Fire and Fuels 84 | The Smokey Wire : National Forest News and Views

Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project

January 23, 2012 by Sharon

hyalite reservoir — Snow covers Hyalite Reservoir in the Gallatin National Forest on March 22, 2010. Bozeman receives 80 percent of its municipal water from both Hyalite and Bozeman Creeks; both drainages flowing into the city's water intakes will be part of the Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project and subject to forest thinning and prescribed burning to mitigate potential water contamination from a large forest fire.

Thanks to Derek for these.

Here’s an editorial from the Bozeman Chronicle:

Editorial: Protecting Bozeman’s water supply is our best long-term plan
Posted: Sunday, January 22, 2012 12:00 am
Right on cue, a trio of environmental groups has again challenged a plan to protect the main Bozeman municipal water sources from catastrophic wildfire.
The plan calls for treating 4,800 acres of the Hyalite and Sourdough creek drainages with timber harvests, thinning and controlled burns to reduce the amount of potential fuel for a wildfire that will certainly burn through the area at some point in the future. A catastrophic fire in these drainages in their present condition would produce ash and silt and trigger erosion that could overwhelm the city’s water system.
Challenging the proposal for the third time, The Alliance for a Wild Rockies, the Montana Ecosystem Defense Council and the Native Ecosystem Council contend the plan will disrupt lynx and grizzly habitat and eliminate cover for elk.
Though it will probably fall on deaf ears, here’s a different argument to consider for abandoning this challenge:
People are moving to Montana. They are buying up what was once agricultural land and turning it into housing developments. Much of the open space we all value so much as part of our quality of life is being consumed in the process.
The best way to combat this trend is to concentrate this immigration of new Montanans as much as possible – in cities. Bozeman is the best location on the northwest corner of the Yellowstone ecosystem – among blue-ribbon trout rivers and in between major wilderness areas – to accommodate as much of this population growth as possible.
To do that, though, the city needs water. And protecting the city’s primary sources of potable water is one of the best ways to ensure that Bozeman can accommodate smart growth. If the environmental groups hamper the city’s ability to maintain and increase its water supply, they will be forcing new population out into the countryside where more valuable open space will be consumed.
Make no mistake: Montana’s population is going to grow, whether we like it or not. And it is incumbent upon the state’s cities to accommodate that growth by building up, not out.
Environmental groups can help the cities accomplish this by working with them – not against them – as they seek to responsibly protect and expand their municipal water supplies.

Here’s an article from earlier in the week.

Conservation groups challenge watershed plan for third time
CARLY FLANDRO, Chronicle Staff Writer | Posted: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 12:15 am
Conservation groups on Tuesday challenged a proposed thinning and prescribed-burn project in forests south of Bozeman that aims to protect the city’s drinking water.
It’s the group’s third time challenging the proposal.
“Simply stated, the agency’s proposal breaks a number of laws and this time around is no different,” said Michael Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.
The Gallatin National Forest’s plan, called the Bozeman Municipal Watershed project, calls for burning, harvesting and thinning 4,800 acres in the Hyalite and Bozeman Creek drainages. Those drainages supply more than 80 percent of the Bozeman community’s water, and thinning efforts there are intended to reduce the extent of any potential wildfires.
A severe wildfire could put so much sediment and ash in the creeks that the treatment plant couldn’t handle it and would have to shut down, according to Marna Daley, forest spokeswoman.
Montana Ecosystem Defense Council and Native Ecosystems Council joined the Alliance for the Wild Rockies in challenging the plan.
The groups say the project would log federally designated lynx critical habitat and core grizzly bear habitat, and that it would remove elk hiding cover and destroy habitat for other old-growth-dependent species. They also worry the logging and road building would add sediment to creeks containing the native westslope cutthroat trout, which is listed as a “species of special concern.”
“Those same creeks also supply Bozeman’s municipal water,” said Steve Kelly, a board member for two of the conservation groups. “The best thing we could do for wildlife, fish, opportunities for backcountry recreation and solitude, and our drinking-water supply, would be to back away from this foolish project and enjoy the forest’s many enduring gifts.”
Garrity also alleged that some areas affected by the plan have been inaccurately designated as wildland-urban interface zones.
Daley said she has not yet seen the challenge but said the Gallatin National Forest is committed to moving forward with the project.
“We’re very confident the decision is a good decision,” she said of the most recent proposal. “We look forward to moving toward the implementation of the project in the near future.”
Daley said the challenge will go to the regional forester for review, and he’ll decide in about six weeks whether to uphold the forest’s plan.
The city of Bozeman partnered with the Gallatin National Forest to produce the watershed plan.

It’s interesting to me that we’re only hearing one side of the story from the article..

For the curious, here’s the site of information on the project, including a video.

Here’s a part of the ROD about sedimentation

Sedimentation concerns from our actions or no action
The Forest fuels specialist and hydrologist modeled the current vegetative and fuels conditions in the two drainages, and showed that a wildfire in average humidity and wind conditions could generate an increase in sediment of 250% over natural conditions (FEIS, p 3-40). A wildfire in more extreme weather conditions could cause even higher increases in sedimentation. The City of Bozeman water treatment plant currently can handle only small increases in sediment and ash and certainly not levels modeled for a wildfire under moderate or more extreme conditions.
Our effects analysis also showed that the vegetation treatments in Alternative 6 could reduce potential fire size by 54% when a wildfire occurs in the project area (FEIS, p 2-29 and p 3-29). Further analysis showed that a 4,000 acre fire in the project area after implementation of Alternative 6 would likely increase sediment 30% above natural in the Hyalite Creek drainage, and increase sediment 54% above natural in the Bozeman Creek drainage. The same size fire without treatment would produce sediment increases of 56% and 105% in those same drainages, respectively (SFEIS p. 172). A 2,000 acre fire after implementation of Alternative 6 is predicted to increase sediment by 18% over natural in Hyalite Creek and 32% in Bozeman Creek versus 31% and 57%, respectively, without treatment. The Bozeman Municipal Water Treatment plant is challenged to efficiently treat water when sediment levels exceed even 30% over natural, so 50% or greater increases could result in multiple day reductions in plant efficiency. This analysis convinced me that Alternative 6 will be effective in meeting the purpose and need for the project, and that the no action alternative, is not acceptable when the drinking water of an entire community is at stake.

Maybe I’m missing something, but if seeking safe drinking water makes people “break laws”, then what would be the proposal to meet the purpose and need that would not “break laws”?; if there is no such proposal conceivable, then it would appear that something is wrong with our framework with laws and regulations (or case law)..

Positive Step for WEG and Owl Lawsuit

January 17, 2012 by Sharon

Thanks to Terry Seyden for this..

In our previous pieces here and here on this litigation, I wondered a bit why the power users in Phoenix, and the townspeople of the Village of Ruidoso should suffer because of an issue between WEG and the FS on monitoring. Apparently, WEG did see it the same way. Good on them.

