ESA

The Next Rim Fire?

by

P9256059-web

http://www.news10.net/story/news/local/eldorado-hills/2014/09/18/king-fire-burns-27930-acres-el-dorado-county-thursday/15816425/

The King Fire is experiencing growth like we saw in the Rim Fire, last year. There are important similarities but there is also a main difference. The fuels are much thicker in this more northern landscape. The fire behavior was so extreme that even the airtankers could not fly their missions. The south fork of the American River features a canyon that is steep, and over 2000 feet deep. The fire has been fought aggressively along Highway 50, with 1000’s of homes nestled into un-firesafe neighborhoods. Like most people, they seem to prefer their shade over fire safety. The fire has now burned about 50,000 acres in one 24 hour period and there is only 5% containment. A weak cold front approaches and will increase the winds, even more than they have been in the last two days. After the cold front blows through, there might be a change in the wind direction, too. There seems to be a new gap in the Sierra Nevada, where old growth is being incinerated. A drive up to south Tahoe along Highway 50 shows the now-interconnected wildfires in recent history. The Wrights Fire, the Pilliken Fire, the Cleveland Fire, the Freds Fire and now, the King Fire. Change has been very harsh upon the Highway 50 corridor.

When will Congress do “something” that is effective against wildfires?

Whitebark Lawsuit Redux: Groups Appeal

by
Whitebark pine cones are caged to protect them from Clark's nutcrackers. by USDA Forest Service
Whitebark pine cones are caged to protect them from Clark’s nutcrackers. by USDA Forest Service

Here’s a story from the Bozeman Chronicle and below is an excerpt.

In July 2011, the agency determined that whitebark pine forests have enough threats, such as climate change, to warrant listing.

However, the USFWS was not abusing its power or being arbitrary when it decided other species have a higher priority for listing, said U.S. District Judge Dana Christiansen of Missoula in his April 25 ruling.

The USFWS has identified more than 260 species that qualify for Endangered Species Act protections but are yet to be listed.

In their appeal filed Friday, the two groups asked the appeals court to declare the decision to delay listing as illegal and to order the agency to list the whitebark pine by a set date.

“The FWS has already found that whitebark pine trees are going extinct due to global warming,” said Mike Garrity, AWR executive director. “Whitebark pine seeds are an important food source for grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. We are going to keep fighting to keep whitebark pines from going extinct because Yellowstone grizzly bears are so dependent on them.“

The U.S. Forest Service estimated that climate change would result in the whitebark-pine population shrinking to less than 3 percent of its current range by the end of the century.

However, the Forest Service still has proposals to clearcut whitebark pine stands, Garrity said.

When whitebark pine trees were more numerous, grizzly bears’ diets could be as much as 75 percent pine nuts, said whitebark pine expert Jesse Logan.

But since 2005, pine beetles and white blister rust, a fungus, have been decimating whitebark pine forests in the greater Yellowstone area, especially at lower elevations.

2009, 95 percent of the stands had some infestation. As a result, stands in 18 of 22 mountain ranges in the greater Yellowstone area are nearly gone.

Some scientists say that grizzly bears have historically sought out high-fat whitebark-pine nuts as an autumn food source but are now adapting to use other foods as whitebark pine trees die out.

The difference between the legal aspects of ESA, what goes on that all can see in Physical World, and what people say in news stories (perhaps simplified?) can lead to a great deal of confusion in my mind, and this is an example.

For example, 1) did FWS really say whitebark pine would go extinct due to climate change? Is that the same data that the Forest Service said it would be 3% of its natural range? If whitebark’s original range is very broad, then 3% could be many acres. When is the criterion “going extinct” versus “populations are greatly reduced”? Who decides exactly what “greatly” is for these purposes?

2) That would be a projection based on many assumptions.. probably all of which are open to different points of view. We tree people know it’s not that easy to predict how trees will respond to unknown future events.

For example, how do they know it won’t adapt through time? Many folks have predicted that many species (including WWP) would be wiped out by diseases and natural selection seems to have worked pretty well. We know that these things are impossible to predict with any accuracy, so…. we need to rely on someone’s judgment on what the risk is and what could be done that would work. But is a lawsuit the best way to arrive at that? (I had personal experience with some scientists wanting to list sugar pine. The scientists are retired, but sugar pine is still doing fine.)

3) And if it’s really climate change and not BBs or blister rust, how on earth are any physical actions taken by FWS or the FS going to help? If we look at what Garrity appears to be asking for, it is for the FS to stop clearcutting WBP.

