Should dry forests be considered suitable for timber production?

by

Recent research is showing that lower elevation forests are not regenerating after fires as they have historically.  From the abstract of the research cited in this article:

“Results highlight significant decreases in tree regeneration in the 21st century. Annual moisture deficits were significantly greater from 2000 to 2015 as compared to 1985–1999, suggesting increasingly unfavourable post‐fire growing conditions, corresponding to significantly lower seedling densities and increased regeneration failure. Dry forests that already occur at the edge of their climatic tolerance are most prone to conversion to non‐forests after wildfires. Major climate‐induced reduction in forest density and extent has important consequences for a myriad of ecosystem services now and in the future.”

One of those consequences should flow from NFMA requirements for sustainability and ecological integrity.  To put that in simplistic terms, if the land “wants” to be non-forest in the future climate, we have to let it be non-forest.  And non-forested lands are not suitable for timber production, regardless of whether we could plant and maintain a plantation there.  I don’t recall seeing any discussion of this in forest plan revision material I have reviewed recently.  There is also requirement to use the best available scientific information, so a suitability evaluation of low-elevation forests should go beyond what is currently growing there to address what would be expected there in the future.  Many national forests could end up with fewer suitable acres.

In their own words, tech industry goes political, too

by

We recently had a discussion about the recreation industry going political (especially with regard to national monuments), and there have also been posts about the changing economics of rural communities.  Here’s an op-ed from some high-tech entrepreneurs about why they want to be near public lands and about getting involved in their management.

“Public lands provide inspiration for innovation within our companies, they provide the backdrop for employee wellness and they serve as a competitive advantage in our ability to attract and retain talent.”

“Access to open spaces and public lands is what makes our businesses tick. They are not just a means by which we refuel, but are also providing a foundation of solid work culture, creativity, innovative thinking and a spirit of entrepreneurship. There are real benefits that ripple throughout our business model that depend on public lands and our access to vast wild places.”

“There is real data and an undeniable economic argument behind fighting for policies such as full funding and permanent reauthorization for the bipartisan Land and Water Conservation Fund, standing up against the rollback of protections for our national monuments and other public lands, and saving public lands at the doorstep of Yellowstone from industrial-scale gold mining. Montanans should have the right and the opportunity for intentional public engagement in the decisions that are made about our public lands. And now, it’s more important than ever for technology companies like ours, and others, to get engaged.”

My suspicion has been a little more simple-minded.  When you can start a company that ships its products through the internet, and you can locate your business wherever you want, why wouldn’t you go where you want to be?  And then you want to keep it that way.

USFS – Northwest Forest Plan science synthesis and science forum

by

FYI, just received this….

Good afternoon!

On June 26, the U.S. Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest Research Stations will be hosting a science forum to share key findings of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) science synthesis. The synthesis will inform the revision of land management plans for 17 national forests in western Washington, western Oregon, and northern California within the NWFP area. The Plan amended land management plans in 1994 to protect threatened and endangered species associated with late successional and old-growth forest habitats while still contributing to social and economic sustainability.

The synthesis is posted to https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/research/science-synthesis/index.shtml.

Northwest Forest Plan Science Synthesis – Science Forum

The forum will include a series of short presentations on the report’s key findings, followed by a question-and-answer session. This is not a public listening session about forest plan revisions; rather, it is an opportunity to learn about recent findings from the science synthesis.

 

Tuesday, June 26, 2018

8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel Portland

Multnomah/Holladay Rooms

1000 NE Multnomah Street, Portland, Oregon 97232

 

If you’re unable to attend in person, there will be an option for remote participation via Webcast. To register to attend either in person or remotely, visit https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/research/science-synthesis/index.shtml.

If you have any questions about the event, please contact Becky Gravenmier at [email protected] or (503) 808-2851. We hope you’ll join us either in person or virtually on June 26!

 

What Part of “Fire!!!” Is An Emergency Didn’t I Understand?

by

Apparently all of it. In an unpublished (i.e., non-precedential) memorandum, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s decision that forest fires are emergencies within the meaning of a Forest Service regulation that exempts actions taken in response from NEPA. Plaintiff’s argument that the adjacent National Park Service doesn’t agree and had prepared an EA assessing its future fire response actions was “immaterial.”

Perhaps, someday, the Forest Service will use NEPA to engage the public in planning its response actions to fire. In the meantime, quoting an earlier district court case, “[a]t least in the context of wildland fire suppression, NEPA review can not possibly be conducted at the site-specific level because of the emergency conditions in which the fire occurs, and to allow the agency to conduct site-specific NEPA review after the fire has already been extinguished is contrary to the purposes of NEPA.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. United States Forest Serv., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14357, *35, 60 ERC (BNA) 2104.

Experts Talk How to Keep People Safe From Wildfires- At the County Level

by

From Colorado Roadless presentations (2007)

It’s interesting to look at the scale of counties and see what they are doing about living with fire. Here’s a link to the story from the Summit Daily News.

A couple of things to notice in this local coverage, the key seems to be listening to experts about what they can do. They are not attributing causes (which takes up a lot of academic time, as we have seen, and may well be impossible to tease out). They are also not saying people should move out, nor not build in the WUI. They are more dealing with the situation as it is, is projected and what can be done within their state and local capabilities. Also there is not timber industry to speak of, so that level of controversy isn’t on the table. Realistically people aren’t moving out, and we can’t afford to do fuel treatments everywhere and concern about wildfire isn’t going to change climate polices. So we’re stuck with each other and this situation, and work with each other to try to make things better. It seems to me that local press reflects this worldview more than national press (wildfires due to climate change! Too many people living in rural areas! the evil timber industry (not Calfire) wants to do fuel treatments!). Maybe because they are not funded by clicks due to fear-mongering nor appealing to particular narratives. Just a thought.