I still don’t understand the mechanics of how power line maintenance could harm the owl, maybe someone can enlighten me.

Group Won’t Interfere With Thinning
By Rene Romo / Journal South Reporter on Tue, Jan 17, 2012
http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2012/01/17/news/group-wont-interfere-with-thinning.html
LAS CRUCES — Despite winning a federal court order last week halting three forest-thinning projects to avoid harm to the Mexican spotted owl, WildEarth Guardians will not stand in the way of urgently needed work to reduce fire danger, a spokesman said.
The Jan. 5 court order halted two tree-thinning projects in Arizona and, in New Mexico, a project known as Perk-Grindston aimed at reducing fuel loads by tree removal and controlled burns on about 5,000 acres of the Lincoln National Forest on the south and west sides of Ruidoso.
Treating the forest west or southwest of Ruidoso is a high priority because winds that generally blow to the northeast could carry a wildfire into housing developments.
Ruidoso’s municipal forestry director Dick Cooke said while “a good portion” of the Perk-Grindstone project approved in mid-2008 has been completed, more work remains. The village also has treated about 80 acres of land within city limits.
“There’s been quite a bit done, but there’s still much to do,” Cooke said. “I would say the risk of wildfire on that side of the village is still high.”
In Arizona, some of the work halted involved removing hazards from tree growth along power lines. A tree that fell across power lines in late June was blamed for sparking the Las Conchas Fire, which burned more than 156,000 acres near Los Alamos and destroyed dozens of homes in the Cochiti Canyon area.
Bryan Bird, a program director for WildEarth Guardians, said the organization is negotiating with government attorneys and the Forest Service “to assure that the maintenance of the power lines will continue without harming the owl” and before the start of the owl’s breeding season in March.
“They (the Forest Service) need to get started immediately on that, and we understand that and we are being flexible in that matter,” Bird said.
In the Ruidoso area, Bird said, WildEarth Guardians is working to ensure the injunction halts only work that could affect nesting sites “so the Forest Service can continue with thinning where it doesn’t hurt the owl.”
WildEarth Guardians alleged in the 2010 suit that the Forest Service had failed to monitor the population of the Mexican spotted owl as required by a 2005 agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Bird said without maintaining counts of the owls, the impact of thinning projects on the owl cannot be determined.

— This article appeared on page C2 of the Albuquerque Journal

Fiery Heritage: What We Haven’t Learned from the Station Fire

January 14, 2012 by Sharon

by Char Miller link here. The original article has more links than what I copied below.

Wildfires Grow In The Bone Dry Forests North Of Los Angeles — ACTON, CA - AUGUST 30: A fire fighter drives away from a wall of flames August 30, 2009 in Acton, California. The out of control Station Fire has burned more than 35,000 acres and is burning towards homes from Pasadena to the Antelope Valley. The wildfire, which broke out Wednesday afternoon near a ranger station and the Angeles Crest Highway above La Canada Flintridge, has forced thousands of evacuations as nearly 10,000 homes are threatened. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

We cannot stop talking about the 2009 Station Fire. With reason: when an arsonist ignited it on August 26th, we could not know that it would continue to burn until mid-October; that it would kill two valiant firefighters, torch upwards of 100 structures, and consume 160,000 acres of the Angeles National Forest, blackening much of the San Gabriel Mountains; or that it would become the largest fire to date in Los Angeles County, and the most costly.

Its aftermath has been just as incendiary. Even as firefighters struggled to gain control of the blaze, even as its thick, dark smoke still churned skyward, criticism erupted. Why had it taken so long for the Forest Service to gain traction in the fight? What decisions had led to the grounding of the federal agency’s air fleet in the crucial first night of the fire? Why, homeowners wondered, had they lost their homes–was it a result of command-and-control failures? And were communication glitches the reason why two LA County firefighters perished in a firestorm on Mt. Gleason?

Ever since, the questions have been piling up (and the media has been piling on): Representative Adam Schiff (D-Pasadena) has been particularly persistent in his inquiries, holding a number of well-covered public hearings locally and in Washington, D. C. that probed the Forest Service’s responses to the fire and its post-fire analyses of what went wrong; he pushed for a Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General-accounting of the federal agency’s actions and inactions, which appeared in late 2011; and has been indefatigable in his calls for the USFS to update its policies governing night-time flying operations.

Schiff’s prevailing hypothesis, which the LA Times and a host of other outfits have adopted, is that Forest Service incident commanders immediately should have thrown all mechanical and human resources at the Station Fire, and had they done so it would not have blown up to such immense, terrifying, and deadly proportions.

The fact that this fire blew up was someone’s fault, and the blame for it lies squarely–solely–on the shoulders of the federal agency.

Although such after-the-fact interrogations are essential, and Rep. Schiff has been doing what an engaged and responsible public official should do on behalf of his constituency, there have been some troubling consequences to these inquiries that may complicate the future fire management on the public lands; these ramifications must be voiced if we are to have a full and accurate accounting of this particular conflagration and its impact on public policy.

Recall, for example, what happened the next summer when a trio of small fires popped up in Kern and Los Angeles counties. No sooner had the Bull, West, and Crown blazed forth then CalFire, the Forest Service, and local fire departments rushed as much personnel and equipment that they could muster to suppress them; thousands of firefighters, and squadrons of aircraft and bulldozers were dispatched put down the wind-driven grass fires.

The Station Wild Fire Spreads To Over 100,000 Acres North Of Los Angeles — TUJUNGA, CA - SEPTEMBER 03: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (C) lifts a charred dumbbell as U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (L) (D-CA) and California State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner (R) look on while touring homes that were burned by the Station Fire September 3, 2009 at Vogel Flats near Tujunga, California. Fire officials said that the deadly 140,000 acre Station Fire was human caused. The fire, now 22 percent contained, has destroyed over 70 structures and has forced thousands of evacuations as several thousand homes are continue to be threatened. Two firefighters were also killed on Sunday trying to save an inmate fire-crew camp on Mount Gleason. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

Lesson learned, one could argue–and many did. But the massive show of strength (underscored by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s photo-op appearance at command headquarters for the West fire) deflected attention away from another set of questions that ought to have been raised in response to the quick marshalling of resources. As I wrote at the time:

Not all fires must be controlled; some are essential to maintain ecosystem health. Not all firefighting makes economic sense, either. Yes, the commitment to protect human life is non-negotiable, the swift punishment of arsonists is essential and the need for more funds to fireproof the wildland-urban interface is critical.
But it is also true that Californians and other Westerners must become a lot smarter about where they choose to live. If they decide to reside in fire zones, they need to learn how to safely inhabit those areas so as not to endanger the lives of those racing to their rescue.
In the immediate aftermath of the Station Fire, these cautionary insights have gone up in smoke. Now that fire has become so politicized, whenever and wherever sparks fly, a small army of firefighters will storm in and flame-retardant will rain down.

