Here’s the link. This is the project of the “Council of Elders” of the Resource Renewal Institute here.
Here is the description of the idea:
Council of Elders
The Council of Elders, a project of the Resource Renewal Institute, is comprised of retired and active resource managers, scientists, and environmentalists. The purpose of the Council is to improve today’s resource and environmental management through the lineage of Aldo Leopold, David Brower, John Muir, and other environmental elders of the past. We believe that to address today’s global climate challenges, environmental and resource management must adhere to strict professional standards that have been eroded since their peak in the environmental gains of the 1970’s. By assembling a new council for each chosen area of study, the Council of Elders concept benefits from professional expertise gained over decades on a single environmental challenge. Utilizing retirees greatly reduces costs while protecting and stewarding America’s natural resources with the wisdom of elders.
The Council of Elders aims to:
Document and improve the practices of resource and environmental management agencies
Serve as a non-partisan watchdog of American resource management
Advocate for and create increased transparency and universality of information used in political and resource management decision making
Work to unite state and federal agencies, non-profits, educational institutions, industry, and the public in responsible management of America’s natural resources
Bridge existing organizations with a membership composed of elder experts from a variety of professional fields including academia, government, and the private sector
Mentor active resource managers through regional support network of elder experts
Provide assistance to whistle-blowers
As an elder myself, interested in some of the same topics, I wonder who exactly these folks are.
Yet the document does not mention whom these people are who helped write it. The name on it is Lynn Alexander who is
Lynn M. Alexander, AICP
Lynn is an environmental planner and principal of LMA Consulting. She has worked with a wide range of federal, state and local agencies, special districts, consulting firms and non-profits. Lynn is a long-time member of the American Planning Association (APA) and a certified planner since 1992. She has served on the Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP) board of directors and conference committees and has coordinated several conferences and workshops. Recent projects have involved analyses of renewable and natural gas energy projects for state licensing. Lynn holds a B.A. in Environmental Studies from California State University and an M.S. in Environmental Management from the University of San Francisco. She is currently working on a second Council of Elders’ project for RRI that focuses on U.S. government subsidy reform.
RECOVERING $600 BILLION BY COLLECTING THE RENT ON OUR PUBLIC LANDS
By Lynn Alexander, for Resource Renewal Institute
Introduction
This paper initiates Resource Renewal Institute‟s second “Council of Elders” project: Recovering $600 Billion by Collecting the Rent. The Council of Elders aims to improve today‟s resource and environmental management through the combined expertise of retired resource management professionals. The paper is organized into five sections: oil and gas, mining, grazing, water subsidies and the Public Trust.
Resource Renewal Institute (RRI) believes the Council of Elders can help bring antiquated land management laws into the 21st century. The Council will examine federal land management policies and identify how governmental support of resource extraction on public land affects the Nation‟s public land resources and U.S. economic well-being.
As a group of experienced former resource management professionals, the Council of Elders has a window of opportunity to contribute our knowledge towards the goal of reforming outdated public land use laws. The articles collected here show that the historic and current practice of subsidizing the development of public resources and land is not only unbalanced, but extremely damaging to our environment and economy – and requires scrutiny.
The Issue: $600 Billion Uncollected Income from Public Land and Resources
The current U.S. fiscal policy governing the lease of public lands for resource exploitation is unsustainable, immoral and a drain on taxpayers. RRI has compiled this reader to show examples of how U.S. economic policies regarding resource management are skewed and need reform. Included is information from a variety of independent sources to illustrate how U.S. energy subsidies benefit wealthy companies and private entities rather than assisting those who need it most.
Despite a record national deficit of $1.47 trillion, our Congress continues to hand out generous subsidies and tax breaks to a wide range of favored interests. We estimate that these federal resource subsidies could amount to approximately $600 billion in federal giveaways.
Note from Sharon.. I am an elder, albeit not yet retired. What’s not a “subsidy”? What would be the basics for federal lands, above which everything else is subsidizing people’s interests? I would submit lands and law enforcement as essential.. all else is subsidizing one interest or another. Other ideas?
The subsidized would then include grazing, campgrounds, hospital water pipelines, trails, microwave towers, fuel treatments, etc. But of course, if they are from Mill Valley, there are “subsidies” for earthquake rebuilding, highways, etc. Where do we start? Where does it end? And most important of all, who gets to judge whose subsidies are simply undesirable and which are “immoral?”
This report is very well-written and user-friendly (IMHO) and focuses on the topic with excellent photos (which a reader pointed out I had clipped and used without reference). Thanks much to the writers and photographers!
This fuel treatment effectiveness assessment was developed by:
Pam Bostwick, Fuels Specialist, U.S. Forest Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, N.M.
Jim Menakis, Fire Ecologist, U.S. Forest Service, National Headquarters detached, Missoula, Mont.
Tim Sexton, District Ranger, U.S. Forest Service, Superior National Forest, Cook, Minn.
Report edited and designed by:
Paul Keller, Technical Writer-Editor, Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center
Social acceptance of fire needed in climate-changing forests
From Climate wire
my comments in italics
Published: Monday, January 23, 2012
The future of managing wildfires in the face of climate change is going to require different tools and strategies, but also something a bit more difficult to swallow — encouraging burning instead of stifling it.
