On the surface this sounds like an excellent example of the intentions of the Tribal Forest Protection Act of of 2004, but it also raises some questions: Why did it take so long to treat so few acres? What were overhead costs compared to income? And, of course: Will it work as anticipated should a wildfire (or bug infestation?) strike the area?
The article claims there are still brush piles to burn, roads to build, and roads to decommission before the project is complete. Would a good test of the project’s success be to conduct a broadcast burn through the area, too? Or is that a capability not structured into the project’s design?
February 27, 2014
McGinnis Cabin Stewardship Project deemed a success
Road construction/maintenance and pile burns were some of the tasks the CSKT Forestry Department executed for the McGinnis Cabin Stewardship project. The project started in 2009 and will be coming to a close in December 2014. (Photo courtesy of Jim Durglo of the CSKT Forestry Department)
HOT SPINGS — Since 2000 nine large forest fires have burned near or across the border of the Flathead Indian Reservation – eight started off the reservation and burned onto the reservation. Nationally over twenty Indian reservations faced wildland fires in 2002 and 2003 that originated off reservation and moved onto the reservations. These fires brought up issues of threatened tribal resources, lands, and collective health of residents. To address these threats, the TRIBAL FOREST PROTECTION ACT OF 2004 (TFPA) was passed and allowed the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to give special consideration to tribally – proposed Stewardship Contract projects, on United States Forest Service (USFS) or Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land, bordering or near Indian trust lands; this would enable tribes to better protect their lands from threats like fire or disease. After the bill passed, the CSKT Forestry Department proposed a project on the Lolo National Forest near the western reservation border. By 2009, the funds became available to start the project, titled “McGinnis Cabin Stewardship Project”.
CSKT Forestry Department conducts a slash pile burn to clear out the extra logged timber material. Pile burns are one of the few things left on the “to do” list for the McGinnis Cabin Stewardship project. (Photo courtesy of Jim Durglo of the CSKT Forestry Department)
The McGinnis area, located west of Hot Springs near the border of the Flathead Reservation and the Lolo National Forest, covered 998 acres. In 1960 the area had been logged, then between 1961 and 1966 undergone a controlled burn and was replanted with trees. Between 1973 and 1976 the Forest Service conducted pre-commercial thinning to the area.
The McGinnis Cabin Stewardship Project began in 2009 as a joint project between the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the Lolo National Forest. The project entailed thinning trees on 998 acres, road maintenance, road construction, and road decommissioning near the border of the Lolo National Forest – Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger district and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Reservation. The goal of the project: by reducing tree density and debris, and underburning in the 998 acres, the consequences of future severe wildland fires should be reduced. CSKT would also sell the timber products as mostly pulpwood and small sawlogs, allowing some economic benefits for the tribe, and employing CSKT members. The project is coming to a close and CSKT, the Intertribal Timber Council (ITC), the (USFS and BIA are deeming it a success.
Pre-commercial thinning and commercial thinning in the McGinnis Creek area was an important part of the McGinnis Cabin Stewardship project. The CSKT Forestry Department thinned 998 acres in order to diminish the consequences of future severe wild land fires. (Photo courtesy of Jim Durglo of the CSKT Forestry Department)
The McGinnis project has provided additional employment opportunities for tribal loggers during a period when the timber market was low.
CSKT faced several obstacles during the project. The tribe had a new role as a contractor, assuming all of the risk, which had not been done before. Jim Durglo says, “There was a large learning curve for the CSKT Forestry staff.” There were multi-layers of managers and administrators in the USFS, and a high rate new personnel in administrative positions. Working with all of the parties took time; the contract was complex and required working closely with the Plains-Thomson Falls District Ranger and Lolo Forest Contracting Officer. CSKT managed to overcome the hurdles and started the project.
The McGinnis Cabin Stewardship Project began in 2009, and entailed thinning trees on 998 acres, road maintenance, road construction, and road decommissioning near the western border of the Lolo National Forest – Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger district and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Reservation. (Photo courtesy of Jim Durglo of the CSKT Forestry Department)
Thirty percent of the work had finished when Smurfit Stone Container Mill of Missoula shut down. CSKT had been selling the pulpwood to Smurfit Stone. CSKT was forced to suspend the contract until reliable markets could be found for both the pulpwood and small logs. Finally in the fall of 2013, Willis Enterprises entered into a delivery agreement for the pulpwood delivered to the Bonner Mill site with CSKT, the Plum Creek mills in Evergreen and Columbia Falls and Tricon Timber Inc. mill near St. Regis purchased the small sawlogs, and the project resumed.