A new book makes this case much more fully. In Fire Management in the American West: Forest Politics and the Rise of Megafires, sociologist Mark Hudson challenges some of the uncritically accepted notions about the presence of massive fires like the Station; and upends other long-prevailing assumptions about the public’s desire to compel fire managers ever-more vigorously to stamp out fire from lands wild and domesticated.

Most compelling is Hudson’s critique of the idea–so favored by environmentalists, journalists, and politicians–that the Forest Service singularly culpable for the devastating fires that have scorched so many acres since World War Two.

Hudson does not doubt that the agency’s robust fire-fighting infrastructure has contributed to the intensity of some recent conflagrations. He counters, however, that the usual extrapolation that its suppressive actions have been the spark to a thousand flames misses the larger point about who has had ultimate power over the nature of fire management in the United States.

“The project of eliminating fire from the woods and the ‘blowback’ of the increasing fire danger do not stem from the USFS as an isolated, highly autonomous body,” Hudson argues. “Rather, their roots are found in the Forest Service’s relationships with other, more powerful elements of society–the timber industry in particular.”

The blunt “refusal of capital and its representatives and allies in the US Congress to allow the Forest Service access to key tools that would have greatly increased its institutional capacity for management” did not diminish the agency’s managerial responsibilities. It increased them. Ever since the Progressive Era, the agency has been charged with producing board-feet of lumber and acre upon acre of green trees (unscorched, please!)–and to do so without the authority to practice landscape-scale management. As if what happens on abutting private lands has no impact on public lands.

Here’s how his argument plays out locally: Southland residents, big-time developers, and their political minions demand that the Forest Service snuff out any and all fires on the Angeles, Los Padres, San Bernardino and Cleveland national forests. They’d be infuriated though if the federal agency had the power to halt construction of homes, condos, and resorts in the foothills or mountains.

We want to live where we want to live, we want to wring wealth from the unfettered development of the urban-wildland interface, and we expect–as owners and builders–that the Forest Service will subsidize our desires in its role as the national Fire Service. We want free will, just not the responsibility that comes with it.

Note, therefore, that Rep. Schiff, his good constituency work aside, has not demanded of those he represents that they acknowledge their complicity in the Station’s Fire furious run. Observe he has not admitted that the furor over that its (mis) management is an expression of our willful denial of the life-threatening implications of our decision to put down our roots inside the fire zone.

Until we can have an honest discussion about the formative role we play in generating the need for full-on fire suppression. Until we accept that our eagerness to throw other people’s bodies, and a ton of water and fire retardant at every puff of smoke comes, in Hudson’s words, at a “high cost to the healthy functioning of many forest ecosystems.” Until we concede that our demand that the Forest Service’s capitulate to capital and its consorts has forced it to become a manager of “perpetual crisis,” further crippling its capacity to act–we will never resolve these many dilemmas of our own making. And unmaking.

Note from Sharon: You might also want to check out the comments on this piece. One by BerthaDUniverse points out that that there isn’t timber industry on the Angeles; and that there is the problem of prescribed fire and the Clean Air Act as we discussed previously on this blog here.

Another by Janefontana says:

Fire suppression notions are indeed changing, and for the better, but I’m not so sure Mark Hudson has it exactly right. If there had been Santa Ana Winds during this fire, we may have lost a good deal of Pasadena, not to mention Tujunga, La Crescenta, Montrose, Glendale, and La Canada/Flintridge. Just where does he want the boundary of building to end? And, what about existing houses? There isn’t much new construction against the foothills, not since the 60’s. Most of the houses that were lost were built in the 1930’s.

Judge Halts Tree-cutting in Arizona and New Mexico- News and Questions

January 7, 2012 by Sharon

The Southwest seems to be the area of interest of the week. Since yesterday, I have seen a couple of news stories on this “judge halts tree-cutting” order. This AP story in the Washington Post had more information and quoted someone with a different point of view. Here it is.

The project that raised my interest was the one maintaining the powerline- if that is in fact harming the owl. I wouldn’t think owls would like to be around powerlines.. maybe they prefer them for some reason? As a biologist, this makes me curious. So I looked up this project (thanks to WEG putting the project names in the press release) and the first thing I found was this piece from FWS about…

On July 17, 2008, Arizona Ecological Services Office issued a biological opinion to the Forest Service, finishing over two years of work to help the Forest Service and utility companies in Arizona comply with the Endangered Species Act in their management of powerline corridors in five national forests in the state.
In 2006, in response to the severe wildfire threat and concerns over the need to remove hazardous vegetation along power line corridors on National Forest lands in Arizona, Arizona Ecological Services Office (AESO) entered into a section 7 consultation agreement with Region 3 of the Forest Service and six utility companies operating in Arizona. AESO established a consultation team of four biologists to work with the Forest Service and utility company biologists through two phases of the programmatic consultation. The first phase dealt with the immediate need to remove hazardous vegetation, and the second phase addressed longer term maintenance of vegetation and structures along existing corridors. In addition to the complexity of this two phase programmatic consultation, AESO needed to meet tight time frames so the companies could address the large backlog of maintenance work needed. Since many of these power lines service the metropolitan Phoenix area, loss of power because of tree falls and the potential for wildfires from overgrown vegetation was a significant issue. The project was complicated by the number of individuals and parties involved. Significant issues arose regarding how to characterize and deal with interrelated/interdependent effects and cumulative effects, and how to address incidental take for some of the species.
The AESO and Forest Service consultation teams worked closely with the companies throughout the process and to develop meaningful conservation measures to minimize impacts from vegetation clearing in these corridors. This programmatic consultation process has been put forth as a model for use in other states to streamline and expedite the section 7 consultation process for individual corridor maintenance projects.

It sounds like a great deal of work was done on this project (it’s a “model for other states”!), that services power lines to Phoenix and it was completed in 2008; this court order being in 2012. I’d like to hear the rest of the story from someone more familiar.

Here’s what Phase II is about according to this letter from FWS (the BO, I think).

The purpose of this consultation is the implementation of Phase II, which will cover all utility line maintenance related activities (i.e., hazard vegetation treatments, routine vegetation maintenance, routine and hazard aerial and ground-based utility inspection patrols, maintenance of lines, hardware and structures, and other associated actions) along utility corridors on NFS lands in Arizona for the next 10 years. Failure to address vegetation clearance and fuels hazards could result in wildfires, major power outages, and injury to life or property. Additionally, existing Federal regulations and utility standards require maintenance2, and new Federal energy regulations mandate vegetation inspections and treatment to maintain lines in safe and reliable operating conditions (NERC Reliability Standard FAC-003-1). Special use permits for the individual lines may expire and be renewed within the 10-year timeframe of this project. If the special use permit requires the utility to operate or expand their impact area beyond what is considered in this consultation, the FS will review the proposed changes and re-initiate consultation with FWS, as appropriate.

