Matthew Koehler

Here’s the latest press release from the San Juan Citizens Alliance, Wilderness Watch and Great Old Broads for Wilderness. It’s an update from the post on May 22, which can be viewed here.

Conservation Groups Applaud Forest Service Decision Rescinding Approval of Chainsaws in Wilderness

For Release: June 11, 2019

Denver, CO – Conservation organizations that filed a lawsuit against the United States Forest Service for their secretive approval to allow chainsaws in two southwestern Colorado Wilderness areas this summer are pleased that the agency has officially rescinded the ill-advised policy.

The Wilderness Act prohibits the use of motorized equipment except for in emergency situations. The groups argued that the inconvenience of obstructed trails did not qualify as an emergency and the policy would set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for future exemptions from the law. Current and former wilderness rangers for the agency spoke out against the policy, stating it was illegal and unnecessary. Heavily obstructed trails have been cleared using crosscut saws for more than 50 years.

“We’re pleased that in light of overwhelming public opposition the Regional Forester decided to withdraw his unlawful decision to use chainsaws in these Wildernesses,” stated George Nickas of Wilderness Watch. “We encourage the Forest Service to use its time between now and next year to develop a plan that comports with both the letter and spirit of the Wilderness Act.”

The groups expect the Forest Service to re-evaluate how it can clear Wilderness trails in a manner that complies with the Wilderness Act and explore available volunteer and community resources to help them succeed.

“The Weminuche and South San Juan Wildernesses are wild and remote landscapes cherished by countless visitors and local residents. We urge the Forest Service to embrace management that elevates the defining wilderness character of these special places,” said Mark Pearson with San Juan Citizens Alliance.

A lawsuit has just been filed challenging a U.S Forest Service policy that grants states authority to allow black bear baiting in national forests, despite knowing that such practices have resulted in the deaths of threatened grizzly bears.

As a hunter myself, I find the practice of ‘baiting’ bears gross, unethical and totally inappropriate on any publics lands, but especially within habitat for threatened grizzly bears. Here’s the press release from the plaintiffs.

Grizzly deaths spur bear baiting challenge in Idaho, Wyoming

Today, wildlife advocates challenged in federal court a U.S. Forest Service policy granting states authority to allow black bear baiting in national forests, despite knowing that such practices have resulted in the deaths of threatened grizzly bears. Hunters have killed threatened grizzlies attracted to bait stations, typically stocked with human food intended to lure black bears. Currently, only Idaho and Wyoming allow bear baiting in national forests. The challenge comes as Congress considers a bill to enact expanded protections for threatened grizzlies.

“Bear baiting not only violates ‘fair chase’ hunting ethics, it has caused deaths of iconic grizzlies,” said Lindsay Larris of WildEarth Guardians. “Federal agencies are bound by the law to recover threatened grizzlies, and knowingly allowing bear baiting flagrantly violates that duty.”

Until 1992, the Forest Service required hunters and guides to obtain a special use permit to use bait to hunt black bears in national forests. Documents defining the terms of the policy change prohibits any grizzly killing (“take”) due to bear baiting. Should any grizzly bear deaths occur, “the [Forest Service] must reinitiate consultation with the [Fish and Wildlife] Service and provide the circumstances surrounding the take.” The decision’s biological opinion also stated there was only a “remote possibility that a grizzly bear may be taken as a result of black bear baiting.”

After the Forest Service allowed states alone to decide whether bait could be used, the grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone ecosystem increased. Since 1995, at least eight grizzly bears have been shot and killed at black bear bait stations in national forests in Idaho and Wyoming, and more have been killed at bait stations on other public and private lands.

Vague agency record keeping prohibits certainty about the extent of grizzly mortalities at black bear bait stations. However, in 2007, a grizzly was killed in the Bitterroot ecosystem on public land managed by the Forest Service, the first grizzly known to inhabit the area in over half a century.

“Grizzlies are making their way to the vast, wild country of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, and they’ll get there if we let them,” said Dana Johnson of Wilderness Watch. “Unfortunately, the many bait stations scattered along that path are death-magnets for dispersing bears. It’s past time for the Forest Service to do something about it.”

