21st Century Problems

Hearing on Forest Service Management and Trusts by House Resources Committee

by

Here’s a link to the report. Thanks to Derek!

Also here is a piece from E&E news daily. Below is an excerpt.

Legislative proposals from last Congress

In concept, yesterday’s proposals are similar to legislation introduced last Congress by committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) to require the Forest Service to establish “trusts” under which logging and other projects must meet historic revenue targets. Such projects would be exempt from major environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, and would set firm deadlines for approvals.

That proposal was vigorously opposed by environmentalists, who argued that it would subject forests to vast clearcutting and create the perverse incentive to cut more logs even if the price of timber was low. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, last Congress said the proposal would reignite the timber wars of the late 20th century.

A separate proposal by Oregon lawmakers last Congress would have transferred roughly half of the 2.4-million-acre O&C lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management to a state-appointed timber trust, under which NEPA and some provisions of ESA would not apply.

But Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), who authored the bill, said their proposal was different because BLM’s O&C lands are statutorily distinct from Forest Service lands. While Forest Service lands fall under laws mandating clean water, multiple use and species protections, among others, O&C lands were designated primarily for timber production.

Trust proposals on Forest Service lands may fly in the Republican-led House but would never pass Congress, he said.

“National forestlands are managed under a whole different set of laws; there is no relationship,” he said. “They may be trying to mimic what we proposed, but there’s no legal authority.”

Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), the ranking member on the subcommittee, asked how such trust lands would be chosen, how conservation and recreation interests would be represented, and which environmental laws would still apply.

“State trust lands are set up for a singular purpose, to produce revenue,” he said. “Federal forests on the other hand have a broader mandate and a wider set of management goals, with multi-use options.”

He urged Republicans to avoid “radical ideas” that won’t move in the Senate and to focus on policies that would make forests healthier and safer for constituents.

“Delegating the management of American resources to the states is still in and of itself a radical idea,” he said. “To imagine that the long-standing struggle over the use of our national forests will somehow disappear if they are turned over to the state is just pure fantasy.”

Bishop said yesterday’s hearing was the first of several this Congress to focus on “shifting this paradigm” of federal forest management.

It comes several months after the expiration of the Secure Rural Schools program, which for more than a decade subsidized Western counties where federal timber revenues plummeted in the 1990s. Lawmakers this Congress will be examining ways to extend the law, reform it or return to a commodity-based system favored by many Republicans.


So the problem with having the different houses of Congress controlled by different parties is that they can just agree among themselves, and blame the other house (Party) for not getting together.

So how can we help? We could set up a separate forum of people of all persuasions to discuss A Sensibe Solution. Congress could establish a bipartisan group. Or we could let D governors work it out since it appears to me that some environmental groups don’t think there is a problem, and if D governors are responsible for a state and feel that there is a problem, they may be in the best political space to broker a solution. Maybe that’s why some folks like nationalizing issues; it gets to our currently ineffective Congress and the status quo remains indefinitely.

What do you think? Do we need an extra-Congressional bipartisan policy seeking group? Is there any history of success of such a group we could point to?

Forest Service Chief Talks Climate Change — in Washington and on the Ground

by

Here’s a link to Char Miller’s take on this discussion, and his interview with the Chief.

As to restoration…

No; I think it’s the right word. It’s just that we have to understand that it doesn’t mean going back. It means to restore the health, the vigor of these systems and that sometimes it is to restore to the future. There may be a better word and I’d be sure open to that but it’s more [important] to understand the concept.

Personally I think it’s easier to understand and communicate concepts with the public when you don’t have to redefine commonly used English words. But perhaps that’s just me ;).

Also, I am not so sure that “science” has the answers that Chief Tidwell thinks it does. If the future is changing to something we’ve never seen, how can we know if things we try now and work, will work in 10 or 20 years? We really can’t. I think we need to be careful about what we think we can do and particularly about what we invest the public’s money in, based on an uncertain and unknowable future. More research, despite what’s said, and despite infusions of megabucks, can’t predict the future of complex systems. So maybe we ought to start with a better understanding what’s going on today.. perhaps starting with the items in the People’s Database.

