Restoration

Good Fire

by

Forest Service file photo

Headline:  “Officials showcase site of Bacon Rind Fire 1 year later” (on the Custer Gallatin National Forest in Montana).

Their main message was that, despite the fire’s size, it was ecologically beneficial to the landscape, exposing bare soil and giving way to the forest’s regeneration.

It’s good that they are showcasing this, presumably as a way to sell wildfires as a potential management tool – still, even with climate change and no “mechanical preparation.”  It’s too bad that these kinds of fires don’t get the same kind of media coverage as the “bad fires.”   Someone might start to think that maybe fuels reduction shouldn’t show up as the purpose for every thinning/logging project everywhere.  And that forest plans should provide guidance for where it is or isn’t desirable (such as desired fuel loads).

 

 

The effects (NEPA) of bake-sale (timber-sale) funding of restoration

by

I  said here: “NEPA documents have started saying that cutting down trees is beneficial for the environment because it produces funding to replace culverts and the like. That may not be a defensible effects analysis.”

Sharon asked: “I don’t see why people need to say that at all in NEPA docs. Do you have examples?”

I do.  I’ll provide two here that I have encountered with forest plan revisions.

The Flathead revision FEIS provided very little useful information about aquatic effects, but it revealed this as part of their logic (p. 131, but their point seems to be that it doesn’t matter):

Although alternative D proposes more timber harvest and the potential to generate more Knutsen-Vandenberg revenue for restoration actions such as best management practices, road decommissioning, and culvert replacements that would benefit aquatics, it is anticipated that money would still be available from partnerships and appropriated watershed dollars to implement restoration projects regardless of how much money is generated from timber sales.

The Helena-Lewis and Clark was more to the point that it DOES matter in their revision DEIS (p. 71):

Alternative E would result in the highest volume of timber production and therefore have the potential to generate more money from timber receipts for restoration projects for watershed and fisheries. If more money is available from alternative E then there would be more short-term impacts from restoration projects but there would be more long-term gains

I think I have seen other better examples for projects that have stated that the proposed action is better for the environment than no action because the timber sale revenues will be used for restoration activities.  Maybe I’ll run across more examples, but I wanted to post this now so that others could contribute examples they are aware of.

So no, I don’t think they should include this in NEPA documents.  The problem is that effects disclosed in an EIS must be reasonably foreseeable.  If the funding process works in a way that makes money available but does not commit it to a specific use, then any effects are not reasonably foreseeable.  This is more obvious in the forest planning context because restoration is only a “potential” (to quote both examples above).  The result of including this kind of poorly substantiated assumption in an effects analysis is to distort the comparison of alternatives and to provide less meaningful information for the decision-maker and the public.  This tends to subvert the core purpose of NEPA.

Ninth Circuit bails out Flathead timber project

by

Beaver Creek Project Area – Forest Service, USDA

The Beaver Creek Landscape Restoration Project on the Flathead National Forest was presented here when the district court upheld the decision (Friends of the Wild Swan v. Kehr).  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court on May 10 on three claims that the project was inconsistent with the forest plan.  Two of the claims involved road density requirements for grizzly bears where the court found the project would “result in a net gain towards” objectives for one subunit and that roads would be properly reclaimed in another.

Here is the court’s holding on the third claim (emphasis added):

Finally, appellants argue that the Forest Service violated NFMA and NEPA by failing to demonstrate compliance with the Forest Plan’s road density standards for elk habitat in the Beaver Creek Project area. While this argument has significant force, we ultimately conclude that the Forest Service demonstrated compliance with the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan contains a standard that requires “[a]reas with `moist sites'” to be managed “with open road densities that average 1 mile or less per square mile” during the elk use period. Moist sites are defined as sites “found at the heads of drainages, bordering streams or marshy meadows, or occupying moist swales or benches.” The Forest Service admits that the Project’s Environmental Assessment (“EA”) did not expressly provide a specific determination about road density in areas near elk moist sites. Indeed, the Forest Service did not identify specific locations of elk moist sites. Ultimately, we conclude that the Project satisfies the Forest Plan based on the fact that a large portion of the Beaver Creek subunit has an open road density of less than one mile per square mile and the Forest Service’s explanation in the EA that “moist sites occur primarily . . . in roadless and wilderness areas[.]” While the Forest Service could have done a better job demonstrating its compliance with the elk habitat road density standards by mapping moist sites and showing that open road densities near those moist sites will meet the Forest Plan’s standard, we nevertheless conclude that the Forest Service did just enough to comply with the Forest Plan, NFMA, and NEPA.

