Uncategorized

I believe it was Bill Timko who found these references to the Forest Service in the Stimulus Bill. So thanks to him for that! It can be found on the NAFSR (National Association of Forest Service Retirees) website here.

Side note: NAFSR started a Twitter feed a while back that is full of interesting information. Here’s a link.

RELATED AGENCIES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
FOREST SERVICE
FOREST AND RANGELAND RESEARCH
For an additional amount for ‘‘Forest and Rangeland Research’’, $3,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2021, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally, including for the reestablishment of abandoned or failed experiments associated with employee restrictions due to the coronavirus outbreak: Provided, That amounts provided under this heading in this Act shall be allocated at the discretion of the Chief of the Forest Service: Provided further, That such amount is designated by the Congress as being for an
emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

NATIONAL FOREST SYSTEM
For an additional amount for ‘‘National Forest System’’, $34,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2021, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally, including for cleaning and disinfecting of public recreation amenities and for personal protective equipment and baseline health testing for first responders: Provided, That amounts provided under this heading in this Act shall be allocated at the discretion of the Chief of the Forest Service: Provided further, That such amount is designated by the Congress as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND MAINTENANCE
For an additional amount for ‘‘Capital Improvement and Maintenance’’, $26,800,000, to remain available until September 30, 2021, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally, including for janitorial services: Provided, That amounts provided under this heading in this Act shall be allocated at the discretion of the Chief of the
Forest Service: Provided further, That such amount is designated by the Congress as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT
For an additional amount for ‘‘Wildland Fire Management’’, $7,000,000, to remain available until September 30, 2021, to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus, domestically or internationally, including for personal protective equipment and baseline health testing for first responders: Provided, That amounts provided under this heading in this Act
shall be allocated at the discretion of the Chief of the Forest Service: Provided further, That such amount is designated by the Congress as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

From Greenwire:

Agency plans ‘very unusual’ staff shuffle

Forest Service employees who expected to work on one of the biggest recent timber projects in Alaska have been told to pack for South Dakota instead, once travel restrictions tied to the coronavirus ease.

About a dozen employees in the Tongass National Forest — including foresters, engineers and wildlife biologists — have been told they’ll be transferred temporarily to a forest management project in the Black Hills National Forest, said Ken Dinsmore, president of Local 251 of the National Federation of Federal Employees, representing Tongass employees.

While employees understand they can be transferred to other areas at the discretion of the Forest Service — as with other federal agencies — the move is unusual, Dinsmore said. It came suddenly, and workers were told clearly that they don’t have the option to decline.

“Management has the right to assign work. That can include work from Fairbanks to Florida,” Dinsmore said. “This is very unusual. It’s the first time I’ve seen employees told to go outside the region to do their daily work.”

Employees were told to prepare to stay in South Dakota until August, he said.

The sudden announcement seems to coincide with the holdup of the Prince of Wales landscape level analysis project in the 17-million-acre Tongass National Forest, the biggest national forest in the nation. That project, which also includes stream restoration and improvements to recreation areas, involves up to 125,529 acres of potential timber harvest, according to the Forest Service.

<<more….>>

According to CNN:

California utility Pacific Gas and Electric Company has agreed to plead guilty to 84 counts of involuntary manslaughter and one count of unlawfully starting the Camp Fire, according to court documents filed Monday.

The article opened with:

Here’s an article on a topic I’ve been thinking about:

How will COVID-19 impact wildfire response?

“This presents a host of problems for wildfire response, said Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) commissioner Hilary Franz. The state will have to figure out how to keep firefighters from getting infected, how to secure enough incident management teams and rethink the way it attacks fires.”

I’d like to hear from folks with fire experience about how this might play out.

This press release from Oregon State offers interesting information on a study of the effects of timber harvesting on stream flows. The first sentence mentions “industrial tree plantations.” The Journal of Hydrology paper also uses the term — “industrial plantation forests.”

I wonder about the choice of the word “industrial,” which in some circles is often used in a pejorative sense. The second sentence of the press release says that “Industrial” means “intensively managed plantations” — a phrase that is accurate and much less loaded with non-scientific meaning. Also, a plantation might be intensively managed, but in no way industrial — for example, an area replanted after a wildfire and thinned over time to move it toward older forest structure. This would have the same effect on water flows as an “industrial tree plantation.”

