Two conservation groups made the first legal challenge to a logging operation excluded from environmental analysis and public review under the 2014 Farm Bill.
On Thursday, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystems Council filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Missoula to stop the Rendezvous Trails timber sale near West Yellowstone. The sale calls for logging 250 acres of lodgepole pine on the western boundary of Yellowstone National Park.
The Forest Service wants to know what you think about its proposed new ski area/water rights rule. I know this because the Forest Service issued a press release announcing that it “is seeking public comment on a proposal addressing water provided for ski areas on national forest lands through the permitting process.”
But, what if you actually want to read the rule and comment upon it? Too bad for you. The press release offers no link to the new rule nor any means to comment.
So today I sent a note to the news release’s “contact email” — [email protected] — suggesting it might be nice to add links to the rule and comment process to its press release.
Anyone want in on our office pool for how many days it takes to get a response?
Unifying Perspectives of Evolution, Conservation and Breeding: A symposium in honour of Dr. Gene Namkoong in commemoration of his retirement after four decades of pioneering research in forest genetics July 22-24, 1999This summer I am celebrating my 40th year in the forestry profession. I am also going through my files and preparing for a transition to a past-forester, current theologian. I will be posting pieces that strike me as still relevant to the forest science/policy world.
The first is a piece I wrote for Dr. Gene Namkoong’s Festschrift in 1999 (15 years ago) at University of British Columbia. A Festschrift is a symposium in honor of a scientist’s work, where his or her students present papers. Here is a link, and a photo of the group above.
The rest of the Festschrift was published, as you can see from the link, but my paper was too odd to fit. It’s kind of a reflective look (“from the balcony”, as it were, thank you Richard Stem for sticking that expression in my brain!) at our business. I was honored to be counted among Gene’s students, even though I was only a post-doc. Even though the science I did with him at State had a short half-life, the practice of doing it and learning from him is still a rich and valued part of my life today. I could say a lot more about him and his work, but that deserves a separate post.
Anyway, I will post this in 500 or so word chunks. The paper is “about” making the science biz and policy more harmonious. At the time, I had spent 25 years or so working at the interface, both in forest policy and on biotechnology. You can see those experiences reflected in this piece. So here goes:
IF SCIENCE IS THE ANSWER, WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?
Policy issues reflect competing views about not only potential courses of action, but also about the nature of the problems themselves (Dunn, 1981). In the development of scientific research that is ultimately used in policy formulation, ideas of the nature of environmental problems tend to be implicit rather than explicit, and vary by discipline. In policy analysis, problem structuring is one of the most important steps in the process. Without careful thought, discussion, and analysis, it is common to address what turns out to be the wrong problem. In the U.S., research direction is determined at different levels by different groups, most frequently without substantive levels of involvement by policy makers, landowners, practitioners, citizens or other potential users of the research.
For example, let’s imagine the research budget that might be developed by Rosemary Radford Ruether, the ecofeminist theologian (1998). She feels that the ultimate environmental challenge is “to harmonize our needs with those of the rest of the earth-community.” She thinks the solution is “new social systems that relate men and women, races and ethnic groups, in a global community where all enjoy adequate means of life and where the land, air, soil, forests, oceans and rivers can be freed of toxic poisons and provide the sustaining basis for all earth creatures..this will involve new sustainable technologies.” One could imagine research directed toward finding the most environmentally destructive first world consumption and looking for ways to encourage people to consume less, find less polluting technologies, and look for ways to find poor rural people ways of caring for the land that are not destructive but do provide for their needs. Somewhere in this research effort would be concern for the environment, for social justice, and a culture that speaks to the human soul.
As mentioned in a previous paper at this symposium (Burley, 1999) it is estimated that 50% of the wood used in the world is used for cooking. Perhaps the best focus for research is developing cheap, environmentally benign energy technologies. Or perhaps further research on electronic paper might help decrease the amount of use of trees or other fiber for pulp. The dean of the college of agriculture might decide that with burgeoning populations, the only way to provide for needs is to use genetically engineered crops. But as we have seen, the benefits, costs and risks are not necessarily addressed by the sociology, economics, botany and zoology disciplines until the technology is already developed and in use. This allows the wasteful development of technologies that are not acceptable by consumers, with the opportunity cost of the lost improvements that could have been made in people’s well-being and the environment if research had been more carefully integrated from the beginning.