The lesson here is “don’t try this at home, folks.”  This particular circuit panel (1 Clinton, 1 Bush and 1 Obama via Sarah Palin, if you wondered) went out of its way to construct a rationale for compliance which basically said there was a low probability of noncompliance, or the amount of noncompliance would be small.  NFMA  does not say that projects must be “probably or mostly consistent” with the forest plan.  If the forest plan says certain kinds of areas must meet certain requirements (and the Forest Service wants a successful project), the project documentation must do what the Ninth Circuit said here:  identify where those areas are and show how those requirements will be met in those locations.  (And imagine doing that if you don’t know where the locations are.)

The Wayne Gretzky approach to fuel reduction

by

The hockey star is known for saying you have to “skate to where the puck will be.”  That seems to be what the Forest Service is trying to do by putting thinning treatments where fire risk is high, but research again suggests that the hockey analogy doesn’t work in forests.  Maybe it’s because the “field of play” is so much larger and the entity delivering the puck isn’t on your team (and doesn’t play by any rules).  This article plays off of the recent executive order to treat 8.45 million acres of land and cut 4.4 million board feet of timber, “which is about 80 percent more than was cut on U.S. Forest Service lands in 2017.”

“The Hazardous Fuels Reduction Program received a lot of financial investment and resources over the past 15 years,” Barnett told the Missoulian. “We treat quite a lot of landscapes each year. And less than 10 percent of that had even (been) burned by a subsequent fire. So that raises more broad general questions over the efficacy of fuel treatments to change regional fire patterns.”

“Even if federal land management agencies were able to increase their treatments and meet the President’s goal of treating 8.45 million acres, it would still equate to less than 2 percent of all federal lands,” Pohl said. “It is unlikely these locations will be among the hundreds of millions of acres that burn during the effective lifespan of a fuel reduction treatment, typically 10-20 years.”

And if the goal is protecting homes rather than changing regional fire patterns,

“Research shows that home loss is primarily determined by two factors: the vegetation in the immediate area around the home, and the way the home is designed and constructed,”

You could read this to say that if they treated 2% a year for 10-20 years, there would be a higher encounter rate than historically that might be a better justification, but it doesn’t sound like that is the way they are interpreting it.  The map does suggest that southern California and a couple of other places might be looked at differently, and considered a priority for funding.

The author went off script a bit to say that logging is a good strategy to “improve forest health,” but maybe that’s the semantic problem of “logging” vs “thinning.”  I’m also wondering if an order to produce board feet doesn’t tend to favor logging (of bigger trees) over thinning?

Disagreement About Fuel Treatment: Exhibit A?

by

Still More Agreement About Fuel Treatment: Conservation Colorado and former Secretary Zinke

Sharon said:

That’s why I’m thinking that finding some projects that entail:
1. FS clearcutting in California
2. Fuel treatments in backcountry
3. Fuel treatments taking out big fire-resilient (living?) trees

Would help us understand exactly what the issues are.

I think this project might be a good place to start:

Destructive wildfires along the California-Oregon border in recent years has the U.S. Forest Service pursuing projects to clear forests of burnt debris and trees that could feed future fires. One of those projects included selling the rights to log old-growth trees in Northern California, until a federal judge halted the timber sale on Friday.

Environmental groups asked a federal court to halt the Seaid-Horse timber sale in the Klamath National Forest. They say it would violate the Northwest Forest Plan by clear-cutting protected old-growth trees and harming Coho salmon.

Its purpose is: “Reduce safety hazards along roads & in concentrated stands, reduce fuels adjacent to private property, & to reduce the risk of future large-scale high severity fire losses of late successional habitat.”

