I don’t know if this has been discussed, it was filed a year ago so maybe I’m just late to the party. It’s certainly an aggressive litigation effort that’s definitely not from one of the “usual suspects”. Here’s the link, the first place I saw it was on CBD’s website so here it is, I’m sure it’s available elsewhere too if you don’t want to patronize their site:
A few enviro groups have joined in on the USFS side as defendant-intervenors (something about politics makes strange bedfellows…?)
I haven’t yet waded through all the relevant documents. But basically, the FFRC et al (a consortium of forest industry groups) is very unhappy with several provisions of the 2012 Planning Rule, as I read it they believe that:
1) They believe that the Planning Rule, 36 C.F.R. §219.8(a), creates an unprecedented new requirement that every forest plan “must provide for social, economic, and ecological sustainability.” (in other words, they don’t like that “sustainability” language)
2) They claim that the Rule violates MUSYA by unlawfully mandating extra-statutory “ecosystem services”, in addition to the five statutorily-designated purposes of national forests. They say that providing “ecosystem services” is not a permitted purpose of national forest management under MUSYA. As I understand it, they feel that these goods and services are traditionally viewed as free benefits to society, or “public goods” – wildlife habitat and diversity, watershed services, carbon storage, and scenic landscapes, for example.
3) A big one: They claim a violation of NFMA by unlawful mandate to maintain viable populations of plant and animal species of conservation concern before meeting multiple use objectives.
4) Another big one: they claim the Planning Rule unlawfully limits decision-making information by requiring decision-makers to “use the best available scientific information for every forest management decision.” This one sounds kind of goofy at first glance, I think their (debatable) point is that scientific information shouldn’t be allowed to trump “commercial information” (I’m a little vague on what that is, exactly).
Anyway, thought I’d post this, it seems to fit into previous discussion on the “greatest good” in forest planning. The case is still going on (well, probably on hold right now for fed shutdown), they still hadn’t finalized the full briefing schedule as of a couple weeks ago.
Probably posting this in the wrong place, but the only place where I could figure out how to post it. I did buy Dan Botkin’s book (Moon in nautilus etc), got the kindle version which was cheapest, and am still deciding whether it was a good purchase or not. Anything that makes me think has some value, I guess. My three main problems with the book are 1) Very wordy, he goes on endlessly elaborating on isolated examples (wolves on the island as one instance), they are anecdotally interesting but his use of them to derive grander principles seems contrived. “Cherry-picking” is the term that comes to mind; 2) He repeatedly states the obvious and well-known (e.g., change rather than permanent steady-state is the ecological norm), sets up straw men to compare himself with (e.g., the idea that most ecology is based on, and ecologists believe, that nature is a steady state phenomenon, which is patently false, similarly his trivial and inaccurate exposition of the logistic equation in population biology, which he then proceeds to knock down), thereby proclaiming himself a “renegade naturalist”; 3) endless self-promotion (I guess that’s really just a variation on #2). When I read him, I’m reminded of Walter Mondale’s comment on Gary Hart’s self-proclaimed “big ideas”: Where’s the beef? One example that’s about as vegan as an idea can get, not in his book but on his website (modestly titled “Daniel B. Botkin: Solving Environmental Problems by Understanding How Nature Works”), where he provides “The Rules of Ecology” (so far there’s only one), which includes statement such as “The evolutionary goal is simply to stay around.” If you think just a little bit about that statement, you hopefully realize either that it’s flat-out wrong, or else he’s using the term “goal” metaphorically, much as Dawkins did when he talked about “genes maximizing their representation in the gene pool.” Again, this is metaphor, which is not explanation, and it would be helpful if Botkin would explain and acknowledge that, rather than throwing it out as part of “Botkin Rule of Ecology #1”.
Wondering if maybe I was alone in my discomfort with this book, I did locate one review (coincidentally in one of my favorite journals, Trends in Ecology and Evolution) which takes on Botkin’s book, both the good and bad aspects, much more eloquently than I could: http://sev.lternet.edu/~jnekola/nekola%20pdf/TREE-28-506-507.pdf
Note from Sharon: I left this here but also posted at the Book Club site. Here is the link to the post there. I turned off the comments here but you can post there.