Also since giving states the power to allow bear baiting in national forests, scientists have established a significant body of research showing baiting causes harmful and irreversible grizzly bear conditioning to human food and disrupts grizzlies’ behavioral dynamics.

“The confirmed grizzly killings at bait stations are more than enough to trigger the Forest Service to reevaluate its policy delegating these decisions to states,” said Pete Frost, attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center. “Safe passage for grizzlies to the Selway Bitterroot ecosystem is critical to their recovery, and the Forest Service is required to reassess whether to allow states to control bear baiting in our national forests.”

Given bear baiting’s harmful effects on threatened grizzly bears, the groups involved in the case want the Forest Service to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service to re-evaluate whether bear baiting decisions should be up to states, and whether baiting is too harmful to threatened grizzly bears.

File this one under “the more you know.” It can also be cross filed under “we told you so.” Also, there’s plenty of scientific evidence and research out there that would refute much of what Idaho State Forester David Groeschl says below.

From the Associated Press:

BOISE, Idaho (AP) — The amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere from forest fires in the U.S. West is being greatly overestimated, possibly leading to poor land management decisions, researchers at the University of Idaho said.

Researchers in the study published last week in the journal Global Change Biology say many estimates are 59% to 83% higher than what is found based on field observations.

Healthy forests are carbon sinks, with trees absorbing carbon and reducing the amount in the atmosphere contributing to global warming. Forest fires can release that carbon.

“Part of the reason we’re talking about this is that there’s a narrative that has circumvented science,” said Jeff Stenzel, the lead author and a doctoral student at the university. “What that can lead to is management decisions that can exacerbate rather than mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.”

The study used field data from a 2002 wildfire in southern Oregon and a 2013 wildfire in central California that, the authors of the paper said, included one of the largest pre- and post-fire data sets available.

Typically, the study found, about 5% of the biomass burned in a forest fire as opposed to other estimates of 30% and public perceptions of 100%.

Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke in late 2018 cited carbon released from forest fires as a result of poor forest practices on federal land and a need to increase various management practices.

Forest fires usually leave behind standing dead trees, the study said, that could be mistakenly counted as releasing carbon in other estimates. The carbon remains in those trees and is slowly released over decades. Even then, the study found, much of that carbon is recaptured in new growth following the forest fire.

Overall, the study found, forest fires in the U.S. West in the last 15 years have emitted about 250 million tons of carbon, about half of many estimates.

Idaho State Forester David Groeschl said carbon emissions are a consideration when it comes to making decisions about forests on the 2.4 million acres (987,000 hectares) the state manages, but so are other factors.

In deciding where to log, Groeschl said, the state considers weather and climate, insect and disease, fire frequency and severity, milling technology, and local, regional and global economics.

When a forest is logged, the resulting wood products retain that carbon, he noted. When a fire moves through state-owned forests, he said, salvage logging removes standing dead trees and trees likely to die and so captures that carbon in wood products rather than allowing it to be slowly released over several decades.

He also said that forest restoration efforts following logging or a fire speed up the return of a forest that otherwise could take decades.

“We get carbon sequestration going as quickly as possible,” he said.

Wildfires have become more frequent and more severe in the last 20 to 30 years, Groeschl said, which is also a factor when it comes to logging state lands.

“The longer we grow it, the greater the risk of loss and carbon emission happening,” he said.

Here’s a press release from the San Juan Citizens Alliance, Wilderness Watch and Great Old Broads for Wilderness.

For Immediate Release: May 22, 2019

Denver, CO – A coalition of conservation organizations filed a lawsuit today against the United States Forest Service for their secretive approval of a policy to violate the Wilderness Act by allowing chainsaws to clear obstructed trails in the Weminuche and South San Juan Wildernesses this summer. The groups are asking the court to overturn the Forest Service’s approval and direct the agency to comply with the Wilderness Act by inviting public participation and weighing lawful alternatives to allowing motorized equipment in the wildernesses.

The concept of wilderness as codified in the Wilderness Act is to restrain the impulse to use our industrial might, to allow wilderness to be left untrammeled by humans and dominated by natural processes. “Wilderness exists for it’s own sake. It represents a piece of primitive America free of motors and technology that have allowed humans to dominate so much of the planet. It is not the role of the Forest Service to alter wilderness to appease impatient managers or visitors,” says George Nickas of Wilderness Watch.

