Some Context on the Defense Bill Riders: Public Lands Losses Far Outweigh Any Wins

An elk hunter walks through a roadless area on the Rocky Mountain Front in Montana, part of the Lewis and Clark National Forest. The roadless area pictured here will NOT be protected as Wilderness by the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act (RMFHA). which is part of 449 pages worth of public lands riders attached to the $585 Billion National Defense Bill.  Rather, under the RMFHA and other Defense Bill Riders, public lands livestock grazing in this roadless area must continue, regardless of the ecological consequences.
An elk hunter walks through a roadless area on the Rocky Mountain Front in Montana, part of the Lewis and Clark National Forest. The roadless area pictured here will NOT be protected as Wilderness by the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act (RMFHA). which is part of 449 pages worth of public lands riders attached to the $585 Billion National Defense Bill. Rather, under the RMFHA and other Defense Bill Riders, public lands livestock grazing in this roadless area must continue, regardless of the ecological consequences.

You may have seen the news of a supposed “Historic” day for Wilderness in Montana and America’s public lands legacy. For example: here and here.

For those who care deeply about the future of America’s public lands legacy, it’s very important for everyone to look at this 449 page pork-filled public lands rider package in its entire context, and what that means not only for Montana, but for America’s entire public lands legacy.

For example, the Sierra Club clearly has stated: “We’re not happy about how this thing unfolded. The losses far outweigh the wins. We should not be privatizing federal lands at the behest of a mining company. We should not be privatizing public lands that are sacred to Native Americans.”

Why would the Sierra Club say that? I mean, the Sierra Club is about as mainstream – and respected – as any conservation group in the country. You mean it’s not just “fringe environmentalists” and “obstructions” and those who volunteer or work for “pretend” groups that are opposed to this pork-filled public lands package?  Well, read on and let’s look at some specifics.

WILDERNESS IN MONTANA & RELEASE OF WILDERNESS STUDY AREAS
There are a total of 6,397,000 unprotected Wilderness-eligible roadless acres in Montana.  This public lands rider would protect only 67,000 acres in Montana as Wilderness. That means that this “Historic” “new hope for Wilderness” would amount to protecting just 1% of the total Wilderness-eligible roadless acres in Montana as Wilderness.

Nationally, the number of Wilderness acres protected in this bill is even more pitiful. This ‘historic’ 449 page-long Public Lands rider attached to the National Defense Authorization Act would protect a whopping 0.2% of all remaining Wilderness-eligible roadless acres in the United States. Nothing says “Happy 50th Birthday Wilderness Act” than boldly protecting 0.2% of what remains, right?

Nothing says, “We ended Montana’s 33 year Wilderness protection drought by boldly protecting 1% of the remaining Wilderness-eligible roadless acres in the state,” right? Maybe in another 33 years we can get another 1% of the Wilderness-eligible roadless acres in Montana protected as Wilderness, right?

As you’ll see below, we must look at protecting 1% of the remaining Wilderness-eligible lands in Montana as Wilderness, and 0.2% nationally, in the context of what else is in the 449 page rider package.

Here are some more Montana Wilderness specifics. The Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act does designate 67,000 acres of this world-class habitat as Wilderness, but that’s a paltry sum of the Wilderness-eligible wildlands on the Rocky Mountain Front.

The RMFHA also locks-in taxpayer subsidized public lands grazing across the Front by stating, “The Secretary SHALL permit grazing” where it currently exists. Under existing law, grazing MAY be allowed to continue, but it’s not mandated that it MUST continue. As such, the RMFHA ties the hands of the Forest Service by mandating the government must keep a private, commercial enterprise operating on public lands into perpetuity, regardless of the ecological consequences.

Groups like the Montana Wilderness Association, who support the RMFHA – and have remained 100% silent as to the last-minute changes with the RMFHA that you’ll read about below – are also telling the public that an additional 208,160 acres of the Front have been “protected,” but that’s not really true.

Fact is, the RMFHA clearly preserves existing motorized use, grazing (now mandated to continue indefinitely) and logging on these 208,160 acres of public lands. However, what’s happened is that MWA and bill supporters have simply renamed these lands the “Rocky Mountain Front Conservation Management Area,” a name that they made up, but doesn’t really mean anything. Click here for more info.

It’s clear in the bill that current on-the-ground management will be unchanged within this 208,160 acres under the RMFHA, except that now the existing grazing leases must continue into perpetuity, so one could more honestly argue that these supposedly 208,160 “protected” acres actually have LESS protection as a result of the RMFHA.

