the agency has offered at least 60 million acres for oil and gas leasing on the outer continental shelf.

Others besides fossil fuel industries oppose offshore turbines. Many in the fishing industry, for instance, believe that mammoth wind turbines could disrupt traditional fishing areas and reduce their catch. Fishery groups (such as Maine lobstermen) tend to lobby against offshore wind.

Former President Donald Trump, criminal defendant and GOP presidential front-runner, does not like offshore wind at all. The story really starts back in 2006, when he bought land in Scotland to build a golf resort, then later discovered that a wind farm was to be built offshore that he felt would spoil the resort’s ocean view.

This led to a series of legal battles that Trump lost — although the resort did get built. The subsequent Trump administration was very slow to sign off on offshore wind permits.

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

Media coverage (and disinformation) a factor

Trump, who hates “windmills,” sparked a lot of media attention when he started this fall with rants about offshore wind harming whales. Or, to be precise, that offshore wind turbines (of which there are still very few) are driving whales “crazy” and “causing whales to die in numbers never seen before.” Like many things Trump says, this is not true.

Media fact-checked these statements, but in doing so they amplified and repeated them. Whales strand themselves, often in groups, quite often, and have been doing so long before offshore wind was even a glimmer in Biden’s eye.

Historically, scientists have not been able to understand the causes of most whale strandings. (Ship strikes do cause individual whale deaths, as we know from physical necropsy evidence.) Among the debunkers were BBC News, CNN and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

It’s not just Trump. When Ørsted canceled its two New Jersey projects in November, the Republicans took what E&E News called a “victory lap.” It has become more than just a New Jersey GOP political thing.

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

Whenever  I hear the word “debunked” about a complex scientific issue, I know someone is flirting, at least, with bamboozlery.

I would bet that the relationship between whales and industrialization of seabeds is any form is complicated.  Perhaps whales are the sage grouse of the East Coast (roads/piles for oil and gas are bad: roads/piles for wind are good.  At least in the west, though, we have folks like CBD whose concerns seem invariant as to the source of the disturbance.  Does the East Coast have similar ENGOs?

Anyway,  I’ve uploaded the Save Long Beach Island OffshoreWindAlertReport, and I’ll note below some apparent resemblances between offshore wind projects in the East and onshore wind in the West. Now I know that there are many TSW folks with experience in BLM siting of renewables so hopefully you all can add background and context.

Difference.. Coastal wind would be used locally (with increase in electric costs); Western wind- shipped to Coasts or other high population areas.

Similarity.. Should avoid important wildlife migration routes

(From SLBI report) The green line represents the right whale’s primary historic migration range. The red lines represent the distances from the various wind complexes where the noise level will exceed 120 decibels, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) criterion for disturbing the whales behavior, which they will very likely try to avoid. There is essentially no route the NARW could take to stay within its historic migration range and avoid the 120 decibel and higher noise levels, thereby blocking or seriously impairing its migration that is essential to its survival.

Possible Difference: vessel navigation risk, DOD national security, radar interference, sonar, for offshore.. may be some of that in onshore, but I haven’t navigated those EIS’s.

Possible Similarity:  decommissioning issues

(From SLBI report) The BOEM also does not have a stellar track record with regard to other easier decommissioning efforts. A General Accountability Office report found that it collected only eight percent of the revenues needed to do the necessary decommissioning of oil and gas facilities in the Gulf of Mexico. It also found that ninety-seven percent of the seabed pipelines have been left in place.

I haven’t checked the BLM track record (not much wind development on FS).

Possible Similarity: Lack of decarbonization programmatic look and choices of technologies/locations;at the same time I think the BLM does a better job on having alternatives in EIS’s. I also think  BLM has more of a history of programmatics (e.g. the 2005 wind energy programmatic EIS, and the 2023 Solar Programmatic EIS)

(From SLBI report) All major decisions, such as the turbine area location, the number of turbines and their size, are made by the applicant and by unelected federal and state agency staff with no EIS preparation or public input. The result has been some obvious mistakes such as the siting of wind energy areas in the path of or adjacent to migration corridors of the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale.
At the end of that decision process a project EIS is offered to the public for its purported input to the process, that is far too lengthy, difficult to read, offers no real options to weigh in on, does not disclose many major adverse impacts, and is replete with inconsistent, unsupported conclusory statements dismissing impacts, as opposed to presenting the actual significant impacts.

Nowhere in this entire process are true alternative turbine locations, project sizes, or turbine powers presented to the public for genuine input.

Any other similarities or differences you want to point out?

Blue Mountain Forest Partners Make the Think Tank Big Time as Examples of “Collective Settings”

by

Shout out to all our friends at Blue Mountain Forest Partners!

**********

Summary: In December 2023 More in Common and the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University published a new report that aims to re-invigorate discussion about a paradigm that long served to strengthen democracy, but which has fallen out of fashion the past several decades. “Collective Settings” describes how, by investing in the design and distribution of civic infrastructure, communities cultivate the capabilities of their residents to work across lines of difference to solve public problems. 