In the future, forest managers will need to “try to work with fire, rather than fighting it,” said David Peterson, research biologist at the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Station. “If we allowed more wildfires to burn, that could be beneficial,” he added. Fire is considered part of a natural cycle in forest ecology, and encouraging small fires could help prevent bigger, more damaging ones.
The U.S. Forest Service has issued a report on how to address forest management in the face of climate change, looking at resource management on national forests and, potentially, other federal lands. Fire management, pest control and watershed management are some of the areas where practices will need to change, said report co-author Peterson in an interview with ClimateWire.
Letting fires burn, instead of stifling them at all costs, is not an easy sell politically or socially, said Peterson. But those who live in the wildland-urban interface, the transitional zone between residential clusters and the wilderness, are becoming more aware.
“I think they’re getting much more savvy about the scientific concept of fire,” he said, calling the interface one of the biggest social challenges for the Forest Service.
It’s not clear what this means- if they understand “the scientific concept” does that mean they are not as interested in fire suppression around their homes? Also notice that wildland-urban is defined as “the transitional zone between residential clusters and the wilderness”. There are plenty of lands that are adjacent to communities that are “wildlands” but not “wilderness.”
More partnerships between federal, state and private lands would bring together a fragmented landscape to tackle some of the climate-driven problems that have plagued forests in the past years. These include fires, pine beetle epidemics and floods.
“They don’t care about where that dotted map is, and they don’t care about any individual ownership,” Peterson said.
Water, roads and infrastructure are also at risk, said Peterson who has seen a distinctive change in the flows, levels and patterns of rivers. Floods, mudslides and other severe events that were once considered 100-year events are occurring more frequently.
‘Forest thinning’ gets a new boost
The Forest Service compiled several existing management changes across their forests to provide examples for the framework. In Washington state’s Olympic National Park, for example, foresters took on an effort to completely redesign the roads and culverts to withstand a higher water load, expected as torrential rains become more frequent. In California’s Inyo National Forest, staff created a decisionmaking tool that offered the implications of hundreds of different possible decisions, given a likely climate change scenario.
“In taking a risk management approach to adaptation, what we are doing is preparing for changes rather than changing what’s there,” said the Forest Service’s climate change adviser, David Cleaves.
Forest thinning, part of the “fuel treatments” that the Forest Service employs to reduce fire risk, will also increase given future predictions for climate change, said Peterson. Last year, legislators in Western states expressed frustration at a perceived lack of preventive action to halt forest fires, mandated under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Last year saw some record-breaking wildfires, including Arizona’s 550,000-acre Wallow fire.
But forest thinning, and its possibility of increase, has come under scrutiny. A report from Oregon State University issued last May questioned the practice of thinning as an effective climate strategy, as it reduces the size of forest carbon sinks — the wood mass that absorbs and holds carbon from entering into the atmosphere.
So we are doing fuel treatments to protect communities from fire, which is expected to increase due to climate change, but doing so is not an “effective climate strategy” based on this study. So confusing as we are mixing adaptation to, and mitigation of, climate change. Also, to me it’s not that clear that we would not have to do WUI fuel treatments if there were no climate change.. in other words in the absence of climate change, given western ecosystems’ historic fire patterns, it still would be a good idea to do WUI fuel treatment.
The Natural Resources Defense Council, as well as other environmental groups, has cast doubt on the use of forest thinnings to burn for biomass electricity, saying the rising demand may soon damage forests more than help them.
Thinning forests, and thinning them and using the thinned material for biomass, are two different things. This is confusing because we should be clear on whether NRDC and others doubt thinning for fuels reduction, as perhaps needed for fires under climate change, or doubt using the products for biomass. Based on this NRDC fears are based on scale, and not the technology per se.
“There have been a number of these types of articles,” said Peterson of the study. “Some say it’s a net deficit [of carbon], some say it’s a net positive, some say it’s neutral.”
For now, the Forest Service do not consider carbon sequestration when planning fuel treatments. The risks of devastating burning and millions of dollars in damage tip the scale to meeting current needs, said Cleaves.
“You may have to incur [carbon] emissions costs to achieve risk reduction,” he said. “You don’t have to do that in every situation, but it sure is possible.”
Snow covers Hyalite Reservoir in the Gallatin National Forest on March 22, 2010. Bozeman receives 80 percent of its municipal water from both Hyalite and Bozeman Creeks; both drainages flowing into the city's water intakes will be part of the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project and subject to forest thinning and prescribed burning to mitigate potential water contamination from a large forest fire.
Thanks to Derek for these.
Here’s an editorial from the Bozeman Chronicle:
Editorial: Protecting Bozeman’s water supply is our best long-term plan
Posted: Sunday, January 22, 2012 12:00 am
Right on cue, a trio of environmental groups has again challenged a plan to protect the main Bozeman municipal water sources from catastrophic wildfire.
The plan calls for treating 4,800 acres of the Hyalite and Sourdough creek drainages with timber harvests, thinning and controlled burns to reduce the amount of potential fuel for a wildfire that will certainly burn through the area at some point in the future. A catastrophic fire in these drainages in their present condition would produce ash and silt and trigger erosion that could overwhelm the city’s water system.
Challenging the proposal for the third time, The Alliance for a Wild Rockies, the Montana Ecosystem Defense Council and the Native Ecosystem Council contend the plan will disrupt lynx and grizzly habitat and eliminate cover for elk.
