Public lands litigation news through mid-December, 2022

 

Court decision in Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Bushue (D. Or.)

On December 7, the district court held that the BLM is required by its resource management plan to close 13 research natural areas (RNAs) to grazing in southeastern Oregon.  That requirement was included as a decision in a 2015 plan amendment adopted range-wide to protect habitat for sage-grouse (ARMPA).  (That was the basis for the Fish and Wildlife Service deciding to not list the sage-grouse under ESA, and the 2015 amendment remains in place after a subsequent amendment in 2019 was enjoined.)

FLPMA requires that lands be managed in accordance with land use plans, and this amendment stated (twice) that specific areas in these RNAs “will be unavailable to livestock grazing.”  However, the Record of Decision also made it clear that, “implementing on-the-ground activities requires additional steps before any of them can begin.”  The court first found that language in the draft plan that imposed a 5-year deadline and prescribed fencing was not included in the final decision, despite language in the ROD that could be interpreted otherwise, and therefore these were not actual plan requirements.

The court then determined that nine years or more of delay in meeting FLPMA’s requirement by terminating existing grazing authorizations was unreasonable under the APA.  To do so, it first found that these specifically identified actions were “discrete” (as opposed to “programmatic attacks”), making them enforceable by a court.  One reason the BLM had argued that they were not “discrete” was because actions requiring NEPA compliance could not be compelled.  The court disagreed, saying, “If courts were barred from enforcing any discrete, mandatory action that required some further NEPA analysis, many environmental statutes, regulations, and provisions would be unenforceable.”  In this case, the court also found that the BLM had completed a separate NEPA process for closing these areas to grazing and had included that with its plan amendment.

The court then held that the closures to grazing were “legally required” by the resource management plan.  It cited the Supreme Court (Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, SUWA, case) for acknowledging the possibility that language in a land use plan could create a binding commitment for an agency to act.  This court concluded that the sage-grouse amendment contains “a specific, unequivocal command” placed on the agency to make the RNAs unavailable to grazing.  Moreover, “The plain language of the ROD makes clear that the ‘land use allocation[s]’ in Management Decision LG 1 and Objectives LG 2, the provisions making areas unavailable for grazing, were immediate decisions…  In other words, it is not “[a] statement by BLM about what it plans to do, at some point, provided it has the funds and there are not more pressing priorities;” (i)t is an immediate, binding commitment to set aside 22,765 acres as unavailable to grazing.”

The court found that, “BLM has violated FLMPA and the APA by failing timely to close the 13 key RNAs. BLM must make unavailable to grazing the portions of the key RNAs specified in the 2015 ARMPA without further delay.”  It ordered further briefing on a specific remedy.

ESA listing action resulting from Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson (D. D.C.)

On November 30, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced it will reclassify the northern long-eared bat from threatened to endangered, the result of a lawsuit decided in 2020.  The Service cited the impacts of white nose syndrome (WNS) on the species’ viability.  This tightens restrictions on incidental take of individuals – activities NOT likely to result in a violation of the ESA section 9 prohibition on “take” include “minimal tree removal and vegetation management any time of the year outside of forested habitat and more than five miles from known or potential hibernacula, insignificant forested habitat removal during the hibernation period not negatively affecting an essential behavioral pattern, tree removal at any time of year in highly developed urban areas…”  In other words, most logging would now require the FWS to authorize incidental take.  This article includes a map of WNS distribution, and a link to the earlier court decision.

Settlement in Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. Mont.)

On November 30, the district court approved a settlement that requires the Service to respond to Plaintiff’s June 8, 2022 rulemaking petition, requesting a phase-out of lead usage on the entire National Wildlife Refuge System, by June 1, 2023.  The original lawsuit had challenged a Trump Administration rule for failing to comply with the Endangered Species Act when it expanded hunting and fishing at national wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries.  Because of the lawsuit, the Service has also committed to a proposed phaseout of lead use on numerous national wildlife refuges in the eastern U.S.  The press release includes links to the lawsuit complaint and the settlement agreement.

Court decision in Los Padres ForestWatch v. U. Forest Service (C.D. Cal.)

On December 5, the district resolved the remaining issue in litigation of the Tecuya Ridge Project on the Los Padres National Forest.  The court found that additional analysis by the Forest supported a conclusion that the proposed shaded fuelbreaks would comply with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule requirement that the project remove “generally small diameter timber.”

The earlier decision by the Ninth Circuit in this case was discussed here.

Court decision in Native Ecosystems Council v. Marten (D. Mont.)

On December 6, the district court granted the Forest Service motion to dissolve an injunction against the Fleecer Mountains Project on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest.  The agency had complied with its requirement to consult on the forest plan with regard to new information that included parts of the Forest as Canada lynx habitat.

