Uncategorized

Chief Christiansen is Hitting Her Stride

by

Based on her Hill appearances this week, it won’t be long until “interim” is removed from Forest Service Chief Christiansen’s title. In yesterday’s testimony before the House Committee on Natural Resources she struck an impressive balance of deference and confidence in responding to members’ questions. Republicans pushed her to “treat” more “at-risk” acres, but haven’t been willing to pay the extra cost to remove more worthless small trees and flammable brush. Chairman McClintock pined for the good old days of the 1970s when the Forest Service cut 10 billion board feet a year, creating much of today’s forest health problems by logging fire resistant old-growth. Christiansen stuck to her script — the FS is doing more fuels-related work and focused on improving planning processes that are within its control.

nb: She also pointed out that recreation is an important source of national forests jobs.

Greenwire: “Could Trump move Forest Service into Interior?”

by

The Trump administration’s upcoming government reorganization plan could shake up the Interior Department, a longtime goal for bureaucratic tinkerers as well as for big visionaries whose ideas sometimes fizzle out.

While details remain secret, the possibilities are both intriguing to contemplate and challenging to implement.

One perennial reorganization idea is to have Interior absorb the Forest Service, reclaiming the public lands agency from the Agriculture Department. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has already mused about the notion and related possibilities.

Full article here. Our fellow NCFP blogger Andy Stahl is quoted.

Liability for damages from wildfires

by

Liability for damages from wildfires is a big issue in California, where utilities PG&E Corp. and Edison International face lawsuits related to fires that were started by powerlines

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-24/pg-e-edison-surge-as-california-amends-a-bill-on-wildfires

Could the Forest Service or BLM be held liable for fires that start on federal land and spread to private property?

Oregon law states that:

2017 ORS 477.092
Liability for destruction of property by wildfire

(2) A person is not liable in a civil action for injury to or destruction of property arising out of a wildfire, except to the extent evidence demonstrates that:

(a) An action or inaction of the person constituted negligence or a higher degree of fault; and

(b) The action or inaction caused or contributed to the cause of the wildfire or caused or contributed to the spreading of the wildfire. [emphasis added]

According to the state, “Oregon’s Defensible Space Law enlists the aid of property owners to better protect their homes and firefighters during encroaching wildfires. The law requires property owners to reduce excess vegetation, which may fuel a fire, around homes and other structures. In some cases, it is also necessary to create fuel breaks along property lines and roadsides.” [emphasis added]

I don’t know that this would apply to the Chetco Bar Fire in southwest Oregon, but in some cases, one might make the case that a failure to take action to reduce the chances of wildfire spreading across property lines (fuels reduction, etc.) might have “contributed to the spreading of the wildfire.”

Sierra Club: “Cutting Trees to Save the Birds”

by

I was surprised to see this in Sierra, the magazine of the Sierra Club:

Cutting Trees to Save the Birds: How managing Maine’s “baby bird factory” can save eastern songbirds

“Gallo [a wildlife biologist] explains that healthy forests include a variety of vegetation. A dense understory allows birds to hide from predators, while open-and-closed canopies fit the different needs of many bird species. Standing dead wood provides cavities for nesting and attracts insects that birds feed on, while gaps in the trees mimic natural disturbances, allowing seedlings to sprout. “

This isn’t directly related to federal forest management, but if the Sierra Club is touting active forest management on private lands, maybe they’ll come around to accepting work on federal lands.

“The Forest Stewards Guild is now working to adapt and bring bird-centered forest programs to Rhode Island and North Carolina, said Amanda Mahaffey, the Northeast region director. They’re also looking to the Great Lakes states and Oregon. “

Sierra Club’s Take on ESA Legislation

by

From the Sierra Club…. It’s take on several bills that would modify the ESA.

Whittled Down, Endangered Species Act Continues to Be Chipped Away

A raft of new proposals seek to weaken the ESA
“The Endangered Species Act is under attack. A number of Congress members have introduced legislation designed to chip away at the law, which is the bedrock of wildlife protections in the United States. While it’s unlikely that any of this legislation will become law—thanks to the “green line” that still exists in the Senate—the proposals are nevertheless alarming, as they illustrate some representatives’ eagerness to promote human interests over the needs of other species, even if that means extinction”

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation Cheers Court Decision

by

A press release from the RMEF. I haven’t found the 9th’s decison yet….

Note that “RMEF maintains litigation reform is necessary….”

 

May 30, 2018

Court Rules in Favor of Active Forest Management

MISSOULA, Mont.—The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied claims by several environmental groups and ruled in favor of a habitat management project in southwestern Montana.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and several other partners filed an amicus brief in support of the U.S. Forest Service and several other federal agencies.

“We have seen environmental groups file frivolous litigation time and time again seeking to thwart efforts designed at improving wildlife habitat and overall forest health. That is the case here,” said Blake Henning, RMEF chief conservation officer. “We appreciate the court’s ruling and look forward to the implementation of this needed habitat stewardship work.”

The East Deer Lodge Valley Landscape Restoration Management project is a landscape project in the Pintler Ranger District on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest designed to improve forest health and reduce sedimentation in the headwaters of the Clark Fork River.

