Oregon logging history map

by

Oregon Wild has compiled an  interactive map of logged and thinned areas on public and private lands across the state of Oregon.  If nothing else, it’s hard to look at this and accuse anyone wanting to keep logging out of new parts of their public lands of being an “extremist.”

Oregon Wild intends to use this mapping tool to help advocate for forest conservation and demonstrate that while there have been temporal pulses of increased logging intensity over the years, logging is always very active on both public and private forests in Oregon. In fact, if anything, the analysis on this site underrepresents the true extent of logging taking place.

The tool is also a great visualization of the few Wilderness and roadless wild lands remaining in the state – while it does not highlight these areas, they are clearly visible by their noticeable lack of logging units. These last bastions of wild landscapes are far too rare in Oregon, a reason Oregon Wild is working to protect what is left.

We can also use the tool to push back on misinformation spouted by timber interests.

  • Many say that logging on public land was “shut-down” by the spotted owl and Northwest Forest Plan, first implemented in 1994, but the data shows that logging continued apace throughout the Northwest Forest Plan region after the plan was adopted.
  • Logging advocates also say we need the increase the “pace and scale” of logging to reduce fire hazard in the dry forests of eastern and southwest Oregon, but the data show that thinning has already occurred across vast portions of these forests.

Forest Service Denies Permit to Race Organizer Based on Skidding, Aggressive Riding, and Possibly a YouTube Video

by

According to this article at Singletracks.com:

The South Platte Ranger District, a branch of the US Forest Service (USFS) that manages the Buffalo Creek mountain bike trail network near Pine, Colorado has denied Revolution Enduro a permit to hold the second annual race in May 2019, citing potential resource damage.

Revolution Enduro was granted a trial permit in 2018 by the USFS. Afterward, the enduro raised over $900 for trail funding and remediated any trail damage that was associated with the race with a crew of trail workers. However, after review, the USFS sent a letter to David Scully, the race director for the series, denying the 2019 permit.

In the written statement they cited safety concerns for trail users because of high racing speeds, and the popularity of the Buffalo Creek trail network to the public and the inability to actually close the trails during a race.

Lastly, the USFS cites potential trail and resource damage from skidding, alternate line creation, and erosion.

What isn’t highlighted in the USFS letter is that a YouTube video may have played a part in their decision.

Here’s the video in question:

Personally, I say good for the U.S. Forest Service for denying the permit for this mountain biking race on federal public lands.

[Editors Note: The following has been edited and updated to correct some misinformation originally contained in this blog post, which originally was written in 20 minutes. – mk]

Over the past few years, the issue of mountain bike use on America’s public lands has gotten a fair amount of attention. An organization called the Sustainable Trails Coalition has been trying to weaken and amend the Wilderness Act to allow mountain bikes and other wheeled contraptions in America’s designated Wilderness areas by passing federal legislation.

So far, only very far-right Republican politicians, mainly all with League of Conservation Scores in the single digits, have supported STC’s quest to open up designated Wilderness areas to bikes and other wheels. Originally, STC’s bill (introduced in the 114th session of Congress by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)) would have potentially opened up all Wilderness areas in America to mountain bikes within 24 months of passage.

That bill, S. 3205, would have also allowed “any officer or employee of the Federal Government” to ability to use “any small-scale motorized equipment or method of mechanical transport” in Wilderness, such as chainsaws.

It’s important to point out that the text of S. 3205 makes it very clear that federal managers with the USFS, BLM, NPS and USFWS would be given a 24 month period after the date of enactment of S. 3205 to determine which Wilderness areas should be opened to mountain bikes and other wheeled devises.

S. 3205 also made it crystal clear that if the USFS, BLM, NPS and USFWS failed to determine which of the specific 767 units of America’s National Wilderness Preservation System should remain closed to mountain bikes and other wheeled contraptions, that the USFS, BLM, NPS and USFWS “shall” allow “any form of recreational use by nonmotorized transportation methods” within Wilderness. Here’s that specific text, taken directly from S. 3205:

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as otherwise provided in this section, the Secretary concerned shall authorize relevant local officials to determine, not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, all permissible forms of recreational use by nonmotorized transportation methods over any permitted route within the jurisdiction of the local official.

(2) FAILURE TO DETERMINE.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—If a local official fails to make the determination described in paragraph (1) with respect to a permitted route within the jurisdiction of the local official by the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, any form of recreational use by nonmotorized transportation methods shall be allowable on the permitted route.