While there are exceptions for the use of motorized equipment in dire emergencies, such as search and rescue, inconvenienced trail users clearly does not rise to that level. Heavy deadfall can be a challenge, but 80% of trails in the San Juan National Forest are not in designated Wilderness and can be cleared with motorized equipment.

In fact, the Wilderness Act explicitly bans administrative waivers for ease or convenience of trail maintenance using chainsaws or other motorized equipment. The Forest Service’s Minimum Requirements Decision Guide helpfully spells out exactly that point: “Forest Service policy does not allow managers to base a decision to approve a generally prohibited use solely on a rationale that the method or tool is quicker, cheaper and easier (FSM 2320.6).”

The Forest Service has been effectively clearing wilderness trails for decades. “I know from my 30 years of experience using a crosscut saw to buck trees, some of them 28 inches in diameter, out on wilderness trails that the work can be done safely and efficiently with crosscut saws and axes. In 2005, a crew of 10 people in the Weminuche Wilderness cleared over 3,000 trees with hand tools. This authorization is unnecessary and sets a dangerous precedent for all Wilderness in the U.S.,” says Anne Dal Vera, retired Wilderness Ranger.

“More discouraging than the lack of commitment to following the plain language of the law, is the demonstrated dismissal of the fundamental purpose of wilderness – to show restraint and humility in the wildest parts of the Rockies,” says Mark Pearson of the regional environmental advocacy group, San Juan Citizens Alliance.

If allowed to proceed, this decision will set a disturbing precedent for using chainsaws or other motorized equipment in wilderness for convenience and without public input. If the Forest Service believes the challenge of clearing within wilderness areas is a pressing public concern, the agency should initiate an open and transparent public process to invite perspectives of all wilderness users.

“We need wild, untouched places where we can retreat from civilization and remember what we deeply value,” says Shelley Silbert of the Great Old Broads for Wilderness, a national conservation organization. “Only 3% of land in the lower 48 states is protected as Wilderness. These special places allow us to take a step back and think about our human imprint. We stand ready to help the Forest Service in finding a better way.”

According to a report produced in November 2018 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) fossil fuel extraction on U.S. public lands contributes nearly 25% of all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.

Over the weekend, the levels of the greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere reached their highest levels in human history (going back 800,000 years) as measured by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii.

Incredibly, yesterday the Trump administration’s Interior Secretary David Bernhardt – who oversees the fossil fuel on America’s public lands, which account for nearly 25% of our nation’s greenhouse gas emissions – told a House Oversight Hearing that “I haven’t lost any sleep over it.”

By Alex Renirie

In this historic year –the first legislative session after the International Panel on Climate Change warned in a special report in late 2018 that we have less than 12 years to make “rapid and far-reaching transitions in land, energy, industry, buildings, transport, and cities,” with human-caused CO2 emissions dropping “by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching ‘net zero’ around 2050”– environmental groups in Oregon are up against more challenging odds than ever.

Just weeks into the session, The Oregonian issued a report calling out the state’s political system for its increasingly corrupt campaign finance laws. The four-part series revealed that Oregon’s environmental regulations have been getting weaker for decades while the state has been working its way toward number one in the country for highest corporate campaign contributions per capita. Nowhere is the payoff more obvious than in the strong political ties between the timber industry and state legislators—Oregon is number one for campaign contributions from the timber industry nationally. As a result of this influence, the timber industry remains virtually unregulated in the state, with weaker forest practices standards than any of its neighboring states. And it continues to escape responsibility for its climate impacts. As Center for Sustainable Economy has documented and Oregon State University researchers have confirmed, the timber industry is the number one source of greenhouse gas emissions in the state—yet these emissions are completely uncounted and not covered by existing proposed climate legislation.