A federal judge has convicted and fined an individual for driving a motorized vehicle off of designated routes on the Tahoe National Forest.  He was found by Forest Service law enforcement officers in a riparian area that provides important habitat for the Foothill yellow-legged frog, a species proposed for federal listing in 2022.  The Forest had ramped up patrols of this area that had historically received heavy motorized use.

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (C.D. Cal.)

On December 6, plaintiffs sued the BLM to protect federally endangered Amargosa voles from unmanaged recreational use within their federally protected critical habitat near a popular hot spring in the Mojave Desert.  They say, “federal officials are looking the other way while people party around the clock …,” and allege that unauthorized off-road vehicles, unattended campfires, off-leash dogs, unauthorized camping, litter, and a lack of bathroom facilities have led to severe degradation of the animals’ habitat.

This isn’t a lawsuit yet, but the “demand letter” sounds like it could be the equivalent of a notice of intent to sue (which is not a formal requirement in this case), and what can be done in “de facto” wilderness has been a topic of discussion here.  The Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest moved an electronic site structure into a statutory Montana Wilderness Study Area using motorized equipment under a categorical exclusion for “maintenance” and with no public process.  Montana Backcountry Horsemen has asked that it be removed.

As someone noted in a comment on the last litigation summary, on December 14, the whitebark pine was listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.  White pine blister rust is the primary threat to the species, along with “mountain pine beetles, altered wildfire patterns, and climate change.”  The news release from the Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation links to the Fish and Wildlife Service information.

On December 16, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule listing the Tiehm’s buckwheat as an endangered species, and designated 910 acres of critical habitat on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management.  The Center for Biological Diversity had sent the FWS a Notice of Intent to Sue in October for failing to list the species.  The habitat involved is also the site of a proposed lithium mine, which we have discussed in conjunction with that litigation, most recently here.  CBD said, “Lithium is an important part of our renewable energy transition, but it can’t come at the cost of extinction.”  According to the mining company, “Our operations have and will continue to avoid all Tiehm’s buckwheat populations.”  The article includes a link to the listing notice.

 

PERC’s Private Lands Prescribed Fire Report, Brucellosis Payments, and Dog-Mountain Lion and Dog-Wolf Interactions

1. Another Prescribed Fire Report  “Burn Back Better” from PERC. How Western States Can Encourage Prescribed Fire on Private Lands.

Here are their recommendations.

Recommendations
  1. Improve permitting systems to remove bureaucratic obstacles to prescribed burning.
  2. Develop more flexible approaches to setting “burn days” in which different types of prescribed fires can be implemented.
  3. Design training opportunities and other resources to educate and support, rather than regulate, landowners’ use of prescribed fire.
  4. Clarify and improve liability regimes to reflect the public benefits of prescribed fire.
  5. Harness private investment to benefit forest health through catastrophe bonds.

In their summary, they have another map from FEMA (interesting given today’s other post).

 

2. Brucellosis Compensation Fund

Paradise Valley ranchers who participated in a 2019 survey ranked the disease brucellosis as the most concerning wildlife issue they face, and a think tank, several conservation and sporting groups and a financial tech firm have partnered up to propose a solution.

Earlier this month, the coalition announced plans to set aside a “Paradise Valley Brucellosis Compensation Fund” for ranchers whose cattle contract the bacterial disease from wildlife. It’s part of an effort to build tolerance for the elk that migrate across the valley’s working lands.

3. Mountain Lions Attacking Pet Dogs near Nederland from the Colorado Sun

Mountain lions killed 15 dogs in 30 days near a Colorado town. Attacks continued and now a lion is dead.

It’s interesting because the story includes the views of different people in town and also the Colorado Parks and Wildlife folks who have the challenging job of helping manage wildlife-human conflicts.  It’s a long article, but also another one of “no one understands why this happens at this particular time and place, but it does.”

4. Wolves Also Attack Dogs But Usually Not Pets

Cat Urbiqkit of the Cowboy State Daily did a review of dogs and wolves’ coexistence issues:

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources maintains a website and phone app where it maps “wolf caution areas” due to recent conflicts between wolves and dogs.

The agency reports, “Although wolf attacks on pet dogs in residential areas are rare, they do occur and have increased in recent years.” In 2016, more than 40 dogs were killed by wolves in that state.

What does vary is the type of dog killed by wolves, which is largely reflective of the interconnected human-dog use of areas occupied by wolves.

In Alaska, it’s tethered sled dogs.

In Wisconsin, it’s trailing hounds used for hunting.