You would think that information about the forest sector would be readily available in Oregon, and sure enough, thanks to a helpful friend of the blog at OSU, these reports were found. An amazing amount of information and helpful graphics. Check them out!
..they probably are on the web, but that’s not how I got them, so they are attached. OR 2012_Oregon_Forest_Report OR_Forest_Facts_and_Figures_2013
If someone finds them online, please put the link in a comment and I will transfer the links up here on the post.
The outcome of the lawsuit isn’t in doubt. What’s more fun is to speculate on whether it takes the Oregon judge longer than the 40 minutes it took the Chief Judge in Colorado to throw her case out. Corollary question: Will the federal courts shut-down before the case is decided?
Here’s an interesting essay on pay and working conditions — and a deficit of respect? — for federal wildland firefighters. It also mentions a proposed the Wildland Firefighter Protection Act. http://wp.me/a3AxwY-45f
Federal wildland firefighters make up the single largest professionally trained firefighting force in the world. We staff fire engines and earthmovers, work from helicopters and jump from planes, and move as 20-person, well-coordinated crews of “ground pounders.” We also put together incident management teams to manage many kinds of relief efforts.
Our teams have dealt with emergencies like Sept. 11, 2001, in New York City and Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. But on paper — for bureaucratic reasons — we are not called “firefighters.” Instead, we are called forestry and range “technicians.”
To us, that distinction is a longstanding joke that’s not remotely funny. The failure to recognize who we are and what we do comes at a great price.
Few Americans see a green fire engine for what it is, have any idea what hotshot crews face on the fireline, or have even heard of helitack. Even those closest to us may not fully grasp the long shifts we endure or the risks we take. But we love what we do; anyone who doesn’t soon decides that the commitments are too many and the sacrifices are too great.
The dangerous conditions encountered in wildland firefighting, combined with the rush of adrenaline and a sense of duty and brotherhood, are exactly the reasons we love our jobs. We not only accept these aspects of our work, we live for them! There are, however, other aspects of the job that are harder to accept, particularly for those who rely on the work to support families. Few Americans realize this, but federal firefighters are treated and paid considerably less well than our counterparts in private, city and state agencies.
For example, many non-federal firefighters are guaranteed hotel rooms and 24-hour pay when they’re working away from home. Federal firefighters, though, usually sleep in the dirt, like convict crews, and we are not paid for more than 16 hours per day on incidents.
Federal firefighters regularly work 112-hour workweeks for two or three weeks at a time, yet we are not compensated for at least one-third of that time. The nickel-and-diming we face goes further: Firefighters are often required to staff fires overnight without pay, and lunch breaks are seldom paid. On prescribed fires, hazard pay is not given even though we are required to carry emergency fire shelters with us.
These and other discrepancies in treatment and pay contribute to dismal retention rates among federal agencies. Millions of dollars are wasted annually to hire and train new firefighters, though many will leave as soon as they’re offered fire jobs with better hours, benefits, pay and pensions.
Federal firefighters are generally hidden from public view. We are stationed in the outdoors, and we are (happily) grimy, dirty, smelly and hairy during those 16-hour shifts on the fireline. The media are seldom permitted to enter our hazardous work zones. Unfortunately, this low profile means that our job is easily misrepresented and misunderstood. The public remains ignorant about who we are and what we do. As wildland firefighters, our faces and stories rarely make the news — unless we die on the job.
The problems we face should be illuminated, but constructive dialogue is hampered by the old-school “can-do” work ethic — coupled with the “shut-up-and-do-your-job” mentality. The lack of public awareness means that our working conditions remain the same, and the problems I’ve described here go unreported, and therefore unresolved.