It’s still not clear to me what aspects of the project (i.e., hazard vegetation treatments, routine vegetation maintenance, routine and hazard aerial and ground-based utility inspection patrols, maintenance of lines, hardware and structures, and other associated actions) are bad for owls – if hazardous vegetation includes trees that will fall on power lines, are they good habitat? Wouldn’t people maintaining the line be disruptive, so it wouldn’t be good nesting territory anyway?

On the Perk-Grindstone project (not sure I have the correct one, but..) these are some minutes from a public meeting on the planning of what appears to be the Grindstone project at issue. It appears to be a fuels reduction project associated with the Village of Ruidoso. Couldn’t easily find the EIS. but here’s the ROD, and how it addressed the Mexican Spotted Owl.

Mexican Spotted Owl: Alternative 3 would result in approximately 26 percent of spotted owl protected habitat in the project area being adversely impacted, by reducing the number of trees larger than 9 inches in diameter (199 acres within protected activity centers and 422
Record of Decision, Perk-Grindstone Fuel Reduction Project 3
acres outside protected activity centers.) While this is likely to cause some potential adverse impacts to spotted owls and their habitat in the short term, the EIS and biological assessment indicate that these treatments could beneficially affect spotted owl habitat in the long term by reducing the potential extent and magnitude of stand-replacing wildfires in spotted owl habitat.

Also it says in the AP article that grazing is another activity can harm the owl.. is this true?

Here’s the court order which talks about the three decisions only, nothing about a broader range of activities.

Here’s the WildEarth Guardians press release that mentions the project names.

Rep. Pearce seems to be making the point we often hear from Foto- that if owls need trees and trees burn up, then is that good for owls?

Also, why pick these three projects out of all in Az and NM?

Below is the AP story.

Judge halts tree-cutting projects in NM, Arizona in suit over Mexican spotted owl protection

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — A federal judge has halted three tree-cutting projects in Arizona and New Mexico that environmentalists contend could harm the Mexican spotted owl.
WildEarth Guardians sued the U.S. Forest Service in 2010, claiming the agency ignored its responsibility to track the owl’s numbers in the two states. The judge’s decision Thursday to grant a preliminary injunction means the projects cannot move forward until the Forest Service consults with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the impacts to the owls.
A Mexican spotted owl is shown in this undated file photo provided by the Center for Biological Diversity. A federal judge has put a stop to forest thinning and maintenance projects in Arizona and New Mexico that environmentalists contend could harm the Mexican spotted owl, according to a report Friday Jan. 6, 2012.
“The bottom line is we need to know whether the spotted owl is doing well or is declining,” said Bryan Bird, the director of WildEarth Guardians’ wild places program. “And we don’t know that right now because the Forest Service has failed — and they’ve admitted it — to collect that information.”
The owl found on national forest lands, from steep wooded canyons to dense forests, was first listed as threatened in 1993. More than 8 million acres in four Western states — Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado — have been set aside by Fish and Wildlife as critical habitat for the bird.
Federal biologists have said the biggest threat to the owls is destruction and modification of their nesting habitat.
Forest Service spokeswoman Cathie Schmidlin said Friday that the agency is contacting contractors and power companies to let them know of the court’s order. One of the projects is for fuel reduction in southern New Mexico’s Lincoln National Forest, while a utility maintenance project stretches across a handful of Arizona forests.
Schmidlin said logging activities on the Upper Beaver Creek Project on northern Arizona’s Coconino National Forest already have stopped.
U.S. District Judge David Bury in Tucson initially denied a request from WildEarth Guardians to put a stop to the projects but reconsidered at the group’s request. Bury wrote in his order Thursday that the injunction aligns with a decision in a companion case that was more broad but also cited concerns over the Mexican spotted owl.
The lawsuit claims the Forest Service continues to approve logging, grazing and other activities on the Southwest region’s 11 forests that could potentially harm the bird. It asked the court to keep the agency from approving or implementing any permits or projects on forest land in Arizona and New Mexico until the agency also prepares a biological assessment.
Bird said his group focused on the three projects out of dozens because it determined those had the most immediate impact to the owl that now will “get the attention it deserves.”
Rep. Steve Pearce, R-N.M., who has sponsored legislation to revitalize the Southwest’s timber industry and set aside parcels of forest land as sanctuaries for the owl, backed what he called a common sense approach to management by the Forest Service.
He said he’s heard from the Mescalero Apaches, whose reservation is surrounded by the Lincoln National Forest, that the owls appear to be thriving as a result of logging.
Overgrown forests are fire hazards that endanger people’s homes and threaten wildlife habitat, he said.
“While I agree that the spotted owl and other endangered species must be protected, we cannot do so at the cost of public safety and we cannot afford to do so without a legitimate reason,” he said.

Added note: I was working on this post on Saturday morning, when I listen to the Jonathan Schwartz show on WNYC. I couldn’t help but wonder, as I listened to him, whether if they were NYC’s power lines, would the work have been done already?

Finally I’d be interested in both a link to the lawsuit and to the FS response, if anyone knows where those might be found.

New Flame: Are we ready for another Las Conchas?

January 5, 2012 by Sharon

Thanks to Matthew Koehler for finding this article in the Santa Fe Reporter. It is too long too include here, but not so long it isn’t worth reading. From a quick read, I like the fact that it explores the daunting nature of the challenges that face us without finger-pointing.

Note: BLM and FS were capable of sharing resources across boundaries as part of the Service First initiative, so hopefully someone can further explain why some agencies can in some areas and other agencies in other places have trouble..

The Circle of Life – Fire, Logging, Climate Style

January 1, 2012 by Sharon

Happy New Year, everyone!

So I was intrigued by Matthew’s post here on the scientists’ letter denigrating Tom Bonnicksen’s work (note this was in 2006, but Matthew just raised the issue, so it’s worth examining now). As many NCFP readers know, many years of work in this field have left me with a sense when something sounds a bit off (or some have put it, I don’t believe anything I read).

I thought after following climate science for a while, that no ad hominem attacks (in the guise of “science” could shock me.. but this is our world here). Back in the day we were trained to be hard on ideas and data, that was science.. not figuring out ways to skewer scientists who disagree with us (yes, scientists are human, but..).

It shocked me because having followed these debates for almost 40 years now, I had never heard of these folks (except Norm, but not with regard to fire science). Here’s the text of what Matthew found in the LA Times and referred to in this comment.

