Wow. Need more details on this….

Zinke previews agency reorganization

Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke today fleshed out plans to reorganize the sprawling department, pitching lawmakers on a “joint system” that would shift federal employees from Washington to the field.

The revamp would create 13 “joint management areas,” Zinke told his former colleagues at a House Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee hearing.

Each of the areas would be small and, when possible, ecosystem-based.

“We’re trying to push more of the authority out in the field and redesign Interior,” he said. “These smaller areas can focus on the problems that are within their smaller regions.”

Instead of reporting to their respective regional offices, each of Interior’s bureaus and the Department of Agriculture would coordinate to better serve the local land, water and wildlife issues in each area.

The move mirrors how U.S. federal agencies coordinate to fight wildfires. Eight agencies and organizations operate out of the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho. Last week, Zinke and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue toured the facility.

The reorganization also resembles the Department of Defense practice of joint commands, a system the former Navy SEAL has experience with.

Zinke said USDA is on board with the proposed system. Under the plan, the Forest Service would remain part of Agriculture and a simple memorandum of understanding would cover the agency’s participation.

Zinke asserted the staffing shifts would not cost any money nor technically need congressional approval. But he told lawmakers he intends to reach out to Congress, “because it matters to us all to make sure we go ahead and do it right.”

He told House Republicans and Democrats the consolidation would reduce permitting hurdles, give federal officials more latitude to focus on regional issues such as invasive species, and enable Interior to better use resources appropriated by Congress for ecosystem-specific projects.

This webinar may be of interest. “Recovery and adaptation after wildfire across the United States, 2009-2011,” Wednesday, June 14, 2017 from 11:00 AM to 12:00 PM (MST).

Presenter: Miranda H. Mockrin, USFS Northern Research Station

Becoming a fire-adapted community that can live with wildfire is envisioned as a continuous, iterative process of adaptation. In eight case study sites across the United States we examined how destructive wildfire affected altered progress towards becoming fire-adapted, focusing on the role of planning and WUI regulations (building codes, hazard mitigation standards, zoning, and other local governmental tools used to reduce exposure to wildfire losses). Experience with wildfire and other natural hazards suggests that disasters may open a ‘window of opportunity’ leading to local government policy changes. However, we found mixed results in our study: for some communities, the fire was a focusing event that led to changes in WUI regulations (for example, modifying building codes). In other communities, destructive fire did not spur adaptation through changes in governmental policy. In some communities, local government officials thought current policies were effective and factors beyond their control such as extreme weather were to blame for structure losses In other cases, wildfire losses were accepted as a risk of living on the landscape, considered an isolated incident that affected few or was unlikely to be repeated, or enacting regulations was seen as incompatible with local norms and government capacity. We conclude that adaptation to wildfire through WUI regulations depends on multiple factors, including past experience with fire and the geographic extent and scale of the fire event relative to the local community and its government. While communities did not often pursue changes in WUI regulations, experience with wildfire was frequently cited as the impetus for other adaptive responses, such as improving emergency response or fire suppression, and expanding education and interaction with homeowners, such as Firewise programs or government support for fuel mitigation on private lands.

The excerpt from the American Forest Resource Council’s May newsletter, below, is about a pilot project implementing Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin’s principles of ecological forestry on BLM land in Western Oregon, which is blocked by litigation, and this court order may be the end of it. There are objections to the principles from all sides, but I think the aim of addressing a deficit of early-seral habitat via variable-retention timber harvesting has a lot of merit and would be useful on federal lands in the PNW as well as elsewhere, such as New Jersey, where there is controversy over harvesting timber to create young-forest habitat. Opponents are essentially saying that cutting trees, even to provide habitat for threatened and endangered species, ought to be prohibited.

Ninth Circuit Denies White Castle Appeal

With a three-page unpublished order, the Ninth Circuit ended for now the seven-year effort to implement Drs. Norm Johnson and Jerry Franklin’s principles of ecological forestry in Western Oregon, dismissing AFRC’s appeal of an adverse ruling on the White Castle Timber Sale. The BLM had not appealed and the Court found that Scott Timber, the purchaser, could not appeal a remand order on its own.

White Castle is a 187-acre variable-retention harvest on the BLM Roseburg District. In late 2010, then-Secretary Ken Salazar directed BLM to develop Secretarial Demonstration Pilot Projects showing the potential use of Johnson and Franklin ecological principles (“Norm & Jerry” forestry) to provide sustainable timber harvest compatible with ecologically-sound land management. Drs. Johnson and Franklin held a two-day introduction in Canyonville in February  4 2011, followed by several public meetings in Roseburg and multiple field trips. The White Castle Project was initiated in March 2011, with a decision signed in August 2012.

