Steve Wilent is a forester, journalist, and educator. All of the opinions he expresses on Smokey Wire are his, not necessarily those of anyone else. Steve previously served as Editor, The Forestry Source, the newspaper of The Society of American Foresters (SAF, www.eforester.org). He's been a member of the SAF since 1982. He also teaches forestry at Mt. Hood Community College, Gresham, Oregon.
FYI, here’s Russ Vaagen’s blog post on the A to Z sale, which has been discussed on this blog here and here. The former said that “The “A to Z” Mill Creek Pilot Project sets up a 10-year contract on 50,000 acres in the Colville National Forest. It allows a private company to use private dollars for everything after the timber sale is laid out, including the pre-sale environmental requirements and NEPA. With private funds and local management, the Colville National Forest can be managed for healthier forests and stable, sustainable revenue.”
Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke today fleshed out plans to reorganize the sprawling department, pitching lawmakers on a “joint system” that would shift federal employees from Washington to the field.
The revamp would create 13 “joint management areas,” Zinke told his former colleagues at a House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee hearing.
Each of the areas would be small and, when possible, ecosystem-based.
“We’re trying to push more of the authority out in the field and redesign Interior,” he said. “These smaller areas can focus on the problems that are within their smaller regions.”
Instead of reporting to their respective regional offices, each of Interior’s bureaus and the Department of Agriculture would coordinate to better serve the local land, water and wildlife issues in each area.
The move mirrors how U.S. federal agencies coordinate to fight wildfires. Eight agencies and organizations operate out of the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho. Last week, Zinke and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue toured the facility.
The reorganization also resembles the Department of Defense practice of joint commands, a system the former Navy SEAL has experience with.
Zinke said USDA is on board with the proposed system. Under the plan, the Forest Service would remain part of Agriculture and a simple memorandum of understanding would cover the agency’s participation.
Zinke asserted the staffing shifts would not cost any money nor technically need congressional approval. But he told lawmakers he intends to reach out to Congress, “because it matters to us all to make sure we go ahead and do it right.”
He told House Republicans and Democrats the consolidation would reduce permitting hurdles, give federal officials more latitude to focus on regional issues such as invasive species, and enable Interior to better use resources appropriated by Congress for ecosystem-specific projects.
This webinar may be of interest. “Recovery and adaptation after wildfire across the United States, 2009-2011,” Wednesday, June 14, 2017 from 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM (MST).
Presenter: Miranda H. Mockrin, USFS Northern Research Station
Becoming a fire-adapted community that can live with wildfire is envisioned as a continuous, iterative process of adaptation. In eight case study sites across the United States we examined how destructive wildfire affected altered progress towards becoming fire-adapted, focusing on the role of planning and WUI regulations (building codes, hazard mitigation standards, zoning, and other local governmental tools used to reduce exposure to wildfire losses). Experience with wildfire and other natural hazards suggests that disasters may open a ‘window of opportunity’ leading to local government policy changes. However, we found mixed results in our study: for some communities, the fire was a focusing event that led to changes in WUI regulations (for example, modifying building codes). In other communities, destructive fire did not spur adaptation through changes in governmental policy. In some communities, local government officials thought current policies were effective and factors beyond their control such as extreme weather were to blame for structure losses In other cases, wildfire losses were accepted as a risk of living on the landscape, considered an isolated incident that affected few or was unlikely to be repeated, or enacting regulations was seen as incompatible with local norms and government capacity. We conclude that adaptation to wildfire through WUI regulations depends on multiple factors, including past experience with fire and the geographic extent and scale of the fire event relative to the local community and its government. While communities did not often pursue changes in WUI regulations, experience with wildfire was frequently cited as the impetus for other adaptive responses, such as improving emergency response or fire suppression, and expanding education and interaction with homeowners, such as Firewise programs or government support for fuel mitigation on private lands.
The excerpt from the American Forest Resource Council’s May newsletter, below, is about a pilot project implementing Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin’s principles of ecological forestry on BLM land in Western Oregon, which is blocked by litigation, and this court order may be the end of it. There are objections to the principles from all sides, but I think the aim of addressing a deficit of early-seral habitat via variable-retention timber harvesting has a lot of merit and would be useful on federal lands in the PNW as well as elsewhere, such as New Jersey, where there is controversy over harvesting timber to create young-forest habitat. Opponents are essentially saying that cutting trees, even to provide habitat for threatened and endangered species, ought to be prohibited.
Ninth Circuit Denies White Castle Appeal
With a three-page unpublished order, the Ninth Circuit ended for now the seven-year effort to implement Drs. Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin’s principles of ecological forestry in Western Oregon, dismissing AFRC’s appeal of an adverse ruling on the White Castle Timber Sale. The BLM had not appealed and the Court found that Scott Timber, the purchaser, could not appeal a remand order on its own.