Nevertheless, these are difficult questions. If someone had funding for one molecular biologist, should they be developing systems for turning hog waste into environmentally benign useful products or developing genetically engineered crops that provide nutrients or flavors like meat but are less consumptive of resources than meat production? Studying a production system, even a potential production system, raises questions about who would benefit from this production system and who would lose, if the technology could be successfully developed. Often these questions, considered in policy analysis, are not considered in research programs, nor are they the subject of public discussion, even when the research is publicly funded.
The Oregon Department of State Lands has completed the controversial sale of three parcels of Elliott State Forest totaling 1,453 acres to Seneca Jones Timber and Scott Timber Co.
The Wednesday sale fetched $4.2 million despite the promise from environmental groups to file a lawsuit to halt logging over the alleged existence of federally protected marbled murrelets in the parcels.
The East Hakki Ridge parcel was purchased by Seneca Jones Timber for $1.89 million, while Adams Ridge 1 was purchased by Scott Timber for $1.87 million. Benson Ridge was purchased for $787,000.
In December 2013, the State Land Board approved selling about 2,700 acres within the Elliott. Managing the Common School Fund land within this forest —which in recent years generated annual net revenues in the $8 million to $11 million range — cost the fund about $3 million in fiscal year 2013.
Losses are projected to continue in fiscal year 2014 and beyond, due to reduced timber harvest levels as a result of litigation over threatened and endangered species protection.
“The Land Board realizes the Common School Fund cannot continue to have a net deficit from managing these Trust lands,” DSL director Mary Abrams said in a press release. “This first effort to sell three small parcels was to gauge interest in these properties, as well as determine the market value of land within the forest.”
The sale, which will benefit the Common School Fund, represents less than two percent of the 93,000-acre forest near Reedsport.
“These parcels, which once belonged to all Oregonians, should never have been sold in the first place,” said Noah Greenwald, endangered species director at the Center for Biological Diversity in Portland, in a press release announcing the notice to initiate a lawsuit. “Now that they’ve been sold, we’re not going to allow them to be clear-cut and contribute to the extinction of the unique marbled murrelet.”
Here is an interesting article, with great graphics from Mother Jones Magazine. I just have a small extract here so you can get a flavor, but check out the links and graphics in the original.
Indeed, firefighting expenditures have consistently outpaced fire preparation expenditures, even as experts like Covington and Douglas insist that, like the adage says, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Since 2002, the average dollar spent on firefighting has been matched by only 80 cents in preparatory spending on things like clearing away hazardous fuels and putting firefighting resources in place:
Wyden’s bill, which he calls “arguably one of the first bipartisan efforts that could make a real dent in climate change,” is still in committee, and the House version has already taken heat from fiscal conservatives like Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.). In any case, it wouldn’t take effect until next year. But Covington argues that the government needs to approach wildfires as natural disasters on par with hurricanes and earthquakes, and that we should plan for a future that is much more severe than the past.
“Earlier in the century, if they saw what’s been going on since the ’90s, it’s just inconceivable,” he says. “It alarms me that people don’t realize how much is being lost.”
Some thoughts..
1)There are many sources of increased costs, as we have discussed here before. More rules, better equipment, etc.
2) I like that the article says “they are able to extinguish most fires when they are relatively small.” I wonder how that tracks with various let-burn policies, though.. as in “we are able to extinguish them, but we don’t.” And if they don’t, how many of the larger fires does that explain? If we let some fires burn on purpose, wouldn’t acreage increase over the time we didn’t?
3) I thought this was interesting… “In 2006, Westerling counted instances of fires greater than 1,000 acres in Western states; the study, published in Science, found that “large wildfire activity increased suddenly and markedly in the mid-1980s.” But CO2 I don’t think increased “suddenly” so I wonder if there is another explanation?
