Balanced Post-fire Treatments in the Rim Fire

June 1, 2014April 7, 2014 by Larry Harrell Fotoware

I ran across this excellent article from Eric Holst, Senior Director of the Environmental Defense Fund’s “working lands program”.

Here’s the link: https://www.edf.org/blog/2014/02/18/after-rim-fire-surprising-role-salvage-logging

This picture is a view looking down into the Tuolumne River Canyon, from the “Rim of the World” overlook. Down there is where the fire started. I’d bet the spin on this wildfire would be VERY different if it was ignited by lightning.

Holst is showing some excellent judgement in looking at the bigger picture of the realities of the Rim Fire, seeing that “letting nature take its course” isn’t the way to go on every burned acre.

The Forest Service recently proposed to conduct salvage logging – removal of dead trees – on about 30,000 of the 98,049 acres of high intensity burned area and remove hazard trees along 148 miles of high use road in the burn perimeter. While it may seem counterintuitive for a conservationist to do so, I support this effort. In the high intensity areas, the Rim Fire burned so hot that it not only killed every tree but the top inch or two of soil with critical soil microfauna, and seed stocks were also sterilized. Fire of this intensity has been relatively rare in the moist middle elevations on western slopes of the Sierra Nevada and the native forests are not adapted to bounce back from this type of fire.

There are also some “interesting” comments, and a hint of “eco-bickering”. In those comments is also a return of the “Chapparalian”, using his actual name (instead of one of his many pseudonyms and even fake names). There are also some other interesting names commenting about these issues. John Buckley, a local leader of an environmental group comments with an open mind and a dose of reality. Others continue to spout the misguided idea that leaving the Rim Fire alone is the only way to go. Some commenters talked about the reality that we have plenty of BBW habitat, protected within the National Park. One reality not covered is that re-burns cause extensive damage that is very difficult to recover from, especially in areas left to “recover on their own”.

I still see that post-fire management is essential to getting big trees back on the land. We already have site-specific evidence that forests didn’t return when post-fire management was excluded, 40 years ago. We ended up with old growth brushfields, and a few stunted trees. Those old brushfields burned at moderate intensity. We have a big variety of landscapes, with differing burn intensities and site-specific conditions. This partial comment is spot-on, regarding these facts

It is interesting to see how many comments Eric’s post attracted from authors who are vehement that absolutely nothing except ‘let nature takes its course’ on National Forest lands. Since we have 100,000 acres of National Park land for that experiment, it would be more interesting to apply some other options on the National Forest lands. In the climate change debate, we continue to witness the rapid expansion of vocal people so sure of their own story that they refuse to even consider the possibility that it is worth learning more about the changing earth. Hopefully, this fate will not befall the response to the Rim Fire.

It seems pretty clear to me that a few open-minded people from both sides are seeing the realities of the Rim Fire, and its future.

Articles of Interest on Fire

April 11, 2014April 5, 2014 by Gil DeHuff

Here are three articles that I came across recently that should be of interest to most of us:

1) April 7-10 – Bend, Or. – Open to the Public but registration is required – “In what organizers have dubbed a “Week of Fire,” forest scientists and fire managers will meet in Bend April 7-10 to discuss the latest research on fire ecology and its implications for forest management.” See Here for more info.

2) “Fire ecologists say it will take decades for forests to recover from the Rim Fire in Yosemite National Park, given the extent of the high-severity burn. Now they’re adding another concern to that list: California’s dry weather.” See Here for more info. Especially, note the first photo and the extremely erodible scorched soils shown and the inference that global warming / drought only increases the need for sound forest management to compensate.

