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.
LA Times essay by Dale N. Bosworth, Jack Ward Thomas, and Michael Dombeck.
An “archaic method of funding fire suppression is wreaking havoc with Forest Service budgets, and it is also making it likely we’ll see more and costlier fires.”
And: “Thankfully, a sensible solution to this problem exists in the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act. This proposed legislation would finally treat America’s most catastrophic wildfires in the way it treats other natural disasters, meaning that funds required to fight severe fires would be drawn from a federal emergency account rather than borrowed from other Forest Service programs.”
Abstract: Approximately 20 years ago, the preeminent goal for management of the federal forests of the Pacific Northwest shifted suddenly and permanently from sustained timber harvest to conservation of biodiversity and ecological processes, following a series of court cases over protection of species in decline that were associated with old forests. While old growth harvest has largely ceased, some key species are still in decline and forest management has been restricted more than intended. Creation of openings, even those based on disturbance processes, has been especially difficult. Some lessons from this experience include the difficulty of adaptive management, the importance of ecological foundations for management, and the need for stakeholder collaboration. In addition, it is essential to provide society with a vision of ecologically-based forestry, including field demonstrations, and to communicate this approach and its scientific foundation in the popular media.
The district court decision of Sept. 16, 2014, includes much discussion of owl habitat and what the USFS did and didn’t say and do regarding its EIS. For example:
“…the Forest Service explained in the ROD that the 2014 owl survey did not produce significant new information warranting a SEIS since “both the EIS and this decision recognize that owls forage in burned forests, and the EIS analyzes the effects of the various alternatives based on this understanding; therefore the underlying point raised in the August 21, 2014 comment letter, that implementing the Rim Recovery Project may adversely affect spotted owls in the area, was already addressed in the EIS and factored into this decision.” JA A00038. Neither the 2014 owl survey results nor Bond’s subsequent analysis produced data rising to the level of significant new information. The Forest Service’s reasoned evaluation of the 2014 owl survey data is sufficient.”
This article describes a project on the Lolo National Forest in Montana that is “a model of responsible, sustainable development of timber projects in national forests.” From what I gather from the article, the project involves harvesting a lot of dead a down material:
“The site is just south of Superior near Cedar Creek and encompasses hundreds of acres which will be harvested, not in a clear-cut slash and burn method, but instead using sophisticated techniques which will remove tons of dead debris that currently litters the forest floor, inhibiting the movement and migration of important animal species through the county.
“Brummett said the project will involve intermittent logging, road development and some burning of areas with particularly heavy debris load. She said the project has the unwavering support of Mineral County Commissioners and has been positively received by the communities it will affect.”
“Snag forest habitat, also known as “complex early seral forest”, is one of the rarest and least protected of all forest habitat types in the Sierra Nevada.”
Rare? Says who? Chad Hanson:
“Due to fire suppression policies, there is now about one-fourth as much high-intensity fire—the type of fire that creates complex early seral forest—as there was prior to the early 20th century (Hanson and Odion 2014, Odion et al. 2014).”
“This habitat—if not subjected to post-fire logging—supports levels of native biodiversity and wildlife abundance comparable to, and sometimes higher than, that of unburned mature/old forest (Raphael et al. 1987, Burnett et al. 2010, Swanson et al. 2011).”
Yes, and clearcuts can also support higher levels of native biodiversity and wildlife abundance than old-growth.
“The Rim fire logging project would log most of the snag forest habitat within the Rim fire on the Stanislaus National Forest.”
The EIS says: “Salvage of dead trees and fuel reduction (28,326 acres) including ground based mechanized equipment such as harvesters and rubber tired skidders (24,127 acres), ground based/skyline swing (16 acres) and aerial based helicopter (2,930 acres) or cable systems (1,253 acres).”
The Rim Fire burned 257,314 acres, including 154,530 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands.
So the USFS proposes salvage on about 18% of the burned area (but won’t be taking all dead trees). The CBD’s complaint says 60% of the burned area was conifer forest. I do’t know how much of the USFS lands were conifer forests, but I don’t think 28,326 acres is “most” of the “snag forest.”
At least one of the two conservation groups suing over the Red Mountain Flume-Chessman Reservoir project plans to proceed with a lawsuit despite a federal judge saying the groups are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their case while denying a temporary halt to the project.
“We’re proceeding,” said Steve Kelly, executive director of the Montana Ecosystems Defense Council. “It doesn’t discourage me in any way because the principles in the case are sound.”