Thus, it was no surprise that there was pushback when the Oregon Safe Waters Act, sponsored by State Representatives Andrea Salinas (D-HD38) and Karin Power (D-HD41)and the Oregon Forest Carbon Incentives Act, sponsored by State Representatives Andrea Salinas (D-HD38) and Rob Nosse (D-HD42) and State Senator Kathleen Taylor (D-SD21) were formally introduced. Combined, both bills were endorsed by the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network (SEEN), Pacific Rivers, and 50 other partner organizations across the state. Both bills would restrict the environmental, economic and human health impacts of the timber industry and attempt to remedy a serious flaw in existing Oregon law namely: in the face of a changing climate, Oregon should amend its forestry laws to protect vulnerable drinking water sources, incentivize sustainable forestry rather than massive clearcuts, and turn our forests back into carbon sinks, not carbon sources.

The Oregon Forest Carbon Incentives Act, HB 2659, as explained on the SEEN site would mean, “if you’re an Oregon forestland owner, you should not be receiving tax breaks for land that is covered by clearcuts, logging roads, and timber plantations. Taxpayer support should be reserved for owners who maintain healthy forests on their lands and use good practices.” HB 2659 would make receipt of various tax breaks contingent upon the land being covered in actual forests, not dense plantations that are biological deserts, in order to support landowners who choose more sustainable methods to log and leave a climate resilient forest behind.

The Oregon Safe Waters Act (HB 2656) prohibits most chemical spraying and clearcuts in Oregon’s drinking watersheds. On March 12, 2019, the House Committee on Energy and Environment heard HB2656, the Oregon Safe Waters Act. Between supporters and opponents, attendees packed three entire hearing rooms. Over 100 people signed up to give public comment.

From big partners like the Sierra Club’s Oregon chapter and Oregon Wild to smaller community advocacy groups like the dedicated folks at Rockaway Beach Citizens for Watershed Protection, to the Williams Creek Watershed Council and Clatsop Soil & Water Conservation District, we were encouraged to see that Oregonians from all over the state were eager to pass this legislation.

Our panel of experts in support of the HB2656 included SEEN’s Dr. John Talberth, Greg Haller of Pacific Rivers, and Tina Schweickert, former water resources coordinator for the city of Salem. Haller focused on the critical message that the bill was not designed to affect small landowners, despite timber industry claims: The real target of the bill is Wall Street-funded timber companies that don’t care about the community impacts. Talberth focused his testimony on the depletion of water resources in industrially logged areas and the increased risks of fire and toxic algae blooms that unsustainable forestry practices cause. Schweikert highlighted the contamination of Salem’s drinking water by a toxic algae bloom in 2018 and strongly encouraged the committee to take proactive measures to safeguard the entire state’s water supplies.

Oregon Department of Forestry Director Peter Dougherty also testified, largely repeating claims made by industry that water quality in Oregon is safe across the board. He presented research from the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality showing that water quality in forestland is the best of any land use type, but upon questioning by Representative Salinas, admitted that not all watersheds were monitored and that he didn’t know how many were represented in the referenced study.

After over an hour of introductions and expert testimony, Committee Chair Ken Helm began a dramatically shortened public comment period, prioritizing those who had traveled the farthest to attend the hearing, while extending the deadline for others to submit comments in writing by several days. Only twelve people of over a hundred that signed up had the chance to give their testimony. Still, we heard from some powerful speakers – citizens of Rockaway Beach demonstrated how clearcutting has decimated their watersheds on the coast, and a small timber owner reminded us that utilizing climate- and water-smart forestry practices is not only possible, but profitable. In opposing comments, we heard nearly identical claims that Oregon’s drinking water is perfectly safe and that the bill would put people out of work. Our opponents seemed largely unaware or uninterested in the proposal’s central intent to proactively protect watersheds from increasing drought, fire, and algal toxicity in the face of a warming climate.

The combination of an extremely shortened public comment session, the one-dimensional arguments from those opposing the bill, and several committee members clearly more interested in asking questions of industry representatives than bill sponsors, made it a frustrating experience overall. Instead of moving the bill to a work group so that concerns could be addressed head on, the committee seemed perfectly willing to submit to the industry’s scare tactics and let the bill die.

At the Forest Carbon Initiatives Act hearing on March 26th, we again were faced with poor scheduling and limited opportunity for public comment. At the last minute, the House Natural Resource Committee switched the hearing date to 8 a.m, two days earlier than previously scheduled. With other bills to address in a tight timeframe, we were once again left with insufficient time even for expert testimony and very limited time for the public to weigh in.