3) Can California Burn its Way Out of its Wildfire Problem? Some interesting quotes include:
a) “People who fight and study fire generally agree that one of the best tools for preventing massive wildfires is prescribed burning: intentionally setting smaller fires before the big ones hit. But there are major challenges to fighting fire with fire.”
b) “In California alone, about 15 million acres of forest are in need of some kind of treatment.
“We’re in a huge deficit,” says Scott Stephens, a fire scientist at University of California, Berkeley. Before the year 1800, he says, 4.5 million acres burned in California every year. Fires started either by Native Americans or by lightning were generally smaller and less intense, but much more frequent. Many areas burned every ten years or so. But because of aggressive fire suppression policies that managers followed for decades, many places haven’t burned in a century or more. Some forests are so overgrown, they have ten times the number of trees as they had historically. That’s the difference between running through the trees, arms outstretched, maybe with a couple of friends by your side, and not being able to crawl through. Forests like these are more susceptible to giant wildfires, because there’s more fuel to burn and it burns hotter. “We’re carrying these forests that are incredibly vulnerable forward into climate change,” says Stephens. “It’s a disaster really.” Because, he explains, California’s changing climate will make the fire season longer, and the prescribed-burn season shorter.”
c) ““Where I started my division assignment on the Rim Fire, was in areas where the Forest Service had recently completed some prescribed burns,” says Tom Garcia, the fire manager at Whiskeytown National Recreation Area. “And we were able to stall that fire out in that particular area and buy some decision space and some time.” With that extra time, Garcia says, they were able to get ahead of the fire, and save some nearby homes.”

Item C-6 is an item that I have repeatedly tried to explain to many on this site to no avail – Hopefully this will help some to see the need for fuels reduction and provide but one more example of how sound forest management can bring even a catastrophic fire to the ground and thereby reduce the extent of a catastrophic fire and by logical deduction and many studies also keep some fires small so that they can be controlled quickly as soon as there is danger that they could explode into a catastrophic fire.

4FRI: “$127 per acre in environmental study and contract costs”

April 11, 2014April 3, 2014 by Steve Wilent

Article from the Arizona Journal yesterday. I thought this line was interesting:

“The problem boils down to a projected gap in the number of forest acres available to timber industries that are currently thinning forests in Northern Arizona between the end of the White Mountain Stewardship contract and the beginning of the 4FRI project. In order for the Forest Service to make land available to industry for thinning, it must spend an estimated average of $127 per acre in environmental study and contract costs.” [emphasis mine]

Senators Flake And McCain Back Effort To Keep 4Fri Alive

By Tammy Gray
Red tape that has the ability to undermine the Four Forests Restoration Initiative (4FRI) has captured the attention of U.S. Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain, both R-Ariz.
In a letter dated March 24, the senators implore the U.S. Forest Service to make the success of the initiative, along with the White Mountain Stewardship contract, “a national priority.”
The problem boils down to a projected gap in the number of forest acres available to timber industries that are currently thinning forests in Northern Arizona between the end of the White Mountain Stewardship contract and the beginning of the 4FRI project. In order for the Forest Service to make land available to industry for thinning, it must spend an estimated average of $127 per acre in environmental study and contract costs. The funding for completing such work will dwindle over the next few years, and Navajo County Government Relations Administrator Hunter Moore noted that action is needed immediately to prevent future acreage shortages due to the amount of time it takes to complete the environmental study process.
“The major point is that we need to put more capacity into the system now, so that we do not run short in the years to come. If we don’t infuse new resources immediately, the ANSF (Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests) will not be able to catch up due to the demands and time of the NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) process,” Moore noted. “For all intents and purposes, the industry that exists now will likely have a major role in the second phase of 4FRI. If that industry is allowed to starve and die after we have taken 10 years to grow it, we will regret not having it around when 4FRI needs to be completed.”
Flake and McCain note in their letter to the Forest Service that the White Mountain Stewardship contract, which has its roots in the aftermath of the Rodeo-Chedeski fire, is a model for the nation and it’s follow-up, the 4FRI, must be given every opportunity to be successful.
“As private industry continues to make a comeback, our fire-prone communities will become safer at a faster pace and lower cost than the federal government could accomplish on its own,” the senators wrote in their letter to U.S. Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell. “…However, the pending exhaustion of acres pre-approved for thinning under the National Environmental Policy Act poses a significant threat to thinning activity across Arizona’s eastern forests. Without addressing this projected gap in available acres, the industry that has developed in that part of the state could face significant obstacles. Such a setback would not only have an outsized impact on local economies, it could call into question the long-term viability of the stewardship contracting model on a national level.”
Moore noted that some of the private industry partners are willing to cover the costs involved in releasing the acreage for treatment, but that is not a legally available option at this time. He notes that approximately $4 million per year is needed from the federal government to make enough acreage available for industry to stay afloat.
“Estimates indicate that for a $4 million investment annually, the federal government gets private investment activity that is several times beyond that,” he noted.
Flake and McCain asked Tidwell to “make use of all available tools to expedite, streamline and increase the pace and scale of forest restoration.” They also noted, “In this fiscal climate, prioritizing these programs will ensure that communities throughout the West are less vulnerable to fire, while reducing the skyrocketing cost to taxpayers associated with fire suppression and post-fire recovery. We are sure that you agree that we cannot afford to let federal inaction hinder the prospect for continued forest restoration driven by private investment.”