In Wyoming, it’s livestock guardian dogs used to protect domestic sheep flocks. In 2021, a wolf pack (the Dog Creek pack located in western Wyoming) killed or injured five livestock guardian dogs, according to the Wyoming Game & Fish Department’s Annual Wolf Report.

Urbigkit also reviews some northern European wolf literature.

That 2003 paper also noted: “Our results suggest that, in the wolf pack exhibiting strong aggressive and/or predatory behavior towards dogs, this behavior may constitute a tradition that may be passed on from generation to generation within a family unit. The hypothesis that aggressive behavior by wolves towards dogs is an inherited, traditional behavior, has important management implications and should be investigated further.”

A Call to Action by the “American Fire Service”: #FireServiceOneVoice

Thanks to Bill Gabbert and Wildfire Today (via Nick Smith) for this one…

The U.S. Fire Administrator and principal leaders from the American fire service, in partnership with the Fire Department of New York (FDNY), the Philadelphia Fire Department, and the Washington, D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department, will stand together on Jan. 10‑12 to speak with one voice to address the fire problem facing our nation.

  • 99 million people or a third of the U.S. population now live in the WUI environment, yet most have no idea what WUI is or the dangers it poses.

These are “truths”?  What does that actually mean “most” have no idea what it means? I don’t think the social scientists who study fire-prone WUI areas tells us that.  First you’d have to determine the dangers (say in Maine or Florida, or California) then you’d do a survey to see how aware homeowners were.  And of course, fire isn’t the only WUI danger.  It’s kind of an amazingly generalized statement for folks who are supposed to be experts (and dare I say building trust).

So I looked at this interesting slideshow by FEMA

If you look at the hillside, you’ll see houses with trees around them.  Is that “undeveloped wildland”?  If you live in a treed environment, wouldn’t you want to keep trees when you build a house?  Does this forest count as “fire- dependent or fire-prone”? It looks like a generic eastern forest to me.

This almost seems to conflate all WUI  with “fire problems”.  I see a couple of problems with this..they seem to use all WUI to say “1/3 is in the WUI” but only “Fire WUI” to talk about fire danger.  Which inflates the danger.  Which could be the point of this exercise- it seems more marketing than thoughtful IMHO.

 

My point is that the WUI is not one thing, it’s not particularly well defined, and in some areas it’s key to developing affordable housing. Personally, I also don’t think saying that 1/3 of people the US are unaware of the issues related to where they live is a good marketing strategy nor develops trust in these experts.

 

New NW Forest Plan Report on Old-Growth

Available here — thanks to AFRC’s newsletter for the link — abstract below.

AFRC’s take on the report is worth a read:

The report determined that wildfire remains the leading cause for older forest losses on federal lands, accounting for about 70 percent of all losses since 1993. Naturally, those losses have not occurred evenly across the range of the NWFP. The most significant losses occurred in the eastern Cascade Ranges of Washington and Oregon, and the Klamath provinces in Oregon and California. Those losses were partially offset by old forest recruitment through stand growth in the Oregon Coast Range, Olympic Peninsula, and western Cascade Range in Washington, where catastrophic wildfires have been less common.

Despite being a minor component of overall losses, it is important to understand precisely what “losses” refers to in the context of timber harvest. A likely assumption is that a loss of old forest from timber harvest is a function of a regeneration treatment (clearcut, shelterwood, etc.) However, the data in the report suggests otherwise. The graphs below illustrate old forest losses (black line) on top of disturbance intensity; note that the two datasets are not graphed across equivalent acreages on the y-axis. The data shows that some moderate intensity fire causes a loss of older forest, and some does not; the same applied to timber harvest. What is noticeable is the complete absence of high intensity timber disturbance–the kind that would result from regeneration harvest. Instead, nearly all the losses are a result of moderate timber harvest such as thinning or intermediate harvest to restore historic open forest conditions or to reduce the likelihood of high-intensity wildfire.

I’d add that LSOG harvesting virtually stopped in 1993 and shortly after, and that future large fires are likely to change the equation in a significant way.

LSOG = late-successional and old growth forests

Abstract

This is the fourth in a series of periodic monitoring reports on the status and trends of late-successional and old-growth (LSOG) forests since the implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) in 1994. The objective of this monitoring is to evaluate the success of the plan in reaching its desired amount and distribution of LSOG forest on federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) in the United States. We began our assessment in the years shortly preceding the NWFP, but primarily focused on how LSOG forests have changed as a result of disturbance and forest succession since 1993, the year of the assessment that led to the implementation of the NWFP. We developed an annual time series (1986–2017) of LSOG maps based on an “old-growth structure index” (OGSI) using two age thresholds: ≥80 and ≥200 years. These ages represent when forests commonly attain stand structure associated with late-successional forests (OGSI 80) and old-growth forests (OGSI 200) in this region.