Federal Judge Dana Christensen in Missoula denied the Native Ecosystems Council and Montana Ecosystem Defense Councils a preliminary injunction, saying in part that the councils failed to show endangered species would be harmed and that the threat of wildfire to Helena’s water supply is real.
Update to Bear-iered or Not? District Court decision in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Bradford, involving grizzlies, roads, and other issues on the Kootenai National Forest, handed down Aug. 28, throws out Alliance’s appeal, so the project may now move forward.
This is a bit off topic, but…. I happened to notice this caption to a beautiful photo on the USFS’s Managing the Land page (www.fs.fed.us/managing-land):
Bridger Wilderness extends 80 miles along the Continental Divide with seven out of 10 of the world’s largest glaciers. The landscape is breathtaking with hundreds of alpine lakes, glacial cirques and wide sweeping valleys. (U.S. Forest Service)
Can that be true? I’d guess that there are many larger glaciers in Antarctica, Greenland, Iceland, Alaska, etc.
Interesting item involving feedlots for elk on the Bridger-Teton N.F. Valid arguments of both sides, seems to me. The “feedlots are needed, proponents say, because human activities have reduced the elk’s winter range.” An overpopulation of elk at Mt. St. Helens National Monument also are being fed. There isn’t enough forage to sustain the herd, which has dramatically increased since the 1980 eruption created new habitat for them, but photos of starving elk caused a public outcry. So, the elk get food deliveries in the winter months.
Similar argument can be made for active forest management: Humans have disrupted fire cycles, developed forests, etc., so management is needed to maintain forest health. As opposed to letting nature take its course.
Steve
Wyo. governor wants to help Forest Service fight enviro group’s ‘extreme’ agenda
Scott Streater, E&E reporterThe state of Wyoming is entering a contentious legal battle between the Forest Service and an environmental group that has challenged the continued use of elk feeding grounds on Bridger-Teton National Forest that it says have the potential to cause great harm to elk.
Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) said the state will attempt to intervene in the federal lawsuit filed last month in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming by the Western Watersheds Project. The group challenged a Forest Service special-use permit to allow the Wyoming Game and Fish Department to operate five winter feedlots on Bridger-Teton.
The feedlots have been operated in some form for decades. But the group says the Forest Service has never conducted any environmental analysis until recently into the impacts of the feedlots and their contributions to spreading diseases. The main concern is chronic wasting disease, which is related to mad cow disease and is easily spread among elk and deer populations through animal-to-animal contact and exposure to contaminated feed and water.
Bridger-Teton has granted Wyoming Game and Fish a 20-year special-use permit to continue operating the feedlots.
“We’re trying to get the feedlots closed before chronic wasting disease gets in them. After it gets in them, it’s basically too late,” said Jonathan Ratner, director of the Western Watersheds Project’s Wyoming office.
But Mead said in a statement that the feedlots help wildlife officials to screen elk for various diseases, including brucellosis, and to be able to vaccinate the elk if problems are discovered.
What’s more, he said, the “feedgrounds prevent large numbers of elk from dying during the winter” by providing a steady source of food. They also help landowners keep the elk from foraging on private agriculture and ranchlands.
“Western Watersheds promotes policies that are extreme,” Mead said in a statement. “We reject the notion that you cannot balance the environment with industries, especially agriculture. In Wyoming, we continue to set an example for the nation.”
In addition, the feedlots are needed, proponents say, because human activities have reduced the elk’s winter range.
Elk are a popular big-game target of hunters, with some paying thousands of dollars to kill mature bulls.
But locating the feedlots “on public land also leads to serious ecological impacts, including reduced stream bank stability and impacts to water quality, as well as heavy use of vegetation in the area. Additionally, concentrating prey species can skew predator distribution as grizzlies, wolves and scavengers may be drawn to feedlot areas,” according to a statement from Western Watersheds Project.
The group has asked the court to determine that the feedlots on national forestland violate the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Forest Management Act, as well as the Wyoming Wilderness Act. And it wants the court to throw out the Forest Service’s approval of the permit and to “[e]njoin the Forest Service from permitting winter elk feeding on lands in the Bridger-Teton National Forest.”
Ratner said the governor’s statement that the feedlots help prevent large numbers of elk from dying each winter “is completely untrue” and that the feedlots are not necessary.
“There are studies that show more elk winter in winter ranges, not feedlots, and there is more than enough forage for them not to be treated like livestock,” he said.