New Flathead National Forest Supervisor interview

by

Anthony Botello took the job as forest supervisor on the Flathead at the beginning of the year, and provided this extended interview to the Missoulian.  This may be paywalled, but I’ve pulled out a few quotes related to things I tend to talk about.

Staffing of NEPA specialists is especially hard:

We have staffing challenges all across our workforce, but the one that pops to mind right now — because much of what we do revolves around very smart people who lead our ID (interdisciplinary) teams through our NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process, and those are folks that are in high demand and we have very limited numbers of them that are interested in our jobs.

For example, we have three interdisciplinary teams on this forest that do the work all across the forest, and we plan projects that then we go and implement. It could be timber, it could be fuels reduction, recreation. And we need team leaders — we call them environmental coordinators or team leaders — to lead those teams to get us through that legal NEPA process. And we’re struggling, not just this forest but the forest I came from was struggling.

Condition-based NEPA:

Some projects have a very focused purpose and need, they’re very focused in what we’re wanting to do, and so we have more of the traditional, our specialists go out there and monitor and look at conditions and then use that for our analysis to determine.

And then we have some places where we want to look at bigger landscapes, we want to look at more adaptive management, so we pull into this idea of, let’s make conceptual decisions and then when we go to implement we’ll do more of the site-specific look at things.

A new forest plan is a good thing:

We’ve got really good strong language in our forest plan. The forest plan that we have here is a relatively new plan. In my career I’ve worked on forests with 20-, 30-year-old forest plans. The Payette had a relatively new plan when I was there, the Wallowa-Whitman had a pretty old plan.

And this one, thankfully, has been redone as of ’18. In that, we worked very closely with some of our U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks partners to come up with the standards that are in there.

And our forest plan — through public involvement, through NEPA, through line officer decision — withstood all of those thresholds, which was good. And we’re implementing the forest plan. The forest plan does have some pretty good, strong, prescriptive language about all those things — about roads, about (recreation) sites, about grizzly habitat — it’s a very contemporary plan when it comes to that.

Litigation and policy decisions:

The role of a line officer is not to interpret any kind of court ruling, decision, etc. We wait for our agency to promulgate a rule or a regulation.

(Follow-up question)

Just to make sure I understand: In a situation where the forest plan or a project loses in court in a certain issue, any sort of reaction to that is not going to come from you as the forest supervisor, it’s going to come from higher-up in the agency with either a new rule or amendment to a plan? And then when that comes down, you simply keep following the plan or the rule? 

Kind of, yeah. Litigation, obviously, can affect the way we manage. But there’s a whole bunch of steps between that and changing our forest plan. We have a legal staff that advises us on that, and until that happens we’re managing the way our forest plan has guided us to manage.

There’s a whole bunch of steps that would happen between some theoretical court case and us changing our management, and we’ll do that when it goes through the process that it needs to go through before it changes something that we’ve already adopted.

Federal Lands Litigation – update through May 1, 2024

by

FOREST SERVICE

New (to me) lawsuit

Last fall, Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment, Conservation Congress and Klamath Forest Alliance sued the Shasta Trinity National Forest for its decision to approve the McFarland Project using a categorical exclusion for “wildlife habitat improvement.”  According to plaintiffs, the project would include commercial logging of over 2000 acres, most of which is in a late successional reserve that supports “one of the few successful breeding pairs of the northern spotted owl left in the Shasta Trinity National Forest.”

Court decision in Purgatory Recreation I, LLC v. United States (D. Colorado)

The substantive issue in this case is whether the Purgatory ski resort retained a right to an easement to divert and carry water across national forest land when it conveyed that land to the Forest Service as part of a land exchange.  In a quiet title action, the Forest Service objected on the basis that the diversion could detrimentally impact the native cutthroat trout population.  On April 15, the court held that, since the land exchange was completed in 1991, and Purgatory should have been aware at that time that there would be no easement, the 12-year statute of limitations for proceeding under the Quiet Title Act had not been met.  This doesn’t foreclose Purgatory using other means to access its water right.  Here is the court opinion.

Settlement

The parties have settled a case filed in September by Native Ecosystems Council and Alliance for the Wild Rockies against the Middleman Project on the Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest.  The Forest can implement parts of the project that include 4.1 miles of temporary road construction and about 21 miles of road reconstruction, but will forego commercial timber harvest not already under contract.  The settlement also limits prescribed burning.