Also, keep in mind that the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act was changed at the last minute – in secret, back room horse-trading process between Montana Democrat Sen Jon Tester and Republican Rep (Sen-elect) Steve Daines.

As the Montana Environmental Information Center points out in this blog post, Senator Tester and Rep Daines’ last minute change to the RMFHA now includes the release of  two Wilderness Study Areas near Otter Creek, which is nearly 500 miles away from the Rocky Mountain Front.  Plus they snuck into the RMFHA (again with no public input or process) a provision that will likely release another 14,000 acres of Wilderness Study Areas in eastern Montana near the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas development. These Wilderness Study Areas are about 350 miles from the Rocky Mountain Front.

Again, there were zero public meetings about this in Montana and Daines and Tester offered the public zero notice or opportunity to comment about their intent to release these public lands Wilderness Study Areas from their current protection. And clearly, Wilderness Study Areas 350 and 500 miles away from the Rocky Mountain Front have very little to do with a Rocky Mountain Front bill, other than Sen Tester and Rep Daines secretively used it as means to release eastern Montana Wilderness Study Areas for more development.

Also, according to MEIC, part of the public lands rider means that “Great Northern Properties gets its grubby hands on 112 million tons of coal adjacent to the Signal Peak mine. Great Northern has been wanting this coal for years as it knows developing the coal rights on Northern Cheyenne land would be difficult, if not impossible, to develop. The coal on the Northern Cheyenne reservation was omitted from the expansion of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation in 1900. Now the Signal Peak coal mine that sends most of its coal overseas to Asian markets can further expand, continue to pollute water quality in the area, cause subsidence of surface owners property, and be responsible for hundreds of millions of additional tons of climate changing carbon dioxide pollution. Wilderness is not immune to the effects of climate change so should we sacrifice the climate for wilderness designation?”

MEIC has stated that, for reference, 112 million tons of coal is approximately 3 years worth of coal production by every single coal mine in Montana, one of America’s top producing coal states. MEIC has also figured out that all that additional coal just given away by Senator Tester and Senator Daines with zero public input or notice during secret “horse-trading” meetings in Washington DC would result in an extra 224 million tons of carbon pollution.

So honestly, the end result of this supposed “historic” day for Wilderness in Montana may be a complete wash. Hey, but at least David Letterman – who has given generously to the Montana Wilderness Association – gets his own private Deep Creek Wilderness protected right next to his sprawling ranch, right? And at least the Montana Wilderness Association and The Wilderness Society in Bozeman have those fundraising letters all set to mail out telling supporters about their “historic” Wilderness protection efforts in Montana.

PUBLIC LANDS GRAZING
The so-called “Grazing ‘Improvement” rider in the bill – as was pointed out by a work colleague/public lands policy expert – is a complete roll back of environmental law and public input into public lands grazing permit renewals. Essentially, public lands grazing permits would now be renewed regardless of a NEPA analysis, public land health conditions and regardless of the impact on wildlife, including endangered species.

“The only environmentally beneficial part of the Grazing Improvement Act — voluntary grazing permit retirement — was removed, making this bill a wholesale disaster,” said Erik Molvar, wildlife biologist with WildEarth Guardians. “This bill would make it harder for government agencies to manage livestock grazing on public lands, and create new obstacles to restoring damaged habitats where livestock grazing is currently degrading the health of our public lands.” More info from a coalition of conservation groups is here.

Ironically, as the coalition conservation groups point out, and as Andy Kerr mentioned in the E&E article highlighted in a previous blog post, the Grazing “Improvement” Act all but ensures the US Fish and Wildlife Service will have to list greater sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act as it completely circumvents the current process of revising land use plans by the BLM and Forest Service. In addition, extending public lands grazing permits to 20 years will continue the fleecing of U.S. taxpayers. A General Accounting Office (GAO) report found that federal land management agencies lose $10 for every $1 paid in grazing fees.

PUBLIC LANDS GIVEAWAYS, RELEASES OR PRIVITIZATION
The 449 page riders also includes a number of public lands giveaways and privatization schemes, in which politicians such as Sen Murkowski (R-AK) and Sen Reid (D-NV) clearly pulled some strings to help their campaign contributors.

The SE Arizona Land Exchange in the bill will give 2,400 acres of the Tonto Nation Forest – ancestral homeland of the Apache Tribe – to a foreign mining company and allow them to put in a huge copper mine on these sacred lands. The area contains Apache burial grounds, important medicinal plants, and irreplaceable ceremonial grounds and cultural sites.

