Tracking the News… The Chiminea Otra Vez

by

chiminea

I referred to this “fire policy letter in 2012” in this recent post as a “tempest in a teapot” or “a wildfire in a chiminea.” Then Larry wondered about this question “does putting out fires early actually cost less than paying to watch them burn”?

Probably based on statements like this:

In May 2012, Forest Service Deputy Chief Jim Hubbard issued a “fight all fire” directive. This may be why the feds spent more than $1 billion fighting fires last year. They came in $400 million over budget.

Now, our understanding was that someone had told Mr. Hubbard to be careful with fire so that the FS didn’t go too far over budget. So if is correct, then efforts to reduce firefighting costs had exactly the opposite effect. However, another way to look at it is that the FS might have even more over budget without the policy. Do we have any evidence that would support one explanation over the other? Certainly watching fires for months and then suppressing larger fires than you started with would cost more than suppressing a smaller fire. But maybe many of the “watched” will go out on their own instead of blowing up. Seems like the experts might have some relevant data on this.

So what is the source of these news articles?

Well the first one I found was this on March 6:

http://www.publicnewsservice.org/index.php?/content/article/31203-1

BOISE, Idaho – For decades, the U.S. Forest Service let small fires in remote areas burn naturally in recognition that fire was part of the natural landscape – and that by letting some fires burn, future large fires could be prevented. Last year, however, every fire was battled unless granted special status.

That’s been recognized as part of the reason the Forest Service spent more than $1 billion fighting fires in 2012.

Now, the agency is taking the “fight all fires” directive off the books.

Jonathan Oppenheimer, senior conservation associate at the Idaho Conservation League, said plenty of science and economic sense are behind the decision.

“Putting out every single fire is not good for firefighter safety, it’s not good for the environment, and it’s not good for the bottom line and the taxpayers,” he said.

The forest official who required that all fires be suppressed in 2012 had a goal of keeping all fires small.

Oppenheimer said the history of letting some fires burn got its start in Idaho with a fire in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness being allowed to burn in 1972 – the first time the Forest Service had made such a decision. The Gem State is home to millions of acres of backcountry.

“We’ve got a huge 4 1/2 million, 5 million-acre wildland complex in central Idaho,” he said, “where it simply doesn’t make sense to be putting firefighters’ lives at risk to go and put out small fires.”

Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell issued the decision on the policy shift for the upcoming fire season.

Who is the Public News Service?

“The Public News Service (PNS) provides reporting on a wide range of social, community, and environmental issues for mainstream and alternative media that amplifies progressive voices, is easy to use and has a proven track record of success. Supported by over 400 nonprofit organizations and other contributors, PNS provides high-quality news on public issues and current affairs.”

I wonder how you can provide high-quality (reasonably neutral) news and at the same time “amplify progressive voices.”

Friday, there was this story, which discusses the opinions of Timothy Ingallsbee, the Executive Director of FUSEE link here.

In this story, it says that:

In May 2012, Forest Service Deputy Chief Jim Hubbard issued a “fight all fire” directive.

But that’s not exactly what it said. If I had to wager a guess, I would have to wonder if there is something to the Hubbard=bad, Tidwell=good plotline that someone somewhere found worthy of promoting. Or as one journalist reader said “it’s just sloppy.”

So you might want to review what we said about this letter last year, when it came out here…on what I called, at the time, the “temporarily be careful about a let-burn” policy.

Although the Forest Service said the directive is temporary and will likely be suspended come winter, Manning’s article makes it seem like the decision is a complete reversal of the 1995 federal fire policy that made restoration of wildland fire a national priority. He argues that the conditions that led to the temporary change—hot, dry weather and budget shortfalls—aren’t likely to go away anytime soon, suggesting the fire suppression policy might stick around, too.

Stahl thinks so, too.

“Things like this have a tendency to become indelible,” he said. In order to reverse the policy next season, he thinks the Forest Service will have to make the case that budget and weather conditions are significantly different than this year—something he worries might not happen.