According to plaintiffs, “The settlement stops over 110 miles of road construction/reconstruction and over 5,000 acres of commercial logging in lynx and grizzly habitat.”  Michael Garrity is also reported to have said that while he appreciated the Forest Service settling the case, he wished they would have listened to the plaintiffs’ concerns when they commented on the project instead of forcing the issue to court.

New lawsuit:  Defenders of Wildlife v. U. S. Forest Service (D. North Carolina)

On April 18, Defenders of Wildlife, MountainTrue, Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against the revised forest plan for the Nantahala-Pisgah National Forest.  The complaint alleges multiple violations of the Endangered Species Act with regard to the effects of the plan on four endangered bat species: the northern long-eared bat, the Indiana bat, the Virginia big-eared bat, and the gray bat.  Plaintiffs claim that the Forest provided misleading information to the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the FWS failed to consider the best available scientific information and drew arbitrary conclusions in its biological opinion, which plaintiffs seek to vacate.  A link to the complaint is provided.

Court decision in Rocky Mountain Wild v. Dallas (10th Circuit)

On April 19, the circuit court reversed the district court and upheld the 2019 Forest Service ROD and 2018 FWS Biological Opinion under ANILCA, NEPA, and the ESA, affirming the USFS’s grant of a right-of-way across Rio Grande National Forest land so that a private owner could develop a ski village on its own land.  This article reviews the long history of the case.  Plaintiffs said the developers still have other steps to complete before they can begin work, and a “concerned local citizenry will be actively engaged.”  Here is the court’s opinion.

New lawsuit:  Center for Biological Diversity v. U. S. Forest Service (D. Utah)

On April 24, the Center for Biological Diversity, Yellowstone to Uintas Connection, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council sued the Forest Service over the Ashley National Forest’s Aspen Restoration Project.  They allege it violates the Roadless Rule as well as NEPA.  With regard to the Roadless Rule, which requires that trees removed must be “generally small diameter,” the complaint says, “It places no limits on the size of trees to be removed, nor does it otherwise demonstrate or ensure that only generally small diameter trees would be removed. The Forest Service ignored repeated public requests that the agency explain how the project would comply with the Roadless Rule.”  Plaintiffs claim that the Forest Service did not provide details for the project necessary to determine compliance.  This press release includes a link to the complaint.

BLM

Court decision

A district court halted BLM’s practice of removing wild horses in areas where the agency has reached its planned population for the area.  The BLM had developed ten-year management plans for two areas, authorizing roundups for “maintenance,” even after achieving appropriate management levels.  The court said that new plans with public participation are necessary in this situation.  (Best play on words award, from plaintiffs:  “I’m hopeful that this decision will pull back on the BLM’s unbridled discretion to remove horses …”)

Court decision in Tohono O’odham Nation v. Department of the Interior (D. Arizona)

On April 16, the district court denied a preliminary injunction to halt construction on 50 miles of the 550-mile SunZia power transmission line from windfarms through the San Pedro River Valley (recently discussed here).  The court held that the tribes waited too long to challenge the NEPA sufficiency of the 2015 decision.  As for the National Historic Preservation Act, the court held, “BLM (1) complied with its obligation to identify historic properties, (2) considered measures to avoid adverse impacts to historic properties, and (3) consulted with Plaintiff Tribes during each phase of the PA.”  The court’s opinion is here.

“Notice of intent to sue”

An NOI is required by the Endangered Species Act, but not for other types of claims we usually see related to public lands.  The idea is to give the agency a chance to change its ways before being confronted in court.  That doesn’t seem likely with the recently released BLM Public Lands Rule – at least until after the election, but they are getting plenty of “We’ll see you in court” warnings.  From the Governor of Utah:

“The added layers of red tape and federal bureaucracy embedded in the BLM’s Public Lands Rule create new roadblocks to conservation work. The health of Utah’s lands and wildlife will suffer as a result. This rule is contrary to the bedrock principle of ‘multiple-use’ in the BLM’s governing law, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act.”