So it’s got California, clearcutting, fuel treatment and big trees.  It’s also got wildlife issues, which is the other point of disagreement I suggested.  Maybe not back-country, but certainly not front-country – mid-country? 

It even comes with a spokesperson who is probably familiar with our questions:

Western Environmental Law Group attorney Susan Jane Brown says old-growth trees in Northern California provide a habitat for threatened species such as the northern spotted owl. They’re also the most resilient in enduring wildfires.

“We could agree that cutting small trees is a good thing to reduce fire risk, but when it comes to cutting very large, very old trees, that’s an entirely different matter,” Brown said.

 

 

Sierra Club Comments

by

I have seen a trend in postings from the Sierra Club, on their Facebook page. Online petitions have been popular with eco-groups but, those petitions really don’t do anything. They seem to be a way of riling up their followers, gathering personal information, and receiving donations. There is also a sizable amount of people commenting who do not side with the Sierra Club.

The particular posting I will be presenting regards the Giant Sequoia National Monument, and how the Trump Administration would affect it. The Sierra Club implies (and their public believes) that Trump would cut down the Giant Sequoia National Monument, without immediate action. With over 500 comments, there are ample examples of what people are thinking.

 

“So much of the redwoods and Giant Sequoias have already been cut down… the lumber trucks involved had signs which read ” Trees… America’s renewable resource”… and just exactly how to you “renew” a 2 thousand year old tree??? When a job becomes even remotely scarce, one must find a new occupation. Having cut down the redwoods,(RIP Pacific Lumber and the “Redwood Highway”) and when they’ve cut down the national forests (public lands), are “they” going to insist on the right to come onto my land and cut down my trees as well… to provide jobs for the lumber industry? The National forests and Monuments are public lands, and no one has the right to turn them over to private interests for money making purposes. When are they going to see that there is a higher calling here? The forests provide for much of the fresh air we enjoy… they take in the carbon monoxide we exhale, and they exhale the oxygen so necessary to us. They each also take up 300 gallons of water, so provide for erosion control, and I could go on forever with the benefits of trees… but there will still be short sighted detractors who are only able to see the dollar signs in this issue. If providing jobs is the object… bring back our manufacturing jobs from overseas, all you big companies… your bottom line profit will be less, but you will have brought back the jobs to the USA, and you claim that is the object…???? Investing in the big companies in order to get rich does not make the investing noble or honorable when it is condoning taking jobs off-shore to enrich the few. … at the cost of the lost jobs for our people. Love your neighbor..”

I think that statement speaks for itself. Well-meaning but, misinformed.

 

“Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. Keep loggers out of National Giant Sequoia Forests. Forest rangers and the National Parks already do controlled burning when needed to protect forest ecosystem health. The idea that commerical logging companies can be trusted with that task is preposterous.”

I wonder if he had noticed all those dead trees inside the Monument. Another example of not knowing who is taking care of the Monument.

 

“No such thing as controlled logging look at the clear cut coast. Once you let them in they will take it all and say Oops. A long time ago Pacific lumber clear cut thousands of acres illegally and Department of forestry did nothing. Things have not changed.”

Yes, things have changed. Logging IS controlled in Sierra Nevada National Forests… for the last 26 years.

 

“Destroying over 200k acres of sequoias and leaving ONLY 90k acres is NOT “CONTROLLED LOGGING “. OUR planet needs trees to produce oxygen and just how long do you think those jobs will last?”

Someone thinks there is a HUGE chunk of pristine pure Giant Sequoia groves. Thinning forests is not destruction, folks.

 

“I went to sign this and put my address and what not but then I skipped over my phone number and it won’t let me sign it! Unless you give your phone number it’s not going to San. I will not give out my phone number. Is there another way to sign for this?”

There were many comments like this one.

 

“They are both classified under same genisus of Sequoia, It’s their enviroment that makes them different. The Redwood trees (Sequoia sempervirens) along N Cal coastline and then the Sequoias trees (Sequoiadendron giganteum) found in the Sierra Nevadas mountain regions are the same yet very different trees because of the chactoristics. Both trees share their unique and acceptional height and massive girth size, they share the same red wood tones.”