Maps showed a slightly increasing trend in LSOG forests (OGSI 80) on federal lands with a 0.3-percent net gain between 1993 and 2017. Forest Inventory and Analysis plot data from two measurement/remeasurement periods (2000s and 2010s) were used to corroborate mapped estimates. For OGSI 80 and OGSI 200 forests, we estimated gross losses from wildfire at 6.2 and 6.9 percent, respectively; timber harvest losses at 1.9 and 2 percent, respectively; and loss from insects or other causes at 0.7 and 0.9 percent, respectively. This indicates that, at the NWFP scale, processes of forest succession compensated for losses. The NWFP anticipated a continued decline in LSOG forests for the first few decades until the rate of forest succession exceeds the rate of losses. Decadal gross losses of about 5 percent per decade from timber harvesting and wildfire (combined) were expected. Over the extent of the NWFP, observed losses from wildfire generally met expectations, but losses from timber harvesting were about one-third of what was anticipated. Results were consistent with expectations for OGSI 80 abundance, diversity, and connectivity outcomes for this period of time. For OGSI 200, these outcomes were slightly degraded. Given that we are only one quarter into a 100-year plan, nothing in these findings suggests that desired outcomes are unattainable over the next 75 years. However, observed increases in frequency and extent of large wildfires, and expected additional increases owing to climate change, provide reasons for concern.

Rx Fire Report 2021

The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) and the Coalition of Prescribed Fire Councils (CPFC) have released the 2021 National Prescribed Fire Use Report, “which for the first time shows acres treated by ownership type, revealed 1.5 million acres treated with prescribed fire on federal lands while nearly 8 million acres were treated on state and private lands in 2020. This indicates that 84% of all prescribed fire in the country occurred on state and private lands.”

“Collectively, federal land management agencies reported forestry and rangeland prescribed fire activity in 2020 on 62,633 acres in the Northeast-Midwest, 1,053,871 acres in the Southeast, and 355,352 acres in the West.”

A chart and data show that nearly 87% of USFS acres burned were in the Southeast. That doesn’t sound right to me, but may it is.

From the conclusion: “…the national prescribed fire program has many impediments to overcome. In order to sustain the current number of acres treated each year—and certainly to increase the pace and scale of prescribed fire use nationwide—capacity deficits, liability concerns, smoke emissions, and other obstacles must be addressed in meaningful ways.”

 

 

Where Biodiversity, Tribal Views and Climate Mitigation Meet -And Disagree.. The Thacker Pass Lithium Mine Case

State Route 293, seen on April 27, 2021, is a lightly-trafficked one-lane road that crosses U.S. 95 and leads from Orovada to Thacker Pass on the other side of the valley. (David Calvert/The Nevada Independent)

 

Here’s  one of those blanket statements being made that sound vaguely plausible at some scale in this recent article in Discover, called  “Debunking Climate Myths”. (Personally if I never heard the word “debunking” again in this lifetime, I would be quite happy.)

Action to mitigate climate change and adapt to its risks and impacts is already happening. Efforts to reduce carbon emissions, switch to renewable energy sourcesrewild natural areas and more are ongoing and often occur at the local level.

And here we go.. how would “rewilding” actually work to reduce carbon emissions, or perhaps it’s adaptation, or a “natural climate solution”? So what is the role of “unnatural climate solutions”?  It seems that in physical world, as opposed to word world, there is some tension between rewilding and climate mitigation.  And while folks can write they want about it in various media outlets.. it’s at the local level where the renewable rubber meets the biodiversity/rewild road, and where, according to the IUCN, indigenous and local rights are to be protected.

In that light, let’s go to an interesting piece today from the Nevada Independent via the Center for Western Priorities.. I think it’s a really good detailed piece, with lots of legal stuff.  It’s one of those examples of projects where people honestly disagree, and the way it goes into court it makes it sound like “the BLM did it wrong” as if there were a way they could have analyzed it that would be.. right.. and come to the “wrong” conclusion.

The interpretation of a 150-year-old mining law could be a part of whether a U.S. District Court judge upholds the federal government’s approval of a massive lithium mine — a project that has faced challenges from a local rancher, environmental groups and Native American tribes.

In legal briefs over the past two years, the mine’s opponents have challenged federal permitting of the planned Thacker Pass mine north of Winnemucca. Federal land managers, they argued, fast-tracked the project and did not adequately consider a number of issues in its environmental review — the mine’s footprint on wildlife habitat, groundwater, air quality and Indigenous sites.

