Sustainable Rural Economies

Sen. Wyden to meet with enviro CEOs to discuss NEPA, ESA

by

I would love to be a fly on the wall for this meeting..I wonder if it is open to the public..
From the E&E here. Below is an excerpt.

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) tomorrow is scheduled to meet with the CEOs of major environmental groups to discuss his pending legislation to resolve decades-long disputes over timber management in western Oregon.

The meeting will come roughly a week after the leaders of seven groups sent a letter to Wyden requesting a meeting to discuss their concerns over how his bill will address the National Environmental Policy Act and Endangered Species Act, statutes that have hindered timber harvests on the roughly 2.5 million acres of so-called O&C lands.

“The ESA and NEPA are essential elements of a legal framework that has proven highly successful in maintaining the full range of values provided by the O&C lands,” the groups’ leaders wrote in their letter. “We are deeply concerned, however, that irreplaceable contributions of these public lands will be lost if review of federal forest management under the ESA and NEPA is constrained or eliminated as part of your effort to ‘modernize existing federal laws as they apply to O&C lands.'”

Signing the letter was Jamie Rappaport Clark of Defenders of Wildlife, Trip Van Noppen of Earthjustice, Philip Radford of Greenpeace, Gene Karpinski of the League of Conservation Voters, Frances Beinecke of the Natural Resources Defense Council, Michael Brune of the Sierra Club and Jamie Williams of the Wilderness Society.

They were referring specifically to a legislative framework Wyden released in May for a bill that seeks to increase timber harvests on O&C lands while ensuring old-growth protections, wilderness designations and river protections on an equal amount of lands.

Concern was also raised over a separate provision in the framework proposing logging projects at a “steady, sustainable, and uninterrupted rate once an initial review of all lands set aside for management is completed and as long as subsequent timber sales comply with the legislation” (E&E Daily, May 24).

“A single high altitude review followed by decades of timber harvests would be fundamentally incompatible with the ESA, which requires a determination of whether such harvests are likely to jeopardize a species’ existence or adversely modify its critical habitat and a determination of the number listed species that are likely to be incidentally taken by that logging,” the groups’ leaders wrote.

Really? Fundamentally incompatible?The problem is that we can’t tell what is posturing and what is not..We can all see ways that you could try some things- pick the best design criteria you can and review success at 5 years? Does anyone think that something will go extent in 5 years? Or a certain acreage of projects would require public review by a, say, FACA committee?

The Black Hills:They’ve Got it Figured Out II

by
Black Hills FACA Committee: key to success?
Black Hills FACA Committee: key to success?

Here is some information that was given to me by Blaine Cook, Forest Silviculturist on the Black Hills National Forest.

1) Per 1997 Forest Plan (Preface-9) “The Black Hills are unique in that there are few other uplifted geologic formations completely surrounded by prairies. Furthermore, the Black Hills and its surrounding plains probably were never glaciated. The nearest glaciation occurred in the Big Horn Mountains to the west as a result of the Wisconsin ice advances to the east. The closest glaciation to the east would have run approximately parallel with the Missouri River, about 150 miles from the Black Hills, and occurred about 13,000 years ago during the late Pleistocene.” So, the question remains how the Black Hills (Island in the Plains) got very small portions of trees and plants. The Forest blends north to south to east to west.

2) Attached are forest health report on rcsc_02_13-Harney_Limber_2012 and rcsc_02_12_blackhillslodgepole.

3) White spruce is approximately 5% of the Forest.

4) As for statements on forest volume, the number stated of 6.5 billion bd.ft. is an exaggeration. In year 1999, the FIA report stated 6.1 billion bd.ft (Int.1/4 rule). Since year 2000 there has been large wildfires, tree mortality from insects and timber harvests contributing to removals of the Forest. My opinion of forest volume is around 5.1 billion bd.ft. The Forest is realizing more aspen through wildfires, pine tree mortality and hardwood enhancements by removing pine.

If you’re curious about the black backed woodpecker and other bird monitoring you might want to check out this link. Bird monitoring is done in partnership with the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory.

The Forest Monitoring Report has a section on black backed woodpecker as well as other MIS (management indicator species). The link is here.

Information on the FACA committee can be found here, as well as their recommendations since 2003, when they were established. Here’s their recommendation on the MPB project from 2012:

Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project
The Board reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project and recommended the Black Hills National Forest Supervisor make the following determination:
1) The proposed activities and alternatives address the issues, respond to national policy, guidance and law and Forest Plan direction, and meet the purpose of and need of action in the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
2) The information in the analysis is sufficient to implement proposed activities.
3) Alternative C of the Mountain Pine Beetle Response Project be adopted as the Preferred Alternative in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Project.
4) There is a need for a one-time, site specific amendment to existing Forest Plan direction to address the public’s concerns about Spearfish Canyon.

