Flying under the radar, especially when piloted by a savvy and experienced hand, is the key to financial survival in the Trump administration. Although OMB’s new FY 2018 budget is dead on arrival in Congress, much of the Forest Service may wish it isn’t. The Forest Service’s bottom-line is slated for a $1 billion cut compared to FY 2017, but $800 million of that cut comes from zeroing out the FLAME wildfire suppression reserve fund. The Forest Service knows that Congress always makes up the difference in subsequent appropriations if it overspends on firefighting.
Trump’s budget calls for increasing national forest system spending by 6%. Challenge for the reader — Is there another domestic, discretionary federal agency that receives such generous treatment in this most fiscally conservative budget in modern history?
The balance of the cuts comes from the expected sources. Forest Service Research and State and Private Forestry each get hammered by 20%. Rounding things out, Capital Improvement & Maintenance, aka “infrastructure,” gets slashed; and, predictably, so, too, does land acquisition.
Bottom line? In this new era of savaging discretionary domestic spending, the Forest Service makes out like a bandit. Corollary — who needs a permanent Undersecretary of Agriculture when you’ve got D.C. at the helm?
A program that awards federal contracts to companies to thin overgrown forests has won praise from timber interests but is leaving localities feeling empty-handed.
Unlike most federal timber-harvesting operations, the stewardship contracts used by the national Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management don’t devote any proceeds to the counties where the forests are located.
That may change with the 2018 farm bill, as counties and some forest advocates press Congress to add a provision giving counties what they’ve requested since the program became permanent in 2014: a quarter of the revenue from timber sales.
A 25 percent share would match the portion counties receive from most harvesting in federal forests.
“We believe this proposal will have widespread support,” said Steve Brink, vice president for public resources at the California Forestry Association, a trade group.
Counties with federal forests have seen sharp declines in timber revenue over the years, as the Forest Service takes down fewer trees. To help make up some of that revenue, Congress created the Secure Rural Schools program in 2000, which distributed funds to 4,400 schools in 775 forest counties, according to Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.).
The program expired in 2015, and Cantwell has urged the Trump administration to support its renewal. When it expired, the government returned to the old formula of giving counties 25 percent of timber proceeds.
Most of the affected counties are in California, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington and Alaska.
Stewardship contracting appeared as a pilot program in 1999, with 28 projects around the country. Initially, lawmakers figured that the economic benefit of timber operations would reach localities and that revenue sharing wasn’t necessary, Brink said.
The government contracts for up to 10 years with companies for forest management projects that also include prescribed burns. The federal government receives some of the proceeds of sales, and that money goes back into future stewardship contracts.
The contracting program has had support from timber companies and forestry groups such as the National Association of State Foresters and the Pinchot Institute for Conservation, which monitors and evaluates the role of communities in stewardship contracting.
Most stewardship contracting is through the Forest Service, rather than BLM.
In 2013, the Forest Service issued 195 contracts, which allowed for the production of 865,000 tons of biofuel from the thinning of 171,000 acres and the reduction of hazardous fuels on 69,000 acres, the group American Forests reported. In total, 36,000 acres of forest vegetation and 72,000 acres of wildlife habitat were improved through these contracts.
More than one-fourth of all timber harvested from national forests was through stewardship contracting that year, American Forests reported, citing Forest Service data.
Uncertainty over the Secure Rural Schools program may be sparking the drive for a change to stewardship contracting, Brink said.
The program lapsed for a period in 2014 also, leading to an 80 percent decline in payments to counties, the National Association of Counties said in a letter to leaders on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in 2016.
NACo is lobbying for revenue sharing, as well as for renewal of the schools program. That’s one reason the group supports broader forest management legislation proposed by Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), the “Resilient Federal Forests Act,” which devotes revenue to counties, said a NACo spokesman, David Jackson.
Revenue from stewardship contracting supports a wide range of county services, NACo said.
