Weaken a key environmental law to help California meet its climate change goals? That’s what a state lawmaker proposes. Except from LA Times article is below.

If this come to be, then why not revise laws that make it harder or more time-consuming for forest managers to conduct fuels treatments and other activities that reduce fire hazards or fire intensity? According to data from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, the roughly 700,000 acres burned by wildfires in Idaho last year resulted in the emission of 12,300,000 tons of carbon dioxide, about 120 percent of the 10,200,000 tons of CO2 emitted by on-road vehicles in Idaho during the same period. Reduce the number of acres burned and you reduce emissions.

LA Times:

Assemblyman Tim Grayson (D-Concord) has introduced legislation that aims to make it harder for lawsuits filed under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, to stop construction of roads and public transit.

CEQA requires developers and public agencies to disclose a project’s environmental effects and take steps to reduce or eliminate them. But Grayson says the law can grind to a halt transportation projects that are needed to reduce the amount of cars on the road.

His legislation, Assembly Bill 1905, would make it easier for road or transit projects included in a state-approved regional growth plan to begin construction before any CEQA litigation is resolved.

Since state climate regulators will have already signed off on those road and transit projects when approving a region’s growth plan, the projects shouldn’t face multiple threats of environmental litigation, Grayson argues.

“What I’m looking at is how do we cut down on traffic congestion where we’re just spilling greenhouse gases, creating clouds of greenhouse gases and impacting the environment negatively,” Grayson said.

But Grayson’s approach is already attracting concerns from high-profile environmental organizations. Environmental groups often credit CEQA, which took effect in 1970, with preserving California’s natural beauty, and argue it is complementary — not contrary — to the more recent climate change laws.

This op-ed is nothing new from Chad Hanson, but here goes anyhow….

“The U.S. Forest Service recently proposed a sweeping effort to identify aspects of environmental analysis and public participation to be “reduced” or “eliminated” regarding commercial logging projects in our national forests, with initial public comments due Friday. The Trump administration is attempting to spin this as an effort to promote “increased efficiency” for the expansion of forest “restoration,” but these are just euphemisms for more destructive logging.”

Logging is “destructive” — especially commercial logging. That’s partly, I think, because it is commercial — a profit might be made. This issue came up in a recent discussion I had with friends about the highly controversial plan by Nestle to build a water-bottling plant in Cascade Locks, a small town on the Columbia River. (The plans were nixed last year by Oregon Gov. Kate Brown.) Bark, an environmental group that is opposed to commercial logging on the nearby Mt. Hood National Forest, also is opposed to commercial water bottling: It suggested that like-minded people “Please tell [the state regulatory agency] that ‘Giving public water away so that Nestlé can bottle and profit from it is the wrong thing for Oregon! Retain our public water rights!’

I asked one of my well-connected friends who opposed the deal whether other opponents would favor it if, instead of Nestle, a non-profit organization or perhaps the city of Cascade Locks itself opened a bottling plant. His answer: “Of course!” Much of the opposition was apparently not about the water, but about making a profit from it.

Would Hanson would oppose “destructive logging” even if a non-profit were the contractor? Probably. Others do not. The National Wild Turkey Federation hasn’t had much opposition to its work as a stewardship contractor in Arizona, for example:

“Forest thinning offers several benefits, according to Scott Lerich, NWTF senior regional biologist. Among them are: increased biodiversity, watershed quality and amounts of forbs and grasses available for wildlife. It also increases employment opportunities, conservation of wildlife and prevents large-scale forest fires.” And: “Encompassing about 5,000 acres and home to Mount Graham red squirrels and Mexican spotted owls, this area needs commercial logging and prescribed fire to manage several species of pine and firs.”

When I interviewed Lerich for a recent article in The Forestry Source, he told me that the Center for Biological Diversity approved of the project.

If anyone of this blog has a connection with Hanson, I suggest that you invite him to join us in a discussion of the commercial aspects of logging.

We should start a list of enviro’s willing to use falsehoods to obstruct sound/healthy, sustainable forest ecosystems – here are two strong candidates:

Enviros (Oregon Wild and the Greater Hells Canyon Council) indirectly claim supernatural powers by being able to discern the false motives of others and decide what research is good and what is bad in spite of their lack of any impartiality, broad understanding of established forest science or background sufficient to discern relative value of evolving research.

