The Efficacy of Hazardous Fuel Treatments: Report from Ecological Restoration Institutet

by

waldo photo from report 19

Here’s a link to this report. There are many good photos in the report in addition to the one above. You can click on the photo above to enlarge it.

Have the past 10 years of hazardous fuel reduction treatments made a difference? Have fuel reduction treatments reduced fire risk to communities?

● Using an evidence-based approach to objectively evaluate the relevant literature, researchers found
that for the forest ecosystems that were examined, the evidence suggests that restoration treatments can reduce re severity and tree mortality in the face of wildre, and also increase carbon storage
over the long-term.

● Studies that use the avoided cost approach to examine the cost of re demonstrate that treatments result in suppression cost savings.

● Modeling studies that evaluate the effectiveness of fuels treatments in terms of changes in wildland
re size, burn probabilities, and re behavior demonstrate that fuel treatments applied at the proper scale can influence the risk, size, and behavior of re therefore reducing suppression cost.

● Modeling also demonstrates that where treatments are sucient to change dynamic re behavior, suppression costs are reduced.

● Modeling demonstrates that fuel reduction treatments are eective at reducing re behavior (severity) where implemented, and can successfully reduce re risk to communities. However, it also shows that fuel reduction treatments that occur at broader scales would have bigger impacts on the overall reduction of crown re. Perhaps most importantly, the results show that WUI-only treatments result in areas of unchanged crown re potential across the untreated landscape, therefore leaving it vulnerable to large, severe, and expensive (mega) landscape-scale re.

● Although few studies exist on the topic, fuel reduction treatments signicantly enhance the price of adjacent real estate, whereas homes in close proximity to a wildre experience lower property values.

The executive summary is on pages 4 and 5 and an easy read.

Here’s one news story I found about it.. in the Deseret News, others?

SFI, FSC, CSA and LEED II

by

We had 62 comments on the previous post here, but annoyingly the columns get smaller and smaller the more comments and replies you have and at some point they get hard to read. I think we reached that point. We are working on this by moving the blog, but for now, I’ll just start another post on the SFI -CSA-LEED question.

First of all, I would like to express my appreciation to Jason for engaging in this dialogue. If I stand back from all this, I see that when groups use hype to make their points and accuse others of bad intentions, certain personalities (if there is a “natural resource professional” personality,) just tunes them out and erects a barrier for self-protection. The problem with the barriers (on both sides, and you can extrapolate to partisan dialogue about a lot of things) is that we can’t listen to others because we don’t like to be maligned. But if you think peace is good, and that the best ideas for our mutual future come from a diverse group, then there is no alternative to talking across our comfort zones. As a Denver metro area resident, I see this more often with the energy industry. Anyway, I really appreciate that Jason has given us so many thoughtful comments.

One of his comments that I found very interesting was this one about sustainability and cutting 40% of the total land area at once. This is something we can work with.

Sustainability, Montreal Process and CSA

So if we go back to the definition of sustainability, as a bureaucrat I would tend to go with the Montreal Process Criteria and Indicators here. They are really designed for countries, though, so let’s go to the CSA standard, in which our northern neighbors consciously stepped down the C&I to specific land management.

Here’s how they started, so they don’t seem to have the same “industry dominated heritage” of SFI.

CAN/CSA-Z809 – Canada’s National Standard for Sustainable Forest Management
CSA worked with a diverse range of stakeholders interested in sustainable forest management to develop

Canada’s National Standard for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) CAN/CSA-Z809. A volunteer technical committee, representing consumers, environmental groups, government, industry, Aboriginal, academia and other stakeholders was established to develop the Standard. CSA committees are created using a “balanced matrix” approach, which means that each committee is structured to capitalize on the combined strengths and expertise of its members – with no single group dominating over the content of a CSA standard.

This voluntary Standard, developed by an open and transparent multi-stakeholder consensus-based process, resulted in an endorsement by the Standards Council of Canada as a National Standard of Canada.

The CAN/CSA-Z809 SFM Standard, developed according to an internationally recognized and accredited standards development process, is based on the international Helsinki and Montréal processes. It incorporates Canada’s own national SFM criteria, which were developed by the Canadian Council of Forest Ministers. The Standard links adaptive forest management to forest certification through three key requirements:

Performance Requirements
Public Participation Requirements
System Requirements

Now remember, major US imports are from Canada.
here is the 2012 Certification report from Canada.

Canada leads the world in attaining third-party sustainable forest management certification. This independent verification provides added assurance of responsible forest practices from a country with some of the world’s toughest and well-enforced forestry regulations.

The phenomenal growth of forest certification in Canada has been spurred on by a forest industry commitment to third-party certification. In 2002 the Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) – whose members manage the vast majority of the commercial forest in Canada – became the only national forest trade association in the world to require members to certify their operations to any of the three major, credible standards recognized in Canada:

Canadian Standards Association (CAN CSA/Z809 or Z804)
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
Sustainable Forestry Initiative® Program (SFI)

Four years later that goal was met. This commitment has been instrumental in spurring the phenomenal growth of forest certification in Canada, allowing the country to meet the growing customer demand for certified forest products.

