Under the 2012 Planning Rule, the best available scientific information must be used to inform the assessment, which is then to be used to determine the need to change a forest plan. The Geos Institute has gotten out ahead of the pack with its ‘assessment.’ I’m most interested in this:
“Scientists involved in the Northwest Forest Plan recognized that even with the Plan’s protective standards it would take at least a century to restore the late-successional (mature and old growth) forest ecosystem reduced by logging to a fraction (<20%) of its historical extent. While it is premature to judge the efficacy of a 100-year plan in just two decades, scientific assessments have shown that it has achieved many of its ecosystem management targets.”
The Planning Rule specifically requires that forest plans “include plan components, including standards or guidelines, to maintain or restore the ecological integrity of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and watersheds in the plan area …” Ecological integrity requires that ecological characteristics like composition and structure “occur within the natural range of variation.” With regard to wide-ranging at-risk species (such as spotted owls), the Planning Rule requires “plan components, including standards or guidelines, to maintain or restore ecological conditions within the plan area to contribute to maintaining a viable population of the species within its range.”
Assuming that “<20% of its historical extent” is at least in the ballpark, what is the rationale (and the supporting best available scientific information) for changing forest plans to allow increased levels of logging of late-successional forest ecosystems? (Has the ‘bare minimum’ changed, or has the science behind how to achieve it?)
My last expedition included another trip to Yosemite, and the Rim Fire. I DO think that there are enough dead trees for the owls to “enjoy” in their respite from breeding. Then again, maybe this new “Circle of Life” will provide more food, in the form of baby owls, to larger predators?
You might also notice the ongoing beetle kills, which will increase when spring and summer come into play. This next picture shows the little bit of harvesting that was done along Highway 120. You can see the drainage where the Highway sits, and you can also see how wide the hazard tree units are. The barren area in the foreground is/was chaparral.
I am glad that the Forest Service “took my advice” about getting the work done before there was any chance to appeal to a more liberal….errr….. higher court. However, is THIS what we want our salvaged wildfires to look like? This area should be ready for re-burn in a few short years. Also, be reminded that two of the plantation salvage projects did not sell, despite the prompt action by the Forest Service. My guess is that SPI was low-balling the Forest Service to get those smaller trees at less than “base rates”. That means that the prices remain the same (rock bottom) but, some of the non-commercial treatments would be dropped. It appears that the Forest Service wasn’t willing to go as low as SPI wanted. So, those perfectly good salvage trees will be left, “for wildlife”, it appears.
“The Bears Ears proposal comes amid Rep. Rob Bishop’s regional land-use planning initiative and a growing sense that if Utah doesn’t do something to protect threatened public lands such as Cedar Mesa, President Barack Obama could be persuaded to declare another national monument in the state before he leaves office.”
A connection I hadn’t made before.
This also got me to look at Rep. Bishop’s website on his “Public Lands Initiative,” which describes a county-based approach to negotiating some land use decisions. Pretty thorough, with lots of partners, but does this process include any kind of effects analysis (especially where it’s not obvious that wildlife concerns are well-represented).
A reader sent me this series of questions about AWR’s objections to some Montana projects:
It would appear the Alliance for the Wild Rockies isn’t participating in the formal public comment piece of the proceedings. The attached are objection responses for the East Reservoir (Kootenai) and Trapper Creek (BDNF) projects in Montana. Dated 7/17/14 and 10/17/14.
The summary is the AWR isn’t submitting specific written comments as required by 36-CFR-218, resulting in the dismissal of their objections. It would appear there is a bit of cutting and pasting from previous appeals going on.
Does this flagrant disregard for 36-CFR-218 mean the AWR loses standing to sue?
Will the USFS test this in court?
Is it just another tactic by the AWR to test it in court…and tie the project, and future projects, up in the 9th circuit?
Why can the AWR get away with not following procedural review…but the USFS can’t?
Sharon’s thoughts: When I was working for the Forest Service in a different Region, different people working in appeals and different attorneys had different ideas about what to do when appellants “didn’t get the appeal in on time” and “submitted an appeal without changing the name from the last project (or only changing the title)”. One example I remember concerned meeting the deadline. The appeals coordinator felt that “rules are rules and we need to enforce them for everyone.” But some of the OGC attorneys felt “we ought to cut them some slack because they might get mad and sue us or otherwise cause trouble.” My personal opinion is that this did not become an issue with permittees or the ski industry or whatever.. they were expected to follow the rules. It’s kind of easy to feel sorry for a shoestring operation (some of the environmental groups who did this actually were shoestring operations, but others clearly were much better off, than say, some permitees), but, on the other hand, rules are rules.
So I don’t know how this will work on these Montana projects. I just know, in my experience, there were a lot of different points of view in what was the “right thing to do.”
