Uncategorized

Text of an article from ClimateWire….

Forest Service seeks protection against lawsuits that delay management policies

Benjamin Hulac, E&E reporter

Published: Friday, July 17, 2015

Thomas Tidwell, the Forest Service chief, said yesterday that the agency would be open to a new arbitration system that would replace lawsuits meant to delay or derail federal forest management projects.

A May report for the Forest Service’s Northern Region, commissioned by the agency on regions of Montana, Idaho, Washington and the Dakotas, found that “in recent years, litigation has encumbered 40 to 50 percent of planned timber harvest and treatment acres” for the region (E&E Daily, May 11.

“I’m as frustrated as anybody when when we’ve done the work, we’ve done the job, we get litigated, a year later, the judge says ‘Yes you’re OK, go ahead,'” Tidwell told the Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests and Mining.

Subcommittee Chairman Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) introduced a bill in June, S. 1691, that would create two methods to resolve or impede litigation against the service — an arbitration program and a bond posting requirement from plaintiffs planning on suing the agency.

“I do think that it may get at the issue,” Tidwell said of the arbitration suggestion.

Asked by Barrasso for his opinion on litigation from “rogue, activist groups” blocking “consensus” forest projects, Tidwell said the legal delays are “frustrating at best.” Republican senators and industry witnesses also said legal snags are particularly irritating to logging operations and safe forest management.

Tidwell said the arbitration suggestion had merit, but said he was concerned that the bond mandate would prevent cash-strapped parties from voicing their concerns and could stir up more legal challenges.

“I’m worried that it will create more controversy and opposition,” he said of the bonding provision.

Lawmakers on the panel also considered a bill from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), S. 132, which the senator has said would provide stable business footing for the logging trade and local counties, and a proposal from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to raise so-called “cancellation ceilings.”

Fire suppression activities at risk

Under Flake’s measure, S. 326, the Forest Service could obligate a separate fund to cover the cancellation ceiling, the greatest amount a contractor can charge if its customer backs out of a contract. The current requirement on ceilings is “creating a reluctance around our workforce,” Tidwell said, adding that “the cost of fire suppression management” is the largest challenge facing the service.

The cost to fight fires in the United States has climbed sharply since the 1990s. So has the Forest Service’s budget to do so.

Of the agency’s 1995 appropriated budget, 16 percent went to firefighting activities, while 42 percent last year went to fight fires.

“That’s simply not sustainable,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said of the ramp-up. “Any solution is going to have to include fixing the forest budget.”

Since 1980, the average tally of wildfires on federal lands has roughly doubled and, after including non-federal lands, has approximately tripled. More than 40 percent of the National Forest System is in risky fire conditions and “in need of fuels and forest health treatments,” according to the Forest Service.

Compared with the preceding four decades, the 2000s were easily the most damaging 10-year period for fires, consuming just less than 7 million acres, according to Agriculture Department figures.

Bipartisan support from Western senators

Since 2000, at least 10 states have seen their largest recorded fires.

“You have a lightning strike in our part of the country, and all of a sudden, you have an inferno,” Wyden said.

Jim Neiman, chief executive of Neiman Enterprises, a timber company, said at the hearing that “activist litigation” and regulations, like the National Environmental Policy Act, slow forest management.

“Wildfires don’t wait for environmental reviews,” he said. “The current processes are an impediment to increasing the current pace and scale.”

Senators present yesterday broadly agreed that actively managing federal forests and culling overstocked stands are important to prevent fires, especially in drought and drought-like conditions.

Experts should focus on the healthy function and density of forests to prevent the some of the worst long-term tinderbox situations.

An overstocked forest, when “overlayed with climate change,” said Neiman, is particularly concerning.

Flake’s bill has 12 co-sponsors, all Western senators, including four Democrats and Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who said blocking litigation of forest projects would be welcome. Daines also said yesterday that he would back efforts to curb fire borrowing — when the Forest Service or another agency dips into other funds for fire-prevention programs.