On Thursday, the project’s opponents had their first opportunity to fully lay out the merits of their case challenging the mine’s federal environmental review. Yet much of the arguments centered around a broader question that has wide-ranging implications for mines across the West: What is the federal government’s proper role when approving and regulating mines on public land?

Policymakers from across the state, and the country, have pushed for developing Thacker Pass, touted as the largest known lithium source in the United States, arguing that it is needed to help fuel an economy less reliant on fossil fuels and more on lithium-ion batteries. Although the plan was approved at the end of the Trump administration, the Biden White House has continued to focus on procuring a domestic supply of “critical minerals,” and has defended the mine in court. …

Debate over the Thacker Pass mine has become a focal point in a national conversation about how the administration should balance sometimes competing priorities — bolstering the supply chain for an energy transition away from fossil fuels, protecting biodiversity and advocating for environmental justice.

….

Plaintiffs in the case have challenged the mine on several other grounds, alleging that federal land managers did not adequately consider air quality standards, groundwater concerns or fully evaluate the potential impact on wildlife, such as Greater sage-grouse and pronghorn antelope.

On Thursday, attorneys for the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony and the Burns Paiute Tribe argued that federal land managers did not conduct government-to-government consultation with them, when in fact they had a responsibility to do so. In the environmental review process, federal land managers did consult with three tribal governments, relying on geographic proximity, affirmative expressions of interest and historic ties to the area as factors for guiding its consultation plans.

But Rick Eichstaedt, an attorney for the Burns Paiute Tribe, said the federal government should have broadened its reach by consulting the Burns Paiute Tribe in Oregon and the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony — and giving more consideration to how tribal nations currently view the land.

“Tribes still exist,” he said. “And they care about this area. That’s why we’re here.”

Anyway, I thought it was an informative article on a very complex issue.

Saved By My Forest Service Uniform- Guest Post by Les Joslin

Les Joslin as a fire guard in the 1960’s.

My 1960s Toiyabe National Forest fire prevention guard job wasn’t without its risks.

Late one afternoon, after a busy day in the Twin Lakes area, my patrol route continued around Sawmill Ridge, twice crossing Buckeye Creek as it wound through open stands of Jeffrey pine carpeted with sagebrush. The reddish bark of the pines blazed against a backdrop of fused greens and blues in the late afternoon sun. Dark shadows had already captured Flatiron Ridge and soon would advance across Buckeye Canyon. The wind was whipping up, carrying the pungency of the dry forest.

“All stations, this is KMB-400 with the weather.” The voice of Waldo VanArsdale, the Toiyabe’s veteran dispatcher, suddenly boomed over the radio to remind me how late in the afternoon it was. The fire weather forecast, always at four o’clock, was the same it had been for weeks: hot, dry, and windy. Additional fire precautions—even closing the forest—were being considered.

At the head of the Buckeye road, I noticed a campfire flickering next to an apparently unoccupied vehicle—a pickup with a large camper body. Occasional sparks blew from the fire into nearby duff and brush.

Clambering out of the patrol truck cab, I took a quick look around and concluded that, unless someone were inside the camper, extinguishing the campfire would be my job. I knocked on the camper door and waited. There was no response. Only as I turned to begin putting out the fire did I hear a reply.

“Just a minute, please,” a woman’s voice trembled. There was a rustling inside the camper. I turned back.

The camper door swung open and I found myself staring down the barrel of a small .22-caliber pistol grasped in a trembling hand. The woman, clad in a bathrobe, looked me over furtively and then, obviously relieved, gasped, “Oh, I’m sorry! I didn’t notice your uniform! My husband has gone fishing and I’m here all alone.”

I continued to stare, transfixed by the weapon in her hand. Then, after a few moments—which dragged on like eons—and another “I’m sorry,” she smiled, glanced down, uncocked and lowered the pistol.

I blinked, swallowed hard, and managed a few words. I don’t recall exactly what I said to the woman, but I do recall that my words were very reassuringly polite and reflected my profound concern for her safety. The pistol was not mentioned—as if I were accustomed to being greeted at gunpoint and hadn’t even noticed. But I wasn’t. And I had.

The dryness in my mouth and the pins-and-needles sensation I felt as I drove off betrayed my realization of just how close I had come.

 

Adapted from the 2018 third edition of Toiyabe Patrol, the writer’s memoir of five U.S. Forest Service summers on the Toiyabe National Forest in the 1960s.

Planning News – Late Fall Edition, 2022

Back to the roots of this blog.