SFM Certification Status in Canada—2012 Year-end
Standard Used Acronym Area Certified (hectares)
Canadian Standards Association (CAN/CSA-Z804 or Z809) CSA 44,921,371
Forest Stewardship Council FSC 54,080,929
Sustainable Forestry Initiative SFI 57,577,838
Total Certified for all SFM Combined: (some areas double counted) 155,950,138
Total Area Certified: (double counting removed) 147,928,855

So I think that it’s important in the LEED debate to also talk about CSA which doesn’t suffer from SFI’s alliance with timber industry. And in these certification debates, we seldom talk about CSA, despite the fact that about 1/3 of Canadian wood is certified to it.

It’s interesting that the dialogue tends to be from FSC about SFI and not so much about CSA. But even if you think SFI is not sustainable, why shouldn’t LEED give the same credits to CSA?

Now onto a specific example that might be enlightening.

Jay stated that:

In a state like WA or OR, you have to reforest after a regen harvest, but if you own 50,000+ acres and just cut 40% of your landbase over several years, how sustainable is that for local mills in the coming years (many now severed from a source of timber), ecological processes and organisms dependent on later seres or successional stages of forests? How is that sustainable for workers and communities when so many harvests were crammed into such a short period of time that labor/contractors had to be imported from outside of the community, only to leave when the cutting is done .

Now my read of any standard (SFI, CSA and FSC) is that cutting 40% of your landbase within several years would not meet the criteria. If we knew what company that was, maybe we could investigate how SFI treated it.

SFI “Greenwashing” Complaint Filed with Federal Trade Commission

by

Last month this blog explored some of the differences and validity of the two main “green” wood certification programs in the U.S. – the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI).

The FSC bills itself as “an independent, non-governmental, not for profit organization established to promote the responsible management of the world’s forests” while the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) (which the U.S. timber industry established in 1994) bills itself as “an independent, non-profit organization responsible for maintaining, overseeing and improving a sustainable forestry certification program.”

SFIYesterday, ForestEthics and Greenpeace filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) asking the agency to investigate the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI)’s claim to be a ‘green’ certifier of forest products. The complaint argues that SFI’s claim that it is an independent, non-profit public charity is deceptive and misleading because SFI is substantially governed and financed by the timber industry and because its vague and ambiguous forestry standards are developed and approved by timber industry personnel in a closed process.

The complaint is based on the FTC’s recently revised “Green Guides” and is joined by more than 2,800 individual consumers filing their own complaints, and supported by over 8,000 who signed a petition demanding that the FTC take action. This is the largest number of Green Guides complaints concerning a single scheme that the FTC has ever received.

Here is the opening portion of the complaint filed with the FTC:

On behalf of ForestEthics and Greenpeace, the Washington Forest Law Center (“WFLC”) submits this Complaint because consumers are being deceived by the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (“SFI”), a timber industry-funded forest certification system developed for the deceptive “green” marketing of lumber and paper products.

This Complaint provides detailed evidence that SFI is materially not in compliance with the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC”) revised “Green Guides,” which were formally re-promulgated on October 11, 2012. As set forth below, ForestEthics, Greenpeace, and allies believe that SFI engages in several unfair and deceptive acts and practices, which detrimentally mislead corporate and individual lumber and paper consumers who rely on certification in making purchasing decisions. Hundreds of millions of dollars in “green” spending are at issue.

We ask the FTC to investigate this Complaint and to take enforcement action requiring SFI to either cease its deceptive marketing practices or to make the necessary disclosures so as to comply with the revised Green Guides.

News of this FTC complaint follows closely on the heels of four more major US companies, Hewlett Packard, Office Depot, Southwest, and Cricket, announcing plans to move away from the SFI.

ForestEthics began its campaign against SFI’s greenwashing of forest destruction by filing complaints with the IRS and FTC in 2009. Since then, 24 companies have moved away from the SFI.

In April, the SFI sent a ‘cease and desist’ letter – a threat to sue – to ForestEthics. But, if sued, ForestEthics intends to vigorously stand by its First Amendment right to challenge SFI with truthful facts and opinion and to report SFI to consumer protection government agencies.

“The Sustainable Forestry Initiative label is the timber industry’s cynical effort to get a piece of the highly valuable green marketplace in the US, which is currently valued at $500 billion dollars annually.  We have demonstrable proof that in many regions of the U.S. and Canada, SFI offers virtually no environmental protection beyond that already required by state and federal laws and worse, it offers cover and false marketing for companies trying to take advantage of consumers’ best intentions,” said Aaron Sanger of ForestEthics. “It’s no surprise that the SFI is trying to intimidate ForestEthics with threats of a lawsuit – the green marketplace is growing more valuable by the day. Our Federal Trade Commission complaint today is proof positive that we will not be bullied.”

