Committee Hearing on Now Senate Committee on Secure Rural Schools

I didn’t get to posting this sooner, sorry…it’s on right now.

Here’s the link to the webcast..

Here are some quotes from an E&E news story yesterday..

Members will hear from Obama administration officials, county advocates and researchers on ways to extend or reform the Secure Rural Schools program (SRS), which expired last October, and Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), whose funding source will soon expire.

The programs provide a financial lifeline particularly for rural Western counties where timber revenues from federal forests fell sharply in the 1990s as protections were granted to endangered species and their habitat.

The Forest Service has historically returned 25 percent of revenues from federal timber sales to counties, and in western Oregon, the Bureau of Land Management has returned half of timber receipts.

Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who authored SRS more than a decade ago with former Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), last week warned that if the program is not extended, counties in western Oregon will soon have to decide whether to lay off teachers, close schools, shed law enforcement jobs or defer road projects.

But while Wyden and Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) have pledged to secure at least a short-term extension of SRS, Wyden said such a move alone would fail to provide the financial certainty counties need. Baucus is said to have identified an offset to pay for extending SRS.

“A short-term extension is not a long-term solution for these communities,” Wyden said. “We’ve got to get our people back to work in the woods, for example. We have got to increase the number of jobs in resource-dependent communities where there’s federal lands and federal water. We believe that can be done consistent with protecting our environmental values.”

But striking the right balance between federal aid, increased logging and local tax revenues to stabilize county budgets has eluded lawmakers, conservationists, loggers and local officials for decades.

Extending SRS has never been politically popular, as it is criticized by Republicans and logging advocates as a form of welfare for Western counties that would rather get their revenue from managing the forests. House Republicans have proposed a plan that would require the Forest Service to establish trusts that would meet historic revenue targets through sharp increases in timber harvests.

But the bill would lift bedrock environmental laws and was opposed by Wyden and environmental groups. Few believe the Forest Service could achieve historic timber harvest levels without expanding the use of clearcuts.

Wow.. news.. huh.. not very clear on what “bedrock environmental laws” would be lifted. I also like the “few believe”.. I don’t remember being asked ;), wonder who was?

I’m also going to start a new category.. I’ve been putting these kinds of efforts under Community Forest Management, Role of local and state government, trust management, county payments, etc.
They are solutions to the underlying issue of “sustainable rural economies.” So I’m going to delete those categories and start a new one, unless I hear differently. Also looking for a category name more inspiring than “sustainable rural economies>”

But I think these are solutions to the problem and we need to track the whole problem and all the possible solutions. This would include place based, trusts, giving to the state, etc. But I think it’s important to focus on a positive vision of what the solutions would do..

14 thoughts on “Committee Hearing on Now Senate Committee on Secure Rural Schools”

  1. With regard to the last sentence of the E&E news story. The record shows that at the peak of the harvesting (1987) the F.S. was harvesting less than 50% of gross annual growth on non-reserved timberlands. The much publicized “overharvesting” occurred only in the fertile imagination of environmental activists and was never repudiated by the Forest Service. Why? Clear cutting (a temporarily unsightly but perfectly acceptable silvicultural system for certain species, such as sand pine in Florida and lodgepole pine in the west) can be replaced by high yield seed tree or shelterwood cuts in many species where clear cutting was practiced in the past. The contention that we cannot achieve past harvest volumes without “forest devastation” has no basis in fact.

    Reply
    • Mac, You really honestly want us to believe that “overharvesting” has never occurred in the history of the US Forest Service and any concept of the Forest Service cutting too much timber (and building too many roads) is just a result of the “fertile imagination of environmental activists?”

      Wow, Mac. Seems like you’re the one with the fertile imagination. Yes, 1987 was the highest logging volume year in Forest Service history, but the entire era from the mid-1960s until the early 90s saw a tremendous amount of logging (and associated roadbuilding) on Forest Service lands. Here are some of the other volume figures….Hope these don’t get you too excited:

      1984: 10.548 billion board feet cut
      1985: 10.94 billion board feet cut
      1986: 11.7 billion board feet of cut
      1987, 12.72 billion board feet cut
      1988, 12.596 billion board feet cut
      1989, 11.950 billion board feet cut
      1990, 10.5 billion board feet cut

      Anyway, the notion that the Forest Service never over-logged is beyond laughable. And let’s not forget the 440,000 miles of logging roads they pushing through these forests and wildlands too, sometimes just pushing a road in as far as they could to ensure they could log their way back out, or they could prevent an area from ever being Wilderness. 440,000 miles of roads constructed makes the US Forest Service the largest road-building agency in world history. Maybe China will pass the Forest Service someday.