Chief Tidwell on “Sustaining Forests in the Time of Climate Change”: 2013 Pinchot Distinguished Lecture

by

2013DistLectureInvitationThanks to the Pinchot Institute for sending this…Char is going to feature it in his column this week and that will be reposted here when available.

Earlier this month Tom Tidwell delivered the 2013 Pinchot Distinguished Lecture in Washington, DC. His speech was titled, “Sustaining Forests in the Time of Climate Change,” and was followed by an extended Q&A moderated by Char Miller and Al Sample. Some video highlights, including the Chief calling for reauthorization of stewardship contracting and speaking on the importance of urban forests, green infrastructure, and international programs are available on our website: http://www.pinchot.org/events/432.

The Pinchot Institute also forwarded this transcript of the talk.

Thanks again to the Pinchot Institute and Happy 50th Birthday!

I just watched the first clip, and I think it sets a foundation for the management of the future. So that’s why I think it’s important to discuss.

I agree that the past is not the future and that should change the way we think about everything. That’s what our Wise Forest Supervisor The Professor said that we should have a campfire, sit around, and discuss what it really means to all that we know if we can’t go by what we learned in the past; not the practitioners and not the scientists.

The Chief says we need to “restore” function and processes. But we wouldn’t need to restore them if they were fine now. But if they’re not resilient now, then we are assuming that they were appropriately resilient in the past. But then this climate change is “unprecedented” so it is just a random coincidence that they were resilient before? My point is that I think the word “restore” in unnecessarily confusing.

Why can’t we say:

We don’t know what’s going to happen
We will never have the bucks to manage everything
We will need to pick and choose which processes and functions and species are most important to us
We will have to weigh that against the costs and the likelihood of success of interventions
The most important thing is to protect the basics.. air, water, and soil and we may have to deal with vegetation and wildlife and fish that are not our preferred species.
But it is our task, as Forest Service employees to be absolutely clear and transparent to the public about what we plan to do, or not do, and what we believe the impacts will be to them and to the environment.
It’s not “restoration” at all, except that we are going to try to bring the good things from the past into the future. It’s joining together to figure out what’s important to us, as the climate changes, and see if we can work together to keep those things.

Comments on this, or any other part of the video or transcript, are appreciated. I’d like to hear from some of you seldom-heard-from folks if you feel so inclined…

Seattle Times: Timber Theft a Big Problem, but Hard to Quantify

by
Jeffrey Penman, area measurement specialist with the U.S. Forest Service, stands on the giant stump of a stolen old-growth tree.
Jeffrey Penman, area measurement specialist with the U.S. Forest Service, stands on the giant stump of a stolen old-growth tree.

From today’s Seattle Times:

Next month, a federal court judge will try to put a value on something that’s somewhat priceless: trees stolen from the Olympic National Forest.

The trees in question include old-growth fir, six feet across, that laid down roots before the Revolutionary War; they include intricately patterned maple destined to become high-end musical instruments; they include cedar for shingle or shake.

All of them, the U.S. Attorney’s Office says, were stolen by Reid Johnston, the son of a prominent family that had laid its own roots alongside those same trees on the Olympic Peninsula decades ago. Johnston was sentenced in December to one year in federal prison in one of the largest timber-theft prosecutions in Washington history, involving more than 100 trees. He faces another hearing March 7 to determine the amount of restitution he’ll pay — that is, the value of his haul.

“The fact is, you can’t replace with a dollar amount a 300-year-old Douglas fir tree,” said Matthew Diggs, the assistant U.S. attorney who prosecuted the case. “It’s like taking an antiquity.”

Experts at the hearing will certainly try, offering estimates of the trees’ worth based on their economic value in the market as well as the ecological cost of their removal. Some of the trees were located in an area designated as marbled murrelet critical habitat.

Despite his guilty plea, Johnston maintains he was wrongly accused — that the trees were on his parents’ property, not in the national forest. (Official land surveys prove otherwise, prosecutors say.) But even he concedes that theft of trees is rampant in Washington, where thousands of dollars can be earned in less than an hour’s work.