Hmm…

Senators Seek to Level the Playing Field for Domestic Wood Products in USDA BioPreferred Program

by

From Senator Pryor’s site here.

WASHINGTON D.C. – U.S. Senators Mark Pryor (D-AR), Roy Blunt (R-MO), John Boozman (R-AR), Angus King (I-ME), Susan Collins (R-ME), Mike Crapo (R-ID), and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) today introduced the Forest Products Fairness Act, a bipartisan bill that provides new opportunities for American forestry producers by allowing their products to qualify for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s BioPreferred Program.

The USDA BioPreferred Program was created to provide new markets for farm commodities and encourage consumers to purchase environmentally-friendly biobased products. Despite the sustainability of wood, pulp and paper products, the USDA has not designated these products as a USDA Certified Biobased Products. The Forest Products Fairness Act would allow domestic forestry products to be labeled as biobased so they could receive increased consumer attention as well as federal government procurement preference. This designation would also level the playing field between domestically-produced wood products and imported products such as Chinese bamboo, which is already eligible for the biobased label and used as a “green” alternative for hardwood flooring or lumber.

“From farms to mills to manufacturers, it’s evident that the forestry industry is vital to Arkansas’s economy,” Pryor said. “By allowing these home-grown companies to expand and compete on same playing field as their international counterparts, our bipartisan bill will build on their success and keep this industry growing.”

“Forestry is an important economic driver in rural Missouri and nationwide,” Blunt said. “I’m glad to support this bipartisan bill, which will help increase economic opportunities for job creators and help our forestry producers compete in a competitive global economy.”

“Many Arkansas jobs depend on our renewable forest resources and the forest products industry and we need to end the discrimination in federal policy against these American jobs,” Boozman said. “This commonsense bill will provide domestically produced forest products with the same label and treatment as imported biobased products.”

“Maine is one of the most forested states in the nation and our forest-based industry plays an instrumental role in the vitality of our state’s economy,” said King. “By finally labeling forest products as what they truly are – biobased products – this bipartisan, common-sense measure will level the playing field for Maine’s foresters and help them to continue thriving in the global economy.”

“From timber to paper and pulp, Maine’s vast forest land is a tremendous source of value for our state’s economy and way of life,” Collins said. “I strongly support this bill because it would help dramatically expand the market for our domestic forest products by rightfully creating a level playing field with other biobased and foreign products.”

“In today’s economic climate, it is vital that we ensure Idaho’s industries are not at a competitive disadvantage due to a misinterpretation of terms,” Crapo said. “Legislation like the Forest Products Fairness Act makes it easier for the forest industry to compete in the global market place and bring economic growth and jobs to Idaho.”

“This bill takes an important step toward creating a level playing field for American businesses trying to compete with their overseas competitors,” Hatch said. “It’s a cost-free way to increase the use and awareness of domestic forestry products in a way that’s good for the economy.”

The BioPreferred Program was originally created by the 2002 Farm Bill to increase the purchase and use of biobased products. Under the program, every federal agency is required to rank their preference of biobased products for purchasing decisions. To increase consumer recognition of biobased products, the program also created voluntary labeling. Since the program’s inception, the USDA has designated more 33 items, representing nearly 3,000 products, as biobased products.

Human Resources Trammels Wilderness Staff

by

bureaucracy

To the general public, talk about “position descriptions” and “job series” makes eyes roll and mouths yawn. Within the Forest Service, however, few topics get blood pressures raised faster than the agency’s hiring and promotion practices.

In a recent internal report, The Forest Service Wilderness Career Ladder:
In Search of the Missing Rungs, a group of wilderness rangers deconstructs the Forest Service’s dysfunctional promotion rules that bar experienced personnel from being “qualified” for advancement.

For any employee who has hit the opaque glass ceiling, it’s a must-read.