Nevertheless, again, our panel of experts supporting the bill was excellent and emphasized that the timber industry is given extremely favorable treatment in the form of tax breaks and subsidies from our state government. In return for these tax breaks (doled out by Oregon taxpayers), we are left with damaged land at higher risk for flooding, contamination, biodiversity loss, and more rapid climate change. In his slideshow, Talberth presented two photos to demonstrate the point – one of a large clearcut, and one of a healthy forest – and implored legislators to change their minds about which of those forest landowners deserves a tax incentive. If we are serious about tackling climate change and increasing forest carbon sequestration, we should be offering benefits to those who leave healthy forests behind. And doing so would bring in hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue for schools, infrastructure, and services to rural counties.

Oregon Department of Forestry Director’s Dougherty again offered predictable testimony opposing the bill, this time explaining that Oregon’s existing forest land tax structures are entirely reasonable and based on a long history of collaboration between loggers and the state government (no surprise there). Though it may be acceptable business-as-usual for those benefitting from the current system, there is no denying that current tax laws artificially boost timber harvests in Oregon to levels far beyond what we would see under a free market.

Unfortunately, neither bill was advanced to a work session this year, but we are optimistic about the partnerships we built and hopeful that a renewed campaign for the Forest Carbon Incentives Act will gain traction in the 2020 revenue-focused legislature. We are so grateful to the dozens of our partners and supporters who traveled from around the state to attend one or both hearings. And we thank the hundreds more that filed comments online. With so much support, we surely communicated to lawmakers that these issues aren’t going anywhere and that we will be back.

The bills’ co-sponsors deserve our biggest gratitude – Representative Andrea Salinas (D-HD38) championed both bills and made clear that while the problems we face are grave, the solutions are attainable. She offered several times throughout both hearings to sit down with the opposition and discuss how to address these challenges together. Representative Karin Power (D-HD41), co-sponsor of the Oregon Safe Waters Act, eloquently portrayed that bill as an equity issue. She advocated for the rights of rural communities, stating that those who don’t have the resources to buy their watersheds should not be left to bear the cost of upstream industrial polluters. We also appreciate the support of Senator Kathleen Taylor (D-SD21) and Representative Rob Nosse (D-HD42), co-sponsors of the Forest Carbon Initiatives Act.

While some of our opposition suggested that the bills were simply reminiscent of the timber wars of the 1980s, it should be clear to anyone who is paying attention that the environmental problems we face today couldn’t be more distinct from those of the ‘80s. Climate change is upon us. It is more glaringly apparent in every fire season, every algal bloom in a drinking watershed left sitting under hotter summer suns, and every threatened species left with less available habitat. Our ecosystems are more vulnerable than ever, and common-sense updates to Oregon’s forestry laws should be a quick and easy step towards making Oregon the world-class carbon sink it was designed to be.

Despite some setbacks this year, we will continue pushing to reform the timber industry through the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network, and with our allies. We know our coalitions will only grow stronger and our arguments more urgent. These problems can and must be solved and, with your support, they will be.

Alex Renirie is a Forest Policy Advocate at Center for Sustainable Economy, and Legislative Liaison with the Sustainable Energy and Economy Network.

The following article was written by Los Padres ForestWatch.

Goleta, Calif. – On April 25, 2019, the Forest Service announced its approval of the second of two commercial logging projects in the Los Padres National Forest. The approval of the 1,600-acre project along Tecuya Ridge comes just five months after the agency authorized an adjacent 1,200-acre project allowing commercial logging in Cuddy Valley at the base of Mt. Pinos.

The agency fast-tracked both projects without preparing a standard environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, instead declaring that the projects were excluded from environmental review under a loophole in the National Environmental Policy Act. A full environmental review examines potential impacts to plants and wildlife as well as alternatives to the proposed activities. The normal review process also provides more transparency and opportunities for the public to weigh in with concerns about the project.