4) But I don’t know why the FS would clearcut WBP, certainly not for timber. Does anyone have links to any FS projects where this is proposed?

5) Finally, even if you grant all the above, which I don’t, many scientists think it’s too late to turn climate change around (if that’s the ultimate fix to the situation).. so.. are we spending money on the ESA equivalent of beating dead horses? And who but FWS should decide which dead horses to pick?

Perhaps readers know the answers to these questions.

While looking for a photo, I ran across this study which said that the whitebark was experiencing mortality in 1993 (20 years ago, now) due to BR and BBs and successional replacement, and more prescribed burning was/is(?) needed. Could a listing make the FS do more prescribed burning? But that’s already part of their restoration plan..

Abstract:
Whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis), an important producer of food for wildlife, is decreasing in abundance in western Montana due to attacks by the white pine blister rust fungus (Cronartium ribicola), epidemics of mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) and successional replacement mainly by subalpine fir (Abies lasiocarpa). Plots established in 1971 were remeasured in 1991 and 1992 to determine the rate and causes of whitebark pine mortality. Mortality rates averaged 42% over the last 20 yr. indicating a rapid decline in whitebark pine populations of western Montana. This decline is most pronounced in northwestern Montana with the southward extension of heaviest mortality centered along the continental divide and Bitterroot Mountain range. Management treatments such as prescribed fire can serve to maintain whitebark pine in the landscape. West. J. Appl. For. 8(2):44-47.

Judge Christensen on Whitebark Pine

by

rmrs_gtr279 1 small

It’s interesting to me that there are species that have few members right now, and there are species that are likely to have few members in the future depending on people’s predictions/projections about what will happen in the future.

Given my experience with people’s projections about the future, I would tend to prioritize those species that are having problems now. I don’t know if that’s the way ESA works, though.

Anyway, this seems to be a discussion about funding, but it’s not clear what the funding would do other than to develop a plan. But I believe that there have been a couple of other plans or strategies developed. There is one for the Pacific Northwest (here) and one (range-wide) from the Rocky Mountain Station here. I know individuals who have spent many hours working on these efforts, so I am curious why

Christensen also agreed with FWS’ claim that developing multi-species protection plans (that might include whitebark pine with things facing similar threats or use similar areas) was a reasonable and logical effort.

What is missing from the other strategies, developed with much government time and money, that makes them insufficient?

Again, as in so many lawsuits, it’s difficult for me to figure out what is the desired endgame (in Physical World) following all the paperwork-jousting that will actually help the WB pine.

Here’s a link, and below is an excerpt from a Missoulian story. Thanks to an unnamed reader for this.

Whitebark pines grow on high-altitude mountain slopes and mature trees can produce big crops of protein-rich pine nuts. Grizzly bears and other animals count on the trees as a major food source. But decades of devastation by blister rust fungus and mountain pine beetle infestation have put it in danger of extinction. FWS research expects it to be gone from the landscape within two or three generations.

In July 2011, FWS decided whitebark pine was warranted but precluded from protection under the Endangered Species Act. That means while the agency agrees the tree is in danger, it does not have the resources to prioritize its protection over other species already listed.

The Fish and Wildlife Service ranks species’ risk numerically from 1 to 12, based on their respective threats and rarity. The environmental groups argued that whitebark pine got a rank of 2 – second-most serious – but the federal agency let species with lower ranks get protection while the tree was precluded.

Christensen ruled the ranking could assist FWS in setting its priorities, but didn’t force it to work exclusively by the strict order of worst-first standing.

“Congress could have expressly bound the service to its (listing priority number) rankings or some other proxy for degree of threat, but chose not to do so,” Christensen wrote. “The court will respect that decision.”

In September 2011, FWS settled another lawsuit over its endangered species backlog by creating a work plan to finish initial reviews of more than 600 species and settle the status of 251 “candidate” species that were already under review. But the whitebark pine status was done before that agreement was imposed, Christensen said.

Christensen also agreed with FWS’ claim that developing multi-species protection plans (that might include whitebark pine with things facing similar threats or use similar areas) was a reasonable and logical effort.

“The service provided sufficient reasoning and data upon which the finding that listing of the whitebark pine is ‘precluded by pending proposals to determine whether any species is an endangered species or a threatened species’ as required by (law),” Christensen wrote. “In the case of the whitebark pine, the service turned in its homework, which the court gives a passing grade.”