Specifically, the mining corporation is Rio Tinto, a foreign corporation that also happens to co-own a uranium mine with the Iranian government!!

As you can see here, Rio Tinto formed a subsidiary called Resolution Copper that has fully acknowledged they will take this part of the Tonto National Forest in Arizona, put in a massive copper mine, and ship copper concentrate to China to be processed. Finally, all this would circumvent the normal process of permitting mines located on public land.

A package of bills dealing with Nevada will undermine the Wilderness Act by allowing a number of non-conforming uses, while 10,000 acres of public lands in Nevada currently managed by the BLM will be conveyed to the City of Yerington to facilitate mineral production.

In Alaska some of the public lands pork includes a transfer/giveaway of 70,000 acres of the Tongass National Forest (including some amazing, ecologically important old-growth forests) to a private logging corporation for the purpose of cutting down the old-growth forests that were formerly part of the Tongass National Forest, and likely shipping them to Japan and China. This blog has had two previous posts on this issue, one by a retired Forest Service economist on the folly of the Sealaska Bill.  The other previous Sealaska post was from two area biologists with the Alaska Dept of Fish and Game Habitat Division.

Another section of the rider extends an existing program to speed up and streamline processing of public lands oil and gas permits by the BLM (i.e. including the controversial practice of fracking, which currently produced around 280 billion gallons of wastewater in the U.S. annually).  Another part sets the oil and gas permit processing fee at a flat rate for 10 years (likely yet another costly taxpayer giveaway to Big Oil) and adjusts the interest rate paid on oil and gas royalty (another taxpayer giveaway to Big Oil?).

Don’t be fooled by the politicians, industry spokespeople or the people who work for multi-million dollar conservation organizations. The Sierra Club is right on the money when they clearly state, “The losses far outweigh the wins.”

What’s highlighted here is just sampling of some of the terrible riders that will undermine America’s public lands legacy that were included in this 449 page package. Once the public and public lands policy experts actually have time to review the entire bill you can bet there will be more pork-filled egregious examples of how Congress completely sold America’s public lands down the river to benefit their campaign contributors, and how a small handful of very well funded conservation groups remained silent and/or celebrated this “historic” package.a

Bottom Line: This public lands package attached as a rider to an unrelated National Defense Authorization Act will mean more public lands grazing, mining, oil and gas development and logging…and less public input, less protection for wildlife species and less science-based management overall.

“Strikes the right balance?” “Historic?” Look at the details and decide for yourself if this is how to preserve and protect America’s public lands legacy.

UPDATES:  Below are some of the many updates that have been coming in after citizens and organizations have actually had time to review the 449 pages of public lands riders. I’ll keep updating this original article as they come in. Thanks. – mk

What they didn’t tell you about the public lands riders

By Steve Charter, who ranches over coal that would be traded by the public lands proposal, and is the chair of Billings-based Northern Plains Resource Council.

When U.S. Rep. Steve Daines and Sens. John Walsh and Jon Tester were celebrating the public lands package they sneaked into a defense bill, I wonder if they thought about the landowners and taxpayers they threw under the bus by doing it. Their package transfers valuable coal under my family’s ranch and our neighbors in the Bull Mountains to Great Northern Properties, a mega-corporation spun off from the railroad years ago, in exchange for other coal in southeastern Montana. Great Northern Properties gets a windfall by giving up low-quality coal that will almost certainly never be mined and gains high-quality coal next to mines with a high likelihood of development. It’s like trading a trailer house for a mansion. [Full Article Here]

————-

47 Public Lands & Wilderness Groups Blast Riders in Defense Bill (Click here)

————-

From Wilderness Watch:

Both sections designating new Wildernesses in Nevada have bad special provisions that would undermine the viability of both areas as Wilderness in the long term.  They include:

• Pine Forest Range Wilderness, Sec. 3064, p. 1366.  A 26,000-acre Wilderness.
– Buffer zone language
– Military overflights language
– Water rights language (no federally-reserved water rights for the Wilderness)
– Release of two Wilderness Study Areas (Blue Lakes and Alder Creek)
– Fish and wildlife language.  The State may continue to use aircraft (including helicopters) “to survey, capture, transplant, monitor, and provide water for wildlife in the Wilderness.” (presumably for guzzlers).  Plus the State or its designee may conduct wildlife management activities in Wilderness in accordance with a 2003 MOU between BLM and the State.

