6-3-4-5-7-8-9 (that’s my number!)

employeedirectory

Sorry, folks, the Forest Service has decided that you can no longer access its employees’ phone numbers or email addresses. In a taking-out-the-trash-timed move during the Holidays, the Forest Service deleted its on-line employee directory from the web. The former last-name searchable directory reported location, phone and email addresses for each Forest Service worker plus private contractors with FS email addresses. About 40,000 folks altogether.

How do I know how many? Years ago, FSEEE sent the FS a Freedom of Information Act request for this directory. “No such document exists,” was the response. Hmm . . . of course the data exist, but the FS said that FOIA does not obligate it to push the computer’s “print” command.

Dead end? Not quite. Turns out that anyone with internet access could push the button on-line and cause the agency’s computer to download the data. That was fun. Eventually, however, the Forest Service’s immune system caught on to our harvesting and blocked further access with those little American flag icons that overlaid each employee’s email address, turning simple-to-read HTML code into indecipherable garbage.

End-of-the-line? Not quite. One nice thing about the FS’s loathing of USDA oversight is that there’s almost no communication between the agency and its departmental masters. The USDA’s website had the same data, bundled up with its other agencies. So for several years we pointed our little automated harvesting machine to usda.gov.

Those gravy days of public accessibility are now dead. When you click on the”Employee Search” link, you get only the office phone directory, which, in case you missed it on the FS’s home page, has a duplicate link below called “Office Directory.”

Salvage: Private vs. Public Land

An AP article appeared in several Oregon newspapers over the last few days, such as this one: “Private forest owners have started salvaging timber burned this summer.”

Excerpt:

Salvage logging on land burned by last summer’s Douglas Complex wildfire in southwestern Oregon is in full swing in privately owned forests, but not in federal ones.

Roseburg Forest Products has cut 8 million board feet of timber from its lands outside Glendale and plans to cut 32 million board feet more, The News-Review reported. One million board feet is roughly enough to build 50 homes.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management is still deep in the planning process and has no firm timber targets for the public land.

With that planning process and the likely appeals and perhaps litigation, I reckon no Douglas Complex timber will be salvaged from federal lands. Phil Adams, timber manager for Roseburg Forest Products, is “afraid that burned timber on BLM lands will turn into brush and stands of dead trees unless they are aggressively managed.”

On a related topic, I re-watched a rebroadcast of an episode of Oregon Public Broadcasting’s excellent Oregon Field Guide, Season 23, Episode 2, a portion of which is “Elk at Mount St. Helens.” In the area where forests were blown down or buried by the eruption in 1980, private timberlands were salvaged and replanted, and Weyerhaeuser conducted its first commercial thinning in 2005. On federal lands in the Mount St. Helens National Volcanic Monument, “the environment is left to respond naturally to the disturbance,” according to the Monument’s web site. The Oregon Field Guide program described the huge increase in the elk population in the Monument — elk like the open space and forage. (The program didn’t say so, but I’d bet that the elk also like the cover they find in the stands of young timber on private lands, since there’s little cover on the federal side.) However, the elk population has grown so large that there isn’t enough forage. Scenes of emaciated elk and rotting carcasses led to a public call for the government to “do something,” and that they did — they brought in hay during the winter. So much for letting the environment “respond naturally to the disturbance.” Now, if wolves had been reintroduced….

 

 

 

A New Year of Forest Planning under the 2012 Rule

The Sierra, Sequoia and Inyo national forests have released their first ‘decisions’ in their plan revision process as early adopters under the 2012 planning rule.  Their ‘Preliminary Need for Change’ can be found here:

Click to access stelprdb5444578.pdf

Some things I found interesting:

“Under current plan revision timeline, it is possible to address only a few emphasis areas.”  I wonder what role collaboration played in setting deadlines, or how well collaboration can work if there are deadlines (especially if not collaboratively agreed upon).

“Not all changes must be addressed now.”  Have you revised a plan if you put off revising parts of it?

“Single species management approaches in the current plans limit landscape approaches that are critical to address dense forests and uncharacteristic fire.”  I’ll be looking for facts that support this statement, since viability of species of conservation concern is a key provision of the 2012 planning rule (and isn’t much different from the viability requirement of current plans).

“We are designing a programmatic plan. Most roads issues are more appropriately dealt with at the project level.”   Shouldn’t forest plans provide guidance for transportation systems and their use for both travel management planning and projects – excluding roads in some places or encouraging them in others?  Can a transportation network be designed project by project?  Hasn’t the FS said these kinds of questions are outside the scope of projects?

“Current forest plans emphasize fuel hazard reduction in the immediate area around WUI. This has led to less treatment in the surrounding wildland landscape.  … Increased pace and scale of restoration of resilience in the surrounding, larger landscape would have a substantial effect on fire threat in the WUI.”  From numerous posts here, this seems debatable.  Does this mean the plan needs to emphasize fuel hazard reduction beyond the WUI and less treatment in the WUI?

Conservationists Sue to Stop Wolf and Coyote Killing Contest on Public Lands

Visit www.wildearthguardians.org to learn more. Below is a portion of their press release.