Forest Service ESA/NFMA success story

by

The West Virginia northern flying squirrel was removed from the endangered species list a few years ago, apparently mostly the result an effort to restore red spruce trees in the Monongahela National Forest.  This story doesn’t mention the forest plan, but says that 100,000 acres are being “managed primarily for red spruce.”  Here is what the plan says:

“Management Prescription 4.1 emphasizes the active and passive restoration of spruce and spruce-hardwood communities and the recovery of species of concern found in these communities, a mix of forest products, and management of hardwood communities where spruce is not present or represents only a negligible component of a stand, and research or administrative studies on spruce restoration. On lands determined to be suitable habitat for the West Virginia northern flying squirrel, vegetation management initially would be limited to research or administrative studies to determine effective habitat enhancement techniques for the squirrel. After such studies have demonstrated effective techniques, vegetation management to enhance habitat for the squirrel or other TEP species could occur on a larger scale (see FW standard TE61).”

“Objective WF11 – Maintain at least 20,000 acres of mid-late and late successional (>80 years old) spruce forest to provide optimum habitat for West Virginia northern flying squirrel, a Management Indicator Species. The long-term objective is to increase mid-late and late successional spruce forest to at least 40,000 acres.”

According to the de-listing rule:   “Implementation of the amended Appendix A guidelines by the Monongahela National Forest (MNF) effectively abated the main threat to the squirrel (i.e., habitat loss from timber management) throughout the majority of its range, by eliminating adverse impacts on all suitable habitat on the MNF without having to prove WVNFS presence.”

What’s not to like about this as an example of how public land laws can work the way they were intended?  If there’s any easterners more familiar with the back-story, maybe they could share it.

The current interest is related to coverage of the flying squirrel in the April/May issue of The Nature Conservancy Magazine.  Here’s more on red spruce.  

4FRI: “$127 per acre in environmental study and contract costs”

by

Article from the Arizona Journal yesterday. I thought this line was interesting:

“The problem boils down to a projected gap in the number of forest acres available to timber industries that are currently thinning forests in Northern Arizona between the end of the White Mountain Stewardship contract and the beginning of the 4FRI project. In order for the Forest Service to make land available to industry for thinning, it must spend an estimated average of $127 per acre in environmental study and contract costs.” [emphasis mine]

 

Senators Flake And McCain Back Effort To Keep 4Fri Alive

By Tammy Gray
Red tape that has the ability to undermine the Four Forests Restoration Initiative (4FRI) has captured the attention of U.S. Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain, both R-Ariz.
In a letter dated March 24, the senators implore the U.S. Forest Service to make the success of the initiative, along with the White Mountain Stewardship contract, “a national priority.”
The problem boils down to a projected gap in the number of forest acres available to timber industries that are currently thinning forests in Northern Arizona between the end of the White Mountain Stewardship contract and the beginning of the 4FRI project. In order for the Forest Service to make land available to industry for thinning, it must spend an estimated average of $127 per acre in environmental study and contract costs. The funding for completing such work will dwindle over the next few years, and Navajo County Government Relations Administrator Hunter Moore noted that action is needed immediately to prevent future acreage shortages due to the amount of time it takes to complete the environmental study process.
“The major point is that we need to put more capacity into the system now, so that we do not run short in the years to come. If we don’t infuse new resources immediately, the ANSF (Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests) will not be able to catch up due to the demands and time of the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process,” Moore noted. “For all intents and purposes, the industry that exists now will likely have a major role in the second phase of 4FRI. If that industry is allowed to starve and die after we have taken 10 years to grow it, we will regret not having it around when 4FRI needs to be completed.”
Flake and McCain note in their letter to the Forest Service that the White Mountain Stewardship contract, which has its roots in the aftermath of the Rodeo-Chedeski fire, is a model for the nation and it’s follow-up, the 4FRI, must be given every opportunity to be successful.
“As private industry continues to make a comeback, our fire-prone communities will become safer at a faster pace and lower cost than the federal government could accomplish on its own,” the senators wrote in their letter to U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “…However, the pending exhaustion of acres pre-approved for thinning under the National Environmental Policy Act poses a significant threat to thinning activity across Arizona’s eastern forests. Without addressing this projected gap in available acres, the industry that has developed in that part of the state could face significant obstacles. Such a setback would not only have an outsized impact on local economies, it could call into question the long-term viability of the stewardship contracting model on a national level.”
Moore noted that some of the private industry partners are willing to cover the costs involved in releasing the acreage for treatment, but that is not a legally available option at this time. He notes that approximately $4 million per year is needed from the federal government to make enough acreage available for industry to stay afloat.
“Estimates indicate that for a $4 million investment annually, the federal government gets private investment activity that is several times beyond that,” he noted.
Flake and McCain asked Tidwell to “make use of all available tools to expedite, streamline and increase the pace and scale of forest restoration.” They also noted, “In this fiscal climate, prioritizing these programs will ensure that communities throughout the West are less vulnerable to fire, while reducing the skyrocketing cost to taxpayers associated with fire suppression and post-fire recovery. We are sure that you agree that we cannot afford to let federal inaction hinder the prospect for continued forest restoration driven by private investment.”

