Public Lands Litigation Update – April 2022

by

Links in the headers are to documents or provide further links to them.

On February 28, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Maricopa Audubon Society notified the Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service of their intent to sue regarding ongoing grazing on the Coronado National Forest and a Biological Opinion on that from September 30, 2021.  The species subject to ESA and allegedly affected by damage from cattle grazing in riparian areas are the yellow-billed cuckoo, northern Mexican gartersnake, Chiricahua leopard frog and Sonora chub.  Here is a long background article.

Court decision in Oregon Natural Desert Association v. Bureau of Land Management (D. Or.)

On March 29, the district court denied a motion for a temporary restraining order against the BLM’s authorization of livestock grazing on pastures containing 13 Research Natural Areas for the 2022 season without providing fencing to exclude grazing from these areas, as required by the 2015 Oregon Greater Sage-Grouse Record of Decision/Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment.  The court held that plaintiffs are unlikely to suffer irreparable harm to their use and enjoyment of the land, their interest in scientific research or to the sage-grouse population if the pastures are grazed this summer.

Court decision in Monroe County Board of Commissioners v. U. S. Forest Service (S.D. Indiana)

On March 30, the district court reversed and remanded the Houston South Vegetation Management and Restoration Project on the Hoosier National Forest because it failed to fully evaluate the potential effects of the Forest’s largest ever logging and burning project on the water quality of Lake Monroe (an important drinking water source).  The court also denied claims related to the range of alternatives considered and effects on endangered bats.  More information may be found in this article.

  • Kilgore Gold Exploration Project

New filing in Idaho Conservation League v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Idaho)

Following a court loss in 2020, involving Yellowstone cutthroat trout (discussed here), the Caribou-Targhee National Forest approved a new plan put forward by the company involving road building and 130 drill stations for the Kilgore Gold Exploration Project.  According to this article, plaintiffs contend they should be allowed to file a supplemental complaint because the new decision essentially repeats what the court previously rejected and violates various environmental laws.

On April 1, an administrative judge for the government’s Merit Systems Protection Board found that a seasonal firefighter was entitled to a hearing regarding his claims of retaliation against him for posting on social media about what he perceived as the agency’s lax COVID-19 rules during the pandemic, which could have endangered the health of his young son.  The Forest Service agreed to award him $115,000 in back pay and remove him from “do not rehire” lists.

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

On April 4, the district court reversed the Castle Mountains Project decision on the Helena-Lewis & Clark National Forest for failure to comply with the forest plan requirement for elk that recommendations from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks “will be followed.” (Note:  I think the Forest Service might have argued that such a standard is invalid because it defers forest plan decisions to a third party without public participation.)

The Forest misrepresented the recommendations regarding the effects of temporary roads, and failed to demonstrate that elk habitat effectiveness would be maintained or enhanced in accordance with those recommendations.   They also improperly treated the forest travel plan as a fait accompli, even though it had largely not been implemented, and therefore it could not serve as a baseline for the effects of temporary roads.  The court also held that the agency record “does not show that the agency complied with either NFMA or NEPA in relation to the undisputed decline in goshawk nesting territory.”

The court also construed the Roadless Rule’s exception that allows timber harvesting when “needed … [t]o maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period.”  “Need” does not require existing conditions to be outside of the range of variability, and the exception applied to “meadows restoration” and “whitebark pine restoration” in this case.

Court decision in Upper Green River Alliance v. U. S. Bureau of Land Management (D. Wyo.)

On April 5, the district court upheld BLM’s decision to allow Jonah Energy to continue its development of the 145,000-acre, 3,500-well Normally Pressured Lance gas field, which crosses the pronghorn migration route discussed here, and would occupy important sage-grouse habitat.  The court found that the BLM met NEPA requirements for evaluating the effects.  (Shortly afterwards, the same Department of Interior announced a $250,000 grant that will help secure a conservation easement in the wildlife corridor north of the future well-field.  This article also discusses the lawsuit.)

On April 7, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“Service”) issued an emergency rule under Section 4(b)(7) of the ESA listing the Dixie Valley toad (Anaxyrus williamsi) as endangered, and on the same day the Center for Biological Diversity filed a Notice of Intent to Sue the BLM and the company behind the Dixie Meadows Geothermal Utilization Project in Nevada, being developed in the toad’s only habitat.  A prior (and still pending) lawsuit was discussed here, and this article provides additional background.

  • Stanislaus NF grazing

Court decision in Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center case (9th Cir.)

As reported in this article, on April 8, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court, and found that the Stanislaus National Forest had not violated reporting or discharge restrictions under the Clean Water Act regarding permits for their grazing allotments.  Instead, a state agency is responsible for determining Forest Service compliance.  (This case was discussed when it was filed here.)

Settlement agreement in The National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Haaland (D. Ariz.)

On April 21, the district court approved a stipulated settlement requiring BLM to re-examine its decision to allow target shooting in 90% of Sonoran Desert National Monument.  They must consider an alternative that protects several areas of the monument.  (The news release includes a link to the settlement agreement and the original complaint.)