Still, some stalwart supporters and lobbyists have fought for decades to improve our pay and working conditions. This year, for the first time, seasonal firefighters were given access to health benefits. A recent bill introduced in Congress would address some of the other issues I’ve described, but the Wildland Firefighter Protection Act (H.R.2858) is unlikely to be signed into law if no one knows about it. That’s why I’m breaking my silence on the subject: I hope that public pressure and support for federal firefighters will carry this proposed legislation into law. Here’s a way to stand with federal firefighters: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/wildland-firefighter/?source=search
It hurts not to be recognized for the hard work we do, and to be denied the benefits and financial support systems that other “real” firefighters automatically receive. We have no shortage of personal pride in our work, but that pride often appears to be unshared by our own government, elected officials and the public we serve.
Lindon Pronto is a contributor to Writers on the Range, a service of High Country News (hcn.org). He has been a seasonal wildland firefighter for six years; the opinions he expresses here are his own. He lives in Auburn, California.
Here are opposing viewpoints by Andy Kerr — mentioned in an earlier comment by Larry — and by Jim Geisinger, long-time head of Associated Oregon Loggers. I have known of both men for nearly 25 years and have sat through presentations and had conversations with each. I will admit to a strong bias here, based partly on the positions of each person, but mostly what I perceive to be their character. Jim I have always found to be truthful, straightforward, honest, and humble; my experiences with Kerr have been mostly the opposite and one of the key reasons I have had little to do with him (except read some of his stuff occasionally or read the captions under his picture in the newspaper) for the past two decades. Also, I really dislike very much that he presents himself as a “conservationist” when he is far more an “obstructionist” than anything else. Regular readers here have heard my Animal Farm thoughts on the preservationists who hi-jacked the conservation label several years ago (Andy being a leader in that department, too), but Kerr isn’t even a preservationist — more like an opportunist with his eye out for photographers and loose change. Based on personal experience, I don’t think he is a very honest or ethical person either, and will leave it at that. With that being said (I know several of you here are not big fans of logging either), please try and keep an open mind when considering these two opinions. BZ
Despite timber supplies, future is bright for Oregon loggers
Oct. 10, 2013 |
Written by Jim Geisinger, Associated Oregon Loggers
Andy Kerr’s memory of the events leading to the downsizing of Oregon’s forest products industry and his vision for its future could benefit from a strong dose of truth and reality.
First, the principal cause of the industry’s downsizing over the past two decades is the reduction of timber coming from our federal forests, plain and simple. Timber harvest levels in Oregon have been reduced by half as a result of the efforts of Mr. Kerr and his colleagues in the environmental movement. Nearly all of the reduction has occurred from federal forest lands. The industry is half the size it once was. The math is pretty simple.
What would happen to our high tech industry if we reduced its supply of silicon by half? What would happen to Nike if its supply of rubber was cut in half? What would happen to agriculture if we took away half of its farmland? Take away an industry’s basic raw material needs, and it won’t exist anymore.
Second, Mr. Kerr believes the sole motivation for our industry existing is that nasty goal of making a profit. Well, last I checked, most American homes are made of wood. In fact, almost every human being on the face of the earth uses a wood product every day in some shape or form. People use and demand the products the industry makes. But back to Mr. Kerr’s point, the reason most businesses exist is to make a profit. I don’t think I have met a business person whose goal is to lose money. Businesses that make money pay taxes to fund our government. Those that lose money don’t pay taxes. It is a novel system.
Third, Mr. Kerr is just flat out wrong in his assumptions about the future of the logging industry. While tremendous advances have been made in logging technology and the use of mechanized systems to harvest timber in the safety of an enclose cab, this is technology that is applicable to gentle slopes. The fact is that the mountainous terrain, so prevalent in our state, will always require the use of yarders and the crew necessary to run them. Including workers setting chokers and chasing logs in the brush. The demand for loggers with yarder capacity is higher today than ever.
Associated Oregon Loggers, Inc. represents 1,000 logging companies and businesses associated with the industry (yup, there are that many left). They are exclusively small family-owned businesses typically managed by the second, third or fourth generation of family owners. They are largely located in rural communities. They are certainly part of our state’s history, but they are also an important part of its future.