  • Black Hills NF revision

On November 1, USDA responded to the Request for Reconsideration from the Black Hills Forest Resource Association pursuant to the Data Quality Act regarding the assessment of timber harvest on the Black Hills National Forest.  It found “no compelling evidence to support your request to retract (withdraw) GTR-422,” while directing the Forest Service to release an addendum addressing some issues.  The Report indicates that current harvest levels are too high.  (The article includes links to the response and the Report.  We discussed the agency’s original response here.)

On November 29, the governors of South Dakota and Wyoming sent a letter to the Forest Service criticizing the GTR and asking the Forest Service to produce another assessment for the forest plan revision process that avoids relying on the GTR.  This article includes a link to the letter.

  • Blue Mountains socioeconomic report

On another side of this coin, an editorial in northeast Oregon has praised the release (in October) of the “Blues Intergovernmental Council Final Socioeconomic Report.”

This new socioeconomic report is important because it gives officials who will craft another Blue Mountains Forest Plan the kind of data that is specific to our region. To create a plan of any kind, the right kind of information is necessary. Now, federal officials will be able to draw from information that is more comprehensive and detailed.

(Of course, some might reply that providing more information is a waste of time because it won’t actually influence the decision.)  The Report may be found here:

  • Nantahala-Pisgah NF revision

The Carolina Public Press has run another series on the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest.  This one delves into the how and why of their planning for old growth.  In short, according to the forest supervisor, “We’re trying to find a way to get this issue out of the limelight every time we propose a project.”  I also found these perspectives interesting:

Although old-growth is currently underrepresented in Pisgah and Nantahala, Forest Service “natural range variation” models suggest old-growth should be roughly 50% of the forest, and the Forest Service expects that over time, forests currently not considered old-growth, will age into that category. 

According to the agency, even if the stand on Brushy is considered old-growth, Brushy Mountain and other stands like it throughout the forest and within the 18,944-acre project analysis are not uncommon; 33% of land in the analysis area have forest stands 100 years or older.

“Only one-half of 1% of the forest is old-growth in the Southeast,” Williams (Chattooga Conservancy) told CPP in 2019. “That is the reason within itself to leave it alone. Cutting old-growth right now under any circumstances is foolish and irresponsible.”

In relation to that last comment, I’d also note that, while a forest plan only governs management of national forest lands, here is what is required if a viable population of wildlife species cannot be supported by a national forest (36 C.F.R. §219.9(b)(2)(ii)):

Include 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. In providing such plan components, the responsible official shall coordinate to the extent practicable with other Federal, State, Tribal, and private land managers having management authority over lands relevant to that population.

The release of a final plan is apparently imminent.

  • Other forest plan revisions

Here is the most recent revision schedule posted by the Forest Service, dated May 18, 2022.  It does not show any new revisions starting in 2022 or 2023.  However ….

On December 14, the White River National Forest discussed their forest plan revision process.  According to this article:

The exact objectives of the revised plan are still a work in progress, according to Bianchi, but broader goals have been outlined. One is to increase restoration of forest space damaged by fires, insects, disease and invasive species by prioritizing strategies like prescribed burns that can lessen the spread of wildfires and lead to healthier soil in the future. 

Other goals are to allow the plan to respond to modern issues that weren’t present when it was last updated in 2002, such as the threat of the mountain pine beetle and the impacts of e-bikes.  The plan’s revisions are also expected to focus on the impacts of climate change, something Bianchi said “wasn’t a big conversation in 2002.”

The revision process for the Lolo National Forest Plan will also begin this month.  The Forest solicited input about public engagement through December, and highlighted new technology.  A regional team is also being used.  Completion is expected in 2025, and the first webinar is scheduled for January 10.  (This article includes a link to the Forest website.)

  • Northwest Forest Plan FACA committee

On November 18, the Forest Service published a Federal Register Notice inviting nominations (by January 17) for a Northwest Forest Plan Area Advisory Committee.  While the term “revision” is conspicuously absent, the new committee’s likely use in revising plans for national forests in that area can be inferred from some of its purposes.  In general,

“The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and recommendations on landscape management approaches that promote sustainability, climate change adapations, and wildfire resilience while providing for increasing use of and demands from National Forest System lands in the Northwest Forest Plan area.”

The Committee will be asked to make recommendations in the following areas (with my links to planning highlighted):

 

  1. Planning options that complement the national Wildfire Crisis Strategy to assist the U.S. Forest Service transition to greater proactive wildfire risk reduction and related vegetation management.

 

  1. Approaches to address the dynamic nature of ecosystems, utilize adaptive management, monitoring, and integration of future uncertainty into land management planning.