New lawsuit:  Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection v. Federal Highway Administration (D. Ariz.)

On April 21, four conservation groups sued to stop the construction of a 280-mile long corridor for Interstate 11, including desert lands between between Saguaro National Park and Ironwood National Monument.  According to the plaintiffs, the National Park Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation raised concerns that the selected route would permanently and severely harm wildlife populations and public lands.

New lawsuit:  State of Alaska v. United States of America (D. Alaska)

On April 26, the State of Alaska filed a complaint in the Alaska federal district court to quiet title regarding ownership of land under navigable waters and submerged lands in Alaska.  The state is also issuing trespassing orders to federal agencies, including the Forest Service, with structures such as docks on such lands without state permits.   This article includes a counter-argument.

New lawsuits:  County of Ventura v. U. S. Forest Service (C.D. Cal.), City of Ojai v. U. S. Forest Service (C.D. Cal.), Los Padres Forestwatch (and 6 others) v. U. S. Forest Service (C.D. Cal.)

On April 27, three complaints were filed against the Reyes Peak Forest Health and Fuels Reduction Project in the Los Padres National Forest.  Plaintiffs object to the use of a categorical exclusion from NEPA disclosure to approve the project.  The Decision Memo states that trees between one inch and two feet in diameter will be “thinned.”  Plaintiffs are also suing the United States Fish and Wildlife Service for violating the Endangered Species Act and the APA by falsely concluding that the project would not harm California condors and their critical habitat, and the Forest Service and Secretary of Agriculture for violating the HFRA and the APA by failing to issue annual reports pertaining to the use of categorical exclusions.  The link above includes links to each of the complaints.  This article includes more information about the project, and a link to the Decision Memo.

  • Daniel Boone NF Red Bird Project

On April 28, Kentucky Heartwood filed a notice of intent to sue the U.S. Forest Service to protect endangered species in the South Red Bird Wildlife Enhancement Project on the Daniel Boone National Forest.  The threatened or endangered species include snuffbox mussels, the Kentucky arrow darter and three bat species. The Forest Service says the purpose is to create more young forest habitat for deer, elk, grouse and turkey, and will leave behind seven to 20 trees per acre.  There are also concerns about damage to and possible logging of large old trees (including potential damage to a “champion” red hickory), white oak regeneration (see our recent discussion here), landslides, and invasive species.  Logging for game species at the expense of at-risk species came up here.

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (D. D.C.)

On April 29, plaintiffs filed a complaint against the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to seek documents under the Freedom of Information Act related to “communications within the federal agencies and with non-federal entities discussing changes or revisions to the regulatory requirements for programmatic consultations under Section 7 of the U.S. Endangered Species Act.”  This concerns legislation proposed to codify currently temporary language that exempts the Forest Service from the requirement to reassess land-management plans after a species is listed or critical habitat is designated on the affected national forest. This resulted from the “Cottonwood” litigation, we discussed here.

A woman who accidentally dropped her cellphone into the hole of an outhouse in the Olympic National Forest, and fell in while trying to retrieve it, had to be rescued by firefighters.

Affordable Housing vs. Bighorns in Vail Valley

by

Well, the CORE Act reminded me of Jim Stiles’ pieces about amenitization or “gentrification in the name of amenities” of rural communities. One of the primary, earliest, and most extreme examples are ski communities. And then this story from the Colorado Sun showed up today about affordable housing in the Vail Valley and bighorn sheep which illustrates the situation:

The largest resort operator in North America is going to war with its namesake town.

The Vail town council late Tuesday voted to condemn a parcel where Vail Resorts plans to spend $17 million to build affordable housing for 165 workers. Dozens of Vail Resorts executives, employees and managers crammed into the council’s chambers Tuesday night as the council heard passionate support for both housing and wildlife. Ultimately the council voted 4-3 to approve a resolution that gives the town the ability to seize ownership of the 23-acre parcel and prevent any development as a way to protect a bighorn herd that winters in the south-facing aspen groves along Interstate 70.

“I’m disappointed you’ve been backed into a corner and have to consider this resolution tonight,” said Terry Meyers, the executive director of the Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society. “Please make the decision to protect the bighorn sheep herd and move forward to find other options for affordable housing in the Vail Valley. The sheep have to have this. They can’t go anywhere else.”

“What public is being referenced? It’s not the workers,” Bruno said. “We are in a housing crisis that is affecting not only our guest experiences but the very make-up of our community. If we are really thinking about the welfare and safety of our neighbors, we would want to make sure they have homes.”

Chris Romer, the head of the 920-business Vail Valley Partnership, focused on the role of government, saying eminent domain and government seizure of private property is an “extreme action.”

“The idea of what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine is bad government policy,” Romer said.

Frances Hartogh, a Vail resident and volunteer wilderness ranger for the Eagle Summit Wilderness Alliance, said she has seen the detrimental impacts of crowds, dogs and climate on the valley’s wildlife.