The project has been in litigation for nearly five years and no work has been attempted or completed. Oregon Wild and Cascadia Wildlands protested, appealed to IBLA, and then brought suit in federal court. Extremist “direct action” groups put tree sitters in the woods. Although the plaintiffs brought NEPA claims, their real objection was to harvest at the stand age of 108 years. Media reports stated the project was in line with Senator Wyden’s proposals for the O&C lands.

In 2015, U.S. District Court Judge Ann Aiken found the project required an Environmental Impact Statement due to effects on spotted owls, despite the project not taking any owls, as well as the “controversy” of the Johnson/Franklin principles. AFRC filed an appeal on behalf of Scott Timber and defeated preliminary attempts to dismiss the appeal. Ultimately, those effects were not successful.

Although AFRC may petition the Ninth Circuit for a rehearing, it is unclear whether White Castle will ever be harvested. The cautionary note about these “Demonstration Projects” from AFRC’s December 2012 newsletter rings true: “To date, the only thing that has been demonstrated is how opponents of timber harvesting can successfully delay a project through extensive protests and appeals.” /Lawson Fite

This op-ed is in the Idaho Statesman and probably elsewhere. Purdue writes that the USFS “must reorient its culture to embrace a generational approach to responsible forest management.” How that would change the agency’s operations he doesn’t say.

Ag secretary: ‘There will be balance’ in U.S. forest management

BY SONNY PERDUE

Today’s challenges for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) are many, but the department is staffed by tens of thousands of dedicated civil servants who share a love of the land and for those who earn their livelihoods by providing the food, fiber and fuel needed at home and abroad. Key assets for this quality of life are this nation’s forests and grasslands.

Forests cover approximately one-third of the land in America. To manage this vast resource base, the Forest Service works with local governments and private entities to ensure the health and sustainability of our wood resources. As with any asset, however, those charged with that task must ensure that there is balance. Thus, it is time to review how the Forest Service is accomplishing its mission and to reassure the American people that there will be balance in how our forests are managed.

The ideal management of our public lands would be through shared stewardship, meaning federal agencies would communicate, collaborate and coordinate with state and local governments and with citizens on how best to manage our public lands. The Forest Service has fully embraced this approach. After all, who knows local conditions better than those who are involved at the local level? So, then, what will the Forest Service do in the future?

First, it must reorient its culture to embrace a generational approach to responsible forest management. Trees take decades to grow to maturity. We must think about how the forests will provide cleaner water and air, more biofuels and more useful products for consumers. If we do not take the long view, we will never be able to preserve delicate ecosystems or prosper from the thousands of jobs that our forests could provide. We must treat our forests so that we are not spending more on fighting fires than we are on making sure that our forests are healthy.

Second, the Forest Service will work to establish interagency cooperation to ensure that procedural and regulatory barriers can be diminished or eliminated. The USDA must have interaction with the departments of Interior and Energy and agencies such as the EPA, the Council on Environmental Quality and the Corps of Engineers. Internally, we must find ways to make Good Neighbor Authority more than just a slogan so there is more flexibility to achieve true shared stewardship.

Third, the Forest Service must engage at the local level on every issue. Everyone must have a voice in the decision-making. At the end of the day, we must all remember that we must do what is in the best interest of the American people.

Finally, we must never lose sight of the fact that if we take care of the land, the land will take care of us. We have world-renowned scientists and researchers engaged at the USDA, and only the best science and data will inform our decisions.

This summer consider including a visit to the nearest national forest. These wonderful areas belong to the American people, and the Forest Service is on the job to keep these wonderful resources healthy and resilient for generations to come.

Sonny Perdue is the U.S. secretary of agriculture.

A federal judge has overturned government agency approvals for the proposed Montanore Mine, which would degrade wilderness trout streams and industrialize some of the last remaining grizzly bear habitat in the Cabinet Mountains of northwest Montana.

In two decisions issued late yesterday, U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy ruled that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Forest Management Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act in approving a massive industrial mining operation on the boundary of—and literally under—the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness.

The ruling came in response to two lawsuits filed by conservationists who oppose the mining proposal on the grounds that it would impermissibly dewater some of the nation’s purest streams and jeopardize the survival of bull trout and grizzly bears.

“Yesterday’s ruling underscores how wrong it is to site major industrial facilities on the doorstep of public wilderness lands that provide irreplaceable habitat for imperiled wildlife,” said Earthjustice lawyer Katherine O’Brien, who represented Save Our Cabinets, Earthworks, and Defenders of Wildlife in challenging the government’s Endangered Species Act approvals for the mine.

“The federal court’s decision stands for one fundamental point: Clean water, wildlife, and the free-flowing streams of the West cannot be sacrificed for short-term mining industry profits,” added Roger Flynn, an attorney with the Western Mining Action Project, who represented Save Our Cabinets, Earthworks, and Clark Fork Coalition in challenging the Forest Service’s mining approvals.