Though it will probably fall on deaf ears, here’s a different argument to consider for abandoning this challenge:
People are moving to Montana. They are buying up what was once agricultural land and turning it into housing developments. Much of the open space we all value so much as part of our quality of life is being consumed in the process.
The best way to combat this trend is to concentrate this immigration of new Montanans as much as possible – in cities. Bozeman is the best location on the northwest corner of the Yellowstone ecosystem – among blue-ribbon trout rivers and in between major wilderness areas – to accommodate as much of this population growth as possible.
To do that, though, the city needs water. And protecting the city’s primary sources of potable water is one of the best ways to ensure that Bozeman can accommodate smart growth. If the environmental groups hamper the city’s ability to maintain and increase its water supply, they will be forcing new population out into the countryside where more valuable open space will be consumed.
Make no mistake: Montana’s population is going to grow, whether we like it or not. And it is incumbent upon the state’s cities to accommodate that growth by building up, not out.
Environmental groups can help the cities accomplish this by working with them – not against them – as they seek to responsibly protect and expand their municipal water supplies.
Conservation groups challenge watershed plan for third time
CARLY FLANDRO, Chronicle Staff Writer | Posted: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 12:15 am
Conservation groups on Tuesday challenged a proposed thinning and prescribed-burn project in forests south of Bozeman that aims to protect the city’s drinking water.
It’s the group’s third time challenging the proposal.
“Simply stated, the agency’s proposal breaks a number of laws and this time around is no different,” said Michael Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.
The Gallatin National Forest’s plan, called the Bozeman Municipal Watershed project, calls for burning, harvesting and thinning 4,800 acres in the Hyalite and Bozeman Creek drainages. Those drainages supply more than 80 percent of the Bozeman community’s water, and thinning efforts there are intended to reduce the extent of any potential wildfires.
A severe wildfire could put so much sediment and ash in the creeks that the treatment plant couldn’t handle it and would have to shut down, according to Marna Daley, forest spokeswoman.
Montana Ecosystem Defense Council and Native Ecosystems Council joined the Alliance for the Wild Rockies in challenging the plan.
The groups say the project would log federally designated lynx critical habitat and core grizzly bear habitat, and that it would remove elk hiding cover and destroy habitat for other old-growth-dependent species. They also worry the logging and road building would add sediment to creeks containing the native westslope cutthroat trout, which is listed as a “species of special concern.”
“Those same creeks also supply Bozeman’s municipal water,” said Steve Kelly, a board member for two of the conservation groups. “The best thing we could do for wildlife, fish, opportunities for backcountry recreation and solitude, and our drinking-water supply, would be to back away from this foolish project and enjoy the forest’s many enduring gifts.”
Garrity also alleged that some areas affected by the plan have been inaccurately designated as wildland-urban interface zones.
Daley said she has not yet seen the challenge but said the Gallatin National Forest is committed to moving forward with the project.
“We’re very confident the decision is a good decision,” she said of the most recent proposal. “We look forward to moving toward the implementation of the project in the near future.”
Daley said the challenge will go to the regional forester for review, and he’ll decide in about six weeks whether to uphold the forest’s plan.
The city of Bozeman partnered with the Gallatin National Forest to produce the watershed plan.
It’s interesting to me that we’re only hearing one side of the story from the article..
For the curious, here’s the site of information on the project, including a video.
Here’s a part of the ROD about sedimentation
Sedimentation concerns from our actions or no action
The Forest fuels specialist and hydrologist modeled the current vegetative and fuels conditions in the two drainages, and showed that a wildfire in average humidity and wind conditions could generate an increase in sediment of 250% over natural conditions (FEIS, p 3-40). A wildfire in more extreme weather conditions could cause even higher increases in sedimentation. The City of Bozeman water treatment plant currently can handle only small increases in sediment and ash and certainly not levels modeled for a wildfire under moderate or more extreme conditions.
Our effects analysis also showed that the vegetation treatments in Alternative 6 could reduce potential fire size by 54% when a wildfire occurs in the project area (FEIS, p 2-29 and p 3-29). Further analysis showed that a 4,000 acre fire in the project area after implementation of Alternative 6 would likely increase sediment 30% above natural in the Hyalite Creek drainage, and increase sediment 54% above natural in the Bozeman Creek drainage. The same size fire without treatment would produce sediment increases of 56% and 105% in those same drainages, respectively (SFEIS p. 172). A 2,000 acre fire after implementation of Alternative 6 is predicted to increase sediment by 18% over natural in Hyalite Creek and 32% in Bozeman Creek versus 31% and 57%, respectively, without treatment. The Bozeman Municipal Water Treatment plant is challenged to efficiently treat water when sediment levels exceed even 30% over natural, so 50% or greater increases could result in multiple day reductions in plant efficiency. This analysis convinced me that Alternative 6 will be effective in meeting the purpose and need for the project, and that the no action alternative, is not acceptable when the drinking water of an entire community is at stake.
Maybe I’m missing something, but if seeking safe drinking water makes people “break laws”, then what would be the proposal to meet the purpose and need that would not “break laws”?; if there is no such proposal conceivable, then it would appear that something is wrong with our framework with laws and regulations (or case law)..
Mono Lake Visitor's Center- home of new photovoltaics
The idea of moving NOAA to Interior has a certain appeal, especially with regard to their regulatory responsibilities for fish, and so that their scientific research could be better coordinated with others, most notably USGS.
