I recently drove over California’s Carson Pass and spent a day in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The weather was good, so I decided to save some money and camp out (!) for two nights (and spending $42 for a night in Reno).
My day at Tahoe began encased in ice, as moist and cold air flowed down the canyon I was camping in. I quickly gathered my frozen gear and stuffed it into the car, making my way to Truckee, and precious morning coffee. From there, I drove down Highway 89, which was very familiar to me, as I used to bicycle, hitch hike and drive it, many times a week, when I lived there, in the 80’s. I continued along the west shore of Lake Tahoe, to reach my first planned stop at Eagle Rock. I had last climbed it in the mid 80’s, and I didn’t know there were now two trails to the top. It was still a bit icy on top but the amazing views sure hadn’t changed. Eagle Rock is a post-glacial volcanic plug, where Blackwood Canyon meets Lake Tahoe.
It appears that the bark beetles haven’t yet arrived in Tahoe yet but, they sure are knocking on the door. I did see bug patches in the southern part of the Eldorado. I heard about one landowner who had 42 bug trees on their property.
I later visited the famous Emerald Bay, and you will see pictures of that in another post.
Along Highway 88, on the Eldorado National Forest, they have this interesting project being worked on, during the winter. I’m guessing that units have to find other ways to spend their timber bucks since litigation has returned diameter limits to the old unreasonable sizes imposed in 2000. It looks like this project is a highway strip, intended to be a quasi-fuelbreak. It does appear that some trees up to 9″ dbh were taken out, for spacing. There are going to be a ton of tiny piles to burn, and the California Air Resources Board has not been kind to the Forest Service in granting waivers on No-Burn days. And, yes, the piles are covered with burnable material that will keep the pile dry, so ignition will be easy.
Can we start calling these things “Big Thin Lies”? It is what people see, and they think all forests look like these cleanly thinned and piled forests.
Apparently, enough of the hazard trees within the Rim Fire on the Stanislaus NF have been cut so that the travel ban has finally been lifted, after more than a year. I heard one report that says that the litigation has failed at the District Court level, losing their pleas to stop the logging three times. The article below includes the Appeals Court but, I doubt that an appeal has been seen in court yet. It seems too soon after the District Court decision for the appeal to be decided.
Since the Rim Fire tore through the area and devoured over 250, 000 square miles of National, State and private forested land, the community has come together to put together a solution with positive environmental, economical and social sense. The whole effort to restore forests has been very successful due to cooperation of a diverse group of individuals, organizations and government agencies.
(Edit: Thanks to Matt for pointing out the acres/square miles error. That should be 250,000 acres.)
With a monster storm approaching California, we should be seeing some catastrophic erosion coming from the Rim and King Fire areas. Of course, very little can be done to prevent erosion on the steep slopes of the canyons with high burn intensity. Standing snags tend to channel water, while branches and twigs on the ground can hold back a surprising amount of soil. This flood event would have been great to document through repeat photography but, it appears that opportunity will be lost, too.
Bark beetle activity has also spiked where I live, northwest of the Rim Fire.
A Cal-Berkeley fire scientist shows his unawareness of current Forest Service policy but, his other ideas favor active management of our Sierra Nevada National Forests.
The situation is compounded by the gridlock between environmentalists and commercial foresters. The former favor thinning, but they want all logging plans to leave the larger trees, particularly those with trunks over 30 inches in diameter. But the timber companies maintain it is necessary to take a significant number of bigger trees to fund thinning and restoration programs.
Stephens generally favors the enviro position. Landscape-scale wildfire damage is driven by vast acreages of small-diameter, closely-packed trees, he says. By leaving the larger trees, the essential character of a natural forest can be maintained, even accelerated. And he thinks markets can be found for products produced from thinned, scrawny trees.
Of course, there has been a ban on the cutting of trees larger than 30″ dbh, since 1993. Ditto for clearcutting! These are two big hot-button issues for most “conservationists” but, there are still people out there who want timber sales banned, altogether. There are others who would love to go back to the Clinton rules of the Sierra Nevada Framework, which would shutdown much of Region 5’s timber management programs. A 22″ dbh tree, underneath a 36″ dbh tree cannot be considered “scrawny”. Generally, most of the thinned trees are in the 10-18″ dbh size, averaging about 15″ dbh.