Group wants Idaho’s Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Area declared a disaster

by

Thanks to Mike for this..

Here’s a link and below is an excerpt.

The Idaho Chapter of the Wilderness Society shares the group’s concern over the lack of trail maintenance and funding.

“It’s no secret the agency hasn’t been able to keep up with deadfall on trails and bridges washing out. Nobody is disputing that,” said Craig Gehrke of The Wilderness Society.

But harsh language in the resolution that describes fire as a destructive force instead of a natural process and hints that chain saw use might be needed to erase the trail maintenance backlog is alienating him and other environmentalists.

“The Frank Church Wilderness has some of the best wildlife habitat, water quality and fish habitat in the Lower 48 states. Spreading wild misinformation about wilderness and designating one of Idaho’s icons a ‘disaster area’ is not the right way fix the trails,” Gehrke said. “By spreading myths about wilderness, this resolution could actually hurt important efforts to increase trails funding and broaden much-needed partnerships.”

Ryan said he is aware that the resolution is ruffling feathers.

“I know Craig Gehrke thinks this is an anti-wilderness bill but I don’t look at it that way. I look at it as getting the Forest Service to do their job. Maybe we can stir the pot enough to get it done,” he said

Note from Sharon: At the risk of being heretical, maybe you could have “Chainsaw Week” where everyone goes in and does trails and the rest of the year they’re not allowed?

Still Looking for Equality: Happy International Women’s Day

by
1914
First Woman
The first woman employed by the Forest Service as a lookout was Hallie M. Daggett, who started work at Eddy’s Gulch Lookout Station atop Klamath Peak (Klamath NF) in the summer of 1913 (she worked as lookout for 14 years).

I have been saving this article from PNAS in October for an appropriate day:

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students.
Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J.
Source
Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
Abstract
Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student-who was randomly assigned either a male or female name-for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants’ preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.

My point being that when we give special preference to “science”, we need to understand who it is who decides what problems to fund, what disciplines to fund, and so on and how broadly that group represents different kinds of people and their interests. That’s why I think the discipline of sociology of science is to important to track for all of us who work with scientific products.

Today might be a good day to give a shout out to the women who are working with you in a business that is not always easy.. Mine is to Chief Gail Kimbell, who was the first woman Chief- I wish she would write her story like Chief Thomas did.

Cows vs. Fish: $1.4 Million in Legal Fees Revisited

by

Image

This post is a follow-up to the February 27, 2013 blog entry, “Feds oppose environmental group’s request for $1.4 million in legal fees”:

https://ncfp.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/feds-oppose-environmental-groups-request-for-1-4-million-in-legal-fees/

That post resulted in more than 60 responses — mostly by the Usual Suspects, and mostly on-topic. Much of the discussion focused on the disputed hours and rates by prevailing attorneys, as indicated by the title of the post. A request to Wyoming attorney Karen Budd-Falen for more information in this regard resulted in being sent thirteen summary files with supporting documentation:

http://www.NWMapsCo.com/Legal_Files/Cows_vs_Fish/

The total of $1.4 million in requested fees is summarized in file 66-1_Attach.pdf, showing hourly breakdowns of costs. Although the requested fees appear relatively modest ($200 to $300/hour) — particularly when compared to the “enhanced” fees of northern California attorneys for similar actions, which can vary from $700 to $900/hour – Budd-Falen notes in a March 6, 2013 email:

“The legal answer is that the environmental groups are only supposed to be paid in proportion to their successful achievements in litigation.  That is a completely ambiguous legal requirement.  I have never seen a court or the Justice Department say that if group X prevails in 1 out of 5 causes of action, they get paid 1/5 of their fees and expenses — it is just a negotiated number.  Even if you didn’t have a Justice Department so free with our money, there is really no way to tell how an attorney spends his/her time.  The billing sheets you are supposed to provide will simply say “draft complaint.”  There is no way to determine how much of that drafting and research time was spent on losing arguments versus winning arguments.”