White Castle is a 187-acre variable-retention harvest on the BLM Roseburg District. In late 2010, then-Secretary Ken Salazar directed BLM to develop Secretarial Demonstration Pilot Projects showing the potential use of Johnson and Franklin ecological principles (“Norm & Jerry” forestry) to provide sustainable timber harvest compatible with ecologically-sound land management. Drs. Johnson and Franklin held a two-day introduction in Canyonville in February 4 2011, followed by several public meetings in Roseburg and multiple field trips. The White Castle Project was initiated in March 2011, with a decision signed in August 2012.
The project has been in litigation for nearly five years and no work has been attempted or completed. Oregon Wild and Cascadia Wildlands protested, appealed to IBLA, and then brought suit in federal court. Extremist “direct action” groups put tree sitters in the woods. Although the plaintiffs brought NEPA claims, their real objection was to harvest at the stand age of 108 years. Media reports stated the project was in line with Senator Wyden’s proposals for the O&C lands.
In 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken found the project required an Environmental Impact Statement due to effects on spotted owls, despite the project not taking any owls, as well as the “controversy” of the Johnson/Franklin principles. AFRC filed an appeal on behalf of Scott Timber and defeated preliminary attempts to dismiss the appeal. Ultimately, those effects were not successful.
Although AFRC may petition the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing, it is unclear whether White Castle will ever be harvested. The cautionary note about these “Demonstration Projects” from AFRC’s December 2012 newsletter rings true: “To date, the only thing that has been demonstrated is how opponents of timber harvesting can successfully delay a project through extensive protests and appeals.” /Lawson Fite
This op-ed is in the Idaho Statesman and probably elsewhere. Purdue writes that the USFS “must reorient its culture to embrace a generational approach to responsible forest management.” How that would change the agency’s operations he doesn’t say.
Ag secretary: ‘There will be balance’ in U.S. forest management
BY SONNY PERDUE
Today’s challenges for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are many, but the department is staffed by tens of thousands of dedicated civil servants who share a love of the land and for those who earn their livelihoods by providing the food, fiber and fuel needed at home and abroad. Key assets for this quality of life are this nation’s forests and grasslands.
Forests cover approximately one-third of the land in America. To manage this vast resource base, the Forest Service works with local governments and private entities to ensure the health and sustainability of our wood resources. As with any asset, however, those charged with that task must ensure that there is balance. Thus, it is time to review how the Forest Service is accomplishing its mission and to reassure the American people that there will be balance in how our forests are managed.
The ideal management of our public lands would be through shared stewardship, meaning federal agencies would communicate, collaborate and coordinate with state and local governments and with citizens on how best to manage our public lands. The Forest Service has fully embraced this approach. After all, who knows local conditions better than those who are involved at the local level? So, then, what will the Forest Service do in the future?
First, it must reorient its culture to embrace a generational approach to responsible forest management. Trees take decades to grow to maturity. We must think about how the forests will provide cleaner water and air, more biofuels and more useful products for consumers. If we do not take the long view, we will never be able to preserve delicate ecosystems or prosper from the thousands of jobs that our forests could provide. We must treat our forests so that we are not spending more on fighting fires than we are on making sure that our forests are healthy.
Second, the Forest Service will work to establish interagency cooperation to ensure that procedural and regulatory barriers can be diminished or eliminated. The USDA must have interaction with the departments of Interior and Energy and agencies such as the EPA, the Council on Environmental Quality and the Corps of Engineers. Internally, we must find ways to make Good Neighbor Authority more than just a slogan so there is more flexibility to achieve true shared stewardship.
Third, the Forest Service must engage at the local level on every issue. Everyone must have a voice in the decision-making. At the end of the day, we must all remember that we must do what is in the best interest of the American people.
Finally, we must never lose sight of the fact that if we take care of the land, the land will take care of us. We have world-renowned scientists and researchers engaged at the USDA, and only the best science and data will inform our decisions.
This summer consider including a visit to the nearest national forest. These wonderful areas belong to the American people, and the Forest Service is on the job to keep these wonderful resources healthy and resilient for generations to come.
Sonny Perdue is the U.S. secretary of agriculture.
Thanks to Nick Smith for including this May 28 “60 Minutes” segment in his Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities newsletter: “Why fighting wildfires often fails — and what to do about it.” Text and video online. Features Q&A with Robert Bonnie, Jack Cohen. Overall, very well done. I plan to show it at a meeting of the local Community Emergency Response Team — I’ve been a member for years and, by coincidence, I’m scheduled to make a presentation on this topic in July.
Much of the program’s focus is on protecting homes in the WUI, but it does briefly address the larger topic:
Robert Bonnie: We’re not investing as much as we can and should in forest restoration, because we’re having to spend all our money fighting fire.
