Some NCFP Blog History and Philosophy

by

Folks asked for my opinion on these topics, and we have new folks (which is good!) since we started in 2009, so here goes:

This blog was specifically started to have discussions between academics and practitioners. Therefore, any claims can be brought here, peer-reviewed or not. Part of the point is to look at the forest as perceived by people who work and live there, people who belong to interest groups, academics, lawyers, scientists of all stripes, and see how their pieces of information fit together, or don’t.

When someone posts something, I like to hear what they think. So when I post something, you will usually find a note from me..sometimes as simple as “I find this interesting because” but not always. I LIKE people to share why they posted it; what they agree or disagree with, because I am interested in the people on this blog and what they think. But it’s not required.

Now when I post something, I am not going to defend the claims made, unless a) I agree with them and b) I have the time and inclination..otherwise, the authors speak for themselves. The authors are welcome to contribute to the blog and defend their positions. A great many people I speak with don’t want to do that, though,… one of the reasons being..

Lack of civility found on many blogs and sometimes on this blog. While Bob says we have more readers when people are like that, my feeling is that we are/should be better than that. And if we are few and civil, that would be better than having more readers and being rude and disrespectful. Look at the U.S. Congress, for example, how’s jerkiness workin’ for them (and us)?

In the past, I’ve noticed that sometimes people get into uncivil disagreements. When that happens, there is no way I can drop everything else I do, and moderate it. So I have asked folks 1) not to do it, and 2) any other folks around who observe it to call people on it.

I told Steve Wilent this week that those discussions are like “fingernails on the blackboard of my soul.” Sometimes in the past, I have thought that I was being gender- insensitive to want to get rid of it, as maybe it’s a guy equivalent of puppies play-fighting. They get over it and go on about their business, just letting off steam, and perhaps I shouldn’t be so judgmental. But I’m neither going to read those comments nor moderate them.

Other reasons people who write papers don’t want to discuss it on blogs, including this one include 1) it can suck up a lot of time for 2) no professional or other rewards. I like to think of blogging as 21st Century Extension (in the research, extension, education model) but so far this idea has not caught on with anyone with funds. So here we are :).

Finally, sometimes whether folks reveal their real names becomes an issue. This started with people “outing” Larry, lo those many years ago. I personally want to hear more from current FS people so I want people to have fake names if they otherwise feel they wouldn’t participate. People have their own reasons, and as long as they bring something thoughtful to the table and are respectful, I am fine with it.

Feds- We’re With You- Great Photos by Bob Berwyn

by
Photo by Bob Berwyn
Photo by Bob Berwyn

This has been a glum week for all my Federal friends, as well as the rest of us who depend on Congress to do their own work. Here in Colorado, it was also the first snow of the season. Bob Berwyn has had two posts this week of amazing photos. A gift to all us.. posted here in honor of Federal employees.

Here are some great photos he posted today.

And here are some equally great ones, from earlier this week.

And thanks to Bob for sharing these on his blog.

Forest Service timber contracts to be suspended amid federal shutdown

by

From today’s Missoulian:

Montana lumber mills are bracing for an expected suspension of timber contracts on national forest lands Monday as part of the growing impacts from the federal government shutdown.

A Washington, D.C.-based agency spokesman confirmed Friday the agency plans to send out notifications that logging operations will be required to cease.

“Due to the federal funding lapse, early next week the U.S. Forest Service must notify 450 timber purchasers across the country that timber sales and stewardship contracts will be suspended,” said Forest Service communications director Leo Kay.

The agency plans to work with individual timber purchasers to suspend work in an orderly manner, he said.

“We regret the continued impact to the American public,” Kay said. “However, we must cease activities that require Forest Service oversight and management during the funding lapse.”

Kay said he was not able to provide details on how the suspension will occur, but several representatives from Montana mills said it appeared the agency would give loggers seven days to finish whatever work they could.

At this time of year, Montana mills are feverishly stockpiling enough logs to keep their operations running though the winter months and spring breakup.

“It would really hurt to have to shut down this time of year,” said RY Timber resource manager Ed Regan. “Most of the sales we have are up in the high country.”

Read the entire article here.