The project ends in December 2014 Jim Durglo says, “We still have work to do. We still need to do burn the slash piles, complete road maintenance and decommission other roads within the project area. We plan on completing these tasks in the summer and fall of 2014. The most important aspect of the project, under the TFPA is that we are creating employment and economic opportunities for tribal members and are reducing the impact of large fires to tribal resources.”
The McGinnis Cabin Stewardship Project began in 2009, and entailed thinning trees on 998 acres, road maintenance, road construction, and road decommissioning near the western border of the Lolo National Forest – Plains/Thompson Falls Ranger district and the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Reservation. (Photo courtesy of Jim Durglo of the CSKT Forestry Department)
Eight years after the enactment of the TFPA, only ten Tribes and eight National Forests have implemented projects under the TFPA authority. Of the ten projects, only six have been deemed a success so far – CSKT being one of them. Jim Durglo says, “A lot of our success needs to be credited to Tribal Forestry Department staffers, Duane Plant, Project Planning Program Manager, and to Rod Couture, Project Administrator and CSKT timber sale administrator, and to Forest Service employees, Randy Hojem, Plains-Thompson Falls District Ranger and Loren Ebner, the Forest Service Contracting Officer.” Also, the following tribal loggers; Dupius Logging, Three Mor Enterprises, Bras Logging and Wheeler Logging were instrumental in the success of this project.
After the completion of this project, the CSKT Forestry Department has no further plans for the area, but wants to maintain a good working relationship with the Lolo National Forest and propose additional hazard fuel reduction type projects near the reservation border.
My take – Nature’s Past reveals that Nature’s natural cycles in California in the first millennium, unaffected by significant man made pollution were worse than our greatest fears about man made global warming. To me, these two articles are an example of the problems with an environmental viewpoint that doesn’t consider all of the tradeoffs when setting forest policy.
1) Scientists: Past California droughts have lasted 200 years – From MSN News
Some selected Quotes:
“Through studies of tree rings, sediment and other natural evidence, researchers have documented multiple droughts in California that lasted 10 or 20 years in a row during the past 1,000 years — compared to the mere three-year duration of the current dry spell. The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.” AND “The longest droughts of the 20th century, what Californians think of as severe, occurred from 1987 to 1992 and from 1928 to 1934. Both, Stine said, are minor compared to the ancient droughts of 850 to 1090 and 1140 to 1320.”
“”We continue to run California as if the longest drought we are ever going to encounter is about seven years,” said Scott Stine, a professor of geography and environmental studies at Cal State East Bay. “We’re living in a dream world.””
“the past century has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years”
“Although many Californians think that population growth is the main driver of water demand statewide, it actually is agriculture”
“”I don’t think we’ll ever get to a point here where you turn on the tap and air comes out,” he said.”
2) An interesting post on the California drought and the need for better forest management in the form of reducing fuels – from the San Jose Mercury News
Some selected Quotes:
“In contrast, better forest management can reduce wildfire intensity and help to safeguard water quality. Ecologically based forest management may also increase water yield by thinning overly dense forests, thereby reducing the utilization of water by small trees and allowing more snow (and snowmelt) to reach the ground.”
“we must address the importance of California’s forested headwaters in securing and enhancing California’s water supply.
This includes the need to increase the pace and scale of fuels reduction in these forests as an important part of the state’s water strategy.”
Sometimes, things are just stranger than anything you could make up. I think someone else may have posted some of this, but I can’t find it so my apologies to those who’ve seen it before.
“Reports obtained by the Capital Journal suggest earlier efforts to control mountain pine beetle in the Black Hills may have killed more healthy trees than diseased trees in areas of some counties….In two counties, Lawrence and Meade, the majority of the trees marked and cut were not infested, meaning within these treated stands the crews caused more tree mortality than the beetles, said a report obtained by the Capital Journal from the office of the South Dakota state forester.” That’s a report from the state forester, not some tree-hugging hippies. What happened? Isn’t the cut-and-chunk approach (in which presumed MPB-infested trees are cut into small chunks to stop beetle development) based on repeatedly proven facts based on unquestionable science? Apparently, some “facts” were open to interpretation, and asking a few questions about the “science” involved might have been appropriate:
“Of the 191 total trees studied by the group in those areas, only 36 percent of trees cut in Lawrence County and 22 percent in Meade County were infested with mountain pine beetles.” oops…. how could that happen? It turns out that “Scott Jacobsen, a spokesperson for the forest service, said the contract between the forest service and Meade County did not include a definition of an infested tree.” (this from another article, “Beetle battle: Logger defends ID methods in Black Hills”, http://www.capjournal.com/news/beetle-battle-logger-defends-id-methods-in-black-hills/article_bb4a3058-9475-11e3-8bf8-0019bb2963f4.html Turns out, those charged with putting sound forest management into practice perhaps didn’t actually know what a MPB-infested tree looks like, or at least couldn’t agree on it. In that knowledge vacuum, most any tree was fair game, apparently including many with no MPB presence but with one or two turpentine beetle pitch tubes (close enough?)