Behind the Curtain: Colt Summit Appeals Resolution Meeting Notes

April 2, 2014 by Sharon

One of my goals on this blog has been to try to share some of the “behind the scenes” that goes on with Forest Service projects, so that colleagues in academia and elsewhere can get an idea of what it’s like to be a practitioner in this world.

Here are the note from an appeals resolution meeting for the project we’ve been following, Colt Summit. Remember it was collaboratively developed, and the acres of commercial thinning reduced from 1298 to 597 based on public comment. This resolution call was open to the public.

Also remember that I said there were two pieces of information about “what groups want”. One is “what do you want to change about the analysis?” and the other is “what do you want to change on the ground for this project.”

In this transcript, the FS keeps asking “what do you want?”…and the appellants say “give us something and we’ll see if we like it.” That’s the old “bring me a rock” approach. And why should the FS “bring them a rock”?

Because, in the words of Sarah Jane Johnson “you are asking us to defend our appeal, we are all irritated by that, and we did a lot of work on our appeal, our offer is drop the project and do an EIS, you are supposed to provide a counter offer. ”

Hmm. “you are supposed to make a counteroffer..” is that in law, regulations or policy? Not that I recall.

This meeting resonated with me, as I have been in similar discussions with the same flavor, in fact it have me a flashback or two.

In the interests of being fair, I am posting the whole thing instead of an excerpt. Now it could be argued that the note-taker didn’t adequately capture the comments.. so perhaps all these meetings should be open to the public and videotaped?

