Sonny, There’s More Than One OneUSDA

by

Yesterday, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue abolished, in name only, the U.S. Forest Service. Also APHIS, FSA, NRCS, and every other agency under his purview: “From today forward, you will hear all of USDA leadership, from the Office of the Secretary on down, begin to refer to us as OneUSDA. Not as APHIS or as the Forest Service… not as Rural Development or as FAS… and not as distinct agencies sitting in the same office, like FSA, RMA, and NRCS.”

Turns out there is more than one OneUSDA. There’s the 2014 human resources One USDA, which “tries to keep it simple” with “a breath of fresh air that reminds us that sometimes simplicity is the way to go.” And the 2013 “One USDA speaking with One Voice” communications strategy. Then there’s the OneUSDA Digital Strategy, which will:

Ensure that data is open, accurate, clearly described, structured, machine-readable, and digital services are optimized for mobile use . . . Establish more agile acquisition and budget processes that support the procurement and management of digital technologies. . . . Develop additional guidance through policy to address open data, digital signatures, performance and customer satisfaction measurement, and mobile optimization . . . Refine and expand the use of enterprise data taxonomy to standardize commonly used data for business intelligence purposes . . . Develop open data strategy that addresses the framework for sharing critical information at key decision points throughout the entirety of the enterprise . . . Identify, prioritize, and modernize existing data that are not currently available to the public . . . Deploy a virtual dynamic inventory of open data at usda.gov/data, populated by digital agency data inventories . . . Deploy a virtual enterprise geospatial reference repository to promote data quality with metadata best practices, templates, conventions, and other USDA branding standards . . . Provide guidance and training to data SMEs to develop web APIs, structure unstructured content or information, and to incorporate customer feedback for product improvements.

Uh . . . okay.

Here at FSEEE (there is only one) we’ve started an office pool for the date on which a Forest Service receptionist answers the phone “OneUSDA.” You can join the fun by submitting your date in the comment section.

Forest Service on the bandwagon to unprotect sage grouse

by

Time is running out to comment on the notice that initiated “the scoping process to solicit public comments on greater sage-grouse land management issues that could warrant land management plan amendments” on 15 national forests and grasslands.  (Comments are due Friday.)  The majority of sage grouse habitat is found on BLM lands (I think the Forest Service has 8%) and the Forest Service is following behind the Department of Interior’s lead to “consider” rolling back restrictions, especially those that interfere with oil and gas drilling.  Those restrictions were added to Forest Service and BLM plans in amendments that were adopted in 2015 pursuant to the 1982 planning regulations for species viability, and have been credited with avoiding the need to list sage grouse as threatened or endangered.  The Forest Service concedes that amendments it would propose would be likely to be “directly related” to, and therefore subject to, the new diversity and viability requirements of the 2012 Planning Rule.  More background from the Forest Service here.

Forest Service to revise NEPA procedures

by

The Forest Service is proposing to revise its NEPA procedures (including its regulations at 36 CFR part 220, Forest Service Manual 1950, and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15) with the goal of increasing efficiency of environmental analysis. The Forest Service’s NEPA procedures were last reviewed in 2008 when the Agency moved a subset of its NEPA procedures from the Forest Service Manual and Handbook to the Code of Federal Regulations. However, the Agency’s NEPA procedures still reflect in part the policies and practices established by the Agency’s 1992 NEPA Manual and Handbook.

The Agency is seeking public comment on the following:

  • Processes and analysis requirements that can be modified, reduced, or eliminated in order to reduce time and cost while maintaining science-based, high-quality analysis; public involvement; and honoring agency stewardship responsibilities.
  • Approaches to landscape-scale analysis and decision making under NEPA that facilitate restoration of National Forest System lands.
  • Classes of actions that are unlikely, either individually or cumulatively, to have significant impacts and therefore should be categorically excluded from NEPA’s environmental assessment and environmental impact statement requirements, such as integrated restoration projects; special use authorizations; and activities to maintain and manage Agency sites (including recreation sites), facilities, and associated infrastructure.
  • Ways the Agency might expand and enhance coordination of environmental review and authorization decisions with other Federal agencies, as well as State, Tribal, or local environmental reviews.

Bigger projects, more categorical exclusions, shorter timelines, but “The Agency will continue to hold true to its commitment to deliver scientifically based, high-quality analysis to decision makers that honors its environmental stewardship responsibilities while maintaining robust public participation.”

Shoshone forest plan lawsuit leads to negotiated solution on pack goats

by

The North American Packgoat Association’s lawsuit reversed a forest plan decision to restrict the use of goats for packing (because of risk of disease spreading to bighorn sheep) based on a procedural violation.  They then got together with the National Wild Sheep Foundation and other stakeholders to work out a new plan, which the Shoshone just adopted (presumably as a forest plan amendment, though the Forest website has no information about it).

The balance that was struck prohibits pack goats from territory used by core bighorn sheep herds in the Absaroka Range and Wind River Mountains. It was a concession the goat packers were willing to make, partially because of lack of use and the undesirable nature of the Absaroka as a goat packing destination.

“North of Whiskey Mountain is infested with grizzlies,” Jennings said. “Frankly I didn’t want to go in there anyway.”

Permits will required to bring the pack animals into the Shoshone in areas where they are allowed, which include the entire Washakie Ranger District and the southern reaches of the Wind River Ranger District. The Temple Peak Herd roams the area between the two pack-goat-friendly zones, but the Wyoming Game and Fish Department manage it as a lower-priority herd. The state agency agreed with the Shoshone that the Temple Peak sheep could be subject to a higher level of risk.