The vast majority of lodgepole pine trees in this immediate area are dead. Many of them are already on the ground. Without forest management treatment in the near future, the forest floor will be covered with combustible material that will also impede the growth of shrubs and grasses needed by elk, deer and other wildlife.

The project calls for the removal of pine beetle-killed timber, forest thinning to reduce conifer encroachment and other treatments on riparian areas to protect and improve watersheds that will enhance both fish and wildlife habitat.

“RMEF maintains litigation reform is necessary in order to allow agencies tasked with managing our forests the ability to implement active forest management that is so badly needed all across elk country,” added Henning.

Char Miller and Chad Hanson: Gov. Brown’s wildfire plan will only make things worse

by

I had to chuckle today when I saw this oped co-written by Char Miller and Chad Hanson. Since this blog was established, seems like various folks on this blog have treated Char Miller with respect, while the same folks have treated Dr. Chad Hanson with….well. Anyway, enjoy this piece from today’s LA Times. Below are some snips:

“Responding to the tragic losses of homes and lives in wildland fires in California over the past year, Gov. Jerry Brown announced a “major offensive” against fire, in the form of a “Forest Carbon Plan.” The governor proposes to use $254 million of taxpayer money to double logging levels in California’s forests — to “at least” 500,000 acres a year — and to achieve it, he wants to reduce environmental protections.

Although the governor’s May 10 proposal is ostensibly designed to protect human communities from forest fires and to mitigate climate change, it ignores and misrepresents current science. The Forest Carbon Plan will exacerbate climate change while doing little to protect communities from fire….

A gift to the logging industry, the governor’s proposal will leave communities more vulnerable to wildfire, not less. It will harm forest ecosystems and accelerate climate change. Real success will only come when we advocate solutions that do not demonize nature, but manage our place within its sometimes-fiery embrace.”

Black Hills Resilient Landscapes (BHRL) Project

by

Received this press release today — see below. The Norbeck Society objects primarily to overstory removal, which it sees as “a threat to the long-term sustainability of the timber industry in the Black Hills.”

This is a very large project to be carried out over 10 years. From the draft RoD: “Combined, all of these defined areas total approximately 676,600 acres. Because each activity will occur on a fraction of its defined area acres, and because more than one activity will occur in some areas, the total area where activities will actually occur is estimated at 400,900 acres. This includes approximately 298,900 acres of mechanized activities.”

Includes 185,210 acres of overstory removal.

“Overstory removal harvest is a substantial component of my decision. This treatment method will release young stands from competition with older, overstory pine and reduce stocking levels in overstocked stands. Based on the analysis in the FEIS (pages 58, 60-63, 65), I believe this activity contributes significantly to meeting the purpose and need for this project. Overstory removal treatments will increase the acreage of early succession, younger pine across the project area.”

And: “Among planned activities, overstory removal and patch clearcut will result in the greatest change from existing visual conditions. Because harvest units will be designed in accordance with Forest Plan guidelines, they will appear different from the existing condition but similar to natural forest openings or young stands. The resulting appearance will not be out of character for the area.”

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

Norbeck Society

P.O. Box 9730

Rapid City, SD 57709

For Immediate Release 

New Proposal Kills Timber Industry by Logging Black Hills to Death 

RAPID CITY (May 22, 2018) — The Black Hills Resilient Landscapes (BHRL) Project that is on the brink of approval by the Black Hills National Forest is a threat to the long-term sustainability of the timber industry in the Black Hills.  Further, the plan threatens ecosystems needed to support diverse habitats for wildlife, the associated regional tourism industry, and the high quality of life enjoyed by area residents.  The proposal also decreases resilience to wildfire and insect infestation in the Black Hills and focuses its efforts on areas that are currently at low risk to insect infestation and wildfire.

For many years, those concerned with widespread logging in the Black Hills have been dismissed by the timber industry as radicals who oppose all forms of thinning.  This is an untrue and unfair description of the concerns shared here.

The current proposal, and the annual timber harvest levels for which it opens the door, kills the long-term viability of the local timber industry with overly aggressive commercial logging on more than 185,000 acres. The timber harvest method proposed for these acres is “overstory removal,” which when implemented will look a lot more like clearcutting than the thinning that has traditionally been used in the Black Hills. Many of these stands proposed for cutting were heavily thinned in the last 10 years. The objective of the heavy thinning was to lower the risk from mountain pine beetle and wildfire. Now, the Forest Service is proposing to cut them again.

To implement the massive harvest, the plan also calls for more than 3000 miles of road work which will further divide and damage forest ecology.  According to required public disclosures, the Forest Service states that the project will cause an increase in noxious weed infestations which they will not have the means to control.

The Forest Service is required by law to manage the National Forest for sustainability — to manage for the “long-term sustained yield” of the timber supply. This simply means that they cannot cut more trees/wood on an annual basis than what grows every year. This is basic forestry that is taught at every Forestry school in the country. Yet, the Forest Service cannot assure us that they are managing the National Forest for long-term sustained yield. It is not addressed in the BHRL project document.