Mr. Kerr’s credentials as an environmental activist are beyond reproach. But his self-anointed credibility as an expert on the complexities of the forest products industry, its history and its future is not. The net result of his and his follower’s activities over the past two decades has been the demise of half the forest products industry due to our federal forests being placed off-limits to forest management; the destruction of rural communities across the state; the insolvency of many counties; and the increase in catastrophic wildfire on federal forests. Perhaps it is time to give credit where credit is due.
Jim Geisinger is Executive Vice President of Associated Oregon Loggers, a statewide trade association representing some 1,000 member companies engaged in the harvest and sustainable forest management of Oregon’s 30 million acres of forestland. He can be reached at [email protected]
Andy Kerr: Antiquated politics for an innovating Oregon timber industry
The Oregon timber war of 1989–94 is being reignited.
Not by those pesky conservationists (I was one) who back in the day said clear-cutting two square miles per week of Oregon’s ancient forests had to stop, but by some politicians seeking a political solution for the Oregon timber industry of the past rather than that of today, let alone the timber industry of the future.
Let’s examine evidence from 1995 (the first full year of the Northwest Forest Plan, which ended the timber wars as we had known them) and 2012 (the last year for which comparable data is available):
• Oregon softwood lumber mills — 94 in 1995, 54 in 2012, a decline of 43%.
• Oregon wood products jobs — 46,200 in 1995, 25,500 in 2012, a decline of 45%.
• Total Oregon jobs — 1,428,200 in 1995, 1,638,300 in 2012, an increase of 15%.
• Oregon logging and milling jobs — 3.23% of all Oregon jobs in 1995, 1.56% of all Oregon jobs in 2012, a decrease of 52%.
• Logging and milling jobs per million board feet of logs cut — 2.04 logging and 7.91 milling jobs in 1995, 1.52 logging and 3.52 milling jobs in 2012, declines of 26% and55% respectively.
• Milling capacity of Oregon softwood sawmills — 5,842 million board feet of lumber in 1995, 7,237 million board feet of lumber in 2012, an increase of 24% (with 43% fewer mills).
Counting facilities and jobs, the Oregon timber industry is about half as big today as it was when the Northwest Forest Plan went into effect. Counting milling capacity (appetite for logs), the Oregon timber industry is about a quarter larger today than in 1995.
Automation will continue to take its toll on both the number of mills and jobs. To the timber industry, jobs are just a cost of doing business; the reason it does business is profit.
What workers there are in the more-automated Oregon lumber mills of the future will more likely be wearing a technician’s white coat than a blue-collared shirt. In the woods, automation means more workers operating joysticks inside air-conditioned cabs than setting chokers.
More of the remaining 54 mills will close. Nine remaining Oregon lumber mills have a business model that requires the milling of large logs from large trees that come from old forests. Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley and Reps. Peter DeFazio and Greg Walden all oppose logging such forests and agree the social license no longer exists to log older forests on federal public forestlands.
The evidence is clear: The Oregon timber industry of the future will have an increasing appetite for logs but provide fewer jobs to help people put food on their tables. In both absolute and relative terms, the Oregon timber industry is declining as compared to the rest of the Oregon economy.
Yet many Oregon politicians want to dramatically increase clear-cut logging on federal public forestlands. It doesn’t make sense to throw more tax monies and public assets at an industry in inevitable transition.
Today it takes five acres (about five football fields) of clear-cuts per year to produce one timber job. As industry automation (pronounced “innovation”) continues, it will take even more clear-cutting to produce each of a smaller number of wood products jobs.
What about those current and future Oregon jobs that depend on clean water, abundant wildlife, and scenic beauty?
Andy Kerr (www.andykerr.net) consults for conservation organizations across the West that seek to protect wildlands, wild waters and wildlife. He received more than his allotted 15 minutes of fame (or infamy) during the Oregon Timber War I. He splits his time between Ashland, Ore., and Washington, D.C.
Due to the word limit of op-eds, it’s difficult to get all the nuances, even when you are trying to do so.
It’s a pretty obscure field of knowledge, so here goes. In our op-ed, we were saying that if you trade wilderness for “managed acres”, you should understand if the situation will be different than today on the managed acres. If the hold-up to management is appeals and litigation, and you haven’t changed the framework for that, the situation is not going to change. Isn’t that the definition of crazy.. doing the same thing and expecting different results?
