Does the U.S. Forest Service Have a Dog in the Forest Certification Fight?

by

?????? ?????. 1938

Last week, Forest Service Chief Tidwell issued a press release lauding the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) “new opportunities to advance environmentally responsible forest management and help reduce the use of illegally-sourced wood through their Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) green building rating system.” Let’s spend a moment unpacking the Chief’s press release.

First, for those unfamiliar with it, the USGBC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation known popularly for its creation of LEED, a system for ranking buildings on the basis of their “green” energy efficiency. From its IRS filings, one learns that USGBC’s CEO/Founder earns $1.37 million a year (NGO envy alert!). Most of USGBC’s approximately $50 million income derives from “management fees” and “membership dues.” For example, a manufacturer of windows can pay USGBC to certify that its windows meet LEED standards and market those windows at a premium. Some federal and many state and local regulatory agencies require and/or reward LEED-certified buildings through regulation and taxpayer-financed subsidies. USGBC is the lobbying arm of the industries that encourage and profit from these governmental actions.

There’s more here than just the head of a minor U.S. land management agency promoting a private corporation’s business and lobbying agenda. What are we to make of the “illegally-sourced” wood hook? Wood cut illegally is a big deal in Third World countries where petty corruption makes timber theft easy from government-owned forests. In the U.S., however, the Forest Service institutionalized illegal logging from national forests, e.g., more than a half-century of clearcutting in violation of the 1897 Organic Act, making criminal logging a relatively minor concern. But, I digress.

To understand the full import of the reference to “illegally-sourced” wood, one needs to examine closely the new LEED standard the Chief’s press release promotes. And to understand the LEED standard, in turn, one must read the fine print of ASTM D7216-10, on which the LEED standard relies. The key sentence in this ASTM is: “Products certified to the globally recognized forest certification standards will meet the “Certified Sources” category regardless of their origin.” In other words, if a 2×4 is certified under any “globally recognized” certification system, it is deemed legally sourced and, thus, can be credited as LEED certified, too.

So who wins with this change? Check the contemporaneous and competing press releases. Ta da! The timber industry’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative (a “globally recognized forest certification standard”) is delighted that SFI-certified wood is now LEED certified, too!

Who loses with this change? Aww . . . feel sorry for the Forest Stewardship Council, which has had its monopoly on wood products LEED certification dashed by LEED’s behind-the-scenes collusion with SFI. FSC has “serious concerns” and is calling on its members to pressure USGBC to end this illicit love affair with SFI.

One wonders whether Chief Tidwell knew that his press release pisses on FSC while kissing SFI? Or did the Forest Service’s press office simply xerox USGBC’s media release because it was a slow news day in the Chief office? And how much in licensing fees and membership dues are SFI and its timber industry affiliates paying USGBC for this backdoor LEED certification? You gotta figure it’s more than FSC has been paying.

On Collaboration: Eric Anderson’s Thesis

by
From the Montana Forest Restoration Committee Website
From the Montana Forest Restoration Committee Website

Here is a link to Eric’s thesis on collaboration. The title is:

The Forest Management Divide: Evidence From Administrative Comments on U.S. Forest Service Projects Indicating Why Environmental Interest Groups in the Northwestern U.S. Choose Whether or Not to Collaborate

For those of you who haven’t read public comments, he has several pages of them in the thesis you might find interesting.

Below are some of his conclusions..

 

Chapter 5: Conclusions

The results of this study suggest that the interests theory variables – environmental, equitable, and economic values – may be influencing environmental interest groups collaborative strategy in a different way than the literature suggests. The evidence indicates that both participating and non-participating groups share interest in all three values, to varying degrees by region and group type. The political opportunity theory variables indicate, however, that there may be more subtle forces explaining why groups sharing all three values choose different collaborative strategies. Carmin and Balser (2002) found that the difference in this case might be explained by another factor not explored in the recent literature on collaborative strategy – environmental philosophy.
A group’s environmental philosophy relates to its normative views about how humans should interact with nature. Some environmental interest groups have a conservationist philosophy that allows for sustainable extraction of forest resources for human needs. Others have a preservationist philosophy, contending that forest resources are already overtaxed and that forest management only adds additional stress to an already
overburdened landscape. Viewed through this lens, both participating and nonparticipating environmental interest groups can have environmental, equitable, and economic values, but their environmental philosophy may drive them to different means of attaining what they both believe to be the same outcome – forest health. Thus, a group with a conservationist philosophy may be willing to utilize the political opportunity
created by the CFLR Program to collaborate with other stakeholders and the Forest Service even if the proposed outcome of the project portends “logging” of forest resources. Such may not be the case for a group with a preservationist philosophy. Rather than collaborating with other stakeholders whom they suspect will sanction commercial harvest outcomes, these groups will choose the political opportunities created by the
bedrock environmental statutes such as the NEPA, ESA, and NFMA to achieve a proposed outcome that meets their preservationist philosophy.

