Grijalva’s War on Science

by

I had read about this in the Denver Post but today saw Roger Pielke’s post on his blog here. This whole thing is a hoot and a half (IMHO)…but I agree with Roger. Thanks Rep. Grijalva!

Below is an excerpt..

With this post I’d like to express a sincere Thanks to representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ). As most readers here will know, Rep. Grijalva is “investigating” me based on his belief that I do research and public service as a consequence of shadow payments from fossil fuel companies. Ridiculous, I know.

I’m thanking Rep. Grijalva not for the media exposure (e.g., NPR, NYT) nor for the bump in sales of my books (e.g., THB, TCF, D&CC), and not even for the many bits of fan mail via email and Twitter from the fringes of the climate debate. Rather, I am thanking Rep. Grijalva for doing more than his part in helping to kill a narrative.

For more than a decade, leading elements of the science and media communities have advanced a narrative which said that conservatives were stupid and/or evil and were singularly responsible for pathologically politicizing science. Reality, as the saying goes, has a liberal bias. It turns out that concerns over the “politicization of science” were themselves subject to politicization.

I wrote about this in 2003:

Politicization of science is a problem irrespective of the ideology of those doing the politicizing. Our scientific enterprise is too important to allow putative concerns about the politicization of science to become just another weapon in partisan battle.

And in 2005:

It is clear that there is an ample supply of people willing to use concern over the politicization of science as a political bludgeon to score points on the Bush Administration. It is also clear that there are plenty of others aligned with the Bush Administration willing to do exactly the opposite. The question I have is, where are the analysts (including reporters) who care about the politicization of science irrespective of possible advantages that are lent to today’s partisan political battles?

You may remember Rep. Grijalva from our discussions. . Andy posted this one about environmental groups supporting him for ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee. Here is my review of “his” 2008 report (he probably got it in the mail and just submitted it without his staff reviewing it). Scarier still, he was supported by environmental (and women’s groups.. really? they never asked me…) groups for Secretary of Interior.. you know, the Department with the science agency USGS..

Matthew posted this..

In a letter sent today, a broad coalition of 238 conservation, Hispanic, recreation, animal welfare, religious, labor, youth, business and women’s groups urged President Barack Obama to nominate Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) as the next interior secretary when that position opens. Grijalva is currently ranking member of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, and a leading Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee.

I have an old-fashioned habit of checking facts I think I remember and I noticed that on the home page of the USGS, it does not mention what agency it is part of. I am not making this up. So I had to go to the Interior page and double check, sure enough, Grijalva would have been in charge of the USGS.

Kind of scary..

Los Padres National Forest

by

While on an overnighter in Big Sur, I was amazed at how big some of these sycamores were. Even the old growth redwoods look pretty small, compared to these giant hardwoods. The leaves are about as big as your hand, so there your frame of reference. These trees are actually within the Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

While there are some recreation facilities along Highway 1, they are fee areas. In many of those places, there are wide spots in the road, where it is easy enough to just walk in, without paying the fee. However, “dispersed camping” is not allowed, along the highway, on Forest Service lands. I did some Google Maps researching and found this old road off the State Highway. It was rough and steep but, I somehow found this gem of a spot to camp at, far above the coastline. You can see some drought stress in these forests, as well, with some of those redwood trees a bit yellowish. The oaks are also looking quite ragged, maybe reaching the end of their lifespans.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

After finding this spot, it freed me up to go explore further southward, almost to San Simeon. I wanted to spend more time near Jade Cove but, I really wanted to be back up in camp, before the fog came in. Yes, the sunset was quite nice.

Plaskett-fog-sunset-HDR-web

www.facebook.com/LarryHarrellFotoware

Forest Service New Digs in D.C.

by

Thanks to the Rocky Mountaineers retirees association for this one.

Sharon’s take: I spent many glorious years in the Yates building and it is a beautiful building. In fact, I worked on 4SW when the Holocaust Museum was being built…it warms the cockles of my heart that they strengthened that wall.

Here’s a song for my many friends in the Yates Building (and yes if anyone’s still in Rosslyn) (to the tune of “As Time Goes By”)

Commuting in a tube,
A cube is still a cube,
On that you can rely,
Your space will always tend to shrink
As years go by

Study: Post-fire logging can reduce fuels for up to 40 years

by

Salvage logging has been a topic of some discussion here. This study validates what is, in my opinion, common knowledge.

