The Missing Utes and Coverage of the Uinta Basin Railway Project

by
I think this is the preferred route. here’s the website: https://uintabasinrailway.com/

If you look at media coverage of this issue, sometimes you don’t even see the Ute connection mentioned. I wasn’t keeping a list, but ran across a recent story from a few days ago on NPR from Aspen Public Radio in which Utes were not mentioned among the folks who support the railroad.

The below op-ed ran in the Denver Post on August 14, 2023.

It’s also interesting what Chairman Murray of the Ute Tribe Business Committee has to say about consultation on the Camp Hale Monument designation, and the Tribe’s hunting and fishing rights.

As Chairman of the Ute Indian Tribe Business Committee, I am shocked and disappointed by the actions of Gov. Jared Polis, U.S. Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper, and other state lawmakers that reflect disregard and contempt toward our peoples’ ancestral ties to Colorado.

Ute Indians occupied what is now the state of Colorado from time immemorial. Although the federal government forced us to relocate to eastern Utah in what we today call our Uintah and Ouray Reservation, Colorado remains our ancestral homeland.

Once we were forcibly relocated to the arid Uinta Basin, energy mineral production has become the main source of livelihood for our people, who would otherwise struggle to put food on the table, access education, and provide shelter for our families.

The Uinta Basin Railway Project would provide much-needed infrastructure and allow our Tribe to access energy markets nationwide, but Colorado is dead set on standing in our way. Governor Polis and Colorado lawmakers are lodging a campaign to shut down this project simply because it would connect our oil with a wider market.

As planned, the Uinta Basin Railway is an 88-mile single-track rail line that would connect the Uinta Basin in northeastern Utah to the National Railway Network, providing energy mineral producers in this region with the infrastructure needed to access markets throughout the nation for the first time. About eight miles of track would cross Tribal lands on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation.

While the federal permitting process is near completion, Eagle County, Colorado, has joined environmental advocacy groups in filing suit asking that these federal permits be set aside, causing yet further delay in groundbreaking on the project.

Senators Bennet and Hickenlooper are using the recent derailment accident in Ohio as justification to deny us the ability to market and transport the oil produced on our land from our Reservation. This is a flawed comparison. The Ohio derailment involved highly hazardous, flammable substances. The unique crude oil we produce from our Reservation is a waxy product that does not flow like regular oil and is not flammable. It is transported by rail as a solid, not as a hazardous liquid.

Efforts by Polis and Colorado lawmakers to block this important project reveal their deference to environmental lobbyists and advocacy groups whose livelihoods do not depend on sustainable energy development.

These groups blindly oppose any and all oil development, and Colorado officials have clearly bought in. It is a shame that Colorado continues to act with no regard for the adverse impacts on a marginalized people who have long been stewards to the lands and resources they claim to protect. This is not environmental justice. In fact, it is the very opposite.

Opposition to the Uinta Basin Railway Project is not the only recent example of Colorado’s dishonorable treatment of our Tribe.

We retained hunting and fishing rights within Colorado boundaries under our treaties with the United States, but our efforts to work in cooperation with the Colorado state government to exercise and enforce our treaty rights have been stonewalled every step of the way.

Following years of refusing to meet with us as the elected leadership of the Ute Indian Tribe on this issue, Governor Polis and his administration are now refusing to enter into a cooperative agreement surrounding the exercise of our treaty rights. Governor Polis has no authority whatsoever to interfere with our treaty rights, and our Tribe plans to proceed in exercising our rights as affirmed by the Supreme Court in its 2019 opinion in Herrera v. Wyoming.

Unfortunately, the Biden Administration has followed Colorado’s lead in ignoring our treaty rights surrounding our ancestral homelands.

President Joe Biden recently established the Camp Hale National Monument in the middle of our ancestral lands. This was done with no government-to-government consultation with our Tribal leadership whatsoever.

Over a century after our people were stripped from our homeland and pushed into the Utah desert, the Biden Administration now seeks to further dispossess our ties to these lands by designating a monument without including us and attempting to erase our history and connection to these lands.

Julius T. Murray III is chairman of the Ute Indian Tribe Business Committee. The Ute Indian Tribe resides on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation in northeastern Utah. Three bands of Utes comprise the Ute Indian Tribe: the Whiteriver Band, the Uncompahgre Band, and the Uintah Band. The Tribe has more than 3,000 members, with over half living on the Uintah and Ouray Reservation. The Ute Indian Tribe operates its own tribal government and oversees significant oil and gas deposits on its 4.5 million-acre Reservation. The Tribal Business Committee is the governing council of the Tribe.

Over the Weekend – Blue Mtn. blues, Flathead secrets and monumental benefits

by

I guess this is a bookend to Sharon’s “Friday News Roundup.”

 

BLUE MOUNTAINS

I recently provided an update on the status of the Blue Mountains forest plan revisions here.   And here’s a little more detail on that, especially on the question of “access.”  (This term gets used for a couple of different things, and this one is about closing roads on national forests rather than creating access across private property to reach public lands.)

One group says its leading the charge to fight for what they call “original rights” is Forest Access for All.  “We defend the rights that we’ve had since Oregon was a territory, free reign where we go and utilize the forests which are public lands,” says Bill Harvey, a group member and former Baker County Commissioner. “A couple decades ago the Forest Service began closing off sections of the forest and that’s when Forest Access for All was formed.” Harvey says his group’s particular ire is at the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest (WWNF), which he claims “have closed thousands of miles of roads in the forest the last twenty years.”