As I predicted, there will be no TRO for the Rim Fire, from District Court. Once the sales are sold, restoration work can begin. Let’s hope that SPI has an army of fallers, ready and waiting. I also hope that they will leave the plantation salvage for last. *smirk*
Sonora, CA –A Federal Judge in Fresno has denied a temporary restraining order regarding the lawsuit filed against the Rim Fire Recovery Record of Decision.
Forest Service Spokesperson Wyn Hornbuckle says, “We are pleased with the court’s decision.” He would not comment further.
As reported earlier this month, three environmental groups including the Center for Biological Diversity were seeking an injunction to halt logging within the 37 occupied California spotted owl territories within the burned area. The Chair of the Yosemite Stanislaus Solutions (YSS) group and President of Sierra Resource Management, Mike Albrecht, worked with local environmental groups and the Forest Service to hammer out a compromise on the Rim Fire Record of Decision. He applauds the Judge’s decision.
Here is a textbook example, from the Stanislaus National Forest travel planning process.
The Forest Service makes a decision
Plaintiffs sue
Intervention granted to supporters of the decision
Court finds Forest Service violated a procedural analysis requirement
Plaintiffs, intervenors and Forest Service agree on an interim solution while the process is redone
It looks like win/win/win/win:
Plaintiffs: “Now we have 40 miles of the worst routes officially closed.”
Intervenors: “At the end of the day, we need to be partners in effective forward-looking management and allowing this agreement to be approved as opposed to tilting at windmills.”
Forest Service: “Diverse riding and driving opportunities for motorized recreation and dispersed camping still abound on the forest with over 230 miles of OHV trails available.”
General public: Gets another chance to participate in the process
(Of course the goal in most litigation is to settle a case before a judge has to decide it.)
This is apparently the first test of the 2012 planning rule objection process for forest plan revisions (though the plans were prepared under the 1982 rule). On the Kootenai, there were 38 objectors and the same number of ‘interested persons’ (presumably some overlap). On the Idaho Panhandle, 22 objectors and 94 interested persons. Someone distilled that to these four topics for discussion and possible resolution at a meeting on each forest: county coordination, Wild and Scenic Rivers, recommended Wilderness and wilderness study areas, and management indicator species. Meetings with objectors are optional, but if held must be open to the public (interested persons can participate but the general public can’t). The reviewing officer, Associate Deputy Chief Jim Pena, attended in person. What do you think?
We’ve seen pictures of the Power Fire, on the Eldorado National Forest, before. I worked on salvage sales until Chad Hanson won in the Ninth Circuit Court, with issues about the black-backed woodpecker. The court decided that the issue needed more analysis, as well as deciding that the Forest Service’s brand new mortality guidelines were “confusing”. From these pictures, it is very clear to see that those mortality guidelines were way more conservative than they maybe should have been.
As you can see, in this finished unit(s), there were ample snags available for birds to use, despite multiple cuttings, due to the increased bark beetle activity, during the logging. No one can say that they didn’t leave enough snags, (other than the Appeals Court). These pictures are very recent, shot last month.
This picture amused me, as I put this sign up back in 2005. Plastic signs last much longer than the old cardboard ones.
Here is another view of the area, chock full of snags, well beyond what the salvage plans asked for, to devote to woodpeckers and other organisms that use snags. People like Chad Hanson want more high-intensity wildfires, and more dead old growth. It is no wonder that the Sierra Club decided he was too radical, even for them.
Edit: Here is the link to a previous posting from almost 2 years ago, with pictures. https://forestpolicypub.com/2012/05/28/the-power-fire-six-years-later/
This may shock some readers but, I am actually against HR 3188. I don’t support any logging in Yosemite National Park, or in the Emigrant Wilderness, other than hazard tree projects. What is also pretty amazing is that others in the House have signed on to this bill. It seems like political “suicide” to go on record, being in favor of this bill. However, I am in favor of exempting regular Forest Service lands, within the Rim Fire, from legal actions, as long as they display “due diligence” in addressing endangered species, and other environmental issues. Did McClintock not think that expedited Yosemite National Park logging would be, maybe, the largest “dealbreaker” in history?