Logging Proponent’s Credentials Questioned
An emeritus professor has been highly visible in the push to log on federal land. He has a contract with a timber industry foundation.
October 21, 2006|Bettina Boxall | Times Staff Writer
In the perennial battle over how the West’s vast acreage of federal forests should be managed, science is a favorite weapon. And on the pro-logging side no academic has been as visible as Thomas M. Bonnicksen, particularly in California.
The Texas A&M emeritus professor of forest science has testified before Congress 13 times, written numerous op-ed pieces and been widely quoted in Western newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times. Always he sounds the same theme: Logging is the key to restoring public lands to their former fire-resistant state.
In his writings, Bonnicksen has commonly disclosed that he sits on the advisory board of the Auburn, Calif.-based Forest Foundation.
What he hasn’t divulged is how lucrative his connection with the pro-logging timber industry-funded foundation has been. According to public tax documents, Bonnicksen collected $109,000 from the foundation in the last two years as an independent contractor.
“He’s always introduced as the leading expert on forest recovery, and he’s just not. There’s nothing in his record other than just talking and hand-waving,” said UCLA ecology professor Philip Rundel, one of several academics who issued an open letter to the media this week questioning Bonnicksen’s credentials.
“I don’t care if people print his stuff or not. But he needs to be identified for what he is … a lobbyist.”
The letter, signed by two other UC faculty members and the founding dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, accused Bonnicksen of having misrepresented scientific facts, and advancing views that “fall far outside the mainstream of scientific opinion.”
The letter also disputed Bonnicksen’s claim of an affiliation with the University of California. Although he has identified himself repeatedly as a visiting professor at UC Davis, officials there say that although Bonnicksen was once offered that title, he was never formally named a visiting professor.
Bonnicksen, who lives in Florida but frequently gives talks in California, said the letter writers were acting unethically and trying to silence him.
“I am a full professor for life,” he said. “I have academic freedom. I may speak as I wish, and I’ve always tried to do that as honestly as possible and using the science I know and have access to.”
Cheryl Rubin, vice president of communications for the Forest Foundation and its sister organization, the California Forest Products Commission, said Bonnicksen was paid “for the work he performed to educate Californians and people nationally: interacting with journalists, policymakers, students, professors. He gives speeches.
“We’ve always identified him with the Forest Foundation,” she added. “I don’t believe it’s a common practice to say paid…. How would you expect it to be revealed in an op-ed?”

So first, I tried to find the letter (being charitable, perhaps 2006 was pre-linking) and found it here (although, conceivably, the authors of the blog may not have posted it accurately). As posted, it feels pretty creepy to me.

We are sending you this letter as a concerned group of forest scientists and/or fire resource managers at major research universities. We feel compelled to write to you in response to the many letters, opinion articles, and commentaries that Dr. Thomas Bonnicksen has been sending to newspapers across the United States. Most of us have served on federal and state committees reviewing the fire management policies of the
National Park Service and other agencies, and we all maintain active research programs. We feel very strongly that not only do the views and statements of Dr. Bonnicksen fall far outside the mainstream of scientific opinion, but more importantly that Dr. Bonnicksen has misrepresented himself and his qualifications to speak to these issues.
These misrepresentations include:
University Affiliation: In all of his contacts with the media over the past several years, Dr. Bonnicksen has in part justified his credibility by identifying himself as Visiting Professor at University of California Davis. This is false. Dr. Bonnicksen does not now, nor has he ever had, an appointment at UC Davis. The University of California has now sent Dr. Bonnicksen a “cease and desist” letter demanding that he not use their name.
We find this misrepresentation extremely troubling, particularly to those of us on the faculty of the University of California.
Credibility: Dr. Bonnicksen introduces himself, as do his supporters, as one of the leading national experts on such topics as forest management, fire ecology, and forest history. In fact, there is nothing in his academic record of research or experience to justify such a characterization. By any major university standard of achievement, his academic record is weak, consisting largely of letters to the editor and oped articles. This is not a record that would achieve tenure at a major research university.
Dr. Bonnicksen’s unusual theories of forest structure and stability, expressed many years ago were never widely accepted. The state of scientific and empirical knowledge regarding the fire ecology and management of these forests has grown exponentially since Dr. Bonnicksen collected his data three decades ago. Today we have a comprehensive and sophisticated picture of forest structure and fire ecology that has been measured, validated and published by members of the academic community,
the National Park Service, and the United States Geological Survey. In simple terms, there is no serious scientific support for Dr. Bonnicksen’s ideas of forest management.
As academic researchers, we welcome increased public understanding of scientific issues and an open discourse representing a diversity of credible views. However, we feel very strongly that Dr. Bonnicksen’s views and misrepresentations of factual material, as well as his academic credentials, should be labeled for the political views that they are and not presented as serious science. The opinions he presents are contradicted by all prevailing scientific data. We ask that you consider these issues of credibility before publishing his oped articles and commentaries in the future, but of course these decisions are yours to make.
With all respect,
Philip W. Rundel
Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of California, Los Angeles
Michael F. Allen
Director of the Center for Conservation Biology
Professor of Plant Pathology and Biology
University of California, Riverside
Norman L. Christensen, Jr.
Founding Dean and Professor of Ecology
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Duke University
Jon E. Keeley
Adjunct Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of California, Los Angeles

So I tried to do a 5 minute check of their credentials..
Here are the four folks who signed the letter:
Phillip Rundell
http://www.eeb.ucla.edu/indivfaculty.php?FacultyKey=2405
Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of California, Los Angeles

Michael F. Allen
http://www.facultydirectory.ucr.edu/cgi-bin/pub/public_individual.pl?faculty=385
Director of the Center for Conservation Biology
Professor of Plant Pathology and Biology
University of California, Riverside

Norman L. Christensen, Jr.
http://fds.duke.edu/db/Nicholas/esp/faculty/normc/publications
Founding Dean and Professor of Ecology
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences
Duke University

Jon E. Keeley
http://www.eeb.ucla.edu/indivfaculty.php?FacultyKey=2772
Adjunct Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of California, Los Angeles

Of these, only Keeley seems to have research related to studying fires in California.. but not much on vegetation management and fires. Note: the author of the LA Times piece could have done the same five minute check. Also note that she didn’t talk to Bonnicksen himself to get his point of view. And why would the LA Times be interested in logging at all? There have been no mills in the LA area since I can remember.