Pocatello, ID – On December 23 a coalition of conservation organizations sued the U.S. Forest Service for failure to require permits and environmental impacts analysis for the advertised “Coyote and Wolf Derby” in Salmon, Idaho, December 28 and 29. The lawsuit seeks an order requiring the agency inform the killing contest sponsors and participants that shooting wolves and coyotes on public lands as part of the contest is illegal without the required environmental analyses and permits.

“Killing contests that perpetuate false stereotypes about key species like wolves and coyotes that play essential roles in healthy ecosystems have no place on public lands.” Said Bethany Cotton, wildlife program director at WildEarth Guardians. “The Forest Service is abdicating its responsibilities as steward of our public lands. We are asking the agency to comply with the law: require a permit application and do the necessary environmental analysis, including providing a public comment process, to ensure our public lands and wildlife are protected.”

The killing contest is charging an entry fee, advertising prizes for the largest wolf and the most coyote carcasses, among other award categories, and specifically offering opportunities for children as young as 10 to kill for prizes. Commercial activities like the killing contest are prohibited on public lands without a special use permit. An application for a special use permit triggers application of the National Environmental Policy Act. Highly controversial activities are exempted from fast track permitting. In contrast to the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) informed the killing contest sponsors that a special use permit is required. To date, BLM has not received an application. Hunting on BLM administered public lands as part of the killing contest is therefore illegal.

Here’s a copy of the brief.

“Counties in Crisis”: A Draft Introductory Narrative

Note from Ron:  Earlier this month, I posted an article on Shoshone County, Idaho’s 2005 documentary, “Forests in Crisis” at the “Not Without a Fight!” blog — including a field for viewing the 27-minute film.  Yesterday, by way of continuing the same theme, I posted a possible draft intro to a new and updated version of the County’s film, now titled, “Counties in Crisis.”  Sharon generously invited me to cross-post the newer article to “A New Century of Forest Planning.”  Thank you, Sharon!

U.S. national forests and grasslands
U.S. national forests and grasslands

Scene One:  Setting Up The Problem

It’s a story that, for the most part, has fallen below the national news horizon.

America’s 155 national forests cover almost 190 million acres, the great majority in the West.  This great expanse of forested land falls across and affects more than 700 American counties, roughly a fifth of the nation’s total number of counties.  Some counties host only small patches of national forest while in others national forests may cover much or even most of their landscapes.

This presence has manifold consequences for local communities.  The Forest Service owns and governs these lands, thus limiting the inputs of local citizens and governments to an advisory role only.  For many years, national forests and local communities got on tolerably well.  The Forest Service’s multi-use philosophy made ample room for the needs and economies of local communities.  But this working relationship has broken down.  Now, local communities and counties have in effect become unhappy captives of Forest Service policies and limitations –- policies that no longer serve local needs and aspirations.

There are four basic local needs that define the relationship, and thus also the breakdown:

  1. The protection and enhancement of forest health;
  2. the protection and enhancement of local forest-related economic activity;
  3. the planning and execution of hazardous fuels reduction and forest thinning to reduce threat of catastrophic wildfire; and
  4. the provision of adequate support for the functioning or operation of local governments and schools.

In better times, each of these four domains helped serve the requirements of the others, all acting in concert to keep local communities and their surrounding forests healthy, productive, and in balance.  In bad times, however, the four domains act against one another, thus exacerbating the circumstances within each domain.  Without timber harvests, for example, the increase of fuel in the forest worsens the risk of catastrophic wildfire; by the same token, the absence of revenue from such harvests weakens county government and school resources and, as well, shortchanges Forest Service efforts to manage forest health.   (continue reading)

Overstory Zero: Oregon Treeplanting Nostalgia

Greg Nagle came across this essay by Robert Leo Heilman that he asked me to post here. Heilman has been called one of the best writers in Oregon, and the following prose demonstrates why. He lives in Myrtle Creek, Oregon, just about an hour south from me on I-5, but I have never met him before (that I know of), and when I called on the phone to get his permission to post this, it was probably the first time we ever talked. Greg and I disagree with a few of Heilman’s assertions, but I think we are in agreement as to the quality of his work and his ability to capture the essence of much of treeplanting in the Pacific Northwest in the 1970’s and early 1980’s. Heilman agreed to the post, but with the request that I provide a link to his own blog, which contains this writing and several more of similar quality and insight: http://robertheilman.wordpress.com/

Overstory:Zero

THE MAIN THING

The main thing is to have a big breakfast. It’s not any easy thing to do at 4 AM, but it is essential because lunch won’t come for another seven or eight hours and there’s four or more hours of grueling work to do before you can sit down and open up your lunch box.

The kids on the crew, 18 year-olds fresh out of high school, sleep in the extra half-hour and don’t eat until the morning store stop on the way out to the unit. They wolf down a Perky Pie, a candy bar and a can of soda in the crummy, good for a one hour caffeine and sugar rush. They go through the brush like a gut-shot cat for awhile and then drag ass for the rest of the morning.

But if you’re a grizzled old timer, in your mid-twenties, you know how to pace yourself for the long haul. You’re exhausted, of course, and your calves, hips, arms and lower back are stiff and sore. But you’re used to that.