Here is McClintock’s presentation:
HR 3188 – Timber Fire Salvage
October 3, 2013
Mr. Chairman:
I want to thank you for holding this hearing today and for the speedy consideration of HR 3188.
It is estimated that up to one billion board feet of fire-killed timber can still be salvaged out of the forests devastated by the Yosemite Rim fire, but it requires immediate action. As time passes, the value of this dead timber declines until after a year or so it becomes unsalvageable.
The Reading Fire in Lassen occurred more than one year ago. The Forest Service has just gotten around to selling salvage rights last month. In the year the Forest Service has taken to plow through endless environmental reviews, all of the trees under 18” in diameter – which is most of them – have become worthless.
After a year’s delay for bureaucratic paperwork, extreme environmental groups will often file suits to run out the clock, and the 9th Circuit Court of appeals has become infamous for blocking salvage operations.
We have no time to waste in the aftermath of the Yosemite Rim Fire, which destroyed more than 400 square miles of forest in the Stanislaus National Forest and the Yosemite National Park — the largest fire ever recorded in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.
The situation is particularly urgent because of the early infestation of bark beetles which have already been observed attacking the dead trees. As they do so, the commercial value of those trees drops by half.
Four hundred miles of roads are now in jeopardy. If nearby trees are not removed before winter, we can expect dead trees to begin toppling, risking lives and closing access. Although the Forest Service has expedited a salvage sale on road and utility rights of way as part of the immediate emergency measures, current law otherwise only allows a categorical exemption for just 250 acres – enough to protect just 10 miles of road.
By the time the normal environmental review of salvage operations has been completed in a year, what was once forest land will have already begun converting to brush land, and by the following year reforestation will become infinitely more difficult and expensive – especially if access has been lost due to impassibility of roads. By that time, only trees over 30 inches in diameter will be salvageable.
Within two years, five to eight feet of brush will have built up and the big trees will begin toppling on this tinder. You could not possibly build a more perfect fire than that.
If we want to stop the conversion of this forestland to brush land, the dead timber has to come out. If we take it out now, we can actually sell salvage rights, providing revenue to the treasury that could then be used for reforestation. If we go through the normal environmental reviews and litigation, the timber will be worthless, and instead of someone paying US to remove the timber, WE will have to pay someone else to do so. The price tag for that will be breathtaking. We will then have to remove the accumulated brush to give seedlings a chance to survive – another very expensive proposition.
This legislation simply waives the environmental review process for salvage operations on land where the environment has already been incinerated, and allows the government to be paid for the removal of already dead timber, rather than having the government pay someone else.
There is a radical body of opinion that says, just leave it alone and the forest will grow back.
Indeed, it will, but not in our lifetimes. Nature gives brush first claim to the land – and it will be decades before the forest is able to fight its way back to reclaim that land.
This measure has bi-partisan precedent. It is the same approach as offered by Democratic Senator Tom Daschle a few years ago to allow salvage of beetle-killed timber in the Black Hills National Forest.
Finally, salvaging this timber would also throw an economic lifeline to communities already devastated by this fire as local mills can be brought to full employment for the first time in many years.
Time is not our friend. We can act now and restore the forest, or we can dawdle until restoration will become cost prohibitive.
This is from the Wildcat Ranch case study described in the case study link belowb
Ah.. “water conveyance structures”.. the expression rolls trippingly off the tongue, doesn’t it? I haven’t thought much about them since Colorado Roadless.
I thought that these op-eds were interesting, as the dry interior West, including national forest lands, are laced with these things. Now folks may have heard bad things about hydro, but the point of this article is that they are talking about existing structures, and the excessive needs of permitting, given that the additional environmental impacts are minimal. Here’s an opinion piece in the Denver Post today. (non-Coloradans: the legislation the author discusses was around making rural energy providers have a renewable standard. Some saw it as urbanites imposing their ideologies on rural residents.)
The experience of George Wenschhof, a cattle rancher from Meeker, shows how a small-scale hydro project can be an economic boost.