Of course, the side story is that Meade County commissioner Alan Aker, who has been “involved in overseeing the work of the county”, just happens to also own a logging company, Aker Woods, which has been “responsible for determining which trees to cut.” Commissioner Aker has also been a leader in the “The Bug Stops Here” campaign (their slogan: “Enough talk. It’s time for action. Donate Dollars. Kill Beetles)” http://www.meadecounty.org/thebugstopshere/ Again from the Capital Journal: “As money was being collected, Meade County began to hire workers to begin waging war against the beetle. Records indicate that in August 2012, Aker Woods was hired to mark trees that were infested with pine beetles. In seven months of work, Aker Woods was responsible for marking 1,960 trees that the company determined to be infested – on the basis of the verbal agreement with the U.S. Forest Service.”
Now, in the previous post here I was critical of what I thought was the Administration’s focus on climate change as the source of wildfires.. only to find out that perhaps it was the New York Times’ spin and not entirely the Administration at all! So let’s compare coverage in the Denver Post and the NY Times…
Here’s the story today from the Post.. more useful details, no climate change ..
The Obama administration wants to fundamentally shift how it pays for firefighting in the United States — something Western lawmakers and governors have been agitating to change for years.
The proposal, which doesn’t increase overall spending and is part of President Barack Obama’s budget this year, essentially allows for separate funds to fight fires so the federal government doesn’t have to take money away from prevention.
Amid a number of the most destructive wildfire seasons ever recorded, the Obama administration has been cribbing cash to fight fires from the same pot used for suppression and prevention.
In a classic robbing-Peter-to-pay-Paul scenario, the departments of Agriculture and Interior had to transfer $463 million in 2012 and $636 million in 2013 to fight fires. Those dollars came from programs that removed brush, managed forests and grasslands, and focused on forest health.
“We can’t keep putting our thumb in the dike,” said Gov. John Hickenlooper, following a White House meeting on the issue. “At some point, we’ve got to make the kind of investments that begin to solve the problem.”
Under the proposal unveiled Monday, the costs to fight severe wildfires — those that require emergency response or are near urban areas — would be funded through a new “wildfire suppression cap adjustment.” This funding mechanism removes firefighting cash from regular discretionary budget caps, thus protecting prevention funds.
This budget cap adjustment would be used only to fund the most severe 1 percent of catastrophic fires, and Congress would need to fund costs for the other 99 percent of fires before the cap funds become available.
In an interview, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack called the previous funding method “a vicious cycle.”
“It would also allow us to do a better job to work on the 70,000 communities who are now … surrounded by forest,” he said. “They want the benefit of beautiful scenery. This would give us the resources to better prepare those communities.”
Wildfire destruction has become a worsening problem. Six of the most destructive fire seasons in the past 50 years have been since 2000.
Hickenlooper said White House officials on Monday brought Western governors to the Situation Room to view drought, rain and water table conditions nationwide. White House officials said one-third of American families live within the wildland-urban interface.
“It was very sobering,” Hickenlooper said.
In November, El Paso County Commissioner Sallie Clark told a Senate panel her community needed the federal government’s help to clear dead, dangerous brush adjacent to urban neighborhoods.
On Capitol Hill, where the president’s plan would need approval, bipartisan bills are pending in both the House and the Senate that support the new funding scheme. Both Democratic Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet support the Senate plan.
“This strategy will ensure we fight today’s fires without undermining efforts to get ahead of tomorrow’s blazes,” Udall said in a statement.
Bennet, who held a hearing last fall on the issue, agreed. “Today’s announcement addresses this issue by promoting a smarter, more sensible approach to dealing with wildfires that will save us money in the future,” he said in a statement.
It’s fascinating to me how stories are reported in different regional and national newspapers. And what newspapers are more likely to “blink out.”
Anyway, here’s my question for this story…”one-third of families live within the wildland-urban interface.” That seems like a lot to me. Does anyone know where this figure came from?
