Forest planning end-of-year update

by

In keeping with its long tradition, the Forest Service has provided gifts to the public of work to do over the holidays on forest plans.  (At least there’s no government shutdown to complicate the math this year.)

The Tonto National Forest on December 13 released a draft revised land management plan and draft environmental impact statement for public review and comment.   The comment period ends March 12.

Environmental groups took issue with the December 20 release of the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forest draft forest plan revision and environmental impact statement, writing to the forest supervisor that it effectively removes about two weeks from the 90-day comment period.

While the draft revised  Nantahala and Pisgah National Forest Plan was also scheduled to come out in December, it is now expected in February.

Meanwhile, the Bitterroot National Forest may have given up on revising its 32 year old forest plan.  It started a 30-day comment period on December 17 for a proposed plan amendment to address elk management.  (Oddly, the scoping letter indicates that they seem to think they can change elk management without the substantive requirements for other species being “directly related.”)

Happy new decade of forest planning!

 

Another Take on Soil CO2

by

A Oregon State study described in an OSU blog post in November:

Pacific Northwest timber harvesting doesn’t affect mineral soil carbon, research shows

Conventional timber harvesting has no effect on carbon levels in the mineral soils of the western Pacific Northwest for at least 3 1/2 years after harvest, according to recently-published research by Oregon State University and Weyerhaeuser Company.

The study is important because soils contain a large percentage of the total carbon in forests – generally about half of it – and understanding soil carbon response to clear-cuts and other forest management practices is vital in determining carbon balance in any given stand as well as the overall landscape.

Stable carbon levels in the ground means less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. An important greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide’s concentration in the atmosphere has risen 30 percent since the start of the Industrial Age.

Historic in its scope, this collaborative and long-term effort between Jeff Hatten of the OSU College of Forestry and Scott Holub of Weyerhaeuser monitored nine managed Douglas-fir forest stands in Oregon and Washington, before and after conventional timber harvest and replanting, and involved more than 50,000 soil samples from 2700 sample points, thus far.  Continued monitoring of soil carbon with additional rounds of sampling is planned at these sites for decades to come.

“Our original hypothesis that timber harvesting would decrease soil carbon in the short term was disproven,” said Hatten, a soils researcher in the college’s Department of Forest Engineering, Resources and Management. “And I think it’s fair to say this has been the most extensive sampling ever conducted to determine if harvesting has an impact on soil carbon.”

“The no-result was remarkable,” he said. “Even where you have the highest soil temperatures and the highest soil moistures – the strongest environment for decomposition that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – harvesting doesn’t seem to have an impact in the areas we studied. And the results likely extend to similar areas, probably totaling many millions of hectares in the Northwest.”

Across all the sites combined, after harvest, the scientists found negligible change (+2%) in mineral soil carbon content and a 184 percent hike in forest floor carbon, the result of harvest residue.

Modern harvest methods are designed to cause minimal soil disturbance, and the stable soil carbon would seem to reflect that, the researchers said.

“Concern about rising atmospheric carbon dioxideconcentrations has heightened interest in the role that forests play in carbon sequestration, storage and cycling,” Hatten said. “Living trees sequester and store carbon, but less recognition has been given to soils’ role. We have plans to resample these sites in coming years and decades to look at the longer-term impacts.”

Citation:

Holub, S.M. and Hatten, J.A. 2019. Soil Carbon Storage in Douglas-Fir Forests of Western Oregon and Washington Before and After Modern Timber Harvesting Practices. Soil Science Society of America Journal 83(1):S175-S186.

Abstract available here: https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/sssaj/abstracts/83/s1/S175

 

NFS Litigation Weekly December 20, 2019

by

Forest Service summary (click on the highlighted bullets to see the documents provided by the Forest Service):  Litigation Weekly December 20 2019_Final

COURT DECISIONS

The District Court of Montana issued an order denying plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction against the 2019 Yellowstone bison hunt on the Custer Gallatin National Forest.  However, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court ruling from February that dismissed a lawsuit from the Cottonwood Environmental Law Center on Yellowstone bison management.

The District Court of Idaho upheld the Windy Shingle project on the Nez Perce-Clearwater National Forests involving the Healthy Forest Restoration Act and other requirements.

The District Court of Colorado suspended Applications for Permits to Drill on the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre, and Gunnison National Forests until they complete an analysis of the reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts of oil and gas.

NEW CASES

The State of Montana filed an amended complaint against the Defendants, which includes the Forest Service, claiming the State of Montana owns title to submerged lands also claimed by Defendants for former hydropower sites on the Madison, Missouri and Clark Fork Rivers.

