Month: December 2011

University of Idaho Policy Analysis Group- Recent Publications

by

Derek’s comment on a previous post reminded me that I thought the topic of state/federal differences in management had been studied a while back. I thought perhaps by the University of Idaho Policy Analysis Group, and perhaps by folks in Oregon and Washington. While looking around on their site, I found a list of recent studies they had done:
Policy Analysis Group (PAG) Reports
1. Idaho’s endowment lands: A matter of sacred trust (March 1990, second edition July 2011)
2. BLM riparian policy in Idaho: Analysis of public comment on a proposed policy statement (June 1990).
3. Idaho Department of Fish and Game’s land acquisition and land management program (October 1990).
4. Wolf recovery in central Idaho: Alternative strategies and impacts (February 1991).
5. State agency roles in Idaho water quality policy (February 1991, with separate Executive Summary).
6. Silver Valley resource analysis for pulp and paper mill feasibility (October 1991).
7. A national park in Idaho? Proposals and possibilities (June 1992).
8. Design of forest riparian buffer strips for protection of water quality: Analysis of scientific literature (June 1992).
9. Analysis of methods for determining minimum instream flows for recreation (March 1993).
10. Idaho roadless areas and wilderness proposals (July 1993).
11. Forest health conditions in Idaho (December 1993, with separate Executive Summary).
12. Grizzly bear recovery in Idaho (November 1994).
13. Endangered Species Act at the crossroads: New directions from Idaho case studies (October 1995, with
separate Executive Summary).
14. Idaho water quality policy for nonpoint source pollution: A manual for decision-makers (December 1996, with
separate Executive Summary).
15. Guidelines for managing cattle grazing in riparian areas to protect water quality: Review of research and best
management practices policy (December 1997).
16. History and analysis of federally administered land in Idaho (June 1998).
17. Public opinion of water pollution control funding sources in Idaho (December 1998).
18. Toward sustainable forest management: Part I – certification programs (December 1999).
19. Toward sustainable forest management: Part II – the role and effects of timber harvesting in Idaho
(December 2000).
20. Taxing forest property: Analysis of alternative methods and impacts in Idaho (November 2001).
21. Endowment fund reform and Idaho’s state lands: Evaluating financial performance of forest and rangeland
assets (December 2001).
22. Forest resource-based economic development in Idaho: Analysis of concepts, resource management policies,
and community effects (May 2003).
23. Comparison of two forest certification systems and Idaho legal requirements (December 2003).
24. Forest fire smoke management policy: Can prescribed fire reduce subsequent wildland fire emissions?
(November 2004).
25. Delisting endangered species: Process analysis and Idaho case studies (October 2005).
26. Idaho’s forest products business sector: Contributions, challenges, and opportunities (August 2006).
27. Off-highway vehicle and snowmobile management in Idaho (October 2008).
28. Analysis of procedures for residential real estate (cottage site) leases on Idaho’s endowment lands (Oct. 2008).
29. Public land exchanges: Benefits, challenges, and potential for Idaho (December 2009).
30. Bighorn sheep and domestic sheep: Current situation in Idaho (January 2010).
31. Accounting for greenhouse gas emissions from wood bioenergy (September 2010).

I know I’ve mentioned the work of this group before on this blog, but there are numerous reports that relate to topics of current interest to us.

Two Views of the Tester Bill

by

Thanks to Matthew Koehler for finding this..

Missoula Independent December 22, 2011

Nada for collaborators: Tester’s forest act isn’t sleeping–it’s dead
http://missoulanews.bigskypress.com/missoula/nada-for-collaborators/Content?oid=1525219
by George Ochenski

It’s the winter solstice, the shortest day and longest night of the year for those of us in the Northern Hemisphere. Trees are up and lights are twinkling to fend off the darkness, as gifts are exchanged to bring cheer in this holiday season. But there won’t be one gift for the small band of collaborators who support Senator Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. That rider was struck from the bill to fund the federal government, and it’s unlikely to see the light of day again. On the other hand, for many, and for reasons beyond partisan politics, that’s something to celebrate.

The story is long and ugly. Way back when Republican Conrad Burns was Montana’s junior U.S. senator, a handful of people from a few conservation groups decided they needed to find some way to pass a new wilderness bill for Montana. Montana’s senior senator, Max Baucus, a Democrat, was in a great position to do it, but he was too timid to wade into the contentious wilderness debate.

It’s customary in Congress that before any state wilderness measure is passed, the delegation from that state must agree on it. So the die was cast for Burns, who had ridden into office thanks in part to President Ronald Reagan’s pocket veto of a 1988 wilderness bill that had successfully passed both houses of Congress. Reagan vetoed it in order to defeat incumbent Democratic Senator John Melcher, by showing the power Burns carried with a sitting president while still a candidate. It worked.

Knowing that the chance of Burns losing his seat would be almost non-existent, since incumbent U.S. senators typically have the money, connections and power they need to stay in office, the small band of collaborators set out to devise a wilderness bill that could satisfy Burns. To get even some slivers of new wilderness, the conservationists decided they needed to give up swaths of forested lands to the timber industry, give up roadless areas to destruction by all-terrain vehicles and even give away Wilderness Study Areas that were protected by the visionary Wilderness Study Act of 1977, which had been sponsored by Montana’s great Democratic senator and wilderness supporter, Lee Metcalf. And so the first incarnation of what would become the basis for Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act was born as the Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership.

But then the unexpected happened. Somehow, Jon Tester, a state senator, unseated Conrad Burns in the 2006 elections by a hair-thin margin of 3,000 votes. Many would say those votes came from supporters of Paul Richards, a candidate in the Democratic primary who dropped out of the race only days before the election and urged his supporters to vote for Tester in both the primary and the general election. Richards did so based on a meeting with Tester to get his personal assurance that all roadless lands would be protected and that no significant natural-resource legislation would be attempted as a rider on unrelated bills. Tester promised Richards it would be so.

Shortly after Tester’s victory, the conservationists presented him with the agreement they had reached “collaboratively” with a few small timber mill owners that, among other things, contained mandated levels of timber harvests from national forests—just as the housing market collapsed and the demand for timber vanished.