A couple of weeks ago, the Chief visited our office and talked about banding together with USDA to reduce costs of purchased items through the power of numbers. I was reminded of this when I read the below article.
Does it seem odd to anyone else that different federal agencies need to negotiate through separate processes? Maybe we should allow DOE to negotiate a standard price for all federal agencies in a given area with a utility?
Some idle solar energy projects may soon connect to grid
Two federal agencies and Southern California Edison say they’re close to ending a long impasse that has made renewable energy projects sit unused. Negotiations with a third agency are tougher.
By Julie Cart, Los Angeles Times
January 21, 2012
Southern California Edison and two federal agencies said Friday they are only weeks away from resolving a years-long disagreement over connecting renewable energy projects to the grid.
The parties reached a preliminary agreement one week after Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) sent a letter to Edison urging the utility to end an impasse that had frustrated the government because solar projects were sitting idle long after they had been built. Utilities elsewhere in California have signed similar interconnection agreements with few problems or delays.
Despite the progress this week, Edison and a third federal agency, the National Park Service, remain at odds over millions of dollars’ worth of solar projects on the agency’s lands.
Under the tentative deal with the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Veterans Affairs, Edison will use a General Services Administration utilities contract to end the dispute. The contract will apparently resolve the main sticking point, which is the government’s liability for future damages.
“We think we have a solid path,” said Steve Pickett, Edison’s executive vice president of external relations. “Our plan is to continue to negotiate with all the agencies and hope to come to a resolution in the next couple of weeks.”
The Forest Service said Friday that it expected to have its two projects — including a solar facility at the Mono Lake visitors center — connected to the grid soon.
The disagreement has gone on for nearly three years and has hindered the agencies’ ability to meet renewable energy goals at a time when they are rushing to comply with orders to reduce their carbon footprints. Equally troubling is the financial fallout, officials say. The agencies could have saved tens of thousands of dollars in utility bills during the years spent in conflict with Edison, they said.
Negotiations with the Park Service have been stickier.
Pickett said the agency balked at a point involving dispute resolution. Under state law, he said, disagreements about power pricing are to be resolved by the state Public Utilities Commission. The Park Service believes such disputes with federal agencies should be taken up in federal court, Edison said.
Of the two dozen projects currently idle, most are in national parks in Southern California.
Park Service officials were not available for comment Friday.
Guest opinion: Front legislation reflects local concerns
Story
Discussion
By GLORIA FLORA, SPIKE THOMPSON and RICK PRAUSA | Posted: Saturday, January 21, 2012 12:00 am | No
Two years ago, three former chiefs of the U.S. Forest Service asked Montana’s congressional delegation to support a local Montana effort aimed at protecting the Rocky Mountain Front. This is the first time that three former leaders of the Forest Service put their collective weight behind a collaborative process that would help manage a national forest. At the time they called it “the right prescription for the right place at the right time.”
The Heritage Act, a sensible and balanced proposal put forth by the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front, was developed by ranchers, conservationists and others who live in and around the Front.
A year later, Sen. Max Baucus was impressed enough with this citizen-led initiative that he introduced the Rocky Mountain Front Heritage Act. In so doing, he also recognized the outstanding natural and cultural values of the Front and committed to protecting them for the use and enjoyment of generations to come.
In addition to the three chiefs of the Forest Service and three former Montana Bureau of Land Management directors, five former Lewis and Clark National Forest supervisors have endorsed the RMFHA. Together these land managers had 38 years of line officer experience spanning nine administrations dating back to President Lyndon Johnson.
We support the Heritage Act because, based upon our experience, it offers the best way to protect the wildlife, clean water, outstanding natural scenery, and cultural heritage of the Front is to develop a balanced plan. The Heritage Act meets these criteria by providing the Forest Service with the management flexibility to fight fire, harvest trees, and provide for motorized and nonmotorized recreation while defining a clear mandate to protect native habitat and opportunities for traditional backcountry experiences on foot and horseback.
Citizen-based collaborative problem-solving is a relatively new phenomenon for management of our national forests. Thankfully, the Heritage Act was developed using an exemplary collaboration that encouraged broad and meaningful public participation.
The Heritage Act, a sensible and balanced proposal put forth by the Coalition to Protect the Rocky Mountain Front, was developed by ranchers, conservationists and others who live in and around the Front. Hunters support the Heritage Act because it assures access to their favorite game areas and protects habitat for thriving wildlife populations. Motorized recreation users support it because it doesn’t close a single mile of roads or trails currently open for their use. Conservationists back it because it is a comprehensive plan that includes wilderness. Ranchers back it because it maintains their grazing privileges while helping to fight noxious weeds across all ownerships.
For these reasons, we wholeheartedly support this bill and urge the delegation to work to secure its speedy passage. This is the right prescription for the right place at the right time.
By enacting the Rocky Mountain Heritage Act, Congress will be laying down a solid framework for the careful conservation of the multiple resources and values of this extraordinary landscape. We endorse both the hard work that’s gone into crafting the Heritage Act and the final product itself.
Former Lewis and Clark National Forest Supervisors Spike Thompson (2004-2011); Rick Prausa (1999-2003); and Gloria Flora (1995-1998) wrote this opinion.
Thanks to Bob Zybach for this, I think it deserves its own post.Here’s the link.