Using Wood for Buildings= Bad; Using Wood for Gas=Good

by
Gov. John Hickenlooper looks on as Cool Planet CEO Howard Janzen explains his company’s environmentally-supportive biomass production process. Cool Planet is moving its international headquarters to the Plaza Tower One Building in Greenwood Village. Photo by Jan Wondra
Gov. John Hickenlooper looks on as Cool Planet CEO Howard Janzen explains his company’s environmentally-supportive biomass production process. Cool Planet is moving its international headquarters to the Plaza Tower One Building in Greenwood Village. Photo by Jan Wondra

I think it’s interesting to observe how the existing industry who effectively provide jobs and make things that people use (“timber industry”) is often referred to pejoratively..”corporate logging interests.” Or people using firewood for energy; it’s really fairly invisible to the national discussions. However, new uses of wood for energy apparently have a different filter applied, for example this story.
Also this is in the business section; it’s interesting the reporting includes no environmental groups saying “removing dead lodgepole trees for corporate energy interests comes with serious risks to the environment.”

Cool Planet Energy Systems confirmed Wednesday that it will relocate its headquarters to Colorado and build a manufacturing plant that could help convert the state’s numerous dead trees into gasoline.

“We are homing in on a headquarters location in Greenwood Village,” Cool Planet CEO Howard Janzen said.

The company is also looking in the Aurora area for a manufacturing plant that will build microrefineries able to produce about 10 million gallons a year out of organic waste.

Janzen said hundreds of jobs could be created, but he didn’t give a specific number. But in April, the company applied for $3.1 million in state tax credits in return for bringing 393 jobs to the metro area in five years.

The California startup, located in Ventura County, claims to have developed a way to cost-effectively generate gasoline out of plant waste or biomass using energy-efficient chemical and mechanical processes.

Cool Planet has financial backing from Google Ventures, BP, ConocoPhillips, General Electric and others.

“Cool Planet is on the cutting edge of advancements in alternative fuels, and this expansion into Colorado brings them one step closer to making their clean fuel available to anyone who drives a car,” said Wesley Chan, a general partner at Google Ventures.

Chan, who attended the news conference at the Colorado State Capitol on Wednesday, said Google employees have been testing the fuel in the company’s fleet.

Cool Planet doesn’t use food-based items such as sugar beets or corn, eliminating the food-or-fuel trade-off that is an issue with some other biofuel processes.

The char left after fuel is created can be used as a fertilizer, and the entire process removes more carbon from the atmosphere than it generates, the company said.

Janzen said Cool Planet is working with local university and federal researchers on ways to use the state’s beetle-kill trees as a fuel source and then apply the char to strengthen the forest soil and prevent erosion.

Gov. John Hickenlooper said all the deadwood is contributing to wildfires that burn so hot that they prevent forests from regenerating as they normally would after a fire.

Of Cool Planet’s plans, he said, “We couldn’t be happier.”

Maybe the 4FRI contractors need to approach Google Ventures, BP, ConocoPhillips, and General Electric.

And they did get approved for the tax incentives here:

“We are pleased to welcome Cool Planet to Colorado and the Denver South region. The innovation and technology that Cool Planet embodies are driving Colorado’s economy,” said Mike Fitzgerald, President and CEO of Denver South Economic development partnership. “We are very pleased that their leadership has recognized the many benefits that Colorado offers companies, including our location, highly-skilled workforce and collaborative business climate. We are delighted they are
coming and will do everything possible to help ensure their success” The company has been approved for $3,094,928 from Colorado’s Job Growth Incentive Tax Credit for the creation of up to 393 new jobs over three years.

The Black Hills: They’ve Got It Figured Out

by
Soldiers from the 1195th Transportation Company, Nebraska Army National Guard, prepare to unload forest timber at Fort Thompson, S.D., as a part the 29th annual Golden Coyote training exercise June 11, 2013. The National Guard Soldiers delivered the timber from the Black Hills National Forest to Crow Creek Sioux Tribe members as a part of the two-week training exercise. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Maj. Anthony Deiss)
Soldiers from the 1195th Transportation Company, Nebraska Army National Guard, prepare to unload forest timber at Fort Thompson, S.D., as a part the 29th annual Golden Coyote training exercise June 11, 2013. The National Guard Soldiers delivered the timber from the Black Hills National Forest to Crow Creek Sioux Tribe members as a part of the two-week training exercise. (U.S. Army National Guard photo by Maj. Anthony Deiss)

Given recent discussion of 4FRI contractors and the difficulty of selling trees in Arizona despite years of efforts, this article talks about the Black Hills, which seems to be selling 20K acres per year and is asking for bucks for 30K.