The plaintiff filed a complaint in the District Court of Utah against the Forest Service concerning the issuance of term and temporary grazing permits on the Kingston, Forshea and Manning Creek Allotments on Monroe Mountain within the Fishlake National Forest for the 2019 grazing season.  (A more colorful version of the story may be found here:  “This lawsuit claims these Utah ranchers, like Bundy, don’t recognize the authority of the federal government and have snubbed grazing requirements for years.”)

The plaintiff filed a complaint in the District Court of Montana against the Forest Service concerning the Flathead National Forest 2018 revised Forest Plan and the Lolo, Helena-Lewis & Clark and Kootenai National Forests amendments for grizzly bears.  (While, it may be hard to tell from his pro se complaint what the plaintiff’s interest is, this is from the sometime state legislator’s blog:  “Policies that I am against are taking out our roads and allowing our forests to be downgraded and such policies are resulting in fires that are destroying our property and Killing our wildlife!”)

NOTICE OF INTENT

Plaintiffs sent a renewed 60-day Notice of intent to Sue pursuant to the Endangered Species Act regarding the Rock Creek Mine project on the Kootenai National Forest after the Fish and Wildlife Service completed a “Supplement to the Biological Opinion” in November of 2019.

OTHER AGENCY CASES

The plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court for the District of Columbia against the National Park Service and the Department of Interior concerning the use of motorized electric bicycles within the National Park System.

Court Rejects Trump Administration Renewal of Oregon Ranchers’ (AKA “Convicted Arsonists”) Grazing Permit As Investigation Finds Washington State GOP Rep Matt Shea Engaged in “Domestic Terrorism”

by

Well, they say that “timing is everything” and based on what has just taken place in the past 24 hours they might be right.

Today, a federal judge today overturned the Trump administration’s renewal of the Hammond Ranches’ livestock-grazing permit finding that then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s decision to renew the permit “was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, not rationally connected to the facts before the agency, inconsistent with the governing statutes and regulations, and an unexplained change in agency practice and procedure.” Gee, imagine that!

You may recall that the BLM had revoked the Hammonds Ranches’ grazing privileges in 2014 after Dwight and Steven Hammond were convicted of arson on federal lands in 2012. In January 2019, on his last day in office, Zinke abruptly overruled the BLM and renewed the permit.

If that doesn’t ring a bell about the Hammonds, you may remember that the Hammond’s were also the “inspiration” for the 41 day-long armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon in 2016 by Cliven and Ammon Bundy, who are also still illegally grazing their cows on our public lands and who still owe the American taxpayers over $1 million in unpaid pubic lands grazing fees.

And since “timing is everything” an explosive investigation was just released accusing Washington State GOP House Rep Matt Shea with engaging in “domestic terrorism” for his role in playing the armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge

According to numerous media accounts:

State Rep. Matt Shea planned and participated in domestic terrorism against the United States before and during the armed takeover at Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, an investigation commissioned by the Washington state House found.

The 108-page report found that beginning in November 2015, Shea, working with militia leader Ammon Bundy, helped “in the planning and preparation” of the Malheur takeover, a six-week conflict in which dozens of armed protesters occupied the refuge in rural Eastern Oregon. The standoff ended after one protester was shot and killed and dozens were arrested.

“Representative Shea, as a leader in the Patriot Movement, planned, engaged in and promoted a total of three armed conflicts of political violence against the United States Government in three states outside the state of Washington over a three-year period,” according to the report released Thursday. “In one conflict Representative Shea led covert strategic pre-planning in advance of the conflict.”

Ironically, you may recall that last year when he was Trump’s Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke blamed wildfires in California on “environmental terrorists groups.” Perhaps Zinke was thinking of Rep Matt Shea and Dwight and Steven Hammond when he made that comment.

Anyway, what interesting timing. Below is the press release from the conservation groups who held Zinke and the Trump Administration accountable.

Court Rejects Trump Administration Renewal of Oregon Ranchers’ Grazing Permit

PORTLAND, Ore.— A federal judge today overturned the Trump administration’s renewal of the Hammond Ranches’ livestock-grazing permit. The ruling throws out the ranchers’ permit on four allotments in eastern Oregon until the Bureau of Land Management does a proper environmental analysis.

Because of Hammond Ranches’ pattern of violating federal rules and the terms of its permit that disqualified it from renewal, U.S. District Judge Michael H. Simon found that then-Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s decision to renew the permit “was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, not rationally connected to the facts before the agency, inconsistent with the governing statutes and regulations, and an unexplained change in agency practice and procedure.”