It will be interesting to see what specific legal claims they’ll make, given that the “multiple-use” requirement has always been interpreted to allow a lot of discretion, and the agency should get a lot of deference regarding what will promote “conservation.”  (The article also provides perspectives from environmental groups.)

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Notice of Intent to Sue

On April 22, the Fish and Wildlife Service received a notice written on behalf of Animal Wellness Action, the Center for a Humane Economy, Project Coyote, the Kettle Range Conservation Group, Footloose Montana, and the Gallatin Wildlife Association.  The parties object to the agency’s February 2, 2024 finding that western United States gray wolf does not warrant listing under the Endangered Species Act.  This is the third lawsuit filed against that decision (the other two are discussed here), and it is being attributed to a wolf-torturing incident in Wyoming that represented “everything that’s wrong with Wyoming’s handling of wolves.”  (Meanwhile, the U.S. House voted April 30 to end federal protection for gray wolves across the lower 48 states, but the legislation is not expected to be adopted.)

Preliminary injunction in Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizens Task Force v. State of Montana (9th Cir.)

On April 23, the circuit court affirmed the district court’s decision to limit the wolf trapping and snaring season in Montana to six weeks in January and February when grizzly bears are expected to be denning, based in part on effects of climate change shortening the denning season.  However, it also limited this restriction to areas where grizzly bears are known to live.  Grizzly bears are listed as threatened under the ESA, and they have been harmed by wolf traps.  Plaintiffs are now seeking a permanent injunction.  (The article includes a link to the opinion.)

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

On April 25, the parties agreed to a court-ordered deadline to complete overdue listing designations that the Fish and Wildlife Service had proposed for 10 species: two snapping turtles, the white-tailed ptarmigan, the Peñasco least chipmunk and six species of Texas mussels will receive federal protections by the end of the year. Three other species will also receive final designations of critical habitat, including Humboldt martens, and two mussel species will get an initial listing determination.  The Northwest’s tall western penstemon flower and Nevada’s Fish Lake Valley tui chub fish will get final protection decisions later.  (The article includes a link to the settlement agreement.)

OTHER

Preliminary injunction in National Wildlife Refuge Association v. Rural Utilities Service (W.D. Wisconsin)

On March 6, the NWRA, Driftless Area Land Conservancy and Wisconsin Wildlife Federation filed suit against a proposed land exchange that would facilitate construction of a transmission line across the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. The complaint alleges violations of NEPA and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act.  A  preliminary injunction was quickly granted.

Criminal sentencing

On April 23, a Missouri man was sentenced to two years and six months in federal prison without parole, and was required to pay $30,000 in restitution for cutting down and selling at least ten trees from the Mark Twain National Forest.

Court decision (10th Circuit)

On April 30, the circuit court affirmed the lower court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against the Department of Labor’s requirement that a minimum wage of $15 per hour be paid in federal contracts.  This case involved river outfitters operating under permits from the Forest Service and BLM which have typically used a flat fee.

Court decision in Juliana v. United States (9th Cir.)

On May 1, the circuit court issued an order to the district court to dismiss this high-profile case claiming that the government’s actions encouraging a fossil fuel economy, despite scientific warnings about global warming, is unconstitutional.

Northwest Forest Plan Amendment- FACA Committee Discussion Draft Plan of Components

by

Susan Jane Brown was kind enough to provide links to the draft plan components and draft recommendations. She pointed out, importantly (!) that “THESE ARE DRAFT AND UNDER ACTIVE DISCUSSION AND NEGOTIATION. The USFS hasn’t made any decisions yet, nor has the FAC reached consensus.” Here’s a link to their meeting archive page, and here’s one to the recommendations.

As with many things in forest planning there are many words here,  the Tribal recommendations are too long to post, 15 pages and change.

So I hope readers will take a look and give us your thoughts on any section. Maybe our thoughts will help inform the FACA committee and the Forest Service? I’d like it if they would not use “resiliency” and always use “resilience” but that’s just me.

Here are plan components for those not familiar with the planning process:

Here are the different sections for you to look at.

Here’s a section some might be interested in (I picked it because it is relatively short):

More on the Hiring Pause That May or May Not Refresh

by

This is the latest I received from one of my sources..
I asked the question “so it’s the folks covered in FF retirement and who have fire quals that are not being affected?”