Was this simply a poor choice of words? Is “industrial” an appropriate term is a scientific paper?

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

March 17, 2020

Timber harvesting results in persistent deficits in summer streamflow

By Steve Lundeberg, 541-737-4039, [email protected]

Source: Catalina Segura, 541-737-6568, [email protected]

This news release is available online: https://beav.es/4qi

Photo of Needle Branch area of the Alsea River watershed: https://flic.kr/p/2iDGjzj

CORVALLIS, Ore. – Summer streamflow in industrial tree plantations harvested on 40- to 50-year rotations was 50% lower than in century-old forests, data from the long-term Alsea Watershed Study in the Oregon Coast Range showed.

The research, led by Oregon State University’s Catalina Segura, is an important step toward understanding how intensively managed plantations might influence water supplies originating in forests and downstream aquatic ecosystems, especially as the planet becomes warmer and drier.

“Industrial plantation forestry is expanding around the globe and that’s raising concerns about the long-term effects the plantations might be having on water, especially in dry years,” Segura said.

Findings were published in the Journal of Hydrology.

Running through southern Benton and Lincoln counties in Oregon, the Alsea River empties into the Pacific Ocean at Waldport and supports runs of chinook and coho salmon as well as steelhead and cutthroat trout.

The Alsea watershed has a rich research history dating back six decades; in the 1960s, it was the site of one of the first comprehensive studies of the effects of forest harvesting on water quality and fish habitat in the nation.

Those research results provided evidence for standards included in the landmark 1971 Oregon Forest Practices Act, among the first such laws in the United States to set rules to protect streams from the impacts of timber harvesting.

In the current study, Segura and collaborators looked at 27 years of streamflow data to compare the effects of historic and contemporary forestry practices on summer streamflow in three sites within the Alsea watershed: Flynn Creek, Deer Creek and Needle Branch.

Flynn Creek, 210 hectares in size, was designated a U.S. Forest Service Research Natural Area in 1975 and has been left undisturbed; 60% to 70% of its canopy is red alder and big-leaf maple, and the rest is Douglas-fir that regenerated following a 19^th century fire.

Deer Creek is 311 hectares and has been historically used to study how road building and extensive forest management affect water quality. Three 25-hectare areas (25% of the total watershed area) in the Deer Creek watershed were clear-cut in 1966 (buffer areas near streams were left uncut). Over the last 30 years the watershed has been harvested again via intermittent thinning and clear-cutting.

Needle Branch, 75 hectares, has been used for examining how watersheds are affected by contemporary logging practices compared to historical practices – the 1960s and earlier. The entire watershed was clear-cut between 1956 and 1966. Eighty-two percent of that happened in 1966, with no trees left along the stream. It was 100% harvested again from 2009 to 2014 using contemporary methods, including retention of riparian vegetation near the stream.

Together, streamflow data from Needle Branch, Deer Creek and Flynn Creek enabled the scientists to determine forestry practices’ effects on how much water was flowing in the streams.

After the mature forests were harvested in 1966, streamflow increased for seven years, then began to decline as the Douglas-fir seedlings grew, eventually falling below pre-harvest streamflow levels.

Compared to mature forests, daily streamflow from 40- to 53-year-old plantations was 25% lower overall and 50% lower during summer months, when there is minimal precipitation in the Coast Range.

The harvesting of the plantations didn’t lead to much of an increase in streamflow. The likely reason: high evapotranspiration from replanted Douglas-firs and other rapidly regenerating vegetation, and from the vegetation in the riparian buffer.

Evapotranspiration is the sum of the water that reaches the atmosphere through evaporation and transpiration – the process that moves water throughout a plant from its roots to its leaves.

“Results of this study indicated that 40- to 50-year rotations of Douglas-fir plantations can produce persistent, large, summer low-flow deficits,” Segura said. “While the clear-cutting of these plantations, with retention of riparian buffers, increased daily streamflow slightly, streamflow did not return to where it was before the harvesting of those mature forests, which apparently do not use as much water.”