Today’s ruling suspends future grazing on these allotments until the BLM can comply with federal law and regulations and engage the public in any new decision to allow grazing to resume.

“When ranchers break the law and abuse public lands, they should lose their grazing permit every time,” said Erik Molvar, executive director of Western Watersheds Project. “Restoring grazing leases to ranchers who violate the terms and conditions of their leases encourages the livestock industry to continue abusing public lands and degrading habitat for native fish and wildlife, and fans the flames of extremism, the likes of which resulted in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge debacle.”

The BLM revoked the Hammonds Ranches’ grazing privileges in 2014 after Dwight and Steven Hammond were convicted of arson on federal lands in 2012. In January 2019, on his last day in office, Zinke abruptly overruled the BLM and renewed the permit.

The BLM grazing regulations require that permittees have a “satisfactory record of performance.” Judge Simon concluded that the Hammonds were disqualified not just because of the arson convictions, but also due to their conduct surrounding other fires they were accused of setting and that Zinke ignored this in his decision. The Hammonds also were accused of making death threats against federal officials, according to news reports.

“This ruling confirms that federal grazing permits are a privilege, not a right,” said Randi Spivak, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The BLM is charged with protecting wildlife on public lands, not facilitating political favors. Thankfully the judge understands that fragile populations of birds, fish and other animals will be harmed if livestock run rampant in this beautiful place.”

The allotments lie on Steens Mountain, a special, congressionally protected landscape that’s critically important for greater sage grouse. But the birds’ population there has declined by 50% in just the past decade. Grazing has hastened that decline by trampling the birds’ habitat, damaging wet areas they depend on for food, and eating grasses that the sage grouse rely on to hide from predators.

“This decision will finally force the BLM to honestly disclose the serious environmental harm grazing causes and, with comment from the public, put restrictions to protect sage-grouse and other native species into any new permit,” said Judi Brawer, Wild Places program director with WildEarth Guardians.

Western Watersheds Project, the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians filed the lawsuit in May to challenge renewal of the Hammonds’ grazing permits. In July the judge ruled that livestock grazing could not be justified as a way to reduce wildfire risk and that grazing at permitted levels was likely to cause harm to sage grouse and rare redband trout. The judge granted a partial injunction that reduced or blocked livestock grazing on two of the four grazing allotments.

“To Save the Redwoods, Scientists Debate Burning and Logging”

by

The subtitle of this Undark article: “Some scientists question whether controlled burns and logging are really the best way to preserve California’s redwoods.”

Looks at both coast redwood and giant sequoia, the effects of fire and the lack of it, and the role of active management (thinning).

FWIW, I came across Undark recently — excellent ‘zine. “Undark is a non-profit, editorially independent digital magazine exploring the intersection of science and society.”

 

Happy Holidays Everyone!

by
Christmas Tree tag from the Eldorado National Forest

I’ll be off until January 6. Just a few year-end notes.

Thanks to everyone who makes The Smokey Wire what it is, and what it has been over the last ten years. The Contributors, of course, who give of their own time to post here. And of course those people who offer or are harassed into providing guest posts. And each person who comments- without discussion and learning from different experiences, we wouldn’t get the whole picture. Last but definitely not least are those who contribute financially, we definitely would not be able to keep going without you!

Next year, plans are to make TSW a 501c3 so your donations will be tax-deductible. We’ll also have a few new features:(1) The Climate Science Voyage of Discovery, where we talk about the science as well as relevant context from philosophy, history and sociology of science and (2) Why We Disagree About Forest Carbon.

Then there’s an election coming up, so we can look at different public lands and forest proposals by different candidates (in a safe and respectful manner). Then there’s the NEPA regulation that should be finalized, and much drama associated with the Alaska Roadless Rule. I’m looking forward to it.

One more thing- I know that I am a bit like a crow going after a new shiny object when a new topic comes up. So if there is a topic or idea I said I’d get back to and you would like to hear more, please email me.

And, of course, please keep us in mind for end-of-the year donations! Every little bit helps, and we only have individual people funding us, no organizations. So the biases you see are our own. No dark money here.

I wish the blessings of the season, light, peace, hope and joy to all of you, and will see you back here next year.

Forest Service: Forest Products Modernization Effort and Followup to Appraisal Question

by

Steve Wilent recently asked a question here

The Forest Service is developing a “market based” approach to timber sale appraisals that will aim to improve alignment between local market conditions and appraisal metrics.

I assumed that they’d been doing this all along. Anyone have insights?