Also I got an answer as to “why it’s so hard to count.”

It does get a little fuzzy around the edges. Clearly fire positions with FF retirement coverage are not in any kind of pause. Right now, even some fire-funded positions such as Fire Cache positions are not affected. No current non-fire employee is impacted except in terms of applying for a position for competitive promotion and/or lateral…opportunities may decrease as vacant positions are held vacant due to funding concerns.

Figuring out how many vacancies are out there in the process of being filled is not that simple. For a lot of hiring, for various reasons, an SF-52 is no longer submitted to initiate a hiring action, and is only generated and entered into the system once a tentative selection is made. This cuts down on a tremendous amount of unnecessary front-end work when for whatever reason a hiring manager ends up not making an offer. Intake portals have replaced the early submission of 52s in these scenarios. Also, hiring managers are doing more backfilling at the same time they are selecting for vacancies, so there are often additional hires being done that were not listed in the initial portal inventory. Bottom line is there is no one system to accurately account for how many hires are in process, and no way to quickly assess this, hence the “pause”.

Anyone with more information, please weigh in.

If You Build it, Wood Will Definitely Come: Chelan Develops “Wood Products Campus”

by

From newsradio 560KPQ.

Chelan County is moving ahead with plans for a wood products campus, which would use timber thinned from the county’s forest land to make a variety of wood products. 

County commissioners and staff recently toured sawmills and biomass plants in the region to gather ideas for the future facility. 

Chelan County Natural Resources Director Mike Kaputa says they’ll look to develop a hybrid type of plant, based on what they saw. 

“I wouldn’t say that we saw any one facility that we thought was perfect for Chelan County, but some combination of those things we think is going to be perfect for Chelan County,” said Kaputa. “So, we have a lot of ideas, and we have a lot of partners that are working with us on this, so we’re going to be looking into this very seriously over the next few months.” 

Among the stops the commissioners and staff made were in Colville and Wallowa, Ore. 

In Colville, they toured Vaagan Brothers Lumber, a company started in the 1950s and today is a leader in the west in sustainable forestry.  

In Wallowa, they toured the Heartwood Biomass facility. Heartwood takes wood that is underutilized by the traditional logging industry and turns it into various wood-based products. 

Kaputa says they’ll be working to figure out what products can be derived from the Chelan County forest and what type of facility needs to be built. 

“We’re going to be talking about, given the work that’s going to occur on the national forest here over the next five to 10 years, what are the best product lines that we think could come from that, and then what kind of infrastructure do we think we could bring here to support that,” Kaputa said. 

He said the county has spent two years coming up with several assessments of the wood supply and the different product lines that could come from that wood supply in the forests of Chelan County. 

Kaputa said some type of facility will be in place to serve as a wood products campus in two years. He said the price tag would be between $15-$20 million to build the facility and/or convert existing buildings into one of more plants.  

He said funding could come through several sources, including county economic development sales tax collections as well as state partners and the forest service itself. 

The county has a good neighbor authority agreement to with the forest service to go into the Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest and conduct the work to thin the forest. 

The process of thinning the forest of excess timber and using the wood to produce useful products – lumber for building purposes, firewood, poles, wood chips, etc. – would help achieve the goal making the forest healthier and protecting it from wildfires. 

Kaputa said the forest land in Chelan County needs held because the decline of the forest in the county is well documented and the need for treatment is well known and well documented. 

“Chelan County is the highest risk community in the state for potential wildfire damage,” said Kaputa. 

Let’s Groundtruth: Headwaters’ Rural Capacity Map

by

You can click on the above photo once and get a much better view.  The big red blob on the Nevada wildfire map is Spring Creek Nevada.

Spring Creek, NV
pop. 15,062
Rural Capacity:50 out of 100
13th percentile in the U.S.
Wildfire Risk to Homes:100th percentile in the U.S.

So I wondered what the landscape looked like for an area with the 100th percentile for wildfire risk.

 

This is not a critique of Headwaters, as they used the Forest Service’s (and not First Street’s) Wildfire Risk to Communities map.