Here is testimony to some effective steps that can be taken to reduce the impact of Mountain Pine Beetles. This is an example of what sound forest management based on a fundamental scientific principle from plant physiology can do to improve our forests. That principle is that stand density impacts tree vigor/health which impacts the susceptibility of trees to insects and disease. Warmer temperatures and drought only make the need to apply this principle more critical. Contrary to the opinion of some on this blog site, Sound Science Based Forest Management can improve the forest ecosystem and all of the living components of the ecosystem (both endangered and not). It is a repeatedly proven fact explained by unquestionable science. Ignoring this information by excluding sound forest management is a very large part of why our national forests are being eaten up and burning up at an exponentially increasing rate in the last two decades since national forest harvests were cut by 80% out of fear and viewshed greed.
Prevention – Thinning
Control – “Cut-and-Chunk” – a variation of the process used very effectively in the south to stop Southern Pine Beetle hot spots before they break out. It requires frequent aerial observation to catch hot spots when they are small and then aggressively get the infested timber on the ground ASAP before the beetles can spread to the surrounding trees.
Key observations include: “Other than the tree-thinning, Weutke said a “cut-and-chunk” approach has helped stem the beetle infestation, especially at Custer State Park. Infested trees are cut into about two-foot lengths, which cause them to dry out and starve the beetles.
“These initial signs of growth of the population tapering are hopeful,” Wuetke said. But “it’s a lot like taking antibiotics. If you stop now, it can come back in spades.””
WASHINGTON — President Obama’s annual budget request to Congress will propose a significant change in how the government pays to fight wildfires, administration officials said, a move that they say reflects the ways in which climate change is increasing the risk for and cost of those fires.
The wildfire funding shift is one in a series of recent White House actions related to climate change as Mr. Obama tries to highlight the issue and build political support for his administration’s more muscular policies, like curbing carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants. On Monday, Mr. Obama plans to describe his proposal at a meeting in Washington with governors of Western states that have been ravaged recently by severe drought and wildfires.
The proposal will ask Congress to pay the costs of fighting extreme wildfires in the same way it finances the federal response to disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes, the officials said. When unpredictable events like Hurricane Sandy are destructive enough to be declared disasters by the president, the Federal Emergency Management Agency is authorized to exceed its annual budget and draw on a special disaster account. The account is adjusted each year to reflect the 10-year average cost of responding to such events.
Questions for those who know.. is it like the Flame Act? IF so why would it work better?
What difference does it make why there are more troublesome wildfires (building in the WUI, climate change, fire suppression) if you just have a commonsensical idea for dealing with it.. kind of like Congress already had, and probably didn’t couch it in terms of “dealing with climate change”?
Although,pragmatically, if that’s what it takes to legitimize a common-sense solution, I suppose it doesn’t matter why the Administration is doing it.
Unless there’s some poor bureaucrat somewhere adding up “funding Administration spends on climate change” and gets to add this as a healthy-sized chunk.”
Notice that the Times did not mention other potential causes, even the WUI that the Headwaters analysis singled out in our prior news coverage of the issue.
I liked this quote..(my italics)
A series of scientific studies have warned that increasing carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels could cause the planet to warm by more than 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century, leading to rising sea levels, stronger storms and more extreme droughts. A study published last year by Forest Service researchers concluded that wildfires were expected toincrease 50 percent across the United States under a changing climate, and over 100 percent in areas of the Western United States by 2050.
Hmm. “were expected to” sounds stronger than “could” perhaps the Times has greater confidence in the FS scientists than in the storm, drought and temperature scientists?
Seems like 100% more habitat for the black-backed woodpecker..or not, but it seems to me like policies/”science” need to pick a lane on this.
I saw this one on the web, perhaps someone has a more complete story?
“On Monday, President Obama will lay out a new plan for wildfire funding in the US, treating the fires in much the same way as the government treats hurricanes and tornados and their associated costs. Basically, when the president declares a disaster, FEMA is authorized to tap into a special disaster account, the amount of which is updated according to a “10 year average cost of responding to such events,” according to The New York Times. Obama’s forthcoming budget proposal would grant similar authority to the Interior and Agriculture Departments, the parent agencies of the Forest Service and BLM.”
This editorial by Doc Hastings was published on the Salem Capital Press website yesterday. Their website has the slogan: “The West’s Ag Website,” and their focus is agricultural businesses in the western US:
The federal Endangered Species Act needs reform, and here’s why.