Conservation groups say logging approved by Oregon Department of Forestry harms marbled murrelets
Published: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 2:57 PM Updated: Thursday, January 19, 2012, 5:14 PM
Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian By Eric Mortenson, The Oregonian
Three conservation groups plan to sue the Oregon Department of Forestry, saying logging on three state forests is killing or displacing protected marbled murrelets.
The lawsuit notice, announced Thursday, is the latest smack against the department’s management of the Elliott, Clatsop and Tillamook state forests. The conservation groups Center for Biological Diversity, Cascadia Wildlands and Audubon Society of Portland are particularly critical of the department’s decision to increase logging on state forests.
The groups allege logging has killed or displaced murrelets and fragmented its habitat. In addition to directly harming the murrelets, reducing its habitat and logging near the edge allows predator jays and ravens access to raid murrelet nests, the groups allege.
Josh Laughlin, campaign director for Cascadia Wildlands, said the groups have retained experts who will testify the department’s practices have harmed the birds.
Marbled murrelets are robin-sized seabirds that forage in the ocean but nest in mature or old growth forests. They are listed as threatened in Oregon, Washington and California under the federal Endangered Species Act.
State officials maintain they take prudent measures to avoid harming murrelets. According to department documents, officials conduct about 1,500 surveys for murrelets annually and manage forests through a “take avoidance” policy. In an April 2011 report to the Oregon Board of Forestry, the department said it has designated more than 20,000 acres as marbled murrelet management areas in northwest Oregon.
According to the report, four timber sales totaling 654 acres have taken place inside or adjacent to murrelet management areas since 1996. “Seasonal restrictions” on logging are applied so nesting is not disrupted, according to the department.
Conservation groups believe the department should adopt more restrictive habitat conservation plans for murrelets.
Thanks to MD For this E&E news article: I put some questions and comments in italics.
AN E&E PUBLISHING SERVICE
ENDANGERED SPECIES: Judge halts forest projects in Mexican spotted owl habitat (Thursday, January 12, 2012)
Three tree removal projects planned within Mexican spotted owl habitat in Arizona and New Mexico cannot go forward until the Forest Service has a better idea how such projects could affect the imperiled bird, a federal judge ruled last week.
Is this a true statement? It sounds like the judge was saying they couldn’t go forward until the FS does the monitoring, not that the environmental documents did not adequately address impacts.
Last summer, WildEarth Guardians sought an injunction to stop the projects, two involving thinning to reduce the risk of wildfire and another designed to clear trees in a utility corridor. In a decision issued Jan. 5, U.S. District Judge David Bury agreed with the Santa Fe, N.M.-based environmental group, saying the agency must monitor the Mexican spotted owl population and determine how well the birds are faring before allowing trees to be cut within the project areas.
“The issue is that they’re just not doing what they said they would do, which is monitor the population numbers,” said Bryan Bird, public lands director for WildEarth Guardians. “We feel like they shouldn’t take any more actions that could jeopardize the bird without knowing the actual population number.”
This isn’t clear to me; how is the total number of owls relevant to specific projects designed to minimize impacts to the owl. If there are 30,000 owls or 40,000 owls, should the FS stop maintaining the power line and doing fuel treatments around communities? What if some disease occurs in owls and their populations drop in the future.. will the power company be told to top maintaining the power line? I get that organizations should live up to their agreements; just not sure how this agreement is conceptually directly related to the matter at hand.
Critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl, which was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1993, covers 8 million acres in 11 national forests in Arizona and New Mexico.
The group targeted the three projects — a fuel reduction project in south-central New Mexico’s Lincoln National Forest, the Upper Beaver Creek logging project in Arizona’s Coconino National Forest and a utility maintenance project that spans several national forests in the state — because those were “the worst” of all projects planned within the owl’s habitat, Bird said.
Here’s the Decision Notice and FONSI for Upper Beaver Creek. It says..
The acres of treatment within the WUI were decreased because mechanical harvest was not proposed within Mexican spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) that are within the WUI.
It seems like there must have been a great deal of analysis. Maybe it’s the size of this project that’s of concern? It seems like this one and the power line might have been larger in size, the New Mexico project not so much. It would be interesting to have the rationale for selection of these three projects – why exactly are they considered to be “the worst?”.
Cathie Schmidlin, a spokeswoman for the Forest Service, said the ruling really only affects two projects, because the agency already decided to suspend the Beaver Creek project due to concerns about the owl. She said she could not comment on the court order itself, due to the agency’s policy not to weigh in on pending litigation.
Under the order, the Forest Service also must complete a new consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine how to better protect the bird.
Initially, Judge Bury denied WildEarth Guardian’s request to halt the three forest projects, but he reconsidered after the group pointed out that the first ruling was at odds with a broader companion case filed by the Center for Biological Diversity that also involved concerns about the Mexican spotted owl.
‘A considerable undertaking’
A new recovery plan for the owl issued by FWS last summer calls for “vigilant monitoring,” along with habitat restoration, as part of its revised blueprint for pulling the nocturnal bird back from the brink (Land Letter, June 23, 2011).
“The facts aren’t in dispute,” Bird said. “What’s in dispute is how do we move forward and protect the owl while managing the forest.”
