Steve Wilent

OP-ed by David Allen, president and CEO of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation.

Allow the Forest Service to do its job without frivilous lawsuits

The focus is on Michael Garrity and the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

“We must do something right now to allow the Forest Service and other federal land management agencies to do their jobs. If Mr. Garrity wants to do something to “secure the ecological integrity of the Wild Rockies Bioregion” as his website states—instead of filing lawsuits, he should think about mobilizing his members to get their hands dirty working on habitat enhancement projects like thousands of RMEF volunteers do every year. We have not filed a single lawsuit to get this done.”

Which again brings up the question I’d ask Garrity: If not these plans, then what? Do nothing? If not, then how would you manage the lands involved in the lawsuits you’ve lodged? “Do nothing” isn’t much of answer when so many in a collaborative have agreed on some form of active management.

This article describes a lawsuit by the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council over the East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Management project on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest in Montana. It is interesting that the project is “part of a restoration effort that began in 2006. That’s when the Forest Stewardship Program — made up of eight entities including the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Powell County commissioners; and Trout Unlimited — approached the Forest Service about the idea of working together to improve the banks of the Clark Fork River.”

The project area is about 40K acres, and commercial salvage and commercial thinning would occur on about 2,500 acres.

Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council lay out their objections in detail in the complaint. They oppose the project for a number of familiar reasons — the harvesting, threats to grizzly bears and lynx, threats to water quality, and so on. What I’d like to know is this: If these two groups were the land managers, what would they do? Nothing. An objection letter states that “We recommend that the “No Action Alternative” be selected.” The groups describe significant environmental problems that already exist — sediment in streams from roads, low-quality wildlife habitat, etc. Have the groups proposed an alternative management plan, other than “no action”?

I recently received a copy of a book, “The Ecological Importance of Mixed-Severity Fires: Nature’s Phoenix,” edited by Dominick DellaSala and Chad Hanson. In the August edition of The Forestry Source, I write that the book is “advocacy first and science second.” You can get a sense of this in a NY Times op-ed by DellaSala and Hanson from last week, “More Logging Won’t Stop Wildfires,” in which they write:

“In the case of the Rim Fire, our research found that protected forest areas with no history of logging burned least intensely. There was a similar pattern in other large fires in recent years. Logging removes the mature, thick-barked, fire-resistant trees. The small trees planted in their place and the debris left behind by loggers act as kindling; in effect, the logged areas become combustible tree plantations that are poor wildlife habitat.”

I know Larry H. and others will have something to say about this.

Contrast the DellaSala/Hanson view with objective science in “Fuel and Vegetation Trends after Wildfire in Treated versus Untreated Forests, Forest Science, August 2015. The abstract:

“Increasing size and severity of wildfires have led to increased interest in managing forests for resiliency to future disturbances. Comparing and contrasting treated versus untreated stands through multiple growing seasons postfire provide an opportunity to understand processes driving responses and can guide management decisions regarding resiliency. In treated and untreated forests, we compared fire effects 2–10 growing seasons following fire on 3 different fires in New Mexico and Arizona. We estimated understory cover, standing crop, fuel loading, and basal area in (1) lop, pile, burn; (2) lop and scatter; (3) harvest and burn; and (4) untreated control stands. Untreated sites had persistent bare soil exposure and less litter cover up to 10 growing seasons after fire. However, there were few differences in standing crop among years and treatments. Falling rampikes contributed to greater coarse woody debris on untreated sites versus treated sites 6 –10 years postfire. However, there were few differences in fine fuel loading among treatments. Proactive management using the full range of silvicultural tools can reduce fire severity and create desired stand conditions, depending on management objectives.”

I highlighted the last sentence for emphasis.

Text of an article from ClimateWire….

Forest Service seeks protection against lawsuits that delay management policies

Benjamin Hulac, E&E reporter

Published: Friday, July 17, 2015

Thomas Tidwell, the Forest Service chief, said yesterday that the agency would be open to a new arbitration system that would replace lawsuits meant to delay or derail federal forest management projects.

A May report for the Forest Service’s Northern Region, commissioned by the agency on regions of Montana, Idaho, Washington and the Dakotas, found that “in recent years, litigation has encumbered 40 to 50 percent of planned timber harvest and treatment acres” for the region (E&E Daily, May 11.

“I’m as frustrated as anybody when when we’ve done the work, we’ve done the job, we get litigated, a year later, the judge says ‘Yes you’re OK, go ahead,'” Tidwell told the Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining.