The complaint submitted by ForestEthics and Greenpeace yesterday centers around the following: The FTC’s Green Guides forbids deceptive claims of independence. The SFI claims that it is independent, but it has direct material connections to the forestry and paper products industry. In 2011, 93 percent of SFI’s funding came from SFI “program participants,” that includes a veritable “who’s who” of the timber and paper industry such as logging giants Weyerhaeuser, Plum Creek, and Rayonier.

The FTC works on behalf of consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. The FTC’s Green Guides were introduced in 1992 to provide guidance to companies that want to call their products “green” or “eco-friendly” and help marketers ensure that claims they make about environmental attributes of their products are truthful and non-deceptive. The Green Guides were last revised in 1998 although the FTC began a comprehensive review of the Green Guides in 2007, which resulted in the 2012 revisions.

ForestEthics’ ongoing campaign to expose the SFI’s certification program in the U.S. marketplace began in 2009. ForestEthics’ work has revealed that the widely-used forest certification program is financed and governed by the timber industry. The SFI misleads well-intentioned companies and consumers into thinking they are making environmentally sound choices, when in reality the program “certifies” forestry practices that wreak environmental harm, including logging that create massive landslides, destroys rare wildlife and fish habitat, pollutes streams and rivers, and contaminates communities with toxic herbicides and fertilizers. By engaging with supporters and allies, ForestEthics is exposing the truth behind the SFI label while persuading regulators like the Federal Trade Commission and market leaders like Fortune 500 brands to take a stand against SFI “greenwashing”.

ForestEthics is represented by the Seattle-based Washington Forest Law Center, which played a key role in preparing ForestEthics’ FTC complaint.

Using and Producing Natural Resources: Sarah Gilman Essay in High Country News

by

sarahHere is a thoughtful essay by Sarah Gilman of High Country News.

Now, thinning forests is not as “industrial” as oil and gas development. And thinning forests is not always done to produce wood products. Still, if the alternative is to burn it in piles..as with hazard trees.. one has to wonder..

Here is the link.

Below is an excerpt:

At an environmental film festival in Paonia soon after the BLM’s decision, the audience booed throughout a Google Earth tour of the parcels still up for lease. When a staffer from the conservation group who hosted the event noted that the mountain biking parcel had been withdrawn, discontent only grew. Many refused to accept any leasing whatsoever.

Opponents believe, as do their counterparts in many communities facing oil and gas development, that some places are too special to drill. It’s a valid view; I often share it. But that raises an uncomfortable question: Are there any places so unspecial that they should be drilled? Mr. ConocoPhillips knows well that few of us in Paonia or elsewhere can say we don’t rely on these fuels — for heat, for transport, for electricity, for the fertilization of food. Every place matters to somebody. And what patch of Earth isn’t habitat for at least a few wonderful somethings?

As Bobby Reedy, who runs a local auto shop in Paonia, told Heller: “I wanna flick the light switch and know the lights are gonna come on. If it’s not in my backyard, whose is it gonna be in?”

If we continue to insist on living as we do now, maybe we need to see drill rigs from our kitchen windows and hiking trails, even our school playgrounds.

How else can we truly understand the costs of something we use unless we’re confronted with them daily? This isn’t just the machinery of corporate greed; it’s the machinery of our vast collective energy appetite. And if we can’t look directly at it, and can’t accept what it does to our water and air, then it’s time to do more than just fight drilling. It’s time to go on an energy diet.

The “Logging” or “Timber” or “Forest Products” Industry: What’s In a Name?

by

In our recent discussions, the timber industry (or wood products) industry has been called the “logging industry,” at least by Matthew. I first became fascinated by what industries are OK environmentally and which not, when I worked on an assignment with the Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Clinton Administration. I was the Science Lead on a CEQ/OSTP Interagency effort to review US regulation of genetically engineered organisms released into the environment.

At the same time, the 2000 Planning Rule was being cleared and I helped folks at OMB to understand the rule. It seemed at the time the timber industry on public lands was questionable from the environmental perspective, but the biotech industry was not particularly questioned, even the mild recommendations of our team did not go forward. I remember the meeting where we presented our findings to George Frampton, the Chair of CEQ at the time. Many of us were surprised that “environmentalism” was strong in some areas, and weak in other areas. I also thought the role of the science community was an interesting contrast, since the “listened to” scientists thought logging was harmful to the environment, but that ge organisms were harmless and in fact, the salvation of the future. We can still see that today. Clearly the same scientists can’t know about both (well I know something about both, but I am not among the “listened to” scientists. How governments choose to partition their environmental inclinations across industries would be worthy of some graduate student studies.

I wondered why one industry was so important and the other rejection-worthy. I had a variety of hypotheses, of course
1) who donated to the campaign
2) the amount of bucks generated
3) did not capture the attention of environmental groups to the same extent (or not as effectively).

In Colorado, we had a curmudgeonly wonderful columnist named Ed Quillen, who used to refer to “the Committee that really runs America”. I can only guess that the timber industry had a falling out with the Committee at some point, while the biotech industry did not.