Here’s also the followup letter by 10 forest scientists.
October 2006
Letter to the Media:

We are appalled at the attack on Dr. Thomas Bonnicksen by four individuals who are attempting to silence debate. Their attack is a violation of professional standards of conduct in science: the free exchange of ideas and collegiality among scholars.
Dr. Bonnicksen earned a Ph.D. in forest policy from the University of California at Berkeley and served as Department Head at Texas A&M University before being granted emeritus status in forest science in 2004. His research in forest science spans decades and has been published widely in peer-reviewed scientific journals, reports and books. His 2000 book, America’s Ancient Forests: From the Ice Age to the Age of Discovery, documents 18,000 years of forest history and has received many excellent book reviews. He has assisted community leaders throughout California using science in understanding forestry issues and addressing those issues.
While we may agree or disagree with Dr. Bonnicksen’s views on any particular issue, we adamantly oppose any effort to stifle his contribution to the debate on proper management of our nation’s forests.
Sincerely,
Robert Becker, Ph.D.
Professor & Director
Strom Thurmond Institute of Government & Public Affairs
Clemson University
James Bowyer, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Bio Products & Bio Systems Engineering
University of Minnesota
Director Responsible Materials Program
Dovetail Partners, Inc.
John Helms, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Environmental Science, Policy & Management-Ecosystem Science
UC Berkeley
Robert G. Lee, Ph.D.
Professor
College of Forest Resources, AR-10
University of Washington
Bill Libby, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Forest Genetics
Dept. of Environmental Science, Policy & Management
College of Natural Resources
UC Berkeley
William McKillop, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Forest Economics
Dept. of Environmental Science, Policy & Management
College of Natural Resources
UC Berkeley
Chadwick Dearing Oliver, Ph.D.
Pinchot Professor of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and
Director, Global Institute of Sustainable Forestry
School of Forestry and Environmental Studies
Yale University
Scott E. Schlarbaum, Ph.D.
James R. Cox Professor of Forest Genetics
Department of Forestry, Wildlife & Fisheries
Institute of Agriculture
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
John Stuart, Ph.D.
Professor of Dendrology and Fire Ecology
Department of Forestry & Watershed Management
California State University, Humboldt
Gene Wood, Ph.D.
Professor of Wildlife Ecology/Conservation
Dept. of Forestry & Natural Resources
Clemson University

So then I tried to find a CV of Tom Bonnicksen on the internet, but couldn’t easily locate one; however I did find this interview with him in the High Country News..

Interesting that the word “attack” is in quotes in this “interview”;). I think accusing him of misrepresentation of his qualifications sounds kind of like an attack. Also this statement
“The opinions he presents are contradicted by all prevailing scientific data.” Really ALL? First you would have to know the entirety of data.. or at least data that is “prevailing”.. That’s just not scientist-talk.

Also, take a look at the comments on the 2008 HCN piece and some of them could have been written today.

Anyway, back to the circle of life. So whom did the HCN author ask about the Forest Service view?

Mark Nechodom, the agency’s climate science policy coordinator for the Pacific Southwest region, believes Bonnicksen overestimated the greenhouse gas emissions from the four fires he evaluated. But he also credits him for challenging scientists to find out more about how forests are affecting the carbon cycle. Bonnicksen’s work is sure to drive new scientific studies, some of them designed simply to prove him wrong. “We may disagree with Tom’s intensive management, but this is a good debate to be having, even if it makes some of us nervous,” Nechodom says.

This is the same Mark Nechodom who according to this news story from last Thursday was appointed head of California Department of Conservation, an interesting agency (website here, “managing California’s working lands”) which has responsibility for land conservation, mining, oil and gas and geology. It is a sister agency of the California Fish and Game, which received the request to list the black-backed woodpecker under the CESA. Here is the memorandum by them evaluating the petition.

New Study: Fuel Reduction Likely to Increase Carbon Emissions

December 26, 2011 by Sharon

bbs in bh — Bark Beetles in the Black Hills

Thanks to Matthew Koehler for finding this paper..it’s an interesting review paper. Here’s a summary from Science Daily:

Forest Health Versus Global Warming: Fuel Reduction Likely to Increase Carbon Emissions

Forest thinning, such as this work done in the Umpqua National Forest in Oregon, may be of value for some purposes but will also increase carbon emissions to atmosphere, researchers say. (Credit: Photo courtesy of Oregon State University)

ScienceDaily (Dec. 20, 2011) — Forest thinning to help prevent or reduce severe wildfire will release more carbon to the atmosphere than any amount saved by successful fire prevention, a new study concludes.
There may be valid reasons to thin forests — such as restoration of forest structure or health, wildlife enhancement or public safety — but increased carbon sequestration is not one of them, scientists say.
In research just published in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Oregon State University scientists conclude that even in fire-prone forests, it’s necessary to treat about 10 locations to influence fire behavior in one. There are high carbon losses associated with fuel treatment and only modest savings in reducing the severity of fire, they found.
“Some researchers have suggested that various levels of tree removal are consistent with efforts to sequester carbon in forest biomass, and reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels,” said John Campbell, an OSU research associate in the Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society. “That may make common sense, but it’s based on unrealistic assumptions and not supported by the science.”
A century of fire suppression in many forests across the West has created a wide range of problems, including over-crowded forests, increased problems with insect and pathogen attack, greater risk of catastrophic fire and declining forest health.
Forest thinning and fuel reduction may help address some of those issues, and some believe that it would also help prevent more carbon release to the atmosphere if it successfully reduced wildfire.
“There is no doubt you can change fire behavior by managing fuels and there may be other reasons to do it,” said Mark Harmon, holder of the Richardson Chair in Forest Science at OSU. “But the carbon does not just disappear, even if it’s used for wood products or other purposes. We have to be honest about the carbon cost and consider it along with the other reasons for this type of forest management.”
Even if wood removed by thinning is used for biofuels it will not eliminate the concern. Previous studies at OSU have indicated that, in most of western Oregon, use of wood for biofuels will result in a net loss of carbon sequestration for at least 100 years, and probably much longer.
In the new analysis, researchers analyzed the effect of fuel treatments on wildfire and carbon stocks in several scenarios, including a single forest patch or disturbance, an entire forest landscape and multiple disturbances.
One key finding was that even a low-severity fire released 70 percent as much carbon as did a high-severity fire that killed most trees. The majority of carbon emissions result from combustion of surface fuels, which occur in any type of fire.
The researchers also said that the basic principles in these evaluations would apply to a wide range of forest types and conditions, and are not specific to just a few locations.
“People want to believe that every situation is different, but in fact the basic relationships are consistent,” Campbell said. “We may want to do fuel reduction across much of the West, these are real concerns. But if so we’ll have to accept that it will likely increase carbon emissions.”

Note from Sharon: I like the fact that they state:

There may be valid reasons to thin forests — such as restoration of forest structure or health, wildlife enhancement or public safety — but increased carbon sequestration is not one of them, scientists say.

I think it’s just an illustration (if true as generally as the authors claim) that climate change makes what used to be considered a simple problem of “protecting the environment” more complex. As in coal versus natural gas.

I also think carbon cycling is by far one of the most complex and difficult to explain concepts we have dealt with since I have been working in this arena. I think it’s because you have to look at it over a long timespan, and each action you do leads to both some release of GHGs (at different rates) and some opportunity for sequestration on the area where the release has happened. Further, not doing things can in some cases lead to tree death of overstocked stands (say, by beetles) which could lead to either quick release through fires or slower release by the use of forest products or the logs just lying there and releasing carbon. I often think a diagram of release by scenario over time would be really helpful to visualize and understand. Clearly there are a number of assumptions associated with the likelihood of different scenarios, and sensitivity analysis of these assumptions would also be helpful.

