Matthew Koehler

Those pesky nosy bodies at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) are at it again. Below is there latest press release. – mk

Washington, DC — A state-federal timber partnership in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest went badly off-course, doing environmental damage in what was supposed to be a restoration project, according to a complaint filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Rather than improve forest health, the group charges that the sale damaged it.

In 2014, Congress enacted “Good Neighbor” authority for timber agreements between federal and state governments to enable cooperative forest restoration projects on federal lands when similar restoration projects take place on adjacent state lands. The political sales pitch for the suggestively titled Good Neighbor program characterized it as a proverbial “win-win” in that public forestlands receive needed restoration work while local mill economies benefit at the same time.

Employees complained to PEER that the Good Neighbor timber sale conducted on Kosciusko Island in the Alexander Archipelago of southeastern Alaska did not follow the blueprint. Contrary to how the program was supposed to work, in this case –

• There is no restoration of any kind planned on either federal or state lands;

• The U.S. Forest Service contract did not provide for any reforestation, even of parcels that were clearcut; and

• Few jobs materialized at local lumber mills and processing plants because all the timber was exported to East Asia.

To add insult to injury, by law, a portion of the income generated by the Good Neighbor sale must return to the U.S. Forest Service, but in this case, the State of Alaska is apparently set to pocket the income generated by this conventional timber sale masquerading as a restoration project.

“In this timber sale, Good Neighbor authority became a license to loot,” stated PEER Staff Counsel Adam Carlesco, arguing that under the guise of restoration, damaging clear-cutting occurred. “Both the U.S. Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources acted more like co-conspirators than collaborators for improving forest health.”

PEER is asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General to audit not only this sale but also all the other Good Neighbor agreements. The PEER complaint also asks the IG to review a pattern of timber sale maladministration by the Forest Service.

“This is one of the first Good Neighbor timber sales and we are concerned that unless these problems are cured, as the twig is bent so grows the tree,” added Carlesco. “This Good Neighbor exercise made the case for high fences rather than more cooperation.”

###

Read the PEER complaint

See continuing pattern of taxpayer rip-offs from Tongass timber sales

“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?” We’re all familiar with this thought experiment in observation and perception.

So what if an investigation by the Washington Office (WO) of the US Forest Service visits the Petersburg, and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts reviewing the Tonka and Big Thorne timber sales, and they conclude in a report never intended to be made public, that thousands of trees fell in our public forest illegally? Does it make a sound in local newsprint when finally revealed? Not a peep was heard from the Petersburg Pilot on what would surely merit the highest level of local, and regional if not national newsworthiness.

Does the loss of millions of dollars in revenues to the communities of Petersburg and Thorne Bay make a sound on local public radio? Well, no. Although there were two CoastAlaska news reports, the first one misleadingly claimed the agency findings of fact were merely accusations by an environmental group regarding “mishandled timber sales.” The title of the second news report would have us believe the Big Thorne timber Sale was “short on timber,” and simply “a mistake.” At no time was the Tonka timber sale out of Petersburg ever mentioned in either of these stories.

A timber sale requires a contract which once signed, is a binding legal agreement enforceable by law. The WO investigation team determined the contract was neither enforced, nor could a valid copy be provided upon request. But that’s not all. Many more records necessary to assure proper oversight of millions of dollars in public resources were also found— to not exist.

There’s one of two possibilities here. Either public records exist, records necessary to assure the public that laws were followed — including the prevention of timber theft — or those records were destroyed to protect the perpetrators.

These systematic failures to comply with law on two different ranger districts in two separate timber sales can hardly be a “mistake.” The WO findings of monetary losses to municipalities were raised during a recent open house on the central Tongass planning to Tongass Forest supervisor, Earl Stewart. Stewart tried to dodge the question, was heckled, but still feigned ignorance of the WO findings of fact. This exchange was omitted from CoastAlaska’s news coverage of the meeting. Large-scale timber theft on the Tongass has been well documented in a white paper published in 1996. 20 years later, all the carefully designed agency methods to assure that this doesn’t happen again were systematically ignored in the Petersburg and Thorne Bay Ranger districts.

So either there is a system of gross maladministration, mismanagement and incompetence on the Petersburg and Thorne Bay Ranger Districts, or there exists a conspiracy of willful disregard of agency protocols, public trust, and public laws.

As Ani Difranco has noted, freedom of the press is meaningless if the press refuses to ask questions. News production is often referred to as the first draft of history, and this astonishing investigation revealing millions of dollars of taxpayer losses to the Petersburg borough and the community of Thorne Bay never made the local news roundup of 2017.