The Montanore Mine, proposed by Hecla Inc. (NYSE: HL), would transform a remote landscape in the Cabinet Mountains into a large-scale industrial operation involving the mining and processing of as much as 20,000 tons of ore every day for as long as 20 years.

The site of the proposed mine lies within and adjacent to the federally protected Cabinet Mountains Wilderness that contains pristine forests, glaciated peaks, and rivers and streams that are among the purest waters in the continental United States. The proposed mine site and surrounding public lands offer some of the last remaining undeveloped habitat for critical populations of bull trout and grizzly bears that are hanging on by a thread because of habitat destruction, pollution, and poaching across their range. As the court recognized in yesterday’s rulings, “[t]he project is anticipated to have serious negative impacts on local populations of bull trout and an already declining grizzly bear population.”

Nevertheless, in decisions issued in 2014 and 2016, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service approved development of the mine—despite acknowledging a host of mining impacts including dewatering of streams in the Cabinet Mountains wilderness, dumping of waste water that is too warm for bull trout to tolerate, and increasing the likelihood that grizzly bears will be killed due to poaching and conflicts with humans. Yesterday’s court rulings invalidate those approvals, concluding, among other things, that the Forest Service’s action “puts the proverbial cart before the horse” in approving mine development despite prohibited impacts to wilderness waters.

“This is an important decision for the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, which was first recognized as a special place by Teddy Roosevelt,” said Mary Costello of Save Our Cabinets. “Today, the Wilderness still provides habitat for increasingly rare wildlife and contains some of the purest water in the lower 48 states.”

“This decision sends an important signal to permitting agencies and to Hecla Mining Co. that you need to get it right when it comes to water,” said Karen Knudsen, executive director of the Clark Fork Coalition. “Permanently drying up pristine wilderness streams is not getting it right, and we’re glad that the court agreed.”

“This is great news for the struggling populations of bull trout and grizzly bears that find refuge in the Cabinet Mountains,” said Bonnie Gestring, northwest program director for Earthworks. “Our iconic wildlife deserve a fair chance at recovery.”

“Grizzly bears and bull trout are vital parts of our wildlife heritage,” said Jonathan Proctor, Rockies and Plains program director for Defenders of Wildlife. “This decision gives them the chance to remain.”

Read the legal document.

View the photo feature on the Cabinet Mountains.

According to Bill Gabbert over at Wildfire Today:

Dr. Jack Cohen received the first National Legacy Award given by the U.S. Forest Service, National Association of State Foresters, National Fire Protection Association, and International Association of Fire Chiefs in recognition of outstanding career-long contributions to wildfire mitigation as an alternative to suppression. Dr. Cohen helped develop the U.S. National Fire Danger Rating System and developed calculations for wildland firefighters’ safe zones; created defensible space principles, which resulted in the Firewise program; the Home Ignition Zone; and conducted research on ember ignitions and structure ignitability.

His research laid the groundwork for nearly all of today’s work on wildland urban interface risk reduction. Until his 2016 retirement, he was a research scientist at Missoula Technology and Development Center. The award was presented at the IAFC WUI Conference in Reno, Nevada.

Readers of this blog may remember that Dr. Jack Cohen’s research has been shared many times before. In the following video – produced by the National Fire Prevention Association – Dr. Cohen explains current research about how homes ignite during wildfires, and the actions that homeowners can take to help their home survive the impacts of flames and embers.

“Uncontrolled, extreme wildfires are inevitable. These are the conditions when wildland-urban interface disasters occur – the hundreds to thousands of houses destroyed during a wildfire.

Does that mean that wildland-urban interface are inevitable as well? No! We have great opportunities as homeowners to prevent our houses from igniting during wildfires….There a lot that we can do to the little things – to our house and its immediate surroundings – in order to reduce the ignition potential of that house.” – Jack Cohen

Please watch and share this video. Your home can survive a wildfire if, as a homeowner, you know what to do and take these simple steps to prevent your home from igniting during a wildfire.

Thanks to Nick Smith for including this May 28 “60 Minutes” segment in his Healthy Forests, Healthy Communities newsletter: “Why fighting wildfires often fails — and what to do about it.” Text and video online. Features Q&A with Robert Bonnie, Jack Cohen. Overall, very well done. I plan to show it at a meeting of the local Community Emergency Response Team — I’ve been a member for years and, by coincidence, I’m scheduled to make a presentation on this topic in July.

Much of the program’s focus is on protecting homes in the WUI, but it does briefly address the larger topic:

Robert Bonnie: We’re not investing as much as we can and should in forest restoration, because we’re having to spend all our money fighting fire.

Steve Inskeep: Wait a minute, forest restoration is prevention of horrible wildfires?