Sometimes I wonder whether folks project all their guilt about using resources onto one convenient industry. so we do not examine the semiconductor industry or the medical equipment industry, (or even agriculture) with the same fine-toothed environmental comb.

Anyway, if we could talk about an industry who provides products for people by their extraction techniques rather than the products they produce, let’s think about that:

I just got back from the family place in western Kansas, so we can think of wheat and field crop farming as “the cutting industry” as in Custom “Cut”ters or “cut”ting hay.

We could think of vegetable growing as the “picking” industry. Or oil and gas as the “drilling” industry. Sometimes we talk about coal as the “mining industry” but mostly the “coal” industry. Now we have molybdenum and other mines in Colorado, so we call those the “mining industry”, perhaps because if you are mining these other minerals than energy, there are so many of them.

So let’s look at solar industry might be the “cell manufacturing” industry. Wind might be the “turbine manufacturing” industry. I just think it’s interesting how people talk about these things, with my concern being that talking about extracting as opposed to what the product is removes us from the link between us and our lives and the products we use. You can’t look out the window in my town without seeing a great many wood products in construction and reconstruction, in art, in furniture, and so on.

Bill to Reform Federal Public Lands Grazing Program Introduced: Act Would Protect Environment, Save Taxpayer Dollars

by
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, May 29, 2013
Contact: Ben Halle, (202) 570-2771

Congressman Smith Reintroduces the Rural Economic Vitalization Act

Legislation Would Reform Federal Grazing Program to Protect Environment, Save Taxpayer Dollars

Congressman Adam Smith has reintroduced legislation that would address the wasteful, environmentally damaging, and economically inefficient federal grazing policy on our public lands.  H.R. 2201, the Rural Economic Vitalization Act, would change federal law to allow ranchers with grazing permits to voluntarily relinquish their permits to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service in exchange for private market compensation.  It would further allow the BLM and U.S. Forest Service to permanently retire the grazing permit.

“The current federal grazing program is among the most economically inefficient uses of our public lands,” said Congressman Smith.  “This legislation opens the door for private solutions to a long-standing problem that costs taxpayers millions and has prevented public land ranchers from efficiently utilizing resources available to them.”

Current law does not allow for the retirement of grazing permits.  This not only is to the detriment of wildlife, watersheds, and the surrounding ecosystem, which continue to be harmed by domestic livestock grazing, but also to federal taxpayer dollars wastefully spent to continue an antiquated grazing policy  on public lands.

“Grazing is an important use of our public lands, but it’s a very impactful use”, said Rep. Raul Grijalva, who joined Congressman Smith in introducing the legislation. “Excessive grazing impacts wildlife habitat, soil composition, local hydrology, and even heightens the impacts of climate change. Retiring some permits will help save taxpayer money and benefit federal conservation efforts. Right now, when we are looking for ways to save taxpayer money, REVA is a win-win. Ranchers that want to retire their permits should have that opportunity.”

“Many permit holders would choose to retire their grazing permit if they could recoup their investment from private funds,” Smith said.  “By providing federal grazing permit holders the freedom to exchange permits for market value compensation, this legislation would spur private investment, provide ranchers with the opportunity to pursue new business ventures or retire with more security, and protect public lands from the damaging environmental effects of livestock grazing.”

In addition to the environmental damage, the federal grazing program is heavily subsidized and costs American taxpayers over $115 million a year.  The Government Accountability Office reported that the BLM and Forest Service spend over $132 million a year on managing the grazing lands, yet they only collect $17 million a year in fees.

“At a time when the federal government is looking for ways to cut outdated programs and become more efficient, this bill eliminates wasteful spending and saves taxpayer dollars,” continued Smith.  “This legislation is a win for all involved.  The American taxpayer saves money, ranchers have a choice to retire their permits for market compensation, and public lands are given the opportunity to rebuild their natural habitats, native plants, and wildlife.”

For more information, view the Rural Economic Vitalization Act fact sheet.

Closure and Rehabilitation of Temporary Roads

by

Here is a view of a temporary road used in a fire salvage portion of a green timber sale, on the Sequoia National Forest. The McNally Fire burned over 100,000 acres. Since this location is so remote, worries about vehicular entry are minimal. At the time, the logger and I thought these rocks would be adequate to block the road. I don’t think so, today. This was a temporary road before the fire, and there were some hydrological issues with re-using it. Of course, after a wildfire, the water table is recharged and new springs have popped up. It was very important that we laid out the restrictions and mitigations of its use. This is the result.

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

This view looks back down the road. You can see the waterbars and slash spread in between them. Even if the road is compacted, the water never gets a chance to gain erosive power. I’d bet that the road could be re-used again, when needed. The original road design wasn’t perfect but, I think there are very few impacts from us using it.