From endangered salmon to the spotted owl, the Pacific Northwest has been the poster child when it comes to the Endangered Species Act. This is why, last year, I joined Rep. Cynthia Lummis from Wyoming and 11 of my colleagues, representing communities from across the country to launch the ESA Congressional Working Group. The purpose of this Working Group was to start an open and honest conversation about what works and what hasn’t with the ESA, which just celebrated its 40th anniversary.
The intent of the Endangered Species Act was to preserve and protect key endangered species, and there is still widespread support for that goal today. However, a lot has changed in the past 40 years. I believe it’s not only common sense, but the responsibility of Congress, to examine this law to see if there are ways it could be improved and updated for species and people.
Recently, the Working Group released its final report of findings and recommendations. It reflects hundreds of comments from the public, and testimony from nearly 70 witnesses that appeared before the Working Group or at House Natural Resources Committee hearings.
We found that there is still strong support for conserving endangered species, but that there are four key areas where improvements could be made to make the law more effective for species and helpful for our communities.
The first is to restore the goal of species recovery and ensure greater transparency and prioritization of ESA decisions. Today, too much focus is put on listing new species instead of recovering species and taking them off the list. The ESA only has a 2 percent recovery rate, and I believe we can do better. Instead of enforcing deadline-driven decisions or litigation — as we saw with the recent flawed listing of the White Bluffs bladderpod in Franklin County, Wash. — we should ensure that federal agencies take the time to work with those who live and work around these species, and who should have an active role in deciding how best to improve their recovery. A specific target for what recovery means should also be identified when the species is listed.
The second area for improvement is ESA litigation and settlement reform. The ESA today has become a tool for never-ending lawsuits that often have more to do with limiting the activity of humans than achieving recovery for plants or animals, and drain time and money away from actual recovery efforts. To enact serious reforms to the ESA, we must begin by discouraging ESA lawsuits, limiting excessive taxpayer-funded attorney fees and bringing some sunlight to closed-door settlement agreements that can result in the listing of hundreds of species.
The third area for improvement is to empower states, local governments, tribes and private property owners on ESA decisions that affect them, their citizens, and their land. The ESA Working Group heard countless stories of how state, tribes and local governments are often more successful at species conservation but are, at times, undermined by the federal government. While not perfect, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has been far more successful in working with local residents to manage wolf populations than the federal government has in the part of the our state that the species is still federally listed.
The fourth area for improvement is transparency and accountability of ESA data and science. Decision-making should be based on the best available scientific data, instead of backroom political deals or court-driven deadlines. In the case of the White Bluffs bladderpod, the federal agency failed to even take a DNA test to figure out whether the plant was genetically different than countless bladderpod plants in other parts of the country, and when an outside party provided proof that it was the same, they moved forward with the listing anyway.
It’s my hope this report will further the discussion on the ESA and serve as a starting point as we move forward with commonsense legislative solutions. My intent has never been to introduce sweeping legislation to overhaul the ESA. Instead, I believe there are thoughtful, sensible, and targeted proposals that would address many of the issues highlighted in this report. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in the coming months to consider commonsense, targeted ways to improve and modernize this law for the 21st Century.
Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., is chairman of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee.
After reading recent guest opinion pieces (Keene 2/4/14, and Doppelt 2/5/14) citing climate change as a primary reason to curtail management of the O&C forests, I felt compelled as Paul Harvey might have put it: “to tell the rest of the story”. The following is a key message from the forestry chapter of the 2013 draft National Climate Assessment (NCA): “Climate change is increasing the vulnerability of forests to ecosystem change and tree mortality through fire, insect infestations, drought, and disease outbreaks. Western U. S. forests are particularly vulnerable to increased wildfire and insect outbreaks…” In 2012, U. S. Forest Service researchers supporting the NCA concluded: “By the end of the 21st century, forest ecosystems in the U. S. will differ from those of today as a result of changing climate…wildfires, insect infestations, pulses of erosion and flooding and drought-induced tree mortality are all expected to increase during the 21st century.”
Around 48% of the 2.2 million acres of O&C forests are unhealthy and fire-prone, conditions that will only worsen with prolonged climate warming. Nearly 25% are classified as Fire Regime Condition Class 3 (FRCC3) meaning the risk of losing key ecosystem components (i.e., soil, water, wildlife) to uncharacteristic wildfires that are larger and more intense and severe than normal, is high. In addition to climate warming, these conditions reflect the long-term policy of fire exclusion and the dramatic reduction of timber management since 1990. Natural disturbance cycles have been altered, and have not been replaced by managed systems. Most of these “at risk” forests are called “Dry Forests” by Jerry Franklin and Norm Johnson and are generally found between the southern end of the Willamette Valley and California on the BLM Roseburg and Medford Districts and the Klamath Falls Resource Area. Forest types include Southwest Oregon mixed conifer, dry ponderosa pine, red fir, dry Douglas fir, and California mixed evergreen habitats.
