This is apparently the third in a sequence, following my last post on this topic: https://forestpolicypub.com/2013/09/27/osu-forestry-saving-our-planet-by-letting-us-forests-burn-and-rot/

It refers to an article that Guy Knudsen suggested to me during an earlier discussion on this blog that continued via email. That article, “Legal Implications of Forest Management Science in National Environmental Policy Act Analyses,” by Jerry Magee (2008), can be found here: http://www.esipri.org/Library/Magee_2008.pdf

This is the slightly edited version of an email I sent out yesterday evening to Mike Newton and a brief selection of representatives from Oregon Department of Forestry, Associated Oregon Loggers, Oregon Forest Industries Council, Oregon Senate, “Best Available Science” author Alan Moghissi, Environmental Sciences Independent Peer Review Institute (ESIPRI) and one or two others — nine in all:

The basic question is: “Why do the courts consistently disregard better science information when it is provided, and rule in favor of half-baked and outdated “best science available” instead? Especially when the “best science” is obviously biased?” The surprising answer is: “Because the law says they have to.” I had no idea this was the case until I read this article and discussed it with someone who really knew their stuff — an actual forest scientist-lawyer.

Here are some quotes from the attachment that summarize its contents:

From the Abstract: “Scientific analysis has primarily fallen within the “issues of fact” realm of disputes, where the courts grant substantial deference to the informed discretion of the responsible agencies.”

From the body: “As with any field, forest management research and studies may produce conflicting results, giving rise to scientific disagreement and uncertainty. These science-related issues, as well as concerns over the accuracy or credibility of agency-sponsored research and studies or the agency’s interpretation of those studies, have led to challenges to forest management decisions purporting to rely on current science or on understanding of forest ecosystem responses to management actions.” (p. 218)

“Even more on point with respect to NEPA and matters of scientific controversy are some earlier Ninth Circuit opinions, which “observe . . . that ‘NEPA does not require that we decide whether an [EIS] is based on the best scientific methodology available, nor does NEPA require us to resolve disagreements among various scientists as to methodology.’” (p. 219)

From the Conclusion: “Those challenging forest management decisions may view the subjects of these recent Ninth Circuit cases as particularly egregious examples of slipshod science falling short of congressional intent as interpreted through the accurate scientific analysis provisions of the CEQ regulations. But earlier deferential rulings concluded that “[w]hen specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more persuasive.” (p. 227)
****************************

The public record is very clear — in legal actions involving the timber industry in Oregon and environmental organizations during the past 20 years, the timber industry has lost at nearly every turn, often being painted as greedy, antiquated, or even malicious in the process. This is despite the industry often having much better information and better arguments to bolster their positions that those provided by the environmentalists.

From my perspective, the problem seems to be that the courts are all but required to follow the edicts of government scientists rather than actual “best available science” as described by Dr. Alan Moghissi and others. If this perspective is correct, then this is probably a problem for Congress, and not the courts, where too much time and money has been spent to no apparent avail for more than two decades. It is exactly why ESIPRI was formed — to put science back into the hands of scientists (and maybe particularly scientists not funded by agencies), forest managers, and citizens and out of the courts, where it is being ignored or abused.

Other opinions?

Bob

Sharon is busy with schoolwork this week and has asked me to pinch-hit on the Botkin book discussion blog (my choices are Kat Anderson or Hugh Raup for book #2). PLEASE make all comments at the book blog location once this has been posted here by using the link in the upper right hand corner under the book icon. If you haven’t visited the site yet, the best place to start — and to introduce yourself — is: http://virtualbookclubforestpolicy.wordpress.com/2013/09/10/virtual-book-club-moon-and-the-nautilus-shell-i-introductions/

The focus of this chapter is the disparity between computerized model predictions of wildlife populations over time, their actual populations, and why these numbers are usually so different from one another. This is an important distinction because most of our fish and game management objectives are based on the former, inaccurate, “balance of nature” computerized numbers, as are many of our Endangered Species population estimates. Botkin also provides a brief parallel history of ecology as a science, which concludes with one of my favorite quotes in the whole book:

“Many believe that ecology is still a “young” science, but in comparison to most modern sciences, it is not young but simply retarded.”

This chapter examines the truth to that statement by comparing elephants in Africa, anchovies in Peru, salmon in the Pacific Northwest (where I had the pleasure of working under Botkin and participating in the first of his studies of that animal), and whales in the ocean, with fruit flies in a jar. Botkin’s examples and thoughts are clearly presented and described in well written English, with little use of Latin, metrics, or acronyms; i.e., “Plain English.” As a result, almost anyone with a basic education and good reasoning skills can follow his logic, arguments and conclusions.