ESA lawsuits: fair and balanced

by

Environmental litigants seem to be a favorite target these days of both Congressional hearings and criticism on this blog.  So after reading (here) about a recent lawsuit that led to DE-listing of species, I decided to look into what these anti-environmental plaintiffs were trying to accomplish with it.  What we have (here) is an exact mirror image of the litigation strategy to list species under ESA, and the same reason they won – failure to meet deadlines.

In this example, plaintiff’s reasons for de-listing have nothing to do with the species or restrictions resulting from the listing.  The species will still be protected.  As the other article says, the lawsuit was merely “symbolic.”  Harassment maybe.  Now wasn’t defending against it a good use of our tax dollars?

Just saying – it’s ok to talk about whether limiting litigation is a good idea, but let’s not suggest that judicial review inherently favors any particular position.

 

Power Fire 2014

by

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.

P9262156-web

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.

P9262142-web

This picture amused me, as I put this sign up back in 2005. Plastic signs last much longer than the old cardboard ones.

P9262128-web

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/

Lackey’s Salmon Policy Paper II: A Science Excerpt

by

CHIN_FallLC

Considering that blog readers might not want to read all of Lackey’s paper, that I posted in the previous post here, I am posting another couple of excerpts.

The billions spent on salmon recovery might be considered “guilt money” — modern-day indulgences — a tax society and individuals willingly bear to alleviate their collective and individual remorse. It is money spent on activities not likely to achieve recovery of wild salmon, but it helps people feel better as they continue the behaviors and choices that preclude the recovery of wild salmon.

and

Salmon Policy Lesson 2 — Fisheries scientists, managers, and analysts are systemically encouraged to avoid explicitly conveying unpleasant facts or trade-offs to the public, senior bureaucrats, or elected officials.

…Such a message to “lighten up” is also reflected in the comments of some colleagues in reviewing salmon recovery manuscripts. For example, a common sentiment is captured by one reviewer’s comment on a manuscript: “You have to give those of us trying to restore wild salmon some hope of success.”
In contrast, some colleagues, especially veterans of the unending political conflict over salmon policy, confessed their regret over the “optimistic” approach that they had taken during their careers in fisheries, and they now endorse the “tell it like it is” tactic. They felt that they had given false hope about the effectiveness of fishways, hatcheries, and the ability of their agencies to manage mixed stock fishing. Many professional fisheries scientists have been pressured by employers, funding organizations, and colleagues to “spin” fisheries science and policy realism to accentuate optimism. Sometimes the pressure on scientists to cheerlead is blunt; other times it is subtle. For example, consider the coercion of scientists by other scientists (often through nongovernmental professional societies) to avoid highlighting the importance of U.S. population policy on sustaining natural resources (Hurlbert 2013). The existence of such institutional and organizational pressure is rarely discussed except among trusted colleagues; nevertheless it is real.

Other colleagues took professional refuge in the reality that senior managers or policy bureaucrats select and define the policy or science question to be addressed, thus constraining research. Consequently, the resulting scientific information and assessments are often scientifically rigorous, but so narrowly focused that the information is only marginally relevant to decision makers. Rarely are fisheries scientists encouraged to provide “big picture” assessments of the future of salmon. Whether inadvertent or not, such constrained
information often misleads the public into endorsing false expectations of the likelihood of the recovery of wild salmon (Lackey 2001a, Hurlbert 2011).

If there are 50 things you could do, and not-logging is one of them (like not-farming, not-developing, not-fishing, not-damming, etc.), wouldn’t we want to know 1) how effective each intervention would be and 2) and who specifically would win and lose under each scenario, so that appropriate policy remedies for their pain might be considered? (Of course, scientists wouldn’t agree…) Otherwise we might target the most politically easy (say logging on public lands…), cause difficulties to communities that we don’t openly examine,
and never really fix the problem.

