“Not Enough Analysis”: The Ongoing Saga of the Village at Wolf Creek

by
This is the map of the ski area.

When I was working in Region 2, I used to call this project “Reasonable Access for Unreasonable People”- I think at that point it involved ANILCA access to private land, and not a land exchange. This is a later incarnation of the same project.

For those who don’t remember the first incarnation, there was the infamous Redskin Tickets and Tetratech. Note that this is from a 2007 Denver Post editorial titled “scale back oversized plans for pristine area”:

Colorado Wild researchers may have found the proverbial “smoking gun” to back up their charges. According to the Herald, the project foes found e-mails from Tetra Tech executive Mark Blauer to Honts, asking for Washington Redskins football tickets for members of his staff who “put their heart and soul into your EIS.”

District Judge John Kane blocked construction of the roads until the case is finished and said the e-mails between Blauer and Honts raise concerns about the integrity of the EIS process.

It’s interesting that the Post editorial board (or the headline writer) called the area “pristine.” It was next to a ski area. So in the next incarnation, the proponents tried this.

Why is the proposed Land Exchange better?

We believe the Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange offers an opportunity to develop a village that is unique in character compared with other ski villages. Specifically, by moving the Village into the trees away from the ski mountain, it creates a place of tranquility and solitude not found at other ski areas. Not to mention that it minimizes any disruption to the experience one feels when skiing at Wolf Creek. Here are the potential public benefits as outlined by the Forest Service in their Draft EIS:
development of private lands would be moved further east from Wolf Creek Ski Area, and would minimize impacts to skiers and ski area operations.
the land exchange would focus residential development and associated infrastructure in an area that is more suitable due to topography, natural resources, and proximity to US Highway 160.
the proposed land exchange would lead to a net gain of wetlands and perennial streams in public ownership.
the proposed exchange would accommodate a lower density development.
the land exchange would replace the need for ANILCA access.

If the ski area is full of people, and can be seen from the area proposed, could that area be “pristine”?

Anyway, in this incarnation, we have Judge Matsch who says (according to this Durango Herald article, I did not read the judge’s opinion)

Senior Judge Richard P. Matsch in no uncertain terms agreed with those concerns.

“What NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) requires is that before taking any major action, a federal agency must stop and take a careful look to determine the environmental impact of that decision, and listen to the public before taking action,” he wrote in his decision. “The Forest Service failed to do that.”

Matsch noted “predictive bias” in the Forest Service’s decision to approve the land swap, suggesting the agency relied on environmental reviews that favored the developers and their request.

“Public awareness of the fragility of the natural environment has greatly increased in the intervening 30 years, and the need for a scientifically based analysis of the impact of the Forest Service decisions in managing national forest system lands to support a decision is imperative in explaining the decision to the public,” he wrote.

Matsch also took issue with the public comment process.

“The 900 public comments in the record show this heightened public awareness of the effects of human disruption of the native environment,” Matsch wrote. “Notably, responses to the public comments were prepared by the contractors who did the work. They would not be expected to find that work to be flawed.”

I think this is interesting that the judge said this about analysis, because even when I was involved (and I retired five years ago), there was no shortage of analysis including that with a “scientific” basis. I don’t know for sure, but the times I was involved, specialists from the forest reviewed the work of the contractors. I wonder what evidence the judge had that the FS wasn’t doing an adequate job of this?

The other thing about this project is that it shows that even with different political parties, with their own proclivities, in charge, some projects have staying power (30 years?). This should be encouraging to those who are worried about the impacts of the new administration.

And finally, as a citizen, I’d like to thank the people who have worked on the many incarnations of this project, caught between the legal requirements of ANILCA, and the opposition to the project. They have certainly put their hearts and souls into these many iterations and perhaps some generous soul could donate Broncos tickets to them!

“BLM starts bid to revamp land-use planning, NEPA reviews” (Greenwire)

by

More fodder for discussion. The article includes a link to an Interior memo on the topic.

The goals include finding “better ways” to partner federal land-use planning efforts with “state planning efforts,” seeking “opportunities to avoid delays caused by appeals and litigation” and developing a process to “right size” environmental review documents, “instead of defaulting to preparing an Environmental Impact Statement in circumstances when such a document is not absolutely needed,” according to the memo.