Subcommittee Chairman Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) introduced a bill in June, S. 1691, that would create two methods to resolve or impede litigation against the service — an arbitration program and a bond posting requirement from plaintiffs planning on suing the agency.

“I do think that it may get at the issue,” Tidwell said of the arbitration suggestion.

Asked by Barrasso for his opinion on litigation from “rogue, activist groups” blocking “consensus” forest projects, Tidwell said the legal delays are “frustrating at best.” Republican senators and industry witnesses also said legal snags are particularly irritating to logging operations and safe forest management.

Tidwell said the arbitration suggestion had merit, but said he was concerned that the bond mandate would prevent cash-strapped parties from voicing their concerns and could stir up more legal challenges.

“I’m worried that it will create more controversy and opposition,” he said of the bonding provision.

Lawmakers on the panel also considered a bill from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), S. 132, which the senator has said would provide stable business footing for the logging trade and local counties, and a proposal from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to raise so-called “cancellation ceilings.”

Fire suppression activities at risk

Under Flake’s measure, S. 326, the Forest Service could obligate a separate fund to cover the cancellation ceiling, the greatest amount a contractor can charge if its customer backs out of a contract. The current requirement on ceilings is “creating a reluctance around our workforce,” Tidwell said, adding that “the cost of fire suppression management” is the largest challenge facing the service.

The cost to fight fires in the United States has climbed sharply since the 1990s. So has the Forest Service’s budget to do so.

Of the agency’s 1995 appropriated budget, 16 percent went to firefighting activities, while 42 percent last year went to fight fires.

“That’s simply not sustainable,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said of the ramp-up. “Any solution is going to have to include fixing the forest budget.”

Since 1980, the average tally of wildfires on federal lands has roughly doubled and, after including non-federal lands, has approximately tripled. More than 40 percent of the National Forest System is in risky fire conditions and “in need of fuels and forest health treatments,” according to the Forest Service.

Compared with the preceding four decades, the 2000s were easily the most damaging 10-year period for fires, consuming just less than 7 million acres, according to Agriculture Department figures.

Bipartisan support from Western senators

Since 2000, at least 10 states have seen their largest recorded fires.

“You have a lightning strike in our part of the country, and all of a sudden, you have an inferno,” Wyden said.

Jim Neiman, chief executive of Neiman Enterprises, a timber company, said at the hearing that “activist litigation” and regulations, like the National Environmental Policy Act, slow forest management.

“Wildfires don’t wait for environmental reviews,” he said. “The current processes are an impediment to increasing the current pace and scale.”

Senators present yesterday broadly agreed that actively managing federal forests and culling overstocked stands are important to prevent fires, especially in drought and drought-like conditions.

Experts should focus on the healthy function and density of forests to prevent the some of the worst long-term tinderbox situations.

An overstocked forest, when “overlayed with climate change,” said Neiman, is particularly concerning.

Flake’s bill has 12 co-sponsors, all Western senators, including four Democrats and Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who said blocking litigation of forest projects would be welcome. Daines also said yesterday that he would back efforts to curb fire borrowing — when the Forest Service or another agency dips into other funds for fire-prevention programs.

I just received a press release about a new book, The Ecological Importance of Mixed-Severity Fires: Nature’s Phoenix, by Dominick DellaSala and Chad Hanson.

“For the first time extensive documentation from around the world reveals that
forests and other plant communities need a variety of different types of fires,
including severe ones, to rejuvenate over the long-term. These findings are timely as
Members of Congress propose to weaken environmental laws based on the
assumption that fires are damaging to forests, and logging is needed to reduce fire
effects.”

“For the first time”? Ask Steve Pyne about that.

The release goes on to say that one of the conclusions the authors draw is that “Forest thinning in the backcountry does not improve homeowner safety, and does not meaningfully influence large, weather-driven fires.”

My response: Thinning and fuels reduction CAN meaningfully influence large, weather-driven fires, as I saw for myself most recently on the 2014 36 Pit Fire in Oregon, where thinned areas had the effect we’d expect — the crown fire slowed, dropped to the ground, and gave firefighters a change to be successful with suppression.  Thinning and fuels reduction DOES reduce the likelihood of large, weather-driven fires and can help limit their spread an intensity.

I predict that numerous news outlets will cover this book.

Just came across this press release from FEMA. If I read this right, the FEMA funding can be used only for “expenses for field camps; equipment use, repair and replacement; mobilization and demobilization activities; and tools, materials and supplies” — not for paying for crews, aircraft, etc.

Looks like this could be a bad fire. Inciweb (one day ago) reported 6,500 acres. A news article today says 7,800 acres. Another source says 8,500. No word on homes destroyed — may be a bunch.