4) I found this quote intriguing, if you think about it..
“Environmental change is complicating the work of fire managers who already had their work cut out for them restoring forests from the decades-long practice of suppressing all fires, which led to an unhealthy buildup of fuel that can turn a small fire into a megafire.”
Well, fire managers planned to “restore” forests that have an “unhealthy” buildup of fuels. It seems like there are only two ways of doing it..mechanical treatments and prescribed burns or some combination, if, in fact, we are talking about forests that have “unhealthy buildups.” Since it is really hard to do either one (litigation on mechanical, safety and health on prescribed burns) the idea that this will happen across all acres in the west, even with unlimited bucks, seems unrealistic to me. Maybe we need some more realistic ideas like “climate change has made fires unpredictable and scarier. Therefore we should do more mechanical fuel treatments.. enough to make a difference and protect communities, and be very very careful with prescribed burns and fire use.” Climate change makes things worse, but just makes us want more money, not change our approach?
5. I like that this article says that “80 cents in preparatory spending on things like clearing away hazardous fuels and putting firefighting resources in place” so hazardous fuel treatment is a good thing, yet as we have seen in the pages of this blog, those projects can be hung up for years in some cases due to the way appeals and litigation works.
6. In this Mother Jones article, people who argue for fuels treatment projects are Democrats (Wyden) and those against, Republican (because of the bucks). For those of us who have sat through House and Senate hearings, it’s a fascinating take.
7. Finally, if you’re in the west, and you’re thinking “but we don’t have a drought, here, it’s been raining all spring and summer” you can find yourself in the helpful map below. Here is a link for more info.
This lawsuit aims at ESA protection for 9 species, one of which is the San Bernardino flying squirrel, a subspecies of the northern flying squirrel that lives at high elevations in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains of southern California. According to the USFWS, it is “believed that the San Bernardino flying squirrel represents ancestral populations that have been isolated in forested, higher elevation refugia by a warming climate” (since the last ice age). And “The [CBD] petition states that high-elevation species have limited suitable habitat for movement in response to these [more recent] climate-caused shifts in habitat, and may simply run out of suitable habitat to occupy.”
Also involved: “two distinct populations of the black-backed woodpecker.”
However, the IPCC says, “Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped.” (IPCC, 2013: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis.) So much for the squirrel. But maybe climate change will bring more fires, and thus more snags, which will benefit the black-backed woodpecker.
Enviro group sues feds over flying squirrel protections
Jessica Estepa, E&E reporterThe Center for Biological Diversity today sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to decide whether nine species, including a rare flying squirrel, should receive federal protections.
The federal agency missed its own statutory deadline to issue 12-month findings on whether any of the species should be listed under the Endangered Species Act, the group contends in its lawsuit. It has asked that the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia force the agency to issue decisions on the species.
The species listed in the suit are: the San Bernardino flying squirrel, the Ichetucknee siltsnail, the Kirtland’s snake, the Atlantic pigtoe, the slenderclaw crawfish, the Barrens darter, the holiday darter, and two distinct populations of the black-backed woodpecker.
“If these amazing flying squirrels don’t get Endangered Species Act protection, global warming could push them out of their last mountain refuge,” Shaye Wolf, the center’s climate science director, said in a statement. “The federal government needs to act before these unique animals disappear forever.”
From 2011 to 2013, FWS issued 90-day findings for each of the animals after receiving petitions from CBD, indicating that listings may be warranted, the lawsuit said.
But more than a year after the last finding was published in the Federal Register, no final decisions have been made, the groups said.
The push for these species will count as part of the group’s annual limit to ask for up to 10 ESA listings a year, as part of a landmark settlement struck between CBD and FWS. The other priority species this year is the Alexander Archipelago wolf from Alaska.
I think this is the Canyon uranium mine on the Kaibab.