The annual, allowable timber harvest for the Black Hills National Forest was developed in 1997 as part of the current Forest Plan for managing the Forest. Since that time, there have been many, significant impacts to the Forest and its timber inventory, such as large wildfires (Jasper Fire and others) and an extensive mountain pine beetle infestation. Common sense tells one that with these impacts the annual timber harvest should be lowered to a sustainable level. However, the Forest Service continues to harvest as many trees as it has for the past decade even after the mountain pine beetle infestation officially ended in 2016. They have offered no assurance that there will be any reduction in annual harvesting levels with the BHRL project.

If the BHRL project is fully implemented at the current levels of timber harvest, local saw mills could close in the next few years due to a significant reduction in the number of trees left to harvest. This could mean losing all of the 1400 timber industry jobs rather than keeping some to manage a smaller, more appropriate timber program. If the timber industry is shut down completely, it would leave the Black Hills National Forest without an important tool to effectively manage the forest in the future.

The currently planned annual harvests violate standards for a sustained yield. The annual net growth of the forest has been in negative territory for the past decade. (Net growth is simply the total growth minus losses due to timber harvest, insects, and fire.) Yet, those backing this plan, including the timber industry, are advocating for short-term profits for the few over the long-term viability of a healthy timber industry and a sustainable multi-use forest.

In truth, the heavy commercial logging treatments in the Black Hills Resilient Landscapes plan do very little to support the claim of reducing risk of insect infestation and catastrophic wildfire in the Black Hills.  Forest managers have many other tools including prescribed burning and non-commercial thinning to maintain resiliency to wildfire and insect infestation in our forests.  The benefits of these types of tools are high and their use is needed now more than ever to move the Forest to a resilient status. The number of acres set for prescribed burning in this plan should be increased and should be the focus of the BHRL project.  Large fires are weather and climate driven, and the Forest that people depend on needs to be prepared.  Note that the largest fire in Black Hills History, the Jasper Fire of 2000, burned over 83,000 acres through one of the most heavily logged areas of the Hills. The Black Hills Resilient Landscapes project as proposed will also increase the number of large slash piles that can contribute to the spread of catastrophic wildfire, as noted by Dr. Darren Clabo the state fire meteorologist in his analysis of the recent Legion Lake fire (53,000 acres) of December, 2017. (Rapid City Journal, April 21, 2018)

The Norbeck Society will be attending an Objection Resolution Meeting on Friday, May 25, 2018 when objection issues and suggested remedies will be discussed. The meeting is arranged by the Deputy Regional Forester for the Rocky Mountain Region.

Members of the press or public may wish to see the official objections of the Norbeck Society and read about the Black Hills Resilient Landscapes Project

Media Contact:

on behalf of Robert Burns, Norbeck Society President,

Mary Zimmerman

605-342-2552

PEER: Tongass “Good Neighbor” agreement goes bad, Alexander Archipelago logging did no restoration and the timber was exported to Asia

by

Those pesky nosy bodies at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) are at it again. Below is there latest press release. – mk

Washington, DC — A state-federal timber partnership in Alaska’s Tongass National Forest went badly off-course, doing environmental damage in what was supposed to be a restoration project, according to a complaint filed today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Rather than improve forest health, the group charges that the sale damaged it.

In 2014, Congress enacted “Good Neighbor” authority for timber agreements between federal and state governments to enable cooperative forest restoration projects on federal lands when similar restoration projects take place on adjacent state lands. The political sales pitch for the suggestively titled Good Neighbor program characterized it as a proverbial “win-win” in that public forestlands receive needed restoration work while local mill economies benefit at the same time.

Employees complained to PEER that the Good Neighbor timber sale conducted on Kosciusko Island in the Alexander Archipelago of southeastern Alaska did not follow the blueprint. Contrary to how the program was supposed to work, in this case –

• There is no restoration of any kind planned on either federal or state lands;

• The U.S. Forest Service contract did not provide for any reforestation, even of parcels that were clearcut; and

• Few jobs materialized at local lumber mills and processing plants because all the timber was exported to East Asia.

To add insult to injury, by law, a portion of the income generated by the Good Neighbor sale must return to the U.S. Forest Service, but in this case, the State of Alaska is apparently set to pocket the income generated by this conventional timber sale masquerading as a restoration project.

“In this timber sale, Good Neighbor authority became a license to loot,” stated PEER Staff Counsel Adam Carlesco, arguing that under the guise of restoration, damaging clear-cutting occurred. “Both the U.S. Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Natural Resources acted more like co-conspirators than collaborators for improving forest health.”

PEER is asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Inspector General to audit not only this sale but also all the other Good Neighbor agreements. The PEER complaint also asks the IG to review a pattern of timber sale maladministration by the Forest Service.

“This is one of the first Good Neighbor timber sales and we are concerned that unless these problems are cured, as the twig is bent so grows the tree,” added Carlesco. “This Good Neighbor exercise made the case for high fences rather than more cooperation.”

###

Read the PEER complaint

See continuing pattern of taxpayer rip-offs from Tongass timber sales