 

U.S. Forest Service | Pacific Northwest Research Station
News & Information

Contact: David W. Peterson, (509) 664-1727, [email protected]

Media assistance: Yasmeen Sands, (503) 808-2137, [email protected]

 

Post-fire logging can reduce fuels for up to 40 years in regenerating forests, new study finds

Woody fuels reduced even when fuel reduction was not primary management objective

WENATCHEE, Wash. March 11, 2015. Harvesting fire-killed trees is an effective way to reduce woody fuels for up to four decades following wildfire in dry coniferous forests, a U.S. Forest Service study has found.

The retrospective analysis, among the first to measure the long-term effects of post-fire logging on forest fuels, is published in the journal Forest Ecology and Management.

“Large wildfires can leave behind thousands of acres of fire-killed trees that eventually become fuel for future fires. In the past, post-fire logging has been conducted primarily to recover economic value from those fire-killed trees,” said David W. Peterson, a Wenatchee-based research ecologist with the Pacific Northwest Research Station who led the study.

The study shows that post-fire logging also provides a tangible long-term fuel reduction benefit, giving forest managers another tool for managing woody fuels in dry forest landscapes.

“In comparing logged and unlogged stands, we found that logged stands had higher fuels than unlogged stands, on average, during the first five years after fire and logging, but then had lower fuels from seven to forty years after fire, with the greatest differences being found for large-diameter woody fuels,” Peterson said. “This study provides a sound scientific basis for forest managers to consider fuels management goals along with recovery of economic value and wildlife habitat concerns when deciding when and where to propose post-fire logging.”

The researchers’ analysis revealed that, in unlogged stands, surface woody fuel levels were low shortly after wildfire, peaked 10 to 20 years after wildfire, and then declined gradually out to 39 years past the wildfire. In logged stands, small- and medium-diameter fuels reached their highest levels shortly after the wildfire and then declined in subsequent years, but larger-diameter fuels changed relatively little over the entire time range.

Peterson and his co-authors sampled woody fuels on 255 coniferous forest stands that were killed by wildfires in eastern Washington and Oregon—the region’s most fire-prone areas—between 1970 and 2007. Their sample included 96 stands that were logged after wildfire and 159 that were not, an approach that allowed the researchers to test the effects of post-fire logging on forest fuels. The researchers accounted for pre-fire stand differences by measuring standing and fallen dead trees and stumps in each stand. They did not consider the effects of post-fire logging on sediment, wildlife habitat, or aesthetics.

 

The Pacific Northwest Research Station—headquartered in Portland, Ore.—generates and communicates scientific knowledge that helps people make informed choices about natural resources and the environment. The station has 11 laboratories and centers located in Alaska, Washington, and Oregon and about 300 employees. Learn more online at http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw.

# # #

Flathead forest plan revision NOI

by

The Notice of Intent to initiate scoping for the Flathead revision EIS has been published and comments are due by May 5.  Here is a newspaper article.  Here is the website.  Here is my summary of the summary of the changes needed from the current plan:

  • 2012 Planning Rule requirements. Eight specific categories of requirements are described.
  • Grizzly bear habitat management. Relevant portions of a new interagency draft grizzly bear conservation strategy will be incorporated to provide regulatory mechanisms that could support de-listing. It would generally follow the model from the existing plan (given its apparent success at promoting recovery), and would add some plan components for a larger area, including connectivity zones.
  • Bull trout and native fish habitat. It would replace the Inland Native Fish Strategy with ‘equivalent’ direction, but would not include numeric riparian management objectives or a requirement for watershed analysis prior to projects.
  • Canada lynx habitat management. It would replace the current Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction with a modified version. Changes would include additional exceptions to allow precommercial thinning.   Mapped lynx habitat has also been updated.
  • Inventoried roadless areas. In accordance with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, they will be removed from lands suitable for timber production. Other decisions to be made in these areas involve recreation opportunities and travel management.
  • Old growth forests. Current plan requirements to retain existing old growth would be included in the revised plan, but changes would be made in how to provide snags and down woody material in the long term, and to address landscape pattern.
  • Winter motorized recreation. There would be no net increase in designated over-snow routes or play areas, but boundaries would change and offsetting additions and reductions would be made to two areas.

(Timber harvest is apparently not included as a ‘change’ because the volume objectives are comparable to recent volumes sold.)

There are some unusual things going on with the wildlife direction in the proposed plan.  First, the Forest Service has recognized that including a consistent and scientifically defensible conservation strategy for grizzly bears in its forest plans throughout the Northern Continental Divide ecosystem is its best hope of providing adequate regulatory mechanisms that will allow the species to be delisted.  That is the same philosophy that was behind the Northern Rockies Lynx Management Direction, and to some extent the Inland Native Fish Strategy.  And yet with changes in the Flathead plan, the Forest Service may be starting to disassemble those consistent and scientifically defensible strategies piece by piece.  That would be in line with expectations of the Fish and Wildlife Service IF the forest-specific changes are needed to achieve the original purpose of the strategy, but addressing forest-specific conditions (using best available scientific information).  It would probably be out of line, and not supportive of recovery,  if it simply represents disagreement with the original direction (which was imposed by a higher authority).