The chapter opens with the story of one of the world’s first protected wildlife populations, the elephants of Tsavo; a large 5,000-square mile national park in Kenya, Africa dedicated to the survival of African big game animals. The park was created in 1948, 65 years ago, largely through the efforts of a single man, David Sheldrick, for the protection of declining African elephant and rhinoceros populations from their principal predators: human ivory and meat hunters. The primary purpose for protecting these animals was to attract tourists to the park in order to view them. Within 10 years the elephant herd had increased to 36,000 animals and the landscape had become largely denuded of vegetation. By the mid-1960s it was decided that 3,000 of the animals needed to be shot, in order to preserve the habitat. This idea was overturned and the decision was made to “let nature take her course” and allow the elephants and vegetation to achieve a “naturally balanced” “carrying capacity.” A prolonged drought in 1969-1970 contributed to the destruction of most of the remaining vegetation and an estimated 6,000 elephants starved to death.

Botkin uses this story to illustrate the difference between a theoretical balance of nature, and a balance created by people; i.e., roughly the difference between shooting 3,000 elephants and letting 6,000 elephants starve to death. A third alternative is also considered – that Tsavo was simply too small to contain that many animals and that they needed to migrate from one area to another during times of drought or other stressors. Following Sheldrick’s death in 1977, poachers again entered the preserve and by the 1980s the herd had been reduced to 6,000 animals. Today it stands at about 12,000 – far less than the 36,000 that had once lived there under Sheldrick’s management practices.

The elephants of Tsavo are used as a beginning point to examine other human attempts to manage the environment to achieve a desired number of animals. The wildly fluctuating populations of Peruvian anchovies, Pacific sardines, Atlantic menhadens, and several other commercial fisheries are provided as examples where harvest levels were established in attempts to stabilize populations, and failed; typically resulting in abrupt declines in the targeted species. These failed attempts at controlling natural populations of desired fisheries were based on scientific models. This is an important consideration because much of the world’s food supply – particularly in poorer countries – is provided by fish.

This is the principal theme of Chapter 2: the consistent failure of scientific predictive models to accurately estimate wild animal populations, and the reason that Botkin concludes ecology is “retarded” when compared to other modern sciences. He begins in 1838 with Pierre-Francois Verhulst’s simulation of natural populations with the invention of the S-shaped logistic growth curve, which results in a conceptual “carrying capacity” for the environment. Laboratory experiments in the 20^th century replicated this model with certain insects and with bacteria, thereby seeming to prove its utility for wild fish and elephants. Alfred Lotka, an early mathematical ecologist, used fruit flies, bananas, and aquariums to fine-tune this equation, and was able to maintain stable populations of these animals in controlled environments. This artificially regulated number of insects was termed a “density-dependent” population, Lotka’s equation was named the “logistic” model, and Botkin cites a paper written in 2010 that examines this potential phenomenon in regards to wild elephants.

As Botkin next explains that, although the logistic equation is considered an “ecological formula,” its mechanical basis can be compared to “a collection of identical colliding balls” with “a certain rate of destruction” and “capable of identical rates of division.” In using this equation to consider a herd of elephants there is no differentiation between bulls, calves, or breeding cows, for example, just a total number, as with the box of identical balls. This idealized balance of population numbers cannot (“has never been observed to”) occur in nature, of course, and Botkin describes the logistic equation as “something from [Lotka’s] imagination, not from actual observation” – as occurred with the world fisheries or the Tsavo elephants.

Following the widespread adoption of Lotka’s work in the field of ecology, Botkin goes on to describe how it has evolved into a simple calculation that is exactly ½ as large as predicted carrying capacity: the “maximum-sustained-yield” population. To complicate the picture further is the fact that it is impossible to accurately measure many wild populations in the first place – Botkin uses Arctic crabs and the television show Deadliest Catch as his example, and comes to the conclusion that the maximum-sustained-yield concept is “fundamentally flawed.”

The Marine Mammal Act of 1972 tried to overcome this broken model with a new concept: “the optimum sustainable population,” and Botkin was hired to help develop this idea. His approach was overturned, however, and a panel of University of Washington scientists recommended a return to the failed logistic model and reinstituted the ideas of “maximum productivity” and “carrying capacity.” This led to Botkin’s conclusion that the scientists had reverted to a belief in the disproved myth of the “balance of nature,” and subsequently led to his book Discordant Harmonies, and ultimately to this present work:

“Thus even today, in both law and in practice, the scientific conservation of endangered marine species continues to be based on the idea that nature undisturbed is constant and stable . . .”