Up to this time, the general public had been excluded from the collaboration and remained so up until the time Tester dropped his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act in the hopper. A measure designed to please a Republican senator and Republican president was now embraced and defended by a Democratic senator under a Democratic president.

The way legislation is supposed to work in Congress is that a bill is introduced in either the Senate or House while a similar measure is introduced in the other chamber. There are public hearings in both chambers. If both bills pass, Congress irons out the differences and sends the reconciled bill to the president.

But that didn’t happen with Tester’s bill. Instead, thanks to the public land giveaways and the dangerous precedent of congressionally mandated harvest levels on national forest lands, Tester’s bill never made it out of committee. No companion bill was introduced in the House.

So Jon Tester broke his promise to Richards and tried to slip his measure through Congress by attaching it as a rider to an unrelated “must pass” funding bill. Ironically, one of Tester’s most damaging attacks against Burns during his campaign was for using riders to pass significant legislation.

Last Christmas, Tester tried to slip his rider by Congress on an end-of-year government funding measure, but failed. This year, he did the same thing and failed again. Democrats are quick to blame Republican U.S. Representative Denny Rehberg for that failure, but the measure deserved to fail, both for its ramifications and the way its passage was attempted.

As the campaign for Tester’s seat garners national attention, it looks like the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, which didn’t even have the guts to mention “wilderness” in the title, is kaput. There’s no chance House Republicans will pass it.

Perhaps this is karma from Tester’s broken promise to a fellow candidate whose supporters’ votes helped give Tester his win. Or maybe the spirit of Lee Metcalf is saying, “Hands off my wilderness study areas.” But one thing seems certain: The collaborators will get no Christmas present this year, and likely none in the foreseeable future.

Helena’s George Ochenski rattles the cage of the political.

And this one from the Missoulian by Rob Chaney was sent by Terry Seyden.

Tester: Congress could learn from supporters of defeated forest jobs bill

By ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian

SEELEY LAKE – Congress could learn a lot from supporters of the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., told a roomful of timber workers and environmentalists here Wednesday.

“The only folks who hate this bill are to the far right or the far left,” Tester told the people gathered at Pyramid Mountain Lumber Co. “Once we get this done, it puts a whole different model out there that can work in the forests. It can be replicated just about everywhere.”

Tester’s unusual wilderness and logging bill failed last week to remain part of the Senate version of the $1.2 trillion omnibus budget package. The bill combines a new timber management plan with provisions to create about 1 million acres of wilderness and recreation areas in Montana.

Rep. Denny Rehberg, R-Mont., who is challenging Tester for his Senate seat in next year’s election, took credit for keeping the bill out of the omnibus legislation. He argued last week that the legislation guaranteed wilderness but didn’t guarantee jobs, saying “it’s not a fair deal for Montanans.”

On Wednesday, Rehberg spokesman Jed Link said the congressman had co-sponsored a better way to create jobs in the timber industry through the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act, “which would open millions of acres across the West for multiple use, including a little responsible timber in appropriate areas.”

“The idea that the only way to put Montanans to work in our forest is to carve out a bunch of new wilderness is just not honest,” Link said. “Senator Tester seems to be under the mistaken notion that Denny Rehberg is the only person in Montana who opposes his legislation. The simple fact is, if he really wanted to generate broad support for his legislation, he’d be out listening to the folks in Montana who have honest concerns about his bill and be open to their common-sense improvements.”

Tester’s Forest Jobs Act grew out of logging and wilderness compromises worked out on three separate national forests in Montana: the Lolo, Beaverhead-Deerlodge and Kootenai. In all three places, timber mill workers, conservationists and environmentalists drafted plans to free up access to marketable trees and protect wild areas.

The collaboration angered some other environmental groups who claimed the timber mandates were excessive and shouldn’t be linked to wilderness designations. Some multiple-use and ranching groups complained their access to trails and grazing lands would be reduced.

During the 2 1/2 years the bill was reviewed in Congress, Tester made several revisions to make it easier for the U.S. Forest Service to work with the logging requirements, while clarifying places where motorcycles and snowmobiles could play.

“How do we reframe this debate?” Pyramid controller Loren Rose asked Tester at the Seeley Lake meeting. “Denny keeps talking about its wilderness, and you keep talking about jobs. We’ve found it’s not that hard to sit at the table and work on those together.”

“I’ve been involved with this for five or six years, and been to more than 100 meetings,” said Bruce Farling of Trout Unlimited. “The one thing everybody said was they liked seeing people who’d always been at odds now working together. I think 90 percent of Montanans want something like this.”

During a tour of Pyramid’s sawmills, Tester said the logging mandates were necessary to keep jobs in places like Seeley Lake. The Forest Service’s current methods of offering timber for sale aren’t working, he said, as evidenced by places like Colorado where almost all sawmills have gone out of business.

“When you lose all that infrastructure, that doesn’t do anybody any good,” Tester said. “And then when you need management, the taxpayer gets hooked with an even bigger bill if we don’t do something sooner rather than later.”

Tester said he expected his bill would again be attached to some larger piece of legislation, rather than passing on its own. Asked how he would overcome the opposition of Rehberg, he said he was working to build relationships with other House Republicans.

“It doesn’t make any sense to me to stop it unless you stop it for political reasons,” Tester said. “Rehberg is on record (opposing this). We just need to influence Dennis in a way that makes sense for these communities.”

Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/local/tester-congress-could-learn-from-supporters-of-defeated-forest-jobs/article_e55ddc32-2c49-11e1-b32f-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1hIV2q0gY

The Whole Op-Ed on Bitterroot Sales

by

On the op-ed… this is definitely a mea culpa on my part. I didn’t cross check Matthew’s emailed version with the original and didn’t pay close attention to the fact that Matthew had snipped. So I did find this version just now here on the forest website.