Dr. James Johnston has been quoted in the Wallowa County Chieftain as outing certain falsehoods perpetrated by these two groups. Selected facts per the Chieftain and quotes from Dr. Johnston are as follows (my comments are in italics and parentheses):

A) Per the Chieftain:

1) “The corridor project is a U.S. Forest Service plan to use both hand and mechanical treatments to ostensibly mitigate wildfire in the area west of Lostine, while the two activist groups claim it is a thinly-veiled excuse to commercially log the corridor.”
– (i.e. Enviro’s claim to be able to discern False Motives of others)

B) Per Dr. Johnston after reading the FAQs published by the two enviro groups:

1) “One-hundred percent of the project is explicitly designed to address safety issues. Oregon Wild may believe that only 10 percent of the project is appropriate to address safety issues, but that’s just their opinion. … the U.S. Forest Service has considerable expertise in managing fire and risks to human health and property while stating that Oregon Wild is not drawing on any particular fire management expertise. Johnston also said he was not aware of any expert in fire and fuel management that endorses their claim that only 10 percent of the project addresses safety issues.”
– (i.e. Enviro’s claim that their opinion is fact without supplying objectively determined evidence.)

2) “The professor also questioned FAQ statements that the project will prioritize commercially logging some of the largest most fire-resistant trees out of the forests over stands of smaller trees that could benefit from thinning, or that scientific evidence indicates that logging in that type of forest will not decrease the severity of fire but would likely increase fire severity risk in the forest. … 100 percent of the proposed logging targets small fire- intolerant forest structure, and a huge body of scientific evidence demonstrates that removing those trees can reduce fire severity and make wildfires more manageable and less of a threat.”
– (i.e. Enviro’s claim that faux science is good and established science is bad. Again, where is there evidence?)

3) ““Oregon Wild badly misrepresents the science,” Johnston said. “The one paper that they cite clearly states that fuel reduction thinning such as that planned for the Lostine River Corridor is appropriate in cases of unnaturally high fuel loading. This is precisely the case in the Lostine River Corridor.””
– (i.e. Enviro’s cite references that don’t support their case. How could that occur unless it was a deliberate attempt to deceive or an example of their ignorance on the subject?)

4) “Dr. Johnston also noted that the Forest Service has documented that the corridor currently contains far more trees than were present before fire was excluded from the area at the end of the 19th century.

“There are very high fuel loadings that pose a significant risk to old-growth forest structure,” Johnston said. “Much of the old-growth larch in the corridor has died or is dying as result of competition-induced stress. Oregon Wild presents zero evidence that thinning will increase fire severity. All of the available evidence suggests that thinning and prescribed fire will reduce fire severity and protect old growth.””
– (i.e. Enviro’s claim that their opinion is fact without supplying objectively determined evidence.)
– (i.e. Enviro’s claim that faux science is good and established science is bad. Again, where is there evidence?)

5) “Another statement in the FAQ gave Johnston pause: “Not only will this project not stop a fire, the proposed industrial logging prioritizes many of the most mature fire-resistant stands in the canyon over those that might benefit from thinning.”

“The Forest Service is only planning to treat 450 acres within the corridor, which is a tiny percentage of the total land area and a tiny percentage of the total area that probably should be treated to reduce risk of uncharacteristic insect, disease and fire effects,” he said. Johnston added that all 450 acres of thinning is targeting the most overgrown stands.”
– (Again, enviro’s are unabashedly publishing outright falsehoods and making mountains out of molehills to mislead the public; spend taxpayer dollars on insignificant issues; and delay the implementation of sound, sustainable forest management where appropriate to reduce the risk of loss of existing federal forests prized by all Americans. And for what? Maybe, if we are lucky, another forest that will look like a huge clearcut in the beginning and possibly produce an inferior forest because of all of the erosion of valuable topsoil and dead/destroyed root systems resulting from the baked soils. Yet, they will protest any suitable use of clearcuts even if the only impact is a deterioration of the viewshed for a limited time period. Or maybe, the denuded land will become another grassland or maybe even another Grand Canyon. They have outed themselves. Once they had clear but mistaken goals to “preserve specific old growth forest ecosysytems/types” without any plan for regeneration to replace those dying stands/ecosystems. Now their double talk and lies have turned 180 degrees and have contradicted all of their past claims and revealed that they don’t really care about protecting existing forests. In fact they don’t care what happens to the land. The only thing that they seem to care about is being important, maintaining their power base (fiefdom), and raising funds to keep certain enviros employed.)