Chief Rumors.. Cables for Chief?

by

Rick Cables

Here’s the link:

Colorado native Rick Cables, a veteran Forest Service boss who led Colorado Parks and Wildlife before joining Vail Resorts as vice-president of natural resources and conservation, is on the shortlist to become the new chief of the U.S. Forest Service, according to news reports.

The energy and environmental network E&E News last week reported that Cables, a native of Pueblo who spent 35 years with the Forest Service, could be the Trump Administration’s choice for chief of the 34,000-employee Forest Service. (Another rumored choice is Lyle Laverty, a Colorado-based Forest Service veteran who served under the Bush Administration in the Interior Department. And there is speculation that the Trump Administration may retain Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell, who served for most of the Obama Administration.)

The idea of Chief Cables excites Colorado’s recreation and ski industry officials as well as public land managers.

“I think he’s a perfect, perfect choice for that role,” said Luis Benitez, the head of the Colorado Outdoor Recreation Industry Office, citing Cable’s experience in both the private and public domains. “It is the logical conclusion for their search for a new chief.”…

Jim Bedwell, the retiring Forest Service’s Rocky Mountain Region director of recreation, lands, minerals and volunteers, said Cables would be the best choice as chief.

“He has the Forest Service in his blood,” said Bedwell, noting how Cable’s mother was a pioneer as one of the first female leaders in the agency. “His work with Colorado Parks and Wildlife and now Vail Resorts, it’s really rounded him out. His experience with Vail has brought him heightened awareness of how important that industry is and what it can deliver and our need to manage that appropriately for them to reach their potential.”

This is an interesting example of good industry (skiing), bad industry (imagine if the head of BLM had retired and gone to work in the oil and gas industry). As to “best” and “perfect”, reasonable people, including me, could disagree.

Happy Fourth of July, everyone!

Enjoined timber sale “renegotiated”

by

The Johnson Bar Salvage Sale on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest has been approved by the Forest Service and the litigants.  (Johnson Bar has been previously discussed here in several posts.)

Following the injunction, Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest Supervisor Cheryl Probert pulled the project and committed to a rewrite that was completed earlier this year. The environmental groups filed objections to the new logging plan, but those objections were resolved through negotiations between the agency, the environmental groups and timber companies.

“Nobody got 100 percent of what they wanted in this effort. But they have been really good about working through the process and understanding it’s in all of our best interests to get something done out there,” Probert said.

Bill Higgins of the Idaho Forest Group — one of the timber companies that successfully bid on the sale — estimated it will produce 25 percent to 40 percent of the original volume

“It’s not the best outcome,” he said. “The original project implementation on the schedule they were on was the desired outcome. This is making the best of kind of a bad situation.”

The project eliminates logging in areas that are visible from the river and places the groups feared were prone to erosion and landslides or areas that could degrade steelhead spawning habitat.

What’s not to like about this?  Maybe only that they could have done this without the litigation step, but apparently the litigation step was needed to convince the Forest Service that it couldn’t just do what it wanted without a fight.  (Anticipating Sharon’s argument, let’s assume that the timber purchasers and local governments were not formally “at the table,” but they were free to advise the Forest Service on what they wanted.)

This is how we “love wilderness to death?”

by

I couldn’t ignore these two stories showing up the same day (but I didn’t look for a photo).

Deschutes and Willamette National Forests (OR) proposes limiting wilderness users:  “Wilderness rangers reported coming across unburied human feces more than 1,000 times.”

White River National Forest (CO) proposes limiting overnight camping in wilderness:  “During the 2016 summer season, Jerman added, Wilderness Rangers encountered 273 incidences of unburied human waste in the Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wilderness.”

Not my area of expertise, but does raise some management policy questions.  Maybe the permit should require completion of some training.

Forest “Christmas tree” bill out of House committee

by

No, not that Christmas tree (they are searching the Kootenai National Forest for that one).

 

This one.  This is the Westerman bill that the House hung all the hopes of active forest management on:  “the Resilient Federal Forests Act of 2017.”  Similar legislation in 2015 passed the House, but died in the Senate.

“To expedite under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and improve forest management activities on National Forest System Lands, on public lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, and on tribal lands to return resilience to overgrown, fire-prone forest lands and other purposes.”