Frog_temp_road3

Judge Halts Fleecer Mtn Logging Project: USFS shortcut lynx, griz analysis, must also supplement EA with “full and fair discussion of the impact that temporary roads will have on elk”

by

According to this news article [emphasis added]:

A judge on Friday blocked [the Fleecer Mountain] logging project in Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest and ordered two federal agencies to take another look at the effects on lynx, grizzly bears and elk that may be in the area….

U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen wrote in his ruling the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service used a procedural shortcut to conclude lynx habitat would not be harmed by the project.

The federal Endangered Species Act requires the government to ensure no action will harm the existence of any endangered or threatened species, or destroy or harm their habitat. But the procedure was bypassed when the Fish and Wildlife Service wrote that threatened lynx did not “occupy” the southwestern Montana forest, even though there is some evidence lynx may be present, Christensen wrote.

As a result, the Forest Service did not conduct a biological assessment on the effects of the logging project on habitat that lynx may pass through.

Christensen ordered the agencies to conduct a new analysis using the proper standard under the federal Endangered Species Act.

The Forest Service also must conduct a new biological assessment on the project’s effect on threatened grizzly bears after Christensen ruled the original assessment was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The agency also must study the effects on elk of building temporary roads for the project, Christensen said.

Here are some highlights from U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen’s order:

Summary judgment is also granted in favor of Plaintiffs on their claims under the ESA. The Court concludes that the case must be remanded to the Wildlife Service to consider whether lynx “may be present” in the Forest because the Wildlife Service improperly applied a stricter standard to that inquiry. Until the Wildlife Service conducts its analysis under the proper standard and the parties complete any consultation that might become necessary, the Project must be enjoined.

The Forest Service’s biological assessment of whether the Project “may affect” grizzly bears was also arbitrary and capricious, and a new biological assessment must be prepared.

Summary judgment is granted in favor of Plaintiffs on their claim that the Forest Plan’s and Project’s discussions of elk violate NEPA. Although the Forest Service did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in setting road density levels for the Forest, analyzing road density at the landscape and hunting unit scales, or defining secure areas for elk, the Court nevertheless finds that the Forest Service must supplement its EIS for the Forest Plan to explain or support, if possible, its decision to exclude temporary roads from the road density objectives and to correct the record to show that permitted and administrative roads are included in the objectives.

The Project EA must also be supplemented with a full and fair discussion of the impact that temporary roads will have on elk during the Project’s lifetime, an important aspect of the problem given the already high road density levels in the Project area.

I want to delve more into the specifics of Judge Christensen’s order, especially the part about impacts of temporary roads on elk, but first, careful readers of this blog may remember that we’ve had some discussion and debate about this Fleecer Mountain logging project in the past.

For example, who could forgot the almost joy-like, childish mocking of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native Ecosystem Council from the editorial board of the Montana Standard newspaper in their March 4, 2012 editorial ironically titled, Abuse of enviro laws may doom them?

Last year the Montana Standard editorial board wrote:

Who knew that Fleecer Mountain had such a thriving population of grizzly bears? And who would have thought that taking out some dead and dying trees, working on stream restoration and improving sagebrush range lands might lead to the extinction of lynx?

Environmental groups do….What a surprise….

Listening to their rhetoric, one might get the impression that government employees are bent on wiping out native species and butchering forests into moonscapes. The Fleecer project is a prime example. Forest Service scientists carefully planned the project to deal with numerous dead and dying trees in the area and supply some logs to the timber industry. They looked at conifer encroachment into native grasslands and the decline of aspen groves. And they considered the health of the streams and ways to improve the movement of fish.

But Mike Garrity, executive director of the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, saw the Forest Service’s real, sinister motives…and said the lawsuit was necessary “for the sake of the elk, grizzly bears, lynx and a myriad of other old growth dependent species.”

There have never been grizzlies spotted there. And Forest Service personnel say their analysis found the lodge pole pine areas where the logging is proposed is not prime lynx habitat.

Well, how silly, petty and just plain wrong does the Montana Standard’s editorial board look now, after reading U.S. District Judge Dana Christensen’s order enjoining the Fleecer Mountain timber sale because of violations of NEPA and the ESA?  Turns out the Forest Service didn’t “carefully plan” the Fleecer Mountain logging project like the Montana Standard editors would like us all to believe.  Besides, on March 7, 2012 AWR director Michael Garrity, already set the Montana Standard editorial board straight in an oped titled, ironically and correctly enough, Fleecer timber cut illegal, says group.  Garrity wrote:
The Montana Standard editorial on March 4 criticized the Alliance for the Wild Rockies for filing lawsuits to stop the Fleecer timber sale….While claiming the Alliance is “abusing environmental laws,” what the editorial didn’t mention is that we win about 87 percent of those suits.Simply put, unless the Forest Service is found to be breaking the law, we don’t win….When the Alliance was informed of the new [Fleecer Mountain logging] project, we toured the site with the forest supervisor and two district rangers, told them our concerns, and submitted detailed comments in writing.  The previous two forest supervisors worked with us on the Grasshopper, Anaconda Job Corps, Beaverhead-Deerlodge roadside salvage and the Georgetown Lake timber sales, for which they should be commended. But this time around, the agency decided to try and make giant, illegal clearcuts in prime elk habitat instead of following their own rules and laws.