The 2000 National Fire Plan and the 2012 National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy are federal/state government partnership initiatives to address the problems of the O&C at risk forests and those like them throughout the West. Goals are: restore and maintain landscapes that are resilient to fire related disturbances; provide for fire adapted human communities that can withstand wildfire without loss of life and property; and, make efficient risk-based wildfire management decisions. The most fundamental principle is: Actively manage at risk forests to make them more resilient to disturbance and protect human communities. To restore the FRCC3 O&C forests to resilience in a 20-25 year time period, 15,000-20,000 acres per year need to have tree densities reduced through selective harvest and prescribed fire while maintaining Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife population goals for wildlife.
Management of at risk forests to restore resilience is not a “Trojan Horse” to “get the cut out”, as some claim. Clearly, the absence of active management is at least one of the principal factors resulting in the 2002 Biscuit Fire, Oregon’s largest. There, forest types the same as those at risk on the O&C forests burned in many places with uncharacteristic and harmful effects blowing the entire topsoil horizon out to sea in many places and destroying ESA protected Northern Spotted Owl habitat. The need for active management of the O&C forests is part of a much larger state problem. Many of Oregon’s more than 18 million federal forest acres reflect an unhealthy condition made worse by climate warming where most are considered at risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and nearly 40% (Dry Forests) are considered at high risk. In the past 10 years over 3 million acres in more than 20,000 wildfires have burned affecting 10% of Oregon’s total forest land and 16% of its timber land. These fires have come at significant economic and ecological costs. A hopeful response in Oregon’s Blue Mountains with much FRCC2&3 forests is a Forest Service program dubbed “accelerated restoration” designed to provide more timber for mills while restoring resilience to tree-killing insects, disease and wildfires.
Oregonians should be grateful especially to Congressmen DeFazio, Walden and Schrader, and Senator Wyden for addressing the needs for healthy forests and healthy communities in their respective proposals for management of O&C forests. While their approaches differ in some respects all agree that active forest management to restore forests and associated communities is imperative ecologically and economically. Proposed timber harvest in “Moist Forests” not only benefits local communities economically but can, if well distributed, create high quality early seral habitat beneficial to a wide array of wildlife species including elk and deer which are in steep decline.
Finally, in September 2013, the Pinchot Institute in Pennsylvania convened some of the nation’s leading thinkers in conservation science and practice to re-examine the vision, goals, and methods for conserving and sustainably managing forests in the Anthropocene, a new geological epoch where humans are massively changing Earth’s life support systems. More active management of forest ecosystems was seen as important to conserving biodiversity and maintaining other essential values of forest ecosystems such as water resource protection. Unmanaged “static” conservation reserves in rapidly changing “dynamic” ecosystems were not seen as useful options. That’s the rest of the story.
*Steve Mealey lives near Leaburg. He is Vice President for Conservation, Boone and Crockett Club, the oldest American hunter/conservationist organization in America. The Club was founded by Theodore Roosevelt in 1887.
We’ve seen pictures of the Power Fire, on the Eldorado National Forest, before. I worked on salvage sales until Chad Hanson won in the Ninth Circuit Court, with issues about the black-backed woodpecker. The court decided that the issue needed more analysis, as well as deciding that the Forest Service’s brand new mortality guidelines were “confusing”. From these pictures, it is very clear to see that those mortality guidelines were way more conservative than they maybe should have been.
As you can see, in this finished unit(s), there were ample snags available for birds to use, despite multiple cuttings, due to the increased bark beetle activity, during the logging. No one can say that they didn’t leave enough snags, (other than the Appeals Court). These pictures are very recent, shot last month.
This picture amused me, as I put this sign up back in 2005. Plastic signs last much longer than the old cardboard ones.
Here is another view of the area, chock full of snags, well beyond what the salvage plans asked for, to devote to woodpeckers and other organisms that use snags. People like Chad Hanson want more high-intensity wildfires, and more dead old growth. It is no wonder that the Sierra Club decided he was too radical, even for them.
Edit: Here is the link to a previous posting from almost 2 years ago, with pictures. https://forestpolicypub.com/2012/05/28/the-power-fire-six-years-later/