“It’s time to stop violating wildlife in the name of our sport,” Hartogh said.

Robyn Smith, a resident and business owner in West Vail, presented a map she assembled from town data showing 17 short-term rental homes, two luxury homes under construction, two trailheads, the town’s public works building and Vail Mountain School among more than 100 buildings in the bighorn herd’s winter range on the south-facing slopes in East Vail.

Smith said condemning the affordable housing project while allowing all the other activity in the winter habitat “is a textbook example of redlining.”

“The consequences of this action are clearly discriminatory,” said Smith, adding that state wildlife officials are in charge of protecting bighorn “but you are uniquely responsible for us.”

Vail Resorts also brought a map showing more than 100 homes in the habitat, many of the homes awash in red dots indicating the homes owned by people who have spoken publicly against the affordable housing project near their neighborhood.

Many residents urged Vail Resorts to direct employee housing to its Ever Vail parcel in the valley. The company years ago proposed a new chairlift and luxury village on the land adjacent to the ski area. John Dawsey, the vice president of hospitality for Vail Resorts, said Ever Vail is three to five years away from approval.

“And we need this housing now,” Dawsey said. “One gets us housing now and one will get us housing in the future and we need both.

 

A Tangled Web Indeed: Wilderness, the Amenity Economy, and the Environment

by
From the Canyon Country Zephyr

I don’t mean to pick on Congressperson DeGette, she is just echoing what many have said,  but reading this quote:

“If we’re going to be serious about combatting the climate crisis, we absolutely must start by preserving more of our public lands,” DeGette said. “Those of us who have been to the magical places included in this bill know how special they are, and why they must be protected for future generations to enjoy. While preserving more of our public lands is important for our environment and economy, it’s also important to the millions of outdoor enthusiasts who visit these majestic areas every year.”

It reminds me a bit of the piece on the Virtuals and Physicals last Friday. Words can do anything. In words, you can say preserving public lands is good for climate. In reality, though, renewable energy projects, powerlines, and mining for minerals needed for low carbon technologies do not lead to “preservation.” So if we were really being honest, we wouldn’t say that.  Or perhaps again it’s a different degree of literalness needed when we interpret politicians’ statements.

But when I saw “preservation” and “millions of outdoor enthusiasts”, I thought of Conundrum Hot Springs and the broader issue of how so-called “industrialized recreation” fits into the concept of “preservation.”

Which reminded me of this quote found in Jim Stiles’ piece here from 2008 in the Canyon Country Zephyr.  The Zephyr, like TSW, is run via contributions, so if you appreciate their reporting, please donate. The whole piece is worth a read:

Almost a decade ago, Bill Hedden, then head of the Grand Canyon Trust’s Arches/Canyonlands office, now its executive director, wrote an essay for the Trust’s Advocate magazine. His observations about the ever-growing recreation ‘amenities economy’ could not have been more compelling or insightful.

In part he said:

“Throughout the region…visitation has grown by more than 400 percent since 1980. This surge of interest has coincided with a proliferation of new recreation technologies–some exotic like modern ATVs, humvees, mountain bikes, climbing gear, jet skis and hangliders; and others prosaic like water filters, sunscreen and dry suits. Armed with these new toys, today’s legions of visitors can exploit every niche in familiar areas and enter terrain that previously was protected by remoteness…And though it is common to blame the destruction on a small percentage of lawless visitors, my experience brings to mind the old joke that a mere 99 percent of users give a bad name to all the rest. Make no mistake–we are in this together.

“The Grand Canyon Trust has just completed a major strategic planning exercise… Everywhere we looked, natural resource professionals agreed that industrial-strength recreation holds more potential to disrupt natural processes on a broad scale than just about anything else. It’s a very tough problem affecting all of us. We will be actively searching for ways to deal with it.”

But that was in 1999. The phrase, “amenities economy” was just becoming familiar to environmentalists. They were searching for a response to rural Westerners’ claim that wilderness designation and other restrictions on the West’s public lands were destroying its economy—an economy based in the traditional extractive industries like mining, ranching and timber.

Some within the conservation movement latched onto recreation and tourism—and the amenities that they demanded, as a “clean” economic solution. But Hedden’s concerns, in 2008, are almost antiquated notions, even to his own organization.

Hedden said that in 1999. And here we are in 2022, just yesterday wondering whether better maps would lead to overuse. And from this piece, also by Stiles:

But in 1998, as environmentalists grew increasingly frustrated by their efforts to protect wildlands in the West, their strategies shifted. At a landmark ‘wilderness mentoring’ conference that May, attended by scores of the country’s environmentalist leaders, a more aggressive, down-and-dirty strategy was proposed. A prominently displayed quotation by Michael Carroll, now of The Wilderness Society, established the tone and direction of all that would come later:

“Car companies and makers of sports drinks use wilderness to sell their products. We have to market wilderness as a product people want to have.”