It goes without saying that the federal land management agencies would be hard-pressed to complete an entire NEPA process (or some of type of open, inclusive and transparent public process) for each of the 767 Wilderness areas that are currently part of America’s National Wilderness Preservation System within a 24-month period. So for many (most? all?) of the 767 units of America’s Wilderness System the default would be to open them up to mountain bikes. Or think about it this way, of the 767 units in America’s National Wilderness Preservation System, how many specific units does the Sustainable Trails Coalition believe should be off-limits to mountain bikes and other wheeled contraptions, even if the bill they support would be passed and signed into law?

STC revised that bill, and the version that was originally introduced in the last, 115th session of Congress by Rep Tom McClintock (R-CA) would have immediately opened up ALL units of America’s National Wilderness Preservation System via the only language in the bill, which was as follows:

Section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(c)) is amended by adding at the end the following: “Nothing in this section shall prohibit the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized bicycles, strollers, wheelbarrows, survey wheels, measuring wheels, or game carts within any wilderness area.”

The original McClintock bill, H.R. 1349, was amended in Committee and according to Congress.gov, the version of the H.R. 1349 reported in the House on 11/16/2018 read:

“(8) ALLOWABLE USES.—Each agency administering any area designated as wilderness may allow the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized adaptive cycles, non-motorized bicycles, non-motorized strollers, non-motorized wheelbarrows, non-motorized survey wheels, non-motorized measuring wheels, or non-motorized game carts within any wilderness area. For the purposes of this paragraph, the term ‘wheelchair’ means a device designed solely for use by a mobility-impaired person for locomotion, that is suitable for use in an indoor pedestrian area.”.

So, to recap: H.R. 1349, as originally introduced – and written in partnership with the Sustainable Trails Coalition – would have immediately opened up ALL units of America’s National Wilderness Preservation System to mountain bikes and other wheeled contraptions, but the version of H.R. 1349 reported in the House “may allow the use of motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized wheelchairs, non-motorized adaptive cycles, non-motorized bicycles, non-motorized strollers, non-motorized wheelbarrows, non-motorized survey wheels, non-motorized measuring wheels, or non-motorized game carts within any wilderness area.”

Meanwhile, also in the 115th session of Congress, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced S.2877 on May 17, 2018. A copy of that bill is here, and it clearly includes the following text (emphasis added):

“(3) PERMISSIBLE FORMS OF RECREATIONAL USE ON PERMITTED ROUTES.—

“(A) DETERMINATIONS BY LOCAL OFFICIALS.—

“(i) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Interior shall authorize relevant local officials to determine, by not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act, all permissible forms of nonmotorized travel over any permitted route within the jurisdiction of the local official.

“(ii) FAILURE TO DETERMINE.—

“(I) IN GENERAL.—If a local official fails to make the determination described in clause (i) with respect to a permitted route within the jurisdiction of the local official by the date that is 2 years after the date of enactment of the Human-Powered Travel in Wilderness Areas Act, any form of nonmotorized travel shall be allowable on the permitted route.

So, again, just like S.3205 the default (and very likely) impact of S. 2877 would be that many (most? all?) of the 767 units of America’s Wilderness System would be opened up to mountain bikes and other wheeled devices.

Fortunately, there’s plenty of opposition to opening up Wilderness areas to bikes and other wheeled contraptions, even within the mountain biking community. My organization, the WildWest Institute, was happy to join 150 conservation and Wilderness organizations from around the country in this sign-on letter to Congress last June.

As that letter said:

The 1964 Wilderness Act (36 U.S.C. 1131-1136) banned all types of mechanized transport, including bicycles, in designated Wilderness. Section 4(c) of that act states, “[T]here shall be…no use of motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or installation within any such area.”

Furthermore, the Congress stated the purpose of the Wilderness Act was, in part, to protect these areas from “expanding settlement and growing mechanization….” (Wilderness Act, Section 2[a].)

For over a half century, the Wilderness Act has protected wilderness areas from mechanization and mechanical transport, even if no motors were involved with such activities. This has meant, as Congress intended, that Wildernesses have been kept free from bicycles and other types of mechanization and mechanical transport. The undersigned believe that this protection has served our Nation well, and that the “benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness” would be forever lost by allowing mechanized transport in these areas.