The group also has other “conflicts” with the Forest Service include the need for  more vegetation management, economic benefits of (motorized) recreation, and better public engagement.

“By law right now, we have an open forest. They will admit it, everybody admits it, and it’s in the books, I’ve seen it a million times. It is an open access forest,” says Harvey. “Why in God’s name would we want to give that up? Nothing benefits us to give up our rights that we have currently. We’re not asking for more rights, we’re asking for the existing rights to stay in place.

I’m going to disagree with him on this one, and I hope the Forest Service does, too (although it looks like they could have done a better job of setting the locals straight on this before now).  In 2005, Subpart B of the Travel Management Rule changed the culture of motor vehicle use on roads, trails, and areas from “Open unless closed” to a system of designated routes.  As for why?  The goal was to reduce resource damage from unmanaged motor vehicle use off that road system.

 

FLATHEAD

Newly revealed emails show that the Flathead National Forest under then supervisor Kurt Steele looked to keep a proposal of a tram up Columbia Mountain from public view for more than year prior to it being first proposed.

Does this sound familiar?  It sounds to me like the “Holland Lake Model” that got the forest supervisor a “promotion” to forest planning.  In this case the Forest properly rejected the proposal as inconsistent with its forest plan (thank you forest plan!).  But it does suggest a pattern of incentives and behavior that may be broader than the Flathead National Forest.

“The process where the public comes into play is when it becomes the NEPA process,” Flathead Forest spokesperson Kira Powell said about the emails.

“Bringing you into the conversation about this potential project on the Flathead NF because it’s coming from investors who apparently have the financial resources to build a tramway, meaning they likely have political savvy also … wrote Keith Lannom, who was deputy regional forester for Region 1 at the time …”

This account offers a window into the role of “political savvy” in Forest Service decision-making.

 

ORGAN MOUNTAINS – DESERT PEAKS NATIONAL MONUMENT

Since President Barack Obama created the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument in 2014, visitation has tripled and the national monument has spurred economic growth in the Las Cruces area as well as other communities near the national monument, according to a new report.

According to this overview, the report looks at the various factors that made this particular monument so successful, including its location relative to population centers and the uses it caters to.  Also local community support.

“We have always recognized that the establishment of the monument was due in large part to the grassroots effort at the local community organizations and individuals,” Melanie Barnes, the state BLM director, said. “And due to this engaged and proud community, the monument has seen an increase in visitation.”

She said the BLM is working on a resource management plan that will address land use and resource protection. The public scoping period for that plan recently ended.

 

Proposed CEQ NEPA Regs: Interpretation Help Requested

by

I could use some help.. I’m working on comments for the Proposed CEQ NEPA regulations. Here’s a link to the redline.

Here’s what the White House said about it:

CEQ’s Bipartisan Permitting Reform Implementation Rule would modernize and accelerate environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), encourage early community engagement, accelerate America’s clean energy future, strengthen energy security, and advance environmental justice

Sure.. doing more analysis and “accelerating environmental reviews” are the same thing (reminds me of the 2012 Planning Rule claims). Because if agencies involve the public sooner and do more analysis..everyone will agree and there won’t be litigation. And if there is successful litigation, it’s proof that those agency NEPA practitioners are doing things wrong – again. Ah.. the Circle of NEPA Life!

Anyway, the legal minds out there could really help me out by helping me understand if I am missing something. The Proposed Reg uses the term “vulnerable communities” which it doesn’t define. It also talks about “communities with environmental justice concerns.” Now conceivably, any community could have “environmental justice concerns”.. so that’s confusing to me.

The Proposed Reg does define environmental justice..

“(§1508.1 k) Environmental justice means the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability, in agency decision making and other Federal activities that affect human health and the environment so that people: (1) Are fully protected from disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers; and (2) Have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment in which to live, play, work, learn, grow, worship, and engage in cultural and subsistence practices.”

If I read this correctly, it means “all people” so that community members are “fully protected from disproportionate and adverse health and environmental effects.” So I thought about say, new transmission lines and wind facilities, even offshore wind. It seems to me that every new facility would have at least some (certainly) disproportionate and (litigatably) adverse health and environment impacts. I don’t quite understand being “fully protected from ..health and environmental effects.. including those related to the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers.”

Now as far as I can tell, the regs don’t say that agencies can’t do disproportionate things, but must analyze them in § 1502.16.

The potential for disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects on communities with environmental justice concerns.

***********
Never fear, though, the Council may actually streamline some particular NEPA compliance:

§ 1506.12 Innovative approaches to NEPA reviews.

(a) The Council may authorize an innovative approach to NEPA compliance that allows an agency to comply with the Act following procedures modified from the requirements of the regulations in this subchapter, to facilitate sound and efficient environmental review for actions to address extreme environmental challenges consistent with section 101 of NEPA. Examples of extreme environmental challenges may relate to sea level rise, increased wildfire risk, or bolstering the resilience of infrastructure to increased disaster risk due to climate change; water scarcity; degraded water or air quality; disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns; imminent or reasonably foreseeable loss of historic, cultural, or Tribal resources; species loss; and impaired ecosystem health.