That, in its most succinct essence, was the theme of the conference. While the organizers of the event paid tribute to the wilderness activists who had come before, clearly the purpose of the meeting was to propose a new approach. “Although it is important to pioneer new wilderness strategies,” the report explained almost as an afterthought, “we must do so with knowledge of what has come before.”

With that token nod to the “importance of history” and to the “philosophical and political contexts” of the wilderness movement, the conference explored the new territories of salesmanship, marketing and media manipulation to win the legislative wilderness battle. One might think you were being taught how to sell a new Buick.

By 2003, GCT’s Hedden, seemed ready to accept and even embrace the changes. In a Zephyr interview he admitted, “We’ve had some of the most spectacular country in the world, and no one else in it. The fact that those days are just about over is sad, but there are many more people in the world, and they have found this place, and there’s no keeping them away.” And so, suddenly, the idea of embracing an unbridled recreation/amenities economy that had once worried the most enthusiastic supporters of wilderness, achieved political, if not moral, acceptability.

 

CORE Act Gets Stymied in Senate

by

We’ve discussed the CORE Act before here.  and in Patrick McKay’s guest post.Here’s a story from CPR yesterday. Hopefully Patrick has been following the details and can bring us up to date.

I wonder whether this is the time to put more acres into Wilderness. It seems to me that this bill has gone forward for years-  and perhaps Covid-enhanced recreation, and the changes due to AGW (anthropogenic global warming), plus the need for domestically produced energy, plus attention to Native American burning,  might cause people to rethink what goes in to Wilderness designation and the other designations in the bill.  There might be opportunities for renewable energy infrastructure foregone.  And what about the motorized community, who seems to be missing from this coverage (but not from TSW)?

For example, designating an area as Wilderness can lead to different fire management strategies.. if AGW is indeed leading to climate-induced holocausts, then would we want to reduce/make more difficult suppression and pre-suppression strategies (put fewer tools in the toolkit, or make it harder to get them out)?  Here’s what Greg Aplet of The Wilderness Society has to say what activities are OK in Wilderness.  I generally trust what Greg has to say, but I’d be interested in what other people think.

It makes me wonder if this Wilderness bill is more about symbolism or political solidarity-signalling, or perhaps backscratching in some form, than on-the-ground reality, or whether the concept of Wilderness perhaps needs to be rethought in light of the above changes in our understanding, and the science we’re finding out about everything (fire, fuels, climate change, recreation impacts,  traditional ecological knowledge, and so on).

The pieces I’ve read sound a bit like a press release from the Senators.

Sen. John Hickenlooper, a member of the committee and a sponsor of the bill, stressed throughout the debate the community-driven nature of the bill, saying it could serve as a model for how public land should be crafted.

“The entire local community, a large part of the state of Colorado, supports these designations and recognize that this is the future and best use for these lands,” he said.

“This is exactly the kind of local, carefully constructed agreement that you’ll find throughout the CORE Act,” Bennet said. “And it’s more evidence, I think, to our Senate colleagues that this bill wasn’t written in Washington. It was written in Colorado from the ground up to ensure that every line in this bill reflects local values and local interest.”

It seems like from our previous discussions that there have also been concerns from the motorized community, but that was not reflected in the article. It’s almost as if  some writers think that what (some) politicians say must be true and not worthy of some skepticism.  I’m pretty skeptical of what any politician says, myself.

It would be pretty impressive if everyone in those areas agrees.

.. but in an earlier story in Colorado Politics, the local Congressperson claimed:

After the hearing, U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, a Silt Republican who opposes the CORE Act, released a statement saying she hasn’t been consulted about the bill even though roughly two-thirds of the land it affects are in her 3rd Congressional District, which covers most of Colorado’s Western Slope.

“The CORE Act is a partisan land-grab promoted by big-city Democrats who aren’t affected by the land-use bureaucracy that they are shoving down rural Colorado’s throat,” she said.

“While locking up land may sound good to the swamp, it doesn’t work for the people who actually live there.”

Now I get that Boebert is fringy and prone to excessive partisan vitriol, but still I think it is a bit of an overstatement to think that “the entire local community” doesn’t include their elected representative- and she hadn’t been consulted (?) but “everyone agrees”.  And here’s another one:

Over a decade ago, rancher Bill Fales was one of many Coloradans who gathered and talked about how to protect the lands outside his backdoor. He said he was discouraged by the tie vote.

“That’s exactly what we have been doing for 13 years,” he said. “We’ve adjusted the boundaries, we’ve adjusted the language, we’ve worked as hard as possible to make to work for our community. It’s why it has virtually unanimous support in our community.”

If you read this story, wouldn’t you want to hear from someone with concerns (besides the aforementioned Congressperson)?  After all, there is a quote from someone who agrees (Bill Fales).  I’m not sure from this news coverage we get both sides of the issue fairly explained.  But what I’m really curious about is why that has been the case for this issue so consistently, even pre-Boebert.

Bipartisan Bill on Joint Federal Lands Mapping Passes and is Signed into Law- Thank You Rep. Moore (and others)!

by

 

Photo by Rick Hutton borrowed from our friends at TRCP.