“That’s never going to change,” he said. “There’s plenty of wood in the national forest and places they can steal.”

State and federal authorities agree the theft of natural resources, from leafy salal to massive timber, is a growing problem.

“Theft and damage to forest products have reached near epidemic proportions on public lands,” Diggs wrote in court documents.

U.S. Forest Service Special Agent Anne Minden, who is stationed in Washington, said it’s impossible to say for sure how much is stolen.

“It’s an incalculable value, but we do what we can do calculate it,” she said. “They’re somewhat priceless.” The Associated Press in 2003 pegged timber theft as a $1 billion-a-year problem.

Read the entire story here.

Subpanel to explore discrepancy in state-federal logging levels

by

From E&E News..
Here is a link and below is an excerpt.

For example, Washington state’s Department of Natural Resources over the past decade harvested an average of 566 million board feet per year on roughly 2.2 million acres of state forests, generating about $168.6 million annually, or more than $300 for every thousand board feet, according to Tom Partin, president of the American Forest Resource Council.

But on the 9.3 million acres of federal forests in Washington, 129.2 million board feet was harvested in 2010, earning $651,000, or $5 per thousand board-feet, Partin said.

The discrepancy is due in part to the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act, which lengthen project reviews on federal lands and subject many of them to lawsuits, Partin said. In addition, higher slash disposal and road maintenance costs on Forest Service lands bring less money back to government, he said.

“There are opportunities to do a better job of managing our national forests,” he said.

Some have proposed increasing harvests by lifting NEPA, the 1969 law that requires full disclosure by agencies of the environmental impacts of federally authorized or funded projects.

For example, Oregon lawmakers last year proposed placing roughly 1.5 million acres of the state’s federal forests in a timber trust where NEPA would be replaced by state law. Natural Resources Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.) last Congress proposed phasing out Secure Rural Schools by requiring the Forest Service to meet revenue targets through timber harvests that would be exempt from NEPA.

But while Bishop’s subcommittee has pledged to shine a spotlight on NEPA this Congress, environmentalists have argued the law is critical to ensuring that the public has a say in how its lands are managed (E&E Daily, Jan. 16).

Most environmental groups support thinning projects that avoid old growth, reduce the severity of wildfires and gird forests against pests. But few groups have endorsed clearcuts, which are common on state forests and help account for the greater harvest levels.

There is a hearing tomorrow at 10.
Here’s the link. Can’t tell if it’s televised..

So here’s my take. When the Forest Service had the Gridlock Reduction effort, I worked in NEPA in DC. My boss, Fred Norbury, used to say “how can we say it takes too long and costs too much, when we don’t know how long it takes or how much it costs?”. The FS has been tracking how long it takes, since, I believe, but not how much it costs, neither NEPA work nor appeals. And for some reason, despite the Administration’s desire for transparency in government, we seem unable to find out how much litigation is costing. I’m just pointing out that we could have a more meaningful conversation about costs, if the Forest Service, OGC and DOJ would keep track of them and tell the citizens and their elected officials. In my opinion.

“A New Approach to Public Lands” Oregon State University Seminar with Dr. Gary Bull

by

Note: you can click on the below photo to get closer to the ground.

Community_Forest_Tenures_of_BC_2010

Here is the stored webcast. I found the idea that our neighbor to the North has some interesting ideas and experiences that we could learn from was quite interesting. The discussion afterwards was also very stimulating.. and the ideas thrown around about possible application to our US federal lands.

Thanks much to the folks at Oregon State University for thinking to webcast and store the webcast for all of us out here around the country who are interested!

Here is the website of the British Columbia Community Forestry Association.

I’m hoping that viewing the video will start some discussion.

Here is what struck me.

The simplicity of thinking it’s a good thing to have local jobs. There wasn’t a thought that if trees are going to be removed from the woods, that people from other countries or areas of Canada could be imported to do the task more cheaply and that cheapness to do the action is the most important criterion. Taking each community as it exists, its own proclivities and needs, and working with that to make use of local resources for the benefit of the community who lives there. It seems so simple and fundamental. And it’s still federal land.