Note that “increased wildfire risk” is on the list.. as is the more generalized “impaired ecosystem health”. I could rationalize quite a few FS projects that way.. In fact, the FS has used existing CEQ emergency authorities on some projects.
And…”disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns” which, if I interpret correct, could be.. any community. It’s a pretty broad window. But if projects are to pass through it, they must go through two layers at least of environmental law folks, first to get the “innovative approach” and then through the courts if someone has the bucks to litigate. Also note that there is no public comment on the innovative approach, and only consultation with potential cooperating agencies.

***********
If these regs go through, I’m hoping the FS will use “wildfire risk” to justify perhaps a regional PODs network in each Region?

There are many interesting things about this proposed reg.. but my question is “do you read it the same way?”- that any disproportionate impact (project) could lead to any community having an “environmental justice concern?”.

Deeper Climate Change Discussions IV. Apocalypses and Trade-Offs

by

Thanks to everyone participating in our discussion on climate!.

Let me restate: we are leaving the “let’s not worry about it” folks by the side of the road for our discussion right now.  We heard you. We are not convinced and are unlikely to be. Speaking for myself, I don’t know for sure. But I also know that you don’t know for sure either. We can still act without knowing for sure.  Like wildfire mitigation efforts, we do them without knowing for sure a wildfire will hit our house while we live there. As Mike says, it’s about risks -and includes uncertainties and values.

Anyway, the last topic was exploring the differences between 4’s and 5’s in my original typology.. the difference was between “we need to focus on reducing GHGs” and “if we don’t stop fossil fuels apocalyptic things will happen.”

As it turns out, that was an oversimplification.  There are at least three different areas to explore 1) what needs to be done, 2) how quickly and 3) how apocalyptic future consequences might be.  Clearly all of these are related. If it was easy to fix, then decarbonization could happen rapidly and perhaps there would be no apocalyptic consequences.

One thing you may have noticed as you read the comments on the last piece is how few relate to atmospheric climate models, or physical science at all.

In fact, the discussion reminded me of the famous Thomas Sowell quote:

“Politics allows people to vote for the impossible, which may be one reason why politicians are often more popular than economists, who keep reminding people that there is no free lunch and that there are no ‘solutions’ but only trade-offs.”

If there are trade-offs, then indeed no particular discipline or expert, or even way of thinking, can claim to know the right answer.  Because someone calls themself a “climate expert” does not mean that they know any more about these trade-offs than anyone else.

First, about apocalypticism,

That was fairly vague, I grant you. Carl suggested:

a) “involving or causing sudden great damage or suffering” or more narrowly b) “involving a sudden and large-scale alteration in state.”

But if you believe that climate has been involved in wildfires, then a) has already happened.  We won’t know about b, probably until it’s too late.  So maybe that’s not a good word to use at all.

The next comment was he ever-helpful Anonymous leaving a link to a paper written by a philosophy professor and fortunately leaving a summary:

“All real-life decisions have the decision-maker face some kind of knowledge gap. Therefore, an idea of precautionary decision-making needs to be able to guide decision-makers with regard to:(1) if the knowledge gap faced is to be tolerated, and a decision made in spite of it, or(2) if the decision should be delayed while attempting to close or narrow the gap,(3) and, if so, how much time, effort and resources should be spent on that endeavor.”

Many of us may remember that there is in fact a social science field called “decision sciences” that has explored these kinds of questions in great depth (Al Lundgren cited an economics paper from 1921) .  In fact, my first memories of discussions of uncertainty  were Lundgren’s forest economics papers in the 1970’s- even one I recall on uncertainty in planning, though I can’t find it right now.

Jon then mentioned trade-offs as well:

 Where action is needed to mitigate climate change, it puts a premium on the tradeoff analysis, including on alternative locations that trade off some energy efficiency/cost for species protection.

And yet, trade-off analysis a project at a time doesn’t really work, so we’d need wider scale planning. Vladimir suggested that we need a plan, something like the Public Lands Commission in the 60’s. It’s conceivable that different alternatives could be looked at at either the national or state level and people familiar with the physical reality of building or changing, and the economic realities of who will pay and who will benefit, plus the availability of labor, capital and mineral and other resources.

Then there are values that haven’t yet been discussed in public fora… like how self-sufficient do we want to be as a country? Do we want to protect any domestic supply chains/jobs?

And Mike looked at it through the risk assessment lens..

Lastly, I try look at ACC through a risk analysis lens. What’s the worst that can happen if we continue down our current path of adding CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases (it’s not just about CO2) to the atmosphere vs what is the worst that can happen if we reduce those outputs and prepare for a warmer and, in some areas, drier future.

Who wins and who loses from any policy is ultimately in the realm of politics.  We folks who have spent time nestled in the depths of NEPA documents know that the best we can do is fairly describe the pros and cons and uncertainties insofar as they are known.  And present them to the public for feedback and additional info. I can see why maybe we don’t need to do that for national security policy, but decarbonization could be an opportunity to be as rational as we can be.. involving all the research disciplines, and people working on the ground.  No one discipline has the key to trade-offs, clearly if you are really an expert in industrial solar cells, then you aren’t an expert in hydro storage, electric cars, or carbon capture technologies. And to circle back, economists also have an important role to play in evaluating trade-offs.

Thanks again to everyone contributing to the discussion, and new people feel free to step in!

A Three Sisters Wilderness Trailhead Information Station

by
Les Joslin at Green Lakes Trailhead information station.
Les Joslin at Green Lakes Trailhead information station.