Here’sa link to the study.

Retardant ROD (Record of Decision) Released

December 15, 2011 by Sharon

Here and here are relevant info.

Here’s the press release:

Forest Service Chief signs record of decision for aerial fire retardant application
WASHINGTON, Dec 14, 2011 –U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell signed Tuesday a record of decision establishing new direction for the use of fire retardant applied from aircraft to manage wildfires.
The new direction, initiated as a result of litigation in Montana, will help the Forest Service better protect water resources and certain plant and wildlife species on National Forest System lands when fighting wildfires. It will allow the Forest service to aggressively fight fire with the use of airtankers while protecting aquatic ecosystems.
Working with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), the Forest Service identified and mapped waterways and habitat for certain threatened, endangered, and sensitive species in order to avoid applying retardant in those areas.
To decide when or where to drop fire retardant, fire managers now have roughly 12,000 maps identifying avoidance areas on 98 National Forest System units that identify locations of waterways and areas for hundreds of plant and animal species.
When fire managers determine retardant is the right tool to use on a wildfire, they will direct pilots to avoid applying fire retardant in the newly-mapped areas. All other firefighting tactics will be available in the avoidance areas.
The Forest Service has avoided the use of fire retardant in waterways since 2000. Guidelines used since 2000 provided three exceptions that allowed fire managers to drop retardant within 300 feet of waterways. The new direction allows one exception: when human life or public safety is threatened. However, this represents little change with how the agency fights wildfires.
“These new guidelines strike a balance between the need to supplement our boots-on-the-ground approach to fighting wildfires while protecting our waterways and important plant and animal species at the same time,” Tidwell said. “Our new approach will benefit communities, ecosystems and our fire crews.”
Forest Service research has demonstrated that fire retardant, used since the 1950s, is twice as effective as water at reducing fire intensity. The agency continues to work with industry to develop more environmentally friendly fire retardants.
In July 2010, in response to a lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana ordered the Forest Service to fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and to re-consult with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries to comply with the Endangered Species Act.
The Forest Service involved the public in the development of the new direction, including hosting five community listening sessions, several stakeholder webinars, three technical listening sessions, a science panel discussion, and several Tribal engagement events.
The new direction includes procedures for monitoring and reinitiating consultation with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries if aerially-applied fire retardant impacts certain species or habitat. The direction also provides greater protection for cultural resources including historic properties, traditional cultural resources, and sacred sites through closer coordination with states and Tribes.
Tidwell issued the decision after reviewing the analysis of three alternatives in the October 2011 Final Environmental Impact Statement and the results of the consultation with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries.

Plus this article by Rob Chaney of the Missoulian this morning..

Home / News / Local / Local
U.S. Forest Service to use aerial retardant, with precautions to protect species
By ROB CHANEY of the Missoulian | Posted: Thursday, December 15, 2011 6:00 am | No Comments Posted
U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell has cleared the way for continued use of aerial fire retardant as long as pilots use special maps to avoid hurting threatened or endangered species.
The decision answers a lawsuit the agency lost over whether its aerial firefighting tactics properly consider fire retardant’s environmental impact. Fire retardant is essentially ammonium-based fertilizer, which kills fish and aquatic insects and promotes the spread of noxious weeds. A misplaced retardant drop in 2003 killed 20,000 fish in a single stream. In 2008, the Forest Service reported 65 drops where retardant may have hurt a plant or animal protected by the federal Endangered Species Act.
“These new guidelines strike a balance between the need to supplement our boots-on-the-ground approach to fighting wildfires while protecting our waterways and important plant and animal species at the same time,” Tidwell said in an email statement on Wednesday. “Our new approach will benefit communities, ecosystems and our fire crews.”
The new rules will make it challenging for fire management, according to Neptune Aviation President Dan Snyder. The Missoula-based company is the nation’s largest provider of retardant-dropping airplanes.
“It won’t be much of an issue for our operations,” Snyder said, noting Neptune pilots already fly to avoid water bodies. “But for fire commanders on the ground, when an aircraft shows up on the scene, they’re going to have to keep these guidelines in mind.”
In particular, the new rules carve out lots of exclusion zones around communities and subdivisions along the fringe of national forests. Those areas are also the places where aerial fire retardant is most effective in initial attack because of the planes’ ability to have a big impact before ground crews can arrive, Snyder said.
The new maps put nearly 30 percent of the Forest Service land into aerial buffer zones to protect waterways, and list another 1 percent as sensitive ground. The buffer zones protect more than 300 plants and animals on the endangered species list and another 3,700 species considered sensitive to retardant effects.
Andy Stahl, whose Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics filed the successful lawsuit, was skeptical of the results.
“The final (environmental impact statement) acknowledges the Forest Service has no evidence fire retardant contributes to any firefighting objective,” Stahl said. “They made their decision on the basis of cherry-picking from a biased sample that fire managers claim retardant makes a difference.”
Stahl also argued the 12,000 new maps were never put out for public review. His organization was able to examine six of them, and concluded the areas where threatened or endangered species existed appeared based on predicted data – not actual field checks of habitat.
“If they have a fuels-treatment project or a ski area expansion, the Forest Service does field work on (threatened and endangered species),” Stahl said. “But where the Forest Service isn’t doing anything, where there aren’t any projects going on, they don’t do any surveys. Yet they will still be dumping fire retardant in remote, out-of-the-way locations such as wilderness areas.”
Forest Service fire managers in Montana and Idaho rarely use air tankers in wilderness areas. But Stahl said that wasn’t the case in California, where the fish kills that triggered the lawsuit took place.
Read more: http://missoulian.com/news/local/u-s-forest-service-to-use-aerial-retardant-with-steps/article_00180774-26cc-11e1-8e81-0019bb2963f4.html#ixzz1gc3COIMy

Managing Forests Because Carbon Matters: Journal of Forestry Supplement

November 11, 2011 by Sharon

Thanks to Terry Seyden for finding this; I’ve been carrying this special section around trying to find time to read it.