Saving Wild Salmon: A 165 Year Policy Conundrum: Bob Lackey

by

Massive Adams River Sockeye Salmon Migration

Here’s a paper that in which Bob Lackey talks about salmon policy 165 Year Salmon Policy Conundrum – R T Lackey, which Bob asked me to review before it was published (full disclosure).

Scientists tend to depict the policy debate as a scientific or ecological challenge and the “solutions” they offer are usually focused on aspects of salmon ecology (Naiman et al 2012). There is an extensive scientific literature about salmon (Quinn 2005, Lackey et al 2006a), but the reality is that the future of wild salmon largely will be determined by factors outside the scope of science (Montgomery 2003, Lackey et al 2006b). More specifically, to effect a long-term reversal of the downward trajectory of wild salmon, a broad suite of related public policy issues must be considered:

 Hydroelectric energy — how costly and reliable does society want energy to be given that wild salmon ultimately will be affected by providing the relatively cheap, carbon-free, and reliable energy produced by hydropower?

 Land use — where will people be able to live, how much living space will they be permitted, what activities will they be able to do on their own land, and what personal choices will they have in deciding how land is used?

 Property rights — will the acceptable use of private land be altered and who or what institutions will decide what constitutes acceptable use?

 Food cost and choice — will food continue to be subsidized by taxpayers (e.g., publicly funded irrigation, crop subsidies) or will the price of food be solely determined by a free market?

 Economic opportunities — how will high-paying jobs be created and sustained for this and subsequent generations?

 Individual freedoms — which, if any, personal rights or behavioral choices will be compromised or sacrificed if society is genuinely committed to restoring wild salmon?

 Evolving priorities — is society willing to substitute hatchery-produced salmon for wild salmon and, if so, will the ESA permit this?

 Political realities — will society support modifying the ESA such that salmon recovery expenditures can be shifted to those watersheds offering the best chance of success?

 Cultural legacies — which individuals and groups, if any, will be granted the right to fish and who or what institutions will decide?

 Indian treaties — will treaties between the United States and various tribes, negotiated over 150+ years ago, be modified to reflect today’s dramatically different biological, economic, and demographic realities?

 Population policy — what, if anything, will society do to influence or control the level of the human population in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho or indeed the U.S. as a whole?

 Ecological realties — given likely future conditions (i.e., an apparently warming climate), what wild salmon recovery goals are biologically realistic?

 Budgetary realities — will the fact that the annual cost of sustaining both hatchery and wild salmon runs in California, Oregon, Washington, and Idaho exceeds the overall market value of the harvest eventually mean that such a level of budgetary expenditure will become less politically viable?

These are a few of the key policy questions that are germane to the public debate over wild salmon policy. Scientific information, while at some level relevant and necessary, is clearly not at the crux of the wild salmon policy debate. Scientists can provide useful technical insight and ecological reality checks to help the public and decision makers answer these policy questions, but science

There are three interesting subtopics to me in this paper.

First, he tackles how ESA is not working for salmon in his view.. worth looking at.

Second, he describes the dynamics that keep scientists working and funded yet not producing information that leads to the desired outcome.. because..

(Third,) the desired outcome is very very hard or impossible to achieve politically when it goes toward a kind of a political “undiscussable” (I first heard this term used by folks from Dialogos, but they probably did not coin it); population growth. Now those of us old enough to be retired may remember when population stabilizing and reduction was an important part of the environmental NGO agenda. Perhaps Andy’s post about the Old Times started me thinking about this aspect of the environmental movement of the past.

I think we’ve discussed enough topics on this blog so that we can even tackle this one without name-calling.

Here’s a a quote from the Dalai Lama:

His Holiness the Dalai Lama, 14th leader of Tibetan Buddhists.

One of the great challenges today is the population explosion. Unless we area able to tackle this issue effectively we will be confronted with the problem of the natural resources being inadequate for all the human beings on this earth.

So now the question is…the population of the human being…So the only choice…limited number…happy life…meaningful life. Too many population…miserable life and always
bullying one another, exploiting one another…there’s no use.

Note that he talks about natural resources being inadequate.

Well, back to Bob Lackey. Actually, he hits on three pretty- much undiscussables (not that you can’t discuss them, but in many fora you will be called names if you do); problems with ESA, how science really works, and population. I think it’s worth bringing these to the attention of folks on the blog; one of the things I hope to do is share views of people who aren’t heard from through the standard media or academic channels. Possibly because their worldview does not fit their paradigms or structures.

Largest “Dealbreaker” Ever?!?

by

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.