By Les Joslin

Marv arrived on the Deschutes National Forest that summer of 1991 as Bend Ranger District recreation forester responsible for wilderness and trails—and, therefore, for me. At the end of my second summer, when I turned in my campsite and trailhead surveys, he asked me what I thought the district’s wilderness management effort needed most.

“A trailhead information station at the Green Lakes Trailhead,” I answered immediately and explained why.

“You’re right,” Marv agreed, and asked if I’d pioneer such a station five days a week the next summer. I knew the wilderness well, and was a natural for the job. Since I couldn’t be paid a federal salary, I’d work on a small contract. “We’ll build a portable station, and you’ll staff it and work out how it works next summer.” I agreed to this first unexpected opportunity to address my Forest Service presence concern.

Over the winter, as I designed a wilderness trailhead information program, Marv enlisted a high school shop teacher to supervise construction of a sturdy little one-room, board-and-batten sided, shake-shingled building atop a rugged two-wheeled trailer bed that I would open the coming summer of 1992 as the Green Lakes Trailhead Information Station. I signed a contract to provide visitor information services there on Wednesdays through Sundays for fifty days from July 2 through September 7 at $49.50 per day.

Cold and rainy July 2, 1992, proved an inauspicious opening day for the Green Lakes Trailhead Information Station temporarily based—since the station structure hadn’t been completed—on a log at the trailhead. But I stood my post and served 18 visitors that first day, nine of whom actually began trips into the Three Sisters Wilderness. The others just wanted information, mostly about other things they could do on the Deschutes National Forest on cold and rainy days. The bad weather persisted over that Fourth of July weekend during which I served an even two hundred visitors—177 who took day trips into the wilderness, four who began overnight trips, and the rest who sought general information.

As the summer advanced and the weather improved, visitor numbers increased and the range of trailhead services they needed became apparent. Most needed information about trail travel and camping. The knowledge I’d gained during two seasons of trail patrols and campsite surveys, along with a mounted map of the wilderness and the excellent Geo-Graphics Three Sisters Wilderness maps provided by the Northwest Interpretive Association for me to sell, made that a snap. More challenging was explaining wilderness regulations and the new self-issued wilderness permits. I knew the regulations and the reasons for the permits, and my public contact experience as a Toiyabe National Forest fire prevention guard during the 1960s helped an even more mature me address these topics successfully with a wide range of visitors of varying viewpoints. Most appreciated the presence of “a ranger” and the services he could provide. Some wondered why I didn’t have a ranger station. “It’s coming,” I told them.

And on July 30, the little Green Lakes Trailhead Information Station building arrived and was installed at the trailhead. I wasted no time affixing the mounted wilderness map to its front wall and moving in. The increased visibility afforded by the building and a local television news feature on the wilderness shot there on July 31 got my trailhead operation even more notice.

The next morning, August 1, I arrived at the trailhead station to find a single wheel track leading into the wilderness. I soon put this together with a vehicle in the parking lot marked “Pole Pak” and determined that the inventor and manufacturer of this one-wheeled device to aid backpackers—a good idea, perhaps, but not compliant with wilderness regulations that precluded wheeled vehicles (except wheelchairs)—was testing or using the device. I documented this and reported it to my supervisor.

Marv, perhaps afraid I’d get bored spending five days a week on trailhead duty—and not knowing that being bored was a waste of time I do not permit myself, arranged for one of the Student Conservation Association volunteers to staff the station on August 9 so I could patrol to Moraine Lake. On August 20, wilderness ranger Jill held the fort while I patrolled the Green Lakes-Soda Creek loop and swapped ideas with Don Doyle, the Deschutes National Forest wilderness coordinator.

Word about the trailhead station got around, and on August 28 Forest Supervisor Joe Cruz, District Ranger Walt Schloer, and a couple staff officers along with former wilderness manager Jim Bradley, a professional staff member on the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, U.S. House of Representatives, took a look. Might my project, I began to wonder, make a difference beyond the Deschutes National Forest?

Jim Petersen: What do environmentalists want? Also, the trouble with the Eastside Screens

by
Jim Petersen’s Op-ed – today in the Spokesman Review (pay-walled)

What do environmentalists want?

The litigation driven collapse of the Colville National Forest’s historically robust forest restoration and fuels management programs raises a seemingly unanswerable question.

What do litigious environmentalists want, not just in the Colville National Forest but in every national forest in the West?

More to the point, what do Tim Coleman and his Kettle Range Conservation Group want? Coleman’s group successfully sued the Forest Service to stop the Sanpoil forest restoration project, which was developed under the aegis of the 2004 Tribal Forest Protection Act in consultation with the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.
The court order signed June 23 by Judge Stanley Bastian, Chief District Judge of Washington’s Eastern District, sends Colville National Forest planners back to square one on a project that took years to plan.

Sanpoil proposed thinning and prescribed burning on about 18,000 acres over several years. Boise Cascade’s Kettle Falls mill bought the project – about 15 million board feet of timber including some harvestable trees larger than 21 inches in diameter.
This seems to be the crux of Coleman’s lawsuit. Never mind that the larger trees include shade tolerant grand firs that threaten younger ponderosas that are native to the Colville National Forest.

Grand fir is a thin-barked tree that is easily killed by insects and wildfire. It secured its foothold on the Colville during wetter than normal years in the 1950s and has continued to spread faster than it has been removed from forests in central and eastern Washington.