You’re always tired and hurting. The only time you feel normal is when you’re on the slopes, when the stiffness and fatigue are melted off by the work. It gets worse every morning until by Saturday it takes hours to feel comfortable on a day off. Sunday morning you wake up at 4 o’clock wide awake and ready to stomp through downtown Tokyo breathing fire and scattering tanks with your tail.

Your stomach is queasy but you force the good food into it anyway, a big stack of pancakes with peanut butter and syrup, four eggs, bacon and a pint of coffee. There is a point when your belly refuses to take any more. Saliva floods your mouth and you force back the retching, put the forkfull of food down on the plate and light another cigarette.

It’s dark outside and it’s raining, of course. They aren’t called the Cascades for nothing. It’s December and the solstice sun won’t rise until eight, three hours and a hundred miles from home, somewhere along a logging road upriver.

Rain coat and rain pants, hardhat, rubber work gloves, cotton liner gloves and a stiff pair of caulk boots stuffed with newspaper crowd around the woodburner. All the gear is streaked with mud except the boots which are caked with an inch-thick mud sole covering the steel spikes. The liner gloves hang stiff and brown, the curving fingers frozen, like a dismembered manikin’s hand making an elegant but meaningless gesture.

Mornings are slow. It’s hard to move quickly when your stomach is bloated, your body is stiff and, despite the coffee, your mind is still fatigue-foggy. You have to move though or miss your ride and lose your job. You try an experimental belch which doesn’t bring up too much half-chewed food with it and relieves the pressure.

The laxative effect of the coffee would send you to the toilet but your ride to town is due soon, so you save it for later. Better to shit on company time anyway, squatting out in the brush. It gives you a pleasant break, a few minutes of hard to come by privacy, and it pisses Jimboy, the foreman, off, since, being a college boy and therefore trained to worry about what people think of him, he could never bring himself to actually complain about it.

Lester the Rat taught him that lesson the first week of the season. Les had just planted a seedling and straightened up and turned his back on the slope to empty his bladder. The foreman glanced back to see him standing there with his back turned and staring idly across to the opposite slope.

“Hey, Gaines, get back to work! Let’s go!”

The Rat turned to face him and shook the last golden drops off. He smiled pleasantly, showing a mouth full of crooked snoose-stained teeth. “Sure thing Jim.” he said mildly, “You bet.” None of the professors up at the university had ever mentioned anything like that and Jimboy blushed delicately while all up and down the line the crew snickered.

Jimboy makes more money than you do and doesn’t work as hard, which is bad enough. But he’s also afraid. It’s his first winter on the slopes and he’s not used to riding herd on a gang of brush apes. He also wants to make a good impression on his boss, the head forester, so he tries to push his eleven man crew into ever greater production. He sees himself as a leader of men, a rugged scientist overseeing the great work of industrial progress.

Everyone tries to get his goat so that, with any luck, he’ll amuse us some day by breaking out in tears like Tommyboy, the last foreman, did. “You guys are just animals.” Tommyboy had sobbed, setting off a delighted chorus of wolf howls and coyote yelps. It was the highpoint of the planting season and a considerable source of pride for the whole crew.

KAMIKAZES

There’s a flash of headlights and the crunch of gravel in the driveway. Mighty Mouth awaits in his battered old Ford. You pull up your suspenders and start slapping your pockets: tobacco pouch and rolling papers, matches, bandanna, wad of toilet paper, pocket watch, jack knife, store stop money– all there. You put on a baseball cap and a plaid woolen overshirt and gather up your gear: caulks, extra socks, rubber gloves, cotton liners, hard hat, rain gear, coffee thermos and feed bucket and step out into the rain.

There’s nothing to talk about on the half hour drive down the creek and downriver to the mill. You know each other too well by now, riding and working together twelve to fourteen hours a day– two moonlit rides and a picnic lunch every day– for three winters. The Mouth holds a beer bottle between his thighs into which he spits his chew as he drives.

You roll a cigarette and listen to the radio and peer out through the windshield watching for the twin reflection of deer eyes ahead. The road is narrow and winding, the roadside brush thick, and you never know just when a deer will step out or leap, windshield high, in front of you. Every day, somewhere on the drive, you see at least one fresh deer carcass on the road. Headlights dazzle the deer and usually they stand there frozen in their tracks before leaping aside at the last moment. Sometimes they leap towards the headlights though, always a suicidal move for the deer, but, like a kamikaze pilot, they can kill too.

CRUMMY TIME

The mercury arc lamps light up the mill with a weird, hellish orange glow. Steam rises from the boilers and there’s a sour rotting smell everywhere. The huge metal buildings bristle with an improbable looking tangle of chains and belts and pipes. There’s a constant whistling, clanging and screaming of saws and machinery coming from them. Bug-eyed forklifts and log loaders crawl around the half-lit yards, mechanical insects scurrying to keep up.

Through the huge open doorways you can see the mill hands at work in their tee shirts, sorting out an unending river of lumber and veneer into neat stacks. The mill workers sweat like desperate dwarves. They make more money than you and stay dry but you feel pity and contempt for them. The poor bastards stand in one spot all night, moving to the computerized lightning rhythm of conveyors instead of their own human speed. The cavernous interior of the mill sheds seem as cramped as closets compared to the open mountain slopes.