Op-ed from the Idaho Stateman by Chris Wood, president and CEO of Trout Unlimited.

“Some members of Congress glee in blaming the Forest Service for declines in timber cutting, and the proliferation of wildfires in the West. Outside the glare of Washington, D.C., however, good things are happening on our national forests — starting in Idaho.”

Greenwire reports that a poll by Colorado College’s State of the Rockies Project found that 64 percent of respondents said they would “prefer the administration place more emphasis” on protecting natural resources. And only 23 percent said they support placing a greater emphasis on domestic energy production “by maximizing the amount of national public lands available for responsible oil and gas drilling and mining.

When I saw that headline, I had a hunch that Chad Hanson would be involved. The paper is here. 

The USFS aimed to salvage timber from 11K acres, about 11% of the 97K acres burned by the King Fire. One of the new paper’s authors, Monica Bond, wrote a commentary arguing against the salvage.  El Dorado forest supervisor Laurence Crabtree’s response is here.

Spotted owl suffers more from logging than wildfire — study

Fellow NCFP Bloggers,

As you may know, I am editing a book to be published by the Society of American Foresters, 193 Million Acres: Toward a Healthier and More Resilient US Forest Service. It’s a collection of essays by a wide range of observers that examine the state of the agency from a variety of viewpoints and propose solutions that would address challenges the agency faces.

Clearly, one of those challenges is discrimination and sexual harassment within the agency, the topic of much discussion on this blog over the last few weeks. I have two questions for you:

Should one or more chapters of the book be devoted to this complex and difficult topic?

And who might write such a chapter? It would take someone who can be dispassionate in describing the situation and proposing realistic actions the agency might take to address the issues. It would also take someone who can complete such an essay in the near future: the book is scheduled to be published in August, and I would need a draft in the next month or perhaps six weeks.

Feedback welcome!

If you like, contact me directly at [email protected]. All communications will be held in confidence. — Steve Wilent

Subtitle to this Jan. 18 New York Times article: “Two years after the standoff at the Malheur Refuge, many people in the region remain convinced that their way of life is being trampled.”

“In 1955, Joe’s dad took a job at the Edward Hines sawmill, which purchased a 67,400-acre tract of timber in the Malheur National Forest. Burns was a vibrant timber town until around 1973 when the mill started laying off workers, and the unemployment rate in Harney County reached 30 percent. The mill closed after the Forest Service restricted the cutting of old-growth forest in the mid-1990s. For-sale signs went up and people moved away. Cronin graduated from high school in 1968 with about 120 people in his class, and his grandson’s class will graduate with about half that many. The biggest employers in the region are now the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management and other government agencies.”

The USFS is still the biggest employer in my area, just west of the Cascades, but there is ambivalence, if anything, over its place here. Or ignorance. The USFS owns half the county, and recreation on those lands is a big part of the local economy, but the agency is a quiet presence.

Consensual sex between co-workers, regardless of their relative power positions, is not harassment nor employee misconduct under federal law and workplace rules. Perhaps the Forest Service should regulate its employees’ consensual sexual relations, but no rules do so now. The status quo is that only harassing, i.e., unwelcome, actions of a sexual nature are barred; consensual sex is not.

This matters when it came to the retired regional forester’s view of what should have happened in regard to Tooke’s consensual affair ten years ago. According to the RF (willieboat007), Tooke’s boss, the forest supervisor, should have “report[ed] this type of Misconduct to Regional Forester,” i.e., herself. She believes that “consent didn’t matter, the Forest Service doesn’t condone this type of conduct.” In fact, the Forest Service is silent when it comes to consensual sex, barring only harassing, “unwelcome” sex. Strike one.