Grand fir – think Christmas trees – have very bushy low hanging branches that act as ladder fuels, allowing wildfires to climb into forest  canopies. Canopy fires kill almost everything in sight. Witness the Stickpin Fire, which destroyed 54,000 acres in the Colville National Forest in 2015.

Grand fir enjoys the protection of the 21-inch rule, a failed set of standards known as the Eastside Screens that the federal government imposed in 1994 to conserve old growth forests east of the Cascades in Oregon and Washington.  

The 21 inch screen requirement is failing because tree size and age do not correlate. Some tree species – in this case grand fir – grow much faster than other tree species – in this case native ponderosa pine.

Coleman and his Kettle Range Conservation litigants aren’t conserving anything. They pose a far greater danger to the Colville National Forest and its communities than forest restoration work ever has or will.

Among their harms: the water citizens drink, the oxygen that heathy forests release into the air we all breathe, critical fish and wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation opportunity and jobs in Northeast Washington, not just at Boise Cascade but also Vaagen Brothers, Columbia Cedar and several small logging companies whose payrolls support every other business in Stevens, Ferry and Pend Oreille county.

These counties have enjoyed a congressionally blessed working relationship with the Colville National Forest staff for many years. They have been strategic players in the success of the Northeast Washington Forest Coalition and its stakeholder partners – all contributors to several widely praised forest restoration projects.

Coleman is destroying the good work stakeholders are doing in Northeast Washington forests. Fortunately, Farm Bill conferees in Washington DC are considering 2024 revisions in the National Environmental Policy Act that would limit Coleman’s ability to destroy what the Forest Service and its citizen partners are trying to do.

Coleman’s wants and needs should not negate those of diverse publics that value green trees and healthy forests and communities.

Jim Petersen is the founder and president of the non-profit Evergreen Foundation, based in Dalton Gardens, Idaho.

Friday News Roundup: Firing Ops, Agency Appears to Say “No” to Congress, Mining Reforms, Changing Wildlife Behavior

by

Please add your favorites from the week in the comments below.

Firing Operations During the 2012 Dixie Fire

Firing operations are one of the main tools firefighters have at their disposal to corral large fires once they have escaped initial attack, but putting fire on the ground at the peak of fire season, often during the extended periods of drought which bring us megafires, is rarely anybody’s first choice. Often these operations take place in a ‘we had to try something‘ context. We are reprinting this article now, as firing operations rarely get much attention in the press, and the mechanics behind how they are conducted is at the core of how large fires get fought.

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

Yesterday’s “Analysis Paralysis”; Today’s “Permitting Reform”

Can Agency Heads Really Do That? And What is the Rest of the Story?

If you haven’t been following the proposed NEPA regs… thank whatever Deities you believe in. It appears to be another “we’ll require lots more stuff to do, but it will be faster and more efficient.. because.. we say so!” effort.

I realize 100% that the House Natural Resources Committee is not an unbiased group, but I didn’t know agencies could simply do this.

CEQ Chair Brenda Mallory was invited to testify but declined to appear or send a designee to testify on behalf of the agency. This is yet another moment in which Mallory, and CEQ as a whole, has ignored a co-equal branch of government.

60 Recommendations for Mining Law Reform

This is probably worth taking a closer look at. Maybe folks can put links to stories in the comments. I’ll probably have to read the report (shudder) for something else I’m working on.

“This report represents months of interagency policy work and over 50 meetings with industry, environmental groups, labor unions and tribes across the country, following the President’s Day One Executive Order on strengthening America’s Supply Chains,” said Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director of the National Economic Council Joelle Gamble. “Securing a safe, sustainable supply of critical minerals will support a resilient manufacturing base for technologies at the heart of the President’s Investing in America agenda, including batteries, electric vehicles, wind turbines and solar panels.”

The report provides more than 60 recommendations to Congress and federal agencies, including for increasing public and Tribal engagement, making permitting processes more consistent and predictable for industry, and protecting impacted communities and workers, as well as the environmentally and culturally sensitive lands they cherish. The report also identifies reforms to revitalize federal support for research into advanced, lower-impact mining and exploration technologies and methods, workforce development, and the need for increased resources to address the legacy of abandoned and unreclaimed hardrock mining sites that continue to pollute land and water throughout the country.

And what agencies can do:

In the near-term, the IWG report makes dozens of recommendations for federal agencies that can be undertaken without Congress, including that federal permitting agencies adopt identified best practices for engagement, with early and extensive engagement with applicants, agency and intergovernmental partners, and impacted communities and Tribes prior to the start of the formal environmental review process.  This can help alleviate conflicts and speed permitting reviews, while improving outcomes for public health and the environment. The IWG report also encourages exploration and mining companies to adhere to established best practices, such as beginning community and Tribal engagement at the earliest possible stage, providing financial support to allow communities and Tribes to hire independent technical experts, developing community and Tribal benefit agreements, and considering independent and transparent reporting of air and water pollution monitoring data.

Wildlife Corner

 Lions and Wolves and Bears..

This New Scientist story is paywalled so I posted more than usual

In Yellowstone National Park in the western US, the habitat of cougars (Puma concolor) – also known as mountain lions – overlaps with that of grey wolves (Canis lupus), grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) and American black bears (Ursus americanus). Today, these top predators compete for similar food sources like deer and elk, and often steal fresh kills from each other – but it wasn’t this way a century ago.

In the 1920s, cougars and wolves were eradicated from the national park and bears were a rare sight. Cougars have slowly recolonised the area in the last few decades and initially had an abundance of elk to feast on. But grey wolves were reintroduced to the park in the 1990s, adding another elk predator and triggering a cascade of ecological changes.