May 25, 2011 1:30pm
Appeals Panel Resolution Meeting Conference Call
Notes taken by Allison Kolbe
Participants at Lolo SO: Scott Tomson, Tim Love, Barb Beckes, Tami Paulsen, Shane Hendrickson, Sandy Mack, Debbie Austin, Chris Partyka, Carly Lewis, Boyd Hartwig, Allison Kolbe
Debbie Austin: I will go over our agenda, we are here to resolve appeals for Colt Summit, the three appeals came from Friends of the Wild Swan and Montana Ecosystems Defense Council, Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystem Council and the third from Native Ecosystem Council and Alliance for the Wild Rockies. We also received a Notice of Intent to Sue from the Western Environmental Law Center on behalf of those groups.
This project had broad public involvement including participation by the Lolo Restoration Committee and the Southwest Crown of the Continent group. This project is unique because it is fully funded for implementation and for monitoring implementation and effects monitoring.
Our agenda for this meeting is:
1. Debbie Austin will make introductions, speak to why we are here (to see if we can come to resolution), introduce everyone in the meeting, we will go until 3:30 or 4pm if needed
2. Chris Partyka will go over the appeals process
3. Tim Love will give a Project Overview, including a quick summary of project including the
4. Sandy Mack will explain how we grouped the appeal points into issues
5. What do the appellants want to focus on, and what are their most important concerns?
6. Public on the call can comment
7. Closeout/Next Steps/Wrap‐Up/Resolved Issues
Participants in room introduced themselves: Debbie Austin, Sandy Mack, Shane Hendrickson, Boyd Hartwig, Tami Paulsen, Barb Beckes, Scott Tomson, Allison Kolbe, Carly Lewis, Chris Partyka
Participants on the phone introduced themselves: Arlene Montgomery, Steve Kelley, Michael Garrity, Sara Jane Johnson, Scott Brennan, Megan Birzell, Joe Kirkley, Melissa Hayes, and Julia Altemus.
Chris Partyka: The Administrative Appeals Process is designed to review public comments that question the decision that has been made, and anyone who submitted comments can appeal. There is a 45 day appeal period after the decision was made, then the appeal period closes and the Forest Service has 45 days to review the process and decision. This is an informal disposition meeting to try to resolve issues.
The Regional Appeal Panel determines whether we have done an adequate job of addressing issues that were brought up during the appeal period. The appeal panel is made of folks from other Forests and they are not hand selected. The panel reviews the issues and information and the Reviewing Officer
submits the findings to the Deputy Regional Forester who is the deciding officer and they determine whether the Forest did an adequate job. The Deciding Officer will uphold the decision, uphold the decision with instructions that there may be some item sthat could be covered in the project record, or withdraw decision and the Forest redoes the project. We are at day 15 and have until Tuesday to submit the project record to the Regional Office.
Sarah Jane Johnson: I question the chances of resolving the appeals, the chances are non‐existent that we will resolve any offers or changes by either side.
Debbie Austin: this is an opportunity for us to hear each other’s concerns.
Sarah Jane Johnson: We aren’t interested in going over our issues on our appeal, we have outlined them in our appeals. We aren’t going to argue our appeal.
Debbie Austin: we are here to see if we can do anything to move forward.
Chris Partyka: in these meetings there is an opportunity to find consensus, we can explain our analysis.
Sarah Jane Johnson: it sounds to me like you want to go through each of our issues.
Debbie Austin: we have grouped your issues, and we would like to discuss…
Sarah Jane Johnson: there is that word again, discuss, I don’t know what we will discuss, if you have questions, or if we do we could ask each other to clarify questions
Debbie Austin: the goal of meeting is to see if we can resolve, or clarify or gain a better understanding of issues.
Arlene Montgomery: you have seen our appeals, do you have something that you would want to change in the project? We have laid out what we think and what the deficiencies are, do you have something that the forest would propose?
Michael Garrity: we want to know if you are going to make any changes, otherwise this is a waste of time.
Debbie Austin: this is not an offer, counter‐offer process, I came to gain a better understanding of what your concerns were.
Michael Garrity: you have seen our appeal, if you are here to resolve our appeal then I want to hear how you are going to address our appeal, and I will tell you now I am not going to drop my appeal and I am willing to listen if you are going to make some changes.