In the spirit of “catching people doing something right” here’s the announcement: and a special shout out to Rep. Moore of Utah who spearheaded this bipartisan, and dare I say common-sensical and much-needed effort.  Sometimes agencies need a little push to coordinate in a way that seems obvious to citizens.

 

“America is home to some of the most beautiful natural wonders in the world, and it is essential that we have up-to-date information on how to best access our public lands,” Rep. Moore said. “The MAPLand Act will digitize tens of thousands of records so fishers, hikers, hunters, bikers, and those who spend time enjoying our outdoors have all the information they need to have great experiences and make fond memories.”

If enacted, H.R. 3113 specifically would require the U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to jointly develop and adopt interagency standards to ensure compatibility and interoperability among federal databases for the collection and dissemination of outdoor recreation data related to federal lands, according to the congressional record bill summary.

Under the bill, the entities must digitize and publish geographic information system mapping data that includes federal interests, including easements and rights-of-way, in private land; status information as to whether roads and trails are open or closed; the dates on which roads and trails are seasonally opened and closed; the types of vehicles that are allowed on each segment of roads and trails; the boundaries of areas where hunting or recreational shooting is regulated or closed; and the boundaries of any portion of a body of water that is closed to entry, is closed to watercraft, or has horsepower limitations for watercraft, the summary says.

“I’m thrilled that the House has passed our MAPLand Act… which will modernize and formalize data sharing across public land agencies, to support our natural resource workforce, our communities and outdoor recreation activities,” said Rep. Neguse.

 

Here’s the link if you want to see the text.

Below is the interesting part of the text IMHO:

SEC. 4. DIGITIZATION AND PUBLICATION OF EASEMENTS.
    (a) In General.--Not later than 4 years after the date of enactment 
of this Act, each of the Secretaries, to the maximum extent 
practicable, shall digitize and publish on the applicable agency 
website geographic information system mapping data that specifies, with 
respect to the relevant Secretary, all Federal interests in private 
land, including easements (other than flowage easements), reservations, 
and rights-of-way--
        (1) to which the Federal Government does not have a fee title 
    interest; and
        (2) that may be used to provide public recreational access to 
    the Federal land.
    (b) Public Comment.--The Secretaries shall develop a process to 
allow members of the public to submit questions or comments regarding 
the information described in subsection (a).
SEC. 5. DATA CONSOLIDATION AND PUBLICATION OF ROUTE AND AREA DATA FOR 
PUBLIC RECREATIONAL USE.
    (a) In General.--Beginning not later than 5 years after the date of 
enactment of this Act, each of the Secretaries, to the maximum extent 
practicable, shall make publicly available on the website of the 
Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, and the Corps of 
Engineers, as applicable, geographic information system data with 
respect to the following:
        (1) Status information with respect to whether roads and trails 
    on the Federal land are open or closed.
        (2) The dates on which roads and trails on the Federal land are 
    seasonally closed.
        (3) The classes of vehicles and types of recreational uses that 
    are allowed on each segment of roads and trails on the Federal 
    land, including the permissibility of--
            (A) off-highway vehicles;
            (B) motorcycles;
            (C) nonmotorized bicycles;
            (D) electric bicycles;
            (E) passenger vehicles;
            (F) nonmechanized transportation; and
            (G) over-snow vehicles.
        (4) The boundaries of areas where hunting or recreational 
    shooting (including archery, firearm discharge, and target 
    shooting) is permanently restricted or prohibited on the Federal 
    land.
    (b) Updates.--
        (1) In general.--The Secretaries, to the maximum extent 
    practicable, shall update the data described in subsection (a) not 
    less frequently than twice per year.
        (2) Public comment.--The Secretaries shall develop a process to 
    allow members of the public to submit questions or comments 
    regarding the information described in subsection (a).
    (c) Effect.--Geographic information system data made publicly 
available under subsection (a) shall not disclose information regarding 
the nature, location, character, or ownership of historic, 
paleontological, or archaeological resources, consistent with 
applicable law.

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

Harkening back to the “dispersed camping” discussion.. the bill seems to be about roads and trails and shooting.. but it seems like the maps could possibly include dispersed camping as well if the agencies want to; or drone policies, or ???.

Weekly Roundup: Readers’ Stories of Interest for Discussion

by

Bill Gabbert of Wildfire Today had an excellent idea of having a post (he calls it the “staging area”) specifically about stories or other topics that hadn’t been covered. We kind of have that with the tab “other topics of interest” but I think this approach is more encouraging to people. What went on this week that we didn’t post about that you would like to discuss?

Philosophy Friday: Virtuals, Physicals and Natural Resource Professionals

by

Way back when TSW (or then, NCFP) was started, while I was still working for the Forest Service, I wrote this post “talking across the concrete-abstract divide”. I used for examples of abstract thinking Charles Wilkinson and Martin Nie, both law profs(even thought Wilkinson was on the “Committee of Scientists” for NFMA, which I never really understood).  You can still see the 1997 report here. See, as a concrete thinker, I would have thought it should have been called the “Committee of Almost Entirely Scientists” or the “Committee of People We Think Are Really Smart and Knowledgeable.” I tend to seek clarity, comprehensibility, and words that mean what they say in plain English, at each step along the policy path.