The number of grizzly and black bears in the park has also jumped in recent decades, creating even more competition for elk and similar prey. To see how this was influencing cougars, Jack Rabe at the University of Minnesota and his colleagues tracked 13 cougars in the area using GPS collars. Their analysis, presented earlier this month at a meeting of the Ecological Society of America, included 381 kills by the cougars – primarily deer and elk – from 2016 to 2022.

They found signs that bears had visited around 30 per cent of the cougar kill sites, probably scaring the cats off their kill. Wolves visited cougar kill sites less often, around 8 per cent of the time. “Bears are definitely much more effective at finding cougar kills,” says Rabe, which might be because there are more bears than wolves in the area.

The researchers could also compare their data with similar tracking data recorded two decades earlier. This showed that cougars are now hunting a greater proportion of their prey on rough landscapes, including rocky slopes and forests. “Cougars are definitely better hunters where the ambush territory is better,” says Rabe. The cats may be returning to the hunting strategy they relied on before the loss of other predators left an abundance of elk and deer for them to pick off in more open areas.

And Coyotes and Bobcats

I can’t access the original article in Science. But this excerpt from New Scientist is interesting.

To investigate, Laura Prugh at the University of Washington in Seattle and her colleagues tracked the movements of 22 wolves (Canis lupus), 60 cougars (Puma concolor), 35 coyotes (Canis latrans) and 37 bobcats (Lynx rufus) using GPS collars between 2017 and 2022. They followed the animals across two forested regions of Washington state punctuated by roads, ranches, homes and small towns.

When wolves and cougars moved into an area, bobcats and coyotes appeared to avoid the larger predators. They spent more time near the developed and human-populated areas that wolves and cougars typically avoid. But this move often had fatal consequences: around half of the coyotes and most of the bobcats that died during the five-year study period were killed by people.

“A few coyotes and bobcats were shot while trying to raid chicken coops,” says Prugh, and others were shot on sight or snagged in traps. They found that humans killed between three and four times as many small carnivores as the apex predators did.

Prugh says that earlier studies on small carnivores suggested a strong fear of people, “so from that perspective, we were a little surprised that they shifted more towards humans in the presence of large carnivores”. The discovery that human-populated areas were more deadly to small carnivores suggests the phenomenon known as the “human shield effect”, in which some animals seek refuge near people, can be lethally self-defeating.

Coyotes, mountain lions, and bears seem to do pretty well in many forested rural and semi-rural communities, at least around here, although there are certainly conflicts.

Recreation Industry Worried About Future Lack of Recreationists Again

by
Skiers and snowboarders linger on the tundra below Peak 10 in the Tenmile Range, July 4, 2023, in Summit County. The Fourth of July Bowl tends to hold snow into the summer due to its aspect and elevation, which attracts the annual tradition to ski on July 4th. (Hugh Carey, The Colorado Sun)

 

Naturally, like probably all TSW readers, I am a big fan of, and participate in, recreation on National Forests.  It’s been interesting to observe the media concern loop on “outdoor recreation” over time.  First people weren’t getting outdoors enough (“nature deficit”); then people were getting outdoors so much that it created conflict and environmental damage; now the Outdoor Industry Association is worried again that there won’t be enough people recreating.  It’s always confusing because sometimes they count things like soccer balls as part of “outdoor recreation”; and of course RVs and boats and OHV’s and so on.  So sometimes it’s hard to tell what exactly what kind of outdoor recreation they are talking about, and how that relates specifically to FS and BLM lands.

Interesting story in the Colorado Sun.

A few years ago, the outdoor industry was struggling to get more people outside after several decades of participation studies showing nearly half of Americans did not go outdoors to have fun.

The pandemic changed that and the latest study by the Boulder-based Outdoor Industry Association shows a record 168.1 million Americans — 55% of the population ages 6 and up — went outside for recreation in 2022. That’s a 2.3% increase over the previous record in 2021. Since January 2020, 14.5 million more Americans went outdoors to run, hike, bike, camp and participate in all sorts of other activities.

And those newcomers are increasingly diverse. The participation rate for Hispanic people reached 56% in 2022, up from 34% in 2015. The rate of participation for Black people reached 40.7% in 2022, up 5 percentage points over 2021. Last year 61% of LGBTQ people recreated outside, with more than 18 million participants, up from 15.8 million in 2021. And more seniors (defined as 55 and older) than ever before went outside to play, with 35% joining the ranks of the outdoor recreators, up from 28% in 2018.

There’s a lot to cheer about in outdoor recreation right now, but “don’t think we are out here doing a victory lap,” said Kent Ebersole, executive director of the Outdoor Industry Association. “We’ve got a lot of work to do.”

The latest participation snapshot shows storms on the horizon. Younger Americans — ages 13 to 24 — are not getting outside. Outings for families with children are declining.

Thank you for recreating outdoors. Please come again. And again.

Americans logged 11.8 billion outdoor recreation outings in 2022 and while that number seems huge, it’s troubling. The frequency of those trips outdoors is declining. Ten years ago the average number of outdoor recreation outings was 84.6 per participant. Now it’s down to 71.8.

The decline in younger folks getting outdoors to play harkens to the industry’s struggles around 2008 when participation in all categories was flat or declining.