Go back up and watch that extreme mountain biking video again and this time imagine America’s designated and protected Wilderness areas turned over to this type of mechanized travel – or whatever type of mechanized travel fits under the parameters of the actual text of these STC bills (today, or in 5 years, or 20 years, or 50 years). The visionary Wilderness Act clearly banned mechanical transport, and for good reason. If the Sustainable Trails Coalition seriously thinks their bicycles – and other wheeled contraptions – have been illegal banned throughout America’s National Wilderness Preservation System, as their supporters often claim, the attorney who runs the Sustainable Trails Coalition should file a lawsuit immediately…and we’ll see what happens.

Let’s Identify and Discuss Some Specific Projects- Fuel Treatments “Miles Away” From Infrastructure

by

A number of years ago, before I graduated from the Forest Service, our Regional Forester invited some academics from the University of Colorado at Boulder to talk to us. There was a fairly large groups of Regional Office specialists at the meeting (including our Regional Fuels Specialist, wildlife, fish, ecologists and so on.).  I do remember the professors kept telling us that logging in the backcountry was not necessary for fuel treatments to protect communities.  We found ourselves in agreement (of course there are many definitions of WUI and backcountry) and said “but we’re not doing that.” But it was like information only went one way.. from them to us.  My hypothesis is that teachers are sometimes not used to being challenged by people who know the same, or more, about a topic.  Of course, I wanted to ask them to cite evidence for their claims, but in the context of the meeting that was considered to be – I guess- inhospitable or inappropriate.   The underlying fear, I believe, by FS folks was, that if challenged, even in the most gentle way (I thought I was gentle, anyway), they might become even more outspoken about us in a negative way. I don’t know if that was true and suspect that they might have enjoyed an intellectual free-for-all.

Nevertheless, here we are, years later, and Matthew has brought up a related concept.. “protecting homes and communities from wildfire does not include logging miles away from the homes and communities.” This sounds a lot like what those professors from CU told us years ago. But since then I realized that the professors framed fuel treatments as only being about homes and communities. I know, Denver Water headquarters is not that far from Boulder, but I don’t know that the circles ever crossed.

Denver Water, for example, does not want wildfires costing them large amounts of money in sediment removal.

At the EADM workshop for Region 2, power line folks were represented. They were looking for coordinated NEPA approaches to do vegetation management around their power lines.  Are there power lines in the “backcountry” or does the existence of power lines make it “not backcountry”?

So fuel treatments may be desirable to protect infrastructure besides home and communities. And where is that infrastructure located? Are we just talking past each other when some say “homes and communities” and others say “protecting water supplies” or “power lines”? Do different parts of the country have different infrastructure concerns that drive the way this discussion gets framed? Should someone (??) organize field trips so that people can see the same projects and discuss them?

I think to really understand each others’ points of view, we would need to find some examples of “logging miles away from communities” or “logging in the backcountry” and see 1) if fuel treatment was in the purpose and need and 2) specifically what infrastructure the treatments were intended to protect (what we might call “protection targets”.

Based on Dr. Mark Finney’s work, it can be “science-based management” to do treatments that are further away from specific protection targets based on the model. So it would be interesting if that science (on Strategically Placed Landscape Treatments)  is currently being used, and how far those treatments are from protection targets. Here are the links to two posts  one on Finney’s work and its application in the Sierra Nevada in California.

Here’s a link to the Forests to Faucets YouTube video in the image above.

 

Trump’s executive order will cut more forest trees; CU Boulder professor says “we can’t log our way out of the fire problem”

by

Here’s the full article from the Washington Post, reprinted in the Denver Post. Some interesting snips from the article are below. Note: Emphasis added.

University of Colorado Boulder Professor Jennifer Balch said in an email that while treating federal forests makes sense near homes, that policy prescription won’t make a serious dent in the size and intensity of wildfires out West. These fires have increased fivefold since the 1970s as temperatures have risen and snowpack has shrunk. Just 2 percent of lands treated by the Forest Service between 2004 and 2013 experienced a wildfire.

“We can’t log our way out of the fire problem — thinning all the forests is not possible,” the fire ecologist said. “And even if it were, it won’t stop fires in the extreme weather that is happening more frequently, and will in the future.”

The Camp fire’s massive impact came into sharp focus Sunday, as the utility PG&E filed a notice with the Securities and Exchange Commission suggesting it would file for bankruptcy because it faces more than $30 billion in liability in connection with the state’s wildfires. The company’s CEO, Geisha Williams, also stepped down Sunday.