Guest Opinion by Forest Supervisor Julie King

Release Date: Dec 15, 2011

Hamilton, Montana – A fair and adequate amount of accurate information is central to a healthy discussion and reasonable decision-making process. In the Forest Service we practice this as a matter of direction under the National Environmental Policy Act when it comes to public involvement and interaction on our land management decisions. I believe it is imperative that communication lines remain open and we work together to find solutions and ways to survive the current economy and poor market conditions of our timber industry.

So it is unfortunate for us all that incomplete information in a recent article in local newspapers claimed that the Bitterroot National Forest, unlike other national forests, was not selling timber. The article went on to suggest that if national forests would sell more timber, local jobs would return, shuttered mills would re-open, and the boom days of the Bitterroot Valley would be back. While I certainly wish all our challenges were this easy to solve, I feel compelled to share some facts and information with you regarding timber sales on the Bitterroot National Forest.

First and foremost, the Forest is continuing to sell timber. In 2011, 9.6 million board feet were harvested on the Forest. Trees were cut on more than 2,000 acres sending an estimated 1,933 truckloads of logs to Montana sawmills. The Bitterroot’s largest timber project, Trapper Bunkhouse (2,700 acres) continues on the Darby Ranger District. There were eight timber projects under contract on our Forest this year.

The Bitterroot currently ranks number three among the nine national forests in Montana in total saw log volume. This despite the fact that we have less acreage available for timber as half of our Forest is dedicated to the largest expanse of continuous wilderness in the lower 48 states. Perhaps most importantly, all of our current timber projects accomplish needed reductions in hazardous fuels, address wildlife habitat needs and forest health issues. While the timber industry is a valued partner in land stewardship, our timber sales are not offered simply because a buyer desires a certain product like house logs. All timber projects must meet multiple land management objectives outlined in the Forest Plan.

Some of you may be wondering why timber is not being sold as it was in previous decades when the Bitterroot routinely produced 20 million board feet or more. One of the main reasons is that no one is buying the wood. For example, the Bitterroot National Forest recently offered two different timber sales on land that is easy to access near paved roads, and neither sale received any offers. That’s right, not one buyer or company was interested in 250 acres of timber near Lake Como or in 40 acres of already cut and stacked logs in the Sapphire Mountains. These were not isolated incidents. In 2011, the Forest brought four timber sales to the public that did not receive one bid from an interested buyer. Why is this happening? Much like the housing crisis, the answers can be found in the market.

Many of the problems occurring in the timber market today are not due to a lack of supply, but rather a lack of demand. Logs that were selling for $80 a ton during the housing boom, are worth less than $45 a ton today. This loss of demand has had a significant local impact on acres harvested. Dramatically lower timber prices have also changed the way we do business including how we prepare our contracts. In today’s market of fewer and smaller logging operations, we have tailored our contracts to be much smaller in response to feedback from potential purchasers. Poor market conditions have also forced us to use scarce taxpayer dollars to pay to remove timber to meet our Forest fuel reduction goals in areas adjacent to private property.

Here in the Bitterroot, the problem is compounded even more with the recent closure of many sawmills, including Smurfit-Stone Container Corp. in Frenchtown. Saw logs must now be hauled to the closest operational mills in Seeley Lake or St. Regis, more than doubling hauling distances and costs. Rising fuel prices have added yet another obstacle when you consider that some timber projects on our Forest are now located more than 150 miles from the nearest mill. It all adds up to the “perfect storm” and it is going to take all of us working together to find answers and solutions moving forward.

Despite all these challenges, I am still optimistic about the future of forest products and there are some promising signs that the market may be improving. The opening of a new chip processing facility in Bonner provides hope that demand for small diameter materials may be improving. Until then, we need to continue building partnerships and collaborating on projects that can keep people working in our woods. That is exactly what the Bitterroot National Forest is focusing on. This year, we completed a 250 acre, first-of-its-kind ponderosa pine plantation thinning project on the Sula Ranger District on terraced landscapes. The Swift Creek project was a partnership with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. Using research, the Forest was able to develop new equipment to reduce compaction on the terraces and thin overstocked trees enhancing soil conditions. In addition to improving habitat for elk and deer forage, the project also employed local contractor Dirk Krueger and provided local jobs. The University of Montana has established research plots to monitor soil health on the terraced lands.

The Forest also applied for and received more than $2 million in Recovery Act funds to complete the Middle East Fork Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project in 2011. Among 43 different projects supported by Recovery Act funds, the Middle East Fork project treated more than 10,000 acres in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) protecting homeowners while also providing more than 30 local jobs. The project, which began in 2005, supported four local logging companies and salvaged approximately 16.3 million board feet of timber for use in Montana sawmills and log home manufacturing. The $2.1 million contract was awarded to a Bitterroot company – R & R Conner Aviation Logging.

Recently, we announced two additional timber projects that will treat approximately 500 acres at the Lost Trail Powder Mountain Ski Area while also providing for skier safety, protecting ski area infrastructure, and improving the health and resiliency of the Forest. The thinning project near chair #4 alone is an investment of $100,000 in taxpayer dollars to protect this high value recreation area. It’s part of a $3 million project the Forest will undertake in 2012-13 to remove and salvage trees killed by the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic. These projects will employ more local people and will lead to more opportunities and jobs for companies here in the Valley. The Grasser Family, which has operated the ski area since 1967 under a special Forest Service permit, has been a partner in this project.

In 2012, the Bitterroot National Forest is planning additional timber sales in the Larry Creek and Ambrose Saddle Areas on the Stevensville Ranger District and the Lower West Fork, among others. These three sales alone, which all meet land management and stewardship objectives, are estimated at 14.6 million board feet. The big question is – will anyone be interested in buying the wood?

We live in very challenging times, and if we spend energy opposing and not communicating on these issues it will only contribute to our demise. I am open to hearing ideas or being part of meetings or forums where timber industry and supply are discussed. I am also available to meet with groups or individuals to discuss this or any other issues concerning the National Forest. Please contact me at (406) 363-7100.

Forest Supervisor Julie King has worked on the Bitterroot National Forest since 2008.

Not So Home on the Range

by


From the Aspen Times here.