 

  1. Application of the best available science regarding the following primary issues: (a) the ecological importance of mature and old growth forests; (b) climate change, fire, and associated disturbance processes; (c) terrestrial and aquatic reserved land use allocations and the relationship between the two; (d) the climatic diversity of forests encompassed by the NWFP area; and, (e) habitat connectivity at multiple scales in light of changed conditions.

 

  1. Incorporation of traditional ecological knowledge and indigenous perspectives and values into federal forest planning and management.

 

  1. Communication tools and strategies to: (a) help provide greater understanding of landscape or programmatic level planning options and requirements and (b) enhance outreach efforts, public engagement, meaningful Tribal consultation and participation, targeted outreach to underserved communities, and stakeholder collaboration within the scope of the Committee.

 

  1. Issue preliminary discrete recommendations in sequence with Forest Service NWFP planning timelines.

News articles suggest the public has made the same connection:

“The committee’s recommendations will become the basis for the first significant updates to the (plan) in nearly three decades.”  (Cascade Forest Conservancy)

As to those “planning timelines:”

“The Committee is expected to need two years to carry out its objectives. All deliverables will be submitted to the Designated Federal Official (DFO) according to planning schedule needs.”

I would infer that this is viewed as pre-work for the revision process, and that there may not be much other public engagement for the next two years, but who knows?  (If somebody does, please share.)

  • Mountain Valley Pipeline amendments

Following litigation that stopped construction of the Mountain Valley Pipeline across part of the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests, the Forest Service is proposing to amend its forest plan to allow the project to cross 3.5 miles of the Jefferson National Forest.  On December 23, the agency published a Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Notice of Availability.  In all, the Forest Service  proposes to amend 11 standards in its plan to accommodate pipeline construction.

This article includes a link to the project website.  More background on the litigation may be found here (Wild Virginia case).

  • BLM habitat connectivity

On November 15, the BLM issued a new policy “designed to protect connections between habitats for fish, wildlife, and native plants, preserving the ability of wildlife to migrate between and across seasonal habitat.”  The policy, in the form of an Instructional Memorandum, calls for BLM state offices to assess areas of habitat connectivity and conduct planning, on-the-ground management actions, and conservation and restoration efforts to ensure those areas remain intact and healthy, and able to support diverse wildlife and plant populations.  The BLM Press Release includes a link to the policy.

  • BLM solar energy

Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland announced on December 5, 2022, that the Bureau of Land Management will develop an updated Solar Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) to help guide solar energy development on public lands throughout the West.  The proposed updated PEIS will replace the existing Western Solar Plan, developed in 2012.  That Solar Plan for six southwestern states categorized land according to its suitability for solar infrastructure by establishing solar energy zones, which were areas of land prioritized for development; areas of land that should be excluded from development; and variance areas, or areas of land that were neither excluded nor prioritized.  The update is necessary because of “technology advances, new resource information, and shifts in energy market economics.”  It may include the five northwestern states and incorporate two other regional plans in California and Arizona.  This article includes a link to the press release.

 

The Case of the Invisible Natural Resource Practitioners

BAER team for Pipeline Fire https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident-photos-gallery/azcof-pipeline-fire-baer

The role of experts seems to be the theme of the week.  This is a much broader political science question, of course- as we have seen with Covid.  But let’s burrow into our little neck of the woods. This may take a few posts.

Jan said yesterday in a comment:

Listen to AND BE RESPECTFUL to the public who are stakeholders in the forest. Don’t tell us that because we don’t have forestry credentials, we have no right to speak.

I hope that everyone is listened to respectfully, and everyone has the right to speak.  At the same time, it seems to me that experts have a unique value in laying out options for the public.  Yesterday Steve posted a piece about academics versus engineers.- they are both experts in different senses- the Curry piece talks about differences in accountability.  And Andy Stahl said that firefighters’ experiences with retardant were “anecdotal” without published scientific papers.  So does field observation and experience count as 0 with published paper as 100?  That too easily transfer “the knowledge keeping” to people further away from the real world (IMHO).  Do we feel the same way about, say, doctors?  If there is a gap between practitioners’ observations and academics, whether medicine, or forests, I’d say that that’s a science situation that shouts “watch out”.  Or at least a joint exploration of why that is.

In DellaSala’s op-ed on the Santa Fe project, he said:

My search for the truth in the Santa Fe National Forest began some three years ago during site visits to this remarkable forest.

Frankly, I was shocked about how much of it was being degraded by overzealous thinning projects resulting in weed-infested savannas lacking in forest complexity. As an “outsider,” I come with a fresh pair of problem-solving eyes, free of government research dollars that can otherwise obscure such fact-finding expeditions.