• Wovoka Wilderness, Sec. 3066, p. 1395. A 48,000-acre Wilderness.
– Buffer zone language
– Military overflights language
– Water rights language (no federally-reserved water rights for the Wilderness)
– Fish and wildlife language.  Allows the temporary and occasional use of motor vehicles and aircraft.  The State may continue to use aircraft (including helicopters) “to survey, capture, transplant, monitor, and provide water for wildlife in the Wilderness.” (presumably for guzzlers).  Plus the State or its designee may conduct wildlife management activities in Wilderness in accordance with a 1984 MOU.  Also contains explicit language allowing the construction of guzzlers (“Wildlife Water Development Projects”).

As we have seen from the history of wilderness bills, setting bad precedents for one area often means that these precedents get replicated and expanded in future wilderness bills.

Transfers of Federal Land to States

From E&E News today….

Former Interior chief Norton faults state bids for federal tracts

Cache of Legislative Bills

I think that this is a Red Squirrel from Great Britain, but you get the idea...
I think that this is a Red Squirrel from Great Britain, but you get the idea…

I don’t know if Phil Taylor, E&E News Reporter, reads this blog, but kudos to him or the headline person for using “cache” of bills. We usually hear “flurry” of bills, but there could be a “confetti storm” of bills…any other suggestions would be appreciated..

(sorry this is long, I didn’t know what to pick out).

Major environmental groups are torn over a massive package of parks, wilderness and development bills that has been attached to the fiscal 2015 defense authorization bill, a bipartisan, bicameral measure that appears poised to pass Congress.

If passed, the package negotiated by leaders on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources and House Natural Resources panels would be by far the largest array of public lands measures to advance in Congress in nearly six years.

But some prominent greens say the environment got a raw deal, pointing to Republican-backed provisions to privatize public lands in Arizona and Alaska for mining and logging and to expedite permits for grazing on more than 100 million acres of public lands in the West.

And on the far right, at least one senator is preparing to do all he can to defeat the parks and wilderness provisions when the defense bill reaches the chamber floor.

“We’re not happy about how this thing unfolded,” said Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club’s lands protection program. “The losses far outweigh the wins.”

Manuel said he was particularly concerned with bills by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to authorize a land swap near Superior, Ariz., to facilitate development of Rio Tinto PLC’s Resolution Copper project and by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to convey roughly 70,000 acres of the Tongass National Forest to the Juneau, Alaska-based Sealaska Corp., mostly for logging.

“We should not be privatizing federal lands at the behest of a mining company,” Manuel said. “We should not be privatizing public lands that are sacred to Native Americans.”

Multiple green groups also expressed grave concerns with language by Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) to expedite grazing permits, a provision they warned could undermine the Bureau of Land Management’s ability to save the greater sage grouse from an Endangered Species Act listing.

Manuel said the Sierra Club would be reaching out to allies on the Armed Services panels and the House Rules Committee to see whether certain provisions can be removed from the bill, but he said changes at this late stage are unlikely.

Congress is under a tight time frame to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) — considered a must-pass bill — and Senate Armed Services leaders on both sides of the aisle are urging colleagues to vote on the package without amendments.

The Rules panel is set to meet at 3 p.m. today to discuss the bill, and a House vote could occur by week’s end.

Green groups were under no illusion that a public lands package would be free of what they view as “poison pills.” The 2009 Omnibus Public Land Management Act, for example, contained a provision by Murkowski allowing the possible construction of a road through an Alaska wilderness area to improve public safety for a predominantly Native Alaskan town.

Wilderness Society President Jamie Williams today blasted the inclusion of “destructive provisions” in NDAA such as Resolution Copper, but said “other aspects of this legislation will secure significant conservation gains and should be passed without delay.”

“The Wilderness Society is pleased to see Congress poised to act on a number of bipartisan wilderness and public lands bills that have awaited passage for years,” he said. “These measures protect invaluable drinking water sources; wildlife habitat; and places to hunt, camp and experience our great outdoors while strengthening local economies and enhancing the quality of life for countless Americans.”

Pew Charitable Trusts Director of U.S. Public Lands Tim Mahoney said the package is a good deal for conservation and should be passed.

“We support this,” he said this morning, noting that the wilderness provisions support locally crafted compromises to preserve the public estate. “That doesn’t mean we’re exceedingly comfortable with everything in it.”

But others including Andy Kerr, an environmental lobbyist who splits his time between Washington, D.C., and Oregon, said pro-environment lawmakers sold out.

“I can be bought, but I’m not cheap,” he said, saying he’s made past sacrifices to achieve conservation gains.