Dr. Hanson Oped: Yosemite’s burned areas are alive

by

Earlier in the week the LA Times featured an oped from Dr. Chad Hanson. I will post the opening paragraph below, but you can read the entire piece on the LA Times website.  The bottom of the LA Times piece has this biographical and contact information: Chad Hanson is a forest and fire ecologist with the John Muir Project of Earth Island Institute. He is based in the San Bernardino mountains. http://www.johnmuirproject.org.

Once again, I’d like to respectfully request that if anyone has questions about the content of the oped please contact Dr. Hanson directly.

It was entirely predictable. Even before the ashes have cooled on the 257,000-acre Rim fire in and around Yosemite this year, the timber industry and its allies in Congress were using the fire as an excuse for suspending environmental laws and expanding logging operations on federal land.  (Continue reading….)

Forest Service Closing Concessionaire Campgrounds

by

Here’s a link to a story from New Hampshire NPR.

The shutdown of the federal government is expanding to include privately run campgrounds in national forests across the country, a spokesman for the U.S. Forest Service said late Thursday.

“We are in the process of shutting these operations down at facilities across the country due to the lapse in funding,” wrote spokesman Leo Kay in an e-mail. “Some closures have already taken place while others are still in progress.”

That is expected to include twenty-two campgrounds in The White Mountain National Forest operated by Pro Sports Inc. of Campton.

However Kent Tower, the owner of Pro Sports, said he has not yet been told to close and expects to be open this weekend. The campgrounds were scheduled to close October 14th.

The closings are unwarranted because the campgrounds are operated by private businesses that do not need federal help, said Marily Reese, the executive director of the National Forest Recreation Association. It represents about 150 companies nationwide that operate campgrounds in national forests.

“It is a huge impact to our business owners for this loss of business and it is just a heartbreaking, heartbreaking result for the public and there is really no reason because these sites don’t require federal funding,” she

She said the closing is puzzling because in previous shutdowns the campground operators were allowed to remain open.

U.S. Forest Service spokesman Kay said the decision to close campgrounds in the national forests is consistent with the closing of national parks but he declined to answer additional questions.

Sounds a bit confusing…perhaps the idea is that the overseers are not there so they can’t proceed? But how much overseeing is really done regularly, do we know? And plenty of other things are overseen that are not recreation, that aren’t closed down. If this goes on until mid-October ski areas will or will not be opening.

Dear FS, USDA or Whomever.. please have a logical explanation for what you shut down, share it with the public (your logic) and be consistent across the country. I ask in the name of Gifford Pinchot. Amen..

Good Science, “Best Science” & The Law

by

This is apparently the third in a sequence, following my last post on this topic: https://forestpolicypub.com/2013/09/27/osu-forestry-saving-our-planet-by-letting-us-forests-burn-and-rot/

It refers to an article that Guy Knudsen suggested to me during an earlier discussion on this blog that continued via email. That article, “Legal Implications of Forest Management Science in National Environmental Policy Act Analyses,” by Jerry Magee (2008), can be found here: http://www.esipri.org/Library/Magee_2008.pdf

This is the slightly edited version of an email I sent out yesterday evening to Mike Newton and a brief selection of representatives from Oregon Department of Forestry, Associated Oregon Loggers, Oregon Forest Industries Council, Oregon Senate, “Best Available Science” author Alan Moghissi, Environmental Sciences Independent Peer Review Institute (ESIPRI) and one or two others — nine in all:

The basic question is: “Why do the courts consistently disregard better science information when it is provided, and rule in favor of half-baked and outdated “best science available” instead? Especially when the “best science” is obviously biased?” The surprising answer is: “Because the law says they have to.” I had no idea this was the case until I read this article and discussed it with someone who really knew their stuff — an actual forest scientist-lawyer.

Here are some quotes from the attachment that summarize its contents:

From the Abstract: “Scientific analysis has primarily fallen within the “issues of fact” realm of disputes, where the courts grant substantial deference to the informed discretion of the responsible agencies.”