I think groups who develop maps think that they will be useful.  But I don’t know. It seems like these maps don’t always directly address the problem at hand, in this case, “does a community have hired or volunteer folks available and knowledgeable to apply for federal grants?”.  I know some communities who don’t.. even though conceivably the area is generally fairly well off.  Maybe another solution would be to make the federal granting procedures easier to understand.  I have friends with high capacity who find the processes of applying for grants for wildfire mitigation in their communities to be more difficult and confusing than needs be.. plus State requirements for fed bucks transferred to the State.  It would be interesting for the Forest Service or someone else to commission listening sessions for communities on their tribulations in acquiring funding, coordinating different programs’ requirements, and so on.  Maybe someone has.

Anyway here’s the link.

The sliders (the default is 50%) for the flood and wildfire maps are really important. Here is Moab, Utah, which we might think is fairly well-disposed in terms of economics.

Rural Capacity:53 out of 100
21st percentile in the U.S.
Wildfire Risk to Homes:62nd percentile in the U.S.

If you go up to 80% of communities, you can find a place like Pagosa Springs

Pagosa Springs, CO
pop. 1,643
Rural Capacity:49 out of 100
12th percentile in the U.S.
Wildfire Risk to Homes:85th percentile in the U.S.

Or a community in my own area, Ellicott, CO

Ellicott, CO
pop. 1,247
Rural Capacity:53 out of 100
20th percentile in the U.S.
Wildfire Risk to Homes:85th percentile in the U.S.

Now Ellicott is, for all practical purposes, a bedroom community for Colorado Springs in El Paso County, which is fairly well off.  And county folks would be staffed to help communities apply for grants.  But are they? Isn’t that the real question? Then there’s the question of what folks in Ellicott would actually do with the grant money, since it’s a grassland.  Plan evacuations? Is Ellicott-only the right scale for that?

Communities need capacity—the staffing, resources, and expertise—to apply for funding, fulfill complex reporting requirements, and design, build, and maintain infrastructure projects over the long term. Many communities simply lack the staff—and the tax base to support staff—needed to apply for federal programs. Communities that put together applications are often outcompeted by higher-capacity, coastal cities. The places that lack capacity are often the places that most need infrastructure investments: places with a legacy of disinvestment including rural communities and communities of color.

Places that receive the most external funding – whether from state and federal programs or philanthropy – often have larger staff, more expertise, and deeper political influence, not necessarily greater merit. Communities that need the most assistance may be the least likely to even submit applications. For the United States to fully adapt to climate-driven threats and bolster aging infrastructure, its programs and policies must account for community capacity.

Where is capacity limited?

To help identify communities with limited capacity, Headwaters Economics created a new Rural Capacity Index. The Index is based on 12 variables that can function as proxies for community capacity. The variables incorporate metrics related to four categories of capacity: local government staff and expertise, institutional capacity, economic opportunity, and education and engagement. (Read more under Data Sources and Methods below.)

Results are available for counties, county subdivisions, communities, and tribal areas in the interactive map below. The tool displays data across the urban-to-rural continuum to illustrate the variability in community capacity across the country. The inclusion of metropolitan communities is necessary to show the comparatively lower capacity that exists in most rural communities.

Why not- call places that low on the economic scale and ask them what their barriers to applying for federal grants are?  For some, being in the 100 years flood plain may not be a concern.

Anyway, their conclusions seem fairly straightforward.

Supporting communities

To achieve the infrastructure and climate adaptation goals in federal programs, funding agencies must consider community capacity. Programs may need to be structured differently and new strategies may need to be created to support under-served and historically disinvested communities.

Using the Index, community capacity can be supported in many ways:

  1. Provide direct funding. For communities with low Index scores, eliminate the need for competitive grants, which many lower-capacity communities lack the resources and expertise to apply for and administer. Federal and state programs can identify where the needs are greatest and allocate funding accordingly.
  2. Improve access to competitive grants.
    • Allow funding to be used to build capacity—not just used for projects. For example, funding could be used for new staff positions and technical training to support long-term investments.
    • Eliminate or reduce match requirements. City and county budgets in low-capacity communities may not have the revenue to meet matching requirements.
    • Revise requirements for benefit-cost analyses. These technical reports are expensive and highly technical. They often undervalue the benefits of projects in lower-capacity and lower-income communities.
  3. Fund technical assistance. Administered by state or federal agencies or by nonprofit partners, technical assistance programs provide expertise in project identification, design, and implementation, as well as assistance in compiling grant proposals.
  4. Increase funding for multi-jurisdictional projects. Funding regional projects that leverage urban-rural partnerships can benefit low-capacity communities. This may require investment in regional institutions and organizations that can help coordinate resources and prioritize projects.
  5. Address root problems. Low-capacity communities are often economically dependent on farming and other natural resource sectors associated with volatile revenue. By strengthening policies that encourage economic diversification, state and federal policymakers can help communities generate predictable local revenue needed for infrastructure and adaptation.