The Shoshone’s decision also calls for goat packers to abide by a strict set of rules, like stringing no more than three animals per person, leashing their goats and possessing proof of vaccinations.

Possibly in the background was the result of another lawsuit finding that extirpation of a “lower-priority” herd of bighorn sheep could be a violation of NFMA.

 

Recreational Shooting on National Forests- Bad Actors and the Urbanizing Forest

by

Evidence of illegal recreational shooting in closed areas of the Pike National Forest, along Gold Camp Road. (thanks to the Colorado Springs Gazette).

Since I’ve been exploring the topic of personal-use recreational access to National Forests, I’ve thought about how different the discussion is compared to the others multiple uses. There are environmental issues, public safety issues and what we might call “annoying to neighbors” issues.  These issues, for the most part, don’t seem to attract the attention of the major environmental groups and tend to be ultimately local in solution. Thanks to all the public servants out there who deal with these issues day in and day out!  If you live near a National Forest, you probably see these kinds of issues in your local paper.

Some issues are a function of the Forests getting more heavily used, crowded and with more neighbors living cheek by jowl with the Forest.  We might call it the “urbanizing forest transition”, or I’m open to other expressions. But they are also related to people not following the rules that exist to protect the environment and public safety.

Recreational shooting has been an issue on the Front Range of Colorado for some time.. I remember being in meetings dealing with it when I was still working.  Here’s a recent article in the Colorado Springs Gazette.

Bullet holes in the trees dotting the top of the ridge reveal shooters haven’t been following another rule requiring an earthen backstop. With Colorado 67 circling beyond the trees and houses nearby, the potential for loss of life is of paramount concern, he said.

“You have no idea where that bullet is going to land,” Martinez said.

This summer added yet another threat: fires.

In a three-month span, shooting ignited eight fires in the area, leading to renewed calls to close Turkey Track to recreational shooting.

Trash is another mounting concern. Shooters aren’t picking up their used shell casings or targets.

The Forest Service said rangers routinely pick up trash on patrols, but organized efforts twice a year have amassed two to three large dumpsters worth of garbage from each shooting location across the district.

“There’s no reason it has to look that way,” Martinez said.

While not expressly advocating to close the area, Martinez said conversations are needed about how to keep the area safe for the people who use it and the residents nearby.

“We’re at a crossroads,” Martinez said. “What it (recreational use) will end up looking like, I don’t know, but we’re going to need to have some solutions to all of this.”

For recreational shooting to continue, the Forest Service encourages people to follow its golden rule: “Keep it safe. Keep it clean. Keep it legal.”

 

Is this an issue on the Forests near you?

How “collaboratives” work in Idaho

by

They work well, according to this article, and here’s probably an important reason why:

“The collaboratives advance the process by removing features that are sure to invite challenges and delays — like proposing new roads in a roadless area.”

My impression has been that it is easier to reach agreement on protecting undeveloped areas (or not) in both project plans and forest plans than it is to agree on conservation strategies for wildlife (which are the basis of a lot of litigation).  Maybe the former is more political, which lends itself to negotiations, and the other is more scientific and/or legal, which does not?  (Or maybe I’m imagining this difference.)   Spending money to restore damaged streams also seems to work as a bargaining (for wood) chip.

FS preparing for more timber wars?

by

An interesting observation from an attendee at a meeting on the Medicine Bow National Forest (that may or may not have been “public”):

“During the meeting, the forest service representatives discussed a plan from Washington, D.C., to harvest more trees in national forests…”

Things do get lost in translation from meetings to attendees, to reporters, to print, but does anyone know anything more about this “plan from Washington, D. C.?”

The Costs of Wildfire Smoke

by

We’ve been discussing CO2 emissions from logging and wildfires. Now here’s an excerpt from Washington Post article, via the Yakima Herald, “Research shows smoke from wildfires could be surprisingly deadly.”

“Just like smokestacks and tailpipes, wildfires fill the air with the byproducts of combustion, including very dangerous small particles known as PM2.5, which can get into the lungs and bloodstream. A growing body of research has demonstrated that these particles degrade health and contribute to thousands of deaths each year in the U.S. alone by causing respiratory, cardiovascular and other health problems.

“So just how deadly is the smoke from wildfires? While the numbers presented are definitely preliminary, they suggest the cost could be severe indeed.

“Pierce presented the highest numbers at the meeting. He estimates that 5,000 to 25,000 people in the U.S. may die each year from PM2.5 that specifically comes from the smoke of wildfires burning in the U.S. and nearby countries such as Canada.”

FWIW, some perspective. In 2014, the World Health Organization reported that “Between 2030 and 2050, climate change is expected to cause approximately 250,000 additional deaths per year” primarily through malnutrition, malaria, diarrhoea, and heat stress. However, in that same year WHO also reported that “indoor air pollution was linked to 4.3 million deaths in 2012 in households cooking over coal, wood, and biomass stoves.” [emphasis mine]

 

Happy Holidays Everyone!

by

It is that special time of the year during which we can sing to trees without risking societal opprobrium.   Here’s Nat King Cole in German:

May peace, love and hope fill your hearts, your families and our world this season of Hanukkah/Solstice/Christmas/Kwanzaa.