For those who wonder how these different points of view get resolved, in our case, we would write a letter (say denying the appeal), and the attorneys would sit in on the meeting in which we would brief the Deputy Regional Forester and give their point of view. But if OGC was going to push on it with the DRF or RF, I think the attorneys would check around among themselves to see if they shared the opinion first before deciding to push. If the DRF (the boss of me and our shop) agreed with the attorneys we would go back and do what the DRF said.
Anyway, is there anyone out there who can answer the reader’s questions with more current and relevant experience?
For those who are interested and have not worked in this area, I recommend you take a look at the links below.
Here are the links to the Regional Forester’s letters re the objections on Trapper Creek:
The continuing judicial story of the South Canyon Road on the Jarbridge River (where the first battle was fought with shovels).
Legal arguments center on an 1866 law that established so-called RS 2477 roads by granting states and counties the right of way to build highways on federal lands… The government denies such a right of way exists. But under political pressure, the Forest Service signed a settlement agreement in 2003 with assurances it no longer would challenge the county’s claim.
The Wilderness Society and Great Old Broads for Wilderness sued to block the deal, saying U.S. officials lacked the authority to cede control of the road and shirked their responsibility to protect the bull trout. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed and tossed the agreement out in 2005, before the agency signed a similar deal in 2011 and conservationists sued again.
In a decision that should surprise no one who has been paying attention, a D.C. federal district court judge has tossed out the timber industry’s lawsuit challenging the 2012 NFMA planning rule. Industry alleged a potpourri of substantive claims against the planning rule, but won’t get a chance to argue them. The judge dismissed industry’s complaint on standing grounds; thus, she did not rule on the merits of industry’s claims.
As to standing, her decision is simplicity itself and flows directly from the Supreme Court’s Ohio Forestry ruling, which found the Sierra Club could not challenge a forest plan’s timber management regime because the plan doesn’t decide to cut any particular trees. Actual tree cutting decisions are made in subsequent site-specific project decisions.
Similarly, the 2012 planning rule doesn’t decide to log or to protect from logging any particular national forest acre. The tree cutting and forest protecting decisions are made in subsequent forest plans and projects. Whether more or fewer trees will be cut under the 2012 planning rule is pure conjecture, says the judge, and thus cannot be the cause of the various injuries the timber industry claims. Industry had claimed that the 2012 planning rule will mean fewer trees cut, injuring it economically. And that less logging would mean more fires, injuring the recreational interests of off-road vehicle users. The judge wasn’t buying it.
A good friend who worked in the Forest Service before the 1964 Wilderness Act asked me if I had heard of a Merry Packer. I had not heard of them. He then described this motorized contraption that ferried equipment up trails in remote areas. The full picture is here.
My friend Tom commented about their use:
“Look!”
I looked. It was hard not to. We had just broke camp and started down the trail when the morning fog boiling up out of the canyon burst a hole a couple of miles away across the gorge, and in that hole, perfectly framed in corpuscular rays, sparkled a waterfall. It was quite a sight… and possibly my last!
Landers stumbled on a raised root in the trail just as he pointed with his right hand at the waterfall. His left hand on the throttle squeezed involuntarily as he struggled for balance. The little engine revved, kicking the mechanical mule in the ass just as we came out of a switchback. We came WAY out. I was up front, leaning back on the handles, supposedly steering, hopping and tiptoeing over rocks and roots, my feet on the ground only now and then.
We were having way too much fun again with this thing, and, way out here in the Douglas fir forests of the Wind River District above the Columbia River Gorge, no one was looking….and we were getting paid, too! Without having to carry gear, we moved fast, almost effortlessly, and we cleared a lot of trail……until Landers spotted that waterfall. I was lifted in the air about two feet before going over the edge, followed by all of our stuff – chainsaws, axes, sleeping bags, raingear, food, canteens and mosquito nets. Only a sleeping bag landed on me as I tumbled. Thank God that machine missed me. Landers fell on his face in the trail, laughing.
The adults in the Forest Service had declared us the Trail Crew, showed us how to start this thing, then sent us into the wilds. Its called a Merry Packer. They’re like those deer carriers, but motorized. Are they still around?”
I hadn’t seen one in all my years in the Forest Service. I’m sure they were used a lot, in trail construction, before the restrictions on “motorized use”. On a recent trip to Zion, I saw, maybe, its replacement, in this more modern world. I’m sure that they had to fly this machine up to this strategic spot on the East Rim Trail.
The new plans to be released by BLM will identify late-successional reserves designed to promote the old-growth forest ecosystem favored by owls, in addition to protected areas along streams and “harvest land base.”
The draft EIS tentatively adopts alternative “B,” which would split the harvest lands into zones for uneven-aged timber management as well as low- and moderate-intensity timber areas with regeneration harvest with varying levels of tree retention. The alternative would also designate 114 areas of critical environmental concern, where mineral development, off-highway vehicle use and other activities would be restricted.