Contrary to media representations, our country’s environmental laws aren’t that strict. They don’t prohibit logging on our National Forests, but do require that the Forest Service must ensure that there will be viable populations of native species after logging — and clearcuts simply do not make good wildlife habitat for elk, grizzly bears and other old-growth dependent species.

We are a nation of laws and that means federal agencies, just like citizens, must follow the law. As before, the Forest Service will either pull this proposal or, if it loses in court, blame environmentalists for once again stopping clearcutting of elk winter range.

The Standard claims it was surprised to find there are grizzly bears around Butte. But in 2010, the Standard reported that a grizzly bear was killed near Elk Park and in 2005 a hunter killed a grizzly bear within the Mount Haggin Wildlife Management Area which adjoins the Fleecer timber sale and is within the wildlife security analysis area for the project.  If grizzlies are to be recovered and removed from the Endangered Species protections, it means their habitat must be taken into account in Forest Service timber sales….

Instead of attacking citizens for participating in the management of our public lands and “abusing” environmental laws, the Standard should ask the Forest Service and its allies, like the Montana Wilderness Association, why the agency has such a hard time following the laws that ensure Butte continues to be surrounded by beautiful national forests full of native wildlife for generations yet to come.

Let’s circle back to this issue of ‘temporary’ logging roads and Judge Christensen’s Order that:
The [Fleecer Mountain Logging] Project EA must also be supplemented with a full and fair discussion of the impact that temporary roads will have on elk during the Project’s lifetime, an important aspect of the problem given the already high road density levels in the Project area.

As a backcountry elk hunter, I’m certainly keenly aware that great elk habitat and logging roads mix about as well as oil and water.  And as an elk hunter, I’m also vigilant about protecting great elk habitat and ensuring that existing elk habitat (and habitat for all wildlife species) on public land isn’t compromised by misguided “management” schemes.

As a forest activist I’ve monitored many logging projects, post-logging, and have documented evidence that even these supposedly “temporary” logging roads have impacts that last long after the logging is finished and the temporary road is supposedly “restored.”

For example, we’ve noticed that just like regular logging roads, these temporary logging roads become vectors for the spread of noxious and invasive weed species, such as knapweed and cheatgrass.  So too, these “temporary” logging roads are often quickly found by people who have less than ideal environmental ethics who use these temporary logging roads for illegal dumping and illegal ATV and motorcycle joy-riding.  It’s also worth pointing out that we’ve witnessed all of the same weed-spreading and illegal dumping and ATV use as we’ve seen with temporary logging roads on some logging “skid trails” as well.

Unfortunately, too many of these so-called “Sportsmen’s” groups have fallen hook, line and sinker for the timber industry’s rhetoric that “temporary” logging roads are a great thing and that there are no negative consequences what-so-ever to building a bunch of “temporary” logging roads in many of our already over-roaded public National Forests.

For example, “Sportsmen’s” groups such as Montana Wildlife Federation, National Wildlife Federation, Montana Trout Unlimited (as well as conservation groups like the Montana Wilderness Association) are supporting Senator Tester’s mandated logging bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act.  One key selling point these well-funded groups use is that the bill would largely prohibit new, permanent logging road construction, instead relying on the construction of an unlimited number of “temporary” logging roads, which these groups seem to think have zero impact on the environment.

Just like Judge Christensen ordered the Forest Service to have a “full and fair discussion of the impact that temporary roads will have on elk” I’d like to request that these “Sportsmen’s” groups be more honest about the documented negative impacts of even “temporary” logging roads have on elk, other wildlife and the over-all health of our forests and watersheds. Sportsmen’s groups should encourage, not discourage, a “full and fair discussion of the impact that temporary roads will have on elk” and other wildlife species, not simply pick and choose when they will stand up based on what appears to be game of political paddy-cake, in which politicians with a “D” after their name are lionized, while any politician with an “R” after their name is demonized.

Finally, back in March 2009 ecologist and author George Wuerthner had this piece, Permanent Damage from Temporary Logging Roads, over at Counterpunch.  Since Wuerthner’s article contains some excellent additional information and thoughts about the very real ecological impacts of “temporary” logging roads I’ll post it here in its entirety.  Wuerthner’s piece ends with some very good, and very reasonable, questions anyone supporting the construction of “temporary” logging roads should ask themselves before getting the rest of us to jump on the “temporary” road bandwagon.

The latest attempt by the Forest Service to make logging palatable is “temporary” roads.  A lot of research has found that logging roads are among the biggest impacts to forest ecosystems. (For a good review of road impacts see Trombulak and Frissell.) The Forest Service has at least 400,000 miles of roads on the lands it administers and these roads are a major environmental collateral impact associated with logging and other resource exploitation.Even the Forest Service has had to admit that logging roads have many unacceptable impacts to the forest ecosystem, so they have to come up with a new term and idea to make logging acceptable—temporary roads.  Temporary roads only have temporary impacts—or so we are led to believe.  And some conservationists have jumped on the “temporary” road band wagon just as some readers of the National Inquirer are quick to accept the hype of the latest fad promoting say the low fat ice cream diet.