The logging area provides prime habitat for endangered California condors. According to condor tracking data provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, nearly fifty condor roost sites occur within a half-mile of where trees will be cut and removed. These roost sites are typically large dead or live trees that are used by condors for resting overnight between long flights. Federal standards require a minimum half-mile buffer from condor roosting sites to protect them from disturbance, given their sensitivity and importance in condor survival.

“There is simply no place for commercial logging in condor country,” said Los Padres ForestWatch Conservation Director Bryant Baker. “With approval of this project, the Forest Service is setting a dangerous precedent for shirking environmental review and public input for logging projects that can have significant impacts on endangered species in the Los Padres National Forest.”

The project would remove trees of all sizes along 12 miles of Tecuya Ridge near the northern border of the Los Padres National Forest and allow for a commercial timber sale to be offered to private logging companies. The decision states that the timber sale would make the project cheaper.

The decision—signed by Forest Supervisor Kevin Elliott—describes operations that would remove large trees using feller bunchers and rubber-tired or track-mounted log skidders and loading them onto logging trucks at cleared areas called landings. Up to 95% of smaller trees and shrubs would be mechanically masticated. The leftover slash would be tractor piled along with post-logging machine piling and pile burning. The agency anticipates that these activities would repeat every 3 to 7 years.

A New Low for Public Participation and Transparency

The two commercial logging projects represent a shift in how the Forest Service authorizes large tree removal projects in the Los Padres National Forest. Since 2006, officials have only approved such projects after rigorously evaluating their environmental impacts in an environmental assessment that is made available for public review and comment prior to approval.

One of the many areas along Tecuya Ridge that will be logged and masticated.
Other projects that were aimed at removing trees in the few mixed-conifer areas in the Los Padres National Forest have generally included a limit on the size of trees that can be removed. For example, a Frazier Mountain thinning project that was approved in 2012 only allowed for removal of trees smaller than 10 inches in diameter, or roughly the size of a basketball. Normally, anything larger than this would be left in place as countless scientific studies have highlighted the importance of retaining large, fire-resistant trees to reduce the risk of high-intensity fire. However, the recently-approved project on Tecuya Ridge as well as Cuddy Valley project would allow a timber company to remove massive, old-growth coniferous trees.

Logging Ineffective Against Wildfire Risk

The Trump Administration is billing the commercial logging project as a fire protection measure. However, countless studies have shown that logging is an ineffective or even counterproductive measure for reducing wildfire risk. Similar to many fires before it, last year’s tragic Camp Fire burned intensely and quickly through a large logged area in the Plumas National Forest and across private lands that had been subject to timber harvesting before it devastated the town of Paradise.

“The science is telling us that commercial logging projects like these not only damage critical wildlife habitat, they also usually make wildland fires spread faster and burn hotter,” said Dr. Chad Hanson, a forest ecologist with the John Muir Project. “The Forest Service’s logging proposals will increase threats to local communities from wildland fire,” he added.

Scientists have long-stated that the most effective vegetation management should take place directly around the home and immediately adjacent to communities. The Forest Service followed this model in planning two such projects in 2007 to establish defensible space directly adjacent to homes abutting national forest land and construct two fuel breaks directly adjacent to Frazier Park and Lake of the Woods. ForestWatch formally supported both projects. However, more than ten years later, the Forest Service has still not completed the approved fuel break work.

Research has also repeatedly shown that community-focused measures are more successful and cost-effective than landscape-level vegetation treatment. These measures include retrofitting existing structures with fire-safe materials, improving early warning and evacuation systems, creating fireproof community shelters, and curbing development in fire-prone areas.

Public Opposition Ignored

The Forest Service received over 1,000 public comments before the decision—approximately 99% were in opposition to the commercial logging proposal. ForestWatch submitted technical and legal comments highlighting several issues with both projects in partnership with the John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute and the Center for Biological Diversity, and another letter requesting that the projects undergo standard environmental review joined by the California Wilderness Coalition, Kern Audubon, Sequoia ForestKeeper, Kern-Kaweah Chapter of the Sierra Club, TriCounty Watchdogs, and Earth Skills. Since the Forest Service excluded these projects from environmental review, there is no formal appeals process, leaving litigation as the only option for the public to seek changes to the project. ForestWatch and its partners at the John Muir Project and Center for Biological Diversity are currently evaluating the best course of action to take to avoid impacts to the area and to endangered California condors.