I couldn’t reproduce the photo of the photogenic Forest Supervisor, Craig Bobzien, and Senator John Thune, due to copyright, but check it out in the article. Below is an excerpt:

Thom said last year that Forest Service sales in the Black Hills resulted in the removal of Ponderosa pines on about 20,000 acres. But the timber industry in the Black Hills can handle up to 30,000 acres if the funding were there to make it happen, Thom said.

Thune said effective timber management and cooperation by state and local government and private landowners working with and in addition to the Forest Service have proven the infestation can be slowed. Cooperation and effectiveness matter in the Washington, D.C., money hunt, he said.

More federal funding has come to the Black Hills in recent years and more might come again, Thune said.

“I think, for once, Washington, D.C., money seems to follow success, and we’ve seen success here in the Black Hills,” Thune said.

It’s unclear what that means for the coming year, with the effects of budget sequestration and debate over the federal debt.

“We don’t know at this point,” said Craig Bobzien, supervisor of the Black Hills National Forest.

Thune said it was “all very uncertain.” But he noted that Congress and the Forest Service have managed to streamline the process of getting timber-management projects in place. Forestry provisions of the federal farm bill could help strengthen that, he said.

“It doesn’t help with the funding issue, but it helps with authority and response to the problem,” he said.

Dennis Jaeger, deputy supervisor of the Black Hills National Forest, showed photographs of areas of forest where pine trees had been thinned ahead of the beetle spread. Few trees were infected.

Areas nearby that weren’t thinned showed heavy bug hits.

‘We can show successes on the forest,” Jaeger said.

Is it the fact that they have a decent longstanding traditional timber industry and not relying on new products or infrastructure? Is it something about political alignment? Are the Hills not (as desirable a) target for our litigious friends? There is litigation but not very successful.. why is that?

I would send folks from Neiman down to review the contracts and bidders on the 4FRI. Something is going right in the Black Hills.

Addition: Here is an interview with Jim Neiman VP of Neiman Enterprises.

Neiman Enterprises is a group of family-owned and operated sawmills manufacturing and re-manufacturing ponderosa pine lumber in a manner that is respectful of the environment, economy and communities. The company’s three production facilities produce a variety of primary and secondary wood products, including boards, dimension lumber, decking and wood shavings.

What Should Congress Do? II Trusts

by

Pages from JayOLaughlin_US-Senate-testimony_03-19-13

This post involves information from Mac McConnell, Jay O’Laughlin and about the Valles Caldera experiment.

Solving these many and diverse local problems require local solutions based on local know-how. The current topdown,
one-size-fits-all land management by the feds has proven itself incapable of problem-solving at the forest
level. Removal of selected lands from federal oversight and transferal to local autonomous authority, similar to
state trust lands, would seem to be the most direct and efficient way – perhaps the only way – to secure reliable,
adequate funding and cut through the tangle of shifting, restrictive, and often conflicting laws, regulations,
executive orders, litigation, and judicial mandates that make federal management a hopeless cause.

Here is an in-depth look at this option, from Mac.

Jay O’Laughlin has also published some papers on trusts as a solution to some federal lands problems. Here is avery thorough one with charts and tables, and here is his testimony from a hearing in March. rough and one and here is his testimony at a Congressional hearing in March.

I’m interested in 1) what you think of the trust idea in general, and 2) whether you think a pilot might be feasible as a test case (or adaptive management). Perhaps O&C lands? Or somewhere else? Why would that area be good for a pilot?
3) What have we learned about trusts through the Valles Caldera trust experiment?
I was just reading about how:
from the Sierra Club

The Sierra Club, Caldera Action, National Parks Conservation Association, New Mexico Wildlife Federation, Coalition of NPS Retirees, Audubon and others have been pushing to replace the current experimental trust management with the National Park Service since around 2007.

Many people feel Valles Caldera is a National Park-quality place and it could be well protected and a tremendous economic asset to Northern New Mexico when the National Park Service assumes management of the land as a preserve.

Maybe any place placed into trust would be a “non-National Park quality” place? But I wonder if to the NPCA,to the retirees, and to the Sierra Club everyplace is “National Park quality” either now, or once current users are removed.

The grazing language now reads that the National Park Service “shall” permit livestock grazing but the NPS will have full discretion about where cows can be, when, and how many.