      And sorry, it wasn’t just Florida sand pine and Montana lodgepole the Forest Service and loggers clearcut. Hmmmm….What ever happened to all those forests of ancient, old-growth Douglas fir and western red cedar?

      Reply
      • Yes, and only 5% of the Beaverhead Deerlodge was logged in 60 years, 7% of the Gallatin, 11% of the Flathead, 17% of the Lolo and 28% of the Kootenai. There’s without doubt…more “volume” than 100 years ago. There’s more mature…and besides the ponderosa…most likely the same if not more old growth. I was reading an EIS from the gallatin awhile back…they talked how in another 20 years a vast amount of forest was about to become “old growth.” It was gonna reach that magic number in “Green et. al” that makes it old growth. Makes me wonder…how many of the “orginal” old growth would have even qualified under “Green et.al.” Awhile back,I was readin a USFS inventory from the 50’s concerning Montana.In the NW part of the state…they said something like 36% was “over 160 years old”…but right behind it was 25% in 100-160 years old (of course…something like 25% was early seral and the rest poles)and I thought you know…of course they logged a lot of that old growth…probably around 20% in the last 50 years…but the 25% in the 100-160…has just moved into the 160 year old catagory. I was also reading the 1987 Forest Plan for the Willamette. I do believe the Willamette has massive amounts of “mature” moving into old growth every day. But…the “Plan” had projected out to “decade 5,” as many plans of that era were wont to do, and the amount of “old Growth” would have diminished from 33% in 1987 to 25% in 2035. Certainly they would have cut more than that…it’s just the 30% that was mature would be moving into the old growth catagory. You destroyed all those lives…to save 8% of the Old Growth. Unless you think the 1987 Plan was lieing?

        Frankly…as a society…I think it’s naive to think we could have been the most spoiled natural resource gluttenous generation ever, and the boomers HAVE used more of everything per capita,…and still have the cathedral old growth to go with it.It’s the whole cake and eat it too thing.I wanna hear, the “alternative historic ending”…and I wanna hear the details of “how you would have done things differently.” Build smaller houses? Well, look at any post WWII subdivision..pretty small houses there. Levittown was full of 900 square foot homes. House’s didn’t get big until …you got it…the baby boomers started building them. The evil “Anaconda Copper.” I seem to remember reading once that “at one time”…Butte produced like 40% of the copper in the country. I’ll guarentee that every copper waterline in every house in Montana came from Butte…and I’ll bet there’s a pretty good chance that there’s Anaconda copper in your cell phone today. They could have done it cleaner…but I’ll also guarentee that Missoula was dumping it’s raw sewage into the Clark Fork at the same time. I luv the clean water act.

        I don’t have any time for Old Growth. I like to see it in scenic corridors. It’s still a biological dead zone. You’ve got the entire Willamette being managed for one old growth species…to the detriment of the other 80%. It won’t be long before the “detriment” becomes obvious. Diversity my ass. Pretty words from people who want others to see them say it. I don’t have any problem with it either. I’d love to see ponderosa “restored”…and given room to grow large again.
        Meanwhile…wildfire has cooked off way more acres than logging on most of the above forests…most of it in the last 20 years…now it’s the turn of the Lolo. With any kind of luck,the RAttlesnake wilderness will cook off in the not too distant future…and we can see how that affects Missoula’s wilderness rec numbers.

        Reply
        • “I don’t have any time for Old Growth. I like to see it in scenic corridors. It’s still a biological dead zone.”

          Yep, keep talking/writing Derek. That’s some good stuff there. I love it when people say that old-growth forests are “biological dead zones.” Sort of the same way the same people view wildfires, eh? Coincidence?

          And speaking of fires and the Rattlesnake Wilderness, that’s something I know a thing or two about as I’ve spent lots of time up there looking for deer and elk. Anyway, the Rattlesnake Wilderness did see some decent fire activity in 2003. For some strange reason the elk and deer numbers are as high as ever, the wolves and cougars are doing well too. This is especially true in the areas that experienced that 2003 wildfire. MT FWP even tracked a mama grizzly bear going through the area, which is pretty rare in the Rattlesnake.