Many California residents fault PG&E’s power lines for the wildfires that ravaged the state last year, and the matter is under investigation.

A piece published Nov. 30 in Geophysical Research Letters found that human-induced climate change now influences a fifth of the world’s fires.

Balch noted that the executive order did not address some kinds of the vegetation that makes communities vulnerable to fire, such as the chaparral that spread a fire in November that destroyed hundreds of Malibu-area homes. “You can’t log shrubs,” she said.

Despite the fact that the Forest Service is shuttered, officials there have given loggers permission to keep operating on existing sales — which was prohibited during both the 1995 and 2013 shutdowns — and are now exploring holding new auctions even if the government remains closed.

Agency officials informed staffers Thursday to figure out what it would take to bring back some furloughed employees for new timber sales, according to a federal official who was not authorized to speak on the record. Meanwhile, the important work of removing small vegetation and dry brush that serves as kindling for fires is not being done because of the shutdown, the longest in history as it enters its fourth week.

Employees working without pay and those funded by unspent appropriations from last fiscal year are managing the current harvests, the official said. Timber technicians who go through the forests to mark which trees should be cut are receiving their regular salary. But holding new sales would involve substantially more staff, the official noted.

Trump has repeatedly blamed devastating wildfires out West on poor forest management, rejecting the idea that climate change could be leading to a longer and more intense fire season in the United States.

Standing in the devastated town of Paradise, which the president mistakenly called “Pleasure,” Trump said the United States should follow the example of Finland, which spends “a lot of time on raking and cleaning and doing things, and they don’t have any problem.”…

The president has regularly asked advisers how he could punish California for what he deems as poor forestry. Trump has been told repeatedly that he cannot take away money that has already been appropriated for the disaster, according to individuals familiar with the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly. Advisers have argued that taking such money from California would only hurt the citizens — not the elected officials he wants to punish….

“Our public lands are supposed to be managed in a way that benefits the people,” said Sam Evans, national forests and parks program leader for the Southern Environmental Law Center’s office in North Carolina. “Trump’s executive order does the exact opposite, by putting policies in place that cater to industry interests.

“It’s not telling the agencies to increase the number of communities protected from fire risks,” Evans said. “It’s telling them to put more logs on trucks, while cutting out environmental review, transparency and accountability to the public.”

What Can We Do About the Shutdown??

by

Jim Caswell of NAFSR wrote the following and I couldn’t say it any better..

The partial government shutdown has now become the longest in the history of the nation. Most of us experienced one or more shutdowns during our careers. We know from personal experience the difficulties being furloughed can be for employees and their families.

While NAFSR cannot do much as an organization about the situation, there are opportunities that we as individuals can and should do. Accordingly, I’m asking Members to reach out to furloughed Forest Service employees in your area, let them know retirees care and are concerned about their well-being and the well-being of their families. Please offer whatever support you can, even if it’s just an ear for them to vent or a shoulder to cry on. Take them out for coffee or lunch, but above all ensure they know that NAFSR members* care about them.

Please consider contacting your congressional delegation and ask them to find a solution to this impasse and end the shutdown. The Forest Service has approximately 24,000 employees stationed throughout the nation. All they really want to do is go back to work.

Thank you for caring. Together, we can help shoulder some of their burden.

Jim Caswell

* substitute “fellow citizens” or “members of The Smokey Wire community.” While all of us don’t live close enough to reach out personally, we all can call our congressional delegation.

Colorado Women in Ranching: A Spirit of Nurturing, Sustainability is Alive at San Juan Ranch

by
Check out the video imbedded in the story or on Youtube here

This is a story by Liz Forster of the Colorado Springs Gazette. The comments are also interesting and bring more historic context. Ranchers often get a bad rap in both public lands and climate change debates- will this change with increasing numbers of women in the field (or in the truck)? The whole article is worth reading.

Defying convention is standard at San Juan Ranch. And with the mounting pressures from prolonged drought, climate change and unsustainably low crop prices, Sullivan and her partner George Whitten’s idiosyncratic take on what it means to be a rancher in the West might save their operation, and also help others inevitably facing the same challenges.

“The idea that people that are raising animals for food can’t care about them, or have to harden their hearts is opposite of what it should be,” Sullivan said. “The more compassion and empathy that we can have for them – those are the people who should be raising animals.”