The latest informal assessment gives them mixed reviews.

It lead me to take a quick look at the CEQ guidance for collaboration during NEPA (2007).  I don’t find that it makes a great case for collaboration between federal agencies and the public.  It is more directly aimed at interagency collaboration, where the authorities are more clear and positions more equal than those for the general public.

While the guidance suggests that the same principles could apply to the general public, its warnings for when to not collaborate seem likely to apply in the cases where we want to think of it as an alternative to litigation:

Parties have little motivation to collaborate if they believe they have better ways to achieve their interests. If a party believes it can achieve its goals through unilateral action, the courts, or the legislature, it might not be motivated to collaborate with others.

The specific situation the CEQ guidance applies to is “where an agency engages other governmental entities and/or a balanced set of affected and interested parties…”  Who gets to determine “balance” and based on what criteria?

I’d like to make a distinction (that CEQ didn’t make) between ‘collaborative groups’ and collaboration with such groups by the government.  The former would always be a good thing, and it would be reasonable for an agency to pay more attention in the NEPA process to (what it perceives as) a balanced collaborative group’s recommendations (for purpose and need, proposed action, alternatives that respond to environmental impacts, and even the preferred alternative) than for single-interest groups.  But for agency to give them preferential treatment, by collaborating with them, and not others, is asking for trouble (from NEPA and FACA at least). Some of the forest plan collaboration going on seems more like that.

I just received a press release about a new book, The Ecological Importance of Mixed-Severity Fires: Nature’s Phoenix, by Dominick DellaSala and Chad Hanson.

“For the first time extensive documentation from around the world reveals that
forests and other plant communities need a variety of different types of fires,
including severe ones, to rejuvenate over the long-term. These findings are timely as
Members of Congress propose to weaken environmental laws based on the
assumption that fires are damaging to forests, and logging is needed to reduce fire
effects.”

“For the first time”? Ask Steve Pyne about that.

The release goes on to say that one of the conclusions the authors draw is that “Forest thinning in the backcountry does not improve homeowner safety, and does not meaningfully influence large, weather-driven fires.”

My response: Thinning and fuels reduction CAN meaningfully influence large, weather-driven fires, as I saw for myself most recently on the 2014 36 Pit Fire in Oregon, where thinned areas had the effect we’d expect — the crown fire slowed, dropped to the ground, and gave firefighters a change to be successful with suppression.  Thinning and fuels reduction DOES reduce the likelihood of large, weather-driven fires and can help limit their spread an intensity.

I predict that numerous news outlets will cover this book.

Sent to me from a reader, this decision allows the Montana Governor’s recommendations for forest work to be legal. That doesn’t mean too much, as Federal projects still have to be crafted to survive the gauntlet of legal challenges ahead.

http://missoulian.com/news/local/judge-oks-bullock-s-right-to-designate-priority-forest-work/article_2019088d-0518-5811-a502-ece327d5e2c2.html

This does not settle the conflict over whether there is actually a forest health problem, or not. Many eco-groups don’t buy into any kind of a forest health “emergency” situation, in favor of more snag recruitment and diversity.

Here we have a timber sale controversy without either the timber industry or the ‘radical environmentalists.’  It just struck me as a good example of how the Forest Service can keep its eyes on the prize more easily, and fend off local public criticism, by having a relatively objective and measurable benchmark of ecological integrity to meet for a national forest (as established by the 2012 Planning Rule).

Late last year, the couple learned that the Forest Service has proposed returning 18,000 acres in the forest’s Cassville unit to pre-settlement conditions, a time when the forest was much more open and trees were spaced much farther apart, thinned by occasional fires, compared with the denser stands of timber in the area today.

To that end, the federal agency responsible for the 1.5 million-acre Mark Twain National Forest is proposing thinning the number of trees in an area known as Butler Hollow, removing invasive cedars and restoring glades and savannahs. The plan includes riparian plantings, prescribed burns, some for-profit timber sales as well as a technique called cut and leave.