Their experts are not academics, but state and local people who are responsible for wildfire mitigation.

Moderated by Summit County Commissioner Karn Stiegelmeier, the panel included Logan Sand, recovery and resilience planner for the Colorado Department of Local Affairs; Molly Mowery, owner of Wildfire Planning International, a company that specializes in wildfire mitigation planning; and Jim Curnutte, Summit County’s director of community development. Each gave a presentation on a different aspect of wildfire mitigation planning.

They accept that growth is occurring in the WUI and explore ways to deal with it, and live with fire.

Mowery said that poor planning and lack of resources may mean subdivisions are at risk from day one.

“In certain communities, the fastest response time from a local fire department might be an hour,” Mowery said. “Developments that need to account for wildfire, but don’t have resources to do so, are a major problem.”

Mowery suggested new subdivisions are designed with fire protection standards in mind so that they do not have to rely exclusively on first responders. She also suggested communities adopt WUI codes specific to areas that would affect existing development.

Subdivision standards may require neighborhoods to be designed with easy water access, proper evacuation routes and signage, minimum fuel setbacks and protection of critical infrastructure and utilities in mind.

WUI codes would go further, with local authorities proactively engaging with homeowners to take care of hazards on their property, such as asking them to store firewood away from decks or clearing dry brush near their homes.

NFS Litigation Weekly June 1, 2018

by

Litigation Weekly June 1

The court upheld the Lava Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project on the Modoc National Forest involving northern spotted owls and gray wolves.  (E.D. Cal.)  (See additional discussion below.)

(New case.)  This case involves the Hyde Park Wildland Urban Interface Thinning and Prescribed Fire Project on the Santa Fe National Forest, which applied a Healthy Forest Restoration Act categorical exclusion to 1,840 acres, most of which is allegedly found in inventoried roadless areas.  (D. N.M.)  (See also this article – with a lot of comments.)

(New case.)  At issue is a 2017 legal opinion issued by the Department of Interior that reversed its longstanding interpretation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act so that it no longer applies to incidental killing of migratory birds by activities like oil spills and wind farms.  (S.D. N.Y.)

 

Blogger’s notes on Conservation Congress:

Although the Fish and Wildlife Service had found that the wolf “may be present” in the relevant counties, the nearest pack was 20-30 miles away, and the only other wolves that had been in California were last located in Oregon, with no reason to think they would be drawn to the project area over other areas (since wolves are a habitat generalist). What was interesting to me about the wolf issue was that once the court agreed that there was “no effect” on wolves, that also meant that plaintiffs could not be harmed, and therefore, “Plaintiff has failed to establish standing here because even assuming Plaintiff can establish that its members have an interest in the gray wolf, any injury to that interest is conjectural.”

For spotted owls, the court found: “The FWS appropriately analyzed critical habitat and observed that: (1) no nesting/roosting or foraging habitat would be directly affected by the Project; (2) while foraging and dispersal habitat would be indirectly affected, those effects would be insignificant; and (3) dispersal habitat would be directly affected by the removal of six acres and the degradation of 33 acres of habitat, but that too, in the larger context of the subunit, was also insignificant.”

The court used the word “insignificant” here, but the FWS actually said Project activities within the NSO activity centers would have “[s]ignificant negative effects to northern spotted owls potentially occupying” those activity centers by altering their ability “to breed, feed, and shelter within the action area” (emphasis added). The Court added that, “The BiOp, however, recognized the forest-health benefits of the Project and concluded that “[a]lthough there will be short and long term negative effects to northern spotted owl habitat, the proposed action will help sustain northern spotted owl habitat over the long term.”

The definition of “effects” in the CEQ NEPA regulations requires that the beneficial and detrimental effects be considered separately, “even if on balance the agency believes the effect will be beneficial.” However, the court held that there were no significant impacts that would have triggered an EIS. In doing so it also said there was no scientific controversy, even though there was, according to the Forest Service (and as suggested above), “a difference of professional opinion on the amount of effect” between it and the FWS.

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.

NFS Litigation Weekly May 18, 2018

by

Litigation Weekly May 18

(Update.)  Plaintiffs asked for an injunction pending an appeal to the Ninth Circuit of the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction against the North and South Pioneer Project on the Boise National Forest.  (D. Or.)

(New case.)  Environmental plaintiffs challenge the North Hebgen Project, up to 5,670 acres of commercial and non-commercial logging, on the Custer-Gallatin National Forest.   They also challenge a 2015 amendment to the forest plan, Amendment 51, which they say removed or modified 56 goals and standards in the Gallatin Forest Plan.  (D. Mont.)

(New case.) A doctor seeking to treat a tree-sitter protesting the Mountain Valley Pipeline Project has sued the George Washington and Jefferson National Forest for a closure order that allegedly violates his Constitutional rights to provide medical treatment (freedom of speech, freedom to exercise religion and due process). (W.D. Va.)

(New case.) Plaintiff environmental groups seek a supplemental EIS for the Kulu Timber Sale on the Tongass National Forest.  (D. Alaska)

(New case.)  Environmental groups and landowners challenge 287 oil and gas leases of close to 150,000 acres in previously undeveloped parts of Montana that were based on four EAs.  (D. Mont.)

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.”