The results of this study appear to strongly support this theory. In addition to the comments highlighted in Section 4.1, some groups made comments capturing the essence of this study’s foregoing conclusion. For example, George Weurthner commenting on a proposed DCFP project on behalf of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies stated, “The more the natural forest is ‘managed’ the more out of whack it becomes. Logging cannot restore
‘natural’ processes because it is fundamentally at odds with nature” (DCFP -Alliance #597). Commenting on a different DCFP project, he stated “There appears to be a philosophical and pejorative bias [on the Forest Service’s behalf] against natural processes like wildfire, beetles, mistletoe and so forth that can achieve many of the goals without timber cutting” (DCFP – Alliance #809). He also states that “While there are aspects of the proposal that we fully support such as the closing of roads, reintroduction of fire as a natural process, and even some thinning of plantations in some circumstances, the main objection has to do with the means of getting to those ends—namely that all proposals except the No Action alternative recommend some degree of logging” (DCFP Alliance # 808) In addition to issues of management, a LOWD/BMBP comment illustrates the distrust among some non-participating environmental interest groups,  stating, “The West Bend timber sale is a public relations-orchestrated travesty that also gives us no hope for a good outcome. (DCFP -LOWD-BMBP #164).

In contrast, the participating groups generally appear to embrace some “logging” to achieve their forest management ends. For example, Idaho Conservation League stated, “We support the use of mechanical harvest followed by prescribed fire to achieve a shift in age structure to provide diversity on the landscape, consistent with historic conditions. We encourage consideration of a range of approaches to restoration forestry,
especially in moist, mixed severity forests to achieve this diversity” (CBC – Idaho Conservation League # 1040). Also, stakeholder context comments questioning the integrity of others are largely missing from the participant group’s comments. Instead, many comments express gratitude. For example, the Montana Wilderness association stated “We appreciate your willingness to meet with us on multiple occasions to discuss
the Colt Summit project, and we are confident that through these discussions the project has improved” (SWCC – Montana Wilderness Association #399). Comments like these, and many others in Appendix C, appear to reinforce this study’s major conclusions.

In addition to the conclusions that follow from the hypotheses, evidence from this study also supports inferences that may be helpful in crafting future collaborative efforts. The analysis at regional case study level suggests that three additional proximity factors may work in concert to influence environmental interest groups collaborative strategy.  The SWCC is proximately located near a large urban area with a high concentration
environmental interest groups that maintain a preservationist philosophy, and a judicial forum that may be perceived by some groups as empathetic to preservationist arguments.

In addition, evidence from regional analysis supports the inference that strong State based environmental leadership, supported by a large consensus, may lead to better implementation outcomes. Both the CBC and DCFP appear to fit this characterization, whereas the SWCC does not.

The analysis at the group type level also support one further inference that could prove instructive to future collaborative efforts. In the absence of larger State and Regionally based environmental interest groups, local groups (particularly nonparticipating local groups) appeared to pick up the burden. With the ubiquitous presence of nationally based groups supporting the implementation of the CFLR Program – and no countervailing National groups –the importance of local group inclusion is manifest. As noted in section 2.2.2, successful collaborations should include all interested
stakeholders, even though in reality all of the interested stakeholders are often not included due to willingness or ability to attend. Burke (2011) noted that collaboration may have the unintended effect of marginalizing local stakeholders, but while this study provides no evidence of that conclusion, future collaborative National Forest efforts should be aware of the important balancing role they may play.

This study also suggests areas of future research. To reiterate, this study was exploratory in nature, but suggests that future efforts exploring the factors driving environmental interest group’s collaborative strategy should focus on the influence of Carmin and Balser’s (2002) findings on the influence of the interaction between environmental interest group’s environmental philosophy and prescribed project management outcomes. Future research in this vein is important because it may allow forest resource mangers and interested stakeholders to understand when and where
collaborative efforts are necessary, and also aid in more efficacious outcomes.

Klamath Westside salvage project

by

I thought this article provided a succinct overview of the state of salvage logging in California.  I was curious about what kind of a logging project the Center for Biological Diversity and local environmental groups were supporting.

Table 11 in the ROD shows that the tribal alternative they supported would harvest about 2000 acres. The selected alternative would log three times that.  Why did the Forest Service pick the latter over the former?

“As shown in Table 12 (sic), there is considerable overlap between the Karuk Alternative and the Selected Alternative;”

Did the FS miss the obvious point here?  That the magnitude of the project is the problem because it would affect water quality and salmon runs?  (Or is this what “pound sand” means?)

It was also interesting to read the earlier letter from the Karuk Tribe chairman that describes the tribal interest in prescribed fires.  I wonder if the Forest Service has considered managing the historic tribal lands for “production of acorns, wild game, medicinal plants and basketry materials,” among its multiple uses.