But this is not a controversy that pits conservationists and environmentalists against public land managers. In fact, the project has the backing of several national groups including the Nature Conservancy, the American Bird Conservancy and the National Wild Turkey Federation.

Those three groups issued a joint position statement endorsing the project, which said the plan “employs science and sound conservation practices to provide direct benefits to people and nature.” Benefits, according to the advocates, would be a healthier forest ecosystem as well as timber to help support the local economy, and improved recreational opportunities.

“We are concerned that some recent criticism of the project is based on an assumption that the area was dense forest. Data show that the area was originally a far more diverse complex of woodlands and glades,” the statement reads.

But JoNell Corn says to return the forest to pre-settlement conditions is “not a proven science.” Corn has lived in Butler Hollow for 38 years, following in the footsteps of her ancestors, who put down roots here in the 1850s.

“I have spent hours visiting other project areas and have had people express to me that they are not concerned with what it looked like before settlers came, they just wish it would look like it did before the USFS started cutting and burning,” she said.

Missouri’s U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt is another skeptic. During an Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies hearing this spring, he questioned U.S. Forest Service Chief Thomas Tidwell about plans for the Mark Twain National Forest.

“I don’t want to spend our time and effort here in doing things that won’t work,” said Blunt in the hearing, which was documented by video and can be seen online. “In theory with some of these burns, you’re trying to restore a landscape from a couple hundred years ago. Surely it’s worth a little time to see the science to whether that’s even possible or not and I’m just asking you to work harder with us.”

Just came across this press release from FEMA. If I read this right, the FEMA funding can be used only for “expenses for field camps; equipment use, repair and replacement; mobilization and demobilization activities; and tools, materials and supplies” — not for paying for crews, aircraft, etc.

Looks like this could be a bad fire. Inciweb (one day ago) reported 6,500 acres. A news article today says 7,800 acres. Another source says 8,500. No word on homes destroyed — may be a bunch.

FEMA provides federal funds to help fight the Sockeye Fire

Release date: JUNE 16, 2015
Release Number: 15-003
SEATTLE – The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has authorized the use of federal funds to help with firefighting costs for the Sockeye Fire, burning in Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska.

FEMA Region X Regional Administrator, Kenneth D. Murphy determined that the Sockeye Fire threatened such destruction as would constitute a major disaster. Murphy approved the state’s request for federal Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) on June 15, 2015 at 6:37 p.m. AKDT.

The fire started on June 14, 2015, and has burned approximately 6,500 acres of private and state land. At the time of the request, the fire had burned 25 homes and was threatening 893 primary homes in and around the town of Willow. Approximately 1700 people had evacuated the area. Sheltering operations have been ongoing and have had to relocate 3 times because of the dynamics of this fire. The Park Highway, local roads and bridges were closed and threatened.

Firefighting resources include a Type 1 Incident Management Team, 5 Hot Spot Crews, 10 Helicopters, 1 Air Tanker, 2 Engine Task Forces to support fire suppression activities. The Federal Principal Advisor confirmed the threat to homes. The fire is currently 0 percent contained. There are 24 other fires burning uncontrolled within the state.

The authorization makes FEMA funding available to pay 75 percent of the State of Alaska’s eligible firefighting costs under an approved grant for managing, mitigating and controlling designated fires. These grants provide reimbursement for firefighting and life-saving efforts. They do not provide assistance to individuals, homeowners or business owners and do not cover other infrastructure damage caused by the fire.

Fire Management Assistance Grants are provided through the President’s Disaster Relief Fund and made available by FEMA to assist in fighting fires that threaten to cause a major disaster. Eligible items can include expenses for field camps; equipment use, repair and replacement; mobilization and demobilization activities; and tools, materials and supplies.