On the other hand, rather than hiring more people to interpret ever-more complex programs, or regionalizing them out of the community’s direct authority (via “urban-rural partnerships”), how about considering simplifying requirements at the front end.

Co-Management Bill with Warm Springs: Roadless Requirements for “Treaty Resource Emphasis Zones”?

by

Inquiring minds might wonder why there has been only limited use of TFPA and GNA in this area, compared to other places, and how (or if) this bill would help that (other than providing funding?)

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

 

Jon posted this news story in a comment yesterday, and I think it’s innovative enough to deserve its own post. We’ve talked about what “co-management” means, and how it’s interpreted.  I think we have to look very specifically at what is meant.  Let’s develop a range of options- these are just some.   Talking more? Sharing information? Using traditional ecological knowledge? Prioritizing projects of interest to Tribes?  Giving Tribes’ views on management priority over other members of the public? Giving projects supported by Tribes some relief from litigation?  Giving Tribes a seat at the table during legal settlements involving projects of concern? Conceivably, 1, 2, 3 and 4 are called co-stewardship, and all Forests (and the BLM) are supposed to be doing those, and they don’t require specific treaty rights or specific legislation.

WASHINGTON (KTVZ) — Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Senator Ron Wyden, along with Senator Jeff Merkley, reintroduced the Wy’east Tribal Resources Restoration Act. The legislation directs the U.S. Forest Service to partner with the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs to develop a co-management plan for agreed-upon Treaty Resource Emphasis Zones.

The legislation would establish one of the first placed-based co-management strategies in the nation.

It was introduced last Congress, and had a hearing in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

“Indigenous communities have been responsible stewards of Oregon’s lands and wildlife since time immemorial. We must do more to capitalize on their leadership in our conservation efforts—not just because the federal government has a moral obligation to do so but because we will not be successful without them,” said Blumenauer. “Tribal co-stewardship represents 21st?century public lands management.”

“The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs have generations-long knowledge of best ecological practices and treaty rights with the federal government that must be protected,” Wyden said. “This legislation would secure both goals in the Mount Hood National Forest by giving the Tribe an important voice and role in the management of its precious cultural resources.”

“The Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs are the largest neighbor to the Mt. Hood National Forest and are essential in maintaining and protecting the region’s cultural and ecological resources,” said Senator Jeff Merkley. “This legislation is a critical step in fulfilling our treaty and trust responsibilities to the Warm Springs community by creating a framework for them to take an active role in co-managing the forest and utilizing their knowledge, traditions, and expertise to improve forest management.”

The Wy’east Tribal Resources Restoration Act:

· Directs the U.S. Forest Service to develop a co-management plan with the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs to protect and enhance Tribal Treaty resources and protect the Reservation from wildfire within agreed-upon “Treaty Resources Emphasis Zones.” These zones are areas within the Mount Hood National Forest subject to the Warm Springs-Forest Service co-management plan;

* Requires implementation of the Cultural Foods Obligations, which were included in the Public Lands Management Act of 2009 but have never been implemented;

· Integrates traditional ecological knowledge as an important part of the best available scientific information used in forest and resource management areas within the Zone;

· Authorizes $3,500,000 in annual appropriations and the use of existing Forest Service revenue to ensure the Tribe is a full participant in management.

Click here for bill text. Click here for a one-page fact sheet.

“We are grateful to Rep. Blumenauer and Senator Wyden for this legislation. Warm Springs people have cared for the land since the Creator placed us here, and this legislation will help reconnect Wy’east to its original inhabitants and integrate traditional ecological knowledge into federal land management. The bill would allow the Warm Springs Tribe to improve fish and wildlife habitat, reduce forest fuels and wildfire risk in the borderlands of our Reservation — an area designated as a priority fireshed by the U.S. Forest Service.? The result will improve forest and wildlife health for the benefit of all Oregonians,” said Warm Springs Chairman Jonathan Smith.