The Forest Service itself has noted the need for monitoring the population in documents dating back to 1996, but the agency has repeatedly said budgetary constraints have prevented it from doing so. FWS has designated 8 million acres as critical habitat for the owl, and monitoring that much territory could cost millions of dollars, according to the Forest Service.
“It’s a considerable undertaking,” Bird acknowledged. “But considering they spend up to $1 billion annually on firefighting, just a small fraction of that could completely fix this current problem.”
Not sure that Congress would think that that’s a good idea, appropriation law -wise.
The injunction is the latest development in a long-running lawsuit over the Forest Service’s management of owl habitat that dates back almost a decade. The suit contends that the Forest Service is violating the Endangered Species Act by permitting forest projects, grazing and other activities in national forests in Arizona and New Mexico that could further endanger the owl.
I thought we found out that the grazing is not about the owl, it’s about another species.
The group’s other main concern, Bird said, is that the projects that already have been carried out within Mexican spotted owl habitat may have harmed or killed enough birds to reach the Forest Service’s “take” limit. Under special permits from FWS, a certain number of birds can be killed incidentally during forest projects, as long as those losses do not jeopardize the overall survival of the species. Again, a good population estimate could help the Forest Service make better management decisions, Bird said.
Are owls actually “killed” during forest projects? Wouldn’t the test of whether forest projects harmed owls to look at pre and post project and see what specific owls are doing- did they move somewhere else? There are so many other factors can affect the species as a whole. Monitoring does not/cannot answer the question about project impact.
For example, suppose there was a fire that burned up a lot of owl habitat and reduced the population. According to the above model, the FS would have to have fewer fuel treatments because now there are fewer owls. So communities would not get their WUI fuel treatments and more owl habitat could also get burned up. It seems a bit counter intuitive.
Rep. Steve Pearce (R-N.M.), who has introduced a bill designed to revitalize the logging industry while setting aside preserves for the owl, said in an emailed statement that taking a hands-off approach to forest management in owl habitat could leave Southwestern forests at risk of “devastating” wildfires like the ones that burned through millions of acres in Arizona and New Mexico last summer.
“Overgrown forests are a fire hazard — not only threatening to burn the homes of the people in surrounding communities, but also destroying the habitats of wildlife that special interests are claiming to protect,” Pearce said. “While I agree that the [Mexican] spotted owl and other endangered species must be protected, we cannot do so at the cost of public safety and we cannot afford to do so without a legitimate reason.”
The diminutive owl, which was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1993, prefers mature forests that are also prized by logging companies for their large, valuable trees. In more recent years, attempts to reduce fuel loads within owl habitat, which some argue will improve habitat for the bird and protect it from unnaturally large, super-hot wildfires, have taken center stage in the debate over how to balance forest management with protection of the owl.
Reading the projects we are talking about, they are not really about logging companies and “large valuable trees.” Also I’m not sure we’re talking about “unnaturally large superhot wildfires”, but any “natural” fires that lead to reduced habitat for owls.
Again it’s not clear as to whether the debate is about “these specific projects will decrease owl habitat compared to the no action alternative” or “there was a requirement to monitor and the FS did not.”
I did find this information on the Defenders of Wildlife site here, about other factors that affect owl populations including wildfire.
Climate Change and Other Threats
The Mexican spotted owl is threatened by the loss of old growth forests (its preferred habitat) throughout its range, starvation and fire. They are also affected by barred owl encroachment, great horned owl predation, low reproductive success and low juvenile survival rates.
Like other Southwestern species, the Mexican spotted owl faces an uncertain future as climate change makes this region hotter and drier. The birds’ nest success is tied to precipitation, probably because vegetation, and in turn prey populations, depend on adequate monsoon rains. Extended droughts also increase the likelihood of wildfires will decimate their remaining forest habitat.
Finally, higher temperatures and drought conditions favor diseases like the mosquito-borne West Nile virus. West Nile develops more rapidly at higher temperatures, increasing the likelihood of transmission. Drought conditions also concentrate birds at remaining water sources, making them an easier target for disease-carrying mosquitoes.
In our previous pieces here and here on this litigation, I wondered a bit why the power users in Phoenix, and the townspeople of the Village of Ruidoso should suffer because of an issue between WEG and the FS on monitoring. Apparently, WEG did see it the same way. Good on them.
I still don’t understand the mechanics of how power line maintenance could harm the owl, maybe someone can enlighten me.
Group Won’t Interfere With Thinning
By Rene Romo / Journal South Reporter on Tue, Jan 17, 2012
LAS CRUCES — Despite winning a federal court order last week halting three forest-thinning projects to avoid harm to the Mexican spotted owl, WildEarth Guardians will not stand in the way of urgently needed work to reduce fire danger, a spokesman said.
The Jan. 5 court order halted two tree-thinning projects in Arizona and, in New Mexico, a project known as Perk-Grindston aimed at reducing fuel loads by tree removal and controlled burns on about 5,000 acres of the Lincoln National Forest on the south and west sides of Ruidoso.
Treating the forest west or southwest of Ruidoso is a high priority because winds that generally blow to the northeast could carry a wildfire into housing developments.
Ruidoso’s municipal forestry director Dick Cooke said while “a good portion” of the Perk-Grindstone project approved in mid-2008 has been completed, more work remains. The village also has treated about 80 acres of land within city limits.
“There’s been quite a bit done, but there’s still much to do,” Cooke said. “I would say the risk of wildfire on that side of the village is still high.”