Tim Love: The Colt Summit FONSI was signed March 25, 2011. The purpose and need of this project is to increase forest health, improve grizzly bear and bulltrout habitat by rerouting the Colt Road and to reduce fuels in WUI. The Modified Alternative shifted treatment to more understory slashing and prescribed burning and reduced commercial timber harvest by more than half. There was lots of public involvement, and we also met with research scientists. The Lolo Restoration Committee visited the project on a field trip, and the CSKT,DNRC, BLM, localfire district, and etc. also were involved. We had
FWS consult on both terrestrial and aquatic species.
Sandy Mack: we received 3 appeals that included 130 contentions or issues. We grouped them into 6 issues for ease of discussion. These issues are: lynx, grizzly bear, old growth and species viability for Management Indicator Species, soils and aquatics, WUI and treatments, and general NEPA including
CFLRP and request for an EIS.
Debbie Austin: did we miss anything?
Arlene Montgomery: you missed Cumulative Effects and the fact that there is an adjacent project on the Flathead, we don’t need to talk about it, you don’t mention it in your EA.
Sandy Mack: it is in the project record, we considered it when bears were analyzed, the 6th unit HUC for Clearwater happens to be a hydrologic boundary, the silviculturist looked at prescriptions and we looked at them on the ground and we used similar prescriptions.
Arlene Montgomery: It is not clear in your EA that you looked, quite frankly your EA is skimpy and I do not believe you did an effective cumulative effects analysis.
Debbie Austin: Arlene is there anything you would like to discuss?
Arlene Montgomery: we don’t want to go point by point over our appeal points to hear what you say you did.
Debbie Austin: what are the major issues that you really disagree with in this project?
Steve Kelley: it is not our job to design projects for you, you need to drop the project and do the EIS, and we did a lot of work in our comments and appeals, I don’t think this is going to serve anything.
Debbie Austin: what do you think an EIS is going to do?
Steve Kelley: I’ve been asking since 1987, we have a perfect understanding and I think we disagree, it is in the appeal, there is no ambiguity, then ask if you have questions, I’m clear and I understand the project, and I responded in the best way that I could.
Debbie Austin: instead of going over 130 things, I want to understand what truly are your concerns about the implementation over this particular project.
Arlene Montgomery: I think I clearly articulated in my appeal what I think the problems are in the project.
Steve Kelley: I don’t think we have a misunderstanding, we have a disagreement, isn’t this a fair assessment?
Chris Partyka: you seem to feel that there is a level of analysis that we did not do, looking at your appeal
points, then we went to the project record and were able to use that to answer your points. I suggest we tackle lynx or old growth so we can explain how we addressed something, it isn’tfai rfor us to ask you to go through the 1000 plus page appealrecord. Old growth for instance is very small at 17 acres of treatment and we hope to improve the old growth stand and protect it from future fire.
Steve Kelley: we totally understand that you think you can manage old growth, we just disagree.
Sarah Jane Johnson: old growth, you are telling me that you are doing a reasonable job of managing it and I don’t want to listen to you justify that you are managing it.
Debbie Austin: I want you to understand that we did make changes based on your comments, including with old growth, and the project is smaller in terms of activities than it was in the beginning.
Chris Partyka: do you want to offer us something,…
Michael Garrity: no we don’t, drop the decision and do an EIS which we think is what the law requires, and we understand that you disagree with that and I understand that.
Chris Partyka: I was hoping that we could find common ground, this project is a small tidbit at trying to find common ground, how do we get there, is this the flavor of everything from here on out, why can’t we just go over certain points? I was hoping we could resolve it with…
Sarah Jane Johnson: the confusion is we aren’t collaborating in this meeting.
Debbie Austin: no, we don’t intend it to be collaboration, but we want to discuss how we could move this project forward and discuss our agreements.
Sarah Jane Johnson: you are asking us to defend our appeal, we are all irritated by that, and we did a lot of work on our appeal, our offer is drop the project and do an EIS, you are supposed to provide a counter offer.
Debbie Austin: you guys did a lot of work on your appeal and we appreciate that, we also did a lot of work on our end, we haven’t necessarily seen yet what we will gain from doing an EIS.
Arlene Montgomery: I disagree that your analysis was thorough, and it looks like specialists reports that were just cut and pasted in the EA, for instance hydrology brought up wildlife issues that weren’t addressed by wildlife, this is one of the poorest EAs I’ve seen.
Michael Garrity: let’s just see what the appeal review board says.
Debbie Austin: I’ll now provide the public a chance to comment.
Michael Garrity: I’m going to hang up.
There were no public comments.
Meeting ended at 14:15