The findings, together with other regional studies, indicate that the magnitude of summer streamflow deficits is related to the proportion of watershed area in young (30- to 50-year-old) plantations, Segura said. Comparatively little is known, she added, about the specifics regarding how evapotranspiration levels change as a tree ages or how much it varies with changes in forest structure as the forest matures.

“We need to improve our understanding of tree water use at the stand or forest level and how that changes as forests age,” she said. “We also need to continue to maintain our long-term studies as much as we can. The only way we found out what we learned here is because we had the long-term data.”

The National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, the Oregon Forest and Industries Council, Plum Creek Timber Company (now Weyerhaeuser Company), the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and the National Science Foundation supported this research.

Collaborators included Kevin Bladon and Jeff Hatten of the OSU College of Forestry; Julia Jones of the OSU College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences; V. Cody Hale of Nutter and Associates; and George Ice of the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.

-30-

The following was written by Gary Milner and posted as a comment to a previous blog post titled “Good” and “Bad” Recreation: The Bitterroot National Forest. Gary’s comment provides so much additional context and information that it warrants its own post. – mk

I’ve been involved with the climbing controversy on the Bitterroot National Forest from early on. For me it would not matter if the damage I’ve seen is coming from climbers, backpackers, birders, or mt. bikers. It’s the damage on the ground that matters. Early on when Dan Ritter was the ranger on the Stevensville District the idea of coming together to develop a Leave No Trace (LNT) climbing brochure was hatched. It seemed like an easy way forward for all parties. Unfortunately, the Missoula based climbers would not participate, even after repeated attempts to get them at the table by Julie King, then BNF supervisor. Locals and BNF employees met many times developing that brochure. Most of the verbiage in that brochure comes straight from Access Fund literature. Before its final version, Julie King, ran it by the Access Fund and they approved. Why Missoula area climbers would not support developing a LNT brochure is still a mystery to me. I encourage folks to go to the BNF website, click on recreation, click on climbing and click on “Bitterroot National Forest Rock Climbing Brochure”.

Climbing is a legitimate, appropriate sport on public lands. However, what has happened in Mill Creek is not a good example of how an area should be developed. It seems there was no knowledge that the canyon contains golden eagle nests, is home to peregrines, is an important range for mountain goats, or that it is MA6 – recommended Wilderness. I don’t believe those considerations occurred to them at the time nor was any of the public involved in the process. There appears to be a bolted route within 25 feet of a golden eagle nest. If those developing the area would have consulted with FS biologists, and other specialists to determine what was appropriate, a well thought out climbing area could have been developed that provided access to climbers and protected plants and animals who need these areas just to survive. Following the Access Fund’s own guidelines and LNT principals, in my opinion, could have prevented what has become a very contentious issue.

What has saddened me the most is what appears to be the attitude from some climbers. Resisting rules or regulations seems to be the fall back, even though some rules and guidelines could protect wildlife, avoid user conflicts, and promote sustainable, ethical climbing on the forest. Self-policing simply was not working. The photos that Matthew Koehler posted are just some of the photos taken over the years, there are many more. Regarding the comment of planting dead birds and planting trash, if evidence of that can be presented, I would appreciate seeing it. I was with the party that found the dead golden eagle and I’ve seen enough trash there to fill several backpacks. I know none of the folks I’ve worked with over the years have planted trash or dead birds. Cole Lawrence, if you could let me know what evidence you have that these were planted, I would appreciate it. I’ve heard that bolts have been damaged, but not seen that personally. Although I believe the area is too densely bolted (on average one route about every 13 ft.), I disapprove of any action that could damage a bolt; that’s simply not the way to move forward and cannot be condoned.

Federal, State, and local agencies all over the country have rules and management plans for climbing; it’s very common and the accepted norm. The BNF should not be different. It’s not about banning climbing, demonizing the sport, or excluding user groups as some are saying here. It’s about impacts and developing an enforceable plan that protects wildlife/habitat and promotes long-term ethical climbing on the Bitterroot.