In other words, the management of endangered whales is based on computerized mathematical formulas developed with fruit flies in an aquarium, and not on actual observations by people:

“An irony is that it seems that everybody talks about how complex nature is . . . but we are content to formalize nature in about as simple and simplistic a way as possible.”

2 Questions:

Botkin argues that it is important that people – and particularly scientists – must accept the contradictions between fact (“observations”) and theory (“computer models”). Agree or disagree?

He further argues that this acceptance will lead to a “deeper level of thought” and allow us to find a “true harmony of nature.” Does that even sound plausible or necessary?

Here is a follow-up to yesterday’s post regarding the persistent and well-funded (by taxpayers) effort to make the climate “better” by not logging our nation’s forests and continue letting them burn and rot instead, as we have been doing the past 20+ years: https://forestpolicypub.com/2013/09/26/forest-modeling-global-warming-academic-job-security/

This is the kind of irresponsible nonsense that made me develop a safe distance from “conservation biologists” in the first place. Oregon State University — including much of its College of Forestry, sadly — has brought in millions of taxpayer dollars during the past 20 years catering to this type of “science” while promoting Global Warming scare stories. Quite the racket.

From: Society for Conservation Biology
Published September 25, 2013 06:24 PM

Climate Change Insurance: Scientists Call on President Obama to Protect Public Forests

WASHINGTON – Scientists specializing in forest ecosystems and climate change called on President Obama today to protect public forests from logging and development in efforts to forestall global warming and compliment the president’s recent proposal for tighter restrictions on coal-fired power plants.

New forest inventories show that the nation’s forests absorb nearly one-quarter of our greenhouse gas pollutants if left undisturbed. In contrast, logging releases most of the carbon stored as carbon dioxide, a global warming pollutant.

The scientists discussed the role of carbon in forest management and climate change mitigation at a presentation at the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment.

“The nation’s older forests cleanse the air we breathe, help regulate our climate, and provide clean drinking water for millions of Americans, said Dominick DellaSala, chief scientist of the Geos Institute and president of the Society for Conservation Biology North America Section. “Cutting these forests down is no different than releasing carbon dioxide pollutants from coal-fired power plants.”

In June, President Obama announced a bold Climate Action Plan that builds on his 2009 pledge to reduce America’s greenhouse gas pollution by 2020. The plan specifically refers to the importance of forests in climate change, noting that the conservation and sustainable management of forests helps to remove carbon from the atmosphere and that the Administration is working to identify new approaches to protect and restore forests and other critical landscapes in the face of a changing climate.

Pointing to forests in the Pacific Northwest, Dr. Bev Law, a forest carbon scientist at Oregon State University, said that forests play a critical role in mitigating climate change. Forests in this region and the Tongass rainforest in Alaska store more carbon acre for acre than nearly any ecosystem on earth.

“Protecting carbon stored in these forests and reforesting abandoned fields would help mitigate global warming,” Law said.

Forests are a critical part of the global atmospheric carbon cycle that contribute to climate stabilization by absorbing (sequestering) and storing vast amounts of carbon dioxide in trees (live and dead), soils and understory foliage. As a forest ages, it continues to accumulate and store carbon, functioning as a net carbon “sink” for centuries. Ongoing carbon accumulation and storage have been measured in forests more than 800 years-old.

“Approximately half of the carbon stored in an old-growth forest is emitted as CO2 when it is converted to a tree plantation, via decomposition of logging slash, fossil fuel emissions from transport and processing, and decay or combustion (within 40-50 years) of forest products, often in landfills,” said Dr. Mark Harmon, a forest carbon scientist at Oregon State University. “Planting or growing young trees does not make up for this release of CO2 from a logged forest.”

Globally, deforestation and forest degradation contribute about 17 percent of the world’s annual greenhouse gas pollutants, more than the entire global transportation network, which is why many countries are seeking ways to reduce greenhouse gas pollutants from logging. Part of the solution to global warming must come from reducing emissions from forest losses, as recognized by the United Nations REDD+ (Reduce Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) Programme in developing countries. The U.S. can provide these countries with a leadership example by conserving its own older forests.