This April 4th will mark a full year since the public was first alerted to this Washington Office investigation, and it is time to hold accountable, not only the agency perpetrators, but the gatekeepers of local news.

A forensic accounting of this matter is essential.

David Beebe has been a Southeast Alaska resident and commercial fisherman for over 3 decades, During that time, he has closely followed issues related to environmental, social and economic policy, and has served on several non-profit boards, and council seats.

Breaking news from PBS Newshour:

The chief of the U.S. Forest Service is stepping down amid allegations of sexual misconduct and an investigation commissioned by the United States Department of Agriculture into his own behavior.

Tony Tooke, who became chief in September after nearly four decades with the agency, wrote in an email to staff Wednesday that his retirement was effective immediately.

The news comes days after a PBS NewsHour investigation revealed a widespread culture of sexual harassment and assault within the agency, and retaliation against those who reported it.

That investigation also revealed claims of sexual misconduct against Tooke, including relationships with his subordinates before he became chief.

The United States Department of Agriculture confirmed last week it had “engaged an independent investigator” to look into claims about Tooke’s behavior.

In his email Wednesday, Tooke wrote: “I have been forthright during the review, but I cannot combat every inaccuracy that is reported in the news media. What I can control, however, are decisions I make today and the choice of a path for the future that is best for our employees, the Forest Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I must also think about what is best for my family. Therefore, I have decided that what is needed right now is for me to step down as Forest Service Chief and make way for a new leader that can ensure future success for all employees and the agency.”

“We are in a moment at the Forest Service when we have a tremendous opportunity to mold a bright and successful future in delivering our mission. To seize this moment, however, the right leadership must be in place to create an atmosphere in which employees can perform their very best work. Each employee deserves a leader who can maintain the proper moral authority to steer the Forest Service along this important and challenging course,” he also wrote.

PBS Newshour had a bunch of the background:

U.S. Forest Service chief under investigation after complaints of sexual misconduct (here)

They reported sexual harassment. Then the U.S. Forest Service retaliation began (here)

A must read from PBS NewsHour. Will U.S. Forest Service Chief Tony Tooke and President Donald Trump take these reports of sexual harassment and assault, bullying by U.S. Forest Service supervisors and crew members seriously?

Harassment of women in the Forest Service has been a problem for years. As far back as 1972, women have joined together to file class action complaints and lawsuits about gender discrimination and sexual harassment. More recently, in 2016, a congressional hearing was held to address the problem within the Forest Service’s California workforce, which had also been the focus of previous complaints. The PBS NewsHour investigated what’s happened since then, and found the problem goes much deeper.

In interviews with 34 current and former U.S. Forest Service women, spanning 13 states, the women described a workplace that remains hostile to female employees. They complained of a pattern of gender discrimination, bullying, sexual harassment and assault by crew members and supervisors. Three women said they were raped after-hours by co-workers or interagency firefighters while working for the Forest Service. Many women alleged retaliation after reporting these incidents….

Seven of the 34 women interviewed asked to remain anonymous for fear of further retaliation. Fear was a common theme in the interviews. One woman said she went to the hospital multiple times for “her nerves” after reporting harassment. Another asked the NewsHour to destroy her interview transcript, because she became too afraid of the consequences. A third, a firefighter who resigned from her position in 2016 after she reported to police that she was raped on assignment in Montana, said: “We all live in this fear … So if I have to speak up I will. But it’s frustrating because there’s so many more out there who are not talking.”

Read the entire article here.

The Swan View Coalition put together the following blog post, which includes links to a bunch of official objections filed on the Flathead National Forest’s revised forest plan (including one from my organization, the WildWest Institute).

Conservation groups wanting better protection for fish and wildlife in the Northern Rockies filed Objections to the revised Flathead Forest Plan and Amendments to four other Forest Plans in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem.

The plan revision and amendments are intended to pave the way for delisting of threatened grizzly bear in the NCDE, which would remove their Endangered Species Act protection.

The groups launched a letter writing campaign in 2016. This resulted in 98% of the 33,744 comments the Forest Service received on its Draft Environmental Impact Statement calling for protection of all remaining roadless lands as wilderness and continuation of the road decommissioning program that agencies credit with improving grizzly bear security and helping restore critical bull trout watersheds.

The revised Flathead Forest Plan instead abandons its road decommissioning program and recommends for wilderness designation only 30% of the areas it found suitable for wilderness. The Kootenai, Lolo, Lewis and Clark, and Helena Forest Plans would similarly be amended to abandon road removal as a primary means to restore fish and wildlife habitat that has been damaged.