I contacted the Forest Products Modernization team, and they responded promptly with much good info. Thank you! Here’s a link to their information. Also, they have newsletters, and you can get them by signing up with them at “[email protected]”. I attached newsletters from July and November FPM_At_A_Glance_November2019

FPM_AtAGlance_July2019_final  here. Note to Larry: there is a great deal about the workforce.

Where We Are Going?
• People: We are partnering with Human Resources Management to improve recruitment and retention of employees, developing and expanding training resources including academies and task books for career advancement, addressing qualification disparities in the forester and forestry technician series, and increasing the capacity of existing staff through consolidation and streamlining of certifications.

• Technology: We are modernizing the Timber Information Manager application; deploying new technologies (handheld data recorders, tablets, and lasers); expanding the use of geospatial and remote sensing (e.g., Light Detection and Ranging and unmanned aerial systems) for inventory, monitoring, boundary designation, and volume estimation; and partnering with the Chief Information
Office to expand Wi-Fi and broadband access to forest and district offices to support digital and networking capabilities.

• Business Change: We are simplifying contracts and appraisals to mitigate challenges associated with low-value material and increase timber sale outputs; leveraging employee, partner, and private industry expertise to improve program and project management skills across the agency; establishing a cross-deputy working group focused on forest products markets and utilization to help us better evaluate timber sale viability and mitigate issues with low-value material; and scaling up lessons learned and best practices for use of GNA, stewardship agreements, and designation by prescription.

• Policy: We are updating our timber management directives to reflect new authorities and provide clear direction and technical guidance on new procedures; coordinating with the Environmental Analysis and Decision Making (EADM) team to streamline the integrated resource analysis, proposed action development, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis steps of timber sale planning; and working with the Office of Regulatory Management Services to maintain a searchable, web-based agency policy library.

Now onto the detailed technical appraisal answer:

Answer:
The Forest Service has been researching a market-based approach as an alternative to using the results of past sales for establishing the Base Period Price (BPP) for the Transaction Evidence Appraisal (TEA) System. The TEA system is used in all Regions of the Forest Service except Region 10 (Alaska).  TEA uses a BPP as a starting point for the appraisal that is based on high bids from sales in the recent past. [More precisely, the BPP is the volume weighted average high bid for sales in the base period.]  When there are insufficient sales to develop a reliable BPP or when there is a lack of competition for sales, it is reasonable to doubt whether “fair market value” is being established by the normal transaction evidence procedures.

An appraisal is an estimate of fair market value (36 CFR 223.60) and is used to establish the minimum stumpage value for the sale of National Forest timber (36 CFR 223.61). The research led to pursuing alternative methods for establishing that base period price, such as using a market based approach.  The approach that was taken was not to develop an entirely new appraisal system, or build a single, national appraisal system.  Instead, a process was developed to establish BPP based on the relationship between lumber market indices and stumpage prices.  The resulting market-based BPP represents the fair market stumpage value that would otherwise have been established by the high bids the Forest Service received from actual sale transactions.  The BPP, however it is established, is further adjusted by sale specific and local market conditions to approximate a fair market value, and establish a rate for advertisement.

The new approach has shown value in test cases where the current TEA approach resulted in no bid sales due to price, and where competition or the number of previous sales was lacking for a  reliable appraisal of fair market value.

Now, I am going on the proverbial limb here as to my understanding, so please correct or add if this context is incorrect.

1) There is some requirement to try to sell trees that might be cut for say, fuel treatments or hazard trees. To do that the FS has to jump through required “timber sale” hoops.
2) However, there may be no current history to use and there might only be one potential purchaser.
So they had to figure out some other way to derive fair market value.

 

“Forest Service surpasses goals and breaks records in 2019”

by

A press release from the USFS today…. Plenty to discuss. These are the high points. What were the lows?

 

USDA Forest Service surpasses goals and breaks records in 2019

Agency treated millions of acres, expanded partnerships, access and supported rural economies

 

WASHINGTON, December 19, 2019 – The USDA Forest Service announced today that 2019 was a historic year for America’s national forests and grasslands.

“In 2019, through Shared Stewardship agreements we forged new partnerships and built on existing ones to better collaborate and share decision space with states, partners and tribes,” said Forest Service Chief Vicki Christiansen. “We also opened hundreds of thousands of acres of national forests to visitor access and sold more timber in this year than we have in any of the past 21 years, providing a sustainable flow of forest products and supporting rural economies.”

Creating healthy, productive forests and supporting rural economies

The Forest Service surpassed expectations and sold nearly 3.3 billion board feet of timber in 2019—75 million board feet more than the 20-year high set in 2018. The agency also improved forest conditions and reduced wildfire risk on over 4 million acres through timber harvest, removing hazardous fuels like dead and downed trees, and combating disease, insect and invasive species infestations.