“If we manage the planet like the linked biological and physical system that it is, we can reduce potential climate impact to a significant degree,” Dr. Thomas Lovejoy, Biodiversity Chair at the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, said.  “Forests are critical to this and U.S. leadership would be exceedingly welcome.”

President Obama has not announced specific measures on limiting forestry related global warming emissions or protecting carbon stored in older forests on public lands and, according to these scientists, has a unique opportunity to leave Americans with a legacy of climate change insurance by enlisting older forests in efforts to curtail global warming.

Left to right Drs. Dominick DellaSala, Mark Harmon, Beverly Law and Tom Lovejoy presented at “The Role of Forests in Mitigating Climate Change” at the Heinz Center for the Science, Economics and Environment on Sept. 25, 2013

Logging in the Tongass rainforest releases vast amounts of CO2 as global warming pollutant

The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) is an international professional organization dedicated to promoting the scientific study of the phenomena that affect the maintenance, loss, and restoration of biological diversity.  The Society’s membership comprises a wide range of people interested in the conservation and study of biological diversity: resource managers, educators, government and private conservation workers, and students make up the more than 4,000 members world-wide.

Contact Info: Nathan Spillman
[email protected]
202-234-4311 (x114)

This post is based on an article written by John Marker and me that will appear in the October Society of American Foresters newsletter, The Forestry Source: http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/saf/forestrysource_201310/index.php#/11, and will also appear in the Fall issue of Oregon Fish & Wildlife Journal. The photograph was provided by Pacific Gas and Electric Co. and shows workers replacing a power pole burned in the Rim Fire, near Yosemite National Park in California.

Wildfires have become financial big-ticket items in the United States. The cost of fighting fires continues to escalate, the negative impact on people, wildlife and property grows, and damages to the land and its resources mount. But rarely do we hear discussion of these damages in terms the general public can understand, and when economic damage is discussed it is seldom a front page item. And when wildfire economics are discussed, it is usually in terms of suppression costs and property damage, little else. Other costs, such as for the effects of fires on water supplies, wildlife, and Public health, are not reported.

As this is being written in early September, we have received news that the Douglas Complex fires in SW Oregon have been 100-percent contained. This Complex was started by multiple lightning strikes on July 26 and was essentially comprised of two large fires, Dad’s Creek and Rabbit Mountain, each about 24,000-acres in size.

Three weeks after the fires had started, the August 16 Salem Statesman Journal reported: “The Douglas Complex already has burned 46,059 acres and was listed Friday as 65 percent contained. Suppression costs heading into Friday were calculated at $42.25 million, with 2,093 people assigned to it, according to ODF.” ODF is the Oregon Department of Forestry and is responsible for calculating costs of firefighting for the State’s services. But it is the only dollar figure given in the news account, and few readers have any idea what the number actually represents.

On September 4 the Medford Mail Tribune reported: “The 48,679-acre Douglas Complex fire burning just north of Glendale is now 95 percent contained. Total cost of fighting that fire is $51.76 million, ODF reported.” This is to illustrate how numbers commonly distributed by local and national media are often limited to basic fire suppression costs – in this instance, still more than $1,000/acre.

Our research has shown that the actual cost of damage caused by the Douglas Complex will likely be much closer to $500 million than to the current figure of $50 million. The fire might be contained, but many of its actual costs and damages are only now beginning to accrue.

The true scope of the problem

The $500 million estimate might sound outrageous to many readers, but examples are easy to come by in which it has been shown that suppression costs are likely to account for as little as 2% to 10% of the actual damages caused by a large wildfire. Some examples:

• In 2009 the Western Forestry Leadership Coalition released a report titled The True Cost of Wildfire in the Western U.S. The authors examined six major US wildfires, and compared suppression costs and tactics with “total costs.” Two examples were the 2000 Cerro Grande fire in New Mexico — suppression costs reflected only 3% of total damage estimates — and the 2003 Old, Grand Prix, and Padua fire complex in California, in which suppression costs were only 7% of total costs to 2005 – with total losses expected to increase dramatically in years to come (Dunn et al, 2005).
•
• The 2003 fires in San Diego and Southern California were catastrophic by any measure – 24 fatalities, more than 3,700 homes destroyed, and suppression efforts were $43 million. However, in 2009 Matt Rahn of San Diego State University presented findings that put suppression costs at less than 2% of the total long-term cost of the fire (www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y8Ef9qc0F0).
•
• The 2002 Hayman Fire burned 138,000 acres and cost $42 million to suppress. In 2004 Dennis Lynch of Colorado State University estimated that an additional $187.5 million in losses had accrued within a year. Suppression costs were only 18% of the total, and Dr. Lynch stated, “I recognized the need to follow costs into subsequent years to more completely identify a fire’s true impact.”