What’s missing from this and many other discussions is the role of the natural resource specialist.  These are the people who work there every day, archaeologists, fuels folks, suppression folks, wildlife bios, hydrologists, botanists, soils, silviculture, fish bios, engineers, pathologists and entomologists, range cons, minerals and lands folks, recreation and so on. Scattered around are also economists and social scientists.

Then there are the many State folks, and Extension folks who have the same kinds of expertise.  There’s a vast seething mass of specialists who agree and disagree and all work in the same places and interact with each other through time and space- and who are often missing from the “science” dialogue.

Now, I have heard (as a NEPA RO and WO person involved in various “improving NEPA” efforts) lots of stories about ID teams, so I know that many are not perfect.. how could they be? They are composed of human beings.  Still, my own experiences were about 1) learning the whole of the system (sure we had courses in all that, but it’s not the same), and 2) listening to other experts and having to agree on what’s a document.  In some cases, say, the hydrologist and fish bio would disagree about stream impacts, or the silviculturist and the botanist about plants. And we would have to work those out by discussion.

Note that in the DellaSala op-ed, practitioners seem to be missing from the picture.  It’s research scientist vs. scientist, and people who disagree with him do it because they are influenced by “federal research dollars.”(More on that claim in the next post).  But where are the practitioners?

Now I’m not necessarily just picking on DellaSala for this.  When I worked in the Forest Service R&D branch in the WO, there were some co-workers who conceived of  “scientists and managers” and left out the NFS and FHP specialists from the discussion.  Meanwhile there are many, many scientists, NGO, academic and federal who understand and support resource specialists and their needs.

To do a thought experiment, imagine my going to the ..say.. Umpqua on some site visits and determining that they were doing things wrong- because I could come with “a fresh set of eyes” unencumbered by any funding that would obscure “the facts.”  I couldn’t do that because I would have to talk to too many specialists to understand what was going on, what the choices were, what the history was and so on. Now  I’m not saying that I am humble and DellaSala is.. not. What I’m saying is that my experience on the ground gives me the background to know that understanding any place is a complex exercise, and it’s only by much listening and observing, and disagreeing that people can work toward the mutually agreeable tentative conclusions and followup that make up adaptive management.  Which is even more important due to the uncertain impacts of climate change.

And of course, specialists, line officers, researchers and the public can and do engage with each other with mutual respect. It happens every day, and is likely to be more common than not. Which circles back to the concern of stakeholders that specialists move too much to understand the area.  And Jack Ward Thomas’s idea of allowing excellent specialists to be promoted in place.  Frankly, I don’t see how we can claim any management is really “science-based” without supporting the workforce that is responsible for designing and implementing projects.

I sometimes I was not supported by my bosses to take part in professional societies, or for training in my specialty.  On the other hand, in the old days Region 6 funded me for post-doc work at North Carolina State, and funded advanced studies for other geneticists.  I wonder how supported people feel today at being where the science rubber meets the proverbial road?

Foresters vs. Academics

Judith Curry has an interesting discussion on her web site, Climate, Etc.: “Academics and the grid Part I: I don’t think that study means what you think it means,” by Planning Engineer (Russell Schussler). In this paragraph, substitute foresters (natural resource managers of a variety of disciplines, including those who use Rx fire) for practicing engineers:

There’s been a lot of discussion about the differences between scientists and engineers. The boundaries can get blurry and often are non-existent. In the energy power system arena, perhaps to my past professor’s chagrin, I’m afraid the more important boundary might be between academics and practicing engineers. Academics can approach the grid with some detachment while practicing engineers must keep it running 24/7/365. Practicing engineers have skin in the game and typically face consequences for errors and shortcomings, while academics and unfortunately many policy makers are more insulated. This brings to mind Thomas Sowell’s guidance, “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

So:

Academics and interest groups can approach forest management with some detachment while foresters must keep forests healthy and protect a range of values 24/7/365. Foresters have skin in the game and typically face consequences for errors and shortcomings, while academics, interest groups, and unfortunately many policy makers are more insulated.

Also from the essay:

The path for innovation for the grid is most likely to follow the model of power electronics. Academics propose and refine an approach for the enhancement of the grid and/or power supply. Detailed serious evaluations of the approach take place and maybe additional research is warranted. Engineers determine specific areas where the new approaches might be most successful and the approach can be employed or tested. Project successes will be followed by further improvements and refinements and led to greater expansion as warranted.

That model seems preferable to this one: Academics propose and refine an approach for the enhancement of the grid and/or power supply (or a complete transition of the grid). The media and policy makers determine it is worthwhile. Policy makers and the public push for sweeping changes that are mandated. Everyone struggles to implement the new approach broadly in a sweeping near universal manner.

This second model is often employed in forest management…. Just food for thought and discussion.