          And as far as recreation numbers, I assume the Forest Service would tell you that the Rattlesnake Wilderness is doing very well, thank you. Again, don’t take my word for it. The Lolo NF has produced a “State of the Rattlesnake” report for the past few years. I’ll try and dig up the 2012 report, but here’s a link to the 2011 report: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/lolo/news-events/?cid=STELPRDB5280624

          Reply
      • A reminder that a very significant amount of the 1989 and 1990 volumes was from salvage logging. Both years, on our Ranger District, we suspended green timber sales, in favor of salvage logging. At the time, our annual cut was 45 million board feet. For both years, we had 90 million board feet of salvage timber cut. Could low harvest levels be “unsustainable”, in the face of bark beetles and climate change?? We certainly don’t need more dead trees in our forests.

        Reply
  2. Yes, Mac, I’m glad you brought that up. I got stuck on the “few believe”. I don’t know who this person asked .. and wonder how anyone who doesn’t have a background in timber modeling (certainly a dying art) and silviculture could make that claim. But I don’t think Wyden said “historic” logging levels.. wonder where that came from…

    Not a very good paragraph, journalism-wise.

    Reply
  3. “Historic timber harvest levels” make me worry. It really should be based on what can be removed without seriously impacting endangered species. Economics needs to be considered but, projects have to benefit the land, first and foremost.

    Reply
  4. Sharon asked which environmental laws would be lifted by the House Republican’s bill to fund counties by exploiting the National Forests. This excerpt below is from the FSEEE website.

    http://www.fseee.org/index.php/stay-informed/projects/1002877

    Hastings’ bill, the Federal Forests County Revenue, Schools, and Jobs Act of 2012 (H.R. 4019), is a Sagebrush Rebel’s dream.

    The bill will require that National Forests be managed for a single purpose: To make money for the counties in which they are located.

    The bill establishes a mandatory revenue amount for each National Forest based upon a 20-year period that saw the highest unsustainable logging levels in U.S. history.

    To further set the clock back, Hastings’ bill repeals a slew of environmental laws, including:
    The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974;
    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969;
    The National Forest Management Act of 1976;
    The Endangered Species Act of 1973;
    And even the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960.

    To replace these laws, the bill will require, only “to the extent the Secretary considers appropriate and feasible,” a short “environmental review.”

    Reply
    • But the bill appears to have died, based on this, it was introduced in 2012
      http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr4019

      Here is what it says..it doesn’t exactly “repeal” them…

      d

      ) Public Review and Required Environmental Analysis-

      (1) PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT-

      (A) PROPOSED PROJECT- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register notice of a proposed County, Schools, and Revenue Trust Project. The public may submit to the Secretary specific written comments that relate to the trust project within 30 days after the date of the publication of the notice.

      (B) FINAL DECISION- Not later than 120 days after the date on which notice was published under subparagraph (A) with regard to a proposed County, Schools, and Revenue Trust Project, and after taking into account any comments received under such subparagraph, the Secretary shall designate the final trust project and publish in the Federal Register notice of the final designated trust project.

      (C) OBJECTIONS- Only persons who submitted comments regarding a proposed County, Schools, and Revenue Trust Project under subparagraph (A) may submit to the Secretary specific written objections that relate to the final designated trust project. Any objections regarding the final trust project must be submitted within 30 days after the date of the publication of the notice under subparagraph (B).

      (2) ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REQUIREMENT-

      (A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided under subparagraph (C), the Secretary shall prepare an environmental report for each final designated County, Schools, and Revenues Trust Project within 180 days after the date on which notice was published under paragraph (1)(A) with regard to the project.

      (B) ELEMENTS OF REPORT- The environmental report for a trust project shall include at a minimum the following:

      (i) To the extent the Secretary considers appropriate and feasible, an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed project, including the effect, if any, on threatened or endangered species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

      (ii) Public comments received by the Secretary regarding the project under subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), objections to the project submitted under subparagraph (C) of such paragraph, and any response to the comments and objections.

      (iii) Any modifications to the project to ensure that the annual revenue requirement is met.

      (C) SPECIAL DEADLINES FOR PROJECTS IN RESPONSE TO CATASTROPHIC EVENT- In the case of a trust project proposed in response to a catastrophic event, the Secretary shall complete the environmental report required by this paragraph within 30 days after the date on which notice was published under paragraph (1)(A) with regard to the proposed project. The Secretary shall adjust the deadlines for public comments specified in subparagraphs (A) and (C) of paragraph (1) as necessary to achieve the expedited reporting requirement imposed by this subparagraph.