On July 12, 2010 National Association of State Foresters released a briefing paper titled State Forestry Agency Perspectives Regarding 2009 Federal Wildfire Policy Implementation. The paper avers that State Foresters have no say so in how the Federal Interagency and Interdepartmental Wildland Fire Management Community fight fires that threaten communities and natural resources, and that they would prefer that the Feds implement aggressive fire suppression strategies for any fire with a chance of burning private land and property.

Most State Foresters, the report notes, recognize that safe and aggressive initial attacks are the time proven best suppression response to reduce fire damage and keep suppression costs down – but recognize that the federal agencies are not likely to do so. They also recognize that Federal wildfire management policies impact state fire suppression efforts when Federal fires move across jurisdictional boundaries and burn state protected lands and private property. As such, the federal agencies have increased risk to families, communities, and wildlife by allowing some wildfires to burn without containment efforts, and are not providing credible explanations for doing so — not to State Foresters’ satisfaction at any rate.

These “let it burn” wildfires are allegedly for resource “benefits” and fire fighter safety, but often blow up, crossing onto state-protected land, putting communities at risk, and placing tremendous burdens on the states to control fires escaping from Federal lands.

This is a serious issue in states and counties where the federal government manages 50, 60 or even 90 percent of the land, and pays no land taxes. Further complicating the situation is an apparently influential group of people claiming wildfire is “natural” and the land will “heal” and everything will be better if nature is allowed to “take her course” — they do not explain, however, why such “ecosystem services” can’t be provided more effectively, safer, and with far less risk, fear and cost to taxpayers and wildlife via prescribed fires, ignited by people with stated objectives and written plans.

By mid August of this year the federal government had spent more than $1 billion fighting wildfires in the West, creating an estimated $10 billion to $25 billion in actual costs and damages. During the same time states and local fire units have spent hundreds of millions more for fire fighting. On August 21, 51 wildfires of significant size were uncontrolled. On August 22 the US Forest Service announced it was going to take more than $600 million from non-fire programs to pay its anticipated 2013 fire fighting costs.

What can be done?

There is little discussion of local economic damages caused by these fires other than structural losses, and often such losses are reported without mentioning the dollar amounts involved. However, the federal agencies are constantly challenged by members of Congress to reduce fire fighting costs, but without any sense of total fire costs.

Four years ago we were faced with the same problems and same questions, and it appears little has changed: these problems took quite a while to become established, and they will take sometime longer before they can be resolved. At that time a small group of individuals with similar backgrounds, interests and concerns in these matters asked ourselves what we could do to help resolve these problems. It was easy enough to come up with examples and complaints, but it was difficult to figure out how to make things better – particularly for such a small group.

The result of these discussions was an informal ad hoc – and truly grassroots – effort we titled the “Wildfire Cost-Plus-Loss Project.” Our intent was to develop analytical tools and sources of information that could be used by most citizens and not limited to agencies, professional organizations, or special interest groups.

The focus of much of our efforts was to design a simple tool that could be used effectively by almost anyone to assess the true damages of large wildfires. Target audiences were students, journalists, landowners, residents, elected officials, insurance adjustors and resource managers. Our initial efforts resulted in: 1) development of a “one pager” wildfire damage checklist/accounting form that could be used by almost anyone with access to the news; 2) a peer-reviewed article published online with an appropriate federal agency, including instructions for using the one-pager; and 3) a public informational website for anyone to use who was interested in the topic or use of these tools.

One-pager worksheet: www.wildfire-economics.org/Checklist/One_Pager_Checklist_2009.pdf

Peer-reviewed online publication with a federal agency: www.wildfirelessons.net/Additional.aspx?Page=240

Informational website (“under construction”): www.wildfire-economics.org/index.html

These efforts were generally well received and promoted on local, statewide, and national media and during several high-level meetings, but have never been properly field tested or adopted. In our opinion, not considering the true economic impact of wildfires to governments, businesses, and people is an unfortunate omission. For resource managers it is difficult to explain the realities of fire protection and its nuances to Congress and to citizens directly affected by these events. The lack of communications also implies that the land has no economic value for production of resources or public enjoyment. To the public the impression can be that it is government waste spending money fighting fire if there are no damages.