So to a pilot, we would have to find a place that most folks would say is not “National Park Quality”. Perhaps lots of timbered country, no pretty canyons, lots of existing roads. In a state with existing land trusts. Perhaps Northern Washington or Idaho?

The Series: CREATE: What Should Congress Do?

by

congress1

I’d like to start a discussion along the lines of CREATE (as you may or may not recall, “Conflict Resolution Effectiveness, Accountability and Transparency Enhancement”) for Forest Service projects and plans. Here and here are some previous posts.

We have some bills that are place-based. But the problem with these, to some, is that areas to be preserved are preserved, while areas agreed to be open to timber harvesting (these are where there is current timber industry) will still be open to exactly the same “Random Project Rejection by Groups with Lawyers” that they are today (and so clearly in the Colt Summit project). Doesn’t seem like a very good deal.

Then there are the O&C lands. Much is going on, but not sure how applicable all of it is to anywhere else. (People who know can chime in). Then there are trusts. For this series, I would like to focus on other ideas..and generate a great many different and possibly new ideas.

Everyone is welcome to post their own ideas, but for organization, if you have a new idea, submit it to me and I will post as a post. That way each idea will have its own string of comments. Make sense?

Let me know if you have questions.

Chuck Roady on Budget Cuts

by

Gil suggested posting this...

I don’t believe that people litigate for the money. I think they believe that they are doing good. However, it does seem that some people’s opinions count more than others and there are issues of justice involved in who has access to these decisions, as we’ve pointed out on this blog before.

My curiosity was aroused by his figure of $350 million for NEPA and where it comes from. As Fred Norbury used to say, how can we say NEPA takes too long and costs too much if we don’t track how long it takes or how much it costs? And I don’t think we actually know. Further, I have opinions (and I’m sure you do) about some NEPA investments being worth more than others. For example the latest Colt Summit redo required by the courts has 0 value. Whereas the GMUG and White River oil and gas leasing decision has substantial value. In my opinion. How about you?

I agree with Chuck, and so does the GAO report, that something is different in region 1 and in Montana, at least compared to Wyoming and Colorado. And if I had to give any impressions from the last couple of years of observations on projects in Montana, I would have to say it has to do with specific groups, such as Garrity’s, who do business there. I also agree with Chuck that it is not a partisan issue..

What Good is a Plan Without Implementation?

by

eis photo Photo courtesy of Mac McConnell.

Note from Sharon: I am reposting this as I don’t think it got the attention it deserved yesterday because of a plethora of fire posts. It reminds me of something Chris Iverson once said about the Tongass and Chugach plans..along the lines of “if you’re not doing much (I think he meant in terms of vegetation changing work) you shouldn’t analyze much.” Is the Forest Service over”planning” and under”doing”?

Guest Post by Christopher Brong
Skamania County Commissioner, District 1

Here in Skamania County, WA, it is a big problem because there is very little active management for sustainable harvest and forest health on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (80% of the County). The 1993 Pacific NW Forest Plan brokered by President Clinton, has not been implemented in 20 years. Individual Forest Plans were formulated, but, little of the plans have been implemented since the environmental groups continued their “file-a-lawsuit” process against the Forest Service. There is also a tremendous fire hazardous on this forest since little timber has been harvested. We are well overdue for a catastrophic fire predicted by several USFS researchers for the “wet” side of the Cascade Mountains. We receive nearly 100 inches of rain/year. Now, it seems the Forest Service would prefer to spend most of their yearly budget on fire suppression, instead of prevention. Since early European settlers arrived until the 1980’s, this region has produced billions of board feet of timber. This region is known as “*….the most productive natural temperate forests in the world.” The Forest provided significant timber harvest receipts to our County from the 1940’s up to the mid-1980’s.

The County encompasses Mt. St. Helens National Monument, 3 Wilderness Areas, 4 federal fish hatcheries, and 2 state fish hatcheries. 59% of the County is Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl, which continues to decline. 10% of the County is heavily regulated by the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Act.

Another 8% of the County is in WA state timber trust and WA Parks lands. 10% is in very large private timber company lands. Fortunately the state trust lands provide a sustainable harvest of timber and the private timber provides a renewable harvest. These provide periodic timber harvest taxes that are minimally predictable.

Which leaves only 2% of the County that is taxed for private property taxes. Since we have depleted our Reserve funding, the County Government budget has been cut in half in the past three years, besides laying off 100 permanent and temporary employees. We are planning for “Secure Rural Schools” reauthorization to not occur, which will require laying off another 25 employees, and, 3 of 4 schools will be closed.