From the body: “As with any field, forest management research and studies may produce conflicting results, giving rise to scientific disagreement and uncertainty. These science-related issues, as well as concerns over the accuracy or credibility of agency-sponsored research and studies or the agency’s interpretation of those studies, have led to challenges to forest management decisions purporting to rely on current science or on understanding of forest ecosystem responses to management actions.” (p. 218)

“Even more on point with respect to NEPA and matters of scientific controversy are some earlier Ninth Circuit opinions, which “observe . . . that ‘NEPA does not require that we decide whether an [EIS] is based on the best scientific methodology available, nor does NEPA require us to resolve disagreements among various scientists as to methodology.’” (p. 219)

From the Conclusion: “Those challenging forest management decisions may view the subjects of these recent Ninth Circuit cases as particularly egregious examples of slipshod science falling short of congressional intent as interpreted through the accurate scientific analysis provisions of the CEQ regulations. But earlier deferential rulings concluded that “[w]hen specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more persuasive.” (p. 227)
****************************

The public record is very clear — in legal actions involving the timber industry in Oregon and environmental organizations during the past 20 years, the timber industry has lost at nearly every turn, often being painted as greedy, antiquated, or even malicious in the process. This is despite the industry often having much better information and better arguments to bolster their positions that those provided by the environmentalists.

From my perspective, the problem seems to be that the courts are all but required to follow the edicts of government scientists rather than actual “best available science” as described by Dr. Alan Moghissi and others. If this perspective is correct, then this is probably a problem for Congress, and not the courts, where too much time and money has been spent to no apparent avail for more than two decades. It is exactly why ESIPRI was formed — to put science back into the hands of scientists (and maybe particularly scientists not funded by agencies), forest managers, and citizens and out of the courts, where it is being ignored or abused.

Other opinions?

Bob

Science Policy Forum: Managing Forests and Fire in Changing Climate

by

Scientists claim policy focused on fire suppression only delays the inevitable. Read more here. The opening paragraph and names of the authors are below.

With projected climate change, we expect to face much more forest fire in the coming decades. Policymakers are challenged not to categorize all fires as destructive to ecosystems simply because they have long flame lengths and kill most of the trees within the fire boundary. Ecological context matters: In some ecosystems, high-severity regimes are appropriate, but climate change may modify these fire regimes and ecosystems as well. Some undesirable impacts may be avoided or reduced through global strategies, as well as distinct strategies based on a forest’s historical fire regime.

Authors: S. L. Stephens, J. K. Agee, P. Z. Fulé, M. P. North, W. H. Romme, T. W. Swetnam, M. G. Turner

What Rep Daines Mandated Logging Bill Would Mean for National Forests in Montana

by

Here’s some new information to consider regarding Rep Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Rep Steve Daines (R-MT) mandated logging bill, the so-called “Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act” (HR 1526), which passed the US House on September 20.

In Montana, it’s estimated that Rep Daines’ mandated logging bill would result in a 6 fold increase in National Forest logging across the state. However, the logging mandates contained in Daines’ bill would impact each National Forest differently. As such, it’s estimated that Daines’ bill would result in:

•  300 X’s more logging on the Helena National Forest;
•  150 X’s more logging on the Lewis and Clark National Forest;
•  30 X’s more logging on the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest;
•  13 X’s more logging on the Lolo National Forest;
•  7 X’s more logging on the Gallatin National Forest;
•  6 X’s more logging on the Kootenai National Forest; and
•  4 X’s more logging on the Flathead National Forest.

(Note: Compared with 2012 National Forest timber sale volumes)

These dramatic increases in logging would be achieved by undermining America’s public lands legacy by simply having members of Congress mandate dramatic increases in industrial logging by exempting all National Forest logging sales up to 15.6 square miles in size from public input, environmental analysis and gutting the Endangered Species Act.

Rep Daines’ “Logging Without Laws” bill also has the US Congress simply closing the US Federal Court House doors, forbidding any citizen lawsuits on certain types of industrial logging projects, which is inherently undemocratic. Daines’ bill applies to all of America’s 155 National Forests, not just those National Forests in Montana.

New information also reveals that, contrary to claims by Rep Hastings and Rep Daines, rural counties throughout America would get less money for roads and schools under the Hastings/Daines mandated logging bill than what they current receive through Secure Rural Schools funding.