Hastings: Court Misses the Mark on ESA Settlement Ruling

April 1, 2014 by Bob Zybach

This just in as a press release from the House Committee on Natural Resource. The bladderpods seem to have scored another major legal victory in closed door meetings between litigious groups’ lawyers and government lawyers. April Fools Day seems to be an appropriate date to learn of these things. 160 NEW species listed! And all as transparent as closed doors, muffled voices, and shredded notes can be. Reminds of the Clinton Plan for Northwest Forests planning process, and we can see how that turned out. This type of stuff should be illegal. In my opinion.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Permalink

CONTACT: Press Office

202-226-9019

WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) issued the following statement regarding the federal court ruling upholding the Obama Administration’s closed-door Endangered Species Act (ESA) settlement agreement with the Center for Biological Diversity and WildEarth Guardians:

“I’m disappointed with today’s court ruling that upholds the Administration’s mega-settlement with litigious environmental groups to make listing decisions for hundreds of species behind closed-doors and in a rushed, arbitrary time-frame. Over 160 new species have already been added to the list just since these settlements. In many cases, such as the White Bluffs Bladderpod in my district, or in the Lesser Prairie Chicken listed just last week, legitimate concerns have been raised about the science or the lack of state or local government involvement. The potential listings of even more species, including the Greater Sage Grouse, could have devastating job and economic impacts across the entire country. Listing decisions should be made in an open, transparent manner and based on the best available science and data. This decision today proves even more why common sense legislation to curb these lawsuits and closed-door settlement agreements will do more to aid endangered species than lawyers and courtrooms. That’s why I and other colleagues will work to advance targeted legislation to improve and update the ESA by focusing on transparency and species recovery.”

###

NaturalResources.house.gov

BLM Scattered Apples Timber Sale Mediation

March 31, 2014 by Sharon

I was going to recommend that Congress task the US Institute of Environmental Conflict Resolution with developing a mediation process for FS fuels reduction projects or restoration projects, and looked up the link.

Lo and behold, they had this 2005 project information posted to their site:

BLM Scattered Apples Timber Sale Mediation
April – October 2005
Location: Oregon
Background
Together with a conservation group, residents of Williams, Oregon filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over a timber sale. This led the BLM and other affected parties to request the assistance of the U.S. Institute. The U.S. Institute worked with contracted mediators to conduct an initial assessment of the situation.
They first determined that a negotiated agreement was feasible and then made recommendations on how to proceed. The parties agreed to a focused mediation of the Scattered Apples timber sale. Legal representatives for each party worked with the mediators to design the process, conditions, and basic ground rules for mediation.
Results and Accomplishments
The seven-month mediation resulted in an agreement that dismissed the lawsuit. The settlement allowed 75% of the original timber sale to go forward. It left in place 152 acres of old-growth trees that serve as habitat for species such as the northern spotted owl.
Timber sales cancelled or suspended due to legislative and legal efforts cost the federal government millions of dollars a year. Costs include contractors’ claims for the value of replacement timber and damages due to the effects of cancelled contracts on jobs, payroll, and taxes.
The mediated agreement was reached by investing $66,000 in mediation services in addition to the costs of stakeholder participation with their legal representatives.
Highlights/Innovation
This case is reportedly the first successful mediation of a BLM timber sale in Oregon. It highlights some of the alternative avenues available for resolving this kind of dispute. The settlement could serve as a prototype for other successful timber sale mediations.
The Scattered Apples settlement is innovative in that it includes a provision for continuing community oversight. The stakeholders can ride along with contract administrators during logging activities and visit harvested sites. Additional efforts to improve long-term communication and working relationships between stakeholders are ongoing.
In the words of plaintiff Lesley Adams, outreach coordinator for Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center, the agreement “is a great example of the BLM working with conservationists and the community to come up with a plan everyone can support.”

Here’s a link to a report..

I guess this article is some of the “rest of the story”.. Oregonians, what’s your perspective?

What Went Right with West Bend? Comparing to Colt Summit

March 31, 2014 by Sharon

A few weeks ago, I posted this on the West Bend Vegetation Project, and asked the question “why was this successful?”

Matthew asked the question “could it be because the Deschutes was willing to negotiate with the objectors during the objection process?”