“NACo supports stewardship end results contracting projects as a tool to manage federal forests and rangelands, but only if they retain the historical receipts sharing with counties,” the group said in its platform of issues for 2016 and 2017.
Photo is from this article https://collectively.org/article/weed-who-cares-if-its-legal-its-how-they-grow-it-that-matters/.
I’m posting this as an example of a court case that doesn’t involve the FS nor public land management but does relate to environmental policy. In some respects, it’s even odder than our FS cases as it apparently is looking to re-regulate an industry with new criteria.
This case, taken as reported by Colorado Politics here, is interesting in the light of environmental requirements for industrial activities.
In the 2013 request, the group of teenagers asked the state to deny drilling permits “unless the best available science demonstrates, and an independent third party organization confirms, that drilling can occur in a manner that does not cumulatively, with other actions, impair Colorado’s atmosphere, water, wildlife, and land resources, does not adversely impact human health and does not contribute to climate change.
The group of teenagers – with help from attorneys that represent environmental groups – took the case to Denver District Court, which sided with the state. The case was appealed, with attorneys arguing that the lower court misinterpreted the mission of the COGCC.
But why stop with the oil and gas industry? It seems to me that independent third party organizations could certify.. the outdoor industry (think of all that driving to outdoor sites), craft breweries, and so on. Perhaps Colorado should not have legalized marijuana until it met the same bar- but of course the marijuana industry uses lots of energy provided by … electrical utilities..using coal, natural gas, and renewable sources. Here’s an article about the environmental impacts of growing operations. And here’s one on the marijuana industry pushing back on control over pesticides -with potential serious harm to workers and users. Here’s another one on energy use of the developing industry- it’s really just getting started in many states.
The curious thing is that natural gas a better bridge to lower carbon energy sources than coal. It seems to me and many other that a bridge is necessary- and there are no obvious other contenders around. Energy is necessary, to raise cannabis and brew beer, and for a variety of other uses like running computers, growing crops, heating your house, and so on and I don’t see us transitioning immediately to carbon-free sources.
I guess that’s what’s odd about court cases as a method for policy development- individual cases tend to be discrete and unique (and in this case related to the mission of the Oil and Gas Commission), whereas “what kind of activities will Colorado allow that impact the environment” is a much broader question. It’s one, in my mind, better settled by open dialogue among the people and their elected officials.
If you listen to most western politicians – regardless of political party – talk about the U.S. Forest Service’s timber sale program you’ve likely heard them describe it as a failure. Many of these same politicians give the general public the impression that next to zero logging is taking place on America’s national forests because of countless lawsuits from “extremists” and “obstructionists.”
The other day, to dig a little deeper into this issue, I contacted the U.S. Forest Service Northern Region’s public affairs officer. I told her I wanted to compare the annual timber sale volume attained by the U.S. Forest Service in Montana and north Idaho with the timber sale volume targets set by the U.S. Forest Service, which are based on the funding the agency receives from Congress.
After the Forest Service’s public affairs officer and myself shared a chuckle about how terrible the U.S. Forest Service’s websites are, especially if you want to explore some of these issues in more detail, I was directed to this website.
I was told, “Look at the Periodic Timber Sale Accomplishment Report (PTSAR) reports. The 4th quarter of each year is the final report for that particular fiscal year. Line T and Line U give the planned and completed targets.”
So, that’s what I did to come up with the chart above. There’s lots of ways to look at those numbers I suppose. One way is to say that overall, during the past 15 years, the U.S. Service in the Northern Region has attained 89% of their timber sale volume targets, which again are based on funding from Congress. 89% seems like a B+, if we were grading papers in school, and far from a failing grade.
Another way to look at those numbers is that in 7 of the past 15 years the U.S. Forest Service has attained between 94% and 117% of their timber sale volume targets. When is the last time you heard a U.S. senator or representative from Montana or Idaho celebrate and share numbers like this with the general public?