The “one-pager”

The focus of much of our group’s efforts was to design a simple tool that could be used effectively by almost anyone. Target audiences were students, journalists, landowners, residents, elected officials, insurance adjustors and resource managers.

The one-page checklist is intended to make initial estimates – based entirely on available data and personal estimates — of total fire costs, and to ultimately be used in conjunction with a comprehensive ledger for better tracking costs and losses over time. We believe the use of these tools would better inform land and resource managers in the management of water, fuels and wildfires by identifying true costs of decisions and allowing better judgment in the establishment of resource use priorities. Such uses would also generalize discussion topics and terminology for better communication with the public.

The checklist is divided into 11 categories: Suppression costs; Property; Public health; Vegetation; Wildlife; Water; Air and atmospheric effects; Soil-related effects; Recreation and aesthetics; Energy; and Heritage (cultural and historical resources). Each of the categories was considered in terms of direct costs (e.g., fire suppression, lost lives, evacuations, burned homes, etc.), concurrent indirect costs (fire preparedness equipment and training, fire insurance premiums, air and water quality, aesthetics, etc.), and post-fire costs (long term damages to society and the environment; e.g. loss of timber, crops, and wildlife habitat, chronic human health problems, reservoir sedimentation, etc.).

By using this basic approach we think the economic effects of large wildfires can be readily quantified, compared and described in terms understandable to our lawmakers and to the general public. By combining this data with digital spreadsheets, we think better ecological, economic and strategic decisions can be made in the management of our common lands and resources.

Conclusions

Few people seem to understand the critical importance of our nation’s natural resources to the future of the United States. Calculating economic damages may not be the best way to describe the total impact of wildfire on the land and people, but it is a method of creating awareness of damage by using a vehicle that most people understand: money. An analysis of actual wildfire damages provides needed context for evaluating protection and prevention programs, as well as overall natural resource management goals and objectives.

While we have focused on economics we are very much aware of biological considerations, their complexities, their importance to meeting the natural resource needs of 300 million people — but that is for another study. Now might be a better time to test our earlier efforts and conclusions, and perhaps the Douglas Complex provides an ideal circumstance for doing so.

While the USFS has chosen Coca-Cola to help promote its efforts to create passively managed landscapes from our nation’s forests and grasslands (see: https://forestpolicypub.com/2013/09/14/marlboro-signs-5-year-agreement-with-usfs-to-improve-air-quality/), Canada’s Forest Products Industry used a Pepsi Centre Studio to announce greater forestry employment opportunities for its youth via modern communications, new technology, and new forest products. Apparently there are greater differences between Canada and the US than just spelling, secondary languages, and choices in soft drinks — we are now apparently using different definitions of the word “green.” Personally, I like the Canadian definition much better, although I do prefer our spelling conventions, Spanish over French, and Australian Fosters over either of the colas. Other thoughts?

“Forestry industry launches program for greener future”

Adam Harnum
Published on September 17, 2013

David Lindsay, the executive director of the Forest Products Association of Canada, addresses the Canadian Institue of Forestry annual conference on Monday, Sept. 16, 2013 at the Pepsi Centre Studio.

CORNER BROOK — The forestry industry has experienced some rough times over the past few decades, but it is beginning to restore the previous wealth in the industry in recent years, says David Lindsay.

This, in turn, is opening doors for more youth to become employed in the forestry sector.

Lindsay, executive director of Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) said at the annual conference and general meeting of the Canadian Institute of Forestry on Monday the industry is transforming itself through investment in new technologies and new equipment, which is ultimately leading to the creation of new products.

One example he discussed was a product created through the extraction of fibre from a tree, which is then used in the process of making rayon, a replacement for cotton.

“We’re going to need more employees in this next evolution of the forest industry,” Lindsay said before his keynote address at the conference.

The biggest market for the forestry industry today seems to be aimed at a younger audience.

Lindsay says a study with the Conference Board of Canada estimates over the next seven to eight years there will be a need for about 60,000 new jobs to replace those who are retiring and for new growth and economic opportunity.

“We need foresters and people who understand the science of the industry to ensure that it is managed in a sustainable way so that involves a lot of technical knowledge and a lot of scientific knowledge,” he said.

Lindsay said Newfoundland and Labrador is well-situated with a good infrastructure and a healthy, vibrant forest, which places the province in a position for growth, as trees are abundant throughout.

The biggest difference between oil and minerals in contrast to forest products is the resources used to create forest products are renewable — essentially meaning that trees can be grown and harvested repeatedly.