“I do think that some of the whining we are doing is having some impact and we are starting to see a little more scrutiny to fee requests.  So now the groups are getting trickier and writing fee requests that say things like “we can justify fees up to $800 per hour” and our fees are in the neighborhood of $XXXX.  It is a racquet and these groups are going to keep at it until we get the law changed.”

In an earlier email that day, she also notes:

“While the total payments may be “small” (at least compared to the National debt) look at the comparison between the Bush administration and the Obama administration.  For the same general number of payments made, Obama’s average payments are $209,000 per case – compared with $61,000 per case during the Bush years.”

I am personally more interested in the purpose and scientific basis for these claims, which seem best summarized by the plaintiff, Brent Fenty of the Oregon High Desert Museum (669_Declaration.pdf: pg. 2):

“ . . . our main objective in filing these cases against the U.S. Forest Service and National Marine Fisheries Service was to protect threatened steelhead trout and their critical stream and riparian habitat in the upper John Day River basin. This Court’s 2008 and 2009 preliminary injunction decisions protected some of the worst-hit areas on the Malheur National Forest, and made clear that the agencies must make steelhead protection their highest priority.”

 And by attorney Daniel Rohlf (672_Declaration.pdf: pg. 7):

“I believe that ONDA achieved a direct and substantial benefit to the steelhead; that ONDA achieved its stated interests in obtaining federal court decisions reducing ongoing damage by livestock in key migratory, spawning and rearing habitat for threatened steelhead; and that ONDA served the public interest by waging a successful, nearly decade-long battle against two federal agencies charged with protecting the steelhead but whose management of key stream and riparian habitat throughout the Malheur National Forest had ceased to properly take into account the needs of the steelhead and the requirements of the law.”

Two scientists were paid (or requested payment) for their Expert Testimony reports: $26,800 to Forest Hydrologist Robert Beschta (666-2_Attach.pdf: pg. 4), and $31,277 to Hydrologist Jonathan Rhodes (666-2_Attach.pdf: pp. 5-6), but the results of their findings do not seem to appear in the attachments, nor do there seem to be any direct quotes in the text (Note: yellow highlights are as they appeared on recipt from Budd-Falen’s office).

A cursory search of the literature only added more confusion: there appeared to be no baseline data available to determine whether Upper John Day steelhead runs were becoming greater or lesser over time; a large amount of adult fish mortality seemed to result from Indian and recreational fisheries; I could find nothing regarding steelhead mortality related to grazing; the “threatened” run was characterized as “completely wild”; surveys showed a significant portion of the runs to be hatchery-based, despite “no hatchery fish ever being released” in the John Day, etc. Of most importance, given the nature of the claims, was a seeming lack of documentation regarding any relationship between “critical habitat” and actual fish populations. Too, it seems as if the first “critical habitat” designations were made in 2005 (at least by BLM), which means legal action regarding this concern must have been filed about the same time as the designation was made.

 If anyone has access to the Beschta and Rhodes reports, I would be very interested in seeing them. Also, any statistically valid data regarding Upper John Day steelhead population trends, or statistical relationships between “critical habitat” and steelhead populations in the area. A good thing that seems to have come from this action (despite the apparently great legal expense), is the requirement to monitor future steelhead populations in the Upper John Day. How are these numbers going to be generated, and how are they being affected by changed cattle grazing patterns? Or is “taking” just a legal term in this regard? 

Char Miller on Forests and Water

by

Having heard much of the Santa Fe and the Denver Water partnerships, it was interesting to get Char’s historical and southern California take in his piece here. I have to note that the former R-2 Regional Forester, Rick Cables, and Harris Sherman were known for speaking about water pretty much incessantly. To the extent that Dave Steinke made a series of clips of just Rick saying the word “water”, that was a hoot. Anyway, it’s good to see the Chief talking about it.