I’ve mentioned before that our Regional Forester, Rick Cables, plus a noted, experienced, and thoughtful forest planner (currently working so not to be named) and I had a bit of a project in which we would go to visit law school profs and students and talk about policy issues, in order to develop more joint understanding.  This was where I first really interacted with individuals across the divide. I found those discussions to be of such richness that I thought “it’s too bad we can’t let students across the country hear this!” So Martin Nie and I started NCFP to talk about planning as the 2012 Rule was developed.

Listening to the webinar from the UC Boulder Law School last week, as well as our discussion this week of what the Park Service mission statement means, reminded me a bit of that post.  Here’s an excerpt (remember, this was written in 2010 discussing what would be in the 2012 Rule):

Second, the idea of ecological sustainability being pre-eminent never appealed to me. Strictly pragmatically, I thought we can’t always make the most protective decisions (like fencing all the people out of the Angeles National Forest if they have too many environmental impacts). But talking to Professor Wilkinson, he meant it in a visionary, right-brained way, as a goal which people could figure out through collaborative efforts and reinvent their interpretation through time and with learning. My original thought was “ecological sustainability” was an analytical idea, and the problem was that you could do all kinds of analyses of everything and never prove something was sustainable.

Something like forest planning, and planning rules involve people from a wide array of backgrounds with different meanings for the same words. That is why it is so important to have conversations with others across different views, including the concrete/abstract divide.

So I’ve thought about this for some time. Certainly abstractions may be linked with privilege, as who will determine how the abstractions are interpreted when they finally reach the dirt level of real forest practices, for example? I’ve also thought that perhaps the dichotomy had other dimensions as well. Perhaps some flavor of classism, for example. I ran across this piece recently, which I thought opened up a different way of thinking about it. The post is written by someone named N.S. Lyons (apparently a pen name for someone in DC) and you have to look through some of the political stuff to find the juicy parts.

To simplify, let’s first identify and categorize two classes of people in society, who we could say tend to navigate and interact with the world in fundamentally different ways.

The first is a class that has been a part of human civilization for a really long time. These are the people who work primarily in the real, physical world. Maybe they work directly with their hands, like a carpenter, or a mechanic, or a farmer. Or maybe they are only a step away: they own or manage a business where they organize and direct employees who work with their hands, and buy or sell or move things around in the real world. Like a transport logistics company, maybe. This class necessarily works in a physical location, or they own or operate physical assets that are central to their trade.

The second class is different. It is, relatively speaking, a new civilizational innovation (at least in numbering more than a handful of people). This group is the “thinking classes” Lasch was writing about above. They don’t interact much with the physical world directly; they are handlers of knowledge. They work with information, which might be digital or analog, numerical or narrative. But in all cases it exists at a level of abstraction from the real world. Manipulation and distribution of this information can influence the real world, but only through informational chains that pass directives to agents that can themselves act in the physical world – a bit like a software program that sends commands to a robot arm on an assembly line. To facilitate this, they build and manage abstract institutions and systems of organizational communication as a means of control. Individuals in this class usually occupy middle links in these informational chains, in which neither the inputs nor outputs of their role has any direct relationship with or impact on the physical world. They are informational middlemen. This class can therefore do their job almost entirely from a laptop, by email or a virtual Zoom meeting, and has recently realized they don’t even need to be sitting in an office cubicle while they do it.

For our purposes here, let’s call these two classes the Physicals and the Virtuals, respectively.

When considering the causes and character of the current protest, and the response to it, I would say the divide between Physicals and Virtuals is by far the most relevant frame of analysis available. In fact I’d say this is among the most significant divides in all of Western politics today.

And this excerpt reminds me of the current fad of calling “information you disagree with” “misinformation”; even a bit of the current hubbub around Twitter:

But have a little sympathy for them: they do this not just because it is cynically convenient (though it is), but because this is literally the only way they know how to navigate and influence the world. The post-modern fish swims in a narrative sea, and their first reaction is always to try to control it (through what the CCP calls “discourse power”) because at heart they well and truly believe in the idea of the “social construction of reality,” as Lasch pointed out in the quote at top. If there is no fixed, objective truth, only power, then the mind’s will rules the world. Facts can be reframed as needed to create the story that best produces the correct results for Progress (this is why you will find journalists are now professionally obsessed with “storytelling” rather than reporting facts).

If you read the comments, you’ll find that many agree that the concept is useful, but they also says that people don’t fit as neatly into one or the other as the author describes. They’re pretty civil, though, so it’s an interesting discussion.

But what strikes me about this is that many folks in the natural resource professions have the skills and experience to understand both worlds. Which is difficult, but also important and necessary for the betterment of our society. After all, rural and urban, Virtuals and Physicals, red and blue, lawyers and fire crews, academics and practitioners, all of us..need to live together more or less harmoniously.