As a renewable resource, Lindsay said the intent is to promote more involvement in the industry throughout the country, and said a second project of the Green Dream internship being launched at the conference is targeted at recruiting more young people.

In the first edition of the Green Dream internship, it was limited to seven positions but the newest version opens the door to eight more internship opportunities.

The website created for the program will serve as a portal for youth to access application forms and learn about the 15 different jobs available, then a contest will be executed and later an announcement of the winners will be made.

According to Lindsay, the individuals who are selected will be invited to post blogs about their working experience while on the job and then be made available to the public through the website — a format which he claimed to be a successful tactic from the previous program.

The forestry industry is taking much the same approach as most modern industries, as it is striving to make use of social media platforms to reach out and communicate with the rest of the world.

“What we are trying to do is say, ‘Look, there are products, there are other opportunities; the forest industry is changing,’” Lindsay said.

Lindsay used the analogy often portrayed of forestry industry as being lumberjacks dressed in plaid jackets, when realistically, the industry has changed and there are more people involved behind the scenes wearing white lab coats than plaid jackets.

“We want to rebrand the industry — not the old forest industry of the last century — but it is a new biotechnology, biosciences of the 21st century,” he said.

Now the USFS is looking for handouts and Coca-Cola is advertising bottled water, so this is a real win-win situation. The richest kid in town already gets to skip property taxes and blatantly ignore the very laws that gave it life, and now needs charity to manage its own resources. Fortunately, we have Tom Vilsack at the helm to steer this prodigal child and he knows just what to do — put enough spin on the situation so he gets his picture in the paper and makes it look like this is the latest thing in public forest management. wow.

This just in:

CHICAGO (AP) — The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Coca-Cola signed a five-year agreement Friday to restore watersheds that have been damaged or altered by development, wildfires and agriculture as part of an initiative to slow runoff and replenish groundwater on federal lands.

Such efforts are increasingly important to corporations and farmers who rely on water and to tens of millions of people whose drinking water originates in the national forest system, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said. But federal budget cuts and the wide scope of the problem have the USDA turning to partnerships with nonprofit groups and corporations for help.

“We need to look creatively at ways to leverage our resources or attract outside resources,” said Vilsack, who along with Coca-Cola Americas President Steve Cahillane will announce the partnership at the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie outside of Chicago. A wetland at the 18,000-acre site is being restored by removing old agricultural drain tiles that divert almost 14 million gallons per year into waterways — and eventually down the Mississippi River — rather than allowing it to soak back into the ground.

It’s one of six projects that Coca-Cola has helped fund through a pilot program with the USDA’s U.S. Forest Service over the past two years, said Chris Savage, assistant director of the agency’s Watershed, Fisheries and Wildlife office. Others included restoring a wetland in California’s Sierra Nevada Mountains that helps supply water to San Francisco and restoring the landscape along Colorado’s South Platte River that was devastated by fire a decade ago.

Under the new agreement, the company and the Forest Service will work with two nonprofit foundations — the National Forest Foundation and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation — to identify projects on federal lands. Corporate funding will go through the foundations, which also contribute money to the projects, officials said. There is no specific amount committed to the projects, but Vilsack said he expects “millions” will be spent.

Coca-Cola will emphasize projects that can be done fairly easily and improve resources in areas where the company withdraws water for production, said Bruce Karas, the company’s vice president of environment and sustainability for North America.

“Water stewardship is a key focus because … it’s in every product,” Karas said, adding that the company has pledged by 2020 to replenish as much water as it uses. The company has worked with universities and other organizations in the past, but partnering with the USDA could help it get the most from its investment because national forest lands often are the headwaters for important watersheds, Karas said.

The importance of restoring watersheds can’t be overstated, especially with climate change leading to weather extremes such as flooding and drought — and potentially more frequent and larger fires — at the same time manufacturers, residents and farmers increasingly compete for water, Vilsack said.

That’s particularly true in the West, he said, where wildfires have stripped the land of trees and other vegetation that once helped absorb water. The land, he said, “hardens like cement so rain runs off in a torrent” with ash, sludge and debris that makes its way into rivers and reservoirs. What’s more, the drinking water for about 60 million Americans originates in the national forest system.

“It’s about the quantity of water and availability,” he said.

This post is sort of a follow-up to a previous 3-part series of posts on this blog, “Cows vs. Fish,” that also featured some work (and help) from the Budd-Falen Law Offices in Wyoming. It was written in June, nearly three months ago, but has been making the rounds of email discussion groups during the past two days. You can probably pick up the bias by Budd-Falen’s description of Western Watersheds Project as a “radical environmental group,” but that has little to do with whether the contents and questions are accurate, or not. Other thoughts?