In Arizona, some of the work halted involved removing hazards from tree growth along power lines. A tree that fell across power lines in late June was blamed for sparking the Las Conchas Fire, which burned more than 156,000 acres near Los Alamos and destroyed dozens of homes in the Cochiti Canyon area.
Bryan Bird, a program director for WildEarth Guardians, said the organization is negotiating with government attorneys and the Forest Service “to assure that the maintenance of the power lines will continue without harming the owl” and before the start of the owl’s breeding season in March.
“They (the Forest Service) need to get started immediately on that, and we understand that and we are being flexible in that matter,” Bird said.
In the Ruidoso area, Bird said, WildEarth Guardians is working to ensure the injunction halts only work that could affect nesting sites “so the Forest Service can continue with thinning where it doesn’t hurt the owl.”
WildEarth Guardians alleged in the 2010 suit that the Forest Service had failed to monitor the population of the Mexican spotted owl as required by a 2005 agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bird said without maintaining counts of the owls, the impact of thinning projects on the owl cannot be determined.
— This article appeared on page C2 of the Albuquerque Journal
Furniture maker Ryan Schlaefer starts with kiln-dried pine from a Fort Collins milling and lumber company that buys from a Woodland Park beetle kill supplier. A recent curio case is framed in quarter-inch solid pine on the face, backed up with a plywood core, plus a maple veneer on the outside edge he made with a glue press.
The above photo is from an article sent in by Bob Berwyn here.
Note: I reposted this from Sunday, as it seems like the question “”what does it take to have reached the “restoration economy” and have we reached it?” is fundamental. Because if it happened that there was agreement on a vision of sustainable levels of harvesting to local mills (as in the Jake Kreilick piece below), there may be some places that have “too many/too large (??)” (still not clear on Montana) but we would have other areas (the Southwest, Colorado) that don’t have “enough” capacity to be at that level.
Here is an op-ed from the Missoulian. So not being a Montanan, it would be helpful if Montanans could explain why these two views sound so similar in philosophy, yet there appears to be discord.
From where I sit: People agree that:
There are too many roads
There is a need to restore riparian
But where they diverge is the below concept:
Given that Congress gives Montana $x for federal forest restoration that provide y units of restoration.
You could have y + z restoration done, and have local jobs and the associated economic benefits if some trees went to mills.
If trees don’t go to mills people will still buy and use wood, but the economic benefits will accrue to our neighbors in Canada (for the most part).
Restoration economy has USFS at crossroads
guest column by JULIA ALTEMUS |
At the same time the timber industry was collapsing in the 1990s, natural resource managers, policy makers and communities were starting to realize the social, ecological and economic sustainability of the West was increasingly threatened by declining forest health and closure of the local sawmill.
Stand-replacing wildfires of the 1990s, 2000, and 2002 were the wake-up call, promulgating a series of policy initiatives focused on the restoration of forests and the reduction of hazardous fuels. Prior to 1998, hazardous fuels reduction was not even a line item in the federal budget. Funds had never been requested. From 1998 through 2000, Congress appropriated $93 million a year for hazardous fuels reduction, which escalated to $1 billion in 2001 and $3 billion by 2005. With a 100-million-acre crisis at hand and support from Congress, timber no longer needed to pay its way out of the forest. Federal agencies changed their management focus from merchantable, large-diameter sawlog removals, to small-diameter, sub-merchantable materials.
As a response, place-based initiatives emerged uniting conservationists, labor management, local stakeholder interests and policy makers. All centered on a restoration framework and an emerging local “green” restoration economy, operating within a “zone of agreement” around social, ecological and certain economic values.
By-products of community protection and forest restoration are primarily small diameter trees and woody biomass. Existing and new cottage industries were encouraged to develop and provide for utilization of these sub-merchantable materials. The West was particularly ripe for this conversion due to a growing commitment to restore federal forests.
However, one of the greatest challenges to building a forest restoration economy was finding ways to fund restoration activities when traditional sawlog values were no longer primarily relied upon to offset costs. As a response, congress passed the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Act of 2009, authorizing up to $40 million per year to be spent out of the existing Forest Service’s budget to subsidize restoration work across the country.
The October/November 2011 Journal of Forestry published an article by U.S. Forest Service Chief, Tom Tidwell, who is quoted as saying, “The time is right for a restoration economy. The Forest Service is tailoring its programs and projects to a new management environment.” This was news to many in the forest products community. Up until then, restoration activities were a tool in the federal forest management toolbox. It appeared that restoration was no longer simply a tool, but was being used to create a “new management environment.” For those that rely upon sawlog volume to keep mills running, this is a problem.
The proposed “new” forest restoration economy focuses less on ecosystem components and outputs and more on ecosystem functions, ecological processes and outcomes. When economics plays a less important role – in any economy – political and economic regimes emerge within smaller social groups and social networks. Because these political economic regimes influence and are influenced by the organization of both social and political economic capital, it lacks a standard economic value.
With the current national deficit, pumping millions of dollars into federally subsidized forest restoration activities is unlikely unless there is political will to do so. A simple solution is to broaden the scope of projects, allowing the value of the sawlogs to pay for the restoration activities. Harvesting sawlogs within the context of restoration has been controversial and unpopular with most conservation groups.