It’s unlikely that Congress will pass this, but it is worth discussing the bill described here be The Missoulian:

“Zinke forest bill would require lawsuit bonds, reduce timber-sale analysis”

“The bill text and number were not available at press time. But in his statement, Zinke said it would boost Montana’s timber industry by allowing the state to contribute to a revolving fund that the Forest Service could use for reducing wildfire threats.

“It would also limit analysis of forest projects proposed by collaborative groups to “action” or “no action” alternatives, rather than multiple choices. And it would require litigants who challenge collaborative projects to post cash bonds to cover the administrative costs of a lawsuit.”

Alliance for the Wild Rockies director Michael Garrity called the bonding requirement unconstitutional.

“If a bond is required, only rich people will continue to assert their First Amendment right to challenge government decisions,” Garrity said.

Unconstitutional?

You’ll either smile or grimmace at parts of this report, but it does show the very different natural regeneration after two fires. In both cases, the USFS apparently allowed nature to take sits course. Kudos to KRCR News Channel 7, Redding, California, for doing the story, “This is how a forest fixes itself.”

“The Oregon Fire of 2001, just outside of Weaverville, left devastation on the landscape that has yet to grow back 14 years later.

“In comparison to the Eagle Fire of 2008, in a similar region of Trinity County, this wildfire burned large patches of landscape, but the forest is already starting to rebuild itself with trees and shrubs 7 years later.

“Why is it that the landscape of the Eagle Fire is healing in half the time as the Oregon Fire landscape?”

Worth a look: “ADAPTATION AND COLLABORATION: A Western Lumber Business Confronts Timber Withdrawal,” written by  Russ Vaagen, Vice President, Vaagen Brothers Lumber, on the Forest Resources Association’s web site.

I’ve seen Vaagen’s Colville mill. Amazing what they can do with small logs. A few years ago, they were selling chips to a power plant, Avista’s Kettle Falls Generating Station. At the time, biomass power from the plant was more expensive than power from “cheap” natural gas plants. However, the state’s renewable portfolio standard required the use of biomass and other renewable fuels. In effect, Avista’s rate payers were subsidizing the use of wood chips at the Kettle Falls Generating Station.

Here’s what I thought was the best story about this…thank you, Kevin Torres (KUSA), here’s a link and below is an excerpt.

The Mountains of the Rio Grande National Forest conceal mystery. The sort of mystery that fills a field as it fills a void.

Hidden away in the 1.8-million-acre forest is a treasure few people are aware of. It was created nearly 20 years ago by a man who devoted the remaining years of his life to honoring soldiers who fought in the Vietnam War.

“He was really enchanted with it. It was his only goal in life for the last 30 years,” Phyllis Beckley Roy said.

Roy is referring to her brother, Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Allen Beckley. Beckley fought in Vietnam from 1962 through 1973. After the war, Roy said her brother was deeply impacted by Vietnam and wanted to do something for his fellow soldiers – as well as the other countries affected by the war.

“He just couldn’t believe that people could not know what was going on, and he decided he would take any penny he could scrape together to build a memorial to honor the people who were not honored,” Roy said.

Beckley’s idea to build a stone memorial on national forest land was initially denied. But when the forest supervisor for the Rio Grande National Forest, Jim Webb (now retired), discovered Beckley was dying of cancer, he changed his mind.

Beckley’s last mission in life was to establish a lasting tribute in memory of the soldiers of Vietnam and Laos. His dream eventually became reality. By the mid-90s, SOLDIERSTONE had been built.

“He designed it, and he bought everything that went into it,” Roy said.

Beckley didn’t have many connections to Colorado. He chose the Rio Grande National Forest because of its proximity to the Continental Divide – and because it was a large forest that could easily hide his memorial.

According to Roy, Beckley didn’t want many people to know about it. He never intended for large crowds to visit it and to take pictures of it.

“The idea was he wanted it to be secluded. He didn’t want people to vandalize it,” Roy said.

Here’ an excellent news video about the site and the history.