“No real advancement on forest revision plans”

by

I actually took this headline from an article about the status of the Salmon-Challis forest plan revision, but it pretty much describes planning in the Forest Service as a whole.  With the exception of a batch of mostly Region 3 forests nearing the end of their planning journey, not much is happening.  There are no signs of any new forests moving into the pipeline as the aforementioned revisions are completed.

The national status chart (source of this graphic – the last column shows the age of the plan) was updated April 1 (was there an inside joke here?).  It doesn’t include where each forest is in the process, so I checked each of their planning web pages and produced the summary below (roughly in order of where they are from the end to the beginning).

  • Carson – Currently reviewing objections, final plan projected in spring 2022
  • Cibola – Currently reviewing objections, final plan projected in 2022
  • Santa Fe – Currently reviewing objections, final plan TBD
  • Nantahala-Pisgah – Currently reviewing objections, final plan TBD
  • Tonto – 60-day objection period began March 25, final plan TBD
  • Nez Perce-Clearwater – FEIS/draft ROD projected Fall 2021 (yes, that is the projection on the web page)
  • Ashley – FEIS/draft ROD projected October 2022
  • Grand Mesa Uncompahgre and Gunnison – FEIS/draft ROD projected late 2022 or early 2023
  • Gila – FEIS/draft ROD TBD
  • Lincoln – FEIS/draft ROD TBD
  • Sierra/Sequoia – FEIS/draft ROD TBD
  • Manti-La Sal – DEIS/draft plan TBD
  • Salmon-Challis – Notice of initiation 2018, NOI TBD
  • Malheur/Wallowa-Whitman/Umatilla – FEIS/draft ROD withdrawn in 2019, draft plan/NOI TBD
  • Black Hills – Currently in Assessment phase, NOI TBD

There is more information available in these charts, but they have not been updated for over a year (note the individual charts for each “service group,” the national “new planning model.”  I used it to check out the forests that, at least at one time, appeared ready to start revision.  From this list of forests that should have been “in revision” or “pre-revision” sometime this year, the only references to plan revision I found on any of the web pages have been quoted below.  So there’s going to be a big gap in completed revisions.

  • In revision 2021:  Shasta-Trinity, Mendocino, Six Rivers, Klamath, Rogue River-Siskiyou
  • In revision 2022: Cimarron Comanche, Bridger-Teton, Midewin, Humboldt-Toiyabe
  • Pre-revision in 2022: Fremont-Winema, Umpqua, Siuslaw, Willamette, Lolo, Caribou-Targhee, Curlew, NFs inTexas, NFs in Florida, Kistachie, Wayne, Allegheny

Bridger-Teton, – “unlikely that BTNF will receive funding to begin Forest Plan Revision until 2022.”

Humboldt-Toiyabe – “Work on Forest Plan revision has been suspended as resources and personnel are devoted to travel management, environmental analysis of grazing, fire and fuels management, and implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”

There is also this note from the Wayne explaining why they have stopped revising their forest plan.

Meanwhile the Bitterroot National Forest is doing some planning of another kind that is fairly unusual (but may be becoming more common), recently releasing a draft climbing management plan.  Issues being addressed include the placing of permanent anchors (including in wilderness areas) and the need to buffer nesting raptors.  However, “Work on a final NEPA-approved climbing plan will have to wait until the agency’s Washington office completes a set of national directives focused on climbing. Those could come as soon as this summer.“

Staffing Shortages in Wildfire Suppression and What Would You Do About It?

by

I’d be interested in what current employees think of this fairly extensive BuzzFeed article on fire staffing. Tagline:

US Forest Service deputy chief Jaelith Hall-Rivera’s statements on staffing have sparked confusion among lawmakers and outrage from wildland firefighters, who say she overpromised what they can deliver.

Clearly we have an outrage shortage in our communities that needs to be remedied as soon as possible…

Based on the article, the FS and other agencies have serious problems with staffing. I don’t think attacking the Deputy Chief for being not having the details of ongoing hiring events is really going to help; but maybe I’m missing something.

As a result, large swaths of the drought-stricken Southwest are now facing a critical shortage of much-needed experienced personnel. Plus, some regions have been unable to share resources with others during emergencies as is normally the case, Forest Service employees told BuzzFeed News.

“This is worse than other years. We are getting crushed on the hiring front,” the official told BuzzFeed News. “Unless there’s a major system overhaul, our land management agencies’ fire programs could be extinct in the next 10 to 20 years.”

In Washington, fire crews have more than 50 midlevel positions open and will be unable to staff eight engines due to a lack of firefighters, according to meeting notes from a fire management officer call on April 11. Rachel Granberg, who works at the Forest Service’s Okanogan-Wenatchee station, said 21% of her unit is unstaffed, and for an unprecedented second year in a row, they cannot use an engine.

“That’s huge. Engines bring water. In plain terms, if we can’t bring water, it’s very hard to keep small fires small,” she laid out. “And that’s alarming.”