I was only mildly surprised when they mentioned that many more women were involved in the community forestry movement than the rest of the forestry enterprise. Thanks to the difficulty getting free scholarly papers, I was unable to do a complete read of some papers, but it appears that in the literature, women are sometimes shown to prefer a more collaborative style of problem solving. I think that there is an excellent opportunity for further study by some graduate student (s) at UBC or elsewhere.

I also thought it was interesting that District Ranger at Sweet Home, Cindy Glick, talked knowledgeably about the poverty in her community, and also seemed to look on the life of the community, and its relation with the forest, as a whole. She seemed like the kind of Ranger I would want to have around.

But that’s just my take. Please watch the video yourself and tell us what you think.

One Person’s “Red Tape” Is Another Person’s Following Legitimate Legal Processes: And That’s OK

by

For many years, I carpooled in DC with a person who worked a lot in fire. We had more than our share of conversations about air tankers…this was about 10-20 years ago. It seems like there’s always something going on with them. A good business to get into for young people who want to follow the same issue for a long time.

Anyway, I thought it was interesting that Senator Udall was complaining about Forest Service “red tape” in this article, when the delay seems to have been caused by appeals of contracting procedures. But there is an emergency clause, that Udall seems to be thinking should be invoked. I like the idea of agencies being able to cut through “red tape” of all kinds; but perhaps different mechanisms could be invoked for different kinds of “red tape” or procedural processes..

Here is a post by Bob Berwyn and below is an excerpt:

Udall, who serves on the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, is urgin private contractors to respect the U.S. Forest Service’s upcoming decision to award contracts to several U.S. companies to supply next-generation air tankers.

More information on the air tanker contract issue is online at Wildfire Today and Fire Aviation, where a recent post indicates the Forest Service expects to finalize contracts in the next couple of months.

Protests and challenges of past contract awards have already delayed the Forest Service’s acquisition of seven next-generation air tankers. Additional protests could leave Colorado and the West without adequate tanker resources for the 2013 wildfire season, Udall said.

Federal contracting rules allow private companies not awarded government contracts to protest contracting decisions without penalty. Previous protests by unsuccessful bidders have already delayed the delivery of the next-generation air tankers by at least eight months. Federal agencies, however, are allowed to override a protest in cases where there are urgent and compelling circumstances.

“Air tankers are critical firefighting resources that can save lives and prevent small blazes from becoming catastrophic wildfires,” Udall said. “When I met with Northern Colorado firefighting and emergency-management officials this week, they all agreed that we need to ensure that Colorado and the Forest Service have the resources they need to fight fires now. If contractors continue to challenge agency decisions, I will urge the Forest Service to use its emergency authorities to override the challenges and finalize the tanker contracts as soon as possible. Colorado cannot wait.”

Wyden says he’ll work to raise timber harvests

by

I left Oregon in 1988.. about 25 years ago.. and some of the concerns and the folks were the same, but it sounds like folks like Wyden who have been involved for this whole period of time, are ready for something different. And perhaps more importantly, the folks like Wyden, who want something different, are in positions to help make it happen, and can’t be dismissed in a hail of partisanising rhetoric.

Here’s the link and below are some excerpts:

“The cut level in southwestern Oregon has been, in my view, unacceptable,” U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., told the Medford Rogue Rotary Club Friday. “You can be very sure that I will be pushing hard through hearings as chairman of this committee to turn that around.”
Wyden’s comments came after being told that Rough and Ready Lumber Co. in Cave Junction had been forced to close for a week and lay off its workers because of a lack of logs.
In an interview with the Mail Tribune following his talk, Wyden said he did not have a specific figure in mind but felt the harvest level was too low for the economy and the environment.
Much of the local federal forestland is unnaturally overstocked, creating a situation ripe for wildfire and disease, he noted.
He also expressed concern that sequestration — mandatory federal budget cuts — would result in more harvest reduction because of cuts to the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The cuts would go into effect March 1 unless Congress and the Obama administration can settle their financial differences.
“Let’s just say it (the timber harvest) is way short of what the pledged target has been,” he said. “They are a long, long way from the pledged target, and that is what we have to change.”
Wyden said finding a way to break the impasse over logging is critical to the survival of rural Oregon communities.
“There is a common thread among all these communities,” he stressed. “They want good paying jobs. They want to protect their treasure. And they want to make sure they don’t become ghost towns.”
In answer to a question from the audience, Wyden indicated he would reach out to all sides in the debate over how much federal timberland should be harvested. That includes Gov. John Kitzhaber’s forest task force, he noted.
“We all are trying to find common ground between timber folks and environmental folks — that’s really the coin of the realm,” he said.
He observed it can be done, noting he was able to create a bill for the east side of the Cascades after working with diverse factions. “Trust is the key,” he said.