Just about everything that has been suggested before (and stopped by Obamacrats) is in there to make it easier and attractive to do things.  Categorical exclusions, expedited salvage, expedited project ESA consultation and reduced/eliminated forest plan consultation, litigation restrictions, county payments, less road decommissioning, elimination of eastern OR/WA old growth harvest restrictions, elimination of Northwest Forest Plan survey and manage requirements, O & C land management changes, wildfire disaster funding.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Planning for pipelines – not

by

A Draft Record of Decision document released by the United States Forest Service would allow 11 exceptions to the Jefferson National Forest Plan and adopt an amendment that allows old growth forests, rare species and wetlands to be destroyed by the proposed Mountain Valley Pipeline.

The Draft Record of Decision (ROD)  states that “the proposed plan amendment is needed…because the MVP Project cannot meet several Forest Plan Standards…to protect soil, water, riparian, old growth, recreational and visual resources.” (ROD, pg. 4)

The ROD refers to Executive Order 13766 recently issued by President Trump that directs the USFS to “expedite, in a manner consistent with the law, environmental reviews and approvals for all infrastructure projects that are a high priority for the Nation, such as …pipelines.”

Time for the energy development battles to move to court?   This article mentions two potential litigation risks.  The Forest did not consider any pipeline alternatives that would be consistent with the forest plan.  It also adopts plan amendments that were not included in the DEIS (arguably these are new decisions that were never scoped).  It could also test the amendment procedures under the 2012 Planning Rule.

Greenwire: “Western governors call for revamping Forest Service”

by

Article published today, June 28….

“Pointing to ‘significant dissatisfaction’ with the management of national forests, the Western Governors’ Association yesterday approved a resolution that calls in part for overhauling the Forest Service.

The seven-page policy resolution was adopted after a yearlong review of best practices and policies for forest and rangeland management in an effort spearheaded by current WGA Chairman and Montana Gov. Steve Bullock (D).”

….

Key paragraph from the resolution:

“Today, the Forest Service’s forest management program is primarily a byproduct of restoration projects intended to reduce wildfire risk and/or improve forest resilience, water quality, watershed health, key wildlife habitat, and/or intrinsic value. Western Governors recognize and support these forest values, but also believe it is reasonable to expect that some portion of the federal landscape will be focused on long-term, ecologically-sound forest management — where jobs, forest products, and revenues are priorities and generated through sound stewardship.”

Of course, “some portion” already is being managed as they describe, but….

“There is significant dissatisfaction in the West among many stakeholders with the current level of National Forest management. There is a general sense that the current level of forest management is not meeting anyone’s needs, whether it’s putting logs on trucks, protecting water quality, addressing fire risk, protecting key habitats and landscapes, providing for recreation, or other important community needs. Successful forest management reform will achieve a balance among all of these important objectives, and provide the opportunity for certainty such that diverse interests will be encouraged to work together to achieve shared outcomes.”

The Guardian on the Scientific Publishing Biz

by

Having grown up in the science biz, the business models seemed a little iffy to me.  But I’ve never heard the scientific publishing models so clearly critiqued as this Guardian article. Below are excerpts.

 

But Elsevier’s business model seemed a truly puzzling thing. In order to make money, a traditional publisher – say, a magazine – first has to cover a multitude of costs: it pays writers for the articles; it employs editors to commission, shape and check the articles; and it pays to distribute the finished product to subscribers and retailers. All of this is expensive, and successful magazines typically make profits of around 12-15%.

The way to make money from a scientific article looks very similar, except that scientific publishers manage to duck most of the actual costs. Scientists create work under their own direction – funded largely by governments – and give it to publishers for free; the publisher pays scientific editors who judge whether the work is worth publishing and check its grammar, but the bulk of the editorial burden – checking the scientific validity and evaluating the experiments, a process known as peer review – is done by working scientists on a volunteer basis. The publishers then sell the product back to government-funded institutional and university libraries, to be read by scientists – who, in a collective sense, created the product in the first place.

It is as if the New Yorker or the Economist demanded that journalists write and edit each other’s work for free, and asked the government to foot the bill. Outside observers tend to fall into a sort of stunned disbelief when describing this setup. A 2004 parliamentary science and technology committee report on the industry drily observed that “in a traditional market suppliers are paid for the goods they provide”. A 2005 Deutsche Bank report referred to it as a “bizarre” “triple-pay” system, in which “the state funds most research, pays the salaries of most of those checking the quality of research, and then buys most of the published product”.