Someone thinks they are an authority in tree Taxonomy.

 

“As someone who works in timber, don’t blame it on us! Many foresters care about sustainable forestry. I hate Donald Trump just as much as anyone who cares about the environment”

Well, that is sure saying something, eh?

 

“The forests are being burned down by all these un-natural wild fires that are created by the powers that be to carry out agenda 21/30. It’s not a secret but most people don’t want to see it & the common mentality is if we don’t see it, or address it, it will go away. Right?”

There’s more and more loonies out there saying this stuff, and blaming “Directed Energy Weapons” for starting all the wildfires.

 

“There will be no more forest in America, it will be a big cacino and golf courses.”

And there’s other conspiracy theories out there, too!

 

“The most deushiest thing ever! Poor Trees “

People do believe that Trump would clearcut the Giant Sequoias.

 

“Oh yes look what tree hungers did to Oregon”

I love a well-mispelled insult!

 

“No More RAPE AND MURDER OF OUR TREES”

I wonder what real violent crime victims think of this comparison. Should we let those trees be horribly burned alive, or eaten by insects, resulting in a long and slow starvation death? *smirk*

 

“Wth…. He truely is satin”

Soooo smoooooth!

 

“Drop big rocks on their heads. Something like Ewoks from Return of the Jedi all those years ago. Ewoks were “original” monkey wrenchers.”

That’s a lovely solution! Violence will fix everything!

 

“I think you could stand to be a bit less adversarial in your comments. Oil has nothing to do with this subject and devalues your argument. There is no reason why the land cannot be managed without giving it away to unregulated for-profit companies. That is the right answer.”

Yep, there just might be oil underneath those giant trees. Yep, gotta cut em all down to make sure! Misguided but, kinda, sorta, on the right path.

 

“The devil could burn it all down there because most of the state is so ungodly. Trump isn’t your problem. Godlessness and son keeps your minds and state in a state of anarchy. Poor people. I will keep praying you will find out that you all need to pray to the living God.”

Yep, because…. ummm, …. God recognizes where California’s boundaries are???!!??

 

“Try direct energy weapons”

Certainly, the Reptilians and Nibiru are to blame, fer sure, fer sure.

 

“Because of Monoculture”

Blame the old clearcuts!

 

“Anyone cutting a tree should be SHOT!!!!”

And another violent solution.

 

“The lumbar goes to China and else where, not used used in USA, great loose loose thing.the logs get shipped out of country destroys old growth forest well some one will make $$$$$ of it but it won’t be you”

Dumb, dumb!

 

“Its not about forest management its about trumps business buddies being allowed to buy the land and develop it”

And even another conspiracy theory. People love to say “I wouldn’t put it past him” when promoting such stuff.

This American mindset, on a world stage, is troubling. People proudly display their ignorance and stupidity to fight a non-existent issue. America doesn’t believe the truth anymore, and the Sierra Club, and others, are spreading misinformation through phony petitions.

 

 

Slanted News?

by

I found an LA Times article regarding the Rim Fire, as well as the future of forest management within the Sierra Nevada. Of course, Chad Hanson re-affirms his preference to end all logging, everywhere. There’s a lot of seemingly balanced reporting but, there is no mention of the Sierra Nevada Framework, and its diameter limits. There is also the fact that any change to the SNF will take years to amend. There was also no mention that only about 20,000 Federal acres of the Rim Fire was salvaged, with some of that being in 40-year old plantations.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-rim-fire-restoration-20180718-story.html

There might also be another ‘PictureGate“, involving Chad Hanson displaying supposed Forest Service clearcut salvage logging. His folks have already displayed their inability to locate themselves on a map. If he really had solid evidence, he SURELY would have brought it into court

Additionally, the comments are a gold mine for the misinformation and polarization of the supposedly ‘progressive’ community of readers.