and

“My top priority as chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is to find that sweet spot where we can come as close to possible to having it all,” he said. “Let’s make sure we wring every bit of this American advantage out for our country.”

He also noted that Oregon is in a position to take advantage of renewable energy, including hydropower, geothermal power and biomass power.

“Overstocked stands are magnets for fire,” he said, noting material from thinned forests can produce biomass energy while reducing the threat of catastrophic fires.

“When we make our forests healthier with that kind of thinning work, we also have a healthier economy,” he said. “We have a chance then to do right by both our families and the environment.”

That should include salvaging trees killed by drought, disease or wildfire, he added later, in answer to a question from the audience.

Molly Mowery on Wildfire Costs

by

1-12_Wildfire_Watch KR.indd

Here is the link and below is an excerpt:

Recent wildfire seasons have provided mainstream media with plenty of material for dramatic images and attention-grabbing headlines, some more accurate than others. We often worry that misleading coverage can deliver the wrong message to the public, but it can also be a problem among wildfire professionals. Lately, I’ve had to re-evaluate my own methods of understanding wildfire news and where it comes from, as well as how I transmit that information to colleagues and the public.

Every year, the USDA Forest Service spends an extraordinary amount of money fighting wildfires. The budget for these activities in 2012 was nearly $2 billion dollars, the bulk of which went to fire suppression costs — aviation, engines, firefighting crews, agency personnel, and more — to protect threatened communities, people, and property. The federal government will soon announce its 2013 budget for wildfire management activities, and there is no reason to think that the price tag will be any less than it was last year.

One of the problems associated with this very large number is that it’s often interpreted as the “cost” of wildfire, when in fact it’s more like the tip of the iceberg of what wildfire actually costs. Focusing solely on suppression costs can blind us to a long list of additional direct, indirect, and associated costs, including damages to utilities and other facilities, timber and agricultural losses, evacuation aid to displaced residents, long-term rehabilitation costs to watersheds and other affected areas, post-fire flooding mitigation and damage, business revenue and property tax losses, public health impacts from smoke, and, in some cases, the tragic loss of human life. Costs such as private property losses are often included in media coverage of fires, but even these figures can hide associated costs that are buried in the details or are difficult to calculate.

Many of these unacknowledged costs are assumed by states and local communities, and continue long after the immediate impact of a wildfire. A 2009 report released by the Western Forestry Leadership Coalition looked at six different wildfire case studies between 2000 and 2003, and found that total expenses were anywhere from two to 30 times greater than the reported suppression costs. New Mexico’s Cerro Grande Fire in 2000, for example, destroyed 260 residences and caused extensive damage to the area’s cultural sites and utility infrastructure, and to equipment at the Department of Energy’s Los Alamos National Laboratory. While the suppression bill was $33.5 million, estimates of the total cost, including immediate repairs, short-term rehabilitation, and long-term restoration, exceeded $970 million.

Another example is Colorado’s 2002 Hayman Fire, which burned nearly 138,000 acres (55,847 hectares) and destroyed hundreds of residences and outbuildings. Total suppression expenses were more than $42 million, but direct costs of property losses, utility losses, and Forest Service facility and resource losses brought the bill to more than $135 million. Adding other rehabilitation expenses, including tax revenue and business losses, reduced value of surviving structures, and other special costs such as losses to wilderness scenery, boosted the total to $207 million.