Another classic settlement

by

A follow up to an earlier post on ATV litigation on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.

“Under the settlement, the Forest Service agreed not to authorize public use to all-terrain vehicles without first completing an assessment of environmental effects. The agency also agreed to re-survey routes and remove any remaining signs authorizing ATV use.”

“The federal agency denied the groups’ allegations but agreed to pay their attorney’s fees as part of the settlement.”

This telegraphs something important that the Forest Service gets out of settlements. They don’t get a judicial precedent, and that gives them more flexibility to use the same disputed approach in future actions (and better protects other past actions that used this approach, at least for awhile).

Forest planning could promote efficiency by “standard work”

by

The Colorado Department of Transportation and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service have developed a new process for protecting federally listed species. “When fully implemented, the improvements made through SWIFT will also save CDOT hundreds of hours of report writing and tens of thousands of dollars of consulting fees every year.”

“SWIFT is a programmatic statewide review that assesses impacts to these protected federal species and implements pre-determined standardized conservation measures to avoid or minimize impacts to the species and associated habitat – a great example of using the Lean principle of “standard work”. SWIFT provides these standardized impact assessments and mitigation measures for 92 common CDOT construction activities for all threatened or endangered species in the state as well as candidates for future listings. SWIFT is a tool to expedite project delivery by providing project teams with consistent impact determinations for similar work and predictable conservation measures.”  (“Lean” is a management principle that means creating more value for customers using fewer resources.)

The Forest Service has completed similar programmatic consultations on land management activities that may affect listed species. The result is to streamline consultation on projects that fit the pre-determined conditions.   However, individual managers can choose not to follow them and incur higher consultation costs.  Forest planning should consider the costa and benefits of allowing this discretion, and consider incorporating plan components that promote standardization of conservation measures for projects in the plan area.

The Forest Service has also worked with the consulting agencies to adopt uniform conservation and mitigation measures across the range of certain species in its forest plans (such as for Canada lynx). However, in general, the Forest Service resists the idea of adopting “standard work” principles in its forest plans, preferring to characterize this in derogatory terms as “one size fits all.”   It seems to prefer to allow local managers to invent their own wheels, as indicated by proposing changes in range-wide conservation strategies during individual plan revisions, and avoiding the use of mandatory standards that all projects would have to comply with.

Most managers (like those with CDOT) would recognize this as a costly and inefficient process. What does it buy? Comparing the costs and benefits of Forest Service decentralized decision-making would be a good exercise for the GAO on behalf of federal taxpayers.

 

Groups object to ‘undemocratic’ Gallatin Community Collaborative process

by

Date: March 31, 2016 at 4:03:32 PM MDT
To: [email protected]
Cc: Mary Erickson <[email protected]>

Please see the attached letter regarding the Gallatin Community Collaborative and our recommendation for the Gallatin Range Wilderness.  The letter is being provided on behalf of 14 organizations and 4 individuals.

March 29, 2016

RE: Gallatin Community Collaborative process

To Whom It May Concern:

We the undersigned organizations and citizens object to the Gallatin Community Collaborative (GCC) process. It is undemocratic and allows a small select group of locals to exert undue influence over Federal land management policy. We object to these efforts to exert local control over public lands that belong to all Americans. While local citizens will almost always have more opportunity to influence public land decision- making than do citizens living thousands or even hundreds of miles away, local-control groups like the GCC ensure the vast majority of citizens will be excluded from decisions made about their lands. Such “user group” driven processes lose sight of the fact that most Americans cherish their public lands for the benefits these lands provide to wildlife, plants, and ecosystem processes, rather than the desires of those who care mostly about their particular use or activities.

We support wilderness designation for the entire 229,000 acres roadless portion of the Gallatin Range that lies north of Yellowstone National Park on the Custer-Gallatin National Forest. The Gallatin Range is one of the premier unprotected national forest roadless areas in the nation and is a vital component of the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem wildland complex. It may be the best remaining unprotected wildlife habitat in the entire national forest system. Half of the range north of Yellowstone is already “roaded and developed” and the remaining wildland should not be further fragmented or reduced in size in order to satisfy vested local interests. These lands belong to all Americans and all Americans should have equal opportunity to weigh in on their future.

Click here for a discussion about concerns with the Gallatin Community Collaborative debated previously on this blog.

Bill to Allow USFS to Sell Small Isolated Parcels

by

The National Association of State Foresters is supporting a bill that would allow the USFS to sell or swap small inholdings. The draft bill would apply to:

* parcels of 40 acres or less which are determined to be physically isolated, to be inaccessible, or to have lost their National Forest character;

* parcels of 10 acres or less which are not eligible for conveyance under such Act, but which are encroached upon by permanent habitable improvements for which there is no evidence that the encroachment was intentional or negligent; and

* parcels used as a cemetery, a landfill, or a sewage treatment plant under a special use authorization issued by the USDA.