Cattle grazing has plummeted locally with the rise of industrial tourism
December, 19 2011
Scott Condon
The Aspen Times
Aspen, CO Colorado
Editor’s note: Today’s fourth installment of the five-part Aspen Times series, “Land of Opportunity,” focuses on the state of ranching in the Roaring Fork Valley. The final part, scheduled to run Dec. 26, will examine gas companies’ interest in drilling prospects in the valley.

The Old West tradition of using national forest lands for grazing isn’t completely dead in the Roaring Fork Valley, but it could be on its last gasp.

For the first half of the 20th century, the Forest Service’s primary duty in the Roaring Fork River basin was to manage the range for livestock grazing and, to a lesser extent, oversee timber sales.

Now, instead of supervising the grazing of large flocks of sheep on Independence Pass and huge herds of cattle in nearly all the lower-elevation drainages, the Forest Service is focused on protecting natural resources in the wake of an expanding number of recreationalists. (Oil and gas development has emerged in the past decade as a leading issue on the west side of the White River National Forest.)

The decline in the use of forest lands for grazing mirrors the slow decline in the overall health of ranching in the Roaring Fork Valley. As Aspen built its reputation as a world-class resort and land prices soared, many ranchers discovered they could get richer selling their land for real estate development than by spending years wrangling cattle.

Declining number of grazing permits
As a result, the demand for grazing allotments has plummeted in the Aspen and Sopris ranger districts, which combine to total about 720,000 acres.

“At the present time, there are approximately 202,000 acres of the Aspen and Sopris ranger districts open to domestic livestock grazing. In 1985, there were nearly 100,000 more acres open to grazing than there are now,” said Wayne Ives, the range technician on the two districts since the early 1980s.

“The number of permittees has definitely declined,” he added.

Sheep grazing used to be prevalent in the upper Roaring Fork Valley. Aspen native Stirling “Buzz” Cooper, 80, recalls Bleeker Street being used as a route to take sheep from west of town to the railroad depot, which was located near what is now Rio Grande Park.

Cooper also recalled cattle being grazed as far up as the Weller Cut on Independence Pass when he was a kid. His family lived in a cabin east of Aspen. His mother got upset when the cattle were driven down in the fall one year and trampled the family garden and yard.

Even into the mid-1980s, there were two herds of sheep grazing in the Aspen area, one in Grizzly Creek and another in East Snowmass Creek. There were four herds using the Marble area for summer pasture, Ives said.

The number of sheep grazing permits issued by the Forest Service for the Aspen and Sopris districts fell from five in 1987 to one in 2011. The last remaining herd grazes on public lands in the Marble area. A typical herd had about 1,000 head of sheep, Ives said.

The number of cattle grazing permits in the Aspen and Sopris districts fell from 28 in to 16 in 2011.

Conflicts contribute to decline
The grazing allotments range in size from 2,000 acres for 46 cow-calf units permitted to 32,000 acres with nearly 1,000 cows with calves. The fee, set by Congress, varies with beef prices. It cannot be lower than $1.35 per cow and calf per month.

Ives said grazing allotments have historically been held by the same families for generations or have carried over with different owners of a piece of property. When a ranch surrenders an allotment, it often expires these days because there are so few ranches remaining in the valley.

Ranchers face additional challenges. Some national environmental groups oppose grazing on federal lands because of the degradation to streambeds, water quality and natural pastures. Other groups complain that the fee that is charged is too low and amounts to a subsidy for ranchers. In the Roaring Fork Valley, there are conflicts between cows, climbers, cyclists and hikers.

Ives noted that cows and backpackers both are attracted to Capitol Lake, which is a popular base for climbers going up Capitol Peak, one of Colorado’s mountains above 14,0000 feet. Camping spots are highly coveted around the breath-takingly beautiful lake.

“People don’t expect to see cattle there,” Ives said.

Grazing patterns get messed up
Carbondale rancher Tom Turnbull has held grazing permit on federal lands for more than 50 years. Lands administered by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management aren’t really the land of many users any longer, as once billed, he said. Mountain biking has become a dominate use outside of designated Wilderness, where motorized and mechanized uses are prohibited.

“Look at the impact that it’s had in areas like the Crown,” Turnbull said, referring to BLM land between the Roaring Fork River and Mount Sopris in the midvalley. The Crown has become a hot spot for mountain biking in the last decade.

“All the good main cattle trails have turned into bike trails,” Turnbull said.

His beef with biking is the effect it has on grazing patterns. The key to effective grazing is to spread the herd over the entire allotment. When cyclists regularly ride through lands used by cattle, it tends to encourage the animals to congregate.

Rory Cerise has helped move his cattle up from his family’s ranch in Emma to the Crown for more than four decades. His family has held a grazing right up there since 1944. He has witnessed the effects of the recreation boom on his family’s operation. Hikers and bikers on the Crown often leave gates open, forcing Cerise to track straying cows. He’s also witnessed equestrians chasing cattle, considering it harmless sport.

Conflicts became so bad on Basalt Mountain, another popular mountain biking site, that the permit holder asked the Forest Service to allow greater utilization of nearby lands in Cattle Creek. The allotment on Basalt Mountain hasn’t been used for a few years.

“The permittee just didn’t want to fight the battles anymore,” Ives said.

Grazing still big in Rifle, Meeker
White River National Forest Supervisor Scott Fitzwilliams said the forest used to be “one giant pasture.” While livestock grazing has declined in the Aspen, Vail and Summit county areas, it still thrives in the Rifle Ranger District and Meeker’s Rio Blanco Ranger Districts.

In 2010, Fitzwilliams’ office issued permits for 16,270 cattle and 43,290 sheep on 92 grazing allotments throughout the forest. The White River collected $103,917 for grazing permits.

Fitzwilliams said he believes it is important for the forest to continue to provide summer grazing lands to help keep the ranching industry economically viable. The private lands of the ranches provide the public benefits of open space, wildlife habitat and checks on urban sprawl.

“I see it well into the future. Public land grazing is going to be part of the West,” Fitzwilliams said.

How much it remains a part of the Aspen and Sopris districts after the current generation of ranchers retire remains to be seen.