You work for the mill but not in the mill, on a company reforestation crew. Most of the company land is planted by contract crews, but the mill runs a crew that plants land that the contractors won’t touch– too steep or too ravaged, too old or too brushy for them.

Acres away, beyond the log pond, past the five story tall walls of stacked logs, next to the hangar sized heavy equipment repair shop, is a small refrigerated trailer full of seedling trees in waxed boxes. Each box contains 600 trees in bundles of fifty.

Mudflap and Sluggo are helping Jimboy load tree boxes into the back of a four wheel drive crew-cab pickup. They are young, straight out of high school, and eager to get a promised job in the mill come spring– if they “work hard and show up every day”, of course. So, they help load trees and ride with the foreman every morning.

You transfer your gear over to a mud covered Chevy Suburban crummy. If you’ve ever ridden in one you know why they’re called crummies. The rig is a mess, both outside and inside. The seats are torn, the headliner is gone, the ceiling often drips from the condensed breath of it’s packed occupants. But you have a great fondness for the ugly thing. It is an oasis of comfort compared to the slopes.

We spend a large part of our lives roaring up and down river powered by its monster 454 V-8. Of course, none of this travel, or crummy time, as it’s called, is paid time. Only the forty hours per week on the slopes earns us money. The other 10-20 hours of crummy tedium is not the company’s concern. Together with the half hour lunch, also unpaid, we spend 11-13 hours a day together for our eight hours’ pay. All winter long we see each other more than we see our wives and children. We know each other intimately after so many cramped hours. We bicker and tease each other half-heartedly, like an old bitter couple, out of habit more than need.

ARITHMETIC

The ten of us plant about 7,000 seedling trees every day, or about 700 “‘binos” apiece, enough to cover a little over an acre of logged off mountainside each. It gets depressing when you start adding it up: 700 per day= 3,500 per week= 14,000 per month= 56,000 trees in a season for one man planting one tree at a time.

Maybe you’ve seen the TV commercials put out by “The Tree Growing Company”: Helicopter panoramas of snow capped mountains, silvery lakes and rivers, close ups of cute critters frolicking, 30 year old stands of second growth all green and even as a manicured lawn and a square-jawed handsome woodsman tenderly planting a seedling. The commercials make reforestation seem heart warming, wholesome and benevolent, like watching a Disney flick where a scroungy mutt plays the role of a wild coyote.

Get out a calculator and start figuring it: 700 trees in eight hours= 87.5 trees per hour, or 1.458 trees per minute– a tree punched in every 41 seconds. How much tenderness can a man give a small green seedling in 41 seconds?

Planting is done with an improbable looking tool called a hoedag. Imagine a heavy metal plate 14 inches long and four inches wide, maybe five pounds of steel, mounted on a single-bit axe handle. Two or three sideways hacking strokes scalp a foot square patch of ground, three or four stabs with the tip and the blade is buried up to the haft. (Six blows 700 times= 4,200 per day. At 5 lbs. @ that comes to 21,000 pounds of lifting per diem and many planters put in 900-1200 trees per day.)

You pump up and down on the handle, breaking up the soil, open the hole, dangle the roots down there and pull the hoedag out. The dirt pulls the roots down to the bottom of the hole, maybe 10 or 12 inches deep. You give it a little tug to pull the root collar even with the ground and tamp the soil around it with your foot.

The next tree goes in eight feet away from the last one and eight feet from the next man in line’s tree. Two steps and you’re there. It’s a sort of rigorous dance, all day long– scalp, stab, stuff stomp and split; scalp, stab, stuff, stomp and split– every 41 seconds or less, 700 or more times a day.

700 trees eight feet apart comes to a line of seedlings 5,600 feet long– a mile and some change. Of course, the ground is never level. You march up and down mountains all day– straight up and straight down, since, although nature never made a straight line, forestry professors and their students are quite fond of them. So, you climb a quarter mile straight down and then back up, eat lunch and do it again.

The ground itself is never really clear, even on the most carefully charred reforestation unit. Stumps, old logs, boulders and brush have to be gone over or through or around with almost every slash hampered step. Two watertight tree bags, about the size and shape of brown paper grocery bags, hang on your hips rubbing them raw under the weight of the 30-40 pounds of muddy seedlings stuffed inside them.

Generally, what’s left of the topsoil isn’t deep enough to sink a ‘dag in so you punch through whatever subsoil, rocks or roots lie hidden by the veneer of dirt.

It’s best not to think about it all. The proper attitude is to consider yourself as eternally damned, with no tomorrow or yesterday– just the unavoidable present to endure. Besides, you tell yourself,it’s not so bad once you get used to it.

OUTLAWS

Tree planting is done by outcasts and outlaws– winos and wetbacks, hill billys and hippies for the most part. It is brutal, mind-numbing, underpaid stoop labor. Down there in Hades, Sisyphus thinks about the tree planters and thanks his lucky star every day because he’s got such a soft gig.

Being at the bottom of the Northwest social order and the top of the local ass-busting order gives you an exaggerated pride in what you do. You invade a small grocery store like a biker gang, taking the uneasy stares of lesser beings as your natural due. It’s easy to mistake fear for higher forms of respect and as a planter you might as well. In a once rugged society gone docile, you have inherited a vanishing tradition of ornery individualism. The ghosts of drunken bullwhackers, miners, rowdy cowpunchers and bomb tossing wobblies count on you to keep alive the 120 proof spirit of irreverence towards civilization that built the west.