Note that all the folks quoted, except for Sustainable Northwest, are all recreation outfits of various kinds.

I thought that this was interesting, it seems to relate to the Zones of co-management and echoes the 2001 Roadless Rule (except off the top of my head the RR did not have the language “promote fire resilient stands.”

(C) include requirements that no temporary or permanent road shall be constructed within a Zone, except as necessary
‘‘(i) to meet the requirements for the administration of a Zone;
‘‘(ii) to protect public health and safety;
‘‘(iii) to respond to an emergency;
‘‘(iv) for the control of fire, insects, diseases, subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary determines to be appropriate; and
‘‘(D) to the maximum extent practicable, to meet the purposes of this section, provide for the retention of large trees, as appropriate for the historic forest structure or promotion of fire-resilient stands.

Maybe I’m reading this wrong, but it sounds like the intention is to have specific areas on the Forest to be co-managed for various reasons including wildfire resilience, without temporary roads.  Which doesn’t really seem like co-management, suppose the Tribe wants to move material offsite for whatever reason? It seems like co-management within parameters the politicians have decided with the same analysis and litigation processes as currently exist.  So what’s the advantage to the Tribe, or to the taxpayer other than more discussion and integrating TEK (everyone’s supposed to do that), and for which a statute is not needed?  Actually it seems more restrictive to wildfire resilience than the current situation, based on the roadless-like requirements, so that’s puzzling.

Finally, I guess another question, perhaps more philosophical, is “suppose Tribes’ ecological knowledge is that temp roads are useful”?  Maybe it’s not Traditional, but then who decides?  Seems like sovereignty would say that Tribal views and knowledge are important, no matter what over what time frame this knowledge was developed. Here’s a USFWS definition of TEK.

Traditional Ecological Knowledge, also called by other names including Indigenous Knowledge or Native Science, (hereafter, TEK) refers to the evolving knowledge acquired by indigenous and local peoples over hundreds or thousands of years through direct contact with the environment. This knowledge is specific to a location and includes the relationships between plants, animals, natural phenomena, landscapes and timing of events that are used for lifeways, including but not limited to hunting, fishing, trapping, agriculture, and forestry.

There might be an implicit colonizer bias here that Indigenous knowledge stopped being valuable when immigrants shared new technologies.  Like other humans, Tribal folks adapt new ideas and technologies that work for them- in ways that might be different from the technologies as introduced.  Think horses, woodstoves, and temp roads. What would a court case look like in which a Tribe argued that temp roads, done their way, used the best available science based on Current Indigenous Ecological Knowledge?

Anyway, I could have gotten this wrong, and I realize that there is a theatrical element to proposed legislation, so would appreciate thoughts of folks who know more.

NY Times: They Shoot Owls in California, Don’t They?

by

Article in the4 NY Times today. I hope this link works — I’m allowed to “gift” articles….

They Shoot Owls in California, Don’t They?

An audacious federal plan to protect the spotted owl would eradicate hundreds of thousands of barred owls in the coming years.

Excerpt:

Crammed into marginal territories and bedeviled by wildfires, northern spotted owl populations have declined by up to 80 percent over the last two decades. As few as 3,000 remain on federal lands, compared with 11,000 in 1993. In the wilds of British Columbia, the northern spotted owl has vanished; only one, a female, remains. If the trend continues, the northern spotted owl could become the first owl subspecies in the United States to go extinct.

In a last-ditch effort to rescue the northern spotted owl from oblivion and protect the California spotted owl population, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed culling a staggering number of barred owls across a swath of 11 to 14 million acres in Washington, Oregon and Northern California, where barred owls — which the agency regards as invasive — are encroaching. The lethal management plan calls for eradicating up to half a million barred owls over the next 30 years, or 30 percent of the population over that time frame. The owls would be dispatched using the cheapest and most efficient methods, from large-bore shotguns with night scopes to capture and euthanasia.

Tribal Relations and Enhancing Co-Stewardship: PNW Story Map

by

This story map is nicely done.  Shout out to the folks who produced it!