Kerr said he’s pleased to see the package includes roughly 250,000 acres of new wilderness designations in a handful of Western states, but he said many, if not most, of those lands do not face imminent threats. There were other wilderness bills left on the table, he said, including at least four in Oregon.

“Just putting some acres on the scoreboard at the cost of other lands is not a good way to behave,” he said.

Kerr was particularly opposed to the grazing permit language, which he said has changed significantly from a bill by Barrasso, S. 258, that passed ENR with bipartisan support a year ago. “The language was pounded together in a back room,” he said, warning that, with passage, the listing of sage grouse will be “inevitable.”

The grazing language was strongly supported by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the Public Lands Council (PLC), both of which backed the underlying package.

“Sen. Barrasso and Rep. [Raúl] Labrador [R-Idaho] have led the effort to bring security to federal land grazing rights and provide needed efficiencies to the land management agencies — the included provisions would do just that,” said Dustin Van Liew, executive director of PLC and NCBA for federal lands. “The energy and natural resource committees of both chambers should be commended for working to find agreement and relative balance in the lands package included in the NDAA, primarily including only legislation that has had bipartisan support and committee hearings this session.”

Bobby McEnaney, who oversees public lands and wildlife protections for the Natural Resources Defense Council, called the lands package “a mixed bag” but said he has “pretty big concerns” with how the grazing provisions affect the National Environmental Policy Act, which mandates transparency in public lands decisions.

Those concerns are shared by Defenders of Wildlife, said the group’s legislative counsel, Sandra Purohit. “They may come back to be problematic for whichever side of sage grouse you’re fighting on,” she said.

Neither NRDC nor Defenders has taken a position yet on the overall package. The National Parks Conservation Association will be supporting it, a top official there said.

Support from lawmakers

In Congress, support for the lands package appears strong, and some who oppose it do not appear geared up for a fight. There’s enormous bipartisan pressure to pass NDAA, which has occurred annually for more than 50 years.

“The process [for passing the lands bills] is wrong, and I’ll say so on the floor,” said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of Armed Services. But “unfortunately, when you come into very complicated legislation, you have to have some things you don’t want, some things you do want. We have to have a defense authorization bill. That’s the must. There will be some things I don’t like.”

Inhofe predicted the bill would pass.

An email to the office of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a top critic of parks and wilderness packages, was not returned this morning. But Roll Call reported this morning that Coburn on Nov. 19 sent a letter to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) saying he intends “to utilize all procedural options at my disposal as a United States Senator, including objecting to any unanimous consent agreements or time limitations, if NDAA contains extraneous public lands provisions such as authorizing new National Park units, expanding wilderness areas, creating new National Heritage Areas, or expanding the federal land base.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) this morning said she had not seen the contents of the lands package but expects she will support it.

Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) likewise said she plans to support the package.

“There are definitely things in there that I don’t support individually, but I think everything has been worked through the process,” she said.

The leaders of the energy and natural resources panels in both chambers this morning issued statements touting the lands package’s balance between conservation and development.

“The agreement offers a balanced approach to public lands management, providing opportunities for new job creation and energy and mineral production, while simultaneously protecting special areas,” said House Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), who had a bill of his own to designate a Manhattan Project national historic park in Washington, Tennessee and New Mexico included in NDAA.

Murkowski, the top Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said the package will benefit Alaska.

“This package includes important provisions that will boost communities throughout our state, including the settlement and finalization of lands issues in southeast Alaska, the conveyances of land for community development in Anchorage, and at Fort Wainwright,” Murkowski said.

The package also carries strong support from the Montana delegation, New Mexico’s Democratic senators and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Colorado.

Kathleen Sgamma, vice president for government and public affairs at the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance, an oil and gas trade group, said she was happy to see the package include a bipartisan measure to extend and expand a Bureau of Land Management oil and gas permit streamlining program.

“The bill will ensure that funding for basic permitting continues into the future while providing some regulatory certainty for federal onshore energy development,” she said.

Major provisions of the package would:

Convey 110,000 acres out of federal ownership for economic development including mineral production, logging, infrastructure and community developments including a cemetery and shooting range.

Enhance private funding for national parks through donor recognition; issue a commemorative coin to recognize the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service in 2016; and designate “a select number of new park units that have strong local support.”

Designate roughly 245,000 acres of wilderness, nearly half of which is already managed as such due to roadless or wilderness study area status.

Release 26,000 acres of current wilderness study areas to multiple use.

Permanently protect the American side of the North Fork of the Flathead River Watershed in Montana by barring future mining or drilling on 430,000 acres.