Along the way, San Juan Ranch has joined a broader movement to connect female ranchers, mentor young women and pioneer a new ethos behind ranching in the West

…

Some of these women perhaps bring different attitudes:

She also helps draft policy recommendations on behalf of the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union to mail to the U.S. Capitol.

“I really want to bridge that gap between the urban and rural communities because I feel like that was the most fortunate part of my upbringing: I had the best of both worlds,” she said. “So, if I work my way into having a voice in policy, I can have empathy for both worlds, which I think is lacking and leading to some of the extreme polarization that we’re seeing.”

At a time when the ‘us’ versus ‘them’ narrative pervades in the United States, Fancher prefers to extend a hand across the table.

“If we shun men and say, “Well, you’ve always had the upper hand,’ that’s a way to close off the conversation, which doesn’t do any good,” she said. “Instead, (we should) foster how can we all be on the same page and how can we support each other.”

It’s interesting that these folks do not use feedlots:

Sullivan and Whitten cut ties with the feedlots after they married, opting to keep their cows in their pastures on a grass diet for the duration of their lives. It is a slower process but produces beef with less fat and calories per ounce of meat, more healthy fatty acids and, according to the couple, happier cows.

Many of the studies of the impacts of cattle grazing on the environment assume (1) that cattle raising practices include feedlots, and (2) that the land could be used to grow other human food crops. In many areas of the west (2) is not true, due to dryness or cold or both. IMHO, eating local and grassfed and finished may be better for the environment than other options- it’s all in the assumptions and the particularities of place.

The Smokey Wire 2.0

by

Yesterday we changed over to a new theme which is current (!) and supports the update of WordPress (!) and for contributors, I set it up so that you can enter your posts in Gutenberg, even though the Classic Editor is the default.  I’m interested in any problems or feedback. Some can be fixed, but others will probably have to wait for 3.0 (see donation button to the right).

Andy Stahl’s KISS Planning Rule

by

This is a Certified NCFP/Smokey Wire Classic.  It used to be a tab at the top of the site. I’m moving it to this one very long post so that it can continue to be found and we have more space for tabs. The idea was (although Andy can certainly say so himself) to meet the requirements of NFMA without unnecessary (analysis? drama?). Now that we have the 2012 Rule and are implementing it, does the KISS Rule look any different than during the development of the 2012?

Andy’s Keep-It-Simple-Sweet proposed NFMA rules are contained in the following posts together with associated commentary:

K.I.S.S. Part I

K.I.S.S. Part II

K.I.S.S. Rule Language, Purpose and Principles

K.I.S.S. Vegetation Management and Timber Harvest

K.I.S.S. Assessment of New Information and Changed Circumstances

K.I.S.S. Inventories and Interdisciplinary Process

K.I.S.S. Public Participation

K.I.S.S. Plant and Animal Diversity

K.I.S.S. Plan Consistency

K.I.S.S. Assessment of New Information, Continued

K.I.S.S. Maps

K.I.S.S. Conclusion

K.I.S.S. Word Count

Here is the complete K.I.S.S. rule text:

36 CFR 219.1: Purpose and principles

(a) The rules in this subpart set forth the process for revising land management plans for units of the National Forest System as required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, as amended. Land management plans shall be revised when conditions in a unit have significantly changed, but no less frequently than every fifteen years.

(b) A land management plan revision shall:

(1) Decide the vegetation management and timber harvest program and the proportion of probable methods of tree removal;
(2) Include an assessment of new information and changed circumstances since adoption of the previous land management plan or revision thereof;
(3) Be prepared by an interdisciplinary team;
(4) Be based upon inventories appropriate to inform the decisions made by the plan revision;
(5) Involve the public in its promulgation;
(6) Provide for the diversity of plant and animal communities and preserve the diversity of tree species; and,
(7) Review previous decisions to classify lands as suited or not suited for timber production if the prior classification decision is older than ten years.

36 CFR 219.2: Vegetation Management and Timber Harvest Program.

(a) The vegetation management and timber harvest program (“program”) shall include the site-specific vegetation management activities, including the sale of timber, purchase of vegetation management services by stewardship or other contractual method, and fire use necessary to meet the plan’s goals and objectives for a period of one to three years. An environmental impact statement shall be prepared for the program, if required by Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. The program can be amended at any time. All amendments shall comply with NEPA procedures.