The groups rallied around the principles of the Citizen reVision alternative Swan View Coalition and Friends of the Wild Swan asked the Forest Service to include in its DEIS. The DEIS included some of these principles in its Alternative C, which it then assigned the highest marks for maintaining water quality and wildlife habitat connectivity. The FEIS and revised Flathead Forest Plan, however, select Alternative B-modified even though it is assigned “the highest risk of impact to aquatic species” and “is likely to adversely affect” already threatened grizzly bear, bull trout, and Canada lynx!

The Objections were due at Forest Service Region One headquarters in Missoula on February 12. The Region now has ten days to “publish a notice of all objections in the applicable newspaper of record and post the notice online.” The Region’s responses to the Objections are due within 90 days, unless it grants itself extensions.

Below are links to some of the Objections filed by groups supporting the principles of the Citizen reVision:

Swan View Coalition Objection and Supplemental Objection.

Friends of the Wild Swan Objection.

Independent Wildlife Consultant Brian Peck Objection.

WildEarth Guardians, Western Watersheds Project and Sierra Club Objection.

Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Montana Ecosystems Defense Council, Friends of the Wild Swan Objection.

Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force, Wilderness Watch, WildWest Institute, Friends of the Bitterroot, Friends of the Rattlesnake, Friends of the Clearwater, Independent Consultant Mike Bader Objection.
Citizens’ Objection filed by WildEarth Guardians on behalf of 4,000+ signors.

Montana Chapter Sierra Club Objection.

The 3,000 pages of FEIS, Forest Plan and Forest Plan amendments can be found here.

In my opinion, “chaining” looks straight outta Isengard from Lord of the Rings.

The Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA) has launched a statewide television and online media campaign in Utah to focus public attention on the Bureau of Land Management’s destructive practice of “chaining” native pinyon and juniper forests to create more forage for cattle on public lands. Now the BLM wants to chain in Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument. Call the BLM at 801-539-4010 or learn more at suwa.org/chaining

Here’s the press release from the successful conservation groups.

PORTLAND, Ore.— Responding to a petition from conservation groups, the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission voted today to change the status of marbled murrelets from threatened to endangered under the Oregon Endangered Species Act.

The decision to uplist the murrelet reflects the increasingly imperiled status of the species in Oregon and represents an important step in reversing its ongoing decline toward extinction in the state.

“We applaud the commission for recognizing that the marbled murrelet warrants endangered status in Oregon,” said Nick Cady, legal director at Cascadia Wildlands. “This decision sets the stage for the state of Oregon to take the steps that will be necessary to recover this species in Oregon.”

The marbled murrelet is a seabird that nests in old-growth and mature forests and forages at sea. Its population has declined dramatically over the decades because of extensive logging in Oregon’s Coast Range. The commission’s decision could have implications for forest protection on state and private timberlands.

“While federal laws have stabilized habitat loss on federal lands, the state of Oregon has continued to allow logging of older forests at an alarming rate and failed to adequately address new threats to the species,” said Bob Sallinger, conservation director for the Audubon Society of Portland. “Changing the murrelet’s status to endangered will help ensure that Oregon takes the steps necessary to do its part to save this species.”

In response to a petition from multiple conservation organizations, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife developed a status review to assess the murrelet’s condition. The review demonstrated that murrelets need increased protections under the Oregon Endangered Species Act due largely to loss of nesting habitat from ongoing clear-cut logging. State protections are critical, because although many of Oregon’s Coast Range old-growth forests have been logged and converted into industrial tree farms, some of the best remaining older forests occur on state-managed lands.

“We’re pleased commissioners made a sound, science-based decision that’s exactly what these desperately imperiled seabirds need to survive,” said Tierra Curry, senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The science was absolutely clear that the murrelet warrants endangered status in Oregon. This protection will be critical to preserving an amazing part of our state’s natural heritage.”

The murrelet was listed as threatened in 1995. However, the recent status review conducted by Oregon’s Department of Fish and Wildlife concluded that the “key threats identified at the time of listing have continued or increased, and many new threats have been identified since the 1990s … the life history exhibited by this species provides little opportunity for the population to rapidly increase even under the most optimal circumstances.” It also noted that the primary causes of marbled murrelet declines — loss and fragmentation of older forest habitat on which the bird depends for nesting — have “slowed, but not halted … since the 1990s,” with greatest losses occurring on lands managed by the state. The review specifically notes that existing programs and regulation have “failed to prevent continued high rates of habitat loss on nonfederal lands in Oregon.”