Also at the link provide by the Forest Service, there’s a section about “Uncut Volume Under Contract” and “Timber Sale Program Statistics.” That information was also very interesting to me, but I noticed that no link was provided. I was told by the Forest Service public affairs officer “Those links are disabled right now as the reports contained errors so we removed them.” I have to wonder what errors those reports contained and how long the errors were in those reports. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the timber industry objected to not only the specifics of what was contained in that “Uncut Volume Under Contract” report, but also perhaps objected to its presence in the first place. Hopefully the errors are corrected soon and the links go back up on the Forest Service website.
In March of 2015, the Flathead National Forest’s Joe Krueger was interviewed on Montana Public Radio about their on-going forest plan revision process. One question was specifically about the Flathead National Forest’s projected timber sale volume in their new forest plan. Krueger had this to say:
“A big factor that constrains how much wood products is coming off the [Flathead National Forest] is our existing budget. So that number of 28 million board feet of timber that we’re projecting as our timber sale quantity is constrained by budgets.”
Which brings us back to those western politicians, especially the ones who hold the U.S. taxpayer’s purse-strings and divvy up the federal budget. While practically every time any of these politicians talk about logging on National Forests they will blame lawsuits from “extremists” and “obstructionists” environmentalists for the (supposed) lack of logging, when is the last time you heard the Montana or Idaho congressional delegation call on the rest of Congress to greatly increase the U.S. Forest Service’s timber sale budget?
Seems to me that since the U.S. Forest Service in the Northern Region has managed to attain 89% of their targeted timber sale volume over the past 15 years that our political leaders should be much more honest and share this fact with the general public, and perhaps if they want to increase logging on National Forests the politicians should look in the mirror and put money where their mouth is.
NOTE: This post has been updated to include the total annual timber sale volume target in CCF, in addition to the percentage of that volume that was attained in any given year. As you can see, the timber volume targets themselves have changed over time.
In fact, the 2016 target is 72% higher than the 2002 target. And in general, the target has increased steadily over the past 15 years. This should put the 89% attainment in even greater focus, as the U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Region has attained 89% of their steadily increasing timber sale volume targets over the past 15 years.
Also, corrected was incorrect date for FY 2006. Originally, I listed 44%, but upon further review that 44% was only the attainment for one national forest in the U.S. Forest Service’s Northern Region, not the total attainment for the region, which in FY 2006 was actually 76%. I apologize for the error, which was in part caused by the fact that for some reason the Forest Service chart for FY 2006 lead with the individual national forests, not the region-wide totals, as all the charts from the other years did.
A new study recently published in ECOSPHERE, an open access journal, found “found forests with higher levels of protection had lower severity values even though they are generally identified as having the highest overall levels of biomass and fuel loading.”
Here’s the Abstract, and again the full study can be viewed here.
ABSTRACT:
There is a widespread view among land managers and others that the protected status of many forestlands in the western United States corresponds with higher fire severity levels due to historical restrictions on logging that contribute to greater amounts of biomass and fuel loading in less intensively managed areas, particularly after decades of fire suppression. This view has led to recent proposals—both administrative and legislative—to reduce or eliminate forest protections and increase some forms of logging based on the belief that restrictions on active management have increased fire severity. We investigated the relationship between protected status and fire severity using the Random Forests algorithm applied to 1500 fires affecting 9.5 million hectares between 1984 and 2014 in pine (Pinus ponderosa, Pinus jeffreyi) and mixed-conifer forests of western United States, accounting for key topographic and climate variables. We found forests with higher levels of protection had lower severity values even though they are generally identified as having the highest overall levels of biomass and fuel loading. Our results suggest a need to reconsider current overly simplistic assumptions about the relationship between forest protection and fire severity in fire management and policy.