A good foreman, one who rises from the crew by virtue of out-working everybody else, understands this and uses it like a Marine DI to build his crew and drive them to gladly work harder than necessary. A foreman who is uncomfortable with the underlying violence of his crew becomes their target. It is rare for a crew to actually beat up a foreman, but it has happened. There are many ways to get around a weak foreman, most of which involve either goldbricking or baiting. After all, why work hard for someone you don’t respect and why bother to conceal contempt?

BAG-UP

The long, smelly ride ends on a torn up moonscape of gravel where last summer’s logging ended. No one stirs. You look out the foggy windows of the crummy through a grey mist of Oregon dew at the unit. You wonder what shape it’s in, how steep, how brushy, how rocky, red sticky clay or yellow doughy clay, freshly cut or decades old, a partial replanting or a first attempt. The answers lie hidden behind a curtain of rain and you’re not eager to find out.

The foreman steps out and with a few mutterings the crummies empty. Ten men jostle for their equipment in the back of the crummies. The hoedags and tree bags are in a jumbled pile. Most planters aren’t particular about which bag they use, provided it doesn’t leak muddy water down their legs all day, but each man has a favorite ‘dag which is rightfully his. A greenhorn soon learns not to grab the wrong one when it’s owner comes around cursing and threatening.

It’s an odd but understandable relationship between a planter and his main tool. You develop a fondness for it over time. You get used to the feel of it, the weight and balance and grip of it in your hand. Some guys would rather hand over their wives.

The hoedag is a climbing tool, like a mountaineer’s ice axe, on the steeper ground. It clears the way through heavy brush like a machete. You can lean on it like a cane to help straighten your sore back and it is the weapon of choice when self-defense (or a threat) is needed. It allows you to open up stumps and logs in search of the dark gold pitch which will start a fire in a cold downpour and to dig a quick fire trail if your break fire runs off up the hill.

The foreman hands out the big waxed cardboard boxes full of seedling trees. The boxes are ripped open with a hoedag blade and the planters carry double handfuls of trees, wired up in bundles of fifty, over to the handiest puddle to wet down their roots. Dry roots will kill a tree before it can get into the ground, so the idea isn’t purely a matter of adding extra weight to make the job harder– though that’s the inevitable result.

300-400 trees get stuffed into the double bags, depending on their size and the length of the morning’s run. If the nursery hasn’t washed the roots properly before bundling and packing, the mud, added water and trees can make for a load that is literally staggering.

No one puts on their bags until the boxes are burnt. It is an essential ritual and depriving a crew of their morning fire is, by ancient custom, held to be justifiable grounds for mutiny by crummy lawyers everywhere. Some argue that homicide in such a case would be ruled self-defense, but so far no one’s ever tested it.

The waxed cardboard burns wonderfully bright and warm. A column of flame fifteen feet high lights up the road and everyone gathers around to take a little warmth and a lot of courage. Steam clouds rise from your raingear as you rotate before the fire like a planet drawing heat from its sun. It feels great and you need it, because once the flames turn to ashes you’re going over the side.

“OK. Everybody get loaded and space-out.” The Mouth calls out. You strap on your bag, tilt your tin hat and grab your ‘dag. You shuffle over to the edge of the road and line up eight feet from the man on each side.

IN THE HOLE

The redoubtable Mighty Mouth, the third fastest planter, plants in the lead spot and the men behind him work in order from the fourth to the eighth fastest men. It is a shameful thing to plant slower than the guy behind you. If he’s impatient, or out to score some brownie points with the boss, he’ll jump your line and you plant in his position, sinking lower in the Bull-of-the-woods standings. Slow planters get fired and competition is demanded by the foreman.

There are many tricks to appearing to be faster than you really are–stashing trees, widening your spacing, pushing the man behind you into the rougher parts while you widen or narrow your line to stay in the gravy–but all of these will get you in trouble one way or another, if not with the boss then, worse still, with the crew.

The two fastest planters, the tail men, float behind the crew, planting two to ten lines apiece, straightening out the tree line for the next pass. They tie a bit of blue plastic surveyor’s tape to brush and sticks to mark the way for the lead man when he brings the crew back up from the bottom.

The notion is to cover the ground with an eight foot by eight foot grid of trees. If mountains were graph paper this would be easy, but instead, each slope has its own peculiar contours and obstacles which throw the line off. Each pass, if it follows a ragged line, will be more irregular than the last pass, harder to find and follow. It is difficult enough to coordinate a crew strung out over a hillside, each planter working at a different rate, going around obstacles such as stumps, boulders, cliffs and heavy brush, without compounding it by leaving a ragged unmarked line behind for the next pass.

CUMULATIVE IMPACT

It’s best not to look at the clearcut itself. You stay busy with whatever is immediately in front of you because, like all industrial processes, there is beauty in the details and ugliness in the larger view. Oil film on a rain puddle has an iridescent sheen that is lovely in a way that the junkyard it’s part of is not.