According to the RF, having determined that “misconduct” occurred, an “investigation should have taken place to determine the facts.” Government is allowed to investigate only alleged wrongdoing. Government is not allowed to investigate in the absence of a credible allegation that a law or rule has been violated. In particular, government is not allowed to investigate an employee’s private, consensual sexual affairs. Doing so violates the Fourth Amendment’s right to privacy. If Tooke’s lover had said their affair was “unwelcome,” that fact would justify an investigation (USDA employee relations manual calls for misconduct investigation of “sexual harassment”). But, simply reporting the existence of an affair is insufficient to establish a probability of misconduct. Strike two.

According to the RF, had the investigation revealed consensual sex between Tooke and the “young lady,” the RF would have issued a “letter of warning, letter of reprimand with or without time off and/or removal from the supervisor position, or letter of termination.” In other words, she would have punished Tooke for something that broke no law or rule, based on an investigation that invaded Tooke’s privacy. Strike three.

Maybe the times “they are a changing,” as some have commented on this blog. But, until the law changes, too, government agencies and their managers are required to follow the law as written, not as they wished it were. There’s a reason Tooke received only a “verbal reprimand,” i.e., no disciplinary action at all. He didn’t break any rules.

This Wall Street Journal article ($) adds a knotty twist to recent greenhouse gas proposals in Washington State. The first article is disturbing, regardless of the aims of the parties involved. Two other recent articles show how forest management (though not USFS lands, I think, at least directly) comes into play….

Climate of Unaccountability
Are foundations running state energy policy without transparency?

“An environmental nonprofit, the World Resources Institute, actually hired Washington’s state government as a contractor last July.

“Under this remarkable arrangement, the state agreed to perform a “scope of work” for the nonprofit that includes “activities and deliverables” to advance a green agenda. The special-interest tail is officially wagging the democratic dog, given that the contract provides the job framework for Mr. Inslee’s senior policy adviser for climate and sustainability, Reed Schuler.

…

“In other words, he holds an influential policy position. And it’s funded through a grant from the World Resources Institute, which reimburses Washington for Mr. Schuler’s salary, benefits and expenses. Under its contract, Washington State sends progress reports alongside its $33,210 quarterly invoices to the nonprofit.

“Tara Lee, the Governor’s spokeswoman, says Mr. Schuler is “a Washington state employee with the same scope of work, review process and accountability as any other state employee. The only difference is the funding source.” She adds the World Resources Institute’s largesse amounts to “general support for expanding the Inslee Administration’s work to combat climate exchange,” but that “they do not decide or dictate the details of this work, nor do they have input on any employee’s work plan.” And she says such arrangements are “not unusual.” “

The only difference is the funding source? The WSJ notes that, “Substitute the Koch brothers for the World Resources Institute, and the outrage would be predictable.”

Dots to connect:

Seattle Times, Jan. 9: “Gov. Jay Inslee Tuesday urged Washington lawmakers to embrace his ambitious plan to tax fossil-fuel emissions in Washington state.”

“Inslee’s proposal would levy a $20-a-ton price on carbon emissions, said Reed Schuler, an Inslee policy adviser. That price would rise over time.

“The billions of dollars raised would support clean-energy projects, work to improve floodwater management and reduce risks of wildfires, and assistance to offset the tax’s impact on low-income communities.

“The state would start collecting the revenue in the 2020 budget year, with $726 million generated that year. The tax would raise a total of $3.3 billion over four years.

On Jan. 5, also in the Times:
Washington state lands commissioner urges legislators to target carbon pollution

“That could put her at odds with fellow Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee, who next week is expected to unveil a carbon tax or fee that could be used partially to replenish a state reserve account he would like to tap to meet a state Supreme Court mandate on paying for public-schools improvements. Franz’s proposal wouldn’t allow carbon money to be used that way.”

…

“Smart carbon policy would focus on several areas, including reductions in wildfire danger and improving forest health, she said. The department and Legislature have committed to treating 1 million acres of forest with thinning and prescribed burning over the next 20 years.”