He compared it to the Colt Summit collaborative project, that we’ve discussed many times on this blog. Here’s exactly what he said:

This compares to some other high-profile CFLRP projects, such as the Colt Summit Timber Sale on the Lolo National Forest, in which the Forest Service was completely unwilling to make any modifications or remain flexible even going so far as the Lolo Supervisor telling conservation groups during the appeal resolution meeting “We’re fully funded for this project and we’re not making any changes.” The result was the first timber sale lawsuit on the Lolo National Forest in over 5 years.

So I went back to the record and asked the question.. had the Colt Summit folks changed the proposal based on public feedback?
I had a vague memory of a table that showed changes.. and sure enough, in this link there it was!

But it looks like it was based on public input and not on the result of an appeal resolution meeting. So here’s what appears to have happened (FS people invited to chime in):

The Forest Service initially proposed 1228 acres of commercial thinning when they first presented the project to the public. The Proposed Action was first presented to the public on February 6, 2010 in an official scoping notice (legal advertisement published in the Missoulian newspaper of record). Later, in response to public comment and field findings, the Forest Service developed the modified proposed action, which reduced the commercially thinned acres down to 597 acres.

So it sounds as if, based on what Matthew said, the appellants on Colt Summit might have been satisfied and not litigated if the acres had been reduced still further. I like this because it is honest.. it’s not really about the FS breaking the law, it’s about having power over the outcome.

But the public can’t know for sure, since Mr. Garrity pointedly refused to say what outcomes he wanted, when I asked in this email exchange.

Here’s what Mr. Garrity said:

We do think is is odd that the Forest Service was non-responsive to our comments and appeal and yet we are supposed to believe that if we debate this on a blog site it will bring changes to the project.

So it didn’t seem important to him to inform the public (whose land it is) about his concerns. The FS worked with the public, though, as required by law and regulation.

Here’s the process for Colt Summit was as follows (steps of official public input in bold):

1. Proposed Action Developed by Forest Service considering collaborative input from previous projects

2. Scoping – Proposed Action provided to public for review and comment

3. Public concerns and issues identified and alternatives developed to respond to public’s scoping comments

4. EA Prepared to analyze effects of the proposed action and the alternatives and to display this analysis for public consideration

5. Public Notice – Legal Notice published on December 10, 2010 to inform public that EA and Draft Finding of No Significance (FONSI) is available for public comment.

6. Comment Period – public provided comments on EA during 30 day comment period

7. Modified proposed action prepared and analyzed to respond to public comment. Acreage of commercial thinning reduced from 1228 to 597 acres.

8. Decision Notice and FONSI signed on March 25, 2011 selected the Modified Proposed action

9. Appeal Period – 45 day appeal period begins day of decision

With Colt Summit, there were three additional comment periods with reaffirmation of the original March 25, 2011 decision. None of these decisions were subject to appeal because the Forest Service did not change the original decision.

So Mr. Garrity’s (secret) opinions should count more than the other members of the public because…if the FS doesn’t do the (secret) thing that his group wants, then the project will be delayed in years of litigation. Kind of quasi-extortional. Just some kind of formal mediation process, prior to litigation, would help this kind of thing, in my view, or at least should be tried. Congress.. this would be a simple pilot to try out and not invoke “rolling back environmental laws.”

FEDERAL JUDGE ALLOWS PRIVATIZATION OF ALL RECREATION ON ALL NATIONAL FORESTS

March 30, 2014 by Sharon

Concessionaire-managed trailhead on the Coconino National Forest

I’m on Kitty Benzar’s email list and received this today..I am not knowledgeable on this topic but it concerns me.