Timber harvest volume from projects under the Good Neighbor Authority, more than tripled in 2019 from 22 to 89 million board feet. This authority allows the Forest Service to enter into agreements with state forestry agencies to perform restoration work to improve health and productivity on national forests and grasslands. To date, projects under this authority have taken place in 38 states.

Sharing stewardship responsibilities and being better neighbors

So far, 12 states and the Western Governors Association have signed on to work alongside the Forest Service to set landscape-scale goals, as well as share resources and expertise. These Shared Stewardship agreements allow the Forest Service to better work with partners to address challenges such as wildfire, insect and disease infestations and improve forest and watershed conditions while adapting to user needs. Participating states include Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Utah, and Washington.

The Joint Chiefs’ Landscape Restoration Partnership, a combined effort of the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, treated 100,000 acres in 2019 to improve forest health where public and private lands meet and to protect nearby communities from wildfire.

The U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities, the National Forest Foundation and the Forest Service partnered to set up a $4 million grant program to improve watersheds and reduce wildfire risk.

The Forest Service launched a community-based prototype wildfire risk mapping tool in Washington State. This tool is the first of its kind and allows local, state and federal agencies to fight fire where it matters most and to build fire-adapted communities more strategically and collaboratively. A nationwide map based on the prototype will be available in 2020.

Increasing access and improving recreation experiences

More than 5.2 million hours of work were logged in 2019 as part of the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps, a private-public partnership that engages more than 25,000 returning veterans and young Americans each year to strengthen America’s infrastructure and boost local economies. Participants helped to plant trees, reduce wildfire risk and improve forest conditions through vegetation management and hazardous fuels reduction projects, valued at $128 million.

Nearly 560,000 acres of national forests and grasslands were opened for access in partnership with the National Wild Turkey Federation as part of their “Save the Habitat. Save the Hunt” initiative.

Access and recreation opportunities were improved through the National Forest and Grasslands Explorer and Digital pass applications. The Explorer app lets visitors know where to find points of interest on national forests and grasslands and how best to explore them. The Digital Pass app was developed in cooperation with Recreation.gov to make purchasing day passes easier by selling them online.

“2019 was a banner year for us,” added Chief Christiansen. “Next year, we will continue to build on these successes to improve conditions on America’s national forests and grasslands to ensure they are healthier, more resilient and more productive.”

“We will keep building on the partnerships that make these successes possible and commit to increasing access to better connect people to their natural resources, so these national treasures endure for generations to come.”

For more information about the Forest Service visit www.fs.fed.us.

Litigation news from November

by

The Forest Service report hasn’t shown up for awhile, so here’s a few court stories you may have missed.

New case:  The Western Shoshone Defense Project sued the BLM over its decision to permit the Mt. Hope molybdenum mine.  (They are following the model used against the Forest Service to enjoin the Rosemont mine in Arizona; that district court decision is described here.)

Court decision:  A federal judge blocked the West Elk Coal Mine’s plans to expand by 2,000 acres into the Gunnison National Forest’s Sunset Roadless Area because of NEPA violations involving methane capture and effects on streams.

New case:  The Stop B2H Coalition and Greater Hells Canyon Council have filed a lawsuit seeking to block the proposed Boardman-to-Hemingway power transmission line, which would cross the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest.

TRO granted:  A judge has granted a temporary restraining order to prevent salvage logging operations on four of the six projects at issue in this case involving the road maintenance categorical exclusion (introduced here).

TRO denied:  A plea to halt Montana’s winter bison hunt on the Custer-Gallatin National Forest has been denied by a D.C. District Court judge, who also moved the case to Montana.

Court decision:  A D. C. District Court judge found the presidential proclamation expanding Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument is “invalid and unenforceable” for the O&C Lands, as is the BLM forest management plan that placed about three-fourths of the O&C Land base into old growth and riparian reserves.  (The latter decision conflicts with an earlier decision in Oregon federal court.)

Court decision:  Jurors in Oregon found in favor of 14 counties and their $1 billion lawsuit claiming the state deprived them of revenue for decades by limiting logging in state forests.

Court decision:  We’ve had some discussion of whether the Federal Advisory Committee Act has any teeth, including requirements for the make-up of the committee. This decision from September involves the Department of the Interior’s International Wildlife Conservation Council, “an advisory body composed primarily of trophy-hunting profiteers and firearm manufacturers.”  Plaintiffs:  “The court’s ruling allows us to continue challenging the illegal creation and operation of the IWCC …”