Note from Sharon:
I don’t know about the use of the term “industrial recreation” in the title; sounds like it’s mountain bikers and others. I wonder what makes recreation “industrial”, just large numbers? /em>

National Reserve Conservation Association : What Three Things Would You Wish For?

by


We started having this conversation about a National Reserve Conservation Association here, but ended up also discussing it in the comments under Tester’s bill here. So let’s start again, and here is my reply to Andy:

Andy- I wish I shared your optimism more generally (outside of public lands-world) about real live constituents. Perhaps the difficulty is in mobilizing them effectively.

For those of you unfamiliar with the origin of NFF, I found their charter. Check it out here.

Seems to me that if we (say, people on this blog as a sample of the larger community) agreed on say “three things to lobby for” we could form a platform to establish a lobbying organization (a simple, volunteer-led organization) Ideas are welcome from all. I will throw out “budget for recreation trails, campgrounds and administration of OHVs” as a starter.

For those of you unfamiliar with the origin of NFF, I found their charter. Check it out here. They were chartered by Congress, get federal funds, and therefore can’t lobby.

Forest Policy/Management Lessons of the Vasa

by

So read Roger Pielke, Jr.’s piece and substitute for “technology” “forest management”. Perhaps the main difference between forest management and technology innovation is that success is in the eye of the beholder with forest management. Or is that equally true for technology?

Here’s the link to the piece in the publication Bridges.

On a chilly day in Stockholm last month, I visited the Vasa museum. Situated on the waterfront, the museum holds a sailing ship that sank in the Stockholm harbor on its maiden voyage in 1628. The ship had barely made it a kilometer from the dock that fateful August day, when it began to roll, letting water into its open cannon ports and then quickly sinking to the bottom. The Vasa took with it the lives of about 40 people and only the top of its tallest mast was left above water. The ship was raised in 1961, and in 1990 was moved to its current location in a giant building that holds the restored ship in its entirety.

The Vasa was to be a technological marvel of its day, during a period when “international competitiveness” had a familiar meaning. Based on the perception that Sweden was losing ground in the race for naval technology, particularly to neighboring Denmark, Swedish King Gustav II Adolph (better known in English as Gustavus Adolphus) had commissioned the bigger and better-armed Vasa. As I explored the museum that day, I couldn’t help but think that the tragedy of the Vasa and its fate since that day more than 380 years ago hold lessons for how we think about contemporary innovation policies.

1. Politicians have a long history of meddling in technology implementation

According to the lore of the Vasa, the ship’s design had been altered by the King, who had proposed changes such as adding a second gun deck and bigger cannons. Yet the Swedish shipbuilders had little experience building such a vessel. The ship wound up being top-heavy, which contributed to its sinking. The King’s interference in the design and building of the ship was one factor that led to the disaster. 1

This experience reminded me of a story told by Edward David, science advisor to Richard Nixon, when I interviewed him at a public forum in 2005. 2 David recounted how President Nixon wanted to cancel several of the last Apollo moon missions out of concern that an accident might hurt his re-election chances in 1972. The moon mission was moved to December, 1972, a month after the election. No tragedy resulted, but both Vasa and Apollo show that technologies are often subject to the whims of larger political forces.

2. Institutional factors can inhibit effective decision making

Söfring Hansson, the captain of the Vasa, was well aware that the ship was not seaworthy. Prior to the maiden voyage, Captain Hansson had demonstrated to a vice admiral that the ship was unbalanced. He had 30 men run back and forth across the upper deck, causing the ship to roll. The demonstration was stopped after the third pass, out of fear that the Vasa would capsize right there at the dock. Despite this knowledge, the Vasa set sail soon thereafter.

The dynamics here are similar to those that preceded the loss of the Space Shuttle Challenger in 1986. Less than a year earlier, an engineer working for the NASA contractor had written a memo raising concerns about the performance of the shuttle’s solid rocket boosters in cold conditions. This information never reached NASA decision makers on the freezing January day that Challenger was launched. Both experiences show that good information does not always lead to good decisions.

3. Performance is the ultimate test of technology

The short voyage of the Vasa showed clearly that the design of the ship was deeply flawed. It was a costly and embarrassing lesson that we are still discussing centuries later. The obvious lesson is that major innovations should be tested carefully before full-scale deployment. We are still learning these lessons today, of course, but there are far more positive lessons to take from Vasa as well.

The salvage and restoration of the ship has provided a fertile laboratory for the science of historical preservation, including advances in chemistry such as the removal of iron from Vasa’s wood. The lessons of the Vasa are thus of broad relevance to historians and museums around the world who seek to preserve perishable historical artifacts. It is one thing to discuss and debate technologies of preservation, it is quite another to practice them. The Vasa has proved to be an unexpected and valuable laboratory for learning while doing.

4. We should celebrate and learn from failure as necessary for success

In the United States, much has been made of the bankruptcy of a solar company, Solyndra, which had received loan guarantees from the Obama Administration. The debate follows a predictable pattern with the failure of a single company used as evidence of a poor approach to innovation policy or even wrongdoing. But Solyndra aside, discrete failures in innovation need not indicate flawed innovation polices, as failures can be significant opportunities for learning and ultimately for success.

Indeed, the Vasa museum is a prominent celebration of a failure, with the experience used to understand why the ship foundered, the lessons of its recovery, and to take advantage of the opportunity to learn about the history of the 17th century. Famous failures often find a home in business school case studies, but they should also find a home in our technology policies. Successful innovation means taking risks, and taking risks means some successes but many failures as well. Innovation policies with the greatest chance for success will build in an expectation for failure, to help avoid the predictable politicization.

5. Life is different today

One fascinating part of the Vasa museum exhibits includes a presentation and discussion of some of the people whose remains were recovered along with the Vasa. All were small people, especially compared to the sturdy Swedes one sees today around Stockholm. Most had poorly healed injuries, bad teeth, and signs of malnutrition. Even King Gustav II Adolf, whose clothing can be seen at the Royal Armory in the basement of the Swedish Royal Palace, was a small fellow, although no doubt better fed than those whose remains were found at the bottom of the harbor. Just a quick glimpse into life in 17th century Stockholm provides revealing insights into how much science, technology, and innovation have transformed our lives.