FEDERAL JUDGE ALLOWS PRIVATIZATION OF ALL RECREATION ON ALL NATIONAL FORESTS
Ruling says concessionaires are exempt from the requirements and restrictions in federal recreation fee law.
In a ruling handed down March 28, 2014, Judge Rudolph Contreras of the DC District Court wrote that Forest Service concessionaires are not subject to the restrictions on recreation fees that apply at agency-managed recreation sites.
The ruling essentially means that private companies operating under permit on National Forest land can require everyone to pay a fee for doing anything, anywhere within their permit area.
The ruling concludes a lawsuit filed by several individuals and a watchdog organization, challenging the Forest Service policy of allowing concessionaires to charge fees that the agency is not allowed to charge under the limitations in the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.
When FLREA was enacted in 2004, its authors included specific requirements and restrictions on recreation fees, in response to public concerns that the federal agencies cannot be trusted with fee authority. But they also included a clause allowing third parties to charge for goods or services “notwithstanding any other provision of law.” The Forest Service interpreted that to mean that concessionaires don’t have to abide by the same legal requirements as the agency must. That interpretation is what was challenged in the lawsuit, and what the court has now upheld.
Under Judge Contreras’s ruling:
The Forest Service can not charge a fee solely for parking.
But a concessionaire can!
The Forest Service can not charge a fee for passing through federal land without using facilities and services.
But a concessionaire can!
The Forest Service can not charge a fee for a scenic overlook.
But a concessionaire can!
The Forest Service can not charge a fee for general access.
But a concessionaire can!
The Forest Service can not charge a fee for camping at undeveloped sites with no amenities.
But a concessionaire can!
The Forest Service can not charge a fee for picnicking along a road or trailside.
But a concessionaire can!
The Forest Service has already turned over half of all its campgrounds, including more than 80% of the most highly-developed ones, to private operation – typically at much higher rates than agency-managed campgrounds. But this decision is not limited to campgrounds. It will allow the Forest Service to stop providing any recreation at all. They can turn it all over: picnic areas, trailheads, scenic roads and overlooks – everything – to private companies to operate for profit.
If you have a federal recreation pass like the Senior or America the Beautiful Pass, this is likely to make it worthless on National Forests, because concessionaires don’t have to honor those the same way the Forest Service does.
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act was recently extended into next year to allow Congress time to enact new legislation to replace it. That legislation must include provisions that apply consistent rules and restrictions on all public lands, regardless of whether they are agency managed or operated under permit by private entities.
Tell Congress you want concessionaires to play by the same rules as the federal agencies! Please take action now. Information on what to do is below.

Equal Opportunity Jack Boots

March 27, 2014 by andystahl

The former governor of New Mexico and his Taos ski area resort jet-setter friends are outraged at Forest Service cops. “People here are 100 percent pissed off,” said former NM Governor and “avid skier” Gary Johnson. What’s upset Taos’ upper crust is a Forest Service “saturation patrol” of the ski area, much of which occupies federal land. The patrol, involving four flak-jacketed and armed FS officers, plus their drug-sniffing canine colleague, didn’t find much — “possession amounts of marijuana to cracked windshields.”

In the good old days, the Forest Service limited its heavy-handed tactics to hippies, e.g., the Rainbow Family. Nice to see the FS no longer discriminates.

The Transformation of Timberland Ownership and Markets in North America

March 26, 2014 by Sharon

Thanks to Craig Rawlings of the Forest Business Network for posting this here.

It’s not every day I get to hear one of America’s top forest industry CEOs speak on the global state of our industry. Mike Covey, CEO of Potlatch Corporation, recently spent the day in Missoula meeting with University of Montana College of Forestry and business students, faculty, and community members, then concluded his day with an hour-long lecture to over 200 folks on “The Transformation of Timberland Ownership and Markets in North America.”
In his presentation, Mike addresses why timber companies are becoming real estate investment trusts and how a global economy affects the U.S. lumber, timber, and log markets. While the U.S. will probably build some 5-7 million homes over the next five years, China has mandated close to 35 million. Where will they get their building products? A lot of it will come from North America. (By the way, companies looking to diversify their markets through exports will certainly benefit from presentations at the SmallWood Conference this June.)
The University of Montana’s video staff did a great job of filming Mike’s speech and I think you will enjoy watching his one-hour presentation and Q&A from the audience.

Here’s a link to the presentation.. thanks to U of M for posting the video and the slides! Interesting info and slides on China.