In the spirit of the goal of this blog being “to solicit broad participation from a cross-section of interests in a respectful atmosphere of mutual learning on topics related to the Forest Service and public lands policy”, here’s a press release from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). – mk
Washington, DC —David Bernhardt, Trump’s nominee for Interior’s Deputy Secretary, abetted the doctoring of scientific findings about effects of oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in his first stint at Interior, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Bernhardt was the key aide to then-Interior Secretary Gale Norton when her office substantially rewrote official biological assessments to falsely downplay impacts of drilling before she transmitted them to Congress.
Back in May 2001, Senator Frank Murkowski, then Chair of the Energy & Natural Resources Committee, asked Norton for Interior’s official evaluation of the impacts of oil drilling on the Porcupine caribou herd in ANWR. Norton tasked the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) with developing answers. The resulting FWS findings were then rewritten in Norton’s office when Bernhardt, one of the few political staff in her office, served as Counselor to the Secretary and Director of Congressional Affairs.
The extensive changes made by Norton’s shop were extensive and all skewed one way by:
• Changing Numbers. While FWS noted “there have been PCH [Porcupine caribou herd] calving concentrations within the 1002 Area in 27 of the last 30 years,” Interior changed that to say “Concentrated calving occurred primarily outside of the 1002 Area in 11 of the last 18 years.” [emphases added]
• Ignoring Key Data. FWS reported that calving reproductive “pauses” (years that females do not produce a calf) is higher in developed areas in Prudhoe Bay than in undisturbed areas. Interior left these data out and instead stated that “Parturition and recruitment data do not support the hypothesis that oil fields adversely affect caribou productivity.”
• Spinning Absence of Data. Norton stated that “There is no evidence that the seismic exploration activities or the drilling of the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation exploratory well…have had any significant negative impact on the Porcupine caribou herd,” but she omitted the FWS disclaimer that “no studies were conducted to determine the effects of the above activities on the PCH.”
“It appears Mr. Bernhardt shares an unfortunate affinity for alternative facts,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch, noting that Bernhardt was a point person on both Arctic and petroleum issues when he was at Interior. “The Senate needs to thoroughly investigate his role in this blatant political manipulation of science before considering his nomination.”
In letters Bernhardt sent to Senators to contain fallout from PEER’s revelation of these falsifications, he sought to minimize the discrepancies, writing “we made a mistake in the letter” as if there was only one alteration. He later wrote that the FWS assessment had been “edited for responsiveness.”
“Interior is largely a science-based agency, necessitating a Deputy Secretary dedicated to scientific integrity over political spin,” added Ruch, who is asking the Senate to hold up confirmation proceedings until Bernhardt’s exact role can be determined. “It is beyond ironic that Mr. Bernhardt resurfaces at Interior just as the status of safeguards for the Arctic Refuge is revisited.”
The current issue (May 25th, 2017) of the New York Review of Books contains a review of two books on owls, penned by reviewer Robert O. Paxton (I didn’t know, BTW, that he was an “owlologist” – try saying that fast 25 times! – or an “owlophile”). Anyhow, there wasn’t much on the spotted owl and the timber controversy of the U.S. Northwest therein. But I thought I’d pass along what there was, FYI:
“Efforts to protect one species of North American owl became an issue in the 1992 presidential election. President George H.W. Bush warned that if environmentalists like vice-presidential candidate Al Gore got their way, “we’ll be up to our necks in owls and outta work for every American.” The owl in question was the spotted owl, a midsized forest owl of the Pacific Northwest that disappears when old-growth forest is cut. Efforts to preserve old-growth forest for the bird infuriated workers in the declining lumber industry. They sported bumper stickers that read “shoot an owl, save a logger.” The issue has now subsided, mostly because the loggers, having lost the “spotted owl war,” found other work or other homes.
“Today the few spotted owls that remain in the United States (they are nearly gone from Canada) have a new enemy. The closely related but more aggressive barred owl, abundant in the eastern United States, is expanding into the Pacific Northwest, where it pushes out the slightly smaller spotted owl. The US Forest Service has been discreetly culling barred owls in that region. Even so, the spotted owl could become the first North American owl to go extinct.”