Hard work to reach new outdoor recreation players and more diverse groups has helped, but still the industry is struggling to reach younger generations.

“Fast forward eight years when today’s 18-year-olds are 25. Will there then be three generations with anemic participation and does that spell a future where we go back to 2008 and are flat for a decade or more?” Ebersole said. “If we let another generation go by and we don’t talk to them and we don’t reach them, we are going to be in a world of hurt.”

**********

Land managers are adjusting plans to accommodate the growth in recreation. The Bureau of Land Management hosted 81 million visitors on its 245 million acres in 2022, up 40% from 2012 with almost a third of that increase occurring since 2020. The Forest Service counted 168 million nationwide visits in 2020, up from 160 million in 2012.

Both agencies are launching community-focused strategies around recreation.

The BLM’s new Blueprint for 21st Century Outdoor Recreation started last month with major shifts in how the agency prioritizes recreation on its 245 million acres. The BLM’s budget for recreation in 2022 was $60.2 million, or about 74 cents per visit, compared with 84 cents per visit in 2012. The new strategy will enable local land managers to partner with a growing roster of groups lined up to help ease costs or even fund recreational amenities and events.

The Forest Service a year ago launched its five-year “Reimagine Recreation” plan with this note: “Our public lands can also be a source of healing, inspiration, and purpose to bridge some of the divides and challenges our country has faced over the past few years.”

The challenge is to convert that growing army of outdoor users into advocates who can sway public policy, said Tania Lown-Hecht with the Outdoor Alliance, a coalition of national recreation and conservation organizations that pushes for legislation to protect outdoor spaces.

One thing that always confuses me is that these groups say that they want more folks outside, so they will act to vote to “protect” the spaces.  But many of the places “protected”, say Wilderness areas, don’t allow certain kinds of very popular recreation.. in fact, as Patrick McKay has pointed out, new Monument plans also disfavor certain kinds of recreation. So it seems like the OIA works to reduce access, and is also worried that apparently the right kinds of people won’t be doing the right kind of recreation (possibly involving buying things from their associated companies?) sometime in the future. Would it be so bad if there were fewer people in the woods, grasslands, shrublands? Not so bad for other people recreating, it seems to me.  Not so bad for wildlife.  Not so bad for climate- for all the carbon people expend getting to recreation sites. Simple observation of interstates or other main routes to federal lands on Friday evenings suggest that recreation can have quite a carbon footprint.

Of course it might be considered bad to sell more recreation goods that would otherwise be bought… often made out of fossil fuels, transported from Asia and so on.  It’s interesting to me that environmental advocacy is often about pointing fingers at other industries and ignoring their own industry’s contribution to climate change or reducing biodiversity.  Of course, that’s human nature, but who knew that business institutions had those kind of human tendencies?  And media folks don’t seem to report on that much for whatever reason.

Anyway, I took a look at the OIA policy platform and they have some interesting trade-related policies …plus this

Require the United States Forest Service (USFS) to develop a 10-year outdoor recreation strategy for national forests under the forestry title.

I’ve seen many strategies come and go in my time, or don’t actually go, but sit around unread and unused. And as we have seen, both the BLM and the FS currently have new recreation strategies. Perhaps someone out there knows what the goal of this requirement would be?

Forest Plan Revision – fall 2023 roundup

by

Once upon a time, in a city far away, the U. S. Forest Service posted its schedule for revising national forest plans on its national website.  There was even a map showing the revisions completed under the 2012 Planning Rule.  Today, they are not where they used to be on the website, and I couldn’t find them anywhere else.  Maybe they didn’t like what I (or others) were doing with the information?

The last schedule that I saved was from May, 2022.  I have compiled the current information on the plans listed in that schedule and a few others that I am aware of below, roughly in order of their status, from those completed to those just starting.  I counted 14 completed and 16 officially ongoing revisions (if I have missed any, let me know).

COMPLETED REVISIONS

These plans were completed prior to May, 2022

  • Francis Marion (2017)
  • Flathead (2018)
  • El Yunque (2019)
  • Inyo (2019)
  • Chugach (2020)
  • Rio Grande (2020)
  • Helena-Lewis and Clark (2021)
  • Custer-Gallatin (2022)

The American Bar Association recently provided this favorable critique of the El Yunque revised plan.

No policy better reflects the agency’s increased awareness about the importance of understanding and utilizing local stakeholders than the 2019 plan’s “all-lands” management approach, which aims to bring landowners and stakeholders together to identify common goals for the forest.

These plans have been completed and adopted since May, 2022

  • Carson (July 8, 2022)
  • Cibola (July 15, 2022)
  • Santa Fe (July 29, 2022)
  • Nantahala Pisgah (February 2023)
  • Sierra and Sequoia (May 2023)

Here is a commentary from Wild New Mexico on the three New Mexico plans.  The Sequoia revised plan is discussed in this article.  We discussed the Nantahala Pisgah possible lawsuit here.

It’s worth noting that lawsuits against these revised plans have been scarce.  The Flathead has had two (one is discussed here)  and there is a case currently pending against the Rio Grande (discussed here).  Have I missed any?  (The Colville revised plan litigation, discussed here, was developed under the previous planning regulations.)

PENDING REVISIONS (header links are to the Forest Service web page)

  • Tonto – objection instructions letter

On May 19, 2023, the Regional Forester issued her final instructions to the Tonto Forest Supervisor and responded to the eligible objectors. These final instructions included changes the forest must make to the final plan or supporting documents before the Forest Supervisor may sign the Record of Decision and implement the new plan.  Some additional information is in this article.