Robert Bonnie: That’s right.

Yesterday USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue made an unprecedented and necessary appearance before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies (the Forest Service is a “related agency”) to explain the Forest Service’s proposed FY 2018 budget. “Unprecedented” because never before had a USDA Secretary appeared before this subcommittee. “Necessary” because never before did a new administration have only one USDA political appointee in place by budget time.

Here are my takeaways from the hearing.

1) Secretary Perdue is glib and personable. He’s also an experienced and crafty politician who is not above fudging the numbers. When committee members challenged him on proposed steep cuts in the Forest Service’s budget, he replied that money to manage the national forest system would go up 16%. What he didn’t say is that this increase is due entirely to shifting over $350 million in fuels treatment from the wildland fire account to the national forest system account. Compared to FY 2017, the national forest system budget actually takes a 7.5% cut, as shown below:

2) Chief Tidwell will be looking for a new job. If Perdue’s body language towards the Chief wasn’t enough of a hint, a committee member thanked him for his years of service at the hearing’s end.

3) Senator Hubert Humphrey is feeling unsettled in his grave. Humphrey, the key architect of the National Forest Management Act, exhorted in 1976 that “The days have ended when the forest may be viewed only as trees and trees viewed only as timber.” Perdue said national forest trees are “crops.”

4) Congress doesn’t understand why or how the Forest Service got into its profligate wildfire spending mess. “Why” is because timber money dried up 25 years ago. “How” is because it can. The bureaucracy needs fire money to pay the agency’s overhead, aka, “cost pools.” Does Perdue get it? No. So far, he’s parroting former Secretary Vilsack’s plea for even more firefighting dollars.

The take-homes from Trump’s first Forest Service budget suggest a significant shift in how this administration views the Forest Service.

Timber sale levels will go down modestly. With the Forest Products line item funded at a no-change level of $360 million, I predict sale levels will remain below 3 billion board feet (notwithstanding a stated “target” of 3.2 bbf) and the increases under the Obama administration (from 2.5 bbf in 2008 to 2.9 bbf in 2016) will reverse due to cost inflation.

Former Secretary Vilsack’s “all lands” approach is dead. “All lands” called for “using all USDA resources and authorities, in collaboration with NRCS, to sustain the entire matrix of federal, state, tribal, county, municipal, and private forests.” Trump’s vision is narrower. To justify zeroing out Urban Forestry, Open Space Conservation, Forest Legacy, and the Collaborative Forest Restoration program, USDA’s “focus will be on the maintenance of the existing National Forest System lands.”

Law enforcement,, which is small potatoes in the Forest Service, is the only program area that sees a budget increase (2%) over last year. Most everything else (e.g., fish and wildlife, livestock, minerals) faces an 11% cut. Forest planning will slow even further, hard as that is to believe, as planning not only faces the same 11% cut, but has to fight with inventory and monitoring functions (which spend almost four times as much money) for its piece of a smaller pie. Insofar as planning makes policy, don’t expect any new ones anytime soon.

Hazardous fuels treatment faces a 7% cut and a sharper focus to treat “priority areas near communities that reduce risk to communities and firefighters and increase resilience of forests to catastrophic fire.” It’ll be interesting to see if managers get the message to stop wasting money treating fuels in the backcountry.

Whatever rebuilding the nation’s infrastructure may mean to Trump, the Forest Service isn’t going to have a seat at that table. The budget calls for a 73% cut in capital improvement and maintenance, including zeroing out the Legacy Roads and Trails program that pays for replacing fish-blocking culverts. Trail maintenance will drop from $77 million to $12 million, so visitors should be prepared to scramble over downed trees and be proficient with maps and GPS as disappearing trail signs are not replaced.

As for roads, which are slated for a 56% funding cut, the budget’s nostalgia for the good-old-days envisions timber sales, salvage no less, paying for road up-keep. Maybe the reimposition of tariffs on Canadian lumber will boost Forest Service stumpage prices, but I wouldn’t bet my house on it.

Last, but not least, Forest Service research is slated for a 16% budget cut from FY 2017 levels. The only logic to the specific cuts I can see is that the Forest Service will spend a little more on counting things like trees, i.e., inventory, and a lot less on basic science.

In sum, this budget narrows the Forest Service focus to taking minimal care of its own land. The Heritage Foundation is happy. Is anyone else?

The smoking gun that proves Trump’s Forest Service now denies climate change! Compare Obama’s FY 2017 Budget Justification:

“Agency operations and assets must become more resilient to the impacts of a changing climate so we can continue to provide a high level of service while caring for the National Forest System lands.”

With Trump’s FY 2018 Budget Justification:

“Agency operations and assets must become more resilient to extreme weather so the agency can continue to provide a high level of service while caring for the National Forest System (NFS) lands.”

Gotcha!