Now what’s a bit obscure and confusing is the Daschle amendment, which successfully mandate a quid pro quo kind of deal. Section 706 a) authorized specific projects in and adjacent to Beaver Park, b) authorized two sales in Norbeck, and c) designated an addition to the Black Elk Wilderness. That was the extent of the projects, and all of the authorized on-the-ground work was completed by September 2003. The success of the Black Hills today is not due to “evading environmental laws” through the Daschle amendment. It seems to be due to a lack of interest or success by serial litigators,..correlation or causation?
Now, to you who claim that the problem is that “the FS just needs to obey the law,” I would say that while the folks on the Hills are generally excellent when it comes to NEPA; when I worked in DC in NEPA, I noticed that others, including those in Region 1, are pretty darn good also. So I don’t think the wonderfulness of the people on the Hills, while absolutely true, is the only reason for their success.
As to the specifics of the Daschle amendment, which I think are important to this discussion, according to my historian:
Despite the Chief’s assurances to Senator Daschle that the remand (of the 1997 plan) was relatively minor, the language in the appeal decision basically said that the revised plan was illegal, which shut down the timber sale program and called into question the legality of all sales sold subsequent to the June 1997 ROD. The BHNF did not sell any more timber sales in FY 2000 and much of FY 2001, while they worked on completing a Phase I and Phase II amendment to correct the deficiencies identified in the Chief’s appeal decision.
With Senator Daschle’s guidance (through Eric Washburn), the FS, environmentalists and industry negotiated a Settlement Agreement to a previously unrelated lawsuit involving a salvage sale of beetle killed timber in the Beaver Park area (an inventoried roadless area) that allowed sales already under contract to be modified and operations to continue. That Settlement Agreement was signed in September 2000.
Subsequent to that, the mountain pine beetle outbreak in Beaver Park continued to intensify and expand, with considerable concern and attention from the public and from, then, Representative John Thune. However, the BHNF did not have any ability to respond because a) the second forest plan amendment was not completed and b) the environmentalists wouldn’t agree to it. Senator Daschle (through Eric Washburn) then proposed legislation that would enable the BHNF to respond to the beetle epidemic in the Beaver Park area. The FS, environmentalists, and forest industry negotiated legislative language that a) allowed FS response to beetle epidemic in and adjacent to Beaver Park, b) allowed two sales in the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve to proceed, and c) expanded the Black Elk Wilderness by an additional 3,600 acres of the Norbeck Wildlife Preserve, subject to a) no additional NEPA, b) exempt from Appeals Reform Act and c) not subject to judicial review. That legislation was passed into law in August 2002 as part of a 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Bill (specifically, Section 706 of HR 4775). The legislation was unsuccessfully litigated in federal District Court and the 10th Court of Appeals by a splinter group of diehard Black Hills Sierra Club members.
So here.. 1) litigation had shut down the timber sale program based on the plan.
2) it appears that there was NEPA done before on the project (or related project) that the previous settlement agreement was dealing with (see “no additional NEPA”)
3) the legislation was a deal done by FS, environmentalists and forest industry, overseen by Congressfolk.
Now, I would ask, is a settlement done by a) DOJ and environmentalists, without public presence or involvement (and sometimes leading to odd settlements in Physical World), somehow more fair to everyone than an agreement with the b) FS, environmentalists and forest industry (people who know the details of Physical World and are closer to “the public”), with Congressional involvement?
Because it seems to me like b) is likely to lead to better real world outcomes, that also follow environmental laws. I too, am concerned about “the public” being left out of decisions about public lands; which is one reason why I don’t think settlement agreements from litigation are the best place to make those decisions.
The public at least talks to the FS, and writes comments, and on the Hills, has a formal FACA advisory committee. There is no doubt in my mind that the Supe on the BH has a better idea of what “the public” thinks than do DOJ or environmental group lawyers.
Note: check out the tenor of this story from 2005 about the Wyoming projects in the map above. Just to show that there were appeals and litigation after the amendment.