Here’s a link to the story and here’s a link to the bill.

Beetle killed trees impede elk and elk hunters

Mountain pine beetles decimated much of the Medicine Bow National Forest. Years after the height of beetle activity, dead trees are beginning to fall. A Wyoming Game and Fish study is looking at how those down trees are changing elk movement in the Sierra Madres mountains. (photo by Joe Riis/U.S. Forest Service – click to enlarge)
Mountain pine beetles decimated much of the Medicine Bow National Forest. Years after the height of beetle activity, dead trees are beginning to fall. A Wyoming Game and Fish study is looking at how those down trees are changing elk movement in the Sierra Madres mountains. (photo by Joe Riis/U.S. Forest Service – click the original on the news webpage to enlarge)

Derek send this article.

Here is an excerpt:

A Wyoming Game and Fish study is investigating how the aftermath of the mountain pine beetle epidemic is impacting elk and hunter movement in the Sierra Madre range on the Medicine Bow National Forest. The study is the first of its kind, and the data collected could be used for managing forests across the West, said Tony Mong, a senior wildlife biologist with Wyoming Game and Fish. –

Litigation Weekly Nov. 10-17

Here are a couple of cases:

1. Wild and Scenic Rivers ǀ Region 8.

Circuit Court Upholds District Court Decision in American Whitewater v. Tidwell. On November 4, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina’s ruling that the Forest Service’s decision to allow limited floating activities on the headwaters of the Chattooga River was not arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA and was not in violation of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The Court concluded that the Forest Service made a reasoned decision in limiting headwaters floating opportunities to specific portions of the river during the months of December to April and, accordingly, deferred to the Agency’s expertise. On American Whitewater’s Wild and Scenic Rivers Act claims, the Court found (1) that the Forest Service was not required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to manage the river with “floating” as an ORV and (2) that the Forest Service correctly determined that floating could interfere with other recreational uses and therefore, restrictions on headwaters floating are consistent with the Act. The Court also upheld the District Court’s rulings on intervenors, the Rust Family and Georgia ForestWatch’s claims. (13-1960, 4th Cir.)

1. Herbicide Application ǀ Wildlife ǀ Region 6.

Circuit Court Affirms in Part, Reverses in Part, and Remands in Challenge to the Forest Service’s Approval of Herbicide Application on the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest in LOWD v. USFS. On October 30, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the District Court’s ruling in Plaintiff, League of Wilderness Defenders/Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project’s challenge to a Project to apply herbicides in the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. The Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s NFMA claim finding that the Forest Service did not violate NFMA by failing to discuss in the EIS that the Project would be consistent with INFISH and PACFISH. However, the Circuit reversed the District Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s NEPA claim finding that the Forest Service was required by NEPA to include an explicit INFISH/PACFISH consistency analysis in the EIS. (13-35054, 9th Cir.)

Tongass Socialism

CommunismSocialism1-600x375

Although Ross Gorte has retired from the Congressional Research Service, where he made a career of critiquing fiscally irrational Forest Service timber management, his analytical skills are undiminished. In a report published this month by Headwaters Economics, Gorte and co-author Ben Alexander show that there has been no “transition to a second-growth economy” in the Tongass timber program. The Obama administration has promoted second-growth wood as the lynch pin of its Tongass political strategy. But, as Gorte and Alexander report, the FS budget and sale numbers show the transition has proven to be all rhetoric and no substance.

The cost and revenue figures should shock the conscience of any fiscal conservative. In the most recent five-year period of data (FY 09-13), the Forest Service spent $100 million more on its timber sale program than purchasers paid for the trees. And that’s selling 87% old-growth volume. The finances of second-growth, which no one wants to buy at any price, will prove even more fiscally ruinous (e.g., this pile of rotting logs from the Ocean Boulevard second-growth logging project where the FS paid the purchaser to cut the trees, not a single one of which ended up as a useable wood product).

None of this old-growth logging promotes “forest health,” decreases “fire risk,” “improves” wildlife habitat, or serves any other “restoration” or “ecosystem services” objective. This is pure, unadulterated, old-fashioned clearcut logging. Timber jobs in southeast Alaska number 281 (0.9% of the private sector workforce), while tourism and recreation employ 6,700. Tongass timber sale spending is all about the 100+ FS employees who make their living planning, selling and administering logging, even as FS recreation staff levels decline.

I could go on. Read the report. Here’s hoping that Ross gains even more traction as a private-sector advocate for land management fiscal sanity than he did within government.