If you’re looking for something to watch on date night, you might enjoy “Seeing the Forest,” an FSEEE-produced 30-minute documentary released on-line today.
The movie chronicles the Siuslaw National Forest’s path to a fish and watershed restoration mission. It’s a sequel to “Torrents of Change,” which recounted how the 1996 flood helped galvanize and reinforce the Siuslaw’s on-going transformation. Now, 20 years later, “Seeing the Forest” picks up the story-line.
This is an oil and gas task force meeting with Governor Hickenlooper. Another Colorado policy experiment, with people who disagree talking to each other.
Today there were a couple of articles on the sage grouse and Gardner’s bill that I think are worthy of interest. There is one in the Denver Post (may they live long and prosper!) here. Also a couple in E&E News here (I think you need a subscription for this one) and here .
So national groups tell us that ecosystems will unravel or at least grouse will die out, if states are allowed to pursue their own way (even for six years). I guess they think that states can’t be trusted with environmental policy. Of course, the Clean Air Act is an example of state responsibility with federal oversight and that seems to work. Do we have a reason to believe that states are “good on air and bad on critters?”. One of the reasons I’m not afraid is that I spent about six years working on the Colorado Roadless Rule. My experiences with the Colorado Roadless Rule involved all kinds of permutations (state-led and federal-led processes; different administration (3 state and 2 federal)) and so on.
It’s a well known fact that states are incubators for policy experiments. People have ideas and can carry them out without invoking The Big Players, and Partisanizing Everything. What happens in D.C. is that a simple policy idea quickly turns into something one party tries to bash the other party with. I don’t know why it didn’t happen in Colorado. It could be because we’re purple, or because Things Have To Get Done in a state.
Here are a couple of thoughts about why states can do things better. People who work for states know, and have databases with, a great deal of information that the feds do not. For example, when it was desired to restrict roads in roadless areas for undeveloped water rights, the state had the information on water rights. These kinds of issues could be accommodated in a state-specific rulemaking but would tend to get washed out at the national level. For one thing, water law is different in different states.
When our team met with representatives of national environmental groups it seemed like it was all about abstractions, and generalities and posturing and perhaps grandstanding. They would use words like PROTECTION and INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT and so on and weren’t really engaging at the scale of on the ground problems and issues. One national group said we had to “give them something” for them to support the rule. State and local environmental groups tended to want more specific changes.
As I recall, some wildlife people on the western slope wanted to cut down some trees or large brush for better habitat for some critter (a critter that wasn’t endangered) and their concerns were too small to be heard, because the goal was “words that please national groups.” Another example is that some people kept claiming “the science says” that you don’t need to cut down trees around communities (sound familiar?) and Mike King, State DNR Director, organized a meeting with elected officials from communities, fire people, and all the other interests in which each “side” selected three scientists to talk about fuel treatments. When I think about that meeting, I think 1) state people know the biophysical side of the issue and they know the people such that 2) people need to be more or less accountable for what they say. People are used to “gettin’ er’ done” in terms of policy. Grandstanding is not much tolerated in that kind of group. I think that the level of discourse at that meeting, was much higher than my experiences in D.C., where one side at a time tends to come in, and the Feds just listen and not question or disagree. Obviously I believe open discussions of scientific and other points of view should be valued and be a part of any public process.
So that is my experience. Better discourse, more knowledge, more transparency, and ultimately a better policy outcome.
Dave Freudenthal, the (Democrat) former Governor of Wyoming, made a similar point in a letter to Secretary Salazar in 2010 about oil and gas regulation:
In terms of development, I have always been a strong proponent of balance. In general, given the right information and proper motivation, we have usually found our way to a development array that meets the terms of those that understand the need for both production and protection. Frankly, we know that there will never be a meeting of the minds of those in the “drill here, drill now” crowd and the “not one blade of grass” crowd, mainly because neither side is willing to give toward the middle. Unfortunately, Washington, D.C. seems to go from pillar to post to placate what is perceived as a key constituency. I only half-heartedly joke with those in industry that, during the prior administration, their names were chiseled above the chairs outside the office of the Assistant Secretary for Lands and Minerals. With the changes announced yesterday, I fear that we are merely swapping the names above those same chairs to environmental interests, giving them a stranglehold on an already cumbersome process. Meanwhile in places like Cheyenne, Casper, Wamsutter and Cody, Wyoming, we in the middle simply want a good job, clean air, healthy watersheds and a place to hunt, fish and hike with our families.
As Governor Freudenthal said, who should be making decisions “in the middle”? A random mix of ideologues or the people who have to live there in open discussion with each other?
In my experience on the Colorado Roadless Rule, I saw better policy work actually being done when states and feds had to work together, as well as people with different perspectives, including political ones. I think the sage grouse and the people in Colorado deserve that quality of work.