New Analysis of Carbon Accounting, Biomass Use, and Climate Benefits
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111109093852.htm
ScienceDaily (Nov. 9, 2011) — A recent report provides new ideas surrounding carbon and energy benefits forests and forest products provide. The report, Managing Forests Because Carbon Matters: Integrating Energy, Products, and Land Management Policy, summarizes and analyzes the most recent science regarding forests and carbon accounting, biomass use, and forest carbon offsets.
A team of researchers from the U.S. Forest Service, several universities, and natural resource and environmental organizations coauthored the report, which appears as a supplement to the October/November 2011 issue of the Society of American Forester’s Journal of Forestry.
” This work should help policymakers reconsider the critical impact forests have on our daily lives and the potential they have to solve problems that confront our Nation,” says Bob Malmsheimer, lead author of the report and a professor at State University of New York (Syracuse) College of Environmental Science and Forestry. “We believe our science-based findings should lead toward positive reforms that encourage investment in this vital renewable resource.”
The report suggests that U.S. environment and energy policies should be based on the following science findings:
Sustainably managed forests can provide carbon storage and substitution advantages while delivering a wide range of environmental and social benefits including timber and biomass resources, jobs, economic opportunities, clean water, wildlife habitat, and recreation.
Energy produced from forest biomass returns to the atmosphere carbon that plants absorbed in the relatively recent past; it essentially results in no net release of carbon as long as overall forest inventories are stable or increasing (as with U.S. forests).
Forest products used in place of energy-intensive materials such as metals, concrete, and plastics reduce carbon emissions (because forest products require less fossil fuel-based energy to produce and they also store carbon for a length of time based on their use and disposal), and they provide biomass residuals (i.e., waste wood) that can be substituted for fossil fuels to produce energy.
Fossil fuel-produced energy releases carbon into the atmosphere that has resided in the Earth for millions of years; forest biomass-based energy uses far less of the carbon stored in the Earth, thereby reducing the flow of fossil fuel-based carbon emissions to the atmosphere.
“Perhaps this report will inspire fresh efforts to find management strategies that folks can agree on,” says coauthor and Forest Service scientist Jeremy Fried. “The forest inventory and analysis data collected by the Forest Service on all forested lands in the U.S. provided the data necessary to explore how forests can be managed to provide climate benefits. Full life-cycle analyses of U.S. forests show that the best opportunity for these forests to provide even more climate benefits requires a combination of factors. Those factors are: sustainably managed forests, a healthy market for long-lived forest products, and renewable energy generated from forest and mill residues.”
The report emerged from the Society of American Foresters Task Force on Forest Climate Change Offsets and Use of Forest Biomass for Energy. Authors include Robert Malmsheimer, State University of New York (Syracuse) College of Environmental Science and Forestry; James Bowyer, Professor Emeritus of University of Minnesota; Jeremy Fried, U.S. Forest Service; Edmund Gee, U.S. Forest Service; Robert Izlar, University of Georgia; Reid Miner, National Council for Air and Stream Improvement; Ian Munn, Mississippi State University; Elaine Oneil, University of Washington; and William Stewart, University of California-Berkeley.

Read the paper online here.

Collaborative’s logging plan still controversial – Op-ed by Mike Garrity

November 8, 2011 by Sharon

Here’s the link..thanks to Matthew Koehler.

Collaborative’s logging plan still controversial
By Mike Garrity – IR Your Turn | Posted: Tuesday, November 8, 2011

A Nov. 1 article in the Independent Record reported that a “collaborative” group developed and submitted to the Forest Service a proposal to log thousands of acres in and around an inventoried roadless area southwest of Lincoln. The article neglected to mention that the Forest Service proposed a similar timber sale called “Nevada Dalton” in the late 1990s. That project was halted when President Clinton’s Roadless Rule went into effect in 2001. Since both the Roadless Rule and the reasons for initially halting the project are even more valid now, the project should be dropped once again.
Despite an attempt by the Bush administration and corporate logging and mining interests, the Clinton-era Roadless Rule remains in effect and has just been bolstered by a recent decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, both the 9th and 10th Circuit Courts of Appeal have found the Roadless Rule to be valid and carry the force of law.
“Collaboration” by a small group of people — including those with commercial interests in for-profit timber mills — does not make a timber sale in national forests on inventoried roadless lands legal. These lands belong to all Americans, not just a handful of local Montanans, and the manner in which activities on these lands are conducted must therefore follow federal law.
But there are more problems with this proposal than just its intrusion into roadless lands.
According to a quote from one of the collaborators, this logging proposal will fix “… a forest that, because of 100 years of fire control and logging, is out of sync.” Yet, the article doesn’t explain how more logging will fix the problems caused by previous logging. Nor did it explain how a natural forest ecosystem can be “out of sync” with anything except the traditional Forest Service goals of “getting out the cut” to benefit the timber industry. Quite frankly, the public is being asked to simply accept the Bush-era political propaganda that we can make forests “healthy” by cutting them down.
Neither the collaborators nor the Forest Service explained how and what wildlife will supposedly benefit from more multimillion-dollar timber sales or the 6.5 miles of new logging roads and new noxious weed infestations that go with them.
The IR’s readers deserve to know what’s at stake here.
Lynx: The area proposed for logging is in federally designated critical habitat for lynx, currently listed as threatened and, thus, protected under the Endangered Species Act. Unfortunately, the article neglected to mention that logging destroys lynx habitat since it drives out the snowshoe hare and ground squirrels upon which lynx prey. The Forest Service’s own research shows that forests that have been logged are avoided by lynx.
Grizzly bears: The Forest Service admits that logging and the new roads that go with it will reduce important wildlife hiding cover and that similar logging on similar private lands has harmed big game and grizzly bear habitat. Yet, the agency and the collaborators who support the logging plan have not explained how reduction of existing cover levels on our national forests can possibly be called restoration.
Cost: The huge cost to taxpayers for this timber sale is glaringly omitted. A look at the Helena National Forest’s budget reveals that taxpayers lose over $2,000 an acre on commercial timber sales, so this 2,182-acre timber sale, including over 400 acres of clearcuts, could cost taxpayers over $4 million with little in return except the destruction of critical wildlife habitat.
Given the current national debate over government spending, we want to know why taxpayers are being asked to fund an expensive and destructive timber sale to marginally benefit logging companies.
And finally, after logging destroys the forest and stream habitat, will the Forest Service and collaborators then ask taxpayers for even more money to restore the habitat for lynx and grizzly bears?
The Alliance for the Wild Rockies will fully participate in the Dalton timber sale public process, and we encourage others who are concerned about the viability of native species and responsible federal spending to participate as well. We hope the Forest Service will answer our and all of the public’s questions and make a decision based on facts, science and the law, not political pressure to subsidize timber corporations.

Mike Garrity is executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies.

Note from Sharon.. here’s a link to the information on this project.

In the scoping doucment, I found this..

Summary of Treatments in Roadless Areas
 Nevada Mountain IRA — 1,815 acres in the project area fall in this IRA. Proposed treatment includes prescribed burning on
405 acres, including non‐commercial hand slashing and pre‐treatment of the units.
 Ogden Mountain IRA —4,906 acres in the project area fall in this IRA. Proposed treatment includes 248 acres of fuels reduction
by hand felling, and 2,482 acres of prescribed fire. The prescribed burning includes non‐commercial hand slashing and pre‐treatment of the units.

So the op- ed said

Since both the Roadless Rule and the reasons for initially halting the project are even more valid now, the project should be dropped once again.

But I see nothing in the 2001 Roadless Rule that would not allow fuels reduction (exception “To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period”); or prescribed burning.