A recent court decision, Alliance Wild Rockies v Farnsworth, is interesting in that the court denied a suit aimed at halting salvage logging in Montana. The conclusion of B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, United States District Court, is unusual for its commentary:
Conclusion
In the West, fuel and climate are combining to create intense wildfires. Fuels are increasing at an alarming rate as invasive plant species spread across the landscape, while at the same time climate change is lengthening the fire season. This means burnt timber is becoming a major feature of our National Forests. If trees can be logged simply because they burned, we will reap massive clear-cuts. But small projects, fully vetted and properly designed to mitigate impacts, may be valuable in reducing hazards and funding reforestation efforts. The Tower and Grizzly Projects fit that mold. Under the particular facts of this case, the Court cannot find that Alliance has raised the serious questions necessary to obtain injunctive relief. For that reason, the Court will deny Alliance’s motion.
We all know that “science” is good and “politics” is bad, right? That’s if we don’t read in disciplines like sociology of science, or science policy studies (not “science”?).
As I noted recently, when journals that don’t usually talk about natural resource stuff start publishing things, there is usually some kind of political angle. Again, because “scientists” think a certain way (even if there were a poll of all scientists) that doesn’t make it “science.”
What’s the value of a national monument designation, aside from protection?
Frankly, it’s about money. Utah, like many states, has struggled to fund its own paleontology program. The state’s Bureau of Land Management office currently has just one paleontologist and two law enforcement officers. The national monument designation comes with a mandate for more funding for law enforcement, which means more eyes on the ground to keep fossil thieves at bay and more money for education “so that people know there are fossils out there,” Gay says.
If the question is “what is the best use of public resources for the BLM?” does anyone really think that that’s a “science” question? And as economists tell me, if it is a science question, wouldn’t economic and social sciences be involved? Does anyone who visits the BLM and FS lands out there not know there are fossils out there?
I did think it was interesting that the Monument Designation “comes a mandate for more funding for law enforcement”- hadn’t heard that before.
Do scientists think the land set aside in the Bears Ears National Monument is big enough to protect its treasures?
Not surprisingly, Obama’s order was a compromise. There’s a large region, called Red Canyon, that was dropped from the final monument boundary—it, too, contains a trove of Triassic fossils, Gay says. But mining companies are interested in its uranium deposits, and pushed successfully to exclude the canyon in the monument. Red Canyon has an existing mine, the Daneros Uranium Mine, which produces a concentrated form of uranium (known as yellow cake) to make fuel rods for power plants. The national monument designation would prohibit new mining operations, and the mine’s owner, Energy Fuels, is seeking to expand the mine from its current 2 hectares to about 19 hectares.
So scientists need the extra 17 hectares or about 42 acres of fossils out of 1,351,849 acres currently in the Monument?
But perhaps my favorite part is this history:
In July 2016, Representative Rob Bishop (R–UT), who is also the chairman of the House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources, and Representative Jason Chaffetz (R–UT) rolled out their Utah Public Lands Initiative, which included plans for what is now Bears Ears National Monument. However, the proposal, which promoted fossil fuel development in parts of the region and allowed motorized recreation, met with stiff opposition from both environmental and tribal groups, as well as from the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Bishop and Chaffetz tried unsuccessfully to win House approval for their plan before President Obama made the announcement.
Apparently not ALL tribal groups (based on our own information here and other news stories) but what a surprise! The FS and BLM (executive branch agencies) supported the President’s designation!!
Sorry, Science, I’m a scientist, too, and I don’t agree 1) that land use determination are science questions, although they should be informed by scientific data, nor 2) with the values espoused in this article.
“Not everyone is happy. The Sierra Club and a retired Forest Service forester say the 26 miles of temporary logging roads proposed are too much, and that they will be adopted by ATV users and encourage the spread of invasive species while disrupting threatened animals such as wolves and lynx.”
But implementing the project requires the roads, I reckon.