Forests are beautiful on every level, whether seen from a distance or standing beneath the trees or studying a small patch of ground. Clearcuts contain many wonderful tiny things– jasper, agate, petrified wood, sun bleached bits of wood, bone and antler, wildflowers. But the sum of these finely wrought details adds up to a grim landscape, charred, eroded, and sterile.

Although tree planting is part of something called reforestation, clearcutting is never called deforestation, at least not by its practitioners. The semantics of forestry don’t allow that. The mountain slope is a “unit”, the forest a “timber stand”, logging is “harvest” and repeated logging “rotation”.

On the work sheets which foresters use is a pair of numbers which track the layers of canopy, the covering of branches and leaves which the living trees have spread out above the soil. The top layer is called the overstory, beneath which is a second layer, the understory. An old growth forest, for example, may have an overstory averaging 180 feet high and an understory at 75 feet. Clearcuts are designated by the phrase “Overstory: Zero”.

In the language (and therefore the thinking) of industrial silviculture a clearcut is a forest. The system does not recognize any depletion at all. The company is fond of talking about trees as a renewable resource and the official line is that timber harvest, followed by reforestation results in a net gain. “Old growth forests are dying, unproductive forests– biological deserts full of diseased and decaying trees. By harvesting and replanting we turn them into vigorous, productive stands. We will never run out of trees.” the company forester will tell you. But ask if he’s willing to trade company-owned old growth forest for a reforestation unit of the same acreage and the answer is always “No, of course not.”

You listen and tell yourself that it’s the company who treats the land shabbily. You see your frenzied work as a life-giving dance in the ashes of a plundered world. You think of the future and the green legacy you leave behind you. But you know that your work also makes the plunder seem rational and is, at it’s core, just another part of the destruction.

More than the physical exhaustion, this effort to not see the world around you tires you. It takes a lot of effort not to notice, not to care. You can go crazy from lack of sleep because you must dream in order to sort out everything you see and hear and feel during the day. But you can also get sick from not being truly awake, not seeing, feeling and touching the real world.

When the world around you is painful and ugly, that pain and ugliness seeps into you, no matter how hard you try to keep it out. It builds up like a slowly accumulating poison. Sometimes the poison turns to venom and you strike out, at work or at home, as quick as any rattlesnake, but without the honest rattler’s humane fair warning.

So you bitch and bicker with the guys on the crew, argue with the foreman and snap at your wife and kids. You do violent work in a world where the evidence of violence is all around you. You see it in the scorched earth and the muddy streams. You feel it when you step out from the living forest into the barren clearcut. It rings in your ears with the clink of steel on rock. It jars your arm with every stab of your hoedag.

THE LONG MARCH

“War is hell.” General William Tecumseh Sherman said, because, unlike a Pentagon spokeman, he was in the midst of it and could not conceive of something so abstract as “collateral damage”.

“Planting sucks.” we say, because unlike the mill owner who signs our paychecks, we slog through the mud and bend our backs on mountain slopes, instead of reading progress reports on reforestation units. Like infantry we know only weariness and hopelessness in the face of insanity.

“The millions of trees that the timber industry plants every year are enough to plant a strip four miles wide from here to New York.” the foreman tells us.

Our hearts sink at the thought of that much clearcutting but Madman Phil, the poet, sees a vision. “Forward men!” he cries, “Shoulder to shoulder we march on New York. The American Tree Planter! Ever onward!”

Someone starts it and then the whole crew is humming The Battle Hymn of the Republic while, in our minds, we cross the Cascades, the Snake River Valley, the Rockies, the Great Plains and onward, ever onward, a teaming, faceless coolie army led by Walt Whitman, Sasquatch and Mao Tse Tung, a barbarian horde leaving a swath of green behind us “from sea to shining sea”.

“Oh God!” Jimboy moans, “You guys are crazy.”

History: Left Bank #4, Gotta Earn A Living, Hillsboro OR, 1993: Northwest Passages, A Literary Anthology of the Pacific Northwest from Coyote Tales to Roadside Attraction, Sasquatch Books, Seattle WA 1994 (extract); Overstory:Zero, Real Life in Timber Country, Sasquatch Books, Seattle WA 1995; Oregon State Library, Talking Book and Braille Services, Salem, OR  (audio book edition) 1996; Earth Island Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, San Francisco, CA  (excerpt) 1997; Earth First! Journal, Eugene, OR, February 1997 (excerpt);The Anchor Essay Annual, The Best of 1997, Anchor Books, New York, NY; Word #1, Waldport OR 1998

 

Diameter Screens, Age Limits, Applied Science & Forest Management

1397_Doug-Fir_Type_2011-10

Old-growth Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine, South Umpqua River headwaters, Douglas County, Oregon, April 19, 2010. Photo by B. Zybach.