FEMA provides federal funds to help fight the Sockeye Fire

Release date: JUNE 16, 2015
Release Number: 15-003
SEATTLE – The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has authorized the use of federal funds to help with firefighting costs for the Sockeye Fire, burning in Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska.

FEMA Region X Regional Administrator, Kenneth D. Murphy determined that the Sockeye Fire threatened such destruction as would constitute a major disaster. Murphy approved the state’s request for federal Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) on June 15, 2015 at 6:37 p.m. AKDT.

The fire started on June 14, 2015, and has burned approximately 6,500 acres of private and state land. At the time of the request, the fire had burned 25 homes and was threatening 893 primary homes in and around the town of Willow. Approximately 1700 people had evacuated the area. Sheltering operations have been ongoing and have had to relocate 3 times because of the dynamics of this fire. The Park Highway, local roads and bridges were closed and threatened.

Firefighting resources include a Type 1 Incident Management Team, 5 Hot Spot Crews, 10 Helicopters, 1 Air Tanker, 2 Engine Task Forces to support fire suppression activities. The Federal Principal Advisor confirmed the threat to homes. The fire is currently 0 percent contained. There are 24 other fires burning uncontrolled within the state.

The authorization makes FEMA funding available to pay 75 percent of the State of Alaska’s eligible firefighting costs under an approved grant for managing, mitigating and controlling designated fires. These grants provide reimbursement for firefighting and life-saving efforts. They do not provide assistance to individuals, homeowners or business owners and do not cover other infrastructure damage caused by the fire.

Fire Management Assistance Grants are provided through the President’s Disaster Relief Fund and made available by FEMA to assist in fighting fires that threaten to cause a major disaster. Eligible items can include expenses for field camps; equipment use, repair and replacement; mobilization and demobilization activities; and tools, materials and supplies.

It’s unlikely that Congress will pass this, but it is worth discussing the bill described here be The Missoulian:

“Zinke forest bill would require lawsuit bonds, reduce timber-sale analysis”

“The bill text and number were not available at press time. But in his statement, Zinke said it would boost Montana’s timber industry by allowing the state to contribute to a revolving fund that the Forest Service could use for reducing wildfire threats.

“It would also limit analysis of forest projects proposed by collaborative groups to “action” or “no action” alternatives, rather than multiple choices. And it would require litigants who challenge collaborative projects to post cash bonds to cover the administrative costs of a lawsuit.”

Alliance for the Wild Rockies director Michael Garrity called the bonding requirement unconstitutional.

“If a bond is required, only rich people will continue to assert their First Amendment right to challenge government decisions,” Garrity said.

Unconstitutional?

You’ll either smile or grimmace at parts of this report, but it does show the very different natural regeneration after two fires. In both cases, the USFS apparently allowed nature to take sits course. Kudos to KRCR News Channel 7, Redding, California, for doing the story, “This is how a forest fixes itself.”

“The Oregon Fire of 2001, just outside of Weaverville, left devastation on the landscape that has yet to grow back 14 years later.

“In comparison to the Eagle Fire of 2008, in a similar region of Trinity County, this wildfire burned large patches of landscape, but the forest is already starting to rebuild itself with trees and shrubs 7 years later.

“Why is it that the landscape of the Eagle Fire is healing in half the time as the Oregon Fire landscape?”

Worth a look: “ADAPTATION AND COLLABORATION: A Western Lumber Business Confronts Timber Withdrawal,” written by  Russ Vaagen, Vice President, Vaagen Brothers Lumber, on the Forest Resources Association’s web site.

I’ve seen Vaagen’s Colville mill. Amazing what they can do with small logs. A few years ago, they were selling chips to a power plant, Avista’s Kettle Falls Generating Station. At the time, biomass power from the plant was more expensive than power from “cheap” natural gas plants. However, the state’s renewable portfolio standard required the use of biomass and other renewable fuels. In effect, Avista’s rate payers were subsidizing the use of wood chips at the Kettle Falls Generating Station.

Greenwire has this item today:

BLM: Draft plans will dictate timber harvests on 2.6M acres in western Ore.

The new plans to be released by BLM will identify late-successional reserves designed to promote the old-growth forest ecosystem favored by owls, in addition to protected areas along streams and “harvest land base.”

The draft EIS tentatively adopts alternative “B,” which would split the harvest lands into zones for uneven-aged timber management as well as low- and moderate-intensity timber areas with regeneration harvest with varying levels of tree retention. The alternative would also designate 114 areas of critical environmental concern, where mineral development, off-highway vehicle use and other activities would be restricted.