Nancy Freeman sent me this link to a Move-On Petition she started with regard to wildfires:
Please mandate that Forest Service and Department of Interior agencies designate our tax money for emergency measures to prevent wildfires now. The drought in the West makes the situation urgent. According to the National Interagency Coordination Center, there are 7 uncontained and 3 new wildfires on public lands on May 31, 2014.
The Government must act now to accomplish:
1) Stopping any industrial activities in the forests that contribute to wildfire danger.
2) Clearing of excess fuel: underbrush and ladder brush
3) Creating fire lines with environmentally friendly mechanical mulches
4) Instituting fire safety education and inspections in communities located in potential wildfire areas.
See http://www.g-a-l.info/ForestFireReport.htm for detailed information.
Here’s her argument:
The major causes of forest fires are nature, lightning, and human: campfires and cigarettes; however, faulty electrical wiring, sparks from vehicles and sparks from welding machinery are common, plus flames produced by hazardous waste spills from truck accidents on public lands. An overheated BLM vehicle caused the Chariot Fire that burned 7,000 acres in the San Diego Forest in July 2013. http://wildfiretoday.com/2013/07/08/california-chariot-fire]
Since industrial projects, especially mining operations, bring all but one of these “human cause” risks to the National Forest, it is clear that an increase of mining industry in our National Forests increases the fire risk. We have two examples in the region I live in Arizona.
In May 2011, two mining companies caused fires in the Coronado National Forest with welding projects. At the time, the “Fire Danger” was at Level 1: campfires and cigarettes are prohibited; yet in both cases the miners were out-of-doors welding in May. May and June are the hottest, driest months in the Southwest, which forest fire data confirms. A further complication is that industrial sites are surrounded by 10 ft. high chain-link fences for security reasons, making it impossible for fire fighting equipment to enter multiple acres of National Forest public land, except at a main gate.
Considering there are 170 mining operations being permitted in 44 National Forests in the West [www.mining-law-reform.info/proposed-mining-projects.htm], the fire danger from industrial mining needs to be addressed. National Forest Service record of mining project on the National Forest: FSOperations Records.
Sharon- I guess my problem with this (only having worked on forestry, grazing, oil and gas, underground and aboveground coal projects, powerlines, ski areas) is that while folks out there may cause some fires, they also put them out (their own and campers’, hunters’, and so-called “natural” ignitions). I don’t know the ratio of “start” to “put out”, but I’m not sure anyone else does, either.
I am curious about the problem with gates and firefighting, not sure I’ve heard about this before.
Thanks to the SAF Linked-In group for this one. Here is a link to a story about Dr. South’s testimony to the Senate Energy Committee.
Here are a couple of excerpts:
Untrue claims about the underlying cause of wildfires can spread like “wildfire.” For example, the false idea that “Wildfires in 2012 burned a record 9.2 million acres in the U.S.” is cited in numerous articles and is found on more than 2,000 web sites across the internet. In truth, many foresters know that in 1930, wildfires burned more than 4 times that amount. Wildfire in 2012 was certainly an issue of concern, but did those who push an agenda really need to make exaggerated claims to fool the public?
Here is a graph showing a decreasing trend in wildfires from 1930 to 1970 and an increasing trend in global carbon emissions. If we “cherry pick” data from 1926 to 1970 we get a negative relationship between area burned and carbon dioxide. However, if we “cherry pick” data from 1985 to 2013 we get a positive relationship. Neither relationship proves anything about the effects of carbon dioxide on wildfires since, during dry seasons, human activity is the overwhelming factor that determines both the number and size of wildfires.
(I (SF) would argue that changes in suppression tactics/capabilities/technology are difficult to separate from other factors over time).
And
Untrue claims about the underlying cause of wildfires can spread like “wildfire.” For example, the false idea that “Wildfires in 2012 burned a record 9.2 million acres in the U.S.” is cited in numerous articles and is found on more than 2,000 web sites across the internet. In truth, many foresters know that in 1930, wildfires burned more than 4 times that amount. Wildfire in 2012 was certainly an issue of concern, but did those who push an agenda really need to make exaggerated claims to fool the public?