Recent discussion on this blog has centered around the desirability of managing forest trees on the basis of their diameter, their age, or their basal area for a given location. Some of that discussion has included age classes of 150 and 300 years as points of departure. This photograph illustrates some of these concerns and was first published in an article on forest restoration I wrote last year and also posted to this blog: https://forestpolicypub.com/2012/04/04/8829/

This is a typical stand of trees in the upper South Umpqua River basin that I documented in a 2010 research study of 125,000 acres of forestland, mostly contained in the Umpqua National Forest. Our research focus was to determine forest conditions for the area for the ca. 1800 time period that preceded white contact in the basin. The larger old-growth trees are estimated to be more than 300 years of age, and the younger invasive conifers are in two basic age groups: the 30-inch to 40-inch second-growth trees are less than 150 years old, and the smaller understory and roadside poles are probably 20 to 40 years of age.

In 2009 there were two sizable stand-replacement crown fires in the study area: the Boze and the Rainbow fires, totaling about 15,000 acres between them. Prior to these two events, there was no evidence of any other crown fires of this magnitude at any other time since 1800; i.e., these types of fires were unprecedented during historical time. Other large-scale wildfires in the area, such as the 2002 Tiller Complex, were noticeably spotty and only crowned in certain locations — mostly younger plantations in that instance.

Several thousands of acres of this type of condition were found and documented in the study area. The old-growth stem count was about 5-15 trees per acre, while the invasives (I know Sharon doesn’t like this word, but I don’t know what else to call them in instances such as this) totaled about 100 stems or more an acre. These trees are having two deleterious effects on the old-growth that are being “preserved” for wildlife habitat (which was notably more present, diverse, and abundant in the remaining Indian prairies and meadows): 1) they were competing directly with the older trees for sunlight, water, and nutrients; and 2) they were making crown fires such as the Rainbow and Boze now possible. Either way, they pose a very powerful threat to the remaining old-growth in the landscape.

The decision to passively manage these trees has resulted in an increasing threat to the health and survival of the old-growth for the reasons just stated. Suddenly opening them up from competition increases the risk of windthrow due to lower stabilizing branches having been shaded out long ago. Many of the remaining old-growth have become top-heavy as a result. However, based on my observations of the past 50 years, if the competing vegetation were removed, the large majority of the remaining trees would survive and benefit almost immediately (“about 5 years”) by the removal of competition — and at a potentially good profit, with numerous rural jobs, useful products, and greatly improved wildlife habitat for many other wildlife species, including understory shrubs and forbs, ungulates, carnivores, birds, and insect pollinators.

To try and use an homogenized diameter screen or age limit in managing this stand would be a waste of time. I think the same is true for a basal area approach. Common sense states the obvious: use it or lose it. If some animal species prefer this type of situation, then they will have to contend with a diminishing resource because of the problems just stated. My thought is to actually preserve, via active management, as many of the remaining precontact trees and stands as possible.

Those are my experiences and opinions, though, and there has been little scientific research in regards to these situations. Other thoughts?

“Collaboration at Arm’s Length” – Journal of Forestry

I know its the “holiday season,” but here’s some homework (hey, only 9 pages!) for us forest-planning freaks….

“Collaboration at Arm’s Length: Navigating Agency Engagement in Landscape-Scale Ecological Restoration Collaboratives,” by William Hale Butler, Journal of Forestry, November 2013.

The full text is here: http://wp.me/a3AxwY-4fU

Management and Policy Implications

This research suggests approaches for engaging in collaborative landscape-scale ecological restoration while balancing the tensions of agency authority and levels of engagement in collaboration. Through an analysis of the experiences of the first 10 CFLRP landscape projects, the paper argues that Forest Service staff and collaborators might be well served to engage in collaborative dialogue on substantive matters while maintaining an “arm’s length” posture procedurally. These cases suggest that when agency employees play too strong a role in collaborative decisionmaking processes, they risk being challenged on procedural grounds. These challenges focus attention on procedural concerns and can hamper dialogue on substantive issues. On the other hand, agency staff and collaborators avoided procedural concerns when they separated agency employees from collaborative decisionmaking. When accompanied by a joint commitment to engage in collaborative dialogue on the nature and content of those decisions, collaborators and agency staff have been able to work through substantive ecological restoration concerns together. This approach can ensure statutory compliance while deflecting challenges that the agency is co-opting the collaborative. Meanwhile, it allows agency personnel and stakeholders to engage in dialogue on substantive matters and bring a range of perspectives, ideas, values, expertise, and knowledge to bear on landscape-scale ecological restoration issues.

 

Concerns over Wyden, Tester bills

Long piece from Greenwire today, below….

Two points on Wyden’s bill.

“(H) to harvest wood and use the value of merchantable sawlogs and biomass to help
offset the cost of improving forest health and watershed health;”

Great, but that ought to be standard operating procedure, nationwide.

“(1) OLDER TREES- Except as provided in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall prohibit the
cutting or removal of any live tree located in the covered area that is 150 years of age or
older measured at breast height.”

Any age- or diameter-based cutting restriction is problematic. There ought to be some flexibility. At least, more that in the aforementioned paragraph (2):

(2) ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS-
“(A) IN GENERAL- The prohibition described in paragraph (1) shall not apply if the
Secretary determines that there is no reasonable alternative to the cutting or
removal of the tree to provide for a safe administrative, public, or special use.”

If you want to restore an stand of 300-year-old ponderosa by reducing basal area in the stand, and you need to cut 150-year-old grand fir or Doug-fir, that would be illegal. For example.