It is difficult to imagine how people 380 years from now will look back on our time and what they will say about our lives and our technology. What will historical museums of the future reveal about us?

***

Roger Pielke, Jr. is the former director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado (2001-2007). He has been on the faculty of the University of Colorado since 2001 and is a professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences (CIRES).

Bosworth on Payments to Counties

by


Douglas fir trees await processing at the Pacific Lumber Co. plant in Scotia, Calif. (Ben Margot / AP Photo / June 15, 2005) (Note from Sharon-the Times used this photo; I will replace with more recent California mill photo is anyone has one).

From the LA Times here.

By Dale Bosworth

December 18, 2011

During my long career with the U.S. Forest Service, people frequently expressed their concerns about the management of public lands to me when I’d run into them at the grocery store or on a hiking trail. One of the main issues they brought up had to do with the relationship between timber harvests and county budgets.

Here’s the dilemma. Counties traditionally rely on property taxes to fund basic services and education. But local governments cannot tax national forest land, and many Western states have a high percentage of their land in federal ownership. In Idaho, for example, about 63% of the land is owned by the federal government (as compared with, say, New York, where less than 1% of land is in federal hands).

To help compensate local governments for that loss of tax revenue, the Forest Service for decades returned 25% of the money it made from harvesting timber to the county government where the logging occurred. But that was problematic too because revenues were prone to wide swings depending on how much timber was harvested and what price it brought.

To address the uncertainty, Congress in 2000 passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, which guaranteed revenues to counties based on past timber receipts. The act also introduced new goals of funding restoration and stewardship projects on public lands to help communities improve forest health and diversify their economies. In 2008, funding was extended through 2011 and some revisions were made to the law.

Next year, unless the program is renewed, the payment system will revert to the old method, in which counties receive 25% of timber revenues. This formula would return uncertainty and drastically reduce payments to counties at a time when rural America is already struggling.

A working paper put out last month by the Oregon State University Rural Studies program estimated that Oregon (with about half of its land owned by the federal government) stands to lose about 4,000 jobs and would have to make deep cuts in school funding unless the bill is reauthorized. And Oregon is just one of many states affected.

Instead of allowing the program to end, the act should be renewed, and Congress should take the opportunity to better align payment incentives with current economic realities and forest health goals.

Unfortunately, current proposals from the Obama administration, the House and the Senate all fall short. The president’s 2012 budget, for example, proposes to phase out the payments over two to five years, with no clarity for how the federal government will assist counties with large amounts of public land going forward.

In addition, the administration proposal would, for the first time, fund the payments directly from the Forest Service budget, a budget already stressed by deep cuts. Subjecting the county reimbursements to the annual appropriations process rather than setting up a multiyear reauthorization would make it difficult for many counties to provide basic services.

In the House, a draft bill proposes a timber-only approach in which logging would pay for all future federal payments to counties. This would be accomplished largely by rolling back environmental laws and abandoning collaborative efforts. Even if this bill could pass, it would require unsustainable logging levels to maintain payment levels, and it would require more federal spending than current appropriations.

In the Senate, a draft bill proposes continuing the current payment system at a reduced level for five years, but that only kicks long-term reform down the road.

There is still time before the payments end in mid-2012 to pass legislation that ties future county payments to achievable forest management goals and provides real economic options for counties.

One promising idea would be to deliver payments to counties based on economic need, so that payments are targeted to ensure the best use of taxpayer dollars. Another would be to link funding to efforts by counties to improve ecosystems and recreation opportunities on federal lands.

Although logging alone cannot lift rural economies, logging combined with forest and watershed restoration work — a timber-plus jobs bill — could be the basis for both funding and job growth in counties.

Dale Bosworth worked for the U.S. Forest Service for 41 years, and served as its chief from 2001 to 2007.

Tester forest act dead for 2011

by

Other interesting things are in the conference report, however, more later..

From Rob Chaney of the Missoulian

U.S. Sen. Jon Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act was not included in a House version of the 2012 omnibus bill to fund the federal government that was released Thursday morning, setting off a round of finger-pointing between his office and that of Rep. Denny Rehberg.

“Congressman Rehberg is now personally responsible for killing guaranteed Montana jobs,” Tester spokesman Aaron Murphy said Thursday. “That fact that Dennis Rehberg actively worked against a popular, bipartisan, made-in-Montana jobs bill simply because Jon’s name is on it shows his true colors: Congressman Rehberg is not looking out for Montana; he is only interested in his own political career.”

Rehberg spokesman Jed Link countered that Tester’s bill lacked support among his own Senate colleagues. While Tester was able to attach his bill to the original Senate version of the Interior Department budget, the conference committee didn’t include it in the combined version.

“Senator Tester’s wilderness bill simply isn’t good for Montana and that’s why Denny worked to keep it out of the Interior appropriations bill,” Link said. “New wilderness areas are guaranteed in the Tester bill but new jobs are not. In the long run, this bill will mean less public access to our lands and fewer jobs. And that’s just not a fair deal for Montanans.”

Republican Rehberg is challenging Democrat Tester for the Senate seat in next year’s election.

Republican members of the conference committee had signed off on the nine-department, 1,209-page budget bill earlier this week. But Democrats withheld their signatures in a complicated bargaining maneuver aimed at blocking some Republican riders in the last-minute legislation rush.

That included opposition to the linkage of Keystone XL petroleum pipeline approval to an extension of a payroll tax cut authored by Rehberg. President Barack Obama had postponed the pipeline decision until after the election, citing concerns about its potential impact on a major Midwest aquifer. And he threatened to veto the tax bill if Republicans tried to fast-track the pipeline permit in the same legislation.

Late on Wednesday night, House Republicans released the conference budget deal without the Democrats’ signatures, although it contains the deals worked out by both sides. That version of the Interior budget left out both Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act and a proposed new national park in Rhode Island, as well as 117 policy riders proposed by House Republicans, according to Tester’s office.