Vertical Times, the AF’s magazine in the Spring of 2013 issue stated; “The “Golden Era’ of bolting totally under the radar is coming to an end”. That issue has some good information. I hope in the next few months all interested parties can come together to identify issues and find enforceable solutions. Wildlands are getting smaller and recreation is growing. All of us, including myself should be working to find ways to lessen and eliminate our impacts. If it means finding alternative locations we should. The plants and animals who need theses areas don’t have that luxury.

– Gary Milner

March 11, 2020 press release from plaintiff groups:

JUNEAU, Alaska― A federal judge today rejected the Trump administration’s enormous commercial timber harvest and road-building plan for Prince of Wales Island in the Tongass National Forest of southeast Alaska.

The judge ruled that the project’s approval violated the National Environmental Policy Act, which sets standards for public engagement on federal projects that will alter the environment, and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which requires federal agencies to evaluate how federal use of public lands will affect subsistence uses and needs.

The court found that the U.S. Forest Service “presented local communities with vague, hypothetical, and over-inclusive representations of the Project’s effects over a 15-year period.” It’s not yet clear whether the Forest Service will have to abandon the project entirely because the judge has not yet decided on a legal remedy.

The Forest Service greenlighted a sweeping 15-year logging scheme over a 1.8-million-acre project area across Prince of Wales and surrounding islands in America’s largest and wildest national forest. It would have been the largest timber sale on any national forest in 30 years, allowing for 164 miles of new road construction and the logging of enough trees to equal a forest three times the size of Manhattan.

More than half the logging would have targeted centuries-old trees ― old-growth forests that absorb the greenhouse gas emissions that drive climate change.

Eight conservation organizations, represented by the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice, challenged the logging plan on the grounds that, among other claims, it had violated the National Environmental Policy Act, which gives people a say in government actions that will affect their communities.

Prince of Wales Island is prized for its subsistence hunting and fishing opportunities, yet the Forest Service failed to provide detailed information about where logging would occur. This made it impossible for subsistence hunters, local residents and others who care about the wildlife and forests of Prince of Wales Island to meaningfully weigh in on the plan.

Plaintiffs in this case include the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Alaska Rainforest Defenders, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Alaska Wilderness League, Natural Resources Defense Council, National Audubon Society and Center for Biological Diversity. Prince of Wales residents, attorneys and plaintiffs released the following statements in reaction to the ruling:

“What the court has cut short is flagrant attempts by the Forest Service to trample not only the remaining old-growth forest on Southeast Alaska’s most heavily-logged major island, but also NEPA, which is America’s bedrock law for protecting the environment from contrived decision-making,” said Larry Edwards of the regional organization Alaska Rainforest Defenders.

“The Prince of Wales project would’ve been the largest logging project that we have seen anywhere in our national forests in decades, and it would have destroyed thousands of acres of irreplaceable old-growth forest in the Tongass National Forest,” said Kristen Miller, conservation director at Alaska Wilderness League. “Today’s ruling is a win for Southeast Alaska’s billion-dollar fishing and tourism industries, and a reminder as the Trump administration tries to significantly weaken the National Environmental Policy Act of the critical role NEPA plays in allowing the public to meaningfully weigh in on issues impacting their public lands.”

“Protecting the Tongass from old-growth clearcuts shouldn’t feel like a guessing game where Alaskans are left in the dark about whether the clear cuts will be on their traditional lands, in their favorite hunting spot, or in the middle of a stunning Alaskan viewpoint,” said Meredith Trainor, executive director of the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. “Today’s court decision upholds the rights of Southeast Alaskans to weigh in on where logging happens not once our lands are changed forever. We’re grateful the law continues to stand strong and tall, like our old-growth trees, today.”

“This is a victory for wildlife, for our precious public forest lands, and for the rule of law,” said Patrick Lavin, Alaska policy advisor for Defenders of Wildlife. “This decision protects thousands of acres of high quality fish and wildlife habitat and the sustainable industries that rely on it. It also upholds the public’s right to basic information about proposed uses of our national forests, and the impacts of those uses on our shared public resources.”

“The magnificent, ancient forests of the Tongass just got a reprieve from the chain saws,” said Randi Spivak, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We’re thrilled the court agreed that the Trump administration broke the law when it approved cutting thousands of acres of old-growth trees. It’s critical to protect our remaining old-growth forests to have any chance of stopping the extinction crisis and slowing climate change.”