Onthe other hand, this is an improvement over earlier versions of the bill, which would have prohibited cutting trees over 21 inches in diameter.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Republicans, enviros air concerns over ENR panel markup of forestry bills

Phil Taylor, E&E reporter

Republican senators and some environmentalists say they’re concerned about forestry bills scheduled for markup this morning in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

In the end, the 10 bills dealing with logging, wilderness and recreation on public lands in states including Oregon, Montana and Nevada are expected to pass — but not without some controversy (E&E Daily, Dec. 16)

Two bills by committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) to prescribe logging and restoration on national forests in their states are expected to stir debate.

Republicans support more logging activity on national forests, but they have concerns over legislating place-based projects, favoring a national logging bill instead, said Robert Dillon, a spokesman for ranking member Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska).

Meanwhile, a bloc of environmentalists that had generally supported Wyden’s S. 1301, which seeks to restore forests on Oregon’s east side, has withdrawn its support, saying an amended version cuts important safeguards for old-growth trees and assurances for the decommissioning of roads.

Other environmentalists and former federal lands officials are opposing S. 404, a bill by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) to exempt a historic lookout cabin in Washington state from the Wilderness Act. Other conservation groups support the bill.

The controversy is not unexpected.

Both Wyden and Murkowski earlier this year said they would dispense with the least controversial bills first, saving the thorny policy battles for later. They’ve managed to negotiate tough compromises on bills to promote motorized recreation on a North Carolina seashore and to streamline grazing on public lands, among other measures.

A big question is whether the committee will pass today’s bills by voice vote, as they have in the past.

Dillon said some senators from forested states are worried that time will run out this Congress to push a national forestry bill.

“We have a lot of Western states that have issues with the Forest Service not cutting,” he said. “We have some individual state solutions, but not really a national solution.”

Much scrutiny will fall on Tester’s S. 37, a bill backed by loggers, sportsmen and conservationists in the Treasure State that has been stalled in Congress since 2009. Today is its first-ever vote.

A substitute amendment with slight tweaks will be offered.

A handful of environmental groups yesterday said they oppose a substitute amendment to Wyden’s east-side Oregon forestry bill, after largely supporting the original bill the committee reviewed in July.

“This legislation will cause unacceptable and irreparable damage to forests in eastern Oregon, will degrade water quality, harm endangered species, and undermine our environmental laws,” said a letter to Wyden from Oregon Wild, Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Geos Institute and the Larch Co. “Furthermore this bill will set a dangerous precedent for our other federal forests. We oppose it.”

While the revised bill dropped some language on National Environmental Policy Act reviews that environmental groups had opposed, it also weakened protections for old-growth trees and lost specificity on other resource protections, the groups claimed.

“It went from legislating old-growth protection to mandating old-growth logging,” said Andy Kerr, of the Larch Co., who is a lobbyist for environmental groups.

But timber interests don’t appear thrilled with the revised east-side bill, either.

Tom Partin, president of the American Forest Resource Council in Portland, said at first blush, the bill still appears too cumbersome to implement and seems to put ecological restoration ahead of social and economic needs.

While the revised bill drops language that AFRC warned would favor certain national forests over others, it would still encumber projects already underway in eastern Oregon. Moreover, a place-based bill is unfair for other regions of the West, Partin said, echoing Republicans on the committee.

“The House has passed a comprehensive bill, and the Senate has made lots of noise about a national bill but hasn’t taken any action,” he said.

Opposition to the bill comes as Wyden is shopping a larger forestry bill on Oregon’s western forests, known as the O&C lands.

Environmental groups are split on that bill, as are prominent logging officials and county commissioners.

A separate group of environmentalists and former federal lands officials also registered opposition to Murray’s bill, warning it would set a bad precedent for wilderness protections nationwide.

The bill, which is endorsed by historical preservationists, local town councils and some conservation groups, including the Wilderness Society, would exempt the 1933 Green Mountain Lookout in a wilderness area in Washington’s North Cascades from a federal judge’s order that it be removed.

“Enactment of this legislation would have significant ramifications for the present and future integrity of Wilderness,” said a letter to Wyden signed by the leaders of Wilderness Watch, Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics and the Western Lands Project, in addition to former heads of the Wilderness Society and Sierra Club.

“Enactment of the legislation would encourage federal land managers to flout the laws Congress has enacted to guide management of public lands,” they wrote.

The lookout — according to a federal judge — was repaired illegally in a designated wilderness, where permanent structures and motorized equipment are prohibited.

Bill proponents say the lookout is important to the history of the Pacific Northwest and is a popular destination for hikers, particularly since it is only a few miles from the wilderness boundary.

The bill enjoys strong bipartisan support.

Its House companion, H.R. 908, passed the Natural Resources Committee in July by unanimous consent.

Forest Service Sets a PR!

bestplacestowork

Today the annual “Best Places to Work in the Federal Government” report issued. The Forest Service, which perennially ranks near the bottom, out-did itself this year with an “index score” of 49, lowest in a decade (and perhaps ever).

Leading the charge was the agency’s “leadership” (sic) who scored an all-time low with “senior” leaders ranking 286th out of 300 agencies.

My guess . . . firefighters, who now make up about half of FS employees, were particularly brutal in their assessment, especially of senior leadership.