Latest on Potential BLM Move to Grand Junction

by

Senator Bennet at Colorado National Monument last year
This is an interesting and detailed piece by Joey Bunch of the Colorado Politics on the potential BLM move to Grand Junction.

A couple of thoughts.. note that this isn’t a partisan effort in Colorado:

Sen. Michael Bennet, a Democrat from Denver, has been pushing the BLM deal with Gardner for almost a year. He, too, is convinced there’s nowhere better than Grand Junction.

“The values of Coloradans on the Western Slope align with the core mission of the BLM,” Bennet told Colorado Politics. “We must ensure this move is more than symbolic and provides the resources necessary to manage our public lands and improve agency decision-making.”

Also, I am thinking we might actually get better public servants in Grand Junction. I tried to hire people, both when I worked in Research and Development, and when I worked in NEPA, in the Washington Office, and many of the folks I considered to be the best wouldn’t move. If you are seeking diverse people, who are often at a low percentage of the total pool to start with, it can make hiring someone in DC almost impossible. For the Forest Service, and possibly the BLM, cities where regional offices are located, and D.C. are the most unattractive of possible locations. This was even true when I worked for USDA CSREES now NIFA, it was just too expensive for most folks to uproot their families and move.

On the other hand, perhaps in this day and age a “headquarters” is an outmoded concept and everyone should be working at home to save government $ and carbon. It’s tough to be in administration in this day and age, and I don’t envy folks who have to figure these things out. I do like the ideas below.

Swift said that while the agency hasn’t started naming specific cities, they have set some criteria for new homes for BLM: A reasonable cost of living, proximity to public lands, good quality of life and good schools and no more than two flights away from D.C. — say, like, Grand Junction Regional Airport to Denver International Airport and east to Washington.

In March, Tipton had Zinke sitting before him in a House Natural Resources Committee hearing. He used the opportunity to try to get the Interior boss on the record about the issue.

Zinke obliged.

“My concern is making sure we’re going to a community that has a high quality of life, that’s affordable to the GS-5 to GS-7 (employees), great communities where we can attract millennials who will want to live there,” he told Tipton.

A GS-5 federal employee earns up to about $38,000 a year. A GS-7 tops out at about $46,000 annually.

“Colorado certainly fits that description,” Zinke said.

WGA Webinar on Partnering with Tribes on Shared Land Management Goals

by

The Western Governors’ Association will host the webinar, “Partnering with Tribes on Shared Land Management Goals” on May 30 from 11 a.m.—1 p.m. (MT) as part of the Western Governors’ National Forest and Rangeland Management Initiative.

The webinar will examine innovative ways for federal land managers to form collaborative, cross-boundary partnerships with local tribes. A case study will highlight work done with the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe on the Fort Pierre National Grasslands.

The webinar will be moderated by Susan Johnson, Regional Tribal Relations Program Manager, U.S. Forest Service, with remarks by Governor J. Michael Chavarria of Santa Clara Pueblo. Panelists include: Dan Svingen, District Ranger, Ft. Pierre National Grasslands; Dr. Shaun Grassel, Wildlife Biologist, Fish and Wildlife Department, Lower Brule Sioux Tribe; and Jim Durglo, Intertribal Timber Council, Fire Technical Specialist.

Sounds interesting.. here’s the link for registration

Anyone is invited to attend and give any impressions. Please send me your observations in a file for posting as a guest post.

Fire Continuum Conference in Missoula last week

by

Here is coverage by the Missoulian’s Rob Chaney.  He’s good at getting at the important points, but if anyone else attended (I didn’t) and has some impressions, please share.

“Fire conference in Missoula attracts international experts”

“To effectively fight fires, Forest Service chief says agency must first fight harassment”

“Also in Monday’s plenary sessions, Forest Service program director Sara Brown put the problem in personal terms in her afternoon presentation. The Oregon-based researcher and former smokejumper recalled how she built a tough, masculine persona to fit in with her male firefighting colleagues, to the extent she froze out other women who she didn’t think measured up.”

“Science may overtake tradition in wildfire fighting”  

“A fire that spreads from federal land into state or private property suddenly complicates who gets the bill for the suppression efforts. That makes cost-control a strategic objective that sometimes gets in the way of tactical opportunities.”

“After the fire, scientists brace for climate change”

“Across North America, forests and grasslands spent millions of years evolving with fire as a tool to clean out dead plants, regrow new ones and maintain the things animals need. But, as several top researchers at the Fire Continuum Conference in Missoula pointed out on Thursday, the old patterns are getting pulled up by the roots.”

(The photo is from a recent prescribed burn and accompanied this editorial.  My interest in this comes partly from living at the bottom right of that ridge-line the smoke is behind.)

Scary-High Increases in Visitors to the Yellowstone Region

by

A line of tourists snakes past Grand Prismatic Spring on Sunday in Yellowstone. Results from a survey conducted last year found that crowding was one of the biggest issues tourists had when visiting the park.
BRETT FRENCH, Billings Gazette Staff

I just returned from a visit to Yellowstone and environs. My observation was that in mid-May the Park was a great deal more crowded than only 10 or so years ago (turns out my experiences and Park Service data are similar). There are at least three kinds of reasons for any open place to become more crowded:

A) People moving near forests because they like to recreate (increasing population in the local area)- therefore more use. This can lead to more crowding, on trails and on the roads in town, and ultimately being priced out of local real estate. Think Bend, Oregon, and so many others. But what can you do?