Most local residents and virtually every government official in the Black Hills – local, state and federal – oppose Biodiversity’s appeals of the three projects. Among those is rancher and real-estate broker Nels Smith of Sundance, Wyo., a former Wyoming state legislator who now serves on the federally chartered Black Hills Advisory Council.
“To me, this is an abuse of the process,” Smith said. “We need timber harvests for a number of reasons. If you don’t cut trees, you end up with a biological desert. It hurts the availability of water and wildlife forage and the health of the forest.”
Nichols, who calls the Cement Project area “the gem of the Black Hills,” says public lands in the relatively unpopulated Wyoming side of the Black Hills are best left to natural processes.
What I like about Jeremy is that he says what the point is.. he doesn’t want timber sales. Not that he “just wants the FS to follow the law.”
Now some people don’t agree with the concept of Place-Based Bills (or PBB’s as I call them). I am not an ideologue about that. But I do think that if you have one that trades more wilderness for more management, then you should get what you trade. I apologize to those offended by my mixing of Latin and Spanish in the title..
Check out this op-ed that a group of us had in the Oregonian last Sunday. Here’s the link.
Timber production deserves equal treatment on public lands: Guest opinion (I didn’t like this title as it sounds like we think harvesting and wilderness have equal value; our point was that if you do a deal, there should be ways to make sure that each side actually gets what’s in the deal. Oh, well. I do appreciate the Oregonian printing it, though!)
By Robert Malmsheimer, Sharon Friedman, Jay O’Laughlin and Paul Adams
As Oregonians consider ways to promote the sustainable use of the O&C lands and other publicly owned forests and provide communities with sources of jobs and income, we ask you to critically consider an important problem and a new idea to address it. Negotiated, place-based bargains, such as Rep. Peter DeFazio’s O&C Trust, Conservation and Jobs Act, legislatively designate some lands as wilderness or similar “set-asides” (e.g., old-growth, stream buffers), while requiring timber harvesting on other lands. Although this may seem like a reasonable “trade,” in reality it is not equitable.
The problem is in the legal protections of the bargains themselves. The lands designated by Congress as wilderness and other set-asides will have little or no management, and we have nearly 50 years of judicial decisions interpreting the Wilderness Act of 1964 to safeguard this expectation. However, the same is not true for the agreed-upon timber harvesting. While the language in most of these place-based proposals limits, or makes more difficult, some types of legal challenges, it does not prevent them. Nor does it ensure that judges will enforce the bargain that forest management proponents faithfully negotiated.
Is there a solution? Yes. In order to guarantee that the lands designated for the management and production of forest products are not subject to appeals and litigation, these legislative proposals must include language that explicitly states that actions authorized in these bargains are not subject to judicial review. Such language would prevent litigation.
How would it do so? This concept has a precedent in section 706 of Public Law 107-206, which authorized the Forest Service to respond to a severe beetle outbreak, including requiring timber sales in the Black Hills National Forest, while simultaneously expanding the Forest’s Black Elk Wilderness area by 3,600 acres. This exchange was upheld in Biodiversity Associates v. Cables (2004), thereby safeguarding an equitable bargain in the Black Hills.
Some may criticize this proposal, arguing that using such legislation will lead to “logging without laws.” But that is not so. By requiring the public land managers to comply with all current environmental laws (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act), the agency still must undertake relevant environmental analyses and follow all relevant resource protection directives. While the judicial system would not be available to address agency failures, the political system, through Congress and the administration, would do so. More important, such failures are unlikely because the resource professionals who manage our public forests have extensive expertise and experience incorporating environmental protection into land management.
Lacking such a guarantee for timber production, the two sides to a place-based bargain have agreed to inequitable deals. One has guaranteed that some lands will be managed as wilderness and the other has provided no comparable safeguard. There is simply no assurance that the lands designated for forest management will actually produce anything but continued legal conflict; conflict that keeps public land managers from sustainably delivering community, social and economic benefits for Oregonians.
•
Robert Malmsheimer is a professor of forest policy and Law at the SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, N.Y.