(b) A vegetation management activity included in the program shall not be subject to the notice, comment or appeal requirements of the Forest Service Decisionmaking and Appeals Reform Act, 16 U.S.C. 1612 (notes), but shall be subject to the objection procedures contained in this subpart.

(c) Program activities shall be conducted only on lands suitable for the activity.

(d) Program activities shall maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native species in the planning area.

(e) Program activities shall be consistent with the plan’s standards and guidelines, or the standard or guideline shall be revised pursuant to this subsection.

(f) Before stands of trees are harvested, the stand’s average annual growth shall have culminated calculated on the basis of cubic measurement or other method at the discretion of the responsible official. Stands can be thinned before growth has culminated. Salvage or sanitation harvesting of timber stands that are substantially damaged by fire, windthrow or other catastrophe, or that are in imminent danger from insect or disease attack, can be harvested before growth has culminated.

(g) Timber will not be harvested where soil, slope, or other watershed conditions will be irreversibly damaged.

(h) Timber will not be harvested where adequate restocking within five years is not assured.

(i) Timber will not be harvested where water conditions or fish habitat are likely to be seriously and adversely affected by detrimental changes in water temperatures, blockages of water courses, or deposits of sediments.

(j) The timber harvest system will be selected based upon meeting the plan’s goals and objectives and not primarily upon the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit of output of timber.

(k) Timber harvest designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of timber will be used only where:

(1) For clearcutting it is the optimum method to meet the plan’s goals and objectives;
(2) For other even-aged methods it is appropriate to meet the plan’s goals and objectives;
(3) The harvest activity is included in the program and has been assessed pursuant to this subpart;
(4) Cut blocks, patches, or strips are shaped and blended to the extent practicable with the natural terrain;
(5) The area to be cut in one harvest operation (e.g., one cut block) does not exceed the maximum size limit established by the land management plan. If the plan has no maximum size limits, even-aged harvest cannot proceed until the plan is revised to include maximum size limits. Maximum size limits may be exceeded after public notice and review by the responsible Forest Service officer one level above the Forest Service officer who normally would approve the harvest activity. Maximum size limits shall not apply to the size of areas harvested as a result of natural catastrophic conditions such as fire, insect and disease attack, or windstorm; and,
(6) The even-aged harvest protects soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and esthetic resources, and assures the regeneration of trees.

36 CFR 219.3: Assessment of New Information and Changed Circumstances.

(a) The revision shall assess new information and changed circumstances and conditions in the unit that are relevant to the decisions made in the land management plan. If the new information or changed circumstances and conditions warrant amendments to the land management plan, the land management plan amendments shall be assessed as a part of the vegetation management and timber harvest program’s NEPA document. If the land management plan amendments, singly or in combination with the vegetation management and timber harvest program, require an environmental impact statement pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., an environmental impact statement shall be prepared.

(b) The assessment shall determine whether new information or changed circumstances warrant a review of lands the Forest Service has classified as suitable or unsuitable for timber production. The review shall focus on, but is not limited to, lands proposed for timber harvest in the plan revision’s vegetation management and timber harvest program.

36 CFR 219.4: Inventories.

The revision shall be based upon inventory data, maps, graphic material, and explanatory aids, of a kind, character, and quality, and to the detail appropriate for the land management plan revisions and vegetation management and timber harvest program decisions made.

36 CFR 219.5: Interdisciplinary Preparation.

An interdisciplinary approach shall be used in the revision of the land management plan. The disciplines of the preparers shall be appropriate to: 1) the formulation of the vegetation management and timber harvest program; and, 2) the new information and changed circumstances and conditions in the unit that warrant revision of the plan.

36 CFR 219.6: Public Participation.

(a) The revised land management plan shall be made available to the public electronically and at convenient locations in the vicinity of the unit for a period of at least three months before the revised plan is adopted. During this three-month period, public meetings at locations that foster public participation in the plan revision shall be held.

(b) If the land management plan revisions, singly or in combination with the vegetation management and timber harvest program, require an environmental impact statement pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., the public participation process set forth in Council on Environmental Quality regulations, 40 CFR Part 1500 et seq., shall be followed.

(c) In addition to the requirements of (a) and (b) above, other processes suited to the decisions made in the plan revision, including the vegetation management and timber harvest program, may be used to involve the public.

36 CFR 219.7: Plant and Animal Community Diversity.

(a) Plan revisions and the vegetation management and timber harvest program shall ensure habitat sufficient to support viable populations of existing native and desired non-native species in the planning area. Methodologies for assessing and ensuring species viability shall consider and be appropriate to 1) the scope and scale of the plan revision and program decisions made; 2) the ecology of the plan area; and, 3) the biology of the species.