B) People who weekend or day trip in national forests from nearby urban or rural areas (what I’d call semilocal: 1-3 hours). As these areas grow in population, for whatever reason so does the use.

C) People attracted from other parts of the country, and the world to “location destinations” (some people would like their area to become one in the future, and would like to Parkify or Monumentize, others fear crowding and being priced out beyond the inevitable A and B.

The difference between C, and A and B, is that C is the product of active campaigns to get more folks to visit and spend more money. A’s, as they move into the community, may also contribute and volunteer on their local forest. Even frequent B’s often have special relationships with certain forests. Now I’m not seeing a stark difference, more of a continuum, but the Yellowstone Region has more C than other places I visit. When someone says “we want to be a world-class destination”, I’ll ask “who is “we”?” I like things the way they are, or with fewer people than now.

Here’s a few quotes from this newspaper article in Montana Untamed:

When asked if national parks and Yellowstone in specific are suffering from the success of national advertising campaigns encouraging visitation, Warthin said the promotions may have raised the profile of Yellowstone nationally and internationally, providing an opportunity to pass on messages about the “heavy responsibility we all have” to protect the park’s unique natural resources by being good stewards of the landscape and its wildlife.

The study noted that the number of tour buses visiting the park has doubled since 2010. “The West Entrance, already the park’s busiest by more than double the volume of any other gate, saw a 21 percent increase in visitation over 2014. From early June through late September, traffic backups at this entrance led to gridlock on four or more days a week in the town of West Yellowstone. Once through this entrance, stop-and-go traffic often continued inside the park for 11 miles to the Madison Junction, with driving times through this corridor consistently reported at two hours.”

According to this Billings Gazette newspaper article, there has been a 50% increase in visitation in Yellowstone since 2000, and the Gallatin has increased 39% in the visitation between 2008 and 2013.

Here’s a quote from the article that summarizes the problem:

With more active people crowded into one wild space, what will the effects be on wildlife, the land and its waters? At what point does selling, building upon and using the resource compromise the very wildlands that first enticed everyone to the region? And how can so many people with such different ideas of playing in those places ever come to an agreement on controlling or even reducing use?

.

Some thoughts.. with regard to the local (rafting, ziplining, etc.) businesses that depend on visitors.. is that also “corporate greed” that has “corrupted” local officials in the framing we sometimes hear about other forest uses? Or just folks who are trying to make a living and their elected representatives? How can you balance the commercial and the individual uses if there is an environmental “ceiling” for recreation? And most mystifyingly, how can some of the many (many, many!) $ people are spending be channeled back into the Forests to help support and protect them (Parks have many mechanisms)?

New lawsuit to protect red tree voles from logging project

by

(Complete story here.)

Three environmental groups are suing the U.S. Forest Service to stop an 847-acre logging project on the Umpqua National Forest in southern Oregon, about 22 miles southeast of Cottage Grove.

Red tree vole surveys were also conducted during the fall of 2016. According to the lawsuit, the Northwest Ecosystem Survey Team found 75 vole nests in the forests slated for logging, but the Forest Service decided to proceed with the project.

The North Oregon Coast population of voles is considered a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, from the Siuslaw River north to the Columbia River, due to habitat loss and fragmentation.

(A candidate species is warranted for listing, but precluded by higher priorities.)

But here’s the part I thought might be interesting:  “The Bureau of Land Management also lifted survey and management guidelines for the species in 2016.”  As things get worse off for a species everywhere else, the national forests will necessarily be under more pressure to provide regulatory mechanisms to protect the species, and conditions external to a national forest will make it harder and more important to provide conditions on the national forest that promote a viable population.  (Implications for revising the northwest forest plans?)

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

by

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

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

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

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

Idaho county votes down wilderness

by

Follow-up:                                   

Voters rejected the proposal for the Scotchman Peaks Wilderness, 5,672 to 4,831.  As a result, Senator Risch will not reintroduce his legislation to designate the area, and wilderness legislation has no chance of passing without local Congressional support.  So to a limited degree we have local control of a national forest, but as the article points out, management under the forest plan, which recommends the area as wilderness, won’t change.  (The article suggests that Congress couldn’t change the forest plan; of course it could, but I don’t think there is a precedent for it.)

The unfortunate thing is that the voters seem to have been misinformed (which is something I would hope a congressman would take into account).

“The philosophy with wilderness areas is let it burn,” said Bonner County Commissioner Dan McDonald.

And, perhaps most importantly, (Forest Service spokesperson) Cooper said Forest Service personnel can and do manage forest fires in both recommended and designated wilderness areas. “We still do manage wildfire,” she said.  In 2017, the Forest Service sent smokejumpers into the Salmo-Priest Wilderness area to fight a forest fire.

My own interpretation is that suppression response depends on the values at risk, and wilderness area values, aren’t lost when they burn (in fact probably the opposite) – like other areas managed primarily for conservation or recreation, which is how this area is being managed now. 

Black Hills Resilient Landscapes (BHRL) Project

by

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

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

Includes 185,210 acres of overstory removal.

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

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

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

Norbeck Society

P.O. Box 9730

Rapid City, SD 57709

For Immediate Release 

New Proposal Kills Timber Industry by Logging Black Hills to Death 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media Contact:

on behalf of Robert Burns, Norbeck Society President,

Mary Zimmerman

605-342-2552