Temporary roads are like low fat ice cream, they seem to taste good, but as any nutritionist can tell you, you’re are infinitely better off if you don’t consume a lot of ice cream at all—low fat or otherwise. The same is true for roads. Temporary roads are only slightly better than a regular road, and no one should be fooled into thinking they somehow eliminate the negative impacts associated with roads just because they are “temporary.

The problem is that temporary roads have most of the same environmental impacts as regular roads.  Roads compact soil.  Even three trips by logging equipment over soil can result in a significant reduction in water infiltration.  Roads, by slicing across slopes, alter downward flow of subsurface and surface water, often concentrating it on the compacted road surface, thus increasing erosive power.  Roads are a chronic source of sedimentation, and a major impact on aquatic ecosystems.Roads fragment wildlife habitat.  Roads are avoided by some sensitive wildlife species or used as a convenient travel corridor by other species. Often roads provide access for “weedy” ones that negatively impact other species—such as creating access for edge birds to invade and attack interior forest species.Roads change air flow which can affect fire spread and even the distribution of plants responding to micro-climate changes. Roads are the major vector for weeds and disease. Weeds and disease are one of the most pernicious and problematic impacts associated with roads. In the long term, the introduction of weeds and disease may do more damage to forests than the logging. For instance, a root fungus that is introduced by logging equipment along logging roads is decimating Port Orford Cedar stands in Oregon and California where the tree grows.Road beds provide access for hikers and hunters—giving more potential disturbance to wildlife. And ORVers typically find ways to get around gates and other obstacles to use the roads as roads. In short, a temporary road is mostly a mirage. It is essentially a new logging road.

Now some will argue that temporary roads are better than regular roads, especially if they are “reclaimed.” If a road is fully reclaimed, there is something to this argument. The problem is that there is no legal definition of what constitutes “reclaimed” and most roads are not fully reclaimed, in part, because it is very difficult and expensive to do reclamation.To fully reclaim a road is more than putting up a gate to block vehicle travel.  It requires ripping up the road bed to remove the compacted soil layers.  The side slope soil has to be put back on the site, and reshaped so sub surface and surface water flow is restored.  Culverts need to be removed, and stream channels fully restructured and reconstituted.  Vegetation needs to be planted—and grass seed is not enough—especially if the area once supported forest.  And logs, rocks, and other natural structures need to be put back on the slope.  And even if all these things are done, an old road does not magically disappear overnight.  It continues to have impacts for years until the vegetation has grown sufficiently to more or less emulate the pre-road condition.

I’ve seen fully reclaimed roads in Redwood National Park and a few other places, but it’s is extremely rare. And the expense often numbers in the hundreds of thousands of dollars per mile.

By contrast, I’ve seen a lot more minimally reclaimed roads.  I’ve been on forest service lands where a “temporary” road is just a road that the FS didn’t put on its travel maps as a legal road.  It was still there on the ground, but since it was not included in the official travel plan as a road, as far as the FS was concerned, the road did not exist any longer.

The FS usually does go a step further, however, to close temporary roads.  Typically the agency will put up a gate. Nevertheless, most gates, unless built extremely well, do not keep ORVers from using the road on the other side and sometimes even the agency continues to use the road for “administrative purposes.”

While such “temporary” roads may reduce road impacts somewhat, they are nowhere as good as no road at all.  And this is the rub.  I’ve had environmentalists telling me that I don’t have to worry about “new” logging roads because they are all going to be “temporary”.  For example, that is one of the claims of the Beaverhead Deerlodge Partnership proponents.  Don’t’ worry, all logging will be from existing roads and any new roads will be “temporary” and must be “removed” in five years.

For one thing, such temporary roads will effectively be a road for five years at the least, and may exist far longer as a marginally reclaimed road, especially in the arid environment found in much of Southwest Montana.  Such “temporary” roads will exhibit nearly all the problems of a regular road except that they may not be used for public vehicle travel.

So when you hear someone supporting logging because it won’t have the impacts of roads since all new roads will be “temporary” ask some hard questions about the proposal.  How long will the “temporary” road be in use?  Will it be closed to all vehicle traffic forever or will it be used again for logging in 10 or 20 years?  Will it be reclaimed?  What does reclamation mean?  Will the road bed be ripped up, slopes restored, stream channels reconstructed, and original vegetation restored?  If not, than you will have a road—and a road is still a road whether it is called “temporary” or otherwise.  Temporary roads may be better than a permanent addition to the road network, but it should never be thought of as a zero impact. Low fat ice cream is still ice cream—and you’re not likely to lose weight eating a lot of it.  Temporary roads are still roads, and typically have all of the major impacts associated with any road.