It will be interesting to see how the Forest Service manages this process at a broader scale, and whether it is setting a  precedent for disassembling the Northwest Forest Plan and other broad-scale conservation strategies through plan revisions.

The Tahoe Basin

by

Lake Tahoe would probably be a National Park, by now, if the Comstock Lode had never been found. There was clearcutting right down to the lakshore, for mining timbers, in the silver mines. Incline Village was named for the switchback road that transported logs to a flume that went all the way down to the Washoe Lake area, thousands of feet below.

Today, there is very little “logging” next to all that blue Tahoe lake water. Newspapers especially like to describe the basin as “pristine”, apparently not knowing the actual meaning of the word.

P9123090-web

Much of the Lake Tahoe Basin is “de facto” Wilderness, with very little management happening, even when wildfires occur. Residents seem to be in denial about wildfire issues, not remembering the last drought that decimated their forests. However, it is easy enough to see the results of the last bark beetle infestation, in the form of accumulated fuels far beyond what is “natural”. Many areas of forest mortality were left “to recover”, on their own. Well, sometimes “recovery” takes decades or even centuries, as long as humans don’t intervene. That might also include multiple wildfires, opening the ground to accelerated erosion and having clarity-declining sediments flowing into Lake Tahoe.

P9123100-web

Ironically, the lake’s level isn’t all that far down, thanks to the lobbying of lakeshore land owners, putting pressure on water regulators. That can only go so far, as Reno area interests need more water to keep growing and thriving. We’ll just have to see how the battle goes, as the Truckee River drops further and further.

How the Sue and Settle Process Works II : Who Gets Intervenor Status?

by

Thanks to Jon for starting this discussion with a post on “how sue and settle really works”. Thanks to Guy for giving us the link to who can get intervenor status and why. I asked Scott Horngren, of the American Forest Resource Council, if my memory was correct that sometimes timber folks can’t get intervenor status. Based on what he says, It seems rather arbitrary (and capricious? ;)) across circuits. Especially inconsistent, I think, is the sentence I italicized. I wonder if what Scott refers to as resource users also includes anyone whose uses are opposed by another group based on environmental concerns (skiing, hiking, ATV’s etc.)? Doesn’t seem very.. errr.. just..
Many thanks to Scott for his explanation:

You are correct that resource users have been denied intervention (and the ability to bring their own challenge as plaintiff to an agency NEPA decision) in the past, and it still can be a problem in certain circumstances. The decisions vary by Circuit so the approach is not identical across the entire federal court system. I agree that it is inconsistent of agencies and environmental groups in one breath to profess to want to hear the views and encourage the participation of all parties in agency decision-making under NEPA and the National Forest Management Act yet in the next breath oppose intervention of the same people who participated in the process when the agency decision is later challenged in court.

In the Ninth Circuit, only recently has the “none but the federal defendant” rule on intervention been overturned. The rule was judicially created in Wade v. Goldschmidt, 673 F.2d 182 (7th Cir. 1982) and extended to the Ninth Circuit in Portland Audubon Society v. Hodel, 866 F.2d 302 (9th Cir. 1989). It essentially stated that in litigation challenging a NEPA decision (and later NFMA) there could be no intervention “of right” in the case because if the agency lost it was only the agency that would have to rewrite the NEPA decision or do additional analysis to comply with the law. It was not until 2012 in Wilderness Society v. United States Forest Service, 630 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2012), that an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit stepped in to reverse the judge made law that had been in place for 22 years. In that case motorized recreation users led by the Magic Valley Trail Machine Association were denied intervention in the Wilderness Society lawsuit challenging a Forest Service decision involving road and trail use by motorized vehicles. The Ninth Circuit reversed its long-standing position that only an agency can be a defendant (and thus no intervenors were allowed to defend the decision). I do not know the current status of the rule in the Seventh Circuit. In the D.C. Circuit is less clear whether resource users can intervene in cases, since unlike the Ninth Circuit, the D.C. Circuit requires a proposed intervenor to demonstrate it would have standing under the statutes in order to intervene in a case. As explained below courts often consider that resource users do not have standing to bring a NEPA case.