<a href=”https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1214″>The bill is here.</a>

Here’s the press release….

NASF sends Small Tracts Act Amendment letter to Senate

Friday, April 1, 2016

The National Association of State Foresters urges the Senate to pass legislation allowing the USDA Forest Service to sell isolated parcels of land and utilize those funds for acquisition of access and inholdings.

HR 1214 passed the House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate for consideration on September 17, 2015. It passed the House on a roll call vote of 403-0.

The Administration has proposed similar language in the Forest Service Budget Justification for 2017 (Appropriations Language Changes, Small Tracts Act Conveyance Authority, page 60).

This is legislation that has broad based support and is desperately needed. These small isolated parcels which would be available for sale, are largely unmanaged “no-man’s lands.”

Many are among or near residential neighborhoods and are often the sites of trash dumping, wildfire ignitions, etc. The agency spends untold amounts of time dealing with law enforcement, trespass and easement issues; time which could be much better spent managing the actual main body of the forest. The agency estimates there may be as many as 25,000 small isolated parcels which fit the definition in the legislation.

Clearly defined ownership patterns make for much more effective and efficient management. As State Foresters, we would rather focus our limited resources on assisting landowners, preventing and fighting fires where these patterns are better defined. The Forest Service shares that perspective. We urge the Senate to pass this important legislation in this legislative session.

It’s just an administrative rule

by

The courts are finished with addressing the Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Rule’s application to Alaska.  The Supreme Court won’t review the Ninth Circuit’s reversal of the attempt to exempt the Tongass National Forest from the rule.  Whew – glad that’s finally over.  But wait, there’s an election coming, and roadless rule opponents are thinking about that:

“And then the other thing is we could just get a … federal administration that’s friendly toward responsible resource development and they can just rescind the rule because it’s an administrative rule. It’s nothing that Congress passed.” (Owen Graham of the Alaska Forest Association)

And why stop with Alaska; rescind the entire roadless rule.  And why not replace the 2012 Planning Rule, too?  The possibilities are endless.

New Analysis Shows Utah Public Lands Initiative Guts Wilderness Protections, Creates WINOs

by

(The following is a press release from Wilderness Watch. – mk)

MISSOULA, MONTANA – This week Wilderness Watch released a detailed analysis of the wilderness provisions found in Congressmen Rob Bishop’s (R- UT) and Jason Chaffetz’s (R-UT) discussion draft of their Public Lands Initiative (PLI) for dealing with public lands in eastern and southern Utah. Though the PLI proposes to designate some new Wildernesses, the new analysis shows that the PLI guts protections the Wildernesses would receive under the 1964 Wilderness Act, and includes numerous unprecedented harmful provisions never before found in any wilderness designation law.

“The dramatic and unprecedented nature of these provisions would strip from the Wildernesses in the PLI many of the protections afforded by the Wilderness Act,” said George Nickas, executive director of Wilderness Watch and a long-time Utah wilderness advocate. “The PLI would create nothing but WINOs,” Nickas added. “Wildernesses In Name Only.”

Wilderness Watch’s analysis focuses solely on the wilderness protection and wilderness stewardship provisions of the PLI. There are many other problematic provisions in the PLI, including poorly-drawn wilderness boundaries, giveaways to the oil and gas industry, land transfers and land giveaways, etc., but this analysis hones in only on the wilderness protection and stewardship provisions.

The full nine-page analysis is here.

“The PLI discussion draft unfortunately includes bad provisions that would damage Wilderness with language on wildlife management, motorized access,buffer zones and military overflights,” said Kevin Proescholdt, Wilderness Watch’s conservation director. “Some of those provisions have appeared previously in other wilderness bills. But the PLI also contains unprecedented damaging language for Wilderness in the areas of fire, insects, and disease control; livestock grazing; hunting, fishing, and shooting; trail and fence maintenance; water rights and water developments; land acquisition; airshed protection; and bighorn sheep viability.”

“This unprecedented language has never before appeared in any other wilderness bill that has passed Congress,” added Nickas. “It makes a mockery of the idea that the PLI would actually protect any Wilderness.”

“We should protect real, wild, authentic Wilderness in Utah,” concluded Proescholdt. “We shouldn’t be designating fake Wildernesses that rob the citizens of the State and nation of the real thing.”

# # #
Wilderness Watch is a national wilderness conservation organization with offices in Missoula (MT), Moscow (ID), and Minneapolis (MN). The organization focuses on the protection and proper stewardship of all Wildernesses in the National Wilderness Preservation System, and has developed extensive expertise with the implementation of and litigation over the 1964 Wilderness Act. See www.wildernesswatch.org.