“Some fixes need still to be made, but that certainly dims prospects for the Tester language to be included,” said Alan Rowsome, conservation funding director for The Wilderness Society, who’s been monitoring the budget process from Washington, D.C. “It likely would not be in this scenario, unless there’s a real reopening of the bill.”

The Forest Jobs and Recreation Act would have designated about 1 million acres of new wilderness and national recreation areas. It would also impose a timber treatment mandate on three national forests in Montana.

The bill was supported by a coalition of conservation groups, sawmill owners, environmentalists and timber industry representatives. It drew opposition from environmentalists opposed to mandated logging, as well as off-road vehicle, ranching and mining organizations.

The Interior budget does include some new policy measures. They include a move supported by both Rehberg and Tester to give a greater accounting of money paid through the Equal Access to Justice Act, which pays the legal fees of people who successfully sue the government. The bill also has a provision blocking the federal Bureau of Land Management from designating any new wilderness areas, increases funding for oil and gas production, and rejects new fees for onshore oil and gas producers.

It would add $1 million to a wolf/livestock loss demonstration program and $2 million for wolf monitoring in Montana and Idaho. It removes a requirement to separate domestic sheep from wild bighorn sheep herds. And it restores $14 million for payments in lieu of taxes from national wildlife refuges to county governments.

In the U.S. Forest Service arena, the proposed budget provides a full $40 million for the Cooperative Forest Landscape Restoration Project that includes Montana logging projects, $52.6 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund that pays for conservation easements on wildlife habitat, and $45 million for removal of legacy roads and trails.

Murphy said a slim possibility remained that further negotiations could resurrect the Montana bill’s chances in December. The bill also remains on the docket of Senate business for the coming year.

“I’m not saying it’s likely, but it’s not final yet,” Murphy said.

More on Timber Harvests, the Economy and Montana

by

Thanks to Matthew Koehler for this submission:

The following guest column was written by the USFS Supervisor of the Bitterroot National Forest. While the Tester mandated logging bill collaborators falsely give the public the impression that politicians stepping in to mandate more industrial logging of national forests is the key to economic development, the supervisor of the Bitterroot National Forest offers her perspective based on economic reality.

SNIPS:

“Some of you may be wondering why timber is not being sold as it was in previous decades when the Bitterroot routinely produced 20 million board feet or more. One of the main reasons is that no one is buying the wood. For example, the Bitterroot National Forest recently offered two different timber sales on land that is easy to access near paved roads, and neither sale received any offers. These were not isolated incidents. In 2011, the forest brought four timber sales to the public that did not receive one bid from an interested buyer. Why is this happening? Much like the housing crisis, the answers can be found in the market. Many of the problems occurring in the timber market today are not due to a lack of supply, but rather a lack of demand. Logs that were selling for $80 a ton during the housing boom, are worth less than $45 a ton today. This loss of demand has had a significant local impact on acres harvested. Poor market conditions have also forced us to use scarce taxpayer dollars to pay to remove timber to meet our forest fuel reduction goals in areas adjacent to private property.”

Timber harvests just one piece of forest management
Guest column by JULIE KING | Posted: Friday, December 16, 2011
http://missoulian.com/news/opinion/columnists/timber-harvests-just-one-piece-of-forest-management/article_04e78d00-27f9-11e1-8fb2-001871e3ce6c.html

HAMILTON – A fair and adequate amount of accurate information is central to a healthy discussion and reasonable decision-making process. In the U.S. Forest Service, we practice this as a matter of direction under the National Environmental Policy Act when it comes to public involvement and interaction on our land management decisions. I believe it is imperative that communication lines remain open and we work together to find solutions and ways to survive the current economy and poor market conditions of our timber industry.

So it is unfortunate for us all that incomplete information in a recent article in local newspapers claimed that the Bitterroot National Forest, unlike other national forests, was not selling timber. The article went on to suggest that if national forests would sell more timber, local jobs would return, shuttered mills would re-open, and the boom days of the Bitterroot Valley would be back. While I certainly wish all our challenges were this easy to solve, I feel compelled to share some facts and information with you regarding timber sales on the Bitterroot National Forest.

First and foremost, the Bitterroot National Forest is continuing to sell timber. In 2011, 9.6 million board feet were harvested on the Bitterroot National Forest. Trees were cut on more than 2,000 acres, sending an estimated 1,933 truckloads of logs to Montana sawmills. The Bitterroot’s largest timber project, Trapper Bunkhouse (2,700 acres) continues on the Darby Ranger District and is our largest stewardship project in 10 years. There were eight timber projects under contract on our forest this year.

The Bitterroot currently ranks number three among the nine national forests in Montana in total saw log volume. This despite the fact that we have less acreage available for timber as half of our forest is dedicated to the largest expanse of continuous wilderness in the lower 48 states. Perhaps most importantly, all of our current timber projects accomplish needed reductions in hazardous fuels, address wildlife habitat needs and forest health issues. While the timber industry is a valued partner in land stewardship, our timber sales are not offered simply because a buyer desires a certain product like house logs. All timber projects must meet multiple land management objectives outlined in the forest plan.

Some of you may be wondering why timber is not being sold as it was in previous decades when the Bitterroot routinely produced 20 million board feet or more. One of the main reasons is that no one is buying the wood. For example, the Bitterroot National Forest recently offered two different timber sales on land that is easy to access near paved roads, and neither sale received any offers. These were not isolated incidents. In 2011, the forest brought four timber sales to the public that did not receive one bid from an interested buyer. Why is this happening? Much like the housing crisis, the answers can be found in the market.

Many of the problems occurring in the timber market today are not due to a lack of supply, but rather a lack of demand. Logs that were selling for $80 a ton during the housing boom, are worth less than $45 a ton today. This loss of demand has had a significant local impact on acres harvested. Poor market conditions have also forced us to use scarce taxpayer dollars to pay to remove timber to meet our forest fuel reduction goals in areas adjacent to private property.