BUDD-FALEN LAW OFFICES, LLC
DATE: JUNE 25, 2013
RE: FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT ABUSE

Since 2009, Western Watersheds Project (“WWP”) has issued at least 675 Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) requests just to the BLM and Forest Service, related to livestock grazing on the public lands. Although I did not read all 675 requests, I did find some letters that demanded information for as many as 50 allotments in one single FOIA request. Most WWP FOIAs also wanted documents from multiple years and on multiple subjects. Many of the requests included instructions to the BLM or Forest Service offices stating that the response to WWP should be sent electronically or in a certain format. While the FOIA requires that the federal government make certain documents available, can a requester really dictate the format of the response?

Additionally, for every request, WWP argues that they should receive all information free of charge because they are:

a non-profit membership organization dedicated to protecting and conserving
the public lands and natural resources of watersheds in the American West.
WWP has over 1200 members . . . . WWP is active in seeking to protect and
improve the riparian areas, water quality, fisheries, wildlife, and other natural
resources and ecological values of western watersheds. To do so, WWP
actively participates in agency decision-making concerning BLM [Forest
Service] lands throughout the West, and the BLM’s management of livestock
grazing in Idaho, Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.*

WWP is effective at increasing public awareness of environmental matters,
such as protection of the diverse and valuable sagebrush-steppe ecosystem,
through public education and outreach, participation in administrative
processes, litigation and other enforcement of federal environmental laws.

(*WWP uses this same language to justify its fee waiver requests in Montana, California, Arizona and New Mexico as well).

In contrast, if a rancher/permittee requests that very same information about his allotment requested by WWP, the BLM or the Forest Service will charge him $42.00 per hour for administrative search time and $.15 per page for each photocopy made. It seems backwards to me that a rancher is charged for “administrative search time” and photocopy costs to see what is in his own files, yet a group whose stated goal is to “get cows off the public lands ASAP” gets that exact same information for no charge at all (not even charging out-of-pocket costs).

In addition to the shear volume of FOIA requests and the mass of information requested in each of the individual requests by WWP, other issues are of note:

First, in addition to requesting information about individual allotments or groups of allotments, some of WWP FOIAs request documents and information about named individuals. Of the FOIAs I reviewed where WWP wanted information about named ranchers or other individual ranchers, not one of the ranchers was contacted by the BLM or Forest Service before their information was released to WWP.

Second, a great number of FOIAs requested the same information over and over. For example, in 2009, a FOIA would request all monitoring data “gathered or generated to date” for an allotment or large group of allotments. The exact same FOIA will then be filed in 2010 requesting all monitoring data “gathered or generated to date” about the same allotment or groups of allotments. The same FOIA will then be filed in 2011. There is no mention in any of these FOIAs that the BLM or Forest Service had already supplied a great deal of the requested information in the past–the agency simply has to relocate and copy the same information over and over again–all at the public’s expense.

Third, if these radical groups do not receive the information they want – for free – federal court litigation follows, again at the taxpayers’ expense. The vast amount of FOIA cases filed by environmental groups only included the filing of a federal district court complaint, a settlement agreement for the release of the requested information and the payment of attorneys fees. Fee payments were anywhere from $5000 to $50,000.

In May, 2013, the Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for the U.S. House of Representatives, the Ranking Members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works and the Committee on the Judiciary for the U.S. Senate sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) strongly questioning EPA’s practice of “readily grant[ing] FOIA fee waivers for liberal environmental groups – effectively subsidizing them – while denying fee waivers and making the FOIA process difficult for states and conservative groups.” It is clear from the above research that the EPA is not the only agency who engages in such practice. Ranchers who should have the information that is kept in their files are forced to pay excessive amounts for information while radical environmental groups pay no fees for using this exact same information to file substantial numbers of administrative appeals and federal court litigation against these ranchers. With these radical groups, it is not a matter of providing fair public information; it is a matter of pushing a political agenda being subsidized by the taxpayers.

While there is no question that FOIA is an important statute to allow the public to get information from the federal government, this short essay points out the serious inequities in how the statute is implemented. Individuals are forced to pay search time and copy costs for the information gathered about them and located in their own files, while radical environmental groups can get the same documentation for free to use in litigation against the federal agency and rancher. Is that really the purpose of FOIA?