Here is a graph showing a decreasing trend in wildfires from 1930 to 1970 and an increasing trend in global carbon emissions. If we “cherry pick” data from 1926 to 1970 we get a negative relationship between area burned and carbon dioxide. However, if we “cherry pick” data from 1985 to 2013 we get a positive relationship. Neither relationship proves anything about the effects of carbon dioxide on wildfires since, during dry seasons, human activity is the overwhelming factor that determines both the number and size of wildfires.
Anyone is welcome to find other quotes of interest.
When I was at work, I often wondered “what difference does it make whether and how much current fires conditions are caused by climate change or not?” (Many climate scientists say it is too late to fix short-term changes). Would it make a difference in the 1) fire resilience planning for communities? 2) strategy for fuel treatments? 3) fire suppression? If so, how?
Note:I’m not picking on Dr. South here, the question has been raised by journalists and others, so a debate needs to happen. My point is: given that all this is extremely complex, what difference would different answers make in practice?
You can buy this home in Avon Colorado for $5.1 million (559 Eagle Dr.)
A Denver Post article today here talks about ski visits being up this year in Colorado. Below is an excerpt:
Thanks to a 5.6 percent surge in visitation for the final three months of the 2013-14 ski season at its Colorado resorts — Vail, Beaver Creek, Breckenridge and Keystone — as well as increased guest spending on passes, lodging, dining, lessons and ski rentals, the largest resort operator in the North America netted $117.9 million in income for the quarter, up 20.8 percent from the same months in 2013.
Spring sales of Vail Resorts’ popular Epic Pass reached record levels in recent months, with an annual increase of 14 percent in number of passes sold and a 20 percent increase in sales dollars.
Vacationer spending is climbing in the high country, with many mountain resorts reporting record spending for the 2013-14 ski season.
Vail Resorts saw lift revenue for the quarter climb 17.1 percent, not including pass sales. That growth came from Colorado and Utah’s Canyons resorts and offset a decline in spending at its three Tahoe, Calif.-area resorts. Guests spent more on ski lessons too, delivering a 16.8 percent annual increase in revenue to the company. They ate more too, fueling an 11.7 percent increase in revenue. Retail and rental revenue climbed 11.2 percent for the quarter.
The company finished the quarter with $307.4 million in cash, which arms Vail Resorts for potential acquisitions of ski resorts.
This seems to be about just the resorts themselves and not associated businesses, hotels, restaurants, gas stations, etc.
Now occasionally in arguing for more “protected areas” folks will cite this Headwaters study which “found a meaningful relationship between the amount of protected public land and higher per capita income levels in 2010.” Now we all learned in statistics that “correlation is not causation.” Still, if we put this study and the ski area info together it is hard to argue that folks in Summit County would have higher per capita income if the ski areas were removed and put into “protected” status (I am putting the term “protected” in quotes here because the term was used in the study in a specific way, and we can all disagree about what is “protected” and from what it is “protected.” If you don’t believe this, FOIA any Roadless Rule documents or check out the reports of the recent FACA committee (RACNAC).
Not to get all epistemological, but some things may be true if you look at numbers for all western counties and do a correlation, but not be true individually. It seems to me that the question is really a localized question…economically is protecting better than alternative uses (which might occur in a given area). If oil and gas leasing or ski areas are alternative uses, the economics would be be different from if the alternative to “protection” were campgrounds or OHV trails. But only certain places are conducive to wind farms, oil and gas leasing, coal mines, or ski areas.
This reminds me of the old studies that said if Forks Washington has a bad economy it doesn’t matter because jobs are growing in Seattle. Scale can be everything and choosing a scale is a value, not “science.”
Also in the Post today was a note that states get 50% from BLM lease sales.
I happened to read these two articles today that seemed to fit together in an interesting way. The first was about proposed legislation that would create a national recreation area from a big chunk of a national forest to get it funded through the Park Service. This quote was kind of telling: “Remember, the main function of the Forest Service is to fight fires. Recreation is last on its priority list. That is why nothing gets done …” The second was about the inability of the Forest Service to manage motorized recreation. Hmmm …