With a recent move to reduce the federal budget, as much as one third of the Forest Service’s workforce could retire, not in five years or even within the next year, but in the next two months! With the loss of so many seasoned professionals, the Forest Service will likely rely upon social groups and social networks to accomplish their mission. The Forest Service is at a crossroads; whether the new forest restoration economy is the next evolutionary step in a 100-year-old agency or forces the devolution of management to social groups, states and/or counties is uncertain.
Management of our federal forests resources, in a combination that contributes to the three interrelated and interdependent elements of sustainability – social, ecological and economic – is important and keeps us from repeating mistakes of the past. However, economics in the larger context must be equal with other social values.
Julia Altemus is executive vice-president of the Montana Wood Products Association.
The following piece was written in 2005, and helps to illustrate just how forward-thinking some in the forest activist community have been regarding restoration of our public lands.
Forest Service should embrace century of restoration
By Jake Kreilick
National Forest Protection Alliance
Even since I started planting trees on the Kootenai National Forest, I’ve had a keen interest in forest restoration. From 1988-92, I planted thousands of trees across dozens of clearcuts. The days were long and the work was exhausting but I valued the experience gained, not to mention the money earned. In the end, these experiences would shape my career path and influence my view of restoration.
When I started planting trees, I believed I was aiding forest recovery. However, within a few seasons I felt like an unwilling accomplice to the wholesale liquidation of massive, ancient forests and colossal roadbuilding projects that were so en vogue under the forest policies of the Reagan and first Bush administrations.
Essentially, we were replacing the rich biological diversity of this mixed conifer, cool temperate forest with an even-aged tree farm composed of the most commercially valuable species. What’s worse, we were making the forest more vulnerable to natural disturbances like insect infestations and fires.
This revelation forced me to conclude that tree planting on national forests was not being done for restoration purposes nor to improve forest health, but rather to perpetuate an ecologically destructive, money-losing federal logging program. Granted, this program allowed mills like Owens & Hurst in Eureka, who recently announced they are closing, to flourish for nearly 25 years before a combination of market forces, corporate greed and environmental concerns changed the timber industry landscape in our region.
My tree planting years fostered a deeper understanding about the many impacts logging has had on our national forests. Despite the fact that the overall cut on national forests has declined from a high of 12.6 billion board feet in 1989 to around 2 billion board feet, the logging legacy lives on in many forms.
Consider the following:
– There are 445,000 miles of roads on national forests – enough to circle the Earth 18 times – and the Forest Service faces a $10 billion road maintenance backlog.
– An estimated 50 percent of riparian areas on national forests require restoration due to impacts from logging, roadbuilding, grazing, mining and off-road vehicles.
– Less than 5 percent of America’s ancient, old-growth forests remain.
– 421 wildlife species that call national forests home are in need of protective measures provided by the Endangered Species Act.
Clearly, America’s national forests, rivers and wildlife deserve better and would benefit greatly from an ecologically-based restoration program, to say nothing of the tremendous social and economic benefits restoration activities would bring to our local workforce.
Since 2005 marks the Forest Service’s centennial, we believe there is a golden opportunity to make the focus of the next 100 years of Forest Service management the “Restoration Century.”
To this end, the National Forest Protection Alliance and our member groups have been involved with a three-year bridge-building effort between community forestry advocates and restoration workers. The goal has focused on developing agreement on an ecologically based framework for restoring our nation’s forests that’s not only good for the land, but also good for communities and workers. While it has not always been an easy process, it has resulted in us finding a surprising amount of common ground.
One of the results of this process has been the development of a set of Restoration Principles (www.asje.org/resprinc.pdf) as a national policy statement to guide sound ecological restoration. The Principles are an essential tool for stakeholders and decision-makers at all levels to develop, evaluate, critique, improve, support or reject proposed restoration projects.
Here in western Montana, NFPA, Native Forest Network, Wildlands CPR and other environmental groups have used the Restoration Principles to work in a more collaborative fashion with the Lolo National Forest. Following a series of field trips and meetings, we believe the Lolo staff is gaining a better understanding of our restoration approach and they are exploring some of our restoration ideas and proposals.
For example, we have taken numerous trips with the Forest Service, restoration workers and a Pyramid Mountain Lumber representative to the proposed Monture Creek Fuels Reduction project north of Ovando. While we remain concerned that this project removes too many trees and that mechanical harvesters will damage sensitive soils, the district ranger has agreed to let us put the Restoration Principles to work on a portion of this project.
This spring, together with Wildland Conservation Services – a local restoration company that has received a service contract from the Forest Service – we will demonstrate the viability of forest restoration approaches that will enhance ecological integrity, protect soils and reduce fuels while putting money in the pockets of some local workers.
Another exciting restoration opportunity looming on the horizon is a water quality restoration plan for Upper Lolo Creek. While the Forest Service’s assessment for Upper Lolo Creek is nearly complete they lack funding to complete the needed road and watershed restoration work to improve water quality and fish habitat. We feel this is a perfect opportunity to collaborate locally with the recently formed Lolo Watershed Group, community leaders and restoration workers to ask Montana’s congressional delegation to find money for this project.
We know that moving forward with a comprehensive restoration program for America’s national forests is going to take time and it isn’t always going to be easy. However, the National Forest Protection Alliance and our 130 member groups across the country are committed to making the “Restoration Century” a reality.