What are Collective Settings?

The new report, “Searching for a New Paradigm: Collective Settings,” makes the case for reinvigorating civic infrastructure as a complement to existing institutional reform and bridge-building efforts. Critically, we find that to build a more robust and vibrant democracy, Americans need more experiences where they engage directly with others to address public problems. This happens through collective settings, organizations and spaces designed to bring people to the table and enable them to hash out problems together.

These settings are what Alexis de Tocqueville described as “schools of democracy” and have been a prominent feature of the American landscape throughout history.

Think about neighbors coming together to build a new park, co-manage shared resources, or deliver aid during crises. While these sorts of activities often appear to happen almost spontaneously, we argue that where they are successful, they are the product of well-designed and developed civic infrastructure: collective settings.

Image created with DALL-E

Report Highlights

The report emerged from several years’ worth of convenings, research, and analysis of existing paradigms for how to strengthen democracy. As part of the project, scholar Isak Tranvik produced an essay that lays out the important features that healthy collective settings demonstrate.

Similarly, for this project, scholar Emily B. Campbell conducted a series of case studies to describe how collective settings play out relative to democracy paradigms rooted at the behavioral or institutional level. They feature:

  • Electoral reform (institutional) in Alaska
  • The behavioral interventions of Braver Angels of Central Texas
  • The collective settings of Blue Mountain Forest Partners in Oregon

Emily’s work demonstrates the ways these three paradigms—behavioral, collective settings, and institutional—complement one another while pursuing distinct strategies and approaches.

The intent of the report is not to highlight flaws in existing efforts to improve democracy, but to show that much greater attention needs to be placed on collective settings.

Collective settings, we argue, are where Americans build the skills, habits, and dispositions necessary to successfully navigate an unknowable future together, in ways that preserve and strengthen democratic norms and institutions.

As we write in the report, “By investing in collective settings, we hope to develop the muscles for democracy that people and communities will need to seek, identify, and implement shared solutions that do not accept the world as it is but instead create the world they need.”

Recommendations

We include in the report the following recommendations.

For Researchers: We need much more (widely disseminated) research to help us better understand multiple themes.

  • Distribution gaps: Where do well-designed collective settings exist, or not? How are they distributed across off-line and online settings?
  • Design features: What are the design features that influence whether collective settings cultivate healthy democratic capabilities?
  • Return on investment: What measures can we use to examine the impacts of collective settings? What measurement and evaluation frameworks enable philanthropists and practitioners to maintain rigor even when designing for uncertainty?

For Philanthropy: Collective settings need both funding and philanthropic organizing.

  • Address distribution concerns: New funding opportunities can invest in creating well-designed collective settings in areas where such settings are rare or absent.
  • Shift incentives to emphasize designing for contingency: Funding opportunities can emphasize metrics that focus on the cultivation of dynamic democratic capabilities at both the individual and organizational levels.
  • Empower learning: Resourcing the connective tissue between research and practice, and cultivating fellowships and other human networks to share lessons learned, can strengthen the field.
  • Nurture the philanthropic community: Funding communities organized vertically (bringing local, state, and national funders together) and horizontally (across ideological, geographic, demographic, and issue-based difference) can coordinate resources and mitigate against unnecessary politicization.

For Civil Society, Business, and Government: Civil society leaders can cultivate collective settings in their work and communities. Likewise, the state and markets each play a crucial role in creating settings (like the workplace) where people interact with each other. All three sectors impact the design and distribution of settings.

  • Invest in design: Thinking intentionally about the design features of self-governing communities (governance practices, accountability, learning systems) can make collective settings more likely.
  • Consider distribution: Local and regional groups across civil society, business, and government can consider working together to identify and fill gaps in access to well-designed collective settings.

Yale Forest Forum Spring 2024 Speaker Series on Tribal Forestry

by

Join us for this spring’s speaker series held every Thursday from January 18 to April 25. The sessions will also be recorded.  Here’s a link with all the details.

Tribes and First Nations have been forest stewards since time immemorial on the land that is currently called North America. In the face of climate change, tribes and First Nations continue to work with institutions, NGOs, and federal and state agencies to support Indigenous sovereignty and resilient forested landscapes. This webinar will focus on the current state of tribal forest management and Indigenous stewardship with a series of speakers from different tribes, universities, non-profits, and agencies.

I’d just add that peoples who have been around North America since glaciation may know quite a bit about responding to climate changes..

The speaker series is co-developed and co-hosted by The Forest School at the Yale School of the Environment, the Yale Center for Environmental Justice, and Salish Kootenai College.

The series is facilitated by Gerald Torres (Yale School of the Environment), Adrian Leighton (Salish Kootenai College), and Marlyse Duguid (Yale School of the Environment).