Clearly the FS has problems. If I had interviewed the FS folks, I would have asked “if you were the FS, what would you do differently?” “this year?” “over time?”

Thinking About Adaptation, Naturalness and Tourism: Wyofile Wolf Story

by

This WyoFile story on wolves is interesting because it delves into some philosophical issues around managing . Now I am not knowledgeable enough to know anything about how much hunting should be allowed, using which practices, where or when or even if.    I’m just interested in how people think about it, as discussed in the article.  And, to be transparent, I’m one of those people who used to enjoy wolf-watching in Yellowstone.

The title is Yellowstone: Wolf hunt altered behavior, damaged research.  Now some of might be thinking, hey- when ungulate behavior was changed due to wolf reintroduction, that was thought to be “good.” Perhaps not to the involved ungulates, but to the “ecosystem.” In this calculus, some organisms and populations count less than others, based on a philosophical idea/abstraction.

A recent spate of hunting has altered fundamental aspects of the canines’ behavior, and threatened the foundations of one of the most storied wildlife research efforts in American history, according to park scientists.

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

Many more wolves have been getting frisky than expected. Ordinarily in Yellowstone, only each pack’s dominant alpha male and female get the opportunity to mate. The custom is reflected in 27 years of hard data: 85% of the time, park packs produce single litters.

But this year — in the wake of at least 25 wolves being shot or trapped just beyond the park’s boundaries — Yellowstone Wolf Project personnel observed three or four females in two different Northern Range packs “tied” and breeding, Smith said. “Usually the most dominant wolf prevents other wolves from breeding,” he said. “You lose that [dominant] wolf and it opens up opportunities for other wolves.”

It appears, in other words, that with their pack hierarchies disrupted by the record-setting killings, some wolves have abandoned their selective mating customs.

Perhaps this change is good from the genetic perspective, as more offspring by different combos of males and females. If I were a wolf, and got a chance to mate and produce offspring from this change, it’s not hard to imagine that increased friskiness might be a good thing.

“It’s broken apart the social structure, it’s messed with the hierarchy, and it’s actually produced more pups. Now this is a hypothesis, but this is what I would call an artificial stimulation of wolf reproductive capacity

Is adapting to this change “good” or “bad”? From whose perspective? It reminds me of the Tennyson quote “The old order changeth yielding place to new.”

For researchers it holds a unique appeal: In the Lower 48, Yellowstone is the easiest place to observe wolves in their natural state. Since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced 31 wolves to the park in 1995 and ’96, the intensive research effort has been predicated on understanding wolf ecology in the absence of human persecution.

In what sense is Yellowstone a “natural” state? Wolves descended (originally) from only 31 Canadian wolves, being heavily watched by scientists, hordes of humans and so on.

“The question now is … let’s see what happens,” Smith said. “But we really don’t want that, because it is not aligned with the National Park Service mission. The National Park Service mission is to protect natural processes.”

I looked on the Park Service website and here is what they say their mission is:

The mission of the National Park Service is to preserve unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.

This makes more sense- if the mission were to protect natural processes they probably would need to shut down the visitation (4,860,537 in 2021).

The Yellowstone wolves on the Northern Range, accustomed to throngs of humans with pricey optics, lacked a recognition that humans posed a lethal threat, and they proved relatively easy targets. “If you’re a wolf watcher in the park, you know they tolerate you at 100 to 200 yards,” Smith said. “That’s a perfect rifle shot.”

This doesn’t seem “natural” to me. But who gets to define what “natural” is? Most interestingly defined as a kind of packaged “nature”experience that brings in more income and economic values than locals wandering the woods.

The prospect that Yellowstone’s remaining wolves have gained a newfound wariness is not welcomed by all. Gardiner naturalist and biologist Nathan Varley, who runs the Yellowstone Wolf Tracker guiding service, said skittish wolves are his biggest concern and a worst-case scenario for his business.

“Wolves that survive hunting events, they quickly learn that there’s survival value in avoiding humans,” Varley said. “And we’ve relied extensively on wolves that do not have that inclination.”

Here’s another “natural”.

“Everybody is just going to look at last year’s count and this year’s count, and go what’s the big deal?” Smith said. “Well the big deal is this is no longer a natural population. It’s a human-exploited population and our job [in the National Park Service] is to have a natural population.”

But this gets back to the question earlier in the article:

Hoppe doesn’t think it’s fair that wolves are regarded differently than other park wildlife pursued by hunters across the boundary.

“The Indians, they shoot the elk and the buffalo and they’re still shooting them and it’s almost the end of April,” he said.”

If it were “the job” of the Park Service  to “have a natural population” of wolves (given that that appears to be a code-expression for “no hunting off park”) why wouldn’t that apply to all species?  And I must have missed the session where the agency tells you that employees get to make up their own versions of the agency mission/job, follow those in their daily work, and describe them as the agency mission to journalists.  I would have greatly enjoyed the opportunity.