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

If you, readers, have something you are proud of.. please send it in and I will share.  Some FS people do this, but as with our piece on SERAL, there are many great stories out there.  And I know of some great work, that I can’t share because some Powers Who Decide are hinky about sharing with the public.  Hopefully, that is short-term and election-related.

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

Below, I excerpted one paragraph from a few of the projects to give you a flavor.  These projects have to do with wildfire resilience in one form or another, and there are others that deal with watershed restoration, check them out! I particularly like the one with free firewood for Tribal members from wildfire salvage.

You’ll remember that a few weeks ago, Cody Desautel (of the Intertribal Timber Council) testified at the House Natural Resources Committee, including difficulties carrying out joint projects with the Forest Service due to litigation.   I wonder whether folks have thought about some kind of litigation carve-out for joint projects with Tribes, who conceivably have some treaty rights (different for different now-Forests).

Johnnie Springs Tribal Forest Protection Act Project – Cow Creek Band of Umpqua Tribe of Indians

The partnership combines resources from the Cow Creek Umpqua Tribe and Umpqua National Forest to co-implement thinning and fuels reduction treatments on the Tiller Ranger District through a three-phase partnership called the Johnnie Springs Project. Phase one started in October of 2023 and authorizes the Tribe to implement fuels reduction treatments along 17 miles (618 acres) of road in areas where the Forest has already completed environmental analysis. Phase two has identified additional areas within the Johnnie Spring project area that are adjacent to Tribal trust lands and in need of active management. Phase two proposed treatments includes an additional 12 miles (436 acres) of roadside fuels treatments and 570 acres of small diameter tree thinning units. Phase three is proposed as a planning phase, in need of additional NEPA analysis to move forward. Currently, Forest and Tribal managers are looking at opportunities to analyze new acres available for commercial thinning and opportunities for additional roadside thinning work within the current Johnnie Springs planning area. Additionally, in phase three, the Umpqua National Forest and Cow Creek Umpqua Tribe will evaluate other portions of the Tiller Ranger District for future co-stewardship opportunities. All phases include a prescribed fire element, ensuring opportunities to reintroduce healthy fire back to the landscape is considered when the right environmental conditions are in place.

Upper South Fork Tieton River (SFT) -Yakama Nation

The Yakama Nation requested to enter into agreement under the Tribal Forest Protection Act to coordinate and collaborate with the United States Forest Service on the South Fork Tieton Project on Yakama Nation Ceded Lands. The project was funded with the Central Washington Initiative as part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill with the goal to complete planning and environmental analysis on 40,000 acres with a 189,500 acre fire shed. This project will focus on wildfire risk reduction.

The Sxwuytn-Kaniksu Connections (Trail) Project/ LeClerc Rd Reroute-Mill Creek Restoration Project

The Trail Project is located in Pend Oreille County in northeastern Washington State, four miles north of Newport. Restoration work will include a suite of tools, over the next 10-15 years, to accomplish the goals of the project. For example, commercial and non-commercial thinning of trees and prescribed fire will increase diversity and resilience to forest stands, decrease potential for insect and disease, maintain more characteristic open tree stands to increase tree vigor by reducing competition for resources, provide economic opportunity from the surrounding community, while also reducing fuels and limiting the severity of wildfires.  Open tree stands will improve forest health and increase forage for wildlife by allowing sunlight to reach the forest floor.

Double Creek Fire Recovery Project –Nez Perce Tribe

The Nez Perce Tribe Forest and Fire Management Division leads this program to supply free firewood to more than 160 tribal elders, disabled, and even single parents leading into and during the cold winter months. This program depends on a steady supply of firewood and is an important way that the Tribe provides heat sources throughout the winter for their elders and other eligible tribal members.

Through this partnership the Tribe will be able to provide approximately 60 truckloads of firewood to elders and others in need within the Nez Perce Tribe community.  This agreement is part of the agency’s overall commitment to strengthen nation-to-nation relationships and enhance co-stewardship of National Forest lands with American Indian Tribes. Together, the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest and Nez Perce Tribe are fostering mutual trust and building relationships that contribute to improving forest management and restoration activities in a way that reflects mutual goals, values, and objectives.