Trump “demands” more logging. Really? Does he ever request, suggest or ask for information? I’m tired of hearing of Trump’s “demands.” It could be that some logging would be beneficial but the minute Trump “demands” it, it is suspect. One of his friends will be making millions on the logging and probably giving a kickback to a Trump business. Trump is the destructor of all things beautiful or sacred, the King Midas of the GOP.

A tiny increase in logging of small trees is very unlikely to generate “millions”.

You have no idea what “forest management” is. You want to clearcut all of the old growth forests and then turn them into Christmas tree lots and pine plantations. That is industrial tree farming, not forest management. That is the dumb dogma, speaking, not actual management of the forests.

Most people in southern California don’t know that Forest Service clearcutting and old growth harvesting in the Sierra Nevada has been banned since 1993. The article makes no mention of that.

Riddle me this, Lou. How did the forests manage before we spent $2.5 billion dollars a year on fire suppression? Are we the problem or the cure? Is this just another out of control bureaucracy with a life of its own?

Of course, no solution offered.

Public meetings to draft a stewardship project proposal

by

I probably should pay more attention to how Forest Service projects are developed, and I had to do a double-take on this:

The U.S. Forest Service has announced it will host local public meetings to identify project restoration activities that improve water quality, soil productivity, watershed health and wildlife and fish habitat and meet local and rural community needs.

The Clinch Ranger District is developing a “stewardship project” proposal, according to a press release. Stewardship projects allow the forest service “to work with a partner or contractor to remove timber and use the proceeds from the timber sale to fund restoration projects,” it states. “Stewardship projects can provide local jobs and economic benefits from the timber sale and from implementing restoration projects.”

“I am excited to hear ideas from local community members that could be included in future projects,” stated District Ranger Michelle Davalos. “By starting with a clear understanding of community interests, we can focus future projects on activities that will meet both the goals laid out in the Jefferson National Forest Plan and the needs of local communities.”

I like the sound of this; is this how stewardship projects usually work?  I assume this includes asking where to log.  Do/could they do the same thing on projects that aren’t “logging funded?”  This is the kind of early involvement that would go a long ways towards avoiding disputes down the road.

Logging planned in national park – by environmentalists

by

Really.  Redwood National Park and three state parks.  Led by Save the Redwoods League.

The new task for this century, Hodder said, is to restore landscapes that were logged but now exist in parks in a damaged, unnatural state.

That means removing old logging roads, restoring streams to bring back salmon and other fish, and doing everything to help second-and-third growth redwood trees get bigger, he said. On April 27, the league is scheduled to sign an agreement with the California state parks department and the National Park Service to allow for “restoration forestry” funded by the league as a way to undo the damage from industrial logging and recreate forests that are more natural.

All four parks involved together have about 120,000 acres of forests. Of those, about 40,000 acres is old-growth redwood, and the other 80,000 acres are in formerly logged areas that project planners hope to thin and restore in the coming decades. Most of the trees cut down will be Douglas fir, with some second-growth redwood and hardwoods like tan oak, said Paul Ringgold, a forest ecologist and chief program officer of the Save the Redwoods League. Roughly 30 to 70 percent of the trees will be taken out in the 10,000 acres treated between now and 2022, he said, and in some cases, sold to timber companies.

“These stands are a legacy of clear-cut logging,” Ringgold said. “We want to restore these areas as close as we can to the way they were pre-logging.

Chetco Bar Fire salvage – agreement?

by

“The U.S. Forest Service is planning on salvage logging later this year in about 8 percent of its acres burned in last year’s 191,197-acre Chetco Bar fire in Curry County, a move timber advocates welcomed and one conservation group called “something we can live with.””

George Sexton, conservation director for the Ashland-based Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, said a sound plan to get sellable timber from the fire would be to continue focusing on commercial logging of hazard trees as well as previously logged plantations within the study area.

The forest also should add fuels-reduction timber sales immediately around communities to ensure public safety in these areas eyed for salvage, Sexton said.

“I could see that as a project that sails through pretty quickly and gets out a decent amount of volume,” Sexton said. “That’s about the best they can do and I think it will produce a fair amount of volume.

The Southern Oregon Timber Industries Association said:  “Getting some rather than not getting any out,” “That is what we’re hoping for.”