(b) Plan revisions and the vegetation management and timber harvest program shall, to the degree practicable, preserve the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the plan region.

Info from Forest Service on Shutdown

by

Thanks to NAFSR for this link! There’s a lot of info, but the below talks about which activities are ongoing.  My thoughts and prayers go out to our suffering FS employees and their families.

The USDA Forest Service shutdown plan includes three categories of work that are excepted or exempt during a lapse in funding.

  • Category I – Law Enforcement and Health and Safety (excepted)
  • Category II – Activities not included in Category I and III; financed from available funds, where applicable (exempt)
  • Category III – Protect Life and Property (excepted)
  • Complete details on the Forest Service shutdown plan are available here: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/usda-fs-shutdown-plan.pdf

Employees are designated under one of four categories during the partial shutdown: exempt, excepted, excepted on-call or furloughed.

  • An individual employee’s status may change throughout the partial shutdown. Supervisors will keep employees informed of changes in status and provide guidance as needed.
  • An exempt employee is not affected by a lapse in appropriations. This includes employees who are not funded by annually appropriated funds. Employees performing those functions will generally continue to be governed by the normal pay, leave, and other civil service rules.
  • Excepted and excepted on-call employees will work some or all their normal tour of duty during a furlough. They are guaranteed to be paid when Congress passes an appropriations bill.
  • Employees who are neither excepted nor exempt will be furloughed. Non-excepted, furloughed employees will be paid for the time spent in furlough status only if legislation is passed allowing for them to be paid.

There are a number of critical activities and training continuing under the three categories identified in the shutdown plan.

  • Any employees asked to participate in these activities will do so as excepted, excepted on-call or exempt.

  • Excepted and excepted on-call employees are guaranteed to be paid for the time worked when Congress passes an appropriations bill. Exempt employees continue to receive pay during the partial shutdown.

Another Piece of the Executive Order Puzzle- WGA MOU with Forest Service

by

 

So far this week. we’ve had (1) the Executive Order by President Trump posted by Jon dated Dec. 21, (2) the Letter by Governors Inslee, Newsom, and Brown dated January 9th that Steve posted here.  But another similar sounding piece of information is an MOU that was signed by the Western Governors Association Dec. 18th.  IMHO, the Western Governors always seem to be working on useful things, but generally don’t  seem to get much coverage in the media.  Anyway, here’s the MOU.  Sounds like everyone’s in agreement about what needs to be done. Maybe Inslee, Newsom and Brown are trying to get to the head of other western states’ funding pack? Or there’s some political angle that is not obvious (at least to me).

 

The purpose of this MOU is to establish a framework to allow the Forest Service and WGA to work collaboratively to accomplish mutual goals, further common interests, and effectively respond to the increasing suite of challenges facing western landscapes. Federal, state and private managers of forests and rangelands face a range of urgent challenges, among them catastrophic wildfires, invasive species, degraded watersheds, and epidemics of insects and disease. The conditions fueling these circumstances are not improving. Of particular concern, are longer fire seasons, the rising size and severity of wildfires, and the expanding risk to communities, natural resources, and firefighters. To address these issues, the Forest Service announced a new strategy outlining plans to work more closely with states to identify landscape-scale priorities for targeted treatments in areas with the highest payoffs.

The Forest Service will partner with state leaders and work shoulder-to-shoulder to co­-manage risks, and identify land management priorities, using all available tools to reduce hazardous fuels, including mechanical treatments, prescribed fire, and management of unplanned fire in the right place at the right time, to mitigate them.

A key component of the Forest Service’s new shared stewardship strategy is to prioritize investment decisions on forest treatments-in direct coordination with states-using the most advanced science tools to increase the scope and scale of critical forest treatments that protect communities and create resilient forests and rangelands.

As the chief elected officials of states, Governors expect to engage with federal officials on the formulation and execution of public policy. Governors also have specialized knowledge of their states’ environments, resources, laws, culture, and economies that is essential to informed federal decision-making. By operating as authentic collaborators, the states and federal government can improve their service to the public by creating more efficient, effective, and long-lasting policy.

As far as I can tell, there is not another similar MOU with Interior.

Another WGA item of note:

Initiation of Collaborative Conservation Task Force (Dec. 2018)