Steve Inskeep: Wait a minute, forest restoration is prevention of horrible wildfires?
A program that awards federal contracts to companies to thin overgrown forests has won praise from timber interests but is leaving localities feeling empty-handed.
Unlike most federal timber-harvesting operations, the stewardship contracts used by the national Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management don’t devote any proceeds to the counties where the forests are located.
That may change with the 2018 farm bill, as counties and some forest advocates press Congress to add a provision giving counties what they’ve requested since the program became permanent in 2014: a quarter of the revenue from timber sales.
A 25 percent share would match the portion counties receive from most harvesting in federal forests.
“We believe this proposal will have widespread support,” said Steve Brink, vice president for public resources at the California Forestry Association, a trade group.
Counties with federal forests have seen sharp declines in timber revenue over the years, as the Forest Service takes down fewer trees. To help make up some of that revenue, Congress created the Secure Rural Schools program in 2000, which distributed funds to 4,400 schools in 775 forest counties, according to Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).
The program expired in 2015, and Cantwell has urged the Trump administration to support its renewal. When it expired, the government returned to the old formula of giving counties 25 percent of timber proceeds.
Most of the affected counties are in California, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Alaska.
Stewardship contracting appeared as a pilot program in 1999, with 28 projects around the country. Initially, lawmakers figured that the economic benefit of timber operations would reach localities and that revenue sharing wasn’t necessary, Brink said.
The government contracts for up to 10 years with companies for forest management projects that also include prescribed burns. The federal government receives some of the proceeds of sales, and that money goes back into future stewardship contracts.
The contracting program has had support from timber companies and forestry groups such as the National Association of State Foresters and the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, which monitors and evaluates the role of communities in stewardship contracting.
Most stewardship contracting is through the Forest Service, rather than BLM.
In 2013, the Forest Service issued 195 contracts, which allowed for the production of 865,000 tons of biofuel from the thinning of 171,000 acres and the reduction of hazardous fuels on 69,000 acres, the group American Forests reported. In total, 36,000 acres of forest vegetation and 72,000 acres of wildlife habitat were improved through these contracts.
More than one-fourth of all timber harvested from national forests was through stewardship contracting that year, American Forests reported, citing Forest Service data.
Uncertainty over the Secure Rural Schools program may be sparking the drive for a change to stewardship contracting, Brink said.
The program lapsed for a period in 2014 also, leading to an 80 percent decline in payments to counties, the National Association of Counties said in a letter to leaders on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 2016.
NACo is lobbying for revenue sharing, as well as for renewal of the schools program. That’s one reason the group supports broader forest management legislation proposed by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), the “Resilient Federal Forests Act,” which devotes revenue to counties, said a NACo spokesman, David Jackson.
Revenue from stewardship contracting supports a wide range of county services, NACo said.
“NACo supports stewardship end results contracting projects as a tool to manage federal forests and rangelands, but only if they retain the historical receipts sharing with counties,” the group said in its platform of issues for 2016 and 2017.
A recent court decision, Alliance Wild Rockies v Farnsworth, is interesting in that the court denied a suit aimed at halting salvage logging in Montana. The conclusion of B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, United States District Court, is unusual for its commentary:
Conclusion
In the West, fuel and climate are combining to create intense wildfires. Fuels are increasing at an alarming rate as invasive plant species spread across the landscape, while at the same time climate change is lengthening the fire season. This means burnt timber is becoming a major feature of our National Forests. If trees can be logged simply because they burned, we will reap massive clear-cuts. But small projects, fully vetted and properly designed to mitigate impacts, may be valuable in reducing hazards and funding reforestation efforts. The Tower and Grizzly Projects fit that mold. Under the particular facts of this case, the Court cannot find that Alliance has raised the serious questions necessary to obtain injunctive relief. For that reason, the Court will deny Alliance’s motion.
“Not everyone is happy. The Sierra Club and a retired Forest Service forester say the 26 miles of temporary logging roads proposed are too much, and that they will be adopted by ATV users and encourage the spread of invasive species while disrupting threatened animals such as wolves and lynx.”
But implementing the project requires the roads, I reckon.
Bridger-Teton National Forest officials are being pulled hard in two directions as they try to finalize plans to thin and burn wildlands abutting the west side of Jackson Hole.
Tugging on one side of the issue are the Wyoming State Forestry Division and a band of non-Teton County commissioners, who have formally objected to plans to keep chainsaws out of the Palisades until its in-limbo status as proposed wilderness is resolved by Congress. Conservationists and biologists, meanwhile, are yanking in the other direction, asking federal officials to complete a review of the region’s baseline wilderness suitability and better study the effects on wildlife and vegetation.
Wyoming Forestry’s contention is that the most recent Bridger-Teton plans no longer adequately protect the nearly 40 miles of wildland-urban interface and 1,500 private lots adjoining the project area.