Sharon Friedman retired from the Forest Service as director of planning in the Rocky Mountain Region and currently runs the “A New Century of Forest Planning” blog (forestpolicypub.com).
Jay O’Laughlin is a professor of forestry and policy sciences at the University of Idaho.
Paul Adams is a professor and extension specialist in the OSU College of Forestry.
But Colorado Mesa University’s bike race could not go on.. they actually sued see here. I’m still not clear on which special use permits can go on and which can’t (And there could be a difference in views between BLM and the FS).
“It’s really too bad,” he said. “It’s an event we run, we staff it, the BLM doesn’t have to do anything.”
The university took the matter to court Friday in hopes the permits already issued would be honored, but the judge ruled against it.
California environmentalists, logging industry lock horns over burned trees
The Wall Street Journal
FILE 2013: A doe deer returns to its home range along the Cherry Lake Road in the Rim Fire area near Yosemite National Park. (AP Photo/U.S. Forest Service)
Well, this was predictable. Unfortunately. Trust DeFazio to be involved and appeal for votes by misrepresenting the issue. Here is where we hashed this out:
Here is where the Wall Street Journal article starts:
A new gold rush may be on in California’s Sierra Nevada mountains, but this time the treasure is burned trees to salvage for lumber. The Rim Fire that charred a quarter-million acres of the Stanislaus National Forest and Yosemite National Park over the summer left an estimated one billion board feet of salvageable dead trees—enough to build 63,000 homes. The logging industry and its supporters are racing to get it, saying such work would provide jobs in the economically downtrodden region.Sierra Pacific Industries Inc. has started felling trees on about 10,000 acres of its land that got caught up in the inferno. Now, Republican Rep. Tom McClintock, whose district covers the area, has introduced legislation in Congress that would waive environmental regulations so salvage logging can begin quickly on the national forest as well.”If any good can come of this tragedy, it would be the timely salvage of fire-killed timber that could provide employment to local mills and desperately needed economic activity to mountain communities,” said McClintock, a member of the House Committee on Natural Resources.But Rep. Peter DeFazio, ranking Democrat on the committee, said McClintock’s bill—which was heard in a committee hearing Oct. 3—”would be a license to clear-cut the entire burn area.”DeFazio said he supports more limited salvage logging, while some environmental groups back almost none at all, saying it hurts forests by removing trees that provide nutrients for soil and habitat for wildlife.
The industry has about a two-year window to remove the trees before they succumb to rot and insect damage and become commercially worthless, timber officials say. “The first tragedy to the forest has already happened,” said Mike Albrecht, president of Sierra Resource Management Inc., a logging company in Jamestown, Calif., now doing salvage work on private lands. “The second tragedy would be not to salvage it.”
If approved, the logging would be the biggest salvage-removal job in the Sierra in decades, which the industry says would boost local counties and the state’s timber industry. Mr. Albrecht said he would likely have to increase his 10-person logging crew to 15, while the total number of salvage loads hauled out of the forest would rise to 250 a day from 160 a day now.
Those jobs would go to people like Don Fulton, an 80-year-old who runs a family-owned crew in Tuolumne County. He has had little business in recent years because of environmental rules on logging and other factors, and last year the company worked for just six months, said his daughter, Tammy Power. If salvage logging were approved, “he will go 24-7 until that salvage is out,” Power said.
For bigger companies like Sierra Pacific, logging healthy trees versus dead ones is more of a wash, said Mark Luster, spokesman for the Anderson, Calif., timber giant. “We are mainly shifting from green [logging] to salvage,” Luster said. Another limitation of the economic benefit, other industry officials say, is that there are only enough mills to process about half the available timber, or 500 million board feet of lumber.
But officials in the rural counties affected by the fire, which started Aug. 17 from an undetermined cause and was 95% contained as of Friday, said the logging would give them a boost. “We will have to import trucks and labor, so certainly it will help our county,” said Karl Rodefer, a supervisor in Tuolumne County, where the Rim Fire was concentrated. He added that removal of the dead trees would also keep them from acting as more fuel in a future fire.