“This ruling is a win for old-growth trees, wolves, and other species on Prince of Wales Island,” said Earthjustice attorney Tom Waldo. “Today subsistence hunters who were shut out of a decision-making process that would have caused even greater restrictions for them can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that a massive industrial logging operation isn’t imminent in the forested areas they know and rely upon.”

“This is a huge win for wildlife, climate and all people’s voices on the most biologically diverse and vulnerable island on the Tongass National Forest, said Natalie Dawson, executive director of Audubon Alaska. “This ruling protects ancient forests that are crucial to mitigating climate change impacts in Alaska and across the globe.”

I’m helping some students explore policy ideas for dealing with homeless folks on a neighboring National Forest. Last year, a recreation person from a district told me that he thought it was the #1 issue that the recreation program was dealing with.

If anyone knows about studies or experiments that Forests have done in response to this issue, please comment below. Thank you!

Below is a press release that serves as a follow-up to a post from January 2017 titled, “Court slams Forest Service wilderness decision.”

Court Affirms Key Rulings to Prevent Further Illegal Helicopter Intrusions in Premiere Idaho Wilderness Area

SAN FRANCISCO, Ca. – Today a federal appeals court affirmed key rulings imposed by an Idaho judge to prevent the U.S. Forest Service from again illegally authorizing the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) to conduct helicopter-assisted wildlife-collaring operations in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness.

Today’s ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld an injunction that prevents the Forest Service from considering wildlife data gathered from radio collars illegally installed on 60 elk in 2016 because the Forest Service approved IDFG helicopter operations in violation of two environmental laws. The ruling also upheld a requirement that the Forest Service must delay implementation of any permits for future helicopter operations in the wilderness for 30 days in order to allow time for public challenges.

“Today’s decision upholds key requirements that protect the public’s interest in maintaining the wilderness as a wild area—not a helicopter landing zone,” said Earthjustice attorney Tim Preso.

In 2016, the Forest Service allowed IDFG to conduct 120 helicopter landings in the River of No Return to capture and place radio telemetry collars on wild elk. IDFG also captured and radio collared four wolves during these operations—an unauthorized action that was not permitted by the Forest Service, but that threatened to advance IDFG’s plans to undertake widespread wolf killing in the wilderness by providing locational information on the collared wolves.

Idaho District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled these actions unlawful in 2017 because the Wilderness Act prohibits the use of motorized vehicles including helicopters and requires preservation of natural conditions in wilderness areas, and the National Environmental Policy Act requires thorough environmental analysis of these types of actions on federal lands.

The helicopter operations that were illegally permitted by the Forest Service are part of IDFG’s broader program to inflate elk numbers above natural levels within the wilderness by eliminating wolf packs that prey on the elk. IDFG’s existing elk and predator management plans call for exterminating 60 percent of the wolf population in the heart of the River of No Return to provide more elk for hunters and commercial outfitters in an area that receives some of the lightest hunting use in the state.

Earthjustice represented Wilderness Watch, Friends of the Clearwater, and Western Watersheds Project in challenging the Forest Service’s decision.

“This is an important victory for one of the wildest Wildernesses in the lower 48,” said Wilderness Watch staff attorney Dana Johnson. “It sends an important message that intensive, helicopter-assisted manipulations of wildlife to appease the objectives of state managers will not go unchecked.”

Gary Macfarlane with Friends of the Clearwater said, “The 9th Circuit court recognized the importance of Wilderness and that the Forest Service was wrong to allow motorized use to approve routine wildlife management in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. We can only hope that, in the future, both the Forest Service and Idaho Department of Fish and Game will honor Wilderness and its important attributes.”

“The court appropriately reminded the Forest Service that it must protect wilderness on public lands, including from state wildlife agencies seeking access to wild places and important habitats,” said Greta Anderson, deputy director of Western Watersheds Project.

The Oregon GOP’s Favorite Anti-Environment Group Is Awash in Racism and Violent Threats

Timber Unity is linked to neofascist and militia organizations—and once again, it’s gotten its way via a legislative walkout.

By Rebecca Leber and Ali Breland

Read the full story in Mother Jones