While Rep Daines, Senator Tester (D-MT) and the timber industry claim “gridlock” prevents National Forest logging, between 2008 and 2012 the US Forest Service sold enough logging sales in Montana and North Idaho to fill over 239,000 logging trucks, which if lined up end-to-end, would stretch for 2,048 miles.

Fortunately, President Obama has threatened to veto Rep Daines mandated logging bill.  The battle now goes to the US Senate, which in theory should be against mandating huge increases in National Forest logging through “Logging Without Laws” and gutting the Endangered Species Act, limiting public input and environmental analysis.However, the fact that Senator Tester and Senator Baucus (D-MT) have their very own mandated National Forest logging bill (the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act) already introduced in the US Senate all bets are off and basically anything can happen in the Senate.

Certainly it doesn’t help the political situation that Sen Tester, Sen Baucus and groups like the Montana Wilderness Association, National Wildlife Federation and Montana Trout Unlimited also support politicians mandating huge logging increases of our National Forests through Tester’s Forest Jobs and Recreation Act (FJRA). Make no mistake, both the Daines and Tester bill would be an extreme and radical departure from over 100 years of America’s public lands legacy.Remember, Montanans have been bombarded since 2009 with a million dollar plus advertising and public relations campaign supporting Tester’s mandated logging bill paid for largely by the out-of-state Pew Foundation.

According to official tax forms, as far back as 2009 the Pew Foundation’s Campaign for America’s Wilderness actually hired the Montana Wilderness Association as an “Independent Contractor” to the tune of $304,500.00 in just 2009 alone. Montanans have also witnessed one-sided, down and pony show “public meetings” on Tester’s bill in which only hand-picked supporters of Tester’s bill were allowed to speak to the crowd. And who hasn’t noticed the dozens of canned, scripted Letters to the Editor (most of which from college students without a firm grasp on these issues) cheerleading for Congress to mandate more logging through Tester’s bill?

Let’s also not forget that all summer long we watched the Montana Wilderness Association spend some of their money on an Ad campaign making Rep Steve Daines (a “Tea Party” member of the House) out to be some great “bi-partisian” and encouraging Daines to work together with Senator Tester and Senator Baucus to support Tester’s mandated logging bill. Honestly, how good of a strategy is it to publicly encourage a “Tea Party” member of the US House to work together to support mandated logging of our public national forest lands? How naive must you be to actually think that getting Rep Daines involved with Tester’s mandated logging bill wouldn’t actually make Tester’s bill that much worse?

While the Montana Wilderness Association was busy all summer courting Rep Daines to be their new BFF not one single person from the Montana Wilderness Association (or any of the other environmental ‘collaborators’ supporting Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill) managed to uttered one single peep of protest, concern or opposition about Rep Daines’ very own mandated logging bill, which cuts the public process, NEPA analysis and effectivness of the ESA.

And what about the Montana Wilderness Association’s “timber mill partners” from their much lauded private “collaboration?” Do you think the Montana timber industry supports Rep Daines mandated logging bill? Of course they do! And one can assume the timber industry has no problem dropping Montana Wilderness Association like a bad habitat once the industry gets what they really wanted in the form of Rep Daines mandated logging bill.

In December 2009, as I sat in the US Senate’s Energy and Natural Resource’s Committee hearing room, I heard Montana Wilderness Association’s director Tim Baker (who is now Gov Bullock’s “Natural Resource Adviser”) tell the Committee that MWA wouldn’t support Tester’s bill is the logging mandates were removed. So too, Sun Mountain Lumber owner Sherm Anderson told the Committee the timber industry wouldn’t support Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill without the Wilderness acres. Well, looks to me like Montana’s timber industry has dumped MWA in front of Daines’ mandated logging bus. All is fair in love and legislation, I guess.

“Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act” (HR 1526)

• Creates a legally-binding public lands logging mandate with no environmental or fiscal feasibility limits, and reestablishing the discredited 25% logging revenue sharing system with counties that was eliminated over a decade ago.