Recreation opportunities are abundant in the County and the region, and we do our best with the tax receipts to provide advertising and events from the customers primarily located in the Portland/Vancouver Region. However these receipts are primarily tourism directed funding, and the tourism job opportunities are below “living-wage” level. The service job wages for bussing tables, tending bars, and cleaning rooms are in the lower end… Federal Government jobs is the largest employer. Followed by the Service sector. Voters, and many urban folks, may believe public lands support the economy in a big way, but that is merely a perception based on lack of knowledge. Which brings me back to the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. The Forest Service is unable to implement their plans, due to funding and lack of manpower, continual NEPA and ESA lawsuits, and environmental opposition to virtually any type of timber management project. So other than law requiring plans, why bother if you can’t implement the plan?

Note from Sharon: Mr. Brong is our guest, so I ask all commenters to keep hospitality in mind as we agree or disagree. As Benedict of Nursia recommended (for whom the Benedict’s Corner sidebar is named), I ask that we also “listen with the ears of the heart.”

Senate Committee Hearing: Challenges and opportunities for improving forest management on federal lands

by

img_chairman

A reader sent me this link: here’s his review:

Bill Imbergamo’s hit it out of the park with his oral and written testimony. I wanted to give him a hug.

Norm Johnson was awesome about the variable retention and science, children’s books, etc

Risch was spot-on also.

If you haven’t watched, I highly recommend it. VERY worthwhile investment of time.

So far I managed to get to a part where Wyden notes that NEPA “requires a strong stomach” or something equivalent, somehow I couldn’t find it when I went back..

There’s a great deal to think about here.. I am not as sanguine as the Chief about large landscape NEPA. If someone wants to, couldn’t they go to court after a big blow down or fire (or new climate models or ???) and ask for a redo on the basis of new information and changed conditions? Fundamentally, it would require a change with some folks giving up power, which people usually don’t do voluntarily. Especially those who really believe that they have the right perspective.

The Black Hills doesn’t have any of those ESA animals which are involved in all the Montana and other lawsuits.. is that a coincidence? Perhaps not as applicable as a person might think. I feel like the Administration likes to think things will be fine if collaboration is done and they do huge NEPA. I am a fairly optimistic person but I don’t see that changing, say, Mr. Garrity’s view on the couple of R-1 timber sales because the NEPA is at a larger scale.

The pilots have a great deal of attention and support, in terms of getting various barriers out of the way. Even if the pilots are successful, this does not necessarily predict that everyday kinds of work will be equally successful. My optimism tells me that we would get further by determining what the real barriers to active forest management are.

Anyway, there’s a lot here. What’s your favorite quote? Did you want to hug anyone?

Colorado: Green Industries With Wood

by

ecoSponge_icon

Meanwhile, while Montanans and Oregonians seem to be ambivalent about the industries they have, entrepreneurial Coloradans are still working on getting an industry so as to avoid burning dead lodgepole in piles.

Check out this story in the business section of the Denver Post.

Mark Mathis was looking pretty smart in early 2008.

He was harvesting Colorado beetle-kill and converting the state’s flood of dead trees into pellets for affordable home heating. Then the price of oil collapsed — falling by more than $100 a barrel in a year — and suddenly, pellets were no longer the inexpensive option for heat. Mild winters further eroded pellet demand, and Mathis’ once-boundless plan withered along with the entire biomass and alternative-energy industries.

Five years later, Mathis’ Kremmling-based Confluence Energy is surging with a new mission.

“We are taking on kitty litter,” he said.

Mathis is doubling down on his plan to capitalize on environmental concerns, this time with a
biodegradable beetle-kill product that cleans up oil, gas and solvent spills better and cheaper than the widely used clay-based products, such as cat litter. The company’s Eco-Sponge is becoming popular with oil and gas operations across the country, and strong sales — already passing the company’s heating pellets — have enabled Confluence to acquire its competitor, Rocky Mountain Pellets in Walden, doubling its capacity and making Confluence the largest pellet maker in the West.

Mathis’ Eco-Sponge aims to end the reign of clay-based absorbents in environmental cleanup work with its simplicity. Where those clay bits need to be removed once they absorb oil, gas or benzene spills, Eco-Sponge’s patented army of microorganisms consume the hydrocarbons and can be left on site as an inert material.

Mathis calls it “a composting process on steroids.”

“How often in life do you get to offer solutions for cleaning up an environmental mess like the pine beetle while making a renewable energy source and cleaning up another environmental issue? And make money doing it?” said Mathis over the din of the Walden plant’s maze of pellet-making machines.