Last week, during a national conference in Denver on hydropower, Wenschhof was something of a star.
He had used what he called “cowboy engineering” to install a hydroelectric turbine in an irrigation ditch on his property. It offsets the electricity he uses to run his ranch operation.
He saves somewhere on the order of $10,000 a year on electricity costs. He got a federal grant to pay for half the $160,000 project cost and state help with permitting. Deciding to go ahead was an economic decision.
Wenschhof figures it will take him eight years to make his money back, but the system could last up to 50 years with minimum maintenance.
“My hydro and my mule are going to outlast me,” he told me.
And Wenschhof is far from alone in having the right conditions to undertake a small hydro project.
Colorado is criss-crossed with irrigation ditches and canals — it’s one of the most irrigated states in the nation — and many of those provide opportunities for power generation.
The power from these small-scale projects can be used to directly power farm and ranch operations, or it could effectively be sold to the grid via net metering.
And the outlook for small-scale hydro is getting better.
The controversial SB 252 requires a small portion of that renewable energy — 1 percent — to be generated in what is called distributed generation, which is small, on-site power generation. Surely, that will encourage smaller projects.
And the Colorado Department of Agriculture is engaged in a major effort to identify hydropower generation opportunities on ag land.
First, the department has commissioned a broad survey of the state’s irrigation waterways to identify the best sites. Fast-moving water and existing structures are key components. If the water already is traveling through a pipe, any adverse environmental impact was incurred long ago.
Also, the state is socking away a portion of severance tax proceeds — five years of up to $500,000 a year — to use as incentives to encourage the development of the most productive small projects, said Eric Lane, the Colorado Department of Agriculture’s conservation services director.
The other component that would help hydro projects take off is pending federal legislation to expedite permitting for smaller projects.
Right now, the cost of permitting sometimes outstrips the price tag for the power-generating equipment. That’s not smart policy for a nation that needs to encourage a range of sustainable energy sources.
All of these elements have the potential to make renewable energy policy, especially small hydro, a business opportunity for rural Colorado
I’m not so sure about granting individuals $80K so they save on their power bills, though. I’d rather buy solar panels for poor folks with it. But I wonder if that is really how the grants work, and if the bucks can be returned ultimately to the taxpayer somehow (extending the payback?). And granted, these are pilots to see what can be done.
There is also this editorial, also from the Denver Post, last weekend.
For years, hydroelectric power development has languished under the burden of stereotype: Its potential is tapped out. It’s detrimental to the environment. It’s not “real” renewable energy.
But legislation pending in Congress that could streamline the permitting process — without loosening environmental protections — might further unleash the power of this important energy source.
The measure has united Democrats and Republicans, environmentalists and utility representatives.
“Hydro is back,” U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, has exclaimed on more than one occasion.
And if this legislation is shaken loose in the Senate, that very well could be the case. The House version, co-sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., already has passed the House unanimously.
You don’t have to be an energy geek to understand the positives of increased hydroelectric generation from existing dams and structures — no new construction required.
Of the 80,000 dams across the U.S., only 3 percent have electricity-generating equipment. The rest are dams that have water pouring over them every day without the flow being harnessed for energy production.
The Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the U.S. Department of Energy last year released a study that said without building a single new dam, the U.S. could boost its hydropower generating capacity by more than 12 gigawatts — or roughly 15 percent of hydroelectric generation — by optimizing existing structures. That means putting turbines on dams that don’t have them and upgrading technology at older dams to be more efficient and environmentally friendly.
For some perspective, hydro is the single largest source of renewable energy and supplies roughly 6.5 to 7 percent of electricity used daily in the nation.
A 15 percent boost is meaningful, and would help in other ways. One of the big benefits of hydro is that it’s a steady power source. Other renewables, such as solar and wind, are dependent upon conditions. Hydro is a “baseload” source that supports development of renewables with intermittent capacity.
The nut of the problem with hydro development now, even for simple projects on existing structures, is the lengthy and duplicative permitting process.
As it stands, the smallest and least intrusive projects, including those proposed by farmers to power irrigation systems, can take anywhere from six months to 18 months and a lot of hassle to permit. Larger projects can take up to eight years.