In addition, there is the issue of standing to bring a NEPA case. Ironically, in many courts environmental groups can challenge a NEPA decision as a plaintiff but resource users are precluded from doing so. In particular, under Ninth Circuit law someone with an economic interest does not have standing to challenge an agency NEPA decision. That would mean a rancher whose economic livelihood is dependent on a grazing lease could not challenging NEPA decision of the Forest Service to challenge that lease. The court’s reasoning is that NEPA is concerned with environmental protection and only those with an interest in protection of the environment can bring a lawsuit under NEPA. However, the Supreme Court has emphasized that NEPA is a procedural statute that does not dictate any substantive environmental result. So the correct law should be that anyone who participated in the NEPA procedures can be a plaintiff to challenge the inadequacy of the procedures. I expect that as with the “none but the federal defendant rule” on intervention under NEPA, the “only environmental interests can be plaintiffs in a NEPA case” rule will be eventually overturned. (This “standing’ aspect also becomes an issue if you want to appeal a court decision on the merits striking down agency action but the government decides not to appeal. The Ninth Circuit court takes the position that if you cannot demonstrate standing under NEPA, you can’t appeal the adverse decision if the government doesn’t, even though in the Ninth Circuit you do not have to demonstrate standing to intervene in the case in the first place).

Finally, even as an intervenor in a case, some judges preclude you from participating in settlement discussions. But if a settlement agreement is reached between the environmental group and the agency, an intervenor, whether involved in the settlement discussions or not, has a right to object to the settlement in the district court. And if the objection is denied, the intervenor can file an appeal challenging the settlement agreement. It is rare however that a court will overturn a settlement agreement between the principal parties of the case.

How the sue and settle process really works

by

This 6-page opinion includes a discussion of how courts decide whether to approve a consent decree.

The case also demonstrates the ability of intervenors to influence the outcome.  In this case environmental groups intervened in a lawsuit by motorized users over a travel plan decision.  Because of the intervenors, the court refused to approve the part of the consent decree that would have vacated that travel plan and allowed motorized use to continue while the Forest Service reconsidered the travel plan.  The intervenors kept the plaintiffs from getting what they really wanted.  (But the plaintiffs or the Forest Service could now reject the consent decree and continue the lawsuit.)

The court poses a hypothetical at the end:  “This analysis would change, however, if upon reconsideration the Forest Service finds flaws in the 2011 Travel Plan requiring changes. At that point, a strong argument could be made that the Plan cannot remain intact and should be vacated, reinstating the 1987 Forest Plan management scheme.”  The problem with this result would be that this travel plan is necessary to accomplish the 1987 forest plan direction to protect wilderness character, and reverting to the no-action alternative would be inconsistent with the forest plan.  That creates an equally strong argument the other way (in my opinion).

USFS Road Maintenance

by

Folks, I’ve been working on an essay about US Forest Service roads that are in need of repairs and maintenance, and how a modest increase in timber sales could pay for such work. Indeed, such work is much needed, at least on the forests I’ve visited recently. The photo below is my son, Stewart (6-foot-7) next to a pothole on a heavily used USFS road on the Mt. Hood NF. This is not a new pothole. Someone, maybe an agency person, maybe a member of the public, painted white brackets on the pavement as a warning — as the previously painted warning had faded. So this pothole is years old. It is by no means the largest pothole I’ve encountered on paved roads here. Recreation on the Mt. Hood NF is huge, but some of the roads that serve those visitors are in poor shape.

Pothole on USFS Road

According to the fy2016 budget justification, “The FY 2016 President’s Budget proposes $154,262,000 for the Roads program, a decrease of $13,832,000 from the FY 2015 Enacted level.” The 2014 enacted level was $166 million. It seems unlikely that an increase in funding will come from Congress.

The essay will be for The Forestry Source in the next few months.  I’d like to hear about the situation on the National Forest(s) you visit. Is the forest in question is doing a good job with its limited road funding dollars? What do you think of the idea of establishing a “roads trust fund” on each forest and setting annual harvest targets for the fund? Or is there a better way to provide an adequate level of road-maintenance funding? If you’d like to pass along your comments for the article, send them to me at [email protected], and let me know if it is OK to publish them. Same with photos: pictures of potholes and other maintenance needs — or roads in good repair — are welcome. I’d like to hear from folks inside and outside of the agency.

Steve Wilent
Editor, The Forestry Source
The Society of American Foresters (www.eforester.org)

 

 

Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program

by

Here’s an topic worth discussing: “Critical Ecosystem In Danger, California’s Primary Water Supply at Risk.”

“Today the Sierra Nevada Conservancy (SNC), in partnership with the United States Forest Service (USFS), announced the launch of the Sierra Nevada Watershed Improvement Program (WIP). The WIP is a coordinated, integrated, collaborative program to restore the health of California’s primary watershed through increased investment and needed policy changes.”

Sounds grand, but the need to harvest timber to accomplish those goals will gum up the works. Or will it?