      (D) COST TO PREPARE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT- The costs to prepare the environmental report for a trust project shall not exceed an amount equal to one-third of the estimated value of the receipts to be generated by the trust project.

      (3) SOLE MEANS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW- The procedures provided by this subsection are the sole means by which a person may seek administrative review of a County, Schools, and Revenue Trust Project.

      (4) NO JUDICIAL REVIEW- There shall be no judicial review of the environmental report for a County, Schools, and Revenue Trust Project.

      (e) Compliance- Compliance with this section shall be deemed to be compliance with the requirements of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.), section 14 of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 472a), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528 et seq.).

      We can argue about whether this is “repealing” or not, but I think the story would have been more accurate if it had said “House Republicans, last session, introduced…” and “would have repealed”.

      Reply
  5. Forest growth vs log volume is a nonsensical way to account for the sustainability of timber harvest. Biomass accumulation and mortality are absolutely critical functions in forest ecosystems, especially after a sustained period of biomass liquidation.

    Mac says :

    Mac McConnell :
    With regard to the last sentence of the E&E news story. The record shows that at the peak of the harvesting (1987) the F.S. was harvesting less than 50% of gross annual growth on non-reserved timberlands. The much publicized “overharvesting” occurred only in the fertile imagination of environmental activists and was never repudiated by the Forest Service. Why? Clear cutting (a temporarily unsightly but perfectly acceptable silvicultural system for certain species, such as sand pine in Florida and lodgepole pine in the west) can be replaced by high yield seed tree or shelterwood cuts in many species where clear cutting was practiced in the past. The contention that we cannot achieve past harvest volumes without “forest devastation” has no basis in fact.

    Another way to look at this is through carbon accounting.

    In the century preceding 1990, more than 1.5 billion metric tons of net carbon emissions were caused by the conversion of old growth forests to short rotation forestry in western Washington and western Oregon. This region represent only .017% of global land area but emitted an astounding 2% of global carbon emissions from land use. Put another way … in the century preceding 1990 the logging binge on the westside of Oregon and Washington caused 100 times more carbon emissions from land use activities compared to the global average for similar sized areas. Harmon, M., Ferrell, W., and J. Franklin. 1990. Effects on Carbon Storage of Conversion of Old-Growth to Young Forests. Science. 9 February 1990.

    BLM’s Western Oregon Plan Revision (WOPR) FEIS shows that decades of converting old-growth forests to plantations has reduced current stores of forest carbon on BLM lands in western Oregon by 149 million tons (even after accounting for decades of forest regrowth on logged sites). While some of that carbon was converted into wood products, most wood products do not last very long, so of 149 million tons of carbon “missing” from the forest, BLM can account for only 11 million tons of that carbon in wood products today. This means that logging our public forests to make wood products resulted in approximately 13 times more carbon emissions than carbon storage. Put another way, there has been a massive net loss of biomass on BLM lands, and for every ton of carbon in wood products, there are 13 tons emitted to the atmosphere. See WOPR FEIS Figures 3-17 (p 3-221) and Figure 3-18 (p 3-224).

    Reply
    • Tree-

      here’s a link to the article http://academic.evergreen.edu/curricular/ftts/downloadsw/harmonetal1990.pdf

      It seems like it is rife with modeling and assumptions. Others can make their own judgments. Just sayin’.

      For overcutting, I go by the discomfort of District Rangers and others who know the ground. It was an issue in some places in Region 6 before I left in 1988…that might have been too much.. but what’s going on now is too little. You can do all the calculations you want.. but anyone who knows tree growth can drive around, and get some idea of what goes to mills and what is burned.

      Reply
    • “Forest growth vs log volume is a nonsensical way to account for the sustainability of timber harvest. Biomass accumulation and mortality are absolutely critical functions in forest ecosystems, especially after a sustained period of biomass liquidation.”

      Tree: Thank you so much for making this statement and offering some additional information. I’ve been meaning to take on Mac and some others for spreading this notion that if x amount of biomass grows per year you can log off x amount of biomass and everything will be absolutely equal and hunky-dory forever and ever, amen. It’s a concept that the timber industry and timber industry foresters came up with. I don’t believe that any serious hard science measures the health of an ecosystem simply by logging at forest growth vs dead and log volume. Anyway….

      Reply

Leave a Reply to Matthew Koehler Cancel reply