My only comment is that I don’t think the idea of “tight ecological relationship” was maybe what they were thinking back in the 19th century. I don’t think the term was used that way back in the day.

Here’s an excerpt:

No one better understood the power of water to define life in the American west than the 19th-century activists and scientists who articulated the need for the creation of the national forests. They predicated their arguments on a close reading of the land and the tight ecological relationship they believed existed between upstream watersheds and downstream economies.

To sustain healthy forests and clean water was what led George Perkins Marsh, John Wesley Powell, George Bird Grinnell, and Bernhard Fernow — directly and indirectly — to champion a more robust federal regulatory presence on the public domain. Without some form of control exerted over these landscapes and the common (and wet) resource they provided the opportunity to establish communities in this oft-arid terrain would dry up.

This conception was woven into what would become the Forest Service’s organic act, legislation enacted in 1897 that defined how the “forest reserves” were to be organized and administered, and on what basis: “to improve and protect the forest within the reservation…securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States.”

Note that water took sequential priority to timber, an ordering that leads to a reconceptualization of the significance of the Forest Service’s name: its managerial actions are in support of the ecosystem services its high country woodlands provide, whether in the Rockies, Wasatch, or Cascades, the Appalachian or Alleghenies, the Sierra, Santa Anas, or San Gabriels.

Note, too, that each of these ranges, and the others over which national forests are draped, bear a direct connection to lowland communities dependent on the rivers, streams, and creeks whose sources lie in the mountains above. This is not by happenstance. Residents of those valley cities and basin towns were among the most powerful proponents of the national forests in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Worried about the deleterious impact that rapid timber harvests, wildland fires, and grassland overgrazing were having on local potable water supplies, they pushed hard for federal oversight.

This was as true of San Diego’s advocates of the San Jacinto Forest Reserve (now part of the Cleveland National Forest) as for those in San Bernardino and Riverside who promoted what would become the San Bernardino National Forest. They, like their peers in Ashland, Oregon who championed the Rogue River National Forest, and in New England who fought to secure the White Mountain National Forest, appreciated how integral these natural systems were to their daily lives; healthy forests meant healthy humans.

USFS Proposes Building 7.5 Miles of Permanent Firebreaks in Ventana Wilderness

by

Ventura_WildernessAccording to the folks at Wilderness Watch, the U.S. Forest Service has proposed to build 7.5 miles of permanent firebreaks within the Ventana Wilderness on the Los Padres National Forest in California, using chainsaws, heavy equipment and vehicles. Wilderness Watch is opposing this proposal as a violation of the Wilderness Act, among other things. The issue is complicated by a series of special provisions that Congress added to laws that expanded the Ventana Wilderness over time. These special provisions authorized the use of some “presuppression” work within the Ventana additions, but none authorized chainsaws, heavy vehicles, or permanent 150-foot-wide firebreaks within an area that is supposed to remain “untrammeled by man.”

You can read Wilderness Watch’s detailed comments on the issue here.

Broads Can’t Fit Through Narrow 9th Circuit Gate

by

Here’s the link and below is an excerpt.

What I found interesting about this (lost in news tranlation?) was the idea that they could have gone all the way to the Appeals Court without noting “any specific changes that it deems not adequately analyzed.”

Legal experts on this blog. is is really possible that the case got all the way to the appeals court before someone noticed this? There must be more to this story…

Four years later the agency issued a decision and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a plan to restore the road, and Great Old Broads filed a new challenge to the project in federal court. The group alleged that the project design violated the National Forest Management Act, the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws.
Finding that Great Old Broads had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies before filing the action, the District Court granted the Forest Service summary judgment. Great Old Broads went back to the 9th Circuit on appeal but came up empty-handed Monday.
A three-judge panel disagreed with the lower court as to exhaustion, but nonetheless found that the group’s claims failed on their merits.
“Great Old Broads points to no specific changes that it deems not adequately analyzed in the final EIS,” Ronald Gould wrote for the San Francisco-based court.