  • Ashley – FEIS/plan objections

The objection filing period ended June 20, 2023. The Forest Service received objections from 14 individuals or organizations.  An objection resolution meeting was scheduled for August 28.

The proposed final plan and FEIS were released August 30 and the objection period runs until October 30.  A couple of articles covered the release – here and here.

The draft EIS was released in December, 2019.  The FEIS is listed as “Proposed” “Summer 2023.”  However, a recent article is now saying “by the end of the calendar year.”

  • Gila – draft EIS completed

The official 90-day comment period for the draft documents ended April 16th, 2020.

The draft plan and EIS were available for public comment until November 2021.  Local news suggests it’s not going smoothly:  “Personally I believe you are trying to do the best that you can,” Jeff Bilberry, chairman of the Chaves County Board of Commissioners, said to Forest Service representatives. But he added soon after, “I am going to agree with former commissioner (Will) Cavin that we need to go back and start over again and let’s do this right so we don’t have everybody sitting here wondering what is fixing to happen.”

The Manti-La Sal National Forest released its proposed Land and Resource Management Plan and DEIS on Aug. 18. Public comments on the DEIS are being accepted until November 16.

In September 2019, Forest Supervisor Chuck Mark announced the Salmon-Challis National Forest will evaluate the 1988 Salmon Forest Plan and the 1987 Challis Forest Plan separately. A new timeline will be developed once public feedback has been gathered to inform steps moving forward.

Public comments on the draft assessment were sought last summer.

  • Lolo – draft assessment completed

Public meetings are ongoing to discuss the final assessment, need for change and developing the plan.  A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS is currently expected in January, 2024.

The Bridger-Teton National Forest aims to have the draft assessment report available for public review by late fall per this article.  (And they are getting some help.)

  • Blue Mountains (Malheur, Umatilla, and Wallowa-Whitman) – restarting assessment

The most recent effort to revise the plan failed in 2019, and now the Forest Service is restarting the process, beginning the assessment process in June and public meetings are scheduled for this fall.  Some background is provided here.

No forests in the area covered by the Northwest Forest Plan have formally started the revision process.  A Bioregional Assessment was prepared in 2020.  Based on the Bioregional Assessment findings, land management plans may be amended or revised at the same time or in groups according to common features like geography and ecosystems.

The most urgent need is to restore fire’s natural role in the frequent-fire dependent ecosystems closest to communities in the eastern Cascade Mountains, Klamath Mountains of southern Oregon and northern California, and the southern Coastal Mountains.

Based on that urgency, a cohort of northern California units and the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest in Southern Oregon are being considered as the first to begin plan modernization. Northern California cohort includes the Klamath and Butte Valley Grassland, Six Rivers, Shasta-Trinity, and Mendocino National Forests.

OTHER “PROGRAMMATIC” DECISIONS

On August 21, the Forest Service proposed to change the name of the Wayne National Forest in Ohio to the Buckeye National Forest.  The national forest is currently named after General (“Mad”) Anthony Wayne, whose complicated legacy includes leading a violent campaign against the Indigenous peoples of Ohio that resulted in their removal from their homelands. Buckeye National Forest is one of the names suggested to the Forest Service by American Indian Tribes.  But of course, Republicans have politicized it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smokey is Baaack! Channel the Smokey Within

by

Here at TSW, we’re all for that.. the you can’t get to the videos from the photos below.. but they are linked here.

The Ad Council, National Association of State Foresters and the USDA Forest Service are releasing new PSAs today as part of the iconic Smokey Bear Wildfire Prevention campaign. Inspiring the public to share in the same values of responsibility and empowerment as Smokey himself, the new campaign reminds audiences that when we practice fire safety, Smokey is within us all, encouraging individuals to learn more about how to help prevent wildfires at SmokeyBear.com.

Wildfire Prevention | Smokey is Within | Friends
Wildfire Prevention | Smokey is Within | Friends
Smokey is Within
Smokey is Within

Experience the full interactive Multichannel News Release here: https://www.multivu.com/players/English/9094556-new-smokey-bear-psa-channel-the-smokey-within-and-help-prevent-wildfires/

“Smokey has been a household name for the last four generations. His message has been heard and heeded by countless Americans who carry his iconic ‘Only you can prevent wildfires’ with them daily,” said USDA Forest Service National Wildfire Prevention and Community Mitigation Branch Chief Maureen Brooks. “What better way to continue his legacy and illustrate the power we all have in preventing wildfires than by showing the public how Smokey is within all of us.”

For nearly 80 years, Smokey has been the nation’s favorite bear educating the public on how to prevent human caused wildfires and his message is as important now as ever. Nine out of ten wildfires are human-caused and fully preventable. Recent data from FCB and AYTM Research shows that while 95% of Americans feel that they can make a difference in preventing fires, many don’t always know how.

WATCH THE NEW PSA, “FRIENDS,” HERE

Developed by FCB, the creative agency behind Smokey Bear since he was first introduced to the world in 1944, the new “Smokey is Within” campaign highlights everyday people who channel their inner Smokey Bear in moments of need. Whether on a camping trip, using the drown-stir-drown-feel method when putting out campfires or avoiding sparks by crossing tow chains or more, the new PSAs remind us that we all have Smokey’s wisdom within us and can always access his message and wildfire prevention tips at SmokeyBear.com.