According to the AP:

Former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has a new job: a more than $100,000-a-year post with a gold-mining firm that’s pursuing project approvals involving the federal agency that Zinke left fewer than four months ago.

Zinke told The Associated Press on Tuesday that his work for Nevada-based U.S. Gold Corp., which focuses on mining exploration and development, would not constitute lobbying. But that company’s CEO cited Zinke’s “excellent relationship” with the Bureau of Land Management and the Interior Department in explaining his hiring.

“We’re excited to have Secretary Zinke help move us forward” on two pending mining projects, in Nevada and Wyoming, Edward Karr, head of U.S. Gold Corp., said by phone.

Karr said one of the mining projects is on land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, which is under the Interior Department.

A 2017 executive order by President Donald Trump says executive-branch appointees cannot lobby their former agency for at least five years after leaving their government post.

Separately, criminal statutes impose one and two-year bans on various kinds of communications between senior federal officials and their former agency, said Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonprofit ethics-watchdog.

To continue with this blog’s exploration of “Agenda-Based Science,” here’s a Throwback Thursday edition that looks at Julie McDonald, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior Department during the George W. Bush years.

Between 2004 and 2010, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a series of case studies as part of their “Scientific Integrity Program.” All the case studies are certainly worthy of a look in and of themselves.

Their article, “Political Appointee Edits Science on Greater Sage Grouse” focuses on just some of the underhanded tactics used by Ms. MacDonald.

MacDonald didn’t just edit and interfere with the science surrounded Sage Grouse. She also was deeply involved with similar questionable deeds regarding bull trout.

And the list went on to include Canada lynx, Preble’s meadow jumping mouse and California red-legged frog.

Ms. MacDonald’s exposed attempts to ride roughshod over numerous decisions by agency scientists concerning endangered species protections is very much directly related to a sizable number of discussions and debates we’ve had on this blog over the federal timber sale program and litigation by some environmental groups in Montana, especially since much of the litigation has at least some focus on bull trout and Canada lynx.

While it’s ‘fun’ for some folks on this blog to point fingers at groups like the Alliance for the Wild Rockies or Swan View Coalition, could it be that without Ms. MacDonald’s meddling with agency scientists around 15 years ago we’d be in a different place today?

Finally, right after Julie MacDonald was forced to resign in May 2007, after a scathing report from the Interior Department’s Inspector General, the scientific journal “Nature: the International Journal of Science” published this piece titled “Disgraced official was paid work bonus: Irregularities highlight political interference in Endangered Species Act.”

SNIP: “Further troubling reports have surfaced in the case of a disgraced US official accused of political interference in the workings of the Endangered Species Act. It has been disclosed that Julie MacDonald, former deputy assistant secretary for fish, wildlife and parks at the Department of the Interior (DOI), received a performance award of nearly $10,000 in 2005. Yet the report of an investigation into her conduct, released on 27 March this year (2007), reveals that MacDonald violated federal regulations while in that position.”

Let’s add this one to the discussion and debate about “Agenda-driven science.”

In an attempt to reduce litigation costs, Georgia-Pacific – “one of the world’s leading makers of tissue, pulp, packaging, building products and related chemicals” according to GP’s official website – launched a secret campaign to produce and publish counterfeit science designed to raise doubts about the dangers of asbestos. You can read the full story here.

According to The Union of Concerned Scientists: “beginning in 2005, Georgia-Pacific crafted and published counterfeit science — seeding the literature with articles intended to raise doubts about the dangers posed by asbestos. In so doing, the company created a life-threatening hazard by deceiving those who rely on science to understand the health risks of asbestos exposure.”

Again, you can read the full story here.

For whatever it’s worth:

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a national nonprofit organization founded 50 years ago by scientists and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who sought to use the power of science to address global problems and improve people’s lives.

Our Mission
The Union of Concerned Scientists puts rigorous, independent science to work to solve our planet’s most pressing problems. Joining with people across the country, we combine technical analysis and effective advocacy to create innovative, practical solutions for a healthy, safe, and sustainable future.