The Oregon Endangered Species Act requires that the commission adopt survival guidelines for the species at the time of reclassification. Survival guidelines are quantifiable and measurable guidelines necessary to ensure the survival of individual members of the species. Guidelines may include take avoidance and protecting resource sites such as nest sites or other sites critical to the survival of individual members of the species. They would serve as interim protection until endangered species management plans are developed by applicable state agencies and approved by the Fish and Wildlife Commission.

“It is remarkable that this species has been listed as threatened for more than 20 years but the state of Oregon has never developed a plan to actually protect murrelets on either lands owned by the state of Oregon or private timber lands,” said Quinn Read, Northwest director of Defenders of Wildlife. “The status quo has failed this iconic Oregon seabird. We look forward to working with ODFW and other agencies to developing a plan that will truly protect this species and allow it to recover in Oregon.”

“This is an important step for ODFW. The agency has struggled to faithfully act on it’s core mission of protecting all native fish and wildlife in our state, but with this action to protect the marbled murrelet we hope they have turned the page,” said Steve Pedery, Conservation Director for Oregon Wild.

The conservation groups that initiated the petition to declare the marbled murrelet endangered in Oregon were Cascadia Wildlands, Audubon Society of Portland, the Center for Biological Diversity, Oregon Wild, Coast Range Forest Watch and the Oregon Chapter of the Sierra Club.

It sure sort of, kind of, sounds that way.

Check out this piece from Outdoor Life:

The Sprague Fire that burned the [Sperry] chalet was part of a wider trend last summer that saw the worst fire season in Montana in 30 years. As we walk, Zinke points to the dense stand of Douglas fir on the slopes above [Glacier National Park’s Lake McDonald]. It’s an uninviting desert of same-aged trees, too thick to hike through, a monoculture unbroken by a larch or an aspen.

“Those trees are a fire waiting to happen. We spent $2 billion on fire suppression this year. We can’t afford to keep doing that. The first step in fire management has got to be prevention. The reality is that our climate is changing. We are having longer fire seasons, and fires are bigger and burn hotter. So we need to reduce the fuel load. We need proactive timber management, including using prescribed burns in times of the year when it makes sense.”

“Are you recommending that we log our national parks?” I ask Zinke. National parks are among the most restrictive of the many designations of land use in the Department of Interior’s 500-million-acre real-estate portfolio, a fifth of the nation’s land mass. You can’t hunt in national parks, there’s no resource development, and many other activities are categorically prohibited, including commercial logging.

His answer — I think — is contained in a looping, obtuse answer that characterizes much of our day-long conversation. The Secretary of the Interior tells me that in his meeting with Glacier’s administrators, he raised the question of timber management inside the park. Zinke wants to see more cutting and thinning, both to reduce the intensity of wildfire and to boost biodiversity in critical ecosystems.

“I had a parks administrator tell me that timber management wasn’t his priority, that his priority was managing visitors. I told him, ‘Then what do I need you for? If managing visitors is your only job, then all I need is a ticket-taker at the entrance gate.’ So many people get into park management because they’re preservationists. I’m a conservationist, and that means actually managing what we’re stewards of.”

In case you haven’t heard, bees are in serious trouble all around the world. If you like to eat food, that’s a big concern.

Turns out, researchers with Oregon State University are also finding that with increased wildfire severity they are also noticing a higher abundance of bees.

I have to wonder if that higher abundance of bees would also be found on corporate and industrial timber lands, which are often sprayed heavily with a cocktail of various pesticides and herbicides. My guess is not.

Get the full scoop here. Below are some snips:

“We’re looking at a few different (habitat) characteristics. And one of the big ones is canopy cover. In the moderate-high and high fire severity categories, there’s pretty low canopy cover. So you get more flowering plants that come in,” Oregon State University researcher Sara GalbraithGalbraith says.

In these places where more than 50 percent of the canopy burned, it’s also warmer and there’s potentially more nesting habitat. These aren’t hive-dwellers; these bees look for mineral soil to burrow into.

“The story so far has been pretty straightforward,” she says, “in that we’re finding that with increased disturbance at our sites — so increased fire severity — we get higher abundance of bees. And we also get more bee species.”…

“We have millions of acres of forests in Oregon that we’re managing. And at this point, we don’t have really good information about how those management practices influence bees. If I do ‘X’ how does that influence the number of bees and the species composition?” – Jim Rivers of the OSU Forest Animal Ecology Lab…

Study lead Sarah Galbraith is beginning to think about this possibility. She thinks there could be a critical link between native bees that live in forests and nearby farmland.

“By protecting our pollinators in the forest, we are potentially protecting our food security now and into the future.”