“Our Forests Aren’t Fuel” campaign launched

by

The following blog post is from the Dogwood Alliance’s Dana Smith and appeared on their blog:

Today, Dogwood Alliance and our long-time partner, Natural Resources Defense Council, launched Our Forests Aren’t Fuel, a campaign to stop the large-scale burning of trees for electricity. It’s no coincidence that the launch of this new effort coincides with today’s Wall Street Journal front-page story exposing how Southern wetland forests are being clearcut, turned into pellets and shipped overseas to be burned in European power stations.

For over a year now, we’ve been doing our homework, researching the market trends, identifying the major corporate players and investigating the impacts on the ground. We’ve been cultivating partnerships and allies (check out the 75 groups signed on to our campaign platform) and informing the media, including, of course, the Wall Street Journal, who we extensively briefed on the issues leading up to today’s article. We’ve been preparing for just the right moment to expose the inconvenient truths about burning wood for electricity: it not only threatens wildlife and water resources in the world’s most biologically diverse temperate forest, but it also threatens to accelerate climate change, endangering life as we know it on planet Earth. Today, the smoking gun is revealed, with evidence that trees from clearcut 100-year old wetland forests in the Southern US were burned as fuel to generate electricity.

Misdirected renewable energy policies both here in the US and in Europe treat biomass, including the burning of trees, as renewable energy just like solar and wind. With billions of dollars of government subsidies available, over the past several years, major utility companies have been converting coal burning power plants to wood, even though there is a mounting body of scientific evidence that burning trees for electricity releases more carbon into the atmosphere than burning coal. In a rush to find much-needed alternatives to fossil fuels, this inconvenient truth, along with evidence that it’s destroying forests, has been largely ignored.

The Economist recently hit the nail on the head in depicting the practice of burning trees for electricity with an illustration of a caveman lighting a fire with sticks in hand. With the emerging technologies of solar and wind power, burning trees as fuel for electricity is indeed quite primitive and clumsy by comparison. The use of forests as a primary fuel source is taking us backward, not forward, on the path to clean energy.

Europe is currently at the forefront of this rush to burn, which has led to an explosion of new facilities here in the South that are chopping down our forests, turning them into wood pellets and exporting them across the Atlantic. Currently, the Southern US is the world’s largest exporter of wood pellets. Wood pellet exports to Europe from the South doubled from 1.5 million tons to over 3 million tons over the past year and are projected to double again to 6 million tons by 2015.

Trees from clearcut wetland forests like this one are being turned into wood pellets and shipped overseas to burn for electricity.

At the head of the pack in Europe is Drax, who is investing billions of dollars to convert dirty old coal plants to wood burning. Much of the wood comes in the form of pellets from the Southern US. Drax is not alone, with many of Europe’s largest utilities including Electrabel, GDF Suez, Dong, and Forth burning wood pellets imported from the US South to generate electricity as well.

Domestic utilities here in the South are not far behind the Europeans. All of the top utilities in the South already have some capacity to burn wood for electricity with plans for further expansion in the future. Currently, Dominion Power in Virginia leads the pack. Other companies are not far behind like Southern Company, Duke Power, TVA, and Florida Power & Lights, who all have plans of their own.

The largest company pelletizing forests in the South is Maryland-based Enviva. Though they claim that the trees they use come from “sustainable forestry”, Enviva ‘s sourcing of wood from clearcut cypress tupelo wetland forests along the North Carolina Virginia coast was revealed today by not only the Wall Street Journal but also the BBC.

What an embarrassment this must be to Virginia’s Dominion Power and Drax in the UK, both of whom rely on Enviva for wood to burn. Drax purchases wood pellets exported to Europe by Enviva and Dominion Power buys the leftover tops and limbs from Enviva’s operations. Both Drax and Dominion claim that they hold their wood suppliers to high standards of forestry. The fact that Enviva has been caught sourcing from clearcut wetlands is yet another inconvenient truth I am sure these companies don’t want to hear. I suspect the other huge wood pellet companies, including Georgia Biomass, Green Circle, and more have some inconvenient truths of their own that will come out in due time.

Before that happens, however, these companies can make the right choice. The leaders in this fiasco, Dominion Power, Drax and Enviva, can set a better example by choosing not to burn trees for electricity and announcing their leadership in developing non-destructive, clean energy sources that will actually reduce carbon emissions. As leading developers of forests as a fuel source, these companies now have an opportunity to take swift and decisive action before additional investments are made and the problem reaches a scale that is irreversible for our forests and climate.

Our wetland forests provide critical habitat to countless species of plants and animals, and they protect coastal communities from flooding and serve as vital carbon sinks. Our wetland forests are many things, but they are NOT fuel.

Now, more than ever, we should fast-track investment in clean energy such as solar and wind while simultaneously accelerating efforts to protect forests. Our forests are vital for clean air, clean drinking water, flood control, wildlife habitat, and protect us from climate change. They should not be burnt for electricity – our forests aren’t fuel.