• Public participation and Endangered Species Act protections would be severely limited in Rep Daines’ bill. The bill creates huge loopholes in NEPA and such biased ESA requirements that in practice these laws would almost never meaningfully apply. For example, any project less than 10,000 acres (that’s 15.6 square miles) would be categorically excluded from environmental analysis and public participation, and the Forest Service would be required to submit a finding that endangered species are not jeopardized by any project, regardless of its actual effect on the species.

• Rep Daines successfully attached an amendment to the bill that would forbid the US Federal Courts from ever issuing injunctions against Forest Service logging projects based on alleged violations of procedural requirements in selecting, planning, or analyzing the project.

• Another amendment successfully added to the bill has the US Congress closing the US Federal Court House doors for any national forest timber sale resulting from the 2013 wildfires. Essentially this results in “Logging Without Laws,” as one entire branch of the US Government (the Judicial branch) is forbidden from hearing this issue.

If you’d like more “policy-wonky” information about Daines’ mandated logging bill check out this fact sheet.

Planning in HR 1526 – Guest Post by Jon Haber

by

This recent article on the ‘Restoring Healthy Forests for Healthy Communities Act’ got me to look at the actual bill.

Neither the Administration nor the previous discussion on this blog really addressed the ‘forest planning’ implications of this bill.

Section 505 is titled ‘Clarification of National Forest Management Act of 1976 Authority,’ and it addresses tree marking. Actually, this bill could exempt the entire tree-growing portion of National Forest System completely from NFMA, except for designated wilderness, national monuments and where there are statutory prohibitions.

In Section 103, the Forest Service is required to identify at least one Forest Reserve Revenue Area on each national forest, and such areas must include at least half of the commercial forest lands (there is no upper limit). This is to be done ‘notwithstanding any other provision of law.’ The acreage may never be reduced. This designation must be completed in 60 days, and there is no requirement for public participation.

These areas must then be managed to achieve an ‘annual volume requirement’ of 50% of their sustained yield, which is to be determined as the ‘maximum annual growth potential of the forest.’ This sustained yield does not reflect the needs of any other resources. In comparison, the ASQ in current plans is based on a long-term sustained-yield capacity that reflects many other resource needs, and very few national forests are harvesting anywhere near their ASQ. The 50% figure seems arbitrary and very likely unobtainable (and/or unsustainable) most places without the kind of impacts that NFMA was intended to mitigate.

The bill specifically exempts management of these areas from the NFMA prohibition against choosing clearcutting primarily for economic reasons. It also states, “The Secretary may modify the standards and guidelines contained in the land and resource management plan for the unit of the National Forest System in which the covered forest reserve project will be carried out as necessary to achieve the requirements of this Act.” The management of potentially the majority of the National Forest System would thus effectively be exempt from the direction in existing land management plans, the requirements of the 2012 planning regulations (including collaboration), and NFMA itself (and presumably the Roadless Area Conservation Rule if it interferes with achieving the volume requirement).

For any lands not designated under Section 103 (and over 200,000 acres), Section 402 requires the Forest Service to establish Community Forest Demonstration Areas if requested by an advisory committee appointed by state governors (with only requirements to represent governmental, commercial and recreational interests). “The administration and management of a community forest demonstration area, including implementing actions, shall not be considered Federal action.” Again, NFMA and forest plans would be irrelevant to the selection and management of these areas.

Section 205 allows a state governor to designate ‘high risk areas.’ “Designation of high-risk areas shall be consistent with standards and guidelines contained in the land and resource management plan or land use plan for the unit of Federal land for which the designation is being made, except that the Secretary concerned may modify such standards and guidelines to correspond with a specific high-risk area designation.” The exception swallows the NFMA requirement for consistency with a land management plan.

In sum, this would return national forest planning and management on probably the majority of national forest lands to dominant timber use for economic gain– which is what triggered the National Forest Management Act in 1976. I can see why this rearview mirror approach can’t be taken very seriously.

Jon retired from the Forest Service at the end of 2012 after 32 years as a forest and regional planner in Regions 6 and 1. His background is in forestry and natural resource management and includes a law degree. The last half of his career focused on rewriting the NFMA planning rule, planning for threatened/endangered/sensitive species, and large landscape conservation planning efforts.