Here in the Bitterroot, the problem is compounded even more with the recent closure of many sawmills. Logs must now be hauled to the closest operational mills in Seeley Lake or St. Regis, more than doubling hauling distances and costs. Rising fuel prices have added yet another obstacle when you consider that some timber projects on our forest are now located more than 150 miles from the nearest mill. It all adds up to the “perfect storm” and it is going to take all of us working together to find answers and solutions moving forward.

We live in very challenging times, and if we spend energy opposing and not communicating on these issues it will only contribute to our demise. I am open to hearing your ideas or any other issues concerning the national forest. Please contact me at (406) 363-7100.

Julie King is Forest Supervisor for the Bitterroot National Forest.

Retardant ROD (Record of Decision) Released

by

Here and here are relevant info.

Here’s the press release:

Forest Service Chief signs record of decision for aerial fire retardant application

WASHINGTON, Dec 14, 2011 –U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell signed Tuesday a record of decision establishing new direction for the use of fire retardant applied from aircraft to manage wildfires.

The new direction, initiated as a result of litigation in Montana, will help the Forest Service better protect water resources and certain plant and wildlife species on National Forest System lands when fighting wildfires. It will allow the Forest service to aggressively fight fire with the use of airtankers while protecting aquatic ecosystems.

Working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), the Forest Service identified and mapped waterways and habitat for certain threatened, endangered, and sensitive species in order to avoid applying retardant in those areas.

To decide when or where to drop fire retardant, fire managers now have roughly 12,000 maps identifying avoidance areas on 98 National Forest System units that identify locations of waterways and areas for hundreds of plant and animal species.

When fire managers determine retardant is the right tool to use on a wildfire, they will direct pilots to avoid applying fire retardant in the newly-mapped areas. All other firefighting tactics will be available in the avoidance areas.

The Forest Service has avoided the use of fire retardant in waterways since 2000. Guidelines used since 2000 provided three exceptions that allowed fire managers to drop retardant within 300 feet of waterways. The new direction allows one exception: when human life or public safety is threatened. However, this represents little change with how the agency fights wildfires.

“These new guidelines strike a balance between the need to supplement our boots-on-the-ground approach to fighting wildfires while protecting our waterways and important plant and animal species at the same time,” Tidwell said. “Our new approach will benefit communities, ecosystems and our fire crews.”

Forest Service research has demonstrated that fire retardant, used since the 1950s, is twice as effective as water at reducing fire intensity. The agency continues to work with industry to develop more environmentally friendly fire retardants.

In July 2010, in response to a lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana ordered the Forest Service to fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and to re-consult with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries to comply with the Endangered Species Act.

The Forest Service involved the public in the development of the new direction, including hosting five community listening sessions, several stakeholder webinars, three technical listening sessions, a science panel discussion, and several Tribal engagement events.

The new direction includes procedures for monitoring and reinitiating consultation with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries if aerially-applied fire retardant impacts certain species or habitat. The direction also provides greater protection for cultural resources including historic properties, traditional cultural resources, and sacred sites through closer coordination with states and Tribes.

Tidwell issued the decision after reviewing the analysis of three alternatives in the October 2011 Final Environmental Impact Statement and the results of the consultation with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries.

Plus this article by Rob Chaney of the Missoulian this morning..

Home / News / Local / Local
U.S. Forest Service to use aerial retardant, with precautions to protect species

By ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian | Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2011 6:00 am | No Comments Posted

U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell has cleared the way for continued use of aerial fire retardant as long as pilots use special maps to avoid hurting threatened or endangered species.

The decision answers a lawsuit the agency lost over whether its aerial firefighting tactics properly consider fire retardant’s environmental impact. Fire retardant is essentially ammonium-based fertilizer, which kills fish and aquatic insects and promotes the spread of noxious weeds. A misplaced retardant drop in 2003 killed 20,000 fish in a single stream. In 2008, the Forest Service reported 65 drops where retardant may have hurt a plant or animal protected by the federal Endangered Species Act.

“These new guidelines strike a balance between the need to supplement our boots-on-the-ground approach to fighting wildfires while protecting our waterways and important plant and animal species at the same time,” Tidwell said in an email statement on Wednesday. “Our new approach will benefit communities, ecosystems and our fire crews.”

The new rules will make it challenging for fire management, according to Neptune Aviation President Dan Snyder. The Missoula-based company is the nation’s largest provider of retardant-dropping airplanes.

“It won’t be much of an issue for our operations,” Snyder said, noting Neptune pilots already fly to avoid water bodies. “But for fire commanders on the ground, when an aircraft shows up on the scene, they’re going to have to keep these guidelines in mind.”

In particular, the new rules carve out lots of exclusion zones around communities and subdivisions along the fringe of national forests. Those areas are also the places where aerial fire retardant is most effective in initial attack because of the planes’ ability to have a big impact before ground crews can arrive, Snyder said.

The new maps put nearly 30 percent of the Forest Service land into aerial buffer zones to protect waterways, and list another 1 percent as sensitive ground. The buffer zones protect more than 300 plants and animals on the endangered species list and another 3,700 species considered sensitive to retardant effects.

Andy Stahl, whose Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics filed the successful lawsuit, was skeptical of the results.

“The final (environmental impact statement) acknowledges the Forest Service has no evidence fire retardant contributes to any firefighting objective,” Stahl said. “They made their decision on the basis of cherry-picking from a biased sample that fire managers claim retardant makes a difference.”

Stahl also argued the 12,000 new maps were never put out for public review. His organization was able to examine six of them, and concluded the areas where threatened or endangered species existed appeared based on predicted data – not actual field checks of habitat.

“If they have a fuels-treatment project or a ski area expansion, the Forest Service does field work on (threatened and endangered species),” Stahl said. “But where the Forest Service isn’t doing anything, where there aren’t any projects going on, they don’t do any surveys. Yet they will still be dumping fire retardant in remote, out-of-the-way locations such as wilderness areas.”

Forest Service fire managers in Montana and Idaho rarely use air tankers in wilderness areas. But Stahl said that wasn’t the case in California, where the fish kills that triggered the lawsuit took place.

Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/local/u-s-forest-service-to-use-aerial-retardant-with-steps/article_00180774-26cc-11e1-8e81-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1gc3COIMy